Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rotten Tomatoes isn't that great a source for this type of dicscussion because it is a rating of Thumps Up or Down as Sisko and Ebert did. It is no measure of a solid C film by everyone versus an A film with dissenters because they tried something and some said no don't go.
Haven seen the original and none of the prequels but recently seeing Creed. I saw the homage just as Creed took the beats from Rocky and updating them with a younger set of characters and I think Creed did it much better than Star Wars The Force Awakens. Desert plant, ice plant, forest plant. All these years later with the Apocalypse Now version of a storm troopers attack made them seem more real and dangerous then the first films and their mechanical elephants
I really enjoyed Creed too and it is a top ten film for me for all different reasons but I think Star Wars is a bit better as the subtext between the wars are there. Creed has a few but were more overt about it at times.
I'm using Rotten Tomatoes because it is a way to show that fans and critics alike are loving it and it isn't some critic favorite while fans think it slow or a fan favorite that critics think is far too derivative. Star Wars and Creed are derivative but both films that seem like a fresh paint and at the least somewhat original. Creed was as much of son trying to be his own fighter compared to his dad and learning from his dad's greatest rival to be like his dad. Star Wars is similar where everyone besides Leia fear Ben Solo would have too much of his father in him while Rey was never around family and was truly alone on a desolate planet rather than Luke who was staked there due to his aunt and uncle.
I think, as someone else mentioned, that this movie was a good bridge between old and new. It was familiar enough (read: almost exactly the same plot) as the original trilogy but set it up for future movies. My guess is that this was done on purpose as a way to hook people back into the universe only to take completely different storylines for the next two. Then again, it's Disney so probably not.
Both Episode 4 and Episode 6 were closed stories. Neither presumed there would be follow-up episodes. This episode is clearly written to re-introduce the saga, introduce new characters, and serve as a set-up for the real saga of the next generation. In terms of its part in that saga, it's really more like Episode 5.
To that extent, the actual "action plot" of this one episode is less important than the character introductions. The enduring Star Wars audience is expecting and willing to wait for a longer story to be played out.
Quote:
My other thought is regarding Kylo Ren and his battle with Rey & Finn. As far as bad-a$$ villains go, Ren has to be pretty far down the list, probably just behind Snidely Whiplash. While I'm sure part of it was to add some suspense regarding the scene with Han (which it didn't really do), I'm guessing that they had to have the villain be somewhat weak in order for Rey & Finn to make it. If those two had met Darth Vader from IV or V, they'd have their butts kicked in a second. A weak and injured antagonist is the only way for the inexperienced good guys to win. I do, however, think that this will lead to a stronger Kylo Ren in the subsequent movies. Unlike in the original trilogy where the Empire & Vader were pretty much the same strength throughout, while the rebels and Luke kept getting stronger. With this movie, it leaves the possibility that, while the good guys get better, so do the bad which would make things much more interesting moving forward.
Ren played better to my Millennial daughter than he did with me. He worked for her as a "conflicted" villain. He still needed to "commit the act that he cannot step back from," which he did at the end of this episode. That was his equivalent to Anakin slaying the younglings.
Quote:
Lastly, while I think Rey is Luke's daughter (I think the voice over for the trailer gave it away), I think it would be great if she was unrelated. New trilogy, new family, new stories. Personally, with the prequels, I had a little Skywalker fatigue. A new line, with a less hokey name, would be fun too.
Regardless, I enjoyed the movie and would put it just behind IV, if only because of the lack of originality.
Rey being Luke's daughter appears to make the most sense given what we have to work with so far.
Just saw it as our annual Christmas Day movie. It was okay, not particularly thrilling. Was Carrie Fisher wearing caps on her teeth for the movie? Her speech was not quite normal and she didn't sound like that on the talk shows she's been on recently. Han and Leia's son looks more like he was the love child of Barbra Streisand and Alan Rickman. Anyway, now that I've seen this episode the Force is no longer with me so I don't really care.
Just saw it as our annual Christmas Day movie. It was okay, not particularly thrilling. Was Carrie Fisher wearing caps on her teeth for the movie? Her speech was not quite normal and she didn't sound like that on the talk shows she's been on recently. Han and Leia's son looks more like he was the love child of Barbra Streisand and Alan Rickman. Anyway, now that I've seen this episode the Force is no longer with me so I don't really care.
lmfao, just saw this movie and these two things struck me also.
I was like, WTF is wrong with her mouth, can barely hear her speak.
And the son looked nothing at all like either of the two, must have been some rogue sperm in there somewhere.
As has been said, Luke's voiceover for the second trailer indicates that there is "someone else" in Luke's family. "The force is strong in my family. My father has it, I have it, my sister has it, you have that power too."
We did not hear that soliloquy in this movie--it's yet to be heard, and I suspect it will come very early in the next movie--now that Luke and Rey have met.
I do also tend to agree with this, and I think I leaned toward the "extended trailer" concept in my previous post.
Quote:
This appeal to the collective unconscious is part of any sequel — any piece of art, really. It was certainly part of A New Hope, which was a pastiche of characters and narrative elements from other genres. That was part of its charm.
But where A New Hope's pastiche drew from a dizzying array of sources, The Force Awakens' draws mostly from Star Wars itself. There's comfort in that familiarity, a powerful nostalgic satisfaction, but it makes for a closed loop — a cloistered, self-referential product with little of the original's sense of giddy discovery.
For sure, the most fun thing about A New Hope was the way it combined so many action-adventure movie tropes--sci-fi, western, pirate, detective-- into a fascinating new view and story. But The Force Awakens did depend wholly on the Star Wars saga itself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All these years later with the Apocalypse Now version of a storm troopers attack made them seem more real and dangerous then the first films and their mechanical elephants
