ST POLL - Will The Force Awakens deliver the goods ?

woah, dude you better put that bong down. You be talking way too much nonsense.

 

Lets be honest, 13 months from now, critics and fans alike will be burning JJ Abrams in effigy in cities all over the world because of the horrid job he's done directing TFA.

 

It's not non-sense at all. Even the positive reviews for it focused on it's flaws overly much, giving everyone the impression that even the reviewers who liked it, actually hated it.

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/originaltrilogyreception2.html

Critical Response to Empire
If critics were attracted to Star Wars in part because of its post-modernist leanings, their reaction to Empire should be a bit predictable. Empire stripped away the humour, the parody, and the references that made up a large part of the pleasure of the first film. This was by far the biggest issue critics had with the sequel. Nicholas Wapshott complained in the Times that Star Wars functioned as a tribute to nostalgia and therefore couldn't sustain sequels. David Denby in Newsweek notes that "kids, of course, did not take the movie [Star Wars] as parody; for them, it was simply a grand romantic adventure story. And that was part of Lucas' plan--to appeal on both levels." He complains that Empire "only works on one level", noting that the references to other movies have now been replaced with references to the first film itself.

Empire took itself very seriously, and while it had some humour and a very thrilling sense of adventure, the joy and energy of Star Wars were sorely missed. Many critics outright disliked the film--Star Wars was mass-audience enough to win over non-genre-fans, but Empire had no intro and no conclusion and depended upon taking the previous film and itself on face value. The massive hype now in place also played a role. Stanley Kauffman, who disliked the original, writes in New Republic a review that is a mere three paragraphs, concluding: "Star Wars has so far grossed $400 million worldwide. Empire will do as well, I suppose. I wish I could care. That's a lie. I don't wish that at all. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

 

ESB getting mixed reviews (especially by people who did not seem to comprehend that they were watching a chapter in a saga rather than a stand-alone film) in no way means that it was widely panned. Most of any negativity seems to derive from people who did not understand it.
http://www.starwars.com/news/critical-opinion-the-empire-strikes-back-original-reviews



Here is only one review, but hey, it's Gene Siskel. He must have not gotten the memo..

 

Here's an example of how the view of the film changed over time...

It is much more revealing to examine what is being said. The first is 1985's Motion Picture Guide, an ambitious twelve-volume encyclopedia set edited by Jay Robert Nash and Stanley Ralph Ross. In their reviews of the films, the picture corresponds very closely to the theatrical reviews.

Their review of Empire, while positive overall at 3.5/5 (a common rating in 1980), echoes the sentiment of its original release when they begin: "Second of the Star Wars trilogy failed to engender excitement, sympathy, or anything near the enthusiasm of the ones that preceeded and followed it." They go on to describe the script as "cardboard" and state it is "a great disappointment for all those who found Star Wars so refreshing." I draw attention to the fact that they state Jedi garnered more enthusiasm and excitement than Empire--which goes contrary to contemporary opinion. Indeed, by my study, Jedi had more 4/5 and 5/5 reviews, though Jedi had a much higher sampling rate. Nash and Ross point the way to the shift that is to come in years to follow--they state of Empire: "Many argue that this was the most mythic of the three, filled with underlying philosophy. We felt it was the weakest."

By 1989, however, we begin to see a shift. In the Time-Out Film Guide, editor Tom Milne praises the soap-opera-like melodrama and darker mythic quality of Empire, while admitting that Jedi is a disappointing film by the previous standards that is nonetheless very entertaining to youngsters. This begins to fall more in line with modern opinions.

Writing about Empire, he states, "the events, recognitions and revelations of the sequel have the rhythm of Soap in 70mm--and we love it, it makes us better people. As it appears the plot is now infinitely extendable, a li'l oedipal confidence works in; there's more passion, more pain and more riddles for this family plot."

Moving on, by the time of 1992, when The Movie Guide was published there has been a shifting in opinion. The trilogy faded more and more into a distant memory--and was now regarded as classics. Viewers who were teenagers during the time of the original releases were now entering the media as active content producers as well. Moreover, 1991 had kicked off Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire, beginning the Star Wars renaissance that still hasn't let up, even if The Movie Guide must not have been readied in time--nonetheless, the films were about to return to the spotlight. By this point, Pauline Kael, who hated Star Wars, included Empire Strikes Back in her book 5001 Nights at the Movies, from 1991 (revision). She wrote that the film was the best of the three and displayed a skill for performance and filmmaking. Thus, it is no surprise that the films are all rated quite highly in The Movie Guide, higher than the previous two compilations in this study. The next compilation studied, from 1996, would rate them highest of all--there is a distinct, steady rise in their critical popularity.

Significantly, 1992's The Movie Guide, while awarding Star Wars 5 stars, gives Empire 4 stars and opens with: "Considered by many to be the best in the series..." and goes on to comment that the film is "darker, richer and more elaborate." The review of Jedi has 4 stars as well, commenting on technical mastery especially.

So a film that today is considered the best of the bunch, was critiqued to hell and back for it's immense amount of flaws, and was looked at as not overly liked by critics due to even the positive reviews ripping into it... goes on and pulls a 180 over a decades time.

 

Yes and no... it was considered to be panned, because even the positive reviews were hard to read as positive at the time because of their overly critical nature of the film. Yes, it was mixed reviews, but the public "generally" saw it as bad reviews across the board at the time.

So my original point of Critics having a long history of ripping apart Star Wars movies stands. This one will be no different... even if it's "Empire" quality by fan standards.

 

A problem that has occurred consistently with critical practice throughout history, is that critics usually base their understanding of art on the principals of what has come before. When something comes along that attempts to break new ground very quickly, there is a critical backlash. Critics will recognise the impulse to break away from the established form, and more or less accuse the artist of being ignorant and egotistical. It's only when the artist was successful in influencing his peers to work in this way consistently for a number of years, that the attempt to try something new is seen as culturally significant. Revisionist critical work will then point to the original offending work as 'important' or 'defining.' Empire more or less single handedly introduced the idea of the modern film fantasy saga, in which continuing episodes can form a whole story instead of focusing on self contained short narratives. In many ways it paved the way for the Harry Potters, the Lord of the Rings and even the Twilights of more recent years. The original Star Wars had a very self contained narrative and had more emphasis on serial throwback, which made it very safe critically.

I don't think TFA is going to break new ground particularly. If Disney delivers a film that understands it's audience, achieves what it aspires to do and is well crafted, there is no reason why it can't receive good ratings from critics.

 

Though I agree with everything you said... (great post btw), I just don't have faith in the critics when it comes to Star Wars anymore. I think they actually love to tear it down. I know it's possible they could like it, I just don't expect they will.

 

It won't be like this i bet. No movie in history was that hyped!

 

If you can't be impartial as a critic, you aren't a true professional. There are plenty of unprofessional critics out there, though I believe they are in the minority. A good critic looks at the film and judges how well it succeeds at delivering it's story to it's audience (this includes things like how well the film makers understand their audience and their expectation), as well as the strength of it's technical accomplishments (including acting and directing etc). Any film that successfully delivers a great story, packaged with great acting and technical showmanship, should deservedly earn a high score regardless of whether or not it is part of a franchise. Good critics know how to recognise good ingredients. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of understanding the process of the craft and recognising skilled work and why it is more successful than poor work. It's being able to recognise a great performance, amazing cinematography and design, good writing. There are bad critics who can't identify these things, and they base their reviews solely on their own personal tastes. Ignore them.

I don't think TFA is necessarily going to deliver greatness across the board. There are some interesting actors involved, some of whom have shown themselves to be very talented. This instantly gives the film a head start with the critics, because the cast have the potential to deliver some good acting if the script is as good as certain people have hinted (Anthony Daniels, anyone?). Critics love a great performance and this film has the potential for a few of those, even in the supporting character area. I don't think JJ has the chops to be considered a great director if I'm honest, and a lot will come down to his ability to properly mix all of the ingredients in order to tell the most successful version of this story. That said there's a lot riding on this for Disney, so you can be sure a lot of hard work has gone in. This gives me hope to believe that, at the very least, the film will be strong enough to get above 70% on the Tomatometer.

 

I honestly don't see this film getting the fan base united in any way. Quite the contrary, things will only get more divisive from this point forward (which I find rather disappointing). Even if the film is well received by critics (like Revenge of the Sith and Crystal Skull) Somebody is still going to rip the living hell out of it, because their expectations can't be possibly met.

The difficulty of making Episode VII a successful continuation is the reason I am trying to not be very enthusiastic about the next film. If I like it it will be fine. If I feel that it went in the wrong direction and misunderstood the mythology, it will be painful, but I will have to let go of that. I'm having to prepare myself psychologically for this.

 

It's going to literally deliver the goods. Free collectable Ewok key chain with purchase of a ticket.

 

Honestly, I think the critical reaction will be almost identical to Star Trek (2009). Most of the fanbase will enjoy it, a select few loudmouths will try to make it seem otherwise, and the critics will overall enjoy it.

 

Hopefully it'll get favorable reviews from both critics and the fanbase.

 

I have waited a looooong time for this moment, my Star Wars loving friends. TFA will deliver the goods even if it doesn't deliver the goods.

 

This Star Trek reboot did not change the initial characters of Kirk and Spock, only some events. So Star Wars VII will be different, if there are big changes of the characters we all know and love.

 

I hear you. However, up until Marvel brought superheroes into the mainstream and Star Trek was transformed into something fun for a lot of people, movies like Star Wars were a very niche thing. We live in a time where this sort of faire has transcended from being niche to being massively enjoyed.

I do not disagree that there will be some who will shred this movie. But as you know, there are many folks who have a platform who write based on agendas and personal feelings rather than giving objective criticism. This goes both ways though. While some will hate because they hate JJ or prefer the PT or whatevs and then there will be some who heap praise because they are fanboys. This is why I should never be given a big platform. I don't think that I could ever be objective enough. I love all of Star Wars regardless of how it has been accepted. I am a Jar Jar Binks apologist.

Anyways, I don't think that critics mean as much today as they did back then. Especially in terms of tickets being sold.

 

Well i cant answer that poll because its missing an answer.

Its already delivered the goods in my opinion.

 

I think most people (fans and critics) will basically say:

"We saw The Force Awakens, and we have good news and we have bad news: The good news is that it is much better than the prequels. The bad news is that it doesn't have the magic of the original trilogy."

 

Hopefully I am not being overly optimistic, but I believe Daniels, this may be the best yet. What this has that the pre-quals didn't is 1) Big 3 2) Unlimited creative resources, not tied to GL limits 3) Blank canvas for storyline 4) Ability to learn from the mistakes of the PT

 

1) that's huge ; I'm wondering this : The anticipation for the PT was gigantic because there had never been any other SW ; but will the anticipation for this one be just as big since the Big 3 will be involved ? My guess is they will never match the anticipation for Ep I

2) Was there really limits to the amount of resources GL has/had ? I would think they had everything they could need in both budget and technology...?

3) but having a blank canvas only gives more rope to hang yourself. By having an already known storyline for PT then you would think it would be harder to screw it up, wouldn't you ? As far as script goes I think the biggest advantage this one will have is Lawrence Kasdan. The guy has a proven record, and I'm just assuming he hasn't completely lost his mojo like Lucas has.

4) That is also huge. It's probably the biggest factor of all. And especially since Abrams is a fan he obviously knows what was wrong with the PT. And from everything that's being told to us so far, he's approaching this with the intention of making a film which will maintain the necessary nuances of the OT.