I think perhaps because we saw so much good stuff before the film came out (in trailers, etc), there’s a risk of taking for granted or forgetting how much brilliant stuff there is in this film. It gets so many things right, and only a few minor things wrong.
What did we see though mate? We saw some special effects and some one or two-line summaries of the characters. We learned nothing about the plot, which as it turned out was a good thing because the plot was just a mashup of the OT.
I’m sure it’s possible to sit down and pick apart the original trilogy, noting plot holes and the like (and can you imagine how they would be pulled apart on the internet if they were released now?) - but you don’t do that because everything else is so positive, you never get to the stage of analysing it to that extent, because everything else is done so well that it’s convincing and you believe it, you don’t feel the need to question it – and I think this film is similar. On a basic level the story makes sense and is exciting, the characters are great and you can relate to them, there’s humour, action, tension and emotion. By contrast, the prequels have none of these things and their flaws are so glaring and numerous that they overwhelm the films, and that’s when you really start noticing plotholes and things that don’t make sense.
I'd argue the weakness of the prequels becomes glaringly obvious only after the initial rush of watching. For example, I had no problem with Anakin's and Obi-Wan's lightsaber battle in the cinema. But it didn't stand up to multiple rewatchings. I was getting bored and didn't know why until Harry Plinkett's review coalesced my unconscious issues with the film.
Comparatively speaking, I've never questioned the OT because they were products of their era. If indeed you are making a film in the modern age then imo it should be able to stand up to at least basic scrutiny of that modern age - which includes the Internet.
Perhaps the prequels just left me so jaded that I unconsciously watched Force Awakens in a hyper critical mode. I am certain, as I have said, that this film will improve upon repeated viewings rather than degrade the way the prequels have.
But there are so many great moments and ideas in this film. Just thinking of a few, I really liked the scene which introduced Rey (even just little things like when her food hydrates); the bit where Kylo Ren has a bit of an episode and trashes a console, then just stops and calmly says to the officer ‘…anything else?’; the detail of the scene in the bar; the bit where Han touches Kylo’s face before he falls from the bridge; the final lightsaber battle and the moment where the ground symbolically opens up between them. The design was great, everything looks and feels real, and I think there’s a lot of details in there which you need to see it more than once to appreciate.
I agree that the characters, dialogue and production values were spot on. How often do you see a frantic exchange of words by two running characters in the prequels for example? The dynamics and chemistry between characters - especially between the old and new characters - was almost perfect.
Regarding the lack of explanation of certain plot points, I do agree that we could have had a bit more exposition, but I’ve also read that Abrams was keen for the film not to outstay it’s welcome – he wanted it to keep moving quickly and stay within about 2 hours 15 mins, like the originals. He didn’t want it to get bogged down with too much exposition and political discussions like the prequels did. There were some scenes cut which might’ve added a bit more context (no doubt they’ll show up on the DVD). There is a lot of background information in things like The Visual Dictionary, but you don’t need to read that stuff to enjoy the film.
What they’ve done is actually quite clever – for the casual fan or those watching their first Star Wars movie, it’s a straightforward good v evil adventure they can enjoy in it’s own right, without having to know any of the history or understand galactic politics (but hinting at a backstory and other things happening outside the film - just as A New Hope did); for the committed fan who wants to know everything, the background information is out there if they want to go looking for it. So both types of fan can enjoy it – it’s accessible for outsiders, but there’s enough depth and background to satisfy more committed fans. Also I do think a lot of things were explained, but only in a brief line here or there, so it was easy to miss things or forget them later on (for example Hux gives a speech saying they are going to destroy the New Republic, but it’s probably not explained in enough detail).
I guess I fall through the cracks as I'm just a casual fan; neither newbie nor die hard. There was enough issues to leave me scratching my head but not in the way that I'd be motivated to dig out answers I feel could and should have been in the film itself.
As an example, my annoyance over the the scenes concerning Artoo had nothing to do with timing or pacing or how long the exposition took; it was purely the way it was executed. For me it was badly handled and it jolted me out of the movie. It smacked of deux ex machina, or as Cinemasins might say, "The Force Conveniences".
The actual basic political scenario was fine for me though. The Empire has fallen and it's remnants have coalesced into the First Order. The New Republic has risen to take the Empire's place and they are sponsoring a resistance to the First Order. That means the Resistance will be far more well equipped and capable than the comparative rag-tag of the old Rebel Alliance.
I do think having another ‘superweapon’ to destroy was the weakest part of the plot – even though it was done quite well, it did make that part of the movie predictable. Although this time it wasn’t as simple as just hitting it in one spot and it would blow up – it had to be disabled on the ground and then attacked from outside. Also, as the idea of the First Order is that they are consciously trying to re-create and emulate the Empire, it does make some kind of sense that they would try to do the same thing, only bigger. Plus I suppose it’s a useful storytelling tool – an easy way of establishing how powerful and evil the ‘bad guys’ are. But they could’ve come up with something a bit more original.
I wasn't really arsed about the superweapon except in its destruction. For me, a great departure from the typical Star Wars plot would have been to cripple the weapon without destroying it. It could have discharged prematurely (oo-er), or the targeting system may have been damaged, causing the blast to graze the Resistance planet. There were options to explore here and they went too safe imo.
However I think it says a lot for this film that the worst we can say about it is ‘that wasn’t very original’, or ‘that could’ve been explained better’ – there’s nothing in it that’s actually bad – unlike the prequels, where whole chunks of it were really poor and / or embarrassing (and the rest was just dull).
I think criticism of it being too derivative of ANH is slightly unfair (superweapon aside). The first film in a trilogy like this is always going to follow a similar pattern – introduce the characters, have them go on a quest or face a challenge, and have some kind of victory or achievement in a way which allows the film to stand alone as a story, but also sets up the next part of the ‘story arc’. Much of the ‘mirroring’ was I think deliberate and necessary – these films always work best when there’s a ‘gang’ of heroes, they have to be thrown together by circumstance, at least one of them is always going to be a ‘nobody’ – so it’s easy to see how they ended up with similar themes to those used in ANH. But I also think it’s deliberate to a degree – to draw a new audience into this world, and to get them to know and care about these characters, in the same way that the first film did.
A number of reviews have touched on this and I agree that this film was "playing safe" with the plot, just to get the ball rolling and get people emotionally invested in Star Wars again. I don't think that's a
bad thing; but there's playing safe and there's playing TOO safe.
Return of the Jedi has often been accused of being a remake of ANH with better special effects, which I've always thought was a very unfair comparison. But with TFA I feel that, at certain times, it was just so painfully obvious.
To make matters worse, TFA didn't just borrow from the OT. Too many of the Starkiller scenes felt like a direct rip off from other recent SF movies; most obvious being its destruction, which was a dead ringer for Vulcan from JJ's Star Trek reboot. These scenes didn't feel
unique to Star Wars somehow. Probably because so many other movies have copied from Star Wars itself it ends up feeling like a copy of a copy to me.
But they also deserve some credit for some original ideas – yes, Rey is effectively an orphan living on a backwater desert planet, but unlike Luke she doesn’t dream of leaving for a life of adventure - she actually wants to stay, she’s a reluctant hero. Finn’s character is also new - both his background (ex-Stormtrooper) and his personality. Also Kylo Ren is a different kind of villain – he wants to be like Vader but while he is powerful, he’s also raw, unpredictable and conflicted. He’s not a one-dimensional villain like Vader was (at first).
See I'd argue against that. The way she looks at that starship taking off holds a deep sense of regret and longing. Now of course part of that directly relates to Rey's parents. I do suspect though, that Rey longs to leave; but a part of her dreads breaking out of her comfort zone, so she uses the possibility of her parents returning as an excuse to remain. Unlike Luke she has no family on Jakku, no stern uncle to stay or sway her decision. Maz Kanata essentially makes Rey face up to the reality that her parents aren't coming back.
Look at it this way: why would somebody who has no desire to leave bother learning how to pilot a starship? Or know that putting a compressor on the ignition line would put too much stress on the hyperdrive? True, as a scavenger she needs to be able to recognise something as potentially valuable but recognising a W16 engine when I see it doesn't mean I can drive a Bugatti Veyron.
Finn is far more clearly the reluctant hero, but I have to ask: wtf is a
stormtrooper doing in a sanitation role?? That's a droid's job surely!? Or a Rimmer-esque second-grade technician?
I will say that both Finn and Rey ultimately act out of a sense of loyalty and responsibility, which is what makes them such badass heroes.
As for Kylo Ren, well as said in my first post, at the moment I just see him as a little punk wannabe. An emo with a lightsaber. He seems to carry all the fears of pre-Vader Anakin Skywalker, but none of his rage. What we've seen is a spoilt brat throwing tantrums. We need to know more about his character. I suspect the next film will give us flashbacks to his fall. It will be interesting to see how his character develops.
Captain Phasma should’ve been given more to do (presumably she will in the next film). But regarding her agreeing to lower the shields, didn’t Kylo Ren say something to Hux early in the film questioning how effective the Stormtroopers were and Hux said something like ‘my soldiers are impeccably trained’? Phasma’s weakness is something that could be used by Kylo Ren against Hux in the power struggle that’s obviously happening between them (maybe Kylo or Snoke decide that they now need to use the Knights of Ren as the stormtroopers aren't up to it). Also I think maybe they’re setting up a sub-plot of her being out to get Finn in the next film, to take revenge for her humiliation. Maybe she’ll have to do it to prove herself again to the First Order, or maybe she’ll have been demoted or kicked out and will have ‘gone rogue’.
I think this is possible. As I have mentioned, I think there is potential for Phasma to pull a "Mara Jade" - her character might even be a homage to Mara.
With R2-D2 being ‘asleep’ and having the missing part of the map, I don’t really see that as a plot hole, I read it like this: Luke has gone missing and doesn’t want to be found (at least at first). It makes sense for R2 to know where he is because he was with Luke previously. Luke hides the key piece of information on his whereabouts inside R2 for when the time is right, and has him basically shut down. I assume that Luke was waiting for something to happen – presumably Rey’s ‘awakening’ – and when he sensed that it had happened, that was R2’s cue to ‘wake up’. I’m assuming Luke is either related to Rey or knows who she is. I just see it as a bit of a mystery that they put in there deliberately, to be explained in the next film.
I had no problem with this parse - I just think it was handled poorly. If, in Rey's vision, you had seen Luke touch Artoo and then seen the droid's lights go out
everything would have made much greater sense - and you could have done that with just a single second's worth of movie time.
I didn't figure out it was Skywalker who put Artoo to sleep until I read this thread - I thought Rey's vision was one of the future but it's actually one of the past. A mistake on my part to be sure, but how many other people made the same mistake? That is a schoolboy error of poor exposition imo.
The really cool question - which might be answered in a book - is how did Max Von Sydow get hold of the missing map piece in the first place? And what was his relationship to Kylo Ren and Solo? He clearly knew something of them and their history. I was really intrigued by this.
I don’t have a problem with Rey apparently being more powerful than Luke was at the same age – again it’s another mystery that they’ve set up – how and why is she so powerful already? There’s no rule that says everyone has to develop at the same rate, it gives a bit of variety. Luke was not supposed to be the most powerful Jedi ever, just the last one – and he only had to go up against an ageing Vader.
It's not a question of power - it's a question of skill. Just suddenly being able to
do the Jedi mind trick? I mean, there's nothing wrong with knowing about the Jedi and having some clue to their abilities - I'm sure even Jakku has Wikipedia
And as you say, there's no rule on how Jedi develop. But even so, Luke had bona-fide Jedi Masters to work with.
And Vader wasn't
that old you know - probably only mid-40s by New Hope.
Regarding Han's death - maybe it could've been more of a 'hero's' death - but then if you look at it as him dying trying to save his son, it was quite a noble way to go - and a selfless one, when he'd usually been selfish in the past.
Well whilst I think the Kenobi/Solo deaths can be compared I don't think it's a fair comparison. Kenobi's death is a noble sacrifice; Solo's is an empty, anticlimax that only consolidates Kylo Ren's place in the dark side - which makes it just as powerfully dramatic as Kenobi's loss, but in a downbeat, defeatist way. It's a clever inversion of of an existing motif and I don't think many are giving it enough credit for what it is.
The score was more subdued and lacking many distinct themes – not sure if this was deliberate or it’s just that John Williams has started to run out of ideas (it would be understandable – have a look on Wikipedia at just how many scores he has composed, it’s unbelievable). I read somewhere that Lucas’ directing style leaves more ‘open spaces’ for the score to fill, he uses it to help tell the story and convey the emotions of the characters, whereas Abrams’ style is more about action and the music is there to (literally) underscore the action (and perhaps his directing allows the actors to convey their emotions better, so he doesn’t need the music to do it for them). But if you listen to the soundtrack, there are some good tracks (e.g. The Scavenger, Rey’s Theme, March of the Resistance, The Jedi Steps).
My complaint about the score - as well as some of the sound effects - is that they seemed to be a direct cut and paste job from the original films. As much as I loved the music when Rey snatches the lightsaber from Kylo's force grip, it was
exactly the same as A New Hope. It didn't feel
blended into the score for me as much as shoehorned.
I don’t think we should underestimate the challenge they faced in making this film – until now, there hasn’t been a Star Wars film made that didn’t suck in some way, since 1983. How do you make a modern Star Wars film that manages to have that same sense of wonder and innocence and being able to appeal to anyone, whilst also satisfying a more cynical and demanding modern audience, and the millions of existing Star Wars fans who have very specific ideas about what they want to see? It’s not easy, but overall I think they managed it.
Call me daft, but I think one option would have been to make the special effects more retro and simplistic. Not
primitive the way RotJ's effects look compared to a modern film, but simpler. Remember, the original Star Wars itself was supposed to harken back to the days of the Flash Gordon serials. We can do more with modern effects, but does that make it better?
They managed to create new characters that were believable and likeable and have them interact in a way which wasn’t stiff or clichéd. There wasn’t one bad character in the film (maybe a few underused ones) – whereas with the prequels, there was only Obi-Wan who was OK, Darth Maul looked good but wasn’t really a character – the rest were either bland and unconvincing (Qui-Gonn, Padme) or just rubbish (Jar Jar, Anakin). And this was the funniest of all the Star Wars films, yet the humour worked and never felt out of place.
Overall it was just fun – but with genuine emotion underneath. I’d definitely pay to see it again.
Totally agree. No bad characters at all. Solo was still Solo; just a washed out space-bum version of his younger self. Phasma was underused but I expect this to change. And yes, the film was very funny. Although I think it skirted the edge of being too comedic overall it was handled very well.
I wont go to the cinema again to see it, but I will happily buy the DVD.
