About the only thing i'd have sided with a plot hole on, would be things that were described in previous novels. You simply can't expect an audience to read a book, let alone 3-4 to get what they're missing. Add a paragraph to the scrawl, maybe? I don't know...leaving out that the republic signed a treaty with the Empire/FO, then began to disarm and moved their capital to another system, and the resistance is the group who is keeping an eye on the FO is the kinda thing you ought to know. At least IMO. All could've been covered in the scrawl or a few lines. That said, i can live with having to look it up and it didn't ruin anything for me either. They're questions i wanted to know the answers to afterwards, but didn't affect my enjoyment at all.
Anything else is subject to being withheld for a reason - like explaining in 8 or 9 and KNOWING that this isn't a one film deal and that it is 1 of 3 you HAVE to allow for that.
I don't see that as a plot hole, per se. But it is an unfortunate omission.
My crack at a paragraph for the opening scrawl. Original bits are in bold:
Episode VII
THE FORCE AWAKENS
Luke Skywalker has vanished.
In his absence, the sinister
FIRST ORDER has risen from
the ashes of the Empire
and will not rest until
Skywalker, the last Jedi,
has been destroyed.
Fearful and unwilling to
violate a peace treaty
signed after its victory
at Endor, the REPUBLIC
refuses to fight the Order.
But with the support of
sympathetic Senators,
Rebel veterans, and
brave new warriors,
General Leia Organa
leads a fierce RESISTANCE.
She is desperate to find her
brother Luke and gain his
help in restoring peace
and justice to the galaxy.
Leia has sent her most daring
pilot on a secret mission
to Jakku, where an old ally
has discovered a clue
to Luke’s whereabouts…
Bam. Tells you everything you need to know about the state of galactic affairs, why the Republic isn't fighting, and who the Resistance is in relation to it. The board lacks a "Justified Text" feature, or I'd make the words "fit" better.
It's definitely longer, but you could scroll it a little faster and get the job done.
There was heaps,yes. It's a great example of cgi done right apart from a couple of shots I didn't feel were right. It was a great mix with the practical sets and props too. It was pretty easy to spot all those shots mentioned though. Some things in the movie just could not be done without cgi. The practical sets were what I liked best though. Next to the digital Falcon. Damn that was pretty and should set the new standard.
Ben
Exactly. To me, this is another example of CGI done
properly. The issue isn't "CGI = always bad." The issue is "CGI = often poorly done and unnecessary."
It might have been possible, but I have a tough time imagining how they'd do a convincing CGI of a planet
imploding. Likewise, some of the Falcon's actions like bouncing off the surface of a planet, that'd be tough to do with a model without damaging the model. It makes more sense to say "The Falcon had its shields up, so it could survive some minor hits" or whatever, but still. Good CGI is good. Bad CGI is bad. Overused CGI is probably not good.
I'm a big defender of cgi but one thing I will say is that explosions, bullet shots and fire should always be done practically
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
Sometimes. Like I said above, some fire effects are probably difficult to do effectively.
Frankly, I didn't miss the 20th Century logo at all and i felt i'd miss it to some degree. I loved their resolution to it as well. Nothing. Previews to theatre junk to LFL logo. Perfect. Disney wasn't mentioned until the very last line of the credits. Just like a Marvel flick.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I never expected the Disney castle logo to pop up anywhere in the film.
Well it was more in regards to a previously quoted thing by Wook with stating TFA would be lucky to pass Avatar, among other beat downs in other aspects of the movie.
It was my fault turning that into a plural accusation.
Word of mouth is what's keeping people coming and going back again.
I'm wondering if the big investment into that Avatar land will even last long term. I guess we'll see how strong the sequel does, but I have a gut feeling it won't do nearly as well in numbers unless it has something truly amazing to offer.
Re: Avatar sequels, I have to be honest here. I think they'll do...ok, because they'll be visually spectacular blockbusters, but it's also worth considering that (A) it got most of its word of mouth from the AH-MAZING technology which has now been rendered kind of old hat, (B) the story was dull and the acting wasn't great, and (C) it didn't have a ton of other marquee-level sci-fi competition.
But it sure does now...
This something people like "The Wook" who posts here never seem to get. This pic speaks louder than any of us could!
Well, I get some of the critiques of the whole "Star Wars is for kids" thing. I mean, yeah, it's for kids. But the original two films weren't
only for kids. The new film clearly is not only for kids, either, which is a big part of why I like it. To me, the real problem is that "for kids" usually means "not really treated that seriously." People use the excuse "Well, it's for kids" to justify poor storytelling (not only with aspects of Star Wars, but in all storytelling). The most annoying kids' TV and movies are really just poorly told stories, in my opinion. You can take subject matter that is accessible to kids, but still treat it seriously and attempt to tell a solid story with it.
Compare, for example, something like the Clone Wars cartoon or Rebels, to something like, say, Power Rangers. All are
clearly for kids. There's a certain breadth and straight-forwardness in the voice acting and the plot structures, but the Filioni productions don't stray into what I would call "childish" territory. Certainly they don't stray to the degree of something like Power Rangers, which is basically like monster-fighting pantomime and silliness.
Also, none of this is to suggest that there's anything wrong with stuff that's "childish" when it's purposely designed to appeal
only to children. I don't expect Dora the Explorer to be a grounded, realistic portrayal of a problem-solving international explorer.
But Star Wars -- at least originally -- was more broadly accessible. And, to me, that's the ultimate strength of it and all great tales of fantasy. They remain broadly accessible to children and adults alike because they are well-told stories.
All that said, I totally can't wait to give my daughter a plush wookiee (assuming I can find a good one).
