Reviews Film / The Force Awakens

Thank you for putting this into words. It's been really bugging me lately the amount of times I've heard this film get called a rehash when I didn't feel like it was one at all. There were similarities ,yes, but I felt like that was the whole point. A fresh take on the old starting point of any grand adventure. That's what made the originals so good was that it was a classic "rehashed" Hero's Journey executed very well... IN SPACE.

All these people clamoring for something "different" feels like people going to a pizza parlour and complaining they're not serving gourmet sushi. They can damn sure try to make some, but it's probably going to be an unrecognizable mess like the Prequel Trilogy was.

Ah, the "If you criticize this you don't understand it" argument. How original.

Not only are you reading too much into the movie, you're mythologizing it to the point of over-rationalization ("The cyclicality of life, time and the force"? Woo language much?)

All you have to do is look at some of EU stuff to see that you don't need any cyclical bull to tell a great story with the vast lore of the SW verse. Fact is, pandering to the fanbase was the easy choice, and that's what they went with.

I dislike that "pandering" seems to be the new buzzword for "anything that people like but I don't". Yes, the film indulged and pleased the fanbase... and that's a bad thing how? And you really think it's that "easy" to please Star Wars fans? There's a reason the prequels are notoriously picked apart.

The whole point of a main episode Star Wars is to be a fun space thrill ride for the whole family. If you want some sort of different fare than the standard hero journey in the Star Wars-verse then that's presumably what the spin-off films like Rogue One are for.

But if you're expecting some sort of deep challenging boundary pushing war piece, then I'm sorry that's probably not happening. (No that's not what the EU was. I've read quite a bit of EU and honestly most of it was convoluted, cynical, fanfictiony and tried too hard to be the 80's definition of "epic". There's a reason it was cut wholesale.)

A little early to be saying what Rogue One is and isn't, isn't it? And I wasn't talking about spin-offs, I was talking about some of the other Jedi-centric stories like Legacy, KOTOR, Thrawn, etc.

I never said it wasn't a (halfway) decent popcorn movie; my point is that it's not an original popcorn movie (which is fine, neither was Avatar and that made a kazillion $$); I simply dislike the idea where the reviewer was putting it on a pedestal and claiming it actually IS some sort of great boundary-pushing, thought-provoking piece and that (legit) criticisms come from not understanding it.

Also, personal opinion: I'm pretty sure the sequels set the bar so low fans are ecstatic about TFA just because it didn't suck.

Fair enough. I agree that no film should be held up as flawless and without critique. But critique should not be held without rebuttle as well. Which is what I interpereted this review to be; a rebuttle of the biggest 'critique' leveled at the film.

I can't necessarily speak for the reviewer, but the point that I think I agree with him at least is that I don't consider originality to be the big hallmark of a great Star Wars film (or films in general, but I digress). In fact one of the foundations of what makes Star Wars good is it's adherence to a well executed version of a timeless hero's tale. And to me, this film succeeded very well on that as the first act of this series. It's interesting that you cited Thrawn and KOTOR as good Star Wars cause one of the reasons I thought those were solid was because they messed with the formula the least.

But yeah, I'm not the reviewer, and if the intention was to make the film seem perfect than I disagree with that as well.

There is a difference between being a totally original film and being an original Star Wars film. This is a film that does retread a lot of beats already walked in the GFFA. Deliberately so and to make a deliberate point, albeit a contentious one it seems.

This is beginning to sound a lot like a certain no-necked flannel-shirted man's claims of the prequel trilogy's shameless, plodding retreads being "poetry" that "rhymes."

...Nice to see you haven't been fully able to let go, Mr. Lucas. I couldn't be more thankful for your non-involvement in the actual film, though. Keep on trucking George my boy!

Oh, the film is far from flawless.

Personally, I kinda felt that the reveal concerning Kylo was made far, FAR too early - it would have been immensely more impactful if who he is was revealed when Han calls out "Ben!", signifying that he is Han & Leia's son. I wish they had been more ambiguous about who he is and his involvement with other characters until that exact moment, because it would have been an utter bombshell and made that scene all the more heartbreaking.

Some of the Force-power scenes, especially Ren's "mind reading" ones, particularly where he's trying to use it on Rey, and failing felt stretched and resulted in a bit of giggling for how odd it looked. This is an old, OLD problem for Star Wars - unless Jedi/Sith are jumping all over the place via Wire-Fu, or Force Lightning is being shot, or we see things actively being thrown around, without any anime-style glowing energies to indicate that there's a conflict going on, things like dueling Force-Pushes or Mind-tricks can just seem like a bad LARP session. Two characters just staring at each other and grimacing, without any other vidual indicator of clashing powers, looks very silly very quickly, basically.

But the "similar plot points & story beats" theme is not one of the film's problems - it's a constant theme in Star Wars, one that has its roots in Monomyth literary theory and Cambell's Hero's Journey that inspired the first films, and one that works very well for a franchise as deeply rooted in spirtualism & a Destiny-vs-Choice conflict as Star Wars.

Hey, Emillang... I hear the pretense police. They want to arrest you for reading way too deep into a space opera inspired by Flash Gordon.

^ Being a Space Opera inspired by Flash Gordon and trying to tackle these themes aren't mutually exclusive, you know. Writing off critiques as "you just didn't get it" is hardly a defense for the movie (not that that's what this review is doing), but refusing to acknowledge that the movie does have thematic content because that would be "pretentious" is just the same error going in the other direction. A movie can be both flashy action and an exploration of a theme, and I think it's fairly clear that that's what they were going for. Whether or not it was a good idea to try it or whether their effort was successful is up for debate, but I think it's obvious that the similarities to the original trilogy weren't chosen just because they didn't know what else to do.

Nearly everything about the plot and characters is specifically designed to call that comparison to mind. There is a very clear "old guard vs. new blood" theme to the movie, and I don't think it's pretentious to point that out.

Granted, the movie is far from perfect and there are definitely places where they stuck way too close to the original plot points (in particular the whole "take out the planet-destroying superweapon by exploiting a tiny weakness via a trench run" bit; the one thing that disappointed me about the movie was how straight they played it. I was half expecting a subversion where the X-wing attack failed and they had to destroy it from within, or that they ended up only disabling the Starkiller rather than destroying it completely or something.), but how much those detract from the experience as a whole is pretty much up to personal preference.

Personally, I found that there were a few issues, but I also found that most of those quibbles got shoved to the side because THE MILLENIUM FALCON IS FIGHTING TIE FIGHTERS INSIDE THE HULL OF A WRECKED STAR DESTROYER HOLY CRAP. Yeah, the plot wasn't really original, but they captured the general feel of the movies so well that I ended up not caring.

Also crap this comment is way longer than I intended. Oh well.

Quick note because I can't edit: the review does use the "you just didn't get it" defense, and I mistyped. Whoops.

@Japanese Teeth

Outstanding! Please, elaborate more on how this film was an intended exploration on the theme of 'cyclic history'! Let's just simply ignore the fact that it's an all but blatant rip-off of EU story elements with A New Hope's plot structure, and how the simple explanation of 'the writers and directors are lazy as balls and couldn't bother to come up with something original' works just as well with explaining why the film is so familiar... and is a stronger theory when you account for the shallow wink and nod routine that exemplifies the shallow fanservice in the film.

I wouldn't be so critical of this decent popcorn movie and this obnoxiously analytical review of the film... if both didn't ignore their better counterparts: with this film, it's the vastly more original and developed EU; with the review, it's the lazy fanservice and writing theory.

^Can someone please explain for me what's so glorious about the EU? Like I've said I read/played/watched a lot of EU and most of it was pretty cheesy and derivative; moreso than what people accuse this film of I'd argue.

And I would take less issue with your post as well if it didn't come across as more dismissive than what you accuse others of. Like which is more dismissive? Addressing a main criticism of a movie with points and an argument, or simply ignoring the argument wholesale because you felt it 'pretentious'?

^^ Well, for one there's the fact that the villains are, in the context of the movie, actively trying to crib off the Empire and recreate it. Kylo's whole character is based on the idea that he idolizes Darth Vader and wants to essentially be Vader's heir, but with a heaping dose of irony in that he doesn't understand Vader as well as he thinks he does. And the ways in which he truly does resemble Vader are purely accidental on his part. He wants to be Vader, but he isn't, and his characterization is based on the disconnect.

Likewise, his "official" role as a First Order enforcer is comparable to Vader's role as the Emperor's henchman, but the execution is not the same. Vader was effectively the face of the Empire and The Dreaded who was never treated as anything less than a major threat to the protagonists and the primary obstacle that they had to overcome. There wasn't really any question as to how dangerous or competent he was. Kylo, on the other hand, is immature, of questionable competence, and not fully trained. Oh, and while Vader and the Emperor were relatively antagonistic towards each other, Kylo views his master as a father figure. The two characters are meant as foils to each other.

As for the EU: 1. most people seeing the movie have not read/watched/played most of the EU stuff. 2. The EU's quality is... variable at best. Some great stuff, some not-so-much. And overall the continuity was a bit of a clusterfuck.

Lastly, the fanservice is there because, frankly, the fanbase would probably riot even harder if it wasn't. Yeah, there is quite a bit of pandering (which I honestly don't see as a bad thing) because if they didn't have all those nods, fans of the franchise would just complain about how it "isn't a real Star Wars movie" or something.

The point of this movie is to take the franchise back to the basics after the prequels sort of spiraled out of control. So yes, they played it safe. Probably a little too safe. But I also think they sprinkled enough twists in there to make it a good launching point for future movies. It's trying to make sure its found its feet again before running off and starting to do its own thing. We'll just have to see how well the sequels take advantage of the potential plots that this movie set up.

It kind of makes sense. They needed to win back the confidence of the general public after people picked apart everything that was wrong with the prequels.

So they went for something simple, safe, and solid. Ultimately the result is a soft remake, and a pretty good one at that. And that's that. We'll see what the next movie does.

"Writing off critiques as 'you just didn't get it' is hardly a defense for the movie (not that that's what this review is doing)"

"If you find yourself complaining about the similarities, you don't understand the film's message."

What's the word I'm looking for? Hypocrite? Maybe.

Oh, just read the comment afterwards. But my comment still stands anyway.

What Pannic said, basically.

^Hey, at least I acknowledged that there are some aspects in which the similarities are problems. I'm just disputing his assertion that it was done solely out of laziness and that there could't be greater depth to it.

@Bluesteel

Simple—people are saying this is a great Star Wars film when it's doing little to nothing the EU wasn't doing better. And, slick... you calling the EU derivative is priceless, when the only really derivative part of it was... I dunno, Legacy?

I brought up my points—the film copies so much from the EU that it's easier to assume that it's just a lazy ripoff of them than to assume that it's some possible renaissance of Star Wars. The film should do a better job of justifying that interpretation before I humor extrapolations for flaws of a film that can be explained away more easily by the lazy theory?

^But you didn't answer my question at all. You just keep saying the EU was that much better, but how was it that much 'better'? There are good parts yes, I'm not denying that, but not enough to be held as the defining hallmark of the series.

KOTOR was a great overall game, but the story was hardly unique. It was a standard Bioware three/four level story structure with a Star Wars plot coating, complete with its own Death Star... I'm sorry 'Star Forge'. KOTORII was more unique I'll give you that, but it was also rushed and nearly unfinished.

Thrawn was an interesting villain but came off as a bit like a self-insert in a Star Wars tabletop. The author himself admitted he made Thrawn too OP and had trouble coming up with his death. The series itself was good, but partly because it adhered to the three act structure very well.

Legacy, well you said yourself, was pretty standard Star Wars.

And that's just the good parts. That's not counting stuff like the Christmas Special or Ewok Adventures which are just as much a part of the EU as the good parts. They didn't just decide to cut the EU for shits and giggles. They cut it because decades of the stuff had snarled the continuity and a lot of it was of variable quality.

No one here is saying this film is the end all be all 'renaissance' of Star Wars either. But it was pretty damn good for a soft franchise reboot and 'being too Star Wars' is not one of the films big problems.

@Bluesteel

Simple—did it first, so more original, and justified its retreads and lore expansions. Same with the prequels and their political scenes.

And are you kidding me? There are a metric TON of good stuff that make it deserving of calling it a hallmark of the franchise. I could sit here all day pedantically itemizing ever good and bad nugget about the EU, but I think you and I both know that'd take forever to do. I'll simply state that, at least in the gaming front, the EU served as an important foundation in many genres of video games—KOTOR for the RPG genre, Jedi Knight for the FPS genre, X-wing for the space-sim genre.

You also realize KOTOR was Bioware's fourth game, right? It wasn't 'standard' procedure yet. And don't tell me the end twist wasn't a unique and rather unprecedented move in the Star Wars and gaming narrative.

Oh, it's easy to point and denigrate the odd parts of the EU—Ewok Adventures and Luuke Skywalker, ahoy!—but I believe you fail to acknowledge, whether through genuine ignorance or unwillingness to abandon your stance, that those laughable parts are essentially minor blemishes to an endeavor that in some ways transcends the film series in world and lore building.

No one? Then why am I hearing everyone praising this film for 'getting to the heart of Star Wars' and a," fresh take on the old starting point of any grand adventure" as you put it. I suppose it's easy to be a reboot when you whitewash your inspiration and claim it as your own original work, though.

It's a fun movie, but Lucas was right to say the film was too 'retro' for its own good.

^Praising a film does not equate to calling it a renaissance though. I've said before I think the film is far from a masterpiece and has it's share of flaws, but this specific criticism is one I disagree with.

Perhaps when you say they "whitewash [their] inspiration and claim it as [their] own original work," that is the crux of our disagreement. If this film had been called 'Space Battles: A J.J. Abrams Original' I'd get your point, but I don't think a series can necessarily rip itself off. In that case Mad Max:Fury Road was a rip-off of the first Mad Max series, and the Marvel films are the worst films in history because they just copied and 'whitewashed' the comic storylines.

A series and its creator/owners can do whatever they want with their Universe to move forward, including updating and retelling its stories. That's the point of fiction. People just seem to get particularly upset by reboots since they feel like they somehow invalidate the previous works when they don't. Like I said there are good things about the EU, but rebooting a series does not mean those good parts of the EU never existed anymore. They are just part of a seperate past storyverse.

@Blue Steel

While I agree that the film isn't perfect, I would honestly be more than willing to forgive, if not outright ignore, most of the other flaws of the film (the ridiculous plot holes, the occasionally lackluster dialogue, etc.) on the principle that it was a Star Wars film that was fun AND original. Perhaps another area of disagreement between ourselves is our standard for what constitutes a 'good' Star Wars experience, but I digress. Like I've said, I think the film was fun, but I also think it's a vapid installment in the Star Wars universe.

I have to disagree with the two examples you presented: with Mad Max: Fury Road, the film acknowledged beforehand that it was a reboot rather than a sequel; when it was released, the film also made itself clear that it was experimenting and elaborating on aspects of the Mad Max universe that hadn't been hitherto expanded on—human slavery, the necessity of water, etc. I would hardly call Fury Road a rip off the first, the second, or the third Mad Max films. As a side-note, I don't think I would mind too much if Fury Road were just a copy-paste of the first, if it were at least done right. I have a different standard for Mad Max than the standard I use to judge Star Wars.

As for Marvel, I confess I'm not too knowledgeable on the Marvel comic books or movie line, but as far as I am aware, the films admit to be 'adaptations' of the comic story lines. Some modifications are made here and there, but I think there is not conflict in this example simply because the films never said they were going to be anything other than relatively faithful adaptations of the comics.

My issue with TFA is that it is the beginning of a new trilogy of a film franchise that built its success, and thus prides itself on, world-building and immersion, but could only vaguely accomplish this task by taking many story elements from the EU and then decanonizing the EU to disguise its lack of originality. The result, to me, stinks of a dishonest adaptation trying to tout itself as a new storyline. Had the story just simply adapted the EU into film and kept it at that—change Ben Solo's name to Jacen Solo, Finn's to Kyle Katarn, for example—I'd be loving the film as a cool adaptation of the EU to a more generalized audience. As it stands, the reality of the film just makes me appreciate the EU for its efforts all the more.

^Fair enough. Perhaps you are right in that I don't really view Star Wars as monumental outside of the film series itself. There are parts of the EU that I did really enjoy but I never really found any of them to be as groundbreaking as perhaps you do. My expectations are thus less betrayed.

Still I can't say I find any of the new film to be of such malicious intent as dishonesty. What was promised to me at least was another installment of film continuity which had to rework previous verse material as it had grown excessive and convoluted. I'm certain I read interviews leading up to the release that even said they would work in EU elements as well. The label 'Star Wars™' itself also meant they were free to adapt itself as it pleased.

I also don't think any of this would exclude this film from having its own thematic elements as discussed by this review (though yes the last line of it was needlessly dismissive).

As for world-bulding I think it's a tad unfair to compare a single film of material to a previous continuities load of material. We will have to see how the future works pan out to do that, but as it stands this was a solid launching point for me at least.

This is pretty much the general consensus in regards to TFA, that it plays it safe. And dosn't stray too far from the formula. As long as it dosnt become a pandercake (my term for movies/games/shows who try only to appeal to a set audience) I don't think it's formula will harm it.