ST TFA & fandom. Can we understand each other?

you must have missed the videos where people cheered ecstatically when Han said "Chewie, we're home". And why show that line if not to cash in on the OT appeal to get people to want to see it, if ostensibly the film is about the new characters and they are the reason for the success?

Satipo it seems the argument is that TFA movie, the quality of it alone, is why it was so successful. I am merely pointing out that if that were the case, why then the insane pre-opening ticket sales? And the answer is easy - the OT crew. I didn't pre-order for TPM yet was just as excited. However, the inclusion of the OT crew made the hype so insane that I had to pre-order to ensure I would get the tickets I want. That is not borne out of the quality of the movie since no one had seen it, ither than the strategically released informaiton to build hype (and that alone I commend Disney on as it was and still is superb).

You say we never give on points, yet some here are unwilling to accept obvious facts. Part of the commercial success (how much is not quantifiable) was due to the OT characters being absent for 30 years, much like part of the success was due to the nostalgia driven fun popcorn ride which made many fans happy and want repeat veiwings. It is a combination of factors.

 

The Transformers comparison I made wasn't just about nostalgia but also the deeper mechanics of the film. Abrams is definitely a more tasteful writer/director than Bay is and he's working with a universe that has more substance to it but I think the underlying nature of both films is more similar in many ways than TFA is to the OT. In both cases I think the modern films have a very fast paced plot focused style, they don't put the same focus on developing setting and character motivations as the drivers for the story. Whats more I think both Bey and Abrams have the same sense of looking to showhorn action and humour into their films constantly at the expense of the setting and the character stories.

For me Abrams simply isn't aiming as high as Lucas, Jackson, Spielberg, etc at their best. They obviously created films that appealed to the mainstream audience as well but I also think they had a lot more artistic ambition than Abrams who I think is much more calculated in his work, exactly why he was hired by Disney IMHO knowing he was a safe choice to cerate something akin to his Trek films.

 

Yes - I'm more than happy to concede that nostalgia is a factor in the film's success. It's just not the only one.

 

It seems to me that you guys can't acknowledge that people enjoyed TFA without adding "...but quality wasn't really what got it there". Is that really your position?

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

your welcome

 

nostalgia was a huge factor in its success, as well as strong new characters. half of my love for the movie comes from seeing the ot charaxcters, and the Falcon again. it made me feel like that kid in 77 again.

 

And you still refuse to concede without a backhander yourself.

Thanks JediMatteus on explaining why you loved it.

 

I for one concede that conceding to a point that I do not truly support in order to appear to be conceding for the purpose of the tenor of the conversation, is not honest concession, so refusing such diplomatic concession is in itself not refusing to concede, but engaging in conversation where eventual concession is not my goal. In other words, conceding that someone feels the way they do is fine, but conceding in a manner that indicates the point they are making is valid from my perspective, when that is not the case, is not being true to myself. I would think that is true for most here. Refusing to concede in an atmosphere where polarization is being so strongly fed by aggressive missives opportunistically inserted at every chance becomes the norm.

Having said that, what is so wrong with nostalgia? What kind of negative case is it when love of the Star Wars franchise and characters contributes to the success of a Star Wars movie is the argument foundation? Really? That's somehow a bad thing? Especially when not only did we get the nostalgia but also the rest of the movie that after release was and still is so appreciated?

 

Come on, can you see not see how there is zero attempt at concession? That was the point being made, not that you don't have a valid beef with the film.

 

Nostalgia may get butts in seats, but it's quality and outsized enjoyment that gets repeat viewings, which carried TFA's box office success. Look at BvS, widely regarded as shall we say, not a great film. Big big opening due to interest and good will toward the characters, no legs after that.

 

does for me. i can watch the falcon being flown and all of Han's lines a million times. much of that is built on decades of nostalgia. its still with me.

 

Which is fine... but what about my 13-year-old daughter who does NOT have that nostalgia. She has now seen TFA more times than any of the other saga films. I caught her watching it the other night instead of doing her homework.

 

We're SW superfans, we're weird. There aren't enough of us to move the needle on box office (or reviews for that matter, much to some's dismay, I'm sure).

 

I think nostalgia gets repeat viewings as well as it draws in different groups that results in people seeing the film multiple times with friends/partners/parents/children/etc, which is I think what Cameron taped into with Avatar and Titanic as well.

You look at box office in recent years and I think it becomes clear that extreme quality isn't needed to earn vast amounts of money.

That this argument gets brought up again and again and again in response to criticism of the film rather than actually addressing that criticism for me is a lot of the reason why things get so heated, especially as its almost always followed by changing tack and criticizing people for commenting on the reasons for wider audiences viewing habits.

 

I think we can discuss nostalgia as an aspect of draw without getting heated. It's the absolutist positions that get people into trouble (i.e. "nostalgia was the only reason for TFA's success", or, "nostalgia played very little to no part in TFA's success" both are unsupportable positions, IMO). Extreme positions are those which can be easily refuted with only anecdotal evidence given that they tend to use universal quantifiers like "all", "only", "almost nothing", etc.

 

Maybe!

 

Put it this way my missus knew pretty much nothing about star wars, we all went together over christmas and she really enjoyed it, tfa is a very well crafted movie in every sense. Its quality which has been sorely lacking it most big budget titles of late and it shows.
Check Mark Kermode's review, a well respected critic here in the uk, he is not a star wars fan and saw the film twice in 24 hours and loved it.
Haters gonna hate but fans that enjoy tfa can rest easy that the movie is quality rather than riding on the coattails of nostalgia.
I must admit i wasnt sure how i felt about the movie on first viewing due to many anxieties but now i love it, at this point i guess im also a gusher but i know quality when i see it, if the movie was a turd, believe me i would say so.
Most of the problem here is certain star wars fans didnt get the movie they were expecting, ok thats fair enough, but you cannot criticise tfa for poor acting,effects and overall production value.

 

You underestimate the need for consensus on the extent to which it was a factor....

 

0.22735

 

You're crazy, that's not even close.

 

It's close, however I think it demonstrates that he's taking the film too seriously. I would think that any one who works it out to more than three significant figures needs to get out more. I, however, am supercool and so I'd be quite happy with a cheeky 0.22.

Then you'll have so called fans who would happily round that to 0.2. Which, needless to say, is embarrassing for all concerned.

 

Personal attacks on my precision are uncalled for clinteastwoodbradfield, if that is your real name, and on something as crucial as why some people like a movie, and some don't! I won't stand for it!

 

Ok, I'll grant a fair point. I think it's also fair to point out this isn't the only site that discusses SW, and that's not counting social media like Facebook. I've seen some FB post/threads turn absolutely vicious over allegations of bigotry.

 

I've never liked that phrase for a couple of different reasons:

1) saying "raped [insert x]" is something that really should only be done in extremis, and I mean real extremis. That word invokes a particularly vile sort of violation and really should be used sparingly outside it's native context, lest it become overused and as a result diminish it's impact when properly used. Which leads me after a fashion to:

2) It's an often invoked cliche shorthand for accusing someone of hysterical levels of overreaction. I see it used more to mock strong critics than I do it being used by those critics. The danger of associating that word with mockery I trust is clear enough?

It means more than "very little". It means (in context) "so little as to be almost indistinguishable from nothing". It's useful for sake of accuracy and to pre-empt the other person from finding some little thing or another then playing the "by definition if there's a single x, then there's isn't 'no x' " card.


Lastly, to address the difference between mainstream fans and "superfans" I'll draw this analogy: mainstream fans get the reference when someone says to them "May the Force be with you." "Superfans" take it as the benediction it is."