Star Wars Universe Discussion Thread

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 54100
Joined: May 2010
Master Virgo wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 9:17 am
The big problem was the circumstances in which, Awakens came about. Post prequels era, where frustrated OT purists were not going to be satisfied with anything that didn't identically resemble their childhood experience. And Abrams himself coming off a bittersweet experience that was Into Darkness, with loud backlash from angry fans, who probably just wanted an overextended episode like movie, similar to the big pile of inconsequential nothingness, that was Beyond.

And all of that made him so conservative, that he pretty much went for the semi remake approach with Awakens. I still love the film dearly, but god damn it, it could have been so much more, if they had toned down on all the resemblances and characters, who have barely any business being in the film, other than replacing an old character from OT or being a female version of this and that.£
It gave us Rey... and Kylo. And a legitimately good performance from Harrison Ford. It was, is, and always will be, one of the solid SW entries, for me. Just never near the very top for all of the above reasons. Context of the time is important and you nailed most aspects.🕷️

User avatar
Oku
Posts: 3251
Joined: May 2012
Master Virgo wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 9:17 am
The big problem was the circumstances in which, Awakens came about. Post prequels era, where frustrated OT purists were not going to be satisfied with anything that didn't identically resemble their childhood experience. And Abrams himself coming off a bittersweet experience that was Into Darkness, with loud backlash from angry fans, who probably just wanted an overextended episode like movie, similar to the big pile of inconsequential nothingness, that was Beyond.

And all of that made him so conservative, that he pretty much went for the semi remake approach with Awakens. I still love the film dearly, but god damn it, it could have been so much more, if they had toned down on all the resemblances and characters, who have barely any business being in the film, other than replacing an old character from OT or being a female version of this and that.£
That's exactly how I felt about Star Trek Beyond when I saw it for the first time; it felt too much like Star Trek 2.1 or 2.5 (like as you said, an over-extended episode-like movie), instead of Star Trek 3 the third part of a trilogy, the way The Dark Knight Rises was.

That being said, I re-watched Beyond recently knowing what it was and consequently adjusting my expectations for it, and I ended up enjoying it a lot.

I would like to see Mr. Abrams stop being reactionary and apologetic, though.

As someone who had no problem with Star Trek Into Darkness' twist or its plot, it was weird to see him admitting that they were bad, and going so far as to apologize for them...

m4st4 wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 9:20 am
Master Virgo wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 9:17 am
The big problem was the circumstances in which, Awakens came about. Post prequels era, where frustrated OT purists were not going to be satisfied with anything that didn't identically resemble their childhood experience. And Abrams himself coming off a bittersweet experience that was Into Darkness, with loud backlash from angry fans, who probably just wanted an overextended episode like movie, similar to the big pile of inconsequential nothingness, that was Beyond.

And all of that made him so conservative, that he pretty much went for the semi remake approach with Awakens. I still love the film dearly, but god damn it, it could have been so much more, if they had toned down on all the resemblances and characters, who have barely any business being in the film, other than replacing an old character from OT or being a female version of this and that.£
It gave us Rey... and Kylo. And a legitimately good performance from Harrison Ford. It was, is, and always will be, one of the solid SW entries, for me. Just never near the very top for all of the above reasons. Context of the time is important and you nailed most aspects.🕷️
Not a fan of Mr. Abrams' Rey or Kylo, both of whom I found annoying.

I far prefer Mr. Johnson's take on them, which grew on me on a recent re-watch.

Posts: 18702
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I think you all raise valid points for sure--Part of the problem facing TFA is that the ROTJ "status quo" is that it is, in fact, a status quo. Star Wars is a story as much about repetitions in its own history as it is anything else, and there are only so many destinations that feel satisfying. So a balance of old and new is integral yet almost impossible to perfect. This is something the EU struggled with for decades.

I think Armand agrees that Kylo Ren mirroring Anakin is pure Lucas heroin, and the First Order as an idea fit his overall philosophy too. The idea of a First Order that feigns legitimacy, The Republic allows it out of fear of war, while only Leia recognizes them as a true threat, is a spin on Lucas' classic "pitfalls of bureaucracy" motif. The notion of a new generation lusting over antiquated power structures hits home in a world of rising nationalism (Trump, Brexit, Russia).

The problem, then, is that we enter this story at the wrong angle. We need to spend time on Hosnian Prime and normalize the New Status Quo, so it getting destroyed gives the FO legitimacy. As is, it's kind of frustrating ambiguous background noise. The other big issue, of course, is that we need new iconography. The thing is they TRIED. On TFA *and* TLJ, the many radical redesigns sucked, and in replacing something *iconic* requires a design that (at least) could be iconic. It wasn't "Disney dictating X-Wings", more a creative failure in lieu of no McQuarrie. Bottom line: it gives the Resistance/FO conflict a veneer of familiarity it otherwise wouldn't have.

TL;DR new ships would be nice, a line like "The Republic is scared to go to war" would be salvation.


-Vader

Posts: 54100
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:
January 13th, 2019, 11:40 pm

The problem, then, is that we enter this story at the wrong angle. We need to spend time on Hosnian Prime and normalize the New Status Quo, so it getting destroyed gives the FO legitimacy. As is, it's kind of frustrating ambiguous background noise. The other big issue, of course, is that we need new iconography. The thing is they TRIED. On TFA *and* TLJ, the many radical redesigns sucked, and in replacing something *iconic* requires a design that (at least) could be iconic. It wasn't "Disney dictating X-Wings", more a creative failure in lieu of no McQuarrie. Bottom line: it gives the Resistance/FO conflict a veneer of familiarity it otherwise wouldn't have.

TL;DR new ships would be nice, a line like "The Republic is scared to go to war" would be salvation.


-Vader
Nailed it.🕷️

Posts: 12103
Joined: February 2011
Again, I don't think the problem ever was that we enter into ST, with an immediate threat already at large. That was a fascinating beginning in theory actually. If Awakens had come out like only a few years after Return, you could argue that it feels a bit odd, but 3 decades has passed, obviously so much has happened.

I like the idea that, we are introduced to new leads, whom we get to follow as they are trying to discover the events that have happened to the old leads. Or the fact that we meet Ben Solo at a point, that he has already turned towards the dark side, and who he actually is and why he has ever turned, all the layers of his character, are being unveiled step by step. No, this is in fact the ideal approach for me.

The unsound reasoning behind this decision however is unfortunately, that Abrams wanted to take us to settings that are rather similar to the starting point of OT. Otherwise with a narrative that would have diverged with a sharper contrast compared to the familliar path of Luke and gang, I don't see how launching the new trilogy from somewhat middle point of the story, could have been in any way problematic.£

finally watched the phantom menace doc. im close to saying tpm is my fav unironically

Posts: 2536
Joined: January 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:
January 15th, 2019, 7:42 am
finally watched the phantom menace doc. im close to saying tpm is my fav unironically
Could you elaborate on that?

it's so dang chill. i prefer its atmosphere to any of the other films for i'm sure very subjective reasons. also i fully believe the jar jar theory which elevates it many points (i think jar jar is fine (and i've never had an issue with anakin)). but mostly cause the film is completely doing its own thing and being weird and making it's own choices

Posts: 2536
Joined: January 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:
January 16th, 2019, 12:58 am
it's so dang chill. i prefer its atmosphere to any of the other films for i'm sure very subjective reasons. also i fully believe the jar jar theory which elevates it many points (i think jar jar is fine (and i've never had an issue with anakin)). but mostly cause the film is completely doing its own thing and being weird and making it's own choices
I haven't seen Phantom Menace in many, many years, but I see where you're coming from. I've never been a Star Wars fan (LOTR generation here), so I judge these films usually from a distance. But if I have to be honest, I think the film that's the biggest waste in the prequel trilogy is the third one. That's the one I have the most problems with, because Anakin's transformation comes off really, really forced and unfounded. Phantom Menace didn't really put the trilogy in its grave - Anakin's story was off to a good start, I think, but the 2nd movie failed to explore his character and the 3rd movie had to really quickly come up with an idea how to connect this whole thing to the old trilogy, without any real substance.

Posts: 54100
Joined: May 2010


I remember really liking Jar Jar as a kid/teenager... but then the Red Letter Media (and, admittedly, growing up) messed up with that innocence quite a bit. I feel for the guy.🕷️

Post Reply