[This review contains SPOILERS so please don’t read it if you haven’t seen the film].
I saw Star Wars: The Force Awakens on Sunday, and really enjoyed the spectacle and the homecoming feeling of it, but reflecting on some of the things that niggled at me during the movie, I have decided now that it wasn’t a very good or indeed necessary addition to the series. There were many things to like about it: the first battle of the TIE fighters with the millenium falcon, much of what Kylo Ren does and his velvety Sithlord style, the spectacle of the space battles and the pace were all great. I must confess to nearly shedding a tear when Han Solo and Chewbacca emerged, and I thought it nicely reproduced the riotous colour and fantastical nature of the original series without overdoing CGI or grotesqueness. I thought all the main characters were great, really enjoyed Han and Leia’s gentle brokenness, and appreciated BB-8. I also appreciated the modernization and diversification of the cast, with a lot more women in positions of power and influence and a wider range of non-human races in the Republican forces, and I thought a lot of the dialogue hewed closer to the original spirit, without the heavy doom-laden pretentiousness (and humourless weakness) of the prequels.
In short, on a superficial level it was a great Star Wars movie and it seems to have earned great reviews (and a metric crapton of money) from a wide range of sources on that basis. But on reflection, there were a couple of major flaws with the movie that left me disappointed. Here I will present my main three criticisms of the movie, summarize a few more minor complaints with the content, and give my final feelings about this new series of three movies.
There was no narrative purpose.
Why was I in the cinema watching this thing? The prequels had an obvious purpose, which was to tell the story of the rise of the Empire and overthrow of the Republic, track Vader’s fall from grace and the destruction of the Jedi, etc. In a narrative sense it was necessary, though obviously once we had watched these crawling abominations we all agreed that from an artistic perspective these movies were not only a disaster, but risked wrecking the legacy of the originals. So in this new set of movies, we need a reason to be watching. But what is that reason? At the end of Return of the Jedi we are led to believe the Empire is broken, peace has been won, and the order restored, but at the beginning of this movie there is some sinister new evil force afoot that isn’t just a remnant of the old Empire – it is much more powerful. Our escaping stormtrooper makes it out to be some kind of panopticon in its powers, and it seems to be able to build a death star that dwarfs even the supposedly unprecedented engineering feat of the last one. It appears that in a short space of time everything that happened in the original movies has been not just undone but seriously stomped all over, and yet still this time there is a Republic (not a Rebellion) and the war is ongoing. We are given no reason to understand how this happened, or why we should be throwing in our lot again with the same crew of people who somehow allowed this to happen. Implicit in this collapse of the Republican peace is a big question – will this galactic war ever end? When we joined the original crew in A New Hope we did so on the assumption that somehow they would prevail, as good always does in these kinds of movies, and there would be an ending. But now that victory is not just under threat, it has been comprehensively undone. So why should we suffer through all this stuff again – just to see it fail again? What are we doing here …?
It feels like a family story
I hate the way the prequels decided to keep everything in the family, and even though they preceded the original movies they still managed to find ways to include people connected to those original movies – C3PO, Boba Fett’s dad for Christ’s sake – rather than finding a new cast and drawing them together into the story of Vader’s downfall and the rise of the Empire. It’s even worse in this new movie – we get the entire original cast back, Kylo Ren is Han Solo and Leia’s son, and the entire movie is structured around the quest for Luke Skywalker (who I bet turns out to be Rey’s dad). Also, Kylo Ren is a Vader fanboy, even though he is not related to him, which undermines his character by making him into some kind of pimply evil boy wannabe rather than a serious threat, but also reminds us that nobody in this story can be independent of the originals. Couldn’t we have an evil guy who didn’t give a toss about Vader, and who was not related to the original cast, so that those cast members could just do a cameo to anchor us to the previous stories before we go off on our new journey? There are stars without number in this galaxy, and more humans than grains of sand on Dune, yet somehow the same four people really count for the entire future of the galaxy? This risks turning the whole thing into a sitcom or soap opera, rather than a galaxy-spanning epic.
It copied too much from the original
Sometimes it’s a good idea to copy the plot for a sequel from the previous movie. The best example of this is Terminator 2, which is an excellent movie that basically precisely follows the plot of the original movie, with The T-800 in the role of Kyle Rees. Even attacks on police stations and overturning trucks occur in the exact same sequence – you’re watching the same movie, but loving its freshness and brilliance anyway. But this doesn’t work in The Force Awakens, somehow. It has a lot of similar scenes and the key details are the same. For example: A droid lost on a desert planet brings a plea for help to a young dreamer desperate to escape; they escape from the desert world in the Millenium Falcon, chased past star destroyers by TIE fighters; everyone is looking for a lost, old Jedi who is hiding from responsibility in shame at his failed pupil; Han Solo and his young supplicants make their plans in a pan-galactic bar; there is an attack on a death star, including x-wings flying down a tunnel to put precision ordnance on a weak spot; a major planet is destroyed by that star destroyer simply to send a message; while the young idealist looks on, her elderly hero is killed in a sacrificial scene by an evil sith lord. The only thing JJ Abrams really did was change the faces, and move the elements around a bit. But while the power of the scenes copied for Terminator 2 was in their visual impact and style, the power of many of these scenes in A New Hope is in their emotional impact and freshness. We don’t get that same impact the second time round, because they aren’t fresh anymore. Sure Solo’s death is pretty shocking, and the lead up is visually cool, but the rest of these moments don’t hold the same power the second time.
How this is all going to go wrong…
None of these aspects of the movie would be a problem in isolation – they might even be good points – but in total they give the impression of a movie that has been made more so that we can wallow in the past glories of the original series, rather than that we can carry that series forward. It’s a homage to the joys of the original more than anything new, and worryingly it is in its newest elements that it is weakest. Of course I’m happy to see a well-constructed homage to the original series, but there were many aspects of this new movie that weren’t well done. For example, in the original Millenium Falcon traveling at light speed takes time – long enough for a game of chess and a bit of Jedi training – but in this movie people zip about the galaxy as if they were popping out to the shops; in the original Vader was an indestructible, intense and unstoppable force for evil who cut his own son’s hand off, but in this one Ren can be taken on by some random stormtrooper who picked up a sword. In the original the Empire can make a death star that is capable of destroying planets but is vulnerable to a carefully-placed proton torpedo; in this one the death star is the size of a planet and actually channels the raw power of suns, but is just as vulnerable as the original; in the original the Millenium Falcon is picked up by a Star Destroyer because it was on its way to Alderaan, but in this one it is nabbed by Han Solo’s freighter because even though it had been lost for 10 years he got an alarm as soon as the engine turned on and was able to instantly get to the right place at the right time to find it. We overlook these weak points because they’re being blasted at us at a million miles an hour by JJ Abrams’ tight-paced directing, but there are a whole series of major flaws in the story that bode ill for the future of this series. In combination with the nostalgic turn through memory lane and the dependence on scenes and tropes from the original, it makes me think that this movie is more a series of set-pieces tied together by a weak plot than a legendary adventure. If so, once Abrams’s homage shtick starts to wear thin, I fear things will unravel badly. Remember, this is the JJ Abrams who made the absolutely terrible Star Trek reboot with the flamingly bad time travel story; if you doubt that his directing is weak, you can check out the long list of problems with the new Star Wars movie here. This doesn’t bode well for the next two movies.
My hope is that for the next two movies we will follow a dark and bitter story in which Skywalker’s anger at Solo’s death leads him on a path of ruin into the dark side and out again, perhaps redeeming himself and uniting dark and light side at the end. I don’t think that’s going to happen, though: I think JJ Abrams is going to come unstuck once he runs out of nostalgia to back him up, and is going to make two increasingly woeful and hole-filled movies that betray the original three movies just as surely as the prequels did. Of course I’ll watch them anyway (or at least, the next one); but I wonder if perhaps it might have been better to take this series out the back and put it down long before now.
December 25, 2015 at 3:31 am
Hey,
was about to email you and Paul about this but figured I’d just check here first!
Sadly, and less interestingly from the point of view of journalistic debate (come and disagree Paul!), I agree wholeheartedly.
I think the big point you make is spot on. WTF have they been doing the last 30 years? OK, perhaps I can imagine some kind of cold war super powers thing where the remnants of the Empire run one half and the Republic the other but that would imply the Republic did give up on freeing the other half of the galaxy? But the Resistance implies a smaller force not in power, resisting those who are? So what exactly is the relationship between the republic, the resistance and the first order?
Stepping back, the warnings were there from the opening scrawl (really, again…) but my initial enthusiasm carried me through the first third and I thought it started quite strongly as a whole. I loved the aftermath of the original war shown on screen, the derelict SSD and AT-AT (was her home really in the head of one of those btw or did I imagine that?). I loved the in-atmosphere dog fighting both at the beginning vs the Falcon and later on – that at least was a genuine new thing. Okay another droid with another secret message finding another youngster who, small correction Faustus, on this occasion did not EVER want to leave the planet (I guess they wrote that in deliberately as a counter point to Luke?). The ex storm trooper was another new idea (I think it speaks volumes that we can pick out what little originality exists like this), and pretty well executed, not wanting to be a hero, just escape, but later driven by his conscience (or some other part of his anatomy anyway) to do the right thing. The hot shot pilot was too thinly written to make an impression but I know the actor has been amazing in other things (check out Ex Machina if you’ve not seen it).
Daisy Ridley made a really strong impression straight away as Rey and was overall the best thing in the movie I think. I loved how they wrote her strength deliberately, Finn goes to help defend her from attack, but she wins on her own, he later on tries to help her run and gets “why the fuck are you holding my hand, I know how to run”. It was funny, and set up the character up well. She seems to be good at an awful lot of things so one wonders why she had to scavenge for a living but that’s nitpicking at the kinda trope we have to swallow with these pseudo orphans. Seen a lot of whining about her cut glass British accent which I just don’t understand. Do they think it would be better if she spoke like me? WTF is the accent on that planet meant to be anyway…
And the new droid was also great. It’s amazing what a head tilt can convey! Didn’t really like his sound effects as much, it just came across as a slightly differently pitched R2D2.
It was great when Han and Chewie finally made their appearance, albeit the conveniences were certainly starting to mount up. That whole CGI monsterfest on their hauler was typical Abrahams though. Even though it featured some cool antagonists (Raid duo anyone?) – the whole scene was clearly superfluous and shows Abrahm’s unwillingness to ever sit still for 5 minutes.. At this point in Star Wars we had a slower beat which allowed for some proper character development gorramit – we’ll clearly have none of that here… and most tellingly there was a decent introspective response to the destruction of Alderan (come back to that later).
The not quite Yoda character was really cool, but the Cantina full of aliens redux while also well done, it’s clearly a redux and calls very obviously out to the original which kicks me out of the movie I’m watching and reminds me I’m watching something increasingly hewing to the same track as it’s predecessor.
The Luke flashback thing when Rey handles the lightsaber was nice and alluded to the possibility that she had perhaps received some Jedi training from Luke when much younger which would explain her general handiness we’d seen to date and especially her later skillz.
The lightsaber vs powermaul thing I think was a nod to lots of RPGs / books which needed a way to justify why a Jedi with a weapon that can cut through ANYTHING doesn’t win every fight against someone without one but I don’t think it worked in the RPGs and I don’t think it worked here either.
The X-Wing / Tie dog fighting at this point was really good.
The Han / Leia reunion was beautifully interrupted by C3PO but otherwise not as sparky as I’d hoped. The whole premise that Han (and Luke for that matter) would just bugger off away from whatever had happened with his son and the rise of the first order though was pretty shocking I thought – never mind the lack of character development within this movie, they’re now trying to roll back character development that took place in the original trilogy (and even then he had a better reason for seeming to run off – to clear the bounty on his head)!
Then when we get to the yet another bleedin death star I was starting to groan internally a bit. The whole debate as to how to fight it was so perfunctory it’s almost like they didn’t care themselves at this point!
Our Darth Vader wannabe I quite liked overall. Clearly even more petulant than even Anakin ever was but it worked somehow – loved the storm troopers who’d just turn around and walk the other way when he went off on one.
While Ren is intriguing Hux and Snoke are just laughably bad. Domhnall Gleeson who plays Hux has been good in other things (Ex Machina again) but is awful in this. He has no menace whatsoever and comes across as a school yard bully (the pathetic secretly cowardly type at that). Snoke, is just a god awful name for a start and then the worst CGI in the whole movie. Admittedly it’s a hologam of a CGI alien so I guess it’s gonna look weird, but the character design is just very weak I think. Phasma was less obviously bad as she did almost nothing, oh, except, lower the shield on her superweapon because she had a gun pointed at her – hmm, not exactly Bobba Fett levels of skill and menace then eh…?
The brief reunion on (yet another) gantry over an abyss led to the not entirely unexpected outcome though I was hoping it wouldn’t (Ford’s been crying out for this for ages and wanted it in ESB and RotH). It was reasonably well handled but the grief we were presumably meant to feel wasn’t really earned. OK, grief about Han from our familiarity with the other movies, sure, but not the father / son dynamic. Someone also made the point elsewhere that Chewie meanwhile is stood there with the detonator waiting for all this and given they were trying to stop whole worlds being destroyed at this point it seems perhaps a little indulgent. Something we see briefly happen unlike Alderan but which seems to be given less weight by the other characters nevertheless.
The final light saber duals I enjoyed, Okay, there’s a risk they’ve diminished Kylo Ren as a legitimate threat when a trooper using a light saber for the second time can almost hold him off but we have to assume a bowcaster bolt to the belly does slow you down somewhat (given how they overplayed that earlier as well – Chekov’s gun alive and well it appears) and Rey I’m assuming has had some training – and I liked how she became more mindful at the end to get the upperhand.
So, overall, I did enjoy it. and I will see it again (going with an 8 and 6 year old next to vampirically feed of their enthusiasm) but while it was superior to the prequels and managed to capture the spirit of the originals and actually be really quite funny on it’s own merits, it is still, I think, place a distant fourth place overall.
The next 2 will have different directors at least so the ADHD will diminish.
VIII will be Rian Johnson (Looper – which was pretty good and Brick which I’ve not seen but meant to be good).
IX will be Colin Trevorrow (Jurassic World, so successful movie, but light fluffy codswallop. Johnson is writing both though so hopefully that will help).
cheers
M
December 25, 2015 at 11:35 am
A thorough fisking! Which I have edited slightly to remove my name (apparently a Salon reviewer got death threats for a similarly critical review, so let’s keep my name out of this …) I’m glad to hear JJ Abrams won’t be doing the next two, and I had been intending to watch Looper because it looked interesting. Jurassic World was really enjoyable – basic, straightforward plot, no bullshit, solid respect for the predecessor movies, etc. so hopefully that director can pull off a decent third movie, though the irritating character tropes (Distant but wants to be loved ex-soldier plus career woman who can’t get laid even though she’s hot) really stuck in my craw. I hope a little more intellectual energy goes into these movies!
Re: Hux, yes he was pretty awful, so much beautiful fascist imagery to work with and in the middle a fresh-faced boy clearly still angry about not getting a range-rover from daddy? How did the Empire manage to rebound with such vitality, if it was being led by basically youthful incarnations of the Chipping Norton set? Kylo Ren and Hux together are like juvenile David Cameron and George Osborne, plotting to take over their local conservative club or something (and failing until Rupert Murdoch gives them free newspaper support). No wonder the Empire can’t even catch a single droid …
I will finish with this great little comment that my friend put on his facebook:
December 26, 2015 at 5:13 pm
“Why was I in the cinema watching this thing?”
Because it was like a million voices shouted out “Take my money!” and then refused to be silent.
Less poetically, it’s a story. The only question that should be asked after “And they lived happily ever after…” is “Were the things that happened subsequently interesting?” If there’s an interesting story, tell it. If not, don’t. This story was interesting, therefore it is acceptable.
On another level, those of us who read the expanded universe novels have always assumed something else interesting happened.
“there is some sinister new evil force afoot that isn’t just a remnant of the old Empire”
This is the biggest failure in the movie, which may be addressed in the upcoming ones. How do these bad guys relate to the last ones? Where did they come from? Why is a rebellion fighting them and not the Republic?
There are a dozen reasonable answers I can come up with for these sorts of questions, but I shouldn’t have to paper over crappy universe building with head-canon.
” Kylo Ren is a Vader fanboy, even though he is not related to him.”
Leia’s son isn’t related to Vader? Please edit your post and hide your shame.
”It copied too much from the original”
It’s basically a re-make of the original. I loved it. I insist the next movie start on an ice planet 😉 The 30 years since the original is a sufficiently large amount of time. It’s not like this is Spiderman or Fantastic Four getting re-booted every decade. I wasn’t born when the original one was released and now I’m facing the quandary of how old someone has to be to start watching them [1]
On another level, the originals were just a form of classic Hero’s Journey. You could also claim that the new movies were a rip off of the Fellowship of the Rings [2].
” in the original Millenium Falcon traveling at light speed takes time – long enough for a game of chess and a bit of Jedi training”
JJ Abrams is a great director, but sadly he thinks that all travel happens at the speed of plot [3]. The Star Trek reboot also suffered from this because he seemingly has no conception that fans actually believe that movie plots can take place on a set larger than a city block in size. Seriously, this is the one of the few things that really pissed me off. Rey’s training speed is another thing that takes as long as JJ’s attention span can last…
That list of complaints about the movie is very good. It hits on the ones that irate me, though I simply don’t care about some (Poe surviving, the ease/difficulty of killing the base/etc).
I’ve heard that JJ Abrams isn’t directing the next one. We can only hope that the next director takes that step from making a great movie to expanding a great universe.
[1] Late 30s in my wife’s case… Assuming I can get her to watch it…
[2] I thought all the bad stuff was resolved by the Hobbit!
[3] Imagine a trip to the shops with him: “We’re stopped at the lights and I can still experience this! It must mean ninjas are about to attack!”
December 26, 2015 at 5:57 pm
I think I can agree with most of that! In my defense, the reason that I thought Kylo Ren wasn’t related to Vader is that I can’t envisage family relationships that spread wider than the nuclear unit, because my extended family are such a disaster zone and I have never really had any involvement with them (due to migration etc). So for me “Ren’s mum’s dad was Darth Vader and they never met” is equal to “unrelated”.
Clearly this is wrong. But I’m not going to edit the post, because screw genetics. If JJ Abrams can screw with time I can screw with genetics.
To be clear, I don’t object to copying redoing an original, even when the original wasn’t so long ago (see e.g. my deep love and affection for Terminator 2). But something about this particular remake was strangely off, I don’t know why. Maybe because the Terminator movies are caught in a plot loop (You could just line up a hundred Terminators at the time travel gates, send one through, wait a second – oop, human rebellion still happening, the last one must have failed, send another – wait a minute – oop, still going on, send another) so watching the same plot again with slightly different faces doesn’t bother me. But with Star Wars I want to see things move on. I want to know what happens next. With a whole galaxy of fantastic settings and scenes to play with, I don’t want to just see another desert planet and another forest moon, and I don’t want the same fractured relationships playing out on my screen – I want new ones that make a new legend.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. I want these three movies to deepen and enhance the legend, not stagnate.
December 26, 2015 at 7:27 pm
I agree with most of Merton’s points, but I don’t think I arrive at the same outcome. For an assortment of points:
”The whole premise that Han (and Luke for that matter) would just bugger off away from whatever had happened with his son and the rise of the first order though was pretty shocking I thought”
This I simply don’t agree with. Imagine if someone told you “You’ve done a really good job setting the world to rights, but that minor mistake has caused you son/nephew to become an evil asshole. To keep things trucking in the right direction, just convert him back, or slaughter him if he says no.”
If someone said that of my kids, my feedback would simply be that I’m OK with the death of a large portion of the population of our planet. And frankly, I feel like a saint for allowing that the worth of the life of everyone else may possibly be higher than that of one of my sons [1].
So to me, Han and Luke’s choice seems logical. If you can’t fight them and can’t stop them and can’t join them then running away is the better option than watching helplessly [2]
”Then when we get to the yet another bleedin death star I was starting to groan internally a bit.”
Hmm. Yeah. If this universe at least had some history explaining that superweapons had been awesome in the past, then there may be a reason to support this sort of crazy spending/effort on one weapon. But’s a frigging space opera, so we can assume there have been massive numbers of similar weapons and all have been a complete waste of time. The failure to learn from history is baffling, but it wouldn’t be space opera if Ming the Merciless wasn’t out to use the death ray…
”Hux … has no menace whatsoever and comes across as a school yard bully”
My reaction was: Doesn’t the First Order have any worthwhile guys with some actual experience, or is there a pretty boy quota that has pushed him up the ranks? Seriously, find me one modern general who doesn’t look like a middle aged male!
Onto Faustus:
“So for me “Ren’s mum’s dad was Darth Vader and they never met” is equal to “unrelated”.”
And for me, the most irresponsible thing Vader did was fail to provide free childcare at the drop of hat. If my Dad dies, the kids are playing unsupervised at the graveside once a week for 3 hours. How’s that for different life experiences setting expectations?
”But something about this particular remake was strangely off, I don’t know why.”
I enjoy reading http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/ and that blog author is very critical of moving the Mass Effect series from a “Details First” approach to a “Story First” approach. His definition is that Details First sets up a world and then allows the conflict to emerge s that a coherent story is presented (e.g. if your FTL works like X then you should expect behaviour like Y so that conflict Z is occurs). By contrast a Story First world will decide that there is a big weapon that needs to be destroyed in a massive set piece and then work out how to get the characters there regardless of how railroad-y it must be.
Now I don’t think anyone is going to advance the Star Wars movies as a Details First setting, but JJ has certainly moved it further away from the details. So we are expected to ignore the Republic expect as some sort of proxy for a target of unexpected terror attacks? And their entire Fleet (or enough of it), which presumably protects a couple of hundred (minimum) star systems is based around 5 planets? And all planets are whatever distance apart allows the current conversation to finish when travelling between them? And finding stuff (cities on a desert planet, ships in a universe, a toilet when no one is looking) take the amount of time required by the cinematics?
So, yeah, all those sacrifices irritate me. But The Force Awakens manages to hit the key notes of a Star Wars movie – fighting, quip, action, quip, fighting – rinse and repeat. I’m not after Shakespeare.
[1] I’m not committing to that point. I reserve the right to sacrifice everyone else to save my kids.
[2] If you want to criticise someone, why not Leia? She’s been fighting these guys for years and is an accomplished field operative but is too lazy to go collar her kid? Why does she get a pass? There’s a lot of sexism in play here – both in excusing her lack of action (i.e. a progressive style belief that women shouldn’t be blamed for their kids when their dads are given a pass) and in setting low expectations from her (basic garden variety sexism).
December 27, 2015 at 12:11 am
On the topic of Ren and Hux, I’m amused to see that the Weekly Standard (a conservative online journal from the USA) has a review of the movie that sees Ren as the deepest and most well-described character in the movie (needless to say the black dude and the chick are not movie-star material!), in fact the most complicated and interesting character of the franchise[1]. Take that, Vader, with your dark broody darkness and your redemption story! Also, we get this gem at the end:
What a surprise that a conservative journal should find this angle, of all possible political interpretations, at this particular juncture in Republican history …
I’m interested in your position on wiping out half a planet to save your son, and how that reflects on Han Solo’s decision to run away from his son. Most relationships fall apart after a child dies and in this case he didn’t run out on the child, he ran away after the child died (effectively) which is pretty normal and usually not something most people judge a couple for. So I think Merton is being overly harsh on Solo in that regard. But your point was slightly different. I’m thinking of writing a post shortly about family (in connection with Christmas) so I might put it aside till then, but I’m interested in how you think your feelings can be so different from those of previous generations of men? For example, in the music video for One a man tells his son that “a man would give his only begotten son for democracy” and traditionally it’s mothers who try to stop their sons going to war, not fathers. In my experience dads are singularly uninterested in their children. But in my generation dads seem to be much more focused on their children and much more loving and committed. On the assumption that you’re not unusual, how can you explain such a sea change in dads’ attitudes towards their children? If it’s biological, then what social functions were so powerful as to make dads uninterested in their kids or positively supportive of their own childrens’ destruction (back in the early 20th century) that don’t operate on this generation? This question has interested me ever since I’ve noticed my peers become dads and be so openly happy about it, compared to my parents’ peers who were all arseholes about it. A threadjack I know, but it’s my blog and I’ll jack it if I want to.
December 27, 2015 at 12:27 pm
“On the assumption that you’re not unusual, how can you explain such a sea change in dads’ attitudes towards their children?”
Not having lived through the early 20th Century, I can’t really comment. But if I had to guess I’d probably start with the idea that I’d support my children’s self destructive impulses when they’re older if they were supporting causes I also supported. For example, I suspect I’d support them volunteering in a dangerous country or joining the army if that’s really what they wanted, though I’d be stressed about it throughout the duration. The evidence I had to support that supposition is my current white knuckled willingness to allow my kids to climb trees and walk without holding my hand near major roads. I don’t really want them to do anything that has even that level of danger associated with it, but I accept that they need to be able to take risks and live rather than inhabit a safety bubble I construct for them.
I also believe in occasionally challenging them to a race and then just leaving them to eat my dust.
“If it’s biological, then what social functions were so powerful as to make dads uninterested in their kids or positively supportive of their own childrens’ destruction (back in the early 20th century) that don’t operate on this generation?”
I don’t know. But the possibilities are:
1. Everyone loves their children equally, but we value other things differently (i.e. support for your Empire)
2. People around the world love their children to different degrees
While I can imagine people valuing other things in ways I don’t, the idea of them loving their kids less than I love mine would seem to me to be dehumanising them. Therefore I prefer to believe that they love their kids, but have other value structures that I simply don’t need to have (i.e. supporting large families making societal outcomes from Empire more important, freedom from oppression making sacrifice of individuals tolerable).
I’d also point out that part of the reason I extend that assumption back in time is that there are areas of the world today where parents tolerate or even celebrate their children’s death in violent action. And failing to imagine such people as being loving parents is (I believe) the sort of thing that will keep conflict going long past when it should.
December 27, 2015 at 2:26 pm
I really hate the line that “those people don’t love their kids as much as us,” it’s a vicious little piece of racism that can work very well to alienate people. I think your explanation is probably right, and so I guess what this means is that you are lucky enough to live in a period of Australian history when you don’t have to worry about whether any ideology or principle is more important than your family. That is, I suspect, a rare privilege both temporally and spatially …
It was also clear in the first three movies (I think) that Han Solo was loyal more to his friends and loved ones than to any cause. If so, his son turning to the dark side would be a possible cause for him to cut and run on all his failures. And we can all guess that Leia’s response to such a catastrophe would be to bury herself in her work…
Here’s an alternative Star Wars movie: Sofia Coppola directs a slow, beautifully-soundtracked movie describing Ren’s slide from Jedi prodigy to rebellion. A kind of Marie Antoinette/Lost in Translation exploration of the corruption of a Sith.
December 28, 2015 at 4:52 am
Just caught a second viewing with my sisters family and it stood up quite well I thought. I’d already been exposed to the shortcomings so I could really just enjoying it for the fluffy adventure it was. And they (apart from my sister herself who had to be dragged along), all loved it.
Re Paul’s Leia point, I’m not sure what she should be criticised for? Luke and Han ran away, whereas as Leia did do the right thing and joined (or started) the Resistance to continue the fight against the First Order and her son. OK, so she never managed to catch him, but she didn’t give up and run away / hide? Though I accept the broader point on how grief in a family can break a relationship, I think old school Leia would have been seriously pissed that they, in her eyes, abrogated their responsibilities and left her to try and pick up the pieces. The reason why is just the plot of course.
Abrams ADHD was even more obvious on the 2nd viewing mind. Rey and Finn have just shaken off the 2nd Tie fighter and left Jakku and entered space in the Falcon and are starting to have an interesting get to know you conversation when there’s suddenly a coolant leak that needs to be solved. Then once that’s sorted there’s the capture by the first order which turns out to be Han and Chewie. Then they’re just getting a good conversation going when his loan sharks turn up. The contrast with this point in the movie with Star Wars is rather glaring.
Just read some disconcerting new’s re one of the standalones though – I knew Rogue One was to be directed by Godzilla’s (and Monsters) Gareth Edwards which I thought was great – but apparently the screenplay is being written by Gary Whitta (After Earth which was god awful) and Chris Weitz (Nutty Professor II: The Klumps – not even the first Nutty Professor!). This combo worries me!
December 28, 2015 at 5:47 am
“Re Paul’s Leia point, I’m not sure what she should be criticised for?…OK, so she never managed to catch him, but she didn’t give up and run away / hide?”
We have no evidence that she tried to catch her kid. Given how easily Solo finds him, and the years that she’s had to try in, and her own skills (demonstrated in the original series on the Death Star and Endor), she should have been able to find her son easily.
And she even had a plan on how to deal with him – appeal to him as a parent… Given those factors why couldn’t she take some action instead of (apparently) sitting in meetings for the duration?
Families can fall apart in a lot of ways. When they do, we shouldn’t credit the one that gets the house as the partner who didn’t leave. And for Leia, the rebellion is basically just a place to be (given her lack of accomplishments)[1], the same as smuggling for Han.
[1] Her lack of accomplishments in the continued rebellion is demonstrated through 1) the strength of the First Order 2) her failure to get her kid back 3) their complete shock the the Empire-proxy has built a Death Star variant. Basically the resistance is shown as having accomplished nothing other than getting a map to where Luke is!
December 28, 2015 at 11:28 pm
I agree that she admitted as much herself that they both just went back to what they did best and there’s certainly no argument on asking WTF have the resistance being doing to get into this position in the first place…
December 28, 2015 at 11:30 pm
I was happy to see that they still haven’t learnt how to construct a plan or come up with any kind of contingencies. Their plan is still ‘attack with all guns blazing and assume that luke or han can pull something off’.
Maybe that’s why the First Order has been able to build a battleship the size of a planet, that drains the power of suns, even though it’s commanded by a couple of 30-something vader fanboys …
December 30, 2015 at 1:01 am
It’s the force mate innit?
Maybe we should use that more in our RPGs…
GM: So, you’re seriously telling me your plan to destroy the One Ring is to assemble a squadron of F-Wings, fly straight to the mount death star of doom and aim the ring it at that tiny exhaust port at the top?
9 Players: Yup, we’re gonna ‘Trust in the Force’…
January 3, 2016 at 7:27 pm
On the topic of Star Wars, I’ve just found a very good economic analysis of the destruction of the second Death Star and the probable financial ruin that followed: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.09054.pdf
Key quotes are:
“[2] No Bothans died to bring us this information”
“As General Han Solo of the Rebel Alliance, well-known for shooting first (Despite the claims of some revisionist historians)”
“First, we calibrate a model of the economic health and financial system in the galaxy during the Imperial Period. Second, we consider a distribution of economic losses in the Imperial banking system following the events of the Battle of Endor to find the risks that the Rebel Alliance has created. Finally, we use these results to deduce the size and composition of a bailout necessary that the new rulers of the galaxy, i.e., the Rebel Alliance, would need to allocate to stave off a galaxy-wide financial crisis and economic depression.”
“In this case study we found that the Rebel Alliance would need to prepare a bailout of at least 15%, and likely at least 20%, of GGP in order to mitigate the systemic risks and the sudden and catastrophic economic collapse. Without such funds at the ready, it likely the Galactic economy would enter an economic depression of astronomical proportions.”
So it looks like the First Order may have arisen due to financial stress put on the citizens of the Galaxy similar to the rise of the Golden Dawn in Greece. Truly, Palpatine’s planning and evil know no limits…
January 13, 2016 at 12:21 pm
If he is Leia and Han’s son then Vader is his Grandfather. Vader – Luke/Leia – Ren