Star Wars: A Discussion (Episode VI)

One of the big questions around my house (mostly from my daughter because she loves R2-D2) leading up to The Force Awakens was, "Why is there a new droid?" It's a fair question but one I mostly had to shrug at when she would ask it. My wife, though, gave the cynical (but probably accurate) answer of "merchandising."

However, after seeing the movie, I think the impetus lies elsewhere. This is how I imagine it going:

Abrams: We have a problem.
Disney: What's that?
Abrams: I gotta go fast.
Disney: We, um, don't know what you mean.
Abrams: That's okay; I don't either. But this movie is going to be fast! Lots of running.
Disney: Yeah, so?
Abrams: Bro, R2 is slow. He can't keep up with all the action I'm gonna throw! I need a droid we won't have to tow. It's gotta go fast!
Disney stares at Abrams for several long minutes. Abrams is virtually vibrating in his seat.
Disney: So what you're saying is that you want a new droid?
Huey Lewis music suddenly wafts through the air with the words, "I want a new droid. One that does what it should. One that won't make me feel too slow, one that'll help my livelihood." It suddenly stops and Disney smiles.
Disney: Oh! You want a new droid! A fast droid! Yes! We'll make you a new droid.
Abrams: Great! Awesome! I gotta go fast!

Yeah, that's kind of how it goes in my head. Abrams gets a droid that can roll and bounce along on the ground with Rey and Finn as they run like crazy and Disney gets a brand new cute droid to merchandise the hell out of.

And, well, that worked. Yes, my daughter loves R2 but, now, she also loves BB-8. "He's so cute!"

But, you know, BB-8 is a fine addition to the movies. He rather subverts R2's  observational role but, hey!, Disney has subverted many things with their whole "making a movie for the fans" thing. He, the droid, was fun, and that's what counts, right?

However, not all of what made it into The Force Awakens works so well as BB-8, Starkiller Base, for instance. Setting aside the fact that this is part of the whole repetitive story issue (but seriously! again?), how does this even work? It's like they forgot to think the whole thing through (but at least it's not as bad as "red matter" (because, really, "red matter" was the best you could come up with, Abrams?)). I can be okay with them building a Death Star inside of a planet, but there are... let's call them inconsistencies:
1. Starkiller Base destroys the Hosnian system. Where did it get the energy for that blast? You're not going to convince that it "came loaded with one shot already available." Sure, as my wife pointed out, maybe it was a binary star system, but that doesn't ring true to me. It still had an atmosphere and plant life on the surface, so it hadn't come from some other system first. It had to be still in its home system.
2. The Star Wars database says that the beam from Starkiller Base travels through hyperspace, which explains how it gets to Hosnian Prime so quickly. But, if it's travelling through hyperspace, why can we see it? Come on guys; that's just not cool. Don't break the rules just because you want everyone to watch the beam go by and be all "oooh..." at it.

Oh, and see, I had to go to the Star Wars database to find that out about the beam going through hyperspace (because prior to looking, I was miffed that the beam shot across the galaxy in seconds), which is something something that irks me. I shouldn't need to go looking outside the movie for explanations of things inside the movie. Like the thing with Ren's lightsaber and why it's built that way (because there's an actual reason beyond it looking cool). That's one thing Lucas did very well: He gave us all the information we needed within the movies. And you might say that knowing why Ren's lightsaber looking the way it does (and I mean the flame-like appearance of the blade, not the cross-hilt) is not necessary, but an aberration like that popping up after six movies of lightsabers not looking like that begs the question. I shouldn't need to go out of the movie to find "why?"

And, yes, maybe that info will come in backstory in the next movie. Who knows. If that was the only thing, it wouldn't bother me, but that's just a prime example of a lot of things in this movie where Disney put the information in some other medium so that you have to buy a book or a comic book or whatever to find out. Irksome. And damaging to the integrity of the movie.

The other big problem I have with the movie is that everyone knows everything right away all the time. It's very un-Star Wars. I mean, the search for the droids by the Empire in A New Hope is part of what gave the early part of the movie its tension. But in this one, everyone knows that BB-8 is BB-8 as soon as they see it, and the First Order just shows up. But, you know, gotta go fast! It's not restricted to the First Order, though; it's everyone all the time. Rey and Finn steal the Falcon: Han shows up. [I'm sorry; there's no good explanation for that.] Then both rival gangs show up. Not to mention the Resistance showing up to take down the First Order when they're attacking Maz's place. There's just too much everyone knowing everything and/or coincidence.

And don't even get me started on the whole "map to Luke Skywalker" thing. Why is there a map to a person? And how exactly is that bit of the galaxy "uncharted" when it clearly fits within a map of the entire charted galaxy. Oh, wait... I said don't get me started. Oops.

So, yeah, I like the movie, but I'm not in love with it the way I am with the rest of Star Wars. Not right now. I'm sure it will grow on me but, right now, it's like the one kid who is constantly getting into everything and you keep having to say "stoooop!" to. You love the kid, but you just wish s/he would go away for a while and quit making noise. And, yes, darnit! I want to go see it again.

Next: 3D!

Star Wars: A Discussion (Episode V)

Okay, so, now we get to it. How do I really feel about The Force Awakens?
The answer is probably way more complicated than it ought to be, but it is what it is.
So let's start with the good...
Oh! There will be spoilers. Probably a lot of them.
Just sayin'.
[As it turns out, all but one spoiler has been pushed to the next post.]

It's a good movie. A very good movie. I say that not as an evaluation of actually quality but in its ability to make me want to watch it again. [I've seen it three times and want to see it again.] And, hey, it's Star Wars. It's full of action, non-stop action, in fact. The special effects are amazing, as you would expect.

Probably, the best thing about the movie is Adam Driver. It was a bit of an eyebrow-raiser for me when he got cast, though less of one when I found out it was as the villain. He has an interesting intensity about him, and it worked really well as Kylo Ren. He's able to do a lot with his voice and gave a much more nuanced performance than anyone in a Star Wars movie other than, perhaps, Ewan McGregor. Plus, his height made his stalking-walk very effective.

Finn and Rey are great additions.

I think it must be difficult to convey emotion while wearing stormtrooper armor, but John Boyega manages it. He is equal parts enthusiasm and naivete... well, when he's not being freaked out by what's going on around him, that is. I liked his performance, and I like the character.

Rey is great. She is now both my daughter's and my wife's favorite character in Star Wars (okay, well, my daughter may still like both R2 and BB-8 better) AND she is my oldest son's favorite character. Yes, even more than Luke Skywalker (though my son has been a devoted follower of the Empire for years, now, anyway). Daisy Ridley is good in the role.

The Force Awakens is actually as close you can probably get to the "perfect" fan movie for Star Wars. Except not for actual fans in the actual meaning of the word. Most people who call themselves a "fan" of something don't actually mean that; what they mean is that they like the thing. Actual fans invest themselves into the thing they're a fan of, hence the origin of the word from "fanatic." So, sense everyone gets to be a fan these days just for liking a thing, this movie is perfect. It's perfect for all of those people who saw the movies in the theater almost 40 years ago and thought it was great but, then, didn't think about Star Wars anymore until the prequels came out, which they hated, because what they wanted was another experience like A New Hope. The Phantom Menace was not that experience, but The Force Awakens is.

The Force Awakens achieves this by being almost the exact same movie. Except faster and more intense. This is a point of conflict for me. On the one hand, it is a fun movie but, then, I have to ask, "What's the point?" Of course, I know the point: Disney wanted to make a buttload of money, and they have succeeded admirably. But, seriously, from a story standpoint, why tell the same story again? From that perspective, I sort of feel gypped, because I already watched the one where they have to take down the shields so that they can destroy the giant planet-killing machine.

Which brings me, obliquely, to the major issue I have with Force: It feels like a movie about Star Wars but not quite like it is actually Star Wars. Honestly, effectively, that's what it is. The Force Awakens is a piece of officially sanctioned fan fiction. The fact that movie moves so quickly contributes to this feeling. So, while the non-stop action is attractive to the larger audience, the non-stop action also rushes past any feeling of being Star Wars. It does not "feel the Force." Ever. It's the lack of originality that really does it. The movie feels most like the kind of story a kid would make up to use his action figures with and destroy an EVEN BIGGER AND MORE POWERFUL Death Star. (Okay, there was your spoiler.)

Don't get me wrong; this doesn't make it a bad movie. It's an Abrams movie, and Abrams knows how to do big action and all of that. And fast. Very fast. So it's good. And fun. A good and fun bit of fan fiction that Disney has made into actual Star Wars canon. Maybe that's not a bad thing. I don't really know. All I know is that I wish Disney had actually held true to Lucas' story like they said they were going to do when all of this began. But, well, you can't stop them from following the scent of money, I suppose. Clearly, they have taken the "quicker, easier, more seductive" path.

Next post we'll talk about BB-8 and why he exists.

Jon Clinch's Ink

Jon Clinch would have you believe that he is the best writer that you've never read. And, well, maybe, he is, but I don't know, because I've never read any of his fiction. I'm not sure if I will, either. Here, let me start at the end:

Unmediated Ink: Notes from the self-publishing revolution ends with samples of all of Clinch's novels,

and, having read through them, I can't say that any of the books appealed to me in the slightest. And, see, I really want to want to read Finn, his debut novel. It got all kinds of praise (from literary critics) when it came out, has strong reviews, everything that says it ought to be a good read, but I started reading the sample and, not only was I not hooked, I was turned off by almost everything there, from the present tense of it to the skimpiness of it. And I don't mean the descriptions necessarily but the phrasing. All of the book samples struck me about the same. So, as much as I want to be a Clinch supporter (and I do, because I like what he stands for), I don't know if I ever will be.

Back to the beginning:
Clinch's first novel, Finn, was picked up with a six-figure advance. Yes, six figures, and Clinch reminds us of this several times in Ink. It was put on several best book lists of 2007 and up several awards. Maybe this is why Random House opted out of doing any real marketing of the book. After all, being on all of the those lists (all newspaper book critic lists) used to mean that people would read it, but newspapers don't carry the same weight today as they used to, and Finn under-performed.

Still, that didn't keep Clinch's second novel, Kings of the Earth, from getting picked up on another six-figure deal. Kings also received critical praise and was named the #1 book on the 2010 summer reading list in O, The Oprah Magazine. [There was a time when that slot would have meant an instant bestseller, but, maybe, that mess with Frey hurt more than I knew about.] And, again, maybe that's why Random House let the book flop around like a fish that has flipped out of its fish tank; the book didn't sell.

And Jon Clinch wasn't happy about it.

And I get that. His publisher failed him. I mean, they didn't even make the attempt to market the books. [Let me be clear, here, this is why he believes you've never read any of his books. Because his publisher failed to market them.] So he struck out on his own, self-publishing three more books including this one. He figured he could do better. Except I don't really know what that means. Is doing better selling more books (I don't know if he's done that.) or is doing better making more money (because I'm pretty sure he hassn't done that (it's hard to beat two six-figure book deals))? He fails to clarify or, even, offer the results. Unless he's still waiting for the results. At any rate, he seems to be much more satisfied with the amount of control he has now.

Ink is roughly divided into three sections: the problems with the big publishers, how he went about self-publishing his own books, and the samples of his novels.

Section one is the most interesting; the only problem is that Clinch just sort of skims from topic to topic like a stone across a pond. He mentions various things, but he offers no actual data or information about those topics beyond his own experience. Which is valid, but, then, with the two six-figure books deals he had, it comes off as kind of whiny. At least to me. Like the kid holding a double-scoop ice cream cone stomping his feet and saying, "But, Daddy, I wanted three scoops!" The only exception he makes to this is when he talks about Mary Doria Russell and what Random House did to her over Doc (yes, you should go read that post). That's his one concrete piece of evidence about what he's talking about other than saying things like, "this stuff is happening to all kinds of authors." And it's not that I don't believe him, but it would have been nice to have seen something more concrete. To put it in scientific terms, he offered up a hypothesis without any experimental data.

The second section follows his process of self-publishing. I would like to say it's worth grabbing up just for this stuff, but, unfortunately, it's not. There are three things that keep the section from being useful: 1. the aforementioned six-figure book deals and the plenty of money to do whatever he wanted to do (as opposed to most self-published authors who have budgets that amount in the hundreds of dollars if they have a budget at all) 2. the fact that he already had a relationship with many bookstores due to the aforementioned books 3. his background in marketing and advertising. He was just able to do a lot of things that, probably, 99% of authors who are self-publishing will not be able to replicate. So, whereas it's interesting to see the path he chose, I can't say that it's useful.

He ends that section with some reflections about self-publishing and where it might be going, but, again, he doesn't go deep enough, just skims the topics. And, having experienced both traditional and self publishing, he offers no evaluation. The closest we can get to how he thinks the two compare is that he seems to imply that he will continue down the self-publishing path, although he never states that explicitly.

The final portion of the book, as I stated, is a sampling of his four novels. These being here strike me as a marketing move, and it's probably a good one. Traditional publishers have long been putting samples in the backs of books. These samples do take up about 40% of the actual content of Ink, though, which already isn't long. And, well, if it was a marketing move, it's one that failed with me. Whereas, before I read the sample, I was planning to get Finn, I'm leaning away from that now.

All in all, I'd say Unmediated Ink is only worth the read if you want a superficial glance at one author's experiences in traditional publishing. It's not that I don't agree with him; I do. I agree with almost everything he says, especially the part about traditional publishers only being interested in the "next big thing," but, without the data to support his claims, the book is nothing more than anecdotal. And that's unfortunate, because a more in depth look at the issues plaguing the publishing industry, especially from someone who has seen both sides, is way past due.