Sign In

The Last Jedi: Official Review and Opinions Thread ** SPOILERS ** — Page 224

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Sir Ridley said:

You can compare it to almost any episode of a sitcom like The Simpsons where each episode ends with everything back to status quo, which means you can skip any episode and you won’t know that you missed anyhing. Still, the episodes aren’t pointless.

So, you haven’t watched anything past the ninth season.

I’ve 1190 movies, 297 TV shows, 244 short films, & 21 miniseries yet to obsessively compulsively rewatch. Kill me now.

***

Divergent Universes

Dreams of a Randy Git-Fiend

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

No need to quibble over the precise level of distraction. Maybe less than Leia being blonde and more than her brunette hair being slightly darker. I still don’t see the validity of the reason for the aesthetic choice that is noticeable.

They probably figured most people wouldn’t care, which is almost certainly true.

As the creature designer said: “I remember saying to Rian [Johnson] that if we were going to do it, we couldn’t make him too much of a ghost because it would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

Sounds like they thought people would care. If you mean they thought most people would like it or at least not be bothered by it, that is clear. If most people didn’t care, as you suggest, then it wasn’t a terribly successful choice. A lot of things in the movie are like that. This was quite a minor thing.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

Sir Ridley said:

You can compare it to almost any episode of a sitcom like The Simpsons where each episode ends with everything back to status quo, which means you can skip any episode and you won’t know that you missed anyhing. Still, the episodes aren’t pointless.

So, you haven’t watched anything past the ninth season.

Pretty much. I would say that the newer episodes that do change the status quo are the pointless ones. Ironic.

TV’s Frink said:

Why can’t I stop watching Lenny?

Is that a problem?

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

No need to quibble over the precise level of distraction. Maybe less than Leia being blonde and more than her brunette hair being slightly darker. I still don’t see the validity of the reason for the aesthetic choice that is noticeable.

They probably figured most people wouldn’t care, which is almost certainly true.

As the creature designer said: “I remember saying to Rian [Johnson] that if we were going to do it, we couldn’t make him too much of a ghost because it would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

Sounds like they thought people would care. If you mean they thought most people would like it or at least not be bothered by it, that is clear. If most people didn’t care, as you suggest, then it wasn’t a terribly successful choice. A lot of things in the movie are like that. This was quite a minor thing.

My post was in response to your question of why risk a noticeable/distracting change. Because most people wouldn’t care that it’s different. Why choose make the change in the first place? A lot of reasons that are more important than whether or not it’s distracting to an extremely small subset of the audience.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Sir Ridley said:

DrDre said:

It’s pointless to the overall plot.

I don’t know if I would say that something is pointless just because it doesn’t affect the outcome of the plot. It did affect the outcome of the plot in this case, but even if it didn’t it wouldn’t be pointless.

You can compare it to the claim that Indiana Jones doesn’t affect the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Even if he doesn’t, he’s not pointless.

You can compare it to almost any episode of a sitcom like The Simpsons where each episode ends with everything back to status quo, which means you can skip any episode and you won’t know that you missed anyhing. Still, the episodes aren’t pointless.

You can say that you didn’t like it, that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it pointless either.

I disagree. If you’re invested in the characters, yes then it’s not pointless. Most people were so invested in the character of Indiana Jones, they didn’t even notice he didn’t affect the plot. In this case I wasn’t invested in Rose’s and Finn’s mission, and since it didn’t really affect the plot other than to stop Finn from needlessly sacrificing himself (something that Rose didn’t know, meaning she would have doomed everyone, despite her save what you love speech), I watched a 30 min segment that ultimately didn’t really pay off for me, therefore it was a waste of time, and thus a pointless sequence.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

No need to quibble over the precise level of distraction. Maybe less than Leia being blonde and more than her brunette hair being slightly darker. I still don’t see the validity of the reason for the aesthetic choice that is noticeable.

They probably figured most people wouldn’t care, which is almost certainly true.

As the creature designer said: “I remember saying to Rian [Johnson] that if we were going to do it, we couldn’t make him too much of a ghost because it would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

Sounds like they thought people would care. If you mean they thought most people would like it or at least not be bothered by it, that is clear. If most people didn’t care, as you suggest, then it wasn’t a terribly successful choice. A lot of things in the movie are like that. This was quite a minor thing.

My post was in response to your question of why risk a noticeable/distracting change. Because most people wouldn’t care that it’s different.

You answer a question I’m not asking. I commented that I found it distracting but that wasn’t a question.

Why choose make the change in the first place? A lot of reasons that are more important than whether or not it’s distracting to an extremely small subset of the audience.

Well the creature designer says a ghostly Yoda “would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

As I said, I don’t see the merit there. I guess you do?

Not a major thing but I thought the creative choice was an odd one and a more ghostly Yoda would not have taken joy away nor did a more solid Yoda add positively to the experience.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

No need to quibble over the precise level of distraction. Maybe less than Leia being blonde and more than her brunette hair being slightly darker. I still don’t see the validity of the reason for the aesthetic choice that is noticeable.

They probably figured most people wouldn’t care, which is almost certainly true.

As the creature designer said: “I remember saying to Rian [Johnson] that if we were going to do it, we couldn’t make him too much of a ghost because it would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

Sounds like they thought people would care. If you mean they thought most people would like it or at least not be bothered by it, that is clear. If most people didn’t care, as you suggest, then it wasn’t a terribly successful choice. A lot of things in the movie are like that. This was quite a minor thing.

My post was in response to your question of why risk a noticeable/distracting change. Because most people wouldn’t care that it’s different.

You answer a question I’m not asking. I commented that I found it distracting but that wasn’t a question.

It seemed like you were wondering why they did it if it was distracting.

Why choose make the change in the first place? A lot of reasons that are more important than whether or not it’s distracting to an extremely small subset of the audience.

Well the creature designer says a ghostly Yoda “would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

As I said, I don’t see the merit there. I guess you do?

Not a major thing but I thought the creative choice was an odd one and a more ghostly Yoda would not have taken joy away nor did a more solid Yoda add positively to the experience.

It’s the most substantial scene a force ghost has ever been in. It’s not just about the joy of seeing Yoda tangibly again. It’s about imbuing the character and the emotions of the scene with more tangibility. He still looks ghostly. Again, for an extremely small number of the audience, he’s not ghostly enough and that’s distracting. But for most of the audience, the thinking here is a more solid Yoda would add more weight to the scene. Makes perfect sense to me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

No need to quibble over the precise level of distraction. Maybe less than Leia being blonde and more than her brunette hair being slightly darker. I still don’t see the validity of the reason for the aesthetic choice that is noticeable.

They probably figured most people wouldn’t care, which is almost certainly true.

As the creature designer said: “I remember saying to Rian [Johnson] that if we were going to do it, we couldn’t make him too much of a ghost because it would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

Sounds like they thought people would care. If you mean they thought most people would like it or at least not be bothered by it, that is clear. If most people didn’t care, as you suggest, then it wasn’t a terribly successful choice. A lot of things in the movie are like that. This was quite a minor thing.

My post was in response to your question of why risk a noticeable/distracting change. Because most people wouldn’t care that it’s different.

You answer a question I’m not asking. I commented that I found it distracting but that wasn’t a question.

It seemed like you were wondering why they did it if it was distracting.

Why choose make the change in the first place? A lot of reasons that are more important than whether or not it’s distracting to an extremely small subset of the audience.

Well the creature designer says a ghostly Yoda “would deny everybody the joy of seeing him solid and real.”

As I said, I don’t see the merit there. I guess you do?

Not a major thing but I thought the creative choice was an odd one and a more ghostly Yoda would not have taken joy away nor did a more solid Yoda add positively to the experience.

It’s the most substantial scene a force ghost has ever been in. It’s not just about the joy of seeing Yoda tangibly again. It’s about imbuing the character and the emotions of the scene with more tangibility. He still looks ghostly. Again, for an extremely small number of the audience, he’s not ghostly enough and that’s distracting. But for most of the audience, the thinking here is a more solid Yoda would add more weight to the scene. Makes perfect sense to me.

I think we agree for the first time. Hooray! In my view more solid ghost Yoda is not more distracting than ghost Obi-Wan walking through a forest avoiding trees and casually sitting down on a rock.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:
That’s incorrect.
https://youtu.be/sx15aXjcDZg

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/index.html

I really don’t see how being influenced by a dozen old movies is in any way comparable to blantantly recycling story elements, structure, and visuals from the same movie series.

It’s not, nor was I addressing that issue. I was responding specifically to Collipso saying “Neither Star Wars nor Empire ripped off any movie whatsoever”. In fact, it ripped off several films. For the record; I’m not bothered by that. Not now, not in 1977.

Neither am I 😉.

Regarding your claim that TFA recycled elements from the OT; I can’t imagine there is anyone on here who doesn’t see that to be the case. There are all sorts of parallels between the OT and the ST. The differences seem to be more about the level at which people are bothered by them.

I would be fine if that were the case, but I don’t believe it is. Some posters here conflate recycling Star Wars tropes with being influenced by other film makers, and works of fiction, thus arguing in a sense, that the current creators are more or less doing what Lucas did in 1977. Lucas’ Star Wars wasn’t original in their view, because he was obviously influenced by many sources while making the first film, and it’s sequels. The current creators are doing the same thing, they argue, but they just happened to be influenced by Star Wars movies. My argument is Lucas didn’t invent most of the ingredients, but he did invent a new and original recipe, and one that has resulted in some very tasty meals, while the current creators deliberately stuck to Lucas’ old recipe, and added a few twists to disguise the fact that they couldn’t come up with a new recipe. The meal might still be edible, but it’s just so similar to Lucas’ recipe in many respects, while altering a few key aspects of Lucas’ recipe for the worse, that I can’t shake the notion, that I’ve tasted far better versions of it in the past.

I think Lucas was more than simply “influenced.” I don’t have a problem with not calling the original Star Wars original because I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s still my favorite film after all.

I’d just argue that no SW film since the first has had the same “new and original recipe,” including ESB and ROTJ. Their “recipes” are firmly rooted in what was done in the previous film(s). Same with the ST, only there’ve been more previous films. Are the tropes that the ST is pulling from SW tropes? Absolutely, you’ve nailed that that’s how I see it. And again, to me that just makes sense, it seems a natural extension of the franchise at this point in time (it only seems fitting for these films to be influenced by what came before, just like Lucas, only now what’s come before are SW movies - films which have had an enormous impact on cinema in general and this genre of storytelling specifically).

I forgot to respond to this one. The difference between the ST, and the OT sequels, and the PT is, that Lucas’ sequels progressed the story in new directions. Sure all his films used Star Wars tropes, but the ST is unique in the sense, that it essentially retells the same story we’ve seen before, where a small rebel force fights a tyrannical regime led by an evil Force user. We have another Jedi student turning on his master, and being instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi Order. We have another young person living on a desert planet, who turns out to be the new hope, and then I’ve not even touched on recycling the concept of a super weapon, a walker assault on a white planet, a confrontation in a throne room, etc, etc.

Then there’s the fact that both the good guys and the bad guys look very much like they did in the OT, and use very similar equipment. Sure, some new characters and elements were added, but overall the basic story premise and the aesthetics are the same. A few changes in characters and structure are not going to change that. There were a ton of possibilities in coming up with completely new stories, characters, and visuals that did not involve recycling large parts the OT, while still incorporating Star Wars tropes like the Force, lightsabers, space battles, and what not. However, the current creators chose to take the safe route, and rather than take the franchise in a new direction narratively and visually, gave us a loosely based remake of the OT, and worst of all, they chose to diminish the accomplishments of the classic characters to achieve this end. That is what makes the ST far less original to me than any of the previous films made by Lucas.

Now, does this mean the ST cannot be entertaining, or competently made? Of course not! There’s much to enjoy, the story is compelling, the action is great, the special effects are great, the acting is generally good. IMO they are above average blockbusters. However, as sequels to the OT, they are a disappointment to me, and in the face of rethreading rebels vs Empire, a new hope vs fallen Jedi, and all the other elements I’ve mentioned, any argument that tries to pass off the ST as being on a similar level of creativity and originality as Lucas’ films simply falls flat on it’s face in my view.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

Sir Ridley said:

DrDre said:

It’s pointless to the overall plot.

I don’t know if I would say that something is pointless just because it doesn’t affect the outcome of the plot. It did affect the outcome of the plot in this case, but even if it didn’t it wouldn’t be pointless.

You can compare it to the claim that Indiana Jones doesn’t affect the plot of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Even if he doesn’t, he’s not pointless.

You can compare it to almost any episode of a sitcom like The Simpsons where each episode ends with everything back to status quo, which means you can skip any episode and you won’t know that you missed anyhing. Still, the episodes aren’t pointless.

You can say that you didn’t like it, that’s fine, but that doesn’t make it pointless either.

I disagree. If you’re invested in the characters, yes then it’s not pointless. Most people were so invested in the character of Indiana Jones, they didn’t even notice he didn’t affect the plot. In this case I wasn’t invested in Rose’s and Finn’s mission, and since it didn’t really affect the plot other than to stop Finn from needlessly sacrificing himself (something that Rose didn’t know, meaning she would have doomed everyone, despite her save what you love speech), I watched a 30 min segment that ultimately didn’t really pay off for me, therefore it was a waste of time, and thus a pointless sequence.

I guess I was trying to say that it wasn’t pointless from a story telling perspective, but if it was pointless from your perspective then I guess there’s nothing I can do about that, fine.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

There were a ton of possibilities in coming up with completely new stories, characters, and visuals that did not involve recycling large parts the OT, while still incorporating Star Wars tropes like the Force, lightsabers, space battles, and what not. However, the current creators chose to take the save route, and rather than take the franchise in a new direction narratively and visually, gave us a loosely based remake of the OT, and worst of all, they chose to diminish the accomplishments of the classic characters to achieve this end. That is what makes the ST far less original than any of the previous films made by Lucas.

Well said. I agree that it’s a safe route, agree that it’s less original than Lucas’ films (but more enjoyable than the prequels), disagree that they diminish the OT. I’m not bothered by this safe route, in fact when I see something called “Star Wars #7” I want more of what came before, I expect something traditional.

I think the spinoffs are a good place for experimentation and we’ll be getting new stories from Rian Johnson and others as well. Perhaps the sequel trilogy could have been more different like the prequels or something in between but I’m happy with what we’ve gotten.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Sir Ridley said:

DrDre said:

There were a ton of possibilities in coming up with completely new stories, characters, and visuals that did not involve recycling large parts the OT, while still incorporating Star Wars tropes like the Force, lightsabers, space battles, and what not. However, the current creators chose to take the save route, and rather than take the franchise in a new direction narratively and visually, gave us a loosely based remake of the OT, and worst of all, they chose to diminish the accomplishments of the classic characters to achieve this end. That is what makes the ST far less original than any of the previous films made by Lucas.

Well said. I agree that it’s a safe route, agree that it’s less original than Lucas’ films (but more enjoyable than the prequels), disagree that they diminish the OT. I’m not bothered by this safe route, in fact when I see something called “Star Wars #7” I want more of what came before, I expect something traditional.

I think the spinoffs are a good place for experimentation and we’ll be getting new stories from Rian Johnson and others as well. Perhaps the sequel trilogy could have been more different like the prequels or something in between but I’m happy with what we’ve gotten.

Well, I personally feel, if the main focus of many discussions is, whether Luke was in or out of character in TLJ, the movie is spending too much time looking in the rear view mirror, rather than setting a new course. It feels like the ST is reinventing the wheel, regressing the story to Empire vs rebels, and replacing Luke with Rey, as the future of the Jedi, and Ben Solo as the fallen Jedi student. It’s entertaining, and overall pretty well executed, but the ST could have been spent exploring new territory, expanding the narrative. I hope we’ll finally get a truly new and original story in RJ’s trilogy, or the films developed by Benioff and Weiss.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

Sir Ridley said:

DrDre said:

There were a ton of possibilities in coming up with completely new stories, characters, and visuals that did not involve recycling large parts the OT, while still incorporating Star Wars tropes like the Force, lightsabers, space battles, and what not. However, the current creators chose to take the save route, and rather than take the franchise in a new direction narratively and visually, gave us a loosely based remake of the OT, and worst of all, they chose to diminish the accomplishments of the classic characters to achieve this end. That is what makes the ST far less original than any of the previous films made by Lucas.

Well said. I agree that it’s a safe route, agree that it’s less original than Lucas’ films (but more enjoyable than the prequels), disagree that they diminish the OT. I’m not bothered by this safe route, in fact when I see something called “Star Wars #7” I want more of what came before, I expect something traditional.

I think the spinoffs are a good place for experimentation and we’ll be getting new stories from Rian Johnson and others as well. Perhaps the sequel trilogy could have been more different like the prequels or something in between but I’m happy with what we’ve gotten.

Well, I personally feel, if the main focus of many discussions is, whether Luke was in or out of character in TLJ, the movie is spending too much time looking in the rear view mirror, rather than setting a course. It feels like the ST is reinventing the wheel, regressing the story to Empire vs rebels, and replacing Luke with Rey, as the future of the Jedi, and Ben Solo as the fallen Jedi student. It’s entertaining, and overall pretty well executed, but the ST could have been spent exploring new territory, expanding the narrative. I hope we’ll finally get a truly new and original story in RJ’s trilogy, or the films developed by Benioff and Weiss.

I would say the ST is simultaneously stuck in the past and expanding the narrative. In the end it’s up to Episode IX to show us what the ST lead to, at this point 7-8 feel like a setup since they both took place in such a short period of time.

And I’m sure there are more original films ahead, with or without Ep IX.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

if the main focus of many discussions is, whether Luke was in or out of character in TLJ, the fans are spending too much time looking in the rear view mirror

WIWHS

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

I’ve largely been trying to abstain from posting in this thread lately, but I seriously don’t understand how Canto Bight remains so controversial. It seems crystal clear to me that the “pointlessness” of the sequence is the point. Finn and Rose go to Canto Bight so that they can pick up DJ and have the plan that they made with Poe backfire spectacularly, providing the climax of the film (in classical “rising action-falling action” terms) and underlining the “failure is the best teacher” theme that’s central to the movie. It’s not that nothing of consequence happens, it’s two steps forward and three steps back, which is not at all the same thing.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Frank your Majesty said:

DrDre said:

if the main focus of many discussions is, whether Luke was in or out of character in TLJ, the fans are spending too much time looking in the rear view mirror

WIWHS

The problem is, that the fans don’t really have to look in the rear view mirror, because what’s ahead is eerily similar to what’s behind them:

Author
Time
 (Edited)

joefavs said:

I’ve largely been trying to abstain from posting in this thread lately, but I seriously don’t understand how Canto Bight remains so controversial. It seems crystal clear to me that the “pointlessness” of the sequence is the point. Finn and Rose go to Canto Bight so that they can pick up DJ…

I don’t think so. They go to Canto Bight to find “The” Master Codebreaker, the one guy that can help them according to Maz Kanata, but end up in jail for a parking violation (how exciting!), and by a spectacular coincidence run into another Codebreaker, who just then happens to decide to break out of jail.

…and have the plan that they made with Poe backfire spectacularly, providing the climax of the film (in classical “rising action-falling action” terms) and underlining the “failure is the best teacher” theme that’s central to the movie. It’s not that nothing of consequence happens, it’s two steps forward and three steps back, which is not at all the same thing.

Meh, that theme doesn’t really apply other than “do not trust some random shady guy you meet in jail to do the job of some other guy you were supposed to find”. The entire sequence leads into a fight between Finn and Phasma, that has not been set up at all, as Phasma hadn’t been part of the film up to that point, and the final scene with Rose and Finn on Crait isn’t very strong either IMO, as Rose stops Finn from sacrificing himself, which if Luke had not shown up (which Rose didn’t know about), would have certainly doomed the rebellion. In other words it requires Rose to know how the rest of the story will unfold to make any sense. So, in my view the Canto Bight sequence doesn’t really advance the plot, whilst also suffering from weak writing.

Author
Time

I didn’t mean the characters go to find DJ, I meant the script sends them there to ultimately find him. And yeah, if the rest of the movie doesn’t work for you, of course this isn’t going to either. Anyway, I’ve said my piece, I’m out again, I need to go to work.

Author
Time

joefavs said:

I didn’t mean the characters go to find DJ, I meant the script sends them there to ultimately find him. And yeah, if the rest of the movie doesn’t work for you, of course this isn’t going to either. Anyway, I’ve said my piece, I’m out again, I need to go to work.

I found this take on Canto Bight scenes, and Finn’s journey in the film - from going to being mainly concerned for his friend, all the way to committing to the Rebel cause - to be of interest…

https://i.redd.it/lrjogkba1c701.jpg

(that’s not to say that message could have been made a little clearer - and some of the Canto Bight scenes didn’t play too well - for me anyway.)


Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:
That’s incorrect.
https://youtu.be/sx15aXjcDZg

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/index.html

I really don’t see how being influenced by a dozen old movies is in any way comparable to blantantly recycling story elements, structure, and visuals from the same movie series.

It’s not, nor was I addressing that issue. I was responding specifically to Collipso saying “Neither Star Wars nor Empire ripped off any movie whatsoever”. In fact, it ripped off several films. For the record; I’m not bothered by that. Not now, not in 1977.

Neither am I 😉.

Regarding your claim that TFA recycled elements from the OT; I can’t imagine there is anyone on here who doesn’t see that to be the case. There are all sorts of parallels between the OT and the ST. The differences seem to be more about the level at which people are bothered by them.

I would be fine if that were the case, but I don’t believe it is. Some posters here conflate recycling Star Wars tropes with being influenced by other film makers, and works of fiction, thus arguing in a sense, that the current creators are more or less doing what Lucas did in 1977. Lucas’ Star Wars wasn’t original in their view, because he was obviously influenced by many sources while making the first film, and it’s sequels. The current creators are doing the same thing, they argue, but they just happened to be influenced by Star Wars movies. My argument is Lucas didn’t invent most of the ingredients, but he did invent a new and original recipe, and one that has resulted in some very tasty meals, while the current creators deliberately stuck to Lucas’ old recipe, and added a few twists to disguise the fact that they couldn’t come up with a new recipe. The meal might still be edible, but it’s just so similar to Lucas’ recipe in many respects, while altering a few key aspects of Lucas’ recipe for the worse, that I can’t shake the notion, that I’ve tasted far better versions of it in the past.

I think Lucas was more than simply “influenced.” I don’t have a problem with not calling the original Star Wars original because I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s still my favorite film after all.

I’d just argue that no SW film since the first has had the same “new and original recipe,” including ESB and ROTJ. Their “recipes” are firmly rooted in what was done in the previous film(s). Same with the ST, only there’ve been more previous films. Are the tropes that the ST is pulling from SW tropes? Absolutely, you’ve nailed that that’s how I see it. And again, to me that just makes sense, it seems a natural extension of the franchise at this point in time (it only seems fitting for these films to be influenced by what came before, just like Lucas, only now what’s come before are SW movies - films which have had an enormous impact on cinema in general and this genre of storytelling specifically).

I forgot to respond to this one. The difference between the ST, and the OT sequels, and the PT is, that Lucas’ sequels progressed the story in new directions. Sure all his films used Star Wars tropes, but the ST is unique in the sense, that it essentially retells the same story we’ve seen before, where a small rebel force fights a tyrannical regime led by an evil Force user. We have another Jedi student turning on his master, and being instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi Order. We have another young person living on a desert planet, who turns out to be the new hope, and then I’ve not even touched on recycling the concept of a super weapon, a walker assault on a white planet, a confrontation in a throne room, etc, etc.

Then there’s the fact that both the good guys and the bad guys look very much like they did in the OT, and use very similar equipment. Sure, some new characters and elements were added, but overall the basic story premise and the aesthetics are the same. A few changes in characters and structure are not going to change that. There were a ton of possibilities in coming up with completely new stories, characters, and visuals that did not involve recycling large parts the OT, while still incorporating Star Wars tropes like the Force, lightsabers, space battles, and what not. However, the current creators chose to take the safe route, and rather than take the franchise in a new direction narratively and visually, gave us a loosely based remake of the OT, and worst of all, they chose to diminish the accomplishments of the classic characters to achieve this end. That is what makes the ST far less original to me than any of the previous films made by Lucas.

Now, does this mean the ST cannot be entertaining, or competently made? Of course not! There’s much to enjoy, the story is compelling, the action is great, the special effects are great, the acting is generally good. IMO they are above average blockbusters. However, as sequels to the OT, they are a disappointment to me, and in the face of rethreading rebels vs Empire, a new hope vs fallen Jedi, and all the other elements I’ve mentioned, any argument that tries to pass off the ST as being on a similar level of creativity and originality as Lucas’ films simply falls flat on it’s face in my view.

Sorry, I’m going to have to drop this. My new rule is if I’ve said it before I won’t say it again. And there isn’t really anything I’d say in response to this that I haven’t already said a number of times (too many times) before.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:
That’s incorrect.
https://youtu.be/sx15aXjcDZg

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/index.html

I really don’t see how being influenced by a dozen old movies is in any way comparable to blantantly recycling story elements, structure, and visuals from the same movie series.

It’s not, nor was I addressing that issue. I was responding specifically to Collipso saying “Neither Star Wars nor Empire ripped off any movie whatsoever”. In fact, it ripped off several films. For the record; I’m not bothered by that. Not now, not in 1977.

Neither am I 😉.

Regarding your claim that TFA recycled elements from the OT; I can’t imagine there is anyone on here who doesn’t see that to be the case. There are all sorts of parallels between the OT and the ST. The differences seem to be more about the level at which people are bothered by them.

I would be fine if that were the case, but I don’t believe it is. Some posters here conflate recycling Star Wars tropes with being influenced by other film makers, and works of fiction, thus arguing in a sense, that the current creators are more or less doing what Lucas did in 1977. Lucas’ Star Wars wasn’t original in their view, because he was obviously influenced by many sources while making the first film, and it’s sequels. The current creators are doing the same thing, they argue, but they just happened to be influenced by Star Wars movies. My argument is Lucas didn’t invent most of the ingredients, but he did invent a new and original recipe, and one that has resulted in some very tasty meals, while the current creators deliberately stuck to Lucas’ old recipe, and added a few twists to disguise the fact that they couldn’t come up with a new recipe. The meal might still be edible, but it’s just so similar to Lucas’ recipe in many respects, while altering a few key aspects of Lucas’ recipe for the worse, that I can’t shake the notion, that I’ve tasted far better versions of it in the past.

I think Lucas was more than simply “influenced.” I don’t have a problem with not calling the original Star Wars original because I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s still my favorite film after all.

I’d just argue that no SW film since the first has had the same “new and original recipe,” including ESB and ROTJ. Their “recipes” are firmly rooted in what was done in the previous film(s). Same with the ST, only there’ve been more previous films. Are the tropes that the ST is pulling from SW tropes? Absolutely, you’ve nailed that that’s how I see it. And again, to me that just makes sense, it seems a natural extension of the franchise at this point in time (it only seems fitting for these films to be influenced by what came before, just like Lucas, only now what’s come before are SW movies - films which have had an enormous impact on cinema in general and this genre of storytelling specifically).

I forgot to respond to this one. The difference between the ST, and the OT sequels, and the PT is, that Lucas’ sequels progressed the story in new directions. Sure all his films used Star Wars tropes, but the ST is unique in the sense, that it essentially retells the same story we’ve seen before, where a small rebel force fights a tyrannical regime led by an evil Force user. We have another Jedi student turning on his master, and being instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi Order. We have another young person living on a desert planet, who turns out to be the new hope, and then I’ve not even touched on recycling the concept of a super weapon, a walker assault on a white planet, a confrontation in a throne room, etc, etc.

Then there’s the fact that both the good guys and the bad guys look very much like they did in the OT, and use very similar equipment. Sure, some new characters and elements were added, but overall the basic story premise and the aesthetics are the same. A few changes in characters and structure are not going to change that. There were a ton of possibilities in coming up with completely new stories, characters, and visuals that did not involve recycling large parts the OT, while still incorporating Star Wars tropes like the Force, lightsabers, space battles, and what not. However, the current creators chose to take the safe route, and rather than take the franchise in a new direction narratively and visually, gave us a loosely based remake of the OT, and worst of all, they chose to diminish the accomplishments of the classic characters to achieve this end. That is what makes the ST far less original to me than any of the previous films made by Lucas.

Now, does this mean the ST cannot be entertaining, or competently made? Of course not! There’s much to enjoy, the story is compelling, the action is great, the special effects are great, the acting is generally good. IMO they are above average blockbusters. However, as sequels to the OT, they are a disappointment to me, and in the face of rethreading rebels vs Empire, a new hope vs fallen Jedi, and all the other elements I’ve mentioned, any argument that tries to pass off the ST as being on a similar level of creativity and originality as Lucas’ films simply falls flat on it’s face in my view.

Sorry, I’m going to have to drop this. My new rule is if I’ve said it before I won’t say it again. And there isn’t really anything I’d say in response to this that I haven’t already said a number of times (too many times) before.

TV’s Frink said:

joefavs said:

I didn’t mean the characters go to find DJ, I meant the script sends them there to ultimately find him. And yeah, if the rest of the movie doesn’t work for you, of course this isn’t going to either. Anyway, I’ve said my piece, I’m out again, I need to go to work.

Smart move.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:
That’s incorrect.
https://youtu.be/sx15aXjcDZg

http://www.moongadget.com/origins/index.html

I really don’t see how being influenced by a dozen old movies is in any way comparable to blantantly recycling story elements, structure, and visuals from the same movie series.

It’s not, nor was I addressing that issue. I was responding specifically to Collipso saying “Neither Star Wars nor Empire ripped off any movie whatsoever”. In fact, it ripped off several films. For the record; I’m not bothered by that. Not now, not in 1977.

Neither am I 😉.

Regarding your claim that TFA recycled elements from the OT; I can’t imagine there is anyone on here who doesn’t see that to be the case. There are all sorts of parallels between the OT and the ST. The differences seem to be more about the level at which people are bothered by them.

I would be fine if that were the case, but I don’t believe it is. Some posters here conflate recycling Star Wars tropes with being influenced by other film makers, and works of fiction, thus arguing in a sense, that the current creators are more or less doing what Lucas did in 1977. Lucas’ Star Wars wasn’t original in their view, because he was obviously influenced by many sources while making the first film, and it’s sequels. The current creators are doing the same thing, they argue, but they just happened to be influenced by Star Wars movies. My argument is Lucas didn’t invent most of the ingredients, but he did invent a new and original recipe, and one that has resulted in some very tasty meals, while the current creators deliberately stuck to Lucas’ old recipe, and added a few twists to disguise the fact that they couldn’t come up with a new recipe. The meal might still be edible, but it’s just so similar to Lucas’ recipe in many respects, while altering a few key aspects of Lucas’ recipe for the worse, that I can’t shake the notion, that I’ve tasted far better versions of it in the past.

I think Lucas was more than simply “influenced.” I don’t have a problem with not calling the original Star Wars original because I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s still my favorite film after all.

I’d just argue that no SW film since the first has had the same “new and original recipe,” including ESB and ROTJ. Their “recipes” are firmly rooted in what was done in the previous film(s). Same with the ST, only there’ve been more previous films. Are the tropes that the ST is pulling from SW tropes? Absolutely, you’ve nailed that that’s how I see it. And again, to me that just makes sense, it seems a natural extension of the franchise at this point in time (it only seems fitting for these films to be influenced by what came before, just like Lucas, only now what’s come before are SW movies - films which have had an enormous impact on cinema in general and this genre of storytelling specifically).

I forgot to respond to this one. The difference between the ST, and the OT sequels, and the PT is, that Lucas’ sequels progressed the story in new directions. Sure all his films used Star Wars tropes, but the ST is unique in the sense, that it essentially retells the same story we’ve seen before, where a small rebel force fights a tyrannical regime led by an evil Force user. We have another Jedi student turning on his master, and being instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi Order. We have another young person living on a desert planet, who turns out to be the new hope, and then I’ve not even touched on recycling the concept of a super weapon, a walker assault on a white planet, a confrontation in a throne room, etc, etc.

Then there’s the fact that both the good guys and the bad guys look very much like they did in the OT, and use very similar equipment. Sure, some new characters and elements were added, but overall the basic story premise and the aesthetics are the same. A few changes in characters and structure are not going to change that. There were a ton of possibilities in coming up with completely new stories, characters, and visuals that did not involve recycling large parts the OT, while still incorporating Star Wars tropes like the Force, lightsabers, space battles, and what not. However, the current creators chose to take the safe route, and rather than take the franchise in a new direction narratively and visually, gave us a loosely based remake of the OT, and worst of all, they chose to diminish the accomplishments of the classic characters to achieve this end. That is what makes the ST far less original to me than any of the previous films made by Lucas.

Now, does this mean the ST cannot be entertaining, or competently made? Of course not! There’s much to enjoy, the story is compelling, the action is great, the special effects are great, the acting is generally good. IMO they are above average blockbusters. However, as sequels to the OT, they are a disappointment to me, and in the face of rethreading rebels vs Empire, a new hope vs fallen Jedi, and all the other elements I’ve mentioned, any argument that tries to pass off the ST as being on a similar level of creativity and originality as Lucas’ films simply falls flat on it’s face in my view.

Sorry, I’m going to have to drop this. My new rule is if I’ve said it before I won’t say it again. And there isn’t really anything I’d say in response to this that I haven’t already said a number of times (too many times) before.

Fine by me. I didn’t agree with what you said before, and if you’re just going to repeat those flawed arguments (imo), it’s a pretty pointless exercise.