calumnus said:

---

The movie I want to see is The First Jedi

---

It's definitely an Ewok.

Must be football off-season. Jar Jar & the bratty little kid almost drive me away from SW, thank goodness Rogue One got things back on track.

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Great thread (and why I love BI)

For me it has always come down to acting (or lack thereof). Hamil, Ford and yes, Fischer just are not that good of actors.

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

Comic credit to https://www.instagram.com/racheljpierce/?hl=en

Hard to judge the current episodes. I will always love ANH, Han Solo will forever be my first cinema hero.

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

socaltownie said:

---

Great thread (and why I love BI)

For me it has always come down to acting (or lack thereof). Hamil, Ford and yes, Fischer just are not that good of actors. Why Lucas got them while he needed to blow the budget on Special effect for A New hope. Meanwhile (and just watch a master at his craft) Sir Alex Guinness simply dominates every scene he is in - It is frankly amazing for a movie he despised.

The subsequent movies have always struggled in that regard.

And interestingly, the next best movie in the entire franchise, Rogue One, also stars two actors with good chops. Jones who is frankly quit good in nearly everything she is in, and Diego Luna who isn't as well known but who has been a great actor in Mexico/Latin America for a good 2 decades.

Lucas did not provide a very rich canvas. It is the most silly of space operas when you sit back and think about it (the Force, the weird Jedi and Empire as politics, the almost comical "reboot" of Episode 7). Star Trek has ALWAYS been a far better example of world building (both pale in comparison to Babalyon 5 but I disgress ;-)

PS. It also helps for Rogue One that the force LARGELY is kept out of the center of the plot. Still there ("the force is with me and i am one with the force") but it isn't some McGruffin that is pulled out to get you through the road block or allow you to grab a light saber just in the nick of time as the Abominable Snowman makes an appearance and Rudolph is no where to be found.

We can argue about which Star Wars Movie is the Best but for my money the absolutely positively the worst is the Last Jedi.
It is not true to the Star Wars history, it is not true to the science and natural laws of the universe set forth in the prior Star Wars movies, and many parts of it are just plain stupid.

1. Luke is historically the most optimistic and upbeat character in the entire Saga. He even thinks he can save his father after his father had turned to the dark side and killed off the Jedi and even in advertently killed his wife. He even thinks he can beat the Empire. But in TLJ, he is a bitter "get off my lawn" old man.

2. the Force is this magical power that takes years of training to master. So much so that one can young Darth Vader takes years of training under a mentor. Luke himself does not master the power of the force until Episode 6. But Rey and Leia seem to have mastered the force with no material training what so ever.

3. The force is used in ways that were never done before, when Leia floats through the void and vacuum of space. It appears that if the writers were stuck on some point why not just resolve it all by using the Force. I guess the Force is something like the Presidents power to declare a national emergency, it gives you all kinds of powers you never thought you had.

4. Then there is the treatment of (a) the Jedi Temple, it was supposed to be this magical and mysterious place where Luke/Rey went back to get his soul back. But it just burns down. I guess the Jedi were not all that they were cracked up to be.

5. Likewise the treatment of Luke's lightsaber was baffling.
There was this great build up in the Force Awakens. and Rey carries the light saber across the universe to deliver it to Luke. Who throws it away as soon as he gets it.

6. then there is Snoke. He is an all knowing being who can sense the thoughts of people across the universe. He is a really terrifying adversary whose image stands 30 feet tall. I was expecting a final clash between Luke and Snoke in Episode 9 as the climax to this Trilogy. Instead he is killed by this young kid who is just a few feet from Snoke (so much for his great mind reading skills). I guess Snoke is a lot like the Wizard of Oz Now we are left with Kylo Ren as the great big bad guy. I feel cheated, it would be like buying a ticket to the BCS championship expecting Alabama to face off with Clemson for the BCS title then the selection committee decides to go with Alabama v. Southern Miss.

7. Then there is the concept of the use of light speed to ram an opposing space ship. This concept was never mentioned before. If that were possible under the laws of the Star wars Universe why wouldn't the Rebels simply make a whole bunch of these ships and slam them into the Empire Fleet (kamikaze style). And more to the point if this is possible why did Laura Dern wait to use this feature until almost her entire fleet had been destroyed.

8. And while I am talking about Laura Dern. When Poe begged her to tell him she had a plan, Why didn't she tell Poe about her super secret plan to move to another planet. Instead she kept her plan secret. I don't think that a good leader keeps all key players under his/her command in the dark about the long term strategy.

9. Then there is the long an wasted trip to the casino planet. Nothing came of it and it did not more the plot of the story forward.

10. As for the death of Luke, ***. He was not physically present at the site of the battle. He was just a pseudo-hologram. So why did he die. there was no attempt on the part of the writers or directors to explain this point.

11. The treatment of Finn and Poe was also terrible. In Episode 7 they are introduced as new and interesting additions to a heroic universe. But in TLJ they are sidelined and degraded. Poe goes from a courageous starship pilot ready to risk it all against the New Order to an incompetent and insubordinate rebel who doesn't accomplish much.
Finn goes from a second comming of Han Solo to a joke. Late in the movie as he is about to sacrifice himself to save the rebels by crashing his speeder into the laser cannon. He is prevented from doing so by his new girlfriend (?). Why -- because live is more important than hate. But that ignores the age old adage that there is no greater love than to sacrifice your life for the good of your friends.

12. My biggest gripe about TLJ is the fact that it is part of a trilogy. it is supposed to act as a bridge from Episode 7 to Episode 9. But it does not do that. I contradicts so many of the basic premises not just of Episodes 1-6 but also so many premises of Episode 7. If RJ had wanted to make a stand-alone movie he should not have agreed to take on Episode 8. He should have taken on some stand-alone movie like "Solo".
In my opinion it is a terrible movie not just a terrible Star Wars movie. I put my former choice for worst Star Wars movie (Episode 1) as the second worst Star Wars movie but clearly much better than TLJ.

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

uhhh....no.

Now lets try to imagine Ford against a REAL actor (baring idiotic "I need the money" casting choices in the last few years. Can you imagine Ford trying (literally laughing at the idea) of playing Oskar Schindler....

or Gary Olman's masterful work in the Darkest Hour....or Daniel Day Lewis's work in There will be Blood? without going historic - Tommy Lee Jones work in the Valley of Elah or, against type, Clooney's work in the otherwise forgettable Up in the Air (but his work there is particularly good).

Why ANH works is Guiness' work. Obi Wan could have been a DUMB character (look at poor Forrest W. in Rogue one - it is really hard). But he is a master in his craft. The first scene when it reveals that Old Ben is actually OWK is AMAZING. Ditto is work in rescuing the horrifically bad writting of the scene on the MF when he starts to explain the force to Luke.

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

uhhh....no.

Now lets try to imagine Ford against a REAL actor (baring idiotic "I need the money" casting choices in the last few years. Can you imagine Ford trying (literally laughing at the idea) of playing Oskar Schindler....

or Gary Olman's masterful work in the Darkest Hour....or Daniel Day Lewis's work in There will be Blood?

---

No actor is right for every part. I wouldn't cast Gary Oldman as Indiana Jones either.

Not that I think Ford is a greater actor than those guys. But he is good at what he does.

Also - I'm still waiting for the SJW movement to burn down Lucas for riffing the Miwok into a bunch of cute furbabies.

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

uhhh....no.

Now lets try to imagine Ford against a REAL actor (baring idiotic "I need the money" casting choices in the last few years. Can you imagine Ford trying (literally laughing at the idea) of playing Oskar Schindler....

or Gary Olman's masterful work in the Darkest Hour....or Daniel Day Lewis's work in There will be Blood?

---

No actor is right for every part. I wouldn't cast Gary Oldman as Indiana Jones either.

Not that I think Ford is a greater actor than those guys. But he is good at what he does.

---

What...you don't think Daniel day Lewis would make a good Churchill?

I think that would be amazing

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

Harrison Ford is a classic lead actor. Comparable to Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable or Cary Grant each of whom was accused of "just being themselves" in every role. It is not as easy as people think as an example Tom Cruise comes off as a bad actor with cringe worthy moments trying to do the same thing.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

Harrison Ford is a classic lead actor. Comparable to Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable or Cary Grant each of whom was accused of "just being themselves" in every role. It is not as easy as people think as an example Tom Cruise comes off as a bad actor with cringe worthy moments trying to do the same thing.

---

In defense of cruise, his performances in magnolia and Tropic thunder were better than anything Harrison Ford has ever done

ducky23 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

Harrison Ford is a classic lead actor. Comparable to Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable or Cary Grant each of whom was accused of "just being themselves" in every role. It is not as easy as people think as an example Tom Cruise comes off as a bad actor with cringe worthy moments trying to do the same thing.

---

In defense of cruise, his performances in magnolia and Tropic thunder were better than anything Harrison Ford has ever done

---

I also think Cruise is good at what he does. He didn't remain a top-shelf, bankable movie star for 35 years by accident.

I'd also say Cruise's best work was in Born on the Fourth of July.

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

Harrison Ford is a classic lead actor. Comparable to Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable or Cary Grant each of whom was accused of "just being themselves" in every role. It is not as easy as people think as an example Tom Cruise comes off as a bad actor with cringe worthy moments trying to do the same thing.

---

In defense of cruise, his performances in magnolia and Tropic thunder were better than anything Harrison Ford has ever done

---

I also think Cruise is good at what he does. He didn't remain a top-shelf, bankable movie star for 35 years by accident.

I'd also say Cruise's best work was in Born on the Fourth of July.

---

Fair enough

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Harrison Ford isn't a good actor.

---

HAPPY to have that argument. Seriously, Ford plays essentially one character (Rogue with a heart of gold and a snarl when angry) in like EVERY movie he has ever been in.

Now he is a POPULAR actor and makes box office because people know what you are getting when he is cast and movie audiences like certainty. But honestly, can you name a Ford role that was an acting stretch for him?

I could EASILY name 10 actors in his generation that are FAR superior to him with roles which they showed range and depth and played against cast with gusto. Name one that Ford has done?

---

Dude, I didn't say he was the best actor of all time. But he is a good actor.

I don't see a lot of similarity between John Book and Henry Turner and Richard Kimble. It's still Harrison Ford, but he's playing different roles.

---

People tend to underrate subtle work that carries a movie, because the actor isn't putting on a new accent or doing some obvious physical change. Ford's job is to make a character instantly likable while also making it look like he's not trying. I guarantee none of those films work so well with someone else in the lead role.

---

Harrison Ford is a classic lead actor. Comparable to Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable or Cary Grant each of whom was accused of "just being themselves" in every role. It is not as easy as people think as an example Tom Cruise comes off as a bad actor with cringe worthy moments trying to do the same thing.

---

In defense of cruise, his performances in magnolia and Tropic thunder were better than anything Harrison Ford has ever done

---

I also think Cruise is good at what he does. He didn't remain a top-shelf, bankable movie star for 35 years by accident.

I'd also say Cruise's best work was in Born on the Fourth of July.

---

Fair enough

---

Say what you will about Cruise. But he knows how to make some very enjoyable movies.
Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion and Knight and Day. Are 3 of my all time favorite movies. Not for the acting; but just for the fun I get watching them.