Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Desslok

The Spoilerrific Super Duper Episode Seven Megathread!

Recommended Posts

So... in RotJ, Lucas introduced a second death star... with an even bigger weakspot...
Nobody bats an eye. Lucas is still the master.
TFA introduces a third death star... with a much harder to reach weakspot...
And people call him an uncreative hack, pretty much.

So, let me get this straight. It's ok for Lucas to "borrow" from his own movies, but not ok for Abrams to do so.

Yes, I agree that the movie was basically the same story as ANH.
But then, so many things in the star wars movies are borrowed straight off from other movies (and not seldom from other star wars movies even. Like the second death star.).

I see this movie as an homage to the original.

Sure, it's a safe play from Disney, but if you can overlook the "ERMAHGAWD, THEY COPIED STAR WARS (again)", then you might just see the love letter to the OT that this movie is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, that's the thing, given all the news about the film up to the release I completely expected exactly what we got in The Force Awakens: a rehash of the OT that relies heavily on the nostalgia and panders to the OT crowd.  I 100% expected TFA to be that movie.  However, I had HOPED it would not be and it would offer up something as unique and creative as ANH was.  This movie had so much potential but they gave us exactly what they said they would and that is disappointing.

 

For the record, I am going to see it for the 5th time tomorrow.  I might be a Star Wars junkie...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a pretty apt description of any of the Star Wars movies is that each one is a very pretty soap bubble that bursts upon a deeper examination 

I figure that's true of just about any movie. Take a magnifying glass to it, and suddenly even a good movie can start to show seams. Some people seem to enjoy finding these flaws and pointing them out. It's an attitude that's always struck me as a little pompous. Sort of like that jack ass back in school who would show off how clever he was by correcting a professor's spelling. Everyone hates that guy.

That isn't to say movies shouldn't be looked at critically, but sometimes I wonder if people are impossible to please and (subconsciously or not) want to be critical because it makes them feel like they are smart. Not calling anyone out, just thinking about nerd rage as a general concept.

 

 

But since Abrams has a sizeable hatedom, he gets crapped on for making an homage film while Lucas gets a free pass.  Nerds, go figure :rolleyes:

 I'm not sure fans gave Lucas a pass. He gets a lot of hate directed at him for the prequels. Unless you're talking about the OT which, sure, there are a lot of things that get a pass because of nostalgia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But since Abrams has a sizeable hatedom, he gets crapped on for making an homage film while Lucas gets a free pass.  Nerds, go figure :rolleyes:

 I'm not sure fans gave Lucas a pass. He gets a lot of hate directed at him for the prequels. Unless you're talking about the OT which, sure, there are a lot of things that get a pass because of nostalgia.

 

But even then everyone credits the other directors for the praise of ESB and RotJ.  Lucas still gets the hate for RotJ though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think TFA set down a great cornerstone for what is going to be a content tsunami. Disney's template with Marvel is going to be applied to Star Wars, so there will be plenty of stuff to satisfy everyone I'm sure. I don't think there was anyway to please the hyper focused fan who walked in with a laundry list of things that had to be included or they wouldn't be happy, that's like trying to beat 'the enemy of good is perfect' and that's typically a fruitless effort. I do find it funny the whole 'it copied ANH so bad!' rantings, I mean what kind of jackass digs for gold in a gold mine?! Disney are such Idiots!

Edited by 2P51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Probably while bellowing "la-la-la-can't-hear-you!" with his fingers in his ears.

 

...says the user who puts anyone who disagrees with them in their Ignore list... :P

 

Nope, just internet trolls like you and ErikB that keep spouting the same tired crap over and over while totally ignoring any attempts to actually engage them in a constructive discussion.

 

I've read enough of the posts in this thread from people that actually tried to engage you in a discussion, for you to just keep falling back to same tired and re-hashed complaints over and over.

 

knasserii at least is open-minded enough that a civil discussion can be expected.  You on the other hand, aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh, you know who else thought E7 ripped off the old movies? George Lucas:

 

"They wanted to do a retro movie. I don't like that. Every movie I work very hard to make them completely different, with different planets, with different spaceships, make it new."

 

There's a whole bunch more in the hour long interview with Charlie Rose - fascinating stuff, really.

 

 

As for the politics, how much is really needed in the course of the film to tell the story?  The opening crawl says there's a Republic, which supports the Resistance, who opposes the First Order, who are clearly the bad guys.  That's pretty much what we got in terms of the setting's politics for ANH, that there was an Empire, a Rebellion against this Empire, and not much else.  The Emperor was pretty much a throw-away line at that point (can't really have an Empire without an Emperor in what is a dressed-up fairy tale), with Tarkin being the major villain and Vader really just being an impressive looking flunky that chews the scenery in terms of ANH's plot.

 

 

Well it would be nice if we knew why there was a resistance and a republic - I assume that if the Republic is the US in WWII that the New Order is the Nazis are the Resistance are the French Underground (for a rough analogy), but that's an assumption on my part. Explaining how the resistance relates to the Republic, or how the Empire evolves into what we see. Who is Snoke? What's his motivation beyond the Evil LOLZ? How big was the Republic? It sounds like it just got blown up with one go.

 

Now, compare that to the first few moments of New Hope. We get that it's a civil war, there's an evil galactic Empire, there's a small band of rebels hoping to restore freedom to the galaxy, the Bad Guys want the Macguffin back and the Good Guys want to kill it.

 

Yeah, we didn't get into Palpatine's backstory or what's up with Vader until later - but the from the get go, the basics of the universe are laid out in a pretty clear synopsis while E7 is really muddled.

 

 

So... in RotJ, Lucas introduced a second death star... with an even bigger weakspot...
Nobody bats an eye. Lucas is still the master.

 

I think that's because the point of the climax of Jedi wasnt "Lets kill the Superweapon". The point of Jedi was what was happening ON that superweapon. The Death Star was mostly a superfluous window-dressing to the battle that was going on inside.

Edited by Desslok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Probably while bellowing "la-la-la-can't-hear-you!" with his fingers in his ears.

 

...says the user who puts anyone who disagrees with them in their Ignore list... :P

 

Nope, just internet trolls like you and ErikB that keep spouting the same tired crap over and over while totally ignoring any attempts to actually engage them in a constructive discussion.

 

I've read enough of the posts in this thread from people that actually tried to engage you in a discussion, for you to just keep falling back to same tired and re-hashed complaints over and over.

 

knasserii at least is open-minded enough that a civil discussion can be expected.  You on the other hand, aren't.

 

So not only can you not abide any disagreement with your own views, but you also lie about putting users on your ignore list?

 

Bluntly, I don't care what you think of me...the people that actually engaged in some back & forth with me seemed mature enough for it.

 

I guess you can post some sick memes though, so you're clearly the authority that everyone should follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it would be nice if we knew why there was a resistance and a republic - I assume that if the Republic is the US in WWII that the New Order is the Nazis are the Resistance are the French Underground (for a rough analogy), but that's an assumption on my part. Explaining how the resistance relates to the Republic, or how the Empire evolves into what we see. Who is Snoke? What's his motivation beyond the Evil LOLZ? How big was the Republic? It sounds like it just got blown up with one go.

 

 

I would throw down the Resistance is more like the the Flying Tigers or the Eagle Squadrons from WWII..

 

But you are right they left us with some big questions on the politics side. I don't necessarily think it is on the film for that, but them (Disney) not having some of that info at least out in other media prior to TFA release. We did get Aftermath and it gives some information, but that leaves us with more questions than TFA for me. I know StarWars.com has put some more info in the Data bank, but that only helps if you are looking for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... in RotJ, Lucas introduced a second death star... with an even bigger weakspot...

Nobody bats an eye. Lucas is still the master.

TFA introduces a third death star... with a much harder to reach weakspot...

And people call him an uncreative hack, pretty much.

So, let me get this straight. It's ok for Lucas to "borrow" from his own movies, but not ok for Abrams to do so.

Yes, I agree that the movie was basically the same story as ANH.

But then, so many things in the star wars movies are borrowed straight off from other movies (and not seldom from other star wars movies even. Like the second death star.).

I see this movie as an homage to the original.

Sure, it's a safe play from Disney, but if you can overlook the "ERMAHGAWD, THEY COPIED STAR WARS (again)", then you might just see the love letter to the OT that this movie is.

 

 

I totally agree that RotJ has, by far, the weakest story elements of the OT.  Return to Tatooine for no good reason, awkward return to Dagobah, and the worst one of all, as you mentioned, "We can't come up with anything more threatening than the Death Star, so let's just do that again."

 

RotJ, for me, gets bonus points for having the best space fight scene, the whole portion of the movie with Jabba, and the speeder bike chase.  It was also the first Star Wars movie I saw.  If not for those factors, It'd be, for me, roughly on par with TFA and AotC...safely out of last place, but only thanks to TPM.  That being said, the space battle and the Jabba scene are pretty big parts of the movie, so without them, there would almost certainly be something else to fill that void, which would need to be judged on its own merit.

 

I absolutely would disagree with anyone who gives RotJ a pass for unoriginality and ripping off within the series, but who also faults TFA for the same thing.  It either IS lazy or it isn't.  That lack of effort is what, for me, keeps it from being the best movie of all 7, whereas ANH, while much simpler, tells its own story without much fuss.  It's a clean, complete movie in its own right, but also a very good core portion of the series as a whole.

 

TFA may get a better estimation in my mind if it turns out to be a wholly necessary platform for *excellent* 8th and 9th episodes.  Even at that, though, it won't take away the fact that it's very core is just a re-dressed ANH plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well it would be nice if we knew why there was a resistance and a republic - I assume that if the Republic is the US in WWII that the New Order is the Nazis are the Resistance are the French Underground (for a rough analogy), but that's an assumption on my part. Explaining how the resistance relates to the Republic, or how the Empire evolves into what we see. Who is Snoke? What's his motivation beyond the Evil LOLZ? How big was the Republic? It sounds like it just got blown up with one go.

 

 

I would throw down the Resistance is more like the the Flying Tigers or the Eagle Squadrons from WWII..

 

But you are right they left us with some big questions on the politics side. I don't necessarily think it is on the film for that, but them (Disney) not having some of that info at least out in other media prior to TFA release. We did get Aftermath and it gives some information, but that leaves us with more questions than TFA for me. I know StarWars.com has put some more info in the Data bank, but that only helps if you are looking for it. 

 

Yeah, I tended to get more of a war-by-proxy vibe out of it...whether there's a wide swath of unclaimed territory, some sort of DMZ, or whatever...the Republic can't or won't (or can't get the votes) to engage in open war (perhaps now that it's a dominant force in the galaxy, it'd look too Imperial and hypocritical to go up against a rival?), so instead they secretly fund these guys...based who knows where...to do who knows what.  

 

That being said though, that's just the impression I got.  For as much of the "See this?  Like they did in the OT.  Remember this?  Remember this thing?  It's a reference.  Get it?" type stuff that went on, they could have cut some of that and thrown in a *bit* more dialogue to clue us in as to what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

knasserii at least is open-minded enough that a civil discussion can be expected.  You on the other hand, aren't.

 

I think the term is more "tolerant" than "open-minded". You can be pretty dismissive in your posts and that's not a new thing. In your posts in this thread so far I notice jibes like "a small contingent who like to bash TFA because it's the hot new thing and they want to seem edgy or cool" and other such ways of attacking a view. Is there any real reason to suppose that someone only offers criticisms of TFA because they're trying to seem cool? I think most of the posters on this forum are pretty mature. I know for a fact there are plenty with families, people in their thirties or older... Such people tend not to form opinions on an "I want to seem edgy" basis. And quite frankly, even if a poster was thirteen I wouldn't presume to know their motivations. People are highly varied and so are their tastes. Some will think TFA imaginative and the more fun than a hundred puppies. Others will find it derivative and unadventurous. Others will find it derivative and yet love it for it because all they want is a chance to see ANH again for the first time. And a hundred other takes on the movies. Even when people agree that a movie is X, they wont necessarily agree that X is a good thing or a bad thing. So in all this variety, isn't it rather limited to be unable to see someone else having a different view and have to seek some special explanation or justification as to why their view is different to yours? To think, "this movie is good" as an absolute and that therefore there must be some deceitful reason why they would say otherwise like a desire to seem edgy?

 

The crazy thing is, I don't think most of the critics in this thread even dislike the movie that much. Many of them found much to enjoy in the film. I'm probably on the more critical end of things and even I found many fine qualities about the film. But what happens is that we give a balanced opinion, listing the good and the bad, and then the bad is challenged over and over until all you're left with is people explaining what is bad about the film in post after post and the fact that they actually liked many parts of it is buried back on page 4. I don't think the critics on the whole are actually slating the movie, and certainly not for the drama or fun of challenging people who do like it. I think they're mostly just defending ad infinitem their criticisms against comments rejecting them.

 

Anyway, I don't know if I'm especially "open-minded", but that's my take on things for anyone who is interested because it's gotten a little heated in here. The Force, we should all remember, is to be used only for defence. IMHO.

Edited by knasserII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the politics I think the end of the civil war probably shook out similar to what the US faced conventionally when it finally pushed Japan back to the home islands, which was a god awful war of attrition that would have left a body count on both sides and little else to show for it.  

 

The remaining Imperial forces had been pushed back and consolidated themselves to a point where any victory would have been pyrrhic so a deal was cut with the remnants for some slice of space.  The Republic went about its way and the Resistance was formed as an off the books insurgent force within Imperial space to either try and whittle them away and defeat them, or just keep them off balance and never a threat again.

 

I don't think it's coincidence that Hux looks so young and that he and Ren have the whole exchange over the new stormtroopers.  It's like a new generation clashing with an old guard mentality, almost like the First Order is very SS, whereas the bulk of the Empire previously was left overs from the Republic era and more Wehrmacht like. 

 

I did like the exchange between Hux and Ren and how were are kinda left with the impression the stormtroopers in the OT were clones, or maybe not.  The word play really went both ways in my mind.

 

In the end I kind of like I wasn't spoon fed all the answers about the politics because I enjoy the speculation and seeing how close I am more than having it served to me.  

 

Which of course leads to me to still be shaking my head over the whole 'it copied too much' and used too many themes from the OT, but it didn't give me the same details the first one did and it didn't provide the same closure as the OT movies or set the trilogy up in the same way, which means it is doing something different than the OT and that's bad too. I read that to mean it's bad it copied because it wasn't original and it's bad that it was original and didn't copy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the politics I think the end of the civil war probably shook out similar to what the US faced conventionally when it finally pushed Japan back to the home islands, which was a god awful war of attrition that would have left a body count on both sides and little else to show for it.  

 

The remaining Imperial forces had been pushed back and consolidated themselves to a point where any victory would have been pyrrhic so a deal was cut with the remnants for some slice of space.  The Republic went about its way and the Resistance was formed as an off the books insurgent force within Imperial space to either try and whittle them away and defeat them, or just keep them off balance and never a threat again.

 

I don't think it's coincidence that Hux looks so young and that he and Ren have the whole exchange over the new stormtroopers.  It's like a new generation clashing with an old guard mentality, almost like the First Order is very SS, whereas the bulk of the Empire previously was left overs from the Republic era and more Wehrmacht like. 

 

I did like the exchange between Hux and Ren and how were are kinda left with the impression the stormtroopers in the OT were clones, or maybe not.  The word play really went both ways in my mind.

 

In the end I kind of like I wasn't spoon fed all the answers about the politics because I enjoy the speculation and seeing how close I am more than having it served to me.  

 

Which of course leads to me to still be shaking my head over the whole 'it copied too much' and used too many themes from the OT, but it didn't give me the same details the first one did and it didn't provide the same closure as the OT movies or set the trilogy up in the same way, which means it is doing something different than the OT and that's bad too. I read that to mean it's bad it copied because it wasn't original and it's bad that it was original and didn't copy.

I don't think Disney cares what you think.

 

(Am I doing it right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In regards to the politics I think the end of the civil war probably shook out similar to what the US faced conventionally when it finally pushed Japan back to the home islands, which was a god awful war of attrition that would have left a body count on both sides and little else to show for it.  

 

The remaining Imperial forces had been pushed back and consolidated themselves to a point where any victory would have been pyrrhic so a deal was cut with the remnants for some slice of space.  The Republic went about its way and the Resistance was formed as an off the books insurgent force within Imperial space to either try and whittle them away and defeat them, or just keep them off balance and never a threat again.

 

I don't think it's coincidence that Hux looks so young and that he and Ren have the whole exchange over the new stormtroopers.  It's like a new generation clashing with an old guard mentality, almost like the First Order is very SS, whereas the bulk of the Empire previously was left overs from the Republic era and more Wehrmacht like. 

 

I did like the exchange between Hux and Ren and how were are kinda left with the impression the stormtroopers in the OT were clones, or maybe not.  The word play really went both ways in my mind.

 

In the end I kind of like I wasn't spoon fed all the answers about the politics because I enjoy the speculation and seeing how close I am more than having it served to me.  

 

Which of course leads to me to still be shaking my head over the whole 'it copied too much' and used too many themes from the OT, but it didn't give me the same details the first one did and it didn't provide the same closure as the OT movies or set the trilogy up in the same way, which means it is doing something different than the OT and that's bad too. I read that to mean it's bad it copied because it wasn't original and it's bad that it was original and didn't copy.

I don't think Disney cares what you think.

 

(Am I doing it right?)

 

See but I'm not a feel sorry for myself inflated ego type with an over developed sense of self worth/psuedo intellect and a full adult diaper.  I know Disney doesn't care what I think and I don't let my immature sore little fanny get me all worked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12362981_1048742545175852_64481709571781

 

I don't read vanity Fair but apparently this is a photo in it of the aliens from Maz's place.

 

So... Quiggold has now established the Vogons as being part of Star Wars ;)

 

 

Money on even the cook and pet dog getting an new-EU novel. And each of them will be legendary in some way...their abilities, what they did, what they were involved in.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of course leads to me to still be shaking my head over the whole 'it copied too much' and used too many themes from the OT, but it didn't give me the same details the first one did and it didn't provide the same closure as the OT movies or set the trilogy up in the same way, which means it is doing something different than the OT and that's bad too. I read that to mean it's bad it copied because it wasn't original and it's bad that it was original and didn't copy.

 

The devil is in the details. I didn't like was how light it was on what was going on because there is less to get involved with if I don't understand why people are fighting or what for. There is no incompatibility between that and also disliking repetition from the first one. I might know why the Death Star was constructed in the first one, the rationale, the effort the rebels went to, to get the plans to find the weakpoint and so on... That doesn't mean I have the same level of knowledge about the Star Killer base just because it's very similar.

 

One issue for me is that what it repeated were some of the least interesting parts of ANH. I don't really rate ANH as a great film, but it has some great parts. For me, the Death Star trench run isn't one of those. The bits I love in ANH are primarily the character interactions. Han Solo trying to blag to the security guards over the radio in the detention facility is my favourite scene in the whole movie. Princess Leia's snarky remarks are also the bits that I love: "You came in that? You're braver than I thought." The whole blow up the Death Star sequence I find pretty dull. If you like it, then its re-do in TFA may be thrilling. If you don't, it's repetitious and just a weight that drags things down further.

 

It's quite possible to find the movie weak for both copying parts of ANH and for being different at the same time. As I said in my initial review, it captured the facts of ANH, but not the essence. Going through the motions, if you will. To achieve what something else achieved, it's insufficient to copy what they did, you must copy what they aimed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think Disney cares about that either.

I guarantee they don't.

 

Which is the whole point.  It's a board for discussion.  Nobody cares what Disney thinks, yet you felt it was a very important consideration when others didn't agree with you.  

 

Now that you'd like to participate and give your thoughts, suddenly it means a whole lot less.

 

Thanks for playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×