... it doesn't look so good, as a writer with Huffington Post lists forty "unforgivable plot holes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-a...b_8850324.html

As for me, I rather-smugly wonder if "The Mouse"'s oh-so carefully planned marketing stratagems ... which, "in the first few days," appear to have breathtakingly exceeded "every movie marketer's most-craven dreams" ... might, in the next few days, teach them a most-rude lesson.

You see, I am "old enough" (ahem ...) to have remembered watching a "Swords and Sorcery Meets Cowboys In Outer Space" movie ... on 35mm film (of course), in a theater with four aisles and only one screen (of course). The film was constructed using n-o computers at all, because computers at that time(!) could not (yet) do such a thing, "but never-mind that." The film was "both earth-shattering and memorable" because it went where no film had gone before.

I was blown away. And, I graciously and completely acknowledge the awesomeness(!) of what "The Industrial Light & Magic Company" (and, uhh, Douglas Trumbull ...) did at that time."

That was t-h-e-n ...

George Lucas would love to claim that "it was all because of his story," but the fact of the matter is that his story succeeded because it paid homage to every spaghetti western that had preceded it, while transporting all of those stories into "a galaxy far, far away" using movie-making technology that had never yet existed at that time.

During the entire "run" of six Star Wars movies, the fans could never talk back to the screenwriters. (They certainly could not "talk back" ... in real time(!) ... to "the people who are supposed to be buying tickets in the next three days.")

Time will tell.

"We live in interesting(!) times!"

I'm more interested in seeing the "Hateful 8" in 70mm wide screen myself.

We have a nice antique theater with no waiting in line or crowds though. So I will be going to see the "The Force Awakens" this coming weekend.

For those that are clueless about 70mm shows. The Ben Hur Chariot race and other oldy good movies were done in 70mm. It'll impress you.

Details, writing, in plots in movies, space operas, etc........ have never been over thunk by me. If I have a smile on my face after the movie. It was a good yarn then. I make a good audience member I guess.

Edit: I should have not read this thread or clicked the link. Spoiler alert for those who have not seen the movie like me..

I'm going to see The Force Awakens tonight.

And I've already read too many spoilers.

How long is the movie?

I have heard from diehard Star Wars fans that it is a pretty good movie that lives up to fans' expectations and, unlike the last three George Lucas efforts, is not stupid. Indeed, they report that it is fun ride.

I shall probably see it, as my girlfriend wants to see it.

But, really, it's only a movie, a bit of sci-fluff. Parsing it as if it were a doctoral dissertation does seem rather overblown, does it not?

True, frankbell, all too true..... but that seems to be the fate of SciFi in general, I suppose because it dares to mess with an extremely conservative, slow to change, body of work, namely Science, which gets tossed about much like the famed picket at Princeton (I think) declaring "Ringworld is unstable!" Stanley Kubrick apparently asked Arthur Clarke to recommend some "good science fiction movies" which even though Arthur reported there were very few (and why) one of which was the classic "Forbidden Planet" to which Stanley is claimed to have retorted "You've got to be kidding". So it seems that "oil and water" combination of "Science" and "Fiction" creates a conflict right from the start that insures extra criticism.

Many avoid such criticism by being openly tongue-in-cheek like "Guardians of the Galaxy" which was still a good yarn and a fun ride (I am biased since I could watch Zoe Saldana watch paint dry, but hey, I am a red-blooded male after all) or by drifting into Fantasy like Comic Book (oops! sorry.... Graphic Novels LOL) super heroes. It seems to me the only thing that truly matters is the film's ability to create, or at least allow, easy suspension of disbelief. I'm afraid I am one who found Jar Jar Binks too much of an obstacle as an all too obvious ploy, much like some product placement.

About two hours.

I saw star wars episode 7 and it was good. Even though it was good, I didn't feel the same excitement as I felt when I saw episode 4 and 5. It is much better than episodes 1,2 and 3.

There is one spoiler which affected a character. Don't know why they went to that approach.

Dunno ... from what I've read of plot summaries (I'm not going to watch the thing unless someone else buys the ticket ...), it frankly seems to me that there is a dearth of original ideas in the SW universe. Once again we have a masked bad-guy, yet another Death Star me-too (and yeah, you know exactly what happens to it ...), and a general plot-line that seems ... unimaginative.

HuffPo's description of the plot as being "recycled" seems to me to be very accurate. And, yeah, if you're trying to breathe new life into a franchise that you just paid billions of dollars for, why skimp on the screenwriting? Maybe they should have taken a closer look at what's been going on in all those SW books, many of which had some very creative plot ideas.

Forbidden Planet is a great movie. It was also, if I remember correctly, Robbie the Robot's first part.

Any sequel faces the obstacle that nothing can equal the original. The novelty has worn off.

I think that might be one reason that so many superhero "franchises" keep "rebooting." They can't come with good sequels, so they think that starting over is the answer.

It's not.

Driftglass, a blogger and podcaster who I quite like, is also quite the science fiction buff. He is fond of saying that the way you can tell that a story is truly "science fiction" is that, without the science (whether it's real or speculative), the story is impossible. Fantastic Planet certainly passes that test.

I'm not sure the Star Wars series does; they're more like westerns with jetpacks. But a really good western can still be fun to watch.

Once again, frankbell, all too true. Space Operas and Space Westerns abound and that isn't always a bad thing. Firefly/Serenity whether the series or the movie is most definitely a Space Western but a damned good one. Aliens is sort of Space Opera (think Beowulf) but also exemplary. The original Star Trek because of the vision of Gene Rodenberry managed to blend Monster Movies, Opera, and Westerns on one level while laying a neat layer of revolutionary ideas on top which really came to a much more direct (and less monster movie) crest in Next Generation. Movies like Contact were obviously impossible without the Science, and despite being a slight letdown from the book, still had Carl Sagan all over it and managed to be really good SciFi. Similarly, Solaris, both the original and the US remake, managed to be high quality Sci Fi. Some of the very best are low budget Indie films like Pi and Primer, both of which I highly recommend.

However for every decent Science Fiction movie, here are at least 5 that are just excuses to make monster movies with scantily clad damsels in distress. Star Wars, though well-produced, is almost in a class by itself since it took no real risks, barely depended on Science at all, and even the so-called rogue Bad Boys *cough*-Han Solo-*cough* are still just nice guys fronting a cocky stance, and yet it's impact is undeniable. It utterly changed the landscape of movie-making to give SciFi more general respectability. Too bad it was apparently reserved for the first 2.5 releases. Empire Strikes Back was the zenith IMHO.

Having now seen it, I am pretty positive that the film was made for those of us between the age of 43 and 53. Nobody else will enjoy it half as much. It's like a college reunion abounding with cheesiness and reminiscences, but in a warm and fuzzy way. As a combination of Episodes 4 and 5, I think there must be a lot on the cutting room floor that would fill in some of the 40 plot holes listed in the article.

i just watched episode v - the empire strikes back.
i agree with one thing: it's the technical side that makes the movie. without those special effects, i wouldn't even have watched it til the end. there's barely any plot at all, or even interaction between the characters, only platitudes.
and that golden robot constantly has to fill in the gaps with his whining english butler attitude. another clich.
of course, darth vader is so famous for his B-movie-ness, that kinda made it more watchable.

but no, i'd rather enjoy a film with more story and less effects, if i have to make that choice.

It frankly appears to me that they used no original story ideas ... anywhere. Everything is warmed-over from previous films, and/or "necessary because we said so."

For instance: why would Luke Skywalker "disappear," or need to? And if he did, why would he "leave a map?" (Hell, wouldn't they just be able to track his postings on Intergalactic Facebook, and get a Galaxy Positioning System coordinate from his skyPhone?) If he's gonna skip town, why didn't he take his sister with him? (Not to mention his weapon!) Why isn't that sister by now a formidable Force-user, given that she too is a child of Anakin Skywalker? In 30 years' time, why is she not a sword-carrying Jedi? ("Who's this young chick?") And so on.

The very simple answer is: "Luke vanished so that the movie could be about finding him," even though there seems to be no particular reason to do so. He could have remained in that hiding place, unarmed, until they buried him in the ground, and there would simply be no reason for anyone to care. Nothing in the plot drives one to need to "find Luke Skywalker." It seems that he hid his lightsaber and retired. And apparently he is not uniquely powerful in terms of the Force or otherwise. The plot of an entire episode apparently does not seriously include him at all. Leia marries Han (of course), they have a kid, the kid grows up and turns bad-ass, and during all this time we have not a single postcard from Luke Skywalker, and R2D2 is in power-saver mode. But suddenly, Leia gets a bee in her bonnet to find her brother. (What took you so long, sis? Oh yeah... The Mouse wants to make another movie.)

We're given pastiche. Yeah, it's gonna be a bigger, badder, Death Star. And it's gonna wind up as a bigger, badder explosion ... nothing more. Courtesy of a Janitor. That's about as convincing as Independence Day conquering invincible starships ... ships capable of shrugging-off a thermonuclear explosion ... by "uploading a computer virus" into them.

"Story ... matters." Now, "story" was never George Lucas' long suit, but when someone buys a franchise for "B"illions, you'd think they'd sweat blood over their first screenplay. Apparently, they didn't.

I am deeply disappointed. And, apparently, "not alone."

Geeessse! Worth it?