Star Wars: The Force Awakens

From a standard screenwriting structure standpoint, this film just doesn't fit unless you make Kylo Ren the protagonist. He's the only one who actually has any sort of stated goal, and he's the only one who takes active steps towards accomplishing it. Rey doesn't take any proactive steps until 98% through the movie; until then every single thing she does is reactive. Finn takes some steps but he has, basically, no clue what he wants, he just wants "away" from the Empire -- that's not a journey, that's an escape. Heck, BB8 is probably the closest thing on the "good guy" side to being a protagonist. At least he wanted to accomplish something, faced peril doing it, and persevered.

It's a bizarrely structured film. I still think it'll need to be viewed in context of the full trilogy before it actually makes proper sense. And even then, that could perhaps be subject to revision -- initially the original trilogy was ostensibly the three-film chronicling of the journey of Luke Skywalker, but Lucas's intention in introducing the prequels was to stand that on its head and instead make it a six-film chronicling of the journey of Anakin Skywalker. And Lucas claimed, early early on, that the Star Wars universe was always meant to be a nine-film story, and that the original trilogy was just the middle part of that story. So is the new trilogy meant to fill that third trilogy's position in Lucas' original overarching story? If so, who can say what purpose any of these characters serve yet?

All I know is that TFA was a fun ride, if empty. Same as the first Abrams Star Trek film -- it was vastly superior in all imaginable ways to the drudgery that Star Trek had become, but it was, ultimately, vapid summer popcorn entertainment. TFA is vastly superior to the prequels to the point where it's almost unrecognizable that they share the same universe, but ... it certainly seems hollow when compared to the soul of the original film. It's confusing, in ways that the original never really was. And since it's so clearly a re-make, it doesn't stand on its own the way the original was. I am optimistic for it, but I do think it'll have to be viewed in context with its sequels to see what it really is meant to be.
 
Like I said, it was to Star Wars what Super 8 was to Spielberg. It followed the forms, it had the look and the visual language, it succeeded more than it didn't, but something was hollow about it.
 
That's just crazy talk. I can't fathom that, at all. The prequels are terrible on every conceivable level. This one is flawed in several respects but, just the fact that it has like, somewhat convincing performances already makes it a better film, by default.
 
The prequels are different stylistically, they're more classical in approach, from the dialogue to the way the edits are. I have grown to really enjoy them.
 
Brandon Rice said:
The prequels are different stylistically, they're more classical in approach, from the dialogue to the way the edits are. I have grown to really enjoy them.
Click to expand...

I have grown to hate them more, and I have watched them again recently. But I won't rehash why I think they are bad. It's an argument I'm tired of having. I think they are terrible. Not just terrible Star Wars movies. But terrible movies. About the only thing positive I can say about them in comparison to The Force Awakens is that they were more ambitious for their time. They failed miserably at those ambitions, but they were something on a technical level we hadn't seen attempted before. Nothing about The Force Awakens was that innovative.
 
Last edited:
OK, go with me here on this one as I try to work this out.

I've had a long-running joke with my kids that R2D2 (excuse me, Artoo-Detoo for those of us who read the original novelization) is in fact the unsung hero of the original Star Wars trilogy. His (let's just make the droid masculine for the sake of pronouns) actions saved the galaxy, propelled the story and generally just saved the day repeatedly. Artoo was the very first character seen in the original movie, he shoved Threepio into the escape pod and launched it, led Threepio on the mission to find Obiwan, even tricking Luke so he could do it, found Leia in the Death Star, shut down the garbage masher on the detention level, and so on. He even took a bullet for Luke while in the trench run. And Artoo did this selflessly for all three films in the trilogy, never getting credit but still propelling things forward and quietly saving the day. Only in one of the prequels did he get some credit (from Queen Amidala no less).

So anyway, I'm kinda thinking that Finn may be Artoo-Detoo from the original film. He escapes from the Empire, he keeps doing things to propel the story and save the day, and he even gets seriously injured during the climax. Of course one big difference is that Artoo knew what he was doing and why while Finn kinda cluelessly blunders his way through things, but I kinda think I may be onto something here...

OK, back to work Mitch.
 
Batutta said:
Finn did fail. Just because he had to be saved doesn't make him any less the protagonist. He committed an act of self sacrifice which completes his arc. And this event happens at the climax, about ten minutes before the movie is over.
Click to expand...
Finn doesn't fail. Rey is rescued which was his goal, at least that becomes his goal. Finn doesn't really have a goal for the entire film except to get away from the first order and he does accomplish that. It's really a mush mash and there is no classic by the numbers protagonist in this one.
 
Mitch Gross said:
OK, go with me here on this one as I try to work this out.

I've had a long-running joke with my kids that R2D2 (excuse me, Artoo-Detoo for those of us who read the original novelization) is in fact the unsung hero of the original Star Wars trilogy. His (let's just make the droid masculine for the sake of pronouns) actions saved the galaxy, propelled the story and generally just saved the day repeatedly. Artoo was the very first character seen in the original movie, he shoved Threepio into the escape pod and launched it, led Threepio on the mission to find Obiwan, even tricking Luke so he could do it, found Leia in the Death Star, shut down the garbage masher on the detention level, and so on. He even took a bullet for Luke while in the trench run. And Artoo did this selflessly for all three films in the trilogy, never getting credit but still propelling things forward and quietly saving the day. Only in one of the prequels did he get some credit (from Queen Amidala no less).

So anyway, I'm kinda thinking that Finn may be Artoo-Detoo from the original film. He escapes from the Empire, he keeps doing things to propel the story and save the day, and he even gets seriously injured during the climax. Of course one big difference is that Artoo knew what he was doing and why while Finn kinda cluelessly blunders his way through things, but I kinda think I may be onto something here...

OK, back to work Mitch.
Click to expand...

fun analysis and I don't disagree. There are some similarities between Finn and R2
 
tmnt said:
You couldn't be more wrong. It's part of a new trilogy, thus gets a free pass for re-treading old ground/not really having its own whole story.
Click to expand...
Sounds like when Empire fans try to argue that it's a better film than the original (ANH). Empire can only exist as part of a trilogy; it has no ending at all. ANH at least had a clear beginning, middle, and end.

TFA doesn't have an actual end. It could have had, with the destruction of (Luke) Starkiller base, but then they specifically went all "The Two Towers" on it and made the ending only a beginning.

Meh, more I think about it, the less impressed I am with it. I really liked it quite well in the theater, but ... I don't think TFA holds much of a candle to the original. Will we still be talking about TFA 40 years from now, like we do ANH? I doubt it. But who knows, maybe entries 2 and 3 will be so gobsmackingly awesome that we'll see TFA in a different light entirely...
 
I really hope Rian Johnson does something more audacious with the next one. I fear that, with this movie absolutely destroying records at the box office, Disney will feel even more justified to play it safe again.
 
David Jimerson said:
No, it wasn't. If you didn't like it, then that's all well and good, and I won't ever say you should, but it wasn't this.
Click to expand...

That remark had me scratching my head as well, but the man's entitled to his opinion. To me, it looked exactly like what I thought a JJ Abrams Star Wars movie would be. I actually liked his Trek I a bit more than this. It tells a more satisfying, self contained story (albeit one bogged down with too many stupid coincidences), and had its own, more cohesive aesthetic, although I kind of feel the same way about both movies in the end. I liked them, but wish they were better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top