Effectively, the Republic has been destroyed, and the Resistance is left fighting the First order while horribly outgunned.

I did not get this from the movie at all, I sort of assumed. I just figured they dealt a significant blow to the Republic, but wiped them out completely? So essentially for EP VIII we are back where ANH started: evil Empire (First Order) effectively rules the galaxy and the Rebel Alliance (Resistance) fights against them. Ugh. Enough with the rehashing the OT.

Consider the alternatives.

The Republic is not crippled but now has full cause to go to war (and the resources to do it). We don't know fleet sizes, but this could go one of two ways.

Either the Republic far outnumbers the first order. Then the rest of the movies involve the republic just mopping up the mess. No fun. No excitement. Just an overwhelming force rolling across the galaxy.

Or the 2 sides are more evenly matched and we then get a rehash of TCW/AotC/RotS. That could be interesting in its own rights, but it would still be something similar.

In any case, it's Star Wars. So we're going to get a war somehow.

I finally saw the movie yesterday. Overall I really enjoyed it. It's not flawless, but a good reboot to the series. The numbers are still shuffling a bit but I think it will come in at my third favorite Star Wars. New Hope and Empire are constantly jockying for first place depending on my mood, FA will slide in at three, RotJ at four and then the prequels in no particular order afterwards.

I know there wasn't as much worldbuilding and background as some would like, but think about how much we new right after A New Hope came out. Almost nothing. Even adding Empire and RotJ didn't expand it much. We had a few planet names, and a bit of concept but no idea what a Sith was, what the Clone Wars were, or even who The Emperor was really. Most of that was all filled in later with books, the WEG RPG, comics, and prequels. These movies had a very similar feel. I know FFG won't be given as much freedom to create as WEG was. I don't think people realize how much of their "canon" was created by West End, but hopefully between books and the game we'll get enough good background to fill in the universe for a game.

I finally saw the movie yesterday. Overall I really enjoyed it. It's not flawless, but a good reboot to the series. The numbers are still shuffling a bit but I think it will come in at my third favorite Star Wars. New Hope and Empire are constantly jockying for first place depending on my mood, FA will slide in at three, RotJ at four and then the prequels in no particular order afterwards.

I know there wasn't as much worldbuilding and background as some would like, but think about how much we new right after A New Hope came out. Almost nothing. Even adding Empire and RotJ didn't expand it much. We had a few planet names, and a bit of concept but no idea what a Sith was, what the Clone Wars were, or even who The Emperor was really. Most of that was all filled in later with books, the WEG RPG, comics, and prequels. These movies had a very similar feel. I know FFG won't be given as much freedom to create as WEG was. I don't think people realize how much of their "canon" was created by West End, but hopefully between books and the game we'll get enough good background to fill in the universe for a game.

I think this is extremely important to keep in mind: people are *really* retconning how much worldbuilding the OT did (if you're just looking at the movies). And I'm optimistic that just as much potential is there for worldbuilding with this series, as it is, in tone at least, very similar.

derroehre: I think the main reason that he was swinging it like that was because he had a hole in his stomach. He fought those two when he was in the worst physical/emotional state imaginable. That, and to maximise the area he covered with the blade. I get the impression he wasn't that well trained and simply hadn't had to deal with a force user in some time.

Otherwise points are fair; I think the main super weapon exists is for the new audience; after all a good chunk of them probably think ANH is dated, so it's a remake of that battle without being a remake.

Edit:

And agreed. The OT were very lean with their content and only told us what we had to know, Cloud City was just about the closest to civilisation we saw in any other the movies. If anything, the prequels really one uped the OT when it came to world building. It really gave a snipit of what the universe looked like before the Empire came.

Regarding the lack of world building and explanation of what on Earth was going on, I keep thinking back to Guardians of the Galaxy. You know that started with next to nothing about the setting or characters and we got four times as much information about both communicated to us in that film without lengthy exposition or even the benefit of an opening crawl. And you know what? Guardians of the Galaxy had a shorter run time too!

As derroehre said earlier, this is not a TV show. Assuming the interest of your audience and teasing by leaving big gaps in their knowledge doesn't work for that. There's a very big difference between an episode in a TV show and a volume in a trilogy.

Regarding the lack of world building and explanation of what on Earth was going on, I keep thinking back to Guardians of the Galaxy. You know that started with next to nothing about the setting or characters and we got four times as much information about both communicated to us in that film without lengthy exposition or even the benefit of an opening crawl. And you know what? Guardians of the Galaxy had a shorter run time too!

As derroehre said earlier, this is not a TV show. Assuming the interest of your audience and teasing by leaving big gaps in their knowledge doesn't work for that. There's a very big difference between an episode in a TV show and a volume in a trilogy.

I think I liked TFA more than Guardians -- but I'll agree with you that Guardians did a better job of worldbuilding. I can't believe I'm about to say this about Guardians, but -- LOL? -- its focus on dialogue and character-building made it slightly slower-paced.

Now that I have called Guardians "slow paced", I am going back to bed, because nothing makes sense anymore.

I think this is extremely important to keep in mind: people are *really* retconning how much worldbuilding the OT did (if you're just looking at the movies). And I'm optimistic that just as much potential is there for worldbuilding with this series, as it is, in tone at least, very similar.

I disagree. The reason being it's not about what's included but what holes are left. To put it another way, is it a problem that I don't know that Vader is Luke's father in Episode IV? No - it doesn't feel like there's a hole there, it doesn't hang a sign on it saying "plot point", we have what we need for that film. Do I know where Yavin is in the galaxy? No, but it doesn't matter, I have what I need which is that this is where the Rebel base is and I know why the Empire wants to destroy it.

TFA has gaps though. Which is different to there being edges to the map. Why were they attacking those planets with their super weapon and what did they hope to achieve? I have only the sketchiest notions of this. Who is Rey and who is she waiting for and why? And portions of what, anyway? The film tells us these things are important by dwelling on them, but gives nothing in return for them. It assumes our interest, our fanboy-ish desperation to know and solve this mystery. Which is the problem - it's a film for fanboys who will feel this great need to know. Episode IV never assumed that. It gave us reasons to care rather than taking things for granted. We don't know everything about Luke but we know what we need - he's a farmboy dreaming of escape and enrolling as a pilot at the academy, but held back by his family obligations. It's simple, but it's complete. That's the difference.

Simple but complete is not the same as incomplete, even if the quantity of actual information is the same in both cases (which it isn't, btw. We learn way more about the setting and the main characters in Episode IV than we do in Episode VII).

Regarding the lack of world building and explanation of what on Earth was going on, I keep thinking back to Guardians of the Galaxy. You know that started with next to nothing about the setting or characters and we got four times as much information about both communicated to us in that film without lengthy exposition or even the benefit of an opening crawl. And you know what? Guardians of the Galaxy had a shorter run time too!

As derroehre said earlier, this is not a TV show. Assuming the interest of your audience and teasing by leaving big gaps in their knowledge doesn't work for that. There's a very big difference between an episode in a TV show and a volume in a trilogy.

I think I liked TFA more than Guardians -- but I'll agree with you that Guardians did a better job of worldbuilding. I can't believe I'm about to say this about Guardians, but -- LOL? -- its focus on dialogue and character-building made it slightly slower-paced.

Now that I have called Guardians "slow paced", I am going back to bed, because nothing makes sense anymore.

And I will say that having two people with opposite viewpoints and the same avatar alternating posts is hilarious. I hope it thoroughly confuses all those people who never bother looking at usernames.

derroehre: I think the main reason that he was swinging it like that was because he had a hole in his stomach. He fought those two when he was in the worst physical/emotional state imaginable. That, and to maximise the area he covered with the blade. I get the impression he wasn't that well trained and simply hadn't had to deal with a force user in some time.

Back in an interview with Mark Hamill some time ago (prior to the prequels), he said that when talking with George about fighting with a lightsaber, the idea (at the time at least) was it should be considered to be incredibly heavy, far heavier than it looks, and thus required two hands to wield... which of course allowed Vader to illustrate just how far more powerful he was to Luke by wielding a lightsaber one-handed in the opening rounds of the ESB battle, perhaps even using the Force to counteract the "weight," a feat which the Jedi and Sith we saw in the prequels have trained all their lives to do, to the degree that it's second nature for them.

In the fight with Finn, Kylo was probably toying with the guy who he knew he completely outclassed and wanted to make this traitor's death a drawn-out excruciating one rather than a quick and clean kill; I think we can safely say that Kylo was not in a stable frame of mind at that point in the film. As for the fight with Rey, Kylo still needed her for that map fragment that would lead him to Luke so that Kylo could finish what his grandfather started. To say nothing of Kylo having taken a bowcaster shot to the hip not that long ago, which probably put a significant cramp in his fighting capability. Kylo himself wasn't properly trained in how to use a lightsaber, since the only person around to teach him (Luke) wasn't all that well-trained either.

Personally, I liked that the fight wasn't as refined and polished at the fights in the prequels, simply because none of the combatants had that degree of refinement/polish in their fighting prowess. Finn probably had basic melee combat techniques drilled into him during his stormtrooper training, Rey was more used to using her staff, and Kylo's training as a Jedi was never properly completed. Your average Jedi Knight from the Clone Wars would have probably taken Kylo apart quite easily, to say nothing of masters like Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, or Count Dooku.

- How the hell does the Tonfa Stormtrooper recognize him instantly as traitor and get really furious about it? (awaiting final verdict after second viewing.) Also, stupidest cool weapon ever. Why not shoot him? That is what you do with traitors. Shoot on sight.

I'd assume that the trooper recognized Finn from his time in the FO. After all, stormtroopers can't wear their helmets 24/7.

- How the hell does the Tonfa Stormtrooper recognize him instantly as traitor and get really furious about it? (awaiting final verdict after second viewing.) Also, stupidest cool weapon ever. Why not shoot him? That is what you do with traitors. Shoot on sight.

I'd assume that the trooper recognized Finn from his time in the FO. After all, stormtroopers can't wear their helmets 24/7.

Once you start going down the "blasters vs. melee" road, there's no going back.

Lazer Sword Wizard Knights, people. That's what we're here to see. If some people drop the blasters to duke it out in person, so be it.

derroehre: I think the main reason that he was swinging it like that was because he had a hole in his stomach. He fought those two when he was in the worst physical/emotional state imaginable. That, and to maximise the area he covered with the blade. I get the impression he wasn't that well trained and simply hadn't had to deal with a force user in some time.

Back in an interview with Mark Hamill some time ago (prior to the prequels), he said that when talking with George about fighting with a lightsaber, the idea (at the time at least) was it should be considered to be incredibly heavy, far heavier than it looks, and thus required two hands to wield... which of course allowed Vader to illustrate just how far more powerful he was to Luke by wielding a lightsaber one-handed in the opening rounds of the ESB battle, perhaps even using the Force to counteract the "weight," a feat which the Jedi and Sith we saw in the prequels have trained all their lives to do, to the degree that it's second nature for them.

In the fight with Finn, Kylo was probably toying with the guy who he knew he completely outclassed and wanted to make this traitor's death a drawn-out excruciating one rather than a quick and clean kill; I think we can safely say that Kylo was not in a stable frame of mind at that point in the film. As for the fight with Rey, Kylo still needed her for that map fragment that would lead him to Luke so that Kylo could finish what his grandfather started. To say nothing of Kylo having taken a bowcaster shot to the hip not that long ago, which probably put a significant cramp in his fighting capability. Kylo himself wasn't properly trained in how to use a lightsaber, since the only person around to teach him (Luke) wasn't all that well-trained either.

Personally, I liked that the fight wasn't as refined and polished at the fights in the prequels, simply because none of the combatants had that degree of refinement/polish in their fighting prowess. Finn probably had basic melee combat techniques drilled into him during his stormtrooper training, Rey was more used to using her staff, and Kylo's training as a Jedi was never properly completed. Your average Jedi Knight from the Clone Wars would have probably taken Kylo apart quite easily, to say nothing of masters like Obi-Wan, Mace Windu, or Count Dooku.

Aye, I liked the fight as well. It was very raw which played to my fancy. Fitting considering how unstable Ben had been up to that point.

TFA has gaps though. Which is different to there being edges to the map. Why were they attacking those planets with their super weapon and what did they hope to achieve? I have only the sketchiest notions of this. Who is Rey and who is she waiting for and why? And portions of what, anyway?

That's a strong point. We probably get as about the same amount of information in New Hope as we do TFA - but we get the wrong information.

* What does the Death Star do? It blows up planets to intimidate the galaxy and maintain control through fear now that the senate has been dissolved.

* What does the Starkiller do? It blows up planets to . . . um. First strike the Republic? Show that the Neo-Empire are still badass? Test the weapon? The plans for the development of the outlying regions of the western spiral arm of the galaxy require the building of a hyperspace express route through that star system and those planets were ones that were scheduled for demolition?

Now, to be fair, all this information will almost certainly show up in the ancillary material - but then we go down this Blair Witch rabbit hole where the plot only made a lick of sense if you went to the website and watched the viral videos. No, that information needed to be in the movie. Otherwise it's just terrible writing.

Same thing here.

- How the hell does the Tonfa Stormtrooper recognize him instantly as traitor and get really furious about it? (awaiting final verdict after second viewing.) Also, stupidest cool weapon ever. Why not shoot him? That is what you do with traitors. Shoot on sight.

I'd assume that the trooper recognized Finn from his time in the FO. After all, stormtroopers can't wear their helmets 24/7.

It was probably due to the First Order issuing a "kill on sight" order for FN-2187, and making sure that his face was as broadly distributed as possible so that any stormtrooper who saw him would know that this guy needed to suffer the fate of all traitors. That one stormtrooper just decided he wanted to duke it out with somebody wielding a lightsaber to prove who was the bigger badass of the two.

Interesting perspective on TFA which hadn't consciously registered with me but which I realize after someone pointed it out to me, that was something I felt all along:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/theres-one-thing-i-totally-hate-about-the-force-awakens-1749285767

Essentially they recognize that of course there's a need for Bad Guys and that there can't be a complete happy ending, that everyone's story is to some extent a set up for someone else's, but that the fates of the big three deeply depress them. Not that things shouldn't or wouldn't go wrong, but that it should so utterly undo the hopeful end of Return of the Jedi. Leia and Han split up and haven't seen each other in years, Luke has been alone for decades... Interesting reading anyway. Sharing here.

Didn't Hux explain clearly why the First Order attacked that system?

Like yelling into the camera clear...

Didn't Hux explain clearly why the First Order attacked that system?

Like yelling into the camera clear...

Hux was Darth Weasley? He said something very brief about striking when they're not ready, I think. It didn't really make sense to me at the time as an explanation of goals or motive. Do you know what it was he actually said?

EDIT: I found a quote on imdb that is theoretically what Hux said. Now that I know is name, I can't help thinking it's short for Huxtable, btw. Anyway, imdb often gets quotes wrong but here's what it has at the moment:

Today is the end of the Republic. The end of a regime that acquiesces to disorder. At this very moment in a system far from here, the New Republic lies to the galaxy while secretly supporting the treachery of the rogues of the Resistance. This fierce machine which you have built, upon which we stand will bring an end to the Senate, to their cherished fleet. All remaining systems will bow to the First Order and will remember this as the last day of the Republic!

It honestly feels pretty vague to me, but I guess that's the reason.

Interesting perspective on TFA which hadn't consciously registered with me but which I realize after someone pointed it out to me, that was something I felt all along:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/theres-one-thing-i-totally-hate-about-the-force-awakens-1749285767

Essentially they recognize that of course there's a need for Bad Guys and that there can't be a complete happy ending, that everyone's story is to some extent a set up for someone else's, but that the fates of the big three deeply depress them. Not that things shouldn't or wouldn't go wrong, but that it should so utterly undo the hopeful end of Return of the Jedi. Leia and Han split up and haven't seen each other in years, Luke has been alone for decades... Interesting reading anyway. Sharing here.

Summary of the article: Victory takes a backseat to the need for Dramatic Tension.

That's not a fault against TFA or Star Wars or Abrams -- that's just, like, movies.

Emotionally painful, but...that's the point.

To be fair, with Huxtable's (now I'm doing it) speech, it's propaganda. Propaganda is often purposefully vague. You rouse up the troops, but you don't want to give to many specifics or people might start seeing the gaping holes in your arguments.

The superweapon was by far the weakest point in the movie. I feel like they could have come up with some better reason to get people attacking the planet or get everybody in the same place, but hey it worked. I can go with it.

Interesting perspective on TFA which hadn't consciously registered with me but which I realize after someone pointed it out to me, that was something I felt all along:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/theres-one-thing-i-totally-hate-about-the-force-awakens-1749285767

Essentially they recognize that of course there's a need for Bad Guys and that there can't be a complete happy ending, that everyone's story is to some extent a set up for someone else's, but that the fates of the big three deeply depress them. Not that things shouldn't or wouldn't go wrong, but that it should so utterly undo the hopeful end of Return of the Jedi. Leia and Han split up and haven't seen each other in years, Luke has been alone for decades... Interesting reading anyway. Sharing here.

Summary of the article: Victory takes a backseat to the need for Dramatic Tension.

That's not a fault against TFA or Star Wars or Abrams -- that's just, like, movies.

Emotionally painful, but...that's the point.

Actually that's not the point of the article. That's why I suggested people read the full thing. The article certainly acknowledges the need for "Bad Guys" / Dramatic Tension. What the article says is that it's the depth of failure that bothers the author and I agree. Han and Leia's love failing and what has presumably been decades alone if it's the evil of their son that split them up as they say in the movie and it's their son's murderousness that caused Luke to go into retreat then that has to have been a long time ago as he's been in retreat for a long time. The author talks at length about the necessity of dramatic tension, adversity and change. It's not fair to their point to characterize it as being so naïve as to think nothing can change. What it objects to is that that the writer and director basically punches a big reset button and undoes the happy ending of Return of the Jedi so completely. Contrary to what you write above, there are all sorts of ways the plot could go that still provides plenty of drama but doesn't require ripping the heart out so completely. Han is a washed up swindler who's run out of marks; Leia lost her child and her husband - their stories have all been unwound and returned them to where they were at the start of Episode IV. Only older and with more tragedy but nothing to show for it.

Yes, it is the fault of the writer and director because I can think of a dozen different ways right now that still afford Leia and Han some measure of happy ending without giving up on making an exciting film, even if you add a little bitter-sweetness to it for the sake of their involvement in the story. So it is a choice. Recall the film Alien 3. One of the reasons it was so hated was because it took all the victory of Aliens and opened with the deaths of Hicks and the young girl that Ripley had rescued, Newt. You don't HAVE to undo everything just to make a sequel. The fact remains that it's something that makes the film much less fun or classical for people that is a deliberate choice.

There is more nuance to this argument than 'Han and Leia must have a perfect life living with their Ewok friends on Endor forever and ever'. It's saying that the alternative to that doesn't have to be a succession of gut punches and lonely broken lives and that Abrams went way too far and it's depressing and devalues the ending of RotJ. Which for some people it clearly does.

To be fair, with Huxtable's (now I'm doing it) speech, it's propaganda. Propaganda is often purposefully vague. You rouse up the troops, but you don't want to give to many specifics or people might start seeing the gaping holes in your arguments.

The superweapon was by far the weakest point in the movie. I feel like they could have come up with some better reason to get people attacking the planet or get everybody in the same place, but hey it worked. I can go with it.

Certainly true about the propaganda. But whilst it makes sense that he might not be giving detailed reasons at a war rally, it still leaves people sitting there going "what's this planet? why will this help them?". I mean yes, I get the principle of some US-style pre-emptive strike, but I'm still a bit lost about it all.

Though sure, whether this is a problem for someone or not is going to depend on them. If you're enjoying the movie, it might get a pass. Or some people might just take an attitude of "these guys are wearing black and they're blowing stuff up - that's all the depth we need" (I'm sorely tempted to say such people include the director). But I think it's a weakness, personally.

Am I out to lunch in seeing the "depth of failure" (as you put it) as being pretty consistent with the Star Wars narrative in general?

I was obviously being glib in my summary, and I concede that the amount of manipulation necessary to create said tension is variable. But surely we all could have foreseen different alternatives -- some more sad, others less so. That's down to opinion, rather than narrative quality.

I also didn't see the film as a series of gut punches per se. I saw people who had gone through hell and had lived to tell the tale (well...at least until the start of TFA). I actually liked that Han went back to being a swindler. (I liked that a LOT, actually). Han and Leia's son going dark was pretty much directly in keeping with the IP and I see nothing harsh or unnecessary about it.

I saw these "undoings" as being a consistent part of the Star Wars universe -- even if they were an emotional challenge.

I do actually agree with you. I'm hoping we get to see some point to the superweapon in the future. Right now the main thing I can see this doing is pissing off The Republic, who's not currently openly attacking them. Now they've openly struck a Republic world with a superweapon, basically giving any sane government no choice but to retaliate and bring it up to open war.

The superweapon is the weakest point in the plot. They seemed to add it almost as a tack on because they felt they needed such a thing. For some reason Star Wars has become almost synonymous with superweapon. It was a weak point in what I think was an otherwise strong movie, so I'm willing to let it go. If they have to many more "let it goes" in the rest of the trilogy it could become a problem, but I'll let one or two past without curbing my enjoyment to much.

- How the hell does the Tonfa Stormtrooper recognize him instantly as traitor and get really furious about it? (awaiting final verdict after second viewing.) Also, stupidest cool weapon ever. Why not shoot him? That is what you do with traitors. Shoot on sight.

I'd assume that the trooper recognized Finn from his time in the FO. After all, stormtroopers can't wear their helmets 24/7.

It was probably due to the First Order issuing a "kill on sight" order for FN-2187, and making sure that his face was as broadly distributed as possible so that any stormtrooper who saw him would know that this guy needed to suffer the fate of all traitors. That one stormtrooper just decided he wanted to duke it out with somebody wielding a lightsaber to prove who was the bigger badass of the two.

Yeah. They tracked him, Rey, and the droid to the planet specifically to find and capture them (mostly the droid). I'd imagine that they would issue his a photo of his face to everyone as part of that.

Didn't Hux explain clearly why the First Order attacked that system?

Like yelling into the camera clear...

It appears that people need the character to actually say "we are using the weapon that does X to destroy Y planet(s." in the speech. The same way that they can't take Poe's word that he ejected and found passage off the planet.

Yes, it is the fault of the writer and director

I think there is disagreement on there being any problem in the first place. Of course, I appreciate the Whedon school of "keep them in pain" and never had any investment in a happy ending for Han and Leia.

I do actually agree with you. I'm hoping we get to see some point to the superweapon in the future. Right now the main thing I can see this doing is pissing off The Republic, who's not currently openly attacking them. Now they've openly struck a Republic world with a superweapon, basically giving any sane government no choice but to retaliate and bring it up to open war.

Depending on how much damage their opening salvo actually did, it could actually be a catastrophic error on the part of the Third Reich First Order. (apologies to our German friend earlier who made the valid point that the Empire = Nazis had perhaps been overdone. My jibe there is actually directed at the film-makers because I kind of agree with you that it was maybe too obvious a pastiche). Anyway, the First Order have effectively just unveiled a titanic super-weapon, used it to kill billions of Republic citizens... and then lost it.

It's a little like drawing a gun on a crowd of people, shooting two of them and then pulling the trigger a third time to an empty -click-. They've simultaneously proved they want to kill on a massive scale and that they've just lost the ability to do so. Maybe there's a follow-up military invasion but it looks to me like they've just been thrown into some considerable disorder. Yelling "death to the Republic" and then falling flat on your face is not a good start to your war.