For people who disliked the Prequels, consider this:

Which I discredited. TPM copying ANH doesn’t make it OK that TFA did it. This is like a kid who shoplifts and claims it’s OK because his cool uncle George does it. That’s not justification of anything. That both movies are the starting entry in their respective trilogies is irrelevant. What does that have to do with anything?

A group of freedom fighters are rebelling against a fascist military organization. Both parties are after the same prize which brings them into contention. Our story follows a group of unlikely heroes that are in possession of the prized item on a quest to deliver it to the good guys. The bad guys are defeated in a climactic battle scene when their super weapon is destroyed. The enemy is deterred, but not defeated, and we’ll see them again next time.

THAT’S the overarching plot of both movies. This isn’t exactly particle physics here. The ‘context’ in which each is expressed is deliberately unique, but the overall premise of each is the same.

It’s called a MacGuffin. Whether both parties are pursuing battle station schematics, or a mysterious map, or a really kickass brownie recipe - the point of the thing in question is to bring the two groups into conflict. How that conflict is resolved is the meat of the story.

If I took the Ep4 script, replaced the ‘Deathstar plans’ with pictures of ‘Slave Leia’ and worked out a conceivable impetus for two warring factions to fight over their possession, can I really claim my story is original? Can I pretend that I didn’t just do exactly what I just did: copy somebody else’s work, change around some elements, add some new ones, and call it my own?

 

The reason I brought up TPM is that, despite all the similarities, I don't recall anyone saying that movie was an ANH remake, probably because there was so much else to find wrong about that movie. The fact that they are both starting entries in their trilogies is relevant in the basic structure in which these trilogies are structured. All three are specifically designed to follow the same narrative structure - the introduction of the characters, the establishment of the hero and mentor relationship, the separation of hero and mentor and the climactic conflict in which the hero accomplishes something great, it changes the course of their lives forever.

Once again....The plots are NOT the same...no matter how many comparisons you can point out in the details of the business of achieving the end goal, the end goal is simply different. This is made plain as day in the opening scrolls of both films. The plans to The Death Star must be delivered to the Rebels before it destroys their base. Leia and the Resistance must figure out how to locate Luke, who has mysteriously vanished before his nephew kills him. Two different things, plain and simple.

At no point in watching TFA did I think, "this is just a remake of 4." That became the go-to, endlessly parroted critique of the film, because, like any massively successful movie, people require a reason to pile on and trash any film that is a tremendous success.

 

I read a book for a class almost a decade ago my freshman year in college.
One of the highlights was that there are only 7 basic stories to tell.
It's just about the dressing you put on them.
A quick google search brought them back to me:
1.Overcoming the Monster, 2.Rags to Riches, 3.The Quest, 4.Voyage and Return, 5.Rebirth, 6.Comedy and 7.Tragedy.

So when you make enough movies in the same world, with the same rules and the same characters; things are going to be repetitive which is why they are doing the stand alone movies to reach into other genres and stories. To add variety you can't really add in the saga films.

 

I remember it being a common criticism when the movie came out. Yeah, you probably don’t hear it much nowadays on account of there being so many other prominent things to complain about. Also, being reminded of a movie you love while watching one that you don’t, is actually one of the few redeeming things TPM has going for it. When the best part of a bad movie is arguably the worst part of a new movie, then you probably have a pretty good movie on your hands

Yes, but there’s no reason the writers of the ST have to follow this pattern just because Lucas did with the PT. They aren’t handcuffed to this model. They could have gone in any direction they’d wanted to. They deliberately stayed with what was familiar. Because of tradition? That tradition only exists because Lucas was more interested in SHOWING us something new rather than TELLING us something new.

The 1932 film “Scarface” is about an Italian immigrant in the 1920s and his rise within Chicago organized crime.

The 1983 film “Scarface” is about a Cuban refugee in the 1980s and his rise within the Miami drug trade.

Are these two movies the exact same thing? No, their specific circumstances and situations are wildly different.
Are they, from a plot perspective, the same basic story though. Yes, one is an irrefutable remake of the other.
Are you seeing where I’m coming from yet? No, probably not.
Am I somebody that asks questions which I immediately answer and indirectly come off as a snide butthole? Yeah, there’s a good chance of that

I don’t have this opinion to be edgy or contrarian. I truly do like this movie. It’s a good movie. I don’t want anyone, who also likes it, to like it less. I’m simply pointing out an observation that, to me, is painfully obvious and worth addressing. I didn’t hear this perspective somewhere and have an epiphany. I saw it from the opening act and, for me, is impossible not to see if you watch both movies back to back.

George Lucas’s initial, rudimentary outline for “Star Wars” was borrowed verbatim from Kurosawa’s “Hidden Fortress”. However, after all of his retooling, innovation, and inspired concepts, the finished product bares no discernable relation to the original. He took a known property and created something entirely his own. Creative minds have been doing this for centuries. The issue isn’t whether something has been done before, but what you’re bringing to it that makes it undeniably unique. I just don’t see much of that with TFA.

And why exactly can’t you bring this variety to the saga films? I really hope Rian Johnson dispels this idea.

 

I would even put 1, 3, 4, 5, and likely 7 all together discussing the same elements of the hero's journey.

Also, Rogue One used the exact same structure as TPM/ANH/ROTJ/TFA.

Hero encountered on desolate planet.
Hero meets roguish companions and mentor figure.
Hero encounters some special information regarding plot resolution.
Hero encounters parental and identity issues.
Hero helps good guys take on big round thing that needs to be destroyed.

That's 4 of the 8 films. And I love it...in order of ANH, TFA, ROTJ and TPM. Ultimately, the quality of the film is what matters.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 4, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 4, 2017 ---

In fact.

ESB is also the exact same structure minus the big round thingy, although Cloud City is also round and in the sky.
Also, ROTS is similar if you insert a 'War' for desolate planet, Palpatine for 'mentor' and 'parental/identity' issues, Palpatine/Plageuis story as important plot element (mayyybe) and the Separatists for the big round thingy. Just ends in a murky tragedy instead of fun party.

 

So Quest, and Quest with Return, are two different archetypes, yeah?

Don't listen to that sophistry fluff lmao

 

TFA isn't a remake of ANH, but to claim the plots aren't basically the same or at the very least share a lot of elements is just ignorant.

In both movies:
The bad guys are finishing their super weapons that will change the balance of power
Our hero is living in a desert without their family
Our hero is yearning for more out of life
Our hero is set on their adventure by a change meeting with a droid
Our hero is forced to leave their home
Our hero has inherited a special power & destiny greater then their realized
Our hero lose their mentor (both die on said Super Weapons)
Our group of heroes visit a bar full of alien creatures
The bad guys destroy the planet(s) of the good guys to test their new weapon
There isn't a large military or government sized opponent to the villains, but a small rebel/resistance band (both use the same space ships)
Princess Leia is a leader of both groups
The Empire and First Order are basically the game group (using the same space ships)
The bad guys have 1 person with special abilities - who years a mask and red-lightsaber
etc......

While TFA isn't an ANH remake and that was an easy, go-to critique, it became that easy to go critique because the movies do share a lot of plot elements, story beats, and design elements. And Abrams and co. don't hide that. They admit that TFA was designed that way.

 

Agreed.

 

You are being ignorant of my position. I never denied there weren't a lot of similarities in the details of both movies. But the plots of both films are fundamentally different. Nothing in that list defines the basic plots of both movies and the primary objectives of both sets of characters. You are focusing on similarities in the details of the business of achieving the end goal. I did the exact same thing with the Phantom Menace in an earlier post. If you can tell me how locating a missing Jedi is the same as destroying a super weapon, please do so.

 

Exactly, Royle hits the nail on the head.
Here's the thing- if you break down a story far enough, any two things can seem the same. For instance, TFA and ANH have been done to death in the thread and others, so let's take ANH and The Lord of the Rings-

Pretty accurate description of both works. Guess that means they're the same plot.

Let's do it with ANH and The Lion King.

And they always say The Lion King was Hamlet for kids... Nope, it's been Star Wars this whole time!

How about a comedy? Let's compare ANH to Neighbors- have you seen it? It's pretty good.

Huh, I didn't know Seth Rogen was such a Star Wars fan.

Now, obviously I'm just kind of having fun here, and I'll admit that The Force Awakens has more similarities than these other films. But also consider- they're obviously intentional... I still think it's a more worthwhile discussion of whether or not this was a good idea for the movie, rather than whether or not it is indeed a rehash. But it is kind of fun to try to come up with comparisons between ANH and other films.

 

And a good lawyer can make anybody look guilty or innocent if they try hard enough. The question is level of effort involved. How much ‘breaking down’ is required to make TFA ‘seem’ like ANH. Very little. List out the sequence of events that transpires in both films. That’s all. This isn’t a difficult concept.

 

In case you didn't read my whole post-

I admit, the similarities are there. But at this point, arguing that TFA is a copy of ANH is more unoriginal than ACTUALLY making an exact copy of ANH. It's been done, and the entire argument kind of misses the point, anyway.

 

Yeah, I read it. I’m replying to the specific part that’s in response to my post you quoted. The rest implies my topic should be dropped altogether because you don’t see the value. Which is a little offensive, TBH. Did YOU read your whole post

That’s rather relative with respect to what point is being made. Yeah? I’m saying that I ‘liked’ TFA, but I didn’t ‘love’ it. That’s on account of my seeing a Star Wars story that’s already been done. There was 30 years to come up with a new story. Not one that’s never been seen EVER, but one that hasn’t been seen in Star Wars yet. That’s all I was hoping for - something that’s new to THIS franchise. I was disappointed they went the safer route and am concerned this will be the trend moving forward. If I’m going to watch the same story play out over and over again, then I’ll just re-watch the OT. That’s the one and only point I’m making.

 

But thats the last thing I pointed out to you - when people say that they aren't being 100% sincere about it, they are complaining about the the amount of similarities and doing it in a funny or convient way. If you're going to argue a narrow "the stories aren't 100% or 95% the same" you arent' going to find many people who disagree with you. But it seems like you're taking that argument and applying it to people who are making that statement in a non-serious way.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 6, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 6, 2017 ---

And what did the film maker say about this topic:

“I can understand that someone might say, ‘Oh, it’s a complete rip-off!’ We inherited Star Wars. The story of history repeating itself was, I believe, an obvious and intentional thing, and the structure of meeting a character who comes from a nowhere desert and discovers that she has a power within her, where the bad guys have a weapon that is destructive but that ends up being destroyed — those simple tenets are by far the least important aspects of this movie, and they provide bones that were well-proven long before they were used in Star Wars.”

"“What was important for me was introducing brand new characters using relationships that were embracing the history that we know to tell a story that is new — to go backwards to go forwards. So I understand that this movie, I would argue much more than the ones that follow, needed to take a couple of steps backwards into very familiar terrain, and using a structure of nobodies becoming somebodies defeating the baddies — which is, again, I would argue, not a brand new concept, admittedly — but use that to do, I think, a far more important thing, which is introduce this young woman, who’s a character we’ve not seen before and who has a story we have not seen before, meeting the first Storm Trooper we’ve ever seen who we get to know as a human being; to see the two of them have an adventure in a way that no one has had yet, with Han Solo; to see those characters go to find someone who is a brand new character who, yes, may be diminutive, but is as far from Yoda as I think a description of a character can get, who gets to enlighten almost the way a wonderful older teacher or grandparent or great-aunt might, you know, something that is confirming a kind of belief system that is rejected by the main character; and to tell a story of being a parent and being a child and the struggles that that entails — clearly Star Wars has always been a familial story, but never in the way that we’ve told here.”"

http://collider.com/star-wars-the-force-awakens-criticism-jj-abrams-rip-off/

You have the director of the movie saying elements of TFA (I would argue important elements) are the same as they were in ANH, and that was done intentionally. They wanted to tread familiar terrain. Given all the places they could have gone to have: basically a death star, Empire V.2, your hero living in a desert without her family, Han Solo being a smuggler again and not with Leia, a small Yoda like teacher etc.... you can't blame people for being critical of those similarities. But you also can't take the criticism of "TFA is a remake of ANH" as 100% honest, its not and its not meant to be. Its a short hand complaint.

 

Is it legitimate to critique TFA for borrowing too many details from ANH? Sure, you certainly can make that argument. What I'm saying is that that particular critique has been blown up and exaggerated to assert that TFA was an exact copy of ANH, ignoring the fundamentally different overarching plots plots of both films. What 'm saying that this was done, in large part, to have something to bash TFA with in a uniform, endlessly-parroted manner as a critical failing of the film, because every movie that achieves enormous success gets hated after it becomes too popular. It became the go-to, pile on, mob criticism of the film that is given as the reason for the film being a reprehensible, terrible mess that should be derided forever.

But if you are genuine in an assertion that both films are too much the same thing, I simply ask you to explain your position. You think that both films are too similar because of the details within the respective plots. My argument is that the plots of both films are different and the objectives of both sets of characters are different, with similarities in the details that make up both stories. Those similarities are there A. to re-familiarize audiences with the classic Star Wars universe, and B. because fantasy storytelling often contains similar elements that can be compared to any number of other pre-existing stories as Joseph Campbell explained.

To say that TFA is a remake of ANH is to say that building a house is the same as building a chair. Both require a skilled craftsman to use hammers, nails, drills, screws, saws, wood, and require precise design, measurement and craftsmanship. But the goal and the end product of both projects is different. TFA uses a lot of the same "tools" to achieve what ANH did in it's storytelling - but it's a fundamentally different story with characters who have different objectives that they are trying to achieve.

 

Who here is making that claim? I haven’t seen anyone state TFA is an exact copy of ANH in this thread. No successful remake in the history of film has ever been an “exact copy” of the original. Where is this coming from?

How many ways can it be proven that the two plots of both movies are fundamentally the same. Changing the thing everyone is looking for and why they’re looking for it, doesn’t change the essential narrative structure of the story. It’s the same basic inciting incident, leading to the same basic conflict, resulting in the same basic resolution. This is screenwriting 101.

That might be true in some other crowds somewhere else, but that’s clearly not what’s happening here.

No, it’s to say that two houses were built using the same floor plan. Maybe one has wood siting and the other stucco. Maybe one is decorated in a Mediterranean style and the other Post Modern or whatever. They aren’t identical homes, no, but they have the same blueprint.

 

No offense was meant, and it shouldn't be taken because it's not strictly your topic anyway. It's a criticism a lot of people have of the film, and while I think it's become a beating of the proverbial horse, I also think that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the film was trying to accomplish.

I'm not insisting that we drop the topic, but evolve the conversation. We can repeat ourselves all day that "TFA is a copy of ANH", and despite the issues with that statement, I'd agree to some extent. That'll also put us right on track to where the conversation was over a year ago. You do make an interesting claim here, that I'd like to discuss with you:

Now, JJ has already stated the reasons for why TFA played itself so closely to ANH (which is why I find the argument so maddeningly redundant) but we really haven't seen much of anything else from the other episodes. I get that you feel a little burned from TFA, but what's your take on Ep8? Do you expect it to be a rehash/ play it safe? How about Rogue One?

Also, in an effort to steer this conversation back on topic (because good lord, this is supposed to be about the prequel trilogy), do you (or anyone else) think that the prequels "feel" like a Star Wars film? Of course, there's a delicate balance to walk. You can have a film like Attack of the Clones that, to me, does not at all "feel" like a Star Wars film (using the original trilogy as a reference point). Then, you have films like Rogue One that, to me, truly do feel at home in the Star Wars universe. Finally, there's stuff like The Force Awakens that flies a little too close to the sun and actually does rehash some elements of previous films a little too closely. What side, assuming you'd have to choose one, would you prefer to err on (of course, treading that middle ground may be best).

 

I take slight issue with Abrams rationality. He wanted to get everybody on board first before going anywhere truly new. Terrific, but I don’t feel that was entirely necessary. It’s an expression of a better-safe-than-sorry mentality that, for me, doesn’t jive with the spirit of the franchise. It’s always been about innovation – trying something new even if it fails. When Lucas made the prequels his mind was on giving the audience things they hadn’t necessarily seen before - even at the expense of the story

A lot of TFA to me seemed like a parent wrapping their child up in their favorite blanky and saying “there there, it’s going to be OK now.” Consoling us from the scary prequels by giving us something familiar. My problem with the PT wasn’t that it was too different, but that it was poorly written and directed. If they had been better told stories, then I would have been completely on board.

As far as Ep8, all I can hang my hat on is Adam Driver’s statement. Ep8 will be as different from TFA as ESB was from ANH. Not that Ep8 will BE ESB, but that it will keep with its spirit. I’m hopeful for that much at least.

I very much liked how different R1 was as a Star Wars movie. It was a war film set in the SW sandbox. The numerous fan-service moments were a little tiresome, but not as big a deal as some people have made them to be. I didn’t really connect to the characters which is a big drawback for me. All in all it did its job. It was an engrossing one-off adventure in AGFFA . . . . now let us never speak of it again

No, I don’t feel the prequels feel like Star Wars. The tone and character dynamics just don’t fit with what was established prior. I’ve heard this point defended as it being a different ‘era’. But, for me, that just side-skirts the issue without addressing it.

It might sound trite, but the balance that ESB struck. Being the first sequel, it had the easiest excuse for simply rehashing ANH, but didn’t. It gave us a logical extension to the events of the previous story and did it in a truly inspired, unique method.

And what are your takes to the questions you posed?

 

That's fair, I'm sure it doesn't gel with everyone. I know that I'm personally looking far more forward to seeing where these characters go in the future- my appetite has been sufficiently whet, but I'd totally agree that I'd prefer to see these characters in a new setting. Though, I don't necessarily think it's fair to say that they didn't go "anywhere truly new". Just because certain plot points line up, that's a rather large generalization. Kylo Ren, for instance, is similar in some ways to Anakin- yet he's also rather unique in others. Same goes across the board. Such sweeping generalizations do the film a disservice, in my opinion.

Did Driver say that too? I haven't watched his recent interviews yet, need to do that. If so, that's good, because Boyega said something pretty similar. Again, that's nothing more than the actor's words, but it's at least a somewhat specific description- at least they're not just saying "my film is good".

Not sure why not, but I'll honor that request...

Well, first off, I do think Episode 8 will be a little more bold. I think Episode 7 was a jumping off point, and whether or not we agree with how it was handled is irrelevant- it's over now, and we can now look to the future (perhaps sooner than expected, if we are indeed getting a sneak peak of Episode 8 next week!)

As for Rogue One- I actually really loved it. But I'll continue to not speak on it for you.

The prequels, in my opinion, did not at all feel like a Star Wars film, much for the same reasons you described. If I had to choose between bold originality that alienates that Star Wars feel or a very Star Wars-y film that rides on the coattails of its predecessors, I'm afraid I'd have to pick the latter. I'd much rather have a forgettable Star Wars film than a bad one. I think that's why a film like The Force Awakens can get so much more public approval than the rather bizarre Attack of the Clones. All in all, though, I think we can still both agree that an original, good Star Wars-y movie is the best case scenario, so fingers crossed.

 

And I'm telling you that you're taking those statements way to seriously. You need to lighten up and understand that when people say its exactly the same ANH they don't mean its exactly the same as ANH. They mean its too similar.

Are you saying there is no similarities between ANH and TFA's plot?

I guess I would want to ask - do you think Dances with Wolves and Last Samurai and Avatar don't have similar or the same plots?