Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Barry_Green said:
Starkiller was Luke's original name in versions of the story that predate there being any manner of Anakin...

Therefore I don't believe there ever would have been an Anakin Starkiller, would there?.
Click to expand...

The character was Annikin Starkiller (note spelling). Luke Skywalker was the character who morphed into Obi-Wan.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I thought this was pretty funny, even though I don't completely agree with everything he says. Still, an entertaining read at least.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/matt...-awakens-the-rise-of-idiot-/10153163095086277
Click to expand...
Extremely well done, but I can't help but point out how many times he says the same thing David and I have been saying -- the answers we seek are not in this film, and will likely only be known once it is viewed as part of a trilogy. Which, assuming there will be a trilogy, may be okay -- but what if this was the only film? What if the sequels never get made? Then it'd have to be viewed as a failure, because the essential information isn't included.

I may be coming off as negative, but the opposite is true. I liked TFA quite a bit. I'm actually rather impressed that a film that seems so glaringly incomplete, was, simultaneously, so much fun. The chemistry, the banter, the joy was all there. It may turn out to be a relatively brilliant piece of filmmaking when all is said and done; it may turn out that in context of the new trilogy it makes perfect sense, and that the lighthearted approach and layers of comedy and action that were put in were skillfully-applied "band-aids" to tide us over until the layered plot is developed and sinks in. Maybe. Personally, I think that the filmmakers were likely enraptured by the "I am your father" approach and how that moment reverberated backwards through not just one but two films, and I think they're banking heavily on their ability to create and layer in similar Sixth-Sense-style moments. Will it work? Or are we too savvy for that now? I don't know. We'll see. Maybe this will all prove to have been brilliant story structuring across a multi-film timeline. Maybe.

Until then, it was a fairly fun ride, which certainly left a LOT of very unanswered questions. Questions which, as Matty Granger said, will have to wait until future films in the trilogy fill them in.
 
Stumbled across this fascinating, extensive interview with a young pre American Graffiti, pre Star Wars George Lucas. A lot of people don't understand where George came from as a filmmaker. They see him as the epitome of the blockbuster film director, when his origins and ambitions were completely opposite of that.

 
Barry_Green said:
Extremely well done, but I can't help but point out how many times he says the same thing David and I have been saying -- the answers we seek are not in this film, and will likely only be known once it is viewed as part of a trilogy. Which, assuming there will be a trilogy, may be okay -- but what if this was the only film? What if the sequels never get made? Then it'd have to be viewed as a failure, because the essential information isn't included.

I may be coming off as negative, but the opposite is true. I liked TFA quite a bit. I'm actually rather impressed that a film that seems so glaringly incomplete, was, simultaneously, so much fun. The chemistry, the banter, the joy was all there. It may turn out to be a relatively brilliant piece of filmmaking when all is said and done; it may turn out that in context of the new trilogy it makes perfect sense, and that the lighthearted approach and layers of comedy and action that were put in were skillfully-applied "band-aids" to tide us over until the layered plot is developed and sinks in. Maybe. Personally, I think that the filmmakers were likely enraptured by the "I am your father" approach and how that moment reverberated backwards through not just one but two films, and I think they're banking heavily on their ability to create and layer in similar Sixth-Sense-style moments. Will it work? Or are we too savvy for that now? I don't know. We'll see. Maybe this will all prove to have been brilliant story structuring across a multi-film timeline. Maybe.

Until then, it was a fairly fun ride, which certainly left a LOT of very unanswered questions. Questions which, as Matty Granger said, will have to wait until future films in the trilogy fill them in.
Click to expand...
I don't know how there could ever be a question as to whether there would be more films after The Force Awakens. Disney spent $4 Billion for the property. Yes, Indiana Jones and the rest of Lucasfilm came with it, but clearly the jewel in the crown was Star Wars. Even if TFA tanked, there's simply no way there were not going to be more Star Wars films. We even know the roadmap, which Disney has been pretty open in sharing. Rogue One next year, Episode eight in 1.5 years, and on and on.

The Serial format is nothing new. Dickens, Flaubert, Dumas, Melville, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are among the writers to have some of their greatest works first published in serial form before re-published as compendium novels. And of course both Star Wars and Indiana Jones were inspired in large part by the serial shorts shown before feature films in the earlier years of cinema. A good chapter needs to entertain on its own but also be viewed as a section of a larger piece. I really question if anyone (with the possible exception of that Huffington Post writer) doesn't fully understand that walking into a Star Wars movie. Other than the original film, no Star Wars film really makes a whole lot of sense without at least a passing knowledge and connection to the other chapters in the story. And the prequels had the unique advantage of everyone knowing where the story would eventually lead, sort of like the many biographical-style films that start with the main character's death and then proceed to tell the significance of how they got there (i.e.: Ghandi, Lawrence of Arabia, even Citizen Kane). All this is to say that I have no problem with the many things left unsaid in The Force Awakens that appear to be seeds planted for the greater story. We all know there is something more, not only in quantity but in larger meaning. To me that's sorta the point.
 
I think a movie has to either stand on its own, or be so clearly unresolved at the end that it's not expected to be complete. Nobody had an issue with The Fellowship of the Ring because the main story mission, destroying the ring in Mt. Doom, was not completed by the end. Here, the main plot has some kind of completion to it, so all these other loose story ends feel more bothersome to people. I think there's validity in saying it's ACT 1 in a 3 ACT story, but even within the confines of that, I think the storytelling could have been handled a bit better. Now they're in a position where they have to answer all these annoying questions in the next movie while also telling a new story.
 
I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, though I went in with very low expectations given JJ Abrams' previous works. The film was just as derivative as I was expecting from Abrams, but it was mostly enjoyable and more successful from start to finish than most of his other films.

My main complaints were with the (a) current trend in action films to turn everything into comedy and (b) the cartoonization of the action scenes whereby the protagonists "luck out" over the course of the movie in ever more unbelievable fashion.
 
Spoilers.

I enjoyed it more than I was expecting. The audience had some laugh out loud moments, and a couple of people had tears in their eyes at the end. I loved Luke's reveal at the end.

But that scene of R2 waking up at the end and just delivering the last piece of the map has to be the laziest piece of writing in recent history...

It makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Batutta said:
Stumbled across this fascinating, extensive interview with a young pre American Graffiti, pre Star Wars George Lucas. A lot of people don't understand where George came from as a filmmaker. They see him as the epitome of the blockbuster film director, when his origins and ambitions were completely opposite of that.

Click to expand...

I. Believe Lucas's entire focus changed because of the ancillary rights deal he made for Star Wars that made him a billionaire. Everyone knows the story. Lucas got the toy rights to sta wars in lieu of higher pay as a director and those toys made him a billionaire. After that the prequels were geared to sell toys and the target audience was kids that bug their parents to buy them toys. The rest is history. Looks like Disney figured out you can stay true to the original trilogy and STILL sell a bunch of toys. I know of at least three adults that bought a bb8 for themselves.
 
simonpwood said:
Spoilers.

I enjoyed it more than I was expecting. The audience had some laugh out loud moments, and a couple of people had tears in their eyes at the end. I loved Luke's reveal at the end.

But that scene of R2 waking up at the end and just delivering the last piece of the map has to be the laziest piece of writing in recent history...

It makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
my understanding is that there was more exposition in the script that explains the whole map thing, and how r2 downloaded it from the Death Star. ' but it was cut by Abraham to keep the story moving.
 
Gillvane said:
my understanding is that there was more exposition in the script that explains the whole map thing, and how r2 downloaded it from the Death Star. ' but it was cut by Abraham to keep the story moving.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. I have read some other explanations too. So maybe this is more a case of bad editing rather than bad writing; either way this is the one thing that people seem to mention negatively after seeing the movie. There were a number of oner plot holes or issues, but they all seemed irrelevant. This one not so, considering the whole movie is set up with the search for Luke. I mean the alligator literally came out of the swamp and saved Charlie...
 
simonpwood said:
Spoilers.

I enjoyed it more than I was expecting. The audience had some laugh out loud moments, and a couple of people had tears in their eyes at the end. I loved Luke's reveal at the end.

But that scene of R2 waking up at the end and just delivering the last piece of the map has to be the laziest piece of writing in recent history...

It makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I agree. My thought was that R2D2 was programmed only to reactivate when Luke or Rey arrived. The point would be that Rey was hidden away on Jakku until fate (the Force, whatever) brought her to the Resistance, at which point she would be stronger and ready to begin her training or whatever with Luke. But that's all supposition, as the movie really was as sketchy as possible with what was actually shown.
 
Gillvane said:
my understanding is that there was more exposition in the script that explains the whole map thing, and how r2 downloaded it from the Death Star. ' but it was cut by Abraham to keep the story moving.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there seemed to be too much exposition skipped for the sake of keeping the fast pace of the movie. I don't want to get bogged down with people talking about the past, but I felt like a bit more context would've helped here and there. It seems many things (R2's 'backstory', the dynamic between the Rebellion, the New Republic and the First Order, Finn's backstory as a stormtrooper, etc.,) exist in other places (cartoons or books) but never made it into the film. I love all the expanded universe stuff, but more critical bits of info/story points should be in the film.


-Andrew
 
adkimery said:
Yeah, there seemed to be too much exposition skipped for the sake of keeping the fast pace of the movie. I don't want to get bogged down with people talking about the past, but I felt like a bit more context would've helped here and there. It seems many things (R2's 'backstory', the dynamic between the Rebellion, the New Republic and the First Order, Finn's backstory as a stormtrooper, etc.,) exist in other places (cartoons or books) but never made it into the film. I love all the expanded universe stuff, but more critical bits of info/story points should be in the film.


-Andrew
Click to expand...

i loved the movie but the script could have been a lot tighter. Although it was very entertaining because of the huge nostalgia content and call backs to other scenes from previous Star Wars movies, it tried to cram to much into one movie. The very first movie was Luke's story. This movie would have been more powerful if we had just one protagonist and followed their story. Instead we get Finn, Rey, Han. And Kylo Ren sharing screen time on top of this story about Luke who we don't even see till the end of the movie. So there's no time to explain the main plot about this map business and basically the audience forgets what the main plot even is and just goes wooohoo there's the Mellinium falcon!

I was was hoping the old cast would be like the Jedi council in the prequels giving advice to a new young Jedi on a mission and then we are off on adventure with that new generation Jedi. At least Han is dead and we don't have to see any more superfluous smuggling scenes and hopefully we can get on with the main plot. In a way I wish this movie was backstory and we just started with Rey's story.
I felt that way about the first two Star Trek new movies as well. Now that we've established the alternate universe and done a horrible redeaux of khan we can finally get on with the exploration that is the heart of Star Trek .
 
David Jimerson said:
Here's something you wouldn't expect to see: a fan petition to make George Lucas the director of Episode 9.https://www.change.org/p/disney-george-lucas-back-to-the-star-wars-movies
Click to expand...
I can't see too many people wanting him to direct it specifically, but surely having him involved in the overall story would be good? At the moment it seems the 3 directors have free reign to write their own stories for the films any which way they want. Lucus ought to be involved at some level to oversee the general gist of the story at least...
 
simonpwood said:
I can't see too many people wanting him to direct it specifically, but surely having him involved in the overall story would be good? At the moment it seems the 3 directors have free reign to write their own stories for the films any which way they want. Lucus ought to be involved at some level to oversee the general gist of the story at least...
Click to expand...

Given Episode's I-III were Lucas' babies... no... not even in 'overall story', since in I-III he created huge line discontinuities and plot holes big enough to drive a planetary sized death star through.

Had he maintained the 'backstories' as given in Episodes IV-VI hints... perhaps I say that his input would be good going forward.

Then there's Jar Jar Binks... the franchise already had one useful idiot... C3PO... why create another, and not 1/10 as good...
 
I felt flat at the end of the movie. Huge Star Wars fan since childhood. Wore out the VCR. So disappointing to see the first film after Return of the Jedi and to feel deflated. Hopefully it grows on me with a second viewing. I wonder if some of the story issues are connected with the departure of Michael Arndt and subsequent "restart" by Kasdan and Abrams? I've only read a little about that and it does make me wonder.

Glad it has been successful at the box office and overall seems to have been received very very well by audiences. Guarantees more Star Wars movies for a long time probably. Rogue One seems intriguing. I hope they can recapture the look and feel of the universe from the original trilogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top