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

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Well I felt a punch from it. But I agree the Bluray will hopefully have a bit more character stuff and some added backstory, but mainly I would like a scene or 2 more mourning han. Show Chewbecca and Leia reacting and a few others.

I'll admit seeing stuff in the cinema tends to cloud my reactions, I miss stuff. I only ever saw Episode III in the cinema and I remember really enjoying it.
Decided last night to give it another watch through. It's an enjoyable film, but holy sh1t Hayden's acting is so awful, and a lot of the direction and dialogue comes across like it was done by a 16-year-old media student. Just so clunky and unrealistic.
Ian McDiarmuid somehow shines in every scene, but even big hitters like Sam Jackson and Ewan McGregor come across really badly.

So I'll watch EpVII again when it comes out on *cough* BluRay and see if my opinion changes.

david75

We get that scene after the battle on Maz's planet, and Han stares really intensely over at Ren carrying Rey onto his ship.

I just WISH Han had shouted BEN!! at him at that point, have Ren turn around, stare at him, and then turn and continue onto the ship.

That alone would have given his death scene so much more weight cos they'd have established a connection and weighted it. They wouldn't have had to fill in any more exposition other than what's already explained if they'd just done that.

Cantona's Collars

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't think it has been released in cinema's in the likes of China,India and a few more places yet.You are probably looking at May/June before it is out on DVD.

david75

Saw a headline somewhere saying it'll be on something called Starz soon.
Is that a US streaming service? I'm not sure

FortuneChip

They really didn't do the Kylo & Han justice with regards to the build-up to Hans death.
They could have hidden the fact Kylo was his son right until the scene on the bridge to create some shock, or they could have fleshed out the relationship/lack-of even a little bit more between the two of them (not some nonchalant dialogue between Leia & Han - or Snoke spoon feeding us the information). In the end they hedged their bets and came off worse for it.

I think the decision to have the search for Luke as the focal point and his subsequent lack of time on screen meant they had to forego a lot of the back-story between Kylo & Han. Sure it "may" be explained in flash-backs etc, but I think it tends to be a bit cheapy) (figurativelt) to bring back an actor for flashbacks or whatever after they've been killed off.

I think it's a shame that we didn't get to see what happened to Luke & Han as well; by the end of ROTJ, things couldn't be more jovial.
Han seems himself in TFA, but the limited shots of Luke he looks beaten. Obviously they'll flesh out Luke's story to date, but it's a pity we wont get to see how Kylo's turn etc affected Han.

SpaceCowb0y

david75 wrote: »

But it's Qui Gon that 'gets in touch' with Yoda and when yoda imparts this info to obi wan at the end of revenge of the Sith he does actually make it out like its never been done before. 'Im giving you something to study while you watch over the boy, an old friend gone has learned how communicate through the force'

Or words to that effect.

Interesting! And correct! Hadn't actually thought of that, but still... communicating through the force and reappearing as a Force Ghost are not the same. Although i guess it is the next logical step. Funny how Qui Gon would be the first to learn this power, it would make you assume that he was the most powerful Jedi ever.

wally79

SpaceCowb0y wrote: »

Interesting! And correct! Hadn't actually thought of that, but still... communicating through the force and reappearing as a Force Ghost are not the same. Although i guess it is the next logical step. Funny how Qui Gon would be the first to learn this power, it would make you assume that he was the most powerful Jedi ever.

It was a cringy tie in. If I remember correctly it seemed awkward. Like he just decided to stick the line in anywhere

Cantona's Collars

david75 wrote: »

Saw a headline somewhere saying it'll be on something called Starz soon.
Is that a US streaming service? I'm not sure

That's a US channel,they made Spartacus the series.

SpaceCowb0y

wally79 wrote: »

It was a cringy tie in. If I remember correctly it seemed awkward. Like he just decided to stick the line in anywhere

The entire prequels were a cringy tie in :pac:

Radiosonde

wally79 wrote: »

It was a cringy tie in. If I remember correctly it seemed awkward. Like he just decided to stick the line in anywhere

Lucas was asked post Episode 1 why Neeson's character didn't vanish when killed, and he assured interviewers that it was an important point that would be addressed later in the trilogy. And then he shoehorned the explanation in at the very end of Sith....almost as if he'd just forgotten that Jedi were supposed to dematerialise at death and had to shove an explanation in somewhere. After all, this is the man who confused 1000 years and 1000 generations, and who had Leia's mother die giving birth to her even though she said she remembered her.

david75

Radiosonde wrote: »

Lucas was asked post Episode 1 why Neeson's character didn't vanish when killed, and he assured interviewers that it was an important point that would be addressed later in the trilogy. And then he shoehorned the explanation in at the very end of Sith....almost as if he'd just forgotten that Jedi were supposed to dematerialise at death and had to shove an explanation in somewhere. After all, this is the man who confused 1000 years and 1000 generations, and who had Leia's mother die giving birth to her even though she said she remembered her.

I don't agree that they're 'meant' to dematerialise at death. I think they can choose to.

david75

Do we have a thread for Rogue One yet?

In any case

So I've dipped my toe Into the expanded universe stuff thats still canon and reading a book by James Luceno called Tarkin.

It basically ties into this movie, Tarkin overseeing the building of the Death Star and the logistical nightmare that entails but also the building of it isn't as secret as the empire would like. Two chapters in and there's an attack on the moon they're working off.

It's great stuff so far. Surprisingly good writing too & Tarkin is a cool ****er.

eviltimeban

david75 wrote: »

Do we have a thread for Rogue One yet?

In any case

So I've dipped my toe Into the expanded universe stuff thats still canon and reading a book by James Luceno called Tarkin.

It basically ties into this movie, Tarkin overseeing the building of the Death Star and the logistical nightmare that entails but also the building of it isn't as secret as the empire would like. Two chapters in and there's an attack on the moon they're working off.

It's great stuff so far. Surprisingly good writing too & Tarkin is a cool ****er.

Could be a good case for a standalone, though a lot of that period could be covered by Rogue One.

pixelburp

david75 wrote: »

Do we have a thread for Rogue One yet?

In any case [...]

Yup: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95477133 - nothing really in it so far, given there has been very little released beyond one official cast pic & a general plot synopsis.

david75

pixelburp wrote: »

Yup: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95477133 - nothing really in it so far, given there has been very little released beyond one official cast pic & a general plot synopsis.

Cool thanks!

PhiloCypher

Mr Freeze wrote: »

If he hadn't made The Hobbit trilogy, there probably wouldn't be much objection.



Well I felt a punch from it. But I agree the Bluray will hopefully have a bit more character stuff and some added backstory, but mainly I would like a scene or 2 more mourning han. Show Chewbecca and Leia reacting and a few others.

Yes, but was that punch based on what you had been presented with on screen in this film or your attachment to the character ? Look whenever there is an OT character on screen there will be an emotional and sentimental component and it's perfectly fine to trade on that up to a point , the problem with the film is that 80% of the punch of seeing Han die is because it's Han "****ing" Solo and only 20% based on what's happening (and why it's happening) on screen.

The reason that scene works at all for me is Adam Driver acting the **** out of it. Selling the conflict. But there is no reason that scene couldn't have served both characters if ,as Devin suggested, Han had spent those intervening years desperately searching for his wayward son rather then just smuggling rathtars and only approaching him because Leia asked. Instead Hans death feels like a plot point for Rens character rather then a culmination of Hans arc in the film/series.

I find it hard to fathom how anybody could argue that a driven desperate Han would not have made that scene more compelling.

Long story short . Emotionally the film trades too heavily on the OT and narratively it trades too heavily on the new expanded universe to fill in important backstory.

david75

This is cool. Really close up photos of the models used for filming from the original trilogy
http://slightlywarped.com/detailed-close-ups-of-star-wars-spaceships/

seamus

PhiloCypher wrote: »

the problem with the film is that 80% of the punch of seeing Han die is because it's Han "****ing" Solo and only 20% based on what's happening (and why it's happening) on screen.

This is really it IMO. In IV, the death of Obi-Wan is devastating. Because the implications are huge - as far as we know, he's the last Jedi, the only one who can teach Luke about the force and for all intents and purposes he was Luke's father figure after the death of his Aunt and Uncle. Without Obi-Wan, everything seems lost.

All of this emotional investment in a single character, it's a devastating punch to the viewer, and it's only the end of the second act when he dies.

That's what Han's death was missing. If you'd never seen Star Wars before you wouldn't miss him all that much.

Sad Professor

Faraci's complaint is the same geek complaint that always comes up for these films. I recall Knowles or McWeeny (or one of the long-winded AICN guys) taking similar issue with Bruce's portrayal in TDKR. Basically it amounted to the same argument: this character was my childhood hero/template for masculinity and I take issue with him being depicted as human.

So it turns out Han was a bad father who didn't know to talk to his son, and Luke failed so badly he gave up, and Leia might have abandoned her son because she feared he'd become like her father. People f**k up and are often too stubborn to ever admit it and their kids have to deal with it. That's what Star Wars is all about: legacy and dealing with mistakes of the previous generation, albeit on a galactic scale.

Radiosonde

What's also interesting about that is how TFA positions both Ren and Rey in relation to family. Ren is raised by his two parents - prominent figures of the Rebellion who presumably hold influential positions in the new Republic - and is sent to Jedi school to master the ways of the Force under his uncle. And yet he is the one to turn to the Dark Side. He's a spoilt brat at heart, turning on his parents in spite of his privileged upbringing, and his "rebellion" is a deeply conservative one. He yearns for the autocratic rule of Imperial times (very few adolescent rebels turn to their grandfather for inspiration, to an immeasurably stricter parent).

Rey meanwhile struggles through her young life on hostile Jakku, dutifully waiting for a family which will never come back. Only by giving up her vigil can she take her first steps toward achieving her potential.

There is a scepticism here about the institution of the family here which also figures in the earlier work of that 1970s generation of bratpack directors from which Lucas himself hails. And in the fractured Solo family and rising First Order, we can see that the fictional rebels of the OT parallel their real world counterparts: they changed the world, but somehow left it the same.

loyatemu

seamus wrote: »

All of this emotional investment in a single character, it's a devastating punch to the viewer, and it's only the end of the second act when he dies.

That's what Han's death was missing. If you'd never seen Star Wars before you wouldn't miss him all that much.

The whole of TFA assumes you're familiar with the original trilogy, it's a sequel.

Sad Professor

Radiosonde wrote: »

What's also interesting about that is how TFA positions both Ren and Rey in relation to family. Ren is raised by his two parents - prominent figures of the Rebellion who presumably hold influential positions in the new Republic - and is sent to Jedi school to master the ways of the Force under his uncle. And yet he is the one to turn to the Dark Side. He's a spoilt brat at heart, turning on his parents in spite of his privileged upbringing, and his "rebellion" is a deeply conservative one. He yearns for the autocratic rule of Imperial times (very few adolescent rebels turn to their grandfather for inspiration, to an immeasurably stricter parent).

Rey meanwhile struggles through her young life on hostile Jakku, dutifully waiting for a family which will never come back. Only by giving up her vigil can she take her first steps toward achieving her potential.

There is a scepticism here about the institution of the family here which also figures in the earlier work of that 1970s generation of bratpack directors from which Lucas himself hails. And in the fractured Solo family and rising First Order, we can see that the fictional rebels of the OT parallel their real world counterparts: they changed the world, but somehow left it the same.

I like this. And it's partly why I think Rey not being related to a legacy character is a potentially more interesting way for the story to go. An orphan abandoned by her uncaring parents but chosen by destiny versus the man who believes his birthright entitles him to a lightsaber and incredible power. Rey is the perfect foil for Kylo. And who knows maybe she'll become an adopted Skywalker. Lucas himself adopted children.

Personally I have issues with the OT's obsession with biological legacy, especially fathers and sons. Luke never knew his father who didn't even know he existed, why does he care? Especially after Obi-wan and Yoda lied to him and Vader tried to use him for his own ends. To hell with them all. Let them clean up their own mess.

PhiloCypher

Sad Professor wrote: »

Faraci's complaint is the same geek complaint that always comes up for these films. I recall Knowles or McWeeny (or one of the long-winded AICN guys) taking similar issue with Bruce's portrayal in TDKR. Basically it amounted to the same argument: this character was my childhood hero/template for masculinity and I take issue with him being depicted as human.

So it turns out Han was a bad father who didn't know to talk to his son, and Luke failed so badly he gave up, and Leia might have abandoned her son because she feared he'd become like her father. People f**k up and are often too stubborn to ever admit it and their kids have to deal with it. That's what Star Wars is all about: legacy and dealing with mistakes of the previous generation, albeit on a galactic scale.

Sure thats one rationalization, the other is that they were kinda lazy and left it to the OT and our love for these characters to do all the heavy lifting for that and many other scenes. If you're looking for flawed characters Kylo Ren is proof enough of Han and Leia's bad parenting, but by having them both basically abandon him instead of trying to track him down(like Han does the Falcon) they rob vital agency from Hans character that would have made that scene far more compelling.

Look we got what we got and how well it works varies from person to person but to argue it couldn't have been done better smacks of people fearing the whole deck of cards will collapse if they admit it.

Falthyron

Would it not be fair to say that the emotional punch of Han's death lies with Chewbacca's roar?

I also reckon, like many others have suggested about other parts of the film, the real impact will come in later episodes when we find out what happened between Ren and Luke and Ren and his family.

buried

Seen this last night and I thought it was absolutely terrible and I am a big fan of the original trilogy. The problem with this is the whole film resembles a fan made film on a 300 million dollar budget scale. Nearly every single scenario right from the opening shot is a total rehash of nearly every single scenario from the original trilogy, copying the same style, scenario, setting and conflict situation but captures none of the original trilogy's magic or soul.
I was totally surprised about how much I did not give a f**k about anybody in this thing, not even Han Solo. To be honest I had enough of Han Solo when he started doing his whole "ahh come on lads, I'll pay ye back, I won't let ye down" smuggler shtick to the Scottish and Asian intergalactic gangsters scene and that was about 2 minutes after Han first shows up in the film.

That's my problem with this thing, nearly every scene and situation is a total carbon copy of IV V & VI or has some sort of wisearse crack that tries to pass itself of as "wit" back towards the older episodes. And It was literally everywhere. Things like the female ancient alien Yoda character living in the rehashed Jabba's palace/Mos Eisley Cantina type palace that handily has a cellar underneath it like the cave on Degobah where the hero enters it to face the darkside. This sort of lame setup did nothing for me but totally suspended my disbelief for the story and film and just made me more aware I was watching nothing but a sugary franchise reusing and rehashing the same things over and over again.

johnny_ultimate

I'll confess I found Han's death - and, more importantly, the events leading up to and surrounding it - one of the highlights of the film.

The film has received some not always unjustified criticism about the vague way it handles some of its own backstory and dynamics. But at its best the film takes advantage of that unseen or hastily described history to its benefit. The Han and Leia relationship is of particular note there - both Ford and Fisher have the skills to communicate what happened during that gap without explicitly explaining it. There's enough exposition to get us up to speed, yes - it helps that "all of it" is new information for our two protagonists - but that there's little time spent dwelling on it IMO adds extra gravity by distilling a surely complex series of events down to the emotional and interpersonal impacts it had on a small group of people. It's, dare I suggest, a much more pleasingly cinematic way to communicate what happened.

The bridge sequence, meanwhile, is substantive and impactful due to the delivery. Han's death itself is a punctuation mark (or an ellipsis) - the heaviest lifting is done in the minutes before he is impaled. Abrams and Kasdan sprinkle plenty of little moments of humanity and demythification of the iconic hero throughout the script, but the all important one is when he takes the decision to step onto the bridge. This, more than what happens after, is the key dramatic and emotional beat IMO. It's a beautifully handled moment. The score and the camera take a few moments of (reasonably) quiet contemplation (especially after the frantic action that preceded it), and trusts Ford to deliver an unspoken but fateful decision. There's an eerie, portentous mood established before he steps forward. He's a father - one who has likely made his share of mistakes - making one last effort to do good. He - and I'd imagine much of the audience - knows he's doomed. Yet for him it's the only decision he can make - an heroic but tragically human moment. What actually happens next only emphasises that, although the well judged close-ups of the other characters communicate the repercussions in a vivid way too.

Of course the death packs some degree of automatic punch because it's Han ****ing Solo. That's unavoidable. But it's one of the best played, most effective moments in the film, and the Kylo-Han-Leia dynamic I felt benefited greatly from a degree of restraint - or at least what passes for restraint in a Star Wars film.

On a generally related subject, this article popped up in my Twitter feed yesterday, and serves as IMO a welcome, thoughtful alternative to the endless streams of plot hole clickbait:

Like most of us in our own lives, each of these characters has a limited understanding of the universe, and especially of the past. What do other worlds look like? What was “the Galactic Empire” really? Is the Force real, and if so how does it work? Nowhere is this difference in understanding illustrated better than in how these characters view Han Solo: For Ren, he’s an uncaring father, for Finn, he’s a brilliant war hero, and for Rey he’s a legendary smuggler. Each finds their understanding challenged by a more complicated truth: Han was an absent dad because he cared so much; the great Rebellion war hero is a scoundrel without a plan; even seemingly invincible legends die.

In confronting the fact that the world might not quite be what they thought it was, these characters are unmoored from their senses of self. In some moments, Finn can’t seem to tell if he’s really just trying to escape the First Order or if he has nobler motives. Rey and Ren both struggle with their connection to the Force--the former wanting nothing to do with it despite aptitude, the latter wanting the control he thinks is his birthright. These dilemmas are pretty classic space opera, but look past the laser swords and they're not so different than the struggles of real people (millennial or otherwise). "Who am I and what the hell is my place in this world?" is the sort of question people have been asking themselves for as long as there have been people.

And this is where it gets interesting.

Tony EH

SpaceCowb0y wrote: »

The force is not science... it's magic. magical powers that only a select few have. like wizards in medieval stories.

But that's not how is was presented originally.

Kenobi states that it's "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together."

In other words it's open to everyone. But you have to open to it as well.

It's only with the prequel abortions that we get the microscopic bollocksology of medichlorians that everyone wants to distance themselves from now.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

A lot of the talk in this thread has me thinking, along with a tweet I saw the other day about "suspending disbelief" and movies.

The tweet was referencing why was Han Solo's ship not able to see that Boba Fett's Ship was following them on radar or whatever they use. I instantly just thought of a reason why (he's a bounty hunter, he probably has some sort of anti-detection thing!), and then started thinking my willingness to cut film makers slack in so many of these things that people are quick to call "plot holes."

Personally, within reason, I don't want movies to become explaining each and every detail just to avoid getting picked apart.
It's Star Wars. If you're having problems with how Star Wars works, it just Isn't for you maybe.

Star Wars has always put shit on screen without an explanation for it and nobody explains stuff in handy exposition either. This, to me, creates a living breathing world.

Part of the problem with Star Wars geekdom for me, has been this propensity to explain away all the mystery of the Star Wars universe to the point where it becomes completely insipid.

david75

It's pointless but just to point out in is on this mission to make it look like the force is open to everyone in the galaxy if we just tune into it. But Lucas floated the same idea using for example Han piloting through the asteroid field, he was open and doing something he's good at and just being in the moment, so despite having no force training, the force was helping and guiding him.