LogFAQs > #920445797

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	PotdMon: Nerd/Geek
ParanoidObsessive 04/13/19 2:47:47 PM #123:	I_Abibde posted... Then again, I thought Solo was great, so make of my taste what you will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP_SdjD5ms" data-time="&start=110 WhiskeyDisk posted... Solo wasn't terrible, there was just no tension whatsoever. There were no stakes. Didn't matter what peril they put him in, you knew going in ultimately who was guaranteed to walk away by the end of the film. Solo was an adequately produced mediocre movie that never needed to be made. That alone doomed it before a single scene was filmed. Though it doesn't help that they gave into one of the worst sins of prequels, which is where they feel like they're obligated to show every single thing ever mentioned before. How he'd get the name, how'd he get the gun, how'd he get the ship, how'd he get the wookie, hey here's Lando, etc. You can tell someone sat down, watched the original trilogy, and then just wrote down every single thing Han says or implies about his past and immediately jotted down how they needed a scene to reference it. Part of why that sucks is because it makes for a lazy, disjointed plot to some extent, but part of why it sucks is because it implies everything interesting about him happened in a single narrow window of his life. Like, nothing outside of that period matters enough for him to ever bring it up, which lessens him as a character, because it implies that most of the time, he's just a boring asshole. A much better way to handle it would be to show one or two minor fanservice references, but then have him make even more mentions of past events. For every reference you explain, you should be making at least three more. (Plus, don't radically alter the character arc of your character from the original films by changing his personality in the prequel. It sort of undercuts the entire point of doing a prequel at all.) (Also plus, they never should have shown the Kessel Run, because it's become a massive knot of stupidity, that was never going to satisfy anyone (see also, why Star Trek should never show Kirk taking the Kobayashi Maru.) The prequel trilogy suffered from a bit of overshow-itis ("Luke mentioned the Clone Wars, better explain the Clone Wars. Obi-Wan talks about meeting Anakin as a pilot, better shoehorn in some BS about an 8-year old kid being an awesome pilot."), though it admittedly wasn't the worst sin the prequels commit. shadowsword87 posted... Rifts is bad and you should feel bad. I like the IDEA of Rifts. But it comes from that era of rules-heavy games that overcomplicate everything, which becomes a turn-off for me. There are better games that simulate that same sort of premise without all the rules. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:920445797] in PotdMon: N... [t:77558720]...</cite> <quote><cite>I_Abibde posted...</cite> <quote>Then again, I thought Solo was great, so make of my taste what you will.</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP_SdjD5ms" data-time="&start=110 <cite>WhiskeyDisk posted...</cite> <quote>Solo wasn't terrible, there was just no tension whatsoever. There were no stakes. Didn't matter what peril they put him in, you knew going in ultimately who was guaranteed to walk away by the end of the film.</quote> Solo was an adequately produced mediocre movie that never needed to be made. That alone doomed it before a single scene was filmed. Though it doesn't help that they gave into one of the worst sins of prequels, which is where they feel like they're obligated to show every single thing ever mentioned before. How he'd get the name, how'd he get the gun, how'd he get the ship, how'd he get the wookie, hey here's Lando, etc. You can tell someone sat down, watched the original trilogy, and then just wrote down every single thing Han says or implies about his past and immediately jotted down how they needed a scene to reference it. Part of why that sucks is because it makes for a lazy, disjointed plot to some extent, but part of why it sucks is because it implies everything interesting about him happened in a single narrow window of his life. Like, nothing outside of that period matters enough for him to ever bring it up, which lessens him as a character, because it implies that most of the time, he's just a boring asshole. A much better way to handle it would be to show one or two minor fanservice references, but then have him make even more mentions of past events. For every reference you explain, you should be making at least three more. (Plus, don't radically alter the character arc of your character from the original films by changing his personality in the prequel. It sort of undercuts the entire point of doing a prequel at all.) (Also plus, they never should have shown the Kessel Run, because it's become a massive knot of stupidity, that was never going to satisfy anyone (see also, why Star Trek should never show Kirk taking the Kobayashi Maru.) The prequel trilogy suffered from a bit of overshow-itis ("Luke mentioned the Clone Wars, better explain the Clone Wars. Obi-Wan talks about meeting Anakin as a pilot, better shoehorn in some BS about an 8-year old kid being an awesome pilot."), though it admittedly wasn't the worst sin the prequels commit. <cite>shadowsword87 posted...</cite> <quote>Rifts is bad and you should feel bad.</quote> I like the IDEA of Rifts. But it comes from that era of rules-heavy games that overcomplicate everything, which becomes a turn-off for me. There are better games that simulate that same sort of premise without all the rules. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1