How to make a successful game to movie adaptation

There have been some successful video game movies financially, but I can't think of any that are critically successful. The highest rated one on rotten tomatoes is Resident Evil Vendetta, with a 50%, just beating out Tomb Raider (2018).

So why? There have been successful adaptations of nearly every other medium - broadway, novels, comic books. Why has nobody gotten it right with games?

Here's what I think an adaptation needs to be successful:

1. It has to have a good story
2. It has to gain something in the transition

Let's start with 1. This seems really obvious, but the fact is that stories function very differently for a game than a film. For a game, the story is meant to enhance the interaction - to give reason to what you are doing and make the actions more fun. The key is that the story serves the interactivity and not the other way around. Most stories are such that they facilitate some kind of physical conflict since is games are good at simulating those types of physical things. Shooting, running, jumping - easy. Emotional conflict? Hard. Some games have more sophisticated stories, but then we hit 2.

It's pretty easy to see the benefit to adapting a broadway musical. You can use the camera to emphasize actions and emotions, you can set the story in real locations, and you can use editing to pace the story and emotional beats. You lose a little bit, but what you gain is what the stage can't provide. A novel? Obviously everything can come to life with picture and sound. I've written before about the strengths of audio visual vs text. Comic books are the same, the images can come to life and you aren't limited to little text bubbles of speech.

We are at the point though where the visual fidelity of games is such that everything has already 'come to life' in an audiovisual way. This particular aspect is not an improvement necessarily, it's just a translation. You already have characters on screen interacting, with convincing voice acting and the use of film techniques with virtual cameras and editing. For a lot of things you basically already have a movie, but one which is tailored to a story subservient to the interactivity.

In my opinion, there's no reason and nothing to be gained by adapting most modern AAA games. Uncharted doesn't need to be a movie. What could a movie really do better?

In my opinion, the best games to adapt would be:

1. Games that lack the visual fidelity of film language.
2. Games with good stories based on more than just physical conflict (although that can be an element).
3. Games that don't really have business being games in the first place.

The more of those you hit the better! I think the adventure genre is actually rife with great games to adapt to the screen. Most focus on story and characters, don't use film techniques to present the story, and for many the puzzles just get in the way of the story (but make the game fun to play). I've been working on getting one such adventure game turned into a movie for a while now. If that happens, I think it could easily be the best game adaptation ever. Because the source is very well suited for an adaptation, and there is a lot to gain!

Something like Angry Birds was not actually a bad choice, since you can take the characters and general premise (Birds vs Pigs), and craft a cool animated movie with a story around that. I didn't see it, but I guess it wasn't pulled off well.

locked

4221 views

- No text -

locked

4100 views

- No text -

locked

4133 views

I'm not that interested in a Last of Us movie. I already played the game--what is a movie going to provide me that the game didn't?

On the other hand, tons of people haven't played the game, and I think The Last of Us has a story worth telling to the people that haven't.

They just have to nail it.

locked

4128 views

A full-feature film is supposed to be close to or shorter than 2-hours of length. That's what usually butcher book adaptations and even those get some respite from the visual gains Cody mentioned. How would you adapt a 10+ hours Last of Us experience to a 2 hour movie and not lose most of what makes it great?

locked

4132 views

I think it is important, as Cody even put it, to be thinking about what can be gained from taking something from one medium and putting it in another. In the same regard that a novelization also adds to a feature film, etc. I don't see how it is more important to consider how they will condense it relative to what new things can be brought to the story.

Even without the suggestion of additional narrative threads or a movie set around the events of the game there is a lot to consider. In this situation I will point out that 90 minutes is about all the cut scenes of The Last of Us (per a quick google) all strung together. Given the scope of the story I can see it easily getting the merit of a 120-140 minute movie, easily. If you toss in about 15 minutes of action sequences (as repeatedly building on the same structural gameplay combat is not inherently conducive to good cinema) And you easily get 15-35 minutes you can expand on, tweak, improve, or otherwise inform the sequences of events.

Not making a personal judgement here, I just think that it is more than fair to suggest that even a game that takes that long to complete can be brought into the scope of a standard movie.

locked

4001 views

Not making a personal judgement here, I just think that it is more than fair to suggest that even a game that takes that long to complete can be brought into the scope of a standard movie.

I think it's totally possible, but not easy. The Last of Us, more than many games that I can think of, can't just be boiled down to its cutscenes. That's a bare bones presentation of its story, and a lot of the more important (or at least impactful) things happen through gameplay. Cruel's example of seeing Ellie go from hiding to outright attacking enemies. The first encounter with a Clicker. The boiler room. Even the giraffe scene, which is partly cutscene, I guess, but unfolds through gameplay of Ellie dropping the ladder and freaking out, while the player scrambles to find another way up to her, assuming that something bad is happening.

There's a lot of small, almost incidental moments that would necessarily have to be lost to avoid making a four hour movie. It could still work, but, and it could still be good, but it would definitely lose something in the translation. I'd be bummed to not see that giraffe scene in a movie, for example, but it's something that I could easily see being left out of a movie adaption in the name of time.

locked

4018 views

Yes, it's a dry comparison. And understandably no good game story is wholly told through its cut scenes. However, while an incidental moment (the Giraffe) is actually less likely to be cut due to its more striking nature than truncating some of the more similar portions of the game to keep up interest. It's a common thing that happens with movies made from books (condensing events or characters into more contained or focused narrative elements) or other adaptations. Sometimes removing things is trimming the fat. And, personally, I can't claim that everything that occurs during TLOU is memorable enough to really important to keep. Sometimes what you gain from a change in mediums is focus, other times you get things in broader strokes.

Prior points that it would be easier to do with a miniseries doesn't negate that done right it could be done in a feature length format. In the same regard, the storytelling through gameplay doesn't uniformly mean that it can't translate to film. A character transitioning from hiding to combat is also not outside of what can be accomplished in film. Sure, there are definitely folks who would be upset that something that was peripheral but important to them was cut or changed, but that doesn't necessarily mean a film adaptation would be better for having it.

locked

3997 views

I'm not that interested in a Last of Us movie. I already played the game--what is a movie going to provide me that the game didn't?

On the other hand, tons of people haven't played the game, and I think The Last of Us has a story worth telling to the people that haven't.

That is why there is an easy mode.

locked

4147 views

I'm not that interested in a Last of Us movie. I already played the game--what is a movie going to provide me that the game didn't?

On the other hand, tons of people haven't played the game, and I think The Last of Us has a story worth telling to the people that haven't.

That is why there is an easy mode.

I have a good friend who loves cinema, and I told him he had to experience the Last of Us story. He's not much of a gamer, but I loaned him my PS3 regardless. Unfortunately, easy mode wasn't easy enough.

locked

4152 views

I personally found the gameplay really challenging even on easy, and obviously I'm not someone who's unfamiliar with games in general. I'm not sure what the problem was, I almost think there was some ability or feature that I missed the tutorial on and wasn't making use of.

locked

4060 views

- No text -

locked

4110 views

- No text -

locked

4110 views

Making a film set in the Last of Us universe? Heck yeah!

Adapting any part of The Last of Us? Noooo.

locked

4146 views

First, I understand the impulse to leave a masterpiece well enough alone. That idealistic dream died the day they announced The Last of Us, Part II. The latter will certainly change how people experience the first game. It already has: anyone who has seen the trailer for part two cannot play through part one and experience it the way I did (I'm thinking especially of how unsettled I felt at the beginning of the Winter section).

The Last of Us has a great story that could be made into a great script without much trouble. Get the right talent attached, and that script (like any other great script) could be made into a great film. Sure, the experience will be different without the interactivity or length, but so what? Books engage us imaginatively in ways that movies do not, but just because the experience of reading a novel is often richer and deeper than watching its movie adaptation hasn't stopped scores of movies from being made from novels, many of them excellent.

Sure, we can hope to get people involved who know how to take advantage of the unique qualities of film and use those in the service of the story, but really, what is wrong with bringing great stories to a wider audience? Visual fidelity, schmelity. Not everyone who would appreciate the narrative has the time or the tools to experience it in video game form.

locked

4112 views

I said that novels to movies works well a lot of the time because you gain a lot in the adaptation. Last of Us is already using the techniques and presentation of film to a large degree. Thus it does not gain that in an adaptation. The question is whether the removal of interactivity will be of a benefit to the story then. I say not enough to make it worthwhile.

locked

4060 views

I said that novels to movies works well a lot of the time because you gain a lot in the adaptation.

You inevitably lose a lot in an adaptation from novel to movie, too.

Last of Us is already using the techniques and presentation of film to a large degree. Thus it does not gain that in an adaptation. The question is whether the removal of interactivity will be of a benefit to the story then. I say not enough to make it worthwhile.

Worthwhile for whom? Maybe not for those who have played the game already, but if it's done well, I'd say that's debatable. (If your imagination can't think of ways in which the film could present aspects of the story better than the game did, it doesn't follow that the limits of your imagination are the same for the people who might make the movie.) Regardless, the Last of Us presents a great story that explores what love is in a time and circumstance when love is a luxury few can afford. Why should the experience of that story be limited to those who play video games?

locked

4101 views

First, I understand the impulse to leave a masterpiece well enough alone. That idealistic dream died the day they announced The Last of Us, Part II. The latter will certainly change how people experience the first game. It already has: anyone who has seen the trailer for part two cannot play through part one and experience it the way I did (I'm thinking especially of how unsettled I felt at the beginning of the Winter section).

The Last of Us has a great story that could be made into a great script without much trouble. Get the right talent attached, and that script (like any other great script) could be made into a great film. Sure, the experience will be different without the interactivity or length, but so what? Books engage us imaginatively in ways that movies do not, but just because the experience of reading a novel is often richer and deeper than watching its movie adaptation hasn't stopped scores of movies from being made from novels, many of them excellent.

Sure, we can hope to get people involved who know how to take advantage of the unique qualities of film and use those in the service of the story, but really, what is wrong with bringing great stories to a wider audience? Visual fidelity, schmelity. Not everyone who would appreciate the narrative has the time or the tools to experience it in video game form.

I think a crucial part of the balancing act here is the distinction between adaptation (or retelling) vs taking an existing story or franchise and doing new things with it in a different medium (I'm sure there's a German word for that, right?).

Adaptations are particularly problematic in many cases. Lets take The Last of Us. Why does it need to be a movie? Well one answer, as you mentioned, would be to get it out to a broader audience. But as soon as we go down that road, I ask myself questions like:
a) What makes The Last of Us unique?
b) Would the things that make it unique get lost in the translation to film?
c) If so, is what's left over worth making, or does it basically already exist?

In my mind, if a Last of Us movie gets made, and by some miracle it gets made right... we already have The Road. We already have Logan. There are already great versions of that story done on film. Obviously, they're not the same story, but they're close enough in all the ways that really matter that a movie version of TLoU feels redundant to me in the absolute best case scenario.

Going back to my initial question: why does it need to be made into a movie? I think there is another answer to this question. I think gamers are eager to have this medium that we love accepted by the greater culture, and that requires sharing what we love with others. But we aren't likely to convince our non-gamer friends to buy a playstation or Xbox and then spend 10-15 hours playing a game like The Last of Us just so they can find out why we love it so much. Somewhere in our heads, I think we assume that it would be easier to get them to watch a movie version of our favorite game, and maybe then they'd realize how great it is, and maybe then games wouldn't be stigmatized they way they still are (although not nearly as much as they used to be).

If I'm right about that, it's a bit of a self-conscious desire. And it leads to a sort of false sense of demand to see certain movies get made. I think there is plenty of room to make a great movie in the universe of The Last of Us. Possibly even with those same characters. But to take the plot from the game and turn that into a movie just doesn't make sense to me. It's too much of a square peg/round hole situation. A mini series? Sure. That would be a better fit. But I think its important for storytellers to be realistic about the strengths and weaknesses of any given medium before using that medium to tell a story, and I just don't see how anyone could look at the story of The Last of Us and say "yes, a movie would be a great way to tell that story", regardless of how many more people might watch it. I think one of the reasons the game had as much impact as it did was because Naughty Dog told a story that was truly best told the way they told it, and everyone who played it felt that on some level.

locked

4081 views

First, I understand the impulse to leave a masterpiece well enough alone. That idealistic dream died the day they announced The Last of Us, Part II. The latter will certainly change how people experience the first game. It already has: anyone who has seen the trailer for part two cannot play through part one and experience it the way I did (I'm thinking especially of how unsettled I felt at the beginning of the Winter section).

The Last of Us has a great story that could be made into a great script without much trouble. Get the right talent attached, and that script (like any other great script) could be made into a great film. Sure, the experience will be different without the interactivity or length, but so what? Books engage us imaginatively in ways that movies do not, but just because the experience of reading a novel is often richer and deeper than watching its movie adaptation hasn't stopped scores of movies from being made from novels, many of them excellent.

Sure, we can hope to get people involved who know how to take advantage of the unique qualities of film and use those in the service of the story, but really, what is wrong with bringing great stories to a wider audience? Visual fidelity, schmelity. Not everyone who would appreciate the narrative has the time or the tools to experience it in video game form.

I think a crucial part of the balancing act here is the distinction between adaptation (or retelling) vs taking an existing story or franchise and doing new things with it in a different medium (I'm sure there's a German word for that, right?).

Adaptations are particularly problematic in many cases. Lets take The Last of Us. Why does it need to be a movie? Well one answer, as you mentioned, would be to get it out to a broader audience. But as soon as we go down that road, I ask myself questions like:
a) What makes The Last of Us unique?

The characters are unique in the way that any well-drawn characters are.

b) Would the things that make it unique get lost in the translation to film?

The tension of surviving a tough fight using your own hands in an interactive video game would be lost, but the tension inherent in situations could certainly be translated to film. If the film is effective, we have emotional and physical reactions to what we see on the screen regardless of whether we can control anything.

c) If so, is what's left over worth making, or does it basically already exist?

In my mind, if a Last of Us movie gets made, and by some miracle it gets made right... we already have The Road. We already have Logan. There are already great versions of that story done on film. Obviously, they're not the same story, but they're close enough in all the ways that really matter that a movie version of TLoU feels redundant to me in the absolute best case scenario.

There are great versions of every story already made. Shane was made 64 years before Logan. I liked Logan, but I wasn't nearly as invested in the characters as I was in Joel and Ellie. I couldn't make it through the Road.

Going back to my initial question: why does it need to be made into a movie? I think there is another answer to this question. I think gamers are eager to have this medium that we love accepted by the greater culture, and that requires sharing what we love with others. But we aren't likely to convince our non-gamer friends to buy a playstation or Xbox and then spend 10-15 hours playing a game like The Last of Us just so they can find out why we love it so much. Somewhere in our heads, I think we assume that it would be easier to get them to watch a movie version of our favorite game, and maybe then they'd realize how great it is, and maybe then games wouldn't be stigmatized they way they still are (although not nearly as much as they used to be).

For the record, you're not describing my thinking. I think the story presented in the Last of Us is worthy of a larger audience by its own merit. I don't think there's another story I've experienced in a game that I feel that way about.

If I'm right about that, it's a bit of a self-conscious desire. And it leads to a sort of false sense of demand to see certain movies get made. I think there is plenty of room to make a great movie in the universe of The Last of Us. Possibly even with those same characters. But to take the plot from the game and turn that into a movie just doesn't make sense to me. It's too much of a square peg/round hole situation. A mini series? Sure. That would be a better fit. But I think its important for storytellers to be realistic about the strengths and weaknesses of any given medium before using that medium to tell a story, and I just don't see how anyone could look at the story of The Last of Us and say "yes, a movie would be a great way to tell that story", regardless of how many more people might watch it. I think one of the reasons the game had as much impact as it did was because Naughty Dog told a story that was truly best told the way they told it, and everyone who played it felt that on some level.

You bring up a great point, which is that a longer form like a mini-series could work better for the Last of Us simply because it'd be easier. The variety of experiences Joel and Elly go through is important to the story, and condensing those would be challenging, but far from impossible. The intangible thing missing from these dry arguments is whatever is brought into it through the creativity and talent of the people involved. If the people involved understand and appreciate the characters and themes in the story, I say go for it.

locked

4066 views

First, I understand the impulse to leave a masterpiece well enough alone. That idealistic dream died the day they announced The Last of Us, Part II. The latter will certainly change how people experience the first game. It already has: anyone who has seen the trailer for part two cannot play through part one and experience it the way I did (I'm thinking especially of how unsettled I felt at the beginning of the Winter section).

The Last of Us has a great story that could be made into a great script without much trouble. Get the right talent attached, and that script (like any other great script) could be made into a great film. Sure, the experience will be different without the interactivity or length, but so what? Books engage us imaginatively in ways that movies do not, but just because the experience of reading a novel is often richer and deeper than watching its movie adaptation hasn't stopped scores of movies from being made from novels, many of them excellent.

Sure, we can hope to get people involved who know how to take advantage of the unique qualities of film and use those in the service of the story, but really, what is wrong with bringing great stories to a wider audience? Visual fidelity, schmelity. Not everyone who would appreciate the narrative has the time or the tools to experience it in video game form.

I think a crucial part of the balancing act here is the distinction between adaptation (or retelling) vs taking an existing story or franchise and doing new things with it in a different medium (I'm sure there's a German word for that, right?).

Adaptations are particularly problematic in many cases. Lets take The Last of Us. Why does it need to be a movie? Well one answer, as you mentioned, would be to get it out to a broader audience. But as soon as we go down that road, I ask myself questions like:
a) What makes The Last of Us unique?

The characters are unique in the way that any well-drawn characters are.

Totally agree there... I was thinking more in an all-encompassing sense, though. Not just the characters or plot or setting, but the entire experience of playing The Last of Us. Everything from the way world-building is communicated to the length of time you spend with the characters, to the way storytelling is handled through interactive gameplay. This last point is huge, in this case. Take for example the way we see Ellie begin to fight for herself as you get into more and more combat throughout the game; it's not pointed out or made explicit at first. She just slowly starts fighting back on her own more and more, rather than running and hiding as she does at first. We see character development happen in ways that directly effect our actions. (I almost got killed by thug the first time I saw Ellie clock someone with a brick, I almost died because I was so distracted by the sight, I actually stopped fighting).

A film can certainly get those points across, but this is one of those cases where the delivery is crucial. Showing Ellie grow stronger in a movie is not the same kind of experience as witnessing it in a truly stressful gameplay scenario. I'm not saying one is better or worse... they're just 2 different experiences. And what feels like an incredible, stand-out moment in a videogame (due to its combination of effectiveness and rarity) might just feel like the basic character development in a movie. It certainly doesn't have to pan out that way, but that's often the result with adaptations. Since the original version was built with a particular medium in mind, and adaptations rarely account for the differences in medium properly (and when they do, fans of the original get all pissed off that the adaptation changed things, lol).

b) Would the things that make it unique get lost in the translation to film?

The tension of surviving a tough fight using your own hands in an interactive video game would be lost, but the tension inherent in situations could certainly be translated to film. If the film is effective, we have emotional and physical reactions to what we see on the screen regardless of whether we can control anything.

Again, I'd argue that many of the particular things that make TLoU so special wouldn't translate to film specifically because interactive storytelling is capable of doing things that a film cannot (the opposite is also true, of course).

c) If so, is what's left over worth making, or does it basically already exist?

In my mind, if a Last of Us movie gets made, and by some miracle it gets made right... we already have The Road. We already have Logan. There are already great versions of that story done on film. Obviously, they're not the same story, but they're close enough in all the ways that really matter that a movie version of TLoU feels redundant to me in the absolute best case scenario.

There are great versions of every story already made. Shane was made 64 years before Logan. I liked Logan, but I wasn't nearly as invested in the characters as I was in Joel and Ellie. I couldn't make it through the Road.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that a story isn't worth telling if it has already been told before. Quite the opposite. I soak up as much mythology as I can, and that's basically the same 2 or 3 stories told a thousand different ways :)

In this specific case, my thinking is that Logan is so close to a movie adaptation of The Last of Us, that I as a fan feel like that void has already been filled. It's missing a few key elements (plot points, obviously, but specific layers to the characters as well), but that would likely be true of any film adaptation of that story. This is less a knock against the possibility of a great TLoU movie, and more just my pessimistic thinking on the likely results of a TLoU movie. If one gets made and ends up being great, I'll be absolutely thrilled. But I'm skeptical because the decision to make a movie adaptation of a popular videogame is often based on what I would consider to be "the wrong reasons".

Going back to my initial question: why does it need to be made into a movie? I think there is another answer to this question. I think gamers are eager to have this medium that we love accepted by the greater culture, and that requires sharing what we love with others. But we aren't likely to convince our non-gamer friends to buy a playstation or Xbox and then spend 10-15 hours playing a game like The Last of Us just so they can find out why we love it so much. Somewhere in our heads, I think we assume that it would be easier to get them to watch a movie version of our favorite game, and maybe then they'd realize how great it is, and maybe then games wouldn't be stigmatized they way they still are (although not nearly as much as they used to be).

For the record, you're not describing my thinking. I think the story presented in the Last of Us is worthy of a larger audience by its own merit. I don't think there's another story I've experienced in a game that I feel that way about.

No, I'm sure you don't think of it that way, and I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did. Sorry if it came across that way.

If I'm right about that, it's a bit of a self-conscious desire. And it leads to a sort of false sense of demand to see certain movies get made. I think there is plenty of room to make a great movie in the universe of The Last of Us. Possibly even with those same characters. But to take the plot from the game and turn that into a movie just doesn't make sense to me. It's too much of a square peg/round hole situation. A mini series? Sure. That would be a better fit. But I think its important for storytellers to be realistic about the strengths and weaknesses of any given medium before using that medium to tell a story, and I just don't see how anyone could look at the story of The Last of Us and say "yes, a movie would be a great way to tell that story", regardless of how many more people might watch it. I think one of the reasons the game had as much impact as it did was because Naughty Dog told a story that was truly best told the way they told it, and everyone who played it felt that on some level.

You bring up a great point, which is that a longer form like a mini-series could work better for the Last of Us simply because it'd be easier. The variety of experiences Joel and Elly go through is important to the story, and condensing those would be challenging, but far from impossible. The intangible thing missing from these dry arguments is whatever is brought into it through the creativity and talent of the people involved. If the people involved understand and appreciate the characters and themes in the story, I say go for it.

A longer format would help with creating something closer to a 1:1 translation, but as you say, that certainly isn't the only way to go. And your point about whatever new elements are brought to the table by the people involved is huge. The Dark Knight was a good movie, but I know I wouldn't like it half as much as I do if it weren't for Heath Ledger's performance. Nobody could have predicted that by looking at the film "on paper".

I just hope that if/when a TLoU movie gets made, it happens because a team of creative and talented people have a great vision for how and why to do it, and are able to pull it off. I think movie adaptations of games/books are too often simple cash grabs, or on the sympathetic side, misguided pursuits. At least with movie adaptations of books, there are more obvious reasons to do it. The mediums are so fundamentally different, there are more clear cut trade-offs (a movie can't be as long or detailed, but it can use visuals and audio to communicate on multiple layers at the same time).

Very separate from my conversation with you, Kermit, I just wish people in general were a little more open to stepping outside their usual comfort zones to experience cool things. I don't typically read comics, but if a friend of mine is telling me that he's reading this great comic and I should really check it out, I go buy the comic and read it for myself. I don't say "I'll just wait for them to make a movie out of it". Same actually goes for TV shows. As a rule, I watch zero Television day to day, unless there is a specific show that I'm interested in seeing. I totally get that people all have preferences for certain types of media or entertainment, and I'm no different. But if someone creates something that everyone says is awesome, I want to experience it even if its not in a form that I typically digest. To me that's just part of enjoying art and entertainment. I assume the creator(s) chose that specific medium for a reason, and sometimes that reason ends up being crucial to what they've created.

Anyway, that's a whole side-rant that doesn't really have much to do with our discussion, but I'm on my lunch break and I feel like sharing lol :)

locked

4061 views

First, I understand the impulse to leave a masterpiece well enough alone. That idealistic dream died the day they announced The Last of Us, Part II. The latter will certainly change how people experience the first game. It already has: anyone who has seen the trailer for part two cannot play through part one and experience it the way I did (I'm thinking especially of how unsettled I felt at the beginning of the Winter section).

The Last of Us has a great story that could be made into a great script without much trouble. Get the right talent attached, and that script (like any other great script) could be made into a great film. Sure, the experience will be different without the interactivity or length, but so what? Books engage us imaginatively in ways that movies do not, but just because the experience of reading a novel is often richer and deeper than watching its movie adaptation hasn't stopped scores of movies from being made from novels, many of them excellent.

Sure, we can hope to get people involved who know how to take advantage of the unique qualities of film and use those in the service of the story, but really, what is wrong with bringing great stories to a wider audience? Visual fidelity, schmelity. Not everyone who would appreciate the narrative has the time or the tools to experience it in video game form.

I think a crucial part of the balancing act here is the distinction between adaptation (or retelling) vs taking an existing story or franchise and doing new things with it in a different medium (I'm sure there's a German word for that, right?).

Adaptations are particularly problematic in many cases. Lets take The Last of Us. Why does it need to be a movie? Well one answer, as you mentioned, would be to get it out to a broader audience. But as soon as we go down that road, I ask myself questions like:
a) What makes The Last of Us unique?

The characters are unique in the way that any well-drawn characters are.

Totally agree there... I was thinking more in an all-encompassing sense, though. Not just the characters or plot or setting, but the entire experience of playing The Last of Us. Everything from the way world-building is communicated to the length of time you spend with the characters, to the way storytelling is handled through interactive gameplay. This last point is huge, in this case. Take for example the way we see Ellie begin to fight for herself as you get into more and more combat throughout the game; it's not pointed out or made explicit at first. She just slowly starts fighting back on her own more and more, rather than running and hiding as she does at first. We see character development happen in ways that directly effect our actions. (I almost got killed by thug the first time I saw Ellie clock someone with a brick, I almost died because I was so distracted by the sight, I actually stopped fighting).

A film can certainly get those points across, but this is one of those cases where the delivery is crucial. Showing Ellie grow stronger in a movie is not the same kind of experience as witnessing it in a truly stressful gameplay scenario. I'm not saying one is better or worse... they're just 2 different experiences. And what feels like an incredible, stand-out moment in a videogame (due to its combination of effectiveness and rarity) might just feel like the basic character development in a movie. It certainly doesn't have to pan out that way, but that's often the result with adaptations. Since the original version was built with a particular medium in mind, and adaptations rarely account for the differences in medium properly (and when they do, fans of the original get all pissed off that the adaptation changed things, lol).

b) Would the things that make it unique get lost in the translation to film?

The tension of surviving a tough fight using your own hands in an interactive video game would be lost, but the tension inherent in situations could certainly be translated to film. If the film is effective, we have emotional and physical reactions to what we see on the screen regardless of whether we can control anything.

Again, I'd argue that many of the particular things that make TLoU so special wouldn't translate to film specifically because interactive storytelling is capable of doing things that a film cannot (the opposite is also true, of course).

c) If so, is what's left over worth making, or does it basically already exist?

In my mind, if a Last of Us movie gets made, and by some miracle it gets made right... we already have The Road. We already have Logan. There are already great versions of that story done on film. Obviously, they're not the same story, but they're close enough in all the ways that really matter that a movie version of TLoU feels redundant to me in the absolute best case scenario.

There are great versions of every story already made. Shane was made 64 years before Logan. I liked Logan, but I wasn't nearly as invested in the characters as I was in Joel and Ellie. I couldn't make it through the Road.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that a story isn't worth telling if it has already been told before. Quite the opposite. I soak up as much mythology as I can, and that's basically the same 2 or 3 stories told a thousand different ways :)

In this specific case, my thinking is that Logan is so close to a movie adaptation of The Last of Us, that I as a fan feel like that void has already been filled. It's missing a few key elements (plot points, obviously, but specific layers to the characters as well), but that would likely be true of any film adaptation of that story. This is less a knock against the possibility of a great TLoU movie, and more just my pessimistic thinking on the likely results of a TLoU movie. If one gets made and ends up being great, I'll be absolutely thrilled. But I'm skeptical because the decision to make a movie adaptation of a popular videogame is often based on what I would consider to be "the wrong reasons".

Going back to my initial question: why does it need to be made into a movie? I think there is another answer to this question. I think gamers are eager to have this medium that we love accepted by the greater culture, and that requires sharing what we love with others. But we aren't likely to convince our non-gamer friends to buy a playstation or Xbox and then spend 10-15 hours playing a game like The Last of Us just so they can find out why we love it so much. Somewhere in our heads, I think we assume that it would be easier to get them to watch a movie version of our favorite game, and maybe then they'd realize how great it is, and maybe then games wouldn't be stigmatized they way they still are (although not nearly as much as they used to be).

For the record, you're not describing my thinking. I think the story presented in the Last of Us is worthy of a larger audience by its own merit. I don't think there's another story I've experienced in a game that I feel that way about.

No, I'm sure you don't think of it that way, and I didn't mean to imply that I thought you did. Sorry if it came across that way.

If I'm right about that, it's a bit of a self-conscious desire. And it leads to a sort of false sense of demand to see certain movies get made. I think there is plenty of room to make a great movie in the universe of The Last of Us. Possibly even with those same characters. But to take the plot from the game and turn that into a movie just doesn't make sense to me. It's too much of a square peg/round hole situation. A mini series? Sure. That would be a better fit. But I think its important for storytellers to be realistic about the strengths and weaknesses of any given medium before using that medium to tell a story, and I just don't see how anyone could look at the story of The Last of Us and say "yes, a movie would be a great way to tell that story", regardless of how many more people might watch it. I think one of the reasons the game had as much impact as it did was because Naughty Dog told a story that was truly best told the way they told it, and everyone who played it felt that on some level.

You bring up a great point, which is that a longer form like a mini-series could work better for the Last of Us simply because it'd be easier. The variety of experiences Joel and Elly go through is important to the story, and condensing those would be challenging, but far from impossible. The intangible thing missing from these dry arguments is whatever is brought into it through the creativity and talent of the people involved. If the people involved understand and appreciate the characters and themes in the story, I say go for it.

A longer format would help with creating something closer to a 1:1 translation, but as you say, that certainly isn't the only way to go. And your point about whatever new elements are brought to the table by the people involved is huge. The Dark Knight was a good movie, but I know I wouldn't like it half as much as I do if it weren't for Heath Ledger's performance. Nobody could have predicted that by looking at the film "on paper".

I just hope that if/when a TLoU movie gets made, it happens because a team of creative and talented people have a great vision for how and why to do it, and are able to pull it off. I think movie adaptations of games/books are too often simple cash grabs, or on the sympathetic side, misguided pursuits. At least with movie adaptations of books, there are more obvious reasons to do it. The mediums are so fundamentally different, there are more clear cut trade-offs (a movie can't be as long or detailed, but it can use visuals and audio to communicate on multiple layers at the same time).

And I think that's Cody's point--there's not much difference so why do it? My answer: because the story is that good.

Very separate from my conversation with you, Kermit, I just wish people in general were a little more open to stepping outside their usual comfort zones to experience cool things. I don't typically read comics, but if a friend of mine is telling me that he's reading this great comic and I should really check it out, I go buy the comic and read it for myself. I don't say "I'll just wait for them to make a movie out of it". Same actually goes for TV shows. As a rule, I watch zero Television day to day, unless there is a specific show that I'm interested in seeing. I totally get that people all have preferences for certain types of media or entertainment, and I'm no different. But if someone creates something that everyone says is awesome, I want to experience it even if its not in a form that I typically digest. To me that's just part of enjoying art and entertainment. I assume the creator(s) chose that specific medium for a reason, and sometimes that reason ends up being crucial to what they've created.

I'm with you. I already mentioned my friend who unsuccessfully tried to play TLoU at my request. I have a number of friends who are connoisseurs of great stories, and my selfish reason for wanting a good TLoU movie is so that they can experience that story (I don't think its greatness is dependent on how things are revealed in gameplay, although you do a great job in explicating that.) As is, the story is behind an insurmountable barricade (for several of my friends). I know they'd appreciate it if they could experience it, but modern video games (and the vocabulary and skill necessary to get through them) just aren't in their wheelhouse.

locked

4054 views

Very separate from my conversation with you, Kermit, I just wish people in general were a little more open to stepping outside their usual comfort zones to experience cool things. I don't typically read comics, but if a friend of mine is telling me that he's reading this great comic and I should really check it out, I go buy the comic and read it for myself. I don't say "I'll just wait for them to make a movie out of it". Same actually goes for TV shows. As a rule, I watch zero Television day to day, unless there is a specific show that I'm interested in seeing. I totally get that people all have preferences for certain types of media or entertainment, and I'm no different. But if someone creates something that everyone says is awesome, I want to experience it even if its not in a form that I typically digest. To me that's just part of enjoying art and entertainment. I assume the creator(s) chose that specific medium for a reason, and sometimes that reason ends up being crucial to what they've created.

I'm with you. I already mentioned my friend who unsuccessfully tried to play TLoU at my request. I have a number of friends who are connoisseurs of great stories, and my selfish reason for wanting a good TLoU movie is so that they can experience that story (I don't think its greatness is dependent on how things are revealed in gameplay, although you do a great job in explicating that.) As is, the story is behind an insurmountable barricade (for several of my friends). I know they'd appreciate it if they could experience it, but modern video games (and the vocabulary and skill necessary to get through them) just aren't in their wheelhouse.

Videogames live in a funny space though, don't they? They're much more demanding than most other forms of entertainment. We never need to say things like "well if you haven't been watching movies for the past 15 years, you can't just jump in and watch this movie". I can't think of anything else quite like it, really. It would be like saying "Here's a piece of music to listen to, but you won't be able to hear it unless you know how to play piano".

I wonder if the way gaming has evolved will lead to a kind of bubble that will inevitably burst? As in, games will continue to get more and more advanced but the number of "hardcore" gamers will continue to fall until there are hardly any left? I don't know how much study has been done in this area, but I remember hearing a couple years back that big publishers were already starting to worry about the fact that younger generations just weren't buying games the way previous generations have. I know that Minecraft has caused a fair deal of stress about the future, as a large portion of the playerbase bought Minecraft and then never bought another game. So rather than being a sign of young people getting into videogames, Minecraft IS videogames for a lot of kids and pre-teens out there. And as they fall off Minecraft, its not clear that they pick up other games in its place.

It all makes me wonder if modern games are evolving past the point where kids will be able to just jump on and get the hand of things as they currently are. I know with my own daughter, finding games she can play is far more challenging than it was for me to find games I could play at the age of 4. We play Mario Kart together, but that's only because a) there are settings in the Switch version that make the game practically play itself, and b) a single joycon is the perfect size for her tiny hands... anything larger, she just can't manage it.

When I was her age, I was able to boot up my Atari and jump into a game by myself, no problems. Just turn it on, hit the one and only button on the controller, and I was up and running. But games now have all these layers of menus and options before you even get to the game. Forget my daughter being able to set up Mario Kart by herself, my ex wife can't even do it for her.

I wonder if somewhere along the line, we'll get a classic-style console with all the simplicity of an SNES, but something actually current (rather than a reissue or emulator). Because part of me thinks that video games are complicating themselves into the realm of obscurity by making themselves too complex for new players to ever jump on board.

locked

4041 views

Very separate from my conversation with you, Kermit, I just wish people in general were a little more open to stepping outside their usual comfort zones to experience cool things. I don't typically read comics, but if a friend of mine is telling me that he's reading this great comic and I should really check it out, I go buy the comic and read it for myself. I don't say "I'll just wait for them to make a movie out of it". Same actually goes for TV shows. As a rule, I watch zero Television day to day, unless there is a specific show that I'm interested in seeing. I totally get that people all have preferences for certain types of media or entertainment, and I'm no different. But if someone creates something that everyone says is awesome, I want to experience it even if its not in a form that I typically digest. To me that's just part of enjoying art and entertainment. I assume the creator(s) chose that specific medium for a reason, and sometimes that reason ends up being crucial to what they've created.

I'm with you. I already mentioned my friend who unsuccessfully tried to play TLoU at my request. I have a number of friends who are connoisseurs of great stories, and my selfish reason for wanting a good TLoU movie is so that they can experience that story (I don't think its greatness is dependent on how things are revealed in gameplay, although you do a great job in explicating that.) As is, the story is behind an insurmountable barricade (for several of my friends). I know they'd appreciate it if they could experience it, but modern video games (and the vocabulary and skill necessary to get through them) just aren't in their wheelhouse.

Videogames live in a funny space though, don't they? They're much more demanding than most other forms of entertainment. We never need to say things like "well if you haven't been watching movies for the past 15 years, you can't just jump in and watch this movie". I can't think of anything else quite like it, really. It would be like saying "Here's a piece of music to listen to, but you won't be able to hear it unless you know how to play piano".

I wonder if the way gaming has evolved will lead to a kind of bubble that will inevitably burst? As in, games will continue to get more and more advanced but the number of "hardcore" gamers will continue to fall until there are hardly any left? I don't know how much study has been done in this area, but I remember hearing a couple years back that big publishers were already starting to worry about the fact that younger generations just weren't buying games the way previous generations have. I know that Minecraft has caused a fair deal of stress about the future, as a large portion of the playerbase bought Minecraft and then never bought another game. So rather than being a sign of young people getting into videogames, Minecraft IS videogames for a lot of kids and pre-teens out there. And as they fall off Minecraft, its not clear that they pick up other games in its place.

It all makes me wonder if modern games are evolving past the point where kids will be able to just jump on and get the hand of things as they currently are. I know with my own daughter, finding games she can play is far more challenging than it was for me to find games I could play at the age of 4. We play Mario Kart together, but that's only because a) there are settings in the Switch version that make the game practically play itself, and b) a single joycon is the perfect size for her tiny hands... anything larger, she just can't manage it.

When I was her age, I was able to boot up my Atari and jump into a game by myself, no problems. Just turn it on, hit the one and only button on the controller, and I was up and running. But games now have all these layers of menus and options before you even get to the game. Forget my daughter being able to set up Mario Kart by herself, my ex wife can't even do it for her.

I wonder if somewhere along the line, we'll get a classic-style console with all the simplicity of an SNES, but something actually current (rather than a reissue or emulator). Because part of me thinks that video games are complicating themselves into the realm of obscurity by making themselves too complex for new players to ever jump on board.

I think stuff like this is what gives streaming games validity. Some folks just can't play the game to consume the content.
Of course, the ideal way to present the content would be to have cinematic gameplay with no audible commentary, two concepts that are far too wild for the countless mindless tools on Twitch and other streaming sites.

That's why I support games adding an "easier than easy" difficulty (Witcher 3 and HZD come to mind), but at the same time, I feel like it diminishes the story sometimes. How can we perceive the Clickers in TLoU as a terrifying threat if they drop with a couple of bullets? How can we interpret the struggle to survive if we're carrying dozens of rounds of ammo and a huge supply of resources and health packs?

locked

4054 views

Very separate from my conversation with you, Kermit, I just wish people in general were a little more open to stepping outside their usual comfort zones to experience cool things. I don't typically read comics, but if a friend of mine is telling me that he's reading this great comic and I should really check it out, I go buy the comic and read it for myself. I don't say "I'll just wait for them to make a movie out of it". Same actually goes for TV shows. As a rule, I watch zero Television day to day, unless there is a specific show that I'm interested in seeing. I totally get that people all have preferences for certain types of media or entertainment, and I'm no different. But if someone creates something that everyone says is awesome, I want to experience it even if its not in a form that I typically digest. To me that's just part of enjoying art and entertainment. I assume the creator(s) chose that specific medium for a reason, and sometimes that reason ends up being crucial to what they've created.

I'm with you. I already mentioned my friend who unsuccessfully tried to play TLoU at my request. I have a number of friends who are connoisseurs of great stories, and my selfish reason for wanting a good TLoU movie is so that they can experience that story (I don't think its greatness is dependent on how things are revealed in gameplay, although you do a great job in explicating that.) As is, the story is behind an insurmountable barricade (for several of my friends). I know they'd appreciate it if they could experience it, but modern video games (and the vocabulary and skill necessary to get through them) just aren't in their wheelhouse.

Videogames live in a funny space though, don't they? They're much more demanding than most other forms of entertainment. We never need to say things like "well if you haven't been watching movies for the past 15 years, you can't just jump in and watch this movie". I can't think of anything else quite like it, really. It would be like saying "Here's a piece of music to listen to, but you won't be able to hear it unless you know how to play piano".

I wonder if the way gaming has evolved will lead to a kind of bubble that will inevitably burst? As in, games will continue to get more and more advanced but the number of "hardcore" gamers will continue to fall until there are hardly any left? I don't know how much study has been done in this area, but I remember hearing a couple years back that big publishers were already starting to worry about the fact that younger generations just weren't buying games the way previous generations have. I know that Minecraft has caused a fair deal of stress about the future, as a large portion of the playerbase bought Minecraft and then never bought another game. So rather than being a sign of young people getting into videogames, Minecraft IS videogames for a lot of kids and pre-teens out there. And as they fall off Minecraft, its not clear that they pick up other games in its place.

It all makes me wonder if modern games are evolving past the point where kids will be able to just jump on and get the hand of things as they currently are. I know with my own daughter, finding games she can play is far more challenging than it was for me to find games I could play at the age of 4. We play Mario Kart together, but that's only because a) there are settings in the Switch version that make the game practically play itself, and b) a single joycon is the perfect size for her tiny hands... anything larger, she just can't manage it.

When I was her age, I was able to boot up my Atari and jump into a game by myself, no problems. Just turn it on, hit the one and only button on the controller, and I was up and running. But games now have all these layers of menus and options before you even get to the game. Forget my daughter being able to set up Mario Kart by herself, my ex wife can't even do it for her.

I wonder if somewhere along the line, we'll get a classic-style console with all the simplicity of an SNES, but something actually current (rather than a reissue or emulator). Because part of me thinks that video games are complicating themselves into the realm of obscurity by making themselves too complex for new players to ever jump on board.

I think stuff like this is what gives streaming games validity. Some folks just can't play the game to consume the content.
Of course, the ideal way to present the content would be to have cinematic gameplay with no audible commentary, two concepts that are far too wild for the countless mindless tools on Twitch and other streaming sites.

That's why I support games adding an "easier than easy" difficulty (Witcher 3 and HZD come to mind), but at the same time, I feel like it diminishes the story sometimes. How can we perceive the Clickers in TLoU as a terrifying threat if they drop with a couple of bullets? How can we interpret the struggle to survive if we're carrying dozens of rounds of ammo and a huge supply of resources and health packs?

That's a big part of my ongoing "make 'easy mode' easy in the ways that non-gamers actually need them to be" rant that I make every chance I get. Beginners/non-gamers don't need infinite ammo, they need help aiming and looking in the direction they want to aim and look. Having all the health in the world doesn't do that much good to a player who's never driven a vehicle in a videogame before... ask them to play the last level of Halo and they just won't be able to get the warthog to stay on its wheels. For action games its arguably less of an issue, since the demanding mechanics are often one of (if not the entire) reasons to play the game in the first place. But if highly narrative-focused games want to take the issue seriously, developers are going to need to start thinking way further outside the current "difficulty level" box in order to get a wider audience playing them.

locked

4043 views

- No text -

locked

4007 views

Very separate from my conversation with you, Kermit, I just wish people in general were a little more open to stepping outside their usual comfort zones to experience cool things. I don't typically read comics, but if a friend of mine is telling me that he's reading this great comic and I should really check it out, I go buy the comic and read it for myself. I don't say "I'll just wait for them to make a movie out of it". Same actually goes for TV shows. As a rule, I watch zero Television day to day, unless there is a specific show that I'm interested in seeing. I totally get that people all have preferences for certain types of media or entertainment, and I'm no different. But if someone creates something that everyone says is awesome, I want to experience it even if its not in a form that I typically digest. To me that's just part of enjoying art and entertainment. I assume the creator(s) chose that specific medium for a reason, and sometimes that reason ends up being crucial to what they've created.

I'm with you. I already mentioned my friend who unsuccessfully tried to play TLoU at my request. I have a number of friends who are connoisseurs of great stories, and my selfish reason for wanting a good TLoU movie is so that they can experience that story (I don't think its greatness is dependent on how things are revealed in gameplay, although you do a great job in explicating that.) As is, the story is behind an insurmountable barricade (for several of my friends). I know they'd appreciate it if they could experience it, but modern video games (and the vocabulary and skill necessary to get through them) just aren't in their wheelhouse.

Videogames live in a funny space though, don't they? They're much more demanding than most other forms of entertainment. We never need to say things like "well if you haven't been watching movies for the past 15 years, you can't just jump in and watch this movie". I can't think of anything else quite like it, really. It would be like saying "Here's a piece of music to listen to, but you won't be able to hear it unless you know how to play piano".

I wonder if the way gaming has evolved will lead to a kind of bubble that will inevitably burst? As in, games will continue to get more and more advanced but the number of "hardcore" gamers will continue to fall until there are hardly any left? I don't know how much study has been done in this area, but I remember hearing a couple years back that big publishers were already starting to worry about the fact that younger generations just weren't buying games the way previous generations have. I know that Minecraft has caused a fair deal of stress about the future, as a large portion of the playerbase bought Minecraft and then never bought another game. So rather than being a sign of young people getting into videogames, Minecraft IS videogames for a lot of kids and pre-teens out there. And as they fall off Minecraft, its not clear that they pick up other games in its place.

It all makes me wonder if modern games are evolving past the point where kids will be able to just jump on and get the hand of things as they currently are. I know with my own daughter, finding games she can play is far more challenging than it was for me to find games I could play at the age of 4. We play Mario Kart together, but that's only because a) there are settings in the Switch version that make the game practically play itself, and b) a single joycon is the perfect size for her tiny hands... anything larger, she just can't manage it.

When I was her age, I was able to boot up my Atari and jump into a game by myself, no problems. Just turn it on, hit the one and only button on the controller, and I was up and running. But games now have all these layers of menus and options before you even get to the game. Forget my daughter being able to set up Mario Kart by herself, my ex wife can't even do it for her.

I wonder if somewhere along the line, we'll get a classic-style console with all the simplicity of an SNES, but something actually current (rather than a reissue or emulator). Because part of me thinks that video games are complicating themselves into the realm of obscurity by making themselves too complex for new players to ever jump on board.

Maybe there's something to that but I can't help but suspect that your experience with your daughter in comparison with your own is more a reflection of an individual proclivity. The kids I'm around ramp up pretty quickly. Bigarm's teenage son intuitively gets the rules of complex games pretty effortlessly--definitely quicker than I do. He has a fluency I'll never have (I use that word because I used the word "vocabulary" earlier). His little sister (a bit older than your daughter) is no slouch.

As with learning to be fluent in anything, nothing beats immersion. We don't talk about movie accessibility the way you describe because almost all of us have been immersed with that kind of visual story telling since childhood simply through exposure to TV. But someone in 1910 would understand little about Goodfellas or Pulp Fiction and would probably be traumatized if exposed to those films. Early film viewers had reactions not too different than many folks have to VR now. They grew nauseated, fainted, or fell out of their chairs. The language of film has matured, too. For myself, the range of movies I could appreciate expanded significantly after taking film classes, which of course increased my "fluency."

locked

4050 views

It is actually really important when comparing most media to games in that sense of fluency. I am very glad that you brought up more modern films as they would contrast to early films and film literacy, as well as a the reference to coming up in TV, albeit TV has a different vocabulary in most cases than film. As do different forms of animation. Books, not just accounting for the literal vocabulary required, also have their own literacy level for the medium, and you might not notice it but there are a lot of things (as minor examples: changes to POV in books occurring at new chapters; chapters as a structural divide) that require a certain level of growth and learning to really get. There is no artistic endeavor that doesn't require this for its consumption, to varying degrees.

Video games are young, but they have reached a level of sophistication where they are obviously outside the immediate adoption without any effort most of the time. But video games aren't the only modern example of something requiring learned. Take computers, specifically modern GUIs and interface methods, and their inclusion of things just to teach that literacy (Solitaire and Minesweeper weren't built into Windows just for entertainment) to improve the medium. Modern touch screens, while intuitive, also require a degree of learning to be able to use efficiently.

In most cases, the generation that follows will always have an easier time with the technology which was introduced during your generation. And while many games have grown in complexity, don't forget that many of the most popular and most accessible games are focused on a low-complexity core experience.

locked

3994 views

For the most part, all 4 of my kids prefer watching me play games than actually going through the work of learning to play them themselves. This isn't always true, but for most games it is. I think there are a lot of reasons for this, but as has been pointed out, it's much more challenging to just pick up and play something. I think that's why mobile games are both beloved and scoffed at at the same time.

locked

3961 views

For the most part, all 4 of my kids prefer watching me play games than actually going through the work of learning to play them themselves. This isn't always true, but for most games it is. I think there are a lot of reasons for this, but as has been pointed out, it's much more challenging to just pick up and play something. I think that's why mobile games are both beloved and scoffed at at the same time.

I think it took me about 3 or 4 years to become 'fluent' in video games. I started at around 5ish, and would struggle with Mario. Getting to the world 1 castle was mind blowingly hard. Even beating a single robot master in Megaman was nearly unthinkable. But the more I played, the better I got not just at specific games, but games in general.

By the time I was 8 or so it all kind of 'clicked', and I was able to beat Tyson in Punch Out. In round 2, but still. After that I could finish any game I wanted to really.

All things considered, that's not really a large chunk of time when you think about it. If you can spend 3 years learning, and then be able to play every video game made subsequently, it seems worthwhile no? With the easy modes these days, it might not even take that long.

locked

3836 views

I wouldn’t say it is impossible to get fluent that fast anymore, I would say that it is much harder to than it used to be. Simply due to an increase in complexity of hardware and software along side a wider breadth of hardware and software. Which may lead to a greater level of intimidation about trying to gain that literacy which was in the past much easier at an entry level. In contrast, there are many more entry points but easier plateaus to run into.

locked

3636 views

Heck, I haven’t finished The Last of Us! Zombie stealth game where I get instakilled at the slightest mistake while perpetually out of ammo? Yeah, how much good story is that really worth?

Maybe a movie version ain’t so bad an idea...

locked

4019 views

Heck, I haven’t finished The Last of Us! Zombie stealth game where I get instakilled at the slightest mistake while perpetually out of ammo? Yeah, how much good story is that really worth?

Maybe a movie version ain’t so bad an idea...

The game's flaw is a few difficulty spikes early on, but that flaw is also is strength, because it instills in the player a healthy fear that serves the story. You'll get a taste of PTSD, but it only helps you better understand the characters and their world. I know you appreciate good writing, Raga. You owe to yourself to finish this game. It gets better as it goes, and I say that as someone generally hates 98% of the zombie genre.

locked

4018 views

I assume the creator(s) chose that specific medium for a reason, and sometimes that reason ends up being crucial to what they've created.

That is an assumption that often times isn't true to the way media is created. A very high profile example is The Strain. Which started as a TV series pitch, but was written into a novel series so that it would get picked up for adaptation to TV. A lot of people bring a lot of things to games, even if many developers are narrowed down to a handful of people we make judgement of. The same is true of movies and TV. And while rare in books, it isn't entirely a single creative minds originally imagined endeavor. Hell, Gale in The Hunger Games was originally supposed to be Katniss' cousin. But the publisher wanted that sweet Twilight love triangle money.

locked

3996 views

In my opinion, the best games to adapt would be:

1. Games that lack the visual fidelity of film language.
2. Games with good stories based on more than just physical conflict (although that can be an element).
3. Games that don't really have business being games in the first place.

4. Don’t adapt the game’s story, build a new story in the same universe or otherwise build around the game’s story.

A Halo movie could, for example, focus on Sgt Johnson and only tangentially intersect with the Master Chief’s story.

locked

4097 views

In my opinion, the best games to adapt would be:

1. Games that lack the visual fidelity of film language.
2. Games with good stories based on more than just physical conflict (although that can be an element).
3. Games that don't really have business being games in the first place.

4. Don’t adapt the game’s story, build a new story in the same universe or otherwise build around the game’s story.

A Halo movie could, for example, focus on Sgt Johnson and only tangentially intersect with the Master Chief’s story.

So you walk in to the theatre not having played Halo. You don't know who this guy is and why he's important. The people who do have to sit through it being explained to them.

A movie has to work without you knowing anything else.

TV shows have kind of been more successful in this regard since there's more time for non gamers to absorb all that. The Sonic shows (Adventures and SatAM), did basically what you describe. Adventures was less story heavy, but had better animation and funny visual gags, while SatAM was more boring visually but had a more involved story. Ironically as an adult, Adventures holds up better despite being the more 'kiddie' version, because of the animator's talents.

[image]

locked

4101 views

Adventures had better animation than SatAM? Now, granted, I haven’t watched either in more years than I’d like to admit, but I recall Adventures being very “cartoony” with lower detail characters, less detailed backgrounds, and stretchy artwork (as your gif shows). While SatAM, as I recall it in my mind’s eyes, had more complex... well, everything. Characters, background, effects, stories, etc.

How terribly am I misremembering? (I’m hoping for a comprehensive visual compare and contrast :p)

In the meantime, I’ll just leave these here, because childhood:

locked

4132 views

Animation is about motion. Adventures characters moved way better, and they did tons of visual gags, precisely because it was more cartoony. If you are in to animation as an artform, it's just way better on that front. Many of the animators previously worked under Don Bluth and Ralph Bakshi, so they definitely had talent.

locked

4090 views

So you walk in to the theatre not having played Halo. You don't know who this guy is and why he's important. The people who do have to sit through it being explained to them.

A movie has to work without you knowing anything else.

I don’t understand why you think that would be hard. I saw Star Wars without knowing why Luke Skywalker was important. That movie did an alright job explaining it. That was his point—you tell a new story with familiar characters and everybody wins.

locked

4084 views

So you walk in to the theatre not having played Halo. You don't know who this guy is and why he's important. The people who do have to sit through it being explained to them.

A movie has to work without you knowing anything else.

I don’t understand why you think that would be hard. I saw Star Wars without knowing why Luke Skywalker was important. That movie did an alright job explaining it. That was his point—you tell a new story with familiar characters and everybody wins.

I think it’s an issue of fragmenting the story.

Using Halo as an example... if you’re making a movie about Johnson, or a new character(s) in the UNSC or something like that, you can’t really throw Chief in as a background character without opening a whole can of worms about what Spartans are, why they can do the things that they do, why everyone reacts the way they do when they see one, etc. It’s like a plot-wormhole that sucks in all this extra time and explaination and detracts from the actual story that was being told in the first place. It’s such a substantial and complex piece of the world that you kinda need to tell it properly as it’s own story, or just not go there at all.

That, or Chief just gets thrown in as a background character who does something awesome with no explaination, which basically boils down to cheap fan service at the expense of the story. Nothing breaks a viewer’s emmersion like having the film scream at them “Hey, if you knew about this universe then what you’re seeing right now would be really cool, but you don’t so lol FU!” (Side note: this exact point is why I think Rogue One is by far the worst Star Wars movie, and why that scene at the end that everyone flips out about is the worst part of the whole movie).

So it really depends on the specific characters and stories that we’re talking about. To run with Star Wars a bit longer, it made perfect sense to have Chewbacca appear in Episode 3. It’s logical that he would have been on Kashyk at that time, and if you know who he is then you get a nice moment of recognition, But if you aren’t familiar with him, you lose nothing.

locked

4102 views

I felt like they handled it pretty well in Forward Unto Dawn, though it's been awhile so maybe I'm mis-remembering. The main problem there was the chief felt fake because his movements didn't look natural at all. In the end I don't think you really need too much explanation about the spartans, just basically treat them like a special forces unit and people will understand all they need to know for the story. If people want to know more they can look it up online later or play the games.

locked

4075 views

I felt like they handled it pretty well in Forward Unto Dawn, though it's been awhile so maybe I'm mis-remembering. The main problem there was the chief felt fake because his movements didn't look natural at all. In the end I don't think you really need too much explanation about the spartans, just basically treat them like a special forces unit and people will understand all they need to know for the story. If people want to know more they can look it up online later or play the games.

Yeah I though Forward Unto Dawn handled that aspect pretty well, too. To your point, they thought about which information was really crucial to the story they were telling, and didn't get bogged down in anything else.

Side-note: Funny thing about that suit... when I got to see it in person on the set, the first thought I had was "It's so rubbery!". I was so worried about how it would end up looking on camera, but I thought it actually looked great on screen. That is, aside from the movement, lol

locked

4049 views

- No text -

locked

4040 views

This post is gonna have major Rogue One spoilers...

So, that final scene. On its own, in a vacuum, its awesome. Its the scene every Star Wars fan has wanted to see for 30+ years.

But...

In the context of the greater film, it makes no sense. It comes completely out of left field, builds upon nothing, resolves nothing, develops nothing... it is pure, unapologetic fan service, and absolutely nothing more.

The only reason anyone likes that scene is because of a bunch of other movies that make us feel like Darth Vader is awesome and/or scary, whatever. But that's why I have such a problem with it, and most of R1 in general. It's basically "Fan Service: The Movie". And that scene is the most egregious example.

What makes it so frustrating for me, however, is that it was so close to be genuinely awesome.

About 6 months before the release of the film, I read an interview with one of the producers (can't find it right now, but I'll try to track it down). At one point, when asked about Darth Vader's role in the film, the producer said something to the effect of: It's a small, but significant role. At this point in the story, Vader isn't exactly public knowledge. He's kinda like the boogie man. Nobody in the rebellion is even sure if he's real. So he's basically this shadowy figure looming in the background.

^^^ THIS NEEDED TO BE IN THE MOVIE ^^^

All it would have taken would be a couple lines of dialog at one or two points in the film about some kind of rumors of this dark figure working for the empire... about this masked man who can do impossible things, but nobody has seen him and lived to tell about it. We needed to know that the Rebels don't exactly know who he is or if he's even real. Imagine then how that final scene would hit, with that context created. Not only would it have been a cool action sequence (which is all that it is now), but it would have hit like a truck as the rebels face their true nemesis for the first time, and realize exactly how terrifying their enemy actually is as they just barely escape with their lives.

With that context, the scene is not only cool for star wars fans, but actually means something to the story of the film itself. It becomes a major emotional moment and turning point for the characters involved, rather than just an action set piece. But that context never made it into the movie.

locked

4072 views

About 6 months before the release of the film, I read an interview with one of the producers (can't find it right now, but I'll try to track it down). At one point, when asked about Darth Vader's role in the film, the producer said something to the effect of: It's a small, but significant role. At this point in the story, Vader isn't exactly public knowledge. He's kinda like the boogie man. Nobody in the rebellion is even sure if he's real. So he's basically this shadowy figure looming in the background.

Except, ya know, A New Hope established him as someone who was clearly known about, and who had a reputation. It was also clear that even he was subordinate to the Imperial Senate.

"Lord Vader, I should have known. Only you could be so bold."

locked

4065 views

About 6 months before the release of the film, I read an interview with one of the producers (can't find it right now, but I'll try to track it down). At one point, when asked about Darth Vader's role in the film, the producer said something to the effect of: It's a small, but significant role. At this point in the story, Vader isn't exactly public knowledge. He's kinda like the boogie man. Nobody in the rebellion is even sure if he's real. So he's basically this shadowy figure looming in the background.

Except, ya know, A New Hope established him as someone who was clearly known about, and who had a reputation. It was also clear that even he was subordinate to the Imperial Senate.

"Lord Vader, I should have known. Only you could be so bold."

Right... we care about him because of previous movies. But there is nothing done in this movie to justify his inclusion, other than some lightsaber porn.

I'm totally cool if the filmmakers are going to say "look, this movie is just one part of a long, complex series of movies, so don't expect us to explain everything or who everyone is". That's totally cool. I can run with that. But each movie in such a franchise still needs to tell a compelling and complete story. If you're going to include characters, the writers need to come up with a good reason for them to be there. Make them a real part of the story in this movie. I've said before that R1 feels like fan fiction to me, and a big part of that is that the filmmakers treat the pre-existing characters like mountains that can't be moved or changed, and they're just included so that the new characters can smash off of them or swerve around them. They want to reap all the coolness benefits of having Darth Vader in their movie without doing anything risky like treating him like an actual character.

locked

4062 views

About 6 months before the release of the film, I read an interview with one of the producers (can't find it right now, but I'll try to track it down). At one point, when asked about Darth Vader's role in the film, the producer said something to the effect of: It's a small, but significant role. At this point in the story, Vader isn't exactly public knowledge. He's kinda like the boogie man. Nobody in the rebellion is even sure if he's real. So he's basically this shadowy figure looming in the background.

Except, ya know, A New Hope established him as someone who was clearly known about, and who had a reputation. It was also clear that even he was subordinate to the Imperial Senate.

"Lord Vader, I should have known. Only you could be so bold."

Right... we care about him because of previous movies. But there is nothing done in this movie to justify his inclusion, other than some lightsaber porn.

I'm totally cool if the filmmakers are going to say "look, this movie is just one part of a long, complex series of movies, so don't expect us to explain everything or who everyone is". That's totally cool. I can run with that. But each movie in such a franchise still needs to tell a compelling and complete story. If you're going to include characters, the writers need to come up with a good reason for them to be there.

Right, but Vader's appearance in the end of the film is set up in the minutes leading up to it. It's stated that he's going to be the one taking care of the rebels in space, and when his ship shows up, it's massive and powerful. It's an "oh crap" moment in and of itself. That he appears again isn't out of nowhere, as his presence has been established and felt.

You could make the argument about his appearance earlier in the film when Krennic visits Vader on Mustafar. But the Star Wars series always does this. When the Emperor showed up in A New Hope, did we have an explained reason to care? When he showed up in Phantom Menace?
What about Snoke? Or almost literally everyone in The Force Awakens? Leia especially just shows up and everyone moves on. Why should we care about this character? The film assumes you do, and moves on. So I don't think the Rogue One ending is any more "egregious" about it than everything else in that film or franchise...

locked

4049 views

Vader was poorly handled. I agree with Cruel.

If it had that aspect of him as the shadowy figure, AND he was the one chasing them down it would have been great. When they were trying to transmit the plans, it should have been Vader landing and hunting them down. It’d be a foregone conclusion he’d kill them, the the tension is how do they transmit the plans before Vader wipes them out?

That race against time could have been really tense.

locked

3783 views

I'm totally cool if the filmmakers are going to say "look, this movie is just one part of a long, complex series of movies, so don't expect us to explain everything or who everyone is". That's totally cool. I can run with that. But each movie in such a franchise still needs to tell a compelling and complete story.

This is a huge problem with many Netflix or 'bingeable' shows. Because they expect people to watch more than one, they really often forget to make each episode meaningful on its own and tell a complete story. Worse, you sometimes have a 2 hour story stretched out to 8 hours with tons of wheel spinning (Stranger Things Season 1, Luke Cage, and many others) in order to make the episode requirement.

locked

3770 views

Except, ya know, A New Hope established him as someone who was clearly known about, and who had a reputation. It was also clear that even he was subordinate to the Imperial Senate.

"Lord Vader, I should have known. Only you could be so bold."

That is as an officer, not necessarily as a combatant. You can't brush off his existence, but you could definitely hype up the mysticism around him and as Cruel pointed out, with very little intervention to the story being told.

locked

4007 views

This post is gonna have major Rogue One spoilers...

So, that final scene. On its own, in a vacuum, its awesome. Its the scene every Star Wars fan has wanted to see for 30+ years.

But...

In the context of the greater film, it makes no sense. It comes completely out of left field, builds upon nothing, resolves nothing, develops nothing... it is pure, unapologetic fan service, and absolutely nothing more.

The only reason anyone likes that scene is because of a bunch of other movies that make us feel like Darth Vader is awesome and/or scary, whatever. But that's why I have such a problem with it, and most of R1 in general. It's basically "Fan Service: The Movie". And that scene is the most egregious example.

What makes it so frustrating for me, however, is that it was so close to be genuinely awesome.

About 6 months before the release of the film, I read an interview with one of the producers (can't find it right now, but I'll try to track it down). At one point, when asked about Darth Vader's role in the film, the producer said something to the effect of: It's a small, but significant role. At this point in the story, Vader isn't exactly public knowledge. He's kinda like the boogie man. Nobody in the rebellion is even sure if he's real. So he's basically this shadowy figure looming in the background.

^^^ THIS NEEDED TO BE IN THE MOVIE ^^^

All it would have taken would be a couple lines of dialog at one or two points in the film about some kind of rumors of this dark figure working for the empire... about this masked man who can do impossible things, but nobody has seen him and lived to tell about it. We needed to know that the Rebels don't exactly know who he is or if he's even real. Imagine then how that final scene would hit, with that context created. Not only would it have been a cool action sequence (which is all that it is now), but it would have hit like a truck as the rebels face their true nemesis for the first time, and realize exactly how terrifying their enemy actually is as they just barely escape with their lives.

With that context, the scene is not only cool for star wars fans, but actually means something to the story of the film itself. It becomes a major emotional moment and turning point for the characters involved, rather than just an action set piece. But that context never made it into the movie.

I enjoyed Rogue One for what it was--mostly lost footage in relation to Star Wars (when I say Star Wars I mean A New Hope). There is a question that should be asked about all Star Wars movies now, which is why make them? The one good reason to make a Star Wars movie is to tell a good story, and Rogue One barely passes the test mainly by doing no harm. There are many not very good reasons to make these movies: to make a buck, to provide fan service, or to "update" them with nods to trendy cultural issues. You can accomplish the latter while avoiding the fan service issue with a kind of anti-fan service: just subvert or ignore the timeless mythological elements that made the original movies so good. Did I mention that I saw The Last Jedi again?

locked

4031 views

I enjoyed Rogue One for what it was--mostly lost footage in relation to Star Wars (when I say Star Wars I mean A New Hope). There is a question that should be asked about all Star Wars movies now, which is why make them? The one good reason to make a Star Wars movie is to tell a good story, and Rogue One barely passes the test mainly by doing no harm. There are many not very good reasons to make these movies: to make a buck, to provide fan service, or to "update" them with nods to trendy cultural issues. You can accomplish the latter while avoiding the fan service issue with a kind of anti-fan service: just subvert or ignore the timeless mythological elements that made the original movies so good. Did I mention that I saw The Last Jedi again?

lol... I was just about to post about The Last Jedi, because I just watched it again too :)

I know we won't see eye to eye on this one, and that's cool. I do still think that it actually holds on to those mythological elements that made the originals great, just while addressing the messy transitional processes that the previous versions perhaps glossed over. I'm curious, what "trendy cultural issues" do you feel TLJ was paying service to? And you may have covered this in other posts (so don't worry about responding if its all covered territory) but what mythological elements do you feel it ignored?

In my eyes, all the classic Star Wars elements are there, but there are just more growing pains as characters step into their roles. We're seeing the young characters make some fairly substantial blunders on their way to becoming heroes, and the older characters are having trouble hanging onto the victories of their youth. But in the end, all the traditional mythological elements are there as far as I can see. Just my take :)

locked

3996 views

I enjoyed Rogue One for what it was--mostly lost footage in relation to Star Wars (when I say Star Wars I mean A New Hope). There is a question that should be asked about all Star Wars movies now, which is why make them? The one good reason to make a Star Wars movie is to tell a good story, and Rogue One barely passes the test mainly by doing no harm. There are many not very good reasons to make these movies: to make a buck, to provide fan service, or to "update" them with nods to trendy cultural issues. You can accomplish the latter while avoiding the fan service issue with a kind of anti-fan service: just subvert or ignore the timeless mythological elements that made the original movies so good. Did I mention that I saw The Last Jedi again?

lol... I was just about to post about The Last Jedi, because I just watched it again too :)

I know we won't see eye to eye on this one, and that's cool. I do still think that it actually holds on to those mythological elements that made the originals great, just while addressing the messy transitional processes that the previous versions perhaps glossed over. I'm curious, what "trendy cultural issues" do you feel TLJ was paying service to? And you may have covered this in other posts (so don't worry about responding if its all covered territory) but what mythological elements do you feel it ignored?

In my eyes, all the classic Star Wars elements are there, but there are just more growing pains as characters step into their roles. We're seeing the young characters make some fairly substantial blunders on their way to becoming heroes, and the older characters are having trouble hanging onto the victories of their youth. But in the end, all the traditional mythological elements are there as far as I can see. Just my take :)

I think there are basic problems with how the story is told--that's a primary point. In my opinion, young Luke's transition to the old Luke we see in the film isn't given a believable exposition. The significance of this faux paux cannot be overstated.

To answer your specific question, I'll give one example: there seems to be an intent to highlight "toxic masculinity" (a trendy construct that assumes toxicity is gendered) and to shame male attempts at boldness or sacrifice, which are traditional mythological tropes. Luke's sacrifice seems begrudging and obligatory in this context and anti-climatic to boot. Where the movie gets the mythological elements right is with Kylo Ren's internal conflict, which is part of why those are the most compelling moments of the film for me. They are so brief and so quickly forgotten, however, that those scenes in retrospect seem weightless. I definitely got the impression that Rian Johnson is playing with the elements, but it's like someone who hasn't seen a face is given a Mr. Potato Head and proceeds to attach features willy nilly.

locked

4024 views

I enjoyed Rogue One for what it was--mostly lost footage in relation to Star Wars (when I say Star Wars I mean A New Hope). There is a question that should be asked about all Star Wars movies now, which is why make them? The one good reason to make a Star Wars movie is to tell a good story, and Rogue One barely passes the test mainly by doing no harm. There are many not very good reasons to make these movies: to make a buck, to provide fan service, or to "update" them with nods to trendy cultural issues. You can accomplish the latter while avoiding the fan service issue with a kind of anti-fan service: just subvert or ignore the timeless mythological elements that made the original movies so good. Did I mention that I saw The Last Jedi again?

lol... I was just about to post about The Last Jedi, because I just watched it again too :)

I know we won't see eye to eye on this one, and that's cool. I do still think that it actually holds on to those mythological elements that made the originals great, just while addressing the messy transitional processes that the previous versions perhaps glossed over. I'm curious, what "trendy cultural issues" do you feel TLJ was paying service to? And you may have covered this in other posts (so don't worry about responding if its all covered territory) but what mythological elements do you feel it ignored?

In my eyes, all the classic Star Wars elements are there, but there are just more growing pains as characters step into their roles. We're seeing the young characters make some fairly substantial blunders on their way to becoming heroes, and the older characters are having trouble hanging onto the victories of their youth. But in the end, all the traditional mythological elements are there as far as I can see. Just my take :)

I think there are basic problems with how the story is told--that's a primary point. In my opinion, young Luke's transition to the old Luke we see in the film isn't given a believable exposition. The significance of this faux paux cannot be overstated.

To answer your specific question, I'll give one example: there seems to be an intent to highlight "toxic masculinity" (a trendy construct that assumes toxicity is gendered) and to shame male attempts at boldness or sacrifice, which are traditional mythological tropes. Luke's sacrifice seems begrudging and obligatory in this context and anti-climatic to boot. Where the movie gets the mythological elements right is with Kylo Ren's internal conflict, which is part of why those are the most compelling moments of the film for me. They are so brief and so quickly forgotten, however, that those scenes in retrospect seem weightless. I definitely got the impression that Rian Johnson is playing with the elements, but it's like someone who hasn't seen a face is given a Mr. Potato Head and proceeds to attach features willy nilly.

That’s interesting... I fully agree that Kylo embodies the most classic elements of hero mythology, but nothing about it felt weightless to me. Kylo’s personal arch and his relationship with Rey is the driving force behind this new trilogy, IMO. Not only that, but out of this whole new generation of characters, Kylo by the end of TLJ is the most secure and confident in his path and identity. He’s freed himself fully from the oppression of his own insecurities, and that aspect of him isn’t vilified, it’s actually the thing about him that keeps him sympathetic and relatable even as he’s trying to murder the heros, which is a fascinating tightrope for a movie like Star Wars to play with, and I think they’re doing so successfully. I also love the way Rey learns from Kylo’s example, even as they drift further in opposite directions. She’s able to look at Kylo and recognize what is great and strong within him without buying into everything else that he’s selling, which I think is a valuable form of both intelligence and morality to show.

As far as the “toxic masculinity” aspect goes, which part of the movie hit that note for you? We certainly see Poe’s stereotypical swashbuckling (and stereotypically male) heroic antics get dressed down. Is that what you’re referring to? If so, I saw that as part of the process of Poe learning the lessons necessary of true leadership. This could just be me allowing my knowledge of the outside world (specifically Carrie’s death) influence my interpretation, but there seems to be a very intentional “passing of the torch” from Leia to Poe over the course of the film. She’s hard on him early because his actions show a lack of consideration for the big picture. But by the end, when every natural instinct he has is screaming to run out and join Luke, he’s able to grasp the bigger picture and the true reason for Luke’s actions. And that’s the exact moment when Leia says “don’t look at me... follow him!”. In my mind it had nothing to do with admonishing masculinity, and everything to do with the way one needs to change when their responsibilities grow to include taking care of others.

Of course, if you weren’t talking about Poe, then you can disregard all that ;p

locked

3990 views

So, two things that are important:

To answer your specific question, I'll give one example: there seems to be an intent to highlight "toxic masculinity" (a trendy construct that assumes toxicity is gendered)

The concept of toxic masculinity isn't "a trendy construct" nor does it assume that toxicity is gendered. Toxic masculinity is a very specific type of toxicity that is conditioned and trained into those who identify/present as male which has far reaching and vast negative consequences on their physical, emotional, and psychological health while also being detrimental to other facets of society in a far reaching nature. One can have masculinity without having it be toxic masculinity. The only examples that play up actual toxic masculinity in TLJ are from villains.

and to shame male attempts at boldness or sacrifice, which are traditional mythological tropes.

Which is totally in line with the traditional mythological tropes. There are three examples which normally get highlighted in these discussions regarding TLJ, Poe twice and Fynn once, as "masculine suppression" or however one would like to phrase it. All three of these are in direct contrast to Luke's sacrifice, which is actually not his death, as that is incidental.

1. Poe disobeys a direct order from a superior officer resulting in a Pyrrhic victory, which was otherwise avoidable.
2. Poe disregards appropriate protocol, continues disobedience of a superior, puts a plan in motion that gets a bunch of other people killed which would otherwise have been avoidable.
3. Fynn attempts to sacrifice himself in an effort to, umm, let me check my notes here . . . get killed accomplishing nothing but probably also making Poe and Rey really, really sad.

Hubris, hubris, and a reinterpretation of earlier cowardice. These are still in line with the mythological themes which were so interwoven into the core of the Original Trilogy. And in all three cases events which allowed for substantially more character growth which is also an important aspect of trials in traditional myth. I would say generally TLJ does a better job of supporting the mythological elements than TFA or quite a few large portions of the PT.

locked

3972 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics. This is precisely why the film has been so praised as being a product of our time and having important things to say, but this privileging of message over story is also why 40 years from now it will seem, unlike the original Star Wars, embarrassingly dated.

locked

3866 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics. This is precisely why the film has been so praised as being a product of our time and having important things to say, but this privileging of message over story is also why 40 years from now it will seem, unlike the original Star Wars, embarrassingly dated.

I don’t think the female characters were written as purely wise and heroic. Rey is certainly on that path, but still hesitant and full of doubt at times. And Holdo, although certainly heroic, helped create the situation with Poe that almost wiped out the Rebellion. The only other female characters in the film that I can remember are Phasma, Rose, that younger Rebel officer who helps Poe, and Leia.

locked

3855 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics. This is precisely why the film has been so praised as being a product of our time and having important things to say, but this privileging of message over story is also why 40 years from now it will seem, unlike the original Star Wars, embarrassingly dated.

I don’t think the female characters were written as purely wise and heroic.

Eh, close enough for government work, especially in contrast to the male characters. I don't really count Phasma. She's little more than--how shall I say?--toy service.

locked

3834 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics. This is precisely why the film has been so praised as being a product of our time and having important things to say, but this privileging of message over story is also why 40 years from now it will seem, unlike the original Star Wars, embarrassingly dated.

I don’t think the female characters were written as purely wise and heroic.

Eh, close enough for government work, especially in contrast to the male characters. I don't really count Phasma. She's little more than--how shall I say?--toy service.

Heh, I’m with you on Phasma :)

Staying on that track just a bit longer though, what female characters were portrayed as other than wise and heroic in ANH? Or ESB? Or RotJ? I’m purely working from memory here, so I might be missing something, but I don’t remember any female characters in the OT aside from Leia, and a short list of background characters with 1-2 lines (like Luke’s Aunt).
I’m not in favour of doing a head count and making sure male and female characters match up exactly, but the OT was clearly 1-sided in that regard. Now we have some female characters, and they’re all on the good guys’ team. So, like everyone on that team, they’re generally portrayed as wise and/or heroic, but so are most of the male characters. Is the problem that we don’t have a female counterpoint? That the villains are all male?

locked

3808 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics. This is precisely why the film has been so praised as being a product of our time and having important things to say, but this privileging of message over story is also why 40 years from now it will seem, unlike the original Star Wars, embarrassingly dated.

I don’t think the female characters were written as purely wise and heroic.

Eh, close enough for government work, especially in contrast to the male characters. I don't really count Phasma. She's little more than--how shall I say?--toy service.

Heh, I’m with you on Phasma :)

Staying on that track just a bit longer though, what female characters were portrayed as other than wise and heroic in ANH? Or ESB? Or RotJ? I’m purely working from memory here, so I might be missing something, but I don’t remember any female characters in the OT aside from Leia, and a short list of background characters with 1-2 lines (like Luke’s Aunt).
I’m not in favour of doing a head count and making sure male and female characters match up exactly, but the OT was clearly 1-sided in that regard. Now we have some female characters, and they’re all on the good guys’ team. So, like everyone on that team, they’re generally portrayed as wise and/or heroic, but so are most of the male characters. Is the problem that we don’t have a female counterpoint? That the villains are all male?

I'm not interested in a head count of representative genders (that is exactly what identity politics demands), but let's just take a sequence from ANH. Leia has to be rescued from her jail cell, but she in turn has to rescue the group from the gunfight in the hallway, which in turn puts them all in the situation of needing rescue from the garbage compactor, which Luke does by acting on the idea to call 3P0 and having him shut it off. There is a sequence of events no one can foresee, all are given chances to act heroically, and no gender is portrayed as particularly troubled or bumbling. They are types, to be sure, but they're also unique individuals who bring elements to the table without which the fight would be lost. They are a group learning to work together, getting the opportunity to develop and demonstrate their unique talents. Throughout the original series they all are shown to be vulnerable, they take risks, they suffer. They rescue and are rescued. Leia depends on Luke and Han and they depend on her. That's true to the human experience and true to mythological archetypes.

What's problematic in the new films is a tendency to show female characters as strong and independent not to serve the plot of the film but (I contend) to serve the narrative of a popular ideology. It's one reason Rey doesn't seem three-dimensional. She supposedly needs to be taught by Luke but she seems to do more teaching than he does. She has no interest in love. Leia takes her hand at the end and says "We have all we need." There are no downsides to the feminine. Male heroics are wrong-headed, ineffectual, or a parlor trick that distracts long enough for Rey to demonstrate her power and save the day. (It doesn't hurt that in the process she can undercut Luke's instruction by lifting rocks).

I admired Leia in the first trilogy because she was strong and not a weak, dependent damsel in distress. I certainly considered myself a feminist back then. I think we've moved to something else, but to discuss this more would involve breaking some rules about what we're allowed to discuss here. Best to leave it alone.

locked

3804 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics. This is precisely why the film has been so praised as being a product of our time and having important things to say, but this privileging of message over story is also why 40 years from now it will seem, unlike the original Star Wars, embarrassingly dated.

I don’t think the female characters were written as purely wise and heroic.

Eh, close enough for government work, especially in contrast to the male characters. I don't really count Phasma. She's little more than--how shall I say?--toy service.

The young female officer on the bridge is not purely wise or heroic. She lies to the admiral about the shuttle launch and she actively participates in the mutiny going so far to raise her weapon against her commanding officer(s). The only difference is that her behavior is not called to attention the same way Poe’s are.

locked

3799 views

Eh, close enough for government work, especially in contrast to the male characters. I don't really count Phasma. She's little more than--how shall I say?--toy service.

Yes, because Boba Fett - everyone's favorite, was so much more developed. (◔_◔)

locked

3775 views

What you see as toxic identity politics, I see as just characters failing and learning on their way to being leaders. The fact that they’re men is incidental. The folks complaining about toxic identity politics are the ones making it about identity politics as far as I can tell.

No offense meant Kermit. If that’s how you feel, I respect it. I just don’t buy it myself.

locked

3791 views

What you see as toxic identity politics, I see as just characters failing and learning on their way to being leaders. The fact that they’re men is incidental. The folks complaining about toxic identity politics are the ones making it about identity politics as far as I can tell.

No offense meant Kermit. If that’s how you feel, I respect it. I just don’t buy it myself.

Maybe you don't, and that's fine. A good number of folks have praised the film for its identity politics, too. It's not just visible to those who dislike it.

locked

3795 views

I think the difference is that the praise (that I’ve seen anyway) is that Rey (and even Holdo and obviously Leia) is a strong female character, and not praise for the fact that they intentionally made the men fuck-ups as some sort of commentary. That’s not the important part—they didn’t make mistakes to put men down, they did so because it served the story they were telling. Every character in the movie is obviously flawed.

Obviously it’s not black and white, it’s just not an argument I can really listen to in good faith. Maybe that makes me a dickhead I don’t know. But it makes me roll my eyes a bit.

locked

3780 views

I think the difference is that the praise (that I’ve seen anyway) is that Rey (and even Holdo and obviously Leia) is a strong female character, and not praise for the fact that they intentionally made the men fuck-ups as some sort of commentary. That’s not the important part—they didn’t make mistakes to put men down, they did so because it served the story they were telling. Every character in the movie is obviously flawed.

I guess it's not apparent to me what the principal female characters' flaws are. And maybe you haven't read the same articles I have, that take such delight in seeing the women educating the men. It's not that I'm the least bit offended by women educating men. Men need educating by women, but the reverse is also true. I don't recall any significant reciprocity represented in the TLJ--it's nearly all in one direction. Compound that with actual content of what the characters say. Leia's get your head out of your cockpit is clever and in character, but there's no Han to balance it. Rose's "protect what we love" speech is the nadir in my eyes. It's vacuous, and makes no sense given events that just happened in the film!

Obviously it’s not black and white, it’s just not an argument I can really listen to in good faith. Maybe that makes me a dickhead I don’t know. But it makes me roll my eyes a bit.

I gave one example of serving trendy cultural narratives instead of mythological narratives to satisfy Cruel, but there are more. The bottom line is the movie just didn't hold together for me as a story--I often couldn't believe the characters would act the way they acted and several plot lines ended up being a waste of time unless you're on board (consciously or subconsciously) with the political messages those sections communicated. I can understand the arguments that I'm reading too much into it, but again, I can point to one think piece after another praising the movie for its politics. If politics are the motivation for creating your art, it's not art.

A key to the popularity of the original movies were their timelessness. Now I fear that the preoccupation is with making them timely.

locked

3788 views

Rey’s entire arc is learning from two different men, though?????

locked

3756 views

Rey’s entire arc is learning from two different men, though?????

Okay, educate me. What did she learn, and what is her arc?

locked

3776 views

I just wanted to step in and say that I’m sorry—I didn’t mean to come off as dismissive as I probably did.

I’ll be watching the movie again soon when it gets released in a week (can’t wait to get my hands on the UHD version). Maybe I’ll have some better thoughts then.

I will say, you present good arguments. To be honest though, saying you just can’t believe character motivations (or lack thereof) is a much stronger argument than bringing up gender politics for me. I can’t and won’t deny that there are undoubtedly gender politics in the film, but you are reading into that much more than I am. And it’s very difficult to decipher intent, I think, so it’s an area of debate I just don’t find particularly compelling or beneficial.

Also, I must admit, I’m just not very critical in general. Lots of people look at Luke’s attitude and depiction in TLJ and can’t reconcile how he got there from the Luke we saw in the OT. I’m totally willing to just accept that unseen and largely unexplained character development. Just like I’m willing to accept Snoke just being another dude that seized the opportunity in the power vacuum.

locked

3730 views

I just wanted to step in and say that I’m sorry—I didn’t mean to come off as dismissive as I probably did.

I’ll be watching the movie again soon when it gets released in a week (can’t wait to get my hands on the UHD version). Maybe I’ll have some better thoughts then.

I will say, you present good arguments. To be honest though, saying you just can’t believe character motivations (or lack thereof) is a much stronger argument than bringing up gender politics for me. I can’t and won’t deny that there are undoubtedly gender politics in the film, but you are reading into that much more than I am. And it’s very difficult to decipher intent, I think, so it’s an area of debate I just don’t find particularly compelling or beneficial.

Also, I must admit, I’m just not very critical in general. Lots of people look at Luke’s attitude and depiction in TLJ and can’t reconcile how he got there from the Luke we saw in the OT. I’m totally willing to just accept that unseen and largely unexplained character development. Just like I’m willing to accept Snoke just being another dude that seized the opportunity in the power vacuum.

My confession: I did like it better on second viewing. After my first viewing I was confused and ambivalent. It's the best looking Star Wars ever, but it wouldn't let me turn off my critical brain. It seemed calculated to frustrate expectations, maliciously so. And I just couldn't buy Luke, whose instincts to help and pursue the good had been so intrinsic to who he was. What the second viewing bought me is a clearer understanding of the plot. That helped me enjoy it, but I thought a lot about one of the first posts I made here about it, where I said I don't know why they're making these movies now, and they don't seem influenced by Joseph Campbell's work on archetypal stories the way the first one was. Star Wars got me interested in Campbell, and then Jung, and many other things besides. And I was reading something recently about archetypal stories that made this point: you remember them! That's how they got to be archetypal stories in the first place. I have trouble keeping TLJ in my mind. There are many reasons that could be. I understand why people like the movie. I especially understand why people who haven't cared that much the universe before now like it in that it's being topical about things they care about right now.
I care about those things, too (although I might not agree on the diagnoses or prescriptions). For me Star Wars was always about something bigger, more fundamental to the human experience than our current named obsessions. It was both an escape from 1970s ennui, and a reminder of higher, more transcendent values. We have such an divided culture right now. I guess part of my disappointment was not wanting Star Wars to become another thing we fight over--another weapon in the culture war.

locked

3720 views

where I said I don't know why they're making these movies now, and they don't seem influenced by Joseph Campbell's work on archetypal stories the way the first one was. Star Wars got me interested in Campbell, and then Jung, and many other things besides.

Does a Star Wars movie have to follow that mold to be a Star Wars movie? I wasn't even alive when Star Wars released, so I don't necessarily have the connection to it the way many people do. That said, it is very important to me, and my childhood and my development and interest in storytelling in general. Star Wars led me to sci-fi (even though it's really fantasy, yeah, I know), to Ender's Game, to Dune, to The Lord of the Rings, to a love for reading and stories in general. I'm willing to see a Star Wars story not follow Campbell, but I can at least fathom the argument that Campbell and Star Wars go hand in hand, that maybe they're inseparable.

And I was reading something recently about archetypal stories that made this point: you remember them! That's how they got to be archetypal stories in the first place. I have trouble keeping TLJ in my mind.

You're not wrong there, either. I saw it twice within the first few weeks of it being in theaters, but haven't seen it since, and I do have trouble remembering the details. There is a lot going on in that movie, perhaps to its detriment.

For me Star Wars was always about something bigger, more fundamental to the human experience than our current named obsessions. It was both an escape from 1970s ennui, and a reminder of higher, more transcendent values. We have such an divided culture right now.

I think the new era of Star Wars does the same thing, though. It's not about gender politics (although, yes, those are obviously there), but about love and equality and self-confidence and fighting for what's right and personal growth and teamwork. Those things are as timeless as they always have been and they always will be.

I guess part of my disappointment was not wanting Star Wars to become another thing we fight over--another weapon in the culture war.

I want to say it only becomes that if you let it, but I don't know if that's really true. I do think that The Last Jedi is less concerned with being that than some folks want to admit. Maybe that's not true either, though.

locked

3789 views

My confession: I did like it better on second viewing. After my first viewing I was confused and ambivalent. It's the best looking Star Wars ever, but it wouldn't let me turn off my critical brain. It seemed calculated to frustrate expectations, maliciously so. And I just couldn't buy Luke, whose instincts to help and pursue the good had been so intrinsic to who he was.

Did you not pay attention in Jedi?! Luke goes full on dark side as he rages at Vader and cuts off his hand. Watch the scene again. He's just wailing on him in anger. Thankfully for him he realized this and stopped himself, but it's very clear he has darkness in him.

What the second viewing bought me is a clearer understanding of the plot. That helped me enjoy it, but I thought a lot about one of the first posts I made here about it, where I said I don't know why they're making these movies now, and they don't seem influenced by Joseph Campbell's work on archetypal stories the way the first one was. Star Wars got me interested in Campbell, and then Jung, and many other things besides. And I was reading something recently about archetypal stories that made this point: you remember them! That's how they got to be archetypal stories in the first place.

Why is this important? Campbell's Hero's Journey is not a blueprint. It's a form based on the dramatic principles of storytelling. The underlying dramatic principles are what's important, not the form. It's a description of the similarity in forms that have worked before. That doesn't mean it's the only way, nor is it even the best way. I remember plenty of stories that do not fit into those molds.

I care about those things, too (although I might not agree on the diagnoses or prescriptions). For me Star Wars was always about something bigger, more fundamental to the human experience than our current named obsessions. It was both an escape from 1970s ennui, and a reminder of higher, more transcendent values. We have such an divided culture right now. I guess part of my disappointment was not wanting Star Wars to become another thing we fight over--another weapon in the culture war.

This is because there is a sickness within geek culture in general. It's not the film's fault.

locked

3780 views

My confession: I did like it better on second viewing. After my first viewing I was confused and ambivalent. It's the best looking Star Wars ever, but it wouldn't let me turn off my critical brain. It seemed calculated to frustrate expectations, maliciously so. And I just couldn't buy Luke, whose instincts to help and pursue the good had been so intrinsic to who he was.

Did you not pay attention in Jedi?! Luke goes full on dark side as he rages at Vader and cuts off his hand. Watch the scene again. He's just wailing on him in anger. Thankfully for him he realized this and stopped himself, but it's very clear he has darkness in him.

Of course! I take your point, and I didn't mean to imply that he was an angel. But his anger had to be stoked. It wasn't his set point. It was the other side of his passion, a side of it he had to conquer. What was dominant through a big chunk of TLJ were characteristics utterly alien to my understanding of him as a character--apathy and dismissiveness. It was if you took the big five personality traits and inverted at least three of them. THAT's why I'm incredulous.

What the second viewing bought me is a clearer understanding of the plot. That helped me enjoy it, but I thought a lot about one of the first posts I made here about it, where I said I don't know why they're making these movies now, and they don't seem influenced by Joseph Campbell's work on archetypal stories the way the first one was. Star Wars got me interested in Campbell, and then Jung, and many other things besides. And I was reading something recently about archetypal stories that made this point: you remember them! That's how they got to be archetypal stories in the first place.

Why is this important? Campbell's Hero's Journey is not a blueprint. It's a form based on the dramatic principles of storytelling. The underlying dramatic principles are what's important, not the form. It's a description of the similarity in forms that have worked before. That doesn't mean it's the only way, nor is it even the best way. I remember plenty of stories that do not fit into those molds.

Actually, it kind of is a blueprint. It's hardwired into our species if you believe Jung, one of Campbell's primary influences.

I care about those things, too (although I might not agree on the diagnoses or prescriptions). For me Star Wars was always about something bigger, more fundamental to the human experience than our current named obsessions. It was both an escape from 1970s ennui, and a reminder of higher, more transcendent values. We have such an divided culture right now. I guess part of my disappointment was not wanting Star Wars to become another thing we fight over--another weapon in the culture war.

This is because there is a sickness within geek culture in general. It's not the film's fault.

Maybe.

locked

4720 views

Love you all, but I think I've indulged in your attention enough for a while. Peace.

locked

3776 views

- No text -

locked

3758 views

Don't really want to start another debate.

Just wanted to saying I bought the UHD of The Last Jedi. Watched it again last night, and I enjoyed it (it's a gorgeous film, and looks great in 4K HDR).

It also came with a code for a digital version, which I will not use. Does anyone want it? You have to have set up a Movies Anywhere account (whatever the hell that is), and I'm not going to, so it's free for someone here who wants it. E-mail me about it and I'll send the code.

locked

3539 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics.

It's… not an assault on men dude. You are forgetting that the status quo in films has always been to exclusively present the men as wise and heroic, and women as emotional or manipulative. By your logic wouldn't THAT be toxic identity politics in the other direction?

locked

3790 views

Why where those characters written that way whereas the female characters are consistently presented as wise and heroic? Because Joseph Campbell has been jettisoned in favor of promoting what I don't hesitate to call toxic identity politics.

It's… not an assault on men dude. You are forgetting that the status quo in films has always been to exclusively present the men as wise and heroic, and women as emotional or manipulative. By your logic wouldn't THAT be toxic identity politics in the other direction?

That wasn't the status quo for good movies. Good movies portray women and men as they are, and sometimes they're wise and heroic and sometimes they're emotional and manipulative.

locked

3748 views

To answer your specific question, I'll give one example: there seems to be an intent to highlight "toxic masculinity" (a trendy construct that assumes toxicity is gendered) and to shame male attempts at boldness or sacrifice, which are traditional mythological tropes.

Toxic Masculinity does not refer to boldness and sacrifice, both of which are positive aspects. Nobody is shunning that stuff. It's primarily about the stuff like manning up and not crying, not showing weakness, calling people pussies, seeing women as inferior, status through domination, etc.

locked

3754 views

To answer your specific question, I'll give one example: there seems to be an intent to highlight "toxic masculinity" (a trendy construct that assumes toxicity is gendered) and to shame male attempts at boldness or sacrifice, which are traditional mythological tropes.

Toxic Masculinity does not refer to boldness and sacrifice, both of which are positive aspects. Nobody is shunning that stuff. It's primarily about the stuff like manning up and not crying, not showing weakness, calling people pussies, seeing women as inferior, status through domination, etc.

Sure, I know what toxic masculinity is supposed to mean, but the spirit of my comment relates how it's used by more zealous types, i.e., masculine traits are by definition toxic, oppressive, etc. (Also, save the last three, I wouldn't necessarily view your negatives as negative in all contexts.)

locked

3778 views

Not because I want to have a point of conflict and not explicitly directed at you, but because you (and possibly others) may see those items and feel they are not negatives, but the emphasis is on toxicity. I know this is probably more political, but I know that this place has some diverse backgrounds and I think it is important to address.

manning up and not crying

Needing to respond to stress through "dealing with it" especially with the extra verbal implication of "manning" can lead to stunted emotional/social understanding and an internalization of unyielding stoicism which is emotionally and psychologically poisoning to an individual vested in the notion that they must not share emotions (crying is a release, with chemical variance based on the chemical releases it is attempting to flush) for that would make them less. This limits their indulgence or acceptance in positive emotions as well as confronting negative emotions. Without the tool set, support, and understanding to properly handle those circumstances you tend to lead to emotional outbursts or other harmful action/inaction which leads us to . . .

not showing weakness

This compounds itself through gendered insults (Cody's third example) which inherently assume inferiority and negativity to the feminine (a simple comparable to exert strength against so as to avoid displays of weakness) which cyclically supports seeing women as inferior (not even touching on how this supports internalized misogyny in women and young girls) and with a superior/inferior dichotomy established through a need to not show such weakness (specifically publicly) many men who are indoctrinated with toxic masculinity will utilize the implicit or explicit threat of violence (physical, verbal, psychological) to establish and maintain an "alpha" (such a bad term) personality. Generally this is at the expense of female family member's or romantic partner's (who are often subjected to a traditional assumption of being the sole point of emotional support of emotionally stunted men instead of relying on a developed and supportive social group) emotional and psychological well being. Sometimes physical.

I needed to express that because the concept of toxicity is all about volume. There is a volume where both oxygen and water are toxic to humans, even though we require them to live. So even if on their own these concepts don't seem toxic to you, in large doses or in conjunction with other aspects that they often feed into you do result in very obvious toxic behaviors.

This is actually one of the reasons Kylo Ren is a terrible role model and the people who think he needs a redemption arc in IX are some of the most frustrating people to have conversations with about TLJ. Not saying that's you. I just know a lot of people who are pro-Ren or pro-Reylo. /wretch

locked

3613 views

Not because I want to have a point of conflict and not explicitly directed at you, but because you (and possibly others) may see those items and feel they are not negatives, but the emphasis is on toxicity. I know this is probably more political, but I know that this place has some diverse backgrounds and I think it is important to address.

manning up and not crying

Needing to respond to stress through "dealing with it" especially with the extra verbal implication of "manning" can lead to stunted emotional/social understanding and an internalization of unyielding stoicism which is emotionally and psychologically poisoning to an individual vested in the notion that they must not share emotions (crying is a release, with chemical variance based on the chemical releases it is attempting to flush) for that would make them less. This limits their indulgence or acceptance in positive emotions as well as confronting negative emotions. Without the tool set, support, and understanding to properly handle those circumstances you tend to lead to emotional outbursts or other harmful action/inaction which leads us to . . .

not showing weakness

This compounds itself through gendered insults (Cody's third example) which inherently assume inferiority and negativity to the feminine (a simple comparable to exert strength against so as to avoid displays of weakness) which cyclically supports seeing women as inferior (not even touching on how this supports internalized misogyny in women and young girls) and with a superior/inferior dichotomy established through a need to not show such weakness (specifically publicly) many men who are indoctrinated with toxic masculinity will utilize the implicit or explicit threat of violence (physical, verbal, psychological) to establish and maintain an "alpha" (such a bad term) personality. Generally this is at the expense of female family member's or romantic partner's (who are often subjected to a traditional assumption of being the sole point of emotional support of emotionally stunted men instead of relying on a developed and supportive social group) emotional and psychological well being. Sometimes physical.

I needed to express that because the concept of toxicity is all about volume. There is a volume where both oxygen and water are toxic to humans, even though we require them to live. So even if on their own these concepts don't seem toxic to you, in large doses or in conjunction with other aspects that they often feed into you do result in very obvious toxic behaviors.

This is actually one of the reasons Kylo Ren is a terrible role model and the people who think he needs a redemption arc in IX are some of the most frustrating people to have conversations with about TLJ. Not saying that's you. I just know a lot of people who are pro-Ren or pro-Reylo. /wretch

Not because I want to have a point of conflict and not explicitly directed at you, but because you (and possibly others) may see those items and feel they are not negatives, but the emphasis is on toxicity. I know this is probably more political, but I know that this place has some diverse backgrounds and I think it is important to address.

manning up and not crying

Needing to respond to stress through "dealing with it" especially with the extra verbal implication of "manning" can lead to stunted emotional/social understanding and an internalization of unyielding stoicism which is emotionally and psychologically poisoning to an individual vested in the notion that they must not share emotions (crying is a release, with chemical variance based on the chemical releases it is attempting to flush) for that would make them less. This limits their indulgence or acceptance in positive emotions as well as confronting negative emotions. Without the tool set, support, and understanding to properly handle those circumstances you tend to lead to emotional outbursts or other harmful action/inaction which leads us to . . .

not showing weakness

This compounds itself through gendered insults (Cody's third example) which inherently assume inferiority and negativity to the feminine (a simple comparable to exert strength against so as to avoid displays of weakness) which cyclically supports seeing women as inferior (not even touching on how this supports internalized misogyny in women and young girls) and with a superior/inferior dichotomy established through a need to not show such weakness (specifically publicly) many men who are indoctrinated with toxic masculinity will utilize the implicit or explicit threat of violence (physical, verbal, psychological) to establish and maintain an "alpha" (such a bad term) personality. Generally this is at the expense of female family member's or romantic partner's (who are often subjected to a traditional assumption of being the sole point of emotional support of emotionally stunted men instead of relying on a developed and supportive social group) emotional and psychological well being. Sometimes physical.

I needed to express that because the concept of toxicity is all about volume. There is a volume where both oxygen and water are toxic to humans, even though we require them to live. So even if on their own these concepts don't seem toxic to you, in large doses or in conjunction with other aspects that they often feed into you do result in very obvious toxic behaviors.

This is actually one of the reasons Kylo Ren is a terrible role model and the people who think he needs a redemption arc in IX are some of the most frustrating people to have conversations with about TLJ. Not saying that's you. I just know a lot of people who are pro-Ren or pro-Reylo. /wretch

I wanted to try to respond to this without falling too far down a political rabbit hole :)

For the record, I agree with everything you've said. But I also believe that the current trend to throw around the term "toxic" is actually causing more harm than good, for several reasons (not least of which is that some people, who frankly just don't know what they are talking about, will label anything they don't like as an example of "toxic X" as a way of hopping over debate or reasoning and trying to claim moral superiority).

I'm a firm believer in leading and teaching through example. We absolutely need to be aware of the dangers or negative aspects of any form of behavior or thinking. But that alone is far from enough. We actually need positive examples of behavior to help teach and promote a strong and healthy mode of being. And traditionally speaking, that's a large part of what mythological tales have tried to do.

I'll give a personal example, just to illustrate my point.

My grandfather was always a bit of a tyrant. Classic "do what I say, or else!" type of figurehead. He would make offers to "help" his family, but they were never more than thinly veiled attempts to control. He had lots of money, so one of his favorite tricks was to offer to buy something for someone in the family, but only if they agreed to let him choose what to buy. I'm talking about big stuff, like a car or a house. So on the one hand, his offers were massively grand, but also designed to strip the rest of his family of any control or influence over their own destiny.

Now, it would be very simple to point to his behavior as an example of "toxic masculinity". I think it would be a fair and accurate assessment. I grew up telling myself as much, although that precise label didn't exist in my mind at that point. However, I would eventually discover the weakness in my thinking.

Years after the death of my grandfather, I became a parent for the first time. I'd grown up thinking of myself as a vastly different man than my grandfather. I considered myself fair, respectful of others around me and in my own family, aware of my own shortcomings. My wife and I had always worked to build a relationship where we were both equals in both responsibility and influence.

Then I became a father, and was utterly blindsided by thoughts, feelings, and urges that I had never experienced before. I'd always been protective of my wife, but in a healthy, non-controlling way. As soon as she became pregnant, I found myself flooded with fiercely protective urges, far beyond anything I'd ever experienced. Protective to the level of insanity. I recognized these urges as insane, and fought to keep my actions reasonable and level headed. But those feelings were still there, whether I approved of them or not. And they only got stronger when my daughter was actually born. Yet, while fighting to prevent these feelings from completely taking over, I couldn't help but recognize that they were there for a reason.

Pregnancy and delivery were extremely hard on my wife, and she had a long, slow recovery. She was vulnerable in many ways. Needless to say, our infant child was extremely vulnerable as well. I knew that if push came to shove, it really was up to me to protect them. Very shortly after my daughter's birth, the 3 of us went to a cafe across the street from our apartment. I was carrying my daughter in a harness on my chest. A very disturbed man walked into the cafe and began making a scene. He threw his coffee at me, hitting me in the leg. Then he caught a glimpse of my face. I was standing there, with my daughter strapped to me, fully ready to go to hell and back in response to whatever he did next. I didn't budge or blink. He must have recognized the fire in my eyes, because despite the fact that he was clearly looking for a fight, he decided he didn't want this particular fight. After trying to match my gaze for a few moments, he sheepishly left.

So I knew these feelings that had risen up inside me served a purpose. I couldn't just ignore them or admonish them. In times of need, they were actually invaluable. But I also began to see that there was an insidious side to them. My protective urges were a response to fear. I was afraid all the time. Afraid that something bad would happen to my daughter or wife. Afraid that if I let my guard down for a moment, something would happen and I wouldn't be able to stop it. Then I started to notice how I was handling that fear. I was so on edge, stretched so thin by stress and worry and sleep deprivation, that I was desperate for any little bit of "control" that I could hold on to. It would creep up on me in subtle ways. I'd text my wife to tell her what I was bringing home for dinner, and when she asked if I could go somewhere else instead, I'd get angry. FURIOUS. Why can't she just eat the food I chose for her?!? I'd think to myself. These little flashes of anger started happening more and more frequently. How am I supposed to take care of this family if nobody every follows my decisions?! And that was the precise moment I truly understood my grandfather for the first time. It hit me like a truck. He wasn't just being a tyrant for the hell of it. He was afraid. The pressure of feeling responsible for his family was more than he could bare without resorting to imposing his will on every situation.

I still knew that my grandfather's behavior was wrong. And now that I was seeing hints of the same behavior in myself, I was more than a little concerned. But I'm a very lucky man. I'm lucky because I've had my own father to look up to my whole life, and he has spent every single day leading by example. I suddenly developed a whole new appreciation for just how strong and wise he was. Because he'd gone through all the same feelings I was going through, the same feelings that had lead to his father's oppressive behavior, yet he had managed to carry the weight of responsibility without ever buckling under it. My mother too. And I could write a whole other little story about how her strength and her example shaped me. But in this particular case, my father's influence cannot be overstated because his experiences could be more closely mapped on to my own. I was able to navigate this storm of conflicting thoughts and feelings because I knew what it looked like to handle it properly. I've watched my dad do it my entire life.

Knowing what is wrong is not enough. Ever. We also need to know what it right. When I look at the way many political discussions around gender roles tend to go these days, I usually see a verbal or written parade of everything that is wrong with men. Many of those points are valid. But if that is all we can talk about, we are in fact missing the point. Because people behave badly for many different reasons. Some of those reasons can show up in surprising ways. And if we are not properly equipped to deal with them, then we might get swept away by them.

And that, I believe, is at least part of where Kermit is coming from with regards to TLJ. I don't agree with his personal take on the movie, but I absolutely relate to what he's saying about the role of positive archetypal examples in mythology. Because I think that's the whole point of mythology. Yes, we need to know what the dark side looks like. But we need to know what the light side looks like too, as a way to fight off the darkness.

locked

3629 views

That’s actually a really good example of dealing with toxic masculinity is like. I won’t get into a big discussion on ge personal side. But I don’t hesitate to use the term because I would rather accurately describe a circumstance than try to find language that others don’t misuse. Your point about positive examples is very important. Positive examples (or other more direct methods of learning to deal with limited emotional toolsets and avoid reaching a level of toxicity) are important because most humans are to at least some degree observational learners. You hit the nail with many myths being used for that purpose. That Same purpose seen in fables and other both more literal and abstract learning devices also built to entertain.

While I can see the perspective that TLJ doesn’t have any positive role models I cannot accept it. Luke being a very explicit example of a character who is flawed (true to all heroes [aside: Rey is also flawed in many ways mirroring Luke] that are worh learning from) but also heroic. He has made mistakes and he has had to deal with the consequences. However he also expresses a great deal of emotions, can be introspective and explorative of his own experiences, failures, and feelings without placing that burden solely on a romantic counterpart. He learns from his negative behaviors to become better, while also showing that sliding back into old, bad habits can still be overcome.

Poe is another example of someone who we see over the course of the movie make bad choices but eventually learns how to be a better leader for those experiences. That also brings us to Leia. Who is literally Poe’s greatest hero and who he looks up to for his guidance and learning. I think it is foolish to use the societal biases to discount the positive examples of actions without assigned gendered biases. There are many well developed women characters who are not only positive role models for girls and women but for boys and men as well. While often not intentional (and your acknowledgement of maternal influence isn’t unnoticed and is likely a sign of a well rounded human being) many men will immediately discount women as worthy examples because of the insidious naure of social structures which teach them to internalize the feminine as inferior instead of just a different descriptor.

Leia is a bright shining star of an example of someone rooted as an established positive while Luke shows us a similar example to look up to through someone going through a process of overcoming a mistake. Poe is initially shown as someone refusing to overcome his mistake and the damage it causes while Holdo is an example of someone who is rooted in a structure which is causing damage to the same shared goal.

So, yes, everyone should have positive examples to look toward. But we also have to be internally aware to look at all the examples to hopefully avoid the traps that cultural toxicity brings.

locked

3598 views

That’s actually a really good example of dealing with toxic masculinity is like. I won’t get into a big discussion on ge personal side. But I don’t hesitate to use the term because I would rather accurately describe a circumstance than try to find language that others don’t misuse. Your point about positive examples is very important. Positive examples (or other more direct methods of learning to deal with limited emotional toolsets and avoid reaching a level of toxicity) are important because most humans are to at least some degree observational learners. You hit the nail with many myths being used for that purpose. That Same purpose seen in fables and other both more literal and abstract learning devices also built to entertain.

While I can see the perspective that TLJ doesn’t have any positive role models I cannot accept it. Luke being a very explicit example of a character who is flawed (true to all heroes [aside: Rey is also flawed in many ways mirroring Luke] that are worh learning from) but also heroic. He has made mistakes and he has had to deal with the consequences. However he also expresses a great deal of emotions, can be introspective and explorative of his own experiences, failures, and feelings without placing that burden solely on a romantic counterpart. He learns from his negative behaviors to become better, while also showing that sliding back into old, bad habits can still be overcome.

Poe is another example of someone who we see over the course of the movie make bad choices but eventually learns how to be a better leader for those experiences. That also brings us to Leia. Who is literally Poe’s greatest hero and who he looks up to for his guidance and learning. I think it is foolish to use the societal biases to discount the positive examples of actions without assigned gendered biases. There are many well developed women characters who are not only positive role models for girls and women but for boys and men as well. While often not intentional (and your acknowledgement of maternal influence isn’t unnoticed and is likely a sign of a well rounded human being) many men will immediately discount women as worthy examples because of the insidious naure of social structures which teach them to internalize the feminine as inferior instead of just a different descriptor.

Leia is a bright shining star of an example of someone rooted as an established positive while Luke shows us a similar example to look up to through someone going through a process of overcoming a mistake. Poe is initially shown as someone refusing to overcome his mistake and the damage it causes while Holdo is an example of someone who is rooted in a structure which is causing damage to the same shared goal.

So, yes, everyone should have positive examples to look toward. But we also have to be internally aware to look at all the examples to hopefully avoid the traps that cultural toxicity brings.

Just wanted to clarify real quick that I actually do think TLJ has examples of positive male role models (as you very nicely described). That’s part of where Kermit and I disagree on the movie. But where he and I agree is that positive role models are a crucial ingredient in mythology :)

locked

3643 views

As usual, you summed up my feelings perfectly.

The whole movie was unnecessary.

It’s like the whole exhaust port thing. The movie goes out of its way to explain that weakness, when it just wasn’t needed. It’s a big ass space station designed by ostensibly hundreds or thousands of separate people. It honestly works better for me that it was just a dumb weakness that got overlooked rather than a secret plot to by a captive engineer to design an explicit weakness into it. It honestly makes the whole thing less believable to me.

It’s why I’m worried about Solo. I’m still convinced we’re just going to see literally everything Han Solo has ever previously mentioned about his history played out on screen. Him winning the Falcon is going to lead directly into his record breaking 12 parsec run, which happens after we see him save Chewy’s life. I really hope I’m wrong.

locked

4007 views

Except that the exhaust port is incidental to the fact that Galen Erso designed the reactor to have a catastrophic chain reaction from relatively minor damage. It's like everyone assuming the trench run was equatorial on the Death Star.

locked

3954 views

Except that the exhaust port is incidental to the fact that Galen Erso designed the reactor to have a catastrophic chain reaction from relatively minor damage. It's like everyone assuming the trench run was equatorial on the Death Star.

That's a fair point, I guess.

I still find it fundamentally less interesting that a good guy designed a flaw into the system rather than the more realistic idea that it was a massive project with tons of contractors and something got overlooked. They had to make a good guy responsible for it, rather than letting it remain the fact that the Empire had enough hubris to build a goddamn Death Star in the first place. The details aren't important, it's the fact that I fear that they're now going to dig into every single reference or unexplained throw away line in the original trilogy.

locked

3979 views

Well, in part it is "a good guy did it" but that supports a story which puts the Rebels in a corner, a very shadowy corner, where they are desperate while also presenting the Empire as a poorly oiled machine, with backstabbing and credit stealing while also having an insufficient grasp of their massive project to have anyone (or a willingness to take the time to) have a substantial review of the plans to account for catastrophic design flaws.

So, I'll agree that I hope they don't go through and chase after every minor reference or detail that wasn't given great details (I think there are way more interesting stories to get to in SW) I don't think that RO doesn't bring anything to the table. That's without getting into its philosophical considerations of The Force or the muddying of waters between the Empire and the Rebels with the pursuant conflict. Though those muddy waters have always been one of my favorite parts of SW.

locked

3972 views

It’s why I’m worried about Solo.

Friend saw a screening, albeit with temp effects and stuff (he said he has no idea how they are gonna hit release date given the shape it was in). He hated Last Jedi. But he said Solo was really good.

locked

3796 views

It’s why I’m worried about Solo.

Friend saw a screening, albeit with temp effects and stuff (he said he has no idea how they are gonna hit release date given the shape it was in). He hated Last Jedi. But he said Solo was really good.

I'm reasonably hopeful. I think I set a lower bar for anthology films.

locked

3740 views

I'm hoping that I will be pleasantly surprised. (as I was w/ RO.)

locked

3602 views

Except that is completely disregarding the scenes actual use in the movie relative to the transition to ANH. The context of Vader boarding the Tantive IV fully aware that the Death Star plans were, at one point at least, aboard it. It served a purpose outside of itself and reflected on ANH. In the same way that cutting moments from the the duel Mustafar around Obi-Wan discussing with Luke "how did my father die" adds a weight and understanding that was simply not available to you before.

Without going into a major RO rant, I do have to state that dismissing it as being fan service which peaks at inoffensive is such a disappointing assessment of a film that provides so much more and helps to enhance what is the current canon. And this is coming from someone who felt it a grave personal insult that Kyle Katarn was retconned out of SW.

locked

3960 views

I agree. I didn't like the retcon of not only EU but actual film elements in Rogue One, but I think that some people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in trashing it and the other movies. They do feel like fan fiction to me...but it doesn't mean they're bad, and it also doesn't mean that slight inconsistencies in how things work are errors or retcons or re imaginings.

In much the same way midichlorians are entirely fine and consistent with the force as laid out in Star Wars, so are the seemingly strange parts of these movies.

There's no need to have rumours floating around of a secret Imperial enforcer. We know about that guy. We know the bad guys know about that guy. We know seconds after this movie ends that the Rebels know about that guy, as seen in Star Wars.

Some stuff is just fine. If it can be easily made sense of, there's no problem.

locked

3864 views

I agree. I didn't like the retcon of not only EU but actual film elements in Rogue One, but I think that some people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in trashing it and the other movies. They do feel like fan fiction to me...but it doesn't mean they're bad, and it also doesn't mean that slight inconsistencies in how things work are errors or retcons or re imaginings.

In much the same way midichlorians are entirely fine and consistent with the force as laid out in Star Wars, so are the seemingly strange parts of these movies.

There's no need to have rumours floating around of a secret Imperial enforcer. We know about that guy. We know the bad guys know about that guy. We know seconds after this movie ends that the Rebels know about that guy, as seen in Star Wars.

Some stuff is just fine. If it can be easily made sense of, there's no problem.

For me, just because something can be “made sense of” doesn’t mean it’s good. And I get that some people just want to stare at a screen for a couple hours and not feel bored. Sometimes that’s all I want from a movie too. But I want more from Star Wars. I know they’re far from the high watermark of film. I go into them expecting some silliness and fun. But I also expect them to deliver when it comes to compelling characters and archetypal mythological motifs. R1 is mostly missing those elements, which would be fine if they were replaced with, well, anything. But I got absolutely nothing from it. No heart or soul under the pyrotechnics. That’s why it’s such a flop for me. But that’s, like, just my opinion man :)

locked

3810 views

What’s this high watermark of film you speak of? A New Hope / Empire absolutely belongs on the list of best movies ever made.

locked

3800 views

- No text -

locked

3792 views

What’s this high watermark of film you speak of? A New Hope / Empire absolutely belongs on the list of best movies ever made.

I could see ESB on that list. Personally, I don’t think so highly of ANH. I can see how massively important it is to the history of filmmaking, because it broke ground in so many ways. But as a movie to just sit down and watch, I don’t actually think it’s particularly great. It feels more like a rough sketch of a movie, while ESB feels fully realized.

locked

3794 views

- No text -

locked

3775 views

- No text -

locked

3768 views

Star Wars is one, Raiders of the Lost Ark is the other.

ESB is a good movie, but IMO can't even compare to the first one. I mean, it's perfect. ESB is boring.

Other movies that are perfect:

Yankee Doodle Dandy
A Few Good Men
Unforgiven

Fight me.

locked

3784 views

- No text -

locked

3750 views

I kid, I kid, but American Graffiti is a great film.

Harmanimus, you're pretty hardcore.

locked

3752 views

- No text -

locked

3712 views

- No text -

locked

3707 views

How can Raiders be a perfect movie when Crusade is ever so slightly better?

locked

3765 views

How can Raiders be a perfect movie when Crusade is ever so slightly better?

You’re wrong about a lot of things, Cody, but you have never been more wrong about anything in your life.

locked

3784 views

- No text -

locked

3715 views

- No text -

locked

3736 views

I'm late to this party, and I'm not sure if this was added by others or not, but I'm in half and half on this thing. I agree with Ragashingo that it was awesome and totally bad ass and great to see. But then the part of me that loves story HATES this scene with a passion because it screws with the beginning of Episode IV. We're to believe that Vader saw all this go down and follwoed that ship right from the start, but then Leia has the audacity to pretend to say she's just on a diplomatic mission? A diplomatic mission that took her into practically a war zone and right over a major base of the Empire?

I feel like the ending to Rogue One absolutely takes away from how awesome and terrifying the start of Episode IV is. So as awesome as it was to watch, I'd rather that Leia's Blockade Runner had never been there, or that Vader had never been there.

locked

3600 views

One of the things I thing (hope?) we’re slowly moving towards is being able to tell stories across different films and even across mediums and have those different works enhance each other. Marvel is kinda already doing this with years worth of very different movies all funneling into an Avengers movie every several years. Games already do this to, to an extent. Most games have their main, in your face plot and deeper stories and lore there if someone wants to find them.

I think the key is each piece of a property (a game, a film, a book, etc) needs to be good on its own. But with a little planning they can be good on their own and support each other. Avengers was a fun movie, but it was even more fun if you’d watched Iron Man, Captain America, Iron Man 2, Thor, etc. Halo was a great game. The Fall of Reach was a good book. Either one could be enjoyed without the other but put them together and you understood much more about what the stakes were and what was happening.

Sure, you can sometimes end up with something that is not well understood by your audience if they didn’t watch or find each segment... but on the other end, you can’t tell a story at all without some engagement from your audience. If they change the channel or see a different movie then your story does not reach them.

One of the big things right now from Marvel to Star Wars to the various super high quality streaming miniseries is that audiences will really engage with complex, multilayered stories if you have good production quality and writing and so on.

At the end of the day, if you demand that your audience pays attention, you’ll be able to weave better stories for them.

locked

4067 views

In my opinion, the best games to adapt would be:

1. Games that lack the visual fidelity of film language.
2. Games with good stories based on more than just physical conflict (although that can be an element).
3. Games that don't really have business being games in the first place.

4. Don’t adapt the game’s story, build a new story in the same universe or otherwise build around the game’s story.

A Halo movie could, for example, focus on Sgt Johnson and only tangentially intersect with the Master Chief’s story.

I was thinking about this. And I feel like Borderlands would be a crazy cool movie. There is so much opportunity to create a completely different set of characters with a new valt. The game is also about the characters, it's built around the struggle of the characters to get to the vault. So you can run with that anyway you like. And oh man you could have so much fun with costumes and actors.

Now I want this movie :D

locked

4048 views

Borderlands is a great candidate. It's so zany that you could get away with almost any story, as long as it's funny. The ONLY potential problem I can see is that, if it used a similar comedy style to Borderlands 2, it might be viewed as a Deadpool copycat by people unfamiliar with the source material.

locked

4024 views

Borderlands is a great candidate. It's so zany that you could get away with almost any story, as long as it's funny. The ONLY potential problem I can see is that, if it used a similar comedy style to Borderlands 2, it might be viewed as a Deadpool copycat by people unfamiliar with the source material.

Yeah, I could see that. But the thing about deadpool that makes it great, other than the fact they are okay with making any joke they feel like, is that deadpool breaks the 4th wall ALL the time. Borderlands makes jokes about cultural references, but never actually breaks the 4th wall (as far as I remember).

locked

4037 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

How to make a successful game to movie adaptation (Gaming)

Exactly.

So you're saying they shouldn't make The Last of Us movie?

I'm torn.

I'm worried about the timing

When considering adaptations . . .

When considering adaptations . . .

When considering adaptations . . .

I'm torn.

I'm torn.

I'm torn.

They should not

+1

Haven’t even read Cody’s original post, and I agree...

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

2 bullets is a lot if you can't hit anything with them.

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Why not?

Not always how the cookie crumbles.

One other option

One other option

Wait, wait, wait... :)

Wait, wait, wait... :)

One other option

One other option

One other option

One other option

The end of R1 is awesome. You. Me. We gonna fight. :)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

I agree with both of you

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Taking a break.

+VIII

The Last Jedi

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)

Hah... I should explain (Rogue 1 Spoilers)