Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi Discussion Thread (SPOILERS WITHIN)

[downzy]

14 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Simple.

It is a beat for beat (inferior) remake of the original Star Wars. It is the most unoriginal film ever made which does not claim to be a 'reboot'. It is a phony lazy piece of terrible filming, a corporate hack job phoned in to grab money from the largest denominator.  It is as if the makers sat down and wrote a list of the most successful aspects of the original trilogy and cobbled together the results from that.

Throw in the fact that it is too lazy to even explain its own backstory (i.e. what happened between Jedi and now) leaving a multitude of ponderables, a bad guy about as charismatic and/or threatening as a plank of wood (even the prequels had Maul and Christopher Lee for crying out loud) and you produce one terrible film.

Episode IV provided no back story, didn't prevent it from being well received or enjoyed by its audience.

Disagree about Kilo Ren...  I found him interesting with a lot of potential going forward and well played by Driver.  

I also disagree that it's an exact replica of the episode IV.  

[DieselDaisy]

19 minutes ago, downzy said:

Episode IV provided no back story, didn't prevent it from being well received or enjoyed by its audience.

Disagree about Kilo Ren...  I found him interesting with a lot of potential going forward and well played by Driver.  

I also disagree that it's an exact replica of the episode III.  

Episode IV, when it was released, was not a sequel to six prior films (yes, we only care about the original three) and Episode IV did not just create an entire new geopolitical scenario which seemed at odds with the delirious finale of the prior installment, the ending of Return of the Jedi that is when the Empire is defeated and the Republic/Jedi restored. Furthermore what you say is not even true, IV did provide a backstory, a sufficient enough backstory for us to follow events and not be perplexed by proceedings. Watching the first hour of Star Wars we become acquainted with the salient details, that there was once a Republic, that there is now an Empire, and that there is now a Rebellion aiming to restore the status quo; we learn something of an ancient order of knights called the Jedi and its betrayal by Darth Vader. We learn that Luke is the son of a Jedi (awaiting a further plot twist in the sequel) and that this hermit figure acting as a mentor was once a great Jedi. We are not made to go, ''ehh?'', ''why?'' - ''so what is the First Order and how did it ruin the happy events at the end of Jedi?'' ''Why is Luke, now resembling a Bee Gee incidentally, on sabbatical in Ireland of all places?'' ''Why is Gollum running proceedings'' etc etc. 

The worst example of rebooting there is the whole flying into the middle of a super weapon in order to detonate it from the inside thing. How lazy is that? 

Edited January 31, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Episode IV, when it was released, was not a sequel to six prior films (yes, we only care about the original three) and Episode IV did not just create an entire new geopolitical scenario which seemed at odds with the delirious finale of the prior installment, the ending of Return of the Jedi that is when the Empire is defeated and the Republic/Jedi restored. Furthermore what you say is not even true, IV did provide a backstory, a sufficient enough backstory for us to follow events and not be perplexed by proceedings. Watching the first hour of Star Wars we become acquainted with the salient details, that there was once a Republic, that there is now an Empire, and that there is now a Rebellion aiming to restore the status quo; we learn something of an ancient order of knights called the Jedi and its betrayal by Darth Vader. We learn that Luke is the son of a Jedi (awaiting a further plot twist in the sequel) and that this hermit figure acting as a mentor was once a great Jedi. We are not made to go, ''ehh?'', ''why?'' - ''so what is the First Order and how did it ruin the happy events at the end of Jedi?'' ''Why is Luke, now resembling a Bee Gee incidentally, on sabbatical in Ireland of all places?'' ''What is Gollum running proceedings'' etc etc. 

The worst example of rebooting there is the whole flying into the middle of a super weapon in order to detonate it from the inside thing. How lazy is that? 

Again, I think what you're arguing is subjective and up to your own personal viewpoint.  I personally don't agree with most of your summation, particularly with respect to TFA faltering for not providing enough of a backstory.  Much of the backstory will be unfolded through the next two films, much as the backstory of the original story was told throughout the series.  I don't know, I suppose I just wasn't as confused as you were while watching TFA (don't remember uttering "ehh?" or "why?" without assuming that more will be revealed in subsequent films.  

It's also unfair comparison because both the audience and the makers of the new trilogy knows there are going to be two more films.  They don't have to jam the first instalment with exposition like the episode IV did since there was little assurances that another film in the series would get made (many involved in the project thought the film was going to flop).  

I do agree that there were some strong similarities, particularly with respect to setup and finale of the weaponized planet.  But I'll take a step down from being original any day of the week over the cartoon, bad-dialogue, boring plot, terribly acted train wrecks that were the prequels.  It's been over a decade since I watched any of them.  They're simply bad films regardless of what came before or after.  The same can't be said of TFA.  Someone who never saw IV could still easily enjoy TFA.  

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

Again, I think what you're arguing is subjective and up to your own personal viewpoint.  I personally don't agree with most of your summation, particularly with respect to TFA faltering for not providing enough of a backstory.  Much of the backstory will be unfolded through the next two films, much as the backstory of the original story was told throughout the series.  I don't know, I suppose I just wasn't as confused as you were while watching TFA (don't remember uttering "ehh?" or "why?" without assuming that more will be revealed in subsequent films.  

It's also unfair comparison because both the audience and the makers of the new trilogy knows there are going to be two more films.  They don't have to jam the first instalment with exposition like the episode IV did since there was little assurances that another film in the series would get made (many involved in the project thought the film was going to flop).  

I do agree that there were some strong similarities, particularly with respect to setup and finale of the weaponized planet.  But I'll take a step down from being original any day of the week over the cartoon, bad-dialogue, boring plot, terribly acted train wrecks that were the prequels.  It's been over a decade since I watched any of them.  They're simply bad films regardless of what came before or after.  The same can't be said of TFA.  Someone who never saw IV could still easily enjoy TFA.  

I disagree. I found myself asking the question all he time, as to why events at the end of the original trilogy had been misplaced with an entirely new geopolitical scenario (basically a reprise of IV). You seem to believe all will be revealed in the next two installments. We'll see. 

I found The Force Awakens to be an immensely bad film. It is at least as bad as the worst of the prequels (Attack of the Clones).

[downzy]

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I disagree. I found myself asking the question all he time, as to why events at the end of the original trilogy had been misplaced with an entirely new geopolitical scenario (basically a reprise of IV). You seem to believe all will be revealed in the next two installments. We'll see. 

I found The Force Awakens to be an immensely bad film. It is at least as bad as the worst of the prequels (Attack of the Clones).

Well, it does take place thirty years after VI, hence the change in political environment.  From a logistical point, and consider that they wanted to use Hamill, Ford, and Fisher for the sake of continuity, how do you suppose they come up with a narrative that creates the kind of conditions that are required for a Star Wars movie?  Who would want to watch a movie where the good guys rule everything and little is shown about the bad guys (which probably best describes Phantom Menace) versus what we got in TFA, which was a known evil force against a known good force?  

With the current age of the actors who played the iconic roles, how do you not set the film thirty years into the future since XI?  And since you know there are going to be two more films where more can be divulged, why weigh down the first film with over the top exposition?  

And sorry, in terms of execution - directing, storey structure, acting, dialogue, special effects - there is simply no comparison.  I grant you that it's not the most original of films (though, Star Wars itself ain't the most original franchise), but consider for a moment how the Phantom Menace was centred around a trade war.  Boring!

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, downzy said:

Well, it does take place thirty years after VI, hence the change in political environment.  From a logistical point, and consider that they wanted to use Hamill, Ford, and Fisher for the sake of continuity, how do you suppose they come up with a narrative that creates the kind of conditions that are required for a Star Wars movie?  Who would want to watch a movie where the good guys rule everything and little is shown about the bad guys (which probably best describes Phantom Menace).  

With the current age of the actors who played the iconic roles, how do you not set the film thirty years into the future since XI?  And since you know there are going to be two more films where more can be divulged, why weigh down the first film with over the top exposition? 

The original trilogy brought you from A to B. The Force Awakens automatically begins well+ into C without any explanation how we got from B to C. In fact it is even worse than that. It is as if there is no connective tissue whatsoever between the original trilogy and The Force Awakens. Currently, The Force Awakens seems to exist in a vacuum.

I'm not saying continue with the utopia established at Jedi's finale, but surely any future problems that have arisen in the aftermath have to be adequately explained.

6 minutes ago, downzy said:

And sorry, in terms of execution - directing, storey structure, acting, dialogue, special effects - there is simply no comparison.  I grant you that it's not the most original of films (though, Star Wars itself ain't the most original franchise), but consider for a moment how the Phantom Menace was centred around a trade war.  Boring!

Name one (original) character design in The Force Awakens that can rival Darth Maul? Name one scene in The Force Awakens that is as memorable as the light saber duel between the aforementioned and Liam Neeson and McGregor's characters?

 

[downzy]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The original trilogy brought you from A to B. The Force Awakens automatically begins well+ into C without any explanation how we got from B to C. In fact it is even worse than that. It is as if there is no connective tissue whatsoever between the original trilogy and The Force Awakens. Currently, The Force Awakens seems to exist in a vacuum.

I'm not saying continue with the utopia established at Jedi's finale, but surely any future problems that have arisen in the aftermath have to be adequately explained.

Name one (original) character design in The Force Awakens that can rival Darth Maul? Name one scene in The Force Awakens that is as memorable as the light saber duel between the aforementioned and Liam Neeson and McGregor's characters?

 

Sorry, but that's nonsense.  You're basis for calling TFA a terrible film is on the fact we don't know everything in one film the same way we knew all we needed to know in the first three films?  Yes, the original trilogy took viewers from A to B, but we haven't seen all of this new trilogy have we?   There was a ton of shit that was left to be explained after IV (who were the Republic, how and why did the Empire rise out of the old Republic, who is Luke and how is he tied with Vader and the force, who does Vader report to, who comprises the Rebel alliance, etc).  

With respect to the light sabre fights and jedis/siths, I think you were missing the point of TFA.  All major players are in the minor leagues when it comes to their powers and capabilities; we're watching them as unpolished prospects waiting to make the major leagues.  We weren't suppose to be watching masters, but the beginning of the story about how the become masters (kind of like Luke in Ep. IV).  

And if our basis of how good of movie is on the strengths of the light sabre fights, then episode IV is utter shit.  Watch the fight between Vader and Obi Wan in IV - it's just two old guys moving their lightsabers at 30 degree angles.  I'll grant you that Darth Maul was a good character, but he was literally the only good thing about Phantom Menace.  

And if you want to go that route, answer me this: give me one character in TFA that's anywhere near as annoying and terrible as Jar Jar Binks?  

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

Sorry, but that's nonsense.  You're basis for calling TFA a terrible film is on the fact we don't know everything in one film the same way we knew all we needed to know in the first three films?  Yes, the original trilogy took viewers from A to B, but we haven't seen all of this new trilogy have we?   There was a ton of shit that was left to be explained after IV (who were the Republic, how and why did the Empire rise out of the old Republic, who is Luke and how is he tied with Vader and the force, who does Vader report to, who comprises the Rebel alliance, etc).  

My opinion on The Force Awakens being a terrible film is multifaceted I assure you.

I would suggest that Star Wars's exposition was sufficient enough to create an enjoyable film. You are missing the point with your analogy with the first film; Star Wars had no (chronological) baggage. All the original film needed to do was create the salient points and set the adventure in motion. The Force Awakens has the baggage of six proceeding films, and the whole mythos which comes with that. It is inherent that people will question how one can disregard the finale of the original trilogy so flippantly, proceeding in medias res with a new conflict, which superficially merely seems like a reprise of the original conflict with the names changed.

7 minutes ago, downzy said:

With respect to the light sabre fights and jedis/siths, I think you were missing the point of TFA.  All major players are in the minor leagues when it comes to their powers and capabilities; we're watching them as unpolished prospects waiting to make the major leagues.  We weren't suppose to be watching masters, but the beginning of the story about how the become masters (kind of like Luke in Ep. IV).  

I have no opinion on why several of the participants had considerable Jedi abilities, but - as you are going to say I suspect - this will be revealed in the forthcoming films.

8 minutes ago, downzy said:

And if our basis of how good of movie is on the strengths of the light sabre fights, then episode IV is utter shit.  Watch the fight between Vader and Obi Wan in IV - it's just two old guys moving their lightsabers at 30 degree angles.  I'll grant you that Darth Maul was a good character, but he was literally the only good thing about Phantom Menace.  

That fight is the greatest fight of them all because of the delivery and setting. The original trilogy did the fights better, but the Maul fight was a great scene because it did not overly rely on CGI - it relied on real martial arts - and did not go too extreme like all of those digital eye sores on the second and third prequel.

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

And if you want to go that route, answer me this: give me one character in TFA that's anywhere near as annoying and terrible as Jar Jar Binks?  

Well you have me there.

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

My opinion on The Force Awakens being a terrible film is multifaceted I assure you.

I would suggest that Star Wars's exposition was sufficient enough to create an enjoyable film. You are missing the point with your analogy with the first film; Star Wars had no (chronological) baggage. All the original film needed to do was create the salient points and set the adventure in motion. The Force Awakens has the baggage of six proceeding films, and the whole mythos which comes with that. It is inherent that people will question how one can disregard the finale of the original trilogy so flippantly, proceeding in medias res with a new conflict, which superficially merely seems like a reprise of the original conflict with the names changed.

I have no opinion on why several of the participants had considerable Jedi abilities, but - as you are going to say I suspect - this will be revealed in the forthcoming films.

That fight is the greatest fight of them all because of the delivery and setting. The original trilogy did the fights better, but the Maul fight was a great scene because it did not overly rely on CGI - it relied on real martial arts - and did not go too extreme like all of those digital eye sores on the second and third prequel.

Well you have me there.

Disregarding the finale of the original trilogy?  How?  Because it doesn't pick up right where Ep. XI takes off?  It acknowledges that it's thirty years later and a new evil force has arisen out of the ashes in the same way that the empire rose out of the old republic.  I really don't see the difference.  And of course TFA has to pick up with a new conflict.  First, we learned via the prequels why building a conflict over an entire movie (check that, three movies) doesn't work in Star Wars.  Second, with the age of Fisher, Hamill, and Harrison, they obviously needed to move the timeline forward by thirty years.  What is the opening scrawl going to say?  "Nothing much has happened for thirty years."  The original characters are also not going to be driving the new films for a variety of reasons, so it would be difficult to base a film around them anyway. 

Again, even if you don't like the characters (which, I found Rey, Finn, Poe and even Ren compelling and interesting), I don't see how in every other category (directing, special effects, dialogue, character development, character chemistry) that film doesn't supersede any of the prequels.  It just seems you're caught up on the fact that's a bit of a rehash and that it didn't tell you everything you wanted to know then and there.  I get why that might be bothersome, but to say it's an inferior film to any of the prequels is to ignore how truly terrible the prequels were.  From a technical standpoint to narrative to execution, it's just bad all around.  

[DR DOOM]

There's real emotional weight behind all of the duels in the original movies, I don't care if Obi Wan (Alec Guiness) didn't do a triple somersault and weild three or four laser swords- give me that over the ridiculous, platform game end boss level fight between Obi Wan and Anakin in ROTS for example.

Having the New Order build another, bigger Deathstar (that is apparently infinitely easier to infiltrate and destroy) was fucking retarded man.

Like, the other Deathstars worked so very well, didn't they?

[DieselDaisy]

40 minutes ago, downzy said:

Disregarding the finale of the original trilogy?  How?  Because it doesn't pick up right where Ep. XI takes off?  It acknowledges that it's thirty years later and a new evil force has arisen out of the ashes in the same way that the empire rose out of the old republic.  I really don't see the difference.  And of course TFA has to pick up with a new conflict.  First, we learned via the prequels why building a conflict over an entire movie (check that, three movies) doesn't work in Star Wars.  Second, with the age of Fisher, Hamill, and Harrison, they obviously needed to move the timeline forward by thirty years.  What is the opening scrawl going to say?  "Nothing much has happened for thirty years."  The original characters are also not going to be driving the new films for a variety of reasons, so it would be difficult to base a film around them anyway. 

The First Order just exists, as if in a vacuum. We enter in medias res: the Empire (in all but name) is still extent; stormtroopers are still extent; tie-fighters are still extent; a Rebellion is still extent. It is as if the Rebellion of the original trilogy was in vain. Surely you ponder, or do you have such a large amount of faith in the forthcoming films that this will be all explained?

45 minutes ago, downzy said:

 Second, with the age of Fisher, Hamill, and Harrison, they obviously needed to move the timeline forward by thirty years.  What is the opening scrawl going to say?  "Nothing much has happened for thirty years."  The original characters are also not going to be driving the new films for a variety of reasons, so it would be difficult to base a film around them anyway. 

It needs exposition. Clearly if the peace established at the end of Jedi was ballsed up, we need some indicators as to why. We cannot just jump back into an Empire again as if this is set around the same time as The Empire Strikes Back and the Empire have the upper hand, and everything is as it should!

48 minutes ago, downzy said:

Again, even if you don't like the characters (which, I found Rey, Finn, Poe and even Ren compelling and interesting), I don't see how in every other category (directing, special effects, dialogue, character development, character chemistry) that film doesn't supersede any of the prequels.  It just seems you're caught up on the fact that's a bit of a rehash and that it didn't tell you everything you wanted to know then and there.  I get why that might be bothersome, but to say it's an inferior film to any of the prequels is to ignore how truly terrible the prequels were.  From a technical standpoint to narrative to execution, it's just bad all around.  

Out of the prequels/The Force Awakens, the one with the least digital effects is probably The Phantom Menace, so from an aesthetic stand-point, I would have to label that the superior of the four. I repeat, there is nothing aesthetically as pleasing as the light saber sequence or Darth Maul in The Force Awakens. Acting? It is all fairly dire really. The acting and dialogue in the originals was not that great really.

[DR DOOM]

Strongly agree with DD here on The Force Awakens.

Sure felt like a bewildering sequel to ROTJ, with no explanations.

I felt pretty ripped off that they bring Han and Chewie back, have some STUPID space alien/pirate crap, and then the next thing you know, bump Han off.

They brought him back for THAT?

It was cheap.

 

Star Wars does need George Lucas, that's what I was thinking as I came out of the cinema.

 

 

[Zeppelin]

TFA doesn't really need explanation. It's the story to find Luke Skywalker. That's pretty much it. That's what I loved about TFA. It didn't get bogged down in endless dronery about this and that. It just introduced characters and enough of a story to begin a trilogy, while still leaving questions for the other two films. It sets up a new trilogy quite well. I'm hoping they touch on more details in the next two films, but it's really not tough to figure out. Luke tried training a new Jedi order, Han became a smuggler again and is separated from Leia. The First Order came about from the Empire. They could explain the New Republic/Resistance a bit more, but it isn't really brain surgery here. It's a simple starting point to a trilogy.

All SW films do this. Where's the story about Darth Maul? He's on screen for like 5 minutes. Oh, that's okay, because he's just Sidious' apprentice. Oh, he's dead. Whatever.

TFA being ANH verbatim is groupthink mentality, considering TFA has a plethora of differences in the actual film. It does take beats from the OT, there's no doubt about that. You'd be foolish not to realize this. But people that act like it's a complete copy either didn't watch the movie or are just reading internet opinions to form their own views based on what they think of Star Wars overall.

Star Wars doesn't need George Lucas. TFA could've used more exposition, but the prequels were all exposition dumps and still explained nothing properly. The only thing Lucas did better was showing off more of the SW universe in the prequel films. Something I hope the new trilogy ends up doing more in VIII and IX.

 

[Zeppelin]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I disagree. I found myself asking the question all he time, as to why events at the end of the original trilogy had been misplaced with an entirely new geopolitical scenario (basically a reprise of IV). You seem to believe all will be revealed in the next two installments. We'll see. 

I found The Force Awakens to be an immensely bad film. It is at least as bad as the worst of the prequels (Attack of the Clones).

Lol I can't take you seriously now.

[Zeppelin]

6 hours ago, DR DOOM said:

There's real emotional weight behind all of the duels in the original movies, I don't care if Obi Wan (Alec Guiness) didn't do a triple somersault and weild three or four laser swords- give me that over the ridiculous, platform game end boss level fight between Obi Wan and Anakin in ROTS for example.

Having the New Order build another, bigger Deathstar (that is apparently infinitely easier to infiltrate and destroy) was fucking retarded man.

Like, the other Deathstars worked so very well, didn't they?

There isn't really any emotional weight behind any of the duels in the OT until you get to RotJ. Believe me, I have rose-tinted glasses on for the OT just as much as anyone else, but you never truly feel the emotional weight until after you find out that Vader is Luke's father. Before that, it's good guys against evil guys. That's the whole point behind revealing that twist in the second film. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been any emotional weight at all.

And before you tell me that the Empire burning Luke's family farm introduces the emotional weight, it isn't in the same context anyway. Maybe when Luke takes down the Death Star, but not in any kind of showdown with Vader/Palpatine.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Zeppelin

[DieselDaisy]

In my defense, I was not the only one to produce these criticisms on The Force Awakens. The film produced indifferent reviews (at best).

Edited January 31, 2017 by DieselDaisy

[James Bond]

Whether you like The Force Awakens or not, I think we can probably all agree that the Anthology films are going to be a great way to explore and expand on lesser developed plot points. It means there's a chance to finally see Darth Vader building the Empire, among other things that were never shown or explored fully in the prequels. I'll hope for some true standalone films with new characters and new adventures too.

6 hours ago, DR DOOM said:

There's real emotional weight behind all of the duels in the original movies, I don't care if Obi Wan (Alec Guiness) didn't do a triple somersault and weild three or four laser swords- give me that over the ridiculous, platform game end boss level fight between Obi Wan and Anakin in ROTS for example.

Having the New Order build another, bigger Deathstar (that is apparently infinitely easier to infiltrate and destroy) was fucking retarded man.

Like, the other Deathstars worked so very well, didn't they?

I agree 100% with the lightsaber battles. They became somewhat of a parody in the prequels barring one or two exceptions, like the Darth Maul finale in Episode I. The original trilogy reserved them for special moments and emotional climaxes. It made the lightsaber itself more exciting because it didn't pop up every ten seconds. I'll give a pass to the over the top Obi-Wan/Anakin battle in Episode III only because Ewan McGregor's acting saves the emotion in the scene (being that he's about the best thing in the prequels). George Lucas even remembered to have him grab Anakin's lightsaber which was a nice touch.

The Starkiller Base was the one part in TFA where I thought they pushed the similarities, but it works differently in the film. In Episode IV, the whole plot is the blow up the Death Star. In TFA, it's merely a background vehicle serving no other purpose than to give us more exposition with the new characters. I feel like that's all TFA needed to do - set up the new characters for new adventures. It's a fun, fast paced film with memorable characters. Now that those are in place, I expected (and hope for) more originality in VIII and beyond.

[Padme]

7 hours ago, downzy said:

Episode IV provided no back story, didn't prevent it from being well received or enjoyed by its audience.

Disagree about Kilo Ren...  I found him interesting with a lot of potential going forward and well played by Driver.  

I also disagree that it's an exact replica of the episode III.  

I think in ANH there is some degree of back story. Obi Wan telling Luke about the Jedi, The Force, the Old Republic , The Clone Wars and his father being murdered by Vader. Sure we don't know the whole thing nor too may details. But we get what went on in the past. And why there are rebels fighting against the Empire.

[Zeppelin]

3 minutes ago, James Bond said:

Whether you like The Force Awakens or not, I think we can probably all agree that the Anthology films are going to be a great way to explore and expand on lesser developed plot points. It means there's a chance to finally see Darth Vader building the Empire, among other things that were never shown or explored fully in the prequels. I'll hope for some true standalone films with new characters and new adventures too.

I agree 100% with the lightsaber battles. They became somewhat of a parody in the prequels barring one or two exceptions, like the Darth Maul finale in Episode I. The original trilogy reserved them for special moments and emotional climaxes. It made the lightsaber itself more exciting because it didn't pop up every ten seconds. I'll give a pass to the over the top Obi-Wan/Anakin battle in Episode III only because Ewan McGregor's acting saves the emotion in the scene (being that he's about the best thing in the prequels). George Lucas even remembered to have him grab Anakin's lightsaber which was a nice touch.

The Starkiller Base was the one part in TFA where I thought they pushed the similarities, but it works differently in the film. In Episode IV, the whole plot is the blow up the Death Star. In TFA, it's merely a background vehicle serving no other purpose than to give us more exposition with the new characters. I feel like that's all TFA needed to do - set up the new characters for new adventures. It's a fun, fast paced film with memorable characters. Now that those are in place, I expected (and hope for) more originality in VIII and beyond.

This I agree with 100%. The lightsaber battles in the prequels were terribly exaggerated 95% of the time.

And it's nice that someone finally sees the actual context for Starkiller Base. Even though it was a stupid all-around idea, the context is different within TFA's framework.

[James Bond]

14 minutes ago, Zeppelin said:

This I agree with 100%. The lightsaber battles in the prequels were terribly exaggerated 95% of the time.

And it's nice that someone finally sees the actual context for Starkiller Base. Even though it was a stupid all-around idea, the context is different within TFA's framework.

Definitely. I certainly don't disagree that it was a stupid idea that pushed the boundary of the similarities, but it actually gets very little focus in the finale and becomes merely a setting. Pretty much the whole plot of TFA is one big MacGuffin to get the characters in place.

[ZoSoRose]

I <3 The Force Awakens

[downzy]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

In my defense, I was not the only one to produce these criticisms on The Force Awakens. The film produced indifferent reviews (at best).

The issue isn't whether TFA is a perfect movie nor that it doesn't have its own faults, but whether it should be considered as bad or worse than the three prequel films.  

Again, I just don't think the lack of originality or exposition inherent within the film renders it an inferior product to the train wrecks that are the prequels.  There is almost nothing redeemable about those films in both concept and execution.  I just don't think the same can be said for TFA, which, despite its faults, is still a well made film considering we know it's one of three.  The problems within the prequels are not limited to the issues of exposition, but in every category that audiences grade films (directing, dialogue, pacing, character development, chemistry, special effects, etc.).  

[Daedalus]

10 hours ago, DR DOOM said:

Having the New Order build another, bigger Deathstar (that is apparently infinitely easier to infiltrate and destroy) was fucking retarded man.

Like, the other Deathstars worked so very well, didn't they?

I've always thought that the main purpose of Starkiller base was to destroy the (New) Republic... so, mission accomplished.

[AxlisOld]

I feel like they poked fun at Starkiller when they directly compared it to the old Death Star and Han says, "OK, so it's bigger."

[tsinindy]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

In my defense, I was not the only one to produce these criticisms on The Force Awakens. The film produced indifferent reviews (at best).

TFA has a 92% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes and an 81 rating on metacritic based on critical reviews. So while there were surely indifferent or poor reviews of TFA, they were not the prevailing opinion by any means.

Edited January 31, 2017 by tsinindy