Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

Dricmeister

Initially, I was sceptical about the Ren / Finn duel, but to be fair:

- Finn is shown having a pretty skilled duel with another Stormtrooper only minutes before.

- Kylo Ren is shot and wounded by Chewie just before his duel with Finn.

- Kylo Ren does beat Finn quite conclusively in the end, with Finn ending up seriously wounded.

Sad Professor

Kylo isn’t meant to be a Vader-like villain. Not yet anyway. He’s an anti-Luke Skywalker who has made the opposite choices that Luke made. It’s an interesting kind of character to explore, especially after the mess Lucas made of Anakin in the prequels. And the idea that he's less intimating when he takes off the mask, well maybe that’s why he wears it. Though he’s just as petulant and prone to temper tantrums with it on.

At the end of the film it’s suggested Kylo may have succeeded in finally destroying whatever good is left in him, which may open the door to him being more Vader-like in the next film. Vader's full villainy is really only seen in TESB anyway. He’s on Tarkin’s leash in the first film and is overshadowed by the Emperor in ROTJ.

I think a lot of people are assuming that Kylo’s turn to the dark side happened years ago, around the same time as Rey’s abandonment on Jakku, but Pablo Hidalgo who’s in charge of the canon at Lucasfilm said it happened much more recently.

I reckon they might be building up to a Luke versus Kylo duel in the next film, which is why Kylo is so desperate to find Luke. And like the Anakin/Obi-wan duel, Kylo will probably lose but without being killed, resulting in him becoming a more Vader-like villain in the third film.

Sudden Valley

They will probably have the second film mirror the empire strikes back and have it end with a big win for Kylo perhaps taking one of the good guys captive.

McLoughlin

Sudden Valley wrote: »

They will probably have the second film mirror the empire strikes back and have it end with a big win for Kylo perhaps taking one of the good guys captive.

With Lando, some bounty hunters and a "I am your father" moment

weemcd

Sudden Valley wrote: »

They will probably have the second film mirror the empire strikes back and have it end with a big win for Kylo perhaps taking one of the good guys captive.

I have a big feeling we'll end up having a second ESB in the next film. It's set up quite like that now with the direction some of the big characters parallel their predecessors

Rey =/= Luke go in search of training
Luke =/= Yoda reluctantly accept a new student
Han =/= Finn/Poe have to do some space cowboy shít for Lea

I have no problem with this, watched Empire Strikes back on Christmas night, class.

Gbear

You'd have certain expectations for this kind of film.

You would think it would have your standard beginning to establish characters and give them a win, the mid-story setback, either challenging them or killing one of them to show vulnerability and give the characters more growing room and of course the final definitive battle between good and evil.

It'll be retreading at least some of the original trilogies ground, but part of the appeal was how they too were bog standard stories.

No finding severed heads in boxes, no finding out Leia was a Sith the whole time, and definitely no murdering a bunch of kids in the middle of school (this time).

Mitch Connor

weemcd wrote: »

I have a big feeling we'll end up having a second ESB in the next film. It's set up quite like that now with the direction some of the big characters parallel their predecessors

Rey =/= Luke go in search of training
Luke =/= Yoda reluctantly accept a new student
Han =/= Finn/Poe have to do some space cowboy shít for Lea

I have no problem with this, watched Empire Strikes back on Christmas night, class.

=/= means 'not equal to'.

Right Turn Clyde

orubiru wrote: »

I can't really understand why anyone would be baffled by unanimous glowing reviews of any movie, really. If reviews are unanimously pretty positive then its almost certain that a lot of the movies various elements are excellent.

A film is more than just "the story".

You have to consider the art direction and the tone of the movie. Film is a visual medium. This movie looks amazing. It's highly detailed and some of the shots are jaw dropping, especially for Star Wars fans. Most reviews picked up on this.

The characters are particularly well written for an action adventure movie. The actors playing the roles also do an excellent job of portraying those characters. There's chemistry between them and they convey the various emotions of the film in a believable way. Most reviewers also picked up on this.

You have a lot of emotional moments and the film offers a few different ways for the audience to become engaged. The humor hits the mark, mostly. The many references to old school Star Wars mostly hit the mark. The action is exciting. There is a little bit of darkness, a hint of sadness an ultimately a hopeful message. This movie has heart. Again, most reviewers would notice and take note of that.

Reviewers of movies don't say "Pfft. This guy isn't trained to use that weapon. This movie is garbage!" There's more to it than that. Much more.

I often read comments on Boards where a poster has watched a Cam recording of something like Mad Max : Fury Road on their iPad and will say "story is all that matters". Honestly, though if that's your attitude towards films then you are really missing out on a lot.

There is so much more to a movie than the plot. Yes, the plot of The Force Awakens is very simple. There is a good reason for that and any respectable reviewer would be able to see it. The simple plot is required to allow other elements to be given time. This can be a delicate balance.

A movie like this requires a lot of world building. A movie like this also needs to incorporate a lot of fun and a lot of fast moving action. This is a movie about characters and their relationships. The plot will inevitably suffer because of this. There is only so much you can do within a 2 hour running time. It's supposed to be an adventure with likeable heroes going up against intimidating antagonists. It's not supposed to be a hefty tome about love, war, politics and religion.

No movie can be all things to all people but any movie can be "nit-picked" to death. The Force Awakens delivers on many various levels. Looking into the minutiae or the plot in order to find things to criticize is fine but the movie has so many other, significant, positive aspects. Reviewers wouldn't be saying "Great cinematography, great script, great acting, the tone feels just right, it hits a lot of satisfying emotional beats, its exciting and fun BUT they blew up the enemy base too easily so it's a thumbs down from me."

You're just not going to convince me that plot necessarily loses out to execution or spectacle with a film like The Force Awakens. I can accept it where a film is all about tone, like Inherent Vice, but I want a film like TFA to work on a story level and in many ways it doesn't.

I'm not sure if all of your post is directed at me, but if it is then you've made a number of wrong assumptions about the type of filmgoer I am. Story is not 'all that matters' and I would never discredit a film's other achievements because it wasn't tightly written. Also, I wasn't expecting a treatise on the human condition. Unlike a great deal of Star Wars fans, I do actually treat the franchise as a bit of fun.

The Force Awakens is, as I've previously said, a very enjoyable movie. You've already highlighted its successes and for the most part I agree with you. But there are problems with the film based on what I wanted from it. For example, I didn't want that much humour and I didn't want the original trilogy to be referenced to such an extent.

There's also some stylistic things that bother me, like the speed and register of Kylo Ren's voice when he was masked, versus his nerdy, Girls voice when he was umasked. Yes, this is a small issue, but it left me unsatisfied, particularly because I traditionally find Star Wars villains to be such excellent screen presences. You can add to that some of the performances. Fisher and Ford are weak. In fact, Ford is desperate in his opening scenes.

Anyway, I could keep going with nit-picking like this but I don't want to because I like this film. I genuinely do. But to get back to the original point, I'm just surprised that there's not more nit-picking going on amongst everyone else. These are films to be watched and re-watched and at this stage the uniformity of opinion strikes me as a little curious.

e_e

I checked Movies @ Dundrum last night and every 2D screening (4 out of 14 for the day) for today was sold out. :rolleyes:

Sad Professor

e_e wrote: »

I checked Movies @ Dundrum last night and every 2D screening (4 out of 14 for the day) for today was sold out. :rolleyes:

Vote with your feet. It's the opposite in most places. 3D is so dead.

Mitch Connor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Vote with your feet. It's the opposite in most places. 3D is so dead.

Might be the opposite in most places but the screenings in Dundrum are set based on the public demand for the 3D screenings. I know there are other movies they haven't bothered with 3D at all because they know the money is in the 2D version, so it isn't come conspiracy to push 3D down your throat.

I don't know why the demand is here for 3D as I can't remember any scenes that would really have benefited from it, but it is what it is.

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

Vote with your feet. It's the opposite in most places. 3D is so dead.

Really? My local only has one 2d showing compared to 4 or 5 3d and that's been the case since opening weekend.

Sad Professor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Might be the opposite in most places but the screenings in Dundrum are set based on the public demand for the 3D screenings. I know there are other movies they haven't bothered with 3D at all because they know the money is in the 2D version, so it isn't come conspiracy to push 3D down your throat.

I don't know why the demand is here for 3D as I can't remember any scenes that would really have benefited from it, but it is what it is.

They can't have measured demand very well if all the 2D screenings sold out the night before.

Sad Professor

Mickeroo wrote: »

Really? My local only has one 2d showing compared to 4 or 5 3d and that's been the case since opening weekend.

Yeah Vue and Cineworld have twice as many 2D as 3D showings.

Some multiplexes probably spent more upgrading all their screens to 3D and are keen to make their investment back.

Dricmeister

The 2D screenings in Dundrum are fewer in number and they're in the smallest cinemas, so the fact that they're booked out is slightly misleading.

e_e

Dricmeister wrote: »

The 2D screenings in Dundrum are fewer in number and they're in the smallest cinemas, so the fact that they're booked out is slightly misleading.

That's exactly my point, they have 3 large screens there playing Star Wars and you'd think they'd meet the 2D demand by not having the 2D version only playing in smaller ones.

Mitch Connor

Sad Professor wrote: »

They can't have measured demand very well if all the 2D screenings sold out the night before.

There are more 3D screenings, in generally larger screens.

They are selling out every screen and are delighted with the demand - if the 3D tickets weren't selling, they'd have switched to 2D screenings for the majority. It makes zero business sense to do otherwise. Cinema's will show the movies, in the formats, they feel will get the best return. It is as simple as that. As long as 3D demand for a movie is out-weighing 2D demand, they will run with 3D. There isn't an argument for doing otherwise.

e_e

I'd argue if anything 2D demand is outweighing 3D. People are by and large just tolerating the 3D because it's the only option when smaller, fewer screenings are full.

I've yet to read any comments along the line of "That was an amazing experience. The 3D, oh my god the 3D!!!" :pac:

orubiru

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I'm not sure if all of your post is directed at me, but if it is then you've made a number of wrong assumptions about the type of filmgoer I am.

My post was not really directed at you specifically and I wasn't making any assumptions beyond the fact that the positive reviews baffled you.

The specific thing I was responding to was the comment that "the near unanimous glowing reviews have me baffled". I was kind of just trying to show why this movie was reviewed positively. To kind of unbaffle the bafflement.

I generally find that reviewers will get deeply into "nit picking" a film when it fails badly on a number of levels and they end up just hating the film and the nit picking is just really done out of spite or frustration. You'll generally find them nit picking bad movies. Its kind of mean spirited to nit pick and actual good movie to death. So most won't do it.

When a movie has unanimous positive reviews it's usually pretty obvious why that is happening.

Sad Professor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

There are more 3D screenings, in generally larger screens.

They are selling out every screen and are delighted with the demand - if the 3D tickets weren't selling, they'd have switched to 2D screenings for the majority. It makes zero business sense to do otherwise. Cinema's will show the movies, in the formats, they feel will get the best return. It is as simple as that. As long as 3D demand for a movie is out-weighing 2D demand, they will run with 3D. There isn't an argument for doing otherwise.

I just looked at Dundrun website. All of the 3 remaining 2D showings for the day are sold out. Where as none of the 12 remaining 3D showings are.

They aren’t basing the number of 3D showings on demand for 3D but rather on tolerance for it. How many people will make do with 3D versus go elsewhere? Obviously not enough for them to have more 2D showings.

Right Turn Clyde

orubiru wrote: »

My post was not really directed at you specifically and I wasn't making any assumptions beyond the fact that the positive reviews baffled you.

The specific thing I was responding to was the comment that "the near unanimous glowing reviews have me baffled". I was kind of just trying to show why this movie was reviewed positively. To kind of unbaffle the bafflement.

I generally find that reviewers will get deeply into "nit picking" a film when it fails badly on a number of levels and they end up just hating the film and the nit picking is just really done out of spite or frustration. You'll generally find them nit picking bad movies. Its kind of mean spirited to nit pick and actual good movie to death. So most won't do it.

When a movie has unanimous positive reviews it's usually pretty obvious why that is happening.

I suppose I am nit-picking a good movie, but bear in mind I've already seen it twice, I'm taking my nephew tonight and I have the Bluray on pre-order. And I wouldn't even consider myself a Star Wars fan. There's your box-office records right there.

Canis Lupus

Just saw it for the first time, in 3d which I thought worked very well.

Liked it, thoroughly enjoyed many parts but.... we're blowing up a death star, but it's bigger and has a weak point.... Sigh... I expected more.

Sad Professor

I could have done without the Death Star rehash. And it feels like story could have as well. The attack on the Starkiller base is a side-plot. Han and Finn have entirely personal motivations for wanting to infiltrate the base. It's like Abrams felt it wouldn't be Star Wars without a planet-destroying superweapon. Which is fine, I guess.

The main thing is that the characters aren't sidelined like they are in almost every other third act of the franchise. The result is probably the most intimate finale since Empire, the only film in the series that dared to make its climax purely emotional and character-based. Lucas always seemed to think he could balance spectacle and emotion in the final act but always ended up prioritising the spectacle. Where as here Abrams refreshingly prioritises the characters with the result that the plotting surrounding the Starkiller attack is pretty weak. But given that the alternative would have probably involved more plot and exposition, I can live with that.

If you want to justify why the bad guys keep building these ridiculously easy to destroy superweapons you can by looking at the scene in the first film where Tarkin explains that the Death Star is necessary to keep the systems in line without a senate. And for the First Order, the Starkiller base is basically a way of announcing to a galaxy that hasn't been taking them very seriously so far that they are the Empire reborn.

Also, classic serials were always rehashing the same scenarios over and over again. The Back to the Future films had so much fun with this. The reason people are less accepting of this in Star Wars despite being clearly inspired by such b-serials is mainly because the first sequel didn't do it.

The Black Oil

The elements I liked most were the character moments and the energy amongst the actors. I was quite entertained on that level. The emotional stuff worked. I was less enthused about the combat, ships and the universe. Let's face it, as a non-fan, those aspects were never going to hook me in anyway. I can't can of anything particularly negative about how it was made, though I did sometimes feel how long I was in my seat. Glad there was plenty kept out of the trailers. I'm sure there are nods and flourishes that went over my head.

They ought to introduce parking charges for future Millennium Falcon visits to the Skelligs.

PhiloCypher

Sad Professor wrote: »

I could have done without the Death Star rehash. And it feels like story could have as well. The attack on the Starkiller base is a side-plot. Han and Finn have entirely personal motivations for wanting to infiltrate the base. It's like Abrams felt it wouldn't be Star Wars without a planet-destroying superweapon. Which is fine, I guess.

The main thing is that the characters aren't sidelined like they are in almost every other third act of the franchise. The result is probably the most intimate finale since Empire, the only film in the series that dared to make its climax purely emotional and character-based. Lucas always seemed to think he could balance spectacle and emotion in the final act but always ended up prioritising the spectacle. Where as here Abrams refreshingly prioritises the characters with the result that the plotting surrounding the Starkiller attack is pretty weak. But given that the alternative would have probably involved more plot and exposition, I can live with that.

If you want to justify why the bad guys keep building these ridiculously easy to destroy superweapons you can by looking at the scene in the first film where Tarkin explains that the Death Star is necessary to keep the systems in line without a senate. And for the First Order, the Starkiller base is basically a way of announcing to a galaxy that hasn't been taking them very seriously so far that they are the Empire reborn.

Also, classic serials were always rehashing the same scenarios over and over again. The Back to the Future films had so much fun with this. The reason people are less accepting of this in Star Wars despite being clearly inspired by such b-serials is mainly because the first sequel didn't do it.

The problem with rehashing the deathstar plot in this movie is the next Anthology film is also, you guessed it, about the Deathstar albeit the plans for it. That makes 4 of what will be 8 films (by the Time Rogue comes out) whose plot revolves around a death star. Let me be clear I have no problem with a super weapon plot persay, but for the love of god come up with something fresh , whose resolution isn't copy pasted from the previous films.

Also on the point of the rational for them building StarKiller base. The Deathstar was a space station and by all accounts mobile so could easily travel from system to system getting up in peoples faces . Starkiller base is a planet from what I can tell, are planets going to come to them to be intimidated. Or is it infact the biggest sniper rifle ever that can destroy planets on the other side of the galaxy from a stationary position. I know I know its Star Wars, its fantasy, but come on people.

e_e

e_e wrote: »

I'd argue if anything 2D demand is outweighing 3D. People are by and large just tolerating the 3D because it's the only option when smaller, fewer screenings are full.

I've yet to read any comments along the line of "That was an amazing experience. The 3D, oh my god the 3D!!!" :pac:

I think you're wrong. Dundrum was showing this 31 times on December 17th. Four of which was in 2D. All the biggest screens in cineworld were showing in 3D. It is in bigger demand.

It's just the nerds online commenting on the film (myself included) that don't appreciate 2D.

Mickeroo

PhiloCypher wrote: »

The problem with rehashing the deathstar plot in this movie is the next Anthology film is also, you guessed it, about the Deathstar albeit the plans for it. That makes 4 of what will be 8 films (by the Time Rogue comes out) whose plot revolves around a death star. Let me be clear I have no problem with a super weapon plot persay, but for the love of god come up with something fresh , whose resolution isn't copy pasted from the previous films.

Also on the point of the rational for them building StarKiller base. The Deathstar was a space station and by all accounts mobile so could easily travel from system to system getting up in peoples faces . Starkiller base is a planet from what I can tell, are planets going to come to them to be intimidated. Or is it infact the biggest sniper rifle ever that can destroy planets on the other side of the galaxy from a stationary position. I know I know its Star Wars, its fantasy, but come on people.

Starkiller has to move around surely, it looked like it absorbed a whole sun before it could fire. It did indeed destroy planets in different systems though as far as I could tell.

Myrddin

Mickeroo wrote: »

Starkiller has to move around surely, it looked like it absorbed a whole sun before it could fire. It did indeed destroy planets in different systems though as far as I could tell.

This left me confused too, it has to move really. Otherwise it's what, two shots worth of any use before it has no star to charge it? I did feel that needed a little more in the way of explanation given it's importance. At least with the Death Star, a simple line like "Set your course for Alderan" implied the bloody thing could travel...

Tony EH

The Starkiller thing is just bloody stupid and the product of lazy, fan service, writing.

Eventually, even the most die hard Star Wars fan will come to admit it.

Wedwood

Re the rehashing of the storyline, nobody seems to mind Return of the Jedi did exactly the same thing in 1983, by copying the structure of the 1977 original ie: opening scenes on Tatooine, rehash of the Cantina scene, now Jabba's palace, another Death Star and a rebel attack to win the day.

It worked then, it's worked now, with Force Awakens rocketing past €1 billion and counting. It's a very good blend of familiar and new, which sets up the subsequent movies to do their own thing.

It's going to be fascinating to see how the major twist/spoiler in this movie affects the other characters in the movies to come. JJ Abrams has actually been quite brilliant in setting up the next chapters, which could go in any number of directions. For example:

Will Leia betray her cause/ friends/ family to save her son if necessary ?
Will Luke go against Leia to kill Kylo Ren, given what's happened to Solo and the Jedi academy ?
Will Kylo Ren succeed in killing Luke Skywalker ? You couldn't rule it out after this movie.

And then, there's the storylines for the new characters on top of that again.

Empire Strikes Back got a lot of its kudos for turning the basic storyline in Star Wars into a far more developed and complicated story. There's a fair argument to be made that Force Awakens has done the same again.

If Harrison Ford is ever to get an Oscar, they could do worse than give to him for this movie.