ST Does TFA Have A 'Thin' Plot?

I'm more worried about what really matters, which is the Disney influence. Look behind the curtain and you'll find the entire script as approved by the Disney Board of Directors.

 

I don't know - with their hands-off approach to Marvel movies and successes like Wreck-it Ralph and Big Hero 6 I think they're getting their second wind. I wouldn't worry about it this early in the game, but they could certainly devolve into the art-by-comittee you're talking about. All we can do now is keep our fingers crossed.

 

Ah! That's something I actually haven't taken into account before; the fact that in the original SW the MacGuffin (Death Star plans) was related directly to the "Goliath" (the Death Star itself), whereas in TFA the Bespin saber doesn't seem to have much of a relation to the Starkiller.

There is a possibility, however, that The First Order is really hunting for the saber because they need it's crystal to power the Starkiller. It's likely that by this point, real kyber crystals have become a major rarity and therefore The First Order only has access to synthetic crystals that are far weaker (hence why Kylo's blade is spitty?).

From my understanding, the use of a crystal as a central story item, in a fashion similar to this, is something that comes from the OT rough drafts (which we know they're already adapting tons from) and was also used somewhat in Splinter as well as TCW. I know that crystal MacGuffins have become a rather tedious cliche these days, but TFA already seems to be borrowing enough from high fantasy and Arthurian mythology that something like this wouldn't surprise me, and the fact that it's a saber crystal specifically at least would make it somewhat unique.

But having Luke's coordinates coincidentally being inside this very same saber that The First Order would be hunting for other reasons could also make the whole thing feel a bit too convoluted...hopefully this all makes sense when we see the finished product.

 

I think Disney has LucasFilm on a much shorter leash than Marvel, which is odd, because the approach has worked so well for Marvel.

 

Based on what? What I've been hearing is that Disney has had only limited direct influence. I'm sure Kennedy is on the phone with Iger frequently, but it seems Iger is content to let Lucasfilm do its thing. That's the managment style Iger prefers. He thinks of his creative production houses as independent creators within one company.... I haven;t seen anything to suggest he is treating Lucasfilm differently. And by all accounts, Disney is very pleased with what they've seen of TFA so far.

 

They cancelled The Clone Wars and replaced it with a series that screams Disney, the Disney label is all over the packaging (not the case with Marvel), and Abrams and co. are marketing to the "practical effects" crowd even though Abrams and co. have been on record as saying positive stuff about the the designs that GL used in the recent past.

 

You might think Rebels "scream Disney," but many of us think Rebels is even better than TCW, and that's saying something, cause I liked TCW (I liked it better than the PT by some margin). What do you think is so "Disney" about the packaging? Maybe I'm just not bothered, 'cause I'm a fan of Disney, but I'm not seeing it. I feel better about Star Wars now than I have in 15 years.

 

Lords of the Sith back cover: https://thewookieegunner.files.word...-sith-by-paul-kemp-cover-by-aaron-mcbride.jpg

Notice all the Disney logos.

Now here's some Marvel stuff:






No Disney logos.

 

[quote="Darkslayer, post: 52613123, member: 1378056"

No Disney logos.[/quote]



Your objection is just those little logos? Okay. That doesn't bother me a single bit. Wouldn't bother me on the Marvel stuff either. I mean, those logos are tiny.

 

I've been following Making Star Wars for awhile now, and the plot seems to be more or less your standard Star Wars plot. If there is anything that's really weak about it it is the inclusion of another super-weapon.

 

Your objection is just those little logos? Okay. That doesn't bother me a single bit. Wouldn't bother me on the Marvel stuff either. I mean, those logos are tiny.[/quote]
It's that in combination with other factors.

 

Just based off the broad strokes of the rumors published by MSW, I'm not seeing how its any more or less thin than the OT. I mean, one of these movies, RotJ, spends 30 freakin' minutes on an unrelated opener before the story proper starts, then pauses again for a 20 minute Ewok commercial, with some lame cop-outs like "oh btw they built a second Death Star" and "oh yeah Leia is Luke's sister now lets retroactively make the love triangle creepy". ESB is, when you get down to it, a series of chases and set pieces.

Thing is, movies are sooooo much more than their plots. Raiders of the Lost Ark isn't a masterpiece of popcorn cinema because its complex multi-facted plot. If anything, one of its greatest strengths its brutal simplicity. Its such a breahtaking efficentily, immaculately constructed thing, free of any fat or waste. Do we need to know that Indiana Jones is afraid of snakes? Then let us put a single gag in the opening scene that gives the audience a chance to pull out of the incredible momentum that they've just been through. Then, when snakes return as a plot point, we can just have him say, "Snakes... why did it have to be snakes?", and it will communicate in one sentence an entire scene's worth of emotional content, particularly since we have gotten to know Dr. Jones so very well by now that we can just about guess what he's thinking even before he says it. Also, it helps if Harrison Ford delivers that and every other line with exactly no flaws whatsoever.

And Spielberg, Williams, Kasdan, the cinematographer Slocombe, editor Michael Kahn, all the principal actors bring so much energy and efficiency that even the dialog sings. Nobody worried about the plot. They cared about the storytelling.

IDK, I feel a lot of casual movie fans grasp on to things like "plot holes" to try and out-smart a movie(all those "Honest Trailers" and "Everything Wrong With" YouTube videos). Or they just kinda grab onto obvious things, like Phantom Menace was bad because Jar Jar Binks and CG. No, it was bad because it doesn't even know what movie its trying to be, or who the protagonist even is. There's one movie about a bunch of boring political nonsense with the Trade Federation and Naboo, and then there's another movie about a very performed kid trying to get off a desert planet and having contrived pod races. And there isn't a very strong structure combining the two. That's the main issue, on top of its awful comedy relief or aged CG, wooden dialog and stilted performances.

TFA, like ANH and ESB, from the looks of it has a sound story structure, filled with a lot of incident and clear simple goals for the audience to invest themselves in. Its got characters with coherent motivations and traceable arcs throughout the movie. Its got menace and dark revelations mixed with levity and triumph, tragic sacrifices and cliffhanger escapes. If everybody does their job right, it'll be a great story, and you'll see it on many Best Movies of the Year end-list(along with Fury Road, which may have the thinnest plot in blockbuster history and is also the best sci-fi action movie this side of Terminator 2).

 

What makes the art of mythical narrative work is when it is able to have a spiritual voice which speaks into the current generation so powerfully that it continues to resonate in and through the following generations. The OT did that, I should think the goal for this film would be to apply that to a post-modern voice. I would look for that.