ST Plot holes and lost exposition - real issues or not?

You haven't been waiting 25 years though, have you. Episode VII was only officially announced three years ago, so at most you've been waiting three years. Before then, you could either take the happy ending of ROTJ or take the various events of the EU.

Luke, the great hero of your childhood, was hiding because of the trauma caused by losing his student (and nephew) to the darkside. That was the narrative reason, and was explained clearly in the film. "Mystery box" is a really lazy term used to bash Abrams with. Was ANH "mystery box" storytelling? Because TFA told me a damn sight more about Kylo than ANH told me about Vader.

The structural reason that Luke, the great hero of your childhood, was hiding, is because Luke isn't the great hero of the next generation's childhood. That will be Rey, and I'm glad her (probable) father didn't steal the limelight.

 

At the end of the day everything written on this thread is just personal opinion, nothing more. It's no good being demeaning to people that like the film just because someone else did not and vice versa. No one persons opinion means more and neither is it better than anyone else's.

Judging by some of the comments on here the reception this film is getting proves one of two things. That the OT is the heartbeat of SW and people just want a good OT style action film or that everybody is mindless and just wants a SW retread.

Personally I enjoyed it immensely and I'm looking forward to - A; Seeing it again at the cinema and B; The story continuing in ep8. What does that say about me then?

 

I would think deleting the sole energy source and gravitational constant for all the planets in a star system would be plenty damaging on its own, yes.

 

Luke was THE story though. Finding him was Poe's motivation, Kylo's motivation, and ultimately lead Han to even agree to be back in the action. There was no advertisements or official releases that suggested Luke would be a big role, if you expected that then unfortunately that's on you.

It's not if, it's explicitly said he blames himself. What makes you say this? Luke tried to reach Kylo, Leia said in response to Han's comment about Kylo being lost and having "Too much Vader in him" that this was the reason she sent him to train with Luke. The end result was Luke personally failing Kylo, his other students, and being unable to reach him the way he reached his father. He's no longer trying to fix Obi-Wan's failure, Kylo was his personal failure.

Han said Luke was searching for the first Jedi Temple. This means he was returning to the roots of the Jedi in search of answers. You could tell what he was thinking by the look on his face when he saw Rey. At first he was uncertain and cautious, but when she pulled out his father's lightsaber he was astonished at first. Then you see his surprise calm and what comes over his face is an understanding that despite his failures in the past that Rey was his answer that the Force had brought to him, and that as reluctant as he maybe to train her, it is the will of the Force.

Essentially you're saying you don't like the movie because it's not what you wanted, that's fine, you're entitled to have that opinion. That doesn't make it a bad film though. I think you'll end up being happy when you see the expanded role this will allow Luke to have in Episode VIII.

 

A lack of exposition is very much a "Lucasian" style of storytelling. It creates a sense of immediacy while also nurturing further interest in the details. In other words - threads like this one. If it were all laid out for us there would be less continuing interest.

It bothered me too at first until I realized that if you watched the first film in 1977 before there was thousands of hours worth of reading available to fill in the missing exposition, it would have felt very much the same.

I was more confused by how casually the whole destroying the republic angle was treated. I'm pretty sure it would be a bigger deal to cripple your only real threat to galactic domination. That's not something you just do.

 

I see a lot of people complaining about the film's supposed lack of exposition.

" Oh, they barely show the New Republic"
"Oh, they barely explain the First Order!"
"Oh, they barely explain Kylo Ren!"

I understand these complaints, and I agree, to a certain extent. A little more exposition would have done this already fantastic film well.

But here's the thing. Everyone complains about these, while nobody seems to realize that A New Hope had arguably less exposition.

Let's start with the opening crawl. In both films, we're given some very basic, bare-bones exposition:

-ANH: There's a civil war, good guy Rebels vs. evil Empire. The plans of the death star, a WMD, have been stolen and are in the hands of a "Princess Leia".
-TFA: Luke Skywalker is missing. There's a war, good guy Resistance vs. evil First Order. General Leia, leader of the Resistance, has sent her best pilot to track down a clue to Luke's whereabouts, believing he can help them defeat the First Order.

Both are equally vague. At least in TFA we already know who all the named characters are.

Continuing on, we get the opening scene. Both set up the main Mcguffin of the film and show us very clearly who the bad guys are.

We get some slow paced scenes introducing us to our hero (Rey/Luke) before we connect them to the story.

Our main villain's backstory is explained. In ANH, this is done via exposition dump by Obi-wan. in TFA we get a few intimate scenes with Ren and a few scenes of him speaking to Snoke. It's more gradual.

Vague references are made to the state of Galactic politics. In ANH, there are brief references to a "senate" and an "emperor", as well as to an "Old Republic". TFA shows the Supreme Leader, and makes brief references to the "Knights of Ren" and a "New Republic".

Both Alderann and the New Republic are blown up very quickly, and the viewer is attached to neither. It's mainly there so that we know that the bad guys really are really bad, and to "raise the stakes". We're not expected to cry at the fate of either, the purpose of the scenes isn't to create a sense of loss in the viewer.

A lot of people have rose-tinted glasses for ANH and forget to realize that it itself was pretty light on exposition. Hell, the whole original trilogy was.

Long exposition dumps really only became a staple of Star Wars in the prequels, where we had to sit through agonizingly dull Senate debates, political maneuvering, and Jedi Council arguments. It's like watching galactic C-SPAN. And that's all there because apparently the viewer is too stupid to make any inferences and needs every single thing spelled out and explained to them. Most viewers don't care. They want enough exposition to understand what's going on but not too much so that we have long stretches of movie where the plot barely progresses and people just explain things.

Both ANH and TFA provide enough exposition to understand the vents of the film. Neither explains the wider universe as a whole in a ton of depth, because they don't need to and it would only weigh the films down. That's a job for the EU texts and the novelizations.

 

Correct.

 

I think some of the connections between the different groups was lost, in the process of getting to the action quicker. Which some would say isnt such a bad thing. I'm struggling with this film, not because I liked the PT or love politics but because scene setting just was sort of abandoned in parts.

The best parallel is between the destruction of Alderaan and Hosnian Prime, Alderaan was emotively connected with Leia and the explanations in the movie meant the shock and surprise of it being destroyed was very powerful. Hosnian Prime, on the other hand, was "meh" because although we know the FO planned to destroy it theres no emotional connect there. Why should I give a damn about it being destroyed? And who are the characters on the planet? Why don't the resistance (and whatever their connection with the Republic was) personnel show a bit more upset or anger at the loss of it?
That could have been done so much better, but by that point in the film whatever plot there was, was being advanced at such a quick pace.

 

I don't completely buy this, though I understand the point.

There is a lot more in ANH that communicates the galactic picture and stakes. This includes exposition from Leia, Vader, Tarkin, the generals and admirals in the conference table scene, Obi-Wan, and even Luke, who asks 3POs about the rebellion against the Empire. It's all done in a brilliantly economical way. But it's far more extensive than what TFA told us about what was going on.

Honestly, I think one or two scenes would do the trick. As it stands, it feels like there's something missing. Generally, there's a sense that the FO simply replaced the Empire, and the Resistance succeeds the Rebellion. Would have been great drama to illustrate the Resistance/Republic disagreement, and how each related to the First Order.

 

Jozgar You're so right.

 

It's interesting, because although I dont in any way think the lack of exposition is a significant problem with TFA, it has actually been an interesting reminder that my problem with the prequels wasn't so much the amount of exposition and scene setting, as much as with the way it was done.

I think that part of the problem some people have is almost a vertiginous reaction to their Star Wars knowledge no longer being much more useful in terms of predicting plot points and developments than a casual fan's. There are now people who didn't bother with eps 2 and 3,who just saw TFA, but have actually demonstrated a more coherent understanding of the plot and context than some people who would consider themselves experts, simply because they are only going on the evidence in front of their eyes, rather than expectation of what they think HAS to happen. (I often wonder how such people manage to reconcile the idea of things that Have to happen, with the fact that other fans think something completely different HAS to happen)

Since 1977, three years before I was born, the Star Wars universe has never been so unfamiliar, in terms of context. I suspect that the Unfamiliarity of the universe was the reason they chose to have a simple, familiar plot this time round. In the prequels, we all KNEW that obi wan and Anakin had to fight, there'd be something involving Clone Wars, and Palpatine would be a villain. We're in uncharted territory now, and it's great. What will the war between the resistance and the first order actually be like?

 

Not the same. In the originals it was clear that the Empire was ruling the galaxy and the Rebels were, well, rebelling. Now, we're not really sure.

 

All of these examples people keep citing of something happening similarly in ANH aren't necessarily created equal. Some things make you respond differently to them when it's dropped into the context of a series you're already intimately familiar with, that already had an ending, as opposed to when we're visiting a world for the very first time. Many of these will work for the people who are experiencing this like we experienced ANH, but this is not going to be everybody's first Star Wars movie.

On the whole I think the movie did fine with exposition and backstory, it didn't withhold enough or important enough things to break the movie, but I dislike the automatic dismissal of "but Star Wars did it!" This isn't the same situation as what that movie was born into at all.

 

I felt like it was pretty clear. The First Order and the New Republic are two rival powers, and the Resistance is an insurgent group inside the First Order.

Of course, things can always be confusing for some people. I read some old ANH reviews recently and many were under the impression, for example, that Gran Moff Tarkin was the ruler of the Empire.

 

Lol I know, it couldn't have been more clear why Luke did what he did. As far as Luke's explanation for it - we will be getting that in the next film, you know - when it's relevant to the story and not an exposition dump.

Hans like perfectly summed up what happened.

 

The galaxy is more complicated than it was in ANH. There's a fight. Between who? New Republic and First Order. Then where does the Resistance come from? Some New Republic planets got blown up. I care? Again, where does the Resistance fit into this? Oh, they're against the First Order too? So, they're part of the New Republic. No? Then who are they? And if the First Order is targeting the New Republic, why aren't we seeing the New Republic instead of all these Resistance people?

These are the most frustrating questions for me. In ANH, we know the Empire disbanded the Senate at the beginning. Obi-Wan explains that a 'more civilized age' where Jedi were guardians of peace preceded 'the dark times' with the Empire. So Rebel = against the Empire. Jedi = peace makers also against the Empire. Empire/Emperor = bringer of 'dark times.' There. It's all laid out.

I did care about Alderaan as well. Why? The spunky rebel cared about it and argued for mercy. She explains it's a peaceful planet that doesn't even have weapons. Empire-affiliated Tarkin then blows it up as a demonstration of power. So, there we go with another signal of where the lines are drawn between these two factions.

 

This. It's not clear what kind of reach/ power the First Order has, and what the Resustance is in that context. The situation is simply a lot muddier than it was in ANH, and unmuddying might have been a good idea.

That said, it didn't need a huge number of exposition scenes. Just a couple more moments.

 

You claim it was clear yet you got it completely wrong. The Resistance wasn't an insurgent group inside the First Order. The Resistance had nothing to do with them, they were part of the Republic.

 

I'm in between the two. I'm not against the lack of exposition, but on second viewing, there is definitely a need for something to just broadly explain what the power balance is, or, at the very least, what the practical impact is of the destruction of Hosnian Prime.

I *think* the idea is that a republic without strong foundation, and committed to demilitarisation secretly supports/works with the resistance, who are effectively the unofficial military wing of the government, against a heavily militarised First Order who aren't in power, but who are attractive to those who didn't suffer under the empire.

 

I think Jozgar means that the Resistance operates within the First Order's sphere of influence, and fights back within that territory. Which is right.

Yes. The point is that the politics in the TFA galaxy is indeed more layered than the politics of ANH. And so, it needed an extra layer of explanation.

But though I agree with you, I also believe that it would take very little time to fill the gap. My guess is that the gap was more than adequately filled in a deleted scene or two, and that we are highly likely to see those scenes in the bluray. I hope an official extended cut will be produced, but would also settle for a fan edit.

 

It's funny how the OT fans say that we didn't need the Prequels, but then say it's perfectly already for J.J. to not tell us a whole lot. Unfortunately, this movie does have something I was worried about, trying to sell you the expanded universe in order to get a bigger picture. Do you want to know more about this part of the movie that wasn't explained? Buy the book.

J.J.'s good at setting up mysteries, but his explanations end up making no sense whatsoever (I know this from sitting through multiple seasons of LOST).

 

George Lucas' intentions for the series was to tell the story of the Skywalker family. I think we see that moving along with The Force Awakens.

The Force Awakens introduces the next generation of characters, particularly Rey and Kylo. The movie is primarily about the force, awakening in Rey. I think that story is effectively told, as well as Kylo's full embrace of the dark side. The Resistance vs The First Order is merely a backdrop for these characters. I don't see where the plot holes exist.

How Anakin's lightsaber came into Maz's possession isn't central to the story of the force awakening in Rey. The political climate of the Galaxy isn't central to the story either. Those seem secondary at most. Personally, I don't want all of the answers. I don't need everything explained to me. I appreciate having some mystery. I think that sense of mystery is a part of the Star Wars spirit that helped make the original stories great.

I don't find intergalactic politics engaging, I don't suspect a general audience would either. That seems like a primary interest of a niche audience. The journey of Anakin's lightsaber could be interesting, but I'm indifferent to when/if or how that story is presented. As far as Luke, there are two more movies to see Luke take a greater role, don't pile on everything in one film.

I think the story of The Force Awakens was concisely told. I don't see the holes in the main story of TFA, but maybe I'm crazy.

 

One of the main draws of SW is that each of the 7 films do so well, for me, showing parts of a various worlds, certain events and characters, but giving the sense of a much larger, deeper, and richer galaxy. I can't think of any other film(s) that even come close for me in this area. I am fascinated by each corner of the screen, wish I could (for example) move the camera to the left of the street in Mos Eisley and see who/what is down there and learn about their lives. I think this is a big part of why the SW EU became such a institution, everything at and beyond the edges of the screen in SW can be so interesting (not that the stories told always hit a home run…).

This "only seeing the tip of the iceberg" comes into play in a major way between SW Episodes. In between each film a LOT has changed, and a great part of the fun is filling in/speculating about these gaps. (I'm speaking here to the SW aficionado who watches the films many times and wants to delve into them. In very basic terms some things have to be consistent between films for a general audience--I.E.: After ANH at the start of ESB the Rebellion is still a small band on the run from the dominant Empire, Luke/Leia/Han and co. are still together, etc.) Between trilogies there is even more white space. With RotS-->ANH we knew exactly where we were and especially where we were going, so the circumstances were different. People were more speculating, complaining about, and trying to reason through how RotS segues into ANH. Anakin's lightsaber ("your father wanted you to have this…"), and Leia's words about her mother in RotJ were hot topics that are still discussed.

Now, with RotJ-->TFA we have a situation where we have lived and dreamed in the SW universe for a long time, 36 years and counting for me, so many in the audience can read many of the lines and images as shorthand. New fans will need to be walked slower through things, but there wasn't much of that that I saw in TFA. I am very excited to have these unknown story elements be expanded upon, for some I am anticipating finding out that information as much as I am seeing where things go in the future. Particularly, I want to know:

• Why Leia wasn't a student at Luke's school, or more involved. She may have been, but if she was then she seems to very much have abandoned the path of the Jedi. Yes, Leia would have been "old" to begin the Jedi training, but it's not like Luke of all people could really balk at training her given the circumstances. Also, having a Jedi as part of the Republic, or involved in a major way, we are told in TFA is needed for the Republic to function, and with Leia being so responsible I wonder at her not taking the training. Many reasons why she didn't (if she didn't), not least of which is Han, and the level Luke adheres to the old Jedi rules.
• Ben and Luke/Han/Leia falling out, and specifically Luke's attempts to train Ben. What went wrong? We are told Snoke was involved, and that Ben may not have been little boy sunshine but this part of the story is still a lot of mystery.
• The Academy.
• Rey. REY.
• Anakin's lightsaber, how it got to Maz and why it triggered Rey's memories.
• The relationship between the New Republic and the First Order. What will be the ramifications that the seat of Republic government has been destroyed?
• Also, how much has the galaxy now fallen into gangs, lawlessness, and criminal rivalry, and how do these criminal elements relate to the Republic and First Order? I was struck when watching TFA about the level of lawlessness and/or living on the frontier where the strong make the rules (I know SW is influenced by American Westerns). We have many petty thieves on Jakku, small-time hoods who steal ships and under-pay for scavenged goods, well-armed gangs representing shady business interests that have (presumably) some influence.
• The deal with Snoke, though I suspect we won't know what's going on here 'til IX, but get tossed a few crumbs in VIII.
• Luke. What happened besides Ben's fall and the Academy attack?
• Many more.

I assume portions of this will be covered in novels, books, and so on, and I'm cool with that, but I hope the film makers take advantage of the great opportunity they have post TFA to tell the backstory well in addition to telling what comes next. This doesn't have to be done in flashbacks, and a (very) little can go a long way in this department.

 

I like the lack of exposition, it feels more like a serial, and the battered, lived-in universe as was originally intended. TFA rightly focusses on the characters and story. The state of the galaxy will be built up through episodes 7-9.

The only thing that I questioned and wasn't explained is what is the resistance in relation to the Republic. Were the resistance just the military arm of the Republic or are they allies? It doesn't overly matter at this stage though.

 

JDN21 From the crawl: "with the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE". With that and Hux's speech, we are to infer that they are an independent group with secret funding from the Republic.