Star Wars: The Force Awakens (J.J. Abrams, 2015)

[knives]

Avatar will already be dethroned as the all-time domestic box office champ sometime Monday

Wow, that's almost disgusting. Also crazy is that it has already made in proportion to its opening what comparable films like Avengers and Jurassic World made by the end of their run (the opening accounting for about 33% of the total gross). More than the actual numbers (which on a certain level should have been expected) that I think is the real shocker of this story.

[Trees]

Looks like TFA's third weekend might make more than Skyfall's opening weekend.

[Drucker]

Looks like TFA's third weekend might make more than Skyfall's opening weekend.

When I went to see Hateful 8 the other night in NYC, there was a gigantic line for Star Wars. Not surprising.

[knives]

Looks like TFA's third weekend might make more than Skyfall's opening weekend.

When I went to see Hateful 8 the other night in NYC, there was a gigantic line for Star Wars. Not surprising.

Though completely unlikely as for that to be possible TFA would essentially have to have the same exact numbers from this week.

[Trees]

I'm just talking domestically. Estimates right now are $88 million, so it could happen.

[knives]

And I stupidly thought this was its second weekend for some reason.

[Trees]

"The George Awakens", aka "The Lucas Strikes Back"

A not-completely-convincing attempt to rehabilitate Lucas:

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultur ... ge-awakens" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Then the new movie came out, and a strange thing happened. Even as critics saluted “The Force Awakens” and fans turned it into a billion-dollar hit, both camps have come scurrying to the feet of Lucas, the master, rather than Abrams, the apprentice. To call what’s happening a full-blown critical reëvaluation is perhaps going too far. It’s more like a reawakening. For the first time in a more than a decade people are talking about Lucas with something other than withering contempt."

[connor]

Even as critics saluted “The Force Awakens” and fans turned it into a billion-dollar hit, both camps have come scurrying to the feet of Lucas, the master, rather than Abrams, the apprentice.

I did a double-take as soon as I read that bit. This thing he says is happening...it is not actually happening.

Here's a much better piece on Lucas's legacy.

Rather than apologizing to a $170bn corporation for hurting its feelings, Lucas should probably apologize to all of his employees from the mid-1980s onwards, and to the tens of thousands of VFX animators and tech engineers and others caught up in the massive wage-fixing cartel that spread across industries and oceans until it was busted up by the Department of Justice in 2010.

Better yet, he could pay back some of the stolen wages that VFX tech workers are seeking in a class action antitrust lawsuit that grew out of the landmark Silicon Valley wage-theft lawsuit, and which -- court documents revealed -- was prompted by Pando’s reporting on the Hollywood component of the illegal conspiracy.

[flyonthewall2983]

Starz secures the rights to TFA, marking the last film in the network's deal with Disney

[Swift]

Do people still care about premieres on TV? I assume that anyone who wants to watch Star Wars will have watched it already by the time it airs, either at the theatre or through other means.

[flyonthewall2983]

I've always had this odd obsession with what premium channels have deals with the studios, be they major or indie. So I guess it kind of matters to me, though it doesn't answer your question directly. I'd say it would matter when the movie is as huge as this one, but then again maybe huge for the 20 people who didn't see it.

Unless something changes between now and when it premieres, it could be a coup for Amazon Prime, who have recently acquired Starz as a subscription service.

[Altair]

I did a double-take as soon as I read that bit. This thing he says is happening...it is not actually happening.

Actually, there does seem to be a movement towards rehabilitating the prequels: see Gerardo Valero's piece on RogerEbert.com

[swo17]

Oof. J.J. Abrahams? Also this:

1999 audiences might have first embraced the first prequel (myself included) but perhaps a rush of negative vibes running through the newly created internet, eventually changed the tide of opinion... Personally I believe that we owe George Lucas an apology.

[domino harvey]

How much of this new reevaluation is just nerds, needing to feel separate from "mainstream" tastes, deciding to be contrary and embrace a trilogy that's universally loathed and mocked (often by these same rehabilitaters in the not so distant past) over admitting their own tastes aren't special in the wake of this new film well on its way to being the most financially successful film of all time?

[jindianajonz]

I can only speak for myself, but the nerd in me has always had some appreciation for the prequels- it's just a matter of looking past the major missteps (Jar Jar and Anakin) and appreciating what's going on behind it. I still think the world building in the prequels is some of the best in all of Geekdom, and I kind of like the trajectory Anakin took in falling to the dark side, if not some of the individual scenes that make it up. I know people chide the prequels for ruining the mystery of Darth Vader, but I can almost forgive all the creepy sleep-watching and complaints about sand that Anakin has just for the scene of him getting his armor for the first time and finding out about Padme. I get the impression that this recent "reevaluation" is just people similarly learning to look past the obvious surface defects and finding things to latch onto that are actually done quite well.

[knives]

How much of this new reevaluation is just nerds, needing to feel separate from "mainstream" tastes, deciding to be contrary and embrace a trilogy that's universally loathed and mocked (often by these same rehabilitaters in the not so distant past) over admitting their own tastes aren't special in the wake of this new film well on its way to being the most financially successful film of all time?

Probably more along the line of kids who grew up with the prequels and have bad taste now have a very loud voice through the Internet.

[domino harvey]

Haha maybe both! My problem with believing the sincerity of this reevaluation is that it's never coupled with praise for the new film, it has to be one or the other. And that's just contrarianism, or the appearance of it at least.

[knives]

You're probably right, though I suspect it's something like a much less intentionally malicious defense of nostalgia. A bit like a kid on the playground asking why no one likes their toys that they love so much and feeling obligated to lash out against the popular option.

[willoneill]

Oof. J.J. Abrahams?

Because Star Wars is the #1 film ever in practically every country in the world, God has decreed that J.J. will no longer be called Abrams; he will now be called Abrahams and has been made father of many nations' box office.

[YnEoS]

I think The Force Awakens hits certain check marks in an oft repeated idea that remakes and sequels are responsible for the death of creativity in hollywood and that they should be supporting more original stories to bring back quality filmmaking. Often I see this argument deployed with out much consideration for basic craft of storytelling and taking slightly original films like Christopher Nolan's as evidence that more originality = better films always. So they need so sound the trumpets and remind everyone that they're watching another carbon copy sequel just made to earn tons of money.

There's a lot of bad things about the prequels, but I also think they've been overly demonized by the fandom. I remember watching the phantom menace as a kid, I thought the scene where they were chased by the different sized fish was a really cool in addition to the podracing. Re-watching the original trilogy in preparation for The Force Awakens, I was struck by the sense of adventure in each movie, like landing the millennium falcon on an asteroid and finding they were inside a living creature, going to the swamp planet expecting to meet a Jedi master and meeting Yoda. There was a genuine sense of wonder and discovery there that I think is an important component of Star Wars to me.

Now I think The Force Awakens makes numerous storytelling and character development improvements over the prequels and the original trilogy that far outweigh any of its flaws. That said I do think it felt a bit safe in terms of sticking to familiar tropes from the original trilogy and didn't quite have the same sense of wonder that I usually get from the series. I think The Force Awakens definitely deserves all the money its earning and does way more things right than I even hoped for, but I do think it does highlight some of the minor strengths of the prequels as well, and some people are grabbing onto that and blowing it out of proportion.

The most important role of The Force Awakens for me was to connect the new series of movies to the original trilogy in a way that fits, and I think they did that brilliantly. I'll be a bit disappointed if they don't stray from the material of the original trilogy with future films, though the standalone movies gives them some great opportunities to experiment, so I'm optimistic.

[matrixschmatrix]

The prequels are some vaguely interesting ideas (oft mocked though it is, I find the whole idea of making star wars about bureaucracy and trade disputes perversely fascinating) coupled with truly abysmal filmmaking and a fair amount of stuff that winds up being a sort of reverse fan service, seemingly going out of its way to irritate Star Wars fans, or to give them so much of what they want that they start to hate it (midichlorians, making the Jedi ultimately useless and kind of dull, endless action scenes that hold no real weight, etc.) The new movie is, I think, infinitely better filmmaking- even at his worst (Star Trek Beyond) Abrams is a perfectly capable filmmaker in terms of getting from point a to b- coupled with some really strong parts (better characters than the series has gotten since, ever?) and some other parts that feel like a similar attempt to give people what they want to that of the prequels, if better targeted and less just weird for the moment. I agree that it feels, overall, pretty safe- I mean, this is a movie that everyone knew had unlimited box office potential, and nobody wanted to fuck it up- but with a few exceptions, not horribly to its detriment.

I can see finding in it new grounds to rewatch and try and enjoy the prequels, though- if nothing else, Abrams movies are very consistently blockbuster filmmaking of the very second they come out, whereas the prequels are blockbuster filmmaking of either the 90s or just some strange universe where blockbusters work differently, and as much as they are all just awful, they do have their moments (the beat in Episode One, during the climactic lightsaber duel between Maul, Kenobi, and Jinn, when the gates go up and Kenobi has to stand and watch helplessly while Jinn is stabbed in the gut, and then continue standing for a couple of beats- and Duel of the Fates is blasting- works really well, well enough that you briefly forget how terrible the costumes and hair are.)

[beamish13]

The new movie is, I think, infinitely better filmmaking- even at his worst (Star Trek Beyond) Abrams is a perfectly capable filmmaker in terms of getting from point a to b- coupled with some really strong parts (better characters than the series has gotten since, ever?)

I haven't seen his Star Trek films, but Super 8 is one of the most atrocious films I've tried (a rare work I simply could not finish) to watch. Artificial and overbearingly sentimental in equal measure, with visuals that could be from any nine-figure budget film of recent years.

[TMDaines]

I've watched Episode 1 and 2 over the last week and both are so utterly dreadful. For the amount happening in screen, the films generate so little excitement. The CGI throughout is also highly problematic. The animation itself is fair, but it never feels as if it is anything more than a green screen.

I personally found the new film a little derivative, but it was certainly enthralling for the most part, even if I did feel like I had seen it all before.

[Mr Sausage]

I personally found the new film a little derivative, but it was certainly enthralling for the most part, even if I did feel like I had seen it all before.

To put it a bit in perspective, the original film is about a knight, his apprentice, and a smuggler sneaking into the palace of a dark lord to rescue a princess. Star Wars is derivative by nature: it's Romance. That this sequel should repeat the originals is the most appropriate thing they could've done considering the movies came out of a genre of storytelling that borrowed, recycled, added to, and reworked inherited stories.

The thing about these repetitions is that they accrue meanings and form larger patterns. Rey's journey is more significant to us for repeating Luke's journey--more significant than if it hadn't, or indeed than Luke's was at the time. Kylo Renn is more significant for how he repeats (or doesn't) Vader, and the assault on the death planet is more important for repeating the death star runs. You repeat narrative and character patterns enough within a specific world and you move up the ladder from story to cycle (and increasingly upwards until you reach the final abstraction of all this: myth).

The use of repetition in the movie is both fan service and an attempt to make the original series into a typefied storytelling pattern, one about recurrence and cycle--an essential plot. This is the pattern of Romance (the same stories told and retold, with each variation gaining significance from the larger pattern). I have no idea if this was conscious or accidental on the part of the filmmakers, or if they would ever think of it in these terms, but it doesn't matter. Star Wars makes sense in this context. It's pulp, it's adventure, it's Romance; it's all about borrowing, reworking, and tradition. Something with this much cultural importance could only become its own tradition to borrow from.

This was a fun bunch of nonsense that knows exactly where it comes from, and is the first Star Wars film in a long time that actually felt like Star Wars.

[lubitsch]

The new movie is, I think, infinitely better filmmaking- even at his worst (Star Trek Beyond) Abrams is a perfectly capable filmmaker in terms of getting from point a to b- coupled with some really strong parts (better characters than the series has gotten since, ever?) and some other parts that feel like a similar attempt to give people what they want to that of the prequels, if better targeted and less just weird for the moment. I agree that it feels, overall, pretty safe- I mean, this is a movie that everyone knew had unlimited box office potential, and nobody wanted to fuck it up- but with a few exceptions, not horribly to its detriment.

You mean Star Trek into Darkness surely? In fact quite the very last thing one could say about his ST films (though that goes for a lot of modern blockbusters) is that there's any capability involved in making them move from a to b. Due to the plot's construction around big action scenes the films have nothing you could call a coherent story. And sci-fi allows these "scriptwriters" to create absurd short cuts which was noticeable in the ST films to a painful degree by using essentially magical gimmicks which undermine the plausibility of the narrative universe like beaming across half the galaxy.
Basically Abrams is a typical modern blockbuster pastiche director. He takes old myths, rearranges some characters, repeats crucial scenes or elements and throws this into a string of action sequences. It's hollow and pointless.

To put it a bit in perspective, the original film is about a knight, his apprentice, and a smuggler sneaking into the palace of a dark lord to rescue a princess. Star Wars is derivative by nature: it's Romance. That this sequel should repeat the originals is the most appropriate thing they could've done considering the movies came out of a genre of storytelling that borrowed, recycled, added to, and reworked inherited stories.

The thing about these repetitions is that they accrue meanings and form larger patterns. Rey's journey is more significant to us for repeating Luke's journey--more significant than if it hadn't, or indeed than Luke's was at the time. Kylo Renn is more significant for how he repeats (or doesn't) Vader, and the assault on the death planet is more important for repeating the death star runs. You repeat narrative and character patterns enough within a specific world and you move up the ladder from story to cycle (and increasingly upwards until you reach the final abstraction of all this: myth).

The use of repetition in the movie is both fan service and an attempt to make the original series into a typefied storytelling pattern, one about recurrence and cycle--an essential plot. This is the pattern of Romance (the same stories told and retold, with each variation gaining significance from the larger pattern). I have no idea if this was conscious or accidental on the part of the filmmakers, or if they would ever think of it in these terms, but it doesn't matter. Star Wars makes sense in this context. It's pulp, it's adventure, it's Romance; it's all about borrowing, reworking, and tradition. Something with this much cultural importance could only become its own tradition to borrow from.

This pretty much excuses any lack of ideas and any repetitive pastiche by simply declaring that it's mythmaking. Yes, genre films build on well established patterns. However there's a difference between variation and simple repetition. I haven't seen the new film, but they've really

Spoiler

used another death star? For the third time in seven films?