Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/12/19 16:14:05
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
@ Davor - As a parent of a Star Wars mad 5 year old, it is indeed a shame they made a 12A film, but this seems to be the approach these days. I blame Marvel.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 16:14:38
Never mind all the patently made for kids toys, commercials, and promotional materials Disney has been chucking out for years now. Ignore that Star Wars only became a 'kids' series in the 90's when Lucas was desperately trying to defend the eye sore that was the prequel series. As a franchise Star Wars has consistently drawn a cross generational audience even before people who liked it as kids became adults. This movie is no different in trying to appeal to as many people as possible.
At least with George Lucas it was never about money
Yeah. That's why Lucas asked for the merchandising rights and created an entire company to milk his creation. Because it was never about money.
Trying something new does not = good, nor does redoing something old = bad. There's a total whiplash in the criticism itself. People the world over complain when a sequel is too much like what came before, and they complain when it's too different. They even create shallow buzz phrases like 'playing it safe' to voice the rather empty opinion that they wanted something the film didn't give, which really sounds like a personal issue, not a film issue.
I know right? it's not like people were getting limbs hacked off or being exploded on a planetary scale or anything. Yeah. This movie is so much more mature than anything that came before it
EDIT: And of course lets not forget Star Wars was originally made in part to be a throw back to classics like Flash Gordon, which in the mid 70's was a series only adults would appreciate
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/19 16:45:51
Sigvatr wrote: The very first episode of Star Wars features someone's (foster) parents being burned alive with the viewer seeing their still-smoking skeletons.
Kid entertainment, right?
Please, an adult show would had Storm Troopers peeing on the skeletons and tea bagging the Jawas. And in the background, two Storm Troopers spray tag a giant penis on the Sand Crawler with caption "gg no re."
Sigvatr wrote: The very first episode of Star Wars features someone's (foster) parents being burned alive with the viewer seeing their still-smoking skeletons.
Kid entertainment, right?
Please, an adult show would had Storm Troopers peeing on the skeletons and tea bagging the Jawas. And in the background, two Storm Troopers spray tag a giant penis on the Sand Crawler with caption "gg no re."
I'd watch that.
Remember Folks: Landmass is landmassy.
2015/12/19 18:05:14
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Stuff to stop the spoilered from being visible and stuff...
Spoiler:
My take on the current status quo between the First Order and Republic is that the Republic and First Order are currently in a ceasefire, with the First Order holding their own territory from which they recruit their Stormtroopers and officers.
The Republic lacks the necessary force to defeat the First Order conventionally and so set up the Resistance to act as an army which will weaken the First Order whilst remaining out of the actual chain of command and so the Republic can deny involvement and prevent a full-scale galactic war.
The First Order also lacks the strength in its conventional navy to defeat the Republic and so built Starkiller to take out the government and then stroll in afterwards. They obviously had more than just Starkiller as Snokes has to have somewhere to store his big chair, whether that be on a planet, space station or starship.
However it also has to defeat the Resistance as, with Leia as their commander, they will be able to hold the Republic forces together and remain a coherent force.
So my take is it is basically a Star Wars Cold War, where the Resistance is mainly operating in First Order held space and the Republic can only give them limited equipment to maintain the pretence of the Resistance acting without their backing (hence no large ships).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/19 18:41:49
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/12/19 18:14:50
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Re: Republic v First Order, the Republic defeated the Empire at the Battle of Jakku, devestating their remaining military capability and forcing the Smpire to sue for peace. The Republic controls most of the Galactic interior, while the Imperial Remnant held on to the Outer Rim, in other words the Republic is the predominant faction within the galaxy. Some of the former Rebellions members chose to continue fighting and formed the Resistance. Its not made clear yet, bit its believed the First Order is a splinter group of the remnant who may or may not have taken control of the remaining Imperial possessions in order to oppose the Republic.
As far as why The Force Awakens fails as a Star Wars film, I posted this elsewhere(potential spoilers):
Anyone who says TFA felt like Star Wars, IMO, doesnt actually understand Star Wars. First, Star Wars is a series of ADVENTURE films. This was an ACTION film (if you dont know the difference read up on it).
Second, Star Wars is an homage to the scifi pulp serials of the 20s and 30s and the Golden Age of the 40s and 50s. This film has none of the elements of those pulp serials, not the plot structure, nor the acting style, or the visual style, etc. This film was basically just generic modern scifi (so much so that it would have passed for a new Star Trek or Guardians of the Galaxy film if you swapped out the characters).
The thing lots of people dont understand is that Star Wars isnt scifi. Its Space Opera, basically its Dungeons and Dragons or Lord of the Rings in space.There is a huge difference between them, and treating it as scifi changes it entirely from what it should be.
Third, Star Wars is built around the concept of Joseph Campbells character archetypes and the story of the Hero with a Thousand Faces, etc. None of the characters in this story fit those archetypes, nor does the story resemble that of the archetypal story of the Hero with a Thousand Faces.
Fourth, there are a few "rules" to Star Wars films. First - no Mcguffins. This film had a hugely obvious one - Luke Skywalker was basically the crystal skull from Indiana Jones. Second - There are no coincidences, everything happens for a reason (literally stated at least once in previous films). This entire film relies on coincidences to work - Rey and Finn blast off in the Falcon and Han is coincidentally in the same system to find them, for example. Third - there is no Deus Ex Machina is Star Wars, this kind of goes hand in hand with the coincidences, and in this case its quite literal - R2D2 (a literal machine) suddenly and mysteriously wakes up after years of inactivity to coincidentally provide BB-8 with the missing piece to the puzzle of where to find Luke.
There are other more minor (but still important) issues as well, but if you cant cant understand these points theres no point going further into it.
And the problem with the prequels wasnt that they didnt feel like Star Wars or that they were bad stories, the problem with them were they were objectively terrible films - the pacing was wrong (just as it was through much of TFA, TFA didnt give the film enough room to breathe, the prequels generally gave the films TOO much room to breathe which made it drag and feel boring), acting was off, too many scenes dedicated to world building, not enough to plot/character development or exposition, etc. But if you read the novizations, you will see that the story itself is actually quite good just presented poorly.
This is why some people like the prequels, while we recognize that they were honest-to-god bad films, they were still good stories that actually felt like Star Wars.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
2015/12/19 18:26:57
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
My take on the current status quo between the First Order and Republic is that the Republic and First Order are currently in a ceasefire, with the First Order holding their own territory from which they recruit their Stormtroopers and officers.
The Republic lacks the necessary force to defeat the First Order conventionally and so set up the Resistance to act as an army which will weaken the First Order whilst remaining out of the actual chain of command and so the Republic can deny involvement and prevent a full-scale galactic war.
The First Order also lacks the strength in its conventional navy to defeat the Republic and so built Starkiller to take out the government and then stroll in afterwards.
However it also has to defeat the Resistance as, with Leia as their commander, they will be able to hold the Republic forces together and remain a coherent force.
Spoiler:
My feeling here is that if the last point were the case why were no republic ships deployed in the attack on starkiller base? Surely even a few Nebulon-B frigates, should they still exist in service under the republic flag, would have provided invaluable support to fighters in the air. Orbital bombardment could have easily weakened that thermo-tech tech tech junk-regulator and made an assault not only feasible but could've lead to the republic/resistance forces capturign starkiller rather than destroying it outright (speculation but still). Where is the former rebel fleet though?
I'm also thinking the bulk of the republic fleet has been destroyed along with what I presume are the core worlds? Otherwise why would the republic not have retaliated or joined the frey in support of the resistance. As far as the galactic political situation goes i think you're on to something. I suppose we'll find out what happened to the republic fleet soon though.
Remember Folks: Landmass is landmassy.
2015/12/19 18:28:49
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Action and Adventure films are pretty much the same thing, which is why you'll usually find them packed together in the Action/Adventure section. Action and Adventure games, you might have a point, but in film there's no real difference.
I don't think you understand the term McGuffin;
Spoiler:
Given the ending, it's pretty much a certainty that Luke will serve a role as Rey's teacher, even if he doesn't appear, which pretty much on it's face invalidates him from being a McGuffin. Further, Luke wasn't really the item being sought. The map was, and much like the Death Star Plans in ANH, they came back.
Space Opera is Scifi, unless you arbitrarily exclude from scifi anything that isn't hard scifi, which is like 90% of all scifi.
Having a line saying "there's no such thing as coincidence" doesn't change the fact that OT pretty much ran on a massive unadulterated amount of coincidence. Coincidence happening for a "reason" is still coincidence.
Spoiler:
Also disagree that there was a deus ec machina, if only because of a line earlier in the film that totally didn't reveal the ending blatantly. The moment C3PO made that comment I knew exactly what was going to happen. It was foreshadowed to the point of being a spoiler, i.e. not a DEM.
Bonus points for declaring anyone who likes the TFA as a SW film isn't a true fan.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/19 18:31:19
H.B.M.C. wrote: Hold on. Does anyone find it weird that in the entire time they've been together, Han never once borrowed Chewie's bowcaster until right in this film?
I did wonder about that. I found those bits pretty funny, but I still wondered "it's been like, at least 40 years you two have been at this, how have you never used Chewie's bow caster before?"
chaos0xomega wrote: Re: Republic v First Order, the Republic defeated the Empire at the Battle of Jakku, devestating their remaining military capability and forcing the Smpire to sue for peace. The Republic controls most of the Galactic interior, while the Imperial Remnant held on to the Outer Rim, in other words the Republic is the predominant faction within the galaxy. Some of the former Rebellions members chose to continue fighting and formed the Resistance. Its not made clear yet, bit its believed the First Order is a splinter group of the remnant who may or may not have taken control of the remaining Imperial possessions in order to oppose the Republic.
makes sense
As far as why The Force Awakens fails as a Star Wars film, I posted this elsewhere(potential spoilers):
Anyone who says TFA felt like Star Wars, IMO, doesnt actually understand Star Wars. First, Star Wars is a series of ADVENTURE films. This was an ACTION film (if you dont know the difference read up on it).
Revenge of the Sith, Attack of the Clones, Empire Strikes back, ROTJ, Are also all pretty damn actiony just as much so as this one was i'd say in all honesty.
Second, Star Wars is an homage to the scifi pulp serials of the 20s and 30s and the Golden Age of the 40s and 50s. This film has none of the elements of those pulp serials, not the plot structure, nor the acting style, or the visual style, etc. This film was basically just generic modern scifi (so much so that it would have passed for a new Star Trek or Guardians of the Galaxy film if you swapped out the characters).
I think you grievously missappropriate how much of a homage star wars was to older sci-fi. There is the well known fact that it was a homage to Flash Gordon but for all the similarities it still differs quite considerably in its original and later implemented forms from anything like previous sci-fi. Infact it was the sci-fi that Started the FX revolution rekindled a dying genre, and irreversibly impacted American and Global culture in a way no other sci-fi could with stunning effects, amazing story telling, and superb acting that was a-typical of the genre before it.
The thing lots of people dont understand is that Star Wars isnt scifi. Its Space Opera, basically its Dungeons and Dragons or Lord of the Rings in space.There is a huge difference between them, and treating it as scifi changes it entirely from what it should be.
Space Opera: Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes space warfare, melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, and often risk-taking as well as chivalric romance; usually involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced abilities, futuristic weapons and other sophisticated technology.
This is a term that evolved recently to describe Star Wars and Mass Effect almost exclusively. It is in no way DnD or LOTR in space. It is simply a Higher Form of Fantastic Sci-Fi. This is a sub genre that really only applies to maybe 5 actual things. There's also a tendency for them to be a series (Ala Mass Effect and Star Wars...) Soooooo yeah... Star Wars is still a space opera nothing about 7 changes this nothing about 7 removes it from the category of space opera and nothing about a space opera makes it different from sci-fi...
Third, Star Wars is built around the concept of Joseph Campbells character archetypes and the story of the Hero with a Thousand Faces, etc. None of the characters in this story fit those archetypes, nor does the story resemble that of the archetypal story of the Hero with a Thousand Faces.
.... This film was a complete and total rehash of ANH (Not that it makes it bad)... If ANH used those archetypes then this one certainly did as well.
Fourth, there are a few "rules" to Star Wars films. First - no Mcguffins. This film had a hugely obvious one - Luke Skywalker was basically the crystal skull from Indiana Jones. Second - There are no coincidences, everything happens for a reason (literally stated at least once in previous films). This entire film relies on coincidences to work - Rey and Finn blast off in the Falcon and Han is coincidentally in the same system to find them, for example. Third - there is no Deus Ex Machina is Star Wars, this kind of goes hand in hand with the coincidences, and in this case its quite literal - R2D2 (a literal machine) suddenly and mysteriously wakes up after years of inactivity to coincidentally provide BB-8 with the missing piece to the puzzle of where to find Luke.
You misunderstand, McGuffins are a tool that is accessible to a writer. Almost every story has a driving quest. in ANH it was the Death Star Plans on R2-D2. Again... Pretty much copying the whole ANH formula with the whole map thing.... (which does play a role later rather than simply enabling the plot along the whole time).
You misunderstand the force as a concept. Go re-watch the originals about 12 times each and read 4 or 5 series out of the Old EU till you understand. Make sure they're the jedi related ones... I know it could be hard for you since you don't get the whole Force thing but you will... you will... As far as the film relying on coincidence goes: Like ANH? You know How the droids just happen to land on tattoine and find skywalker after being droidnapped by lusty eyed jawas? And then how His family was Coincidentally murdered by Storm Troopers who framed Sandpeople because they couldn't find the droids? And How Ben Kenobi Just happened to be a jedi? And How Look just happened to be an Ace Pilot in a machine he's never flown before? And How convenient it was that Han and Chewy were in Mos Eisley that day? and How Convenient it was that they bumped into the Death Star and essentially accidentally rescued a princess? Or like .... The list goes on...
You have an interesting point about R2-D2. Though one could always speculate he was remotely hacking into starkiller base for years or simply computing lukes location that whole time and finally came up with a probable region that BB-8 just coincidentally happened to have... Like a 2m wide hole on the side of the deathstar....
There are other more minor (but still important) issues as well, but if you cant cant understand these points theres no point going further into it.
Oh please do tell... cause so far I'm most amused...
And the problem with the prequels wasnt that they didnt feel like Star Wars or that they were bad stories, the problem with them were they were objectively terrible films - the pacing was wrong (just as it was through much of TFA, TFA didnt give the film enough room to breathe, the prequels generally gave the films TOO much room to breathe which made it drag and feel boring), acting was off, too many scenes dedicated to world building, not enough to plot/character development or exposition, etc. But if you read the novizations, you will see that the story itself is actually quite good just presented poorly.
This is why some people like the prequels, while we recognize that they were honest-to-god bad films, they were still good stories that actually felt like Star Wars.
No so many hate the prequels because Jar Jar. The prequels themselves were poor star wars movies. They failed expectations, stole magic away turning it into hard science, gave us poor acting, and tried to simplify a complex moral and ethical issue that still remains unresolved why trying to spoon feed us sympathies for a dark lord who'd murder Trillions portraying him as a victimized demigod with little agency or even little soul while he sat there whining emotionlessly... The pacing may have been off a bit for APM but AtC and ROTS had far better pacing. Infact ROTS is widely acknowledged to have been the best of the 3. Objectively they weren't bad films. Cinematography was good, FX great, Acting subpar but acceptable enough that they literally continued the Series forward for another 12 years without destroying the fan base. Tearing it a little maybe but the series didn't die because of them, In every way star wars.
The prequels did poorly because they did too much and focused on people we largely didn't care about and over complicated things or treated us like childrent. They didn't do bad because they were objectively bad films (Though they had some objectively bad acting). Probably comes from the fact that George Was the only one working on them this time around...
I think you need to take a break and sit back and go rewatch some things and maybe open book and read a little because apparently your star wars sensors are scrambled and I don't think it's jamming coming from imperial forces or the rebel alliance.
This film was in everyway a star wars film. Excellent visuals, Compelling loveable characters, roguish attitude, resistance for the greater good! Large Scale Galactic Conflict using super weapons, small scale planetary conflict, Lightsabers, Death Star, MCGUFFINS, sweet ass droids. In some ways it was more because it took the moral conflict that was present in the first 6 movies and Actually did something with it. Kylo Ren (A surprisingly relatable antagonist) and Rey are the living embodiments of the Force Quandry that Lucas continues to ignore and deny exists. This movie Is the star wars movie to start a new chapter in the saga. And if you can't accept a new star wars film funded by disney that's on you. But this film was excellent. and this film was certainly Star Wars, and every part space opera as those that came before it. Don't delude yourself otherwise though.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/19 19:09:09
Remember Folks: Landmass is landmassy.
2015/12/19 19:52:52
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Is there a good synopsis I can read anywhere now that I don't mind spoilers? I wasn't sure who the old man at the beginning was.
Spoiler:
Found him on star wars wikia, his name is Lor San Tekka. Not much other information on him, maybe his ties to Leia and her family will be explained in upcoming films or spin off works http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lor_San_Tekka
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/12/19 20:33:03
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Saw the film yesterday and really liked it. Even though Rey was more the main character I felt myself finding the other charcaters like Finn, Poe and Kylo Ren more interesting. She just seemed too good at everything and just not that interesting. Maybe that will change with the later films.
No so many hate the prequels because Jar Jar. The prequels themselves were poor star wars movies. They failed expectations, stole magic away turning it into hard science, gave us poor acting, and tried to simplify a complex moral and ethical issue that still remains unresolved why trying to spoon feed us sympathies for a dark lord who'd murder Trillions portraying him as a victimized demigod with little agency or even little soul while he sat there whining emotionlessly... The pacing may have been off a bit for APM but AtC and ROTS had far better pacing. Infact ROTS is widely acknowledged to have been the best of the 3. Objectively they weren't bad films. Cinematography was good, FX great, Acting subpar but acceptable enough that they literally continued the Series forward for another 12 years without destroying the fan base. Tearing it a little maybe but the series didn't die because of them, In every way star wars.
The prequels did poorly because they did too much and focused on people we largely didn't care about and over complicated things or treated us like childrent. They didn't do bad because they were objectively bad films (Though they had some objectively bad acting). Probably comes from the fact that George Was the only one working on them this time around...
With the prequels it is not that the acting is bad per say it is that the writing is just terrible in too many scenes. It doesn't matter how good the actors are if the writing is terrible the scene will be terrible. George Lucas is a really talented guy with a lot of really excellent ideas...and a lot of terrible ones. He really needs someone to work with that challenges him on the bad ideas and when that doesn't happen the end result is stuff like the prequels and the 4th Indiana Jones movie.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 20:34:04
2015/12/19 20:37:02
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Adventure films are a genre of film. Unlike action films, they often use their action scenes preferably to display and explore exotic locations in an energetic way.
Sounds like the OT and even the Prequels yes? Not really TFA.
Action film is a film genre in which one or more heroes are thrust into a series of challenges that typically include physical feats, extended fight scenes, violence, and frantic chases. Action films tend to feature a resourceful character struggling against incredible odds, which include life-threatening situations, a villain, or a pursuit which generally concludes in victory for the hero.
Well thats exactly what TFA is?
There is a big difference between adventure and action. TFA is definitely an action film. It could have had arnold Swartznagger in there saying his cheesy/snarky lines blowing through waves of enemies at each level oh sorry "location".
Hence why this movie doesn't feel starwarsy besides the appearance, well for me anyway.
2015/12/19 20:37:12
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
RiTides wrote: I wasn't sure who the old man at the beginning was.
I also wondered this, cause I felt like I was supposed to know who he was and had no idea who he was. Turns out he some guy who didn't exist prior to the new EU and is only mentioned in some pre release books. :
With the prequels it is not that the acting is bad per say it is that the writing is just terrible in too many scenes. It doesn't matter how good the actors are if the writing is terrible the scene will be terrible. George Lucas is a really talented guy with a lot of really excellent ideas...and a lot of terrible ones. He really needs someone to work with that challenges him on the bad ideas and when that doesn't happen the end result is stuff like the prequels and the 4th Indiana Jones movie.
I could see that too, the bad writing. There were quite a few things that hampered the prequels success. I'm just more inclined to believe the hamperage is more subjective than objective.
As I originally suggested i firmly believe the prequels came off poorly because Lucas was the only one doing them, not explicitly because they were "objectively bad films"
Adventure films are a genre of film. Unlike action films, they often use their action scenes preferably to display and explore exotic locations in an energetic way.
Sounds like the OT and even the Prequels yes? Not really TFA.
Action film is a film genre in which one or more heroes are thrust into a series of challenges that typically include physical feats, extended fight scenes, violence, and frantic chases. Action films tend to feature a resourceful character struggling against incredible odds, which include life-threatening situations, a villain, or a pursuit which generally concludes in victory for the hero.
Well thats exactly what TFA is?
There is a big difference between adventure and action. TFA is definitely an action film. It could have had arnold Swartznagger in there saying his cheesy/snarky lines blowing through waves of enemies at each level oh sorry "location".
Hence why this movie doesn't feel starwarsy besides the appearance, well for me anyway.
Imma just put this out there But how is the OT, Prequels and the Sequel Not both of these? Just saying... I don't see how these are at all mutually exclusive nor how both terms fail to apply equally to each movie in Star Wars.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 20:43:14
Remember Folks: Landmass is landmassy.
2015/12/19 20:51:29
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
With the prequels it is not that the acting is bad per say it is that the writing is just terrible in too many scenes. It doesn't matter how good the actors are if the writing is terrible the scene will be terrible. George Lucas is a really talented guy with a lot of really excellent ideas...and a lot of terrible ones. He really needs someone to work with that challenges him on the bad ideas and when that doesn't happen the end result is stuff like the prequels and the 4th Indiana Jones movie.
I could see that too, the bad writing. There were quite a few things that hampered the prequels success. I'm just more inclined to believe the hamperage is more subjective than objective.
As I originally suggested i firmly believe the prequels came off poorly because Lucas was the only one doing them, not explicitly because they were "objectively bad films"
We agree on the Lucas point. Personally I think the only real bad actor in the prequels as far as the main cast is Natalie Portman. The rest are either horribly cast (Samuel L. Jackson) or characters suffered from terrible writing (Hayden Christensen).
2015/12/19 20:54:20
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Now honestly sit back and think, how much exploration did you do second hand in TFA? Are you satisfied with the locations and did you feel like you got a look and feel for each place? I personally would say no... we got really brief arena looking shots of locations but it was mostly just really fast camera work to watch action going on. I have next to no idea about the galaxy as it stands or the locations they went through. The one I know best is Jakku I think? However the movie is rife with extended actions scenes (jakku has at least 4 fights, falcon interior has a fight, archipelago planet has a long fight, the final battle we can count as one bigger longer fight) but through all the fighting where is the world? Nowhere, it's just an arena to fight in.
In Starwars we get an extensive look into Tatooine from rural life to urban life. Tatooine has 1 brief fight. We then get to the death star which we already have seen and we know a lot about how it's chain of command works, we then get to see the lower levels and right down the the garbage. Yavin is more explored than the planets in TFA and it's the weakest of the locations. In Starwars we have 3 fights, 1 of which is really brief, and only one of which that is all fighting (final battle).
In adventure films the settings, places and locations are important. While yes this means we have a slower pace and have less lasers and booming it also means we are going on an adventure of sorts.
How much of the setting do we know of in TFA? I can safely say I have next to no idea what's going on. We know nothing bar some character names and a few characters brief past. TFA did show me there is fighting though... and a lot of it.
I guess there is some cross over between action and adventure, as adventure does contain action. But action is not the focus, but more the build up to action. This is why Lord of the Rings and starwars is adventure. Yes they have fights but they are either brief or have a really large and well paced lead up the fights. Movies like TFA or John wick are just action sequence to action sequence films with a bit of back ground.
You could argue TFA is not an action but an adventure... maybe? Maybe you can say it's action with a hint of adventure but I don't know.
There is a difference, action and adventure are not interchangeable.
Unless I have misunderstood the terms, but the wikipedias are very clear.
2015/12/19 21:40:16
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
In both the only real locations that are explored are the desert planet and the empires base.
We see that life in Jakku is hard, with merchants gouging scavengers over their goods. We see that it makes use of moisture farms, like Tatooine.
Yavin is not explored in ANH, we see a brief vista shot, a hangar and the command centre and a big hall. Which is almost exactly what we get in TFA with the Resistance base, just minus the big hall.
I'd say we see the same about the workings of the First Order as we did the Empire in ANH. The method of training stormtroopers is covered, as is their command structure and the rivalry between the commanders (Ren and Hux).
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/12/19 21:56:47
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Now honestly sit back and think, how much exploration did you do second hand in TFA?
How much exploration did you do second hand in any of these movies? The Prequels probably had the most adventure of any of the SW films, but TFA is very much more like the OT, which mostly used exotic locals as little more than set pieces for the action scenes. Granted, keep in mind that the 'exotic' locals were talking about here are 'Desert' 'Forest,' 'Ice Cap', and 'futuristic city/army base.'
However the movie is rife with extended actions scenes (jakku has at least 4 fights, falcon interior has a fight, archipelago planet has a long fight, the final battle we can count as one bigger longer fight) but through all the fighting where is the world? Nowhere, it's just an arena to fight in.
Every SW film is rife with extended action scenes. Cut out all the action scenes, and they'd all probably fit into a 45 min prime television time slot... Except for the prequels which managed to be close to 3 hours long each time and even with the action scenes cut out, would still probably need a full hour to get nowhere quick
You could argue TFA is not an action but an adventure... maybe? Maybe you can say it's action with a hint of adventure but I don't know.
I think the big difference we're seeing in TFA isn't that it's not an adventure movie, but rather that it's an adventure movie with a more modern take. Lots of aspects of the film include what would probably be considered very trendy in pop culture. As much as Luke was a product of at the time classic heroes like Flash Gordon and Han Solo to Buck Rodgers, Finn and Rey are also throw backs, but to more modern type heroes/heroines. Rey is very much a product of Katniss Everdeen or Clarke Griffin style survivor girls. Watching Finn and listening to him is like reading a page out of Percy Jackson. You try telling me you watched Poe in the first scene and didn't instantly think of Maverick
Kylo Ren reminded me very quickly about halfway through the film of characters like Murtangh or Draco Malfoy. BB8 is more 'high tech' in his design than R2D2, or C3PO. There was a concerted effort in the film I think to try and redo A New Hope but using reference points that would be more applicable to the new millennium. Rather than throwing back to Flash Gordon, Dune, John Carter, or Buck Rodgers the film is trying to call back to a newer age of heroes and heroines using the Star Wars formula and elements.
TFA is different from the Prequels or the OT, but not because it's an action movie (they're all action movies), but rather that it has much more modern cinematography and elements. Maybe that's a throw off, and that's fine, but what were you really expecting? No one was going to make this movie using a time machine back to the 70's to film it as if they were filming a movie 50 years ago. It's 2015, and the film was always going to reflect that. If anything, I'd say JJ's style is better suited to Star Wars than to Star Trek.
EDIT: Also, as an aside;
Spoiler:
I just realized, how the hell did Luke get his father's lightsaber back? Isn't that the one that went off with his hand at the end of Empire Strikes Back? What he do search an entire gas giant to find the dang thing XD
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 22:01:53
I just realized, how the hell did Luke get his father's lightsaber back? Isn't that the one that went off with his hand at the end of Empire Strikes Back? What he do search an entire gas giant to find the dang thing XD
Well if Luke could get sucked into a garbage chute,
Spoiler:
his hand and lightsabre could, too. Maybe it ended up not falling out the bottom, such as getting stuck somewhere, and was found and sold by a scavenger who didn't know how valuable it was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/19 22:11:46
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/12/19 22:13:46
Subject: Star Wars The Force Awakens -- full of spoilers so beware !
Haven't seen the film yet so cannot comment on it, but I heard from a friend at my gaming club that Disney is pulling the licences for all existing Star Wars RPGs like Fantasy Flight Games because they "aren't official Disney Canon".
