The whole point of having a strikingly similar story to the original is because Kylo Ren is trying to live in Vader's footsteps in a really literal way, and the whole third act of the movie is him learning the hard way that he isn't Vader, and that he isn't going to be able to simply replicate Vader's actions but make corrections where he sees they're needed. Blowing up the Starkiller base is a background story for the character work the movie's exploring (that wasn't the case in ANH), and this is made suuuuppppeeerrr obvious with how JJ directed the bombing raid and it's relationship to Ren vs Rey/Finn. Unless Johnson takes it in a creatively regressive direction, which every indication points to him NOT doing that, then the next two movies are going to take the new character's on an entirely new journey. Force Awakens works both creatively in the direction it takes, and as a semi-meta narrative. "Guys, this is the Star Wars you fell in love with, but we can't live in the past".

The only borrowings/ references that bother me really are Stakillerbase, and not even that it's in the movie but the it had to blown up in this movie AGAIN. It would have been nice to have a Deathstar or whatever you wanna call it carry over into another film for once, after all the First Order is still around anyway. At least this time it was disguised as an actual planet, that was a cool little twist. It gets blown up way too easily, though, feels like its no challenge at all. Should have just temporarily disabled it or something and had it carry into the next one.

Other than that I don't like Luke's long lost lightsaber appearing. I had already known that was probably going to happen from rumors and leaks anyways and it had me worried. As it turns out it didn't bother me quite as much as I thought (so glad that silly opening sequence with it floating in space was cut) but it's still hard for me to swallow that it was found and I don't think it improves the film in any way.

I can live with both of those things. Overall the lack of originality certain people keep complaining about doesn't other me. A New Hope isn't the most original movie either, it borrows a lot from many sources. Oh yeah, and history does repeat itself, like for real.

Crazy Eight wrote:The whole point of having a strikingly similar story to the original is because Kylo Ren is trying to live in Vader's footsteps in a really literal way, and the whole third act of the movie is him learning the hard way that he isn't Vader, and that he isn't going to be able to simply replicate Vader's actions but make corrections where he sees they're needed. Blowing up the Starkiller base is a background story for the character work the movie's exploring (that wasn't the case in ANH), and this is made suuuuppppeeerrr obvious with how JJ directed the bombing raid and it's relationship to Ren vs Rey/Finn. Unless Johnson takes it in a creatively regressive direction, which every indication points to him NOT doing that, then the next two movies are going to take the new character's on an entirely new journey. Force Awakens works both creatively in the direction it takes, and as a semi-meta narrative. "Guys, this is the Star Wars you fell in love with, but we can't live in the past".

Yup. The similarities do have thematic weight to them. Han himself says "some things never change" in the film, and that's what the movie in general is trying to communicate; life is a vicious cycle and history repeats itself, just this time things are under a different context, with deeper meaning. Once again we have another Death Star esque weapon, however, The First Order doesn't build Starkiller because it's the most sound decision, they do it to emulate the Empire in it's prime, just as Kylo wears the mask to emulate Vader in his prime. At this point, they're nothing more than an imitation,and that's the point, they're desperately chasing the past. 'They're going backwards to go forwards' as JJ likes to say.

Once again,Han is back to smuggling, but it's only because his life is without purpose now. He lost his son, and with him also went his sense of direction and duty. Ben's the only thing that can really fulfill him, it's the only thing he really has to live and fight for. He loses him, he loses everything, and since he did, he feels he has nowhere left to turn but back to old familiar places. As does Leia, except old familiar places for her is back to work, painstakingly making military strategies and playing a part in the political arena. And since she's fighting a very similar enemy, she's still going to use the same tactics of sending resistance spies on secret missions to gain reconnaissance; this is why the protagonists are yet again delivering vital information to the resistance in a droid, it's that 'backwards to go forwards' thing again.

I could go on and on but you get the gist.

Kylo Ren's power

It really boils down to a sort of faux-intellectualism in modern criticism. Instead of actually criticising, it's easier to simply compare.

m4st4 wrote:

Mindheist wrote:

Isn't it ironic, how you're using that particular scene from that particular trilogy... while at the same time I'd rather watch The Force Awakens again, ponder about the future with Rian Johnson, in a year when we got a film like Mad Max: Fury Road by George Miller?

Please, that silly argument repeats every time a blockbuster does what blockbusters do - explode on box-office. Meanwhile, talented people all around the world never even stopped being creative and, what do you know, most of pure entertainment isn't that bad either.

Creativity never died and will never die as long as we are alive as species. If you wanna feel cool watch Steve Jobs, it's a great movie, apparently nobody saw the thing but it deserves all the attention.

I already addressed my issues 4 pages back with no response but I post one meme (and all memes are just over statements) then everyone seems to take it as a serious argument...

At the end of that video George Lucas kinda states what you're saying but he thinks of it negatively and I agree.

Crazy Eight wrote:The whole point of having a strikingly similar story to the original is because Kylo Ren is trying to live in Vader's footsteps in a really literal way, and the whole third act of the movie is him learning the hard way that he isn't Vader, and that he isn't going to be able to simply replicate Vader's actions but make corrections where he sees they're needed. Blowing up the Starkiller base is a background story for the character work the movie's exploring (that wasn't the case in ANH), and this is made suuuuppppeeerrr obvious with how JJ directed the bombing raid and it's relationship to Ren vs Rey/Finn. Unless Johnson takes it in a creatively regressive direction, which every indication points to him NOT doing that, then the next two movies are going to take the new character's on an entirely new journey. Force Awakens works both creatively in the direction it takes, and as a semi-meta narrative. "Guys, this is the Star Wars you fell in love with, but we can't live in the past".

Add to that that this film is seemingly a literal sum of the OT and the PT in so many ways - characters (main or otherwise, you literally get a walking talking Anakin in post-Revenge scenario), visuals (it's as practical as it is digital), developments, etc. New and old is as much at the centre as light and dark is and the film re-contextualizes whatever it re-contextualizes to ponder over the old and then create new meaning. Very, very few of the familiar elements exist for their own sake.

MyCocaine wrote:Adam Driver has quite an impressive filmography.

He's already worked with Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Coen Brothers and on Star Wars.

Hopefully, Nolan will cast him in the future.

He also won an acting prize in one of the most important film festivals of the world-the Volpi Cup at Venice, sharing the same honor with people like Phoenix/PSH, Fassbender, Pitt, Neeson, Penn and other ones... boy's quite impressive

Everybody's making quite a fuss about this:http://nypost.com/2015/12/30/if-carrie- ... it-acting/

Essentially it calls Carrie Fischer out on complaining she was pressured to lose weight.

Am I confused, or isn't it a pre-requirement of the movie business to 1.) be hot 2.) be fit 3.) stay as young and hot as you can as long as you can? Shouldn't Daisy Ridley be complaining she wouldn't have gotten the part if she was ugly? Daniel Craig complains he has to stay in impossibly good shape for Bond but doesn't go full diva about it, he was just happy he could eat meatballs again while shooting Dragon Tattoo. The whole system of Hollywood is built wholly on appearance, we want to watch hot people do the cool stuff we can't do. Isn't, in fact, this the foundation of most storytelling in general. Like, in theater, they'd cast good looking people who also had talent? This has been happening in storytelling literally since the Iliad and The Odyssey. Almost everybody is written to seem gorgeous.

Preposterous to rant about.


-Vader