Yes, agreed, there is absolutely no sense in disputing that.IcedOver wrote:As far as boske's point, that's not totally what I meant. This is a terrible example of the most standard plot structure (which of course can be the best if done right), and I've been to several others this year as bad or almost so. Despite its myriad flaws, or maybe even because of them and how messy "Return" was, it was more refreshing watching something that broke that formula than these horrible films.
For me the issue is not that I find TR all bad, people try and fail. But it is akin to having a very smart or a genius sibling or child that purposely ruins something to prove a point where there really was nothing to prove, and where they had all predispositions and a golden opportunity to create a great piece of art, and yet the end result was, contrary to boasting, rather sterile and embarrassing.
Let us assume that Lynch did direct Return of the Jedi, as Mr. Reindeer wondered a few pages back. Yes, there was the expectation that Luke would face Vader and then the Emperor, and he did. Now imagine that instead R2-D2 leaked some engine oil (maybe scorched! ) that the Emperor then slipped on accidentally and fell down that shaft? And that Vader accidentally turned the light sabre the other way around before he lit it up and thus performed an accidental Hara-kiri. Yes, that sure beats expectations, but would it have made it a better movie? Would it have been really that bad to have Coop and Mr. C go at it somehow? Maybe just inside of the lodge, there sure are ways of coming up with some creative situations resulting in something that would be talked for another 25 years. That's the crux of the matter, but I can certainly respect that some people, or more what looks like a 3/4 majority do not have a problem with that.