And it's not pretty

I've only watched about 20 minutes of it so far but had to share. I think this guy might be a little too hard on it, but I thought even the first 20 minutes had some good insights, so I thought I'd share.

Overall for me the film was entertaining so in that respect it succeeded.


The biggest flaw for me is that the main villain (Kylo Ren) was not compelling. This was both the fault of the actor and the script.


I don't think there's anyone here who thinks that Kylo Ren had anywhere near the screen presence of Darth Vader, Palpatine, Tarkin or even Darth Maul.

To the video maker, I'd say "Why would I need an analysis of a movie I loved? To pick it apart? You can do the same thing to any movie out there if you try hard enough, but why would you want to? To convince yourself NOT to continue to enjoy it anymore? Sure, it had shortcomings, all movies do, but why dwell on the negative?"

I wanted to love the movie, but really couldn't. Even when looking for the entertainment part, I noticed so many plot holes I was "was that it??" when the movie ended. I hope they get a better writer for the next movie.

Why dwell on the negative? Because in my opinion that's about all there was. I wasn't entertained by it, I was insulted by it. They took my money and my time and gave me a poorly crafted product. I was trying to figure out why anyone was doing what they were doing the entire way through the movie, hoping it would all come together, and it never did. I think I was conscious of a lot of it, but subconsciously I think I just felt a bigger disconnect, and a lot of the stuff in this video fleshes it out.

Well said Raw,I enjoyed it too. I don't watch a movie to pick it apart, I just want to be entertained. I loved Prometheus for that same reason. I guess I'm just one of those guys who can watch something and be immersed and not worry too much about plot holes. I understand it can ruin it for some though.

Movies are no different from any other art form in that they operate at an emotional level. By that I mean a film will either emotionally connect with you or it won't.


There have been many films that I've seen where the plot made no sense or where at least there were some major plot holes but I still enjoyed the film at an emotional level. The film stayed in my mind and it made me raise questions. That's how I know when a film either "worked" for me or it did not.

SW is SW, but TFA just had dumb stuff happening after dumb stuff. I enjoyed the spectacle and the design (always good) but I didn't get any real meaningful movie experience unfortunately.

IMO the whole franchise ceased to be "Star Wars". At least the parts that made "Star Wars" into "Star Wars" are missing. Disney kept the brand (name, and the toys). Then went and changed everything else .

You read it here first: they will eliminate the whole "good vs. evil" (light vs. dark) theme and make Rey and/or Luke "grey". Like the Bendu in "Rebels". The "one in the middle".

The retconning has already begun. The original Jedi home planet with its two moons (one for those students too invested in the dark side to regain some "light-ness"; the other for the opposite). And in the end, that's what Anakin was doing: he eliminated both the Jedi and the Sith (both extremes), and gave Luke the chance to explore the "middle ground" -> thereby bringing "balance to the Force".

That may be the sensible thing to do for Luke, but it does not make good drama. Good adventure stories need good vs. evil, protagonist vs. antagonist, and high stakes to keep the antagonist from winning. If they "meet in the middle", drink latte frappucino and show each other their artisinal lightsabers, it's kinda boring.

But Kennedy and Abrams just had to make Star Wars "relevant for the 21st century" or some such crock. Either they never understood what the whole thing was about (I doubt that; they are not stupid), or, more likely, chose to ignore that and hoped to leave their own mark.


Another thing that caught my attention (well, not recently: especially in online marketing, "we" have been exploiting that phenomenon for a couple of years now): it seems people don't (fanatically) follow a franchise so much for its content any more, but for its hype potential. Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Marvel Universe, or any other overhyped show/ movie franchise. Seems like digitally belonging to a "group/movement" of "like-minded people" is what seems more important to younger people nowadays than enjoying the actual content. 15 years ago, Game of Thrones would never have had such a "cult following". Especially not that many female fans would have been interested. But shows like "Big Bang Theory" and other factors made "nerd culture" popular, and like good little hipsters, many are jumping mindlessly on the hype train.

Sure, every generation has had "group identification" (teds, mods, punks, hippies, hip-hoppers), but I seem to remember that people were much more critical about the content that was put out in their respective sub-culture (when Dylan went electric, the folk fans went berserk; which was a childish overreaction, but it illustrates my point: nowadays, if the marketing is good, people are just happy to gobble it all up).

Case in point: "reaction videos".

And while Game of Thrones (for example) is a good show, it's not that good to warrant all the hysteria. Same is true for Westworld: I really liked the show so far, but I shudder already imagining the hysteria when HBO shows the season 2 trailers.

So I fear all that financial success is more a testament for very successful marketing campaigns rather than actual content quality.

Another thing: would TFA, or the other, the rogue one , be still as successful if these weren't "Star Wars" branded? Just generic SciFi movies, but with the same script? I bet they would fall apart quickly, because the only thing they have going for them is that they are (forcefully) related to the most iconic movie franchise of the 20th century.

That's a great question and I'm 95% certain that both TFA and RO would not have done nearly as well had they not had the "Star Wars" label attached.


There's no doubt that brand recognition goes a long way when it comes to movies. Brand recognition doesn't always guarantee success but it sure does help. A lot.

We are living through the development of a new movie genre through Star Wars - the generational franchise. Already this franchise encompases three generations. OT, Prequels, and now the...the...(what to call it? The JJ generation...the TFA generation...Disney Generation?).

But the point is...we have been sold these movies and books and merchandise as being all the same thing under the same label - Star Wars.

Well, they are not. They are made for its time and for different audiences in mind. They will reflect the issues of the younger generation and display it in its own modern way, while showing us clips and characters and props of the previous franchises to convince us that this is the same thing we used to watch before.

You know how you don't like modern pop music, but loved the 80's pop?...same thing is now happening with Star Wars. The older generation just can't "get it". But box office returns definitively tall the tale of the popularity and acceptance of these movies by mostly younger people (which still goes to the movies).

If you do not like the newer ones, that's OK. They were not made for us. But Disney put some nostalgia worm on the hook just the same to get us through the door to watch them.

@Jayhawk - the "hysteria" and "reaction video" trends is called hype marketing. You can see that video games are also sold on the same premise. It is based on marketing to your expectations whether they are real or not, as far away from an actual product release as possible. It's working for many companies, so it will not go away any time soon.

I understand that movies will change over time, and maybe in ways I don't like, but I don't think that forgives lack of creativity and poor workmanship. Maybe the content changes to something I don't care for, but they should still be properly structured and provide a context that supports what the movie is trying to do. To me, TFA failed in those areas.

Doesn't matter because they ARE SW movies. They flesh out what we have already spent 40 years with--that's unprecedented. Even Bond isn't the same since those more or less ARE individual movies. SW is it's own thing and has to make it up as it goes along. The new movies are FAR better than the prequels, so IMO they learned from those and are doing much better for it now. They aren't made for any single generation, but all of the fans. Not easy, but so far so good.

I've also figured they're going to try to do without the light and dark Force business and I'm ok with it. I find it incredibly hard to believe that there aren't hundreds of people out there capable and somehow learning to use the Force anyway. It's ridiculous to think that those people aren't out there just because of the events in RotS. Also, the Force as a religion/philosophy as seen in Rogue was a lot more interesting than the simplistic bad guy vs good guy treatment of previous movies. I'm fine with new treatment and exploring more of the influence it has on those other than Jedi and Sith. The war side of it all is much more interesting to me than the Force struggle anyway.

It's unfortunate so many aren't liking the new movies. I find them to be the best efforts since ESB.

+1

Those are not "Star Wars movies" as I understand the term. Those are movies released under the Star Wars brand name. The very fact that they apparently have opted to change the most basic premise of the OT is telling. The Manichean struggle - the duality of good and evil - is the whole point of George Lucas' underlying symbolism and philosophical approach for Star Wars. Of course it is not "realistic" (even the ancient Greek playwrights who came up with the narrative technique knew that)....but that is why we watch such stories. We can have "realistic" as soon as we turn on the news. Films like Star Wars have always been about escapism. About something inspiring. Not depressing - and mundane - relativism.

Leave "semi-realistic" to the other big franchise, Star Trek. I want my Star Wars to be as it was originally intended by its creator (before the dark times; before the Prequels): bombastic Space Opera. Emotion. Compelling, archetypal characters. Not morally ambivalent, "grey" characters. Or "Mary-Sue"-like characters straight out of the worst fan-fiction.

It's like me acquiring the rights to Indiana Jones and instead of having Indy hunt for mystical treasures I'll make a three-hour movie about him debating the pros and cons of leaving archaeological sites pristine vs. digging everything up and putting the stuff in (foreign) museums with Marcus. A much more realistic approach to the reality of archaeology, but it would probably make for a slightly less exciting movie.

And even in this day and age, some filmmakers manage to make great, lighthearted, highly entertaining films that are able to "bridge" generational gaps, like James Gunn with "Guardians of the Galaxy" (both "volumes")

That's the domain of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica and I love it!

I look at movies like I look at life. Not everything is explained. Not everything makes sense. And plot holes all over the place. I've never WANTED everything tied up nice and neat at the end of a flick. But it better make sense, entertain me, and take me somewhere I never could have gone myself. That's what it's all about.

I once beat up a kid who's character was not imposing. As I was walking away, he snuck up behind me and shopped me with a baseball bat. He wasn't imposing like Darth Vader, and there was no build up music to warn me of his back stabbing intent. That's how I feel about it. Bad guys aren't always tall and mean looking, and good guys aren't always this and such, etc. I enjoyed SWVII.

Probably because the move was not that enjoyable? Disney/Abrams basically remade Episode IV, but with even more plot holes and nonsensical story elements than Lucas could ever imagine, and expected us to regard it is the greatest Star Wars movie ever because it featured a girl the main protagonist instead of a guy.

When/if this SJW nonsense falls by the wayside and we begin judging movies by the quality of their acting and story again, Force Awakens will probably be regarded in the same category as Phantom Menace.

I found Force Awakens to be very enjoyable.

All the SJW nonsense is frankly people looking for a reason to be offended about stuff like a female protagonist, or black protagonist.

FA made over 2 billion dollars at the box office. I don't think Disney cares.