Julius_Van_Der_Beak
Fallen
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 22,429
- MBTI Type
- EVIL
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/so
I agree. TFA felt more like a Greatest Hits film. Personally Rogue One is my favorite Disney era film. It does the nostalgia fan service stuff far better. While also feeling like its own movie.
Yeah, Rogue One handled OT nostalgia the RIGHT way. I don't actually mind the stuff with BB8 being a MacGuffin, but I really dislike Starkiller Base. It actually is an unnecessary distraction from the more interesting main plot of searching for Luke Skywalker. The movie kind of forgets about that to do a lame rehash of the Death Star, which is its cardinal sin.
I think Solo edges TFA out because it has interesting locations and other goodies, as well as the underworld/ Crimson Dawn element which works pretty well.
There's a bit in Solo, though, which explains why I sometimes complain about certain fans. I'm afraid of them making movies worse and more derivative because they tend to complain about things that are different from the OT, even if they are necessary, or even when they are done well.
There's a little joke with Emilia Clarke about trade negotiations, which seems like a way of addressing complaints about TPM (technically, I guess TLJ, which I love, but the issue isn't the joke itself in either case; I think I chuckled when I saw it in Solo, too). The thing is, the people complaining about "space politics" probably either haven't thought about their criticisms that much ( I want to say that they're just ripping off stuff from Red Letter Media, but that's probably unfair), or have a vision that wouldn't have been any better.
The complaints about space politics should really more be complaints about some of the acting and dialogue in those scenes. Because, there is no way to adequately tell the story of the prequels without engaging in space politics. There was no way the movies were just going to be the Terminator with Darth Vader, and they should not have been that. In Solo, it's just an offhand joke. But in TFA, it's a much bigger deal.
There's an entirely different political situation in that movie, but it's never clarified what it is, and I suspect the reason is pandering to complaints about "space politics." There really needed to be at least one scene explaining the difference between the Resistance and the New Republic. Yes, it's explained in a novel, but it really is the kind of thing I (rightfully) expect to be in a movie. Part of why I like Star Wars is worldbuilding, and if you ignore that because of cantenkerous folks who just want to watch ESB at age 8 for the first time over and over, that pisses me off. I'm not saying they should have been handled like some of the scenes early in Episode II, but there should have been something in there. I'm not so nostalgic about the OT that I want filmmakers to ignore, not address, or outright avoid anything the prequels tried to do.
The whole thing about the Republic and the Resistance is extremely confusing... (oh so they blew up Coruscant... wait that wasn't Coruscant), and it makes for a weaker movie. Because we don't even learn that the Republic exists until it gets blown up (and the entire fleet just got destroyed too... this is something that people unfairly blame Rian Johnson for the implausibility of the First Order taking over in a week, but this is really J.J. and Kasdan's fault, because they set that up. ) there are no stakes. If we would have learned a little bit about earlier in the movie and why Leia wasn't part of it, it would have meant more. But no.... they were afraid of seeming too much like the prequels.