Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker released early on digital platforms

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
I still ask if all it takes is a machine going to hyperspeed, why R2D2 just didn't pilot Luke's X-Wing and go hyperspeed at the deathstar... Easy Peasy, 2 minute script...
Same issue with the first film. Lets just hyperspace through the planetary shield and come out 10 meters from the ground! Except if that works then why would any planet ever have an energy shield? Why did we spend that whole section of RoTJ not only having "many bothans die to get this information" for the key codes for imperial passage but a whole strike team to take out the energy shield on Endor? Plus the lore says Hyperspeed will fail and you get pulled out if a large enough body of gravity gets too close to a starship so you cant hyperspace in 30 meters from the ground anyway. Then again, Han Solo contradicts this a bit in A New Hope when he says without proper jump calculations you are liable to fly through a star, cause a star has more gravity than a planet does so how would you not be pulled out long before? Meh. Guess nothing really has to make sense in Star Wars so anything goes.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,521
Watched it. I didn't think it was as bad as the last film and almost seems like they tried to ignore the story plots from it. As such, each of the three films feel fairly separate from each other except for a handful of things. This one seemed the most disjointed though as the first half really felt like a lot of independent set pieces loosely stitched together. Some of the character actions/developments just seem very out of place to.

Overall, fairly boring and too long with not enough structure. I think the first film was the best of this trilogy, which was competent despite the lack of back story. My favorite of the bunch if still Rogue One by far.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,938
You mean the plot holes they are trying to patch after the fact? If you have to put out books and comics to add context for a movie to make sense, it's a shitty movie. They are just reacting to fan backlash in the cheapest ways possible and from what I understand, it's not helping.

Novelizations of movies have been a thing for literal decades. They're often based on an older version of the script, before rewrites, editing, reshoots, etc are done. A lot of stuff in that novelization likely come directly from an older script. This isn't even the first time this has happened with Star Wars. The first novelization of New Hope released in 1976, well before the actual move. And it was based on an older script. There were also radio dramas of the original trilogy that used older scripts. The ANH one is radically different than the movie in spots.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,246
I'll pay 8 bucks to watch frozen 2 and the latest starwars movies. Seems like a fair trade to me. *shrugs*
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,250
I'll pay 8 bucks to watch frozen 2 and the latest starwars movies. Seems like a fair trade to me. *shrugs*
Not me, being as this city is on lock down, and my wife and kid are now literally with my 24 hrs a day, the last thing I want is the inevitable Disney song stuck in my head while we're hold up for the next 3-8 weeks. Ever see the Shining? That would become a documentary of what would happen.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,579
Novelizations of movies have been a thing for literal decades. They're often based on an older version of the script, before rewrites, editing, reshoots, etc are done. A lot of stuff in that novelization likely come directly from an older script. This isn't even the first time this has happened with Star Wars. The first novelization of New Hope released in 1976, well before the actual move. And it was based on an older script. There were also radio dramas of the original trilogy that used older scripts. The ANH one is radically different than the movie in spots.

That's not what I was talking about.
 

DejaWiz

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
21,585
Saw it on the big screen in Dec.
Bought it over the weekend and watched it again.

I give it 7.5/10 with a decent rewatch factor.

JJ did a really good job with having to pick up the pieces from TLJ and give some sort of redeeming quality to the franchise, IMO.

What is quite evident: he undoubtedly had to work around the LucasFilm brand lead (KK) whom obviously was still a bit gung-ho about plugging in some agenda depictions and worried a bit too much about how many toys and t-shirts she could sell.

Overall, a worthy purchase and a fine addition to my collection.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,700
Watched it. I didn't think it was as bad as the last film and almost seems like they tried to ignore the story plots from it. As such, each of the three films feel fairly separate from each other except for a handful of things. This one seemed the most disjointed though as the first half really felt like a lot of independent set pieces loosely stitched together. Some of the character actions/developments just seem very out of place to.

Overall, fairly boring and too long with not enough structure. I think the first film was the best of this trilogy, which was competent despite the lack of back story. My favorite of the bunch if still Rogue One by far.
They should have led with Rogue One and a few other films to understand was still works today.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,250
yeah its actually pretty decent if you can deal with carrey being carrey for the last 30 years.
Ok I watched Sonic, and have to disagree with this. Carrey being Carrey is the only thing that carried this movie, I mean geeze the whole "we gotta get away from the whole bad guy" angle I get but lets stop at this bar and do bar things... it was like the sense of urgency of anyone in the movie who should have had it was non existent. And of course using what is forever known as "The Quicksilver" treatment for very fast things.
 

pendragon1

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
41,115
Ok I watched Sonic, and have to disagree with this. Carrey being Carrey is the only thing that carried this movie, I mean geeze the whole "we gotta get away from the whole bad guy" angle I get but lets stop at this bar and do bar things... it was like the sense of urgency of anyone in the movie who should have had it was non existent. And of course using what is forever known as "The Quicksilver" treatment for very fast things.
think of sonic as a kid with adhd and it makes more sense. and its called "bullet time" not "the quicksilver treatment" ;)
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,250
think of sonic as a kid with adhd and it makes more sense. and its called "bullet time" not "the quicksilver treatment" ;)
Nah Bullet time was The Matrix, and that was simply some slow motion effects where you could see fast moving things in slow motion, "the Quicksilver treatement" was popularized in the Xmen movie because it didn't just slow things down it effectively stopped time (made it really slow) and put you in the place of said ultra fast moving person who was zipping around the scene. Those two effects were vastly different.

But kid with ADHD... yeah that makes sense, still thought it was a silly movie, not in a good way.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
The whole franchise was FUBARed, which is really sad because its one thing for Disney to puke out something forgettable but a whole other to destroy something epic that people loved. It was a combination of "get woke, go broke" with low-effort rehashing rather than hiring good writers and recognizing that plot and good dialog are what make for a lasting franchise that is worth rewatching. Imagine if Disney redid Lord of the Rings in 2020 (Disney used to own all rights).
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,521
Nah Bullet time was The Matrix, and that was simply some slow motion effects where you could see fast moving things in slow motion, "the Quicksilver treatement" was popularized in the Xmen movie because it didn't just slow things down it effectively stopped time (made it really slow) and put you in the place of said ultra fast moving person who was zipping around the scene. Those two effects were vastly different.

But kid with ADHD... yeah that makes sense, still thought it was a silly movie, not in a good way.

I thought it was okay, but didn't expect anything intelligent in the first place. But I found it to be more interesting than Rise of Skywalker.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,250
Where do you see the movie listed? I checked Disney + and dont see it.
Oh they're not releasing it for all of the subscription people yet, just like the Pixar movie Onward, the first release is for digital purchase because regardless of their "goodwill in this time of need" they still want to make some coin from this.
 

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,666
Oh they're not releasing it for all of the subscription people yet, just like the Pixar movie Onward, the first release is for digital purchase because regardless of their "goodwill in this time of need" they still want to make some coin from this.

I looked up Onward on Amazon Prime. No way I'm paying $20 to buy it when it would cost approximately half that (a third at matinee prices!) in theater.
 

whateverer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
1,653
I watched Onward with the wife instead. Saw Skywalker already.

Onwrd was a pretty decent geeky comedy.
 

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
7,301
Horrible movie.....And the strange thing is i really enjoyed Solo so its not like i hate all the new ones. (possible i hate the actors in this one?)
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,230
Saw it last night, wasn't as bad as some made it out to be. But then this kind of movie is really more of a workout for a good screen and sound system than a philosophical meditation.

That said, keep JJ Abrams away from any more movies.

just have to keep him away from movies that actually require a story.. he makes good mindless action movies..
 

kamxam

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
1,898
I considered buying some of the new digital releases but then I figured that since I like to get the physical copies of them anyhow it would make more sense to wait for those to come out on UHD/Blu-ray. (Most contain a digital copy anyhow so I don't feel like paying twice for it) Don't get to see them till then but not like it's the end of the world. ;)
 

OFaceSIG

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,306
I considered buying some of the new digital releases but then I figured that since I like to get the physical copies of them anyhow it would make more sense to wait for those to come out on UHD/Blu-ray. (Most contain a digital copy anyhow so I don't feel like paying twice for it) Don't get to see them till then but not like it's the end of the world. ;)

We have Disney+ for now, since I have kids. So I'll be able to watch any of them in 4k pretty soon. I down the original trilogy and the prequal trilogy on bluray and dvd. I don't believe I'll be buying this new trilogy. It just isn't good enough for me to own.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,250
I looked up Onward on Amazon Prime. No way I'm paying $20 to buy it when it would cost approximately half that (a third at matinee prices!) in theater.
I think Onward is going to be released on Disney+ in 2 or 3 weeks if you can wait, Star Wars I think I read sometime in the summer
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,938
I looked up Onward on Amazon Prime. No way I'm paying $20 to buy it when it would cost approximately half that (a third at matinee prices!) in theater.

It makes a lot more sense for people with families. Even at matinee prices, taking a family to the movies would cost a lot more than $20. Heck, add in soda and popcorn and it can get well over $20 just with two people.
 

1_rick

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
2,666
It makes a lot more sense for people with families.
Sure, although Redbox and video rental stores before them didn't charge per person. And yeah, those are rentals, not buying, but why isn't there a rental option on Onward? There is on other current movies.

But in my case, it would be just me watching it, and I don't want to spend that much, so I'll wait for it to be on Redbox, and Amazon and the studio will lose $18, instead of getting $10.50.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,651
Torrent ahoy. I'm not paying a cent for this turd. TLJ was so bad I had to go to therapy right after viewing (ie - a bar, and drank heavily).

Honestly if it weren't for Mando... I would be totally done with SW. Disney done cocked it up.

edit - Solo and Rogue one were ok but renters. RO made me groan a lot. Solo was actually kinda funny, but the Maul cameo at the end was dumb.
 
Last edited:

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,651
Where do you see the movie listed? I checked Disney + and dont see it.

PPV and purchase only. They will milk that for a couple months then it might filter down to the normal Dis + stuff.

I looked up Onward on Amazon Prime. No way I'm paying $20 to buy it when it would cost approximately half that (a third at matinee prices!) in theater.

$20 isn't bad. I went to go see 1917 a couple months ago on a Saturday matinee and it was $30 for both of us, no food or drink. Movie theaters are such a massive ripoff.
 

EniGmA1987

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
429
$20 isn't bad. I went to go see 1917 a couple months ago on a Saturday matinee and it was $30 for both of us, no food or drink. Movie theaters are such a massive ripoff.
That is why I do a subscription at a theater. It used to be $20 a month for AMC, now it is up at $24 a month or something. Basically as long as you see 2 movies a month then it already more than pays for itself at the theaters I have around here. I went to see 44 movies last year so it worked out nicely. Basically I just planned on seeing almost every new movie. This year unfortunately has been not as good since there havent been as many good new movies, and then now with Coronavirus and theaters closed I cant see anything. Thankfully AMC suspended everyone's billing during the time they are closed so no actual money wasted.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
PPV and purchase only. They will milk that for a couple months then it might filter down to the normal Dis + stuff.



$20 isn't bad. I went to go see 1917 a couple months ago on a Saturday matinee and it was $30 for both of us, no food or drink. Movie theaters are such a massive ripoff.

It's set to release on disc on the 31st of this month and I guess thst were I'll get it as long as bestbuy is still around.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,651
It's set to release on disc on the 31st of this month and I guess thst were I'll get it as long as bestbuy is still around.

Hey, Bestbuy ships I guess. Retail sales usually happen right after the VOD cycle anyway. I'll either Redbox it or shake the internet.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,250
Sure, although Redbox and video rental stores before them didn't charge per person. And yeah, those are rentals, not buying, but why isn't there a rental option on Onward? There is on other current movies.
It's been a long time since I rented a video in a store, but I seem to recall video tapes tended to be available for purchase first, and only later was available to rent, it largely being what the owner wants to allow mind you. That may be the case here... of course the may not aspect is that Disney has been trying to consolidate it's property to it's service, letting contracts expire with Amazon, or Netflix, etc. If you have Disney+ you should be able to see it in a week or two, I forget if it'll be available end of month, or first week of April. But yeah, the business model now is throw it out there for those who want to "own" it, then they'll let it be available on Disney+ but don't expect it to have a rental.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,250
$20 isn't bad. I went to go see 1917 a couple months ago on a Saturday matinee and it was $30 for both of us, no food or drink. Movie theaters are such a massive ripoff.
Did you see it in a GOOD theater though? I managed to get in a screening in a Dolby theater, and I don't know if it was the way the movie was shot or the combo of the theater sound/video but damn I was really in the movie it felt. But yeah, that's what you're paying for, larger than life image, loud as speakers, rumble your butt sounds, oh yeah the ability to see it before it comes to home (if that matters to you)
 
Top