Just wanna post a great Mr.Plinnket comment he made on Indy 4 movie

Plinkett is a legend. And yes I totally agree it does work.

 

But he makes the point that even films with the same formula at least coat it with new aesthetics. And he is talking about formula not formula and plot. What's more he talks about the importance of originality and then cites TESB as a great example of how sequels can be different and work well.

 

My problem with Indy 4 is that I kept waiting in the theater asking myself, when is this movie going to get fun? When am I going to start really enjoying myself? Aren't Indiana Jones movies supposed to be fun?

I didn't have that problem with The Force Awakens. I was entertained from the beginning. It felt like a genuine Star Wars movie should feel. And it was a hell of a lot of fun. It was funny, emotional, it was engaging, and at the end it was satisfying, leaving me wanting more. That's exactly what you want from these types of movies. The familiarity of it all was inconsequential to me.

And Red Letter Media, which famously tore the prequels a new one, gave a positive review of TFA. Mike Stoklasa said he loved it, and Jay Bauman concurred, saying it was essentially the best SW sequel since Empire, better than Return of the Jedi.

 

You didn't think the monkey swinging was fun? As for new aesthetics, they were doing a bit there in TFA about the dilapidation in 31+ years if you heard / read about what went on in JTTFA .

 

The Mutt Williams Tarzan monkey swinging was total cringe.
It was hokey and the CG was bad. You knew Lucas was responsible for that scene.

 

Hahaha yeah I was just being sarcastic...hokey CGI and ancient directors are no match for a good story at your side

 

Did it work though? The Death Star 3.0 finale fell flat IMO because of how they messed with the formula.

 

I still can't shake the memory of seeing a snow covered pea-sized planet sitting in a Mercury-esque orbit, sucking the sun dry. The fireball was so massive the whole orb didn't fit on the screen. That ruined the Starkiller goes boom for me.... the whole thing felt off from that shot on. Thermal Oscillator? Forget that, how does Mercury even have snow? I was like, what did I just see? I don't even know.

 

Chris Stuckmann has a video on the 'formula' too.

And the new Plinkett review definitely sidesteps the issue a bit, as RLM kind of understands that the formulaic thing is somewhat unavoidable - from Bond to SW to the Marvel films.

But it really is the presentation. TPM is similar to ANH/ROTJ/TFA, but there's 40 minutes where nothing happens, Jar-Jar does happen, and there's not many good performances. Most films aren't that original - Gladiator and Braveheart follow the same structure as any hero-film like SW - but they're presented as fantastic period-pieces with iconic performances. A SW film with likable characters and a fun ensemble to follow through the formulaic plot is about as much as we could have asked for in 2015, and I think most of the audience got that.

 

It is a known fact that Venus, being further from the sun than Mercury is actually hotter than Mercury. I don't know the calculations for Mercury off hand, but if Earth was located where Venus is, then the average daily temperature would increase from say around 86° to about 118°. Still survivable, but very uncomfortable. Plus we have to look at SK's atmosphere which seemed to have a dense cloud structure. This would limit the amount of solar energy that would reach the surface and keep the planet cool like insulation, at lease for a brief time. Also, the magnetic field of the planet will also effect the relative temperature.
Then we also have to look at the star it's self. Is it a hot star? A relatively cool star? All stars are different. etc,etc. Finally, what was the actual distance from the star. Maybe it looks close in relation because the star is quite small, probably close to being a brown dwarf.