I liked the new movie. A friend of mine called it a "Star Wars Greatest Hits album," which basically nailed it. If you get a Greatest Hits album of The Beatles it's going to be enjoyable, just because you can't deny that the songs sound good. That said, you are missing some of the organic decisions and growth in the band that you would have heard if you listened to the original albums.

J.J. Abrams successfully recreates the "look" and "feel" of the Original Trilogy, which is what was promised and is mostly a good thing, but it's also true that it mostly amounts to mimicry of what was once an original and inspired vision. He also does what he does best: gives us a group of characters who are instantly likable and interesting, and sends them off on a very fast-moving roller-coaster ride of a story. The story is so quick and exciting that you might not notice how much of it only hangs together on silly coincidences and hand-waved motivations. And no, the original films did NOT have narrative issues in the same way. Go back and watch Star Wars (A New Hope) again -- the character decisions are always well-motivated. It's simple, but very focused and specific; by comparison The Force Awakens is far over-complicated with characters and plot twists (hello, J.J. Abrams).

I'd say it's basically right between the OT and the Prequels in terms of quality. Personally I'd say it's closer to the OT, because at the very least Abrams understands how to get you emotionally invested in his characters, and that was Lucas' massive failure in his prequel trilogy. Much of Force Awakens feels like setup for future installments, but at least it's a good setup.

sycasey;842621330 said:

---

I liked the new movie. A friend of mine called it a "Star Wars Greatest Hits album," which basically nailed it. If you get a Greatest Hits album of The Beatles it's going to be enjoyable, just because you can't deny that the songs sound good. That said, you are missing some of the organic decisions and growth in the band that you would have heard if you listened to the original albums.

J.J. Abrams successfully recreates the "look" and "feel" of the Original Trilogy, which is what was promised and is mostly a good thing, but it's also true that it mostly amounts to mimicry of what was once an original and inspired vision. He also does what he does best: gives us a group of characters who are instantly likable and interesting, and sends them off on a very fast-moving roller-coaster ride of a story. The story is so quick and exciting that you might not notice how much of it only hangs together on silly coincidences and hand-waved motivations. And no, the original films did NOT have narrative issues in the same way. Go back and watch Star Wars (A New Hope) again -- the character decisions are always well-motivated. It's simple, but very focused and specific; by comparison The Force Awakens is far over-complicated with characters and plot twists (hello, J.J. Abrams).

I'd say it's basically right between the OT and the Prequels in terms of quality. Personally I'd say it's closer to the OT, because at the very least Abrams understands how to get you emotionally invested in his characters, and that was Lucas' massive failure in his prequel trilogy. Much of Force Awakens feels like setup for future installments, but at least it's a good setup.

---

All due credit to Lucas for the "original and inspired vision", but for me it only lasted about 2 1/2 episodes. As far as narrative issues, how many times in Star Wars did the "bad guys" shoot at the "good guys"? And how many of those shots hit their mark? Aw, heck, I don't even know if that qualifies as a "narrative issue", but, for me, it detracted from the movie. Bottom line, I liked "Empire Strikes Back" so much, everything since has been a disappointment, which makes me reluctant to even see the new one.

Well, almost midnight: Time to wrap about 20 presents. At least, at the last minute, I was wise enough not to get that swing set that I would have to be outside building right now!

Intersting article on Marcia Lucas...
http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/george-lucas-brilliant-ex-wife-was-secret-weapon-in-original-star-wars/

sycasey;842621330 said:

---

I liked the new movie. A friend of mine called it a "Star Wars Greatest Hits album," which basically nailed it. If you get a Greatest Hits album of The Beatles it's going to be enjoyable, just because you can't deny that the songs sound good. That said, you are missing some of the organic decisions and growth in the band that you would have heard if you listened to the original albums.

J.J. Abrams successfully recreates the "look" and "feel" of the Original Trilogy, which is what was promised and is mostly a good thing, but it's also true that it mostly amounts to mimicry of what was once an original and inspired vision. He also does what he does best: gives us a group of characters who are instantly likable and interesting, and sends them off on a very fast-moving roller-coaster ride of a story. The story is so quick and exciting that you might not notice how much of it only hangs together on silly coincidences and hand-waved motivations. And no, the original films did NOT have narrative issues in the same way. Go back and watch Star Wars (A New Hope) again -- the character decisions are always well-motivated. It's simple, but very focused and specific; by comparison The Force Awakens is far over-complicated with characters and plot twists (hello, J.J. Abrams).

I'd say it's basically right between the OT and the Prequels in terms of quality. Personally I'd say it's closer to the OT, because at the very least Abrams understands how to get you emotionally invested in his characters, and that was Lucas' massive failure in his prequel trilogy. Much of Force Awakens feels like setup for future installments, but at least it's a good setup.

---

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't agree about the "roller coaster" of Force Awakens. I never felt invested in the action because there were not clear and real stakes. The new characters were charming, but their wants were not clear and well motivated. And so much of screen time had to be devoted to the old characters cameos and homages that there was little development. The old characters largely interrupted the narrative arc and muddled the question of agency and protagonism. Just think about how much of the film was about Han Solo. But was he moving story forward and developing as a character or just a nod to the past stagnating the goal seeking and protagonism of the new cast? Ultimately he is this weird grey area of support character/lead character without any real change and dead end plot.

Maybe Luke won't be as whiny 30+ years later in EP8, but it seems to be a male Skywalker thing...

Kylo Ren is terrific.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/kylo-ren-is-everything-that-anakin-skywalker-should-hav-1749606647

okaydo;842621133 said:

---

You may know this or maybe not: Emo Kylo Ren was once a U.S. Marine.

---

Completely understand the long hair now.

Big C_Cal;842621495 said:

---

All due credit to Lucas for the "original and inspired vision", but for me it only lasted about 2 1/2 episodes.

---

Well sure. I mean, certainly by the time he made the prequels Lucas was a different guy and no longer had the same inspiration that drove him to make the original films. But I'm comparing Force Awakens to the best of Star Wars and seeing where it falls a bit short.

Big C_Cal;842621495 said:

---

As far as narrative issues, how many times in Star Wars did the "bad guys" shoot at the "good guys"? And how many of those shots hit their mark? Aw, heck, I don't even know if that qualifies as a "narrative issue", but, for me, it detracted from the movie.

---

You're right, I wouldn't call that a narrative issue. Narrative is more about what the characters are doing and why they do it. The original trilogy is generally very solid about this stuff, especially the first two movies -- that's what helps them endure.

Stormtroopers being bad shots is more about how the scenes are staged. (And frankly, I don't think this is something most people complain about until they've watched the movie a bunch of times over. When you are caught up in the story the first time it doesn't really matter.)

I'd say see the new one. It really is the closest approximation to the "good" Star Wars movies that we've had in a long time.

blungld;842621511 said:

---

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I don't agree about the "roller coaster" of Force Awakens. I never felt invested in the action because there were not clear and real stakes. The new characters were charming, but their wants were not clear and well motivated. And so much of screen time had to be devoted to the old characters cameos and homages that there was little development. The old characters largely interrupted the narrative arc and muddled the question of agency and protagonism. Just think about how much of the film was about Han Solo. But was he moving story forward and developing as a character or just a nod to the past stagnating the goal seeking and protagonism of the new cast? Ultimately he is this weird grey area of support character/lead character without any real change and dead end plot.

---

I agree about the character arcs being muddled in the film. You can tease out some stuff, but it's nowhere near as strong as it was in the OT. Perhaps some of this was inevitable, due to the requirement of this film to "hand off" Star Wars to a new generation of characters.

When I describe it as a "roller coaster" I mean that in a good and bad sense. Abrams understands how to keep things moving quickly (this is probably the fastest-paced Star Wars ever, just in terms of how long the scenes last before some new plot development happens or they go to a new location), but it's also a little bit mechanical, like a roller coaster is. You're not required to understand human emotion to get thrills from a roller coaster; it stokes your natural physical responses to stimuli. A roller coaster also doesn't have much lasting impact unless you get back on it. I feel similarly about The Force Awakens: it's a fun ride, but doesn't quite have the same emotional depth as the better SW films.

On a Disney cruise right now (don't scoff - they are extremely well run and very little mouse stuff. One of the highest quality cruise lines in the world). They are showing this movie almost continuously on the ship (in 3D and 2D). All included so you can see it as many times as you like. To those of you who complain about lack of emotional depth and organic storytelling all I can say is you are missing the point. You are all too well educated and (forgive me for this) too old. America and the world love this film and for good reason. Abrams hit it out of the park and has invested an entirely new generation with a love of this franchise. Mission accomplished.

Sebastabear;842621592 said:

---

On a Disney cruise right now (don't scoff - they are extremely well run and very little mouse stuff. One of the highest quality cruise lines in the world). They are showing this movie almost continuously on the ship (in 3D and 2D). All included so you can see it as many times as you like. To those of you who complain about lack of emotional depth and organic storytelling all I can say is you are missing the point. You are all too well educated and (forgive me for this) too old. America and the world love this film and for good reason. Abrams hit it out of the park and has invested an entirely new generation with a love of this franchise. Mission accomplished.

---

The love is new. Let's see if it lasts for multiple decades like the original films did.

Though again, I did like the movie. Not saying it's bad.

Eh. Movies are now made for foreign viewers not americans these days. Most of the box office for blockbusters is made internationally so means watered down plots, story lines, simplified and less highbrow dialogue...more action and less substance. I think lucas' attention to detail and imagination is missing. But Abrams knows how to bring the action. Definitely worth the 20 dollar 3d ticket but as a Star Wars lover it was definitely a mouse version...

Lol at star wars as highbrow stuff

I enjoyed the movie because it was a brisk pace but once the movie was over and you thought about it you realized it was all out of wack

Plus, its all built on nostalgia. Watch the old trilogy without your fanboy lenses and the stuff is borderline unwatchable and campy

blungld;842620163 said:

---

I get that, and I am glad that you and so many others really liked the film. But I don't get the "I go to be entertained" sentiment. My wife says that all the time too. We can all of course chose whatever criteria we want and experience a book, film, or anything on the terms we chose...but I don't get how "entertained" is used as a sort of antithetical to films that are deemed "artistic" "intellectual" or "boring"---and people who are observing the faults in an "entertaining" movie as being "finicky", "negative" or "making lemonade".

I too go to movies to be entertained (I was first in line at Force Awakens and was as excited as anyone), but I can't be entertained if their are huge plot holes and "we" (the audience) are not filtering the story through a plausible POV (or camera) or moved through a well-structured narrative. This isn't over intellectualizing, it's the visceral, embodied viewing experience I have of being disconnected by poor story telling, poor craft, poor acting, etc. It breaks with our experience of the world when our stories ring false...and then I'm bored...and not entertained. I could go into narrative theory here and how story works on us at the cognitive level, but then you'd think that I am sitting there in the theater watching as an academic when in fact I TRY to fall completely into story without critical faculty. When I start breaking into analysis (my head intruding on the experience) it is a sure sign that there are faults in the craft and that it is losing me.

While I may also have a preference for films that push artistic envelopes (like Birdman as a recent example--I was on the edge of my seat excited through that whole film, just couldn't believe what I was seeing) I also like a well-made commercial film...but it has to be well-made. It doesn't get a pass for exhibiting the tropes of being "entertaining" (the signature moments of a big budget action film we all know). I was unexpectedly surprised by Guardians of the Galaxy as a recent example of a popular film in the action genre that had some bones to it and stayed within genre while not being completely predictable--where as most of the Marvel films the past few years I think are complete formula (AntMan a pleasant exception I thought). The Lord of the Rings trilogy (not the Hobbit) was an "entertaining" series that was also an artistic success. They are not mutually exclusive. A film can be good and entertaining, just like Cal football can be smart AND successful ;-)

More than anything, I don't like seeing the studios getting away with creating pap that is nothing more than a marketing vehicle and thinking that is all they have to do--the public isn't smart enough to notice and box off is big enough justification to keep churning out the crap. Film is culture. I'd like to see the cinema return to a more artistically driven enterprise. There are not as many Godfathers being made today and it's a shame.

Meanwhile, TV audiences are demanding more and more in terms of excellence, authenticity, and originality. There are more and more shows like Sopranos, Breaking Bad, MadMen, Lost, etc. We went from a Golden Age of film to crass commercialism, while TV went from crass commercialism to a Golden Age.

I liked Steven Soderbergh's speech on the state of the film industry: http://deadline.com/2013/04/steven-soderbergh-state-of-cinema-address-486368/

---

I was going to post something similar days ago but I'm I didn't because blungld said exactly what I wanted to say better than I would have been able.

I 100% agree with everything he said and it's exactly what I was thinking when I left the theater. The only thing I'd add is that, to me, intent is important.

It was clear to me that the choices made were driven entirely by money. And to me that's a huge problem and it makes it almost impossible for me to enjoy the film.

By now, we all know the various flaws with the film. Even those who enjoyed the film can admit that these flaws exist. Now having flaws is fine. But not when those flaws were basically built into the movie on purpose.

1. Unoriginal story: ok so this ones obvious. Abrams and Disney needed to get the fanbase back after the disaster of the prequels. Easiest way to do that is to just copy what people loved about the originals. So a conscious decision was made to have an unoriginal story for the purpose of making money.

2. Playing it safe: pretty much see above. No risks were taken because Abrams wanted to appeal to a mass audience.

3. Characters lack depth: so much time was given rehashing the old characters (and appeasing the fanbase) that not enough time was allowed to flesh out the new characters. Again a conscious decision made by Abrams to shortchange his new characters in order to appease the fanboys.

4. Lack of backstory: one of the main complaints about the prequels was that there was too much explaining and too much politics. Well that was completely taken out of force awakens to again appease the masses. What we are left with is a story with gigantic holes. What the hell happened after Jedi? Anyone know? What's the republic up to? Who are these new nazi bad guys? Who are the resistance? What the hell is going on?

5. Rey masters the force too easily: a huge complaint is with the final battle scene where the storm trooper guy is somehow able to injur a sith apprentice and then Rey somehow actually beats him w zero training. Totally lacks plausibility and completely breaks away from traditional Star Wars mythology that values training. The best and most plausible way to have ended that final scene is with Rey lying on the ground with her arm cut off. But that would have taken a risk. And that would have been too dark and alienated that huge 13 year old demographic that Star Wars desperately needs.

6. Bad guys suck: the bad guys weren't scary, period. Again, this was predictable once Abrams was announced as director. You know you weren't going to get anything too dark or twisted. But I certainly didn't expect cartoonish bad guys. Just another way Abrams made sure to appease the kids and not make it too scary.

Ok so this list could go on and on. My point is this. You shouldn't make a movie based on fear. Fear of the critics. Fear of the masses. Fear that it will be compared to the prequels. When you do that your movie is no longer your own. You are just reacting to what you believe people want to see. That is not art. That is the epitome of selling out.

I can forgive flaws in a movie when the flaws exist because of poor execution or just lack of talent by the filmmaker. but when the flaws are purposeful, it seems manipulative and just plain wrong. It's the filmmaker treating its audience as idiots. Oh look I can make the millennium falcon do cool things; love me and give me your money. Don't mind the fact that my movie is devoid of any actual substance.

I'm frankly surprised that there are so many people on this board so supportive of this movie. Supporters even admit it was a money grab and that it there are huge flaws, but apparently appealing to their sense of nostalgia and the fact that it's better than the prequels is enough.

When is just being ok enough? If you were the filmmaker, wouldn't you want to try to make the best movie possible? Who cares what others think? This is Star Wars we are talking about. You have the chance to make a generational movie. Why waste that opportunity? Why just kowtow to the studio heads and the mass public and the fanboys. Make something you know in your heart is great. Don't make something just because it hits all the right notes to be a guaranteed blockbuster. As cal grads, isn't that something we all demand of ourselves? To do something to the very best of our ability? But to intend to make a movie just to make money when you know in your heart it's not the best possible movie you could have made, that's offensive to me.

And it's not like you can't make a quality film and still make money at the same time. Look at dark knight or Lotr, movies that were both quality and made money. But those directors had balls. Abrams does not and Disney knew that from the start.

Unfortunately the financial success of this movie will lead to the studios doing just the same in the future. Which means more tv for me and less movies.

I'm not sure we can analyze this on the basis of "how will it hold up?" Have you watched a movie filmed in the 70s lately? There are a handful of movies that are watchable (Star Wars, the Godfather and a few more). Most are excruciatingly slow and plodding - included "action" movies from the period like Deliverance and Planet of the Apes. I'm guessing if you could teleport a moviegoer from the 70s to a modern film they would think it was just a series of explosions filmed by a meth addict. Who knows? In 40 years The Force Awakens may look like a Woody Allen film.

Dbearson;842621636 said:

---

Lol at star wars as highbrow stuff

I enjoyed the movie because it was a brisk pace but once the movie was over and you thought about it you realized it was all out of wack

Plus, its all built on nostalgia. Watch the old trilogy without your fanboy lenses and the stuff is borderline unwatchable and campy[/QUOTE

Generalization, not about star wars smart guy. This fanboy thinks you have no idea what you are talking about. The original trilogy was a seismic shift in sci fi that holds its greatness 30 yrs later.

Dbearson;842621636 said:

---

Plus, its all built on nostalgia. Watch the old trilogy without your fanboy lenses and the stuff is borderline unwatchable and campy

---

I call BS on that. Maybe you don't like it, but Star Wars was popular at the time with both adults and kids (and critics), and has remained so for 40+ years. There's no way all of that can be chalked up to nostalgia and "fanboy lenses."

The campy style I would argue was intentional and purposeful. George Lucas was paying tribute to his own boyhood favorites, Flash Gordon and the like. People liked Star Wars because it acknowledged its roots in sillier stuff like that and built upon it.

Sebastabear;842621641 said:

---

I'm not sure we can analyze this on the basis of "how will it hold up?" Have you watched a movie filmed in the 70s lately? There are a handful of movies that are watchable (Star Wars, the Godfather and a few more). Most are excruciatingly slow and plodding - included "action" movies from the period like Deliverance and Planet of the Apes. I'm guessing if you could teleport a moviegoer from the 70s to a modern film they would think it was just a series of explosions filmed by a meth addict. Who knows? In 40 years The Force Awakens may look like a Woody Allen film.

---

I'm saying that the very BEST works from any time period manage to transcend the limitations of their time periods and continue to "work" for audiences as time goes on. The original Star Wars films do that. I suspect this one won't have the same staying power and am laying out the reasons why I think so.

I've watched a lot of 70s movies in my day. Some of the greatest American classics come from that decade. The best ones hold up just as well now.

OK, I just have to weigh in. The complaint about the dumbing down of cinema and the populace desiring low brow entertainment came about as a result of . . . Star Wars! George Lucas changed the art of film, and perhaps not for the better since the studios want films that are blockbusters that continue to make money through merchandising.

I was somewhat snobbish in my Cal days, having studied literature (including taking two film classes that were offered by the English Dept.) I enjoyed Star Wars but felt it was too low brow. Almost every element of the story, plot, characterizations, and themes were derivative of older movies, including not only Flash Gordon and Buck Rodgers serials but samurai and western films.

In time I grew more appreciative realizing that the films were an homage to not plagiarism of the films the Lucas loved.

So, now the new entry in the canon (Episode VII) is released and people are complaining it is not original but derivative of original trilogy. Please!

Clearly, Abrams wanted a reboot to put the franchise back in gear after the disaster of the Episodes I-III. This was the most enjoyable film in the franchise since Empire. I'm happy with it and looking forward to a second viewing. Indeed, I hope Disney and Abrams decide to start over and give us Episodes I-III with a decent story line (not dominated by a kid who is having a love relationship with a teenager - yuck!) and quality acting.

southseasbear;842621660 said:

---

So, now the new entry in the canon (Episode VII) is released and people are complaining it is not original but derivative of original trilogy. Please!

---

For the record, I don't necessarily mind that they are grabbing things from the original films and using them again (or perhaps "remixing" them is the more accurate description). I just don't think the storytelling is quite as good as it was in the originals.

That said, don't you think there is at least a slight difference between a film series paying homage to other works and one that is basically paying homage to itself?

okaydo;842621500 said:

---

Intersting article on Marcia Lucas...
http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/george-lucas-brilliant-ex-wife-was-secret-weapon-in-original-star-wars/

---

Very interesting.

Star wars is basically 2 for 7 at this point and it coincides with the split.

I just tried to rewatch the empire strikes back in glorious 1080p and on a 65 inch tv capable of 4k...and the first is barely watchable. the first scenes on hoth are laughably bad. go back and rewatch it man. it's all hype. try to watch it objectively. it's OK at best.

episode 7 the remake is good for what it is. super high production value. amazing scenes. i saw it in 3d imax. i said to myself "wow" when the rebels came back in the jungle scene. but the movie itself lacks a whole lot of ****. like actual drama or things that make sense.

somehow stars has been riding this perfect storm of fandom and hype for like 50 years i hope they really switch it up for the next one, but don't count on it. expect more of the same (which is good if you know what you're getting) because the money train has spoken and it aint stopping.

Dbearson;842621674 said:

---

I just tried to rewatch the empire strikes back in glorious 1080p and on a 65 inch tv capable of 4k...and the first is barely watchable. the first scenes on hoth are laughably bad. go back and rewatch it man. it's all hype. try to watch it objectively. it's OK at best.

---

I rewatched Empire recently and thought it was just as good as ever. Tell me what is bad about the Hoth scenes. Is it just that the special effects look older?

Dbearson;842621674 said:

---

Very interesting.Star wars is basically 2 for 7 at this point and it coincides with the split.I just tried to rewatch the empire strikes back in glorious 1080p and on a 65 inch tv capable of 4k...and the first is barely watchable. the first scenes on hoth are laughably bad. go back and rewatch it man. it's all hype. try to watch it objectively. it's OK at best.episode 7 the remake is good for what it is. super high production value. amazing scenes. i saw it in 3d imax. i said to myself "wow" when the rebels came back in the jungle scene. but the movie itself lacks a whole lot of ****. like actual drama or things that make sense. somehow stars has been riding this perfect storm of fandom and hype for like 50 years i hope they really switch it up for the next one, but don't count on it. expect more of the same (which is good if you know what you're getting) because the money train has spoken and it aint stopping.

---

38 1/2 years

okaydo;842621500 said:

---

Intersting article on Marcia Lucas...
http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/george-lucas-brilliant-ex-wife-was-secret-weapon-in-original-star-wars/

---

Yeah the Marcia Lucas stuff is real interesting. She was the person George actually listened to when she told him he was doing it wrong. Her personality basically formed the basis for Princess Leia: quick-witted and spunky.

Much more detailed stuff in here: http://fd.noneinc.com/secrethistoryofstarwarscom/secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

She came up with a lot of stuff that saved George's early movies, including American Graffiti, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and the three original Star Wars films. She understood how to properly pace a film so that the audience could follow the emotional journey. And she wasn't just an editor who got to work on movies because she was George's wife; she also edited Taxi Driver, one of the all-time classics. Marcia Lucas was a sharp one.

sycasey;842621675 said:

---

I rewatched Empire recently and thought it was just as good as ever. Tell me what is bad about the Hoth scenes. Is it just that the special effects look older?

---

I agree. Rewatched it 2 days ago with my kids and it's still my favorite of the entire series. Certain stop motion effects show their age (on Hoth especially) which is to be expected given the film came out in 1980. The Wompa has fared the worst...best to experience those scenes with your eyes closed. My kids on the other hand could have cared less and loved the whole thing. Go figure.

OzoneTheCat;842621721 said:

---

I agree. ... best to experience those scenes with your eyes closed.

---

and ears, john williams' music sucks, too. seeing well the SW/football cross-cultural downgrade on BI, helped finish off the long '60's, + american dream


[video=youtube;oBQVvEMc-VQ][/video]





:Lindsay

sycasey;842621675 said:

---

I rewatched Empire recently and thought it was just as good as ever. Tell me what is bad about the Hoth scenes. Is it just that the special effects look older?

---

Horrible tactics, for one. Knowing that the AT-ATs are going for the power generators, and knowing that their main firepower is forward-facing, why set up the snowspeeder attack runs from the front? Why not the side, or the rear? Several snowspeeders get shot down needlessly.

And why does Luke leave the shelter of the wampa ice cave? He's clearly gotten the best of the creature, but he runs out into the cold to die of exposure. Plus, when he's lying in the snow freezing to death, why isn't the ghost of Kenobi more helpful, instead giving imperious instructions about Dagobah and Yoda? Thanks, Obi-Wan.

(TESB is still my favorite)

prospeCt;842621735 said:

---

and ears, john williams' music sucks

---

There are opinions, and then there is being wrong.

G&B61;842621751 said:

---

then there is just being

---

very zen; it's said it's ~ 90% aesthetics, and the rest ethics. love the man; amazing grand kids, musically, twins






[video]http://www.amoeba.com/live-shows/detail-1912/#cat-most_recent_shows/[/video]




[video=youtube;J0-HLG7Dxec][/video]


no opinions in music, just educated taste




:Lindsay

prospeCt;842621735 said:

---

and ears, john williams' music sucks, too. seeing well the SW/football cross-cultural downgrade on BI, helped finish off the long '60's, + american dream


[video=youtube;oBQVvEMc-VQ][/video]





:Lindsay

---

"Love the lie and lie the love
Hangin on with a push and shove
Possession is the motivation
That is hanging up the goddamn nation
Looks like we always end up in a rut
Trying to make it real
Compared to what."

sycasey;842621673 said:

---

For the record, I don't necessarily mind that they are grabbing things from the original films and using them again (or perhaps "remixing" them is the more accurate description). I just don't think the storytelling is quite as good as it was in the originals.

That said, don't you think there is at least a slight difference between a film series paying homage to other works and one that is basically paying homage to itself?

---

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. After 38 or so years, and the debacle of the prequels, and considering the franchise is now in the hands of new and different parties (Disney & Abrams), I think the self-referential jokes (for example, Kylo Ren destroying a control panel with a light saber as Harrison Ford reportedly once did, in a similar fit of rage) with a power saw) and parallel structural similarities was a way of signaling the faithful that this is a reboot. As Han said: "Chewey, we're home."

southseasbear;842621788 said:

---

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. After 38 or so years, and the debacle of the prequels, and considering the franchise is now in the hands of new and different parties (Disney & Abrams), I think the self-referential jokes (for example, Kylo Ren destroying a control panel with a light saber as Harrison Ford reportedly once did, in a similar fit of rage) with a power saw) and parallel structural similarities was a way of signaling the faithful that this is a reboot. As Han said: "Chewey, we're home."

---

It's definitely actively trying to signal these things to Star Wars fans. All the same, it's still basically a case of Star Wars paying tribute to itself; not quite the same thing that Lucas did in paying tribute to Flash Gordon, et al.

sycasey;842621825 said:

---

It's definitely actively trying to signal these things to Star Wars fans. All the same, it's still basically a case of Star Wars paying tribute to itself; not quite the same thing that Lucas did in paying tribute to Flash Gordon, et al.

---

Indeed, but this has happened with other multi-decade franchises such as Batman, James Bond, Star Trek (and even Rocky). Even Indiana Jones, which does not have the longevity of the others I mentioned, has paid tribute to itself, particularly in that horrible last installment which was not a reboot but seemed to be made just for the sake of having a reunion.

[video=dailymotion;x2c6frt]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2c6frt_the-star-wars-holiday-special_shortfilms[/video]

Yup, it's real...kinda like an acid trip.

[video=youtube;yJ21QVLBsAo][/video]

Here's the commercial spots, for the full effect.