ST Which do you think you would've preferred?

I wanted an entertaining film, that's a fact. TFA was awful. TLJ I was able to find somewhat enjoyable even with "Reylo" elements.

 

Hell are the three choices in this poll.

 

I think it's such an odd thing, because it feels to me, like a lot of characters stories in this movie is basically just declaring their character's stances at the end, when they reached them already basically, as a characters, by the end of TFA, to me. I feel like Kylo is really the only one takes a physical step in, at least, his direction change, not really much emotionally (he still keeps on doing what he was doing before), but moreso in placement and, maybe, ambition. Rey, I feel like is given not much change to go on in character, much, Poe's mostly where he was at the end of TFA, with the suggestion, maybe, of him leading (I don't take much issue with this, even though I think it's weakly done, as I do view Poe not having a lot as a character being on TFA), and Finn, I feel, is backtracked on so he can get to, and then as a new step declare, a stance against the first order all over again.

 

Yes the damage had already been done in TFA… it created characters without any real function and purpose (primarily to tick boxes). If you think Johnson was an innocent bystander, that’s your prerogative, but please don’t try and project your opinions onto me.

 

Based on what Lucas said of the sequel trilogy in the prequel archives book, I would definitely have preferred his version. Darth Maul and Darth Talon, Whills, Luke training new Jedi. Just that it would have been Lucas would have given it an air of authenticity. The OT and the PT feel like they're part of one generational story. The Disney ST feels completely removed of that.

 

Darth Maul? In the Sequel Trilogy? Aren't the OT and the PT about two generations?

 

Darth Maul was going to be like the Palpatine of Lucas' ST. You didn't know? And I meant that the OT and PT tell one cohesive story of generations.

 

Do I think it was “impossible for him to take TLJ in a different direction”??? Where did I say that exactly? That Johnson made creative choices that didn’t appeal to you, me or GIS, isn’t really the issue (IMO), as plenty of other people seem to like those choices regardless of what we think… but that he (Johnson) effectively had to make choices that Abrams *should* have made in TFA, but failed to, is the root of the problem.

Finn is a cheap comic foil in TFA. He’s the butt of the joke. He’s the one that is consistently slapped down and cheapened. Johnson certainly doubles down on that ‘demeaning’ of the character, but it’s Abrams who chooses to demean him in the first instance, and makes nothing of the concept of a renegade Stormtrooper (and then triples down with Finn’s wholesale lack of function in TROS). Rey and Poe are bland characters, with little inbuilt utility and function… which is what often happens in a paint by numbers job. Kylo Ren is a poor facsimile of Anakin/Darth Vader, but without the function. Snoke and Hux are poor facsimiles of Palpatine and Tarkin/generic Imperial. And whilst it would be true to say that Johnson failed to make these bland and thinly drawn characters and situations ‘better’, the bland and thinly drawn characters and situations are as a result of the absolute creative vacuum in TFA.

 

At the very least, I think Finn had a potential function and purpose laid out before itself by the end of TFA. Rey may be debatable, considering the movie is a more vague about her structure as a character. But based off of where she was left off in TFA, I think an interesting story of her actually dealing with her abandonment issues and such would work strongly, to me, as a continuation of TFA's structure for the character. Poe, I think isn't given much. But that doesn't mean that TFA ruined the trilogy or whatever.

 

I don't think that's accurate. Finn has his moments of comic relief, but he's also given more than a couple instances of pathos and story drive. Losing fights doesn't make him slapped down or cheapened. Not doing enough with it doesn't automatically equal what TLJ did with the character.

Rey may not have a lot, but I think she has a structure. Poe, yeah he's not given a lot as a written character. But some would suggest that the movie before it having bland perceived facsimiles, doesn't justify or automatically equal what some may see as essentially taking what little the characters may have had already and instead of following through on that, either backtracking and/or undoing and/or defusing it.

Though a villain journey could be suggested to be the character's function. Personally, I think him taking on a further main villain role works as a concept for TLJ and a potential continuation of TFA's story. But I think it wasn't strongly written. I think that's on TLJ.

Making it better, to me, isn't as much the point, more furthering, or at least continuing, what little I think they may have had. I think the movie did it lesser than TFA, in the directions of characters. Hux may be a variation on Tarkin, but I'd suggest he's more zealot like than Tarkin was, and I think TLJ takes that and goes "he's an idiot joke", while Snoke is essentially just shrugged off as less of a dramatic haunting figure and had be more generic, yelly and dumb in some of his choices.

 

Finn had function within TFA, which was to rescue Poe and get the rebels onto SKB... which is where the concept of him being a renegade stormtrooper kind of starts and stops really. As with most of Abrams' situations/characters (and we see this in his Star Trek films too), he blows his wad way too early (primarily because, IMO, Abrams is all about the surface and not the detail). Finn is neither given the internal conflict to suggest he may want to help his comrades (assuming that the other stormtroopers are victims of the First Order too)... which would lead to the hypothetical stormtrooper revolt we've discussed on these boards. Nor is Finn regarded with caution from Poe, Rey, Leia etc. which could set up further drama after TFA. Instead, Finn is the lovestruck, comedic sidekick. This is why Finn the ex stormtrooper, as a concept, is *good*, but how that concept is written/shapped (throughout the entire ST) is *bad*.

You're just more forgiving of one over the other, because you have an automatic preference for one over the other. I could quite easily apply your first sentence to Jar Jar Binks (no offence Jar Jar), but we all know Jar Jar's main function was that of comic relief.

What you're describing is the bare minimum for a film to work at its basest function. If there were no structure at all, TFA would consist of several characters just stood around wondering what to do next for the duration of the film. Even the Ewoks films have a modicum of structure. This is more about how characters are written to show a modicum of depth beyond the absolute minimum, to be given a story or characters traits that present opportunities for progression and development. Similar to Star Trek 09, TFA doesn't really offer that at all. In terms of Rey, Abrams and Kasdan spend more time telling us who she isn't, rather than telling us who she is (all part of the mystery box crap)... which is (IMO) a fundamental and very basic writing issue that lies at the heart of TFA, and the wider ST..

TFA is *not* a 'villains journey'. For it to be a 'villains journey', Kylo Ren would first have to be written/constructed as a character who was not a villain, but becomes villanous (or more extreme) over the course of the story. For a recent example, look at Joker... or a more 'classic' example would be something like The Godfather 1 & 2 (in terms of Michael's story). Pretty much the first action of Kylo Ren, in TFA, is to slice an old man in two and order the execution of the 'innocent' inhabitants of a village/outpost. Kylo Ren is clearly the villain of the piece. However, this doesn't conflict with the notion that Kylo Ren is written as a character who is conflicted. There is of course some crossover, but a 'villains' journey is typically used to convey the idea of a character descending into villainy (for whatever reason), rather than them just doing one bad thing after another. The only film of the ST that tries to suggest a villains journey (if indeed that was the intent) is TLJ... but I agree, it does it poorly (IMO).

We could quibble about percentages of culpability all day... the point remains that when you ape what went before to the point that you're basically recreating characters and situations from previous (and much better) films, it becomes very difficult to progress them in a meaningful way. I really don't like the creative choices Johnson made, but I can understand why he felt inclined to move away from what was presented in TFA... and if he'd done it in a way that we'd have liked, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

Creating films based on check boxes and tick lists is hardly an endorsement. Indeed, it's usually an indication of a corporate approach to filmmaking that usually leads to an absence of craft and creativity. I give you TFA.

I'm less concerned as to whether the main character is male, female, black, white, amorphic blob etc, as I am to the main character having the necessary function and utility that warrants development. If that is where your requirement started and ended i.e. that the main character be female only, then maybe that explains why TFA ticked the boxes for you? For me, my definition of a well written character goes beyond whether they have a penis or not. Which is why this criticism is levelled at TFA as opposed to, for example, Rogue One.

As per above, I see exactly what Abrams did, and he did poorly in my opinion. Me, and many others, viewing TFA as a a poor film doesn't really have any bearing on Johnson's 'prejudices'.

As per above, they don't have the function and utility that take them beyond the basest of Hollywood's output.

The 'inability' is not mine. It's Abrams inability to create characters and situations. And relating that 'ability' (or not) to 'connect' with audiences is a moot and anti-intellectual one, given that TLJ made over a billion dollars... the logic being that TLJ must have had the ability to connect to audiences to a greater degree than any other film that didn't make circa $1.3M... surely not right?

 

It's a good thing then that I have never once claimed that *every* issue with TLJ goes back to TFA... although, IMO, the most significant issues were born of TFA.

Whilst I'd agree that Johnson doubled down on issues (most notably Finn's function in the story IMO), that the issues were already there is the 'root of the problem'. And whilst we cannot fully exclude the idea that issues *could* be fixed, it really shouldn't be incumbent on a new writer/director to fix the issues of a previous film. That is on Abrams..

The only free passes around here seem to be the ones being given out to Abrams. I'm more interested in identifying whom created the fundamental issues in the first instance.

And what Johnson didn't do in TLJ doesn't change what Abrams should have done with Finn in TFA and TROS.

And there's no excuse for making the first female lead a wholly bland character and the only black character the comic relief. I won't even mention the inappropriate trope they use of Kylo carrying Rey off in his arms.

That may be your point... but it is not my point, which is that Abrams, believing the audience stupid, created a vacuous film, full of vapid characters and situations. And as far as the ST is concerned, its ruination was started and ended with him (with Johnson doing his bit in the middle).

 

I'm more interested in evaluating their technical merits, as films and as filmmakers, than I am in using them as a lens to assess the values/beliefs of the writers/directors. But if this is about filmmakers as bigots, I'll have that conversation too, and happily present the films where Abrams uses a predominantly white cast to fulfil his white fantasies, and pretty much always reduces women to the role of sexual objects for mens sexual gratification.

 

I was talking about as a character. As a character Finn is given a structure. Whether you think it was well shaped isn't the point. That it exists is. And TLJ chose to not do anything with it going forward. I think it's an individual story's job to take what they have and tell it and I think that they didn't is on TLJ, not TFA.

You don't decide my preferences or what I'm more forgiving of. I've been against TFA since it after it came out. Please, if you're not going to be more civilized in this discussion don't reply to me.

Jar Jar was, mostly, only ever comic relief and more exaggerated than Finn. Your comparison isn't appropriate.

It's not my problem. I think TLJ chose what it chose, like how TFA chose what it chose and TROS chose what it chose. I think what their reasons may be don't change that they did it.

It's not my problem why it's not well done in TFA. That doesn't change the structure's conceptual existence. You saying that it's not there doesn't make it not there. You don't decide a movie's development.

I think that's not accurate of a claim and that any lacking of ability to progress them in a meaningful way is on TLJ's lackings as an individual.

Why it may have been done doesn't change that it was done.

 

That is largely a moot point, poorly drawn characters have some semblance of structure regardless (I'm assuming you mean 'function' when you state 'structure'?). And Finn's function and utility effectively comes to an end at the close of TFA, primarily because he was poorly written, which means that the opportunity for progression and development are lost. Abrams does this in Star Trek 09 too, where he takes all these semi interesting facets e.g. Kirk not being a captain, Kirk and Spock having a really fractious relationship etc. and effectively resolves it very cheaply by the end of the first film... with the crew of the Enterprise being in all their expected places by the end of the very first film... even down to Chekov and Sulu helming the ship and Scotty being the engineer. Abrams has the limitless opportunities that an alternate timeline brings, and he puts all the characters in the very same job on the very same ship. And of course the consequence is that there's no where to go with those elements come the next film, so in Star Trek Into Darkness, Abrams has to artificially re-set it again. Which is why the film doesn't really work. Abrams does pretty much the same thing with TFA i.e he leaves the characters and situations with no where to go of relevance (IMO).

What has 'civility' got to do with it? I'm being perfectly civil, and I'm making a point that you seem to have a preference for TFA over TLJ. Is that not the case? I have a preference for neither. I have no requirement to tear down one in order to bolster the other.

If you can't even recognise the basic function of characters in a film, TFA designed for the basest audience, why are you even having the conversation?

You get this works both ways right? That by opposing a view, you are automatically setting up a contrary position? You stating that TLJ is bad or TFA is good, or whatever you think, doesn't make it so right? Most people/fans think (IMO), regardless of whether they like TFA or not, that it wasn't great (or 'failed' depending on how one views the film) in establishing galactic events, and creating a compelling new story/situations. Those things are the very basics of good writing/good story telling... and if you don't get the foundations right, pretty much everything else that's built above it is built on shaky ground.