Movies: Star Wars: Rogue One or The Force Awakens

Billy Crawford

Registered User
Dec 23, 2008
1,103
33
Paris...ish...
After watching each movie once I would have said R1 was the better movie. However after repeat viewings I'm definitely leaning towards TFA as my favorite movie of the 2. I think the pacing issue R1 suffers from is not easier to swallow when watching it a second or a third time whereas I can easily disregard the Starkiller base stuff as a minor plot device and not what I focus on (which is the characters in TFA imo).
 

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,504
11,129
Mojo Dojo Casa House
Rogue One was a better movie but The Force Awakens had more emotional highs.

Actually TFA still is a better movie. At no point does it feel dull, weirdly edited, poorly paced, or have completely useless characters aand weird scenes ("Bor Gullet!") coupled with unusually poor acting from someone known to be a good actor and as someone pointed out, you actually feel for the main characters instead of feeling nothing when the two main characters die at the end.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
97,159
31,721
Las Vegas
After watching each movie once I would have said R1 was the better movie. However after repeat viewings I'm definitely leaning towards TFA as my favorite movie of the 2. I think the pacing issue R1 suffers from is not easier to swallow when watching it a second or a third time whereas I can easily disregard the Starkiller base stuff as a minor plot device and not what I focus on (which is the characters in TFA imo).

Agreed. On my second rewatch of Rogue One I actually liked it more than I did the first time but there's still some critical issues. Pacing like you said is one. There are points in the film that feel out of place or like there was supposed to be a scene that would give it context and it never made it into the movie. You can tell from missing trailer footage that they wanted to go a different direction with the story. And because the flow of the movie is choppy for the first 2/3's, both watch throughs I felt this longing for the first 2/3rd of the film to match the quality of the last third.

Writing in some parts. Though you can tell some of the more cheesy dialogue was cut out.

I think in some scenes Felicity Jones is terrific but any time she's called to be angry it feels very inauthentic and it takes me out of it. I thought the scene on the ship where Cassian and Jyn are angry with each other wasn't terrifically acted. It's nowhere near some of the acting in the prequels but both times I felt uncomfortably out of the film as I watched two actors force anger on each other.

Not only is Saw Guerrera/Forrest Whitaker largely unnecessary (they really could've written around him and kept the story the same) but the performance and most of the concept was rather annoying. Like I liked the whole war battered body leaving him almost more machine than man, Vader style, but outside of that I disliked just about everything else. The voice, the dialogue, the weird mind reading tentacle monster, save the rebellion save the dream...Saw Guerrera was a pretty decent character in Rebels but he's wasted on this film. And I know the TFA comparsion is Maz Kanata but if I could remove Saw's scenes by watching all of Maz's scenes on loop for a while I may consider it.

But despite all that it's still a fun Star Wars movie and one I would not mind revisiting from time to time. The usage of Vader was terrific, CGI Tarkin almost entirely broke out of the uncanny valley, Krennic was great, K2-SO was funny (but not as funny as I thought he'd be (he was being touted as everyone's next favorite droid of all time)), the action was incredibly well choreographed and filmed, the final third of the movie is really up there with some of the finest stuff in the series (though it's a shame they cut out the shot of a tie fighter showing up in Jyn's face), and best of all it really was one of the best looking Star Wars movies made to date. I really appreciate the technical aspects of Disney's new take on Star Wars. It's the kind of balance between practical and CG that Lucas never even bothered to attempt with the prequels.

EDIT: oh and how could I forget the way the end ties into episode 4?
 
Last edited:

Goonzilla

Welcome to my house!
Feb 18, 2014
2,528
24
The rink ..too often
Grew up with the OT and never liked the prequels.

I think TFA was a nice little nostalgic thing in seeing all those characters on the big screen again, but if you set that aside it was a pretty average movie really and felt a little contrived.

Saw Rogue yesterday and while it wasn't a great movie I do think it far superior to last years film. A couple of minor plot issues aside, it tied into Episode IV really well in terms of timeline.

Rogue One for me, easily.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,947
3,682
Vancouver, BC
At the end of the conversation though, the comparison means nothing. Did you like TFA? Did you like R1? What do the answers to those questions really have to do with each other?

It's because we set up ourselves in camps of meaningless comparisons and waste a ton of time on the arguments. Star Trek vs Star Wars. Marvel vs DC. Megadeth vs Metallica. Gibson vs Fender. Airbus vs Boeing. And those are examples of equivalent things which get argued into absurdity. In this case, we have one story that's wholly complete in R1 and has no further implication on the future of the story's fabric and we are comparing it to something that is incomplete and has a lot of further implication.

Personally, I like apples better than oranges, but that doesn't make my preference meaningful in any way.
It's as meaningful as making any other two arbitrary individual assessments, which we do all the time, and putting them together in order to add context to what those assessments actually are (you can't tell what 7/10 means without comparing it to other assessments). That's it-- that's its value and no more. I agree that it serves no further purpose, but it doesn't need to in order to be justified, and there's no additional meaning to comparing apples to apples that isn't only valuable for the exact same purpose that can be applied to any other two movies, IMO. The tribalism is stupid, that doesn't negate the value in comparing things.

Which is better-- Batman vs. Superman or Civil War? Which is better-- Empire Strikes Back or Schindler's List? Both questions are exactly as worth answering, and this insistence that things are required to be similar to justify the comparison has never made any sense to me. They're movies-- any comparison about movies communicate how worthwhile you think certain experiences are. Any more specific objective truth hoped to be gained/differentiated seems like a misguided/pointless purpose to me.

Framing it like apples vs. oranges just seems stupid to me. It's all food-- which would you rather eat? In the spectrum from the worst thing you've ever eaten to the best thing you've eaten, where do the two fall, respectively?
 
Last edited:

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
97,159
31,721
Las Vegas
Actually TFA still is a better movie. At no point does it feel dull, weirdly edited, poorly paced, or have completely useless characters aand weird scenes ("Bor Gullet!") coupled with unusually poor acting from someone known to be a good actor and as someone pointed out, you actually feel for the main characters instead of feeling nothing when the two main characters die at the end.

I think on rewatches you may come around on Jyn and Cassian. Maybe Galen too.

I was just thinking about the film and was pondering the magnitude of the effect these characters have on the story.

I mean yes, Luke Skywalker with the help of Han Solo blows the death star, but that force guided shot wouldn't be possible if not for Galen Erso's sabotage. They wouldn't know where to shoot if it wasn't for Rogue One's sacrifice.

I can say I definitely liked the characters a lot more in the second go around. However, I didn't need a second go around to buy into the new Force Awakens characters. I immediately liked Rey despite her Mary Lou moments (though people conveniently forget that her shutting down the wrong fuses releases the deadly rathtars), I liked Finn and his character's story even if he was a bit of a goofball, I was intrigued with what they did with Kylo Ren, I liked Poe Dameron and hope we see more of him. BB-8 is the GOAT. I bought into the characters right away. You can see that a lot of time...years, were spent in crafting these characterizations so you had likable and memorable characters.

It didn't feel like enough time was devoted to making the Rogue One characters as likable.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,947
3,682
Vancouver, BC
I think the biggest reason Rey/Finn are immediately liked and bought right away is because they're stereotypical caricatures that you've seen a million times already and have already bought into long before you've even seen the movie. The Mary Sue + Nervous goofball as archetypes are instantly memorable without further characterization.

Not that this is necessary a bad thing, but I don't think that ease/immediacy/recognizability alone really speaks to anything more about them being better characters.
 
Last edited:

Acadmus

pastured mod
Jul 22, 2003
16,963
180
Vermont
I actually didn't like the characters as much in TFA. They seemed largely superficial, they seemed to act out of character at times just to move the story along...somehow I just didn't care about them all that much. Along with the rehashed plot and villain who...well...I don't care for the character at all, from the actor chosen to the way the character is portrayed. I said after seeing TFA that it was better than the prequels - it is - but it's still a far cry from the originals.

R1 doesn't rehash a plot, it revisits a plot point and fleshes it out. It seems more a part of the original story, and thus has a better connection to the original films. I thought it started a little rough and corny, but after the initial setup I really came to like the characters and the actors playing them. I enjoyed seeing a return to having ADULTS in the lead roles, that can't be understated. The acting was more mature. I also like that the film wasn't just a constant run of action, that there were more quiet character and plot development scenes (at least it seemed so). On the whole, it seemed to be the better written, acted, directed, and produced film. They even tamped down the CGI enough to make it feel more like the original films. The seriousness of it makes it a better film than Return of the Jedi in my mind, and only the fact ANH introduces us to this universe in the first place keeps this film in third place overall for me. Otherwise I'd be tempted to rate it just under Empire Strikes Back (the first one I saw in the theater, incidentally, as a wee 5 year old in 1980).

I've seen the original three films more times than I can recount...it's possible to be over 100 times each at this point (my sister and I used to watch them over and over when they were on HBO in the 80s - we were counting how many times at one point...the number seems high, but I doubt I'd really remember every time I watched it). I think I've seen the prequel films a half dozen times each, give or take a couple viewings on one film or the other, despite my son has them on DVD. I've watched TFA maybe twice (he also has it on DVD). Rogue One is one of the films I'd watch anytime it was on, so someday I expect it'll be dozens of viewings as well. I admit there's a fairly long list of films I've watched over and over, most from the 80s, but some not, but for Star Wars films it's the original three, and I've never felt the desire to endlessly rewatch the others thus far.
 

Ralph Spoilsport

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
1,234
426
Asking which is the greatest Star Wars movie is like asking which is Columbus' greatest transatlantic voyage. Obviously it's the first one. That's the one that took the risks, made the discoveries and breakthroughs which made it possible for everything that followed. To top his first voyage Columbus would have to land in Manhattan and pick up a Chewy action doll from FAO Schwarz. And to top A New Hope (or as we called it back in the day, Star Wars) a Star Wars movie will have to achieve some similar kind of cinematic leap forward.

I saw Rogue One in 3D Imax and for a while I thought maybe I was witnessing that breakthrough. More than the novelty, I really felt immersed in the action and environment. But the effect got tired fast. The second half was horrible, like watching someone else play a video game (which I guess some guys are into, but I never saw the appeal) while the characters went through the usual cliffhanger heroics. We all knew how Rogue One would end. The Force Awakens doesn't get points for originality but it pushes all the pleasure buttons you expect from a Star Wars movie plus was less predictable right up to the final shot (Luke!...an effect Rogue One copied with their Leia cameo).

Slight edge to The Force Awakens.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
97,159
31,721
Las Vegas
I think the biggest reason Rey/Finn are immediately liked and bought right away is because they're stereotypical caricatures that you've seen a million times already and have already bought into long before you've even seen the movie. The Mary Sue + Nervous goofball as archetypes are instantly memorable without further characterization.

Not that this is necessary a bad thing, but I don't think that ease/immediacy/recognizability alone really speaks to anything more about them being better characters.

Mmm...maybe subconsciously that helps but I have specific reasons for how I feel about each new character.

Rey: Despite being somewhat overpowered and lacking in flaws I feel there's a real honesty in Ridley's portrayal of this young girl so desperate to wait for her family and her belonging in the galaxy. That even when she is presented with opportunities to go on crazy adventures with the legendary Han Solo she remains committed to waiting for her family. She rejects her destiny in the beginning presumably becaue she doesn't feel it really is her destiny and that her future can only move forward when she reconciles with the family she's been waiting for since her childhood. She is wide eyed and amazed at all the new things she's seeing since leaving that desert ****hole of Jakku but it's not enough to deter her. When Rey finally heeds Maz's words that the belonging she seeks isn't on Jakku and she takes her story into her own hands after her encounter with Kylo Ren...yeah she was incapable of failing at what she was doing but it's satisfying to see her character take that step which culminates in her battle with Kylo Ren. Her grabbing the lightSabre from the snow is more than revealing the misdirection that Finn was gonna be a jedi, it's the heroine of the new trilogy finally accepting her destiny. Plus the mystery of Rey's heritage and HOW she is so powerful and how she is linked to Luke is a matter of ongoing speculation and it was one of the biggest questions I had leaving the theater.

On a wider level I felt that all three new protagonists were much more grounded in the Star Wars universe while the Rogue One characters...really it could've not been Star Wars and it would've felt the same. When Rey hears Luke Skywalker's name she lights up in wonder and marvels at the idea that the myth might actually be real. Stuff like that. A star wars fan feels the excitement with Rey at the dropping of Luke's name as being a part of this new tale.

Poe Dameron: I would've jumped into Finn but I wanted to expand on the point of these new protagonists being the vehicles for the audience's immersion in this new episode. It's a very subtle moment but when Poe is brought onto the star destroyer he looks at the hangar with a gaping jaw in awe as the audience joins him marveling at the shiny yet familiar set design. And his scenes with Finn are very bromancy and their dynamic together is entertaining and allows viewers to view them both as likable characters. It's not like they have a ton of scenes together but the screen time they got together was, in my opinion, very well utilized because it made the two of them relatable and it was a more effective means of character development than any protagonist received in Rogue One. And though Poe receives the least screen time of the new protagonists, it's well utilized. Poe is depicted as a confident, super competent, and gallant warrior for the Resistance. Combine that with being quick with a fearless joke in the face of danger, Poe is at least (and quite easily in my opinion) the most memorable and likable of all the "star fighter" characters. Personally I hope we get to see more of him in episode 8 in Han Solo's absence.

Finn: I tend to like Finn a lot more than most mostly because of his arc but even I'll admit his goofiness goes a little overboard at times ("Droid please!" "you got a boyfriend? Cute boyfriend?"). However I really do appreciate his character arc. For all the talk that TFA doesn't do anything new, people really do gloss over the fact that before TFA we never really had a character in Star Wars aligned with the bad guys be so morally opposed to what the villains are doing that they defect to the good side. We've had characters like Anakin Skywalker, Count Dooku (off screen through exposition), and the clones become villains, but never the other way around. You can make the argument till you're blue in the face that TFA was a carbon copy of ANH, but no Star Wars film up until Rogue One with Boddie has had a character arc like Finn's. And Finn does something that only Star Wars Clone Wars had done before and that's humanize the men behind the white masks. In A New Hope there's a pair of stormtroopers making office style small talk but that's pretty insignificant. Finn, more than anyone else in the movie is the image of morality. He sees the horrors of the First Order and can't take part in any of it. But within that there is a character flaw in his crisis of conscious in that, rather than fight against the injustice he refused to take part in, his fear drives him to want to run and get as far away from that evil as he can. It's a central theme to his character that he's a man on the run to the point where Maz Kanata puts it in plain language. And his character arc reaches it's turn after Kylo knocks out Rey. He can either run or do the right thing and defend his friend. And that's what he does. In raising a weapon against a clearly superior fighter in Kylo, he officially stops running and becomes a man of action. From an unwilling hero to an active one. I like Finn but in spite of being a goofball rather than because of it. And even though the humor is overdone at times, it still carries a level of charm that was severely lacking in Rogue One. Rey is charming in her wide eyed wonder at all she's seeing for the first time, Poe is charming with his humor and bromance with Finn, and Finn is charming on perhaps a lesser level with his good guy act and humor.

As for the rest, I appreciate the nuances and imbalances to the character of Kylo Ren. By every standard across every Star Wars medium of entertainment that I've personally consumed he is an atypical villain and it will be interesting to see where the next two episodes take him. Snoke is just brooding and mysterious. I'm intrigued to find out his backstory so in that sense, like Rey, the mystery of who he is makes him even more intriguing than most of the characters we met in Rogue One. Although you could argue that underdeveloping a character to the point of mystery is a cheap way to get people interested in a character. Maz is just a knock off Yoda. I don't dislike her but she could never make another appearance and I wouldn't really care. General Hux is more memorable than most Emperial officers and his big speech was entertaining, but he's not a highlight character. Phasma is just a waste of a great aesthetic concept.
 
Last edited:

Power Man

Grrrr
Sep 30, 2008
31,257
3,153
221B Baker Street
I really enjoyed TFA, but I prefer Rogue One

They took a risk, it worked. The characters were likable and the ending was great.
I liked how they showed the darker side of the rebel alliance.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,947
3,682
Vancouver, BC
I won't argue with any of this. Just pointing out that they might be easier to get into the first time around, regardless, in part because they're familiar character archetypes. So ease of buying into it may not be the best measure to point to on its own. I'm fine with all these reasons though.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
97,159
31,721
Las Vegas
I won't argue with any of this. Just pointing out that they might be easier to get into the first time around, regardless, in part because they're familiar character archetypes. So ease of buying into it may not be the best measure to point to on its own. I'm fine with all these reasons though.

That's fair.
 

CanadianHockey

Smith - Alfie
Jul 3, 2009
30,557
522
Petawawa
twitter.com
I liked, but didn't love, both, and have reservations about each doing a bit too much fan service. I think I appreciate that Rogue One tried to do something more original. So slight edge to it.
 

MadDevil

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 10, 2007
33,802
23,603
Bismarck, ND
I'm not sure Rogue One is really that "original" though. It's a little darker than the usual Star Wars movie, but I don't think they really pushed anything new in terms of storytelling. It's a war movie set in the Star Wars universe.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,947
3,682
Vancouver, BC
People tend to take the term "original" too literally and too black and white, I find. A war movie set in the Star Wars universe is, itself, a moderately fresh idea, and is therefore original "enough". As is getting to A New Hope from its direct influences as well as getting from Empire Strikes Back from A New Hope. Getting from that to The Force Awakens involves a little less of that freshness.

You don't need to re-invent the wheel to not be guilty of being unoriginal, but everything's on a continuum where there are degrees of differences, and people can decide which degree is too little or too much. It's like responding to the charge that a movie's not as manipulative by suggesting that every movie's manipulative-- a silly point to bring up that addresses nothing that's said.
 
Last edited:

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
29,028
10,686
Charlotte, NC
Shareef, I'm a big proponent of appreciating things for what they are and not worrying about what you want them to be. So I find that, once you accept that there are no original stories, it frees you up from that want for things to be original, on whatever level.
 

Blender

Registered User
Dec 2, 2009
51,399
45,290
When people talk about Rogue One bring original, they mean original to Star Wars. Taking it to the extreme position of assuming they mean a 100% original story isn't a reasonable position.

TFA is a direct rehash of a previous movie in the franchise, even more so than TPM was. R1 at least tried to bring something new and fresh into the existing material.

Just because there are no original stories, it doesn't mean making the same story over and over in the same franchise should be free from criticism, or even copying an existing movie or story too closely. A movies base story can be inspired by any existing story, but still incorporate enough other elements to make it different or engaging. This is why Avatar took so much flak as well, it's a story that has been done to death and they brought nothing new to it outside of CGI.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,947
3,682
Vancouver, BC
Shareef, I'm a big proponent of appreciating things for what they are and not worrying about what you want them to be. So I find that, once you accept that there are no original stories, it frees you up from that want for things to be original, on whatever level.
To some degree that's true, I guess. If I thought The Force Awakens was also really great, I might not care that it's not original. But the fact that it's a bit of an underwhelming movie does seem to highlight its lack of originality as a bigger flaw. Similarly, if Rogue One is an awful experience, the fact that it's slightly more original doesn't make it any better. Ultimately, The Force Awakens and Rogue One are similar caliber movies and the difference in their originality is merely icing and doesn't give them THAT much separation (wouldn't go as far as you do with that comment, though).

In some ways, you could say that calling it unoriginal is kind of excusing it too easily. It's not an unoriginal movie that is anywhere near AS GOOD as A New Hope, and that seems to be lost in everyone throwing around the "unoriginal" criticism as the primary concern.

Then again, going the other way, something that is even more important than technical quality, for my money, is that you want movies to be made with a sort of inspired playfulness/sense of exploration/creativity (whether actual originality is achieved or not), and it's difficult to get that feeling when something is lazily rehashed from within its own franchise. If a movie is just purely well made but uninspired, it's not worth much to me either.

Bottom line for me is that if I had seen The Force Awakens first and then A New Hope afterwards, I would not care that it's a similar story, because it improves on everything that matters and is absolutely inspired in a way that the former isn't. But seeing The Force Awakens afterwards, it's a combination of both lack of quality and lack of inspiration that hurts it.

Either way, I think responding to the charge of "unoriginal" with "everything's unoriginal" and no further explanation is misleading at best, disingenuous at worse. The way most people would take that is as "everything's equally guilty", which wouldn't be true.
 
Last edited:

LarKing

Registered User
Sep 2, 2012
11,783
4,626
Michigan
Seems like Rogue One is one of those either love it or hate it type of movies. I'm definitely in the love it group, but better than TFA? I don't know about that. Really enjoyed both. Rogue One might've had the better ending which was in part due to it being able to wrap itself up completely because it was a standalone film. I think the payoff for the next movies in the series will be really good though, making the set up in TFA necessary and obviously it's a series so it can't wrap up everything.

If a gun was put to my head, I would probably choose TFA. It had the bigger moments and it's harder to get into a standalone film when you know it is just that. You can do so much more with a series of movies. I really did love Rogue One though.
 

HanSolo

DJ Crazy Times
Apr 7, 2008
97,159
31,721
Las Vegas
I really enjoy Rogue One. I dont love it. It takes getting through waters to get to that fantastic third act. There's definitely middle ground.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
29,028
10,686
Charlotte, NC
When people talk about Rogue One bring original, they mean original to Star Wars. Taking it to the extreme position of assuming they mean a 100% original story isn't a reasonable position.

TFA is a direct rehash of a previous movie in the franchise, even more so than TPM was. R1 at least tried to bring something new and fresh into the existing material.

Just because there are no original stories, it doesn't mean making the same story over and over in the same franchise should be free from criticism, or even copying an existing movie or story too closely. A movies base story can be inspired by any existing story, but still incorporate enough other elements to make it different or engaging. This is why Avatar took so much flak as well, it's a story that has been done to death and they brought nothing new to it outside of CGI.

To the bold, that's not what I'm saying. My point is that the originality of it simply has no bearing on whether or not I think something is well done. I can't tell you how many books I've read involving King Arthur and the cast of characters around him. They really all tell the same story, but I like some better than others. It's on the merit of the work as its own material. Originality doesn't come into play.

Btw, Avatar took too much flak for being a repeat of stories already done. The bigger issue was that Avatar made questionable storytelling choices and used the novelty of the 3D as a crutch to get past them. It wasn't a story that was well executed in the telling.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
29,028
10,686
Charlotte, NC
To some degree that's true, I guess. If I thought The Force Awakens was also really great, I might not care that it's not original. But the fact that it's a bit of an underwhelming movie does seem to highlight its lack of originality as a bigger flaw. Similarly, if Rogue One is an awful experience, the fact that it's slightly more original doesn't make it any better. Ultimately, The Force Awakens and Rogue One are similar caliber movies and the difference in their originality is merely icing and doesn't give them THAT much separation (wouldn't go as far as you do with that comment, though).

In some ways, you could say that calling it unoriginal is kind of excusing it too easily. It's not an unoriginal movie that is anywhere near AS GOOD as A New Hope, and that seems to be lost in everyone throwing around the "unoriginal" criticism as the primary concern.

Then again, going the other way, something that is even more important than technical quality, for my money, is that you want movies to be made with a sort of inspired playfulness/sense of exploration/creativity (whether actual originality is achieved or not), and it's difficult to get that feeling when something is lazily rehashed from within its own franchise. If a movie is just purely well made but uninspired, it's not worth much to me either.

Bottom line for me is that if I had seen The Force Awakens first and then A New Hope afterwards, I would not care that it's a similar story, because it improves on everything that matters and is absolutely inspired in a way that the former isn't. But seeing The Force Awakens afterwards, it's a combination of both lack of quality and lack of inspiration that hurts it.

Either way, I think responding to the charge of "unoriginal" with "everything's unoriginal" and no further explanation is misleading at best, disingenuous at worse. The way most people would take that is as "everything's equally guilty", which wouldn't be true.

My post that started all of this was in response to someone saying that they didn't do any original storytelling. By the way, I'm also not going to type of my reasoning unless someone asks me to. I'm only willing to spend time defending my position in conversation, not in monologue.

Either way, I think there's two ways to look at originality. One, is the story original? The answer to that question is always no, in my opinion. Doesn't matter what it is. There are details that are different, but the story is the same. Hell, Rogue One is just another "Hero's Journey" story, same as A New Hope. The other side of this is whether or not it's original in the format or setting. That's what set Star Wars apart in the first place. First of all, the space setting was different. But even the character archetypes were somewhat new for the format. I mean, Princess Leia wasn't a new type of female character, but she was a new type of female character for Hollywood. Movies were still developing as an art form, though. I'm not sure they still are. That doesn't mean great movies can't be made. And of course, the techniques used to tell the old stories, essentially through a medium of visual effects that had never existed before... that's original. It's possible to be original in how you tell a story, even if the story isn't original itself.

I think the majority of people who criticize TFA for being unoriginal just didn't like the movie and, for a variety of reasons, want to have a "rational" reason why they didn't. You come pretty close to saying that same thing. You found TFA uninspired... by itself, without any context of originality or even of other Star Wars movies. That's fine and that's what I get at. You judge the movie for what it is, not what you'd like it to be.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad