Star Wars also requires that "it" factor of the Force though, which is something you have to understand philosophically. The Force is a metaphor for God: the source of true goodness, investing every choice with meaning, and supreme. You can't just grab the guy who wrote Dune and expect him to turn out a great Star Wars script because he has a totally different view of the world and attempting to ape the Star Wars atmosphere will come off as cynical or clumsy.
For example, Rogue One had an interesting idea to explore the Rebellion committing necessary evils, but the whole idea of the rebels being a bunch of sociopathic CIA hardasses kind of defeats the point of the Rebellion itself, because we know what the CIA turns into and it ain't pretty. Also Jyn Erso's Disney speech was an uncomfortably maudlin fusion of Belle and Patton.
Star Wars also requires that "it" factor of the Force though, which is something you have to understand philosophically.
Lucas could barely keep it coherent or having any actual philosophy behind it. It only ever worked when it was so vague it barely had any substance and your mind just filled it in.
Even your definition only works for a couple of characters and a handful of scenes overall.
Star Wars isn't an intellectual treatise, but there is a consistent underlying structure and its mode of expression is highly affecting and occasionally sophisticated in imagery, musical score, and symbolism. The meaning may be simple, but to fully understand it you also have to understand its transformation into cinema, and that's complex.
This doesn't even get into the problem of reproduction. Star Wars is a product of the auteur era and only an auteur could effectively capture it authentically.
Like I'm sure Gareth Edwards is more than capable of understanding the philosophy of Star Wars. But he just doesn't.
No joke, Admiral Radish is the best character in the entire Disney SW franchise. Chads right past the impotent female leadership of the rebels and actually has the gall to take the fight to the enemy.
And he has about ten minutes of screen time before he dies.
It's abundantly clear that at least two different people made that movie, it's so incredibly schizophrenic about tone and pacing.
It's abundantly clear that at least two different people made that movie, it's so incredibly schizophrenic about tone and pacing.
This.
There are like a handful of films in that one.
The beginning is nothing like the middle and the middle is nothing like the end.
There are fractional sequences in between each major act that seem like they come from completely different films, and none of it is remotely cohesive.
The only saving grace for the film is that some of the characters are likable, and the entire end-heist/space/beach-battle is the only proper epic Star Wars moment in the entire nu-Disney saga, and the Darth Vader scene is a proper nod to how the character was portrayed in Empire Strikes Back.
Star Wars also requires that "it" factor of the Force though, which is something you have to understand philosophically. The Force is a metaphor for God: the source of true goodness, investing every choice with meaning, and supreme. You can't just grab the guy who wrote Dune and expect him to turn out a great Star Wars script because he has a totally different view of the world and attempting to ape the Star Wars atmosphere will come off as cynical or clumsy.
For example, Rogue One had an interesting idea to explore the Rebellion committing necessary evils, but the whole idea of the rebels being a bunch of sociopathic CIA hardasses kind of defeats the point of the Rebellion itself, because we know what the CIA turns into and it ain't pretty. Also Jyn Erso's Disney speech was an uncomfortably maudlin fusion of Belle and Patton.
Lucas could barely keep it coherent or having any actual philosophy behind it. It only ever worked when it was so vague it barely had any substance and your mind just filled it in.
Even your definition only works for a couple of characters and a handful of scenes overall.
Star Wars isn't an intellectual treatise, but there is a consistent underlying structure and its mode of expression is highly affecting and occasionally sophisticated in imagery, musical score, and symbolism. The meaning may be simple, but to fully understand it you also have to understand its transformation into cinema, and that's complex.
This doesn't even get into the problem of reproduction. Star Wars is a product of the auteur era and only an auteur could effectively capture it authentically.
Like I'm sure Gareth Edwards is more than capable of understanding the philosophy of Star Wars. But he just doesn't.
You're going to get me to watch R1 all for a disappointing, three paragraph monolog.
Sorry lol but at least the space battle is great and Felicity is waifu. The robot is somewhat OK.
I honestly think the ultimate ending sequence is evocative. Not talking about Darth Vader for anyone who's seen it FYI
No joke, Admiral Radish is the best character in the entire Disney SW franchise. Chads right past the impotent female leadership of the rebels and actually has the gall to take the fight to the enemy.
And he has about ten minutes of screen time before he dies.
It's abundantly clear that at least two different people made that movie, it's so incredibly schizophrenic about tone and pacing.
This.
There are like a handful of films in that one.
The beginning is nothing like the middle and the middle is nothing like the end.
There are fractional sequences in between each major act that seem like they come from completely different films, and none of it is remotely cohesive.
The only saving grace for the film is that some of the characters are likable, and the entire end-heist/space/beach-battle is the only proper epic Star Wars moment in the entire nu-Disney saga, and the Darth Vader scene is a proper nod to how the character was portrayed in Empire Strikes Back.