yotsuya

Well, I’m not the one saying that TLJ is deconstructing things. I’m not the one taking the middle of the film as the definitive take on its meaning. Normally you look at how a film ends to determine that. And thanks to Rogueleader’s comment above, I found a an endless string of articles on Star Wars being postmodern (the older films, not the ST). And really, there are as many interpretations of Star Wars as there are philosophies out there. There is no right answer because philosophy is really about what something means to you. What I see in all these claims of postmodernism is evidently very different. I found the term pre-modern to be most applicable. Lucas built it on a collection of old things set in bygone days. He added on the layers of internal myths and legends to create a layered and textured world that he threw us into. The list of his sources seems varied and endless. It is Casabalanca, Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Damn Busters, Flash Gordon, and so so many others. To know what all went into it would require a time machine to catch all the films and books that influenced him prior to when the film started shooting. As far as I can see, JJ and RJ have followed that eclectic inspiration as they have worked on these films. RJ even posted three films that he was watching for inspiration - Twelve O’clock High, To Catch A Thief, and Three Outlaw Samurai. Very much the type of films that Lucas would have watched (and he actually did watch Twelve O’clock High). I felt he ended up with a film that is closer to the original trilogy in feel than the others. While JJ tried to go back visually, RJ went back to the roots. And if his take is postmodern, then we really need to think about what it was Lucas did because he really created a new mythos for the modern world by basing it in a galaxy far away. If The Santa Clause and TLJ are postmodern, than the entire saga is a postmodern creation.

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

Except in this Christmas story Santa Claus is still magic.

I can’t believe I’m making this comparison but does that mean Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause is a post-modernist take on the Santa folktale? In the film old Santa literally dies, and the new Santa is a mortal man who is struggling between his duties as a father-figure, and the duties of being this mythical folk character. He doesn’t think he is Santa, or even can be Santa. But in the end, he accepts the role because of how he can bring hope to children all around the world, even if he is just a man (albeit with actual magical powers).

Aren’t both stories a reaffirmation of the myth? Magic/the Force is real, and not a fabrication in both cases. Yes, Luke’s avatar is a fabrication, but it is also probably one the most powerful uses of the Force we’ve ever seen, the ultimate act of a Jedi. It’s a very real power that also demonstrated the power of his legend, and that in itself is a threat to the First Order’s authority.

I mean, by questioning the nature of the Jedi and Luke Skywalker it definitely plays in the post-modern sandbox, but when Rey gets to that island Luke doesn’t say, “Oh yeah, none of those stories are heard about me are true. I’m actually not a Jedi, and there is no such thing as the Force! It’s only midichlorians!”

Yes, I would say Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause is a postmodern take on Santa Clause, since Santa is aware of the fact, that Santa is a fabrication, an idea, not a real person. Like Luke at the end of TLJ Tim Allen’s character realizes it is important to sustain the legend, and so he accepts the role of Santa Clause.

How is it postmodern when it just takes the Doctor Who approach to Santa (it being an title and role rather than a single person). In the film Santa is a real person, not a fabrication or just an idea. Tim Allen does think that at the start and then is thrust into the role. It adds a new wrinkle to the myth but it perpetuates the Santa myth rather than revealing it to be false. A kid who believes in Santa can watch the film and still believe in Santa. If it was postmodern wouldn’t it have the opposite effect - someone believing in Santa watching it would come to believe that Santa is just a story.

The question is what is a myth and do we believe it or do we think it is a lie. What I get from postmodern is that under that philosophy the myth is a lie. Postmodernism sets out to tear down myths.

What we have in TLJ ends in the opposite. Luke acts, not to create a false myth to tear down the Jedi, but to create a new myth to build up the Jedi. What he does is of mythic proportions. He does some Jedi fakery, but the First Order witnesses his actions and has no explanation. Luke stands on the battlefield of Crait and is blasted by the arrayed First Order forces and comes out unscathed. Kylo Ren takes the field to face him and after his saber appears to pass through him, Luke fades. While Luke’s actions in the OT happened in confined quarters with no witnesses, his actions here happen in the open in front of many witnesses on both sides with few understanding the reality of what just happened. Luke did not take this action to create a false myth that would destroy the Jedi (what postmodernism would do), but to create a new myth to help rebuild the Jedi. And for those of us who know what he really did (Kylo, Rey, and Leia probably understand as does the audience), his actions are even more mythic. Definitely not a postmodern attempt to create a false narrative to tear down the old ways.

TLJ is actually a critique of postmodernism because both Luke and Kylo start out the movie with a postmodernist desire to see the old fall to make way for the new. Kylo is a student of the dark side so his views are never the ones we need to pay attention to. Star Wars always makes it clear that the views held by the Dark Side are not the right ones. Luke is jaded but in the end abandons his darker views and returns to the original path of rebuilding the Jedi. He does, in his own unique way, what he had previously told Rey would not happen - he faces down the entire First Order with only his lasersword. He embraces the myth of the Jedi and takes action to carry it forward. Far from tearing down or deconstructing the old myths, he actively encourages and renews the old myths.

Again, while the views of grumpy Luke and dark side Kylo Ren may seem to be postmodern, the way the story plays out see the end of grumpy Luke and the rise of Mentor Luke and a return to old Star Wars and modern myth like it has always been. Taking grumpy Luke and Kylo Ren as the speakers for the film is a false view that is contradicted by not only the end of the film, but by all of Star Wars lore to date. You never listen to those on the Dark Side, even if they are telling the truth, they are doing it for their own nefarious ends. The Myth of Star Wars is intact after TLJ.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Well, I would say modernism and postmodernism are opposing philosophies, much like capitalism, and socialism, and so they clash by default. I would also say RJ quite deliberately set out to create a work, that clashes with past perceptions in a great many ways. My interpretation of TLJ is, that it first rejects and deconstructs the concepts of legends, and heroism, as presented in the first 7 parts of the story, and then reframes it in a postmodern context by the end. I think this clashing of opposing views, is at the heart of the fan division, where many fans view the film as refreshing, and a necessary step in the future development of the franchise, whereas others view it as a betrayal of what came before. For this reason, even if I dislike the direction chosen by RJ, I still believe TLJ is one of the most interesting Star Wars films, and blockbusters in general to date.

I don’t have the time for a lengthy response right now but I don’t think modernism and postmodernism are exclusively opposing philosophies in general (both ideas can exist within a single work) and certainly not in the context of those two films, nor do I think the two films specifically align with those two movements (I actually don’t think TLJ is a very good example of a postmodern work). Even back to my comparison, I think one could easily make a similar argument about SW and TESB. Point ultimately being, such an analysis is subjective, and the idea that the two films objectively clash with each other is silly, as is the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith.

Who suggested the two films objectively clash with each other, or suggested that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith? You may disagree, but consider this. A great many critics consider RJ’s latest film Knives Out to be a postmodern work:

https://zodiacvideos.com/rian-johnson-trades-in-lightsabers-for-postmodern-whodunnit-knives-out/

It seems RJ takes great interest in postmodernism, and I personally see a pattern. You may feel TLJ is not a good example of a postmodern work, but I would say it is not for lack of trying. I would classify it as being a flawed postmodern work, as RJ struggled to fit his postmodern concepts to the largely modern myth that is Star Wars.

I would say that RJ used postmodernism as a way to frame Luke’s doubts about himself and the Jedi, but ultimately Luke’s doubts and Kylo’s entire philosophy fall in the face of the traditional Star Wars outlook that Leia, Rey, and Poe support and that Luke comes back to after talking to Yoda. I agree that postmodernism is entirely about questioning and doubting myths, but the entire focus of TLJ, at least as it related to that part of the story, is that doubting Luke and Kylo Ren are both wrong. The end of the film very much supports the return to myth and hope. Luke does not just fake the battle, he instantly elevates himself to mythic status. That is what the broom boy clip at the end means. He and his friends are replaying that fake battle without considering that it is fake. That is type of myth and legend and what it means in the Star Wars universe is against the postmodern goal of tearing down such myths. Luke’s part of TLJ is entirely about how far he has fallen and lifting him back up. Contrary to how many see the TLJ depiction of Luke, RJ was taking the Luke that Lucas and Abrams had created and giving him a path back. But not as the hero of the story (for his time as hero has passed), but as the myth and legend that gives hope to the galaxy and a tool and Leia can use to save the New Republic and that Rey can use to rebuild the Jedi. I get the feeling that you take the doubting Luke and Kylo Ren to be the voice of the story without truly considering what the end of the film means for where they were in the middle. Luke is playing the role of the Mentor redeemed. A little more eccentric take on the typical hero’s journey, but found often enough to not be too strange. TLJ takes him from that old fallen hero role and lifts him up to be the mentor that Rey needs to complete her journey. The end of TLJ really contradicts just about everything you keep trying to claim the movie means.

SilverWook said:

We’re retro and proud of it!

Well, maybe not this retro. 😉

I like that kind of retro.

I’m hoping that TROS will take the two previous stories and add more meaning and show us the weave of the story that we didn’t notice when the other movies came out. We know Abrams wants to do that to the saga, but I think most of the story will be about the trilogy and the new characters.

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

TomArrow said:

OutboundFlight said:

I must ask, why do some claim “The Last Jedi is one the worst films ever”? I’m not attacking this opinion by any measure… but I don’t understand it at all. As someone more negative than positive towards TLJ, I must admit it creates a fun, cohesive narrative with masterful visuals. Are you that angry about Luke? Because you might argue the same has happened to Obi-Wan and Yoda, two legends who were reduced to a life of shit. I think some moments are flat-out “bad” (Luke trying to kill Ben, etc) but are those moments really worse than Jar Jar stepping in poop?

I just don’t think it’s a good movie in any way. It ignores everything that TFA set up, deliberately subverts reasonable expectations without being original while doing so, introduces very unlikable characters (imo) out of nowhere who make terrible decisions but are presented as heroes, has no world building or explanation of TFA’s world building, the main villains are turned into a giant goofy joke, highly illogical and boring main plotline, illogical character behavior, an entire illogical side plot that ultimately adds nothing to the story, no character arcs worth caring for … I could go on and on, but I’m sure it’s all been said before. Add to that the arrogant and condescending way in which the media and the filmmaker reacted to criticisms.

Personally, as someone who likes Star Wars, but isn’t really a fan, I could probably forgive a couple of things, like Luke, but it’s just a terrible movie in every other way too imo, even as a standalone. Except, as you said, the visuals. Disney of course has masters of the visual craft at its disposal, and John Williams’ score is naturally also always on point. It’s sure somewhat enjoyable to watch a single time, but that’s it for me.

Not saying it ruined Star Wars for me or anything dramatic like that, just that I find it hard to care about this sequel storyline after it.

About Jar Jar … well, I was a kid when I was watching the movies, so maybe I’m more forgiving out of nostalgia, but even so, that was just one part of mostly decent movies imo.

And a lot of us don’t agree and still can’t understand where you are coming from.

But this is supposed to be about TROS, not rehashing TLJ. I’d be curious to see how opinions change in the next 10 years (or just after TROS is out). For a long time TESB was considered the weakest movie of that trilogy and now it is considered the best. I’m hoping that TROS has a solid ending that die hard and casual fans love. If it goes how the supposed leaks are leaning I think it has a good chance.

TESB was never considered the weakest of the OT. For a while it was considered weaker than SW in some circles, but ROTJ was immediately seen as inferior to both with its more kid friendly approach, and its rehashing of the Death Star finale. By 1983 Lucas’ reputation was already more a toymaker, than filmmaker/artist.

Not in my circles buddy. For years none of use liked TESB as much as ANH or ROTJ. We just didn’t. And we were not alone. I have found plenty documenting that this was widespread. The fanboys in 1980 weren’t too thrilled with TESB. It had some great stuff, but it wasn’t ANH. When ROTJ came out, that was more like ANH. Today my opinion is very different and I’m not really in touch with many people from those days to check out their current opinions of the films. My point is that opinions of films do not always remain the same and some opinions fade into the background of history.

We’ve been seeing this exact thing with the prequels. A new generation is here that feels differently about it than many of the older generation. They aren’t seeing some of the things as flaws. I have never seen the Ewoks as a flaw. I’ve always loved the dichotomy of their looks vs. their bravery and ferocity. And the 2nd Death Star only makes sense. If you develop a superweapon and your enemies destroy it, you build a bigger one. Not only is that realistic, but very in keeping with Flash Gordon.

TomArrow said:

OutboundFlight said:

I must ask, why do some claim “The Last Jedi is one the worst films ever”? I’m not attacking this opinion by any measure… but I don’t understand it at all. As someone more negative than positive towards TLJ, I must admit it creates a fun, cohesive narrative with masterful visuals. Are you that angry about Luke? Because you might argue the same has happened to Obi-Wan and Yoda, two legends who were reduced to a life of shit. I think some moments are flat-out “bad” (Luke trying to kill Ben, etc) but are those moments really worse than Jar Jar stepping in poop?

I just don’t think it’s a good movie in any way. It ignores everything that TFA set up, deliberately subverts reasonable expectations without being original while doing so, introduces very unlikable characters (imo) out of nowhere who make terrible decisions but are presented as heroes, has no world building or explanation of TFA’s world building, the main villains are turned into a giant goofy joke, highly illogical and boring main plotline, illogical character behavior, an entire illogical side plot that ultimately adds nothing to the story, no character arcs worth caring for … I could go on and on, but I’m sure it’s all been said before. Add to that the arrogant and condescending way in which the media and the filmmaker reacted to criticisms.

Personally, as someone who likes Star Wars, but isn’t really a fan, I could probably forgive a couple of things, like Luke, but it’s just a terrible movie in every other way too imo, even as a standalone. Except, as you said, the visuals. Disney of course has masters of the visual craft at its disposal, and John Williams’ score is naturally also always on point. It’s sure somewhat enjoyable to watch a single time, but that’s it for me.

Not saying it ruined Star Wars for me or anything dramatic like that, just that I find it hard to care about this sequel storyline after it.

About Jar Jar … well, I was a kid when I was watching the movies, so maybe I’m more forgiving out of nostalgia, but even so, that was just one part of mostly decent movies imo.

And a lot of us don’t agree and still can’t understand where you are coming from.

But this is supposed to be about TROS, not rehashing TLJ. I’d be curious to see how opinions change in the next 10 years (or just after TROS is out). For a long time TESB was considered the weakest movie of that trilogy and now it is considered the best. I’m hoping that TROS has a solid ending that die hard and casual fans love. If it goes how the supposed leaks are leaning I think it has a good chance.

The 5.1 is recreated from several sources so if you need a 2.0 track, stick with the one that is already 2.0. It is already the matrixed Dolby Stereo that can be decoded into 4.0 tracks by any pro-logic decoder. I personally like doing the same thing, but I always keep the mono soundtrack as it is so unique.

I’ve always noticed more production gaffs in ANH than the other films. I can’t really say when I noticed most of them, but one I know exactly when I noticed and why. When I sat down to watch Empire of Dreams in 2004, I saw that they used some alternate takes of R2 leaving the line in the droid sale. There is a partially costumed Jawa that helps R2 get started. In the final cut in the film (every version from 1977 though the 2011 blue-ray) you can see the long human arms coming out of the Jawa costume just behind R2 as he starts moving.

When the Imperial officer comes in to tell Vader and Tarkin that Dantooine is not the Rebel base, Vader’s dialog toward the end of the scene doesn’t line up to his hand gesture.

R2’s retraining bolt is put on in the correct place but then when he is sucked into the sandcrawler it is in the wrong position.

After R5-D4 blows his top, he is back in line next to R2.

I didn’t noticed the repeat for the Tusken Raider attacking Luke until Empire of Dreams and most of the time I still can’t unless I concentrate on it.

A lot of the dialog in the Blockage Runner if out of sync.

I think I first noticed this one thanks to comments on here. When they are headed to docking bay 94, as the camera pans as they walk around the corner, one R2 vanishes and another appears, skipping quite a distance.

I agree, if you go looking for issues then you will find them. And if you were going to use an existing location from the films, which one would you pick? There are many and someone would complain if you picked one over the other. I like that it is a new place not seen in the films. And if you don’t know who Hondo is, you haven’t seen Clone Wars or Rebels and you are missing out. He is one of the nice scum that fits so well with what they were going for. I can’t wait to get to see in in person myself.

A difficult task and I can’t wait to see what you come up with. We have had similar ideas at the same time, except I won’t be using the despecialized at all. I’m going to use 4K77, the Dreamaster DNR version of TESB, and 4K83 as well as the BR and the HDTV broadcast of the pre BR edit. Plus both preservations of the SE broadcast from the EU. I don’t know if I will be sharing my work or not. I almost have my restoration of the 2011 BR finished. Even it has required dipping into 4K77 for some shots that are just too horrible to fix.

I ignore reddit. I periodically search for things. The more I find the better.

StarkillerAG said:

If anyone wants to read the full plot leak, here it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsLeaks/comments/cxmfsv/the_basic_plot_of_episode_ix_the_rise_of/

Interesting. If it is even half true it sounds promising.

I’m not sure why anyone would be in a spoiler discussion if they don’t want spoilers. We all know how close the previous films spoilers were so if we are up on the all the rumors we are going to be pretty prepared for where the film is going, even if it has some surprise turns.

Ryan-SWI said:

yotsuya said:

Star Wars movies have traditionally not relied on just diehard fans to make money.

How’d that go for Solo?

TROS won’t lose money but it’s not going to meet the expectations suits at the top want.

Star Wars has been on a decline in public interest for a while now. Movie sales are down. Toy sales are down. Merch sales are down. Book/comic/game sales are down. Google searches are down. Trailer views are down. Social media engagement is down. Everything is down.

Why there are still people who insist that Star Wars is doing just fine is beyond me. The IP is tanking hard, worse than it ever has before, and the numbers are reflecting that in droves.

Disney/nuLucasfilm has torpedoed the brand and if TROS underperforms it’s in serious trouble.

Solo wasn’t a saga film. It didn’t tie into the saga in any way where Rogue One did. It also was up against much stiffer competition that Star Wars films usually get. So you can’t cite Solo for the IP tanking. In fact, the trailer views directly contradict what you are trying to say.

TPM: go back to the theatrical cut of the pod race
AOTC: Get rid of Threepio in the droid factory
ROTS: Restore Yoda arriving on Dagobah
ANH: Han shoots, Greedo doesn’t
TESB: Keep Ian, but remove the added dialog
ROTJ: Sebastian Shaw as Anakin
TFA: Change the crawl to better setup the story
TLJ: Still thinking

And it isn’t like an FX shot we see in the trailer has to end up in the film that way. I’ve seen quite a few that were finished one way for the trailer and another for the film.

I don’t really see the issue with the acting. The character is reveling in the power he wields and in not having to hide it any longer. I just chalk the makeup to a different team and that his face is freshly swollen. They had him film the TESB hologram at the same time and I don’t think it worked for that. But I like the performance Ian delivered from ROTJ thorugh ROTS.

I, for one, have never hated the PT. I think it is inferior and I hate the extended pod racing sequence and the droid factory sequence. But then I hate Greedo shooting as well which is the official edit of ANH. I original had some hate for Hayden at the end of ROTJ, but that has softened to just dislike. I wish they’d refilm that properly now that he is older. But they won’t.

When you really dive in you can find a lot of parallels between the PT and OT. They are deliberate. Lucas spoke several times about that. One of his reasons is that is how myths work. You have different generations experiencing similar situations. I think of the Arthur legends. The conflict of Uther’s day reignites when Mordred shows up. Things flow in cycles. It is the concept of the wheel of time found in the Indian subcontinent mythologies. And it is pretty obvious from some of the names that Lucas used that one of his influences was the subcontinent. And all you have to do is google Joseph Campbell’s monomyth to find charts that show a great circle of story points for the monomyth. In the PT we have the circle where Anakin fails to stand up to the evil and becomes its servant and in the OT we have the circle where Luke stands up to evil and is able to redeem his father. I think the conclusion of the ST is going to take that and have the next generation actually defeat the evil as Anakin should have done in the first place and end the cycle. I’ve never been certain just what Lucas had in mind for the ST, but the PT was clearly on his mind while moving on from ANH to TESB and ROTJ. But as he created the PT, some things continued to change to fit the story he wanted and some things in the OT don’t quite fit.

The one thing that a lot of people have issue with is Leia remembering her mother. I don’t. Leia is obviously force sensitive and picked up something from her mother in the womb. As many of us have confusing memories from when we were young (Luke making two throws with the grappling hook for instance), Leia may have confusing memories of a mother she never really saw with her own eyes. Lucas did a good job creating a character in ANH that fits with being Luke’s sister even if that wasn’t his original intention. But such surprising story revelation are common in myths. I’m curious if TROS will have some and if we can’t make another topic for that one after the film comes out (we can only intelligently discuss about half the ST because we don’t know how events in TROS might recolor what we have already seen as the revelation of Luke’s father and sister colored dialog and events in ANH and TESB).

One of the things I love about the PT is that Lucas was able to keep the public perception of Palpatine intact. Publicly it appears he is a pawn of all the special interest groups while in reality he is manipulating them to manipulate him into doing what he wants to do anyway. He plays the role of Palpatine while he really is Darth Sidious. We only get to see one scene of that as the rest of his term as Emperor we only encounter him in scenes where he doesn’t need to hide. Tarkin’s dialog about him is almost smug as he points out that regional governors (Tarkin himself) will wield the power the senate used to have. But the game is the same, with Palpatine diverting attention from him to others who can be blamed for wielding the power he has given them and who are doing his wishes. He is delightfully evil in all 6 films like a true villain of mythology.

The D23 reel is a trailer. It is cut like a trailer, it is being viewed as a trailer. It is intended to get fans interested and make them talk about the film.

Several of the movies have had different trailer releases and that does not change my prediction. I don’t know how many views this one will get, but the full trailer will get a lot of views. I think hype is going to build on this film as the release approaches. If you are expecting it to flop I think you’ll be surprised. Star Wars movies have traditionally not relied on just diehard fans to make money. Only movies that can appeal to the general public top the box office.

If you look at the super laser dish from the TROS trailer and you look at the two Death Stars, if they have accurately depicted it (this is Abrams so I think accuracy is likely), it will be the first Death Star and Yavin IV. And yeah, the desert planet has nothing to do with the Death Star location.

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

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.

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

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.

Valheru_84 said:

I think you just nailed it perfectly Dre with “cinematic inbreeding” being the most efficiently accurate way of explaining the ST’s constant borrowing and repurposing of the OT along with a near constant appeal to nostalgia in so much that the latest trailer uses pretty much half of its runtime for actual OT and PT footage with the OT footage itself making up around a third of the total runtime.

Disney are pushing a very mixed message in obviously wanting to sell their new, young cast of characters (often at the expense of the old beloved OT characters), even pushing a literal 4th wall message in TLJ with “let the past die…” but are so afraid of not getting enough bums on cinema seats that they’ll use the OT at every chance they get, knowing it is what everyone already loves and gets people’s attention. So you get this weird circular behaviour of “forget about your old, tired and failed heroes and look at our new awesome young and diverse heroes out to actually save the day” all the while playing out the same plot points of the OT with a few jumbled up for good measure and shoving all this imagery and references of the OT in your face while someone like Rian claims to be breaking new artistic ground because he shoehorned some manufactured bait and switches into Star Wars.

Because the ST is so referential of the OT, in many ways it is literally a pale shadow of the originals that has been lazily twisted and skewed to try and make it look different.

Let the past die is not the message of any of this. That came from the Jaded Luke and Kylo Ren, neither of them expressing the main focus of the films at the time they said it.