Am I REALLY the only one disappointed with TFA?

@R.P. Dude I think you completely mis understood what I said. The first trilogy really counts. It is what started it all. It's like your saying the American Revolution didn't count because of the War of 1812. The OT got the ball rolling but that doesn't mean that the battle was completely done.

I completely understood. You said, " The USA brought down Hussein and now the Taliban has taken his place." A new baddie replaces the last. So, it really didn't matter. In fact, most experts agree the situation is worse. Can the same be argued for TFA? Everyone seems worse off. So, would they have been better off if the events of the OT never happened? TFA diminishes/nullifies the OT.

The War of 1812! Trade disputes! The PT! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Look, no one is changing anyone else's mind. For me, it boils down to two simple items that left me disappointed with the TFA:

1) As virtually every professional review (positive and negative) has noted, it is awfully similar to the OT, ANH especially. Some feel that was necessary, others don't. I would have preferred a more creative approach.

2) I see no tangible effect from the adventures of the OT and the heroes that built this franchise. Others respond with "real world" and "history repeats itself." Great. I would have liked to see some acknowledgment that the OT mattered. "Got the ball rolling"? If so, it's right back where it started. I see no tangible results from the trilogy that "got the ball rolling." Everything is virtually as it was so that ball needs to get rolling again. And again. And again.

For me, TFA is a solid B+ but I was hoping for an A+. I was entertained. I'm so glad Star Wars is back but I also expected more. That I was able to give it such a high grade while being disappointed is a testament to my love of the franchise.

I totally understand why people love it. There's a lot to praise. However, I'm baffled that so many (not everyone) can't acknowledge that there are reasonable flaws as well.
 
... I would have liked to see some acknowledgment that the OT mattered. "Got the ball rolling"? If so, it's right back where it started. I see no tangible results from the trilogy that "got the ball rolling

I agree. They could have gone a bit deeper into explaining things. I think they attempted to do that with the opening crawl. :)

The movie DEF has its flaws but I simply glaze over them. I have to look at it knowing "... you'll never make everybody happy all the time...". I sat back and enjoyed the movie. It brought back those same feelings from when I was kid and I am really looking forward to EP VIII. :)
 
@R.P. and Sofa I agree 100% that TFA wasn't all that I hoped for. I also agree that it was entertaining. I think that we have had some really good discussion today and all of has have brought some very solid points to elaborate or points. As R.P. said we will just have to agree to disagree.
The Wook, I have never seen anyone change Bryancd's mind except himself. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I completely understood. You said, " The USA brought down Hussein and now the Taliban has taken his place." A new baddie replaces the last. So, it really didn't matter. In fact, most experts agree the situation is worse. Can the same be argued for TFA? Everyone seems worse off. So, would they have been better off if the events of the OT never happened? TFA diminishes/nullifies the OT.

The War of 1812! Trade disputes! The PT! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Look, no one is changing anyone else's mind. For me, it boils down to two simple items that left me disappointed with the TFA:

1) As virtually every professional review (positive and negative) has noted, it is awfully similar to the OT, ANH especially. Some feel that was necessary, others don't. I would have preferred a more creative approach.

2) I see no tangible effect from the adventures of the OT and the heroes that built this franchise. Others respond with "real world" and "history repeats itself." Great. I would have liked to see some acknowledgment that the OT mattered. "Got the ball rolling"? If so, it's right back where it started. I see no tangible results from the trilogy that "got the ball rolling." Everything is virtually as it was so that ball needs to get rolling again. And again. And again.

For me, TFA is a solid B+ but I was hoping for an A+. I was entertained. I'm so glad Star Wars is back but I also expected more. That I was able to give it such a high grade while being disappointed is a testament to my love of the franchise.

I totally understand why people love it. There's a lot to praise. However, I'm baffled that so many (not everyone) can't acknowledge that there are reasonable flaws as well.

Check out the Wookiepedia entry on the Galactic Concordance.

The short version is that the Alliance did win after Endor. Actually, about a year after Endor specifically, when they defeated the Empire at the Battle of Jakku (Rey's planet), after which the Concordance is signed. It basically acts as a cease-fire between the belligerents, requiring the Empire to stop expanding and stay on its side of the border, so to speak, as well as relinquish claims on Coruscant. Around this time, a bunch of Imperial ships jumped out to the unknown regions, where they later banded together to form the First Order.

But, the important takeaway: there were just shy of 30 years of peace thereafter, which is a big part of why most of the Republic was demilitarized. But you had 30 years where folks though "Wow! We won!"

It wasn't "all for naught," but it's not as if the OT heroes had zero effect on the galaxy. They did win, they did manage to secure peace and true representative government for at least a decent portion of the galaxy, and they defeated most of the Empire. The heroes themselves...yeah, they ended up with darker stories than I'd have expected. But, again, I think it goes to propel the conflict moving forward.



Another way to look at this is to consider the scope of history itself. I don't mean in the "history repeats itself" sense, I mean in terms of history being a long series of wars followed by peace followed by wars followed by peace. Pick any point in human history in any culture, and then fast-forward about, oh, anywhere from 30-60 years, and you'll find that most cultures have gone through some kind of war(s) or hardships.


Now, if you want to criticize that the new films lost the sort of "Fairy tale" quality of the old ones...yeah, I'll give you that. But that was bound to happen simply because fairy tales end with "And they all lived happily ever after." The story is done with. It doesn't continue. You close the book and go to bed. Lights out. Once you answer the question of "And then what happened," either the story becomes boring, or the story turns tragic. So, you either have to create entirely new characters, or you ruin the lives of the old ones.

You see this in the "Game of Thrones" stories, where the history of the fictional universe is littered with periods where such and such king reigned peacefully and prosperously for umpteen years, until he died and was succeeded by his lunatic/incompetent/corrupt/brutal son who plunged the realm into war once again or whathaveyou, until THAT guy was overthrown or died and a new king showed up to rule and put the realm to peace once again...until HE died and things turned to crap again. It's just kind of the waxing and waning of fictional worlds, if they're allowed to continue, if they don't end with "happily ever after."


--EDIT--

One point to be clear: I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong, or that your response to the film is invalid. I get the disappointment. For me, watching Han Solo die had that effect. Mostly because it sort of represented the death of my childhood in a way. I could look past it because I liked the rest of the film, but it stung. As I knew it would, as I had always suspected when they announced that the OT heroes would be in this one.

All I'm trying to do is offer...I dunno...some kind of mental jungle-gym on which you can do whatever kind of mental acrobatics are necessary to get yourself to a place where maybe the disappointment is at least muted, if not eliminated altogether.
 
I've said in many-a-post that a line or two in the crawl or a few sentences of exposition could have alleviated this criticism for me. I love research but it's a poor executive decision if I've got to go to Wookiepedia to get what I consider to be valuable information!
 
for all of us that were there for the original releases there can only be a (once) first ever see it!! after that...well all else that follows can never live up to the first ever exposure of something brand new. be it technology or just characters in a movie. All other installments will always feel a bit lacking because its all been done now. same story just different town...that's what sucks the most for me( nothing brand new) STAR WARS back on the big screen...priceless
 
That's similar to what I've been saying. I've had so many people ask me if I thought it was better than the originals. I realized when I left the theater after my first viewing that if you're looking for that high that you got from the OT as a kid, well... you better turn to heroin because you won't find it in the cinema. I really enjoyed TFA, but I realized that nothing will ever match that moment in my childhood when I first saw Star Wars. That's why I was so much happier the second time I left the theater. I had to ground myself back in reality and stop hoping TFA would somehow blow me away more than the first time I saw ANH.
 
i may be late to this but has anyone else seen the articles where JJ is explaining why chewie doesn't hug leia when bringing rey and finn back to the base? pretty much what we all thought, he was trying to get finn help and walked right by her
 
i may be late to this but has anyone else seen the articles where JJ is explaining why chewie doesn't hug leia when bringing rey and finn back to the base? pretty much what we all thought, he was trying to get finn help and walked right by her

JJ can make up anything he wants after the fact, now that so many people are pissed about this egregious omission. This ******** excuse JJ has come up with retroactively is not true, and even if it was, it's a totally lame reason to have Leia snub Han's best friend of 50 years after Han's been murdered--to instead console someone she's never even fracking met!

The Wook

ps~Not yellin' at you, halliwax, you're just the messenger, I know.
Just reacting to the absurdity of this fabrication. Why can't anyone in the public eye ever admit to making a mistake? Sheesh!
 
Last edited:
That's similar to what I've been saying. I've had so many people ask me if I thought it was better than the originals. I realized when I left the theater after my first viewing that if you're looking for that high that you got from the OT as a kid, well... you better turn to heroin because you won't find it in the cinema. I really enjoyed TFA, but I realized that nothing will ever match that moment in my childhood when I first saw Star Wars. That's why I was so much happier the second time I left the theater. I had to ground myself back in reality and stop hoping TFA would somehow blow me away more than the first time I saw ANH.

Um, were you marooned on a desert island from 1999-2005?


Most of the public had their expectations for the next SW movies a good bit lower after the prequels.
 
Um, were you marooned on a desert island from 1999-2005?

Most of the public had their expectations for the next SW movies a good bit lower after the prequels.

That is true, batguy. But I think what @joshvanrad is alluding to is that many people rejoiced when George handed over the reigns to Disney, and were imbued with a new hope, if you'll pardon the pun, now that a man (JJ Abrams) who saw the OT as a kid like us, and who promised us an OT vibe, look, and feel--with simpler storytelling, practical makeup, models, and sets--would be at the helm directing the first film.

I myself was optimistic, for all the aforementioned reasons. But cautiously optimistic. Sadly, my caution was warranted, as the film was a colossal letdown.

The Wook
 
i may be late to this but has anyone else seen the articles where JJ is explaining why chewie doesn't hug leia when bringing rey and finn back to the base? pretty much what we all thought, he was trying to get finn help and walked right by her


Is that why after Rey and Leia hugged he's still shown outside amongst the cheering crowd?

Or better yet, what about JJ's reasoning why Rey and Leia hug in the first place?

"The idea being that both of them being strong with the Force and never having met, would know about each other - that Leia would have been told about her beyond what we saw onscreen and Rey of course would have learned about Leia. And that reunion would be a meeting and a reunion all in one, and a sort of commiseration of their mutual loss."​
I hate it when directors take things for granted like this. He's basically telling us that the important parts about Leia and Rey learning about each other was done 'off screen' and that their first encounter was because of their connection with the Force. Really? I had no idea that's what was happening. Thinking back on it now, I still see no reason why that should be the case at all. Having Han/Leia's theme be played out in a sad tone didn't help either, nor did having Leia just standing there out in the open clear as day and Rey just walks up to her.

And it's not like the setting couldn't have been used to better convey their connection with one another. Why not have them be in the cheering crowd, feel something is wrong, move through the crowd as though they're trying to find something and boom. You just conveyed that they found each other through their connection with the Force.
 
Is that why after Rey and Leia hugged he's still shown outside amongst the cheering crowd?

Or better yet, what about JJ's reasoning why Rey and Leia hug in the first place?

"The idea being that both of them being strong with the Force and never having met, would know about each other - that Leia would have been told about her beyond what we saw onscreen and Rey of course would have learned about Leia. And that reunion would be a meeting and a reunion all in one, and a sort of commiseration of their mutual loss."​

I hate it when directors take things for granted like this. He's basically telling us that the important parts about Leia and Rey learning about each other was done 'off screen' and that their first encounter was because of their connection with the Force. Really? I had no idea that's what was happening. Thinking back on it now, I still see no reason why that should be the case at all. Having Han/Leia's theme be played out in a sad tone didn't help either, nor did having Leia just standing there out in the open clear as day and Rey just walks up to her.

And it's not like the setting couldn't have been used to better convey their connection with one another. Why not have them be in the cheering crowd, feel something is wrong, move through the crowd as though they're trying to find something and boom. You just conveyed that they found each other through their connection with the Force.

That's likely Kasdan. He is a big proponent of story telling brevity. When in doubt, assume the audience is smart enough to figure it out. The scene to me seemed very natural, we've discussed this at length before. But some took issue with it, which I understand but I do take JJ at face value when he says having Chewie and Leia in frame at the same time was a mistake.
 
Maybe there was a scene with Rey and Leia that was ultimately deleted / dropped from the final cut? We all know that in many cases some scenes are dropped due to the pace of the film. Rumor has it there was a lot of Leia cut from the final film. There was a Pep Talk she gave to the resistance just after the Starkiller Base destroyed the Galactic Senate at Hosnian Prime and four other planets.

While I really enjoyed the unspoken silence and tender moment they both shared, it did leave me with a "... wait... you can't do that to us?" But they did. ;) And I would rather they NOT spoon feed me the specifics. Make us think!
 
Um, were you marooned on a desert island from 1999-2005?


Most of the public had their expectations for the next SW movies a good bit lower after the prequels.

After being promised that I would be given a film that would help me forget the prequels touched me in bad places I put TFA on a huge pedestal and expected a new level of greatness. What I got was a pretty good movie, but a potentially great bridge-film. It just took me a second viewing to appreciate TFA for what it was and bring my expectations down a little bit.
 
After being promised that I would be given a film that would help me forget the prequels touched me in bad places I put TFA on a huge pedestal and expected a new level of greatness. What I got was a pretty good movie, but a potentially great bridge-film. It just took me a second viewing to appreciate TFA for what it was and bring my expectations down a little bit.

I learned a long while ago not to approach ANY movie with high expectations. Just go and have fun. Nothing more. I was actually VERY nervous going into TFA. But that nervousness quickly faded away. :)
 
I've said in many-a-post that a line or two in the crawl or a few sentences of exposition could have alleviated this criticism for me. I love research but it's a poor executive decision if I've got to go to Wookiepedia to get what I consider to be valuable information!

Oh, yeah, I don't disagree. As I said, I think it's a failing of the film to rely on external information. JJ's first Star Trek outing had...hell, I don't remember anymore what it was exactly, but some kind of flaw in the film narrative that was apparently explained in the comic book that preceded the film. To me, that's a crappy excuse for basically just having made a mistake in the storytelling.

All I'm trying to do is to provide, you know, some kind of lifeline to at least make what's there a bit more palatable and sting a bit less. I'm not trying to say "No, no, you're wrong because the Visual Dictionary says..." You're not wrong. It's a flaw in the film. It's just a flaw that maybe the information can...I dunno...mitigate to some degree after the fact. At least in terms of any damage to your overall enjoyment of the OT.

That's likely Kasdan. He is a big proponent of story telling brevity. When in doubt, assume the audience is smart enough to figure it out. The scene to me seemed very natural, we've discussed this at length before. But some took issue with it, which I understand but I do take JJ at face value when he says having Chewie and Leia in frame at the same time was a mistake.

Yeah, I think it's a tough balancing act. If you do too much exposition, (A) your film drags on, and (B) it often feels unnatural within the narrative itself. The audience needs the information, but just having a character do an exposition info-dump is weak writing usually and comes across very awkwardly. I think the best balance is to show rather than tell, but sometimes one person's version of "showing" is unclear to another, and editing can further alter that. What might be clear from stage directions/descriptions in the screenplay may not come through after it's been filtered through the editing room.
 
Back
Top