ST How should Maz have been portrayed ?

This. Many of Daharis' points are valid, but in a lot of cases, there's enough in the film to communicate what's going on (and the film mostly does so visually, to its credit - its a far more impressionistic piece of art than some give it credit for). The problem, IMO, is that the film flies by so fast, that critical information sometimes seems inconsequential. It really could have used a few more breathers in each of its three acts. A bit more set up for the galactic stakes, especially, would have been great.

Though at least we have reason to believe that we may see a lot of these scenes on the Blu-ray. A full half hour or so of the film was cut very late in the game.[/quote]



You know, my first viewing wasn't too dissimilar to Daharis's, because I was firmly in the OT mind set, (pacing) and also watching this insanely anticipated film for the first time. My second viewing I expected some confusion again, and disappointment. But, watching TFA entirely on its own terms, I pretty much got EVERYTHING with regard to plot and character. Scenes that I expected to whizz by in fact played out longer than I remembered, and I absolutely loved it to bits! Pacing adjustment required!!!

 

This. Many of Daharis' points are valid, but in a lot of cases, there's enough in the film to communicate what's going on (and the film mostly does so visually, to its credit - its a far more impressionistic piece of art than some give it credit for). The problem, IMO, is that the film flies by so fast, that critical information sometimes seems inconsequential. It really could have used a few more breathers in each of its three acts. A bit more set up for the galactic stakes, especially, would have been great.

Though at least we have reason to believe that we may see a lot of these scenes on the Blu-ray. A full half hour or so of the film was cut very late in the game.[/quote]

Right. A lot of the movie relied on inference, which is not a bad thing. I feel, with all that this movie has to accomplish, it needed more blatant exposition.

I heavily look forward to seeing the deleted scenes. My response to people who hate the film is, "I wonder if the deleted scenes help to pull the movie together more."

JJ has said that there won't be an extended version ever released, and that the deleted scenes will only be available as an extra. However, he has been known to lie before, and I bet that an extended version is released a year or so after everyone has already bought the original copy. Gotta make that $$

 

Right. A lot of the movie relied on inference, which is not a bad thing. I feel, with all that this movie has to accomplish, it needed more blatant exposition.

I heavily look forward to seeing the deleted scenes. My response to people who hate the film is, "I wonder if the deleted scenes help to pull the movie together more."

JJ has said that there won't be an extended version ever released, and that the deleted scenes will only be available as an extra. However, he has been known to lie before, and I bet that an extended version is released a year or so after everyone has already bought the original copy. Gotta make that $$[/quote]


Respect your opinion. With regards to exposition, it was missing an open goal to not have included a bit more on the political situation. In fact, that line in the crawl suggests that there is overt support for the resistance from the republic, when in fact it's very covert. It's only Hux's "lies to the Galaxy" that makes us think otherwise. Even then it's not really clear enough.

Edit: why are replies still messed up?

 

[/quote]

Respect your opinion. With regards to exposition, it was missing an open goal to not have included a bit more on the political situation. In fact, that line in the crawl suggests that there is overt support for the resistance from the republic, when in fact it's very covert. It's only Hux's "lies to the Galaxy" that makes us think otherwise. Even then it's not really clear enough.

Edit: why are replies still messed up?[/quote]


I think it has to do with the quote script. Testing it on this reply.

I actually had no idea what Hux was talking about on my first viewing. It was only after reading about the film on these forums that I pieced everything together. It seems like the deleted scenes may have really been needed to flesh everything out.

Anyways, we are kinda derailing this thread. I propose we get it back on topic.

I wonder what influenced the design of Maz, the same way I do Snoke. While I like Maz's design FAR better than Snoke's, I still don't get the point of the goggles. They really bother me and just seem to be there for the purpose of giving her a quirk.

 

Going to break the sequence of replies, to see if this gets them back on track.

I like her goggles a lot. On one level they can be associated with wisdom, or intelligence perhaps, and I like that in order to "see" people, she has to put them on. They are her "reading glasses", but instead of books she's reading people! Related to this, when she wears them she has the appearance of a wise old schoolmarm/school teacher and, indeed, part of her inspiration was one of Abram's old school teachers I believe.

Another influence in Maz's design is that of an owl (look at her again whe she's talking to Rey). Owls, of course, are associated with great "vision."

 

Shmi's collectibles?

 

I think her dialog in the trailer about knowing eyes and 'I've seen your eyes" is much stronger than what was used in the movie. It certainly sounded like she would have been talking to Rey and not Finn didn't it?