StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lord Revan wrote:tbh ANH was rather small too and the universe didn't really open until ESB, ROTJ and the old EU.

Did the universe really open all that much in the original trilogy? I'm seeing a lot of criticism in the spoiler thread calling out a lack of world building and exposition. But Star Wars never really did that until the prequel trilogy. The originals never gave us more context than the scrawl and the dialog. This movie is just going back to the way the original trilogy operated, but people are so used to the over-exposition and spelling-out of details that dominates modern movie-making that it seems jarring.

Where do we get any sort of exposition in the OT about how the galaxy works, or what the political situation or battle lines are? We only get a sense of real alien diversity from a few scenes of backwater pubs and crime dens. I don't see how this film did less than the OT did.

^ Yes, you're right - but I guess the difference is that the political situation in the OT is basically as simple as they come. There's an evil Empire, and then there's a small, plucky Rebellion. End of exposition. ANH also gives us a bit of information about the existence of a Senate and an Old Republic, but that's it.

In TFA, they also give very little exposition, except the difference is that the political situation is a bit more complex than just "Giant Evil Oppressive Empire" vs "Plucky Underdogs". Now we have a Republic and a First Order, and a Resistance which is somehow connected with the Republic, but doesn't seem to have any resources beyond what the Rebellion had. A few lines of dialogue would have really helped to clear things up - because without it we're constantly left wondering why the Republic (which we can only assume is this giant Galactic government with enormous resources) is a complete non-entity in the film - especially after the First Order attacks. I would think that as soon as the First Order attacks, the very next scene would be the Republic instantly sending a huge navy to coordinate with the Resistance in a counterattack. But that didn't happen, so we're left to wonder if (A) the Republic's navy is completely destroyed, (B) the Republic is just really slow to respond or reinforcements are far away at the moment, or (C) JJ Abrams doesn't give a shit.

The Original Nex wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:tbh ANH was rather small too and the universe didn't really open until ESB, ROTJ and the old EU.

Did the universe really open all that much in the original trilogy? I'm seeing a lot of criticism in the spoiler thread calling out a lack of world building and exposition. But Star Wars never really did that until the prequel trilogy. The originals never gave us more context than the scrawl and the dialog. This movie is just going back to the way the original trilogy operated, but people are so used to the over-exposition and spelling-out of details that dominates modern movie-making that it seems jarring.

Depends on what OT you are talking about. Pre Remaster OT seemed much smaller and existed pre internet. World building came LONG after 1977 or 1983

The problem with the Republic is they give just a little too much information on them, while simultaneously not giving enough information.

Basically: why is the Republic sitting on its ass when it comes to the First Order, even before their capital gets the red beam of death?

The opening crawl says the Republic is backing the Resistance. And in his Hitler speech, General Hux says that they'll put an end to the "lie" of the Republic not actually aiding the Resistance. So essentially the Republic is backing this Resistance against the First Order, but for some reason they're not doing so publically and the official position is a denial.

Ok, fine. But...why? Why is the Republic only opposing the First Order on the sly? This makes no sense. There's context that we're missing here. And the movie does nothing to explain this.

For all that people lambast TPM, at least that movie showed us why the Republic, as an entity, was sitting on the sidelines while one member invaded another member: corrupt bureaucrats, a weak and ineffective Supreme Chancellor, and a Sith Lord's manipulations of the whole situation. TFA doesn't give us any of this, so we're left wondering why the (New) Republic is just sitting on the sidelines, quietly funding a Resistance but taking no other actions against the evil First Order which rose from the ashes of the Empire.

I like the movie overall, and generally give zero fucks about the technical crap nerds routinely twist themselves up over. But this is a bit of a plot hole, and TBH kind of makes me wonder what the victory at the end of Episode VI was about if the government our heroes were fighting to (re)establish is A) ineffective and B) apparently forcing said heroes to go work "off the books" again in order to fight evil.

Seems like a classic proxy war to me. The Republic either can't or won't take on the First Order directly, so they've set up (or Leia split off on her own to set up) a Resistence within First Order territory that received surreptitious financial and/or military support from the Republic to fuck up First Order operations.

I agree that it's more complex of a scenario than ANH, and the crawl could have been better oriented or some throwaway lines could have made things more clear, but it's very OT Star Wars to just let the audience get lost in the characters and their immediate situation, and leave the context mostly shrouded.

The Original Nex wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:tbh ANH was rather small too and the universe didn't really open until ESB, ROTJ and the old EU.

Did the universe really open all that much in the original trilogy? I'm seeing a lot of criticism in the spoiler thread calling out a lack of world building and exposition. But Star Wars never really did that until the prequel trilogy. The originals never gave us more context than the scrawl and the dialog. This movie is just going back to the way the original trilogy operated, but people are so used to the over-exposition and spelling-out of details that dominates modern movie-making that it seems jarring.

Where do we get any sort of exposition in the OT about how the galaxy works, or what the political situation or battle lines are? We only get a sense of real alien diversity from a few scenes of backwater pubs and crime dens. I don't see how this film did less than the OT did.

The DS conference scene. In the space of five minutes we know about the political system of the Old Republic and Empire and that the later has usur[ed the former and the current internal politics leading to the present conflict, letting us know why the Rebellion is good and the empire Evil (this is especially relevent when pared Leia's dialogue with Tarkin). We learn about the role of force users in the current universe via Vader and Moff Motti. We learn how Vader fits in the scene of things. This was five minutes, and it provide more world building than what we get in all of TFA. Not only that we get Obi Wan to fill us in on some more back story with the Clone Wars name drop.

Galactic wide Empire, an Old Republic that has been usurped, a Senate established and what it does for the Old Republic/Empire, How the Empire is going to work from now on, a clear political motivation for both sides, a clear smaller scale motivation for Tarkin/DS and the Rebels to carry us through the actual events of the movie, the context of the force exposed, and the dynamic between all the main villains put on display. Five minutes.

Well JJ kinda did the same thing for all of his movies. He doesn't like to do actual world building.

He is basically the wrong director to kick off a new Star Wars movie that needs a good set up.

There've actually been a few posts that say why this really wasn't about world building but about the characters. My opinion really is if you want the world building you might be more interested in the books.

Its a false choice. JJ could have and should have done both. Would you like Rey less as a character if we knew that the hell the "Rebellion" was up too? Would Finn fall flat if we had some backstory on the First Order? The movies would have been no worse off if five minutes were dedicated to the basic things we are saying here. One less inappropriate TIEs out of the sunset Vietnam flashback is a small price to pay.

The vast majority of worldbuilding for the OT happend long after the OT and people loved it anyway. This is the Star Warsiest movie since RotJ.

Patroklos wrote:Its a false choice. JJ could have and should have done both. Would you like Rey less as a character if we knew that the hell the "Rebellion" was up too? Would Finn fall flat if we had some backstory on the First Order? The movies would have been no worse off if five minutes were dedicated to the basic things we are saying here. One less inappropriate TIEs out of the sunset Vietnam flashback is a small price to pay.

The hell it is. We literally see how evil the First Order is in the first five minutes and why Finn might make the choice he does. And Rey isn't about the Resistance. She's about the people who dropped her off on the desert planet. Her involvement in the Resistance is sheer coincidence in that she's where they're targeting. Big whoop.

The Original Nex wrote:Seems like a classic proxy war to me. The Republic either can't or won't take on the First Order directly, so they've set up (or Leia split off on her own to set up) a Resistence within First Order territory that received surreptitious financial and/or military support from the Republic to fuck up First Order operations.

I agree that it's more complex of a scenario than ANH, and the crawl could have been better oriented or some throwaway lines could have made things more clear, but it's very OT Star Wars to just let the audience get lost in the characters and their immediate situation, and leave the context mostly shrouded.

But the question is why is there a proxy war, instead of the Republic taking direct action against the First Order? That is what is never explained and easily could have been. Especially in context with the OT, it makes one wonder what our heroes accomplished when our new Republic they fought so hard for is just...sitting on the sidelines while the Bad Guys go around murdering villagers and blowing shit up. And it's clear that they're not unaware of it, but for some reason they have to publically lie about trying to fight the Bad Guys, and there's no explanation given as to why that is.

Like I said, TPM at least showed us why the Galactic Republic was so ineffective during the Naboo Crisis, forcing Amidala and her band to take matters into her own hands. TFA utterly fails to do this.

Now, does that completely ruin the movie? No, not really. One could argue that since the Republic's only real role was to be blown up in a (admittedly pretty well done) 30 second sequence I guess it's a moot point about why they were engaged in a proxy war, as opposed to fighting the First Order directly. But it's still a bit of a plot hole, and would not have taken much to plug up. And yes, it is an example where JJ Abrams' (apparent) resistance to world-building did hurt the movie, even if it was relatively minimal in the grand scheme of things.

Gaidin wrote:There've actually been a few posts that say why this really wasn't about world building but about the characters. My opinion really is if you want the world building you might be more interested in the books.

World building in the OT was sufficient in making us care about the fate of the Galaxy and get to know who are the rebels and the empire.

You care about things when things get blown up and killed off. We care about the rebel pilots that were killed off, we cared about the destruction of Alderaan because of Leia. We cared about Rebel ships being blown up in ROTJ.

In this movie? The lack of world building means the entire plot about death star mark 3 lacks any form of dramatic tension. I don't care about the capital of the new Republic being blown up, or any X-wing being shot down.

In other words, I don't care about the much bigger overarching universe the characters inhabit. Characters that exist in a vacuum without a good setting makes the whole story weak. And this is Star Wars we are talking about here. Half of the reason why the franchise became popular was because of the world building.

And I am not asking for a 2 hour long exposition telling me the political situation in the galaxy. I am simply asking for a script that give some shit about world building to make me care about the galaxy.

Gaidin wrote: The hell it is. We literally see how evil the First Order is in the first five minutes and why Finn might make the choice he does. And Rey isn't about the Resistance. She's about the people who dropped her off on the desert planet. Her involvement in the Resistance is sheer coincidence in that she's where they're targeting. Big whoop.

Great, the First Order is as evil as any roving Rawandan militia. We went from an organization that blows up planets to one that might, sometimes, kill a dozen civilians. Evil yes, STAR wars evil? No. Jabba was evil too, do you think his level of evil was enough to build a galacticaly significant trilogy of movies around? And then when they finally do something Star Wars scale evil, every character in the movie brushes it off their shoulder like it ain't no thang. Villians, heros, mooks, everyone barely notices.

And it doesn't matter if Rey is involved with the Rebellion or not, the Rebellion is a major part of the movie itself.

Again, does knowing any extra stuff about the Rebellion, the First Order, the New Republic/Empire or anything else in anyway detract from the characterization of the protagonists you love? Is so explain.

The other thing about it that springs to mind, is that in Star Wars, Tarkin talks about the political consequences, in a cool and collected way, of the Death Star, in this film it's confined to a rant by a man who appears to be nuts.

Col. Crackpot wrote:

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:After seeing it twice and digesting the film for a couple of days, I am leaning towards ranking it on the same level as Episode 1. Its strengths and weaknesses are almost a mirror opposite to the Phantom Menace. While its execution (in terms of acting and writing) were superior, its story was unoriginal and subpar.

John Boyega and Daisy Ridley ran circles round Portman, McGregor and Neeson. This movie actually had vibrant charming characters. There was fire and spirit... For all his faults Adam Driver does "damaged goods" well. At its worst, TPM had cardboard cutouts.

John Boyega came off as trying too hard to me. Best character there was definitely Rey by Daisy Ridley. McGregor doesn't really shine until Episode 2 and 3 but he's still my favorite Star Wars actor. My biggest beef with TFA was how recycled the story was and that has a big impact as to how I judge the film relative to the others.

Channel72 wrote:....indeed I also care very much about world building and plot consistency - it's just that to me, the core element of Star Wars was always just fun characters going on an exciting space adventure. And that's basically exactly what TFA is.

It's not so much about the lack of world building that bothered me in the film. It's that it reused so much from ANH in its storyline (trying not to get too spoilery here). I don't need great world building to rank it as a great film - just originality. I was, from the get-go, pretty opposed to reintroducing the original cast as the central characters of the movie and I still think that way after seeing the film. I'm done with the Skywalkers and the Solos; I want to something new and interesting, whether that be more world building or the movie focusing more on new characters going on an exciting new space adventure without revisiting the old lineages. You can make a great Star Wars movie without constantly rethreading on old characters or recycled plotlines.

Granted, Finn, Rey and Poe are a great start to a new and different trilogy, it still had too much of the old for my tastes. A solid executed film nonetheless, one that I plan on continuing to rewatch before it leaves the theaters.

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:John Boyega came off as trying too hard to me. Best character there was definitely Rey by Daisy Ridley. McGregor doesn't really shine until Episode 2 and 3 but he's still my favorite Star Wars actor. My biggest beef with TFA was how recycled the story was and that has a big impact as to how I judge the film relative to the others.

If we're honest, the actors in this movie were better than the actors in the OT - with the exception of OT Harrison Ford. Daisy Ridley is a more talented actress than Mark Hamill, and both John Boyega and Oscar Isaac do a better job really than anyone in the OT apart from Ford, to say nothing of the PT. Let's face it, the OT was carried mostly by Harrison Ford, (and to a lesser extent Alec Guinness for the first half of ANH, and Ian McDiarmid for the end of ROTJ). Mark Hamill was decent - acceptable really, as a naive "everyman" who goes off on an amazing adventure. But he's just not as talented an actor as either Boyega or Ridley.

If we confine ourselves to those three. Tarkin beats the hell out of Hux/Snooki, and just the voice acting of James Earl Jones beats the hell out of Adam Driver (I am not super down on Adam Driver, he is just outclassed here). Jan Dodanna had far more gravitas that fake General Leia, Alec Guinness runs circles around computer cartoon Maz as far as old wise cook goes.

Honestly outside of Rey nobody really shined over their OT analog, Finn having no analog (And on that I don't think Daisy out acted Mark Hamil as young Luke, I consider it pretty close). That includes Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher over their old selves which isn't really fare since both had more opportunity to shine last time around. Carrie Fisher in particular was shoe horned in this movie, and you could tell she was phoning it in the whole time. We will have to wait and see on Mark Hamill I guess.

When Shep and Elfdart are mostly in agreement; the apocalypse is near.

Patroklos wrote:If we confine ourselves to those three.

Well, those 3 have the most screen time, so of course I mostly confine it to those three. I mean I guess Billy Dee Williams is awesome also, but he doesn't exactly have a huge role.

Tarkin beats the hell out of Hux/Snooki, and just the voice acting of James Earl Jones beats the hell out of Adam Driver (I am not super down on Adam Driver, he is just outclassed here).

As I've said before, Darth Vader is too fucking awesome to ever compete with. There's no sense in even trying. Adam Driver/Kylo Ren basically had to be written as a lesser villain, there's just no way around that. They kind of cleverly went slightly "meta" with his character, making him obsessed with Vader, and insecure that he can never be as powerful as Vader - in the same way that we as an audience know that Darth Vader was fucking lightning in a bottle as a culturally iconic bad guy - right up there with Hannibal Lecter and Don Corleone. Vader is basically the ultimate example of pure, efficient, competent evil. Abrams knew he couldn't come up with a better villain, so he wisely chose to make a lesser but somewhat more complex villain.

You could just not have a Vader clone. Like maybe an original villain who is evil in a different way. I agree with you, if you insist on rewriting the same villian again you were not going to beat OT Vader. They couldn't even write an appropriate origin story worthy of him for fucks sake. Again I am not too down on Driver or his character, but he is is the personification of realizing you can't outdo Vadar so you intentionally make him a fake Vader. JUST DON'T HAVE A VADER. Its been done before in Star Wars with characters like Thrawn and Pelleaon and Isaard (I don't personnaly like her, but others do).

I feel Tarkin equaled Vader in playing the type of villain he was supposed to be (As opposed to Hux who was just generic mook. Tarkin had the feel of aristocratic accomplishement and arrogance, that while Leia mocks him for forms sake she really does consider him a serious threat and respects that threat underneath. His personality and character let you know he is an old hand at this, with all the terrible implications that brings). Especially since at that point we hadn't seen the ESB version murdering Admirals and the like. It is clear Tarkin is control and Vader the junior partner. There didn't have to be another Vader, just like there didn't have to be another desert farm boy, or another Death Star, or another Emperor, or another rebellion, or another of 1000 other things they lifted whole cloth. That's what writers are for.

Channel72 wrote:

Pint0 Xtreme wrote:John Boyega came off as trying too hard to me. Best character there was definitely Rey by Daisy Ridley. McGregor doesn't really shine until Episode 2 and 3 but he's still my favorite Star Wars actor. My biggest beef with TFA was how recycled the story was and that has a big impact as to how I judge the film relative to the others.

If we're honest, the actors in this movie were better than the actors in the OT - with the exception of OT Harrison Ford. Daisy Ridley is a more talented actress than Mark Hamill, and both John Boyega and Oscar Isaac do a better job really than anyone in the OT apart from Ford, to say nothing of the PT. Let's face it, the OT was carried mostly by Harrison Ford, (and to a lesser extent Alec Guinness for the first half of ANH, and Ian McDiarmid for the end of ROTJ). Mark Hamill was decent - acceptable really, as a naive "everyman" who goes off on an amazing adventure. But he's just not as talented an actor as either Boyega or Ridley.

Yeah, Star Wars is not really known for superb acting and both Boyega and Ridley definitely hit it out of the ballpark when compared to most performances in the saga (though Ridley much more so IMO), which is refreshing. Still, Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan Kenobi so far is the most impressive I've seen in all the films and, to his credit, it will take a lot to top that.

MKSheppard wrote:When Shep and Elfdart are mostly in agreement; the apocalypse is near.

Oh for shits sake, not you too!

The Original Nex wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:tbh ANH was rather small too and the universe didn't really open until ESB, ROTJ and the old EU.

Did the universe really open all that much in the original trilogy? I'm seeing a lot of criticism in the spoiler thread calling out a lack of world building and exposition. But Star Wars never really did that until the prequel trilogy. The originals never gave us more context than the scrawl and the dialog. This movie is just going back to the way the original trilogy operated, but people are so used to the over-exposition and spelling-out of details that dominates modern movie-making that it seems jarring.

Where do we get any sort of exposition in the OT about how the galaxy works, or what the political situation or battle lines are? We only get a sense of real alien diversity from a few scenes of backwater pubs and crime dens. I don't see how this film did less than the OT did.

Sometimes I don't think people understand what they are actually complaining about when they say this. I hear "world building" and "big universe", but I hear "there is no mystery to set my imagination on fire".

For instance, in ANH Obi-Wan mentions the Clone Wars and Luke freaks out about it and through our own journey through Luke's eyes, we freak out about it and it became this huge event that we had to know more about because it was obviously important.

Lucas created this huge universe because he didn't tell us anything about it. There was The Clone Wars and an Emperor and the local systems and Jabba the Hutt an Imperial Senate and the Force and lightsabers and Darth Vader and Jedi and we didn't know jack shit about them so the universe felt infinite. There were no rules and anything was possible.

However with each new movie the universe shrank a little bit because now we knew more and when you know more you see how things work, you get that there are rules and constraints and what your imagination told you was wrong and everything is just a little smaller and more mundane than it was a few hours ago.

One of the things I like about TFA is that it didn't spend a lot of time on explaining what was what. How'd that get built? Where'd they come from? What is this place? What's the name of that planet?

I mean think back to when you first saw Star Wars, really think... did you give a fuck where the Empire came from? Did it end up really mattering if Vader was a Sith? Wasn't it just as cool that he was a bad Jedi?