My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.
I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…
I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)
Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.
I would say the plot is completely different. ANH is driven by the Death Star Plans and a huge danger to the free galaxy (first Alderaan and then Yavin IV). TFA is driven by the search for Luke. In ANH Vader is searching for the plans protect his asset and they fall into Luke’s hands. In TFA, Kylo and Leia are searching for Luke and no one finds him until the last scene. The map to Luke never is within reach of Kylo like it is Vader (R2 is there on the Death Star with the plans). In TFA, the piece of the map they have is useless without the rest which we get after the climax of the film.
That is not completely different. That is very similar. In both films the villain is looking for important information vital to the survival of the heroes, that has been hidden at the last moment by one of the heroes in a droid. That droid ends up in the hands of the main protagonist, who lives on a desert planet, and with the help of an ally tries to get the information back to the home base of the heroes. The heroes go to a seedy bar in an attempt to further their quest. The villains use a super weapon to destroy a planet/planets. One of the heroes needs to be rescued from the villain’s base, we get another desperate attack to destroy the super weapon, we get another trench run, etc, etc.
Now what is the same are a lot of the setups and scenes. As I said before, the opening is setup almost identical in many ways, but once the McGuffin arrives in our hero’s hands, the story diverges greatly. We are treated to Abrams version of the Cantina (which makes story sense because it is the sort of place Han would frequent and would go to when he needed something), Death Star, trench run, enemy base rescue, imminent danger, etc. But the story between them is nothing alike. In ANH, they accidentally find Leia, in TFA they go to rescue Rey. In ANH Leia needs rescuing, in TFA, Rey does not. In ANH the Death Star is closing in to fire, in TFA Starkiller Base is charging to fire. In ANH Tarkin refuses to leave, in TFA Hux evacuates. So a lot of story points touch on the same ideas, but the execution and resolution is very different because they plot of the film has a different goal. ANH is all about the Death Star while TFA is all about finding Luke. The crawls set it up this way. I find both movies to feel very different. While TFA evokes a sense of nostalgia and plays in familiar territory, everything is different and new.
The fact that some details are different, or that the order of events have been altered somewhat, or that one character is switched for another does not suddenly make it completely different. It makes it not identical, because several things have been altered, but the similarities, are there, and they are obvious. The question is whether making a few changes, and adding some new elements is enough to make it seem fresh? Some will say yes, while other will say no.
You are focusing on what is the same. It is only the same in a vague way. In TFA the map was not stolen. Poe does not remain a prisoner but escapes with Finn’s help. Yes, that initial beat is the same, but nothing else about it is. TFA uses a few beats from ANH and rearranges them and changes how they play out to create a new story. It is not the same story retold. The details being different is what makes it a different story. It isn’t the second Star Wars film to feature a bar scene after all. It isn’t like it is the second Death Star. Star Wars has been full of reused beats and tropes. Most people have enjoyed it and it is the second most successful Star Wars film of the franchise. So it must have done something right. If you focus the the McGuffin and the super weapon, then yeah, they are going to seem the same. If you focus on who does what and why, then story is totally original. The McGuffin is not the plot. It is a tool to drive action and get us into the story.
If you have to focus on specific elements, than it is not totally original. I think most would say TFA does more than just reuse some beats and tropes. TFA is like the Vanilla Ice song, Ice Ice Baby, which has the exact same base line as Queen’s Under Pressure. If you focus on the baseline, it’s a copy, but if you add in the other elements, it’s still a different song. However, nobody would argue Ice Ice Baby is totally original, if you just ignore the baseline. Remove the baseline, and you remove an essential part of the song.
Well, if you want to bring music into this for comparison, there are only so many variations to music. There are limited patterns, limited chords, etc. So a modern artist taking an actual recording from another is neither new or unusual. And while the song you bring up is not one I really care for, it was a #1 hit. Queen’s original is a very cool song, but didn’t hit #1 in all the same places. Madonna did it more recently with Hung Up (with a sample from Abba’s 1979 hit Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)) that was a much bigger hit. And the examples throughout the music world of one song building on another are everywhere. The original Star Trek them starts with a section that Brahams has used from something even older.
Well, I think you’re being way too kind to TFA in this sense. The important question is, whether the many elements that TFA reuses in the long run are to its benefit, or to its detriment. While I would say some of the reused elements work, however, many such as another desert planet, the Starkiller base, another trench run only reinforce the derivative nature of the story without really adding something of significance. They rekindle feelings of nostalgia in the moment, but in the long run lose their power. They are elements, that could have been removed, and replaced with an original setting, an original McGuffin, or weapon of sorts, an original resolution to a space battle, and the movie would be better for it.
And as a student of both history and literature I can tell you that this happens all the time. Historical events that mirror other and literature that borrows from older stories is common place. So much so that I don’t usually pay attention to that. I look for what they did that was different and fresh. I have two films that I consider what not to do - Pearl Harbor and Avatar. I felt those two films sucked because they didn’t just pull beats or sub plots from other films, but basically pulled their main character’s stories right out of other films. I felt I’d seen both those films before. TFA did not give me that feeling. It is not the same as ANH. It has some of the same beats but takes things in a different direction.
I think pointing to history is often a poor excuse. Fiction more often than not isn’t meant to mirror reality. There’s a reason many stories have a lasting and final resolution, or end with a happily ever after. It’s the same reason why one of these versions works better than the other:
The “live action” Lion King went for realism, and it’s a pale copy of the original in all except some technical aspects. In storytelling events, and characters are often exaggerated, simplified, or embellished by the author to highlight certain archetypes, and themes.
Now, many stories in film, and literature borrow from older stories. However, these stories often have a very different setting, visuals, tone, etc, etc. The idea of writing new Star Wars in my view, is to give us very different story, plot, and characters in a similar setting with similar visuals. The story may be adapted from another work of fiction, or use elements from them, but to continue to extensively borrow and repurpose elements from previous Star Wars stories in my view is a form of cinematic inbreeding, that will only serve to weaken the franchise as a whole.
Whether it works or not has a lot of personal opinion to it. I think it does. I think the only flaws in TFA lie in editing and continuity, not in echoes from the OT. And you may see it as cinematic inbreeding, but evidently Lucas saw it as poetry and has been on board with what they are doing in TROS. From the little I’ve been able to gather from what Lucas’s original ST ideas were, the story as it has unfolded is petty similar. Abrams may have leaned a little more to the familiar that Lucas would, but not too much. Remember, he is the one who decided that ANH cut off his original story so he gave us the rest in two parts and reused the Death Star and gave us more of his original Death Star/Endor battle. He’s the one who changed wookies to ewoks. So Star Wars is really based on repeating themes and events from the outset. I think that is one thing it has done well in all 8 films so far.