ST The Official "List Your Complaints About TFA" Discussion Thread

err . . . what ?

 

What I mentioned is a real world phenomena that supports the claim made by some that Disney's job of reorienting or realigning the franchise along vastly different vectors in time and in style/sensibility was difficult and risky, and so the product is less than it might have been hoped for on a first try. I disagree that a first try, just because it's a first try, necessitates that the first product miss as many opportunities for greatness as TFA did. The concept art shows that it could have broken wholly new ground that put earned distance between its namesake and itself, even with action/quip/mystery box Abrams. It was a product rushed to market with a quarterly report on the line. The writing demanded more time, but time was not given. Not enough time was given for the actors to acclimate back into a state of sustained readiness to live out and live through quality parts reflective of ROTJ. The franchise "had" to be reoriented in X time units to turn the profit. I think there were ways that were not taken for the first movie ('first orbit') of the reoriented franchise to have been a cognitive hit, and a provocative hit, that was sewn into the ending of ROTJ. The real world phenomena is a poor consolation to me that the claim might not be absolutely dead wrong.

{E.g., “Similar to previous HST/STIS studies on transiting exoplanets, the first orbit of each transit observation (purposely scheduled earlier than each transit event) as well as the first exposure of each orbit were discarded. That data exhibits complex and unique systematics, as it was acquired while the telescope was thermally relaxing into its new pointing position.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.0083.pdf}

 

edit: It almost feels like Mark doesnt like TFA that much.



I find it amusing how Hamill tells us about his true feelings on Episode 7 and then suddenly Lucasfilm CEO Kathleen Kennedy interrupts him and distracts the audience from what he just said.

 

or he's sharing his opinions on other ways he thought it could go.

 

All the actors (same actors) talked up RJ so much in the recent Celebration. Hamill called him "God". They all talked about how great and beautiful his writing and directing is. They all clearly appreciated that RJ also tweaked the script dialog based on sessions with each actor. Even Kathleen Kennedy called him one of the best directors right now.

Meanwhile, Hamill poked fun at Abrams, and many of the same actors never had similar great things to say about Abrams.

TFA was certainly rushed, or not as developed as it could've been; as often is the impression with Abrams's productions.

TFA's new characters were all fine in concept. A lot of TFA's interior shots were splendid. The fight in the snow was epic. But the story borrowing almost everything from ANH, and the lack of scenes with other actors/characters, the lack of world-building (that Edwards did so well in R1), among other complaints, really brings TFA down.

 

Honestly though there really not going to badmouth him openly are they?

I would agree that he's a good director of action and TFA does have several excellent set pieces but I don't think he's a director of much substance and TFA for me just feels like a misfit in this respect. It doesn't have the substance of the OT or Rogue One and it doesn't have the "fun factor" at the level of say the very best Marvel for me.

In some respects I think his Trek(at least the first one) was actually more successful because it was able to rework the franchise much more and was able to commit to a more cartoonish style with wall to wall action/humour. That's not to say I wanted to see SW reworked to that degree and it would obviously be a limiting factor for future films if it had been(although they still do have some issues to deal with) but on its own terms I don't think this ended up being a great fit.

 

So sad she didn't let him tell what he came up with. Hamill is probably the biggest living SW fanboy. And If i'd have to bet his story would be much more interesting than what Kennedy will come up with.

 

In another video interview, Hamill talked about how his idea for TFA was that Luke and Leia should've been the ones on the bridge seeing Han die, not two people he'd just met 20 minutes earlier (Rey, Finn). That Leia would've reached out to Luke, come to his aid, like he did for her in ROTJ/ESB. And so there would've been some adventure arc in TFA where Luke, Leia, Han and Chewy were all together....whilst still having a Finn/Poe/Rey adventure going on.

 

Ok I understand why she interrupted him now. That goes against their plan of forcing the transition from the old universe to the new characters. And his ideas are probably more along the lines of the original guys still having a bigger role to play than what Disney wants.

But imho that's just a wasted opportunity to be honest. Instead of the mopey Luke hiding on an island we're going to get we could have gotten a Luke that just saw his best friend killed and decides to train the new Jedi generation (even though he failed the first time with Hans son assuming that is the story). We still might get that but if he was present it would have made it much more visceral.

We wont care about the new characters anyway if they don't invest the proper time to develop them so it kind of does not matter if you give Luke, Leia and Han more screen time or not.

Anyway thanks for the info I'm off to the interwebs to find the interview you referenced.

 

NOT FOLLOWING GEORGE'S STORY

 

Well we don't know what that is so I don't have a problem with that at this time. To me, it's a non-issue.

My biggest issue with TFA, almost a year and a half on, is that there was too much nostalgia and callbacks to the other films, and no I don't mean Luke Han leia and the OT characters. I just mean the overall plot and situation our protagonists find themselves in.

And the SKB is just way too much of a retread.

I love Hamill's idea of Luke and Leia being there at Han's death. It gives it a closure.

 

Frankly I doubt there ever was one. George never struck me as a storyteller in the vein of a Tolkien, King or Martin where those kind of minds have a great epic arc planned out for their characters from start to finish. Which could be a bit of an unfair comparison since writing books is a different process which is a lot less time and resource constrained.

He might want to give the world the impression that he does but from what i read how the movies were put together prequels included a lot of it evolved organically more than being a part of a great design.

Not that it's a knock on him. The end result is still great. So imo at best he probably had what you'd call a rough outline.

 

The real problem is I think that it doesn't commit much to starting to tell a longer story across a trilogy, it introduces two characters and a villain yet fills in very little about them in terms of history and motivation.

 

This is nonsense, theres plenty of media out there from the actors and kathleen kennedy praising Jj abrams, you only have to watch the stuff from anaheim celebration to see how happy they are with him in control of TFA, i'm all for people sharing their opinion on something they don't like but this is simply not true.
Again check the anaheim celebration and comic con panels, they include praise from Harrisson, boyega, daisy, Kk, driver, gleeson, kasdan etc...

The only thing ive seen is mark making slight digs at Jj for only using him in the last shot, yet in another interview he actually says he cant believe how well it all worked out in the end.

Say what you like about the movie but its fairly clear to me every actor (except maybe mark) was ecstatic to be working with Jj on TfA.

 

I just...don't like it. I've watched it many times, and it leaves me cold and irritated.

 

1) The "Member Berries" Aspect = South Park pretty much covered this, but working most of the film around "Hey, 'member that?!" can get tedious. Now some nostalgia pop moments worked. The reveal of the Falcon was great. Han being in the cockpit of the Falcon for the first time was great because it meant something to him (not just us). Han and Leia reuniting was a good, Luke's reveal at the end was good. But I felt like for every good one, there was an eye roller. The chess board and the remote were moments that felt like "Huh? Huh? See what we did there!". And doing things like a re-do of the Cantina and the Death Star added fuel to the "It's just A New Hope again" argument.

2) Seriously, how did Poe survive? The book explains it sure, but that is a pretty gaping hole in the film.

3) Captain Phasma was a total disappointment. Boba Fett getting minimal screen time was acceptable because he kind of got popular by accident. The fans made him a major player, but he wasn't designed to be. Phasma however was ALL OVER the marketing for Force Awakens. That shot of her walking down the hallway in the trailer was epic...too bad it was just a comedy routine with her getting tackled by Chewie. But she's on the posters, the trailers, the shirts, and all sorts of other merchandise. So...why did they prop her up so much only to have her do nothing? Why go to all the trouble of casting Brienne of Tarth to play the role if she's not going to do anything? I mean its kind of sad when a random trooper who tells "Traitor" leaves more of an impression than a heavily promoted character. Supposedly she is going to play a bigger role in VIII and IX, which is good, but at this point it feels reactionary like "Oh crap, the fans were expecting more out of her. Lets use her more" which is funny because we expected her to do more because they plastered her image everywhere.

4) Lack of explanation for how the new government works = The scene where Starkiller Base destroys the Hosnian system is well executed and looks haunting when up on screen. Its just too bad that there is so little context to what has happened that it fails to leave a dent emotionally. In the original film, we learn that Alderaan is Leia's home planet (so she has friends and family there), they are peaceful and have no weapons, and that is where the good guys are headed so they are in danger too. Here, the movie doesn't even give us the name of the system (I distinctly remember people thinking that it was Coruscant that got destroyed). And its funny because part of the complaint about the prequels was too much political dialogue, and this film didn't have nearly enough to where I don't even know how any of this new government works. In A New Hope, we got one scene with the Imperial Officers sitting in a meeting that basically explained everything I needed to know about how the government works. Here, its a lot of guess work. Honestly, my first impression from the trailer was that there was no unified government and after the Battle of Empire, the Empire fell and the two factions just kept fighting over land for the decades that followed. (I thought images like the downed Star Destroyer was going to be a commonality across the galaxy).

5) And my biggest complaint, Starkiller Base. Not only do I hate it when Star Wars rehashes the Death Star (EU had the Galaxy Gun, The Sun Crusher, The Darksaber, and several others) but it seemed to completely change the direction of the movie. Everything was centered around collecting the map to Skywalker, so, why didn't that stay the focus? It felt very loose reasoning to have a big space battle at the end when they didn't really need it. Honestly, I would have been happier if they just kept the focus on keeping the map to Luke out of First Order hands and maybe do something like an Indiana Jones style structure where both sides are chasing and following the other to get clues to the next part of the map or something. The space battle felt very tacked on and obligatory rather than necessary (and if they felt it was obligatory, I'd like to remind them that Empire Strikes Back is the most acclaimed of the Star Wars films and didn't have a big space battle at the end. It was a small chase and skirmish at best).

 

True about Empire and a big battle. The big battle was in the beginning. The film ended with a short chase and escape.

 

On the other hand, the Falcon appears in TFA and the chess game and the remotes are overlooked and the movie and its producers get accused of not knowing/caring etc.

The thing about member berries is that they provide nostalgic distraction from the fact that what we are consuming is bereft of anything meaningful.

Considering that there remains a considerable amount of debate surrounding the true nature and direction of new characters and elements introduced in The Force Awakens and that it has stimulated so much interest in how these relate to old characters, then the requisite absences of depth and meaning that something accused of "member berries" does not apply.

In other words, you can't just declare member berries because you noticed some inevitable call backs and references and you didn't care for them as much as some of the other ones. Nothing can please everybody all the time.

 

Wow this thread still exists? Okay I'll bite. TFA is in my top 3 so its a short list of complaints.

I'll try to keep it as my own criticisms and not stuff everyone has already covered. I'm also going to try and stay clear of plot stuff that could/will easily be addressed in VIII and IX. People tend to forget the saga is serial on purpose, answers will be left out of the beginning chapter almost always.

1. I feel like there should've been much more exposition on Finn. He really is just thrown in without the audience knowing what his real motivations are. Just Finn in general needed just a tad of fleshing out so he could've really stood out as a character. If it wasn't for John Boyega's acting we would've had a very forgettable performance.

2. No new ships, no big space battle. This is one aspect of the teaser of VIII has already won me over. TFA had X-wings and Tie fighters in its skirmishes. Holy crap, A New Hope had more ship diversity! I don't understand how this happened, especially with the budget it had. VIII already is showing ships we've never seen, new A-Wings, mining ships, etc. TFA had no big space battle, the assault on SKB was so short lived on the space battle aspect and while that's not necessarily a problem with the narrative its just disappointing for myself. Rogue One definitely filled that void though, battle of Scarif is probably the best space battle in the saga.

3. Takodana's act is so short! Maz' castle is incredible, there should've been more stuff going on there before the excellent resistance attack sequence. I also wish more work was put into the scene where Finn is given the lighstaber and the FO attack starts. Finn shouting "I need a weapon!" immediately after being given a blaster by han will always bother me, no matter how much the narrative needed Finn to use the lightsaber.

Like I said in the beginning of my post, I would have more problems with TFA if I knew some aspects weren't going to be covered in VIII and IX. Stuff like:
Why is Rey so powerful? Who left her on Jakku? How is the Resistance different than the Republic? Why even have Starkiller Base? etc If that stuff is never addressed, then yes I will have a problem with not just TFA but the other two.

As far as missed opportunities go...Every story has missed opportunities. If you have one thing happen differently, you run the risk of spoiling a separate moment. Writing is tricky, and them "playing it safe" was honestly the best course of action for bringing Star Wars back in the limelight. Rebooting is JJ's specialty, and reboot he did. All at the same time he at least gave us great new characters for Rian and the story group to play with. It's time to move forward, don't dwell on TFA if it wasn't your cup of tea. TFA is by no means perfect and I'd be lying if I said the similarities to the other movies didn't bother me...they just don't seem to bother me as much as others apparently. lol. We got 8 movies, there's at least one for everyone by now. I guarantee we're going to see a lot of the same posters here complaining about how wildly different approached The Last Jedi is this time next year in this same thread on the other board. We'll see though.

 

This seems more like an argument in favour of "member berries" although personally I would argue that no there isn't THAT much debate about the new characters outside of forums like this, there was for a short period after the films release but really I'd say theres just wasnt enough substance to them to sustain it. Really the giveaway is surely in the TLJ trailer, does it focus on Rey or Finn? no it focuses on Luke because there is actually substance from the OT there meaning people are keen to know what happens next and have more to base theories on.

I think Rogue One provides such an effective argument against TFA here, it obviously looked to recreate a lot of the setting of the OT but does not dwell nearly as much on specific nostalgia as TFA does and indeed uses the setting to tell a different story that to me feels rather more of its time. Indeed to me TFA doesn't even feel limited to SW nostalgia, a lot of it actually feels like a more generalised 80's blockbuster nostalgia which SW has become caught up with in peoples memories despite actually differing from quite significantly in some ways.

 

Njfritz, yes this thread still exists. There is still a complaints thread for Episode ONE that is active from time to time.

People love these movies…and love to nitpick and critique. It's the nature of these movies we are so invested in.

My complaint #1138:

Finn expresses so much sadness at the pointless death of a fellow FO trooper in the opening of the movie he defects…..

…then later when he escapes with Poe he blasts fellow FO troopers in the hangar because….

 

I conducted a 1-6 marathon last night, and it occurred to me that TFA has none of the strengths of the two trilogies and all of their weaknesses magnified. For example, in the PT you get to see a lot but you dont get much chance to absorb it because there is so much stuff and the story is so plot heavy. With the OT it is the opposite. You don't get to see much, but what little you do see you get to absorb more of it. With the PT you get to see an interesting story with a ton of plot but as a result you don't get much character relationships. With the OT you get a very simple story but as a result there is a lot of time and space to really get the most out of the characters. In TFA, the worlds are so boring that you dont get to see much, but you also dont get to absorb much either because of the hectic pacing and back to back action sequences and the bad camera framing. Also, you dont get much of an interesting story with very little exposition - not even as much exposition as ANH - but you still dont get much character interaction because its so littered with action sequences.

 

We only see Luke in silhouette or at a great distance. How exactly does that make the TLJ teaser focus on Luke and not Rey? The dialogue used is between he an Rey. We see Rey plenty of times.

How can I be in favour of member berries when I've pointed out the problem with them?

Well people outside these forums don't really talk about the prequels in any way except for things that linked it with previous films, Obi Wan and Yoda etc. And the whole objective of the prequels was to tell backstory that set up the situation in Episode IV. That's how everyone saw them.

You just seem to be making broad and vague generalizations about TFA now. You may not personally have perceived any substance. But a quick look at these boards has many people discussing the substance, but also, a very tiny minority of people complaining that the response to the movie is focused purely on the nostalgia because there's no substance to talk about.

TFA if is in the Star Wars episodic saga idiom. Rogue One isn't. That's why Rogue One isn't Star Wars Episode 3.5. You've noticed an inevitable difference between Rogue One and episode films. That's all. They did a terrific job of feathering the two idioms in the final moments of Rogue One, because the end of Rogue one had to be continuous with Episode IV. Lo! and behold, some people have noticed this and they are prompted to call it the worst thing about Rogue One. Pure nostalgia. Nonsense.

If Rogue One is an argument against TFA, then it's an argument against episodes I-VI also.

No disrespect but your arguments against the film's worth are entirely spurious claims of impropriety which are at odds with what's actually been put on screen over the past forty years, and flies in the face of the larger discussions being held outside this one.

 

I actually think that Rogue One exposes issues with TFA and the PT. TFA and PT both have an over-reliance on cheap/stupid nostalgia callbacks and generally making the universe feel smaller. Rogue One is IMO easily the best prequel to the OT (it's MUCH more consistent with the OT than the PT) and it's also the best SW film made by Disney and captures the "feeling" of the OT better than TFA.