I really want Phasma will be the “Jaws” of the series.
"In The Spy Who Loved Me, Jaws survives an Egyptian structure’s collapse on top of him, being hit by a van, being thrown from a rapidly moving train, sitting in the passenger seat of a car which veers off a cliff in Sardinia and lands in a hut below (to the owner’s dismay), a battle underwater with a shark, and the destruction of Stromberg’s lair. In Moonraker, he survives falling several thousand feet after accidentally disabling his own parachute (he falls through a circus tent and lands in the trapeze net), a crash through a building inside a runaway cable car (where he meets Dolly), and going over Iguazu Falls. After each of these incidents (except the last), he always picks himself up, dusts off his jacket, straightens his tie and nonchalantly walks away. "
I’m pretty sure she lived, They showed her face a bit at that last moment to give you an idea there was a character underneath, and she fell into a fireball however, it was established that her armor is actually worth something compared to everyone else.
The entire thing where they introduce that hyperspace tracking is hard and special/running out of fuel/but our non hyperspace engines of are smaller ships are faster, etc, all felt odd when there’s already a plot device to prevent an escape in Star Wars.
When it comes to anything involving space travel or space battles in any movie, I just try to take the rules as presented as the rules the story is following, DESPITE previous movies in a franchise having different rules. It’s hard to do that with Star Wars, as so many of the plots are resolved by space ship rules laywering, but it’s the only way to just sit back and enjoy the battle as presented.
I think J K Rowling once said that the magic in each Harry Potter novel is consistent in its own right, but there are many, many inconsistencies between them. Time travel solves a problem in this book? Fine, but that doesn’t mean it’ll be possible again. I like this approach!
Sure. For all intents and purposes that was the author’s decision as well, just the same as how shields seem to behave inconsistently. I’m just saying there’s already an established way of conveying “you can’t jump out of this sector till you circumvent the plot device.”
And that was actual strategy used in WW2. Before they had long range fighter escorts, the theory was that the only way to keep the bombers safe from enemy fighters was to pack them close together and hope their defensive guns could produce a heavy enough curtain of fire to keep enemy fighters at bay. Not only did this not work as well as intended, but it also resulted in the bombers being easy targets for ground-based anti-aircraft artillery.
Granted, this may have been a smidge better than the alternative, but the only real solution to the problem was the development of long-range fighter escorts.
Mad Max showed that post-production 3D can easily be better than filming in 3D. They can better use it as a tool to achieve an effect than simply having another dimension in all the shots.
It can be, but it isn’t always that way. Sometimes they film in 3D because that is the intent, and the 2D version exists because it sort of has to. Sometimes they just add some 3D to make some extra dough at the theater.
Is there a site that gives recommendations of which movies to see in 3D vs. 2D?
CinemaBlend does a column that answers that question for movies. They gave Last Jedi a 5/5 for use of 3D. I still don’t feel it’s essential by any stretch, but as I said before, I was very happy with the 3D showing.
Mad Max was probably the best use of 3D I’ve ever seen.
I’m sure I’m forgetting some great experience from some other movie, but it’s the only one that’s consistently stood out in my mind as being artful and excellent.