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

Sad Professor

I think it sets the groundwork very well alright. And not just in terms of story but in terms of nostalgia. Abrams has talked about the idea of going backwards to go forward; making something familiar in order to make something new. The worst thing anyone could have said about Force Awakens was that it didn’t feel like a Star Wars movie. The fact that many people came out saying it felt too much like a Star Wars movie means Abrams succeed a bit too well. But by doing so, and making a **** load of money for Disney in the process, he freed Johnson up to make something very different.

I feel like maybe Trevorrow was selected for the third film because Kennedy knows that after Johnson’s film there will pressure to make the next one safer.

Trippie

was just thinking if the twist was the fact that rey is "revan" and she was the one who killed all the trainees and kylo had nothing to do with it but was blamed for it and snoke sought him out then.

could open the next film with luke turning the lightsaber on her and her regaining all her memories end of it and then the deciding what to be in the third.

pixelburp

Wedwood wrote: »

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.

Not sure about that, I've read many an article and opinion piece over the years that points out Jedi's own plot recycling as a distinct negative against the film; the reappearance of the Death Star wasn't even in the original plans iirc, it was Lucas' insistence that it return, and few thought it a brilliant idea at the time or since. I don't think it's a case that 'nobody' minded.

Dricmeister

I saw it for the second time. To be fair, Kylo Ren's struggles against Finn aren't that ridiculous at all. He is badly wounded by Chewie's laser blast. Plus the duel with the Stormtrooper illustrates his competence. I'm convinced that Rey is Luke's daughter.

Thelomen Toblackai

Wedwood wrote: »

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

They could do worse but it'd have to be Adam Sandler in the Ridiculous 6 worse. There's no conceivable reason why Harrison Ford would get an Oscar for The Force Awakens.

degrassinoel

did anyone else think Luke/Hamill looked like a young bearded Anthony Hopkins?

for reference

Tony EH

Wedwood wrote: »

Re the rehashing of the storyline, nobody seems to mind Return of the Jedi did exactly the same thing in 1983

Loads of people minded. That and teddy bears is why 'Return of the Jedi' is the "bastard son" of the original trilogy. Even the original producer, Gary Kurtz, walked away from the series because of it (and other crap too).

But doing it AGAIN?

That's not even trying.

johnny_ultimate

I don't think anyone would doubt it's a fairly safe film that relies heavily on its (good) predecessors. I wouldn't usually defend that. I will here, for quite a few reasons:

1. A New Hope is a deeply flawed film that certainly is far from beyond reproach. The Force Awakens returns to some of the great ideas in that film, but also significantly recontextualises and reimagines the themes and structure to draw new insights, drama and characters from them. It's also a more formally accomplished and coherent piece of work, not to mention more artfully scripted, which more than makes up for the fact it is revisiting previous ideas. Frankly, it does quite a few things better than A New Hope ever did.

2. The already announced directions the franchise is taking makes one more familiar outing seem significantly more forgiveable, and I'd argue even welcome. With at least one leftfield directorial choice lined up, and spin-off films that will inevitably depart from the original trilogy's blueprint, one lovingly familiar film is a smooth way to get an audience back on board and hopefully prime them for new directions.

3. Commercially, it has proven to be a home run. Disney could not afford for this film to fail creatively. This film's success ensures the franchise will be shamelessly exploited for years to come, until we all tire of a galaxy far, far away - at least until the next reboot 30 years later!

4. There is actually a surprising dearth of competent, old-fashioned blockbusters out there. There's something weirdly refreshing about watching a film that's more charming, more confident and more unapologetically infatuated with the past than any blockbuster I can think of in recent years. It has that hard to define Saturday afternoon serial thrill that seems such a rarity, and doesn't disappear up its own excess (like Indy did) - for all the visual extravagances on display, it remains firmly and impressively intimate and character driven.

5. It's Star Wars. What was novel about the franchise is no longer so. Its innovations have been diluted, bastardised and normalised over 35 years of Hollywood filmmaking. While the original film was a 'risk' back in 1977, it was not a risk in the way boundary pushing, experimental cinema of the era was, nor akin with the more artistically complex mainstream fare that made the late 60s and 70s so memorable. In a sense, any risks that the series takes are always destined to be relatively minor in the general scheme of cinema - and while there's definitely more room for experimentation than there is here, it's not a series that has thrived on rule-breaking. As said, what was once a modern spin and reinterpretation on old ideas is now old hat itself.

I'll be less forgiving if Episode VIII relies on familiar imagery, tropes etc... It does need to mix up the formula, even within the confines of a Star Wars film. But The Force Awakens is one of those cases where I don't use 'safe' as a pejorative, and instead something to be mostly welcomed and celebrated

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think it sets the groundwork very well alright. And not just in terms of story but in terms of nostalgia. Abrams has talked about the idea of going backwards to go forward; making something familiar in order to make something new. The worst thing anyone could have said about Force Awakens was that it didn’t feel like a Star Wars movie. The fact that many people came out saying it felt too much like a Star Wars movie means Abrams succeed a bit too well.

Jar Jar Abrams almost had a mandate from fans for this trilogy to a.) distance itself from the appalling prequels as much as he could, and b.) get back to feeling of the original films.

He got a.) right, wasn't going to be hard. But he went too far with b.) and practically made Star Wars - Episode IV & V 'The Empire Strikes Back Hope', because of the fear that fans would reject the film if it didn't significantly retread the old material.

Wait a few months or a year, when the dust settles and we'll see how the film is truly judged, without the spectre of hype and Star Wars mania to influence the "Force sensitives" among us.

But, the true test of this trilogy will be the next couple of films. 'The Force Awakens' (and I do like the film) is like a spazzed up, 40 something, man child's laundry list of what he wanted to see in a new Star Wars film and who knows, maybe it was Disney who wanted all of those particular boxes ticked. But, now that that's out of the way, perhaps we can get to see some decent original stories come out of what should easily be a galaxy rich in stories.

Sad Professor wrote: »

But by doing so, and making a **** load of money for Disney in the process, he freed Johnson up to make something very different.

I feel like maybe Trevorrow was selected for the third film because Kennedy knows that after Johnson’s film there will pressure to make the next one safer.

It was always going to make a four star load of money. Even the prequels made obscene revenue. But to be frank, I'm astounded at how universally positive the reviews have been. It really isn't that great a film. Not by a long shot.

But, yes, I agree. Hopefully Johnson can turn into something new, but still recognisable as a Star Wars film. I'll have my fingers crossed.

I do find it weird, though, that Abrams has jumped ship.

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

Loads of people minded. That and teddy bears is why 'Return of the Jedi' is the "bastard son" of the original trilogy. Even the original producer, Gary Kurtz, walked away from the series because of it (and other crap too).

But doing it AGAIN?

That's not even trying.

Kurtz was effectively sacked over his mismanagement of Empire’s production, which went massively over budget and over schedule, as did his subsequent films. While I think Kurtz always had a film’s best interests at heart, he wasn’t a very good producer. Return to Oz (which Lucas ended up bailing out) was pretty much the end of him.

Also his memory of the original plans for the saga is pretty foggy. Michael Kaminski has an appendix article in The Secret History of Star Wars in which he dispels a lot of Kurtz’s blurred recollections.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I don't think anyone would doubt it's a fairly safe film that relies heavily on its (good) predecessors. I wouldn't usually defend that. I will here, for quite a few reasons:

1. A New Hope is a deeply flawed film that certainly is far from beyond reproach. The Force Awakens returns to some of the great ideas in that film, but also significantly recontextualises and reimagines the themes and structure to draw new insights, drama and characters from them. It's also a more formally accomplished and coherent piece of work, not to mention more artfully scripted, which more than makes up for the fact it is revisiting previous ideas. Frankly, it does quite a few things better than A New Hope ever did.

'Star Wars' is a fantastic picture, despite it's shortcomings. The fact that it turned out like it did at all is simply amazing, given it's small to medium sized budget and the difficulties that interfered with its production. It's editing saved it and made it into a great film that can still be enjoyed today and that can still stand up against more modern, CGI soaked, fantasy.

That's one hell of an achievement.

And frankly, 'The Force Awakens' did nothing better.

I just watched it again yesterday and it's still brilliant and if I'm honest, probably made favorite of the series, even though, I'll agree that 'The Empire Strikes Back' is a better film and the best of the series.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

3. Commercially, it has proven to be a home run. Disney could not afford for this film to fail creatively. This film's success ensures the franchise will be shamelessly exploited for years to come, until we all tire of a galaxy far, far away - at least until the next reboot 30 years later!

It was never not going to be a "home run". There are enough Star Wars fans out there that would have been hailing a re-run of 'The Phantom Menace' as the "best Star Wars film evar..." But, as I said above the proof will be in the pudding of the next two. TBH, if Disney can get it right, they can exploit away. But, they'll need to get more "right" than they did with the first effort.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

5. It's Star Wars. What was novel about the franchise is no longer so. Its innovations have been diluted, bastardised and normalised over 35 years of Hollywood filmmaking. While the original film was a 'risk' back in 1977, it was not a risk in the way boundary pushing, experimental cinema of the era was, nor akin with the more artistically complex mainstream fare that made the late 60s and 70s so memorable. In a sense, any risks that the series takes are always destined to be relatively minor in the general scheme of cinema - and while there's definitely more room for experimentation than there is here, it's not a series that has thrived on rule-breaking. As said, what was once a modern spin and reinterpretation on old ideas is now old hat itself.

'Star Wars' was an incredible risk for 20th Century Fox and recognised as such by nearly every other studio, who turned down Lucas. He very nearly didn't get the film made at all. But, it was the 70's and there was an anything goes attitude among a lot of studio execs at the time. TBH, NOBODY would touch 'Star Wars' today, if it hadn't been such a ridiculous success and such a game changer for cinema in 1977.

Also, 'Star Wars' was incredibly experimental and boundary pushing for its time. I don't how you can say it wasn't. Sure, it wasn't 'Crimes of the Future', or what have you, but nothing had been produced like it before. It certainly takes its cue from 'Flash Gordon' and 'The Hidden Fortress', but all films have their influences. But, in terms of what was put on screen was leaps and bounds over anything that preceded it. Before 'Star Wars', sci-fi fantasy was a 'Logan's Run' "disco future". 'Star Wars' put its audience in the middle of a vibrant and realistic universe that felt it's own sense of nature. 'Star Wars' felt like it was actually happening in a "galaxy far, far away..." and not on some studio back lot in Hollywood.

That's some feat for a fairly modestly budgeted picture that nobody really gave a crap about, except for the long haired kids that were making it.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'll be less forgiving if Episode VIII relies on familiar imagery, tropes etc... It does need to mix up the formula, even within the confines of a Star Wars film. But The Force Awakens is one of those cases where I don't use 'safe' as a pejorative, and instead something to be mostly welcomed and celebrated

I, too, will be less forgiving if we get more fan service, dressed up in new clothes. Abrams just about stretched my forgiveness to the limit. There were times in 'The Force Awakens' where I remembered being clearly irritated. To me, that film gets in into 4th place in the series, but only by virtue of the fact that the prequel trilogy was pure muck and is in the process of being "forced" out of my memory.

But, the next couple will have to up their game considerably.

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

Kurtz was effectively sacked over his mismanagement of Empire’s production, which went massively over budget and over schedule, as did his subsequent films. While I think Kurtz always had a film’s best interests at heart, he wasn’t a very good producer. Return to Oz (which Lucas ended up bailing out) was pretty much the end of him.

Also his memory of the original plans for the saga is pretty foggy. Michael Kaminski has an appendix article in The Secret History of Star Wars in which he dispels a lot of Kurtz’s blurred recollections.

Kurtz and Lucas had been at loggerheads over the direction that Lucas was taking 'The Return of the Jedi'. He was on board for that film before filming started.

The "fired for running over budget" is a flimsy George Lucas excuse. 'The Empire Strikes Back' went over budget, because everybody was looking for "more" and "better" than the original film. Frankly, that picture was destined to go over budget, no matter who was in charge of the producers reigns and putting that on the shoulders of Kurtz alone, is a farce.

To me, him walking away because of Death Star 2 and the trading of wookiees for ewoks definitely sounds more realistic.

tony stark

Seen it for the 2nd time and still enjoyed the characters. Ren, Rey, Poe and Han were great. Plot had flaws as they all did but it was enjoyable. Felt Star Wars buzz now and again. But some of the effects were awful. I feel hard done by as they promised a return to models and real effects. What B.S.! They obviously thought that we'd be easily tricked visually. Simon peggs alien in the junkyard was terrible computer graphics. Felt like a crap dr who thing. The falcon looked awful in a lot of the scenes especially in Jacku. And some of the attack on Starkiller base were like Michael Bay shots they were that bad- fast blink and you'll miss it stuff. Rotj had amazing space battles with real models. I'm well peeved with computer stuff. Anyone else???? Also the soundtrack was way underused I was in tears at some of the trailers as the soundtrack was so well placed. It was barely used in the movie wtF??? Should have used yodas theme or end of empire for the Luke scene.

tony stark

Just to add to above. The best thing about force awakens is the questions it leaves us all wanting the answers to.

david75

Dizzying reading these extreme views.
It's a direct rip off of Star Wars l!!
It's not Star wars enough!!


Fun though.

david75

Christmas morning in the skywalker household

Vader says 'Luke. I know what Santa clause brought you'

'How??'

'I felt your presents'













I'll get me coat

Morshlac

in a galaxy far away...someone thinks this movies was rubbish...yes it is I!

really cannot fathom the glowing reviews from critics and from people I know to boot. on the back of that went into this the other night excited at the prospect..cinema jam packed like never seen it expecting magic.

sadly this movie sucks. Every scene and plot development felt like a rehash or blatant copy of one of the first star wars movies...i spent the entire thing bored to tears and wishing I was back watching the original trilogy remastered which hadn't seen in many a year...
The new actors were bland and terrible..."ray" or whatever her name is probably the brightest spark but still boring. Really reminds you of why it used be great and this is not.
the whole token black guy damsal in distress role reversal with Ray just struck me as politically correct cliched trend-following nausea inducing storyline...
Han Solo, what a joke. was like a lamppon scene where he gets conftonted by the 2 groups of bandits. one sounding like an extra from trainspotting or something..."oh han your still outsmarting us u crazy old 90 year old just out of an old folks home"
then he runs around the place lasering people lol.
His scenes with leia were cringe inducing, "nice jacket" ....dads army does star wars
the main baddie (spot the guy in black with a mask) was just rubbish, and that big plot "twist" on the bridge was incredibly predictable tosh.
the action was pretty lame throughout and there was nothing majorly to like in this for me besides the skellig michael cameo role at the end..

and this coming from a big sci movie fan. I just despising all these bad remakes these days, has hollywood got a bone of creativity left...well actually yes but people happy to pay for this tosh instead.

to each they're own

all in all i'm probably being a bit over the top. it was just average but makes me angry coz its so overhyped!
summed up in two words cash + cow

will be giving the next 9 sequels a miss

david75

Hey lads. This has me excited already:)
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-8-is-going-to-be-weird-promises-screenwriter-a6788031.html

Dricmeister

Main negative for me...Domhnall Gleeson. Ridiculous casting and ridiculous performance. Why not get a Moff Tarkin type, just younger so he can still appear in later movies? Not someone that looks like he was in Harry Potter until recently.

Grayditch

Dricmeister wrote: »

Main negative for me...Domhnall Gleeson. Ridiculous casting and ridiculous performance. Why not get a Moff Tarkin type, just younger so he can still appear in later movies? Not someone that looks like he was in Harry Potter until recently.

He wasn't up to the job at all. His performance stood out a mile in that film. He looked amateurish.

Dricmeister

Grayditch wrote: »

He wasn't up to the job at all. His performance stood out a mile in that film. He looked amateurish.

A bizarre casting. Made no sense at all. Almost to the point that it was if they thought "who's the worst person we can get?"

Panti Bliss would have been more intimidating.

Eugene Norman

If the new sequels didn't have resurgent Empire type baddies then, while it would have been different from ANH it would have been dull.

The story of the original Star Wars is the story of a universe where a mysterious force has dark and light sides and the main story is how this force is used by fascist type government vs a Republic with the former using the dark side of the force and the latter the light side. The back story of the prequels appealed to nobody.

We're not actually sure which one is stronger yet. If in the Force Awakens the story was about the republic going strong then it would have been a story set in the Star Wars universe, but it might as well be anywhere. Next years spin off might be a bit like that.

To recapture the original you need the same protagonists and antagonists of roughly the same power. A powerless First Order is pointless.

So the star killer existed to emphasise their power, and the planet it destroyed was the Republics capital. The republic will probably fall apart.

flangemeistro

Saw it last night for the first time. Thoroughly enjoyable but you're all spot on with the Gleeson casting, what in the world was that, I didn't even know it was Gleeson until I googled it when I got home.
I was full sure it was one of the Weasleys from Harry Potter, he would have been more at home in Spaceballs.

I also wasn't happy when Kylo took of his mask, I was expecting a bit of roughness and a few scars and not a young Marilyn Manson.

Radiosonde

Gleeson's performance is fine. Hux is simply a much younger and less assured military leader than Tarkin. Snoke clearly preys on youthful naivety; a Tarkin could never have been played off against a Kylo Ren.

david75

One more time, Abrams has explained that it's important that we see Kylo struggling with his call to the light and his desire to go to the dark. He's still a young guy who isn't evil despite wanting to be. He needs to convince himself and Snoke he can do it. So we're gonna get to see the development and arrival of a truly evil character rather than one arriving in the first film ready made. He's gonna be a wonderfully screwed up journey to take in and I think he's up to it.
(Hated him first time I saw it, totally got him and loved him and the potential for the character on subsequent viewings)

cnocbui

I was disappointed. Were the reviewers paid?

They took the first two Star Wars movies, copied what they thought worked for those and spliced the bits into this thing. Darth Vader's back, the Emperor is back, the Death Star is back, The plucky X-wing pilots flying down a canyon are back, the stupid critical flaw in the design that can be neutralised with a strategically placed tooth pick is back, the bar with all the weird aliens is back. Nothing new - no wow!

The acting seemed forced and gave the impression there were a bunch of people acting out parts. The best acting in the thing was the whatchamacallit with tentacles in the ship.

Wonderful locations and well made but the whole thing is just flat.

Oh - and Omniplex need to invest in better projectors. A bit of colour would be nice.

Wedwood

david75 wrote: »

Dizzying reading these extreme views.
It's a direct rip off of Star Wars l!!
It's not Star wars enough!!


Fun though.

We now live in the age of perpetual moaning. Many people now think moaning or criticising shows how much cleverer ( in their minds anyway), they are than everyone else.

The original Star Wars movie succeeded in part because it broke away from the then 70's trend of gritty gloomy movies like Godfather, French Connection etc. The new movies are in similar territory after a decade of 'gritty' fantasy movies.

Regarding riffing the original movies, people seem to forget that the original Star Wars movies deliberately and constantly recycled pieces from old movies, so why the surprise they're still doing it ?

The original Star Wars itself included using the plot of Kurosawas 'Hidden Fortress', elements of the Lord of the Rings and Flash Gordon. Some of the scenes particularly on Tattooine are direct lifts from old westerns. Far from denying these, Lucas actually highlighted them to demonstrate how the movie was inspired by these old movies.

Perhaps the only truly original concept in Star Wars was the introduction of the Force.

The same approach is being taken with the new movie, which is partly why it's doing so well.

david75

Agreed.

Saying you hate Force Awakens is the new 'I'm vegan' haha!

Empty vessels tend to make the most noise n all that.

pixelburp

Wedwood wrote: »

We now live in the age of perpetual moaning. Many people now think moaning or criticising shows how much cleverer ( in their minds anyway), they are than everyone else.

david75 wrote: »

Agreed.

Saying you hate Force Awakens is the new 'I'm vegan' haha!

Empty vessels tend to make the most noise n all that.

FFS. Or maybe some people simply didn't enjoy the new Star Wars as much as other people. It is possible you know. We do however live in an age where not conforming to the majority view on the internet tends to attract mean spirited comments like the above; nasty little personal comments that add nothing to the discussion and instead, inevitably, create division and argument.

Heaven forbid some people don't enjoy something as much as you do - it clearly must be done to some inner insecurity or desire to appear superior. Yes. Clearly. I just thought Force Awakens made too much of a deal in rehashing its own mythology. Little did I know it was simply because of some psychological inferiority. The thread's now entering that fun phase of attacking the contrarians. Marvellous. Dark Knight all over again

david75

This article has Kasdan saying episode 8 will be like nothing we've seen in Star Wars before. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-8-is-going-to-be-weird-promises-screenwriter-a6788031.html

Wondering how many of those complaining about force awakens being too much like the OT will be complaining that episode 8 Is too much of a departure?


Thankfully Rian Johnson is writing episodes 8 AND 9