Star Wars (1977 - present)

Creasy47

What I got from it was that there was a good bit of script work finalized on 'Episode VIII' before TFA was released, so once it came out and those involved realized how much audiences loved Rey, Finn, and Poe from TFA, they decided to work on 'Episode VIII's script to focus more on them without trying to focus on them AND introduce new protagonists for us to get to know, which would be too much. As @RC7 said, I'd rather get to know the newer characters more than having brand new ones thrown our way in the next one that won't be as fleshed out. I'm fine with the delay.

Master_Dahark

Aw, the whole movie's ruined now ;)

bondjames

This chap Tyson should stick to narrating Cosmos redux imho.

Master_Dahark

Ok, call me morbid, but I had to chuckle at this safety recall..

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2016/Walt-Disney-Parks-and-Resorts-Recalls-Infant-Bodysuits/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=All+Recalls+RSS



Choking hazard- Darth Vader on outfit 8-X

Gustav_Graves

Creasy47 wrote: »

What I got from it was that there was a good bit of script work finalized on 'Episode VIII' before TFA was released, so once it came out and those involved realized how much audiences loved Rey, Finn, and Poe from TFA, they decided to work on 'Episode VIII's script to focus more on them without trying to focus on them AND introduce new protagonists for us to get to know, which would be too much. As @RC7 said, I'd rather get to know the newer characters more than having brand new ones thrown our way in the next one that won't be as fleshed out. I'm fine with the delay.

I think the anthology films interest me more, as they are something 'new' and 'unique' within the Star Wars-universe (apart from the two Caravan of Courage / Ewoks Adventure Movies).

"Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" really has a good premise and has the possibility to become a very good, slightly darker and grittier war film. A bit like "Apocalypse Now" in the Star Wars universe. A film that won't build too much on the old formula George Lucas directed in 1977.

Creasy47

The way 'Rogue One' has been described has me more interested than the last two episodes in the new trilogy.

RC7

bondjames wrote: »

There was enough deja vu in TFA, but I didn't find it annoying because I connected to each and every one of the characters, even though their backstories weren't properly fleshed out. The film resonated with me emotionally, both on account of the 'old guard' reappearing, and because these new folks really acted their pants off. Ridley as the protagonist is actually brilliant, especially when one considers that she doesn't have the benefit of playing (or screwing up as the case may be) a legendary character who we would instantly connect to - Hayden I'm talking about you.

So I think it actually did have 'heart & soul' and that's what is making it so successful, despite a derivative plot/story. In that respect, it's similar to SF for me. Poor/derivative (TDK in the case of SF) story perhaps, but I personally find the characters credible & their motivations sincere, even if derivative.

I don't think it matters that their backstories weren't properly fleshed out, my main gripe was that as characters they weren't particularly well drawn. They both did as well as they could with the material, Ridley proved she can be a bad ass, Finn showed glimpses of genuine charisma, but the pair of them are largely rabbits in the headlights. With Rey, and at times Finn, things just happen to them, they're primarily spectators observing things that happen around them, but then all of a sudden spring into life without any catalyst and following no progression. Neither of them seem to know what's at stake, or even what is actually going on, so there's no tension or drama. Rey is just shit-hot when the moment calls for it. It's tantamount to Luke walking into the cantina and immediately f-ing everyone up, then flying off in the Falcon.

Characters function on a action-reaction basis, they get knocked down, they learn, they come back stronger (in very basic terms) there's some development to them as people. Look at Luke, he's constantly up against it, he's even on his arse at the end of ROTJ only to be saved by Vader. Characters who are just awesome when the moment calls for it, without any rationale, aren't strong, they're just bland. Bond can get away with being kick ass because it's implied in his occupation. If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

I can see past it to some extent as the film is a seat of your pants ride, but there's no excuse for underwriting the two key protagonists. It's no good, either, saying 'it's a trilogy', writers need to get back to writing solid films rather than extended TV episodes.

bondjames

RC7 wrote: »

Characters function on a action-reaction basis, they get knocked down, they learn, they come back stronger (in very basic terms) there's some development to them as people. Look at Luke, he's constantly up against it, he's even on his arse at the end of ROTJ only to be saved by Vader. Characters who are just awesome when the moment calls for it, without any rationale, aren't strong, they're just bland. Bond can get away with being kick ass because it's implied in his occupation. If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

I can see past it to some extent as the film is a seat of your pants ride, but there's no excuse for underwriting the two key protagonists. It's no good, either, saying 'it's a trilogy', writers need to get back to writing solid films rather than extended TV episodes.

It certainly worked for me, and I'm a critical sort.

After the disappointment of the prequels, where characters were actually fleshed out, I just wanted characters that were endearing and that I could believe in. For some strange reason, I believe in all the characters in TFA, and in a way, I prefer that they weren't fully drawn out. It's almost a Bourne Identity or QoS experience for me. I see them do great things in the heat of the moment and that gives me insight into who they are, even without the backstory or exposition.

Given the amount of stuff they had to pack into TFA, I think they did a magnficent job of it with the new characters (at least in terms of making me relate to their motivations and want to root for them all). I expect them to get into more of the detail about them in future episodes, like they did with Luke in ESB.

Quite frankly I don't think Han Solo was a properly drawn up character in the OT either, but I still rooted for the guy, maybe more so than the others....that's how I feel about this new batch.

RC7

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

Characters function on a action-reaction basis, they get knocked down, they learn, they come back stronger (in very basic terms) there's some development to them as people. Look at Luke, he's constantly up against it, he's even on his arse at the end of ROTJ only to be saved by Vader. Characters who are just awesome when the moment calls for it, without any rationale, aren't strong, they're just bland. Bond can get away with being kick ass because it's implied in his occupation. If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

I can see past it to some extent as the film is a seat of your pants ride, but there's no excuse for underwriting the two key protagonists. It's no good, either, saying 'it's a trilogy', writers need to get back to writing solid films rather than extended TV episodes.

It certainly worked for me, and I'm a critical sort.

After the disappointment of the prequels, where characters were actually fleshed out, I just wanted characters that were endearing and that I could believe in. For some strange reason, I believe in all the characters in TFA, and in a way, I prefer that they weren't fully drawn out. It's almost a Bourne Identity or QoS experience for me. I see them do great things in the heat of the moment and that gives me insight into who they are, even without the backstory or exposition.

Given the amount of stuff they had to pack into TFA, I think they did a magnficent job of it with the new characters (at least in terms of making me relate to their motivations and want to root for them all). I expect them to get into more of the detail about them in future episodes.

Quite frankly I don't think Han Solo was a properly drawn up character in the OT either, but I still rooted for the guy, maybe more so than the others....that's how I feel about this new batch.

You're missing my point, backstory/exposition doesn't = character. Character is a person's make-up, their persona, their inner psyche. Han Solo is perfectly drawn in ANH. He's a scoundrel, a rogue, he's charming, a schemer, he's in it for the money, he's wary of anyone and everyone, he's untrustworthy, he's playboy/a womaniser, his own interests are paramount... I could go on. I know him. He's a three-dimensional figure. I don't need to know about where he came from, his childhood, his previous misdemeanors, I know it because he acts and reacts to situations and people in a way that tells me something about him. 'She's rich', says Luke. The picture of Han's face paints a thousand words. I can't say the same about Rey or Finn. They aren't fully formed to me. The Bourne and QoS comparisons don't work, because there's a rationale to why these guys operate in the way they do.

[EDIT] forgot to ask, where you say the prequel characters 'were' fleshed out, you meant 'weren't', right?

bondjames

RC7 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

Characters function on a action-reaction basis, they get knocked down, they learn, they come back stronger (in very basic terms) there's some development to them as people. Look at Luke, he's constantly up against it, he's even on his arse at the end of ROTJ only to be saved by Vader. Characters who are just awesome when the moment calls for it, without any rationale, aren't strong, they're just bland. Bond can get away with being kick ass because it's implied in his occupation. If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

I can see past it to some extent as the film is a seat of your pants ride, but there's no excuse for underwriting the two key protagonists. It's no good, either, saying 'it's a trilogy', writers need to get back to writing solid films rather than extended TV episodes.

It certainly worked for me, and I'm a critical sort.

After the disappointment of the prequels, where characters were actually fleshed out, I just wanted characters that were endearing and that I could believe in. For some strange reason, I believe in all the characters in TFA, and in a way, I prefer that they weren't fully drawn out. It's almost a Bourne Identity or QoS experience for me. I see them do great things in the heat of the moment and that gives me insight into who they are, even without the backstory or exposition.

Given the amount of stuff they had to pack into TFA, I think they did a magnficent job of it with the new characters (at least in terms of making me relate to their motivations and want to root for them all). I expect them to get into more of the detail about them in future episodes.

Quite frankly I don't think Han Solo was a properly drawn up character in the OT either, but I still rooted for the guy, maybe more so than the others....that's how I feel about this new batch.

You're missing my point, backstory/exposition doesn't = character. Character is a person's make-up, their persona, their inner psyche. Han Solo is perfectly drawn in ANH. He's a scoundrel, a rogue, he's charming, a schemer, he's in it for the money, he's wary of anyone and everyone, he's untrustworthy, he's playboy/a womaniser, his own interests are paramount... I could go on. I know him. He's a three-dimensional figure. I don't need to know about where he came from, his childhood, his previous misdemeanors, I know it because he acts and reacts to situations and people in a way that tells me something about him. 'She's rich', says Luke. The picture of Han's face paints a thousand words. I can't say the same about Rey or Finn. They aren't fully formed to me. The Bourne and QoS comparisons fon't work, because there's a rationale to why these guys operate in the way they do.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. With the Bourne example I meant the scene when he starts finding out he has all these skills. We're along for the journey and ride with him in that film as he discovers his personality/attributes/core values. I feel that way about Rey. There is more to her, perhaps something repressed, and it's hinted at, but not told. We will definitely discover it in a later episode. They used this approach for all the characters. We learn about them as they discover who they are through the extraordinary circumstance that they find themselves in. It's similar to a child discovering who they are and growing up while we watch. That's what is endearing.

For me, this is how I learned about Rey:
-intro scene in the downed Star Destroyer (resourceful and independant)
-agrees to Plutt's crappy offer for her findings (practical)
-saves BB8 from the humanoid, initially wants him gone but then keeps him (caring)
-initally agrees to Plutt's offer for the droid (desperate) but decides against it (strong)
-goes after Finn to thrash him when BB8 says he has Poe's jacket (tough as nails& willing to protect those she cares for)
-saves Finn in Han's freighter from the rathhars but doesn't take credit for it (modest)
etc.
etc.

I recall thinking this was brilliant filmmaking when watching it, because I knew all I needed to know about her core attributes and she was in my camp all the way

For Finn
-panicking on Jakku and basically paralyzed by the violence (not a killer)
-deciding to desert the First Order (brave and true to his core values)
-deciding to rescue Poe to get a pilot (practical)
-making jokes (self deprecating humour)
-looking for Poe after the crash (endearing)
etc.
etc.

For Poe
-letting BB8 escape with the map (smart and resourceful)
-making a joke when captured (humour)
-being difficult to break under interrogation (strong willed - a fighter)
-being able to fly the First Order fighter (resourceful pilot)
etc.
etc.

Creasy47

OT = original trilogy, right? I've had plenty of 'Star Wars' discussion online over the last week and continuously see people using this. Finally got that it wasn't 'original topic/thread,' so now it makes sense. Idiot.

RC7

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

Characters function on a action-reaction basis, they get knocked down, they learn, they come back stronger (in very basic terms) there's some development to them as people. Look at Luke, he's constantly up against it, he's even on his arse at the end of ROTJ only to be saved by Vader. Characters who are just awesome when the moment calls for it, without any rationale, aren't strong, they're just bland. Bond can get away with being kick ass because it's implied in his occupation. If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

I can see past it to some extent as the film is a seat of your pants ride, but there's no excuse for underwriting the two key protagonists. It's no good, either, saying 'it's a trilogy', writers need to get back to writing solid films rather than extended TV episodes.

It certainly worked for me, and I'm a critical sort.

After the disappointment of the prequels, where characters were actually fleshed out, I just wanted characters that were endearing and that I could believe in. For some strange reason, I believe in all the characters in TFA, and in a way, I prefer that they weren't fully drawn out. It's almost a Bourne Identity or QoS experience for me. I see them do great things in the heat of the moment and that gives me insight into who they are, even without the backstory or exposition.

Given the amount of stuff they had to pack into TFA, I think they did a magnficent job of it with the new characters (at least in terms of making me relate to their motivations and want to root for them all). I expect them to get into more of the detail about them in future episodes.

Quite frankly I don't think Han Solo was a properly drawn up character in the OT either, but I still rooted for the guy, maybe more so than the others....that's how I feel about this new batch.

You're missing my point, backstory/exposition doesn't = character. Character is a person's make-up, their persona, their inner psyche. Han Solo is perfectly drawn in ANH. He's a scoundrel, a rogue, he's charming, a schemer, he's in it for the money, he's wary of anyone and everyone, he's untrustworthy, he's playboy/a womaniser, his own interests are paramount... I could go on. I know him. He's a three-dimensional figure. I don't need to know about where he came from, his childhood, his previous misdemeanors, I know it because he acts and reacts to situations and people in a way that tells me something about him. 'She's rich', says Luke. The picture of Han's face paints a thousand words. I can't say the same about Rey or Finn. They aren't fully formed to me. The Bourne and QoS comparisons fon't work, because there's a rationale to why these guys operate in the way they do.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. With the Bourne example I meant the scene when he starts finding out he has all these skills. We're along for the journey and ride with him in that film as he discovers his personality/attributes/core values. I feel that way about Rey. There is more to her, perhaps something repressed, and it's hinted at, but not told. We will definitely discover it in a later episode. They used this approach for all the characters. We learn about them as they discover who they are through the extraordinary circumstance that they find themselves in. It's similar to a child discovering who they are and growing up while we watch. That's what is endearing.

For me, this is how I learned about Rey:
-intro scene in the downed Star Destroyer (resourceful and independant)
-agrees to Plutt's crappy offer for her findings (practical)
-saves BB8 from the humanoid, initially wants him gone but then keeps him (caring)
-initally agrees to Plutt's offer for the droid (desperate) but decides against it (strong)
-goes after Finn to thrash him when BB8 says he has Poe's jacket (tough as nails& willing to protect those she cares for)
-saves Finn in Han's freighter from the rathhars but doesn't take credit for it (modest)
etc.
etc.

I recall thinking this was brilliant filmmaking when watching it, because I knew all I needed to know about her core attributes and she was in my camp all the way

For Finn
-panicking on Jakku and basically paralyzed by the violence (not a killer)
-deciding to desert the First Order (brave and true to his core values)
-deciding to rescue Poe to get a pilot (practical)
-making jokes (self deprecating humour)
-looking for Poe after the crash (endearing)
etc.
etc.

For Poe
-letting BB8 escape with the map (smart and resourceful)
-making a joke when captured (humour)
-being difficult to break under interrogation (strong willed - a fighter)
-being able to fly the First Order fighter (resourceful pilot)
etc.
etc.

See, I wouldn't personally class all of those as character traits, some are instances. I'm sure there are things we've all done on occasion that don't define us or even truly echo who we really are.

You say about Finn being true to his core values. I don't know what his core values are. Who's he in this for, what's his motivation, or is he simply lost? If so, elaborate a little.

With Rey I got two things, that she was self-sufficient and that she was relatively fearless (perhaps naive).

With Finn I got the impression he was quite weak, masked by a humorous bravado. He's a bit of a lost soul (they didn't tell me otherwise so I ran with it).

The other instances were reactions to their immediate circumstances, not character traits on a deeper level.

I just wish there were a few more layers. The main problem was that when the old guard arrived the drama switched away from Rey and Finn.

Creasy47

I know this is only the start of a new trilogy, but a big complaint I had with TFA was the under-utilization of certain characters; I know the main plot is focusing around Luke, but he only gets one scene and not a word of dialogue after all of that hype? Then they introduce a deadly female villain in the form of Captain Phasma, who has plenty of potential, and yet she gets no action time, a few lines of dialogue, and is simply tossed aside at the end? I hear she's going to have more screen time in the next two films, but she could've been utilized a bit better in TFA, that's for sure. Same goes for Poe; though I suppose his absence is due to having us believe that he's dead for a good portion of the film. It's a good thing they're doing a re-write and focusing on these characters more, because the last thing we need is an injection of all-new protagonists, who would experience even less screen time.

bondjames

RC7 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

Characters function on a action-reaction basis, they get knocked down, they learn, they come back stronger (in very basic terms) there's some development to them as people. Look at Luke, he's constantly up against it, he's even on his arse at the end of ROTJ only to be saved by Vader. Characters who are just awesome when the moment calls for it, without any rationale, aren't strong, they're just bland. Bond can get away with being kick ass because it's implied in his occupation. If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

I can see past it to some extent as the film is a seat of your pants ride, but there's no excuse for underwriting the two key protagonists. It's no good, either, saying 'it's a trilogy', writers need to get back to writing solid films rather than extended TV episodes.

It certainly worked for me, and I'm a critical sort.

After the disappointment of the prequels, where characters were actually fleshed out, I just wanted characters that were endearing and that I could believe in. For some strange reason, I believe in all the characters in TFA, and in a way, I prefer that they weren't fully drawn out. It's almost a Bourne Identity or QoS experience for me. I see them do great things in the heat of the moment and that gives me insight into who they are, even without the backstory or exposition.

Given the amount of stuff they had to pack into TFA, I think they did a magnficent job of it with the new characters (at least in terms of making me relate to their motivations and want to root for them all). I expect them to get into more of the detail about them in future episodes.

Quite frankly I don't think Han Solo was a properly drawn up character in the OT either, but I still rooted for the guy, maybe more so than the others....that's how I feel about this new batch.

You're missing my point, backstory/exposition doesn't = character. Character is a person's make-up, their persona, their inner psyche. Han Solo is perfectly drawn in ANH. He's a scoundrel, a rogue, he's charming, a schemer, he's in it for the money, he's wary of anyone and everyone, he's untrustworthy, he's playboy/a womaniser, his own interests are paramount... I could go on. I know him. He's a three-dimensional figure. I don't need to know about where he came from, his childhood, his previous misdemeanors, I know it because he acts and reacts to situations and people in a way that tells me something about him. 'She's rich', says Luke. The picture of Han's face paints a thousand words. I can't say the same about Rey or Finn. They aren't fully formed to me. The Bourne and QoS comparisons fon't work, because there's a rationale to why these guys operate in the way they do.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. With the Bourne example I meant the scene when he starts finding out he has all these skills. We're along for the journey and ride with him in that film as he discovers his personality/attributes/core values. I feel that way about Rey. There is more to her, perhaps something repressed, and it's hinted at, but not told. We will definitely discover it in a later episode. They used this approach for all the characters. We learn about them as they discover who they are through the extraordinary circumstance that they find themselves in. It's similar to a child discovering who they are and growing up while we watch. That's what is endearing.

For me, this is how I learned about Rey:
-intro scene in the downed Star Destroyer (resourceful and independant)
-agrees to Plutt's crappy offer for her findings (practical)
-saves BB8 from the humanoid, initially wants him gone but then keeps him (caring)
-initally agrees to Plutt's offer for the droid (desperate) but decides against it (strong)
-goes after Finn to thrash him when BB8 says he has Poe's jacket (tough as nails& willing to protect those she cares for)
-saves Finn in Han's freighter from the rathhars but doesn't take credit for it (modest)
etc.
etc.

I recall thinking this was brilliant filmmaking when watching it, because I knew all I needed to know about her core attributes and she was in my camp all the way

For Finn
-panicking on Jakku and basically paralyzed by the violence (not a killer)
-deciding to desert the First Order (brave and true to his core values)
-deciding to rescue Poe to get a pilot (practical)
-making jokes (self deprecating humour)
-looking for Poe after the crash (endearing)
etc.
etc.

For Poe
-letting BB8 escape with the map (smart and resourceful)
-making a joke when captured (humour)
-being difficult to break under interrogation (strong willed - a fighter)
-being able to fly the First Order fighter (resourceful pilot)
etc.
etc.

See, I wouldn't personally class all of those as character traits, some are instances. I'm sure there are things we've all done on occasion that don't define us or even truly echo who we really are.

You say about Finn being true to his core values. I don't know what his core values are. Whose in this for, what's his motivation, or is he simply lost? If so, elaborate a little.

With Rey I got two things, that she was self-sufficient and that she was relatively fearless (perhaps naive).

With Finn I got the impression he was quite weak, masked by a humorous bravado. He's a bit of a lost soul (they didn't tell me otherwise so I ran with it).

The other instances were reactions to their immediate circumstances, not character traits on a deeper level.

I just wish there were a few more layers. The main problem was that when the old guard arrived the drama switched away from Rey and Finn.

Yes, I agree with you on Finn. I got that from him too. He's a lost soul and Rey is his 'ray of light'. That's why he's clinging to her. He does come across a little weak & in need of protection, and I think that's intentional to boost Rey's character in the viewer's mind.

Rey is a fighter. I love her character actually.

When I watched Star Wars after a long time recently in preparation for TFA, I was actually surprised by how little insight into the characters there actually is in that film (especially Luke). It's an interesting adventure, but it all really comes together after the next two are watched for me (and I was never a huge SW fan anyway). That's exactly how I feel about this new film. It will really come together after we see the next few. For now, we know all we need to know and we were given a great (if derivative) adventure to get us pepped for future installments.

RC7

Creasy47 wrote: »

I know this is only the start of a new trilogy, but a big complaint I had with TFA was the under-utilization of certain characters; I know the main plot is focusing around Luke, but he only gets one scene and not a word of dialogue after all of that hype? Then they introduce a deadly female villain in the form of Captain Phasma, who has plenty of potential, and yet she gets no action time, a few lines of dialogue, and is simply tossed aside at the end? I hear she's going to have more screen time in the next two films, but she could've been utilized a bit better in TFA, that's for sure. Same goes for Poe; though I suppose his absence is due to having us believe that he's dead for a good portion of the film. It's a good thing they're doing a re-write and focusing on these characters more, because the last thing we need is an injection of all-new protagonists, who would experience even less screen time.

Agreed. Almost as if they were there to sell toys. That doesn't sound at all like Disney, though.

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

RC7 wrote: »

Characters function on a action-reaction basis, they get knocked down, they learn, they come back stronger (in very basic terms) there's some development to them as people. Look at Luke, he's constantly up against it, he's even on his arse at the end of ROTJ only to be saved by Vader. Characters who are just awesome when the moment calls for it, without any rationale, aren't strong, they're just bland. Bond can get away with being kick ass because it's implied in his occupation. If Bond was portrayed as some farm boy that switched from potato peeler to one man killing machine with the flick of a switch and without explanation, you'd be baffled.

I can see past it to some extent as the film is a seat of your pants ride, but there's no excuse for underwriting the two key protagonists. It's no good, either, saying 'it's a trilogy', writers need to get back to writing solid films rather than extended TV episodes.

It certainly worked for me, and I'm a critical sort.

After the disappointment of the prequels, where characters were actually fleshed out, I just wanted characters that were endearing and that I could believe in. For some strange reason, I believe in all the characters in TFA, and in a way, I prefer that they weren't fully drawn out. It's almost a Bourne Identity or QoS experience for me. I see them do great things in the heat of the moment and that gives me insight into who they are, even without the backstory or exposition.

Given the amount of stuff they had to pack into TFA, I think they did a magnficent job of it with the new characters (at least in terms of making me relate to their motivations and want to root for them all). I expect them to get into more of the detail about them in future episodes.

Quite frankly I don't think Han Solo was a properly drawn up character in the OT either, but I still rooted for the guy, maybe more so than the others....that's how I feel about this new batch.

You're missing my point, backstory/exposition doesn't = character. Character is a person's make-up, their persona, their inner psyche. Han Solo is perfectly drawn in ANH. He's a scoundrel, a rogue, he's charming, a schemer, he's in it for the money, he's wary of anyone and everyone, he's untrustworthy, he's playboy/a womaniser, his own interests are paramount... I could go on. I know him. He's a three-dimensional figure. I don't need to know about where he came from, his childhood, his previous misdemeanors, I know it because he acts and reacts to situations and people in a way that tells me something about him. 'She's rich', says Luke. The picture of Han's face paints a thousand words. I can't say the same about Rey or Finn. They aren't fully formed to me. The Bourne and QoS comparisons fon't work, because there's a rationale to why these guys operate in the way they do.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. With the Bourne example I meant the scene when he starts finding out he has all these skills. We're along for the journey and ride with him in that film as he discovers his personality/attributes/core values. I feel that way about Rey. There is more to her, perhaps something repressed, and it's hinted at, but not told. We will definitely discover it in a later episode. They used this approach for all the characters. We learn about them as they discover who they are through the extraordinary circumstance that they find themselves in. It's similar to a child discovering who they are and growing up while we watch. That's what is endearing.

For me, this is how I learned about Rey:
-intro scene in the downed Star Destroyer (resourceful and independant)
-agrees to Plutt's crappy offer for her findings (practical)
-saves BB8 from the humanoid, initially wants him gone but then keeps him (caring)
-initally agrees to Plutt's offer for the droid (desperate) but decides against it (strong)
-goes after Finn to thrash him when BB8 says he has Poe's jacket (tough as nails& willing to protect those she cares for)
-saves Finn in Han's freighter from the rathhars but doesn't take credit for it (modest)
etc.
etc.

I recall thinking this was brilliant filmmaking when watching it, because I knew all I needed to know about her core attributes and she was in my camp all the way

For Finn
-panicking on Jakku and basically paralyzed by the violence (not a killer)
-deciding to desert the First Order (brave and true to his core values)
-deciding to rescue Poe to get a pilot (practical)
-making jokes (self deprecating humour)
-looking for Poe after the crash (endearing)
etc.
etc.

For Poe
-letting BB8 escape with the map (smart and resourceful)
-making a joke when captured (humour)
-being difficult to break under interrogation (strong willed - a fighter)
-being able to fly the First Order fighter (resourceful pilot)
etc.
etc.

See, I wouldn't personally class all of those as character traits, some are instances. I'm sure there are things we've all done on occasion that don't define us or even truly echo who we really are.

You say about Finn being true to his core values. I don't know what his core values are. Whose in this for, what's his motivation, or is he simply lost? If so, elaborate a little.

With Rey I got two things, that she was self-sufficient and that she was relatively fearless (perhaps naive). %0

bondjames

Creasy47 wrote: »

I know this is only the start of a new trilogy, but a big complaint I had with TFA was the under-utilization of certain characters; I know the main plot is focusing around Luke, but he only gets one scene and not a word of dialogue after all of that hype? Then they introduce a deadly female villain in the form of Captain Phasma, who has plenty of potential, and yet she gets no action time, a few lines of dialogue, and is simply tossed aside at the end? I hear she's going to have more screen time in the next two films, but she could've been utilized a bit better in TFA, that's for sure. Same goes for Poe; though I suppose his absence is due to having us believe that he's dead for a good portion of the film. It's a good thing they're doing a re-write and focusing on these characters more, because the last thing we need is an injection of all-new protagonists, who would experience even less screen time.

That is definitely true. However, I can forgive this because I know it's one of a series of films. They are introducing characters and playing the long game. What did we know about Darth Vader in SW really? Not nearly as much as we learnt in future installments. Even the emperor wasn't really shown (I don't think he was referred to even in SW but I could be wrong). So since this is not intended as a standalone film, but rather, a start of something, I'm not as critical.

I did want to see more of Phasma though. I'm sure I will get my wish soon enough. Waiting makes the heart grow fonder.

Creasy47

@RC7, Disney trying to make big bank off merchandise sales? You're right, there's no way, that's so unlike them! ;)

RC7

bondjames wrote: »

Creasy47 wrote: »

I know this is only the start of a new trilogy, but a big complaint I had with TFA was the under-utilization of certain characters; I know the main plot is focusing around Luke, but he only gets one scene and not a word of dialogue after all of that hype? Then they introduce a deadly female villain in the form of Captain Phasma, who has plenty of potential, and yet she gets no action time, a few lines of dialogue, and is simply tossed aside at the end? I hear she's going to have more screen time in the next two films, but she could've been utilized a bit better in TFA, that's for sure. Same goes for Poe; though I suppose his absence is due to having us believe that he's dead for a good portion of the film. It's a good thing they're doing a re-write and focusing on these characters more, because the last thing we need is an injection of all-new protagonists, who would experience even less screen time.

That is definitely true. However, I can forgive this because I know it's one of a series of films. They are introducing characters and playing the long game. What did we know about Darth Vader in SW really? Not nearly as much as we learnt in future installments. Even the emperor wasn't really shown (I don't think he was referred to even in SW but I could be wrong). So since this is not intended as a standalone film, but rather, a start of something, I'm not as critical.

I did want to see more of Phasma though. I'm sure I will get my wish soon enough. Waiting makes the heart grow fonder.

This is part of my problem and you touched on it a couple of posts up. Because it's a trilogy they seem to think it's ok to underdevelop characters. There's a televisual mentality to it. They treat three films like 6 episodes of television. Television can take it's time. Film can't, you have to be economical with your storytelling. By the end of the original SW the key characters have all developed. They are notably different at the end of the film when compared to the beginning. Finn is exactly the same and Rey is exactly the same bar an unexplained ability to use the force. It's not tight filmic storytelling.

bondjames

RC7 wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Creasy47 wrote: »

I know this is only the start of a new trilogy, but a big complaint I had with TFA was the under-utilization of certain characters; I know the main plot is focusing around Luke, but he only gets one scene and not a word of dialogue after all of that hype? Then they introduce a deadly female villain in the form of Captain Phasma, who has plenty of potential, and yet she gets no action time, a few lines of dialogue, and is simply tossed aside at the end? I hear she's going to have more screen time in the next two films, but she could've been utilized a bit better in TFA, that's for sure. Same goes for Poe; though I suppose his absence is due to having us believe that he's dead for a good portion of the film. It's a good thing they're doing a re-write and focusing on these characters more, because the last thing we need is an injection of all-new protagonists, who would experience even less screen time.

That is definitely true. However, I can forgive this because I know it's one of a series of films. They are introducing characters and playing the long game. What did we know about Darth Vader in SW really? Not nearly as much as we learnt in future installments. Even the emperor wasn't really shown (I don't think he was referred to even in SW but I could be wrong). So since this is not intended as a standalone film, but rather, a start of something, I'm not as critical.

I did want to see more of Phasma though. I'm sure I will get my wish soon enough. Waiting makes the heart grow fonder.

This is part of my problem and you touched on it a couple of posts up. Because it's a trilogy they seem to think it's ok to underdevelop characters. There's a televisual mentality to it. They treat three films like 6 episodes of television. Television can take it's time. Film can't, you have to be economical with your storytelling. By the end of the original SW the key characters have all developed. They are notably different at the end of the film when compared to the beginning. Finn is exactly the same and Rey is exactly the same bar an unexplained ability to use the force. It's not tight filmic storytelling.

I wouldn't say they are exactly the same. I saw development in both of them. As mentioned, Rey is coming to terms with her burden (the Force) although we don't know yet how she is able to channel it, nor does she apparently. Finn is more true to himself, having left the First Order. He also tried to run mid-film as well (fear which was there in the beginning back again) but Rey's abduction brought him back. So his feelings for her are making him come to terms with who he truly is (and he said he was ashamed by the way she looked at him when she first saw him).

Yes, there was more of an 'arc' in the first SW for Luke, but I didn't think it was all that telling. He was still the same guy but in an extraordinary situation. All the others were the same as they were when the film began (Leia, Han & Vader). Perhaps Han finds his true courage when he decides to come back and help Luke at the end (like Finn). Only in the 2nd film on do we see real development.

Perhaps they could have tried for something more 'contained' in TFA but it wasn't all that bad given how it could have turned out. At least I wasn't bored.

pachazo

bondjames wrote: »

Unlike some, I really don't have a problem with the way they approached things in TFA. The throwbacks to the past were necessary in my view to bridge the film to the past, and reunite us with a universe that we last encountered over 30 years ago (if one ignores the pretty dull prequels).

There was enough deja vu in TFA, but I didn't find it annoying because I connected to each and every one of the characters, even though their backstories weren't properly fleshed out. The film resonated with me emotionally, both on account of the 'old guard' reappearing, and because these new folks really acted their pants off. Ridley as the protagonist is actually brilliant, especially when one considers that she doesn't have the benefit of playing (or screwing up as the case may be) a legendary character who we would instantly connect to - Hayden I'm talking about you.

So I think it actually did have 'heart & soul' and that's what is making it so successful, despite a derivative plot/story. In that respect, it's similar to SF for me. Poor/derivative (TDK in the case of SF) story perhaps, but I personally find the characters credible & their motivations sincere, even if derivative.

From now on, they have to take risks and bring us new, unpredictable events & concepts, but as a reestablishing film, TFA was right on the money imho.

I agree with you about the actors. They were all tremendous and are ultimately what made the film work so well. I actually cared about what happened to these characters, unlike the prequels.

With that being said, and without being overly negative, I didn't need a "catch up" film to help me remember and reestablish the link to the OT. There are many of us who have been waiting a long time for this movie. Countless numbers of books were written (although I didn't read very many of them) and everyone speculated on their own theories of what might have happened after ROTJ. The possibilities were endless and exciting.

So, after all this time, to get a film that borrowed so heavily from Ep. IV was just a massive disappointment, personally speaking of course. I'm sorry but I wanted something fresh right off the bat. And yet, I still saw it twice and might even go a third time. Damn you Disney!

bondjames

Fair points @pachazo. I didn't really see it being all that derivative apart from the Death Star thing. I know it in fact was, but for some reason it seemed fresh to me (or at least as fresh as ROJ was to SW).

I'm not that big of an SW fan anway (although I'm on board totally for this new batch based on TFA alone) so perhaps that's why I wasn't so hung up on all the similarities that were sprinkled throughout. I can appreciate how someone more in tune with the SW universe may be disappointed with what they gave us.

chrisisall

bondjames wrote: »

I can appreciate how someone more in tune with the SW universe may be disappointed with what they gave us.

Well I can't. It's the best SW fan fiction I've ever seen!
\m/

Gustav_Graves

Creasy47 wrote: »

The way 'Rogue One' has been described has me more interested than the last two episodes in the new trilogy.

Same here ;-). Like I said, the premise of those Anthology films seem a bit more original. "Rogue One" has this dark, gritty, war-like feel.

Master_Dahark

Did you ever notice in Return of the Jedi, the Emperor holds Luke's saber and comments, "Oh yes... a Jedi's weapon. Much like your fathers...."




...when in fact, it looks nearly identical to Obi-Wan's from Ep III & IV:





Here's what Vader was sporting at the time:


And here's Luke's old one (which used to be Anakin's, and has now returned in The Force Awakens)


I guess we can just chalk it up to him being really really old? :-?? ;)

chrisisall

How many peeps here know that Luke's lightsabre was actually a photographic flash bulb holder from the 60's with rubber grips attached?

Agent007391

I think he was just meaning that Luke had a lightsaber of his own now, as opposed to just using one that someone else had once used.

Thunderfinger

chrisisall wrote: »

How many peeps here know that Luke's lightsabre was actually a photographic flash bulb holder from the 60's with rubber grips attached?

Which 60s ?

Murdock

A Graphex camera.
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/9864/10734770_2.jpg?v=8CDF4F97A942070

Thunderfinger

1960s Earth Time, then?

Murdock

Correct captain. Fascinating that a 1960's Earth camera flash holder became the universal basis for a futuristic laser sword weapon. A big violation of the prime directive. :P