Star Wars: the force doesn’t quite awaken
I went along with family to see the new Star Wars movie over the holidays. I’m probably not the best person to talk to about it, since I’ve been lukewarm (hmmm; a pun?) about the entire franchise since the very beginning, when I saw the first installment in a way-too-loud Los Angeles movie theater.
So the current effort is pretty much like all the rest of them for me: mildly entertaining and mildly amusing—and then it evaporates, leaving hardly a trace. Oh, and I thought Daisy Ridley, the actress who plays the new heroine, was extremely good and made the most of what she was given to do. Very intense. And as usual, I liked the droid.
What I did notice, though, was Carrie Fisher in her role as Princess (now “General” in the Resistance) Leia. Apparently, I’m not the only one; Fisher and her looks (particularly weight and age) have been the subject matter of a lot of internet chatter.
In the original movie, Fisher as Leia (she of the cinnamon-bun hair) was cute. Kind of girl-next-door (or next-galaxy), although never a great Hollywood beauty. However, I hear tell that the metal bikini she wore in “Return of the Jedi” apparently figured in the erotic life of quite a few young men of the time.
Any actress who decides to put herself out there when older invites comparison with her younger self. Same for men, to a somewhat lesser but still significant extent. I would hate to have my older mien plastered up there on the big screen in full and dramatic detail, every wrinkle and sag highlighted and broadcast the better to compare with my younger visage. Fisher, plus Ford and Hamill, had to know they were going to invite comparison to their younger selves and that the best they were ever going to hear is that they are well-preserved for their respective ages (the two men are older than Fisher at 73 and 64 to her 59). Harrison Ford has gotten accolades for his state of preservation, although having seen the movie I can say that the marks of time are most definitely there, even in him. But how could they not be?
As far as Fisher goes, I noticed that she’d lost weight recently (I knew that she had gained quite a bit over time) and grown older. I expected both of those, but what I didn’t expect to see was that she was acting in a ponderous fashion, her gravitas tremendously out of place among the others, and with a bizarre frozen quality to her face. It didn’t even seem like the usual botox, because the problem appeared to concentrate around her mouth, giving her a sort of almost-pained lockjaw.
It was alarming to me. Could she open her mouth? Could she smile? I don’t think I saw either thing occur during the movie, and it troubled me in every scene that included her. I was alarmed for her, and when I tried Googling “Carrie Fisher frozen jaw” and the like, I was further alarmed that I seemed to be the only one alarmed by it.
So, all of you who’ve seen the movie: did you notice what I’m talking about? Am I the only one?
The last one I saw was the first one I saw (1976?) and I have no intention of ending my streak, but the rest of the Fireflies thought it was fun.
I have no issue with folks who love Star Wars (personal taste is personal), but it amazes me how many fans were amazed to learn in later films that George Lucas was terrible with dialogue and story. The first one had a simple and predictable plot with predictable and stilted dialogue from predictable, 2 dimensional characters along with amazing, groundbreaking special effects. Why was anyone amazed when the subsequent movies (from what I hear) followed that pattern?
Oh, and, apparently, FIRST!
Well, second there (I guess, technically third now), but first on the prior comment!
“So, all of you who’ve seen the movie: did you notice what I’m talking about? Am I the only one?”
You are probably the only one over 40 and mentally normal who could force himself to sit through one of these epic bores. And even in your case it had to be during what Catholics call an act of corporal mercy toward another. Or at least charity.
That woman has about, then and now, as much sex appeal as a discarded glove lying in parking lot slush.
She must have been someone’s special friend. There is no other explanation for her presence in the original movie; which was lost on me as well.
I thought Carrie Fisher looked great for her age. I don’t know what all the fuss is about. She looked exactly as she should’ve looked for the part of general and mother of an adult son. She had a serious, mature quality.
I loved the movie. However, I couldn’t avoid noticing that they repeated a lot of the plot from the original Star Wars. Barren, desert-like planet. Young person with no real family or connections. Doesn’t know who s/he is or anything about the Force. Cute robot that makes noises instead of talking. etc. I could do more but don’t want to spoil it for anyone who hasn’t seen it.
It was formulaic, but the formula worked. Daisy was fantastic as the new ‘main’ person to carry the next few movies. Very likeable. Cute, but not too pretty. And she participated fully in the action.
Looking forward to the next one.
Didn’t notice the lockjaw, but Princess Lea always had a steel rod up her bum. As a member of the aristocracy and a high ranking diplomat, she was a foil to the swashbuckling rogue, Han Solo. That’s what made their romance interesting.
So the lock jaw is probably an attempt to portray her with gravitas. Nobody ever said Fisher was a great actress.
Those movies are great for those of a certain age and mental state. That would exclude most of us here, I believe. So to appreciate them in theory and suffer them with grace for the sake of family togetherness is all we can expect of ourselves.
The frozen jaw may be a problem of dentistry – a denture, bridge or even implants can make it impossible to use your face in a totally natural way. I had to get dentures in my early fifties, and I sympathize if that was Fisher’s problem. Just one of many possible miseries awaiting those lucky enough to live long!
The key to enjoying Star Wars is not to take it too seriously. It was never meant to be serious SiFi, or great adventure or plot. It’s appeal, I think, lies in the charm of the characters; excluding of course Jar Jar!
I’m older than Carrie, and enjoyed the movie. I thought she looked great, didn’t notice lockjaw.
I noticed something odd (I didn’t expect her to look like she did in the ’70’s lol), but couldn’t quite pin it down. My comment to my wife was “She looks, umm, ‘rigid’ or something”, and left it at that.
As far as age: I’ve paid attention to all the SW alumni in movies over the year, including Fisher, so I wasn’t all that surprised about the obvious aging …and was impressed that she’d slimmed down rather a lot, and nicely, for the role. I’d been wondering about it. Kudos to her.
OTOH, Hamill’s age hasn’t been nearly as graceful (I’ve been rather shocked at his deterioration in the few movies, series, and pix I’ve seen of him). But the quickie shot at the end seemed not nearly as bad as what I’d previously noticed.
As far as Ford, well, I thought he probably should have hung up his Indiana Jones shingle prior to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull …it was simply too obvious he wasn’t up to it even for the tech wizards of the cinema to hide.
The movie in general was pretty much as I expected (I was a huge fan of the originals, a naysayer for 2nd installment of the trilogy …and I’m surprisingly enthusiastic about the current rendition, admittedly influenced by my low expectations), so “worth seeing in the theater” (we almost always wait for the bluray releases lol).
I’ve been lukewarm …caught that: lol’d.
I’m on the opposite side from Rufus T. Firefly in that I loved Star Wars but have no issue with folks who don’t (de gustibus non est disputandum and all that). Of course, that was 40 years ago (shudder). Looking back, I can see the problems now, but I was overwhelmed with both the visual spectacle and the music as a teenager.
I’ve always had a soft spot for Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. She was cute and sexy without being a helpless waif, much like Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura) in Star Trek. I thought Carrie aged well and she reminds me of how Katherine Hepburn matured from a manic pixie girl in Bringing Up Baby (1938) to an avenging spinster in Rooster Cogburn (1979) – a roughly equal time span and equally stiff jawed.
Also, having Han Solo as a husband and Kylo Ren as a son would age just about anyone. I’d say Leia has aged a lot better than Hillary Clinton, Carly Fiona, or Angela Merkel have in the real world. Just my two cents.
I really liked the new movie, it is certainly better than the godawful prequel trilogy. But to be fair, I grew up with Star Wars (born in ’74) so it’s hard for me to be purely objective.
As for Fisher, I think she looked good, but her dialogue did seem a little stiff. I know that Harrison Ford has had problems with her in the past (during the making of Empire Strike Back she was a full on coke head party girl I guess and it caused friction), so I have no idea if that played into the scenes with him in the new movie.
You are right of course. It’s not meant to be science fiction at all. Just a fantasy off in “space” somewhere. An updating of those Flash Gordon serials our fathers or grandfathers (or great grandfathers by now) watched in the movie houses as young boys.
Guess a story about furry heroes, lizard men, and petulant, charmless, snub nosed heroines just isn’t what I can be induced to fantasize about.
I was alarmed about her BEFORE the movie — I saw her on some Star Wars thing and thought she looked as though she had had a stroke. So I was relieved when I saw the movie and she seemsd much, much better! I didn’t think she seemed wooden — I thought she looked and acted like a grandma. She was fine. The movie was fun.
Now I feel bad. I take back all those slighting and uncharitable things I said.
After all, those actors are people too.
More or less.
I thought the movie was fine, minus the criticisms that it recycled too much from the original and that Daisy Ridley’s Rey seemed to be a major Mary Sue.
John Boyega’s “Finn” was underserved by the movie and he and Poe the pilot should have been in more. They were much more interesting characters.
That said, I can see that the director’s intent was simply to state “We’ve made Star Wars fun again.” and hopefully we can see them grow the franchise in the next installment, just as “The Empire Strikes Back” (which is considered the best Star Wars movie by many, including me) added significantly to the original.
Now that the franchise has been handed to people who know what makes a fun movie (and George Lucas, despite his creative vision, was not one of those people), I’m looking forward to seeing something a little more challenging in Episode VIII.
They took the original StarWars out of the freezer, popped it in the microwave for a few minutes, and tried to pawn it off as the big new epic. Fail.
C. Fisher reminded me way too much of Mrs Bill Clinton.
But what was really missing, was the electricity between the leads (even the bots) in the original. Plus, the original had some wit, and some humor. This one is pure special effects.
Other than that, I liked it.
It wasn’t as good as I had hoped. Much like Lucas’ most recent three, they have fairly large inconsistencies in the story so far. I would say that I enjoyed Mad Max: Fury Road more.
That said, Daisy Ridley can save me from the Sithlings any time she wants. Not that I need saving from Sithlings. But hubba hubba.
Carrie Fisher looked her age, and I was not disappointed and didn’t see what the hubbub was about. Unless people are disappointed that she avoided the botox regimine?
What Cap’n Rusty said, plus I would add that I couldn’t stop counting the ‘reruns’ of prior scenes and characters ( e.g., the SW Bar scene, the attack on the Death Star (now Death Planet, I guess), and that elderly diminutive female character who served the same basic role as Yoda).
And San’s and Leia’s son looked just like “Snapes” from the Harry Potter movies, no?.
And lastly: poor Mark Hamil; they wouldn’t even let him speak any lines; made me wonder if he can….
I liked the first three SW films but was frankly disappointed in this one; probably because it was so grossly over-hyped as much as for any of the above reasons.
Unless they folded the stunt guys in beautifully, Ridley can run like a deer. I liked the background. I used to read a lot of SF and always liked imagining what the situation looked like. As it happens, the closest movie to my imagination–which is to say set and background and weather, et all–is the first Harry Potter.
Plot holes out the wazoo. Solo had to die since running him around the next time in a fusion-powered wheel chair just wouldn’t do. They could have saved Finn. The Stormtroopers need a good deal more range time and everybody a plot needs escapes from explosions. Maybe he was too much Solo combined with Luke.
The light saber duel made me nuts. You could do better with crowbars.
Lousy story, Ridley and Finn were interesting characters, great effects. Wouldn’t have spend a dime to see it again.
Why did Rey want to get back to Jakoo? Never answered.
carl in atlanta:
Now that they’ve killed off Ford’s character, Hamill’s will be featured in the next one.
So let me see. Her husband has left her, their son has turned into a monster, and the revolution she fought so hard for , has produced only chaos. What’s there to smile about. What I find interesting, is how people say she took Han’s death “too” calmly. I would guess that, knowing the type of life he lead, she would have long ago have resigned herself to feeling him die someday.
This year’s R2D2 looks like a soccer ball – product placement advertising for next summer’s Olympic Games in Rio, perhaps?
And why did they kill off the guy with most of the best lines? Bad move, as Indy Jones would say (who once quiped “Bad dates…” after a sudden death by poisoning).
I watched “The Force Awakens” in place of last night’s STFU-SOTU….
I bet the dead guy comes back as a wise ghost to advise a troubled Luke, just to recycle the role that Alec Guiness had.
Such is Hollywood creativity these days: reduce, reuse, recycle everything.
Mike Giles:
Nevertheless, she could have opened her mouth and moved her jaw a bit when speaking. She looked like she trying to throw her voice.
The ORIGINAL TRILOGY (i.e., before Lucas tinkered with it) was absolutely wonderful. I enjoyed the original trilogy each and every one of the many times I have seen it, including when each of the original movies was first in theaters.
While Rufus T. Firefly opines above that “The first one had a simple and predictable plot with predictable and stilted dialogue from predictable, 2 dimensional characters along with amazing, groundbreaking special effects,” I think that the plots and dialog were very good, and the characters did have great depth. It’s among the reasons that many of us think Lucas screwed things up when, in tinkering with the original trilogy, he had Han Solo not shooting before Greedo got off a shot. The Han Solo of the original trilogy (as originally shown) would NOT give Greedo a chance to shoot or walk out of that cantina with Han.
As for the special effects, I think the original trilogy would have worked just as well with special effects that were merely state of the art at the time. Heck, the original Yoda was a puppet!!
Would The Force Awakens be even a tenth as successful if the original trilogy hadn’t existed? I doubt it. The Force Awakens is a combination remake of the original trilogy and a reboot, handing off the series to the next generation. In my opinion it works well for what it is intended, and I enjoyed it. I hope the next episode can stand on its own.
Regarding Carrie Fisher, I think neo-neocon gets it exactly right when she states,
Carrie Fisher was fine in The Force Awakens, and I think she appeared well within the range of the ways I would expect a 59 year old would.
I agree with you, Neo. I thought her delivery was very stiff, and said to my sister that she looked like she had been Botoxed to death. There was something about her mouth that reminded me of the way an old-timey Western singer would barely move his mouth. Or the way someone with a toothache or bad halitosis guards the mouth. It was we
ird. The movie itself was not that interesting, although I heard lots of enthusiasm from some of my friends.
“weird,” that is.
“Am I the only one?”
As we learn in the Holy Book of The Highlander, “There can be only one!”
I didnt bother… i am getting tired of pc mandates in movies that change classic things for the sake of some pc race, gender, or other thing… and Disney is really bad for doing that… so i figured why bother?
the new supergirl is a tour de feminism with jimmy olsen now black.. couldnt give her a new character for jimmy, but had to have a race change
then there is the new mandated that the next nancy drew reimagination also be pc and race correct – again, cant come up with a great new character
not much fare for men who are older than 10, and really not much for boys either.. a look at boys life list of 100 movies for boys go back to when i was a boy or at least a older teen…
the list is amazing in its testimony!!
http://boyslife.org/hobbies-projects/funstuff/18651/100-movies-for-boys/
and some of them are really not for boys… like bambi, sound of music, princess bride, mulan.. mr mom? march of the penguins?
they have the original ghostbusters, but the remake coming out switches the main characters to women…
duck soup is on the list, but day at the races is not, nor night at the opera
brians song is there, with james caan, but not the original rollerball..
only the first star wars is there… none of the others
and who put Babe there? babe?
home alone? no show… high noon is the only western i could see of note…
they went far enough back for fantasia, but where is superman? ironman? spiderman? jacki chan? bruce lee? sato ichi? transformers?
on other lists you can find (for boys!) my girl..
really? and thor is now a woman…
too expensive to go, people are rude and ruin it by yelling at the screen… and the movie content is strange, pc, bizarre remakes, etc..
so i didnt bother…
and i am an avid old time fan
[lets say i have an original prop from the first movie]
its just not worth it given that new stuff is BORING, predictable, twisted, etc…
This awful woman! I haven’t seen the latest Star Wars yet but did read some breathless outrage about “all the people” saying that Carrie Fisher is fat and needs to lose weight. Of course no one was actually saying anything of the sort until Carrie Fisher brought it up, twice, in a lame attempt to garner attention. It was then dutifully picked up by the grools of the internet, the gossip blogs, the Greek choruses of outrage, but doesn’t seem to have snared much sympathy. She did the exact same thing after the first Star Wars movie; complained that mean Hollywood suits commented on her weight. There’s even a scene in Postcards from the Edge, a movie based on her book about her life, where this claimed event is re-enacted. She had the lock jaw thing going in the original trilogy. Not much of an actor; inherited celebrity. She should be thanking those mean suits for constantly pouring money into her bank account. But no.
Beat me to it.
* * *K-E Says:
January 13th, 2016 at 3:08 pm
I thought Carrie Fisher looked great for her age. I don’t know what all the fuss is about. She looked exactly as she should’ve looked for the part of general and mother of an adult son. She had a serious, mature quality.
* * * because this * * *
Mike Giles Says:
January 13th, 2016 at 7:47 pm
So let me see. Her husband has left her, their son has turned into a monster, and the revolution she fought so hard for , has produced only chaos. What’s there to smile about. What I find interesting, is how people say she took Han’s death “too” calmly. I would guess that, knowing the type of life he lead, she would have long ago have resigned herself to feeling him die someday.
* * *but* * *
these may be just examples of the human need to make sense of the insensibleness of her role.
The movie was fun; what more is required?
I’m with you all the way, Neo. I was horrified. She was so stiff she could barely talk. Saw the movie with my daughter and husband and we spent the ride home speculating on whether it was Botox, fillers or some kind of an implant. Or all three! I’m the same age as Carrie and I’ll get a little filler here and there but there’s a limit…
Agree that the film, while enjoyable, was a pale imitation of the wonderful originals. Time to watch The Empire Stikes Back again.
And yes, Ira, Han Shot First!
I enjoyed the movie.
I noticed what you described as Fisher’s “lockjaw” problem. I seem to vaguely remember hearing that something was wrong with her jaw before the movie was released. If my remembering is correct, that would suggest that the cause was a health issue that she has no control over. Sad if true, but that’s the way it goes.
——————
The light saber duel made me nuts. You could do better with crowbars.
——————
I think that was supposed to be the point. The Ren is immensely powerful in the Force, but it’s repeatedly stated that his training is incomplete. That’s why Finn was able to hit him during their fight. A trained force user would have sliced Finn into tiny chunks, even with the wound. But that didn’t happen because Ren’s almost as clueless in using a lightsaber as Finn.
There was also a very quick line regarding why Rey wanted to return to Jakoo. Rey tells Maz Kanata (the bar owner) that she’s waiting for someone, possibly her family. Maz’s response makes it clear that both women know (even if Rey refuses to admit it) that whoever Rey is waiting for is never going to return to Jakoo.
I liked the 1977 Star Wars movie and the next two. My young kids had great fun watching them. The next three CGI reboots were unwatchable. I’m not seeing any good reason to see the latest Star Wars movie.
In 1979, I went to see Ridley Scott’s “Alien”, while my first wife and kids went to see “The Muppet Movie”. “Alien” scared the living bejeezus out of me. The kids were bouncing and cheerful after their movie and I was still shaking. I had nightmares for weeks afterwards. The gritty realism of “Alien” and the gradual reduction of the crew to just Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and her cat in an escape pod made for a great movie.
The next three sequels were also good in their own rights. Then, the “Alien” franchise Jumped the Shark with “Alien vs Predator” and the dreadful Ridley Scott prequel “Prometheus”.
Movie franchises seem to be good for two or three sequels or prequels at most. The Godfather series jumped the shark at #3. Jaws jumped the shark at #3.
My two favorite SF movies of all time are Ridley Scott’s “Bladerunner” and “Galaxy Quest”, a Star Trek spoof starring Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver. They can’t be “prequeled” or “sequeled” because the plot lines ended conclusively.
Maybe movie franchises need to be term-limited, although that is up to the viewing public to determine.
I’ve never watched a Star Wars (or Star Trek) movie, and doubt I ever will, voluntarily at least. I’d rather watch Blue Velvet or Taxi Driver The Conformist by Bertolucci five or ten more times. But it’s nothing to me what others like. There’s always been a push-pull thing in film between entertainment and art.
Meanwhile, a long time I heard a backstory about Carrie Fisher’s alleged writing career. I was represented by the same literary agency that represented her ghostwriter, Paul Something. Fisher had to keep a journal, during rehab for addiction to Percosets (all the patients did), and she thought there were some amusing anecdotes here and there. The notes were given to Paul Something, who turned them into Postcards From the Edge.
PatD,
You evidently haven’t heard about the upcoming Galaxy Quest TV series…
^^;;
PatD: Put “Mars Attacks!” on your list. No, it’s not science fiction; it’s “camp.”
I’ll just re print a link elsewhere about what I wrote on this previously.
https://jbsanctuary.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/star-wars-grandpa-awakens/
G Lucas is a perfect example of what happens when you give Leftists control over anything. They begin to resemble a top down totalitarian robot cracy. Hollywood doesn’t make them any different.
I think it is Carrie Fisher who has a significant hang up about how she looks. And it comes across in how she behaves. Yes, Hollywood rewards the pretty people, or if you happen to be funny, then looks not so important. She seems to have a significant self-image problem, something like Julia Roberts, who as beautiful as she is, always struck me as a half second from running off the stage to hide from view.
I think Carrie was always a so-so actress to begin with and she has some issues. And I think she did probably have to do a lot to prepare her body and face for this movie, and in that process became even more self conscious about it.
Or it may simply be that people with lots of botox in their face don’t tend to want to move it much because it looks unnatural when you overdo it. Anyone see Meg Ryan lately?
Good thing for Japan that they don’t base their actor’s popularity on 3 dimensional looks.
Although the martial art movies are big on their stars being actual martial artists and able to do some of the stunts and movements well. But at least that can last quite a while, several decades, usually far beyond the “beauty” of a young woman, fleeting.
I’m on the DNW-neo side of the divide w/r/t Star Wars – for some reason I have never quite understood, the movies leave me absolutely cold. I find them – even the beloved original trilogy – more boring than anything. They’re well made and all of that. I just can’t “get into” them.
Hence I have no intention of seeing TFA, though I suspect I’ll catch it on TV as pleasant background noise at some point in the next few years.
Actually, the more I think about it, I suppose my issue is that I’m uninterested in the “fantasy-sci-fi” and “fantasy” genres in general. I have had the same reaction to Harry Potter, LOTR, Narnia, etc. That’s not a comment on the quality of any of those films or stories (needless to say, I greatly admire Tolkien and Lewis); it’s more of a quirk in my aesthetic sense. The “fantasy” part of my aesthetic mind is either locked shut or absent altogether. I just don’t respond to it. I don’t even like The Princess Bride all that much, and if it wasn’t funny I think I wouldn’t like it at all. My favorite director is Kurosawa, but my least favorite of his great movies is, not surprisingly, the one that Star Wars apparently borrowed from, The Hidden Fortress (like Princess Bride, though, it’s pretty funny, so I enjoy it well enough).
Anyway, what bothers me about Star Wars is not the movies, but the fanatics who have made a kind of shibboleth out of it: “Do you love Star Wars? No? Moron! You have no taste! You are barely even human!” Such articles and comments are all over the web. And all I keep thinking is, “So this is where we’ve come: Greece had Homer, Rome had Virgil, the Renaissance had Dante, and we have Star Wars.” That is the cultural-aesthetic hill we have opted to die on.
Other than that, I have nothing against it, or the people who enjoy it. The “phenomenon,” however, is at least slightly disturbing.
Oh man, sad news: just saw that Alan Rickman died.
My favorite Rickman moment is in Die Hard, when he walks into a backroom in Nakatomi Plaza early in the film, and says as he sees the futuristic models of cities on the tables before him: “‘And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer.’ (pause for effect). Benefits of a classical education.”
RIP.
It’s been a bad week for fascinating British celebrities. RIP Alan Rickman.
Ira, compare the dialogue and plot in the first 3 Star Wars with any other film you like. If you do that objectively I think you’ll have to conclude it is predictable and cartoonish. Are cartoon movies fun? Sure. The legion of super hero movies we are inundated with is a testament to that; but Star Wars ain’t Shakespeare. It isn’t even “Casablanca” a “B” movie or the “Philadelphia Story.” The spaghetti Westerns Sergio Leone cranked out at 1/1 trillionth the budget of a George Lucas film and 1/100th the dialogue have more drama and suspense. As someone here pointed out, it’s not even “Alien” another sci-fi, space movie.
If anyone can sit in a theater watching one of the original Star Wars films and not know a character’s arc within the first 5 seconds he or she is on screen, or not know where the plot is headed 20 minutes before any plot points unfold; he or she has to be completely unfamiliar with Western literature.
And such films can be fun. We know when we watch “Superman” he’s going to save Lois and the world before it’s over, but there can still be some good dialogue and twists and turns along the way.
The original Star Wars was novel and for that reason, entertaining. Never understood the cult; and was never interested in subsequent films. Curmudgeon like, I am switched off by over-hyped, cult obsessed films in general.
I know that attitude is out of step with 21st century cultural trends; but don’t care.
My taste runs more toward “Bridge of Spies”; an actual story populated by people.
kolnai:
I have trouble with the fantasy genre in general, too. You should have seen me trying to read The Hobbit and Watership Down—reading the first couple of pages over and over and giving up.
And yet I like quite a bit of science fiction (as long as it doesn’t veer into fantasy genre), particularly Philip K. Dick.
I’m not sure why. I just find the fantasy genre BOR-ing, for the most part, both in books and especially movies. I don’t think it’s intrinsically boring, however. I just find it repetitive and formulaic, the way it’s usually done.
The one thing we know about Hollywood is that when women lose their youthful looks they tend to also lose their screen time. Unless they are really top flight actors like Meryl Streep [66] or Judi Dench [81] or Charlotte Rampling [69]. But if they are known primarily for their looks then they don’t tend to get good roles.
Carrie Fisher is known mostly for Star Wars and somewhat for her looks. I did notice she was older and a bit stiff but it is good to see her back on the big screen.
I have never been a Star Wars fan. I am not a fan of the fantasy genre. I find reality hard enough to deal with 🙂 . I’m not sure if I even saw the first Star Wars or not. I must have, but if I did, it didn’t make much of an impression on me.
A family friend went to work for George Lucas right out of college, not long after Star Wars came out. She found out she disliked the phoniness that pervaded Hollywood, and took her talents across the pond, where she has done well for herself. It took some self-confidence on her part to part ways with a big name like George Lucas. She calculated that if she was talented enough for George Lucas to hire her when he has just become a big name, she had talent enough to do well without Mr. Lucas.
It seems there are at least four or five who have no interest in “fantasy” movies of the epic type. [There is probably an open question as to offbeat films set in ostensibly prosaic settings, but where the plot-line becomes increasingly uncanny or imaginary. I’m not referring to The Matrix or Inception type films here either.]
My guess is that the same people who have little or no interest in Star Wars kinds of films, probably are the same type who become extremely annoyed with poorly done historically themed films (at least if they are meant to be taken partly seriously); full of anachronistic expressions, attitudes, and clownish actors speaking in contemporary patois. Though I know most are not meant to be really serious, you still could not pay me enough to watch Kevin Costner pretending to be Robin Hood. And even the Russell Crowe version had to figure out a way to nod in a PC direction and incorporate explosions. Troy? Blech … Kingdom of Heaven. Same. I realize they are actually supposed to be, not-quite-history, but all the same: Crap. The entertainment value just evaporates under the glare of an anachronism so intense you cannot suspend disbelief and cooperate in your own entertainment.
Spare us all these embarrassments. On the positive side they may be mercifully fewer nowadays than they were in the days of the Hollywood B movie.
And too, for a long while now, slightly more serious films like El Cid or Prince of Foxes have made a creditable attempt at a reasonable-to-its-purpose verisimilitude; or at least atmosphere, in parts.
It’s probably only in “historical” fantasies based on myths where we see the completely ridiculous 6th century “knights” strutting around the castle dressed in their shiniest plate armor. So bright you can see Tom Cruz’s reflection in it. Makes Costner look almost good by comparison.
Well, it’s a business; and they are supposedly selling tickets not enlightenment. At least when they are not pushing an agenda.
I enjoyed the movie but I felt like I had been teleported back to 1977
Here’s a rough plot —
An agent puts urgent secret information into an android and sets it loose on a desert planet. The android finds its way into the company of a young adventurer, who eventually finds their way off the desert planet aboard a certain space freighter. The freighter is intercepted and dragged into another ship, and its crew hides under the floor grates. A young woman is tortured by the main bad guy to get the information the droid carries, but eventually gets away with the help of rescuers. The bad guys kill a whole bunch of people using an awesome space weapon. They then make their way to a ragtag bunch of rebels, and as they get ready to destroy the rebel base, the rebels attack the super weapon in small fighters. During the fighting, a mentor and father figure to the young person we met on the desert world is killed by the main bad guy, who he knows from the past. One of the small fighters is able to race down a narrow chink in the super weapon’s armor and destroy it just in the nick of time. We all go home for tea and medals.
Now, are we talking about 1977 or 2015?
…other plot points:
In 1977 when i saw the first one, the Navy’s F14 Tomcat was just coming online and was state of the art. By 2015, the F14 had been decommissioned for many years. So, you would think that in 38 years the Tie and X-wing fighters would have also been replaced by newer technology. You would be wrong.
And then there’s the politics. In the first movie, the government was the hated empire which had supplanted the beloved republic. The rebels were rebelling against that government. 38 years later, the republic has been restored and there is still a “resistance” (…with Carrie Fisher as it’s leader.) Who are they resisting?
And then there are the economics. Where does the money come from to pay for all of this high tech wizardry?
Oh well, it’s just a movie.
In 1977 when i saw the first one, the Navy’s F14 Tomcat was just coming online and was state of the art. By 2015, the F14 had been decommissioned for many years. So, you would think that in 38 years the Tie and X-wing fighters would have also been replaced by newer technology. You would be wrong.
——————–
The problem with your analogy is that the F-14 was not phased out due to being an outdated fighter. It was phased out for other reasons. iirc, at the time, it was considered to be a superior fighter than its replacement, the F-18 Hornet. But the Hornet had other advantages that were considered more important by the people who make the decisions (the fact that it was a multi-role aircraft was probably one of those advantages), so the Tomcat was replaced by the Hornet.
Meanwhile, the F-15, which was introduced in 1976, is still in service. And so is the MiG-29, which had its first flight in 1977.
Resistance – They’re resisting the First Order, which is the government of a small star nation (seemingly modeled after the fallen Empire) in which the action in the movie takes place. I’d have thought that the movie made this clear. Based on statements made during the film, financing for the Resistance appears to be handled via donations by wealthy private individuals within the Republic, as the government of the Republic does not currently view the First Order as an immediate threat.
I have trouble with the fantasy genre in general, too. You should have seen me trying to read The Hobbit and Watership Down–reading the first couple of pages over and over and giving up.
——————-
It’s too bad that you can’t make it that far into Watership Down. While the opening has a strong sense of the supernatural (iirc, it opens with Fiver’s prophetic vision of doom), most of the book is actually very grounded. The characters are rabbits, and they think and act like rabbits (for the most part). They’re not human minds in animal bodies, like you’d encounter in a Beatrix Potter book. Of particular interest, one of the recurring topics is how governments come about, and what the results of those governments are. Efrafa, encountered late in the book, is pretty much the blueprint of where the progressive path takes a nation, which means that it’s a controlling hellhole for anyone who lives in it, aside from the people at the top.
DNW, in my case your theory is correct. It really angers me when screenwriters take actual, historical events and insert lies and fallacies. Oliver Stone’s “JFK” is one of the worst examples.
I remember hearing an interview with one of the most prolific conspiracy theorists who had been approached by Stone for the rights to one of his books. To paraphrase: “I had data and facts that point to the CIA killing the President but even that wasn’t enough for Oliver Stone!” The author refused to provide the rights. His point being, using available facts and data one can make an argument for several, sensational films, but Stone still wanted to make up his own facts.
I had the same problem with “Titanic.” With all the real life drama and thousands of true stories on that ship why make up a fictitious one? And the politicization of some of the famous characters… The script had wealthy gentlemen and women who had behaved admirably and courageously acting like craven murderers. Awful.
Rufus T. Firefly:
Yes, it usually bothers me when I see a historical film and know enough about the events portrayed therein to know how many liberties they are taking. I knew enough to avoid those Oliver Stone films—I would have been so angry had I been watching them.
I have another pet peeve—films about dance where non-dancers play the role of dancers and don’t look or stand or walk like dancers. “Black Swan” (a film I detested for other reasons) pretty much avoided that problem by training Natalie Portman very intensely to the point where she could somewhat pull it off (with the help of a dance double), but usually it’s not done.
Ha! The same thing drives me nuts. I recall the Hollywood press raving at how quickly Kevin Bacon and John Travolta (and others) became passable dancers for movie roles. I always think, “With all the great actors and actresses who are already outstanding dancers why not use one of them?!”
neo-neocon, I recently heard a podcast with Bruce Dern. One of only two or three pieces of advice he gave his daughter when she asked how to become an actor was, “learn to dance.” He said actors have to learn how to share the private with the public and he believes dancing helps one learn to do that, as well as teaching discipline of the body and its movements.
I grew up loving science fiction (but never fantasy). I saw the original when it first came out but didn’t view it as SF but rather a romance in the literary meaning in which Good battles Evil, and Good wins in the end. And it contained elements of travel, adventure and action. Formulaic? Perhaps, but satisfying.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, although thanks to Richard Aubrey’s spoilers, I know that Han dies. I will enjoy watching the movie nonetheless.
People have a certain record concerning spoilers, a reputation built over time. Some will talk around the issue, others won’t.
Too bad there’s no Ebay rating about that one.