[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 07 April 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 07 April 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

He's the guy with the dark cloak we only see the back of for sure.

Certainly a possibility.



Also, I certainly didn't spot this myself, but hands up who noticed the presence of Darth Vader in the trailer?

The Bacta Tank scene I think right?

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 07 April 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

The Bacta Tank scene I think right?

Nooooooope (well, possibly, but we don't know yet obvs).


Have a good listen (preferably with earphones in) at the very final line Forrest Whittaker says. There's a familiar breath on the soundtrack...


Eta: having looked at it again, the somewhat-discussed-already imperial soldiers in that scene are guarding the tank, not the hooded figure, making it pretty likely that it contains either Vader or the Emperor.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 07 April 2016 - 07:57 PM

[worry]

I think it contains a baby one of those crazy fish from Phantom Menace.

[Morgoth]

It's kind of silly to be this exited about an actor, but I will now dream of battles with Donnie Yen wielding a lightsaber.

[polishgenius]

Morgoth, on 08 April 2016 - 06:28 AM, said:

It's kind of silly to be this exited about an actor, but I will now dream of battles with Donnie Yen wielding a lightsaber.

Honestly, the whole cast is fucking ridiculous. Donnie Yen! Ben Mendelsohn! Forest Whitaker! Mads Mikkelsen!



Oooh, what if Mads is playing Grand Admiral Thrawn and that's why they're holding back a reveal?

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 08 April 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 08 April 2016 - 06:28 AM, said:

It's kind of silly to be this exited about an actor, but I will now dream of battles with Donnie Yen wielding a lightsaber.

Honestly, the whole cast is fucking ridiculous. Donnie Yen! Ben Mendelsohn! Forest Whitaker! Mads Mikkelsen!



Oooh, what if Mads is playing Grand Admiral Thrawn and that's why they're holding back a reveal?

Possible. Thrawn has been confirmed to be showing up in Season 3 of the REBELS animated series (which will christen him into New Canon), which takes place in and around this time period (a slight bit before)...but the going theory has so far been that REBELS Thrawn will be a young man, and that perhaps Benicio Del Toro's EpVIII character could be him as an older man.

If Mads shows up with a blue face and red eyes in a future trailer, you'll know. (I would imagine that he's STILL going to be a Chiss in New Canon)

[polishgenius]

Oh, I didn't know he was already confirmed as being imported to the new Canon. That's cool.


If it is Del Toro (and tbh Mads is a far better pick to play the character I imagined- a reserved, subtle man) I hope they're careful about how they place him with the New Order. While obviously a bad man working for a bad regime, the hysterical OTT wannabe-Hitlerism of Episode VII really doesn't seem like something Zhan's Thrawn would want to associate with.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Mads has a great facial shape for playing Thrawn.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 08 April 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Oh, I didn't know he was already confirmed as being imported to the new Canon. That's cool.


If it is Del Toro (and tbh Mads is a far better pick to play the character I imagined- a reserved, subtle man) I hope they're careful about how they place him with the New Order. While obviously a bad man working for a bad regime, the hysterical OTT wannabe-Hitlerism of Episode VII really doesn't seem like something Zhan's Thrawn would want to associate with.

Indeed...but then maybe the fractured First Order (with no more big base weapon) is ripe for a person like Thrawn (an old retired Imperial General of some renown) to come in and set things to a more tickety boo military order? I would imagine that Snoke would be on board as long as it served his interests for a stronger, less ubermahct First Order?

Things to ponder for sure.

[polishgenius]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 08 April 2016 - 05:16 PM, said:

Mads has a great facial shape for playing Thrawn.

I agree.

[QuickTidal]

I met him at TIFF one year (I think it was for VALHALLA RISING; which I hated) and he was just a really nice and genuinely humble guy.

[amphibian]

Valhalla Rising is an acid trip of a movie and a very well executed one. Not on everyone's wavelength.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 08 April 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

Valhalla Rising is an acid trip of a movie and a very well executed one. Not on everyone's wavelength.

Uh oh, you touched a nerve.

The only movie of Windig Refn's repertoire that I can stand is DRIVE...and that is almost entirely on the performances.

VALHALLA was a shitshow from start to finish. You wanna be atmospheric? Great, do it well. Don't use a script with 12 words over 2+ hours and flashes of colour to denote "emotions" and long, padded silences where people don't even really move, or stationary shots of the same effing clearing with nothing happening. Don't cut your movie into "Parts" when the only discernible thing between them is the location. The last part is called "Hell" and by that point of the movie that's where I felt I was. It's an exercise in someone laying stream of consciousness onto film and trying to call it a story. At least DRIVE had a narrative. VALHALLA has nothing. And let's not even get into the fact that it takes place in 1000AD and yet he has Cristian Crusaders going to the Holy Land. Meanwhile the first excursions into the Holy Land were not till almost a hundred years after that...and even then Scottish Knights would not have been there till at least another 50 years after that. So there's Refn pretty much inventing shit to tailor his narrative...and that was only the first thing to piss me off.

You're not alone in enjoying the film Amph. All my film friends think it's great...and I rage at them for convincing me to use up a Film Fest ticket spot to see it.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 08 April 2016 - 07:41 PM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 08 April 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

So there's Refn pretty much inventing shit to tailor his narrative...and that was only the first thing to piss me off.

I don't think he was aiming for historical accuracy to be fair.

Anyway I remember when I mentioned Conn Iggulden getting criticism for making shit up in his books I'm pretty sure I remember you defending him for it on the grounds that it was fiction so I'm calling you out on that one.
Unless it wasn't you in which case apologies.




But anyway what's not to love about an allegory about Christian subsumation of other religions via an Odin-figure becoming a Jesus-figure via brutal, wordless violence?



Did you know that Refn considers One-Eye here and the cop with the sword in Only God Forgives to be incarnations of the same character, and possibly that the Driver is him too?

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 08 April 2016 - 08:32 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 08 April 2016 - 07:40 PM, said:

So there's Refn pretty much inventing shit to tailor his narrative...and that was only the first thing to piss me off.

I don't think he was aiming for historical accuracy to be fair.

Anyway I remember when I mentioned Conn Iggulden getting criticism for making shit up in his books I'm pretty sure I remember you defending him for it on the grounds that it was fiction so I'm calling you out on that one.
Unless it wasn't you in which case apologies.




But anyway what's not to love about an allegory about Christian subsumation of other religions via an Odin-figure becoming a Jesus-figure via brutal, wordless violence?



Did you know that Refn considers One-Eye here and the cop with the sword in Only God Forgives to be incarnations of the same character, and possibly that the Driver is him too?

It was me, but it's completely different. I'm talking broad dates of a well known thing. Not nit picky accuracy stuff about the story. The crusades have a clear start date that is recoded. You fuck that up, you're not even trying.

[polishgenius]

I don't think there's all that much difference between what Refn did here and what I'm told Iggulden did, for example, with Brutus, especially since one is writing historical fiction and Refn has never pretended that his films, especially his recent ones, are tethered very strongly to reality.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 09 April 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

I don't think there's all that much difference between what Refn did here and what I'm told Iggulden did, for example, with Brutus, especially since one is writing historical fiction and Refn has never pretended that his films, especially his recent ones, are tethered very strongly to reality.

Let me point out that the historical accuracy is the LEAST of the issues with that film. I fucking LOATHED it. And I'm not joking when I say I (to this day) give my friends shit for recommending it to me. It's an abomination on celluloid,

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 09 April 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

I fucking LOATHED it.

I can tell.


Me, I think it's the film Inarritu seems to think he was making when he made The Revenant.

[worry]

Yah it's pretty darn awesome.

[Tsundoku]

Apologies if this has already come up, but I only just saw it and thought it was pretty cool. Easter eggs and references to the earlier movies plus other stuff in The Force Awakens.



Or



if you want to watch it on youtube so you can go fullscreen.

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 30 April 2016 - 02:17 AM