Westworld Season 1 Review

104185197-160922-westworld-key-art-1024.1910x1000

For those of you haven’t seen Westworld, there are two things that you should know. The first thing is that the first half of this review is spoiler-free, and the second thing is that I would definitely recommend checking out the show. What Westworld does best is comprehensive storytelling. The first season runs at a perfect length and executes its story beats with precision. Unlike other science fiction shows like Lost where the end of each season leaves you with more questions instead of answers, Westworld concludes with just the right amount of new questions. The few unanswered plot threads don’t detract from the overall experience.

The only downside to Westworld’s brilliant first season is how they plan on upping the ante for the second season. The first season, in being so comprehensive, felt like a ten-hour movie with a solid introduction, middle and conclusion. The way the show ended, it didn’t seem to need a sequel. Regardless, without going too much into where the series is headed, I’d like to discuss the show as it stands.

 

westworld-1973-poster.png
The show is based on a 1973 film by Michael Chrichton

Based off of a 1973 film written and directed by Michael Crichton (Author of Jurassic Park), Westworld aired on HBO in the fall of 2016. I hate to have to give away the premise because I watched the show without knowing a single thing about it, but the story features a Western-style theme park where rich patrons called “guests” can interact with life-like androids called “hosts”. As I said, I didn’t know anything about the show, so when I realized the characters we were following around were androids, it blew my mind. Essentially, the guests come to Westworld to engage in whatever fantasies they like with the hosts, mainly sex and murder. The android hosts repeat each day with specific routines that can be influenced or changed by interacting with the guests. Anytime a host is killed, they are patched back up and rebooted to continue the next day as if nothing had ever happened. It’s a torturous cycle, and it is brought up several times that if the hosts were ever to remember these experiences it would surely wrack their “brains”. The guests go about committing what would be deemed violent atrocities in the real world, however the fact that the hosts aren’t real makes the guests justify their actions.

 

1333758105207.0
Video games like Call of Duty have been stigmatized as gateways to real-world violence

This concept of fantasy vs reality is paralleled much in today’s world to video games. Violent video games in modern society have often been stigmatized and believed to be a causation of real-world violence. The counterargument is that a game is a game, and the players are able to understand the distinction between fantasy and reality. When someone presses a button to kill someone else in a video game, it is not the same as physically pulling the trigger or making the fatal blow. Even in games like Grand Theft Auto where you can kill or harm anyone you like, the act of playing the game is far from actually going out and committing the crimes themselves. The argument that games train shooters is also preposterous. Shooting virtual guns from a PS4 or Xbox controller doesn’t prepare someone for actually holding and discharging a firearm. That being said, perhaps there is a line where fantasy and reality get too intertwined, and where the actions in the fantasy world reflect one’s character in reality. I believe that Westworld shows what happens when that line is crossed. The world itself, unlike a video game, is not virtual. The actions that are carried out by the guests are being done with their own two hands. The concept that Westworld explores here is becoming increasingly relevant, as virtual reality in games becomes more and more immersive. What’s to say that as VR gets more and more realistic, our actions in the game world become indistinguishable from what reality looks like? Are we still morally righteous individuals if we enter a virtual game world and slaughter people?

maxresdefault

One of the creators of the show, Jonathon Nolan, was heavily inspired by video games such as Red Dead Redemption, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and my personal favorite game of all time, BioShock. In fact, the elements of choice vs obedience and revolutionary new systems in exotic locations are clearly influenced by BioShock. Despite the facts surrounding Westworld’s immersive experience, many would still not consider Westworld to be crossing the line. A lot of you may think, if the hosts aren’t real, what does it matter? That is where Westworld’s true philosophical themes lie. Are the hosts real? Do they think? Feel? Experience pain? And if what the hosts experience is a series of programmed responses to external stimuli with some improvisational response built off of previously programmed responses, what makes them any different from us? I believe that this leads us to the fundamental question that Westworld explores: What is reality? Is our existence a result of calculated physiological structuring from a natural or divine source? Our brain consists of neurons firing, telling us what to do in which situation. What’s to say that what we experience isn’t the same as what the hosts in Westworld experience?

 

*************SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!*************************

Westworld-10.png

The show begins with Bernard Lowe, played by Jeffrey Wright, asking the host Dolores, played by Evan Rachel Wood, a question: “Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality?”. Dolores and the other hosts always say no, but the fact that hosts have to be programmed not to question their existence says something. The showrunners like to engage in misdirection, such as having the host Teddy, played by James Marsden, shown on camera when the off-screen monologue begins talking about the “newcomers”. It’s only later when Teddy’s bullets don’t harm the mysterious Man in Black, that we realize what Westworld is and who the “newcomers” really are. However, as much as the show loves to misdirect, it loves leaving clues even more. Lingering camera angles on the expressionless host’s faces seem to hint that the hosts have a greater awareness than the guests may think. Another way of being self-referential is in the music. Composed by Raman Djawadi of Game of Thrones fame, the music in Westworld combines traditional Western-themed tracks with anachronistic rock anthems like “Paint it Black” or “Black Hole Sun”. The player piano is constantly used as a source of diegetic music, and as a symbolic prop. The mechanical player piano reinforces the programmed vs improvisational themes in the narrative. Now, the two big twists in the show are the dual timelines and the fact that Bernard Lowe is actually a host recreation of one of the hosts’ original creators, Arnold. While the twists became apparent to me at a certain point in the show, the overall execution of these moments was so elegantly crafted that the obviousness didn’t detract from the experience. Especially if you look back, the clues were right in your face the whole time. Arnold and Bernard clearly dress differently, and the park is less ironed out and detailed in the older timeline.

 

ford
Anthony Hopkins as Robert Ford, one of the creators of the hosts.

The show is not without its faults, specifically in regards to suspension of disbelief. How do the guns work? How come they can hurt hosts but can’t hurt guests? Where do the guests go at night? How do the guests tell each other apart from the hosts? When Ben Barnes’s character stabs a host with a fork, what was to stop him from doing that to a guest? It doesn’t seem like they all know who they are before and are told to watch out for each other. Lots of things realistically about the park don’t make sense but the story is so interesting you aren’t super concerned about it. The dialogue is well written, and tends to tease and reference the idea of loops with lines like “There’s a path for everyone”, “Are you saying I’m repetitive”, and “Are you real? If you can’t tell, does it matter?”. Rewatching the show has been wonderful since I can now see the hints and references to future events, as well as see the story from a new perspective. I now know which timeline we are watching, and can observe the differences between the two timelines and how the park evolved.

 

Screen-Shot-2018-03-29-at-12.35.43-PM-1522341368-640x432.png
Evan Rachel Wood as the host Dolores

Westworld poses a brilliant philosophical question; when do the lines between reality and fantasy blur? Arnold wanted to create consciousness and replicate the human mind while the other creator, Robert Ford, played by Anthony Hopkins, believed the hosts were something purer than humans. Ford wanted to subject the hosts to the experiences of the park because he believed they had the capacity to take it because they were not, in fact, imperfect humans but instead perfect androids. Yet, in the end, Ford realizes his mistake and agrees with Arnold that the hosts were conscious. Eventually, he sets the hosts free of their programming that allows them to harm the hosts. It’s a perfect ending to a mostly perfectly crafted season of television. Yet, the series provides just enough opportunity for speculation and philosophical ponderings Ford definitely anticipated his death by Dolores, so was it his own code telling her to kill him or did he convince her as a sentient being without having to program her code? What separates humans and robots in free will? As Ford said, even we may not have free will as we still follow a serious of loops in our lives. One thing is certain, machine learning exists. Repetitions can slightly alter each time and become something new. As we gear up for Season 2, I think it’s crucial to assess the show’s first season as its own entity. As it stands, the first season of Westworld is pretty damn good, and once Game of Thrones finally ends, it should prove as a serviceable replacement for what to look forward to from HBO.

 

 

Justice League Review

justice-league.64328

This is going to be a personal, informal review for a very personal topic. I have not been a fan of the DC Extended Universe movies. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a massive fan of DC Comics. Batman is my favorite superhero; Superman is a close second. I grew up watching the Justice League cartoon and Batman: The Animated Series. Not to mention, I’ve read basically everything when it comes to comic books featuring the Justice League. I’ve been reading everything from the Golden Age Comics, to the Grant Morrison Era, to the New 52. I’ve read Death of Superman, All-Star Superman, Golden Age Superman, Birthright, For All Seasons. I’ve read Golden Age Batman, The Dark Knight Returns, Death in the Family, Knightfall, No Man’s Land, Court of Owls, and a bunch of other comics that nobody’s ever heard of. I dedicated most of my early teen years scrubbing through the comic book histories of each character of the Justice League. DC comics were vital to my defining years, and I attribute them to defining much of my moral center. They taught me the importance of virtue and compassion, they were everything to me. Then the movies came.

I was actually very excited for Man of Steel. I was right in the middle of binge-watching all ten seasons of Smallville leading up to its release. At the time when I watched Man of Steel, I loved it but now after reflection and further viewings, it’s not bad but not great. Then Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice came and well…I hated it. It featured a mopey underutilized Superman, a psychotic murderous Batman, and an inconsistent and uneven plot. It was an overall mess of a movie. Then Suicide Squad was right around the corner, so that had to be good right? It was even worse. In my opinion Suicide Squad is garbage. I can understand if others enjoy it for its entertaining moments but for me, it’s a disaster. Then Wonder Women followed a little while later, and it got rave reviews from the whole world so I was hyped. It was decent, but in my opinion, it wasn’t as good as everyone claimed. I enjoyed the movie but I wouldn’t consider it to be in the upper echelon of top 10 superhero movies. So finally, the moment everyone was waiting for…Justice League was coming, and I wasn’t all that hyped. I had been fooled too many times to get excited, and even though Wonder Woman was good, I couldn’t trust the trailers or the fact that Zack Snyder had picked up right where he left off from Batman V. Superman. I didn’t see Justice League when it opened, and when I heard about its lackluster box office I thought “Good, their failures finally caught up with them”. It wasn’t until today that I actually decided to sit down and check out the movie.

Jusyice League

After finally watching Justice League, which I viewed with low expectations, I can say this: Justice League has awful CGI, some really bad dialogue, bad editing, its characters don’t feel established in their world, the humor doesn’t always work, the story is derivative, and…… it’s actually not that bad of a movie. Yeah, I actually really liked Justice League.  It was wildly entertaining and for the first time, I recognized some of the DC universe that I grew up with.

Since I went into this film with a negative view (being honest, I wasn’t objective), I started finding faults early. The dialogue was sooooooo bad. None of the jokes were funny early on, and there was a constant usage of generic superhero catchphrases and dialogue (“together we can save the world” “I’m putting together a team”). I’m not actually quoting dialogue from the movie, I’m just giving my representation of what it was. The special effects were literally horrendous. When the villain Steppenwolf first appears, a CGI fight scene happens that looks about as real as a 17th-century stage play. Steppenwolf himself looks ridiculously fake, and I’ve seen World of Warcraft cutscenes from 2013 that had better effects than the fight scene. The only recognizable superhero characters from previous films are Batman and Wonder Woman, and they feel disconnected in their effect on the outside world. The majority of the superheroes are introduced for the first time in this film, meaning without many characters to latch on to, the world doesn’t feel identifiable or established. The story is straightforward and borrows a few elements here and there from The Avengers and The Lord of the Rings.

Justice League DC

The turning point for me was when all of the characters came together. First off, I want to say that Cyborg, played by Ray Fisher, is awesome. He has this great intensity, and whatever origin he should have been given is summed up by his penetrating stare that indicates he suffered an unwanted accident that made him the way he is. Ezra Miller is also surprisingly relatable as The Flash. There is a standout scene early in the film where he is reluctant to fight, admitting that he’s never done battle before and in the moment is scared. Gal Gadot, in my opinion, is better in Justice League than she was in her own feature film (in which I thought she was serviceable but not remarkable). As Wonder Woman, she conveys a certain strength that holds the group together. I also finally got behind Ben Affleck as Batman. His murderous escapades in Batman V. Superman really deterred me from seeing what I see now, which is a great Batman. Batman and Wonder Woman play off of each other really well and serve as motivators for the rest of the group. The chemistry between the entire cast is a total success. Jason Momoa as Aquaman, though he is the least developed character in the league, has some of the best moments.

Justice League WW
Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman

Now, minor spoiler warning, I’m going to talk about Superman. I hesitate to call this a spoiler though, since, unless you’ve never heard of the Justice League or have been living in a cave, you’ll know that Superman is bound to show up. When he does, it’s great, but he’s not in the movie all too much. Poor Henry Cavill always gets the short end of the stick as Superman. In Justice League, he yet again gets pushed aside when he should have had a much bigger role.  There’s also been some controversy about Cavill’s CGI face since his real-life mustache had to be digitally removed. Honestly, it’s one of the least relevant criticisms I’ve heard and it’s really not that bad. I’m surprised that critics had a hard time getting over Superman’s fake upper lip more than they did getting over half of the other ridiculously bad CGI (I’m looking at you Steppenwolf). The upper lip was a little wonky at times but it was something I could easily get over.

Justice League Steppen
Ciarán Hinds as the villain Steppenwolf

The height of the film, as most people would expect, was the climax, and it was glorious. The action throughout the film but particularly in the climactic battle was fantastic. It’s everything you would want to see in a blockbuster superhero movie. The league functions as a unit, strategically approaching Steppenwolf and talking down his Parademons. The only real issue with the end is Steppenwolf himself, who is simply a weak villain. He isn’t terrible, but he doesn’t offer anything other than the usual bad guy dialogue and agenda. It’s a shame that he was chosen as the villain instead of Darkseid. He did the exact same things that Darkseid would have been doing, so why didn’t they just have Darkseid instead? The final battle could have also been on a larger scale and could have shown a larger impact on the global population.

Justice League Darkseid.png
Darkseid, ruler of the planet Apokolips

The ending of the film was actually kind of touching, having finally set up the potential for a larger DC universe. The film itself does feel like a righting of the ship. Keep in mind, I went in with an already negative perspective and was instead won over by the movie. The team works well together, and there’s even a decent end message about returning to the world and taking initiative. None of the characters fell flat, and despite there not being a lot of humor that works, the scenes in which it does is a nice touch. Though some of the early dialogue is bad, it greatly improves as the film progress until the dialogue is great in the end. There are some cool Easter eggs and it might just feature the two best end credits scenes ever. It makes me kind of sad that we may not see a continuation of this universe due to its low box office. I wouldn’t have minded if the DC movie universe kept going from Justice League. I finally saw flashes of the DC that I loved and wanted. It does feel like The Avengers in some sense, which can’t be avoided because, in the end, it’s a fun and generic blockbuster action film. Justice League gave me the DC feeling that Batman V. Superman, Suicide Squad, and even Wonder Woman couldn’t give. Wonder Woman is still a better overall film, but Justice League, in my opinion, is more entertaining, and my personal favorite DCEU film.

Brave_and_the_Bold_28
The first comic book appearance of the Justice League in The Brave and the Bold Issue No. 28

 

 

Miniblog: The Cloverfield Paradox Spoiler Review

cloverfield-paradox-image

Before I go into the review, I want to say that I didn’t see the ad for The Cloverfield Paradox during the Super Bowl.  I watched the trailer afterward on YouTube and only then saw the big marketing ploy: it was airing that very night on Netflix. The last Cloverfield movie, Ten Cloverfield Lane, was advertised maybe a month or a few weeks before its theatrical release. The Cloverfield movies have had unique marketing campaigns that draw attention to the strange concepts and seemingly different genres of each film. In this case, the marketing campaign succeeded again. I was totally surprised when I saw the release date and immediately wanted to watch it. It was Sunday night though and I had class in the morning, so I watched it Monday and…
The Cloverfield Paradox is an otherwise straightforward isolated space thriller with interesting elements of mystery and visual appeal, however, in regards to its story, characters, and the answers to questions it sets up, it simply falls flat.
Cloverfield-Paradox-Trailer-Netflix
Let’s start with the fact that we don’t get any interaction or development for the majority of the crew members. The only identifying feature is that they come from different nations. Given the incredibly talented cast including Daniel Bruhl and David Oyelowo, it’s unfortunate that a film with such good performances provided such little detail to its characters. The only character with a backstory is the protagonist, Ava Hamilton, played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. I know that in typical space thrillers the crew ends up dying anyway, but at least one moment of comradery between them establishes that what is happening to them is tragic. In Alien the crew is laughing and joking around right before the alien rips out of Kane’s chest. In this movie, the crew members are at each other’s throats in the very first interaction they have on-screen.

 

Once the story gets going and the crew fires a particle accelerator, it’s obvious when we see a flash from the earth that the will be transferred to a different dimension. This leads me to my second point about the film, it’s incredibly predictable. The fact that they were transported to an alternate Earth was predictable, the fact that the gyro compass was inside the Russian character was predictable, the fact that Elizabeth Debicki’s character (the one from the alternate Earth) had sinister intentions was predictable, and the fact the Cloverfield monster had ended up on their Earth as a result of the firing was predictable. Elements of the film come out of nowhere, the plot point of the main character’s children burning down in a fire because of her decisions is expositioned out towards the end of the film for dramatic effect. The entire sub plot with the main character’s husband where he finds a little girl is entirely pointless and boring. The sci-fi elements, once they get going, are interesting enough. There are exploding bodies full of worms, sentient hands, and gruesome mutilations. However, none of these incidents are ever explained, they are simply chalked up to “quantum entanglement”, the two worlds are messing with each other because they are close. That doesn’t explain how an arm can just gain sentience and start writing instructions, or someone could collapse and die then explode worms. Once the movie ends with the giant Cloverfield monster attacking the ship, there is no context to the situation. Is it the same Cloverfield monster from New York but grown up? Is this the same world as Ten Cloverfield Lane with the alien mothership? None of this is explained, and the ending just feels tacked on for thrills.

clover

As a film, it has narrative problems and its characters are thin. As a space thriller it has enjoyable moments and pretty good visual effects. It contains some sci-fi movie clichés like the dumb scientists, in this case the comic relief character is so enamored by an incident of magnetic interference that he stares at it and lets the metal material he was using behind him swallow him up. Elements of the film are very derivative of other sci-fi films like Alien, Life, and Event Horizon (although really all of these films derive from Alien).

cloverfield

It is definitely the weakest of the Cloverfield movies but I enjoyed watching it. Maybe I’m just desperate for semi-decent science fiction films by major studios, a topic that will be explored in an upcoming blog.

Kong: Skull Island-What Makes A Better Movie, Visual Elements or Literary Elements?

58c2d14f8c794.image

I just saw Kong: Skull Island, a very entertaining and interesting movie. The action scenes are on point. The visual style is attention-grabbing and the cinematography is splendid. Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts does an admirable job of recreating the 70’s Vietnam Era aesthetic, and he exceeds in his ability to depict human characters in sweeping long shots that indicate their vulnerability. However, where the visual elements of the film soar, the literary elements fall flat. The characters are almost nonexistent, the narrative is kind of all over the place and the dialogue is just TERRIBLE in some scenes. Now, keep in mind, this is a monster movie. We came to see King Kong fight a bunch of dinosaurs and attack some soldiers, so why should the film’s success be measured by a good story and characters? Furthermore, is a film with superior visuals, sound, and direction a better film; or is a film with superior writing, story, and characters better?

To go back to Kong, the story is straightforward, a team of scientists and soldiers go to Skull Island, damage the ecosystem, get attacked by Kong, and have to survive a rough landscape of monsters and dinosaurs. The characters are either one dimensional like Samuel L Jackson (a hardened veteran), Tom Hiddleston(a generic badass), and Brie Larson(a photographer…that’s basically all there is to her character); or the characters are plot points used to move along the story like John Goodman, Toby Kebbell, and Cory Hawkins. By the way, I’m using the actors’ names because of course, I don’t remember any of the names of the characters. I’m even good with names so it’s not like I wasn’t trying (I know literally every character’s name in Game of Thrones just try me).  In fact, what happens with these characters is something that I wrote about recently where the actors are so good they make you think the characters are better than they are. When John Goodman and Samuel L Jackson are talking to each other, the dialogue isn’t good, there’s little insight into their characters, yet it still sounds intense. That’s because the actors are intense, and they can make terrible dialogue like “I am the cavalry” sound somewhat plausible. If you just look at the cast for the film: Brie Larson recently won an Oscar, John Goodman should win an Oscar, and Samuel L Jackson is…well, Samuel L Jackson. These are all amazing actors, and the only reason I wasn’t falling asleep watching these characters is because of who they were played by.

King-Kong-Movie-Poster-1-

But again, we don’t need the characters to be Shakespearean good, it’s a monster movie, so why be overly critical? Well, just because a film’s purpose is to scare people with monsters, it doesn’t mean it’s a good movie even if it succeeds in its purpose. I’d like to compare this film to the 2005 Peter Jackson directed King Kong movie. In my opinion, Jackson made a better film, with a better story. You actually cared about Kong as the film did its best to establish a true connection between Kong and the female lead. However, to the film’s detriment, the third act isn’t as good as the rest of the movie and it often becomes too slow and sappy. The action is good, but the film tends to drag and is overly long. With Kong: Skull Island, the action is unrelenting. It seems like every few minutes there’s a new scary creature leaping out at its victims. The story is barebones but the pace is intense and focuses on the visual creativity and scope of the creatures rather than the struggles of the characters. Kong is an unstoppable, overpowered death machine and it’s awesome. Rather than get bogged down in the third act, we get treated to an awesome action scene between Kong and a giant dinosaur-lizard thing. With the Peter Jackson Kong movie, you have a thoughtful, more character driven film that wants to shed light on the gentle nature of the giant ape. With the new movie, you have a pretty straightforward monster movie with epic action scenes.

kong-skull-island-kong-destroys-helicopters-and-kills-skull-crawlers

So what does make a better film? Is it the visual elements, or the literary elements (story and screenwriting, etc.)? I think it varies from person to person. If you’re like me, and you can’t appreciate a film as much if it doesn’t have a strong narrative and well-written relatable characters, then you probably swing more towards literary elements defining films. If you’re more interested in the art and the crafting of a scene, the cinematography, the visual effects, the music, the production design (I love all these elements too, don’t get me wrong), but you might then define a film through that lens rather than overanalyzing the story and narrative. This would also apply to Kong: Skull Island, which I wouldn’t even consider a bad film. I would consider Kong an ok film from a story point-of-view and a very enjoyable one from a visual point of view. The purpose of many films is to entertain, and if that is the case, then Kong: Skull Island passes with flying colors. If you as an audience member are looking for something more in a monster movie, I would suggest looking elsewhere; but for all you monster movie lovers, Kong: Skull Island is another good addition to the pantheon of monster films, and I can’t wait for this version of Kong to fight Godzilla.

Star Wars: The Power of Nostalgia

I’m going to describe a movie to you, and I want you to guess which movie I’m talking about.

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, a small group of freedom fighters is desperately trying to run away from a tyrannical galactic regime. One of the insurgents is able to stow away vital information containing some kind of schematic inside a droid. The droid escapes and the insurgent is captured and tortured by a helmet-wearing dark overlord. The droid somehow ends up on a desert planet and encounters an opportunistic youth. The youth and the droid meet a self-interested rogue, an older mentor figure with knowledge of the force, and Chewbacca. Together, they all escape the desert planet on the Millennium Falcon and confront a giant planet-destroying superweapon/enemy base. There, the evil lord confronts the old mentor and kills him without much struggle, the giant base is blown up by X-wings, and the young protagonist is truly connected to the force for the first time.

Star-Wars-Force-Awakens-New-Hope-Similarities-Study

So was I describing the original Star Wars: A New Hope? Or Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Before you answer that, I want to give a little background:

Since the return of the Star Wars movies with the new trilogy, both The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi have made record-breaking debuts, each grossing over $200 million in their opening domestic weekends. They’ve also had much critical success with both films being over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. With a sudden resurgence in Star Wars, a new generation of kids are growing up with the legends of Jedi and Sith, and old fans are once again embracing their fandom. Star Wars, is officially a success on all levels again after the divisive prequels. So how is it that Disney has managed to satisfy both hardcore old fans and new ones? The answer is…nostalgia. Nostalgia is an interesting little element of pop culture that has seeped its way into the film industry and is now a studio’s most powerful tool for making big bucks. The two highest grossing films in the past five years have been Jurassic World, and The Force Awakens, both sequels made long after their previous films. Jurassic World, harkening back to the 1993 Jurassic Park, features a bunch of dinosaurs running wild after failing to be contained in a theme park, the exact same premise as the original. The Force Awakens is about a rebel alliance which, with the help of a young Jedi, desperately fights against a powerful empire led by a mask-wearing Sith Lord, the same general premise as the original Star Wars trilogy. If you take into account other resurgent franchises in Hollywood such as Mad Max, Predator, Alien, Terminator, live-action Disney remakes of animated classics, you’ll see that audiences are craving their nostalgic franchises and studios are happy to oblige. So it is understandable why the Star Wars franchise is repeating itself.

Now I’m not saying that The Force Awakens is a carbon copy of the original Star Wars movie, nor am I saying that it is a bad film. I actually enjoy The Force Awakens, it’s an entertaining and well-directed flick. However, The Force Awakens is a narratively unoriginal film with some original aspects scattered through it. The shining trait of uniqueness is the characters of Rey, Poe, Fin, and especially Kylo Ren. These characters are diverse and dynamic. Even though Rey can be a bit uninteresting and Fin is often played too much as comic relief, they feel fresh and new to the Star Wars story. Kylo Ren is particularly compelling as a conflicted villain that is constantly getting things wrong, constantly one step behind the superior heroes.

But even after watching The Last Jedi, which I also liked, it still felt like the exact same story. No matter how much they change up the characters or even the plot itself, they are still limited within the confines of the basic outline for the original trilogy. You can even tie the elements of the new trilogy to their old trilogy counterparts. The Rebels are now the Resistance, the Empire is now the First Order, the Death Star is now Star Killer Base, Boba Fett is now Captain Phasma, the Battle of Hoth is now that weird sequence on the mining planet with the ATAT walkers in the Last Jedi. There is no going back on these similarities, the narrative is fundamentally familiar. Disney has decided to take the Star Wars franchise in a recognizable direction instead of taking it to bold new places. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing for fans looking to enjoy the same old Star Wars that they used to know, it’s also not bad for new fans who can get into the new trilogy without having to find faults in the similarities. However, as a fan of originality and creativity in film, it is a missed opportunity. What could have been a brand new story that explores different elements of George Lucas’s vast universe is now basically something you’ve seen before. The prequels, for all their faults, presented fans with a new timeline in the Star Wars universe. They brought the Clone Wars and the Jedi Order and exciting new worlds like Mustafar, Geonosis, Felucia, and Utapa. George Lucas’s prequel universe was unique and creative, breaching a realm of science fiction that hadn’t been seen before despite the fact that the movies, for the most part, had terrible dialogue and characters.

The new films are competently made and directed but aside from the appeal of the main characters, excellent visuals, eye-popping action, and a masterful film score by John Williams, it’s the same story. Because of this, Star Wars is now being cinematically defined to this narrative, the story of the outnumbered rebels holding on to hope and believing in the force (by the way it makes little sense to me that a defeated empire is somehow able to piece itself back together in 30 years, reassert its dominance, and become even more powerful than before, while at the same time the victorious rebels would be incompetent enough to be reduced to a handful of scattered forces). Many believe that this narrative is what Star Wars should be defined as. The comforting caress of nostalgia still gives them that same exciting Star Wars feeling when they watch the new movies, and that is perfectly fine. But for me, it is frustrating to see the same ideas repeated. It may be satisfying enough for everyone else, but I will always lament over what could have been if the franchise had decided to continue the story rather than restructure and rebrand the story.