Those visuals are awful though. I hate the way Vader’s eyes are like crazy holograms.
I don’t see what’s so awful about those visuals. I can point to many prequel shots, that look bad, or less than convincing. I can point to a number of OT shots that look bad, but awful is reserved for a special kind of bad. This is awful:
DominicCobb said:
For me this has been especially in light of the ST, which in my opinion puts the PT to shame in nearly every respect.
I don’t agree with this statement. I think there are several important elements, where the PT puts the ST to shame, aside from the aforementioned world building, namely imagination, visual storytelling, sound design, and music. I will focus on the first two here. This video nicely highlights Lucas’ strength in visual storytelling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz7xgfawz44
This article nicely highlights how Lucas uses imagery more than anything to tell his story:
I can add a few more:
I think both the OT and PT have provided unique and iconic setpieces, imagery and locations. In my view the ST has done this to a far lesser degree, often recycling, and updating OT imagery. So, in my view the PT, and ST are two sides of the same coin, where both trilogies have been able to capture important elements that made the OT the classics that they are, but neither has presented the full package in my view. So, while I certainly think the characters, dialogue, and acting make the ST more accessible, that doesn’t make them necessarily better for me, because once you get past the initial bitter taste of the PT, I think there are a ton of interesting and unique flavours to be discovered hidden under the surface, that just seem to be missing for the ST.
This article represents a fairly balanced view on how I percieve the PT, and its relation to the OT, in the wake of the ST:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/star-wars-prequels-disney-fan-backlash/amp/
I wish the final section (the one germane to this topic) was a bit more fleshed out. As is they just say a few basic statements about the PT - that there was “forward-planning” and that it was nice that they “highlighted a different ruling era” that was “detached and alien” - that I personally cannot agree with. The only forward-planning that existed was simply basic beats that everyone knew would be hit by virtue of them being prequels. As for the drastically different aesthetics of the different era, I personally believe this was a chief failing of the films, and one way in which more similarity would have been better, to feel more cohesive.
I think I’ve said it before, but Star Wars as it existed on screen in the OT was not at all what Lucas had in mind for the world. With the PT he was finally able to put his vision on screen. He added the “rhymes” and tied everything up with a bow at the end of ROTS to provide connective tissue, but ultimately it’s clear he didn’t care much for how the OT ended up.
It’s funny, because I never needed to “forgive” the prequels, as the article’s headline states. When the films came out I loved them. In retrospect, so many years later however, it’s clearer and clearer how Lucas dropped the ball in terms of continuing the saga in a fitting way. Ultimately it’s hard for me to reconcile the two trilogies, but the “poetry” of it all certainly helps, I think, to make the story cohesive.
I sort of had a reverse experience, where I initially didn’t want to admit, that they felt off, then I went through a period of intense dislike, and then as I started to evaluate what I liked, and disliked about the ST, I came to re-evaluate the PT, and saw it in a more positive light.
This article represents a fairly balanced view on how I percieve the PT, and its relation to the OT, in the wake of the ST:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/star-wars-prequels-disney-fan-backlash/amp/
Well, I think it’s important to consider what the creators’ intentions were, because that shines a light on why many elements of the ST are so similar to the OT.
So, why is TFA so similar to ANH? Because Abrams and co wanted to pay hommage to the film, that started it all, and after the controversial PT wanted to get back to the look and feel of the OT. TFA was a soft reboot in the sense, that it had to introduce a new group of characters in a very similar setting as the OT, namely a small band of rebels fighting an overwhelming force led by a fallen Jedi student.
Why is TLJ so similar to the OT? Because RJ wanted to highlight the OT tropes, and subvert our expectations, and so he too delibirately wrote a story, that for large portions of it recycles the plot, scenes, and visuals of the OT, such that at several pivotal moments, he can pull the rug out from under us.
So, in my view the similarities are very delibirate with one movie wanting to feed our nostalgia, and the other surprise us. The downside of all this is, that once the nostalgia, and novelty of the surprises wear off, what we’re left with is two movies, that in plot, structure, visuals, and settings are very similar, and I would say too similar, to the OT.
Both films in the ST thusfar have been driven heavily by fan expectations, and so rather than feel like a natural continuation, and progression of the story and characters, to me it feels more like a metacommentary on the tropes and archetypes of the Star Wars universe.
Yeah, I definitely think Starkiller Base is the weakest aspect of TFA. I think most people who don’t like TFA for its similarities with A New Hope would have forgiven it if it weren’t for Starkiller. Blowing up the peaceful world, trying to blow up the Rebel Base, trench run, blows up in the nick of time.
I do agree that I think the focus should have stayed on the map to Skywalker, which is pushed aside in the third act and then JJ remembered it “Oh yeah, R2 did have the other half the whole time!”
I think I would’ve liked it if TFA had been a quest to find the map all the way through, almost like an Indiana Jones movie. But, I think it boils down to why the creatives made that decision. They clearly worried about being too different from the OT after fans and critics trashed the prequels.
Despite that, I definitely think you can rationalize why it exists in-universe. Why the First Order felt like they needed to build another super weapon. The First Order wants to emulate the Empire and finish what it started the same way Kylo Ren wants to do the same with Vader.
I also think it is the same reason small dictatorships like North Korea are desperate for a nuclear arsenal. Imagine if the UN has agreed to dispose of all nuclear weapons, and then North Korea had built an arsenal in secret, and used it on a major world capital. Their remaining arsenal could be used as a threat to make any country bow to their commands, like the world was being held at gunpoint.
But this is a reason why I think fan edits can be a great form of constructive criticism. The TFA: Restructured edit helps show how the Starkiller’s similarities to the Death Star can be used to surprise the audience, by pushing the destruction of the Republic to the climax and having the Resistance fail. So using the audience’s memory of ANH and to surprise them. Because the Resistance blowing up Starkiller before it destroys their target is totally expected. I think Nev is pushing this idea even further with his Starlight Project. As soon as we see the trench we KNOW what is going to happen, but what if Poe destroyed the inside of the oscillator, but it didn’t blow up?
It would build onto this idea that the Resistance thinks it can be just like the Rebellion, fighting for a just cause, but things don’t turn out like they thought it would.
I feel TLJ parallels the throne room scene with similar intentions. I know we’re hungry for new stuff, but I think these work within the context that the ST is the third part of a bigger story, not a brand new one. I think it is helpful to ask questions like, “Is this scene similar for the sake of similarity, or is it trying to make a point? What does it mean for the characters and their perspectives or expectations? How does it relate to the themes of the story?” I do think some things in the ST fall into the former, simple nostalgia. But I think it is unfair to say all the parallels were made simply for nostalgia’s sake.
I do think Starkiller, specifically the trench run sequence, is one of the weakest elements, but luckily Restructured is so hardwired in my brain I sometimes forget how it played out theatrically!
But I will say if the post-IX films just copy the OT, then hand me a pitchfork!
Something else I’ve also suggested is that instead of sneaking onto Starkiller to deactivate the shields, Han and Finn’s mission could have been to steal the other half of the map to Luke, since Kylo Ren mentions that they have the other piece. That would help keep the focus on the map and letting the battle be more of a backdrop.
I do agree that it was too similar for my tastes, but it definitely doesn’t ruin the movie for me, and I can rationalize why they went with it, for in-universe or thematic reasons. I’m like, “Yeah, that could’ve been handled better.” But it doesn’t hurt the experience for me.
I’m not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong for thinking otherwise. I totally get why you feel that way. Totally do. I might have issues with the films, but I still want to enjoy all of them, so I’m just sharing how I see them in a way that allows me to enjoy them. Feel free to share if you disagree with me, I know I’m not really good at easing anyone’s gripes with the movies!
Maybe I could try to write a book or blog for fans that have become disillusioned by the new films that want to find new perspectives to help them enjoy the ST more. I think I’d call it, Dr. Dre, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Starkiller
With your permission, Dre. And obviously you’ll get royalties, Dre! 😂
Hahaha! 😂
I also don’t see how a story, that is about a politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation is more similar to the OT, than the story of a group of rebels fighting an Empire, led by a former Jedi student, who betrayed his master, and destroyed the Jedi order. I think you are being very selective in what you focus on in the PT, namely a few delibirate similarities between Luke and Anakin (although I don’t remember Luke slaughtering an entire village), whilst ignoring the ton of similarities that exist between the story, plot, and the settings of the OT, and PT.
I mean you can be selective anyway you want. Both the OT and the PT are stories about young men from desert worlds coming of age, becoming Jedi, and choosing either light or dark with the balance of the galaxy at stake (with the outcomes being opposite, and the factions inverted). The story being about a “politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation” is a fair bit inaccurate, considering it’s subtext at best in the first two thirds of the trilogy. Hmm, interesting, maybe we shouldn’t be claiming what an entire trilogy is about when we’ve only seen two thirds of it?
Regardless, I’m not sure what this has to do with the supposed topic at hand.
Well, I wouldn’t consider it subtext, given that Palpatine, and Sidious are obviously the same person, and Palpatine uses the first crisis to have himself elected Chancellor, and uses the second crisis to give himself emergency powers to create an army, that he will use in a conflict, that we learn by the end of AOTC, he himself has started, whilst controlling both sides. Darth Sidious is obviously set up as the main villain from the start, and so his machinations are integral to the plot, and thus hardly subtext. The factions also aren’t inverted, as there are still only two Sith in the OT, whilst the Jedi have mostly been taken out of the equation, such that the Jedi vs Sith conflict of the PT, has been largely replaced by Empire vs rebels with the Jedi vs Sith conflict reduced to a personal conflict between a father and a son. Anyway, as I said, this is probably a debate for a different thread.
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.
Well, I continue to disagree with the notion, that Lucas’ “poetry” concept as he used it to highlight some of the story developments in the OT and PT are comparable to the ST. Lucas’ story didn’t centre on a seemingly instoppable military organisation fighting a band of rebels, nor did it predominantly feature a main antagonist, that had fallen to the dark side, and was instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi order. Additionally Lucas deliberately went for a different aesthetic, and showed us environments and worlds substantially different from the OT. The mirroring of the ST thusfar is on a wholly different scale from Lucas, recycling the aesthetic, basic story premise, plot, scenes, and locations from the OT. TROS looks more promising in this respect.
See, I feel the PT story has more in common with the OT story than either one does to the ST story. The ST has borrowed more from the settings of the OT than it has from the story. You have to remember, even though Han died in TFA, he is not the mentor figure. He is a guide to find the mentor (who is Luke). And what little story the ST has in common with the OT, it reverses. Much the way the entire PT centered on Anakin who then falls and the OT on Luke who is able to resist. But when you think about the settings, the ST makes them similar, not identical. We didn’t go back to Tatooine (like the PT did). We have fewer repeating characters and more new characters. We have more mysteries woven in that may or may not be answered. But if you want to sit there and focus and the few things that are the same because you feel there are big enough then by all means. But I prefer to focus on the characters and how their journey’s are unique and how this is going to lead to the finale.
Mmm, let’s see the PT brought us back to Tatooine, but it also gave us Naboo, the Gungan city, Coruscant, Kamino, Geonosis, Utapau, Kashyyyk, Mustafar, and a few others. So, at least 8 wholly new and original environments, and one recycled one. Meanwhile most environments in the ST thusfar have evoked the OT, by either being a direct clone, like Jakku (Tatooine), and Hosnian Prime (Coruscant), a mix like Starkiller Base (Hoth/Death Star), or an OT location with a twist like Crait (Hoth with salt for snow), and some admittedly cool red crystals. The most original locations seen in the ST thusfar have been Canto-Bight, which still has some PT vibes, Ahch-To, and Crait, which as stated still bairs similarities to Hoth, especially given that it’s also used for another walker assault.
I also don’t see how a story, that is about a politician/Sith Lord bringing down a democracy through manipulation is more similar to the OT, than the story of a group of rebels fighting an Empire, led by a former Jedi student, who betrayed his master, and destroyed the Jedi order. I think you are being very selective in what you focus on in the PT, namely a few delibirate similarities between Luke and Anakin (although I don’t remember Luke slaughtering an entire village), whilst ignoring the ton of similarities that exist between the story, plot, and the settings of the OT, and PT.
I think we should start a separate thread to discuss the similarities, and differences between the various trilogies. Let’s get back on the topic of box office predictions for TROS.
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.
Well, I continue to disagree with the notion, that Lucas’ “poetry” concept as he used it to highlight some of the story developments in the OT and PT are comparable to the ST. Lucas’ story didn’t centre on a seemingly instoppable military organisation fighting a band of rebels, nor did it predominantly feature a main antagonist, that had fallen to the dark side, and was instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi order. Additionally Lucas deliberately went for a different aesthetic, and showed us environments and worlds substantially different from the OT. The mirroring of the ST thusfar is on a wholly different scale from Lucas, recycling the aesthetic, basic story premise, plot, scenes, and locations from the OT. TROS looks more promising in this respect.
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, should be to give us a 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 films in my view is a form of cinematic inbreeding, that will only serve to weaken the franchise as a whole.
Yeah, I think I like what we’ve seen from The Mandalorian thusfar. It may end up being the post-Lucas Star Wars content I like the most, actually.
Just watched it, and my reaction is a little meh. All the footage from the OT and PT were from the 2011 blurays, as far as I could tell. The new footage is not bad, but I can’t say I love it, either. After seeing the D23 footage, I’m on the fence about Palpatine’s return. As critical as I have been of TLJ, when I heard Palpatine without the factor of surprise from the first teaser, I couldn’t help but get a feeling of regression. It’s early days of course, but these are my thoughts at this point in time.
I have to say, despite Palpatine looking a little cartoony, I really like this teaser poster.
“some dank corners of society” haha, very apt!
Yeah, I think this can definitely go both ways, and maybe this is sort of a byproduct of the internet, where conversations are constantly happening online. And suddenly there is this feedback loop that transforms the pleasant sound of reasonable discussion into a screeching war between two sides.
I think it often plays out this way: say someone online wants to have a conversation that is related to race/sex/etc. that they’re genuinely curious about, but then they get called racist/sexist for simply asking the question. It may have just been one insult out of five fair responses, but we know how aggressive comments tend to stand out more. This person may have been open and willing to change his mind, but the personal attack may cause him to fall back into the other camp, and never really understand what the issue was or ever agree with it because of that association.
Especially when it comes to issue of race/sex, it can be tricky having any discussion about it with some people. If you’re trying to talk about inherent bias that exists in literally every person, some people can take just that observation as a personal attack, depending on their own sense of security, but also the attitude/tone of the person they’re talking too.
And the same can play out the other way. The Internet has created this boogieman of the SJW and the femininazi. So people won’t even give ideas regarding feminism, for example, a chance because they feel like they know everything they need to because they followed the algorithm of guys complaining about it on YouTube.
Which kind of ties into the Mary Sue thing. One person might have a fair point about how Rey fits into common traits associated with that trope. But then another person brings up the inherent bias of female characters being called wish fulfillment characters when male characters are rarely ever criticized for the exact same thing, and then the original person feels like they’ve been called a sexist and it devolves into a fight. Or, sometimes a person just calls them a “SEXIST!” and the conversation literally goes nowhere.
It’s weird. I think people get unfairly labeled racist or sexist when literally most people have inherent biases regarding race and sex. They’re not bad people, it might be something they might not be aware of. People who intentionally discriminate based off race or sex deserve that label, but a personal with intentional bias versus unconscious bias or two different types of people. So throwing around those terms devalues the seriousness of the labels, as well as potentially alienating the person who desperately wants/needs to understand their inherent biases to overcome them, which can lead them to become MORE biased. Humans can be a god damned self-fulfilling prophecy, haha.
I’ve seen the opposite also play out, where someone has a really interesting meta or analysis of The Last Jedi and people call point fingers calling “SJW propaganda” or “feminist agenda”. Pop Culture Detective has a really interesting video regarding TLJ and ideas of feminism and masculinity, but you see a lot of those kind of comments there. It’s possible it is partly because they’ve already made their minds up on how they feel about the movie, or they might be insecure regarding their own masculinity and are projecting those complicated feelings online, but regardless, that is why I think it is important to try to approach these topics with respect. If you want people to be open-minded about your opinion, it has to start with respect. So I think a lot of these conversations have to be approached with civility just for the mere desire to counter what apparently is the status quo of online conversation.
I think we just forget how nuanced these conversations can be, and we fit “pro-TLJ” and “anti-TLJ” into boxes. There are pro-TLJ people who think some people take shit on twitter TOO far, and I know anti-TLJ people feel the same way.
Clearly most people who don’t like the film don’t agree with the hate and death threats people like Kellie Marie Tran and Rian Johnson have gotten. There are also people in the pro-ST camp give Reylos A LOT of shit because they think shipping them equates to supporting abusive relationships. What could be an interesting discussion devolves into name calling.Anyway, people like that guy get themselves into that problem when even agreeing to a debate, so I really don’t have much sympathy. I like TLJ for very personal reasons, so I don’t know why I would feel the need to defend my reasons for liking a movie. Or, if there would even be any logic into that kind of debate format. I don’t like Jurassic World, but I’m not going to pressure people into a debate about why they’re not allowed to like Jurassic World. I remember ranting about JW after its release, a lot like how hardcore anti-TLJ people on YouTube rant about that movie, and in retrospect I feel like the conversations I had with people at that time was some of the most pretentious, self-entitled bullshit I’ve ever wasted breath on. Mostly because I was pretty condescending. In retrospect I thought, why can’t I just let people enjoy a movie they like?
And the answer had more to do with me than it did with them or the movie.
Great post! Keep 'm coming! 😃
I don’t like the ST myself, but the Mary Sue argument is very silly and indicative of one’s attitude towards women. “We don’t hate women, we hate poorly written characters” doesn’t apply when a person defends the prequel trilogy over these films.
The Mary Sue argument is not indicative of a personal attitude against women. That is ridiculous. A person can think that Rey is a Mary Sue without thinking that all other strong female characters are Mary Sues.
I wasn’t talking about the argument as a whole, I was refering to it in the context of ST criticism. As it turns out, in those films there’s no proof that Rey is some kind of overpowered protagonist with no flaws. She doubts herself constantly, characters can best her physically, and the bulk of The Last Jedi consists of her and other characters failing to do things. So naturally, her being described as Mary Sue raises a few eyebrows.
In the context of the first six films she is an overpowered protagonist, as she just has all these Force powers despite not getting any training within a matter of days
In this context Rey is seemingly no more overpowered as two of the main protagonists from those first six films; a 10 year old child who blows up the Control Ship in TPM whilst flying for the first time in space, or with Luke piloting an X-Wing in battle and going on to blow up the Death Star (just like flying T-16s, apparently 😉) - both of whom had little-to-no training; both also within a short amount of time.
It shouldn’t surprise you, that I disagree. While all protagonists have had their moments of “Gary Stu”-ness if you will, there are a couple of elements, that come into play here. For one there are a number of skills that have been consistently attributed to trained Jedi, or more experienced students of the Force, the Jedi mind trick, the Force pull, lifting rocks, etc have all been used to display the protagonist’s progression, or lack thereof, in learning the ways of the Force. In ROTJ Luke is shown performing the Jedi mind trick for the first time early in the film. This was clearly done to show how much his character had progressed since we last saw him, and since we saw Obi-Wan perform it in ANH, when we were all in awe of what a Jedi can do. It represented the point on the horizon, the impossible made possible by learning the ways of the Force. Having Rey perform the Jedi mind trick, and the Force pull at this early stage of the story diminishes that, and sets her apart, in that she apparently doesn’t have to go through the trials and tribulations, that previous protagonists had to go through to reach that point. Secondly, defeating the dark side apprentice has consistently been used as the sort of end-boss scenario throughout the films. It has been presented as the final trial a student faces before becoming a Jedi, and the moment, where the temptation of the dark side is at its peak, because it may help the student obtain victory, but at a terrible price. Again having Rey defeat Kylo Ren very early in the game, without a hint of temptation, diminishes what came before, and again sets her apart. I think these are legitimate, and reasonable criticisms of how the creators played fast and loose with the previously established lore, and thus invited accusations of the character being too powerful too soon, which in a more, and more polarized atmosphere resulted in Rey being labeled a “Mary Sue” by some of the more extreme corners of the fandom.
but despite that her Force powers, and abilities still grow exponentially.
Can I ask what are Rey’s force powers that grow exponentially you are referring to? Are there examples of these powers growing ‘exponentially’? Stronger, sure. With more understanding of the them (late in the film) - of course; yet that likely comes from more practice over time - along with the teachings and training from Luke.
Practise over time would be a logical explanation, if the two films didn’t play out over a very short period of time. When Luke does a Force pull in TESB with great effort, most accepted this, because years had passed since the destruction of the Death Star. Practise over time, and discovering hidden powers with that practise makes sense in that context. Rey goes from being a newbie at the start of TFA to her and Kylo being pretty evenly matched in their fight against Snoke’s guards, to this in what seems a matter of days:
Rey thus progresses in her control over her Force powers over two films, like Luke did over a trilogy, which spans years, or like Anakin did over a trilogy, which spans over a decade. This would not be an issue, of we weren’t made aware, that the ST developments take place over a much shorter time span, and without the training, and guidance, that previous protagonists had recieved.
No worries on disagreeing - or having that different view 😃 Yet it is now the time spent learning the mastery of the Force Powers you have an issue with in comparison with the first six films - not the supposed ‘overpowering’ or ‘despite that her Force powers, and abilities still grow exponentially’ as to which you originally stated? Or that she has done this in a different way to what has come previously? Okay, fair enough.
It’s great to have a thoughtful debate on this subject, thanks for that! 😃 No, I still maintain she is overpowered, and that her power grows exponentially, despite not having the previously essential factors of time, and training. I say this, because she goes from being able to perform, what were previously advanced Force powers, to defeating a wounded Kylo Ren, to being able to compete at the level of a well trained Force user like Ben Solo in their fight against Snoke’s guard, to the Force pull stalemate, that ends up destroying Anakin’s lightsaber in what seems a matter of days.
I did refer to two overpowered protagonists’ achievements from the previous six films at a time before (or shortly beginning) their training/awareness - a la Rey on her journey; and not towards the end (which obviously hasn’t happened for Rey yet) - though if you wish to change the context again, then okay.
I’ve already argued these situations aren’t comparable, because neither Anakin or Luke were able to use advanced Force powers, or defeat a trained Force user before they received training. In fact both Anakin and Luke were defeated by the dark side apprentice, when they did receive training. Now, we can point to Anakin seeing things before they happen, and being able to compete in podraces, or him destroying the droid control ship (which was down to luck more than anything else), or to Luke guiding the missile into the exhaust port in ANH, as being overpowered, and in relation to many other characters in this universe they are, but that is beside the point. The question is are they overpowered in the context of what has been established about Force users and students of the Force in the past? The answer in my view is, that despite the fact that Anakin and Luke have been presented as having great potential (Anakin having the greatest potential ever recorded), learning the ways of the Force, and controlling it, has consistently been presented as being very hard to accomplish, and so despite their talent, it was made abundently clear, that Anakin and Luke would never be able to reach that potential, and compete at the level of a trained Force user, without time, training, and guidance.
‘Again having Rey defeat Kylo Ren very early in the game, without a hint of temptation, diminishes what came before, and again sets her apart.’ You refer to the fight where Kylo - who hasn’t yet finished his training - (and has been shown to be emotionally unstable) was injured, weakened emotionally by killing his father, and ordered by Snoke to bring Rey to him - not kill her - but to capture her… and one he was completely on top of until Rey let in the Force to guide her… it doesn’t fit with your claim. It is apparent that she will face Kylo again in IX - and that the ‘terrible price’ you believe Rey (as the protagonist) should pay is likely still to come.
For one Kylo Ren may not have finished his training, but he was trained for years by both Luke, and Snoke, and thus was an advanced Force user being able to pull off amazing feats, we had never seen before, like stopping a blaster bolt in mid-air, or freezing an opponent with the Force. Kylo may have been injured, and emotionally compromised, but he seemed to have little trouble dealing with Finn, who received military training, and Rey up to the moment, that she let the Force guide her to victory. Which leads me to my next point, just closing your eyes, and then becoming a lean, mean fighting machine is not how the Force works. We’re talking about a novice, who up to that time believed the Jedi were a myth. As Obi-Wan said to Luke after training with Yoda:
“You can feel the Force, but you cannot control it.”
So, even after receiving training from the most powerful Jedi Master in history, Luke, who like Rey was a prodigy, cannot control the Force, let alone be expected to defeat a trained Force user, like Darth Vader, or Kylo Ren. It would be like winning a Formula 1 grand prix after receiving a week of training. What Obi-Wan is saying to Luke is, you may know where the gas pedal, and the breaks are, but you cannot control it. Driving in a simulator is not the same as driving a 1000 HP car on a real race track, and it will take years for you to master the skills to do it. This is a dangerous time for you, as you have enough skill to be able to start the car, and drive on a straight track, but once you reach some curves, odds are you will be hitting a concrete wall. Luke didn’t listen, and so Luke losing his hand in his fight against Vader, is him running into that concrete wall. Now, TFA would have us believe Rey, who has never even seen a Formula 1 car, or any car for that matter, just gets into one, and defeats a former Formula 1 champion. Even if that Formula 1 champion has a disadvantage, as Kylo does in his fight, it’s still highly unlikely for someone, who should not be able to control such a powerful machine, to finish the race, let alone come in first.
Now, I’ve already argued Kylo not having finished his training is not really a good counter point, because he’s obviously at a very advanced level, with the powers he has displayed, and knowing he’s been trained by two very powerful Force users, Luke and Snoke over a period of years. However, even if for the sake of argument, I would find that explanation reasonable, how does that reflect on him becoming the Supreme Leader in the next film? This is what bugs me about this. The character of Ben Solo goes from being an apparent master at the start of TFA to being greatly deflated by the end of the movie, which, if we ignore the situation with Rey for a moment, is fine. I mean, he is presented by TFA as kind of a poser, hiding behind a mask, pretending to be Darth Vader. However, I feel you then have to follow through with this, and so he will need to go through some kind of training (as suggested by Snoke at the end of TFA), or major development to be a credible threat again, but apparently this poser gets to not just be Darth Vader, but the Emperor a few days later (and every bit as immature, and petulant as he ever was to boot).
You refer to the scene where Rey makes that face (hardly ‘smiles and giggles’) after shooting down TIEs in trying to save more of the Resistance - her friends - who are on a ‘Hail Mary’ of a mission in attacking the First Order’s Door Ram with ski-speeders - upon her arrival at Crait:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykXWRNZiI3M
It is strikingly similar to Luke’s face or his emotions on display here (yet with less time passing); just after Obi-Wan’s death and being consoled by Leia, after they had escaped the Death Star, and also shooting down TIEs:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4dMh2SmJqY (‘That’s it! We did it!’)
It is similar, but that speaks against ANH, not in favour of TLJ. I think the PT and SE have made clear Lucas is not a master of tone, and that weakness is on display in this scene. However, I would also argue Lucas at least reserves a little time (not enough, mind you) for the character to reflect on what has happened in the consolation scene with Leia. Had Lucas gone the way of RJ, that reflection scene would be missing entirely. Secondly, I would argue the general tone of ANH is quite a bit different from films like TESB, and TLJ. ANH is a fairy tale of sorts, and the general tone is one of adventure and excitement, while films like TESB and TLJ take on a much more somber, and serious tone, and so I would say such a tonal inconsistency is more detrimental to a story like TESB, and TLJ, then for a story like ANH, or TFA.
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.
I don’t like the ST myself, but the Mary Sue argument is very silly and indicative of one’s attitude towards women. “We don’t hate women, we hate poorly written characters” doesn’t apply when a person defends the prequel trilogy over these films.
The Mary Sue argument is not indicative of a personal attitude against women. That is ridiculous. A person can think that Rey is a Mary Sue without thinking that all other strong female characters are Mary Sues.
I wasn’t talking about the argument as a whole, I was refering to it in the context of ST criticism. As it turns out, in those films there’s no proof that Rey is some kind of overpowered protagonist with no flaws. She doubts herself constantly, characters can best her physically, and the bulk of The Last Jedi consists of her and other characters failing to do things. So naturally, her being described as Mary Sue raises a few eyebrows.
In the context of the first six films she is an overpowered protagonist, as she just has all these Force powers despite not getting any training within a matter of days
In this context Rey is seemingly no more overpowered as two of the main protagonists from those first six films; a 10 year old child who blows up the Control Ship in TPM whilst flying for the first time in space, or with Luke piloting an X-Wing in battle and going on to blow up the Death Star (just like flying T-16s, apparently 😉) - both of whom had little-to-no training; both also within a short amount of time.
It shouldn’t surprise you, that I disagree. While all protagonists have had their moments of “Gary Stu”-ness if you will, there are a couple of elements, that come into play here. For one there are a number of skills that have been consistently attributed to trained Jedi, or more experienced students of the Force, the Jedi mind trick, the Force pull, lifting rocks, etc have all been used to display the protagonist’s progression, or lack thereof, in learning the ways of the Force. In ROTJ Luke is shown performing the Jedi mind trick for the first time early in the film. This was clearly done to show how much his character had progressed since we last saw him, and since we saw Obi-Wan perform it in ANH, when we were all in awe of what a Jedi can do. It represented the point on the horizon, the impossible made possible by learning the ways of the Force. Having Rey perform the Jedi mind trick, and the Force pull at this early stage of the story diminishes that, and sets her apart, in that she apparently doesn’t have to go through the trials and tribulations, that previous protagonists had to go through to reach that point. Secondly, defeating the dark side apprentice has consistently been used as the sort of end-boss scenario throughout the films. It has been presented as the final trial a student faces before becoming a Jedi, and the moment, where the temptation of the dark side is at its peak, because it may help the student obtain victory, but at a terrible price. Again having Rey defeat Kylo Ren very early in the game, without a hint of temptation, diminishes what came before, and again sets her apart. I think these are legitimate, and reasonable criticisms of how the creators played fast and loose with the previously established lore, and thus invited accusations of the character being too powerful too soon, which in a more, and more polarized atmosphere resulted in Rey being labeled a “Mary Sue” by some of the more extreme corners of the fandom.
Rey learnt of these Force powers from Kylo Ren during her interrogation - and after some practice (and failure) comes to use one of these newly learnt Force powers.
A fact that was revealed in the novel, not in the film. I don’t think a film should rely on a book to provide such explanations.
but despite that her Force powers, and abilities still grow exponentially.
Can I ask what are Rey’s force powers that grow exponentially you are referring to? Are there examples of these powers growing ‘exponentially’? Stronger, sure. With more understanding of the them (late in the film) - of course; yet that likely comes from more practice over time - along with the teachings and training from Luke.
Practise over time would be a logical explanation, if the two films didn’t play out over a very short period of time. When Luke does a Force pull in TESB with great effort, most accepted this, because years had passed since the destruction of the Death Star. Practise over time, and discovering hidden powers with that practise makes sense in that context. Rey goes from being a newbie at the start of TFA to her and Kylo being pretty evenly matched in their fight against Snoke’s guards, to this in what seems a matter of days:
Rey thus progresses in her control over her Force powers over two films, like Luke did over a trilogy, which spans years, or like Anakin did over a trilogy, which spans over a decade. This would not be an issue, of we weren’t made aware, that the ST developments take place over a much shorter time span, and without the training, and guidance, that previous protagonists had recieved.
This is without considering the line from Snoke that ‘Darkness rises… and the light to meet it’ - which could indicate the Force is also using Rey to address a lack of balance of sorts - is it somehow amplifying these powers somehow? Possibly - hopefully we’ll learn more on this in the final part of the story (though I imagine many of us wish we’d have seen more of this in the two films so far).
Perhaps, but my issue with this is, that in my view this element of the story, which goes against everything previously established, has not been properly developed. It is mentioned in a few lines by Snoke, but her apparent special status in the canon is not recognized by either Luke or Yoda, who just speak of her like the next Jedi prodigy. Additionally, the idea that in the absence of the Jedi, the Force will bombard some unknown individual with amazing powers, defeats the whole purpose of the protagonists that preceeded her, because the element of choice, and temptation is largely taken out of the equation, turning her into some predestined champion of the good side. It inadvertedly sets up the idea, that had Luke, and Anakin failed to defeat Palpatine in the OT after years of training, struggling, and suffering, it wouldn’t really have mattered, because the Force would have just bombarded another innately good nobody with amazing powers to balance the scales, and get the job done in their stead. It is a form of deus ex machina, that in my view undermines the underlying themes of the saga up to that point.
She fails to convert Kylo, but Snoke is dead, she manages to escape the Supremacy without so much as a scratch,
Somewhat hyperbolic, yes? 😃 Though RogueLeader’s post on this answers some of this claim 😉
Yet, as stated above, Kylo turns her over to Snoke who would easily kill her if not for Kylo’s intervention / ambition. She also seemed to be in a fight for her life with Snoke’s guards - with both Kylo and Rey coming through it, just, upon teaming up with each other to defeat them. I’ll cover the non-physical wounds later below…
and despite discovering the truth about her parents, in the next scene is all smiles and giggles,
I’m not sure which scene you are referring to mate - yet I don’t think we can blame the editing of the film onto the character of Rey in the context here, regardless.
Why not? RJ chose to have Rey come to the Resistance’s rescue, and have her react like this after her apparent failure, and the revelations of her past:
He could have shown her being rattled, and distracted, and have Chewie remind her to keep her eyes on the ball. This is what I mean with a lack of consequences. It’s all a matter of buildup, and consistent tone. If you want, what has happened to her, to resonate with the viewer, it should resonate with the character:
I think these are legitimate, and reasonable criticisms of how her character was developed, and handled throughout this trilogy (thusfar). The fact that some critics use the controversial hyperbole “Mary Sue” as a vehicle to express those criticisms, and that there may be legitimate arguments, that invalidate the “Mary Sue” label, doesn’t automatically invalidate the underlying issues some of us have with her character, which would have been equally applicable, if it would have been another male protagonist.
I think that video is a reflection of our society these days. I remember watching some of these youtubers in their early days, when their videos were driven mostly by content, and their criticisms were still ankered in reality. However, like many populist politicians, they are no longer interested in balanced discussion. They are interested in rabble-rousing, and catering to the lowest common denominator among their supporters. However, I think it is a mistake to point to them as some root cause of evil. They are a symptom of a culture, that is driven more, and more by polarization, victory at all costs, and a lack of respect for alternative points of view. It is a sad state of affairs, that a franchise that once united people from all walks of life in their fandom, is now a linchpin in this bizarre culture war. I’m watching “The Clinton Affair”, and I’m was immediately struck by this statement by Monica Lewisky, which I think, is very apt in this situation:
“They see everything through partisan eyes, and there’s very little room for humanity”.
DominicCobb said:
And so, to my point, I think there is a lot to TFA itself beyond what mysteries it sets up (if any), and I think people too easily forget that. Now, if you don’t care for what it offers beyond the “mysteries and fan service,” fair enough, but that’s not all that’s there.I really don’t mean to be a jerk about this but could you articulate some examples? TFA had rathtars which is a little different, this thing of abandoned fallen star destroyers to be scavenged that’s new, I wish it were explored more but it’s unique to this trilogy, but sticking just to TFA I’m not sure what else isn’t from the past that also isn’t a mystery, I’m racking my brain a little trying to think of more honestly.
I’m talking about more than just in-universe elements. Story (characters and themes), music, locations, production design, costumes, action, humor, direction, acting, editing, etc. etc. In my mind there’s a lot more to a movie than plot points and lore. The movie is an experience in and of itself, separate from its place in the saga as well as a part of it - and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.
I think one of the major elements, that makes TFA work, despite it’s derivative nature, is its energy. To me TFA always feels like Star Wars film with the energy and humor of an Indiana Jones film. I think that is one of Abrams’ great talents.
For instance, the worst part of TFA (in my opinion) is the inclusion of Starkiller Base, not simply because it is a repeat of the Death Star, but because it is only really in the film to repeat the Death Star, and thus feels inorganic to the rest of the story - whereas other repeated elements fit far better and serve a more justifiable purpose in this narrative and actually work in the film’s favor.
Absolutely agree. The only purpose Star Killer Base serves is a big, flashy battle sequence at the end of the movie, which is a piss poor justification for its existence.
The original Death Star battle works well because it is a defining moment for the main protagonist. It brings Luke’s character arc to completion. The Return of the Jedi Death Star battle works not as well because the fighters are ancillary characters whom the story is not about, but is still symbolic of the Rebellion’s decisive and final victory against the Empire. The Star Killer battle has neither of these things and has almost no reason to exist and honestly the movie could be just as effective without it.
Pretty much.
The only other thing it accomplishes is destroying the New Republic, which is a pretty secondary plot point in that film and is really only important in regards to the macro level stakes for the trilogy as a whole.
I agree. There are two things, that I feel were completely unnecessary, and just put there to evoke memories of the OT, Starkiller Base, and the Resistance. The Resistance seemed like a half-baked attempt to get the Rebellion back when there was no real need for one. They cooked up this idea, that the New Republic didn’t want to directly confront the FO, which seems reasonable enough, but it wasn’t really in the film. There was no face for the cowardice, and arrogance of the NR, and so the seemingly ineffectual NR was wiped out of existence before having an identity of its own. I think rather than have this sort of weak side plot, that ended in the destruction of SKB, the focus should have been put more on the growing tensions between Leia, and the leadership of the NR, repositioning her as the true leader on the good side, after having been demonized as the daughter of Darth Vader, and then have the movie end with the shocking destruction of the central system, validating Leia’s point of view. It also would have given Leia more of an arc. The scenes on SKB could still play out in the same way with Han’s death, and the duel, but the moment of Han’s death would coincide with the destruction of the NR. The space battle would then be more a diversion for the rescue of Rey, who is the only person, who has seen the map to Luke, and knows his location (BB-8 could have been damaged, and lost the info). I guess it would be a bleak ending, but it would have raised the stakes, while the movie still ends with Rey finding Luke, as a hint of hope for the future.
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.
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.
What about The Hidden Fortress then?
There are actually less similarities of the plot, when comparing TFA to The Hidden Fortress. The Hidden Fortress also doesn’t have the same setting, visuals, and score.
Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha
Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:
What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?
Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.
I see you are unaware of what has happened at Disneyland. It is not the failure you think it is. The access to Galaxy’s Edge has been full up. Crowds have been good. What has not been good is overall attendance because no one wanted to compete with the crowds they expected for the opening period. Disney made plans to address that, but not before people had made their vacation plans and skipped over this summer. I expect next year to be one of Disney’s best at the two parks with Galaxy’s Edge.
And it is your opinion that they rebooted the franchise. That completely ignores the cyclical nature of the story and how much the ST is paralleling the EU stories that so many fans are familiar with. I don’t see any issue with attracting a new generation at all. A number of people who are more casual fans like the ST more then the previous movies. And the box office numbers (adjusted for inflation) show that the ST is more popular than the PT was. The only group I see with a big problem with the ST are those who had expectations of what the ST would and would not include and don’t like that it doesn’t live up to that. A repeat of the PT all over again. Let the writers tell their story and sit back and enjoy. I indulge in spoilers so I can divest myself of all expectations and just enjoy how the story unfolds. Your theories of deconstructing and rebooting over analyze the trilogy and widely miss what the movies say about themselves. The ST was always going to involve the death of Luke in the first Episode (the first one he was in) and Harrison has been saying Han should die for 30 years. They passed the torch and Carrie’s passing forced that to be even more complete. This is the Rey, Finn, Poe trilogy and the OT characters are really just enlarge cameos. You had expectations, perhaps not of exactly what the characters would do, but definitely what they shouldn’t do. It is almost as if Lucas, Abrams, and Johnson set out to make a trilogy that was exactly what you didn’t want to see. I see symmetry in the repetition. I see the parallels in myth, history, and pop culture (Star Wars is a more serious take on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers after all) and I’m enjoying the tale. It is very much what happens after the great war is over and how things move on. Often it is ghosts of the past that haunt the future and bring back a defeated enemy. I find the story of the ST to be very mythic and very classic and not repetitive at all. Certainly not a reboot. If you want to know what I call a reboot, just look over at Star Trek under CBS. The ST has nice echos of the Zahn trilogy while being new and fresh. Just in the ST, they took 30 years instead of 10 years to regroup and attack the Republic.
The Zahn trilogy does not have Empire vs rebels 2.0, or have the New Republic wiped out of existence, such that we reset the galaxy to an OT state. It does not have a Darth Vader wannabe, who also was a former Jedi pupil of the hero’s Jedi mentor. It does not have a fascimile Emperor. It does not have another Death Star like super weapon. It does not have another Jedi prodigy from a Tatooine clone. It does not have another ground battle involving walkers on a white plane. It does not have another throne room scene, where our hero has to witness the destruction of the rebel fleet, and an apprentice betraying his master to save the life of the hero. The Zahn trilogy was new and fresh. I can’t say the same for the ST. I’m not saying the films aren’t entertaining, and there are new elements, and nuances, but the so called cyclical nature is a poor excuse for resetting the story, and essentially giving us the OT with a new coat of paint. I’m not saying I dislike the ST in general, or that they’re bad movies. I’m saying it could have been a whole lot better, if they hadn’t undone most of the OT’s victories, and in stead given us a new and original story with new and original heroes, and villains, that weren’t in some way a slight variation of characters and stories we have seen before.
The Zahn trilogy does have a reminant of the Empire. It does have a unique Jedi student situation. The Republic is unsteady so the players are pretty much the same as Empire vs. Rebels 2.0. And in The ST, the republic has not be wiped out, only the government. We won’t know what the state of the galaxy is until TROS comes out since only days or weeks have passed since the Hosnian system and the fleet were destroyed. I feel you are making too much of what you see as parallels and you aren’t seeing how different the ST is from the OT. I do not share any of your feelings as to what the story of the ST is. I see closer parallels to the Zahn Trilogy. But in any case it is supposed to be similar. Read or seen the Cloud Atlas? Lucas has been going for a simlar story telling feel in Star Wars. Different generations face similar trials and handle it different ways. Anakin failed. Luke redeemed Anakin. What will Rey do? TROS will reveal it. And I think if they create the right trailer and buzz, the movie is going to do very well.
For one the PT is far less similar to the OT than the ST is. Secondly just because Lucas used similar trials to highlight the choices made by Anakin, and Luke, which unlike the ST were part of a single narrative with a beginning and an ending, doesn’t mean that he meant Star Wars to be an endless cycle of similar characters facing similar situations. Lucas also made it very clear he feels each trilogy needs its own visual style:
“They wanted to do a retro movie. I don’t like that. Every movie, I worked very hard to make them different,” Lucas said. “I made them completely different – different planets, different spaceships to make it new.”
So, Lucas obviously felt TFA was too much of a repeat of what we had seen before. Apparently he doesn’t share your views on similar storytelling to the extend that it was used for the ST.
I disagree. I think the PT had more parallels to the OT. To really understand the trilogies you have to focus on the hero and their journey. Anakin’s journey ended in his downfall. Luke rose to great heights and redeemed his father. Rey… what will she do? The death of Qui-gon is closer to the death of Obi-wan than any death in the ST. The great celebration at the end of ANH and TPM. The young boy from Tatooine finding a way off the planet and on the road to becoming a Jedi. The middle chapter where the training is tested and both fail in their major battle and lose a limb. The final chapter where they face their greatest challenge and one fails while the other succeeds. The girl, the guy, the droids, the galaxy in turmoil. In terms of plot points crucial to the final outcome of the main plot, they are far more similar than the ST is to either. Sure it features a McGuffin like the OT, and a hotshot pilot like Han, but it gives the girl the lead role and replaced the princess with the ex stormtrooper. Rey’s training does not flow to success like Anakin and Luke’s and she does not face an opponent she is unprepared for and she doesn’t lose a limb. The mentor only dies AFTER the hero moves on on her own. In some ways TLJ may feel a bit more like TESB in tone, but in plot points it is laid out differently and serves a different purpose.
I too strongly disagree. Your argument hinges on the fact we should just focus on one element of the story, the journey of the hero, which you argue is original, and ignore the vast majority of other highly similar plot points, because they don’t fit your narrative. A film is much more than the journey of the hero. However, even if we go your way, and just focus on the hero’s journey, your argument breaks down. While I would say, it is debatable, which of the heroes, Anakin or Rey, is more similar to Luke in their first films, Rey’s journey in TLJ is anything but original. Her arc is an obvious mix of elements taken from TESB and ROTJ. Her arc starts by first following the plot of TESB, seeking guidance from a Jedi master, who initially turns her down, but after an old friend persuades him gives the hero a few lessons/training, then the hero enters a dark side cave, which gives her some cryptic preview of a reveal that will follow at the end of the movie, then after having a vision of the future, leaves that master against his advice to face the enemy, then switching to the plot of ROTJ, where she delivers herself willingly to the enemy in hopes of redeeming the villain, then that villain betrays and kills his master to save her life, and then back to the plot of TESB for the offer to rule the galaxy at the villains side, and the big reveal about the her parentage at the end. Anakin’s journey in AOTC has far less similarities to the OT than Rey’s journey. While he may lose a limb in a vain attempt to rescue his friend and mentor at the end, the bulk of his story is actually about his feelings for Padme, which lead to forbidden love, resulting in a secret marriage, while his attachments to the past, and subsequent emotional trauma, steer him down a dark path, and together with his secret marriage lay the seeds for his eventual turn to the dark side in the next installment. I should add that we haven’t even discussed the context of the hero’s journey, which in the case of the ST is just a copy of the OT, where a tiny band of rebels are facing an overwhelming force of Space Nazis led by a former Jedi student of the hero’s mentor, who has turned to the dark side, and had been instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi order. The context of the PT is a villain operating from the shadows, who through subversion, and manipulation starts a war, where he controls both sides, and uses the crisis to convince the Senate to willingly hand power over to him, a completely different premise from the OT.
These two videos clearly show how both TFA and TLJ heavily borrow scenes, plot threads, and visuals from the OT, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to call them rip-offs, they represent more of a mix tape of the OT’s greatest hits, with some new elements added for good measure, than an original story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BX18Icf6fQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AgRgwW1Ovc
Hopefully TROS will finally change that, and offer a story that isn’t in some way an adaptation or remix of the OT.
It sounds like he meant that from a visual standpoint in particular.
EDIT: Also wanted to say that I’m really enjoying how we’re having an interesting discussion about this even though we have different opinions!
Well considering Lucas stated the following about his plans for the ST, I suspect this opinion isn’t just restricted to the visuals, even though that quote seems to focus on that aspect of the film:
GL: [The next three Star Wars films] were going to get into a microbiotic world. But there’s this world of creatures that operate differently than we do. I call them the Whills. And the Whills are the ones who actually control the universe. They feed off the Force.
GL: If I’d held onto the company I could have done it, and then it would have been done. Of course, a lot of the fans would have hated it, just like they did Phantom Menace and everything, but at least the whole story from beginning to end would be told.
Lucas thus clearly feels the whole story as he outlined it to Disney during the sale has not (yet) been told, and while I suspect certain elements of his outline ended up in the final product, he obviously had something very different in mind for the core narrative. That’s not to say his movies would have been better, but they would definitely be more original, and expanded the universe and the lore to a greater degree.