Ok, something some fans need to remember about this reboot. Only the movies and scripted games are being considered canon, everything else can be taken as myth or legend in the universe.
This isn't true. EVERY piece of Star Wars media, books and comics included, released beginning with A New Dawn is canon unless it's labelled Legends.
Current Star Wars Canon includes:
Star Wars Episodes 1-7
Star Wars The Clone Wars
Star Wars Rebels
The 2015 Marvel Comics: Star Wars, Darth Vader, Various Character Mini-series, etc
The Novels: A New Dawn, Tarkin, Heir to the Jedi, Lords of the Sith, Dark Disciple, Aftermath, Lost Stars, Battlefront: Twilight Company and various young readers. Basically, the films, Clone Wars, Rebels and everything released after September 1, 2015 (I think there was one short story released earlier).
But what that also means is that anything not explicitly stated in the films is no longer canon, so yes, people shouldn't be using the EU against this film.
This movie was bad.
As a stand alone, ignoring anything else about star wars, it was bad.
As a sequel, it was worse.
There are so many plot holes eveywhere and the flow was just awful.
How can something be worse as a sequel than as a stand alone?
Maybe you didn't like it, but the overwhelming majority of critics and audiences did. The issue I've found is that a lot of fans set their expectations way too high.
Re: Rey and the Force - She doesn't master anything, she just mimics. If you believe a 10 year-old Anakin is able to not die and even win podraces AND fly a naboo starfighter with no training to blow up the trade federation battleship or that a teenage Luke, despite having a few hours of training on the Falcon, can somehow make the Death Star trench run without the aid of the targeting computer - why is it so hard to believe that Rey could also be similarly adept at the force. What if Luke had been caught on the Death Star? How do you think that would have played out?
Everything Rey does in the film she does after Kylo Ren shows her how to do it. The movie also flat out shows that at least Obi-Wan's ghost is helping her, through that force vision she received. The movie HEAVILY hints at there being more to Rey than what we're explicitly told.
Re: Finn - So you've been raised by what you've realized is an evil organization. You fail to kill helpless people, and they're going to 'recondition' you. Everything Finn does makes sense in this context. He didn't become a pacifist, people, he simply didn't want to slaughter innocents. Why people expect that to make him a saint is beyond me.
As for Lightsabers, as the other random Stormtrooper shows, the Stormtroopers have all received melee combat training. But even then, Finn only manages to not die to the Stormtrooper; and later when fighting Kylo he only gets in a few lucky hits because A) Kylo was arrogantly toying with him and B) Kylo was already pretty severely injured by a blast from Chewie's Bowcaster that can flat out kill multiple stormtroopers at a time.
Re: Kylo Ren - I hate to break it to you, but Darth Vader was also always a scared little boy too. We're seeing Kylo Ren at the stage where Anakin would have been with the Emperor if Obi-Wan hadn't defeated him. He doesn't use the force because he's throwing a temper tantrum. We're seeing the first stages of Kylo's evolution in to a true Vader-like villain in this film.
Re: Story Flow - This is the film franchise that only happened because the droid Luke's Uncle bought JUST HAPPENED to malfunction while the Jawas were still around. Hell, watch the CinemaSins for the first 6 movies. You're using nostalgia glasses, here. It's amazing how 'coincidences' are only brought up when someone didn't like the movie. Let's address these, shall we?
Finn happened to have a change of heart. So did Han.
Finn happened to wind up on Jakku and travel exactly at the outpost. That's where the Star Destroyer was, and where he failed his mission. There can be only so many outposts on a planet like that. Besides which, the outpost is within a day's roll for BB-8 from the village that the First Order slaughtered. Likely Poe was aiming to check out the wreckage of his X-Wing.
Rey and Finn happened to meet up on that same day.Rey meeting BB-8 was coincidence, but no more than R2 meeting Luke. Finn and Rey meeting was way less coincidental than Han meeting Luke. Finn only meets her because Poe described BB-8.
They happened to get caught. Not really surprising given everything above. This is essentially the same coincidence repeated multiple times.
They happened to find the Millenium Falcon. This is one of the real problematic coincidences in the film.
The MF happened to be in working condition in a scrap yard. They pretty clearly say that the junk dealer had fixed it up.
They happened to come across Han Solo, IN THE WHOLE GALAXY! Han pretty clearly mentions that they were looking for the Falcon on Jakku, and that they should have double-checked the region Rey was from.
They happened to go on the exact same planet Leia is on. How is this in any way a coincidence. BB-8 gave them coordinates to the Resistance Planet. Han likely knew where it was too, but wanted to avoid Leia, so he took them to Maz's place instead.
They happened to get info from Finn who was working as a waste janitor AND infantry???? ... Have you heard of the military before? What, you think they hire Janitors to staff military bases in Afghanistan?
They travel to the death planet and happened to land near the exhaust vent. I mean, it was pretty clear that while the firing aperture was huge, the base itself was pretty much three or four above surface buildings and the tunnels connecting them.
Rey happened to master the force and escape just like that.'Master the Force' is a strong term. 'Mimic whatever Kylo Ren just did' is more accurate
ON A WHOLE ******* PLANET, THEY HAPPEN TO RUN INTO EACH OTHER!!! I CAN'T EVEN DO THAT IN MY CITY!Have you seen a Star Wars movie before?
R2D2 happens to wake up and remember the galaxy map which was destroyed.Abrams has confirmed that he woke up because the imperial archives map was mentioned.
All of this in less than 3 days movie time... yeah... A New Hope does a similar amount of ridiculous coincidences in about a day and a half.
So much talking and exposition made most of the movie a bore. It's episode 7! Not 1! Wait... what? There was maybe only a little more exposition in this film than the OT.
Very little light sabering, a lot of bullying. Remember kids, if someone kicks your ass while you have a light saber, it's ok to have your friends in gunships shoot them down...I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Rey could barely move the metal grid on Han's ship, yet she overpowers Ren. ... with the force, and if Chewie had shot that grate, I'm sure she would have had an easier time of it.
Rey and Finn seemingly fall for each other... over the span of a day... this is clearly written by someone who knows what they are talking about. Yeah! It's not like the movies haven't done this exact same thing before. And FYI - Rey giving Finn a kiss on the forehead is not 'Falling for one another'. That attraction was pretty clearly one-sided this film.
When the death planet shoots, there is no way you can see the beam sideways OR see other planets get blown up through the atmosphere.This is you second legitimate complaint. Starkiller base a cool effect but dumb otherwise.
JJ really tried to make the point that the bad guys are nazis... literally with a Fuhrer in front of a clone army.No, that was George Lucas in Episodes 4, 5 and 6. Maybe you've seen them? The Empire was always a pretty explicit Nazi reference, what with him essentially making a movie about WWII in space. He even lined up the cuts with the Falcon combat scene to match a WWII war movie.
Oh and did I mention the holograms?!No. Which ones?
I am glad I didn't have to pay to watch this movie.What. I will probably not go watch any other. If you thought George Lucas took a dump on his older franchises, JJ Abrams drowned the franchise...in money and critical accolades
And before you go with the 'that's speculation' defense, remember that you're asserting most of these are plot holes. Except, they're only plot holes if there is no logical explanation for how they happened - the story not overtly explaining it is not a plot hole.
Now! For my actual discussion:
I liked the movie. Not love, but I did enjoy it a great deal and I rank it above the Prequels but below the Originals for the most part. It's probably impossible for any new Star Wars movie to match my emotional connection to the originals. I've watch them each dozens of times and they tended to be my comfort viewing as a kid when things weren't working out for me. I think that's true of a lot of fans, which is why it's so hard to replicate the same feeling we get for the originals.
There were a few things that really bothered me. First, what Starkiller Base. Not the 'death starier' aspect of it, which was fine. My problem was the depiction of the New Republic being blown up. It felt largely meaningless, which is a problem when you consider how emotional the destruction of Alderaan, which we had not connection to, was handled in A New Hope.
Also, it drowns you a bit too much in nostalgia.
I also had a problem with Maz just happening to have Luke's original Lightsaber. Hopefully that's explained more later. I had a couple of other problems, but plot issues can largely be glossed over if the emotional resonance is there.
However, the cast was just so damn charming, they eclipse the original trilogy's cast (with the exception of Harrison Ford) already. Poe ("Who talks first? Do you I talk first? Do you talk first?") and BB-8 (Dat thumbs up) especially were just fantastic.
I didn't like the 'A New Hope Remix' aspect of the plot at first, but the more I think about it the more appropriate I think it was. The movie pretty heavily subverts the tropes of the original, and while the overall plot seems the same at first blush, the actual character motivation are completely different. Rey doesn't WANT to be a Jedi until she's forced to - and she doesn't even want to leave the planet we find her on. This is so starkly different from both Anakin and Luke that I'm surprised more people don't seem to catch on to the inversion of themes. Kylo Ren seems like Vader but is still struggling with his conscience, which makes him less intimidating but a bit more compelling. Finn is competent but way out of his league throughout the film, and his struggle with figuring out what the right thing even is made him one of the best of the new characters.
By the way, Star Wars is NOT SCI-FI, it's Fantasy. It follows almost no scientific principles. It just happens to be futuristic fantasy.
A good Sci-fi is Alien and Aliens or even the recently released "The Martian" (the books were amazing).
Hard Sci-fi is a sub genre, Star Wars is most definitely Sci-fi in the same way Flash Gordon (which heavily influenced Lucas) is. Does it have a ton of fantasy elements, hell yeah! That doesn't make it less Sci-fi though.
Well, I spent quite a bit of time reading up yesterday and I have a little theory that (I think) explains a lot of the stuff folks are complaining about. It's pretty out there though, I'll admit. And it also relies upon (I assume) non-canon source material for its underpinnings.
Before you read anything else I say, please go check this out and read it well.
I think Rey is literally the Force. Well, not quite that. She is an avatar of the Force...the Force awoken (The Force Awakens!! :eek:) in physical form. She's just not aware of it yet. This is why she's so good at using it. She basically is it. As in, she has no biological father OR biological mother. She just showed up.. Until we know her actual origin story and meet her parents, we don't know any better.
Follow me here.. Anakin was 'immaculately conceived' by the Force and had no biological father. This novel seems to suggest that Plagueis/Sidious either created Anakin using their Midichlorian experiments/rituals *or* the FORCE created Anakin in response to those experiments/rituals.
====
From Anakin Skywalker Wookipedia article:
"In addition, although Darth Plagueis did attempt to influence the midichlorians to create the ultimate Sith weapon alongside Darth Sidious, the experiment was ultimately a failure, and the midichlorians, sensing the Sith's inherent malevolent intention, not only refused to do so, but in retaliation, conceived Anakin Skywalker in order to destroy the Sith once and for all."
====
Regardless of which is correct, in either case, his appearance was a catalyst to galaxy-wide chaos and imbalance which we are still working through 60 years later..
What if Rey is the Force's NEW attempt to manifest and stand up to Plagueis (the guy ultimately trying to do 'unnatural' things with the Force all this time) and rectify this imbalance and restore balance once and for all. (Or maybe, like Anakin, Rey appears in response to some other unnatural thing Plagueis did, but it hasn't been revealed yet, like cheating death for instance...
There's certainly more mundane explanations such as being a secret Skywalker kid we didn't know about but I think mine is a lot more epic and really ties the lore from ALL the episodes together a bit better. I just think Abrams would like to thread that needle if at all possible. You can't just throw out half the story completely out.
Still.. I can't get away from that title though. The Force Awakens. If I'm right, this will be the biggest easter egg in history.
@ Morphling, Darth Plageuis (the book) is no longer canon. The only thing canon about him is the name, and the implication that he was Palpatine's Master from Revenge of the Sith. And, depending on whether or not George Lucas' statements count as canon, that he is a Munn.
Also, Spoiler Response:
Supreme Leader Snoke is not a Munn. Kylo Ren is also not a Sith. I think Snoke is a new kind of dark side user.
As for the other thing:
Rey pretty clearly has parents. She remembers them. She didn't just spontaneously appear.
@ Morphling Also i think Rey was Luke´s student. In the flashback scene she saw images we KNOW are from HER life, past or future, except one when Kylo is killing other student´s. So base on that theory she has to been there and was trained before. Thats why she gets hang on the force so quickly.
For the comment stating that Star Wars isn't science fiction... you're wrong. There really isn't much more too it. Star Wars takes certain queues from a wide variety of genres (Jidai-geki films, and western films), but it's most certainly an example of science fiction. Space Opera, if you want to be more specific. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be more than willing to.
In terms of the movie, I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's not a perfect film by any means, but it's definitely a solid Hollywood action/sci-fi film. I have a couple of gripes about the movie, however:
I hate how they marketed Finn's character. All of the imagery on the posters and other promo material showcasing Finn with a lightsaber all seemed like a cheap ploy. Finn uses a lightsaber in the movie, though he isn't the central Jedi character that the promo material leads viewers to believe. Why all this secrecy surrounding Rey's role in the series? Will Finn even continue his path as a Jedi? If not, then I'd be pretty disappointed.
J.J. Abrams has commented that the lack of last names for the two main characters was intentional. To be honest, I find this a little convoluted. Why do all of these main characters need to be related to the original characters? Is Rey going to be a Skywalker/Kenobi? Is Finn the son of Lando or Mace Windu? Kind of stupid if you ask me.
Because of the ultra-quick pacing, I feel like the death of Han Solo lacked the emotional depth it could have had. A funeral scene near the end of the film would have remedied this problem.
Besides these very minor issues, the film was very solid. Everything I would have expected from a Star Wars movie. The problem is, I think a lot of fans expected way too much from this movie. Star Wars has never been a franchise to push the envelope in terms of cinematic scope or revolutionary ideas. It's always been a fun sci-fi Hollywood franchise. Nothing more.
The original Star Wars movies are good films, but they aren't among the greatest films of all time. I think a lot of fans fail to realize the purpose of Star Wars. It only became a cultural phenomenon through other materials (books, video games, etc..), and fans coveting the films. The Force Awakens follows that trend, it's a solid piece of science fiction but not anything that will change the face of cinema forever. It's better than something like Avatar, but never reaches the depth of something like Blade Runner, for example.
Here's a SPOILER filled link with some explanations and a lot of speculation as to the state of the Star Wars Universe surrounding The Force Awakens. It helps because it fills in some of the holes and also establishes that only people that follow the official new expanded universe will know everything that's going on. *Hooray on the latter *
That's kind of how I feel about the whole thing. It's a movie that's not horrible, but is completely forgettable.
The cast is fine. Daisy Ridley is a discovery. She's got like no acting credits and she's so compelling.
I didn't care for Finn. Finn has a character background that is vastly different from a normal person from our world. Yet he speaks and behaves like a normal person from our world. Like, if I wanted to create a comedy Youtube video of a normal guy being thrown into Star Wars situations and how that person would react, Finn would pretty much be it most of the movie.
Kylo Ren... I mean, better luck next film is all I can say. First of all, it's quite clear he's not Darth Vader. And this is the point. There's a lot going on with Kylo Ren. But that's pretty much all the film has to say. There's a lot going on with Kylo Ren... Which will be great when we get to that in the next movie. Yeah, alright, fine.
The real problem with the movie is that very few of the scenes really had impact. Really the only ones that did were with the characters from the original series, and most of that impact is borrowed from how epic the first saga was, and how attached to them we are because of it. But that's borrowed. There's little in itself this film actually adds or creates that's noteworthy.
One thing that I thought was interesting: there's a lot of blood and burns in this movie. For those who were worried about Star Wars getting the Disney treatment, quite the opposite. Not the most violent Star Wars, but I don't remember this much actual blood in the other six films.
For the comment stating that Star Wars isn't science fiction... you're wrong. There really isn't much more too it. Star Wars takes certain queues from a wide variety of genres (Jidai-geki films, and western films), but it's most certainly an example of science fiction. Space Opera, if you want to be more specific. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be more than willing to.
In terms of the movie, I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's not a perfect film by any means, but it's definitely a solid Hollywood action/sci-fi film. I have a couple of gripes about the movie, however:
I hate how they marketed Finn's character. All of the imagery on the posters and other promo material showcasing Finn with a lightsaber all seemed like a cheap ploy. Finn uses a lightsaber in the movie, though he isn't the central Jedi character that the promo material leads viewers to believe. Why all this secrecy surrounding Rey's role in the series? Will Finn even continue his path as a Jedi? If not, then I'd be pretty disappointed.
J.J. Abrams has commented that the lack of last names for the two main characters was intentional. To be honest, I find this a little convoluted. Why do all of these main characters need to be related to the original characters? Is Rey going to be a Skywalker/Kenobi? Is Finn the son of Lando or Mace Windu? Kind of stupid if you ask me.
Because of the ultra-quick pacing, I feel like the death of Han Solo lacked the emotional depth it could have had. A funeral scene near the end of the film would have remedied this problem.
Besides these very minor issues, the film was very solid. Everything I would have expected from a Star Wars movie. The problem is, I think a lot of fans expected way too much from this movie. Star Wars has never been a franchise to push the envelope in terms of cinematic scope or revolutionary ideas. It's always been a fun sci-fi Hollywood franchise. Nothing more.
The original Star Wars movies are good films, but they aren't among the greatest films of all time. I think a lot of fans fail to realize the purpose of Star Wars. It only became a cultural phenomenon through other materials (books, video games, etc..), and fans coveting the films. The Force Awakens follows that trend, it's a solid piece of science fiction but not anything that will change the face of cinema forever. It's better than something like Avatar, but never reaches the depth of something like Blade Runner, for example.
I have a couple of gripes about the movie, however:
Because of the ultra-quick pacing, I feel like the death of Han Solo lacked the emotional depth it could have had. A funeral scene near the end of the film would have remedied this problem.
Along the same minor gripe, what bothered me about Han's death was Rey was the one sharing a long hug with Leia. Shouldn't that have been Chewie and Leia hugging and grieving together? Or at least have them embrace before/after Rey and Leia.
I give it three out of four swabs. Exhilarating movie worthy of the iconic franchise we all put on a pedestal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Mysticake" »
(about the English language) It's kinda like a raft that was cobbled together from parts of three different boats and since then has been kept barely afloat with crude repairs every time a leak appeared.
It's a step in the right direction for the franchise. The only thing I feel done right was Clone Wars the traditionally animated one and the CGI series with regard to motion picture technology related items. I liked A New Hope, but Empire Strikes Back was just the superior film. I'll reserve my judgement for the series.
The series will take time to find it's own way, but I think having a female lead is going to help break a better path as compared to the other two. Luke was awesome, Vader was an excellent character. Anakin in the movies sucked, Anakin in the Clone Wars animated series was a much better character. I feel had "that Anakin" been "the" Anakin in the movies, we would have seen a lot better going on. Toshaka should have been in the Second and Third Film, and would have given Anakin the necessary emotion outside of the bad romance. Although, going from what I understand what Lucas wanted to do he was better off going for a 5 film series than 3.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
My friend thinks Luke is on the planet Rakata Prime, where he may be trying to master both sides of the force. I'm doubtful as it seems like they would more likely be on a planet we have yet to hear about especially since they wiped EU under the rug, but he pointed out Rakata were canonized in this universe with a recent encyclopedia.
My friend thinks Luke is on the planet Rakata Prime, where he may be trying to master both sides of the force. I'm doubtful as it seems like they would more likely be on a planet we have yet to hear about especially since they wiped EU under the rug, but he pointed out Rakata were canonized in this universe with a recent encyclopedia.
It's interesting nonetheless.
Unfortunately, the KOTOR-era stuff's continuity is iffy at best. An encyclopedia entry isn't canon (and I think the last real one was from 2008, anyway), and usually the people they have authoring the coffee-table books are working on second-hand information.
My friend thinks Luke is on the planet Rakata Prime, where he may be trying to master both sides of the force. I'm doubtful as it seems like they would more likely be on a planet we have yet to hear about especially since they wiped EU under the rug, but he pointed out Rakata were canonized in this universe with a recent encyclopedia.
It's interesting nonetheless.
Unfortunately, the KOTOR-era stuff's continuity is iffy at best. An encyclopedia entry isn't canon (and I think the last real one was from 2008, anyway), and usually the people they have authoring the coffee-table books are working on second-hand information.
In the old EU, yes, the Old Republic games were canon.
In the new canon, they are not. Everything prior to April 2014 is no longer canon, essentially, outside of the Clone Wars and the six Films. Only media released since that time is canon, with the exception of I believe a single short story in the star wars magazine. I've read all of the new stuff (books and comics, although not the youth books) and the only old EU stuff to carry over is some world-building, like the existence of Black Sun and various planets.
I mean, it doesn't matter that much because the whole point is they take place so long before it doesn't affect any of the films at all. Unlike everything post-RotJ from the old EU, there is nothing that directly contradicts it.
For Rey's use of mind tricks, that was justified by Kylo trying to force interogate her. While she was inexperienced, she could reverse the 'polarity' of the interogation. This infuriates Ren and he leaves. She then has some knowledge of how to use mind tricks, think learning how to control a new muscle. She then tries it on the stormtrooper and eventually succeeds.
Star Wars has never been a franchise to push the envelope in terms of cinematic scope
What?
I'm speaking English, aren't I?
I mean, in terms of the sci-fi climate that was around when it was released (that was highlighted by movies like Zardoz) it was pretty innovative.
In terms of cinema, it's pretty standard Hollywood fare. The narrative of Star Wars follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth to a tee. There are influences of other filmmakers as well, (Kurosawa, John Ford, etc.) but it doesn't innovate in terms of cinematic techniques at all. Star Wars gained traction mainly on it's very digestible plot, and it's obvious cinema of attractions-esque spectacle. It wasn't a very innovative film, when you look at the history of cinema leading up to it. If you look at it from a genre nutshell, then perhaps. But cinema? No.
I mean, in terms of the sci-fi climate that was around when it was released (that was highlighted by movies like Zardoz) it was pretty innovative.
In terms of cinema, it's pretty standard Hollywood fare. The narrative of Star Wars follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth to a tee. There are influences of other filmmakers as well, (Kurosawa, John Ford, etc.) but it doesn't innovate in terms of cinematic techniques at all. Star Wars gained traction mainly on it's very digestible plot, and it's obvious cinema of attractions-esque spectacle. It wasn't a very innovative film, when you look at the history of cinema leading up to it. If you look at it from a genre nutshell, then perhaps. But cinema? No.
Ok, well to clarify, you'll notice I cropped out some of your statement, because its plot, I'll agree, is a rehash of Hidden Fortress (I'm pretty sure this is by Lucas' own admission, even) and the sequels weren't exactly groundbreaking in terms of plot either.
However, in terms of its visuals? No, I completely disagree with you. Star Wars has always pushed the envelope in terms of its visuals. Even the prequels, for all of their faults, managed to do that too.
So no, in terms of cinematic scope and innovation, you're wrong. Star Wars has definitely proven a landmark film series in that regard.
And as for the idea that people had unrealistic expectations going in, no. The prequels, maybe, but this Star Wars is a post-Episodes 1-3 installment. The bar was set quite low. Indeed, how much you liked it is really based on how much good will you're willing to give to it just by virtue of it not being a bad Star Wars film. Even people who liked it acknowledged it didn't really add anything to the franchise in its own right.
I mean, in terms of the sci-fi climate that was around when it was released (that was highlighted by movies like Zardoz) it was pretty innovative.
In terms of cinema, it's pretty standard Hollywood fare. The narrative of Star Wars follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth to a tee. There are influences of other filmmakers as well, (Kurosawa, John Ford, etc.) but it doesn't innovate in terms of cinematic techniques at all. Star Wars gained traction mainly on it's very digestible plot, and it's obvious cinema of attractions-esque spectacle. It wasn't a very innovative film, when you look at the history of cinema leading up to it. If you look at it from a genre nutshell, then perhaps. But cinema? No.
Ok, well to clarify, you'll notice I cropped out some of your statement, because its plot, I'll agree, is a rehash of Hidden Fortress (I'm pretty sure this is by Lucas' own admission, even) and the sequels weren't exactly groundbreaking in terms of plot either.
However, in terms of its visuals? No, I completely disagree with you. Star Wars has always pushed the envelope in terms of its visuals. Even the prequels, for all of their faults, managed to do that too.
So no, in terms of cinematic scope and innovation, you're wrong. Star Wars has definitely proven a landmark film series in that regard.
And as for the idea that people had unrealistic expectations going in, no. The prequels, maybe, but this Star Wars is a post-Episodes 1-3 installment. The bar was set quite low. Indeed, how much you liked it is really based on how much good will you're willing to give to it just by virtue of it not being a bad Star Wars film. Even people who liked it acknowledged it didn't really add anything to the franchise in its own right.
No, what I'm saying is quite correct, when you actually study cinema.
Visuals are not what defines cinematic scope (Enter the Void is a perfect example...), it's pushing the medium forward in some way. You admit that the prequels were visually impressive. Would you say that the prequels, by the same logic, provided innovation in terms of cinematic scope?
Take any of Yasujiro Ozu's movies, for example. Visually, do they provide the same spectacle as Star Wars? No. But in terms of cinematic scope, they blow the Star Wars series' out of the water. The techniques that Ozu employed actually drove the medium forward, something I don't really believe Star Wars did. Movies like Citizen Kane do this. Movies like The Searchers and Rear Window do this. Star Wars doesn't.
You say that expectations were dampened by the prequels. But the prequels actually heightened the expectations for this film, as this was supposed to be the one that supposedly rights the wrongs of the prequels. Hiring J.J. Abrams to direct, having Lawrence right the script again, all of these decisions were made to distance this sequel from the prequels. It being a sequel in and of itself causes it to be an entirely different entity. Many fans were expecting something on the same level, or even greater, than the originals. You can't really believe that the expectations for this movie were low, you must be playing devil's advocate here. The hype surrounding this movie was greater than Phantom Menace, because the expectation was that the filmmakers would not make the same mistakes as the prequels. The box office gross is indicative of this.
Avatar. Visually innovative? Yes. Pushed the medium forward? Nope.
Visuals are not what defines cinematic scope (Enter the Void is a perfect example...), it's pushing the medium forward in some way.
Are we talking about a medium that is not film? Exactly how did Star Wars not advance the medium?
The techniques that Ozu employed actually drove the medium forward, something I don't really believe Star Wars did. Movies like Citizen Kane do this. Movies like The Searchers and Rear Window do this. Star Wars doesn't.
Strange sentiment. Citizen Kane is so influential because Orson Wells was a pioneer of the use of visual effects to tell a story. He pushed the envelope. So did Star Wars.
You say that expectations were dampened by the prequels. But the prequels actually heightened the expectations for this film, as this was supposed to be the one that supposedly rights the wrongs of the prequels.
Again, a large part of the good will around this movie is the fact that it's not a bad movie, thereby making it better than any of the prequels.
Many fans were expecting something on the same level, or even greater, than the originals.
No they weren't. They were hoping for something good. That was the attitude going in. For the prequels, yes, something along the same level. For this, they wanted something that wasn't the prequels. Kind of like how the attitude for Batman Begins was, "Hoping for something better than Joel Schumacher."
I'll respond to your arguments when you respond to my question regarding your logic in relation to the prequel movies.
I'm not biting until then.
You'll have to first define what, precisely, "pushing the medium forward" means.
Because if you're talking about advancing cinema, then yes, I absolutely believe the original trilogy counts. I challenge you to find a reason it doesn't.
As for the prequels... Well, I think they represented an advancement in CGI, and I think an advancement in technology is an advancement in the medium. But in terms of visual storytelling? Pretty unambiguously they were a move backwards from the original trilogy.
I mean, in terms of the sci-fi climate that was around when it was released (that was highlighted by movies like Zardoz) it was pretty innovative.
In terms of cinema, it's pretty standard Hollywood fare. The narrative of Star Wars follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth to a tee. There are influences of other filmmakers as well, (Kurosawa, John Ford, etc.) but it doesn't innovate in terms of cinematic techniques at all. Star Wars gained traction mainly on it's very digestible plot, and it's obvious cinema of attractions-esque spectacle. It wasn't a very innovative film, when you look at the history of cinema leading up to it. If you look at it from a genre nutshell, then perhaps. But cinema? No.
Ok, well to clarify, you'll notice I cropped out some of your statement, because its plot, I'll agree, is a rehash of Hidden Fortress (I'm pretty sure this is by Lucas' own admission, even) and the sequels weren't exactly groundbreaking in terms of plot either.
However, in terms of its visuals? No, I completely disagree with you. Star Wars has always pushed the envelope in terms of its visuals. Even the prequels, for all of their faults, managed to do that too.
So no, in terms of cinematic scope and innovation, you're wrong. Star Wars has definitely proven a landmark film series in that regard.
And as for the idea that people had unrealistic expectations going in, no. The prequels, maybe, but this Star Wars is a post-Episodes 1-3 installment. The bar was set quite low. Indeed, how much you liked it is really based on how much good will you're willing to give to it just by virtue of it not being a bad Star Wars film. Even people who liked it acknowledged it didn't really add anything to the franchise in its own right.
No, what I'm saying is quite correct, when you actually study cinema.
Visuals are not what defines cinematic scope (Enter the Void is a perfect example...), it's pushing the medium forward in some way. You admit that the prequels were visually impressive. Would you say that the prequels, by the same logic, provided innovation in terms of cinematic scope?
Take any of Yasujiro Ozu's movies, for example. Visually, do they provide the same spectacle as Star Wars? No. But in terms of cinematic scope, they blow the Star Wars series' out of the water. The techniques that Ozu employed actually drove the medium forward, something I don't really believe Star Wars did. Movies like Citizen Kane do this. Movies like The Searchers and Rear Window do this. Star Wars doesn't.
You say that expectations were dampened by the prequels. But the prequels actually heightened the expectations for this film, as this was supposed to be the one that supposedly rights the wrongs of the prequels. Hiring J.J. Abrams to direct, having Lawrence right the script again, all of these decisions were made to distance this sequel from the prequels. It being a sequel in and of itself causes it to be an entirely different entity. Many fans were expecting something on the same level, or even greater, than the originals. You can't really believe that the expectations for this movie were low, you must be playing devil's advocate here. The hype surrounding this movie was greater than Phantom Menace, because the expectation was that the filmmakers would not make the same mistakes as the prequels. The box office gross is indicative of this.
Avatar. Visually innovative? Yes. Pushed the medium forward? Nope.
Avatar wasn't that visually innovative.
A new hope (and empire, and Jedi) - to argue they didn't expand the scope of what could be done with a movie is laughable. A new hopes VFX were so far ahead of the game that they were inventing half the techniques they used. Half the films today couldn't exist without Star Wars paving the way for them. I'm pretty sure the first computer-controlled cameras were in ILM innovation on one of the films (Allowing you to replicate a shot with life size people and tiny miniatures and make it look like the same shot).
"Didn't advance the medium", applied to the OT, is an utter joke.
(The prequels were innovative but not as significantly and less mature; the really innovation in the early 2000s was at Weta, for LOTR).
All of you seem to be hung up on the notion that visual effects = pushing the medium forward. I do admit that it's definitely an aspect of pushing the medium forward, but definitely not the entire notion.
Take Citizen Kane, for example. Wonderful visual effects (the painted sets that are spliced with film negatives, for example), but that isn't the sole reason it's known as a defining film in cinema. Orson Welles employed multiple techniques that place it among the movies that truly pushed motion pictures forward (things like use of shadows/light, things like deep depth of field, etc.). Hell, Citizen Kane (among others) inspired a whole damn style and genre of filmmaking. (Film Noir)
How was Avatar not visually innovative? Are you trying to tell me that in 2009 you weren't wowed by the visuals? Devil's advocate at it's finest.
Star Wars, while providing wonderful visual spectacle, doesn't do many revolutionary things in terms of cinematographic techniques (things like Ozu's 360 degree system of editing, for example). It's pretty standard in that category. In terms of visuals, Star Wars was definitely impressive during it's day. But visuals do not make up the entirety of film. You need more than that to truly be revolutionary.
I'll admit my use of language wasn't entirely clear, and for that I do apologize. Star Wars did advance the medium in terms of visual effects, that's for certain. But in terms of film techniques, the meat of storytelling and filmmaking, it's pretty standard fare. Star Wars isn't a movie you walk away from and say, "Wow, George Lucas is a true auteur. Someone who changes the way we view films.". George Lucas isn't nearly on the same level as the other filmmakers I've mentioned (Ozu, Welles, Ford, Hitchcock), and there's a reason for that. What does Star Wars do that changes editing systems? Use of light and shadow? A revolution in use of sound? Any revolutionary filming technique (stuff like Soviet montage and Sergei Eisenstein)?
This isn't true. EVERY piece of Star Wars media, books and comics included, released beginning with A New Dawn is canon unless it's labelled Legends.
Current Star Wars Canon includes:
Star Wars Episodes 1-7
Star Wars The Clone Wars
Star Wars Rebels
The 2015 Marvel Comics: Star Wars, Darth Vader, Various Character Mini-series, etc
The Novels: A New Dawn, Tarkin, Heir to the Jedi, Lords of the Sith, Dark Disciple, Aftermath, Lost Stars, Battlefront: Twilight Company and various young readers. Basically, the films, Clone Wars, Rebels and everything released after September 1, 2015 (I think there was one short story released earlier).
But what that also means is that anything not explicitly stated in the films is no longer canon, so yes, people shouldn't be using the EU against this film.
How can something be worse as a sequel than as a stand alone?
Maybe you didn't like it, but the overwhelming majority of critics and audiences did. The issue I've found is that a lot of fans set their expectations way too high.
Everything Rey does in the film she does after Kylo Ren shows her how to do it. The movie also flat out shows that at least Obi-Wan's ghost is helping her, through that force vision she received. The movie HEAVILY hints at there being more to Rey than what we're explicitly told.
Re: Finn - So you've been raised by what you've realized is an evil organization. You fail to kill helpless people, and they're going to 'recondition' you. Everything Finn does makes sense in this context. He didn't become a pacifist, people, he simply didn't want to slaughter innocents. Why people expect that to make him a saint is beyond me.
As for Lightsabers, as the other random Stormtrooper shows, the Stormtroopers have all received melee combat training. But even then, Finn only manages to not die to the Stormtrooper; and later when fighting Kylo he only gets in a few lucky hits because A) Kylo was arrogantly toying with him and B) Kylo was already pretty severely injured by a blast from Chewie's Bowcaster that can flat out kill multiple stormtroopers at a time.
Re: Kylo Ren - I hate to break it to you, but Darth Vader was also always a scared little boy too. We're seeing Kylo Ren at the stage where Anakin would have been with the Emperor if Obi-Wan hadn't defeated him. He doesn't use the force because he's throwing a temper tantrum. We're seeing the first stages of Kylo's evolution in to a true Vader-like villain in this film.
Re: Story Flow - This is the film franchise that only happened because the droid Luke's Uncle bought JUST HAPPENED to malfunction while the Jawas were still around. Hell, watch the CinemaSins for the first 6 movies. You're using nostalgia glasses, here. It's amazing how 'coincidences' are only brought up when someone didn't like the movie. Let's address these, shall we?
And before you go with the 'that's speculation' defense, remember that you're asserting most of these are plot holes. Except, they're only plot holes if there is no logical explanation for how they happened - the story not overtly explaining it is not a plot hole.
Now! For my actual discussion:
There were a few things that really bothered me. First, what Starkiller Base. Not the 'death starier' aspect of it, which was fine. My problem was the depiction of the New Republic being blown up. It felt largely meaningless, which is a problem when you consider how emotional the destruction of Alderaan, which we had not connection to, was handled in A New Hope.
Also, it drowns you a bit too much in nostalgia.
I also had a problem with Maz just happening to have Luke's original Lightsaber. Hopefully that's explained more later. I had a couple of other problems, but plot issues can largely be glossed over if the emotional resonance is there.
However, the cast was just so damn charming, they eclipse the original trilogy's cast (with the exception of Harrison Ford) already. Poe ("Who talks first? Do you I talk first? Do you talk first?") and BB-8 (Dat thumbs up) especially were just fantastic.
I didn't like the 'A New Hope Remix' aspect of the plot at first, but the more I think about it the more appropriate I think it was. The movie pretty heavily subverts the tropes of the original, and while the overall plot seems the same at first blush, the actual character motivation are completely different. Rey doesn't WANT to be a Jedi until she's forced to - and she doesn't even want to leave the planet we find her on. This is so starkly different from both Anakin and Luke that I'm surprised more people don't seem to catch on to the inversion of themes. Kylo Ren seems like Vader but is still struggling with his conscience, which makes him less intimidating but a bit more compelling. Finn is competent but way out of his league throughout the film, and his struggle with figuring out what the right thing even is made him one of the best of the new characters.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Hard Sci-fi is a sub genre, Star Wars is most definitely Sci-fi in the same way Flash Gordon (which heavily influenced Lucas) is. Does it have a ton of fantasy elements, hell yeah! That doesn't make it less Sci-fi though.
I think he is for sure Darth Plagueis. Here's a nice summary of the support for this idea.
Before you read anything else I say, please go check this out and read it well.
I think Rey is literally the Force. Well, not quite that. She is an avatar of the Force...the Force awoken (The Force Awakens!! :eek:) in physical form. She's just not aware of it yet. This is why she's so good at using it. She basically is it. As in, she has no biological father OR biological mother. She just showed up.. Until we know her actual origin story and meet her parents, we don't know any better.
Follow me here.. Anakin was 'immaculately conceived' by the Force and had no biological father. This novel seems to suggest that Plagueis/Sidious either created Anakin using their Midichlorian experiments/rituals *or* the FORCE created Anakin in response to those experiments/rituals.
====
From Anakin Skywalker Wookipedia article:
"In addition, although Darth Plagueis did attempt to influence the midichlorians to create the ultimate Sith weapon alongside Darth Sidious, the experiment was ultimately a failure, and the midichlorians, sensing the Sith's inherent malevolent intention, not only refused to do so, but in retaliation, conceived Anakin Skywalker in order to destroy the Sith once and for all."
====
Regardless of which is correct, in either case, his appearance was a catalyst to galaxy-wide chaos and imbalance which we are still working through 60 years later..
What if Rey is the Force's NEW attempt to manifest and stand up to Plagueis (the guy ultimately trying to do 'unnatural' things with the Force all this time) and rectify this imbalance and restore balance once and for all. (Or maybe, like Anakin, Rey appears in response to some other unnatural thing Plagueis did, but it hasn't been revealed yet, like cheating death for instance...
There's certainly more mundane explanations such as being a secret Skywalker kid we didn't know about but I think mine is a lot more epic and really ties the lore from ALL the episodes together a bit better. I just think Abrams would like to thread that needle if at all possible. You can't just throw out half the story completely out.
Still.. I can't get away from that title though. The Force Awakens. If I'm right, this will be the biggest easter egg in history.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
Also, Spoiler Response:
As for the other thing:
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
"Is it black? Dies to Doom Blade."
Thanks for the links interesting read. My buddy who is a HUGE Star Wars nerd thought the same thing on the drive after the movie, regarding Snoke.
In terms of the movie, I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's not a perfect film by any means, but it's definitely a solid Hollywood action/sci-fi film. I have a couple of gripes about the movie, however:
J.J. Abrams has commented that the lack of last names for the two main characters was intentional. To be honest, I find this a little convoluted. Why do all of these main characters need to be related to the original characters? Is Rey going to be a Skywalker/Kenobi? Is Finn the son of Lando or Mace Windu? Kind of stupid if you ask me.
Because of the ultra-quick pacing, I feel like the death of Han Solo lacked the emotional depth it could have had. A funeral scene near the end of the film would have remedied this problem.
Besides these very minor issues, the film was very solid. Everything I would have expected from a Star Wars movie. The problem is, I think a lot of fans expected way too much from this movie. Star Wars has never been a franchise to push the envelope in terms of cinematic scope or revolutionary ideas. It's always been a fun sci-fi Hollywood franchise. Nothing more.
The original Star Wars movies are good films, but they aren't among the greatest films of all time. I think a lot of fans fail to realize the purpose of Star Wars. It only became a cultural phenomenon through other materials (books, video games, etc..), and fans coveting the films. The Force Awakens follows that trend, it's a solid piece of science fiction but not anything that will change the face of cinema forever. It's better than something like Avatar, but never reaches the depth of something like Blade Runner, for example.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-questions/
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
That's kind of how I feel about the whole thing. It's a movie that's not horrible, but is completely forgettable.
The cast is fine. Daisy Ridley is a discovery. She's got like no acting credits and she's so compelling.
I didn't care for Finn. Finn has a character background that is vastly different from a normal person from our world. Yet he speaks and behaves like a normal person from our world. Like, if I wanted to create a comedy Youtube video of a normal guy being thrown into Star Wars situations and how that person would react, Finn would pretty much be it most of the movie.
Kylo Ren... I mean, better luck next film is all I can say. First of all, it's quite clear he's not Darth Vader. And this is the point. There's a lot going on with Kylo Ren. But that's pretty much all the film has to say. There's a lot going on with Kylo Ren... Which will be great when we get to that in the next movie. Yeah, alright, fine.
The real problem with the movie is that very few of the scenes really had impact. Really the only ones that did were with the characters from the original series, and most of that impact is borrowed from how epic the first saga was, and how attached to them we are because of it. But that's borrowed. There's little in itself this film actually adds or creates that's noteworthy.
One thing that I thought was interesting: there's a lot of blood and burns in this movie. For those who were worried about Star Wars getting the Disney treatment, quite the opposite. Not the most violent Star Wars, but I don't remember this much actual blood in the other six films.
Very well stated! My thoughts exactly!
I give it three out of four swabs. Exhilarating movie worthy of the iconic franchise we all put on a pedestal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The series will take time to find it's own way, but I think having a female lead is going to help break a better path as compared to the other two. Luke was awesome, Vader was an excellent character. Anakin in the movies sucked, Anakin in the Clone Wars animated series was a much better character. I feel had "that Anakin" been "the" Anakin in the movies, we would have seen a lot better going on. Toshaka should have been in the Second and Third Film, and would have given Anakin the necessary emotion outside of the bad romance. Although, going from what I understand what Lucas wanted to do he was better off going for a 5 film series than 3.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
It's interesting nonetheless.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I thought they canonized most of the games.
In the new canon, they are not. Everything prior to April 2014 is no longer canon, essentially, outside of the Clone Wars and the six Films. Only media released since that time is canon, with the exception of I believe a single short story in the star wars magazine. I've read all of the new stuff (books and comics, although not the youth books) and the only old EU stuff to carry over is some world-building, like the existence of Black Sun and various planets.
I mean, it doesn't matter that much because the whole point is they take place so long before it doesn't affect any of the films at all. Unlike everything post-RotJ from the old EU, there is nothing that directly contradicts it.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm speaking English, aren't I?
I mean, in terms of the sci-fi climate that was around when it was released (that was highlighted by movies like Zardoz) it was pretty innovative.
In terms of cinema, it's pretty standard Hollywood fare. The narrative of Star Wars follows Joseph Campbell's monomyth to a tee. There are influences of other filmmakers as well, (Kurosawa, John Ford, etc.) but it doesn't innovate in terms of cinematic techniques at all. Star Wars gained traction mainly on it's very digestible plot, and it's obvious cinema of attractions-esque spectacle. It wasn't a very innovative film, when you look at the history of cinema leading up to it. If you look at it from a genre nutshell, then perhaps. But cinema? No.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
Ok, well to clarify, you'll notice I cropped out some of your statement, because its plot, I'll agree, is a rehash of Hidden Fortress (I'm pretty sure this is by Lucas' own admission, even) and the sequels weren't exactly groundbreaking in terms of plot either.
However, in terms of its visuals? No, I completely disagree with you. Star Wars has always pushed the envelope in terms of its visuals. Even the prequels, for all of their faults, managed to do that too.
So no, in terms of cinematic scope and innovation, you're wrong. Star Wars has definitely proven a landmark film series in that regard.
And as for the idea that people had unrealistic expectations going in, no. The prequels, maybe, but this Star Wars is a post-Episodes 1-3 installment. The bar was set quite low. Indeed, how much you liked it is really based on how much good will you're willing to give to it just by virtue of it not being a bad Star Wars film. Even people who liked it acknowledged it didn't really add anything to the franchise in its own right.
No, what I'm saying is quite correct, when you actually study cinema.
Visuals are not what defines cinematic scope (Enter the Void is a perfect example...), it's pushing the medium forward in some way. You admit that the prequels were visually impressive. Would you say that the prequels, by the same logic, provided innovation in terms of cinematic scope?
Take any of Yasujiro Ozu's movies, for example. Visually, do they provide the same spectacle as Star Wars? No. But in terms of cinematic scope, they blow the Star Wars series' out of the water. The techniques that Ozu employed actually drove the medium forward, something I don't really believe Star Wars did. Movies like Citizen Kane do this. Movies like The Searchers and Rear Window do this. Star Wars doesn't.
You say that expectations were dampened by the prequels. But the prequels actually heightened the expectations for this film, as this was supposed to be the one that supposedly rights the wrongs of the prequels. Hiring J.J. Abrams to direct, having Lawrence right the script again, all of these decisions were made to distance this sequel from the prequels. It being a sequel in and of itself causes it to be an entirely different entity. Many fans were expecting something on the same level, or even greater, than the originals. You can't really believe that the expectations for this movie were low, you must be playing devil's advocate here. The hype surrounding this movie was greater than Phantom Menace, because the expectation was that the filmmakers would not make the same mistakes as the prequels. The box office gross is indicative of this.
Avatar. Visually innovative? Yes. Pushed the medium forward? Nope.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
Strange sentiment. Citizen Kane is so influential because Orson Wells was a pioneer of the use of visual effects to tell a story. He pushed the envelope. So did Star Wars.
Again, a large part of the good will around this movie is the fact that it's not a bad movie, thereby making it better than any of the prequels.
No they weren't. They were hoping for something good. That was the attitude going in. For the prequels, yes, something along the same level. For this, they wanted something that wasn't the prequels. Kind of like how the attitude for Batman Begins was, "Hoping for something better than Joel Schumacher."
I'm not biting until then.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
Because if you're talking about advancing cinema, then yes, I absolutely believe the original trilogy counts. I challenge you to find a reason it doesn't.
As for the prequels... Well, I think they represented an advancement in CGI, and I think an advancement in technology is an advancement in the medium. But in terms of visual storytelling? Pretty unambiguously they were a move backwards from the original trilogy.
Avatar wasn't that visually innovative.
A new hope (and empire, and Jedi) - to argue they didn't expand the scope of what could be done with a movie is laughable. A new hopes VFX were so far ahead of the game that they were inventing half the techniques they used. Half the films today couldn't exist without Star Wars paving the way for them. I'm pretty sure the first computer-controlled cameras were in ILM innovation on one of the films (Allowing you to replicate a shot with life size people and tiny miniatures and make it look like the same shot).
"Didn't advance the medium", applied to the OT, is an utter joke.
(The prequels were innovative but not as significantly and less mature; the really innovation in the early 2000s was at Weta, for LOTR).
Take Citizen Kane, for example. Wonderful visual effects (the painted sets that are spliced with film negatives, for example), but that isn't the sole reason it's known as a defining film in cinema. Orson Welles employed multiple techniques that place it among the movies that truly pushed motion pictures forward (things like use of shadows/light, things like deep depth of field, etc.). Hell, Citizen Kane (among others) inspired a whole damn style and genre of filmmaking. (Film Noir)
How was Avatar not visually innovative? Are you trying to tell me that in 2009 you weren't wowed by the visuals? Devil's advocate at it's finest.
Star Wars, while providing wonderful visual spectacle, doesn't do many revolutionary things in terms of cinematographic techniques (things like Ozu's 360 degree system of editing, for example). It's pretty standard in that category. In terms of visuals, Star Wars was definitely impressive during it's day. But visuals do not make up the entirety of film. You need more than that to truly be revolutionary.
I'll admit my use of language wasn't entirely clear, and for that I do apologize. Star Wars did advance the medium in terms of visual effects, that's for certain. But in terms of film techniques, the meat of storytelling and filmmaking, it's pretty standard fare. Star Wars isn't a movie you walk away from and say, "Wow, George Lucas is a true auteur. Someone who changes the way we view films.". George Lucas isn't nearly on the same level as the other filmmakers I've mentioned (Ozu, Welles, Ford, Hitchcock), and there's a reason for that. What does Star Wars do that changes editing systems? Use of light and shadow? A revolution in use of sound? Any revolutionary filming technique (stuff like Soviet montage and Sergei Eisenstein)?
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem