I was going to say in the other thread that current Hulk fought Thanos recently and was able to do some impressive stuff but i totally forgot this. I guess in this comparision Thor did better than Hulk. Altough i don´t think the fight is over the next issue might show more.
Thor wasn't "beating" Thanos, the hits were about as ineffectual as they come and to be fair and we never saw Thanos hit Thor so Thor didnt have to bother to attempt to tank hits from him like Hulk did.
As i said the better comparisson would have been this
Gallery
Thor doesnt have OF so he isn't "WEAKENED" lmao here, so it should be a better comparison.
I don´t get how that would be a better comparison unless you mean current Hulk fight versus infinity Thor vs Thanos bc we both know it wasn´t even a fight but the start of one
The fight from the Thanos comic is a good feat from Hulk but i don´t get what makes this fight better than the infinity one. They both were throwing each other around until Thanos punched away Hulk and went in his little car lol. The Thor one Thor hits with lighting which is tanked/ no sold (thanos got some good energy durability feats) then Thor does a bullrush with lighting that vrings Thanos to his knees, the mad titan catch the next swing and they get in a struggle which Thanos breaks by punching Thor then thanos uses energy to throw the god of thunder away and that is it
Both are depicted as bellow Thanos albeit Hulk in a better fashion i admit. Given Immortal and banner of war etc i would have tought that Hulk was more similar to Thanos overral
Both supes and thor have feats on each other level but supes is superior and is definitely on hulks level infact reading your post you haven't really brought how thor and hulk are above supes.
I haven't seen thor replicate many of supes strength feat and supe has feats on hulk level but agree to disagree. Thor doesn't also have so many planetary feats and supes outliers are far above planetary he has multiple planetary feats.
Really carol is stronger than supes? Wow, i can see that you don't know much about supes even diana is above caron beat thor her gear can kill him and there's no way he is breaking out of her lasso and thor and hulk don't have the necessary resistance to the lasso hax, but i can see them also beating her.
Agree on that part.
I know hulk and thor very well, i normally tend to stay away from battles involving them because of hpow personal it can be but it's been nice debating with u.
LOOOL
So here we go:
Gallery
1-2 Jane Thor took energy comparable to a round moon of saturn, which are some of the greatest of the solar system
3-4 Jane and Odin shatter the moons of Jupiter some of the biggest of the solar system. If they did it to ganymede it would be comparable to shatter mars with a single punch which is a better version of this feat that supes performed
5 Shook the celestial starship. Going by the size in the same arc it was said to be the size of the moon. Later appearences varied with some saying it was bigger than the moon other bigger than a small star. And the same issue showed as bigger than the moon let´s just say moon sized and stop it at that
6-7 Took but was dazed by a mftl bullrush when a reg punch from this sentry shook the planet
9 made a storm that can shake worlds
Gallery
1-2 Negs the weight of half a planet.
3 Overpowers the midgarth serpent which goes around the earth.
4 people tried to debunk it like every other Thor feat but the weight of the serpent stays the same even tho it changes size and shape
5 unbreakes a planet planet hulk style mid fight. He did break it tho so it was his obligation to fix it lol
6 Lighting the size of a planet sized prision (lol)
7 Him and Herc are equals and generate enough energy to pull a planet out of orbit.
8-9 Glory is shown destroying/shattering a planet with his bare hands and thor could withstand it altough at great pain
10-Thor and herc throw punch that can demolish worlds
Gallery
1-4 planet shaking blows and i´m pretty sure other realms fealt that too.
5- Shaked the mountains and the "sky" so the planet
6- Bill crushed moons with his hand
7- Thor took blows and clashed with Ulik in the same appearence that he was said to be able to "level a planet". HOWEVER i must add that every hit severely hurt Thor like making him unable to use his wrist right and etc
8- Made Ego afraid
9-10 comparable to someone that is said to shatter planets
Gallery
1 deals planet shattering blow
2-3 deals planet shaking blows and destroy said planet shaking weapon
4 gilgamesh who is inferior to him lifted the earth
5-as did herc suposedly
6- Herc his equal stopped the rotation of the earth with help
7- Bill destroyed planets with the hammer
8- Thor shattered moons
9 Bill destroying planets fighting stardust
Gallery
1-2 Tanks a bullrush point blank destroyed a planet
3- Said to be planet killer
4- Hammer can destroy a planet
5-6 arkon wanted to destroy earth to make enough energy to recreate it´s artificial sun and Thor recharges the machine with lighting
7 until 10 Negs a beam that would over time destroy a planet with a storm
Gallery
1- Says his hammer can destroy worlds
2- His equal, Bill, is planetary
3-4 Says his hammer can destroy planets again
5 Jane says it gain
6 Throws a planet sized ship with pure brute strength after throwing a hammer.
7- Survives/tanks a bolder which received magic so it would weight the same as the earth and later fights the giant that threw it to a standstil
8- Planet shaking attack
9-10 The recorder thinks Thor attack> the attack that was overtime destroying a planet
Gallery
1-2 When analysing a planet destroying missle or "bullet" that when in contat with cosmic rays hardens and was supposed to destroy the earth Bill is their option to destroy it even days after it became earth destroying. However it also has many magic defesenses wich prevent Bill from destroying.
3 A lighting amped punch is visible from a "small starm system" ship.
4 The mother storm is threatening to destroy the moon WHILE IT IS BARELY NEAR IT.
5 It is both feat and context: Later Thor is able to control the mother storm mid fight to reforge his hammer and it is visible/comparable to the sun
6-7-8-9 Thor redirects all the power thru his body for an extended period of time and it is lighting is bigger than the moon. Altough he receives help from Odin later.
10- Says Mjolnir can destroy planets
Gallery
1-3 My personal favorites: shattering worlds as proven by Aaron´s words and referenced prior in the series (in the forth scan) when it is said that Mjolnir can easily shatter worlds.
5 Thor fighting a clone in Nidavelir shakes Asgard which is US sized and the earth.
6 Thor shakes "all realms" and Nidavelir for example (seventh scan) has mountains the size of moons...
Btw there is more like Jane overpowering +5 opponents that scale to a world shaking character, Bill overpowering a continent/half the surface scorching blast and more, here
Nice character moments it is always cool and more needed to see them. This issue had more emotion and characterization than years of previous runs.
Thor speaking to the storm, to the bridge, helping mortals, is great! But it seems kins of too fast (?) to introduce the major conflict of the run in that way
It is very iconic and powerful scene, nobody can deny it that. But as an acting standpoint i prefer Thor´s and in that aspect the underlined part is not important. This is not a "who suffered most" this is about the writing and acting part of the scene. Thor´s losses in there have a direct impact on the scene just like Vader´s´having cut Luke´s hand and killing his mentor and Obi Wan lying
The strength of SW scene is Hamil´s stellar performance and the plot twist. Thor´s is a different kind of scene, both important and great. One is about the hero´s world view shattering and the other is a world view just barely surviving just enough for the character be alive. And it is also interesting that it is obvious that he is wrong buut he also simply fails
Yes, those underlined portions are important.
They aren´t and when you stop being needlessly contrarian you will admit this. We are only citing things that impact this exact scene and therefore impact the actions and worldview of the characters then and there and not every tragedy they ever faced. Thor´s scene has the intention of higlighting how truly alone he is and how powerless he was to save everyone he cares.
So now it's just a personal preference, not a genuine objective analysis. I could easily argue the way you are and say "a worldview shattering is better than a worldview barely surviving because the bounce-back is bigger." This isn't valid argumentation.
Except that Thor´s worldview WAS shattered later and that is the tragedy of it. He is not "protected by fate" or whatever this is purely how he is coping with this
I could also easily argue that the attempted humor in the IW scene ruins the moment whereas ESB takes it seriously from beginning to end.
The humor in this scene has a reason and is not just random. It is showing how Thor is trying to deflect the situation that is dire for him and not being truthful about the situation
More or less. Plot holes are in generally one of the weakest critics that one can make to a story. In many cases are simply nit picks tbh. Everything you said before are more important than plot holes. And again there are flaws on the og including in payoff worldbuilding, of telling instead of showing etc
Not even remotely true. A single plot hole can completely alter the entire course of a film.
Come on let´s not cinema sins this, we are better than that
Oh, PLEASE tell me about these supposed payoff, world-building, and telling instead of showing flaws that ESB contains. I'm most curious to see them since they almost certainly don't exist.
Plentiful. Isn´t this the film that introduced a weapon that could incapacitate a star destroyer in one hit to never been seeing again and with no reason why this isn´t in at least one rebeld ship... or the fact that the empire bounced back from having a space station the size of a small moon and energy to destroy a planet in record time instead of having their economy totally broken.
This in the first act mind you
Arcane is a masterpiece and way better than both films but i was explaning what i like the most. ESB has a few filller scenes like Yoda doing the secret test of character in the last hope of the galaxy. IW is way more "efficient" with it´s scenes with they serving a way more defined reason
The test of character was absolutely necessary lmao. It highlights Luke's lack of preparation, which is then PAID OFF by him failing to rescue Han or Leia and losing to Vader.
Ok cool so what? Luke and the rebelion are the only thing that is keeping the empire from totally winning. Not training him will mean that either he will be killed or turned. Either way they are fucked.
Not only are you actively inventing definitions to serve your argument, but you're ignoring elements that accommodate your definition in ESB. I'm interested in the source of your perspective on depth, as it does not conform to the cinematic definition.
If I were to go along with your personal view, Luke quite literally contains levels of depth. We know what his hobbies are, we know what separates him from other people in his verse and characters from other series, we know what people he thinks about from his past, etc.
We know exactly why Luke chooses to go with Ben, we know exactly why he's mad at Han, we know exactly why he joins the rebellion, we know exactly why he goes to Dagobah, we know exactly why he ignores his mentors, etc. So how does he not contain depth, according to your definition of it?
Wait what? I´m not inventing definitions to serve my argument.. that is literaly what "character depth" is. It is a metaphor, we aren´t talking about literaly depth we are just trying to say that the character has a surface (characterization like hobbies) and things beneath it.
That is the most basic definition of character depth there is. It is just like the iceberg meme.
And it is not simply "to know why a character thinks" It is making the corrolation of what he thinks, why he thinks and generally what caused him to think this.
In arcane Jinx has abandonment issues that she projects on Catlin. Cool but why does she have that? because in episode three the cause of her first victory was what also what killed her family (confliting emotions) and made Vi apparently abbandon her.
But hey if what i´m saying will be dismissed as being baseless even tho it is true i will quote Robert Mckee in his book "story"
Characterization is the sum of all the observable qualities in a human being (..)their age, IQ, sex gender and sexuality, their choise of home, car and clothes, education and work, personality and neuroses, values and atitudes This custer of traits is the characterization...but not the character
THE TRUE CHARACTER is revealed in the choices a human being doeos while under pressure- the greater the pressure the greater the revelatioon and more truthful the choice is to the essential nature of the character
Revelation of character (p 107)
The revelation of the true character in contrast or in contradiction of the caracterization is fundamental for all good stories.
The protagonist has a counscious wish
The protagonist might also have an uncounscious wish that contradicts itself
The counscious and the uncounscious desire of a multidimensional protagoniscontradict one another. What he thinks he wants is the antithesis of what he really wants
And what i said about flat characters not necessarily being uninteresting or not well rounded also has backing in some stuff. Character depth and development is not the same.
Jack sparrow doesn´t change in most films he appears .Neither does the joker. Dwight from the office, snape, cap america, scherlock. Bronn from GOT, Daemon from HOTD. Still great characters. There are even courses of writing like "masterclass" that agree with this
Here. This is character depth. Will i have to find a citation when i make a statement of "the sky appears to be blue in most places while in the mourning?
I don´t know why you think i can´t teach you some stuff or present you something that you werent familiar with you are just trying to dismiss what i say outright without taking into consideration
So meta themes somehow dictate the strength of character relationships? I'm not buying that, and screenwriters aren't either. Themes are important, but they're distinct features that encompass a whole craft, whereas character relationships are examined in a smaller, more detailed scale.
And now you're actively ignoring facts again. Up to the reveal, Vader WAS a typical evil villain. But when we learn the truth, he offers Luke the opportunity to join him in ruling the galaxy via defeating the evil emperor. Explain to me how Vader demonstrated rage and hatred when he told Luke the truth.
How does the fact that a payoff occurs at the end of a film somehow detract from its weight? This counters your own argument since Thanos and Tony don't even speak until the end of IW.
Go back to the post i was responding. You were the one that said that Thanos and Stark only interact one scene so this detracts from their dynamic. Then i pointed out that Vader in empire strikes back only interacts with Luke in their fight scene.
Hell i´m pretty sure Vader and Luke never talk in the first film. He fights Obi wan in front of Luke and attacks Luke´s tie in. However i´m willing to bet that you still think their dynamic is strong...so why change in relation to Thanos and Tony.
IW had a great cast
Yeah, he doesn't. Explain to me how the beginning of Iron Man 3 Tony and beginning of Civil War Tony are different, without citing inventions that he makes. He consistently retains his textbook narcissism while demonstrating a greater ability to work with others, which he acquired from Avengers.
The fact that more events occurred in his arc than another character doesn't automatically mean he changed to a greater degree. Especially when very little can be offered to demonstrate how Tony changed from the beginning of IW to the end of IW, without mentioning him losing people close to him because that's not character growth.
I see what is the problem ,you seem stuck in the surface/mask of the character. For starters: Tony is not a narcissist. Quite the contrary actually as he proves he is not many times in the franchise. Let´s see this pretty short summary of narcissism
Did you know that Narcissists have a very low therapy rate? Because they don´t take well criticism and don´t think they can be improved and don´t care for people´s feelings.
Tony does care. A lot. He in fact is consumed by guilt and that is what drives his motives and actions for civil war and iron man. Him sacrificing himself in avengers in fact is a proof that he is not the jerk he seems at least not entirely.
I like how you are focusing in a very small part of his character arc to prove he doens´t change when i just showed he does an 180 on a very important instance of his that being governament supervision and even his own sense of "i´m better than others"
His character traits maybe haven´t changed much (but he did get new ones like PTSD) but that is more realistic. Generally people don´t do 180 of their personalities in real life. They improve little bits.
And i already showed how Tony matured. He processed his childhood traumas. He was scared of being close to people, he gradually let Pepper get closer and accepted commitmment with her. He had daddy issues because his father was cold and distant (IM 1,2 and . He started replicating this with Peter (Civil war and homecoming) , he recognized this and outgrew this and became a good and closer father (endgame). Like you said he became a better team player and even accepted orders.He was humbled and becamed afraid ever since Avengers
this is not "more events" it directly impacts how he acts, sees things his personality
He helped because of both Luke and Leia. Both their cheerful reunion and the ceremony reflect this.
And he didn't even join the rebellion at that point. He wanted to leave but Leia made him stay because it wasn't safe to leave, which he then uses to make Leia admit that she wanted him to stay.
You keep saying these aspects "fell flat" but you haven't provided in-text evidence for how it didn't work. Their differences set up the romantic conflict but their shared adventures and the shared things they cared about brought them closer together. Him saving her over and over wasn't responsible for her liking him. Luke also saved her multiple times but their relationship moved in a different direction (prior to the weird sibling retcon).
The fact that you think more signs were required to illustrate that they liked each other proves that you need to watch the film again. All of their scenes on Hoth, which is Act 1 alone, makes it very clear that they like each other but don't want to admit it.
He was in the rebelion for an entire YEAR. Like... how do you not consider him part of the rebellion?
Except differences or simply show that they like each other are not enough to write ANY love story. They also generally have to have similarities, and complement each other. See Pride and prejudice were both have an attraction but deny it and play it up like they hate each other (like Leia and Han). The book pretty much codified the trope of enemy to lovers which is one of the more well liked romance troupes rn.
They both like each other but there is an obstacle in the way of both of them getting together. In Pride and Prejudice case it is her pride and his prejudice (and vice versa) after they have being mislead about each other and Darcy is kind of an ass. There is a scene where he confess and she rejects him. Why? because he still is an ass and she still has the same view off him. It is only when there is an turning point and he starts changing and she starts seing that he has changed that she drops her prejudice and they get together
In romance there is generally two whys and one how: Why they like each other, Why they can´t be together and how they get pass their differences.
Han and Leia like each other. I guess she likes how free spirit he is or wtv and idk why he likes her other than being atractive, maybe he likes her being bossy idk. Until here ok that might be me not getting the characters but the next stages is where the problem lies: She doesn´t get with him because he is an ass and he doesn´t get with her because she doesn´t admit...so....he simplly keeps saying "admit you like me" and not even in that playfull way just insisting and she...just accepts it.
Like if you insist in doing this in a by the book speak let´s analyse this. The confession scene should be the climax and each scene should just build NEW information until the climax. However there is not such thing they keep this "will they won´t they" and "banter" up until they kiss. There is no crescendo.
Loading Video...
The climax falls flat when it is not roughly like this
And again they don´t change each other for the better or teach each other anything.
And the "they like each other" is literally one scene. Like, no, this is not well written
Tony and Thanos's dynamic is hardly fleshed out. The only reason there's even a dynamic to begin with is a 5 second long interaction between them.
See post above
Vader and Luke's relationship is way more fleshed out and the prequels add layers to this relationship to make it even better.
How the relationship was fleshed out? And what layers did it add?
Thor and Tony don't have much depth either.
Let me just copy paste this:
That being said, Iron man is THE most dynamic character in the MCU. He changes with EVERY appearence of him and i don´t know how you could miss that
Compare him in Iron man 2 to civil war. Him from the start of the avengers to iron man 3 which made him create ultron. Him going from avoiding peter in pourpose to doing this. His every first movie has him starting to develop a conscious and in the next film he is dealing with his impending death.
Iron man has several arcs in the MCU from dealing with his guilt, his legacy, parenthood and daddy issues, his ego, his romance arc with Pepper, his conflict with Rogers and arguably in avengers him sacrificing himself.
We have stuff like his issues with parenthood, mental health and etc. Iron man is a character that has much depth. You talked about "Jungian psychology" well both Iron man and Thor actually have a persona. They both have a well explored issues of their ego (not in a jungian sense to be clear)
I fail to see this as a counter. Luke's grapple between the light and dark sides of himself as he struggles to come to terms with information regarding his parents or even the reveal that Obi-Wan lied to him (sort of). He's forced to come to terms with the fact that just about everything he ever believed in was wrong and he's unable to.
Except it is. A story that explores the world of the chracters in a emotionaly rich way has a way better chance of not only resonanting with the emotion of the audience but also making the story better.
The light and dark side are very simplistic and at the same time ill defined concept. Plus altough the scene is very potent there are no big consequences to Obi wan lying and his struggles are resolved offscreen where Luke decides to convert Vader.
Characters don't need depth to be good characters. Samwise Gamgee is an amazing character but he's about as deep as a puddle. Han and Leia are great characters because of their excellent characterization and their amazing relationship with develops very well throughout the three movies.
Maybe but depth certanly helps. In theory characters serve functions in the story but most.
I personally don´t think they had a great relationship tbh their interactions with Luke are more interesting. They are chiefly carried by good performances and sticking pretty well to their archetype
Cinematography has a big part to play in which movie is better. It's how the story is conveyed on the screen after all. Glossing over that is a pretty silly thing to do.
I´m not glossing over, just not going off topic:
That's a great scene, but "I am your father" is a better scene from both JEJ and Mark Hamill. Mark pulls off the confused and scared Luke as he's faced with an existential crisis while being unable to cope with it very well. Thor's performance is probably more nuanced, but Mark's performance expertly portrays what it's meant to portray and the scene being better written doesn't hurt either.
Except being more nuanced IS a sign of better writing. Vader dialogue is stiff and non natural. And because the dark side is so simplistic and obvious evil it makes the dialogue almost chidlish in.
Thanos is a more complex and deep villain than Vader (OT trilogy only), but Vader has a better relationship with Luke than anything Thanos has, better dialogue, is more impactful, has a way better character introduction and conclusion, better symbolism with being Luke's dark side and Carl Jung's shadow archetype, and more. There's more to writing good characters than just being deep or complex. As well as that, Vader's just a way better antagonistic force than Thanos is. He opposes Luke both physically but also ideologically much better than Thanos does.
Except they don´t go to deep in the shadow archetype either and that hurts the symbolism the ideology etc. Luke and Vader is basically "don´t be evil, be good" which is a message that everybody knows and has seeen thousands of times by virtualy everything. The most in depth message of this movie is "don´t give in to hate" whiout providing an answer of hate of who, why people hate etc so it just is shallow and hollow.
In Thanos case there is an argument being made. Fatherhood in his case. The way he treats being a father is opposed to Tony´s.
How does Luke not have depth? Him in ANH and ROTJ are vastly different characters, despite still possessing the same consistent traits that define him (such as recklessness). The fact that you're argument for Tony's depth revolves entirely around another character is a major hole in your argument.
You are mistaking depth with character development. Characters can be flat and and have an arc and being well rounded and being static. Batman in most stories is a static character who is the same as the start of the story (because most writers forget his actual arc) and still he has a lot of depth to it.
Depth is more than just having traits it is largely how they interplay with each other and one of the best showings of depth is how they contradict each other which is rarely the case for Luke with the exception of him giving up his training to save his friends.
Depth is also how well this character can make the ilusion of being a life like person. Hobbies, unique things, memories can help the ilusion of reality. Ofc the things above are more important but it does help to sell the depth just like the emotional range
A character that has depth will act in a certain way because of things that "are in his subcounscious" (for a lack of a better term) but are clear to us the audience.
Also please can we focus on something and then go from there? because in this way we are going to write and read walls of text on many topics and i´m not feeling it.
Speaking of duos, Luke and Vader's dynamic is way out of Tony and Thanos' league. For starters, the latter have a total of 2 scenes together, and only a portion of 1 of those scenes is devoted to Tony and Thanos specifically and how their ideals clash. Which ultimately amounts to no more than the fact that they have daughters and they're both doing what they think is right. Conversely, Vader's initial setup as a plain but intimidating villain is immediately brought into question by the two of them being directly related, despite Vader killing Luke's master and now shattering his expectations of his father from prior scenes (being Ben's student and a great warrior). This of course comes full circle when Luke willingly submits to Vader in ROTJ despite initially refusing to join him with the attempt of redemption, which goes against his mentors' counsel. And his persistence pays off when Vader, the antagonist, saves Luke from the Emperor.
The two characters do not necessarily need all that interaction because their foils are woven into the story. The story´s whole theme is about parenthood: And their ideas of it are show thru bits in the whole Saga. This was show from the interactions of the children of Thanos, the paternal way of how Thanos acts like he knows the best thing for everyone etc. Tony had a similar relationship with Peter which because of his daddy issues was initialy distant but then he comes closer to him and which culminates on Tony finally having his own daughter. Their clash is thematic and is the culmination of Tony´s arc ever since the first avenger. Thanos is nevertheneless very respectful and even
And by that alone they are more complex then Luke and Vader. Vader is for the most part laughably evil and has little to no characteristic in the film beyond that. When he learns that he has a child (which he never actually saw) he starts showing other emotional range then rage and hate which is not exactly that interesting in my opinion. His and Luke relationship are also quite simple. Of course the revelation was impactful and powerful scene but that was not woven into their dynamic yet until almost the end of the movie
Also make up your mind: Are we talking about EPB vs IW? Or are we taking more into consideration. If we are talking about only the two films Vader and Luke only enconter each other once too.
On another note, Luke became "generic" because he literally MADE the trope. It seems like it isn't unique because so many films in the past half a century have tried to copy what SW did and failed miserably. Meanwhile, we have Iron Man who requires 6 films to get to where he is in Infinity War and he still barely changes between the end of the Avengers and the end of Infinity War.
First off i know Luke helped codify the trope (not make it tho, plenty of characters even inspired him) that is why i put the " " in generic. That being said, Iron man is THE most dynamic character in the MCU. He changes with EVERY appearence of him and i don´t know how you could miss that
Compare him in Iron man 2 to civil war. Him from the start of the avengers to iron man 3 which made him create ultron. Him going from avoiding peter in pourpose to doing this. His every first movie has him starting to develop a conscious and in the next film he is dealing with his impending death.
Iron man has several arcs in the MCU from dealing with his guilt, his legacy, parenthood and daddy issues, his ego, his romance arc with Pepper, his conflict with Rogers and arguably in avengers him sacrificing himself.
So he does change a lot tbh. More than that he might still be arrogant and witty but there is a lot of depth to him.
Uh, they do? They're both stubborn and stand by what they believe, aren't cowards, and take matters into their own hands. The drama revolves around Leia fighting for a cause that Han doesn't believe in. Their stubbornness and different ideals eventually compromise with Han joining the Rebellion and Leia has acquired a sense of pragmatism that nearly cost her her life multiple times early on.
Again, this is untrue. Han joins a cause that he hated because Leia helped him become more selfless. The buildup for this all occurs in Acts 2 and 3 of ESB, such as inside the space slug and on Bespin. Han gets Leia through life and death situations over and over again that she slowly begins to respect him for, and she helps him at his lowest on both Bespin and Tatooine shortly before and after carbon freezing respectively.
Like how can you possibly come to the conclusion that Leia saying she loves Han is the same as her telling him off for trying to act like they were a thing on Hoth?
They don´t. Han joined the cause initially because of Luke not Leia (and in another film). IIRC a whole year have passed in which Solo stayed with them so he joined the rebelion earlier and it was mostly because Han´s and Luke friendship. And while they still denied they already liked each other.
They had "romantic" moments that falled flat imo because they did not have a strong enough dynamic together. In theory the princess and the scoundrel/space pirate is cool but they did not play their cards that well. Again him simply saving her life is not "over and over" is not enough to make a good romance but it is enough for most people that are so accustomed to the barely there romance subplot to take it and not question about it.
Their bicker were not that romantic and they should show more signs that they like each other than that simple stares. Now to be honest this kind of relationship is kind of hard to pull off. It is the same trope/archetype of say Star lord and gamora and they are both ok at it. Just not that great. i would even put gamora and peter slightly above it because han is being a jerk to her with his teasing, never stops and it could have a cool silent scene where they talk about it but it doesn´t happpen.
Arcane did it better.
I cite Luke in ESB at one of the most iconic scenes in entertainment history. Luke has already lost his parents when he was a baby, stumbled upon the burnt corpses of his guardians, watched his mentor getting murdered despite being helpless, heard his co-pilot die right behind him in the same aircraft, and discover that his friend and the woman he likes have been captured by the Empire and is then lured into a trap. His arm is literally cut off and about to be killed by the person who caused everything to him. And then this same person reveals that Luke is of his very flesh and blood—that Luke is the same as Vader in a way. The monster standing in front of him is his creator and the student of his master who Luke thought was amazing all the way up to this point. His entire worldview is shattered, as his very idol is his greatest nemesis and his mentor, whom he trusted, lied to him about his father being killed. Mark of course displays this expertly with the initial denial to accept what Vader says but is then forced to accept, which shatters him, resulting in his painful scream and his nigh willingness to let himself die.
It is very iconic and powerful scene, nobody can deny it that. But as an acting standpoint i prefer Thor´s and in that aspect the underlined part is not important. This is not a "who suffered most" this is about the writing and acting part of the scene. Thor´s losses in there have a direct impact on the scene just like Vader´s´having cut Luke´s hand and killing his mentor and Obi Wan lying
The strength of SW scene is Hamil´s stellar performance and the plot twist. Thor´s is a different kind of scene, both important and great. One is about the hero´s world view shattering and the other is a world view just barely surviving just enough for the character be alive. And it is also interesting that it is obvious that he is wrong buut he also simply fails
Loading Video...
Loading Video...
There's no such thing as "different definitions" in film writing. Any film professor will tell you this. Payoffs, consistency, development, world-building, etc. are all part of screenwriting. Any flaws, no matter how small such as plot holes, deteriorate the overall craft to some degree. And ESB has held up for decades because it is an exceptionally crafted film with an exceptionally crafted screenplay with close to no errors whatsoever.
More or less. Plot holes are in generally one of the weakest critics that one can make to a story. In many cases are simply nit picks tbh. Everything you said before are more important than plot holes. And again there are flaws on the og including in payoff worldbuilding, of telling instead of showing etc
Also don't even bother comparing Arcane to any MCU film, they're leagues apart.
Arcane is a masterpiece and way better than both films but i was explaning what i like the most. ESB has a few filller scenes like Yoda doing the secret test of character in the last hope of the galaxy. IW is way more "efficient" with it´s scenes with they serving a way more defined reason
Log in to comment