ST Has TFA started an adult-oriented Star Wars trend?

I think what TFA did is comparable to what ANH & ESB, it knew when the right times were to get comedic and when the right times to get serious.

For example, AOTC has this big battle that essentially starts the Clone Wars, yet they have C3PO doing comedy schtick throughout with cheesy one liners. It's breaks up the seriousness of the battle

Now go back to ANH and the part where Obiwan tells Luke about his father as this is a key scene in the movie. Right before it starts c3po actually says to Luke, "I'm going to shut down sir....". The scene could have been spoiled if C3p0 said something cheesy during it, but it never happened.

TFA worked well in that respect in that it had its moments of comedy, but when things got serious, there was no cheese thrown in to spoil the moment.

There is nothing wrong with cheese in a SW movie, but it just can't interrupt the drama, and I feel ANH, ESB and TFA are the only SW movies that are able to accomplish this.

 

That was one of the things I disliked about the SE. In the OOT Luke finds out his uncle and aunt have been brutally murdered, and he decides to follow Obi-Wan on his quest. We are then introduced to Mos Eisley, a barren, dangerous place, full of criminals, with the Empire on the tail of our heroes. I never understood why GL felt the need to undercut this tension, with slapstick comedy during their arrival in Mos Eisley.

 

Because GL apparently decided that SW "was for kids." And by "for kids" he meant "a lot of juvenile/unfunny slapstick gags." Outside of SW, Pixar, DreamWorks (when they're on their game), Marvel (most of the time anyway), etc all are able to balance the humor (and make it actually funny) with the drama/dark stuff well.

 

I honestly feel TFA is the least mature entry in the saga yet.

 

I could post a Jar Jar gif here, but I'm going to be a little more original, and post another gif which affirms my view that ROTS is the least mature entry:

 

Nonetheless, I really need a definition of "mature" in order for me to understand how TFA is less mature than, say, TPM, where the conflict is partly resolved by a nine-year-old accidentally blowing up a space station, complete with an "Oops!" and one of the other heroes immediately gives up his army to the villains for a bit of levity.

 

Just a reminder about the warning posted at the top of the forum:

PT vs. OT vs. ST (in any combination) debates are not allowed in the New Movies forums. Discussions that descend into OT/PT/ST bashing/gushing will be subject to Mod action. Consider this your warning.

 

Fair enough, but how can this thread topic be discussed without references and comparisons to the other movies?

 

References and comparisons done in constructive discussions are fine... what we're really referring to there are PT vs OT vs ST battles; just flat out arguments that include bashing, etc.

 

"And there he goes..Once again, remind me...​

Are You Putting out the fires of all resonance and social seclusion?..Or.....Is it an algorithm you made as an excuse? (B<Step>Chemica<Signs>C).​

​

ROTS is the least Mature of the SAAGA​

It always has been. People are right when they say it is. PT fans and people in general need to see how ROTS is the least mature, while TFA was the most mature of the saga. The ideal of Lucas, was correct. He was not wrong in this manner, and I believe he meant ROTS as the least Mature. It's subtle yet clear and noticeable... The Perspective and it's spectrum is hacked by that of Fans who love and hate ROTS, without fully understanding it's complexities. It's funny, TFA has always had a knack for HASHES and Maturity. The data of the cryptic list and ciphers was found in the end..." End Quote​

​

​

HASH, X=Ψ/dʒ" - MIDI Analysis​

TFA isn't for adults. Stop looking upon that outlook....It never was.​

 

In that spirit, then, here's what I'll say:

I personally find TFA to be the only film in the saga other than ESB to actually say something substantial about life. It's about how each person responds differently to tragedy and loss, and about the ironies in life that have you repeating conversations but from the other end. That, to me, feels weighty and significant in much the same way that ESB is about the harsh realities of being an adult and defining yourself apart from your parents.

So I think it's a more mature film than 5/6 of the previous movies. But it's also as lighthearted as ANH or ESB, so I don't think its tone is part of a new trend.

 

It isn't....

Watch ROTS and TFA with a different introspective of the characters and the motivations..

 

Ezon Pin, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

TFA is the most mature of the saga. But it's not made for adults in mind...Adults were never apart of it at all...Neither were the children...But it was made for something or someone...I'm still on that thought whether they were targeting everyone or a certain demographic...It must be the latter...

 

TFA wants to be the most mature; it tries so hard to be. It sucks all the juvenile humor out of the story and focuses solely on teenage and adult fans in terms of humor. But thematically it is barren. It's not trying to say anything or make a statement on the human condition. RotS had juvenile, immature moments because Lucas was attempting to balance the equation. RotS has some of the most mature moments in the saga, in theme and in content, hence its PG13 rating. Lucas never forgot the audience he wanted to reach most, children, so he tried to take the edge off with moments of pure and simple humor. Every one of Lucas' films is dealing with more mature content than TFA. TFA is simply a cold film, and I feel some people mistake that for a mature tone.

 

Based on Artoo-Dion and his perspective, reading upon what he gained from it, you're wrong...What people emotionally gain from something, is hard to argue upon. It's impossible because of the attachment to it...

However, there is truth to you're post a prominent degree....You're not incorrect..

 

I can't see the film from his perspective. How can we even attempt to analyze how someone responds to tragedy and loss when we know nothing about the conditions of that tragedy? We know the end result, but that is hardly enough information to have an informed opinion. Even the end result doesn't lend itself to any sort of real scrutiny. Everyone basically reverts to their younger selves. Luke disappears. This is hardly a character study. They don't even give us much in terms of inner thoughts. We simply see the path they've "chosen." They basically act their old selves which sort of breaks their characters. These are people who have experienced so much. Experience changes people. JJ disagrees. I mean really, how do they respond to tragedy and loss? It can be summed up in a single sentence: they against all reason revert to their younger selves. That to me is the antithesis of substantial. It's paper thin.

 

I think it's made for general audiences, but I do agree. I'm not sure why anyone would think TFA was the least mature of the saga.

 

Because it's not. I don't think that it's the most mature either (that would be ESB in my opinion). But it's definitely top 3 imo.

 

I disagree. This is my take, so no offence intended to fans (because I'm one of them)...

ROTS is thematically "barren" because it has absolutely nothing to say about actual lived experience. On the one hand you have the "wisest" character advising Anakin that he shouldn't really worry about the death of loved ones, because that leads to evil; on the other hand, Anakin decides, without any foreshadowing, that killing children is all OK if it means he may be able to save his wife, even though the man he just swore allegiance to just admitted that he was stringing him along the whole time.

Now, there's something in there worth exploring, but ROTS does everything to make sure that the audience can't identify with any of these characters or the underlying ideas. Nobody behaves this way.

What is it actually saying about the human condition? That love, grief and mourning are vices? That trying to prevent someone's death is "greedy"? That the impulse to save loved ones inevitably leads to acts of evil?

(I understand that a lot of this comes from Campbell, but that doesn't make it any less problematic.)

Inserting slapstick into such a morally confused concoction doesn't "take the edge off" when the main character is seen burning alive only an hour or so later. You just can't "balance the equation" by juxtaposing "juvenile humour" with graphic, disturbing imagery and expect them to cancel each other out.

Note, too, that the humour in TFA is about on par with the OOT versions of ANH and ESB. If you can point me to a style of "juvenile humour" in those films that isn't in TFA, please do.

Why do you need to know the condition of a tragedy to know that the person is affected by it?

This is still a pulp space adventure, not a Mike Leigh film. I mean, how much depth is there to ESB, really? But when confronted with tragedy and loss (and I include Rey, Finn and Kylo Ren in this), some people run, some people act out, some people look for certainty, some deny the truth and some attempt to learn and grow. This is borne out in the real world--it's not just some sort of contrivance.

Luke went in search of the first Jedi temple. How does that suggest that he merely regressed?

 

Mmhhmm.. This is just a ROTS vs TFA debate now. Oh well...Nothing you can do about it....

 

Let's remove ROTS out of the equation...

When people talk about characters regressing or being reset, Han is usually named as the number one culprit. I see where people might get that impression, but I think it's a superficial reading.

Han has grown. He's an older version of the man we left at the end of ROTJ: he's seen the Force with his own two eyes and he's been a father to boot. When he tells Rey and Finn about Luke, you can see the years of pain in his eyes. But it's that pain that leads him to tell himself that he's just the old smuggler he always was. By falling back on his old persona (which was also his protective armour as far back as in ANH), he can hide from his pain. Real people don't just regress but they do often lie to themselves in order to get on with life. Han, at least, had the self awareness to recognise that that was exactly what he was doing.

 

The other thing about Han is that the suggestion that his persona in TFA was a regression, requires agreement that his character in ROTJ was a meaningful development/growth.

My argument would be that post carbonite, Han was written as a less complex straight up hero, and that crucially, the debt owed to Jabba that informed so much of his behaviour in the OT originally functioned more as a character tendency (here is a guy who gets mixed up in trouble and is in over is head a lot of the time, and that restricts his potential to be a good man) than as a specific issue (if he can get out of trouble with Jabba, his problems are solved)

The more realistic idea, once ROTJ stops being the end, is that the OT did solve Han's immediate problems, but that his post carbonite "freedom" and affect on his personality/mood was a temporary thing, and not a carved in stone change.

 

Excellent point, and something I hadn't really thought of in that way before. You're right, and I think Kasdan was perhaps hamstrung in ROTJ by Lucas' need for a happy ending and quick resolution. In many ways I think TFA is a second go at ROTJ that takes more risks and allows the story to once again be more open-ended and complex.