ST Is "Lack of Originality" really a valid criticism of TFA?

The key difference for me is not in terms of hard sci fi which again I don't think Star Wars was ever about but rather the atmosphere the scenes create.

Again the asteroid monster I think works very well in creating the atmosphere of space as a vast alien and desolate place the heroes are cast adrift in with no hyperdrive.

Han's hyperspace landing for me does exactly the opposite, it has the effect of making space seem small and trivial just like so much of Abrams "wham bang" hyperspace/warp travel in TFA and his Trek films

 

The Exogorth episode strains credulity as much as sounds in space, hyperspace jumps themselves, and a litany of other violations of known biology and physics. To discuss how some utilization of a fantasy pseudo-science story element is not right because we have not seen that utilization before is a bit contradictory.Especially in a thread on originality or the lack of it.

 

Dagobah Dragonsnake

I think there is quite a difference between "originality" or "exaggeration".

Example: In one episode of TCW the heroes needed to penetrate a high security prison but the scanners would have registered lifeforms and sounded the alarm. Thus our heroes had themselves frozen in carbonite and unfrozen after their shuttle had passed the security shield. I'd call this highly "original" because it made unorthodox use of a process illustrated in ESB.

 

It depends on the viewer and what they can tolerate, in my opinion. None of this is absolute since none of it is reality in the first place. I personally have taken in a lot of Star Wars pseudo science knowing that what was being shown was bordering on the ridiculous. The space slug episode was one of them. In the case of hyperspace, hyperspace jumps are there just like carbonite is. If one accepts the existence of these, then introducing the employment of them in new ways are credible in varying degree of originality. If there were rules set up in the GFFA that says hyperspace only operates exactly in this way or that and you can or cannot do that, then fine.

This discussion is a bit of derail, but in general, new uses of fantasy elements that do not (or probably cannot) exist in reality, and where there have been no set rules for the universe, can indeed sometimes stretch credulity; but those new uses are original if they have not been seen before.

 

The divide for me is between fantasy science and logic, I would say that Han manually judging a jump from lightspeed into atmosphere is failing down on the latter as well.

Again though I think the big issue is how it effects the story, beyond the lightspeed jumps being too fast for me just seems so offhand in the way its done, indeed Han generally in TFA had me thinking...



Ok Han is cocky in the OT but he's not THAT cocky and nonchalant and sells a sense of risk and high stakes better.

 

If originality is the most important thing to some people, don't you think it's time to stop watching Star War sequels? We're going on the 7th sequel from ANH for God's sake.

Superweapons, lightsabers, planets that somewhat look the same, journeys echoed, mentors passing the torch, characters tempted by going bad (or good) - this stuff will be a staple in all Star Wars films.

 

I think people are perhaps conflating originality with creativity. For example, by default, TESB was less original than ANH because it was the 2nd Star Wars film. It used the same characters and situations etc. However, creatively, it took SW up a gear or two. A film that lacks originality is not a sin. However, a film that lacks creativity...

 

Originality and creativity are not necessarily the same, this is true. One can be original and the product of that work not seem to be very creative as you allude to. There is a matter of degree to both terms, as well as a high degree of subjectivity. A work deemed highly creative by some does not necessarily insure that it will be accepted as profound or even popular. Creativity can also go wildly off point, as can trying to be too original.

This particular thread is about originality, and a good discussion zeros in on whether there was originality in TFA ... though I believe the thread title is somewhat begging the question (in the most accurate definition of that phrase, using lack of originality as an accepted statement, and modifying that with a question on whether that is valid or not). Creativity is a different subject, in these saga films and any films. I believe the whole thread here is simply another iteration of the rehash complaint, which really does not speak to comparative creative qualities.

 

I totally agree. We have a number of posters dissing the film's so-called 'lack of creativity' in a thread focused on its originality.