I am completely and inexorably baffled by this.
I mean, the new movie has it's obvious flaws, too. But it at least felt like I was watching an actual Star Wars movie (Rather than a weird simulation of one).
But then again, I didn't create Star Wars and get a bajillion dollars, so I don't know fuzzy bunny.
I enjoyed the new movie, but it was far, far too safe. It didn't introduce anything new. Basically, all the ships got a facelift and that's it. Death Star is back and bigger than ever before. And that thermal exhaust port that's the one weakness? Made it bigger too, and changed its name from thermal exhaust to thermal oscillator. Ice planet, desert planet, forest planet. New X-wing? Oh, let's just cut the intakes in half and paint it black! New X-Wing! Same TIE Fighter, but it's all new because it's black and red now!
One of the greatest things about Star Wars is the diversity in technology, the cool stuff. The varying planets. The aliens. It really shows that it's a big universe with different types of ships and weapons and all. The Force Awakens had its moments (that lightning baton thing, troop transports, etc), but for the most part, was incredibly safe.
Good movie, too safe. I respect Lucas for at least trying to introduce new stuff in the prequels, which he did. New stuff every movie, and that stuff builds on the universe as a whole. I mean it was a distance with what he did with the original trilogy. He showed how a war over trade disputes, a democracy fell, how an empire rose. If anything, see how Lucas created allegories in both the prequels and the original trilogy. In the OG, take for example ROTJ. Empire getting fuzzy bunny on by a bunch of Ewoks, allegory how the US got crapped on by the Vietcong during the Vietname War. In AOTC and ROTS, how Palpatine was granted nearly unlimited power in the face of war, the Jedi playing along in the name of peace and safety, Anakin singlehandedly bringing down the Republic, allegory for the Patriot Act after the 9/11 attacks, U.S's dislike for W. Bush for his actions. The international vying for influence in the Middle East where much oil flows from, trade and all. He weaved social and political commentary into his movies. Yeah, a lot of the dialogue was pretty miserable. I agree with that. The actors weren't bad though. Natalie Portman is a good actress, for example. But if the movies had better scripts, could've it been just as good as the Original Trilogy? Absolutely. The concepts and storyline of the prequels are solid, a good story to tell. Unfortunately, Lucas's strengths aren't in screenwriting with dialogue. Despite that, he still told a story of a fall of a democracy and rise of an empire.
Going along with the same idea of "a simulation of one," I don't knock the heavy use of greenscreen. Let's take the movie Avatar by James Cameron. Wildly successful movie, shot mostly on bluescreen/greenscreen type technology. It doesn't get the same fuzzy bunny that the prequels get. So when people cite the heavy use of greenscreen making it feel like an artificial movie, I'm disappointed in them. If anything, Lucas practically pioneered the form of creating movies almost entirely on greenscreen-like technology, as far as I know.
While Force Awakens technically has "new planets" and "new stuff" it's nothing we haven't seen before. That's my biggest qualm with Force Awakens. I liked the new characters for the most part, I enjoyed the movie, disappointed with universe building.
I realize I may annoy a lot of people with this post, people have an deep dislike for the prequels. I dislike them too, but I recognize their quality and I respect George Lucas for creating them. I also dislike the Force Awakens too, for reasons. But I still like it, just like I appreciate the prequels despite its obvious flaws. Every movie has its ups and downs, and for people to refuse to recognize the ups of the prequels is naive to me.
Edited by Silverfire, 12 January 2016 - 09:45 AM.