Agree: JJ took inspiration for Rey scavenger from Nausicaa.

And yeah EPVII could have been a way better movie but the fan service is is due to the a distrust the fanbase had/has towards the prequels, they, beyond the restrictions JJ had to deal with, tried to play it safe, imho

Isn't that basically the same thing?

WUT?! Nausicaa was a princess, trained in combat, educated in sciences, decorated war hero and had tonns of resarch on toxic forest BEFORE the story begins. All her talents not only were explained by her background, but were already used by her. And with all that awesomeness, she still had challenges to overcome and flaws that made her fail a few times.

I'm a bit more kind to RoTS -- although would never argue it's an objectively great movie -- but agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts on TFA. That first half-hour on the desert planet with Rey felt like Abrams -- although borrowing liberally -- might actually understand Star Wars... but then the "story" started and "no"... his ability as a flashy plate spinner moreso than a storyteller shone through (I still can't believe Kasdan -- a GREAT writer in his prime -- was behind this mess). Many said "t's just a retelling of A New Hope," but it's more like a Frankenstein's Monster mash-up of A New Hope and Empire where unneeded mystery boxes are added, scenes just kinda happen without a narrative thrust, and clunky nostalgia is king. I love Han Solo -- he's by far my favorite character in Star Wars -- but Ford seemed disinterested, his death scene lacked any real emotion in writing and staging, and I came away wishing they'd just left Han and co. out of the new series altogether. I guess kids went crazy for The Yoda stand-in Maz Kanata?

Well, I'd argue the motivation behind the creation of a Mary Sue isn't really important -- it's as often to be born out of a lack of experience as purposeful goal. But from what I've heard and read, it was Kennedy's idea to create the "perfect female warrior" to battle the Emperor... and in doing so she in fact created a person so perfect that a large number of the audience couldn't identify or connect with her character. What's so dismaying is it really wouldn't have been too hard to make Rey relatable and "real."

1) Doesn't matter how it affects if one doesn't care. Your assumption is that there is one universal standard which everybody should follow (and that you know it) - premise which is difficult to prove as true, and I don't see why should anybody care about it that even if it's objectively true.

2) I would agree A) if story objectively - i. e. by itself, wouldn't make sense. But it's individual like you or me who decides which story makes sense to him based on his perception distorted by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; B) there is universal standard which actually decides what makes sense or not, C) that standard would also consider it extremely important.

3) Then it's problem to you, and not to some other person. This isn't communism. Person which likes "bad movie" has zero objective reasons to care about those who love "good movies", regardless if there are any good or bad movies. Harsh, but "objective". You need feelings and passions for that, not objective facts.

4) Left-wing SJW ideology of Johnson and Kennedy is problem to you, but you are on opposite side of culture war. Do you truly expect me to take your statements as unbiased? For me, propaganda ("if" there is any) as you call it doesn't affect quality of art. I hate TFA regardless off the culture war; I don't take side in it since both sides are biased; neither side has anything to offer me; and I don't think "truth" is any factor in objective value of art, if it exists. You consider it a problem, but you have emotional interest in it. I don't.

You are right, it doesn't matter. It completely and utterly doesn't matter if there is objective truth, or if there are any logical connection. You can go on, I don't plan to argue any more.

I am not arguing the validity of your statement or wanting to get in the middle of this exchange between you both, but... I did want to add a story that illustrates what I think is an important aspect of this so-called "culture war"...

The other night I watched the movie Patton (great movie BTW). It was written by Francis For Coppola and Coppola provided a short introduction the film where he expressed that they made the script to appeal to both conservatives -- who saw Patton as a hero -- and liberals -- who saw him as an egoist, narcissist, bully, etc. There was conscious thought in crafting a complex film that could appeal to both "sides."

This thought process would be duplicated by Coppola in the re-writing and directing of John Milius' script Psychedlic Soldier (a self-professed Right WInger) as Apocalypse Now. Is it pro-war? Is it anti-war? You could write a thesis on either argument... and be "correct."

And yes... Lucas -- who was both friends and partners with both Coppola and Milius -- used the same ethic in his filmmaking.

As I see it, the difference is that recent filmmakers aren't seeing this kind of storytelling relevant.

Making a complex character it's usually what writers who want to make good stories do, mate:)

However, take into the account that life is much more complex than American two party system or Star Wars Light-Dark duality. And to me there's much greater problem than that meaningless duality, I have rarely seen complex art (games, shows, books, films) recently, that are willing to maturely deal with their chosen themes. It also seems to me like they don't have basic understanding of their craft. Luckily, this year was good for games, but still...

(sorry, originally misread your response)

Yes... but that seems not to be the case often when making thematic constructs instead of characters.

We're talking about Star Wars and the world-view within that sphere... not real life. What I think many people miss when experiencing entertainment is that the worlds of different entertainment are in fact different -- not every world is meant to replicate the grey experience of everyday life. I think that's plainly obvious with the difference between someting like the fantasy worlds of The Lord of the Rings and The Witcher. Both are epic fantasy with creatures, beasts, kings, magic... but very different ethics for the construction of their worlds.

Real life is grey because it's boring; not because of it's complexity.

I think it's is pointless to discuss moral complexity of the different world when it comes to art. You will be intrigued by its aesthetics, not ethical dilemmas. If it's a movie, you want convincing acting, well paced story, and interesting characters and visuals. You mentioned theme park characters, well the Original Trilogy had more thematic constructs rather than characters, but nobody cared about that because Star Wars was something new at the times, while acting and film-making was good/skilled.
I would argue ethical complexity can be interesting (GoT and the Witcher being the proof), but you will need good presentation to bait the public in the first place.

Does *every* story have to make sense from a logical standpoint? To me, it feels like making that requirement puts a restriction on one's creativity, and one could create interesting works by completely disregarding this rule, and writing a story that's intentionally inconsistent.

Just got back from seeing it, and while I'd say it was the weakest of the new movies, it (and the sequel trilogy as a whole) was miles ahead of the prequels.
One of my issues with it, however, is how it goes against a lot of the original trilogy, and even the new trilogy. I quite liked the direction 8 was going, and am sad they backtracked on that.
It would have been a great movie if it was standalone.

It was a fun little action adventure movie, and I'm glad I went and saw it in the cinema. The kids in the theatre I watched it applauded at a lot of climactic momenets- I'm a cynical old man, so of course, I didn't :D.

Hopefully now they'll be able to make new movies, without needing to shoehorn the plots to the classic characters' arcs.

I disagree.

Real life and real people are endllessly interesting and incredibly complex... but real life and people are chaotic by nature and therefore need to be "molded" into stories; stories are inherently interesting but intrinsically unnatural.

I think you have missed what I was trying to relate. Possibly I communicated it poorly. After including the rest of your reply, I'll try again...

Not every fantasy world is synonymous... nor should they be.

If I was tasked with writing a Star Wars movie, I would never get a grimdark draft through development. Why? Because it's not true to the core of what Star Wars is... for much the same reason the very, very end of the show GoT felt so strange... it didn't seem congruent with the world that had been created.

When you get a writing assignment for a tv show (and many movies in a series) there is almost always a Story Bible. This "bible" explains the world, characters, conflicts, and boundaries of storytelling within that world. It's a guide... and obviously would be quite different from show-to-show. As I said above... writing within the world of The Witcher would not be the same as writing within the world of The Lord of the Rings... or writing within the world of Star Wars. The Story Bible would guide storytelling within that world.

As part of my job, I oversaw the licensing of some of our characters to a production company that wanted to make a feature. It was my job to make certain the characters were respected, the older, established audience was satisfied by the depiction, and that new audiences could be brought into the fandom. It's a tough job -- trying to keep everyone happy while allowing for challenge -- but you must know your characters, the world they inhabit, storytelling, and the core of the property (what it "means"). They were constantly trying to put these characters in topical situations that were counter to the core of the property. It was a fight from beginning to end.

Prior to Disney (and Kennedy), Lucasfilm was very, very careful with their mainline property and what it meant. It was kept broad, "timeless," and mythic while topical experimentation was often incorporated into the EU, which Lucas himself called "alternate Universe 'Star Wars' stories."

Modern Lucasfilm -- under Kennedy -- doesn't know what Star Wars means and doesn't know how it differs from a Marvel property like Guardians of the Galaxy. Actually, I take that back... they may very well know the difference and in fact want to get rid of that difference for a more generic easily produced package of content.

Star Wars is about the duality...

The Light Side of The Force vs The Dark Side of the Force


No, stories are certainly allowed to be illogical...

... but...

... once you have set up that your story (or series) is based on a logical plot progression, you are "trapped" by audience expectations within that logical framework.

Ah, but everything is the same nowadays, at least to me! I blame aiming for the lowest common denominator.

Yes, you mentioned that there is essence of what makes some franchise that franchise. And I agree with you that Disney missed that however, I disagree wholeheartedly with you on following:

1. I believe Disney truly wanted to capture the essence of the SW, but they completely failed in doing it. They literally recycled concepts, themes, characters and two films (TNH and RotJ) .

2. TFA is equally timeless as Original Trilogy, it's also completely bland and shallow. It's soulless reanimated corpse of TNH.

3. I don't believe you (or anyone else, me included) can really "know" what the essence of SW is.

4. I don't believe the authors should follow this idea about the story bible, especially since different people have different ideas about what is consistent and what isn't. Furthermore, I think Disney trilogy is mostly consistent in story with previous films.

5. (Old) EU works were mostly (because there was a ton of them) trash as far as I have heard, but TIE Fighter and KotOR 2 completely blow every mainline SW movie out of the water. So total experimentation might be a good thing.

I also agree about the Marvel movie comment.

You can believe that, but I don't believe this at all. I believe Disney was using nostalgia to fill cinema seats, but they in fact hated almost every aspect of Lucas' Star Wars... the characters, the perceieved "exclusivity" to the Skywalkers, and the essence of The Force. In essence, Disney wanted to mine the OT for nostalgia money but strip everything out of Star Wars that in fact made it unique. It's that bipolar feeling that IMO has made Disney Star Wars so generic.

Respect your opinion, but again, don't agree at all. IMHO TFA is even more dated than the 40 year old OT; it's an incoherent Frakenstein's Monster mash-up of scenes and ideas from infinitely better movies.

That's the very reason why in any commercial art a Bible is needed... and the reason Disney Lucasfilm failed.

You are free to not believe in the process... but from someone who works in that system... it's absolutely necessary. Everything isn't everything... everything is actually nothing.

If you want to write novels on your own based on your own ideas, that's one thing.

If you're a screenwriter in Hollywood getting a job to write on a show or a series, that's very, very different.

As for the consistency with previous Star Wars films.. I'm sorry but I just can't agree with that. Of all of the things we might agree upon, that's a bridge too far.

Although not perfect, there are many EU works that are IMO better than this Disney trilogy. But again, the EU works were not meant -- except on strange occasions like The Force Unleashed -- meant to be canon. They were meant to be Star Wars version of DC's "Elseworlds"