Star Wars:The Force Awakens Teaser Trailer — Page 5

Except that writer is totally right. It's the best review I've read of this film, and he's not even a film critic.

He comes off a bit disingenuous about marketing merchandise. Hell, this goes back to Shirley Temple on the mass level to Gone With The Wind ( a blockbuster!) shilled everything from tobacco to hairbows. And Lucas shilled w/out shame w the Ewoks (tho that didn't work out as well as he imagined- See the Star Wars Christmas Special) Incidentally, I think he owes alot of that creation to the Little Fuzzy series by Piper, who had lost their copyright .

It's another "not the Star Wars I wanted" look-at-me criticism of how commercial the film franchise is. As if there was something unique and interesting about the point of view. In his Herculean effort to hold our eyelids open and force us to see how terrible the film is, he also acknowledges why we might enjoy it, which he finds understandable only as long as we KNOW that it's terrible for all the wrong reasons, so we must tsk-tsk disapprovingly while munching our popcorn.

There's a difference between having marketing tie-ins and being all about marketing tie-ins.

Of course there is. It's whatever you assume based on your own level of disappointment. It reminds me of the criticism that Hamilton only uses hip-hop to attract more mainstream audiences. There a difference between stating an opinion and being a contrarian and to me, this guy sounds like noise.

^^^

he does:

"

The most important thing to know about "The Force Awakens" is that it's the first "Star Wars" feature produced by the Walt Disney Co. since its $4-billion acquisition of Lucas' production company, Lucasfilm, in 2012. The deal reflected Disney Chairman Robert Iger's strategy to snarf up the best franchise-oriented producers, including Pixar (acquired in 2006 for $7.4 billion) and Marvel (acquired in 2009 for $4 billion).

For "Star Wars" fans, the good thing about the deal was that it placed the franchise in the hands of experts committed to delivering professionally produced mass entertainment; the downside, as became clear only with the release of the new movie, was Disney's formula-bound assembly line for its major properties. "

the movie is undoubtedly well done and enjoyable, but several criticisms are very valid.

the movie is a remake of a new hope, almost scene by scene - true.

the movie renders episodes IV-VI meaningless - true. the fall of the emperor has seemingly left the empire stronger than ever. their weapon can take out multiple planets without even needing to be in the same solar system. the audience is left to assume leia is a great leader of the rebellion, but no one appeared to have a clue that the starkiller existed!

the female protagonist is a walking plot device - true.

in any other film, particularly the last point would be cited as indicative of lazy storytelling. the movie is basically let off the hook by the majority of critics because the last three were so awful.

Updated On: 12/30/15 at 07:56 PM

That's all well and good, but just remember how truly awful the film is, irrespective of your enjoyment of it, like the man tells you to do. You are allowed to enjoy it, but only conditionally.

FindingNamo said: "

Work said: There's a difference between having marketing tie-ins and being all about marketing tie-ins. And "too many explosions" is a perfectly valid complaint.

Star Wars was ALWAYS about the tie ins AND too many explosions. So, you know, say it about ANY OTHER MOVIE FRANCHISE, but Star Wars invented this crap. It's like complaining about a zebra having stripes. It's in the DNA.

George Lucas didn't make Star Wars so he could make a lot of marketing tie-ins. He made it because he had a story he wanted to tell, and a particular way to tell it. And it has just as many explosions as are required for the plot.

It's not a question of them being mutually exclusive. It's a question of what is the primary motivating force for making the movie. For Lucas, it was making the movie he wanted to see. For Disney, it was making money. Acknowledging that he would only make money from the toys doesn't mean he did it for the toys.

"I don't make movies to make money. I make money so I can make more movies." - George Lucas

Updated On: 1/7/16 at 04:40 PM

Kad said: "But it acknowledges he was aware of and actively pursued the merchandising aspect, that it was something he thought about. I don't see how that is any more pure in intent. By the time Empire rolled around, merchandising was just as vital as the film itself.

Dismissing The Force Awakens as an attempt to make money is reductive. Because... yeah, duh, it's a major motion picture, and Star Wars in 2015 is a franchise, just as Star Wars in the early 1980s was a franchise that existed only because (the newly subtitled and episode-indicated- how convenient!) A New Hope was massive hit. But that doesn't mean the storytelling aspect drops out of it.

No, it doesn't mean that. But, according to the writer of that article (which I agree with), that's what happened -- there was little creativity, the story was a rehash of the original, etc. You may disagree, and that's fine, but I think it's a valid viewpoint.

The merchandising blitz of the prequels was no different than the merchandising blitz of The Force Awakens, and Disney had no hand in those films. The difference is that the actual film that is carrying the franchise banner now is actually being well-received. "

The merchandising blitz isn't the issue here. No one's complaining about that. It's the "entirely market-oriented" feel of The Force Awakens, as the article puts it. I never felt that way about the prequels, which were more inventive and integral to the Star Wars saga, in my opinion.

Hork wrote: George Lucas didn't make Star Wars so he could make a lot of marketing tie-ins...

OMG you're hilarious AND adorable. Five words: EWOKS, EWOKS, EWOKS, EWOKS, EWOKS.

I have no no idea if the off-screen mythology hinges on the motivational purity of George Lucas or not, because life is too short to care about such ****, but THAT is funny.

Awwww, bless your heart.

Kad said: That wasn't my criticism. The prequels lean so heavily on recognition and nostalgia, it allows that to do the heavy lifting for them. What do we really learn about the original trilogy that we didn't already know?

How the Emperor rose to power, the nature of Anakin's parentage, the fact that he was a "Chosen One," who Luke and Leia's mother was, how Anakin became a Jedi, how and why he turned to the Dark Side, how he became Darth Vader, what exactly the Clone Wars were, where R2-D2 and C-3PO came from and how they met, who Uncle Owen is ... Really, I think the prequels actually make Return of the Jedi better in retrospect. It doesn't seem so silly that Vader suddenly becomes good. I think that was the whole point: telling the story of this man and his fall and rise. Maybe the new trilogy will reveal a point in future episodes, but so far I'm not seeing it.

"That's fine. That's great. That means more toys and lunchboxes to be sold. Are you sure you're not letting your appreciation of the film get the better of you?"

So do you resent the marketing that's grown up with and shaped the franchise, or don't you? Lunchboxes and toys didn't suddenly appear when Disney took over. Kenner literally sold empty action figure boxes in 1977, promising the toys later. You could find random crap branded with The Phantom Menace's distinctive logo languishing on shelves for years after the film. The "movie without a movie" multi-media move in the mid-90s called Shadows of the Empire- that was selling games, toys, books, and comics, all under Lucas's watch.

Like I said, I don't resent the marketing. But you said The Force Awakens has gotten people excited about Star Wars, which didn't seem relevant to the discussion except insofar that it will generate more merchandising revenue.