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.

 Manchu wrote:
Funny you draw that comparison - I thought about it more as a contrast: I think Kylo Ren is Anakin done right.

I totally agree. It's also going to interesting to see what's really been going on.
Adam Driver was quoted in a GQ interview and said that both Kylo and Rey are pretending to be something they are not. Putting on a mask if you will, quite literally for Kylo

I look forward to seeing what is revealed in the Last Jedi as I truly believe there is way more going on that what we were lead to believe in TFA.

 Manchu wrote:
The standard of novelty by which you guys are praising R1 is pretty generous. I mean, if you apply the same standard to The Phantom Menace, uh well, that film also showed us new things and also called into question a previously unproblematic institution (the Jedi). Now, I'm not saying TPM is better than R1 (feth no!) - just that the standard you're using to praise R1 results in giving as much praise to TPM. So you can tell by that, there's something wrong with your standard.

Or your understanding of it. It's not just new, but that it offers a compelling look into the setting- people trying to get on with their lives with stormtroopers on patrol, what the rebellion cells are willing to do or sacrifice.

TPM has emotionless drones having boring conversations out of sync with the immediate background or pacing of the film. TFA had similar problems, though in the opposite direction- everything was in a rush, regardless of the situation, and everything was obviously supposed to be an 'even more epic' version of the exact same scene from another movie. Whether the characters were present or not never mattered because they were lost in the scramble to get to the next scene that has to amp up the stakes in some fashion- without actually mattering.

Had whats-her-name just taken the Falcon to Luke after leaving not!Tatooine in a calm and collected fashion, demanded to be a student and been told the story of Luke's failures as a teacher and uncle, I would have been just as impressed with the film. (Which is to say, not at all). But it would have been equal to the shallow and meaningless copypasta that was presented as a finished film.

Sebster above makes the most important point of all. TFA had engaging characters, R1 did not. And even if we could hem and haw on everything else, this gap trumps. Maybe the twist is, characterization in TFA really leans on the charismatic performances of the actors. But however a film gets there, it has to do it - and R1 didn't, for a variety of reasons.

Only if you accept his premise as true, which I don't. No one in TFA was engaging. Even Ford was sighing through his role, and whoever those kids were, they were blanks. The main cast for R1 was driven by understandable motivations, and as a bonus, those motivations were even present in the film.

 Manchu wrote:
Funny you draw that comparison - I thought about it more as a contrast: I think Kylo Ren is Anakin done right.

I found both insufferable.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Funny you draw that comparison - I thought about it more as a contrast: I think Kylo Ren is Anakin done right.

I found both insufferable.

It's hard not to. 'Tantrum' is not a character trait.

What motivated Jyn Erso? To begin with, she was shanghaied. Without any plot development to account for why, she suddenly becomes a more righteous true believer than the very leadership of the Rebellion. What motivated Captain Moustache? To begin with, he was willing to ruthlessly kill. Then, for no reason, he is not. What is Blind Not-Jedi's motivation? Something about the Force? Or something? How about Mr Big Gun? I guess he came along as a package deal. And the droid works out to some kind of slave so free pass, I guess. The pilot had some kind of commitment to Jyn's dad, but that was completely off-screen.

Krennic had the only clear motivation: he wanted credit for his work.

But this isn't just a matter of motivation, as you suggest. The R1 crew is not only poorly characterized; they are just dull. I don't mean as concepts; I mean as personalities, as people I am supposed to care about. Felicity Jones is about as engaging as a moist towel. Her supporting cast is earnest as a substitute for being interesting.

Again, Krennic is the only character with sufficient dimension to merit any reflection: What kind of man works for the Empire? what kind of man builds a Death Star? Mendesohn plays him with a mix of high cunning and low emotional IQ that is fascinating.

Meanwhile, TFA is a fairy tale with likable kids having fun on a soaring adventure. Yep, that's Star Wars. No question about it. I just wish Disney had more faith in that feel and shape of the story, rather than explicit references again and again and again to the OT. Even so, Daisey Ridley and John Boyega give breathless, exhilarating performances that more than made up for the weaknesses of the script. Driver nails it with Kylo Ren. A given audience member may not like these characters' arcs - but at least they have arcs.

But did Kylo throw legit tantrums? Or was it all a show/way to keep himself angry because he is playing the long con on Snoke?
This would make Kylo's character very interesting

I think it is pretty clear in TFA that Kylo works himself up because, as we well know, anger = power for Darksiders. This is part of his training; we just have to keep in mind that his training is, as of TFA, incomplete.

Kyla was powered by his insecurities. He could never win.

Other than him, I thought TFA had very charismatic actors...portraying very bland characters. R1, pretty much the same, but that sassy droid!! And Donnie Yen!! (And I thought Krennic had his own interesting angle.). Therefore R1 had better 'characters.'



Plus, did we really need to see that old Han Solo had lost all his character growth as well as the confidence and competence that made him so compelling a scoundrel? No. Not I, anyway.

 Galef wrote:
But did Kylo throw legit tantrums? Or was it all a show/way to keep himself angry because he is playing the long con on Snoke?
This would make Kylo's character very interesting

That's can't be what's going on.

Killing your Dad as part of a 'long con' would be...reprehensible and irredeemable.

And Han is definitely dead - he was stabbed, fell into a 'bottomless pit' and then got blown up.

Ford got his wish, finally!

 Alpharius wrote:
Killing your Dad as part of a 'long con' would be...reprehensible and irredeemable.

And Han is definitely dead - he was stabbed, fell into a 'bottomless pit' and then got blown up.

Unless Han knew that is exactly what Kylo needed to do to win Snoke's full trust. (just like Snape and Dumbledore)
Kylo may have turned on the lightsaber, but Han is the one who pointed at himself. This is also why Kylo says "thank you" as he did it, because he didn't have the strength to go all the way by himself.
This was possibly the most noble sacrifice Han could make: sacrificing himself for his son's safety.

Harrison didn't just want Han killed off, he wanted him to be nobly sacrificed and has said so in many interviews.

Even if I am wrong, it is clear by Kylo's hesitation in TLJ trailer that killing Han didn't ease his turmoil between the light and dark. If this sets off a chain of events that eventually turns Kylo back to the light, than Han's sacrifice would indeed have "brought their son home" like Leia asked.

-

As much as people dump on the Pequels, I at least felt like they were trying to do something new and not just re-hash the originals. I'm not even that into Originality in movies, but I just felt like TFA was too much of a retread.

Jyn Erso makes sense as a character as she WAS shang-haied, until she got the message from her Dad and then urgently wanted to prove that he was not really a bad man. The only way that could happen is if she could prove that there really was a flaw in the Death Star! I think her chrarcterization is pretty straight forward.

Same with Capt. Moustache. He starts off as a pretty cynical and hardened operative. However, as he sees more of Jyn and her need to prove her Father is not a baddie, he starts to get swept up into it because he needs to believe that what he is doing is the "right" thing even when it is morally grey. He can't shoot Jyn's Dad, because he no longer believes it is the right thing because Jyn is so convinced her dad is not the baddie. That means he can no longer justify the brutality to himself and the right thing is to help her, not hinder her.

Now, Donnie Yen and his pal are just extra fodder and not true characters. However, most supporting characters do not get fully developed. They are there to support and not drive the plot. Wedge or Chewbacca are no different.

I really do not know how you can call the R1 character's boring. Their stories and motivations are pretty clear. I have only seen R1 once, but I recall their motivations way better than the characters in TFA which I also only saw once. Kylo Ren was the only one of interest in TFA and he was the baddie.

But Jyn never believed her dad was bad. So the hologram moment changed nothing. Being abandoned by Forrest Whittaker would seem to have greater bearing on her attitude toward the Rebellion. But this is not explored at all.

Moustache has been fighting in the Rebellion since he was a kid, according to his lines. Has he really never considered the morality of his actions until meeting Jyn Erso - a character that at the outset seems to be politically indifferent?

This is all boring because I can tell what the script wants to accomplish but I can also tell it isn't getting accomplished. I am supposed to think Jyn starts deeply caring about the Rebellion. But the only proof I have is her speech that she cares - no explanation of why or development of her character. The characters are whoever the script needs them to be at a given moment. Moustache kills this dude (a Rebel!) - whoa he is ruthless! Oh but then, no, in another scene for no discernible reason he refuses to do something similar (to an Imperial scientist! despite his orders!). The key difference is, the guy he killed was nobody; the guy he didn't kill had a connection to the main character. This is textbook gak writing and gak writing is boring.

Han died nobly because he was trying to redeem his son. I don't think he had a sudden moment of clarity about Ben playing a double cross on Snoke. But like I have said before, when it comes to what we don't know yet, anything is possible. This is because we're talking about fiction, not because TFA presents a solid case that, for example, Han wanted Ben to kill him so that Snoke would not suspect that Ben plans to betray Snoke.

I don't get the problem with Cassian. What's wrong with a person not wanting to be ruthless and kill anymore. Jyn doesn't even make him question things, it's killing his friend while looking him right in the face.

He's the good old stereotype of the hero that loses his edge and has a crisis of faith until someone leads him toma better way to be a hero. Cassian was probably the most developed character of the whole movie, much more so than any Force Awakens character.

R1 had Vader as a fully operational battle station.
TFA had an emotional boy band reject.

Hah hah!

The problem is, he is introduced as a guy willing to do bad things for a good cause who even gives a whole speech defending this position. But then he changes his mind and there is nothing meaningful between those two points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
R1 had Vader as a fully operational battle station.
TFA had an emotional boy band reject.

But that's the point.

I would argue Jyn Erso never actually cared about the rebellion. She cared about proving that her Dad was not a monster that designed a super weapon that the Empire was going to use to do bad things.

Before she knew from that video, she didn't know what to think about her Dad being an Imperial. Her time with Saw probably distracted her from the fact that she had a mixed relationship on her Father and what he was.

Prove to who? If she doesn't care about the Rebellion, why's it matter what they think? Actually, they don't even know who he is. Neither does the galaxy at large. There is no line connecting Jyn's feelings about her dad to participating in the Rebellion. At a stretch, she wants to blow up the Death Star because her dad made the Death Star blow-up-able. Weeeeaaaak. But again, this isn't even a movie about blowing up the Death Star. It's a didn't-need-to-be-made movie about a minor, completely incidental aspect of a different movie that's actually entertaining .

Saw and Jyn's dad were at least co-conspirators against the Empire if not also actual friends. I have a really tough time believing Jyn grew up thinking her dad was a bad guy. And even if she did, the movie should establish that ... which it didn't.

I think, going form hazy memory, there is a scene where Jyn recalls her Father and Krennic working togethr at an Imperial base. Mads Mikkelson is in a green Imperial outfit and celebrating with Krennic. she also was there when Krennic came for him at his Moisture Farm. However, I do not recall if she saw everything that happened or only we as the audience did?

I think the movie established that she wasn't sure what to think of her Dad pretty clearly, as it isn;t until she sees the hologram and he explains his motivations to her that she seems to care too much about him.

What a movie about stealing the Death Star plans doesn't need:
- an undeveloped father/daughter subplot
- a Jedi or Jedi-equivalent character
- CGI Leia
- an exploration of the moral ambiguity of the Rebellion, half-hearted or otherwise

What such a movie does need:
- a charismatic lead actor
- common Rebel grunts (rather than fairytale super heroes like Luke, Rey, or Blind Not-Jedi)
- arguably Darth Vader (Kennedy was right on that one, even if the execution was dumb and condescending)

@Easy E - at one point, her dad worked with Krennic ... but she knew he got fed up and ran away ... she also knew this cost her mother her life (saw her die) and her father's freedom

 Manchu wrote:
What motivated Jyn Erso? To begin with, she was shanghaied. Without any plot development to account for why, she suddenly becomes a more righteous true believer than the very leadership of the Rebellion. What motivated Captain Moustache? To begin with, he was willing to ruthlessly kill. Then, for no reason, he is not.

She was shanghaied, but no, she gave a rousing speech, but not so much a true believer. Everything for her revolved around her father. Proving to herself that he's not a monster, despite working on this super weapon for the Empire like these people are claiming.

As for Cassian, he was quite willing to ruthlessly kill. He was just questioning the target (and the motivations attached to that target being unofficially assigned), that maybe he could do more for the galaxy than kill a disgraced scientist.

Meanwhile, TFA is a fairy tale with likable kids having fun on a soaring adventure. Yep, that's Star Wars. No question about it. I just wish Disney had more faith in that feel and shape of the story, rather than explicit references again and again and again to the OT. Even so, Daisey Ridley and John Boyega give breathless, exhilarating performances that more than made up for the weaknesses of the script. Driver nails it with Kylo Ren. A given audience member may not like these characters' arcs - but at least they have arcs.

Are you... are you reading from a press release?

Can you at least demonstrate where these character arcs are hiding (or that the kids are likeable or even that there is an adventure going on) and what's exhilarating about two characters babbling around engineering hole? Rey's character arc is to stay a self sufficient golden child, her entire scope of change is to reluctantly agree not to go back to the planet she was abandoned on, and maybe sort of admit she was abandoned. And go visit Luke at the very end, when his family and friends are apparently too ashamed to do so?

Janitor man wanted out from his first scene. He got out. The end. He also maybe vaguely wanted to win the girl, but got a coma instead. With the sheer shallowness of the acting (and the writing), I couldn't actually tell if they were going for romance, friendship, adventuring buddies or 'don't touch me.' Partly at times because they literally cycled through 'don't touch me' and several others in under 60 seconds. Yay, characterization.

What is Driver nailing? How to flail about with a glowstick? Kylo was a very convincing twelve year old with a deadly weapon. There wasn't anything else to his character.

 Manchu wrote:
What a movie about stealing the Death Star plans doesn't need:
- an undeveloped father/daughter subplot
- a Jedi or Jedi-equivalent character
- CGI Leia
- an exploration of the moral ambiguity of the Rebellion, half-hearted or otherwise

What such a movie does need:
- a charismatic lead actor
- common Rebel grunts (rather than fairytale super heroes like Luke, Rey, or Blind Not-Jedi)
- arguably Darth Vader (Kennedy was right on that one, even if the execution was dumb and condescending)

@Easy E - at one point, her dad worked with Krennic ... but she knew he got fed up and ran away ... she also knew this cost her mother her life (saw her die) and her father's freedom

- Undeveloped Father- Daughter Subplot- Except every character needs a motivation.
- Jedi like character- Agreed
- CGI Leia- Agreed
- Moral ambiguity of the Rebellion- I actually thought this was more about Cassian than the Rebellion. It was an attempt to portray him as a grey-hat.

Does Need:
- Charismatic Lead Actor- Agreed that this could have been a bit better, but to claim John Bodega's former Stormtrooper or Rey as powerful Orphan is better is.... debatable at best.
- Common rebel grunts- The movie had plenty of those
- Darth Vadar- He was there, and he was a mean muther-trucker

********************

@manchu- This is fun! Thanks for the discussion.

I personally love to hate on The Dark Knight and most Zach Snyder movies. We all have that movie that we love to dump on. I can see how Rogue One could easily be one of those movies, and I appreciate discussing why. Not many people actually want to engage on the merits of a pop culture movie anymore. Thank you.

TFA character arcs:

Rey: begins movie as a good-natured person who doesn't want to get involved ... goes on adventure, gets captured by bad guys, the only friend she ever made comes to save her ... ends movie believing she should "do the right thing" and get involved

Finn: begins movie just wanting to run away from evil First Order ... goes on adventure, makes friends, inspired by people fighting First Order ... ends movie making self-sacrifice to stand up to First Order and defend his friends

Kylo: begins movie as bad guy without regrets ... meets protagonist who identifies his insecurity about living up to that image, confronts that insecurity by killing his own dad but actually this just makes him more conflicted ... ends movie sparing someone he would have killed without a second thought when the movie started

they're called arcs: character begins one way, changes by the end - and this change is supported by plot developments in the middle


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Easy E

I agree every character needs motivation. But the "so my dad built the Death Star" thing is needlessly melodramatic and complicated. Why not just have a character who is motivated to steal the plans because they believe a super weapon is terribe?

Heck why not even have that character start as an Imperial? You know ... and have them rebel ...

Rey is defo a weak character (her background is a fething secret, how irritating). That's why it's that much more important that Daisey Ridely be really good. And she was. Felicity Jones ... not so much ...

R1 has plenty of Rebel grunts but none of them were the actual characters of the movie. Whoops! Moustache was the closest and I wish the story had been about him commanding a squad rather than a superhero team-up.

Vader was misued as a one-off set piece. He should have been relentlessly chasing down our good guys as they escaped with the plans. Instead he kills nobodies and accomplished nothing but hey people like it because it looked neat.

The moral ambiguity thing was definitely about more than Moustache - remember the Rebel general who commanded him to kill Jyn's dad? Or his speech about how all the Rebel volunteers have done terrible things?

Yes, I agree it's a fun discussion.

R1 is not a terrible movie, like TPM. But it's problems are so much more severe than TFA's.

I think you hit on it. R1 and TFA are not terrible movies. They are reasonably solid, craftsman like work. The problem is, that isn't good enough for a Star Wars Blockbuster... and possibly not even good enough for a summer blockbuster anymore.

I recently watched the Back to the Future trilogy, and boy do those movies hold up well. Sure, some of the predicitions for the future are ridiculous, but the story beats, dialogue, and characters are all there.

Now, we expect that level of skill in almsot all of our summer blockbusters, and OK just doesn't cut it anymore. There are way too many entertainment choices. Plus, once you layer in nostalgia expectations and craftsman-like is way, way too short of the mark.

The going consensus with my friends is that R1 was probably the best star-wars film ever made and TFA was probably the worst. So Disney is all over the place. The problem is they have picked such a terrible villain for the last 3 movies. Kylo is a terrible character - they even cast the wrong actor for it too. Why the heck doesn't he wear the mask more? Really all the characters in the new era are crap. Rei is okay...I guess.

Overall though. The most disappointing thing to me is how the story between 6 and 7 developed. The alliance isn't supposed to be this weak. It's supposed to be more on even footing and instead of a new kind of starwars we get the same thing. The rebels always fighting a losing battle and their heros save the day. Honestly I am tired of that now. I kind of want these weak rebels to lose now. Because they are just so damn weak.

 Manchu wrote:
The problem is, he is introduced as a guy willing to do bad things for a good cause who even gives a whole speech defending this position. But then he changes his mind and there is nothing meaningful between those two points.

I think this is a continual crux in how Star Wars presents morality honestly, not really an issue for R1 insofar as it only stands out because R1 called attention to it.

The character arcs in TFA are driven by plot developments. I don't think that is too hard for SW. I think it just got overlooked in R1.

Apparently Disney is imposing some ridiculous demands on theater owners if they want to show The Last Jedi.

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Disney is imposing some ridiculous demands on theater owners if they want to show The Last Jedi.

Not in the least surprised by this move from these money grabbers.

Disney have released 2 Star Wars films, and they have been nothing more than bloated, plot hole ridden, buckets of horsegak of movies.

Sure, it's a drop in the ocean, but they won't be getting another penny from me






Automatically Appended Next Post:

As much as people dump on the Pequels, I at least felt like they were trying to do something new and not just re-hash the originals. I'm not even that into Originality in movies, but I just felt like TFA was too much of a retread.

Well Easy E. My thoughts entirely

It’s a film coming out in the traditionally dead winter season.

What other blockbusters might it be denying the larger auditoriums?

For the local Cineworld? Not a problem. but if you're running a small cinema in a small town, you're not going to want to hand over a third of your usual take (see the previous discussion about making the money on snacks), and if everyone in your local area will have seen the film in a fortnight, then having to keep it on for another two weeks is likely to result in an empty cinema once the novelty has worn off. Even if you're only replacing it with some low-budget horror film or a re-run of It's a Wonderful Life, that may well draw in higher audiences.