PT Is The Force Awakens praised due to prequel reception?

originality and quality are two different things that should at no point be equated. the force awakens had plot, characters and story....the prequels didnt have anything of substance and completely destroyed vader.

 

What the hell do Republicans and atheists have to do with all this? So it's bad to be a member of the GOP or believe in a higher power? Jeez I used to have respect for a lot of users here.

 

word

 

The major difference between the Trade Federation battleship and the Death Star I and II and the Starkiller base is that the Trade Federation doesn't destroy any planets. So when Anakin destroys it (accidentally), am I watching the exact same plot and story as ANH, ROTJ or TFA?

If you, and other fans as well, have been able to find the similarities between TPM, ANH and ROTJ immediately back in 1999, then good. But have you been able to spot all the other visual similarities between the movies?

The similarities I've mentioned between the endings of TPM and ANH was just another example among all the others about the visual similarities between TPM and ANH, or between TPM and ROTJ. Maybe it was not the best one I brought up in order to express my argument since it was the first one and the easiest I relied to. But there are so many others that I doubt you could have been able to find all of them by yourself in your first viewing in 1999, unless if people are spending most of their time analyzing a movie instead of being absorbed by it and enjoy it.

The point I wanted to bring up previously is that most of the visual similarities between the Prequel Trilogy and the Original Trilogy went unnoticed, or most people didn't think about it unlike TFA, in which the similarities, not only visually, but also in term of plot and story, were too obvious. When I talked to one of my colleagues at work about TFA, the first thing he said was that the movie was too similar to ANH. He's not a big fan of Star Wars, so he doesn't pay attention to what Star Wars fans do on the internet. When I told him that there were also similarities between the visuals and plot elements between the prequels and the originals, and I've mentioned few of them I've read in the Ring Theory, he was surprised and told me that he never thought about it.

I don't have a problem if other movies borrow story elements from other ones, especially if it's a different series of movies. I don't have a problem either when good guys are winning over the bad guys in a movie. I grew up with such movies during my childhood in which the good guys always win.

But what we are talking about here is a sequel to a story which has already been told in previous movies. It should push the story forward, explore its universe and other themes deeper, instead of repeating it, no matter how WELL you tell it by repeating it. I've watched recently a video of Movie Night with Jonathan Paula reviewing TFA. Him and his friend think that TFA is a better movie than ANH because it tells its story in a better and more entertaining way than ANH.

I'm sorry, but this is not why I went to watch TFA. And this is certainly not the reason why I've become a fan of this saga in this first place. I didn't become a fan just to watch a good vs bad guys story and seeing it being cloned to infinity. I didn't even become a fan just to watch fast, fun, and furious space action with fun characters and a dash of humor. I don't have anything against those elements, but this has never been what Star Wars was just about, even in the OT.

What about the references to our classic tales? To our mythology? To our real world history and to philosophy? What about the characters being confronted to their inner demon, facing choices which none of them seem better than the other? What about our heroes being confronted to allies who, at the end, have turned against them? What about the family issues? What about the references to universal themes such as redemption, forgiveness, treason, courage, love, jealousy, greed, etc... ?

When I'm hearing fanboys and critics saying that Star Wars is better off without any references to mythological and philosophical preoccupation, and should rely heavily on the simple formula of Hollywood’s successful idea for stories, such as the stories of someone going from zero to hero, of a good vs evil fight, in order to avoid the so-called "disaster" of the prequel movies and stories that are too complicated, risking to be told badly, well I tell to them the following thing: Go to hell!

Why Star Wars resonates the most to so many people, even to intellectuals, unlike the thousands of other sci-fi sagas and film franchises that have been created and were trying to compete with Star Wars? It's not just pop-culture.

I give TFA a pass this time because it's only the beginning of a new trilogy and it has done a good job as a starting point despite my qualms with some of its plot elements. But also because, as you said, I was invested in its characters and I loved them. I liked TFA even if another part of me is a bit mixed regarding it. I just hope that the ST is not going to be an OT 2.0 despite what I've seen previously.

 

My favorite thing is the fact that the people who lambasted the prequels for their poetic structure and multiple callbacks are now forced into this conundrum of defending TFA's own special brand of "rhyming". Of course one could always argue that it's equally ironic that prequel fans are attacking TFA for similar practices.

Sorry for the aside. This turn of events just amuses me.

 

I just saw this. My apologies.

Maybe I was too distracted by the meta-ness of the film, the over-reliance on nostalgia, or the lack of ingenuity to see those qualities. I fully admit that. However, is it not true that people also get distracted by the dialogue of the prequels, and their alleged over-emphasis on effects to see their true merits? Is that a fault of the film or the viewer? Who can say? Does it matter? Sure, it's possible I'm not giving TFA enough credit in multiple areas, but that's because the film did not win me over pretty much from the first scene on. If I reject the premise of the film. If I reject the humor. If I reject the characters, then what motivation is there for me to take a scalpel to the film and look for thematic depth? There is none.

 

It didn't destroy Vader. It had more of a plot, characters and story than TFA.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

That's not true. ANH didn't require a ton of plot contrivances in almost every beat of the movie to progress it's story.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

 

And I find the opposite rather amusing.
The people that praised the "Poetry" and "Rhyming" and Ring Theory and what not. That all that was so brilliant and genius and how Lucas was so clever in reusing and repeating elements.

But now they instead bash JJ and TFA for doing the same thing.
So it seems that if Lucas does a thing = Genius.
If JJ does the same thing = Stupid and lazy hack.

Also, based on what I've read, most that like TFA do so because of the characters not the story.
I like the film and I freely admit that it borrowed much from ANH, probably a bit too much.
What I liked were the characters, they made the film for me, not the story.
I've said it before, had I cared as much about the characters in the PT, I would like those films a lot more. But instead I found them somewhat dull, uninteresting or annoying.

Many that like TFA don't much care for SKB and the reuse of another DS.

@SW Saga Fan

It isn't exactly the same no but both films have small one man fighters fly up and attack a big ship. They are outclassed and outgunned but the destruction of the big ship is crucial for victory.
So the events are very similar.

Well lets see, similarities between the PT films and OT films that were apparent after one or two viewings;
In TPM, a royal damsel is captured and has to be rescued. Said royal damsel is quite feisty and can take care of her self in battle. We meet a young Skywalker on Tatooine and he leaves his home to go on an adventure and learn to be a Jedi. The wise, older mentor character is killed by an evil Sith Lord while a younger characters watches helplessly and said character yells "NOO" at this. This character also gets a bit angry and gets reckless. The bad guys spend a the first part of the film searching for something.

In AotC, we have an asteroid chase and the good guy manage to avoid detection by attaching his ship on the back of a larger object. We have a ground battle with big walker like things. Skywalker gets his arm cut off. A good guy is tempted with "Join me and together..." We have a romance that takes up a significant part of the film. Jango/Boba fett is introduced. Skywalker fights a sith and looses.

In RotS, we have the emperor sitting in a chair, while a big battle rages outside and watches as his present and possible apprentice fight. Skywalker fights the Sith that cut off his arm earlier.
We have a land battle with furry creatures. The emperor uses his Force lightning.

Yes this is a bit unfair and there are a number of differences between the PT and OT.
But Lucas did reuse stuff and some of it wasn't hard to spot.

I can agree that TFA reuses more stuff than the PT films. But a lot of the reuse of stuff in the PT was noticed and some praised it and others disliked it. Some argued that Lucas was lazy and was just repeating himself. Others countered by talking about "It's like poetry, they rhyme" and later Ring Theory.
So people did think about it.
But it wasn't the big issue for the critics. That was more about characters, stiff acting, bad lines, Anakin as space Jesus, the possible contradictions between PT and OT.

Does TFA reuse a lot from ANH? Yes.
Is this a problem? That is up to each person but if you are fine with the reuse of stuff in the OT and PT then it is simply a matter of degree. X amount of reuse is fine, Y amount is too much and bad.

You can find references to classical tales in TFA. People have brought up stuff like Excalibur, the Fisher King, King Arthur etc.
TFA shows the face of a storm-trooper and have him not be evil.
You have a character that knows a lot about the Force but isn't either a Jedi or Sith.
As for family, that was dealt with in the film. Han tries to reach out to his son but the son murders him. Han and Leia used to be together but the fall of their son had torn them apart.
Rey had spent much of her life waiting for someone, probably her family but they never came.
At first she wanted to go back and wait but eventually she let go of that and embraced her new family.

What you take from SW is highly personal and clearly TFA wasn't it and that is fine.
Hopefully the next film has something more to your taste.
But many have found something they like in TFA and in my case it was the characters. I liked them and was invested in them. And I am very interested in what happens next.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark.

 

Samuel Vimes Just to be clear here, yes there is a part of me which takes Star Wars personally, but I do not dislike TFA.

After my second viewing, I liked this movie more than the first time I've watched it, but I felt there were still holes in it and some things that I liked about the previous movies were lacking. It's not that I think this movie sucks or whatever. I think it's a pretty enjoyable and entertaining movie with likable characters, even though, not as interesting and rich as the characters of Palpatine, Yoda, Obi-Wan or Darth Vader/Anakin. But as you said, this is only the beginning of a new trilogy and this is why, I feel, this movie's value can only be properly judged once the other two chapters are released.

The references to classic tales and to our mythological and philosophical preoccupation were much less obvious to me. I also feel that the makers were too afraid to weigh down the movie's pace by allowing the audience to know more about the context of the galaxy, to know more about the new characters, especially Snoke and Maz Kanata. The proof was that there were deleted scenes about Leia's relationship with the members of the new republic and that scene when Snoke dismisses Vader's redemption.

I would have been fine with the context of the galaxy being not, or less exposed than in the previous movies if there was this deleted scene with Snoke dismissing Vaders redemption in which he says:

I've already said why I would have liked this scene to reintegrated in the movie in another thread. It's because what I find intriguing is that it shows the philosophy behind the Sith (even if we still don't know if Snoke is really a Sith) and the dark side users: sentiments and attachment can make someone weak and vulnerable. A philosophy which, ironically, seems more or less to the Jedi's as Yoda exposes it to Anakin in ROTS. The Jedi on one hand were afraid that love and attachment could lead someone to the dark side (Anakin's fall), while on the other hand, the Sith were afraid that it could lead someone to the redemption and the light side (Vader's redemption).

This scene alone would have given us a hint regarding the context of the galaxy and why the First Order, formerly known as the Galactic Empire, didn't gave up despite their defeat and that Vader destroyed the Emperor. It would have also given us a key regarding the First Order's mentality and their leader's (Snoke) philosophy, which would have given him at the same time much more depth than what he actually is or seems: just a giant hologram. If this scene could be included, I think that Snoke could potentially be a more interesting and fascinating villain than Palpatine and Vader.

It would also have given more weigh to Kylo Ren's character, even if I heard some people saying that they would have hated this scene being included in the movie.

If the prequels suffer from a problem of too much exposition, TFA suffers from the reverse problem, and this why, I feel this movie doesn't accomplish properly his work as a sequel. I've already said it in my review of the movie, but there's a rupture between this movie and the previous ones, and that's what bothers me on one side.

Of course the makers behind this movie wanted, on one side, to make sure you didn't need to watch the previous movies to understand TFA. But if you're going to start fresh, then give us a little bit more exposition, especially by making the big villain (Snoke) more interesting than making him just appear from nowhere.

 

I think many people are hating on the prequels because they think it somehow improves the stature of TFA. It's odd behavior, not unlike rooting against your rival sports team. In both instances the emotional impulse is to act against something comparable to what you like. In truth the better your rival team is, the better your teams stature will also be. Same with the PT; the better they are perceived (I will think they are awesome if I'm the last person on earth to think it, which I'm not thankfully) the better the saga is as a whole.

 

Because it's the same audience that like Jurassic World and Fast and Furious 15 or whatever they are on now. The goal of star wars should be higher than that: to please the broad audience while exploring deeper themes that will be lost on 90% of people because they won't understand or don't care.

I love the PT, but they lacked in broad appeal. TFA is an over correction the other way. It was a crowd pleaser with little depth.

 

No. I actually really tried to like Tpm or KOTCS, purely because I love Star Wars and Indy, but couldn't, so basically you can't fake likIng a film.

But this thread is trying to suggest there's a conspiracy where people have an agenda against then PT isn't it?

 

While it is true there are many people who probably understood the PT perfectly well and didn't like it, the overwhelming majority of PT hate I see is coming from people without an ounce of wisdom as to what Lucas was trying to do.

So in a broad sense, I think it is true they are very much misunderstood. That doesn't, however, mean everyone who dislikes them misunderstood them.

 

I don't care how condescending it sounds. I really don't. I've heard enough idiots blasting away anonymously on the internet calling Lucas an imbecile and everyone who likes the PT imbeciles, all the meanwhile not having a clue what they're talking about.

I am wholly indifferent if someone says what you're saying: that it's just not their thing.

I will behave condescendingly and will look down my nose on people who still don't grasp the truly simple fascinations of the PT, like the Jedi Order's failure and moral ambiguity. I have no patience for it and I have heard enough ignorance on the topic I don't care anymore.

 

Hey no long time no see, anakinfansince1983

I don't know if this is right thread to ask this, but what did you think of TFA?

 

because the actors in TFA had talent...and the ones in the PT were cartoons with none

 

That's good to hear. I saw it 4 times. Great film.

 

Welcome to the forums, but what? Is this an expression I've never heard before? Calling actors cartoons because they portrayed their characters in a way you personally consider bad, Or what?

And are you telling me none of the actors in the PT had talent? Not even Ewen McGregor or Ian Mcdiarmid? And while i agree that the actors weren't bad in TFA i personally wasn't the biggest fan of the new characters introduced in the movie.

Am i seeing this right, anakinfansince1983 posted in the prequel forums? Welcome back,even if its just for this post .

 

Nope, no ulterior motives. I apologize if it appeared that way.

 

I'm not yelling at all. I'm engaging. I'm sorry if it's coming across as telling.

And I'm not calling anyone an imbecile. I said I (and other PT fans) have been called imbeciles.

I'm calling it as I see it. The initial discussion was whether the PT was generally misunderstood. I will defend that assessment. Most people complaining about the PT aren't informed. Many are intolerant.

I'm not running away from calling it as I see it.

 

I think the main reason a lot of people like TFA is because the characters tried to be funny. I think it was very heavy-handed and as a result unamusing. But, a lot of people seem to find humour a very important aspect of a film. I couldn't disagree more, but there it is. I like quite sadistic humour, but find humour that is very obvious a bit irritating.