"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is both a success and failure.

[PSVEindhoven]

Yea. Becouse now, to get past all the facepalm moments, you need to read only 1 book. Wait, what?

 

Every story that relies on side sources to be properly understood is a failure by definition. Double so if the story is shameless copy-paste from something already told. Triple so if half of the time it does nothing but laying hooks for continuation.

 

You may like film, you may not, but the story it told was *********** terrible. And that never was the case before, not even with PT.

 

No. This is really not the case. There are books from before TFA, the Aftermath series IIRC, and one ABOUT TFA, The Visual Dictionary. Aftermath focuses purely on what happened between RotJ and TFA and these books are in no way required to understand TFA. Same for The Visual Dictionary. This book (it's a really cool book, by the way) focuses purely on the background of the film, explaining the background characters, giving them a name; it's more about broading and deepening what you know about the film, after you've seen it.

 

Did you understand all they said in Episode IV when you first saw it? Toshe Station? Power converters? Death Star? Empire? Emperor? Clone Wars? What's even a lightsaber? Were these things required to understand the story of the film?

 

Sure, it's laying hooks for the next films, but so did Phantom Menace (droids, Jar Jar, Anakin, Padmé).

 

You may have not liked the film, but saying you need to read books about it in order to understand it, is really not true.

Edited January 13, 2016 by PSVEindhoven

[Fyurii]

Did you understand all they said in Episode IV when you first saw it? Toshe Station? Power converters? Death Star? Empire? Emperor? Clone Wars? What's even a lightsaber? Were these things required to understand the story of the film?

 

-"But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters".

Obviously Tosche Station is a place on Tattooine where Luke would be able to pick up some power converters, as is blatantly explained in the film and did not require any further explanation. We don't need to know what power converters actually are, as they're just something Luke was going to get at Tosche Station.

 

-The Death Star is a giant weapon that can destroy planets, it tells us that at the beginning of the movie.

 

-The Galactic Empire are the villains of the OT, we know this because the movie literally tells us in the opening text crawl, like with the Death Star.

 

-The Emperor is quite obviously the ruler of the Empire.

 

-The Clone Wars was a war/wars that Obi-Wan and Anakin fought in. The movie tells us this.

 

-We are told, and see what a Lightsaber is in the movie.

 

That was possibly the worst set of examples you could have used as a rebuttal, because each and every one of them is either self explanatory or we are told and shown those things, or put 2 and 2 together to work out i.e. the evil GALACTIC EMPIRE has an Emperor.

 

The point being made (whilst not actually relevant to TFA) is that when major and minor plot points are created in what is effectively side media (i.e. story books for a film or game series) and are used in the original media (the film or game) it is a failure (relatively speaking) in story telling when it's something aimed at a wider audience instead of the smaller core audience.

 

 

The real problem is that of all the people who are disappointed in what they've seen and lambaste the movie to the point of either making up BS, or out and out lying ("98% of the Star Wars fans in my screening didn't applaud blah-blah-blah") is because they went in with either their own overhyped expectations but no clear expectation of what exactly they wanted to see, or were so against the movie itself before ever seeing it.

 

The most laughable thing of all the "negative" points made, is the homages to the OT, where some have been calling it remaking or re-enacting. The prequels did this, and I honestly don't remember people tearing them to shreds over that.

[adormitul]

The problem I have is this universe got way smaller and it will take decades *********** decades to be as awesome and rich in lore as the former expanded universe.

Now in the former expanded universe the only ones who expand on it is this game only this game. A lore of thousands of years is kept alive by one game.

[Fyurii]

Now in the former expanded universe the only ones who expand on it is this game only this game. A lore of thousands of years is kept alive by one game.

 

Bollocks.

 

This game, many other games, countless books of various type, comics. This game was not the only thing that expanded upon the EU before it became Legends.

[PSVEindhoven]

That was possibly the worst set of examples you could have used as a rebuttal, because each and every one of them is either self explanatory or we are told and shown those things, or put 2 and 2 together to work out i.e. the evil GALACTIC EMPIRE has an Emperor.

 

Yeah, that's right, but my point still stands. You didn't need all the background information to understand the film.

[adormitul]

Bollocks.

 

This game, many other games, countless books of various type, comics. This game was not the only thing that expanded upon the EU before it became Legends.

 

Man this really pisses me it was before it became Legends but what about now what other type expands on the EU now Legends besides this game what other?

That is what I said the EU not not canon is expanded only by this game. For the new canon to reach this amount of lore and detail it will need at least a decade. Basically they just destroyed a very nice and rich universe for something not even comparable.

[BrianDavion]

Man this really pisses me it was before it became Legends but what about now what other type expands on the EU now Legends besides this game what other?

That is what I said the EU not not canon is expanded only by this game. For the new canon to reach this amount of lore and detail it will need at least a decade. Basically they just destroyed a very nice and rich universe for something not even comparable.

 

you have been watching the disney products put out right? they're borrowing HEAVILY from the EU. Disney's over all plan amounts to "We'll use the good ideas, throw out the stupid ones, and do our own post endor timeline"

[The_Smith]

Yea. Becouse now, to get past all the facepalm moments, you need to read only 1 book. Wait, what?

 

Every story that relies on side sources to be properly understood is a failure by definition. Double so if the story is shameless copy-paste from something already told. Triple so if half of the time it does nothing but laying hooks for continuation.

 

You may like film, you may not, but the story it told was *********** terrible. And that never was the case before, not even with PT.

 

I don't think the film did rely on 'side sources' at all, in fact I went to see it with friends who had maybe seen two Star Wars films that they vaguely remembered and they really enjoyed TFA. It's odd you should mention that though, given that TFA has been written as the first part of a new trilogy (hence the 'laying hooks' - or storytelling as I call it) and ANH was written as a stand alone film and it has just as much back story. View it in that context, the main antagonist and protagonist don't even meet face to face. Luke doesn't avenge his Father or confront the man responsible for his death.

 

When I first watched the original trilogy (so 1983 onwards) I made the following assumptions based on the films only: 1) The Force was a mystical power that could be learned and tapped into by those dedicated or open enough to do so. Stay open to possibilities and anything is possible. 2) Yoda and the Emperor didn't have lightsabres because they didn't need them. It was the weapon of a Jedi Knight and the mark of becoming a Jedi Master meant that your control of the Force was such that you no longer needed a weapon.

After watching TFA, I think Abrams was thinking along similar lines: Ignore the prequels and the EU, concentrate on what is known from the original trilogy. Go right back to the source.

[nospmiS]

Piracy is at fault for ruining these numbers and record breaking ticket sales, everyone who has seen the movie probably knows 1 or 2 people who refuses to see the movie and will just pirate a copy, back when those other movies came out you saw it in theater or you bought the VHS or whatever equivalent. And if people wanted to make copies of videos back in the day they had to know someone who physically had the video to make a copy of it, they couldn't just put it on the internet for everyone to steal it. That is why a lot of movies don't sell the same amount of tickets those other movies sold.

[Fyurii]

Piracy is at fault for ruining these numbers and record breaking ticket sales

 

Lol, no. Just no.

It's a fact that the majority of people who download pirated material actually go out and purchase a legitimate version, or in the case of movies in the cinema, go out and watch it in the cinema at least once.

The rising cost of actually going to the cinema does more to hurt ticket sales than ever piracy has.

 

And if people wanted to make copies of videos back in the day they had to know someone who physically had the video to make a copy of it, they couldn't just put it on the internet for everyone to steal it. That is why a lot of movies don't sell the same amount of tickets those other movies sold.

 

Given that back then it was easier to get a pirate vhs of a movie before the thing came out, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree.

The single biggest source for piracy of movies, music and games has always been from the the third party manufacturers of the physical media. Hell, the week before I saw Episode 1 in the cinema, I saw it on two CDs given to me by a friend. It wasn't a shaky out of focus recording from a cinema, it was a legit print of the movie transferred to digital format and spread over 2 discs.

Shifting to digital distribution does more to lessen piracy than all the recent measures of copyright DRM and governments forcing ISPs to ban certain web pages (the latter because it's censoring the internet), especially because it makes it easier to trace the origin of the pirated version by what amounts to "digital fingerprints".

[DarthDymond]

Piracy is at fault for ruining these numbers and record breaking ticket sales, everyone who has seen the movie probably knows 1 or 2 people who refuses to see the movie and will just pirate a copy, back when those other movies came out you saw it in theater or you bought the VHS or whatever equivalent. And if people wanted to make copies of videos back in the day they had to know someone who physically had the video to make a copy of it, they couldn't just put it on the internet for everyone to steal it. That is why a lot of movies don't sell the same amount of tickets those other movies sold.

Digital piracy's impact is negligible compared to the big reason those numbers are pretty much unmatchable today: the concept of having home versions available at all.

 

Gone with the Wind and Star Wars both came out before the VHS / Betamax console wars of the 1980s, when video cassettes first started really making their way into homes across the country (they were prohibitively expensive and basically novelty items before then).

 

Back in those days, if you didn't see a movie in the theater, then you didn't see it... period. If you liked what you saw, you went back and watched it again, because the idea that you'd be able to watch it at home some day just wasn't part of the cultural consciousness at that time.

 

When Star Wars was re-released in theaters three times from 1979-1982, people didn't go back to see it again just because they wanted the experience of seeing it 'on the big screen', they went back because for most people buying another ticket was still the only way to see it.

Edited January 14, 2016 by DarthDymond

[Chessack]

Digital piracy's impact is negligible compared to the big reason those numbers are pretty much unmatchable today: the concept of having home versions available at all.

 

Gone with the Wind and Star Wars both came out before the VHS / Betamax console wars of the 1980s, when video cassettes first started really making their way into homes across the country (they were prohibitively expensive and basically novelty items before then).

 

Back in those days, if you didn't see a movie in the theater, then you didn't see it... period. If you liked what you saw, you went back and watched it again, because the idea that you'd be able to watch it at home some day just wasn't part of the cultural consciousness at that time.

 

When Star Wars was re-released in theaters three times from 1979-1982, people didn't go back to see it again just because they wanted the experience of seeing it 'on the big screen', they went back because for most people buying another ticket was still the only way to see it.

 

^^^ This.

 

This is 100% accurate. My sister and I begged my parents to take us to see Star Wars twice more after the initial time, based on this very premise... who knew when or if it would ever come on TV. In fact, Star Wars did not come onto cable TV until 1983, the same year ROTJ came out, and network TV got it a year or two later for the first time. By then we had a VCR, and I actually tapped it off freaking NETWORK TV (blipping out the commercials as best I could) because buying the video tape was insanely expensive in those days (often hot or newly released movies cost upwards of $50-60).

 

It's easy to forget, in this time of buying DVDs for $9.99 a year after a movie is released, but it was just not like this back then.

 

Indeed I went and saw TPM in the theater like 5 times because, given Lucas' history of holding out on us with the OT, and taking forever to release them on VHS tapes, I thought he might not release TPM on tape until years later. I did not bother with that many viewings of AOTC or ROTS because by then I was certain I'd get my hands on the DVD by the following winter, and saw no reason to repeatedly watch it in the theater at great expense just to get the 'big screen' experience.

 

In fact these days knowing a movie will soon be out on DVD or BRD, I will now purposely NOT go to the theater that much to re-watch movies I love, because I figure I don't want to over-watch it and then the DVD will just sit there unused.

[Eric_Skynwalker]

Lol, no. Just no.

It's a fact that the majority of people who download pirated material actually go out and purchase a legitimate version, or in the case of movies in the cinema, go out and watch it in the cinema at least once.

The rising cost of actually going to the cinema does more to hurt ticket sales than ever piracy has.

 

 

 

Given that back then it was easier to get a pirate vhs of a movie before the thing came out, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree.

The single biggest source for piracy of movies, music and games has always been from the the third party manufacturers of the physical media. Hell, the week before I saw Episode 1 in the cinema, I saw it on two CDs given to me by a friend. It wasn't a shaky out of focus recording from a cinema, it was a legit print of the movie transferred to digital format and spread over 2 discs.

Shifting to digital distribution does more to lessen piracy than all the recent measures of copyright DRM and governments forcing ISPs to ban certain web pages (the latter because it's censoring the internet), especially because it makes it easier to trace the origin of the pirated version by what amounts to "digital fingerprints".

 

Indeed made by executives of the LFAs for some highups to view to make recommendations as for the TFA2 perhaps so the video would not be shakey in the least, that was what the extra hype that Disney tried to sell was geared to, business people hoping to pedal more business in seeing copies of the movie TFA1 when Disney said there would be little pirating.....so was there carry over to friends of Disney or not....apparently so.