Star Wars: The Force Awakens

135678

Comments

  • edited 2015-12-24 08:35:55
    Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    I don't actually see how The Force Awakens can in any way be compared to Return of the Jedi. They have so little in common.

    The former is a new beginning and the latter is a conclusion.
  • The comparison was a starting point moreso than anything else. 

    I stand by my point that TFA misused its time and its characters, and on those grounds, is really questionable as a standalone experience. It's concurrently relying on what has come before and what's yet to happen to ensure its quality. I'm glad J.J. Abrams will no longer be directing. 
  • It's concurrently relying on what has come before and what's yet to happen to ensure its quality.
    I disagree with most of what you said but this was a problem for me too.

    I liked it a lot but there were three moments of just straight up bad, The Amazing SPider-Man level filmmaking.

    -What the hell happened to Captain Phasma? That situation isn't ambiguous, it's just dropped entirely.
    -Poe returns before it's introduced that he even survived and it's like the audience was expected to know.
    -We're given elaborate shots of the planets that were destroyed but given absolutely no context for those planets.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    Phasma isn't important, I don't remember Poe coming back before it was stated that he survived, and the planets' importance can be inferred by context: it's the seat of the Republic and thus vitally important. It said some, and then it showed that it was a crowded, city-covered place with all kinds of people dressed in fancy clothes. Thus, the senate.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    Although you're right, I don't know whether or not I like it because it's a good movie, or because I'm happy that Star Wars is back.
  • edited 2015-12-24 08:54:25
    We can do anything if we do it together.
    I do agree that Return of the Jedi is a satisfactory enough conclusion to the trilogy. However, to me, it is only half the film that it could’ve been, because of the unfortunate softening that Lucas put the film through before release.

    The fact that it is only a halfway-watchable film was enough to put me off watching the Original Trilogy in full again, which was a shame because the first two films were so well done. However, Abrams revisited the plot points that Lucas cut out of Return and at long last righted the wrongs he committed in cutting them out in the first place. With this in mind, Return is now more palatable to me and I wouldn’t mind revisiting it again sometime.

    If we’re comparing A New Hope to The Force Awakens, I do agree that A New Hope is better. However, I wasn’t doing that. I was just saying that The Force Awakens manages to fix the errors Lucas made with Return all those years ago, and that made me very happy.

    With regards to the specifics of your complaints about the film, I don’t really agree with you on Rey or Finn’s characters. With regards to Rey, I thought this was a pretty good analysis of her character.

    With regards to Finn, he chose to run away with Poe and he already had his epiphany before leaving, so I honestly don’t see what you mean there. I do agree that Poe’s character was too vaguely defined in this film, but you have to leave something for the sequels. I thought that this film already tried to do too much as it is, honestly.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.

    The fact that it is only a halfway-watchable film was enough to put me off watching the Original Trilogy in full again, which was a shame because the first two films were so well done. However, Abrams revisited the plot points that Lucas cut out of Return and at long last righted the wrongs he committed in cutting them out in the first place. With this in mind, Return is now more palatable to me and I wouldn’t mind revisiting it again sometime.

    Okay, what plot points? I don't know what you're talking about.
  • edited 2015-12-24 09:00:07
    Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    I also disagree that Rey being good at things dissipates the drama. It eliminates some of the drama as to whether she'll survive, but that isn't what is important. The drama is in whether or not she chooses to walk the path, and what it'll take to put her feet on it.

    In fact, both Finn and Rey are about walking the dangerous path despite their fears. Rey is secure in her position as low-caste scavenger, and through most of the movie just wants to give up the adventure and go home and wait for something that isn't coming back. Finn too, is tempted to flee to the outer rim, but returns for his friend.
  • edited 2015-12-24 09:00:42
    We can do anything if we do it together.
    MachSpeed said:

    The fact that it is only a halfway-watchable film was enough to put me off watching the Original Trilogy in full again, which was a shame because the first two films were so well done. However, Abrams revisited the plot points that Lucas cut out of Return and at long last righted the wrongs he committed in cutting them out in the first place. With this in mind, Return is now more palatable to me and I wouldn’t mind revisiting it again sometime.

    Okay, what plot points? I don't know what you're talking about.
    I linked what I was talking about on the last page. I'll link it again for you now.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    I read the thing in detail.

    I try not to get attached to what could have been. I only have time for what a thing is.
  • edited 2015-12-24 09:08:56
    We can do anything if we do it together.
    MachSpeed said:

    I read the thing in detail.


    I try not to get attached to what could have been. I only have time for what a thing is.
    Right, but The Force Awakens uses those discarded plot points in the way they should've been used to begin with. You can't go back and fix what's already been done (although Lucas certainly tried with his Special Edition tampering). Abrams, however, came about as close as one could realistically come to doing so and he did it in a way that actually makes narrative sense, too. 

    Is it wrong to be kinda happy about that?
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    It isn't, but it's also something I can't understand.
  • We can do anything if we do it together.
    Fair, fair.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    The hypothetical Solo death in Return would definitely not be a callback to Obi-Wan's own death, so now I'm doubly confused.
  • edited 2015-12-24 09:15:29
    We can do anything if we do it together.
    It's possible Abrams took the discarded Solo death and found a way to make it work within the film by making it a callback.

    Considering how similarly the ideas appear to play out otherwise, and knowing how Abrams is a big Star Wars nerd, I'm not quite ready to call it a coincidence.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    I'm really, really trying to understand why this would make you happy. I don't think I can. I'm sorry.
  • edited 2015-12-24 09:22:04
    We can do anything if we do it together.
    It's probably just wishful thinking on my part, honestly.

    I already had a part of my wishful thinking swept away with the Undertale ruckus here a few days ago. I want to keep this for at least a while longer.

    Hopefully, someone else understands what the hell I'm talking about.
  • edited 2015-12-24 13:43:10

    I thought this was a pretty good analysis of her character.  

    I disagree. That's not an analysis of her character -- it's an accusation of misogyny against people who have criticised her characterisation. I find it to be pretty cheap to play the social justice card against people who earnestly wanted the best for the new Star Wars movie, but found it to be lacking in characterisation and plot. That says a lot, too, because the original trilogy was no masterstroke of either; it was just an extremely competent execution of the basics in a very novel setting.

    One thing I know for sure is that I'd be saying the same things irrespective of Rey's gender. Rey's skill in using the Force far outstrips Luke's ability at the same time relative to age and training, and some of her skills are less well justified. The first example we get is piloting; ANH tells us that Luke has a lot of hobby piloting experience, but Rey's piloting skills come out of nowhere. Additionally, she picks up the mind trick remarkably quickly, given that she has no training. Luke couldn't do that until RotJ, after being instructed by both Obi-Wan and Yoda. 

    Her combat skills and proficiency with technology make a lot more sense. She lives a solitary lifestyle without anyone else to lean on, selling scrap to survive. She knows how to use a staff (which is a highly transferable skill to two-handed sword, which explains her lightsaber proficiency before even accounting for the Force), and she knows the value of and physical placement of different technological components, from which she could infer their function. 

    The only thing she isn't good at in the film is marksmanship, which is only relevant insofar as it gets her captured -- so she can later escape relatively effortlessly. Using the mind trick that Luke only displayed proficiency in during RotJ, after a time cut that implied completion of his training. In fact, when he goes back to Dagobah, Yoda explicitly tells him that there's nothing more to teach, and that Luke's final trial lies in confronting Vader. Rey does things throughout the film, without instruction, that Luke only did with great effort, studying under some of the greatest Jedi in the history of the setting -- even taking into account the admittedly now defunct EU.   

    There is absolutely no reason Rey has to be so good at all of those things right now, especially given that there's a two whole movies to come, with ample opportunity for her to kick more arse along the learning curve she should be going through. As things currently stand, however, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for a learning curve. She can do the mind trick. She can use telekinesis. She has a Force vision. She's fighting proficiently with a lightsaber. And the conclusion of TFA is either going to conclude the arc of her awaiting familial belonging, or set her upon a different path entirely by denying that conclusion. 

    I understand entirely what the writing was trying to accomplish with Rey's character. I understand entirely why many people are glad to see a female character placed in a position of power in a usually male-dominated field. The former did too much too soon, though, and the latter are letting their preferences get ahead of the former. She could easily be less amazingly competent at everything and still easily be a positive female character, and that would also make her more well-rounded and give writers more room to work with in subsequent films.  
  • edited 2015-12-24 14:29:07

    I haven't seen the movie yet but "she's more OP than Luke" seems like... not a terribly effective criticism.

    because if you look at what actually happens in the movies luke is kind of a fuckin weenie throughout the whole original trilogy?
  • he's an ineffectual doormat who becomes a marginally less ineffectual doormat over the course of three movies, but the narrative falsely claims that he has undergone substantial character development.
  • come to think of it, that is actually maybe the number one complaint I have about a film series that I have quite the laundry list of complaints about
  • how does TFA compare to KOTOR, my only other experience with the Star Wars franchise
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    I wonder if Luke would have more command of the Force if he was pushed to duel Darth Vader on the exploding Death Star right after Obi-Wan died.
  • Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
    I wonder if fighting another force adept means also literally dealing with their anger, fear, and killing intent, because of their mutual empathic powers.
  • he's an ineffectual doormat who becomes a marginally less ineffectual doormat over the course of three movies, but the narrative falsely claims that he has undergone substantial character development.

    How so? The third film alone demonstrates a massive change in methodology/confidence/behavior etc. even if he doesn't get, like, musclier? idk, but there's no real metric for character strength anyway

  • My dreams exceed my real life
    Luke does have a big character leap in between Empire and Jedi.
  • edited 2015-12-24 19:02:03
    We can do anything if we do it together.
    @MadassAlex:

    I know deeply the feeling of what guilt by association is like, so I'm sorry I made you feel that way. I still disagree with you, though.

    I'll add that I don't think you actually read the post and just zoned out after the beginning, which is honestly behaviour that bothers me. If you did actually read the post, I'll add that in addition to what it says about her piloting skills, that her piloting skills were actually established before they even left the planet. She almost certainly never piloted anything huge before the Falcon, but it's not hard to believe that she had extensive hobby piloting experience much like Luke did.

    As for Rey's knowledge of The Force, Luke was already picking up on it by the end of A New Hope and he didn't have the benefit of some form of prior knowledge about Jedi and how their abilities work like Rey did. With that in mind, I get why Rey was able to grasp the abilities of The Force as soon as she was.

    I think that there's a bigger learning curve than you think here, because I feel like the next film will point out how much she has yet to learn. After all, Kylo Ren was far from full strength when she fought him, and who's to say how powerful he'll be when he is?

    I'm the type who usually gets annoyed at that sort of social justice talk like you do, so I'm not trying to defend her from that angle. I just think you're missing the full picture here.
  • edited 2015-12-24 18:55:47
    We can do anything if we do it together.
    Kexruct said:

    he's an ineffectual doormat who becomes a marginally less ineffectual doormat over the course of three movies, but the narrative falsely claims that he has undergone substantial character development.

    How so? The third film alone demonstrates a massive change in methodology/confidence/behavior etc. even if he doesn't get, like, musclier? idk, but there's no real metric for character strength anyway

    I do kinda agree with Naney that his character change wasn't conveyed well enough in Return (which is another issue I have with that film), but it is definitely there if you pay close attention.

    I'm wondering what exact change Naney wanted out of him, because the kind of super-strong icon he's implying Luke should've become is exactly what he was trying to avoid, because that's what happened to his father.

    I do hope that Episode VIII goes back and conveys Luke's character development more properly than Return was able to, so we can put this argument to rest.
  • Luke is just such an intensely passive character. When he starts off he drags his heels and things happen to him, and then things just keep happening to him for the rest of the series.

    I don't want him to become powerful, I wanted him to become active. To have him take charge, sieze his destiny, become one with it, rather than just have it hand-hold him through everything.
  • edited 2015-12-24 19:08:16

    he feels like he could be anyone, he is something for the audience to live vicariously through, he lacks personality, agency, distinctiveness, greatness. and the world he lives in actively encourages it.
  • That's kind of an ephemeral criticism, I don't really know how to engage except to say that, like, I disagree? I mean he's being guided along in the first movie, in the second his big character moment comes from rejecting Yoda's passivity in order to save his friends, and in the third he's acting entirely of his own accord. Destiny doesn't factor into the originals even close to as much as the rest of the series has, save for vague allusions to it.

    I mean, I guess this stems from him being something of a cipher, but that has allowed him to resonate with a very wide audience.
  • We can do anything if we do it together.
    Luke was the one who came up with the strategy for escaping from the Sarlaac pit, wasn't he?

    I do think that he developed some agency by the end. Luke seems set up to develop still more agency in Episode VIII, so if that happens, I think you'll be pretty happy.
  • I mean a lot of your stated ideas for how the series should be different would change the series on a fundamental level. The originals are supposed to be somewhat lightweight so they can focus their efforts on being as broadly resonant as possible, which may sound like a criticism but accessibility *is* a positive. It just frequently necessitates tradeoffs.
  • Besides, by being so broadly appealing it laid the groundwork for EU stuff that was far more niche and challenging than the main series. KotOR2 comes to mind.
  • Kexruct said:

    I mean a lot of your stated ideas for how the series should be different would change the series on a fundamental level. The originals are supposed to be somewhat lightweight so they can focus their efforts on being as broadly resonant as possible, which may sound like a criticism but accessibility *is* a positive. It just frequently necessitates tradeoffs.

    exactly, my problem with the series is not with execution, but with the whole of what it is, everything it tries to be and represents.
  • Why does the idea of it bother you, though? It almost strikes me as if you have an aversion to things that try to appeal broadly.
  • Kexruct said:

    I mean a lot of your stated ideas for how the series should be different would change the series on a fundamental level. The originals are supposed to be somewhat lightweight so they can focus their efforts on being as broadly resonant as possible, which may sound like a criticism but accessibility *is* a positive. It just frequently necessitates tradeoffs.

    exactly, my problem with the series is not with execution, but with the whole of what it is, everything it tries to be and represents.
    this is

    an interesting statement, certainly
  • HRRRRRRM

    Hhmmmmmmmm

    Ahhhh...

    Mm. Mm. Okay. Alright. Hm. Hmmmmm
  • I don't like that. Hmmm
  • Kexruct said:

    Why does the idea of it bother you, though? It almost strikes me as if you have an aversion to things that try to appeal broadly.

    almost, but you have it backwards: a good chunk of the qualities that can make a work broadly appealing are intensely distasteful to me for whatever reason.
  • I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat

    Kexruct said:

    Why does the idea of it bother you, though? It almost strikes me as if you have an aversion to things that try to appeal broadly.

    almost, but you have it backwards: a good chunk of the qualities that can make a work broadly appealing are intensely distasteful to me for whatever reason.
    like what?
  • We can do anything if we do it together.
    @Kexruct 

    I'm having a hard time processing that too, honestly, so I can relate to you there.
  • Anonus said:

    Kexruct said:

    Why does the idea of it bother you, though? It almost strikes me as if you have an aversion to things that try to appeal broadly.

    almost, but you have it backwards: a good chunk of the qualities that can make a work broadly appealing are intensely distasteful to me for whatever reason.
    like what?
    broad, archetype-reliant characters, simple epic plotlines, clear and direct theming, overly neat resolutions, yadda yadda

    im totally fine with some of these things sometimes mind you, but if you get enough of them together it's like eating oatmeal with nothing in it
  • edited 2015-12-24 19:49:32

    that is definitely what i would describe watching star wars as being like. eating oatmeal with nothing in it. or tuna straight out of a can.
  • edited 2015-12-24 19:52:39
    imagei will watch the heck outta this pumpkin patch
    stab in the dark but, you know how when a song was written with the *intention and expectation* that it's going to chart, you can usually tell?  like it sounds like its primary aim was to appeal to the broadest possible audience?  and how a lot of people like the song, but very, very few people say it's their favourite, because there's nothing that really sets it apart from all the other, similar songs?

    is it like that?
  • It is a bit like that yeah.
  • I've learned to tolerate drama...except on the boat
    I love plain oatmeal!
  • We can do anything if we do it together.
    Sorry to use a trope word here, but is it fair to say that there's a bit of Seinfeld is Unfunny going on here?
  • Anonus said:

    I love plain oatmeal!

    like

    with no sugar

    ?
  • Sorry to use a trope word here, but is it fair to say that there's a bit of Seinfeld is Unfunny going on here?

    i dont think so, i cant think of anything that is really like star wars that I like either
Sign In or Register to comment.