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.

Peregrine, you just described a movie with a completely different story than The Phantom Mencae by changing most of the dumb gak.

The issue isn't "could TPM be good?" because that's irrelevant; the movie we have is terrible on every level.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Peregrine, you just described a movie with a completely different story than The Phantom Mencae by changing most of the dumb gak.

Not really. Most of the plot remains exactly the same. You still have the same sequence of failed negotiations over the blockade -> escape to the capital to get help -> find Anakin -> jedi and senate reject our heroes -> come back to win the battle anyway. Only the execution of those events and characters changes.

 Valhallan42nd wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Agreed.

Hux is far too young and pathetic. I am presuming the Death Planet Star is the biggest and most important weapon the New Order have got. It certainly is an order of magnitude bigger than the original Death Star, which was commanded by a much more experienced general.

The Republic's star system was blown up including their planets and moons, so presumably whatever fleet they had was blown up at the same time. The rebels apparently are left with about a dozen X-Wings.

It was a bit of a throw-away, though. However it avoided all the tedious exposition about tax disputes that marred episode 1.

I never got the feeling that Hux was pathetic, rather that he didn't see the point in Ren being there and diverting resources away from the tasks that Hux felt were more important, hence their disagreements.

Hux wanted to destroy the Resistance and Republic, Ren wanted to find Luke.

Snoke seemed to regard them both as useful, which is a change from the Emperor and Vaders apparent regard for the common soldiery, with Vader force choking several Imperial officers and destroying at least one star destroyer in an asteroid field.

It might also be that Snoke is dealing with the best that the diminished resources of a broken Empire can give him. I assume Hux is so young as all the old officer corp probably died with the explosion of Death Star 2 at Endor.

Well considering that within the continuity, the 2nd Death Star blew up 30 years prior to TFA, that argument doesn't really make sense...

The new one assumes you saw the previous films, know everything you need to know, handwaves one or two lines about a republic having come into existence alongside this new Imperial lot, and that's about it as far as universe development goes.

Thats putting it politely. TFA assumes you know more about whats going on in the galaxy than is presently available from other sources of canon, and quite possibly assumes you know more than Lucasfilm itself does. Its still not entirely clear what the dynamics between the First Order, Republic, Resistance, and possibly Empire are. StarWars.com, for example, states on one page that the First Order formed in the Unknown Regions while another page claims that the First Order formed on New Republic worlds that preferred the Imperials totalitarianism to the New Republics bureaucracy. Other sources seem to imply that the First Order is one of several splinter groups, while others imply that they are *the* successor state of the former empire, yet others imply that they are separate from the remaining Imperial rump state that coexists peacefully with the New Republic.

If you didn't see the glimpses then maybe you weren't paying attention?

Think you're stretching here. We don't really get any glimpse into much of that at all.

In the case of the jedi stuff, its literally a 5 second flashback scene that shows some jedi kids being slaughtered by the Knights of Ren.
In the case of the battles, we know nothing about who or why the battle was fought unless we explore other canon materials (and then we find out that the wrecked ships are more or less there because their crews scuttled them to prevent capture).
We dont really get any indication that there is a 'larger first order' at all. We dont know where Snoke is, for all we know hes hiding in Tora Bora with 72 virgins. As far as kidnapping children is concerned, for all we know the First Order has been raiding frontier worlds and kidnapping their children and doesn't actually control any planets themselves.
We got no glimpses of internal strife between the Republic and Resistance, the only way anyone even knows that thats a thing is courtesy of the novelization and the reveal about their having been a DELETED scene.

It really isn't, not at all. You get episode 1 by having terrible acting, clumsy script writing and directing, awkward CGI for everything, and a stubborn insistence on turning the occasional comic relief elements into the focus of the movie. The movie was terrible for reasons that had nothing to do with the choice of story themes.

Indeed, there are numerous other franchises and films which deal with political intrigue, etc. that are far more compelling if not outright brilliant. And then you have Game of Thrones... theres politics in there somewhere, behind the sex and covered in blood.

Although I feel that I need to mention that the acting and script were a poorly executed but intentional attempt to utilize pre-method acting styles as well as dialogue structures that were more common in the 30s, 40s, and 50s than they are today. In that context, they are still bad, but significantly less bad than if it was an attempt at more modern stylings.

Political machinations... doesn't really fit in star wars.

Well the guy who created Star Wars disagreed with you.

Despite the hate for George Lucas and people being glad he signed away 'Star Wars' does anybody else think this is a good think for George Lucas as well?

In one article I read it sounded like the popularity of 'Star Wars' boxed him in somewhat into doing what was expected of 'Star Wars' and staying in it.

I mean other than 'Star Wars' Lucas at one point did some unique movies as well. Perhaps what he really needed was to make new universes rather than stay in the same ones and just make 20 special editions for his old universes.

I mean I'm probably wrong as I wouldn't doubt he enjoyed the fame and fortune he got from 'Star Wars' but I dunno. I think with as complaint heavy as some people were with 'The Force Awakens' it just goes to show how pleasing the fans and newcomers is just a really tough job. Honestly it kinda seems like an awful time for the person at the helm.

------

I'll see if I can find the article somewhere. Also at least George Lucas enjoyed robot chicken's star wars skits (which many have loved). GW tends to kill content anywhere it can esp. fan comics. It's nice to see fans creating something enjoyable to attract more fans rather than the main company threatening court action.

I think GL got in trouble because he refused to stay boxed in and do what was 'expected' of Star Wars. I think a lot of that though had to do with the fact that he didnt quite understand what fans wanted, nor did he understand that fans understood Star Wars differently from he did. Theres a story about how Ray Bradbury once gave a speech at a University about the symbolic meaning of his book, Fahrenheit 451. A student in the audience attempted to correct him that the book was about censorship. Ray pointed to his name on the cover of the book and said, no, its about the effect of the media on the populace. The student insisted that it was, in fact, about censorship. Ray stormed off stage. I think theres a similar bit happening hear. GL produced this story which was supposed to be the story of a family and the rise, fall, and redemption of its Patriarch, enveloped in a setting filled with eastern mysticism, etc. etc. etc (putting it very simply here, because its far far far more complex). The audience took it to be a story about epic space battles and romance, etc. GL didn't necessarily understand that there was this misunderstanding - to him Star Wars is and always was a series of experimental films - so when he continued on with that vision, and it became apparent that there was a divergence between what was expected and what it was in reality, thats where the pushback from the fanbase arose, after which, I think, George said feth it and quit.

IMO the scale issue is less about the literal number of ships/soldiers on screen and more about their place in the movie. In ANH the death star attack is clearly the climax of the movie, and it takes its time building up to that final torpedo shot. A simple pursuit and destruction of a TIE fighter gets a decent amount of screen time, the music is matched perfectly with the action, etc. It's a classic space battle for a reason. But with TFA the pace is so frantic and the intensity of the action is so constant that the x-wing attack feels like it's almost an afterthought. There's never any time to appreciate what you're seeing before there's another spectacular CGI shot or you're jerked along to the next Major Plot Event. And so it's reduced to "there were a few x-wings in the background when Han died", as forgettable a battle as anything in the prequel trilogy.

Peregrine and I are in agreement. Guise, this is scary...

I think this is exactly it. They've got the same ship designs as the original trilogy and figured out how to copy some of the theme elements of the battles, but they don't seem to understand why those battles are so memorable. And instead they compensate by having more dramatic CGI in the hope that the audience is too distracted to notice the flaws.

Yup. JJs been defending it as saying that they felt they needed to get 'the bones of the thing' and build the film around that, but he missed the films heart and soul in the process. He clearly seems to understand, at a basic level, where the influences came from, he namedropped Kurosawa, The Dambusters, etc. But he seems to have only a very rudimentary understanding of what these films were and how and why GL drew inspiration from them.

I don't think it is, honestly. The execution of the story is terrible, of course, but I think with a few fairly small changes you can get a decent story out of the basic idea:

1) Make Anakin older, about 20-25ish. This fixes one of the most annoying parts of the movie from a bad acting perspective, and makes his accomplishments a lot more plausible.

2) Reduce the amount of time spent on pointless diversions like the underwater chase. These aren't even part of the story, they're just filler material that can be removed without losing anything.

3) Make the droids and gungans serious characters instead of comic relief. In fact, you could even remove the gungans entirely and replace them with the main characters hiring a mercenary force to retake the planet after the Republic fails to help.

A fixed version of the story isn't going to win any literary awards, but it would at least be an enjoyable movie.

If you replace Jar Jar with Roos Tarpals the film becomes like 20 times more awesome.

I think the bigger issue is Lucas is an idiot who was so out of touch with reality he didn't realize what he created or why it was successful. He didn't realize that Star Wars was successful because it was the classic fantasy formula, not because of the elements he tried to add to be edgy. And he got a swollen ego on all the success that he figured that he was always right.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think the bigger issue is Lucas is an idiot who was so out of touch with reality he didn't realize what he created or why it was successful. He didn't realize that Star Wars was successful because it was the classic fantasy formula

I disagree here with one major bit: he wasn't an idiot who had no realization of his creation.


BBC America, a little while back had a 4 part mini documentary called something like "the history of science fiction" In one episode, they talked about space, and some contemporary of Lucas's was interviewed. The segment of the show was specifically on the two main types of Sci-Fi of the day: opera and western (IIRC)... Well, this friend told this story of being in a bar, and George walks in looking "positively glum", he sits down and says, "I've made a kids' movie".

He knew that he had created a movie that was basically all of the classic fantasy tropes and was nearly the polar opposite of what he apparently wanted.

Not knowing what sort of movie you're making has to make you at least a bit of an idiot.
Doing it again, but much worse 20 years later doesn't help the 'not an idiot' case.

 Ketara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, he had anger issues like any self-respecting Sith Lord. I suppose the difference between him and Kylo is that Vader had control and was actually competent.

Yeah. Seeing the supposed bad guy lose himeself to the point he ignites and starts chopping up a wall just makes him kind of...well, pathetic really. Bad guys can be full of rage/violence, but when the first thing it makes you think of is the two year old throwing a tantrum you saw yesterday, it really detracts from the whole 'bad guy' motif.

He's a conflicted, would-be bad guy. I wonder where he puts all that lovely flowing hair in that tight helmet.

chaos0xomega wrote:

In the case of the jedi stuff, its literally a 5 second flashback scene that shows some jedi kids being slaughtered by the Knights of Ren.

There is also a mention by someone else (Leia?) that Luke founded a new Jedi temple, and that Ren turning on him and killing the other students was the reason he went away.

We got no glimpses of internal strife between the Republic and Resistance, the only way anyone even knows that thats a thing is courtesy of the novelization and the reveal about their having been a DELETED scene.

Leia does mention in the movie that she's on the outs with the Republic leadership.

Yes, I got both those points from the film. I remember thinking when the First Order blew up the Republic that it wouldn't help in the war against the Rebellion because the Republic wasn't actually supporting them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, I got both those points from the film. I remember thinking when the First Order blew up the Republic that it wouldn't help in the war against the Rebellion because the Republic wasn't actually supporting them.

But the opening crawl of the film says it is supporting them at least covertly, right?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
But the opening crawl of the film says it is supporting them at least covertly, right?

Yes, and The First Order says that blowing up the capitol of the Republic is done to hurt the Resistance.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
But the opening crawl of the film says it is supporting them at least covertly, right?

Yes, and The First Order says that blowing up the capitol of the Republic is done to hurt the Resistance.

Well, they also want to destroy the whole Republic and bring back the Empire so it's kind of a win/win for them.

I don't think its fair to equate Starkiller base to the original Death Stars.

Death Star I blew up Alderaan, a peaceful and rich planet, but one which was at best only peripherally involved in the rebellion. Its destruction had little strategic significance.

Death Star II achieved nothing except the death of the Emperor, Darth Vader, and a significant portion of the Imperial military (the Aftermath novel states that the elite of the Imperial Officer Corps was wiped out). A strategic own goal.

But Starkiller Base instantly obliterated the heart of the New Republic. Its strategic significance to the new Civil War cannot be overstated. In a single strike, it wiped out the leadership of the New Republic, several of its most important worlds, and the majority of its fleet (as far as we know). We don't yet know exactly how big the Republic is, so theres no reason to believe its been wiped out completely, but its safe to say that it has been crippled and is no longer in a position to support the Resistance. Leia and co. are effectively on their own once again, without even the covert support that the New Republic was providing.

One shot planet killing super weapons have a deservedly bad reputation in the Star Wars universe, but I'd say Starkiller Base is the one occasion when it actually did pay off and was worth the colossal investment of resources. I expect the First Order will be going on the offensive in Ep 8, because the New Republic has been at best crippled (and at worst, completely wiped out) and they only have the Resistance to deal with, not an evenly matched super power.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, he had anger issues like any self-respecting Sith Lord. I suppose the difference between him and Kylo is that Vader had control and was actually competent.

Yeah. Seeing the supposed bad guy lose himeself to the point he ignites and starts chopping up a wall just makes him kind of...well, pathetic really. Bad guys can be full of rage/violence, but when the first thing it makes you think of is the two year old throwing a tantrum you saw yesterday, it really detracts from the whole 'bad guy' motif.

He's a conflicted, would-be bad guy. I wonder where he puts all that lovely flowing hair in that tight helmet.

Yeah oddly enough I like him as a bad guy. Sometimes I wish he kept the helmet on though. The tantrum though scary and very much like an angry 2 year old or whiny teenager at best at least he doesn't kill his officers. I still say Darth Vader (the person ren looks up to and also only cool while wearing a mask) did more damage to the imperial leadership by killing every officer that failed him. It's was absolutely stupid how much damage he must have done to his own side by doing that. In some respects he did more damage to the empire in many ways than any rebel assassin could have. He killed the emperor and a crap ton of imperial officers. I mean he also tried to turn Luke to the dark side and failed and nearly blew up yavin 4 by planting a tracking device on the millennium falcon and failed to get the planet blown up. Umm I guess darth vader killed obi wan though.

Actually now that I think about it wtf did darth vader actually do? I know he was cool and sorta managed to capture Han and all that but didn't boba fett find them? Also why is Boba fett so popular? It must be because he looks cool and has a jetpack because he did next to nothing in the movies where he was supposed to show what he could do. If nothing else fans that were crazy about him made him cool whereas in the movies he just sucked.

I enjoyed the movie very much. Not as good as the original 3, better than the 3 prequels. I have confidence that Disney will do a decent job with it.

Favorite scene:



That's just...really funny to me!

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, he had anger issues like any self-respecting Sith Lord. I suppose the difference between him and Kylo is that Vader had control and was actually competent.

Yeah. Seeing the supposed bad guy lose himeself to the point he ignites and starts chopping up a wall just makes him kind of...well, pathetic really. Bad guys can be full of rage/violence, but when the first thing it makes you think of is the two year old throwing a tantrum you saw yesterday, it really detracts from the whole 'bad guy' motif.

He's a conflicted, would-be bad guy. I wonder where he puts all that lovely flowing hair in that tight helmet.

Yeah oddly enough I like him as a bad guy. Sometimes I wish he kept the helmet on though. The tantrum though scary and very much like an angry 2 year old or whiny teenager at best at least he doesn't kill his officers. I still say Darth Vader (the person ren looks up to and also only cool while wearing a mask) did more damage to the imperial leadership by killing every officer that failed him. It's was absolutely stupid how much damage he must have done to his own side by doing that. In some respects he did more damage to the empire in many ways than any rebel assassin could have. He killed the emperor and a crap ton of imperial officers. I mean he also tried to turn Luke to the dark side and failed and nearly blew up yavin 4 by planting a tracking device on the millennium falcon and failed to get the planet blown up. Umm I guess darth vader killed obi wan though.

Actually now that I think about it wtf did darth vader actually do? I know he was cool and sorta managed to capture Han and all that but didn't boba fett find them? Also why is Boba fett so popular? It must be because he looks cool and has a jetpack because he did next to nothing in the movies where he was supposed to show what he could do. If nothing else fans that were crazy about him made him cool whereas in the movies he just sucked.

Well Vader only killed two guys on screen. There is implication he did that fairly often, but no real evidence it was happening all the time.

But yeah, Kylo should have kept his helmet on till the bridge scene. And they should have kept him being Han's son a secret till then too. JJ laid all the cards out on the table too quickly.

 Grey Templar wrote:
But yeah, Kylo should have kept his helmet on till the bridge scene. And they should have kept him being Han's son a secret till then too. JJ laid all the cards out on the table too quickly.

No, you really have that wrong. The storytelling decision was sound. If you wait to make the big reveal there, you lose all the buildup to that moment and the poignancy of the conversation. It'd be extremely rushed and confusing to an audience.

"Ben!" gave me nerd chillls, I'm not going lie. I agree that they didn't need to hold the helmet coming off until then.

All the "Emo Ren" stuff just feels very hip and meme-ish. Doesn't resonate with my experience of the character at all.

 gorgon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But yeah, Kylo should have kept his helmet on till the bridge scene. And they should have kept him being Han's son a secret till then too. JJ laid all the cards out on the table too quickly.

No, you really have that wrong. The storytelling decision was sound. If you wait to make the big reveal there, you lose all the buildup to that moment and the poignancy of the conversation. It'd be extremely rushed and confusing to an audience.

Yeah, I agree. It would have severely cheapened the entire moment if no one mentions Ben is Han and Leia's son and out of nowhere, Han confronts him on the bridge and SUPRISE!

Laying things out gradually so that the viewer can guess what happens next isn't bad storytelling (not everything can be a total surpise) when the scene pays off and it paid off here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 plastictrees wrote:
All the "Emo Ren" stuff just feels very hip and meme-ish. Doesn't resonate with my experience of the character at all.

Me either, but it's pretty damn funny, especially the Twitter account.

There is a back and forth between the Emo Ren and Lonely Luke twitters that is funny as hell.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/75748912/star-wars-that-time-emo-kylo-ren-and-luke-skywalker-got-into-a-public-spat

"Wait, Han knows him?!?"
"He's Han's son?!?"
"Oh...Han's dead."
"Okay, then..."

It wouldn't work. Not everyone in the audience is a SW nerd who suspects that Kylo Ren is Han and Leia's kid.

 plastictrees wrote:
"Ben!" gave me nerd chillls, I'm not going lie. I agree that they didn't need to hold the helmet coming off until then.

All the "Emo Ren" stuff just feels very hip and meme-ish. Doesn't resonate with my experience of the character at all.

Honestly, I get that feeling from a lot of nerd criticism these days.

Did people like Kylo Ren/Ben? His face kind of ruined the movie...

He was a conflicted and insecure bad guy. Believable when looked at in that light, IMHO.

I liked the character and look forward to a darker, more sinister Ren in EP VIII!

 kronk wrote:
He was a conflicted and insecure bad guy. Believable when looked at in that light, IMHO.

I liked the character and look forward to a darker, more sinister Ren in EP VIII!

This is pretty much my assessment as well. I rather liked him.... though, I think they could have done a whole lot more with




But then again, with the ratings and all, I think if they went much further, they could have been risking it in the rating territory.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 kronk wrote:
He was a conflicted and insecure bad guy. Believable when looked at in that light, IMHO.

I liked the character and look forward to a darker, more sinister Ren in EP VIII!

This is pretty much my assessment as well. I rather liked him.... though, I think they could have done a whole lot more with

Spoiler:

The scene where he's trying to interrogate Rey, he takes of his helmet and says something like, "see, I'm not a monster"...... It seemed like such a Hannibal Lector thing to say, I just think that, unless they are banking something for Ep. 8/9 for him to show the "true" monstrosity within him, they failed to capitalize on that bit.

But then again, with the ratings and all, I think if they went much further, they could have been risking it in the rating territory.

I think Ren is going to (both physically and mentally) become more of a 'monster' over the trilogy. He's already got that gash across his face very similar to Anakin's, and the huge knock to his confidence of being beaten by someone he believed to be far beneath him. We've got so many stories where the goodies lose a bit at first, then get better at being goodies and rise up to beat the villains. I think it'll be great to see the reverse here; Ren has taken his first hit, and is going to dig deeper and deeper into the darkness to try and bounce back from that. In the next films, I imagine he'll be throwing everything he has into mastering the Dark Side and destroying Rey completely and utterly.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But yeah, Kylo should have kept his helmet on till the bridge scene. And they should have kept him being Han's son a secret till then too. JJ laid all the cards out on the table too quickly.

No, you really have that wrong. The storytelling decision was sound. If you wait to make the big reveal there, you lose all the buildup to that moment and the poignancy of the conversation. It'd be extremely rushed and confusing to an audience.

Yeah, I agree. It would have severely cheapened the entire moment if no one mentions Ben is Han and Leia's son and out of nowhere, Han confronts him on the bridge and SUPRISE!

Laying things out gradually so that the viewer can guess what happens next isn't bad storytelling (not everything can be a total surpise) when the scene pays off and it paid off here.

I also agree, I still got a pretty big kick when we found out he was Han's Son, and I was super happy that he was actually a product of the story and not just another ass-pull bad guy that comes out of nowhere and only last one movie like Count Dooku, Darth Maul, and General Grievous. If they'd left it until the bridge to reveal his identity I think it would have also cheapened the whole thing. After the initial surprise had dissipated, I think I would have felt it was just a cheap attempt to recreate the "I am your father" moment, but it wouldn't have worked nearly as well.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Did people like Kylo Ren/Ben? His face kind of ruined the movie...

I love the character and the voice. I know what you mean about his face; the face wasn't what I was expecting. I wanted him to look more attractive, like Jared Leto (or ya'know, either of his parents). Adam Driver has quite a noticeably asymmetrical face, and sticky out ears. On the big screen one cheek sticks out about a foot further than the other. I'm ashamed to admit that took me out of the movie a bit. Instead of thinking about "this is the son of Han Solo" I was thinking "why is his cheek bigger on one side"...

Ultimately, however, I think he is a good actor, and I should probably feel bad about myself for being shallow and expecting people to all fit some idealistic standard of beauty. He seems like a really cool guy, and I like him, so good luck to him. I'm not gonna let something so superficial spoil the movie for me.

Having said that, I think it would have been super funny if he'd taken his helmet off and he was a black guy. I can just imagine the faces on the people who were so vocally against John Boyega. It would have been the greatest troll moment of all time. And then they should just never explain it... "Han and Leia's son is a black guy, that's how it works in a galaxy far far away. What?"

Having said that, I think it would have been super funny if he'd taken his helmet off and he was a black guy. I can just imagine the faces on the people who were so vocally against John Boyega. It would have been the greatest troll moment of all time. And then they should just never explain it... "Han and Leia's son is a black guy, that's how it works in a galaxy far far away. What?"

Lando happened.

 Smacks wrote:
I wanted him to look more attractive, like Jared Leto (or ya'know, either of his parents).

One of the reasons he was chosen is he does have a fair resemblance to a young Harrison Ford.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I wanted him to look more attractive, like Jared Leto (or ya'know, either of his parents).

One of the reasons he was chosen is he does have a fair resemblance to a young Harrison Ford.

Sorry, I punctuated that badly. I meant "good looking, like his parents", not "looking like his parents".

With regards to family resemblance, I can see how the photos are from a similar angle and stuff, but I don't see much resemblance beyond that.

 Smacks wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I wanted him to look more attractive, like Jared Leto (or ya'know, either of his parents).

One of the reasons he was chosen is he does have a fair resemblance to a young Harrison Ford.

Sorry, I punctuated that badly. I meant "good looking, like his parents", not "looking like his parents".

With regards to family resemblance, I can see how the photos are from a similar angle and stuff, but I don't see much resemblance beyond that.

I don't see how the attractiveness of the actor means anything, I'd rather they cast people who can play the role. If I want to look at pretty people, GIS isn't far away. Personalyl I think he nailed the character.

Most children don't have that uncanny valley resemblance to their parents. Driver has a vague resemblance to a similarly aged Ford, which is all you need for that. And more than most movies try to do.