Author Topic: Star Wars: The Force Awakens  (Read 26253 times)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #120 on: January 06, 2016, 01:54:48 AM »
It's not that I think those who dislike the film are faking it or disingenuous in their motivations. Not here, at least. But I do think that many of the things pointed out as flaws or problems or whatever are glossed over when they happen in the original films. Does one thing with the floating ball count as enough training to later "Use the force, Luke" and if it does, why does Rey's similar trajectory get scrutinized? Down to the same reminder at a vital moment. And also, why is this the thing we care about? Why is "spot the plot hole" our new national pastime? If it's a symptom of a film's underlying problems, let's talk about those instead.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #121 on: January 06, 2016, 02:02:56 AM »
Prometheus, which to me is the best example of a film that was so busy "world building" it left the movie with a frustratingly long list of questions.

Ohh, that's a good one. Was it conceived of as a trilogy? I thought it was just poorly written.
Jon Spaihts's original script was originally just another film with DNA from Alien. Then it was decided this could reboot the Alien franchise and Damon Lindelof was brought in to build it into a new trilogy. Prometheus 2 is now Alien: Covenant.



What equivalent problems do you think A New Hope has? That movie is so much more focused that it has less to explain, yet still provides more clarity and world-building through natural exposition. The only "mysteries" I can think of are just things that are only unanswered in the context of questions asked later.
Luke's backstory. Everything that has led to The Empire dominating the galaxy. I think both films do an equally fine job of laying in the world as a setting and not something that needs to be explained.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #122 on: January 06, 2016, 07:39:42 AM »
Luke's backstory. Everything that has led to The Empire dominating the galaxy. I think both films do an equally fine job of laying in the world as a setting and not something that needs to be explained.

Correct. Of the original Star Wars, I could ask the following similar questions:

1. Who is the Empire and how did they come to power, particularly the Emperor and Darth Vader? Who is Darth Vader? (Parallel to the First Order, Snoke)

2. Who is Luke Skywalker, and what is his history? (Parallel to Rey)
- We may get that he lives with his Aunt and Uncle and his father died fighting with Obi-Wan, but we later learn that is not completely true, and my question would be, if his father was a Jedi Knight killed by a bad guy, why is Luke stuck on an outer-rim planet as a farmer instead of somewhere cool where he could have been more involved with the rebellion, and what about his mother, I don't remember them mentioning his mother at all, how does that not ever come up?

I think those were the two biggest questions I had after seeing TFA, and they are not dissimilar to possible questions from Star Wars, but we aren't distracted by being immersed in an incredible new universe like we were the first time we saw Star Wars. We've spent time in the universe before with our TFA experience, so I feel like it is easier to point out these questions then see things like the lightsaber, Darth Vader, the Death Star, the Millennium Falcon and be amazed by them. Were there other questions that were also glaring omissions?

Also,

3. I also don't quite understand the uproar over Rey and Finn knowing how to use the lightsaber. That's like being shocked that I would be able to fight with a sword. Have I ever before? No, but that doesn't mean I'm incompetent to the point of not knowing how to pick it up and use it like a sword. Finn at least has Stormtrooper training where he probably had weapons training, so just like any weapon, he should be able to wield it sufficiently for a battle against a not completely trained opponent (Kylo Ren). Like Junior mentioned before with the floating ball blaster from the original, that was the only light saber training Luke had, and he was at least component with the weapon during that training.

I'm basically agreeing with Junior's earlier comment. I do not think anyone is being disingenuous about disliking TFA, just trying to build conversation.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #123 on: January 06, 2016, 09:47:58 AM »
I think JR and CD are overlooking the fact that Luke was in training with a Jedi Master, there are no Jedi Masters helping Rey along.  And she was able to use the Force in ways that took training on Dagobah with Yoda for Luke.  I'm not trying to spot the plot hole, I'm saying there are very obvious things about the film that are essentially a reboot of Star Wars and not something new.  I thought Fin should be a lot tougher given his Storm Trooper training and yet he still looked like a layperson.  Snoke just seemed something ripped from a Harry Potter film and I just didn't see a whole lot of creativity I guess I was over-excited for.  I don't want to rip apart this film, and I hardly can take JR seriously considering he thinks the other films as average, but it just wasn't good.  It seemed very plain and Disney-fied.  I mean we get Han killing Gredo, who shot first!?, and the seediness of the Mos Eisley cantina and Ben Kenobi cutting off an arm to calm things down.  Here we have an angry Knight of Ren who destroys rooms and whose lust for power is the same as Anakins (which most people criticize greatly about the prequels, so for me I should appreciate this since I thoroughly enjoy those films). 

This isn't to say there isn't potential for these, and admittedly I can let Rey have her jump in Force abilities if she really is like her (maybe) grandfather and father(?) and being heir as the most powerful Jedi in the galaxy. 
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #124 on: January 06, 2016, 09:55:25 AM »
3. I also don't quite understand the uproar over Rey and Finn knowing how to use the lightsaber. That's like being shocked that I would be able to fight with a sword. Have I ever before? No, but that doesn't mean I'm incompetent to the point of not knowing how to pick it up and use it like a sword. Finn at least has Stormtrooper training where he probably had weapons training, so just like any weapon, he should be able to wield it sufficiently for a battle against a not completely trained opponent (Kylo Ren). Like Junior mentioned before with the floating ball blaster from the original, that was the only light saber training Luke had, and he was at least component with the weapon during that training.
Also, Ren is suffering from an injury, a blast from Chewie's weapon that has killed everyone else up till now. JJ maybe should have shown the seriousness of such an injury, but it's surprising that Ren is even able to stand let alone fight.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #125 on: January 06, 2016, 10:17:11 AM »
I'm not trying to spot the plot hole, I'm saying there are very obvious things about the film that are essentially a reboot of Star Wars and not something new.  I thought Fin should be a lot tougher given his Storm Trooper training and yet he still looked like a layperson.  Snoke just seemed something ripped from a Harry Potter film and I just didn't see a whole lot of creativity I guess I was over-excited for.

It seemed very plain and Disney-fied.  I mean we get Han killing Gredo, who shot first!?, and the seediness of the Mos Eisley cantina and Ben Kenobi cutting off an arm to calm things down.  Here we have an angry Knight of Ren who destroys rooms and whose lust for power is the same as Anakins (which most people criticize greatly about the prequels, so for me I should appreciate this since I thoroughly enjoy those films). 

I can't really argue with these viewpoints, and I can totally see where they can be a turnoff or change of direction for a fan of the series.

Good point about Finn. It seemed to me that his first field mission was the village massacre on Jakku, and up to that point it never felt real to him, and therefore he didn't know what he had in him. I try to imagine what a German soldier during WWII would be like, brainwashed into a hatred that a singular person may not agree with. I do think there are moments of bravery, but you are right, he is not a blind killer like we often think of the Stormtroopers as being. For me that was a charm to the character, and his ability to make the Stormtroopers human and relateable. On this point, I am interested to see what role Captain Phasma plays going forward, as perhaps the antithesis of Finn. I understand some were disappointed in her use in this first film, but when I think about a character like Chewbacca, so loved and a major part of the series, what is his role in the first film but as an aggressive, alien race who plays co-pilot and not much else. Heck, we don't even know how he and Han met and became partners, to this day (I'm sure the Han spin-off will resolve this), and only later learn that he was a part of the Clone Wars (as he meets Yoda in the prequels). So I guess what I am trying to say about Phasma is that her mystique may grow through the films as she becomes more involved, but I also don't think her role has to be central to any of the plots. She can be a Lando, or even the weird head-device sidekick to Lando and still be a cool character.

I don't want to rip apart this film, and I hardly can take JR seriously considering he thinks the other films as average, but it just wasn't good.

Then I hope you will understand the opposite of this consideration.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #126 on: January 06, 2016, 10:28:28 AM »
It's not that I think those who dislike the film are faking it or disingenuous in their motivations. Not here, at least. But I do think that many of the things pointed out as flaws or problems or whatever are glossed over when they happen in the original films. Does one thing with the floating ball count as enough training to later "Use the force, Luke" and if it does, why does Rey's similar trajectory get scrutinized? Down to the same reminder at a vital moment. And also, why is this the thing we care about? Why is "spot the plot hole" our new national pastime? If it's a symptom of a film's underlying problems, let's talk about those instead.

That point is rather minor in comparison to my big problems with the movie, but if you do want to scrutinize it there are some differences. Luke spends time actively being trained and taught by a Jedi Master, even if it's only for a few scenes, you see that he is learning these things. Rey's evolution is played as a mystery, for some reason the lightsaber calls to her, and she touches it, and apparently receives more training than Luke did through actual training. We are also told that Luke's father was a great Jedi, so he has a familial connection to the force. Again, Rey's parentage is played as a mystery so we have to speculate on why she's so powerful.

The biggest difference, obviously, is that Luke does not take on Darth Vader in a lightsaber fight at the end of A New Hope. It's not until the end of Empire and a whole lot more training with Yoda that Luke is ready for that, but Rey gets there and holds her own in one movie with no training.

Luke's backstory. Everything that has led to The Empire dominating the galaxy. I think both films do an equally fine job of laying in the world as a setting and not something that needs to be explained.

Luke is a farm boy raised by his uncle because his Father is dead. Everything you need to know about the Empire is in the opening crawl and introductory scenes. Neither of those are mysteries and they don't withhold information for the sake of a later reveal. The sequels expand on those things, but you don't feel like you're missing anything when you watch just ANH.

The Force Awakens has the extra burden of being a sequel with 30 years of changes having taken place. Their explanation seems to be "everything is the same with a different name." Aside from being lazy and ruining the legacy of the original trilogy, the problem is this makes me actively try and make sense of the new dynamics, but they don't even try to give you enough info on that.

1. Who is the Empire and how did they come to power, particularly the Emperor and Darth Vader? Who is Darth Vader? (Parallel to the First Order, Snoke)

Already answered that the Empire is explained as much as is relevant. Darth Vader is explained to be a powerful Jedi and pupil of Obi-Wan's who turned to the dark side. What else do you need in the context of that story? The Emperor doesn't become relevant until Empire.

2. Who is Luke Skywalker, and what is his history? (Parallel to Rey)
- We may get that he lives with his Aunt and Uncle and his father died fighting with Obi-Wan, but we later learn that is not completely true, and my question would be, if his father was a Jedi Knight killed by a bad guy, why is Luke stuck on an outer-rim planet as a farmer instead of somewhere cool where he could have been more involved with the rebellion, and what about his mother, I don't remember them mentioning his mother at all, how does that not ever come up?

Because his uncle is a farmer on an outer-rim planet. Why are you trying to re-write the movie? The point of his whole hero's journey is that he starts off as a nobody.

Were there other questions that were also glaring omissions?

These come to mind. Some may be answerable, but I feel like I would have heard a definitive answer by now if people agreed on it.

Luke - Why is he in hiding? Why did he leave a map to himself in two pieces? Why did R2 have one of the pieces and why was he sleeping? Why did he wake up? How does Max Von Sydow play into this?

The First Order - If the Empire was defeated, how did The First Order seemingly become a drop-in replacement with all of the same technology and scale of forces within 10 years or so?

Finn - The questions about Rey have been well covered, but they also never explain Finn. They say the Stormtrooper conditioning has never failed before, so what's special about him? He seems completely unaffected by what should have been a insurmountable experience. Why?

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #127 on: January 06, 2016, 10:32:17 AM »
Sorry, colonel_mexico covered some of the points I made while typing very well.

I should also make it clear that "spot the plot hole" is not why I think this movie is bad. Those are annoyances on top of a bunch of other more important problems. This Finn conversation is a good one. I find it unfathomable that the whole basis of Finn's character is his horror at the massacre and holding a dying comrade, and then he immediately becomes completely fine with killing stormtroopers left and right. What were they thinking?

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #128 on: January 06, 2016, 11:18:39 AM »
Welcome to the film corner of the internet

Oops, I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Saw a speculative post on a blog I read that was thinking it was setting up Rey as too quick to use the Force in anger against Kylo and perhaps she'll be susceptible to the dark side, meanwhile I still think they are telegraphing that Kylo has fairly weak attachment to the dark side. So we might see a role reversal by the end. Not sure I could take Rey being a baddie though. Unless she travels through space-time and starts chopping up Men's Rights Activists with her lightsaber. I'd be on board with that Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back inspired turn of events.

I have almost no doubt that Kylo will be a hero in the third film and Rey will at the very least undergo a brief stint as villain.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #129 on: January 06, 2016, 11:22:04 AM »
Were there other questions that were also glaring omissions?

These come to mind. Some may be answerable, but I feel like I would have heard a definitive answer by now if people agreed on it.

Luke - Why is he in hiding? Why did he leave a map to himself in two pieces? Why did R2 have one of the pieces and why was he sleeping? Why did he wake up? How does Max Von Sydow play into this?

The First Order - If the Empire was defeated, how did The First Order seemingly become a drop-in replacement with all of the same technology and scale of forces within 10 years or so?

Finn - The questions about Rey have been well covered, but they also never explain Finn. They say the Stormtrooper conditioning has never failed before, so what's special about him? He seems completely unaffected by what should have been a insurmountable experience. Why?

These questions are legitimate. It appears to me, the more we discuss this, that our differences in opinion are the resolution of these questions. For me, their mystery holds an anticipation that helps build toward the next two films while not spoiling everything we see from this film. It reminds me, in many ways, of JJ Abrams Lost, which every episode seemingly raised twice as many new questions as it answered, but in the end I was satisfied with the answers I did get each episode, and intrigued by the new, unanswered ones. While, for others, colonel, Melvil and Sandy included, the mysteries are a hindrance and/or annoyance to the narrative. Simply a difference in taste.

But I still stand by 1SO concerning the rise of the Empire in the Original. Here is the crawl from the original, which does nothing more than say they exist and they're bad, which is essentially all we need to know, and also all we know of the First Order.

Quote
It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.
During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.
Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy....

I suppose the difference between the two is we know at the end of Jedi, the Empire is supposedly defeated by the Rebels. Perhaps, since throughout the original trilogy it was always my impression that the Rebels were a small band, that at the end of the final battle, the Rebels we unable to truly overtake the full infrastructure of the Empire, leaving Imperial loyalists to occupy some of that space and perhaps "rise from the ashes of the Empire", as TFA crawl tells us, and become the First Order. Not trying to say the movie(s) tell us this, but rather just theorizing.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

 

love