ST J.J. Abrams (Director Of TFA & TROS) Discussion Thread—Now Finally Discussing: JJ Abrams

I agree. The destroyed castle set was really poor. It doesn't give the audience any kind of sense that this was a huge structure full of people, artifacts, furniture, food etc. There is literally nothing there in the ruins apart from a few blocks of stone. It was the same with the Resistance base. Bland and uninspired. A lot of it was probably to do with Abrams at the time making a noise about "practical sets", but they went too far and the locations were boring.

 

I don't see how that is the case at all. There is no connection between those two things.

Whether the conflict ended immediately (which would be rather ridiculous and illogical) or still lasted for an extended period of time has no bearing whatsoever on what material or resources would be available to an entity emerging from the ashes of the Empire later on. In both cases a faction of the former Empire could go into hiding outside the reach of the New Republic. In such chaotic times, you could never track what remains and what might have been lost somewhere, nor could the New Republic truly find out what happens in territory outside of its reach. The First Order is as believable if the Empire ends immediately (for some absurd reason), as it is when its remains continue fighting for some time.

Quite frankly, seeing our own history, the idea that the rise of the First Order somehow isn't logical or believable is just absurd. It mirrors history. Something that is based on an evil regime rising from the ashes of a fallen Empire, re-arming in hiding and then plunging the world into another huge conflict just 20 years after the last one ended, with everyone else not being on their guard because everyone is just tired of war at that point, couldn't possibly be illogical or unbelievable, because it actually happened in our history. You would need to deny reality to make such a claim.

If you want to talk about something being illogical, that would be the Empire being done immediately after Endor. That would make no sense at all. The rebellion wasn't some large group that could take the Empire's might head-on, it was a rag-tag bunch of people that would launch occasional surprise-attacks against a vastly superior enemy. Endor was seen as a chance to cut off the head, killing the Emperor and his new toy, not as starting an open battle with the might of the Empire. In fact, the only reason it was ever attempted was because the rebels thought the Imperial fleet wasn't anywhere near the new and incomplete Death Star. Doing that doesn't somehow change the fact that the rebellion was still vastly inferior in terms of numbers. What you could count on, would be a complete chaos in Imperial command, with no one being in charge anymore. Some people would try to take charge, infighting would ensue, the whole remains might split into smaller groups of different sizes, some parts might just panic and give up or switch sides, etc. Even at best it would take quite some time to deal with all those groups, who definately would all still pretend to be "the Empire", and some of which would still be very powerful and in control of vast amount of territory. Technically they might assign the end of the Galactic civil war to have happened when the Emperor died, but that doesn't somehow mean that this is were the fighting ended.

It wasn't like the First Order had a gigantic fleet either. They could take over because they used Starkiller Base to take out most of the Republican fleet in one swift stroke. That made them the most powerful entity around, because there was no other organized group with remotely the same firepower left.


Conceptually, I think many of the designs of the whole trilogy weren't particularly inspiring. Most planets were rather generic, though the ship-designs were even worse. From the top of my head, the only ship-design I found somewhat interesting was the resistance-bomber in TLJ, and there isn't really much of a reason why the resistance of all people would have ships like that.
Felucia might look a bit funky, but it is something entirely different. Be bold, don't cling to "Here's a sand planet, here's a green planet, here's a lava planet", do something weird, have a planet with an orange ocean or something, just anything that isn't the same plain old generic stuff. It's a fantasy world, do fantasy stuff. Rogue One, while not exactly going wild with it either, still delivered something different in that regard. Crait had a bit of colour once you scratched its surface (literally and figuratively), but that's basically the height of colourful design in the trilogy. The Sith temple on Exegol could have been really interesting, small parts reminded me a bit of the Sith temple from the Mysteries of the Sith add-on to Jedi Knight. But that really was just a glimpse here and a glimpse there, like the huge statues or the "elevator", before returning to pretty plain stuff in the rest of the temple.

 

I think you’re hugely conflating the ‘real world’ with the fictional world of a fantasy movie. From my perspective, this is more about what Lucas was trying to convey at the end of ROTJ, and how that’s somewhat recontextualised by the ST, which IMO, doesn’t really convince, and requires a substantial suspension of willing disbelief. The point being, given that Lucas is (IMO) most certainly trying to convey the end of the Empire/civil war, then it begs the question as to the how/why the proxy Empire 30 years later? Also, even using ‘real world’ examples, there are numerous wars and conflicts that effectively come to an end after a pivotal moment... everything from the Roman Civil War, with Pompey’s defeat by Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus, to the end of the Nazi regime, when the allies crossed the Rhine and Berlin fell. There was circa only a week between Hitlers death and Germany effectively surrendering the war.

 

It did give off a Lego advert feel.

 

I previously said that Abrams makes beautiful movies. TFA as a whole is great to watch. In TROS, the scene of Rey and Kylo Ren fighting in two different places at once is great. I don't like the conversation they have, but visually, that's one of the things that shows that a dyad could have been a great concept. That said, if TROS hadn't featured the Reylo situation, I think I would have liked that film more. It would have been a C or B- film, but its many problems would have seen less significant without that, I believe. If Abrams had directed this entire trilogy, something tells me that Rey would have wound up with Finn and we wouldn't have gotten this Kylo-Rey dumpster fire. I mean, it's possible that the trilogy would have still gone downhill. However, it's easier to accept a flawed trilogy if it is consistent and doesn't feature an abusive relationship that is presented as positive.

 

I personally find Abrams films to be visually bland/dumb... ‘beautiful’ isn’t a word I’d ever use to describe them. TROS was definitely an improvement on TFA, visually speaking (IMO)... but even then, I think he’s a poor filmmaker.

 

I suppose it's a matter of taste. World of Geekdom was the one who used the term, and I agree. However, they also said that Abrams would have been a better assistant director than a main director. After seeing both of these movies, I tend to agree. I was not impressed with his second Star Trek movie. In fact, I like Chris Pine in the Wonder Woman better than as Captain Kirk. The main problems in TFA are Han Solo and Kylo Ren. It's hard to believe that Han wait until the events of this movie to get involved. He just would not have left Leia. I can actually see him being estranged from his kid. Ford, however, gives a better performance than the background of this version of Han should have in some ways. He's almost a secular version of Alec Guinness' Obi-Wan Kenobi. My Mom liked TFA, but she felt it was sad that Ren killed Solo. She did not like TLJ, and when I told her the plot, she laughed and was glad she did not see it. She isn't a fan of the Dark Empire concept. Also, Mom has trouble distinguishing between the original Expanded Universe and the Disney canon. She has TCW and Rebels down, but she has a tendency to call that "Expanded Universe" stuff. She's obviously a casual fan, but even she understands that the Sequel Trilogy is messed up.

There's an argument to be made that Abrams made story perfect for potential disaster and Rian Johnson simply stepped in and created said catastrophe. TROS definitely was not good, and it says something that my favorite characters in the film are Palpatine and 3PO. Lol. Rey and Finn are kind of all over the place character-wise, and while Poe is good, and there's something about him that I can't put my finger on. I'm not sure if this is the same cool Poe we saw in TFA or not. I know he's not as arrogant and foolish as he was in TLJ, which is an improvement, but Oscar Isaac said that he played Poe differently up until that movie. I would have liked Finn to have wound up with either Rey or Poe. Of course, given what we got, I'm not sure I would have trusted them to handle those things properly. TROS goes out of its way to make all of its leads heterosexual, and that's disappointing. There were many people who got vibes from Poe and Rey that they were not completely straight in TFA and TLJ. Besides, in this day and age, to make all your characters straight is unrealistic.

 

Yes - I’d agree with that. TFA tends to get a free pass, but for me it’s the film that’s the most lacking, given it’s the film that’s supposed to be setting a new SW era up, with all the characters and situations that come with it. And whilst I believe TLJ and TROS are the film that makes the most overt bad choices, it’s the lack of creativity/new ideas in TFA that hamstring the entire trilogy IMO.

 

That's true. It did create the situation. The problem for those who like that film is that its two immediate sequels make some not want to watch it, either. I also feel that if one does not know anything about Star Wars or has not watched the CT in a long time, TFA comes off as more fantastic than it is.

 

Well I think TFA leans heavily into the nostalgia factor... so it’s great to see Han, Chewie, Leia and the Falcon etc.... and I think Finn, Poe and Rey all get good introductions... but after the first reel of the film (after Jakku), and when one strips the nostalgia back, it just becomes an exercise in really derivative and vanilla filmmaking, which is often disguised by (IMO) an overuse of fast editing and camera movement. The characters are very thinly drawn and the plot is pretty much non-existent... there’s little to no world building or establishment of the Galaxy/conflict (much of it rendered moot by the following films anyway). But Abrams is skilled enough to make it all seem rather polished. But that’s just my take on it.

 

I can see that. I figured that there was not enough thereness to it when I first saw it in 2015. I think the performances made it seem better than it was.

 

TFA is certainly the most polished film of the ST (IMO), and it’s obviously more self contained, given it’s using the ANH template... so on the surface it seems a ‘better’ film than it actually is IMO. And like Star Trek 09, many of the structural faults of the first film get exposed, and become issues for, the subsequent films.

 

That's true. The main problem with the movie is the fact that we don't know exactly why Kylo Ren is Ren in the first place. Despite killing his father, he's not as offensive as he is in the sequels. That said, leaving the door open to interpret why he become Kylo Ren just gave Johnson the opportunity to mess that up royally. Max von Sydow's character also should have been better explained, since the role may be small, but it's a good performance that is wasted. We don't even know how he got the map to Skywalker. I've talked with people in town about this, and they said that Kylo Ren was better in that film with his mask on. It almost would have been better if he took it off when he interacted with Han. He's fine in that scene and the subsequent duel. Definitely an intimidating villain. Not someone I figured would be revised into a sympathetic character. It's impossible to sympathize with him after everything he does in this movie alone. I like his mannerisms with the mask on. Maskless, he seems at his best during the duel in my estimation. Plus, I never got the sense that there was anything between him and Rey in this movie. He looks high and intrigued when he initially takes his mask off. He was off-putting, but now his interrogation scene is even worse with the sequels. "You know I can take what I want?" he says. Yeah, definitely not a character worthy of sympathy. Rey also makes a lot more sense in TFA. In TLJ and TROS, they truly butchered her character. She was the main reason that I liked TFA to begin with. I can see why Daisy Ridley decided to not being Rey as early as the completion of TLJ. That film really messed up the character to the point that there was not much she could do to fix it in TROS. Overall, the ST is a weird story, if you can call it that at all, given the contradictions and retcons. It is telling that I have the DVDs for the first six films, R1, TCW, and Rebels here in my home, but not the ST. As unhappy as Lucas probably is about the ST, he is lucky in a way that it came along. The PT has several problems, but it's better than the ST. The ST doesn't come close to the PT in terms of ideas like a fear of loss. The ST also undermines the PT in several ways, most notably Anakin's inability to heal his mother or save Padme, which contrasts with Ren saving Rey. There are just a number of over-the-top things in the ST that make it feel like a different universe, as well as causing disappointment that Rey and Ren are doing things that Luke and Leia are not. That's one reason I accepted Darth Maul and Ahsoka being more powerful than I anticipated they were in Season Seven of TCW. I'd rather see them doing it than Kylo Ren and Rey.

 

So many people wonder why JJ abrams ended the sequel trilogy as he did. If I had to ask him three question they would be:

1) What were your plans for Kylo's character? Redemption or not?

2) Was finn always meant to be a jedi alongside Rey?

3) Who is Snoke and what role would he have played in the ST?

 

What I'd ask him is what he would have done with the characters if he'd done a direct sequel to TFA. He obviously had to try and continue (in some sense) what Johnson had established... but what would he have done in the middle movie?

 

Same. I couldn't stand Pine in ST (I hated 09 so I never saw anything after). Abrams is great at casting talent. Everything else? Not so much. Better producer.

Agreed on this. Ford is trying hard but there's a reason those scenes with Fisher don't work - not only the awful exposition but the fact that I will never buy Han leaving Leia (or Luke leaving either). It just does not work. They should have kept Han for the rest of the trilogy (forgetting even reuniting him with Hamill, he and Boyega together are terrific.)

I actually remember sitting in the theater thinking "hey, maybe JJ has got this" right around the time the Falcon showed up and the whole thing just started careening downhill.

"So, JJ, why did you never reunite Luke, Han and Leia? Why did you decide to break up Han and Leia and revert them back to ANH - a story reason other than you hating ROTJ? Why did you make the only child of the OT3 Kylo Ren? Why, if Kennedy sold you on directing what became TFA with "who is Luke Skywalker," did you never answer the question? How can you call your favorite character Han Solo and then do that to him? I also reserve time for follow ups on Star Trek....wait, come back!"

 

Just to be clear, I was tired when I typed this, and I meant to say that my Mom was vexed by TLJ and was glad she did not see TROS. I told her the plot, and she compared it to the bad soap operas of the 1990s and 2000s. I mean, that's why she and I watched Days of Our Lives. We did not sign up to se that type of bad writing in Star Wars. Lol. Soap operas like that have a tendency to blame characters for things that were not their fault (a la Rey), and to radically revise characters (Ren). I mean, there's nothing wrong with, say, the Phantom of the Opera or Darth Vader having a change at heart in the end. Despite them being bad people, you can see enough good in them (i.e. who they were before they changed) that their election to spare someone (leave them alone) is foreshadowed. We don't get that with Kylo Ren. Movies only, I still think this dude is a spoiled brat and I don't sympathize with him. I'm using the Phantom example because all the white characters are pretty immature and problematic in that pulp story, and only the Persian/Iranian fellow seems to be mature and well-meaning.

I hold Johnson responsible for turning this situation into a bad soap opera. It's not good writing. It's simplistic and pulpy. But Abrams deserves some blame, as well, since he continued Johnson's main problem in TROS and arguably made it worse. I mean, Rey and Ren have a terrible relationship, and now he's saying it's divine will that they went through all that to get to a better place. That's the kind of thing that makes people loathe notions of predestination/determinism. Plus, it's clunkily handled. If Rey and Ren decided to only be professional as they took down Palpatine, I actually would have accepted that. Having two characters compare notes and team up against a baddie would have been fine. Leaving the creepy stuff out would have made it better. That's what I thought I was going to get before I walked into the theater. As it is, it does not come off as intuitive. It comes off as clumsy. And Palpatine himself is dumbed down. He doesn't come off as a person with multiple plans. He comes off as disorganized. We had a similar problem with Leia. Leia knew how to get out of that Death Star better than Han and Luke did, frankly. But now...she's turned into a very passive person. Painfully passive. Everyone in TROS, it seems, is reacting to things beyond their control. They've lost too many IQ points compared to the past two films. It's annoying to watch. Lol.

If I want Pulp done well, I'll go watch some Swedish story, not this.

 

1) Judging by development history, the redemption of Ben Solo always seemed to be a fixed resolution, no matter which creative was involved.

2) It's apparent in retrospect that Finn's Force sensitivity was a trigger in his very first scene in TFA, but I'm not exactly sure what Abrams' intentions were for his training when Rey had left for Ahch-To and Finn was left in a coma.

3) While the overall development timeline is pretty clear (Maul, Talon, "Uber," Snoke, Palpatine), I'm not sure what exactly Abrams intended for Snoke, especially when his design wasn't even finalized until late in production.

 

Honestly? I doubt he intended anything. I mean, yeah, allegedly he left outlines but I have a lot of trouble believing that. Even if he did, I'm sure there was no answer for most things beyond his precious Mystery Box.

**why yes, I think JJ is one of the most overrated director/producer/writers working today or I would if I didn't have Christopher Nolan in the #1 slot and Rian Johnson, based solely on TLJ, at #1A. Although I'd put JJ at the top simply because he does more than both of them combined and he wrecks it all (I'm not talking about Lost, I'm talking about Person of Interest, which had a Nolan AND Abrams).

 

I agree. I believe both Christopher and Jonathan Nolan are better writers than Abrams. Abrams is okay with setting up a good startup for a run-of-the-mill story, not a Nolan-esque story.

 

He's not overrated, he is just flat out terrible, if you really think about what he did with TFA it's flat out hilarious but also infuriating. This is a man who thought he could copy GL's a new hope, and still managed to make it inferior. It's like the copy your hw meme, the dude copied and he still managed to make it inferior than the original. How pathetic is that? As much as I dislike TLJ and rian, jj is just so bad. It was his decisions in TFA that led to the ST turning the way it was. By the time Rian came around, it just didn't matter what he would do because JJ had already screwed the pooch.

 

I don't really agree. I think even the weak writing decisions made in JJ's movie could've been more easily reconfigured into something interesting. Even though I think his choices may not have really been thought through.

JJ's movie didn't decide to have the First Order reign.

Or that Luke cared more about his failure than his friends and family to the point where he rejects helping when asked and even when he does train Rey, it's about why the jedi need to end.

Or the character decisions with Rey, Kylo, Finn, Poe, Holdo, Snoke, Hux, Rose and Leia.

After TLJ, I think it's harder to course correct on the stuff I think doesn't work story and character wise.

 

I agree. The First Order clearly had to struggle to gain power in TFA. Then all of a sudden total victory is upon them in Rian's movie. There are many weird U-turns and you almost have to look at individual characters, not the stories themselves, while using your imaginations to even make sense of this trilogy. I mean, just look at Poe. He doesn't really have flaws in TFA. Then he's either a jerk or is naive in TLJ. Then he feels more fleshed out but more generic in TROS. Abrams' view of the First Order was clearly setup. I liked his notion of the First Order being analogous to the Nazis coming back after hiding in Argentina. That would have been interesting. But Johnson turned them into cartoon villains. Therefore, TROS strangely enough...when viewed after TLJ...seems to feel like both Johnson and Abrams made it. And that's what people hate about it.

 

TLJ isn't worse than TFA, TFA is worse but marginally so, the reason why I feel TFA is worse because JJ does things in TFA that allowed for rian to mess everything up.

JJ had Luke on an island which allowed Rian to do what he did. He had Han describe Luke as "that he felt responsible and walked away from everything", this gave rian the idea to do the BS he eventually ended up doing with Luke in TLJ. I hated Luke's characterization in TLJ but jj pretty much set up this crappy possibility which rian ultimately went with.

Rey, Kylo, Finn, and Poe, all had poor and bizarre decisions made for them in TFA. Snoke is all on rian, i'll give you that. Hux was a parody in TFA and continued being a joke in TLJ which I thought was appropriate. Rose was all on rian, as was Leia.

What JJ does with TFA is a bigger sin, he recycles the conflict, creates mystery boxes with no answers, has Han become a smuggler again, destroys Han and Leia's marriage, makes their son a villain and has him kill Han. Puts Finn in a coma which gave rian the opportunity to re-do his arc again. Creates a poorly written villain in Kylo. All of these were JJ.

Again, for me I noped out after TFA, given how jj ended things the new characters and storylines just did not do it for me.