Does the Sequel "Save" the First Film?

[CrazyCajun777]

So, like most things on the internet, this has to do with Star Wars.

Everybody and their mother wants to put in their two cents about the film. However, amongst the discussion I keep seeing a worrying trend that I will now gripe about.

"Well, it will be explained in the sequel."

This is a phrase that I keep seeing popping up when Star Wars is discussed. For example, why is Rey so good at everything, including the force? "Well, it will be explained in the sequel."

This cannot stand.

By arguing that this is in any way ok is to set up a very very dangerous precedent. It suggests that we do not have enough information about our protagonists to actually understand what is going on. That is a major problem. It suggests that you are selling me an incomplete story. Why? because it doesn't make any sense until I see the next movie. I repeat, the movie you are selling me is not comprehensible without seeing the next movie! Think about what giving such a thing a free pass actually means. Now, one might argue that all films with sequels are incomplete stories, but that isn't true. The original Star Wars functions just fine on it's own. If there was never another movie made ever again it would still be considered a story. However, when you start to argue that the lack of narrative coherence is going to be cleared up in a sequel you are giving creators the allowance to not finish the narrative in the time allotted, or ever. This is a movie not a TV serial wanting you to "come back next week to see what happens to our intrepid adventurers." Movies are stories, they deserve a beginning a middle and an end. Remember The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Want more of that? because that is what you are asking for. You are saying that it is acceptable to be sold an incomplete package designed only to provide mystery for the next incomplete package.

Now that I've worked myself up into a lather, let's take a step back. Rey in Star Wars: The Force Awakens does somewhat make sense. Sure, she is a Marry Sue...well, I would argue she is something slightly different but that is a discussion for another time and it's largely semantics. However, most can agree that she never loses and is incredibly competent to the point of being a bit rediculous. However, that isn't the end of the world. Commander Shepherd in Mass Effect 1 and 2 was the same thing, and I rather enjoyed those narratives. Having an over powered character isn't deal breaking and it is not what I want to discuss. I want to point out the massive fallacy in too many people's defense of Rey.

If you liked the film or not, if you thought Rey was great or not, if you care about Star Wars at all or not, please don't make this an acceptable idea. The idea that a story doesn't have to make sense without context of the sequel is playing with fire. Please, just find a different argument.

 

[Cryselle]

Honestly, I think that it can be okay to have an incomplete story. You want to compare to the original Star Wars? A lot of people feel that Empire Strikes Back was the best of the lot, but could you imagine just watching ESB without seeing either New Hope or Return of the Jedi? It would make a TERRIBLE standalone movie. It's part of a series, and requires the series to stand.

With the Force Awakens, you know it's part of a series. You know that the next movie in the series will be made, even if Force Awakens wasn't as successful as it was. It was never billed as a standalone movie, so you shouldn't have the same expectations you would of a standalone movie. The strength of a series is it allows them the flexibility to spread arcs out over a longer period of time, and that can make for a better overall series.

That all being said, it's a risky move that I think should be done sparingly. Designing a movie that requires the support of other movies can backfire very badly if the 'other movies' don't get made, if people don't watch them, or if the strength of the overall product isn't good enough to support the decision. Best example I can think of was the Golden Compass movie. It was obviously designed to be a series, but it failed, the next movie wasn't made, and it went down as simply a really bad movie.

So to answer one of your points. Yes, I think it is acceptable to sell me an incomplete package to set up for another incomplete package, so long as I feel I got value in entertainment for the money that I spent. And for the record, I'm not convinced that the Force Awakens hits that bar. I think it's possible that they'll make the whole thing great, but my faith in the franchise isn't exceptionally high, so if I had to rate Force Awakens right today I'd give it a 5/10. Not bad, not good, I don't regret seeing it but I wouldn't recommend it to people either.

 

[DoPo]

It suggests that you are selling me an incomplete story.

The Force Awakens is an incomplete story. It's been known from around the time it was announced.

Now, one might argue that all films with sequels are incomplete stories, but that isn't true.

Yes, it isn't - movies which were released and later got a sequel are supposed to be complete - Men in Black is a complete movie, you don't need to see Men in Black 2 or 3 for the story to be complete. The Hobbit, however, is designed to be three movies with mind, so the story is laid out throughout all three of them.

 

[Cryselle]

It suggests that you are selling me an incomplete story.

The Force Awakens is an incomplete story. It's been known from around the time it was announced.

Now, one might argue that all films with sequels are incomplete stories, but that isn't true.

Yes, it isn't - movies which were released and later got a sequel are supposed to be complete - Men in Black is a complete movie, you don't need to see Men in Black 2 or 3 for the story to be complete. The Hobbit, however, is designed to be three movies with mind, so the story is laid out throughout all three of them.

I think a lot of it comes down to honesty and expectations. I think it's okay to sell a story that is split into a trilogy, so long as the audience knows that is what is going on before they put money down on the product. I really don't like a movie that seems like it's 'fishing' for a sequel. You know the type, where they resolve enough of the plot points that if it doesn't sell well they can wash their hands of it and say 'done', but leave enough obviously open so that if it does sell well they can say 'oh, it was always intended to be a series'. If it was always intended to be a series, you should say "Part # in a series" before I spend money.

 

[DoPo]

It suggests that you are selling me an incomplete story.

The Force Awakens is an incomplete story. It's been known from around the time it was announced.

Now, one might argue that all films with sequels are incomplete stories, but that isn't true.

Yes, it isn't - movies which were released and later got a sequel are supposed to be complete - Men in Black is a complete movie, you don't need to see Men in Black 2 or 3 for the story to be complete. The Hobbit, however, is designed to be three movies with mind, so the story is laid out throughout all three of them.

I think a lot of it comes down to honesty and expectations. I think it's okay to sell a story that is split into a trilogy, so long as the audience knows that is what is going on before they put money down on the product. I really don't like a movie that seems like it's 'fishing' for a sequel. You know the type, where they resolve enough of the plot points that if it doesn't sell well they can wash their hands of it and say 'done', but leave enough obviously open so that if it does sell well they can say 'oh, it was always intended to be a series'. If it was always intended to be a series, you should say "Part # in a series" before I spend money.

Yup, pretty much my feelings as well. Heck, I'd actually encourage more movies to be planned and created as series. Mostly because I think that 90 minutes screen time is quite short a lot of the movies I've seen and it I feel that the plot moves in a faster pace than it should. Sure, that's not true for all movies, but enough of them. It's also probably I don't watch as many movies nowadays.

 

[Zontar]

The movie is most definitly not a complete one, and I'm honestly upset they didn't try to make it a self contained story. The original trilogy, for all their faults, worked as three individual stories that where each part of a larger metastory. You could watch any one of them in a vacuum, and while watching them all in order improved their quality overall they worked as standalone works.

The prequels, for all THEIR faults, also managed to achieve this even though they aren't particularly good movies. Episode 1 tells its story completely in a vacuum, Episode 2 doesn't need Episode 1 to be seen, and so on. For all their faults, they where at least movies with self contained stories.

Force Awakens was not, however, a self contained story, and that works to its general detriment. When added to the fact that the story is both weak, poorly paced and a rehashing the likes of which fanfiction wouldn't dare drop to, bad characterization and the ONLY thing going for it being the visual spectacle, you end up with a bland, boring and forgettable movie that isn't even a complete story. Even Marvel doesn't make its movies in such a formulaic or episodic fashion.

The second movie, for all its worth, will either make or brake the new trilogy critically. Empire cemented the originals as great and Clones cemented the prequels as bad.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Something like that is fine- After all, it would be a very unsatisfying trilogy of films if all three are perfectly well contained.

As far as I'm concerned it was fine- Rey and Finn have character arcs that culminate in their duel with Kylo Ren, and there are two climactic plot points (Han's death and Starkiller Base's destruction). Giving up Rey's backstory at the end of the first film would be ridiculous, that sort of thing is the sort of thing you're supposed to leave the audience wondering about.

I do agree that Rey seemed a bit overpowered, but it's good enough for now to handwave as just being incredibly Force-sensitive, and we can get a fuller explanation later. Honestly, if you wanted all this information now, the pacing would be even more off and we'd have a ton of exposition crammed somewhere in the middle. Just relax and accept that you're not going to know everything for now- it's hardly like the sequel might not happen is it?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't mind a last-minute sequel hook.
But telling an altogether incomplete story is basically a form of financial speculation, which I find disgusting.

 

[Something Amyss]

Remember The Amazing Spider-Man 2?

ASM did the opposite. It actually stopped the plot of the movie to tell you about other things, without really giving any of the characters a true arc. If Star Wars were to do this, Rey and Finn would stop their search for Luke to set up several spin-offs, possibly grinding the action to a halt as they discover a hidden comparttment in Chewbacca that leads them to a lost treasure or something.

TFA still gets a full arc. Actually, I'd argue that TFA's "they'll explain it later" is better than Star Wars' "never going to explain it."

Well, unless the answer to everything is The Force. In which case, Rey is just super strong with the Force and it makes her awesome. Kind of like Luke and Anakin, who get about as much explanation on-screen.

But I'm getting off-track here. What made ASM2 troublesome was not plot hooks, but the way they were done. You might as well invoke the prequels, too. They hooked into the next movie, but told a complete story each. What was bad with them had nothing to do with plot hooks. It had to do with taking a series that combined samurai and cowboy flicks (with a healthy dose of WW2) and turned it into something about trade negotiations, sand, and whiny, unlikable characters. Because Luke is a Zen Master compared to his daddy. But it told discrete stories with hooks into one another, and the original trilogy, and that's not a bad thing.

So Star Wars is now doing that without a slow plot, bad characters, and annoying racist stereotypes? I'm getting a complete story plus something to discuss for the already-announced sequel?

YES PLZ.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Err you never heard of cliffhangers?

I mean the following films did it-

The Matrix Reloaded (first time I got pissed from a cliff hanger)
Back to the Future 2 (a least they had the courteous to provide a preview for part 3)
Lord of the Ring and the Hobbit triliogys (well ok they're based on the novel)
Pirate of the Carribiean 2
Super Mario Brothers (lol as if they think they were getting a sequel)

Beside, didn't the whole "Vader is Luke father" thing did the whole "it will be explained in the sequel" when it happened when it first aired? Well ok it wasn't much (just Obi just explained it) but still I see it being a justiable excuse.

 

[Saltyk]

First, I'm going to disagree with the idea that Rey is a Mary Sue. Most of the things people are complaining about seem to have simple explanations that are easy to see in the movie. The movie lived up to the whole "Show don't tell" of movies, but people didn't seem to pay attention.

As for the question of if Episode VIII will fix it, you can't fix what ain't broke. The movie worked on it's own. Nothing needs to be fixed. Some things could be better explained, but the new EU and movies in the Star Wars series will likely do that.

But, go watch A New Hope. Then, without referencing any EU or the other movies, tell me about the Empire, the Jedi, or the Rebellion. We probably know more about the New Republic, the Resistance, the Jedi, and the First Order at the end of Episode VII than we did any of that at the end of Episode IV.

People simply want to complain if something isn't perfect. But they forget that they watched the Original Trilogy as children. If they really watched those movies with the same critical eye they seem to be watching Episode VII with, they would see many issues. This is why the Youtube channel Cinema Sins exists people. Go watch your other classic films from your childhood and see how much stuff makes no sense if you think about it. You guys think Ant-Man made no sense, try Jurassic Park. Or Terminator 2.

Let a child watch Episode VII and they won't complain that Rey was a Mary Sue. Or that the First Order made no sense. Or anything like that. They'll probably tell you that Rey was awesome and the destruction of Star Killer Base was amazing.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Maybe I'm a chump but I digged the cliffhanger.

Spoiler

The movie was more about the journey than the destination, so I thought it was a good place to leave off. I'm actually excited to see Luke and Rey talk, and I want to see what Kylo Ren is gonna do after getting his ass ended to him
I do hope they stray away from the orig trig plots, as I think that was what dragged the film down, not the ending

 

[Hawki]

But, go watch A New Hope. Then, without referencing any EU or the other movies, tell me about the Empire, the Jedi, or the Rebellion. We probably know more about the New Republic, the Resistance, the Jedi, and the First Order at the end of Episode VII than we did any of that at the end of Episode IV.

Okay, I'll play.

-Jedi: Guardians of truth and justice in the Republic. Have the ability to use the Force. Can presume to be equipped with the lightsaber as their standard weapon, most, if not all of which are blue. Practically extinct, were hunted down by Vader, presumably quite awhile ago due to references to their "ancient religion" and Han's lack of knowledge of the Force.

-Republic: A government that existed in the galaxy before the Empire. Had some remnants in the senate in form of government. Presumably had a friendly relationship with the Jedi. Presumably a better form of government due to the coming of the Empire being referred to as the "dark times."

-Empire: A form of government that dominates most, if not all of the galaxy. Oppressive, succeeded the Republic. Had an imperial senate, ruled by an emperor. System of government changes to giving governors direct control, intends to use the Death Star as a means of enforcing its rule through a system of fear. Employs stormtroopers as infantry, has access to TIE fighters and Star Destroyers.

-Rebellion: Band of rebels fighting against the Empire. Based on Yavin IV. Have won their first major victory. Reasonably well equipped, but heavily outgunned all the same. Likely harken to the ideals of the Empire per the "may the Force be with you" line. Have/had sympathizers within the senate, Leia being an example. Have access to X-Wings and Y-Wings.

-First Order: Military junta created from remnants of the Empire. Uses stormtroopers as its infantry, which it recruits by taking children and indoctrinating them. Has access to TIE fighters and Star Destroyers. Led by Snoke. Had Starkiller Base which was created to destroy the Republic and not much else. Is kind of implied to be spreading its power base (Finn's declaration that we have to run).

-Resistance: Band of insurgents likely supported by the New Republic, who fight against the First Order. Led by Leia Organa and operate from a secret base. Is equipped with X-Wings.

-New Republic: Government formed at some point after Return of the Jedi, based in the Hosnian system. Likely supports the Resistance. Has its capital and (most of?) its fleet destroyed.

So, yeah. We learn a lot more in Ep. IV than Ep. VII by my recknoning. It doesn't help that many of the above points are identical, and that the Resistance is "Rebel Alliance lite," and other similarities.

Now, that said, I don't mind Ep. VII ending in a cliffhanger. It's been stated from the start that this is part of a trilogy. I can cite many personal gripes with TFA, but let's be honest, by no means is it a bad film. Quite honestly, I had fun with it. But, well, I'll let the above points speak for themselves.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

As long as they actually make a Sequel, they'll be fine.

Uh basically, don't sequel bait unless you are 100% gonna release the sequel no matter what. Otherwise the incompleteness of the story in the first movie will be to the detriment of it.

This. This topic is one for which I would love for the fourth Evangelion rebuild movie to come out already (last one was close to 4 years ago). The third movie was absolutely godawful for this very reason, and I'd be interested to see if the fourth manages to make any sense of it. My presumption is that it won't because the third was so teeth-splinteringly terrible at explaining itself in any way that it would have taken an entire movie just to set up even its own plot, let alone the end of a movie series that has in a couple of years been running for 10 years, when (I think) it was originally supposed to be finished in 3-4.

Though I don't think Star Wars VII is a very good example here. Most of the unanswered questions lie with Rey, and they're not vital to understanding the plot of the film. They can take someone out of the movie, but they don't break the flow of the story. A more fitting example would be a film that's essentially all setup, and only hints at answers at the end. Like Matrix Reloaded.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

There were a lot of moments in the new Star Wars where I didn't think, "I wonder if this will be explained in the next movie", it was more along the lines of, "This is probably explained in one of the books or comics that launched recently." The unanswered questions that really bugged me in SWVII were more universe related than character based. For example, the fact that there are at least 3 factions struck me as odd (First Order, Resistance and, Republic). The fate of Coruscant is also a mystery to me even though it really shouldn't be...

To answer the question in the topic-line though; a bad movie is always a bad movie. A poorly explained movie is always that. I don't watch Iron Man 2 anymore because The Avengers is out. If you spend an entire movie getting ready for another movie, that original movie can only really hope to be decent at best. A movie should be able to stand on its own...its story should be clear.

 

[Drathnoxis]

19 times out 20, sequels suck. I'm not going to pin my hopes on the sequel to save a bad first entry, I'm just going to spend my time doing something that didn't already trip all over itself in it's first entry. And if it's intended to be a trilogy or series, well beginnings are the easiest part, if it can't even do that right why should I hold my breath that it will pull of the much more difficult satisfactory conclusion.