• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Red Letter Media - The Star Wars Awakens Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
Review lived up to the hype. I need to re-watch the diversity segment again because I'm not quite sure how I feel about their argument. I think it's a topic worth discussing though--the tension between the virtues of greater representation in cinema, and the creeping suspicion that the powers that be are simply co-opting the idea to sell tickets. You might ask why that matters, the ends justify the means, but I think you can feel it in the movie: TFA is fine, but I don't love it, and a big reason why is because it feels like it's a movie made by committee, directed by a focus group composed exclusively of white folks with their hearts exactly in the right place. I'd probably feel differently if I found the movie better overall.

I found the sex bit really insightful because I honestly never thought about it. It's true though--the movie feels bloodless, passion less, and this is a big reason why. Why couldn't Finn and Rey have some sexual tension between them? Or Finn and what's his face for that matter?

It's weird because I certainly don't think every movie needs a romance subplot... but maybe this type of movie does? I mean, it follows the new hope template in most other respects, so why not that one?
 
Also, it's hard to keep track of what he sees as good retreading ground and bad retreading ground.

Like, it was a complaint in his prequel reviews.

Then he argued how similarities are superficial as a retort against the ring theory

then he criticized Episode 7's retread

It's hard to dish out whether he thinks repeated themes/motifs/storybeats are a notable criticism or not.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
I found the sex bit really insightful because I honestly never thought about it. It's true though--the movie feels bloodless, passion less, and this is a big reason why. Why couldn't Finn and Rey have some sexual tension between them? Or Finn and what's his face for that matter?

It's weird because I certainly don't think every movies needs a romance subplot... but maybe this type of movie does? I mean, it follows the new hope template in most other respects, so why not that one?
Click to expand...
Why? That seems so unnecessary. And not having sexual tension between them is the unexpected thing to do here, because it would be so boring and predictable to have that
 
Veelk said:
Also, it's hard to keep track of what he sees as good retreading ground and bad retreading ground.

Like, it was a complaint in his prequel reviews.

Then he argued how similarities are superficial as a retort against the ring theory

then he criticized Episode 7's retread

It's hard to dish out whether he thinks repeated themes/motifs/storybeats are a notable criticism or not.
Click to expand...

Clearly we needed more 50s diner
 
I can't get through this review. This is crushing. I waited four damn years for another one of these things. The George Lucas Salad unboxing was more entertaining.
 
I think they raised a very good point on how manufactured the whole movie was. Disney is definitely heading in a Marvel Universe direction with Star Wars, and that saddens me. Seems like we're gonna be seeing the same "chosen one" story over and over again for the rest of our lives. At least when George Lucas came back to do the prequels, he did his thing for three movies and peaced out.

And as much as it's easy to hate on George for all the blunders of the prequels, I can kind of forgive him now for some of the risks it took. Looking back, it seems like the issue with Episodes 1 through 3 weren't necessarily the concepts, but the execution. Horrible acting, poor dialogue and obnoxious fight scenes are what killed the prequels.
 
More_Badass said:
Why? That seems so unnecessary. And not having sexual tension between them is the unexpected thing to do here, because it would be so boring and predictable to have that
Click to expand...

Like I said before, their passion manifests in different ways. Rey's wonder at the world outside, Finn facing his fears, the two of them showing affection for each other.

I have no problem whatsoever with them being platonic, especially when that's so damn rare that there are guys who genuinely walk through life that think it's not possible to be friends with a girl.
 
Rey:

1. She is brash and short-tempered
2. Her long-term goals often prove to be hindrances to her in the short-term
3. While she is somewhat cold to others, she also yearns for a lot - a friend in Finn, and a father in Han.

Finn:

1. Tormented by the horrible atrocities occurring around him, and by watching people he trained with and lived with either die or kill
2. Despite his upbringing, he is friendly and caring
3. He seeks to protect the people he cares about, but does so by trying to remove them from danger
4. Has an inferiority complex, and wants people to think more of him than there is to him
5. When push comes to shove, he is willing to put his life on the line to protect his friends

Po:

1. He's cocky, quick-witted
2. Cares deeply for those around him
3. Even in deadly situation, he's more or less unphased

Kylo Ren:

1. Immature
2. Desires to be powerful, but struggles to be perceived as such
3. Angry
4. Has a deep inner conflict, where he subverts the struggle of a hero being corrupted by darkness, being a villain who is corrupted by those who would seek to pull him back into the light.

This is pretty easy TBH
 
PerezDeCorcho said:
Typical flyboy characteristics. Now try that with the protagonists Rey and Finn.
Click to expand...

Rey is a hardened survivor with dreams of seeing the universe and grappling with a destiny she doesn't understand.

Finn struggles with wanting to be impressive and stand on his own, while fearing for his life because of his terrifying past.


That's really easy. Someone made a thread arguing this and the overwhelming consensus was that the protagonists were all very easy to describe under those conditions.
 
PerezDeCorcho said:
Typical flyboy characteristics. Now try that with the protagonists Rey and Finn.
Click to expand...
Confident, aloof, curious, and quick to awe.

Conflicted, good-natured, scared, overwhelmed

Veelk said:
Like I said before, their passion manifests in different ways. Rey's wonder at the world outside, Finn facing his fears, the two of them showing affection for each other.

I have no problem whatsoever with them being platonic, especially when that's so damn rare that there are guys who genuinely walk through life that think it's not possible to be friends with a girl.
Click to expand...
It also seems weird to knock this movie for not doing something ANH did after knocking it for doing things ANH did.
 
More_Badass said:
Why? That seems so unnecessary. And not having sexual tension between them is the unexpected thing to do here, because it would be so boring and predictable to have that
Click to expand...

See I'm not so sure about that. I'm contemplating some well done sexual tension, mind. Doesn't have to be a complete retread of ANH, either. Like, what if Rey was the one pursuing the love interest? I don't know...

Maybe this wouldnt be so much of an issue if I bought the comraderie between the leads more. As someone said a page or two back, the way they all just become best friends for life almost instantly feels a little forced to me.
 
Watched it. Was really good, especially the very sarcastic and facetious parts. Disagree with his points on Diversity tho (Saying that diversity was to much or that it doesn't really matter with this franchise and it doesn't matter for kids).
 
PerezDeCorcho said:
Typical flyboy characteristics. Now try that with the protagonists Rey and Finn.
Click to expand...

Rey: fiercely independent survivor, to a fault. Stubborn, feisty and has abandonment issues. Doesn't want to deal with her past so she's unwilling to confront her future.

The characters in TFA are at least as well defined as in ANH.
 
That whole "pass the test without describing their role in plot" is actually pretty easy with most movies. It's harder with some, like Padme in TPM, but characters having distinct characteristics is like the lowest possible bar of writing. It's the kind of thing you have to almost try to fail at to legitimately fail at it with ALL your characters.

It's so easy that even if a side character like Padme can't pass it, Anakin from TPM does. He's an excitable, idealistic dreamer kid, talented in gadgetry, who is normalized to the tragic conditions of his homeworld that treats people inhumanely.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
See I'm not so sure about that. I'm contemplating some well done sexual tension, mind. Doesn't have to be a complete retread of ANH, either. Like, what if Rey was the one pursuing the love interest? I don't know...

Maybe this wouldnt be so much of an issue if I bought the comraderie between the leads more. As someone said a page or two back, the way they all just become best friends for life almost instantly feels a little forced to me.
Click to expand...
They are two people who basically lived lives where friendships weren't really feasible and were suddenly thrust together in a scenario where they were able to immediately test the waters for how well they got along together.

Them becoming fast friends was one of the things that this movie did really well, even without the obvious comparison of the prequels failing to make a convincing argument to Anakin and Obi Wan's supposed friendship over the course of three films.
 
Nairume said:
Why? It's not like the review actually takes the film to task. In fact, it actually defends the single most common criticism for the film.
Click to expand...

yea, it even makes fun of people who try to pick apart TFA more than anything (some of the funniest parts in this review to me)
 
AWESOME. 15 minutes in and I'm already laughing all over the place. Damn, still 90 minutes to go, but those clips of Lucas he pulls are freaking gold.
 
Nairume said:
Why? It's not like the review actually takes the film to task for being a shit film. In fact, it actually defends the single most common criticism for the film.
Click to expand...

Honestly I despise everything Disney is doing with the Star Wars and it feels like a cash grab with movies releasing every year. He's calling Disney out.
 
I always imagined that RLM were reluctant to this review as it would be disingenuous since they really liked the movie, and lo and behold, that's exactly how the TFA part came across. Granted, I've seen them a hundred times, but I can go through a giant list of many of the prequel criticisms from all three videos. With this review, having just watched it earlier today, the only things I can pull out from my memory are 1. characters weren't constantly locking lips 2. diversity felt... shoe-horned? (though even this was more in reference to the pre-release bonanza) 3. it borrows too much from the original trilogy

And that's pretty much it. I didn't agree with most of it unlike the other reviews, but more importantly, there didn't seem to be a whole lot of passion behind the criticisms, and that's probably why the first 50 minutes have nothing directly to do with TFA. The review was more of a commentary on Star Wars post-Disney buyout, and although that was probably the best approach, even then it felt pretty dull as the follow up to the other three.
 
Nairume said:
They are two people who basically lived lives where friendships weren't really feasible and were suddenly thrust together in a scenario where they were able to immediately test the waters for how well they got along together.

Them becoming fast friends was one of the things that this movie did really well, even without the obvious comparison of the prequels failing to make a convincing argument to Anakin and Obi Wan's supposed friendship over the course of three films.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see why people liked that aspect of the movie, and I remember reading reviews to that effect prior to watching it. I was actually pretty bummed by how TFA didn't click with me the way I was hoping it would. The chemistry issue was a big part of that--I just didn't buy the bond between the leads. Haven't even re-watched the movie yet. Haven't felt the need. Maybe I should give it a rewatch to see if my feelings on it have changed at all. Goes without saying, at least tfa was miles better than the prequels with their wooden automatons posing as human beings...
 
Rey and Finn both have passion, and seem fully human, fleshed out - you can criticize the movie for a lot of things but those two new characters you want to follow regardless of plot.
 
I think people are missing that the Plinkett review is about how the Star Wars franchise is faring now that it has been sold to Disney, hence the title being "The Star Wars Awakens" and the focus on behind-the-scenes/business stuff and the history of Star Wars. It's not "a Plinkett take-down of TFA," a movie that Mike likes.

He probably should've laid that out more, but people expecting him to rail on TFA for 2 hours are apt to be disappointed. I thought he told the narrative well; how it's just another shitty thing being turned into a "cinematic universe" by a company rather than a couple of fantasy film trilogies helmed by a flawed auteur. He sees the play-it-safe way the movie was made and desire to make one "for the fans" as forgivable (just this once), but irritating, and how it is permeating many aspects of the movie. He includes Lucas's analogy on this, of a professional gambler being staked by a large company who is concerned about risk. And how despite how hard Plinkett was on the sequels, he must admit, "at least they were different."

There is play-it-safe-ism afoot in many aspects of the movie, from the rehashed "it rhymes" story, to what Plinkett argues is tokenist diversity casting (in the case of Phasma, I'd have to say, Brienne of Tarth does sound ridiculous proclaiming her role was some kind of huge victory for women in film), to the lets-not-mix-races bromance-only of Finn/Rey, to slavishly recreating the "look and feel" of Star Wars that OT fans demand, etc. Not that I really bought his whole argument on diversity, because diversity is important, it worked well, and from what I understand it happened fairly naturally in the movie's casting process.

He is directing his ire at where the franchise is going more than TFA specifically and the narrative made sense to me. I kind of get it, and I had some laughs watching. Though, I would've just cut out the "ring" shit. My god that felt like it went on forever.
 
These Plinkett reviews haven't returned to their former glory compared to the reviews for the prequel trilogy.

It echoes the rise and fall of Star Wars from the original trilogy to the prequel trilogy.

It's like poetry. It rhymes.
 
Forceatowulf said:
This was great. The wait was worth it.

The only part that was eye-rolling was their "meh, whatever" take on diversity. The importance of diversity is clearly lost on them and it's a shame.
Click to expand...

The argument wasn't that diversity is bad, but that it's clearly studio-thinking to have such a specific amount of diversity.

It's for a good cause, and they did a good job as they chose really good actors for the job and characters they were playing, but ultimately, it was very surgical way of thinking to make the movie all inclusive and as popular as possible.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
I don't think it was hard to think of character traits for the prequel characters really, their main sin was just being generally bleh.
Click to expand...

As someone pointed out, I think the issue was that they used two of only very few poorly defined characters personality-wise. Anakin, Jar Jar, Obi-Wan, Watto, Sebulba, Boss Nass, the Asian stereotype villain whose name I forget, etc. The only character I thought lacked definition besides Qui-Gon and Padme was Maul.
 
A Link to the Past said:
As someone pointed out, I think the issue was that they used two of only very few poorly defined characters personality-wise. Anakin, Jar Jar, Obi-Wan, Watto, Sebulba, Boss Nass, the Asian stereotype villain whose name I forget, etc. The only character I thought lacked definition besides Qui-Gon and Padme was Maul.
Click to expand...
What was Obi-Wan's personality?
 
He spends like the whole first hour whining about the prequels again.

Should have just reviewed something else because this feels tired.
 
Fudgepuppy said:
The argument wasn't that diversity is bad, but that it's clearly studio-thinking to have such a specific amount of diversity.

It's for a good cause, and they did a good job as they chose really good actors for the job and characters they were playing, but ultimately, it was very surgical way of thinking to make the movie all inclusive and as popular as possible.
Click to expand...

The point of disagreement I have is this: Who cares?

Okay, so it's corporate driven. And? Why is this bad? The commonality that corporations and auteurs have is that they want to make a good movie, because that will be a success for them both. And when you get down to it, all movies have a corporate mind controling it, including the original star wars and Fury Road and....well, all of them. They all go up to a director, tell them what they want, and tell them if their satisfied afterwards. I mean, it's worth remembering that there are a lot of things that are popular because they are legitimately good.

And while auterism may seem noble in a 'fuck the man' kind of mentality, the fact is that autuers are people and liable to make fuck ups. And by that, I don't mean "oh, that was a wrong, but interesting creative decision", I mean brain dead stupid decisions that are obviously wrong to most people. One example is, obviously, the prequels. Another example is Tim Burton's not diversifying because it pissed him off as a kid. It feels like their insinuating that any and all corporate influence on artistic vision is bad, and that's simply not true. There are plenty of artists that much better off because some corporate suit slapped them upside the head and says "don't do this stupid thing, asshat".

So if there is a corporate mandate saying that they offer diversity to minorities....well, good. WIthout that, we might be seeing even less minorities in major films than we already do. That is not a flaw as far as I can see. I hope other corporations follow suit. Is there a reason why they shouldn't?
 
Didn't think the review lived up to the hype. Found it kind of boring and kind of expected it tbh. The material just isn't as funny to work with.

He raised some really great points about romance though, which I had never thought about. If I had to guess, it lacked romance because of the incredible failure of the prequel's romance. Hopefully we get some in the next film.

Every other real complaint seemed to be because this movie is the first in a trilogy that hasn't happened yet. The rest was boring. Yeah, we know, the prequels suck. We all know.
 
Alex_Mexico said:
I don't get why these guys insist on making reviews as long as the movies they're reviewing and people praising them for that. Whatever happened to being to the point?
Click to expand...

You see a guy named William Shakesman once said, “Brevity is the soul of wit.”
This just means don't waste my time.
 
Veelk said:
The point of disagreement I have is this: Who cares?

Okay, so it's corporate driven. And? Why is this bad? The commonality that corporations and auteurs have is that they want to make a good movie, because that will be a success for them both. And when you get down to it, all movies have a corporate mind controling it, including the original star wars and Fury Road and....well, all of them. They all go up to a director, tell them what they want, and tell them if their satisfied afterwards. I mean, it's worth remembering that there are a lot of things that are popular because they are legitimately good.

And while auterism may seem noble in a 'fuck the man' kind of mentality, the fact is that autuers are people and liable to make fuck ups. And by that, I don't mean "oh, that was a wrong, but interesting creative decision", I mean brain dead stupid decisions that are obviously wrong to most people. One example is, obviously, the prequels. Another example is Tim Burton's not diversifying because it pissed him off as a kid. It feels like their insinuating that any and all corporate influence on artistic vision is bad, and that's simply not true. There are plenty of artists that much better off because some corporate suit slapped them upside the head and says "don't do this stupid thing, asshat".

So if there is a corporate mandate saying that they offer diversity to minorities....well, good. WIthout that, we might be seeing even less minorities in major films than we already do. That is not a flaw as far as I can see. I hope other corporations follow suit. Is there a reason why they shouldn't?
Click to expand...

Was he actually really complaining though? It was more a commentary and reflection on the difference in Star Wars before and after Disney.
 
I thought it was good, not as good as the Prequel reviews but there was a lot to complain about with those and I know they (RedLetterMedia) generally liked Episode 7 overall. I could have done without the nearly the first hour kinda retreading what they already said in the Prequel videos, but I still laughed a lot and thought they raised some interesting points.

I'm glad they took some time to go after this Prequel revisionism that seems to be happening lately, but I think it could have been done in half the time.
 
The Ring Theory/prequel re-assessment/clickbait part was pretty funny, but the TFA review was a whole lotta nothing, which is pretty disappointing considering it's supposed to be the main event.

In particular, the "diversity" segment was pure

BjeiL8WnqByKY.gif
Click to expand...
 
I liked it, but it definitely seemed unfocused,

I don't think this analysis/review had to be this long. A lot of it was spent reiterating the same points from the last reviews or talking about pointless shit that isn't worth talking about.
 
Fudgepuppy said:
Was he actually really complaining though? It was more a commentary and reflection on the difference in Star Wars before and after Disney.
Click to expand...

I mean, I feel he brought it up as a negative. He seems to generally paint all corporate influence as bad, and grouped the diversity angle in the same group as the kind of thinking that fuels the idea of soft reboots or shared universes (also things that I don't believe to be bad at all. Like, some of the way some studio's are going about it are questionable, but they also produced a lot of good shit)

Even the way you framed it was basically "It's a good thing but a corporate thing". The but implies there is an inherent separation between diversity being good and corporate influence being good. Otherwise, there would be no 'but', just "It's for a good cause, with good actors, surgically made to make the movie as inclusive and popular as possible". I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but the language being used here...yeah, it seems he's saying "Look at how corporate driven star wars is now!" and I am and I'm just not seeing the problem here.
 
For those of you who have seen Pacific Rim, how did you feel about how that interracial yet non-romantic relationship was handled compared to Rey-Finn?
 
More_Badass said:
Why? That seems so unnecessary. And not having sexual tension between them is the unexpected thing to do here, because it would be so boring and predictable to have that
Click to expand...

I haven't watched the review yet but whatever was between Rey and Finn seemed infinitely deeper than that. I'm sure they'll throw down when it comes to it.
 
The diversity and romance parts of this were pretty garbage, I had a really hard time figuring out if that was on purpose from the perspective of the Plinkett personality but I recall the other Star Wars reviews actually making solid points under all the over the top personality. Really felt like they were just swinging and missing during this entire review.
 
Rentahamster said:
For those of you who have seen Pacific Rim, how did you feel about how that interracial yet non-romantic relationship was handled compared to Rey-Finn?
Click to expand...
Well....in what respect?

When you get down to it, I think the obvious problem here is that Releigh and Mako just aren't as well written or well acted characters. Their not bad or anything, but I just...don't feel very strongly about them. I feel much more strongly about Rey and Finn.

But in terms of how they function in the story, well, Releigh had emotional attachment issues from his dead brother that he immediately latched onto Mako once he figured out she was the one to sync with. Mako, meanwhile, had ongoing issues with her father figure, Pentacost. There was something of a tension between how well to take care of her between the two guys, while she developed into her own person to stand up to the Kaiju, coming to a head when she took out the sword from Gypsy Danger, the symbol of her family and the first successful mission they have together.

With Rey...Rey is much more independent. While she looks at Han as a father figure and does long for a familial connection, her journey to being self realized is much more about finding herself. Han doesn't help her out in this like raising her or anyhting like Pentacost does. Finn has a similar thing. He really likes the people around him, including going to save Rey, but the truth is that his arc is finding his own courage, standing up to the forces he knows to be evil instead of running away from them.

So...I mean, you watch pacific rim for robot and kaiju, dude. I find the characters inoffensive, but uncompelling, which makes me feel the relationship the two main characters have is simply less noteworthy. The main difference between the two narratives is that the PR couple still needs each other to become whole, while the SW couple cares about each other, but can self actualize independently of each other. I don't think either is inherently better than the other in concept, but I just like Rey and Finn way more.
 
Fudgepuppy said:
The argument wasn't that diversity is bad, but that it's clearly studio-thinking to have such a specific amount of diversity.

It's for a good cause, and they did a good job as they chose really good actors for the job and characters they were playing, but ultimately, it was very surgical way of thinking to make the movie all inclusive and as popular as possible.
Click to expand...
I didn't say their argument was "it's bad", because that was not their argument. They just didn't seem to care much and were like "Ok.. fine. Whatever. It's being done on purpose, which is weird. But whatever. It's great I guess. Why not." which is pretty god damn sad way of looking at it, because as "shoe-horned" as it may seem, it's still a positive thing in the short and long run.

For instance, If a mega corporation (like Disney) decided to give out free quality food and water to improve their image, and ultimately use that improved image to sell their other products... well, I'd be pretty fucking ok with that. Because ya know what? People who were once starving are now getting fed. Was it all done to make a few extra bucks? Sure. But regardless of intent, if the results are positive all around, I can live with it.
 
The thing is, if you're going to bring up the notion that corporate influence occurs wrt diversity, you also need to be able to argue that it hurt the film. "Meddling" is not inherently bad. How can you even think that when you made a series of videos talking about movies that you sincerely believe were made worse because no one dared meddle into the making of the films?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Star Wars: Eyes Like Stars announced
2
75
1K
AJUMP23 replied
Star Wars: Visions Volume 3
5
367
RagnarokIV replied
Original trilogy characters are coming to Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge
10
190
Fbh replied
Star Wars Original Trilogy Theatrical Version restoration in the works
2
75
1K
mitch1971 replied
George Lucas and James Cameron on Star Wars Rebels and Terrorists
2
56
1K
kevboard replied
Top Bottom