I don’t even know why I keep engaging in this, but here goes.
Mithrandir said:
DominicCobb said:
Mithrandir said:
So, the story can’t be wrong just because it doensn’t match up to our expectations. That’d be close-minded.
I very clearly did not say that. To reiterate, just because it doesn’t match expectations doesn’t make it wrong.
Just because it’s not what you or I might have expected after ROTJ doesn’t mean it’s a definitively wrong way to do it (…) it’s pretty close minded to outright dismiss the story they’re telling just because it wasn’t what you expected
I don’t know how you can’t wrap your head around the word “definitively.” Is this easier to get?: just because it doesn’t match expectations doesn’t make it automatically wrong though it still could be.
DominicCobb said:
Mithrandir said:
And the designs apparently are a minor things as well.
YUP.
Interestingly, we’ve crossed our points of view in this regard. Debate over TFA has been going on recurrently in the forum for over a year and a half under the rehash/not rehash label. Curiously not rehash team has, recurrently as well, claimed that despite the similarities in the general outline of the story and plot it is the details what prevent TFA from being a rehash of ANH. Amongst those details, the designs (of characters, of factions, of wardrobe, of props, of backgrounds, of ships, etc.) certainly are not a minor thing.
You’re lumping way too much into the word “details.” Not to say it’s a bad descriptor of any one of these things but they clearly are not all on the same playing field. Props/wardrobe obviously are not of the same importance as something like character and theme.
Details, and in this case particularly the visual language, are meant to characterize and utterly singularize a general structure, a story. From that point of view, they are relevant.
From other point of view, and since without that structure that sets an order (and the “order” of TFA is what is meant to be dangerously close to ANH according to the rehash team; only to say then that even the details are too close to OT) the details are meaningless, they are not relevant.
In the end it’s not a spectrum where you could say I’m more like here, more like there. It’s a contradiction with no singular resolution. And it’s a contradiction that depending on the scale of the analysis, ends up movilizing the approach always into something both new and old.
Not even a perfect copy of La Gioconda is La Gioconda even though they could be objectively identical. While the copy is something new, sill it never ceases to be a copy.
Why is this important? Because when you apparently take your position militantly in one part of the question, as if it was a spectrum, for instance:
You clearly have a very different way of looking at films than I do. (…) I will say that in my mind it’s all about the story, and what feeds into it and how.
Down that road you end up denying the formal, “accesory” details of the work. And further down that road, had your sentence be taken as a general law, it arises some questions such as
If a movie is all about the story and what feeds into it and how; in the end if a movie is about the plot (what happens) or the script (how does it happen) then what does make cinema something else than just filmed theatre in the first place? Or furthermore, what does make theatre something else than just outloud-read literature?
I think that when it comes to art, the platonic hierarchy between substance and detail, what’s essential and what’s irrelevant has to be constantly put in jeopardy, because there is no such thing as a clear and defined line.
You’re either simplifying what I’m saying or not understanding it, can’t decide which.
I’m not saying you can’t critique a design of a starship or whatever. Obviously any sort of hierarchy is subjective, as is any sort of criticism of art. I don’t think I’ve ever said the word irrelevant in regards to this. Maybe if I’m talking about something really small I could say that it is essentially irrelevant to the ultimate quality of the film (not completely). Everything has a relevance to a degree. But there are degrees. And obviously it’s something that changes with each film. I’m not going to go around talking about dialogue in All Is Lost, to give an extreme example of what I mean. For some (rare) movies, designs might be very relevant to the overall quality of the film. But, yes, designs in TFA are minor. That doesn’t mean you can’t dislike them or criticize them or think they make the movie bad, but, from my point of view, they are a minor aspect.
It’s all about, like I said, feeding into the story. First of all, story is more than plot. Second of all,
“how” is more than the script. “What feeds into it” are exactly the “accessory details” you think I’m completely neglecting.
I think we can agree that the original Star Wars is a masterwork because it’s more than just it’s plot (which is fairly simple), it’s true cinema. A great story, well told. Now, to get down deep in it and back to the topic at hand, let’s take a piece of design: the Millennium Falcon. The Falcon is a great bit of design because its atypical shape and beat up exterior perfectly fit the Solo character and the scrappy mission. So of course the design of the Falcon improves Star Wars to some degree, as it feeds into the story. But my ultimate point is that degree isn’t enough that, if the design weren’t as fitting, the film would be that much less of a great film. It wouldn’t be as perfect, but that’d still only be a minor thing in the context of everything else.
To loop it all back this thread, do we know TLJ’s story yet? Fuck no. So how can we know if walkers are fitting yet? How can we even know if the political situation is fitting yet? These are not unimportant aspects of the film but they are aspects that feed into the larger whole, not simply aspects unto themselves. Before we see them in context in the larger whole, there is no way of knowing if they are a successfully fit into the story being told, and there is no way of knowing the true quality of that larger whole without knowing the quality of the story and how it’s told.
In the end, it’s basically that old sentiment “never trust a trailer.” You can have a good trailer for a bad movie or vice versa. Of course there are things that could show up as warning signs that could imply larger issues in the general approach that the film is taking. Which is fair. But the truth is you can’t really know if that approach is a wrong one until you’ve seen the full context.
Let me use, as an example, oh let’s see, hmm, how about The Last Jedi? Because this film already has a teaser. And frankly, I was kind of put off by it. Because I’m not used to SW films picking up where the last one left off. I like the flexibility and intrigue a time gap creates. But you know what? I’m willing to give Johnson the benefit of the doubt. First, because I know he is a competent filmmaker so I trust he has a good reason for starting the film where he is. And second, because I don’t know the reason. If Johnson makes the film’s starting point worthwhile to the story? Great. If Johnson makes the political situation worthwhile to the story? Great. That’s what matters to me, and I can only know on December 14, not before.
Do you see what I’m saying? I do hope I’m communicating my point clearly because if I’m going to be a crazy person and spend time doing this I want you to understand what I’m saying (because so far you haven’t). And I mean that honestly, not in a jerky way.
