If R1 didn’t even attempt it, why blame it for not being character-driven? Or does every movie need to be character driven?
“At least The Phantom Menace tried to make a step-in-the-poop joke that isn’t completely tasteless, they horribly failed, but at least they tried. I can’t say the same of Citizen Kane.”
R1 barely attempted to have characters at all. If the Death Star and other iconic Star Wars imagery weren’t in it, then nothing about the film would be even remotely memorable.
And your analogy is not worth addressing.
You still didn’t answer if every movie needs to be character-driven.
Of course not, but it is important when the main plot isn’t compelling or interesting, especially since we know exactly how it’s going to turn out. We know they’ll get the plans, so it would seem logical to have it be character driven since the main plot is straightforward and already spoiled.
R1 was advertised as a war movie in the Star Wars universe and I think the comparison is quite fitting. It focuses on a small part of the whole, it isn’t really about character development and the outcome is known by practically everyone.
For me, it’s perfectly fine that R1 didn’t attempt to be more than that, so it shouldn’t be judged by a standard that it didn’t even intend to reach. It was always meant to tell a straight-forward story, that we already know. The main selling point is to show how it happend.
I think that almost every movie should have you caring about the characters one way or the other. Having boring characters is generally a sign of bad film-making. But not every movie needs to advance primarily by characters going through a phase of big changes, which is what I would understand by character-driven.
My phrasing was a bit off, but R1 didn’t seem to make much effort to have compelling characters. Most were without personality and the ones that were interesting got little focus.
That’s a different issue, then. And all I can say is, well, yeah, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.