Did TFA lack depth?

[grey ghost]

It had Star Wars level depth to me.

 

The force still had spiritual, good vs evil undertones.

 

The archetypes still served a similar purpose, to draw you in and serve as our avatars.

 

The Third Reich stuff is still present and relevant.

 

So for me it resonates and continues to allow me to put moral/political/personal challenges into a Star Wars context which is all I can really ask for.

 

What about you guys?

[MikeQ]

This discussion started when I posted my thoughts on Star Trek Beyond and The Force Awakens in the weekend thread. Here is what I posted:

 

Quote

 

Star Trek Beyond is a solid/competent/fun movie. The problem with it, and with the new Star Wars too, is that they're both uninspired and not particularly meaningful.  These are supposed to be sci-fi epics that can use their respective universes to speak to and explore radical ideas (of inclusiveness, justice, ethical ways of being, etc) within the safety of their fantastical/futuristic worlds. On a superficial level they may nod to some of these ideas; however, they ultimately feel safe and timid and calculated, rather than truly exploring anything substantive, and thus fail to inspire. I didn't leave either movie feeling galvanized or awakened. IMO, of course.

 

 

Here's some of what I sent to grey, to add to the discussion:

 

Quote

In a nutshell, I think The Force Awakens needed more in terms of the the political context of The First Order, The Republic, etc. The film felt socially/politically timid. And as a whole it felt too calculated and unoriginal, too caught up in the nostalgia of the old trilogy while simultaneously trying to correct itself from the prequels and so plays it safe. Abrams made a competent and fun movie, but not much more, from my perspective. But again, all of this is prefaced with an "IMO". 

 

So, I will say for now that I don't disagree with grey that themes, such as good vs evil, are there and relevant -- just that they weren't particularly explored in depth. The Third Reich stuff isn't particularly clear to me, because I don't think it's particularly clear what is The First Order.

 

This isn't to say that I think the film "lacks depth", period -- just that it lacks some thematic depth and social/political relevance, and so after watching the film, it didn't feel meaningful or rousing in a way that other sci-fi/fantasy films have been for me. And I genuinely think it's because, perhaps understandably, that Abrams seemed very focused on "not messing it up", on making a good, competent film, based on the nostalgia of the original trilogy, but that is lacking in originality and a deeper exploration of social or political ideas. There's a lot of great character work, particularly between Rey and Kylo Ren, that I do love, and some of the actors themselves (such as the charismatic John Boyega who creates a joyful Finn grappling with his place in the world) aid the film as well.

 

Peace,

Mike

[Giesi]

This is exactly what I was thinking about recently and it's the only major problem in this movie. Why did JJ cut out the scene with Leia and Korr Sella about her disbelieve in the New Republic? I know he wanted to expose Leia in a more nostalgic way with Han, but that wouldn't have taken anything away from that powerful scene, if she was introduced earlier. I simply didn't know at first that the First Order just blew up the capital of the New Republic, and I blame the lack of expositional dialogue for that.

[Thegun]

I think it came down to Carrie Fischer's fake dentures and really lack of acting that hurt those scenes. They gave her the chance, but she wrecked them. It's a shame but even 10 years ago she may have killed it.  

[lilmac]

Is Star Wars known for depth though?

 

Most depth to least levels of depth:

 

1. ROTJ
2. ESB
3. ROTS
4. TFA
5. ANH
6. AOTC
7. TPM

[MrFanaticGuy34]

I don't think Force Awakens lacked depth at all.

[Valonqar]

Define depth. 

 

But fear not, there are more politics and more esoteric/metaphysical in Episode VIII.

[ShouldIBeHere]

Depth? Not really... it had similar undertones and themes than all of the others.

 

What definately lacked was  to give the "genocide" that occured in this movie any really weight (how many people were killed by Death-Star-on-steroids? Millions?). It seemed so weird having all characters only reacting to it like a side-note. That is not really about depth... but definately emotional impact.

Edited November 22, 2016 by ShouldIBeHere

[Valonqar]

3 hours ago, ShouldIBeHere said:

Depth? Not really... it had similar undertones and themes than all of the others.

 

What definately lacked was  to give the "genocide" that occured in this movie any really weight (how many people were killed by Death-Star-on-steroids? Millions?). It seemed so weird having all characters only reacting to it like a side-note. That is not really about depth... but definately emotional impact.

 

Alderaan genocide didn't get much dwelling on either. leia reacted in one scene and than was giving "too short Storm trooper" smoldering looks, hand on the hip, etc.

 

I mean, they went from this:

 

 

to this:

 

 

So much for grieving. Bothan Spies who lost their lives got more than Alderaanians. 

[Kalo]

On 7/30/2016 at 4:37 AM, Giesi said:

This is exactly what I was thinking about recently and it's the only major problem in this movie. Why did JJ cut out the scene with Leia and Korr Sella about her disbelieve in the New Republic? I know he wanted to expose Leia in a more nostalgic way with Han, but that wouldn't have taken anything away from that powerful scene, if she was introduced earlier. I simply didn't know at first that the First Order just blew up the capital of the New Republic, and I blame the lack of expositional dialogue for that.

 

 

I didn't know about that scene, yeah a major issue I had with TFA, is how it glossed over the political texts, You had no emotion for the planets that were destroyed because they didn't even bother to explain what they were, I feel like they consciously made the decision to steer away from the prequels, which is a really bad reason to avoid explaining something, when you're dealing with an entire galaxy there are going to be politics involved. 

[Amadeus]

On 2016-11-11 at 3:26 PM, lilmac said:

Is Star Wars known for depth though?

 

Most depth to least levels of depth:

 

1. ROTJ
2. ESB
3. ROTS
4. TFA
5. ANH
6. AOTC
7. TPM

wow, you really gave TPM a chance did you?

 

there are tons upon tons going on... and not getting the paint by numbers Mission Impossible makes you bored and sad. little boy, you need a hug.

 

[grey ghost]

If Lucas wanted people to analyze TPM on any level he wouldn't have given Jar Jar so much screen time.

 

Meesa defend tha prequels!

[IronJimbo]

YES

[department store basement]

Just saw it this past month - I thought Kylo really lacked depth but otherwise it was a typical Star Wars movie depth-wise.

[Amadeus]

On 2016-12-20 at 6:38 AM, grey ghost said:

If Lucas wanted people to analyze TPM on any level he wouldn't have given Jar Jar so much screen time.

 

Meesa defend tha prequels!

And why can't people analyze TPM because of Jar Jar?

I think most people are too weak minded to see past him and, if he annoys you, ignore him. If a movie has scenes with a funeral, a scene in which a child is leaving his mother, a scene in which a child is denied by an authority etc. the filmmaker most likely have something to say. George Lucas even uses the sun to tell a message:

When we arrive on coruscant it's broad daylight, but it's kinda foggy; Something's going on and we can't really see it because of the fog.
When Anakin stands before the council the sun is setting, meanwhile Palpatine suggests to have a vote of no confidence. 
When Anakin is denied education and Palpatine is to be voted supreme chancellor the sky is as dark as coffee without milk. 

 

Regarding jar-Jar:

He has a small but important role. Not because he was general or helped Obi and Qui Gon reach the queen, but rather cause he is a symbol of comfort and joy whereas qui gon and smhi were symbols of the supportive parent who leads the child. The best example of the role he plays in TPM is when it's night and everybody's sleeping on the queen's ship. Anakin is still awake while Jar Jar is sitting next to him asleep. Here Anakin can't be distracted by Jar Jar's funny behavior and the missings and the fears are coming back to him. This is when Padme enters and Anakin falls in love with her... Maybe even mistaking her for his own mother (as in some kind of dumb greek tragedy)
 

Why Jar Jar more or less disappeared in AOTC is because we no longer see the movie through the eyes of a child anymore -- which a good half of TPM was. Instead we see the movie through the eyes of a teenager who is more obsessed with girls than with clowns. Jar Jar was always supposed to vanish after TPM. It wasn't because of the audience that he disappeared. 

And yes, he promoted Palpatine's emergency powers. But George is here using Jar Jar as a tool to prove how fragile democracy really is. 

Edited January 30, 2017 by Amadeus

[grey ghost]

1 hour ago, Amadeus said:

And why can't people analyze TPM because of Jar Jar?

I think most people are too weak minded to see past him and, if he annoys you, ignore him. If a movie has scenes with a funeral, a scene in which a child is leaving his mother, a scene in which a child is denied by an authority etc. the filmmaker most likely have something to say. George Lucas even uses the sun to tell a message:

When we arrive on coruscant it's broad daylight, but it's kinda foggy; Something's going on and we can't really see it because of the fog.
When Anakin stands before the council the sun is setting, meanwhile Palpatine suggests to have a vote of no confidence. 
When Anakin is denied education and Palpatine is to be voted supreme chancellor the sky is as dark as coffee without milk. 

 

Regarding jar-Jar:

He has a small but important role. Not because he was general or helped Obi and Qui Gon reach the queen, but rather cause he is a symbol of comfort and joy whereas qui gon and smhi were symbols of the supportive parent who leads the child. The best example of the role he plays in TPM is when it's night and everybody's sleeping on the queen's ship. Anakin is still awake while Jar Jar is sitting next to him asleep. Here Anakin can't be distracted by Jar Jar's funny behavior and the missings and the fears are coming back to him. This is when Padme enters and Anakin falls in love with her... Maybe even mistaking her for his own mother (as in some kind of dumb greek tragedy)
 

Why Jar Jar more or less disappeared in AOTC is because we no longer see the movie through the eyes of a child anymore -- which a good half of TPM was. Instead we see the movie through the eyes of a teenager who is more obsessed with girls than with clowns. Jar Jar was always supposed to vanish after TPM. It wasn't because of the audience that he disappeared. 

And yes, he promoted Palpatine's emergency powers. But George is here using Jar Jar as a tool to prove how fragile democracy really is. 

 

 

[RandomCat]

Someone has certainly put more thought into TPM than Lucas ever did.

[Amadeus]

23 hours ago, RandomJC said:

Someone has certainly put more thought into TPM than Lucas ever did.

 

it's called analyzing a movie. you should try it out  it will enrich your movie going experience. 

I will start a thread in which you can post your observations of brilliantism in star wars movies. 

[RandomCat]

8 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

 

it's called analyzing a movie. you should try it out  it will enrich your movie going experience. 

I will start a thread in which you can post your observations of brilliantism in star wars movies. 

 

Of course. How foolish I've been. You're right. I shall obsess over every film I like and find rational in them that clearly does not exist to justify my enjoyment of them.

 

Or I can just enjoy them and damned be other people who don't. I like the OT, I like the PT, I like the new films, I like the Clone Wars and Rebels. I like the comics and books. I'm enjoying them all just fine without having the need for other people to validate my enjoyment

 

And you may start that thread, but I have nothing really to add, I'm neither scholar, nor critic, just a viewer. Maybe you should try just watching and enjoying the movies.  It may enrich your experience