Star Wars Lives!

One of the many absurdities (besides the ones already mentioned) was that 30 years after the events of ROTJ, the “Republic” and the “Empire” are using roughly the same military technology as the regimes preceding them.  I can understand the idea that differences in the Jedi and Sith (or republican and imperial) philosophy and military tactics might manifest in different kinds of technology.  Or that at the time of ROTJ, the Republican side only had the factories to construct the technology they had.  But it seems absurd that 30 years down the line they’d be using the same tech.  In war, the tendency is to make use of whatever tech best fits the purpose one is trying to achieve, even if it is initially the “enemy’s” technology.

Despite its largely derivative content and simplistic portrayal of the light/dark duality, “The Force Awakens” was a more entertaining movie, all in all, than any of the prequels.  It seems to have exceeded most people’s expectations (including mine) and many people I talk to see it as “great” (which baffles me).  Hopefully the next one will be a little more original and contain a little more substance in the dialogues.  Hopefully the motivations and background of the hapless Darth Ren and his Oz-like master will get filled in…and we’ll learn more about the mysterious Rey.

@LHoffman:

Secondly, the First Order’s military and leadership image is that of late 1930s National Socialists. They use the same colors, theatrics, rhetoric, parade banners… Hux is an over-acted and unimpressive general-stooge who is completely one-dimensional and a ridiculous facsimile of Adolf Hitler. For WWII history people such as myself and all here, I can only assume this deliberate imitation was somewhat insulting in its simplicity. Now… I do understand the the Empire was very much created in that same image, but it is not nearly so overtly paralleled.

Third, why were all of the First Order officers and leaders a bunch of posh British white people? The Resistance was incredibly diverse, with a Latin American (Isaac), a black Englishman (Boyega), a strong British female main character (Ridley), plus a multitude of other alien and human races including the first time I have ever seen Asians in Star Wars. It’s as if the First order is comprised entirely of white, haughty aristocrats. Whether or not that was a politically safe play I don’t know and to be honest I really don’t care. I just think it makes the First Order bland and further unrealistic. While the majority of the Naval Officers in Ep IV-VI were white men with British accents, not all of them were and I honestly do not recall their accents being so obvious. Maybe I need to re-watch the originals.

I believe there was some proposed reason for this in the Expanded Universe material which stated that Palpatine was something of a human-supremacist and did not want other races in positions of power or military rank. However, as we all know very well now, all the EU material is meaningless, so they need another reason.

I quite agree that the leadership of the First Order is problematic.  I found Hux’s frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria to be too over-the-top to take seriously; I was baffled by the concept of giving the evil and powerful Supreme Leader a name like Snoke (which sounds like it ought to be a brand of chewing tobacco); and I have reservations about the effectiveness of depicting the movie’s aspirant Sith Lord as a low-key, angst-ridden young man who broods about whether or not he has what it takes to find his Inner Vader.

Regarding the posh white British people thing, here are a few thoughts.  At the theatre after the movie, I picked up a free copy of the Cineplex Magazine and looked at the article it has on the film.  There’s one section called “Behind the Mask: Captain Phasma” which includes the following line: “The Force Awakens is righting some of the franchise’s cultural wrongs by bringing more women and minorities into the mix.  And they’re not all good guys and gals.”  The writer is explicitly refering to Captain Phasma, a very senior female Stormtrooper (though I have to wonder about why she’s simply be a captain, which in the infantry is a fairly junior officer rank), and is referring indirectly to the fact that we see another female officer on the Starkiller base, and to the fact that Boyega starts out as a Stromtrooper before joining the good guys.  In my opinion, the writer of the article is missing the point of the original trilogy.  Episodes IV, V and VI deliberately contrasted the Rebel Alliance’s multi-species, multi-ethnic, open-to-women composition with the reactionary character of the Empire, which was depicted as an authoritarian – one could almost say fascist – regime which was run by organic white human males (including, at the very top, Palpatine and Vader) and whose faceless (and, at least originally, entirely cloned) soldiers illustrated its philosophy of total conformity.  I thought this depiction of the Empire was actually very fitting. “Socially progressive” isn’t a phrase that should apply to the Empire, so the depiction of its successor as a more equal-opportunity regime is one of the aspects of the movie that leaves me quite perplexed.

@CWO:

I have reservations about the effectiveness of depicting the movie’s aspirant Sith Lord as a low-key, angst-ridden young man who broods about whether or not he has what it takes to find his Inner Vader.

Kylo Ren is so young and clearly conflicted that I would not be surprised if he turns into a good guy at some point. Just seems like like the writers are simply unable to squander a young, good-looking, talented, suave man like Adam Driver to being a total bad guy. If he remains bad, his defeat and death are inevitable. I suspect he will either be redeemed or all-out switch sides to be a good guy and fight for them.

@CWO:

Regarding the posh white British people thing, here are a few thoughts.  At the theatre after the movie, I picked up a free copy of the Cineplex Magazine and looked at the article it has on the film.  There’s one section called “Behind the Mask: Captain Phasma” which includes the following line: “The Force Awakens is righting some of the franchise’s cultural wrongs by bringing more women and minorities into the mix.  And they’re not all good guys and gals.”  The writer is explicitly refering to Captain Phasma, a very senior female Stormtrooper (though I have to wonder about why she’s simply be a captain, which in the infantry is a fairly junior officer rank), and is referring indirectly to the fact that we see another female officer on the Starkiller base, and to the fact that Boyega starts out as a Stromtrooper before joining the good guys.  In my opinion, the writer of the article is missing the point of the original trilogy.  Episodes IV, V and VI deliberately contrasted the Rebel Alliance’s multi-species, multi-ethnic, open-to-women composition with the reactionary character of the Empire, which was depicted as an authoritarian – one could almost say fascist – regime which was run by organic white human males (including, at the very top, Palpatine and Vader) and whose faceless (and, at least originally, entirely cloned) soldiers illustrated its philosophy of total conformity.  I thought this depiction of the Empire was actually very fitting. “Socially progressive” isn’t a phrase that should apply to the Empire, so the depiction of its successor as a more equal-opportunity regime is one of the aspects of the movie that leaves me quite perplexed.

I quite agree. My question of where is the diversity in the First Order was a little more rhetorical than anything, but you do point out that the writers are, in fact, diversifying the Empire/First Order ranks. At least compared to what the Empire was. Even before I saw the movie, I thought the Capt. Phasma concept was rather shaky. Am I misogynistic that female stormtroopers rub me the wrong way? I don’t think so, because I am perfectly fine seeing Rebel/Resistance female soldiers. It fits their model to have female soldiers. As you pointed out Marc, it does not fit with the fascistic conformity perpetuated by the Empire/First Order.

In the movie Phasma felt like a shiny but hollow addition (kinda literally). She wears a cape and distinguished chrome armor and looks to be an iconic bad-guy lieutenant for the franchise, however in Force Awakens she was just incompetent, like Kylo Ren. I thought they would at least take her helmet off but they didn’t even do that. Good to retain whatever mystery exists and have at least a minimal sense of intimidation , but there was no reason why Han, Chewie and Finn would not have taken her helmet off when interrogating her.

I have two comments about Phasma: 1) part of her creation stems from the egalitarian diversification mentioned above. Star Wars has proven that even bad guys can be celebrated and hero-worshiped to some extent. Darth Vader is a venerated icon, yet he is predominantly a character of great evil (wife-beater, murderer, child-killer). Boba Fett is less dark and more of a bad-ass, but he is still firmly one of the bad-guys. Darth Maul is an occult-ish demon yet is probably the coolest Sith in all the films… All of these characters are cherished by pop culture and children all over the world dress in their costumes. Phasma struck me as a deliberate effort to provide a similar female bad-guy counterpart who was worthy of being cherished and dressed-up-as by all the little girls out there.

2) I question whether or not she will forever remain a bad-guy. Can a now firmly children oriented franchise suffer an irredeemable or forever “evil” female character? I think that is an important question. Supposedly some framework for the direction of future movies has been constructed. That framework could very easily contain the directive to somehow bring Phasma over to the “Good-Side” by some yet-to-be-determined means. That is my theory anyway. Can you see a female Nazi SS-style soldier in Star Wars films? I bet she defects or is captured and un-conditioned at some point.

@LHoffman:

I have two comments about Phasma: 1) part of her creation stems from the egalitarian diversification mentioned above. Star Wars has proven that even bad guys can be celebrated and hero-worshiped to some extent. Darth Vader is a venerated icon, yet he is predominantly a character of great evil (wife-beater, murderer, child-killer). Boba Fett is less dark and more of a bad-ass, but he is still firmly one of the bad-guys. Darth Maul is an occult-ish demon yet is probably the coolest Sith in all the films… All of these characters are cherished by pop culture and children all over the world dress in their costumes. Phasma struck me as a deliberate effort to provide a similar female bad-guy counterpart who was worthy of being cherished and dressed-up-as by all the little girls out there.

This is actually a very old problem that philosophers and theologians and literary critics have written about for a long time: the fact that, in works of literature and, more recently, in movies, the bad guys are sometimes more striking and dramatic and interesting as characters than the (often rather bland) good guys.  An example that’s been given for – literally – several centuries is Milton’s Paradise Lost, in which the character who steals the show is Satan.  The dramatic appeal of artistically-depicted evil has been something of a quandry for moralists and theologians over the centuries; as far as I know, the best answer some of them were able to come up with is that the appeal of this kind of evil to the reader is simply a reflection of man’s fallen nature.  A more charitable explanation might be that bad guys are necessary in art because they’re the ones who give the good guys the opportunity to fight heroically against evil and ultimately triumph over it; ergo, the more towering and impressive are the bad guys, the greater the challenge is for the good guys and the greater their ultimate triumph is.

@CWO:

… bad guys are necessary … because they’re the ones who give the good guys the opportunity to fight heroically against evil and ultimately triumph over it

That’s profound, and I agree  :-)
Interesting post

@CWO:

A more charitable explanation might be that bad guys are necessary in art because they’re the ones who give the good guys the opportunity to fight heroically against evil and ultimately triumph over it; ergo, the more towering and impressive are the bad guys, the greater the challenge is for the good guys and the greater their ultimate triumph is.

I agree with that. It speaks to the basic dichotomy of the two and the eternal archetypes of good vs evil.

However, my contention was less about ‘evil being considered cooler than good’ and philosophical implications but more about them crating Phasma as a character to fill the female void in that respect. And without counting, my impression is that there are a great many more female heroines/protagonists throughout literary and cinematic history than there are evil/antagonistic ones. Not that it is impossible to have them, because it certainly is possible. But can Star Wars, now very firmly catering to an immature audience, sustain a main or major ancillary female role who is a bad guy or outright evil? Are there still enough social constructs in place to prevent a bad female role model in a children’s movie. There are plenty of bad male role models in children’s films; it is the norm. Are girls different or should they be?

Unfortunately, none of the evil doers in the Force Awakens were very towering or impressive. The challenge was surprisingly easily met.

From what I’ve read (after seeing the film), Phasma wasn’t originally created as female.  The armour was originally designed for Kylo Ren, and even when that idea was dropped the silver armour continued to be thought of as armour for a male Stormtrooper; Phasma was changed to a female character less than 3 weeks before shooting started, as a result of the casting process.  So it’s debatable whether Phasma can be described as being specifically conceived as a female Stormtrooper.  And as you’ve pointed out, she has a rather marginal and ineffectual role in the film, so she hardly qualifies as a major female villian.  She’s not that major, she’s not that villainous (her line to Kylo Ren, “Who gave you permission to remove your helmet?” isn’t exactly delivered with the blistering roar of a drill sergeant), and frankly she’s not even visibly female; the only hint that she’s a woman is her voice – and considering how odd everyone sounds when they speak on a Stormtrooper comlink, I didn’t even pick up on the fact that the character is female when I first saw the film.  Conceptually, the closest parallel I can think of for her role – i.e. the mysterious armoured secondary character – is Boba Fett…and he had a much more impressive and menacing screen presence.

@CWO:

From what I’ve read (after seeing the film), Phasma wasn’t originally created as female.  The armour was originally designed for Kylo Ren, and even when that idea was dropped the silver armour continued to be thought of as armour for a male Stormtrooper; Phasma was changed to a female character less than 3 weeks before shooting started, as a result of the casting process.  So it’s debatable whether Phasma can be described as being specifically conceived as a female Stormtrooper.  And as you’ve pointed out, she has a rather marginal and ineffectual role in the film, so she hardly qualifies as a major female villian.  She’s not that major, she’s not that villainous (her line to Kylo Ren, “Who gave you permission to remove your helmet?” isn’t exactly delivered with the blistering roar of a drill sergeant), and frankly she’s not even visibly female; the only hint that she’s a woman is her voice – and considering how odd everyone sounds when they speak on a Stormtrooper comlink, I didn’t even pick up on the fact that the character is female when I first saw the film.  Conceptually, the closest parallel I can think of for her role – i.e. the mysterious armoured secondary character – is Boba Fett…and he had a much more impressive and menacing screen presence.

I was not aware of the character’s production history, but it could either support or refute my argument. On the one hand, her not being conceived of initially as a female would seem to disprove my theory, since there would to be no intention for anything different from the norm. However, her being conceived of initially as a male (standard) stormtrooper but switched at the last minute to a female could just as easily lend credence to my theory. The rationale for the change could have been many things, however I find it hard to believe that it was because this woman was a better actress than whatever man they had in mind. That is not a comment on women, it is just to say that her character could be either male or female (she wears a suit and mask the entire movie). The choice to make the character a female was a very deliberate one because it is not the standard for the type and it was switched to the non-standard at the last moment.

And your comments (“She is not that villainous”) play to my line of questioning: can Star Wars, which has become essentially a children’s movie, hold down a young, attractive, capable female villain? She may not be particularly evil, but she is clearly one of the bad-guys. She may not be visibly female, but the voice is giveaway enough, I for one could tell right away that she did not sound like a normal stormtrooper. And I sincerely doubt that she will remain behind her mask forever… it will be a waste of that young, attractive, female actress. Maybe I am jaded or something, but I don’t think Star Wars as a brand can resist showing her to the world, simply because of those aspects.

Her parallels to Boba Fett are quite obvious. As you pointed out, so far she very well fits the quiet, ancillary, masked henchman type that Boba Fett originally was conceived as. Boba Fett evolved into something far greater outside of the films and became much more popular than George Lucas ever expected. I believe when Fett was created for Empire Strikes Back, he was more-or-less a throw away character; not intended for anything significant. He didn’t have a story arc or explanation. My whole point here is that I think “they” had the great idea at the last minute to create another Boba Fett but this time make it a she. Another prod at the gender boundaries by pushing the status quo of stormtroopers and making a bad-ass shadowy female character in armor and a mask.

That is my theory anyway. I am not really complaining about a female filling that character role, its just that the character seems so transparently a play on Boba Fett that it leaves a bad taste. Plus my other gender role related question is still valid.

@LHoffman:

Lastly: Supreme Leader Snoke.   What an awful name. Not very scary. Maul, Dooku, Vader, Grievous, Plagueis, Sidious…     Snoke.

Given that so many of the elements of the new film are derivatives of the previous movies, I’m wondering if Supreme Leader Snoke is intended to be an evil counterpart of Yoda – meaning a powerful Sith-like master of the Force who also happens to be a pint-sized alien.  We see him on the screen as a giant hologram, but that proves nothing about his true size; after all, the earlier movies have shown human-sized characters being projected both as life-sized holograms and as foot-tall miniature holograms, so there’s no reason why a Yoda-sized character couldn’t be projected as a Rancor-sized hologram.  Andy Serkis, who plays him, has supposedly said that he’s “strangely vulnerable at the same time as being quite powerful”, so perhaps he has a shortness complex for which he compensates by (literally) projecting his delusions of grandeur.  Serkis also said, “He is large. He appears tall.” and it may be significant that Serkis used the word appears ahead of “tall”.

@CWO:

Given that so many of the elements of the new film are derivatives of the previous movies, I’m wondering if Supreme Leader Snoke is intended to be an evil counterpart of Yoda – meaning a powerful Sith-like master of the Force who also happens to be a pint-sized alien.  We see him on the screen as a giant hologram, but that proves nothing about his true size; after all, the earlier movies have shown human-sized characters being projected both as life-sized holograms and as foot-tall miniature holograms, so there’s no reason why a Yoda-sized character couldn’t be projected as a Rancor-sized hologram.  Andy Serkis, who plays him, has supposedly said that he’s “strangely vulnerable at the same time as being quite powerful”, so perhaps he has a shortness complex for which he compensates by (literally) projecting his delusions of grandeur.  Serkis also said, “He is large. He appears tall.” and it may be significant that Serkis used the word appears ahead of “tall”.

Proportionally, he certainly looks to be of normal human size, if not quite as large as his hologram indicates.

My thought is that he is sick or physically weak. He certainly looks deformed or something.

http://www.looper.com/6579/dumb-things-force-awakens-one-talking/

Obviously we are talking about some of them, but it is a good list. Minus the bits about Luke at the end of the article. They just got done complaining that there was no tease of something bigger and better to come, but Luke’s appearance was just that! I thought it worked great.

Ah HA!

Seek and you shall find! How appropriate for our discussion or my discussion since I am monopolizing it.

http://www.slashfilm.com/tr-8r/

Evidence of my assertions. Also evidence that they are trying too hard to imitate and recreate the past.

I thought this stun baton stormtrooper was a bit over the top and kinda stupid. He seems purposefully equipped to fight lightsabers, which is weird considering there are zero force/lightsaber users left besides his boss. Correct? Apparently the internet thinks he is sweet.

EDIT:  http://www.bustle.com/articles/132283-why-captain-phasma-of-force-awakens-needs-more-star-wars-screen-time

Found this article too. First, the author is clearly sycophantic fool. Her comments and opinion almost perfectly encapsulates the low information pop culture Star Wars fan… which I am very sad to say is perhaps the majority of people who consider themselves Star Wars fans.

Secondly, her comments on Phasma fit perfectly into my theory.

TFA - Spoiler warning

That SW talk here is so good, beginning with LHoffmans review, I cant resist adding my two space credits. Although there is, likely, some repetition.

Rey: Clearly the best thing in the film, agree there, feels Star Wars. Most intriguing aspect of the movie is her background. Is it the eternal (and too some, tiresome) theme of how the Skywalker family is tied to the Galaxys fate, or is it something new entirely as there is a huge galaxy to play with? I prefer oc that Mara Jade is her mom :)
She cant remember Han and Leia, maybe a gentle memory force-wipe from her mom or Luke to protect her. But Han and Leia, in their turn, also dont seem to remember her. We will have to see.

Fin: Too many goofy lines. Clearly has storm trooper melee training, but can handle Kylo with a lightsaber? And why do they have anti-force weapons? To ward off force pikes?

Kylo: As to why he wears a mask, LHoffman? Because he wants to emulate Darth Vader in all things. There is an interesting interpretation of “I will finish what you started”, namely destroying the Empire once and for all, which Vader started by disposing of Palpatine. I think we can dismiss this, though.
A lot of people interprete a conflict within Kylo, especially after his scene with Han (can I spoiler at this time? Better add a warning).I am afraid I never saw one, to me it was always clear that he will kill him, and rather gladly so. The whole scene was unworthy, I agree, not becaused Han dies but how, and which grave he got, and what for. And it was bad acting imho.
As for redeeming him, I cant see that and him surviving. I bet heavily on yet another reiteration of redemption by sacrifice like Vader (I just hope it has nothing to do to please certain religious faiths), because coming back as murderer of a father, civilians, torturer and stuff and happily live ever after (in a supposedly just New Republic) is hard to imagine. They wont jail him.

Han: Also agree, overall looked tired and unwilling to play it out. After so many years he now tries the bowcaster for the first time? You gotta be kidding me. Cheap line, thats all.

Leia: Liked her. Also in the command center good to see that Ackbar doesnt age, and neither does Nunb. I wish those guys would have gotten more screen time.

Snoke: Second most intriguing thing for me. The Darth Plaguies theory has a lot of merit (I am sure you all read about it, similar music theme, similarity to the cover of the DP book), he wants to complete Kylos training….however, as much as I’d love to see him cheating Palpatine, faking his own death (he managed to get into the secret of cheating death, after all), there is one interesting thing in the novelization (a disappointment, btw): Leia told Han that Snoke has always been there since Bens birth, first watching from the shadows, then starting to tempt Ben away from the light side. True to form, she never told Han in case he would worry…doesnt sound like Leia, more like, well, the new authors. In any case this guy has been along for some time and unless he can totally hide his force náture, I cant see how he has not been detected by Luke (even if Luke is not the most trained Jedi). But maybe he hid from Yoda, Mace, Obi later on etc in Palpatines force shadow.

Interesting thing about the military, Zhukov! I thought the same, but there are a few points worth mentioning. The new Resurgent class Star Destroyer is bigger and, we can assume, better. No A, B, E wings, no Interceptors and stuff, disappointing, but neither the Resistance nor the First order are the legimitate forces. For the resistance, all they might want (and get/afford) are X-wings, and it at least is a new model, manouverability is improved (can be seen with the new X-wings from FFG). Maybe they chose not to get into B-wings, as that would need more resources etc. My take is that the Resistance is a kind of unofficial guerilla force of the New Republic, would be too conspicuous to supply them with top notch equipment. Same is true for the First Order, the new Ties are improved, have shields I think. Oc my theory totally fails here because they are apparently rich enough to suck out suns now. That, but no Tie Interceptors? And if the assumedly powerful leader Snoke is not the leader of the Empire itself, do they have a puppet leader? This all is not explained, nothing really fits, this is my point about the smalles denominator to get as many people into paying for a seat.
Emotionally, I totally agree with you, it hurt to see nothing but X-wings and Ties. Not to speak of not seeing any capital ship other than the one SD.

Phasma is almost an epic failure. I dont mind if male or female (more females will benefit SW anyway), but to the extent they marketed her you think they made her like she is just for that. Its a nice Lego minifig, my kid likes her. When she then is put to the test, she meekly follows orders, takes down the shields. Hell, thats the radical faction of the Empire?? Not even fighting for the cause? I cant remember now, did she survive, was it shown? If she died, she could at least have died for the cause. Or maybe Fins behavious isnt so atypical for the First Order, after all?

I forced myself to read some books, Aftermath was depressing really. Again, almost nothing in it to please the fan of the SW environment (sorry, I am not caught by X-wing stunts like Poes). Yes, Mon Mothma envisaged that at some point the military will have to be cut down to local forces, but have we seen something about that? Just that the fleet, or half of it, has been wiped out (FO was apparently successfull in hiding a weapon of this extent so that a huge junk of the NR fleet presented a nice target).

The other book was good, at least the political part, where some Moffs and bigwigs tried to decide what to do after Palpatine. Intriguing when the competent female captain gets back to her mysterious superior, reporting. This must have been before the FO, or was it Snoke already, still Imperial? or is it, as many hope, Thrawn. Things point there, even for now he is dead canon.

The best book, as it was a good summary of all events since Tarkin, wsa Lost Stars (I think). Dont be dismayed by the young adult classification. Yes, there is the romance thing, it was actually good, and yes, there was the conflict between what is good (Rebel) and bad (Empire), but the take was interesting and all too realistic.

Overall, I cant bring myself to think of the movie as good or enjoyable, but there is hope (also ebcause of Luke) that we finally get new things, not endless reiteration.

Pls point out any mistakes (apart from personal opinion), just watched once.

I saw The Force Awakens yesterday evening. I thought my wife would want to go as she loved the first three films. I deliberately did not read the reviews by Hoff and others above before going to see it, so that I could make up my own mind.

I have previously seen the first and second films but never really enjoyed them and did not make film three. My wife dragged me to the first film of the second trilogy, which neither of us enjoyed.

My own view is that this one is the best of all the Star Wars films I have seen. It works as well as the others as simple sci fi action fare. Good special effects. As many thrills and explosions as you could want. It triumphs over the others in that the characters are a little more developed and not quite so cardboard thin. As I remember it, of the four main characters in the first film only Luke Skywalker’s character was developed in any way at all - but he was played by Mark Hamill! I found it impossible to care what happened to any of them. In this one all three new key characters had some back story that made them a little more interesting. I found the baddie in particular far more worthwhile than Darth Vader. An attempt is even made to give Hans Solo a human story.

Unfortunately the plot was standard Star Wars. So being the best of a poor bunch does not a great movie make. But when I am dragged to the next one I will at least enter the theatre with a smile on my face!

And Star War fans will be pleased to hear that my wife believed it to be “true to the spirit of the originals”.

I’m forty four years old, and watched Star Wars at a drive in when I was seven. Pure magic - nothing can ever compare. But that was mostly because I was seven, and nothing like it had never been done. A potent combination, for an entire generation.

I enjoyed The Force Awakens on my first watch, but I left with an unsettled feeling - it didn’t satisfy me. Plot holes, plot rehashings, strange nostalgia trips, was that a good choice for Kylo Ren? etc… But nothing prepared me for the second viewing - I loved it three times as much, and had tears running down my cheeks for parts of it. Why? Two realizations:

• I was unfettered from my own unrealistic expectations.

• When I was seven, I didn’t give a s&*t about the stuff I do now.

Now, we (myself very much included) tend to confuse gritty realism with great storytelling. Sometimes we need a simple hero’s journey. The problem was me, not the movie. My ten year old daughter loved it. My advice is to go in with a child’s eye and let it be magical again.

@Stalingradski:

• I was unfettered from my own unrealistic expectations.

• When I was seven, I didn’t give a s&*t about the stuff I do now.

Now, we (myself very much included) tend to confuse gritty realism with great storytelling. Sometimes we need a simple hero’s journey. The problem was me, not the movie. My ten year old daughter loved it. My advice is to go in with a child’s eye and let it be magical again.

I think this is great advice… easier said than done perhaps. Obviously, young-ish kids who haven’t lived with Star Wars for 20, 30 or approaching 40 years and who don’t have a critical eye will love this film. They don’t need to pretend that it is good; for them it is that good.

I might be able to sit back one time and enjoy TFA for what it is, that may be my second viewing, whenever that happens. However, I don’t know that it is sustainable to remain in a state of self-imposed denial wearing the rosy glasses. I am not implying that you believe this, just putting it forth as a general statement. I don’t force myself to like other films that I think are sub-par and I find no reason to do that with TFA just because it is Star Wars.

In general I agree with you. Sometimes as fanboys or adults we get pretty jaded and that isn’t how Star Wars should be completely judged. However two places I disagree or would point out (what is for me at least) the real issue at hand:

Now, we (myself very much included) tend to confuse gritty realism with great storytelling. Sometimes we need a simple hero’s journey.

First, I would not expect gritty realism from Star Wars to begin with, however, I would expect “great [or at least [i]good] storytelling”. The good storytelling was what was absent from the film. Again, as a child, you may not notice at all, but as an adult you cannot help but see how the same story has been done multiple times previously. For me, the story is the best part of Star Wars and it was the most flubbed aspect of TFA. You can re-do Campbell’s Heroic Journey many times over and not have it get stale, you just need to vary the surrounding material. TFA didn’t even attempt to do that. Maybe it worked for some people, but obviously it didn’t for me. There were moments that hit the magical button for me, but those few instances don’t make up for the whole, much as I would like them to.

I’m with gradski -
I think there is so much criticism for anything Star Wars that isn’t Episode IV or V because everyone was awestruck (and very young) at the time.  All the hate for the Ewoks through Kylo Ren, from my perspective, is due to this.  Episodes IV and V are horribly flawed when you use the same measuring stick that is being used against all of their successors.  I think they’re ALL great - I get exactly what I want from all 7 of the movies.  This will make some of you gag and choke, but I would be hard pressed to pick my favorite and least favorite of the 7.  I’m apparently not looking for the same things as you.  And maybe it’s because I didn’t go to any PG or above movies until I was like 15.  But I did see Episode IV in school in like 2nd grade, when our Principal piped it into every classroom for Christmas.  (Circa 1982)

@Gamerman01:

But I did see Episode IV in school in like 2nd grade, when our Principal piped it into every classroom for Christmas.  (Circa 1982)

But some of the kids in my school were bragging about having seen Star Wars like 6 times in the theaters when we were in 1st grade.
It’s pretty simple.  For a lot of people like those kids, the original 1, 2, or 3 movies are cult classics that can never be matched or exceeded.  So when Episode VII comes along and (even I gagged and choked some) keeps copying episode IV, the hate rushes through the pores of all these 40+ year old fanboys.  They are very susceptible to the dark side….

Episode IV didn’t explain anything about how we had come to this point.  In Episode V everyone was shocked to find out Darth Vader was Luke’s father.  So when you criticize episode VII for not telling you how you got here, well, wasn’t Episode IV just as guilty?!  If Episode VII was the first to come out in 1976 and now Episode IV came out in 2015, I bet Episode IV would be getting ripped the same way VII is now.  You know, if you flipped the film making technology and stuff too….

I think perhaps the best way to approach the Star Wars films is to see them as belonging to three related but distinct trilogies rather than as one single series of films.  Episodes IV, V and VI reflect a particular set of movie-making principles, and are very consistent with each other in this regard.  Episodes I, II and III are likewise very consistent with each other in terms of the cinematic principles by which they were made, but those principles are very different from those that were used in the original trilogy, which is why the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy look so dissonant when you put them next to each other.  And my guess is that we’ll see the same thing in the sequel trilogy: Episodes VII, VIII and IX will probably hang together very well in terms of how they’re made, but will probably look as much out of step with the other two trilogies as the two other trilogies look relative to each other.  In other words, we’re seeing the same phenomenon that can be seen when you put the Lord of the Rings movie original trilogy next to the Hobbit movie prequel trilogy, which are vastly different from each other in terms of their cinematic and literary-adaptation philosophy even though they were by the same director over a much shorter period of time than the Star Wars saga.