Star Wars Spoilers Thread [Spoilers]

So here's my review: 100% a Star Wars film which belongs with the original trilogy.

It's a transitional film, but it does it well. The new generation is really good.

I think the major death was kinda signposted a bit. You knew it was coming long before it happened. I felt worse for Chewie, but he, Rey, and BB8 make a great team.

Is this the first Star Wars film where nobody gets their hand cut off?

Luke lives in Ireland, eh?

Question: WHY was there a map to Luke, and why was it split into two? I feel like I missed something. For that matter, why a map and not just some coordinates? Seems like a random puzzle set up for the sake of it.

 

[Cor Azer]

/Film does a breakdown of TFA using the official script (submitted for awards considerations), which reveals several clarifying details:

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-ending/

As discussed in this thread, Rey was left with Unkar Plutt. Other interesting bits: Those are the Knights of Ren in Rey's vision, Luke knows who Rey is (but it doesn't elaborate why), Rey feels the pull of the Dark Side when battling Kylo Ren, and Kylo Ren is not as cold-hearted and ruthless as he wishes...

 

[Goodsport]

I just came back from watching the movie in 3D in the theater.

BTW, when was "Jub Jub" actually said in the movie?

[video=youtube;UBJlToFZVHM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBJlToFZVHM[/video]​

-G

 

[dd.stevenson]

Well, she was abandoned by her primary caretaker, that is way enough for me to relate to and understand.

That is not, I believe, established in the movie; it's a narrative that you're substituting for the missing exposition. Are you so certain, for example, that Rey wasn't crying for her twin brother who was being carried away on the ship whose last words were "wait here, I'll come find you"?

It is of course perfectly valid for screenplays to demand viewer interpretation of the protagonist's primary motives--but that's a technique that runs counter to the goal of building a sympathetic protagonist, which Rey was clearly intended to be and (imo) should be.

 

[Umbran]

That is not, I believe, established in the movie;

Well, she's a young child, and in the care of a non-human. Her human parents are not present. In some sense, she was left without them. Whether or not they abandoned her or were killed or otherwise made non-available to her, she was left without them.

but that's a technique that runs counter to the goal of building a sympathetic protagonist

I think you overstate the case. We can care about the character without knowing the details of her losses. She was left without her family as a child - that's sufficient to gain our sympathy.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I think you overstate the case. We can care about the character without knowing the details of her losses. She was left without her family as a child - that's sufficient to gain our sympathy.

False attribution: I never said you can't care.

What I did say was that withholding major salient details makes the character less accessible.

 

[Maxperson]

False attribution: I never said you can't care.

What I did say was that withholding major salient details makes the character less accessible.

How much does that really matter, though? If she's sympathetic and accessible, why do we need more major details? At what point do we say we've had enough major details and she's sympathetic enough?

For me, the past as was revealed plus her great need to be back on the desert world waiting was more than enough.

 

[dd.stevenson]

How much does that really matter, though? If she's sympathetic and accessible, why do we need more major details?

If you've read this thread, then you already know I don't agree that Rey was super accessible. Others disagree and that's fine--accessibility is a subjective value, after all.

 

[Umbran]

False attribution: I never said you can't care.

What I did say was that withholding major salient details makes the character less accessible.

What you said was, (and I quote now, as I did before), "that's a technique that runs counter to the goal of building a sympathetic protagonist"

A sympathetic character (protagonist or otherwise) is one you care about. If you don't really need the details to care about the character, then, no, the technique doesn't run strongly counter to the goal.

But, to address the issue of accessibility: I think empirical evidence is against you here. I see little sign that most of the audience finds the missing details make her notably less accessible. As far as I can tell (looking at commentary and critique from several sources) she's one of the most successful characters the franchise has seen in decades. That doesn't speak to her being inaccessible. Whatever may be missing in backstory details has been more than made up for by the actress giving us insight to her emotional states and patterns.

 

[MoonSong]

What you said was, (and I quote now, as I did before), "that's a technique that runs counter to the goal of building a sympathetic protagonist"

A sympathetic character (protagonist or otherwise) is one you care about. If you don't really need the details to care about the character, then, no, the technique doesn't run strongly counter to the goal.

But, to address the issue of accessibility: I think empirical evidence is against you here. I see little sign that most of the audience finds the missing details make her notably less accessible. As far as I can tell (looking at commentary and critique from several sources) she's one of the most successful characters the franchise has seen in decades. That doesn't speak to her being inaccessible. Whatever may be missing in backstory details has been more than made up for by the actress giving us insight to her emotional states and patterns.

You mean like show don't tell?

 

[dd.stevenson]

A sympathetic character (protagonist or otherwise) is one you care about. If you don't really need the details to care about the character, then, no, the technique doesn't run strongly counter to the goal.

A sympathetic protagonist (in particular) is one the audience is expected to identify with, as opposed to an unsympathetic protagonist with whom they are meant to be uncomfortable and unsure. Withholding details of a protagonist's primary motivation in any scene by definition and by experience runs counter to making the character accessible to the widest possible audience to identify with.

But, to address the issue of accessibility: I think empirical evidence is against you here. I see little sign that most of the audience finds the missing details make her notably less accessible.

You're right, I'm afraid. Chalk it up to the screenplay using every cheap trick in the book to compensate for the weakness of Rey's arc, or to Ridley's above-average performance, or to the fact that everyone's just glad to see a competent star wars movie, but even the critics I'd normally expect to complain, are instead glossing over nearly all the issues I saw with this movie. Heck, I halfway agree myself--it's great to see a strong female lead and a star wars entry that doesn't make me want to vomit with shame for being a star wars fan.

But you'll also hear a fair number of comments comparing the movie to fan fiction that will never stand with the originals. And fan fiction in addition to being derivative is also notable for being weak on the fundamentals of craft. So I don't feel like it's impossible that others, perhaps many others, felt the same disconnection and disappointment I did, or that a critique of the basics is out of order.