TheRPGSite

The Lounge => Media and Inspiration => Topic started by: Aglondir on September 20, 2017, 11:54:38 PM

Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Aglondir on September 20, 2017, 11:54:38 PM
Why are the heroes called "The Resistance?"
What are they resisting? The First Order?
That's fine, but shouldn't they be called the New Republic Armed Forces?
Or was there something else going on that I missed?
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Dumarest on September 21, 2017, 12:49:02 AM
Quote from: Aglondir;994460
Why are the heroes called "The Resistance?"
What are they resisting? The First Order?
That's fine, but shouldn't they be called the New Republic Armed Forces?
Or was there something else going on that I missed?


Catchy names to sell the toys. There's no other reason any Star Wars movies have been made since 1983.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2017, 01:33:22 AM
Nope. It's just a bunch of Star Wars references thrown at the camera in the hopes that something sticks. There's no coherency.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Voros on September 21, 2017, 03:39:25 AM
Just like the original films you mean?

Nerds obsessive attention to detail will drain the fun and energy out of everything.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2017, 11:44:51 AM
Quote from: Voros;994526
Just like the original films you mean?

Nerds obsessive attention to detail will drain the fun and energy out of everything.

The originals are guilty of many things, but lack of coherency isn't one of them.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: flyingmice on September 21, 2017, 11:51:58 AM
Aglondir - the New Republic made peace with the remnants of the Empire. Both The First Order and The Resistance are unofficial paramilitary organizations that are working outside any government, receiving funding and recruits from fanatics of both kinds. The First Order is getting WAYYYY more funding than the Resistance, because the New Republic actually believes in rule of Law. The remnant Empire regards the First Order as officially disavowable but ultimately extremely useful and channels mucho dinero to it secretly. Any further questions?
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 21, 2017, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: flyingmice;994588
Aglondir - the New Republic made peace with the remnants of the Empire. Both The First Order and The Resistance are unofficial paramilitary organizations that are working outside any government, receiving funding and recruits from fanatics of both kinds. The First Order is getting WAYYYY more funding than the Resistance, because the New Republic actually believes in rule of Law. The remnant Empire regards the First Order as officially disavowable but ultimately extremely useful and channels mucho dinero to it secretly. Any further questions?

That would be interesting. Too bad none of it is in the film.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Ras Algethi on September 21, 2017, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: Aglondir;994460
Why are the heroes called "The Resistance?"
What are they resisting? The First Order?
That's fine, but shouldn't they be called the New Republic Armed Forces?
Or was there something else going on that I missed?

Isn't the Resistance separate from the New Republic? http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Resistance
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Voros on September 21, 2017, 06:50:33 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;994587
The originals are guilty of many things, but lack of coherency isn't one of them.

Really? They feel pretty thrown together to me. Lots of lapses of logic, Obi Wan's behaviour doesn't make a lick of sense, the Death Star's super convenient autodestruct 'button' on the outside, the storyline of RotJ being 'let's blow up the Death Star again!' etc.

Course they're just pulp inspired space opera adventures for kids so I never bothered to critique them with the sort of OCD attention to detail rampant on the net.

Seems that Lucas was interested in creating a fun, fast pop culture mashup and was making it up as he went along (oh hey, let's make Vader his father! And Leia his sister!). Coherency is really beside the point in this genre, he wasn't trying to make some hard sf masterpiece.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Aglondir on September 21, 2017, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: flyingmice;994588
Aglondir - the New Republic made peace with the remnants of the Empire. Both The First Order and The Resistance are unofficial paramilitary organizations that are working outside any government, receiving funding and recruits from fanatics of both kinds. The First Order is getting WAYYYY more funding than the Resistance, because the New Republic actually believes in rule of Law. The remnant Empire regards the First Order as officially disavowable but ultimately extremely useful and channels mucho dinero to it secretly. Any further questions?

That makes sense, but was it in the films? They could have mentioned it in the screen crawl, which is terribly thin:

Quote
Luke Skywalker has vanished. In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed. With the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE. She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy. Leia has sent her most daring pilot on a secret mission to Jakku, where an old ally has discovered a clue to Luke's whereabouts….
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Aglondir on September 21, 2017, 11:09:07 PM
Quote from: Ras Algethi;994649
Isn't the Resistance separate from the New Republic? http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Resistance
That makes sense too, but was it in the movie?
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 22, 2017, 01:07:08 AM
Quote from: Voros;994700
Really? They feel pretty thrown together to me. Lots of lapses of logic, Obi Wan's behaviour doesn't make a lick of sense, the Death Star's super convenient autodestruct 'button' on the outside, the storyline of RotJ being 'let's blow up the Death Star again!' etc.

Course they're just pulp inspired space opera adventures for kids so I never bothered to critique them with the sort of OCD attention to detail rampant on the net.

Seems that Lucas was interested in creating a fun, fast pop culture mashup and was making it up as he went along (oh hey, let's make Vader his father! And Leia his sister!). Coherency is really beside the point in this genre, he wasn't trying to make some hard sf masterpiece.


I never said any of that wasn't true. There are plot holes, and "plot holes" (Things that seem like plot holes but are nit picking) but the story does make sense, and it's in ROTJ that it starts to feed on itself (recyclying the Death Star scenario) while FA gets to the cannibalism right away.

Really. I don't see Obi Wan's behavior not making a lick of sense. The Death Star's weakness was explained in the film itself, Whether someone thinks they were effectively done is one thing, but the details were there. There's strong hints that Lucas did plan out something re Darth Vader, and decided on it during Empire. Leia was likely an ass pull, but a romantic side story is nothing like not explaining one of the central conflicts of the film.
ROTJ recycling the Death Star was a weak point, but I think that ROTJ is where Lucas started to lose the thread of what he'd created. So I'd agree with you there. Doesn't make FA recycling of a recycle an excuse.

"It's for kids" is an excuse. One that Lucas used to "explain" the lack of effort and skill in the prequels. I don't put much stock in it.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Voros on September 22, 2017, 01:59:38 AM
I don't consider something made for kids as an excuse for shoddiness but it does suggest the interest is in areas other than intricate, consistent world building. Buck Rogers was a major influence after all. Colour, energy, humour and romance are what matter and in that way I think the new films are faithful continuations of the original films.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Ratman_tf on September 22, 2017, 11:38:42 AM
Quote from: Voros;994779
I don't consider something made for kids as an excuse for shoddiness but it does suggest the interest is in areas other than intricate, consistent world building. Buck Rogers was a major influence after all. Colour, energy, humour and romance are what matter and in that way I think the new films are faithful continuations of the original films.

I'd agree if we were talking about the first 30 minutes of FA. The Falcon sequence is where it gets off the rails for me, and never quite recovers.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: flyingmice on September 22, 2017, 11:42:35 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf;994605
That would be interesting. Too bad none of it is in the film.


Yes. This was all found out after seeing the film. Knowing this makes the film make a lot more sense - why are they using space superiority X-Wing fighters to bombard the power station? Because that's all they had the money for! There were no big warships, let alone B-Wings and other dedicated bomber-types. I assume all this was cut from the movie for some reason.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: TrippyHippy on September 22, 2017, 07:26:17 PM
There was a BBC article, here (http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170522-did-star-wars-ever-need-sequels), that fairly accurately identified the underlying problem every follow on movie after the original - that the whole series should have stopped with just one movie. Ignoring the garbage Prequel movies, all of the follow on movies have just basically regurgitated the same story time and time again.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Voros on September 22, 2017, 11:27:11 PM
Except Empire is the most visually fluid, well paced and emotionally involving of any of the films.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: flyingmice on September 22, 2017, 11:38:26 PM
Quote from: Voros;995033
Except Empire is the most visually fluid, well paced and emotionally involving of any of the films.

Screw you and your pathetic attempt to enjoy something! :D
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: TrippyHippy on September 23, 2017, 12:33:44 AM
Quote from: Voros;995033
Except Empire is the most visually fluid, well paced and emotionally involving of any of the films.
The Empire argument is actually addressed in the article cited. For me, I've never held to the view that Empire is better than the original anyway, as it requires the first (and third) movie to make any sense.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Voros on September 23, 2017, 01:12:15 AM
I find the argument against Empire in the article glib and unconvincing, he has to dismiss Empire for his thesis to work but that runs into the issue that almost everyone, fans and critics, agrees that Empire is the more pleasing film.

One does not 'need' Return to find Empire a satisfying film by itself. When I introduced SW to my wife we started with Empire, the 'background' from the first film is hardly neccessary to enjoy it either. To me the 'incomplete' ending of Empire makes it feel more moving than if it had resolved itself conventionally.  It is like the difference between the book The Mist and the film version. The ambigious ending of the book is much better.

Another example, one of the greatest Samurai films I've seen is Sword of Doom, which freeze frames mid-fight. I thought it was brilliant. There were supposed to be sequels but they never got made, but if anything the 'incomplete' ending of the film is superior to a more 'complete' ending. And to claim somehow a sequel 'requiring' the other films automatically makes it inferior would be run up against most filmnerds preference for Godfather II over I, or at a less 'exalted' level X-Men II is much better than X-Men. Usually the sequel is inferior but not always.

I do agree that if the first film has a pop art sensibilty (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/cover_story/2015/12/star_wars_is_a_pastiche_how_george_lucas_combined_flash_gordon_westerns.html) that was fresh and interesting but the reason that has been obscured is because of the overweening seriousness with which the fanbase has since treated the films.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Spinachcat on September 23, 2017, 03:08:17 AM
Quote from: Voros;994700
Seems that Lucas was interested in creating a fun, fast pop culture mashup and was making it up as he went along (oh hey, let's make Vader his father! And Leia his sister!). Coherency is really beside the point in this genre, he wasn't trying to make some hard sf masterpiece.


This is my impression as well.

But I enjoy the Transformers movies for what they are. I read a critic who freaked out over Transformers: Last Knight because he thought the plot was created by a 8 year old playing with their toys. I believe the critic might be right.

The Farce Awakens was too commercially cynical for me, far more than the Prequels. I am 100% good with being sold toys, games and knick knacks via a movie, but there has got to be a bare minimum of inventiveness and competence to make it worth the ride. Fortunately, Rogue One achieved that.

However, I do feel for Star Wars GMs who try to make sense of stuff for their RPG sessions. But that's why my Star Wars campaigns always took place on the other end of the galaxy from the movies. AKA, the other ass end of space opposite Tattooine.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: TrippyHippy on September 23, 2017, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: Voros;995046
I do agree that if the first film has a pop art sensibilty (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/cover_story/2015/12/star_wars_is_a_pastiche_how_george_lucas_combined_flash_gordon_westerns.html) that was fresh and interesting but the reason that has been obscured is because of the overweening seriousness with which the fanbase has since treated the films.
Which generally all started with Empire and it's fixation on providing a 'deeper' set of themes and relationships, I'd argue. Which is why it wasn't as good as the original, which was like a cultural breath of fresh air in the cynical 70s by contrast.

In some ways, it'd been better if it had not been quite as successful, remaining a stand-alone movie without any sequels and prequels - go on, admit it.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: jeff37923 on September 23, 2017, 09:56:44 AM
Quote from: flyingmice;995037
Screw you and your pathetic attempt to enjoy something! :D


^^This^^

The fucking overanalysis was cool in Clerks, but just sounds like a bunch of nerds trying to out-nerd each other by showing how big their fanboi penises are in comparison at this point.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Voros on September 23, 2017, 02:40:03 PM
Uh no I won't 'admit it' because I think Empire is a better made film. I don't think it is 'deeper' than SW, thematically it just has a stronger dose of genre romance and a hell of a twist. But the real strength comes from Kershner who makes Empire much more fleet-footed and elegant visually than the first film.

I don't think the films go off the rails until Jabba gets blown up. Past that point Return goes downhill.

But the real issues is less the films than the self-serious fanbase and the mediocre 'expanded universe' that sucked all the fun out of a nice little pop culture atrifact.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: TrippyHippy on September 23, 2017, 07:25:37 PM
Quote from: Voros;995186
Uh no I won't 'admit it' because I think Empire is a better made film. I don't think it is 'deeper' than SW, thematically it just has a stronger dose of genre romance and a hell of a twist. But the real strength comes from Kershner who makes Empire much more fleet-footed and elegant visually than the first film.

I don't think the films go off the rails until Jabba gets blown up. Past that point Return goes downhill.

But the real issues is less the films than the self-serious fanbase and the mediocre 'expanded universe' that sucked all the fun out of a nice little pop culture atrifact.
Well, I think you're inadvertently contradicting yourself. The self-serious fanbase and mediocre 'expanded universe' largely stems from Empire as it's catalyst. Had the original Star Wars been standalone, as a self contained story, then none of the other stuff would have happened.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Voros on September 23, 2017, 07:34:34 PM
There's no contradiction. It is not the films fault that this fanatical and emotionally arrested fanbase developed. That fanbase has more to do with social vagaries and the mass marketing of toys and doo-dads that have very little do with the films or their content. One can't lay the blame of 'geek culture' at the feet of their idols, Tolkien isn't responsible for all the piss-poor generic fantasy novels and their semi-literate followers.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: TrippyHippy on September 23, 2017, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: Voros;995242
There's no contradiction. It is not the films fault that this fanatical and emotionally arrested fanbase developed.
It is the movie's fault that it provided no valediction for it's characters, that then required follow up movies and by doing so, exploited the speculation with masses of merchandise and 'expanded universe' extrapolation. All starts with Empire, not the original Star Wars which had a self contained narrative.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Headless on September 23, 2017, 09:40:07 PM
I think the originals are best approached as a religious text.  Divinely inspired but Imperfectly realised.  Remember Moses was the profit but he didn't like speaking to crowds so it was his brother Aaron who was the priest.  So when the Israelites were lost in the desert they received the Word better, truer through the man who had talked to he who had spoken with God, than straight from the profit.  

The better movies are Empire and Return.  The ones not directed by Lucas.  

At this point the question is, how much is devinely inspired and how much is wise words from a man who was touched?
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Dumarest on September 24, 2017, 12:10:41 AM
Quote from: Voros;994700
Really? They feel pretty thrown together to me. Lots of lapses of logic, Obi Wan's behaviour doesn't make a lick of sense, the Death Star's super convenient autodestruct 'button' on the outside, the storyline of RotJ being 'let's blow up the Death Star again!' etc.

Course they're just pulp inspired space opera adventures for kids so I never bothered to critique them with the sort of OCD attention to detail rampant on the net.

Seems that Lucas was interested in creating a fun, fast pop culture mashup and was making it up as he went along (oh hey, let's make Vader his father! And Leia his sister!). Coherency is really beside the point in this genre, he wasn't trying to make some hard sf masterpiece.


My son is 7 and loves everything Star Wars. He's the target audience. He doesn't notice the inconsistencies where so much of the first movie makes zero sense due to the later movies trying to change facts (Leia becomes Luke's sister instead of love interest, Obi-Wan becomes a liar about Luke's parentage, the Force goes from being believed in by few to having been commonplace only 20 years prior, etc.). Again, he's 7. The trouble is when adults take these movies seriously.  The only one I really like is Star Wars. And even then, I'd rather watch Flash Gordon (1980), which actually is more mature by far and simultaneously more fun.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Dumarest on September 24, 2017, 12:17:26 AM
Quote from: Headless;995265
The better movies are Empire and Return.  The ones not directed by Lucas.  

Nah, they really aren't.  Star Wars is the best of the bunch and the only one that bears repeated viewing. The Empire Strikes Back is pretty good but has too many boring sequences which are apparently why it gets its reputation for being "serious" and "dark." It also lacks a beginning and an ending.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Ras Algethi on September 24, 2017, 12:54:44 PM
Quote from: Aglondir;994749
That makes sense too, but was it in the movie?

Doesn't the crawl pretty state it?

Edit to add: What is not addressed is why. Why was the Resistance even created, why not just be Republic forces.
Title: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Post by: Bedrockbrendan on September 24, 2017, 01:41:06 PM
Quote from: TrippyHippy;995116
Which generally all started with Empire and it's fixation on providing a 'deeper' set of themes and relationships, I'd argue. Which is why it wasn't as good as the original, which was like a cultural breath of fresh air in the cynical 70s by contrast.

In some ways, it'd been better if it had not been quite as successful, remaining a stand-alone movie without any sequels and prequels - go on, admit it.


I like the first movie, but I also don't think the first movie alone is what makes Star Wars so enjoyable after so many decades. I get your point about the cynical 70s, but since I was 1 when it came out, that context is pretty meaningless to me. The first one I saw in the theater was Jedi (which hugely affected me). I saw Star Wars and Empire on TV and Empire is the one that really stayed with me.

Empire is what makes the movies so good in my view. When I watch episode 4, it is mainly so I can get to empire.

But these are subjective preferences.

However if they stopped at the first movie and didn't make any more, I doubt it would have had the continuous impact it continued to have over the years.