Star Wars: The Force Awakens (J.J. Abrams, 2015)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#201 Post by matrixschmatrix » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:13 pm

lubitsch wrote:You mean Star Trek into Darkness surely? In fact quite the very last thing one could say about his ST films (though that goes for a lot of modern blockbusters) is that there's any capability involved in making them move from a to b. Due to the plot's construction around big action scenes the films have nothing you could call a coherent story. And sci-fi allows these "scriptwriters" to create absurd short cuts which was noticeable in the ST films to a painful degree by using essentially magical gimmicks which undermine the plausibility of the narrative universe like beaming across half the galaxy.
Basically Abrams is a typical modern blockbuster pastiche director. He takes old myths, rearranges some characters, repeats crucial scenes or elements and throws this into a string of action sequences. It's hollow and pointless.
Of course I mean Into Darkness, sorry. I agree that the script for that one is awful, but by moving from a to b I mean the feel of movement within the film- for me, on the first viewing, it zips by so quickly you don't immediately notice that neither the plot action nor the character motivations make any sense. That's sort of Abrams' particular magic trick, and I think he genuinely does that expertly.
This pretty much excuses any lack of ideas and any repetitive pastiche by simply declaring that it's mythmaking. Yes, genre films build on well established patterns. However there's a difference between variation and simple repetition. I haven't seen the new film, but they've really
SpoilerShow
used another death star? For the third time in seven films?
I agree that
SpoilerShow
third death star was more bland redundancy than mythological cycle, and it also did the thing I absolutely loath in Abrams movies, where he has an immense disaster happen well before the third act of such a scale that I am no longer invested in the small band of heroes at the core- the worst has essentially already happened, and nobody has any real reaction to it (though this one at least bypassed the 9/11 imagery that seemed to be a prereq for every blockbuster for a decade). I'm aware that happened in the first film, but I think Obi-Wan's line about the great disturbance in the force gives it greater weight, and it was more necessary for the story. This one could have done without any threat bigger than a Star Destroyer.
That said, I think I'm more on Sausage's side- I did like it, overall, and I think it leaves the franchise in a reasonably interesting place, particularly in terms of the characters. It's frustrating more because I do think there's the core of a good movie here, rather than a big gap that they've tried to fill in with fan service, references, and slickness.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#202 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:46 pm

Lubitsch wrote:This pretty much excuses any lack of ideas and any repetitive pastiche by simply declaring that it's mythmaking.
Also backhandedly accuses Star Wars of being unoriginal from the start.

Oddly, you took a single word I put in an aside, myth, and somehow made it the centre of my argument. Star Wars isn't mythologizing and it's not myth. Its genre is Romance, as I said a bunch of times, and it's becoming a cycle by repeating the same events. If this bothers you, it bothers you. But it's appropriate enough for Star Wars and worth keeping in mind so that we judge things on their own terms.
Lubitsch wrote:Yes, genre films build on well established patterns.
Perhaps it's because you haven't seen the film, but I'm talking about something far more specific than the conventions of modern genre movies. The new Star Wars is not just repeating sci-fi conventions, it's deliberately repeating narrative beats from the other films. My post is about the latter, not the former.
Lubitsch wrote:However there's a difference between variation and simple repetition.
I didn't expect to be accused of not understanding the difference between things staying the same versus things being different. Maybe you could point out where I've done that. I think it'll be near impossible for you to do since I've tied my argument very specifically to a movie that you have not seen, but maybe you'll surprise me and point out where I've mistaken a simple repetition for a variation.
matrixschmatrix wrote:
SpoilerShow
third death star was more bland redundancy than mythological cycle
SpoilerShow
Well, no shit. These movies aren't becoming myths or anything, and if they were, it sure wouldn't be because of this detail. But I didn't think this was any more redundant than anything else. I think the point was the excitement of reliving a major cultural memory, the x-wing run on the death star, in a slightly new context. That's how it worked for me--I was excited to see it all over again as shot by a different director (just like I get excited to read another version of the Perceval or Sigurd stories). And by that point, I think I would've been disappointed if they hadn't gone that far. What would be the point of so much earlier repetition of you weren't going to take it all the way and have another death star? The characters need to converge somewhere, why not there?

User avatar
YnEoS
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:30 am

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#203 Post by YnEoS » Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:21 pm

I'm fine with certain kinds of repetition of themes in starwars, the whole thing of everyone needing to be related to someone important works and I think they did a good job mixing and matching elements to keep things feeling familiar yet different, and I like that they didn't overplay things too much as big secret revelations, but more as inevitabilities and consequences. It did 90% of things right for me, but I do think it was repetitive in some ways that don't work. For example certain shots calling so much attention to things we remember from the original trilogy feels tonally out of place because those things never had so much importance in the original films.
SpoilerShow
After my first time viewing, I felt the destruction of the Starkiller base was pretty meaningless and pointless compared to the finale of A New Hope. On a second viewing, I realized it go such little screen time that it didn't really matter, it was mostly used as a McGuffin and to trigger certain dramatic weather events for the finale. I think it was also probably incorporated as a quick way to strike down the republic so in future movies we can have the goodguys be more scattered. It did kind of further trivialize the notion of deathstars having something so much more massive and powerful built in secret and destroyed right away, but it didn't hamper the narrative for me either.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#204 Post by swo17 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:35 pm

Some terrible looking sitcom was on at the gym tonight and they're already giving away the new film's big spoiler:

[spoiIer]that the prequels were better[/spoiler]

j/k
SpoilerShow
that you-know-who dies

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#205 Post by hearthesilence » Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:44 am

I just saw the headline "J. J. Abrams addresses 'Star Wars' critics" on some social media aggregator. My first thought was Abrams yelling, "What were you saying? I can't hear you over the MONEY pouring in."


User avatar
HJackson
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:27 pm

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#207 Post by HJackson » Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:04 am

Mr Sausage wrote:The thing about these repetitions is that they accrue meanings and form larger patterns.
The main problem with the new film - which I liked upon first viewing, having totally forgotten about Star Wars for ten years, but have a lower opinion of since revisiting the other six - is that it doesn't just repeat an action; it revives an entire scenario that completely undermines the decisive conclusion the saga received in Return of the Jedi and thus destroys, rather than accrues, meaning.

The original trilogy tells the story of a dedicated rebellion fighting and eventually defeating a fascistic galactic empire. The first six films as a whole tell the story of the fulfilment of a religious prophecy and the final overthrow of the forces of spiritual darkness through fatherly love. This all receives resolution but it's totally undermined because Abrams and the folks at Disney were too lazy to do the hard work of original world-building Lucas did in preparing Episode I, developing a new context in which these repetitions can take place fruitfully. A cycle surely must contain movement, while this sounds more like a skipping record.

mff
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 5:14 pm

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#208 Post by mff » Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:52 am

If I had seen “Revenge of the Sith” in real time, in a theatre upon its release, in 2005, I think that, at the moment when Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), sizzling in the blue lightning that Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) reflects back at him, cries out to Anakin (Hayden Christensen), “Power! Unlimited Power!,” I would have leaped out of my seat yelling with excitement.
Anyone actually buying this?

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#209 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:15 am

swo17 wrote:Some terrible looking sitcom was on at the gym tonight and they're already giving away the new film's big spoiler:

[spoiIer]that the prequels were better[/spoiler]

j/k
SpoilerShow
that you-know-who dies
The movie has been out for a month already, I don't think "spoiler" applies at this point.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#210 Post by TMDaines » Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:34 am

HJackson wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:The thing about these repetitions is that they accrue meanings and form larger patterns.
The main problem with the new film - which I liked upon first viewing, having totally forgotten about Star Wars for ten years, but have a lower opinion of since revisiting the other six - is that it doesn't just repeat an action; it revives an entire scenario that completely undermines the decisive conclusion the saga received in Return of the Jedi and thus destroys, rather than accrues, meaning.
I agree. When you watch the latest film in conjunction with the others you realise just how derivative it is, and whilst the prequel trilogy is pretty abysmal, those films are without doubt more ambitious and original.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#211 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:00 am

I don't know if I'd say the prequels were original in terms of the story they they tell. Immaculate birth? Never heard that bullshit story before. Anakin essentially destroys the droid ship like Luke does the Deathstar, a wise mentor dies, and they celebrate the heroes with some lame award ceremony at the end.

That said, I enjoy the majority of the prequels. Yeah, the acting is awful in spots, the writing is goofy, and the over use of CGI didn't look good then or now. But George and his team thought up some cool planets/aliens/ships. I loved Komino/Obi Wan vs Jango's sonic bombs/Couresant... His villains were great too.

However, the previous two posts strike me as contrarian in their intent. This movie hits on a lot of the same notes, and hell-Starkiller is a straight up lift that wasn't necessary... However, The Force Awakens was fun to watch, it wasn't a chore like Revenge of the Sith.

I mean, how many sequels don't hit a lot of the same notes? All the silly Godfather movies end in the same ridiculous way.

User avatar
Trees
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#212 Post by Trees » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:03 am

The prequels suffer from two fatal flaws that, in my opinion, make them far, far worse than any criticism you can level at "The Force Awakens":

1. We already know how the prequels end before they even start. The prequel films are unnecessary for the redemption story of Anakin Skywalker. In the original trilogy, we already learn everything we need to know about Anakin/Vader: He was once a good guy who was seduced by evil and is now bad. We don't need to know the exact details of his turn to evil in order for his redemption in "Return of the Jedi" to be meaningful and powerful. If anything, by showing the younger "good" Akakin as an annoying, irritating punk, the prequels actually, actively detract from the character we know in the OT.

2. The acting, direction, script and characters in the prequels are terrible (see Mr. Plinkett).

All the cool gadgets and planets and aliens and GCI in the world don't mean anything if you don't care about the characters.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#213 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:09 am

I would echo everything said above. The story of young Anakin was unnecessary. In fact, it is more of a disservice to the original 3 than The Force Awakens based on the silly logic of HJackson.

His killing of kids had little to no effect by the time Sith came out. For me it is the worst of all Star Wars films because it never earns a damn thing, but instead implies that we should feel some emotion...

I will say this against The Force Awakens: with Starkiller, I didn't like seeing more planets blown up. I know it's just a movie, but when I see massive deaths or destruction as entertainment - it just seems to lessen the value of life. So in something like Batman vs. Superman, it aims to address that - but then the trailer shows some new baddie destroying buildings all over again.

What exactly does the First Order have to offer those who support it, that they will go along with genocide? I'll give Lucas credit for at least attempting to explain the politics, whereas JJ doesn't even bother to explain any of it to us. Granted, Lucas's take on politics is as superficial as Tarantino...

User avatar
who is bobby dylan
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:50 am

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#214 Post by who is bobby dylan » Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:40 pm

I enjoyed Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I've seen it twice. The first time on opening night with my wife. The second time, the week after Christmas with a larger group of family and friends. I initially liked it, but had a few reservations and second guesses about it. The second time melted most or all of those away. Among our larger group (15+) we did a polling of our favorite Star Wars' movies and The Force Awakens tied for second with The Empire Strikes Back. A New Hope came in first. For me it fits in quality wise with the original trilogy. I felt excited and cared about the characters in a way I didn't with the prequels.

I liked Star Wars as a kid growing up in the late 80's and early 90's, but soured on the OT as an adult. I saw the prequels in the theaters, hated them and for the most part have not revisited them. A year or two ago I watched the OT again and despite the re-edits warmed up to it.

The Force Awakens (purposefully) recaptures the sense of romance and adventure that I liked about the OT and that was missing for me from the prequels. I liked that of the four new characters we got a woman (force user) and two people of color and that it was all treated matter-of-factly. I liked the fact that unlike the prequels I didn't know the conclusion going in (common lore that the prequels would end with a light saber fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin inside a volcano) and I liked the fact that after three prequels of light saber fights where people move at super human speed without any sense of exertion we got a light saber fight that felt physical.

It will be interesting to see how the next two installments build on the can of worms opened by rebooting the series, but like any good serial (Fantomas) I'm excited to see what happens next, how the characters develop and what adventures they get into.

Will also throw in that in 2015 there were (at least) three reboots of franchises that started in the 1970's, Mad Max, Rocky and Star Wars that chose to reboot by expanding the diversity of the protagonists from the original franchises to include women and or people of color as the main protagonists in the new films and all three were commercially and critically successful. I think it's cool that a franchise as big as Star Wars is in that camp and am interested if the diversity of the cast in the first film will be built upon in anyway when they expand the gallery of characters in the next two.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#215 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:15 pm

HJackson wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:The thing about these repetitions is that they accrue meanings and form larger patterns.
The main problem with the new film - which I liked upon first viewing, having totally forgotten about Star Wars for ten years, but have a lower opinion of since revisiting the other six - is that it doesn't just repeat an action; it revives an entire scenario that completely undermines the decisive conclusion the saga received in Return of the Jedi and thus destroys, rather than accrues, meaning.

The original trilogy tells the story of a dedicated rebellion fighting and eventually defeating a fascistic galactic empire. The first six films as a whole tell the story of the fulfilment of a religious prophecy and the final overthrow of the forces of spiritual darkness through fatherly love. This all receives resolution but it's totally undermined because Abrams and the folks at Disney were too lazy to do the hard work of original world-building Lucas did in preparing Episode I, developing a new context in which these repetitions can take place fruitfully. A cycle surely must contain movement, while this sounds more like a skipping record.
Ok, well, I don't think Return of the Jedi was meant to be the final, ultimate defeat of all evil (presumably the dark side exists wherever the force does). But even if it was, that meaning isn't undermined, it is altered. It becomes another classic theme: the recurring struggle of good vs evil, where presumably that same elements of familial love are crucial to the outcome. This is one of those themes that always gains by repetition.

And just based on common sense: you can't expect someone to make sequels on the premise that every wrong in the universe has been righted and the ultimate battle of good vs evil is over. So you either have to reject the idea of a sequel as a whole, or accept that the cosmic battle of good vs evil continues.

Plus, doesn't it make perfect political sense that in a power vacuum left by the destruction of the previous ruling force, another, equally repressive one will attempt to assume its place? This is a recurring political motif in our own history. Star Wars has always been about competing ideas of order--democracy and fascism are about the best political representations of the series' metaphysical ideas as you're going to find.

Lucas' "original world-building" was just retelling the fall in the context of Roman history. And those movies were goddamn terrible on top of it.

Can we all remember what we're watching here? It's Star Wars. You're not watching this for something original, you're watching all the old stuff you remember done in a flashy and exciting way. Moaning about this film following the same pattern is like picking up another Arthurian Romance hoping the hero isn't going to defeat the arrogant evil knight in a jousting match and save some woman. I got some bad news for you...

User avatar
kidc85
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#216 Post by kidc85 » Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:32 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:Moaning about this film following the same pattern is like picking up another Arthurian Romance hoping the hero isn't going to defeat the arrogant evil knight in a jousting match and save some woman. I got some bad news for you...
Read Malory a little while back and he is obviously infamous in his repetition, to the point of just re-telling the last narrative event with a minor name change (and keeping a whole bunch of the previously used imagery), but even he shows the possibilities of the genre. I know that it's all just "defeating evil knights in a jousting match" but over the course of his work as a whole there are different reasons, different goals, different stakes, different dynamics, and different settings. Arthur marching on Rome feels distinctly different to Gareth emerging from kitchen knave to knight (even if, ultimately, they're really very similar stories).

TFA is guilty of the worst excesses of Malory (as seen from a modern-day perspective) in that although there is the possibility of variation within the STAR WARS universe, TFA (compared to ANH) in its jousting match has no different reasons, no different goals, no different stakes, a minor change in dynamics and no different settings. People are upset not because we want something brand new but because we want something a little less condescending than STAR WARS MAD LIBS.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#217 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:32 pm

Now just read Chretien de Troyes, Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gottfriend von Strassburg, Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Vulgate cycle--everything Malory based his versions on--and even some modern stuff like Lord Tennyson and T.H. Whyte, and watch it all congeal. You'll either give Romances up for good, become enamoured with the repetitions and build vast systems out of the repeating structures ala Frye, or just enjoy the same stories over and over again for the small variations and quirks in the telling. But whatever side you land on, you'll have to conclude: it's silly to complain. That's Romance, what can you do.

And if you watch The Force Awakens and get bored with all the repetitions, that's fair. Perfectly legitimate to dislike the movie on that basis. You'll hear no arguments from me.

It's the claims that this violates the spirit of Star Wars that irk me. It's untrue. These repetitions aren't even lazy--it takes more effort than you'd think to retell a story to people who know it backwards and forwards and get them to like it (the ancient storyteller's art after all). And there are some choices in there that open themselves to fan derision, and have earned it (unfairly I think, but that's not important). But people have very set, very modern ideas of originality and intellectual property, ones alien to the spirit of storytelling for thousands of years and, well, ones that hardly fit the original trilogy that well. It's worth reminding everyone: there are other ideas of how storytelling works, and Star Wars is worth considering in that context.

These movies are not the product of high culture; they come out of popular or vernacular traditions--television serials, pulp novels, Mediaeval Romances--that all basically retold each other, or slightly reworked the same structures. It's all familiar, it's all the same thing. It comes down to the conviction and energy of the story telling. I thought this one was a lot of fun; I thought it gained a lot from all these repetitions (see my initial post). Like who is bobby dylan put it: "The Force Awakens (purposefully) recaptures the sense of romance and adventure that I liked about the OT and that was missing for me from the prequels." Yup. If you feel different, cool. But I'd like us to agree that, however it is in practise, the spirit of the thing is in the right place.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#218 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:50 pm

It should also be noted that George Lucas's best film, the dystopian THX-1138, opens with a utopian vision of the future in the form of a Buck Rogers serial trailer.

hanshotfirst1138
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#219 Post by hanshotfirst1138 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:57 pm

bearcuborg wrote:I don't know if I'd say the prequels were original in terms of the story they they tell. Immaculate birth? Never heard that bullshit story before. Anakin essentially destroys the droid ship like Luke does the Deathstar, a wise mentor dies, and they celebrate the heroes with some lame award ceremony at the end.

That said, I enjoy the majority of the prequels. Yeah, the acting is awful in spots, the writing is goofy, and the over use of CGI didn't look good then or now. But George and his team thought up some cool planets/aliens/ships. I loved Komino/Obi Wan vs Jango's sonic bombs/Couresant... His villains were great too.

However, the previous two posts strike me as contrarian in their intent. This movie hits on a lot of the same notes, and hell-Starkiller is a straight up lift that wasn't necessary... However, The Force Awakens was fun to watch, it wasn't a chore like Revenge of the Sith.

I mean, how many sequels don't hit a lot of the same notes? All the silly Godfather movies end in the same ridiculous way.
The only thing about the "virgin birth" thing that's kind of cool is the idea that Palpatine created Anikan to fuck with the Jedi.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: The Star Wars Franchise

#220 Post by bearcuborg » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:16 pm

I would agree that it's a cool idea, but unfortunately George didn't put that into any of the prequels. We would have been served to have a lot more screen time devoted to Palatine's history than the fumbled romance/clumsy political plot points.


User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Star Wars

#222 Post by bearcuborg » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:55 am

That's a waste of space on Captain Asthma...

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#223 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:08 am

All of the covers suck (only good art went to the DVD release), good thing we already know a special edition will be coming out at the end of the year and this one can be safely skipped

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Star Wars

#224 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:13 am

"a special edition" - My prediction is that in the next three years there will be nothing short of five different Blu-ray releases of this film, provided the format continues on. It will be a holiday cash cow for Disney and they won't cease from repackaging the same stuff over and over since they don't have to utilize the "vault" model for the Star Wars stuff

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Star Wars

#225 Post by domino harvey » Fri Mar 04, 2016 11:19 am

Can you really blame Disney? They literally bought the rights to printing money and the extra effort extended to actually make the movie good will only continue to pay off from now til the Earth dies out

Post Reply