ST Is the Force Awakens really a "safe" film?

Actually, at the time, ESB got quite mixed reviews, and is one of the lowest-grossing SW films (if not THE lowest). And yes, one of the complaints was that it was "all too familiar." It was only as time went on that it's true quality came to be recognized/appreciated.

 

All too familiar? Really? Wow...

I recall a lot of people didn't like the downer cliffhanger ending.

 

Yeah, I was puzzled as well. I guess that they meant the kind of sci-fi battle/effects in general felt "too familiar." It's actually also quite astonishing how it's reception back in the day mirrors this movie's reception now.

 

Not really, having a female lead was a pretty safe choice. I've seen a disturbing amount of people say that they are willing to overlook the movie's flaws because they're happy about it having a female lead, doubt they would have been so forgiving for a male lead. Easy PR win for disney

 

I haven't seen a single person say that and I've been on these forums to an unhealthy level for months.

 

And I heard a disturbing amount of people throwing a fit about it. Not to mention the "black Stormtrooper" fiasco from awhile back.

 

Me neither. Not one person on this forum has said that.

 

Me either. I did see some people complain about it way back when the idea was first floated. Talking about it being ok/appropriate that SW was so male-centric because 'it's that kind of story," or some such nonsense.

 

I would certainly call having a male lead a safe choice. But, I don't think I would characterize a female lead as unsafe. There shouldn't be much of a significant difference. I'm not sure what the arbitrator would be here, but I guarantee Disney wasn't risking business by casting Ridley.

 

If I had to choose between "did they play it safe" or "they really went out on a limb and took some big risks" with this film, I'd say they played it safe.

 

Parts of Tattooine in both ANH and ROTJ are shown to be dune desert and indeed are called the "dune sea" plus I would argue that the encampment that Rey works in seems rather like Mos Eisley.

Turning Jakku into an Imperial junk heap was definitely an interesting idea although really you could argue not introducing anything new, a bit of a one shot deal.

Visually the early scenes with Rey were IMHO the best part of the film by some way, they actually differed quite a bit from the OT that tended towards a more matter of fact new wave cinema verite style and reminded me more of Jacksons LOTR. Sadly it seemed that as the film progressed me got less and less of this in favour of an increasingly bland style, it was really only with the confrontations with Kylo/Ben that I think that style returned a bit.

 

So I just got back from my third viewing.

Is it safe? Maybe, though I'd call it comfortably a SW movie instead. It's certainly less lazy than anything since ESB. And I think that's the point: to make a new SW movie that starts a new story and yet make it feel like an archetypal SW movie... and still make it the best it could be. Anything archetypal, including any of the six previous films, is "safe"" because archetypes, by their very nature, are tried-and-tested.

But Satipo is right--if you want to see what narratively-safe SW looks like, imagine Jedi Master Luke, with Han and Leia playing happy families. Hell, just read the old EU.

 

This movie is all "Archetype", with hardly any attached story that makes any sense... So by that definition it is safe. The only thing I felt was unsafe was that the main villain Kylo is a rather conflicted, non-scary figure, and actually felt more fleshed out and human than any of the other cardboard characters...: His taking his mask off was a risk, even the joke about the deep voice it gave him early on was also a risk, and these were about the only real risks the entire film takes (the OT waited the end of the 3rd film to do that)...

I would say that if anything was good about TFA it was this, and there was hardly anything else like that anywhere in evidence...

Gaston

 

Gaston is back! Yay!

 

Using archetypes and the heros journey structure is not a problem. That basic structure is used for pretty much any good story from Harry Potter to LOTR.


The big problem was just repeated things like a droid carrying a secret to a desert planet, another cantina bar scene, another freaking Death Star with a weak spot. It was really the paint by numbers Star Wars, I really wonder what Larry Kasdan really did in the script writing process besides collect a paycheck.

 

That would be the characters and the majority of the moments where beneath the surface of the setting it's actually not that much like the moment it's intentionally echoing.

 

One thing the Milli Falcon must say, the old and the new characters blended well together, and managed to do a reasonably good job continuing the Star Wars series from Episode 6 to 7... Of course, it's sad to see my long-time pilot Han Solo get killed off but it's only a matter of time when the legendary characters gradually disappear from the scene (either by being killed, died of old age, or maybe even "leaving the canon" for retirement) with the new ones carrying the torch for future Star Wars installments.

Daisy was indeed the correct choice to play the leading role, and the way she acted was just brilliant - from the action scenes to those that required her to show her emotions (Daisy's tears were so genuine). And ably supporting her to make TFA what it is were the bunch of dedicated actors lead by John, Oscar, Adam, Harrison, Carrie, and Mark!

 

In some ways I think some of the feeling of (relative) dissatisfaction is similar to that initially felt with ESB and also TPM and AOTC in that there is meat you want to get to that you're going to have to wait for.

I imagine what will happen is that as the following episodes (hopefully) provide that meat, that feeling which is inherent to the serial aspect of the saga fades.

It obviously depends on how that meat tastes I guess - Han getting rescued is satisfying, Boba Fett rematch is not, no slaves are rescued, the "other" is arguably less interesting, Sifo-Dyas goes nowhere, etc.

It's interesting that the film that builds best on the previous episode is the one that has no obvious threads left dangled before it (ESB/ ANH).

If the backstory regarding Rey and Ben is good and the mystery regarding Rey works and we get why Luke left, then TFA will work even better. If those areas are poor then TFA could suffer. I'm hopefully it's the former. I'm confident Rian has known the answers (and good ones) for some time and I believe his script is not only good but should be free of the development scramble JJ and LK faced.

 

One thing that I think heightens that feeling is that TFA leaves you wanting so many answers about both the future and the past. There's a time when the Rebel and Imperial fleets clash for the future of freedom and Luke's new Jedi order is entangled in betrayal and dark side intrigue. And there's a time when the galaxy must mass its remaining warships against a terrible new threat from beyond known space, with the most powerful Force users undergoing epic tests of strength, loyalty, and insight.

But we neatly dodge both of those times.

I hope we don't look back from a post-IX future and see most of TFA as time wasted tracking the "Jake Lloyd years" of the sequel trilogy's plotlines.

 

I would argue that "Jedi master Luke" and Han/Leia still married with the former directly involved in the New Republic is actually quite a risky direction to go in because it needs you to actually rework those existing characters and work them into a new story. In TFA Abrams deliberately avoids this challenge, Luke is absent and both Han and Leia are reverted to the positions they were in during ANH with the latter absent much of the time as well.

In terms of the new heroes I think they were character who COULD have been taken in a more risky direction but ultimately weren't in favour of having quite standard stories. Kylo/Ben was a bit more of a risk but really again not one that much time was put into.

What people forget of course is that although ANH wasn't really very risky in terms of its characters it was in terms of introducing the whole Starwars universe in the first place.

 

That's definitely a possibility Dameron

I think there are grounds for optimism in that I think the decision to hold back wail pay off later on. JJ and LK have stated that the story is known, but been held back so as not to overwhelm TFA. I think so long as that story is told (and told well) then there is no problem.

But you're right, this is the first one that has questions about past and future. My instinct is that Rian will have been aware of all this for a long time and I have confidence in his abilities to satisfy on this front. He knows we need some kind of exploration of Luke's motives and why he left the galaxy. Leaving that to 8 makes sense to me as we're with Luke and can really get to the heart of it whilst also impacting on Rey's training. If you explain all that in TFA, you have a massive lore dump. I think they consciously took the decision (as evidenced by JJ's comments on the matter) to hint and suggest, leaving further episodes to pick up and really get into the relevant dangling threads.

I think at one point more of the vision was to be shown which might have answered more about who Rey is and what happened to Kylo but I'm fairly confident this will now be seen very early on in episode 8. But, yes, if they bungle all this moving forwards, then TFA will be diminished (rightly) as not dealing with questions it should have.

The only thing I can see being brushed over a bit more now though is how Maz got the saber. It really depends how important that aspect is to it all. Rey's past and why Kylo turned and what exactly drove Luke to seek out the Temple on Ahch-To are things so woven into the fabric of the story that I don't see how you can avoid them. I'm not sure the saber fits quite into that category though I'd still like to see how it fits in and think we may see this.

I think anyone who thinks Han and Leia are the exact same characters they were in the OT are missing the melancholy that surrounds their "regression". Again, it's thematic - characters (and a galaxy) struggling to escape the past. Those that are able to break free of the shackles of the past (i.e. what it appears you are destined to be vs what you might become) prosper, or at least find the hope of triumph. The villains are merely sealing their doom even further.

 

I agree, The unanswered questions are excruciating in a good way.

I don't think we will, It's certainly a Foundation, a very entertaining foundation and will prove to be important to the Trilogy

On-Topic, Overall it's Safe but that's not a bad thing, I think we need a Sturdy foundation to build this Trilogy on and they done that. Are there Risks? Absolutely, There was a small number of people very opposed to having a Black Man as the lead / co-lead. There was some boycotting because of this and the fact there was a female lead. Kylo's villain isn't black and white, is Human and is emotional rather than cold and calculating (he seems a very marmite Character, people either really like him or think he's a rubbish baddie, I think he's an awesome Character). Having Clear similarities to ANH is a risk in itself.

 

Agreed. The utter nonsense that followed John Boyega's inclusion in SW from some people on our little planet just proves that his casting was not safe in the slightest.

 

Again, it's only "formulaic" in the sense that ALL SW films are. The PT is not as people like to claim it is for example. Look beyond the mere surface aesthetics, which is hard for some people it seems, and there's lots of interesting themes symbolism, callbacks, subtleties, etc.

 

The assiduous safety of the movie is probably the main thing I dislike about it. For every risk, there are countless safe plays. What's the ratio, 1 to 100?
Needless to say the entire plot for one, but it's not just that. The almost never ending list of callbacks and lifts form a giant safety net purposefully woven from nostalgia. There are so many they had to be shoe horned in even when they serve absolutely no other purpose.