[Dragon]

If 'their understanding of such details is not required', they don't need to know.
You're just repeating what I've already more succinctly stated and at the same time you are trying to present it as a different idea. It isn't.

What he is saying that you need to explain things needed to understand the plot at hand. You, on the other hand, seem to demand that the movie explain the universe, even when it isn't needed. Hyperspace is a good example. How does it work? What are the limits? The audience doesn't need to know. All that we do need to know is that it allows FTL travel. At one point, we also find out that a "motivator" is a vital part of getting a ship into hyperspace. Why? Because it just blew and needs to be fixed, explaining why they can't just go into hyperspace, but need to evade the bad guys.

Another good example is Luke's lightsaber. "This is a story for another time". We don't get to hear it (though we presumably will, either in the movies or in supplements), but we are told there is a reason it ended up where it is. We don't need to know the reason, but if this was not addressed in any way, this would have been a major inconsistency. There are times when all you need to do is to hint that the explanation exists and that it is just as extraordinary as what it has to explain (in this case, it's probably a darn good story, too). You can then let the viewer's imagination (or supplementary novel writers) fill it out.

You could go on a tangent at this point on how, say, the hyperspace motivator actually works (this sort of thing is what's usually called "technobabble"), but it's generally ill-advised, as it brings nothing to the plot and leaves you open to nitpicking physicists. In most cases it isn't very good for the pacing, either. In hard SF, a tangent about our universe (if done right) can be a nice touch and leave the viewer/reader a little more knowledgeable as a bonus, but in fantasy, you generally shouldn't set any rule that isn't going to come into play later, as it needlessly limits your options (you can always set it when it does become needed).

As far as I can see, TFA fails to explain something vital to the plot exactly once: When the monsters don't eat Finn. This is a plot hole, and a rather jarring one at that (mostly due to the situation being rather cliché). This should have been explained, maybe they even had a scene in which it was, but it got cut. Other times, we know exactly as much as we need to.

[Akalabeth Angel]

If 'their understanding of such details is not required', they don't need to know.
You're just repeating what I've already more succinctly stated and at the same time you are trying to present it as a different idea. It isn't.

What he is saying that you need to explain things needed to understand the plot at hand. You, on the other hand, seem to demand that the movie explain the universe, even when it isn't needed. Hyperspace is a good example. How does it work? What are the limits? The audience doesn't need to know. All that we do need to know is that it allows FTL travel. At one point, we also find out that a "motivator" is a vital part of getting a ship into hyperspace. Why? Because it just blew and needs to be fixed, explaining why they can't just go into hyperspace, but need to evade the bad guys.

I've never needed hyperspace explained because its limits are evident by the manner and circumstances in which it is and is not used.
Meanwhile Force Awakens needed to explain that entering hyperspace in a certain circumstance was possible in order to validate its use.   I just don't believe the dialogue.  Because to believe it would create numerous plot-holes in the previous movies, not the least of which is why they didn't drop out of hyperspace inside of the Endor shield.  The information and events in TFA conflict with established patterns, events and circumstances from previous movies and are consequently irreconcilable without also validating its use with respect to those previous events, which TFA does not do.

Another good example is Luke's lightsaber. "This is a story for another time". We don't get to hear it (though we presumably will, either in the movies or in supplements), but we are told there is a reason it ended up where it is. We don't need to know the reason, but if this was not addressed in any way, this would have been a major inconsistency. There are times when all you need to do is to hint that the explanation exists and that it is just as extraordinary as what it has to explain (in this case, it's probably a darn good story, too). You can then let the viewer's imagination (or supplementary novel writers) fill it out.

Never bothered me. He dropped it. Someone found it. Case closed.

[karajorma]

You're right, this is silly.  You're again using information from another movie (in this case, the original trilogy) to try and find a plot hole in this one.

The film is using a character from another film. Why can't I point out that his actions in this film do not fit with his establish character?

To be honest, I'm done. You're so determined to give TFA a pass on its major problems that you're trying to come up with false limitations on what those flaws are allowed to be. You liked the film and won't hear a word against it. I liked it but thought it had major flaws. I see no point in continuing this. Let's leave it at that.

I'm not determined to let them skate by on correctable phenomena, I'm pointing out that none of the issues raised with the film are inherently problematic enough to label it bad as some (not you) are apparently wanting to do.  Some corners of the Internet are treating Star Wars like a sacred inviolate masterpiece, while an objective assessment of any of the films lends their best a mere "good and entertaining." 

Gonna have to disagree with you there. For its time Star Wars was a masterpiece. Yeah it was derivative, but then again, so was Freespace. And like Freespace it took a bunch of elements from other sources and blended them well. Even now I'd still say it's a great trilogy. If you don't think so, that's fine. But you don't get to claim your view is any more objective than mine just because you disagree. Even if you want to claim it's aged badly then that's pretty unfair cause TFA will age a lot more quickly than ANH did.

while the acting/character development in the OT was never as well-developed in a single film.

Nonsense. Firstly, the choice to have the characters as iconic heroes was deliberate, stemming from Star Wars roots in Flash Gordon and the like. That's why the characters don't spend as much time naval gazing as you'd get in a modern film with more nuanced characters.

But even with that, I still challenge your claim about character development, Compare General Hux vs Grand Moff Tarkin. Both hold the same position in the films yet Tarkin is infinitely better developed even though both have roughly the same amount of time on screen.

You also claimed earlier that Poe was a better developed character than in characters in the OT. Of course this is nonsense, we know virtually nothing about him and his character doesn't change at all during the film. He might evolve into a better character in the later films but right now he's just Han Solo Lite.

In fact the film fails almost all of the supporting cast in a big way. I've already complained numerous times about Captain Phasma being a complete waste of screen time from the way she was used. And I'm sure I'm not the only person to have a bad taste in my mouth from the way she meekly submitted to lower the shields and get stuffed in a trash compactor.



But on top of that, we have really strange things like the fact that while I like Finn immensely he doesn't fit his back story at all. I feel that Akalabeth makes too much of the fact that the back stories don't fit because I do like the characters. But if you're going to claim that the characters are better developed you have to include their back story and when it comes to Finn that's an especially strange fit because we never see him do anything other than shrug off years of indoctrination as a First Order foot soldier as if it's nothing. We never really see him struggle with anything from his past. All we see is him act like he scared of the First Order a bit (which goes away immediately the second Rey is captured).

Like I said, I like Finn. But if you're going to claim that this is a character who has seen better character development than anyone in the OT, it's not me who isn't being objective.

[Scotty]

I absolutely agree that the movie has flaws.  The music was weak, and while I'm a greater fan of fast pacing throughout than slow pacing in places it was too fast.  When Finn gets dragged away instead of immediately experiencing horrible things is a decent size plot hole.  Poe's "How to Ace Pilot" expo was ridiculous.

I notably don't agree with the MASSIVE PLOT HOLE that Han Solo doesn't ask what's up with the map.  I get the sense that a lot of our disagreements are magnified by the typical internet argument syndrome; even if we agree on most things, we're only talking about the things we don't.

[karajorma]

Okay, forget plot hole. Will you at least agree that having a McGuffin with as little exposition about it as in TFA isn't great scriptwriting?

[NGTM-1R]

If 'their understanding of such details is not required', they don't need to know.

Nope.

You're going for the subtle distinction I warned you wasn't there. You don't grok storytelling; that's okay, I doubt anyone on this forum besides Battuta is as interested in the subject as I am. The general public is ****ing awful at understanding it as a rule; you can't really give them what they want, because they won't actually like it if you do.

You took the sentence in isolation, rather than as part of a paragraph, and proceeded to dramatically **** up the meaning as a result. It has nothing to do with what the audience needs to know in fact and everything to do with what the creator desires them to know. That sentence is a statement of intentions on the part of an author, as you might have noticed were you paying attention. We're talking about artistic vision and hijacking the audience's hermeneutics to replace them with your own by giving them no handholds but those you want them to use.

This isn't about what the audience actually needs to know. It's about what the author wants them to know. It's about only giving them the ideas that he wants them to care about. The rules are not elaborated on because the author doesn't want you to care about the rules, not because they don't exist. (c.f. FreeSpace and subspace.)

As such, the rest of your post is meaningless, less than wrong. You assumed the factual truth of the statement. There are some very good works out there that do not give you all the facts you need, because the author isn't here to make you understand something.

[Akalabeth Angel]

If 'their understanding of such details is not required', they don't need to know.

Nope.

You're going for the subtle distinction I warned you wasn't there. You don't grok storytelling; that's okay, I doubt anyone on this forum besides Battuta is as interested in the subject as I am. The general public is ****ing awful at understanding it as a rule; you can't really give them what they want, because they won't actually like it if you do.

You took the sentence in isolation, rather than as part of a paragraph, and proceeded to dramatically **** up the meaning as a result. It has nothing to do with what the audience needs to know in fact and everything to do with what the creator desires them to know. That sentence is a statement of intentions on the part of an author, as you might have noticed were you paying attention. We're talking about artistic vision and hijacking the audience's hermeneutics to replace them with your own by giving them no handholds but those you want them to use.

Thanks for the lesson. Now for a look back:

Conservation of detail is only telling the audience what they need to know.
A plot hole is FAILING to tell the audience what they need to know.

Notice the phrasing of my statement "only telling the audience what they need to know"

Who is doing the telling, if not the author?
From that basic principle, would the author of a mystery movie need to tell the audience the same amount of information that a bio-pic would?  Can it be assumed that what the audience needs to know in each situation is different? And that the person doing the 'telling' is the one to define it?

The principle that I've stated is sound and in line with everything you've presented. So I'm not really sure what distinction you're trying to make or what nuance you're trying to impose upon my definition.


And incidentally, as an aside, if you really want to experience conservation of detail I recommend you read Patrick O'Brian. Some of the best novels you may ever read.

[Luis Dias]

Does anyone remember the most iconic scene of A New Hope? Luke standing heartbroken on a sand dune, watching the setting of twin suns? The uplifting music? His tortured face beneath wind-swept hair?
That shot isn't in this movie. There's NOTHING like that in this movie. Rey can't eat her space porridge for 5 minutes before she has to save/steal BB8 from another scavenger.

Think of your favourite scenes in Star Wars  and try to find their analogue in this movie.  And if you do happen to find your favourite scene, think about what precede it in old movie and what precedes it in this one.  I'd be curious what people came up with, if anything.

Leia to Han: "Bring back our son". Boom, mike drop.

[MP-Ryan]

Gonna have to disagree with you there. For its time Star Wars was a masterpiece. Yeah it was derivative, but then again, so was Freespace. And like Freespace it took a bunch of elements from other sources and blended them well. Even now I'd still say it's a great trilogy. If you don't think so, that's fine. But you don't get to claim your view is any more objective than mine just because you disagree. Even if you want to claim it's aged badly then that's pretty unfair cause TFA will age a lot more quickly than ANH did.

I said that, as a film, TFA is objectively better than the OT films based on the sum of the constituent grounds by which films are ordinarily analyzed, and I'll point out that no one has actively demonstrated where any of the criteria I used were false or inappropriate.

character development stuff

A note:  I should have said more development than each of their ANH analogues.  Obviously Poe doesn't go through as much development as the main characters, but as compared to his analogue - Wedge, FTR - we learn much more about Poe than we do Wedge.  But more importantly...

Luke goes from whiny, planet-bound kid to whiny space kid, but virtue of the death of his aunt and uncle who he spends all of a minute mourning despite the fact that they raised him from a child.  Following that brief moment, nary a thought.  The sum total of Luke's development is his discovery that he can use the Force and maybe be the hero he always wanted.  Contrast to Rey:  child abandoned on planet and who has stayed, despite awful conditions, waiting for her family to come back to her, is forced to leave planet when droid she rescues (against her better judgment) results in her being shot at, develops a bond with another character she meets in the process, flees the planet, discovers Skywalker's lightsaber, gets kidnapped by the First Order, discovers she's a Force user, self-rescues (despite her earlier panic), then engages in battle with a Dark Jedi after her mentor figure is murdered by him in cold blood.

Or Han vs Finn.  Han is a sarcastic bounty hunter who discovers he has a heart, maybe.  D'aaawww.  (And don't get me wrong, Harrison Ford's acting is the strongest in ANH).  Finn is a conditioned Stormtrooper whose conditioning breaks in the course of his first battle deployment (and given the later revelation that he worked in sanitation, this is actually unsurprising; high stress situations are commonly known in psychology to break even the best training/conditioning - a phenomenon I'm intimately familiar with in the law enf context).  He finds his only opportunity to escape in a Resistance pilot who is captured by the First Order, whom he helps escape, in the process being willing to kill fellow First Order troops out of a combination of terror of recapture and self-preservation.  His sole motivation from this point until Rey is taken is to escape the First Order (with Rey, after they form their bond), after which he is dedicated to getting his friend out of their clutches, being willing to go so far as to engage in battle with a Dark Jedi to do it.  Much as I heart Han in the OT, his character development takes three movies for what Finn managed basically in one.  That's not Harrison Ford's fault; it's a sign that much more thought was put into the characters of TFA than ANH or the arc of the other OT films individually.

But even with that, I still challenge your claim about character development, Compare General Hux vs Grand Moff Tarkin. Both hold the same position in the films yet Tarkin is infinitely better developed even though both have roughly the same amount of time on screen.

What?  Both are clear mustache-twirling villains.  There's virtually no distinction, other than Tarkin's performance is admittedly more subdued and terrifying than Hux's over-the-top bluster.  Then again, Tarkin is a pragmatic Imperial officer, while Hux is a true believer zealot.

You also claimed earlier that Poe was a better developed character than in characters in the OT. Of course this is nonsense, we know virtually nothing about him and his character doesn't change at all during the film. He might evolve into a better character in the later films but right now he's just Han Solo Lite.

As above, Poe is Wedge's better-developed analogue.  Finn is Solo's, and he IS much better developed.  Finn is plausibly written from a psychology perspective (right down to the near-panic attacks at the prospect of the First Order showing up).  Han is a cliche in the OT.  A lovable cliche, to be sure, but still a cliche.

In fact the film fails almost all of the supporting cast in a big way. I've already complained numerous times about Captain Phasma being a complete waste of screen time from the way she was used. And I'm sure I'm not the only person to have a bad taste in my mouth from the way she meekly submitted to lower the shields and get stuffed in a trash compactor.

TFA has a bigger core cast to which more screen time is developed, a choice I agree with.  ANH gave us cliched characters with a wider range of supporting cast.  TFA focuses the story on a marginally bigger core cast, at the expense of the supporting roles.  I agree Phasma was a wasted character; her inclusion in TFA was ultimately rather pointless and I'm not sure why they bothered with a named character in that role at all versus miscellaneous Stormtroopers.

[zookeeper]

Luke goes from whiny, planet-bound kid to whiny space kid, but virtue of the death of his aunt and uncle who he spends all of a minute mourning despite the fact that they raised him from a child.  Following that brief moment, nary a thought.  The sum total of Luke's development is his discovery that he can use the Force and maybe be the hero he always wanted.  Contrast to Rey:  child abandoned on planet and who has stayed, despite awful conditions, waiting for her family to come back to her, is forced to leave planet when droid she rescues (against her better judgment) results in her being shot at, develops a bond with another character she meets in the process, flees the planet, discovers Skywalker's lightsaber, gets kidnapped by the First Order, discovers she's a Force user, self-rescues (despite her earlier panic), then engages in battle with a Dark Jedi after her mentor figure is murdered by him in cold blood.

Totally equally fair descriptions, eh?

Also, for Rey you mostly listed things which happen to her; stuff that happens to a character isn't character development. I've only seen TFA once so I'm probably forgetting a ton, but I don't really recall what Rey wants throughout the movie, except for her family to come back and to find Luke. She escaped with Finn because they were being shot at, fine. But even after they get to Takonada she's still just wanting to go back to Jakku to wait for her family, until she realizes they're really not coming back. Then she gets kidnapped, and is basically in escape mode for the rest of the film, until in the end she decides she wants to go look for Luke. That's not a lot of development.

Contrast to Luke: he's frustrated and wants to be someone but still feels like he can't leave his aunt and uncle, learns that his father was actually a sort of a legendary warrior, has his aunt and uncle killed by the Empire and as a result decides to go with Obi-wan after all, fight the Empire and follow in his father's steps and make a difference. Obi-wan dies but Luke still ends up pretty much where he always wanted to be. There's a simple but clear arc there and at every point we know what he wants to do and why, and most importantly those things actually drive part of the plot: he'd never have gotten off Tatooine, tried to save Leia or joined the rebels if not for things that are in his character. What of importance does Rey do in TFA that is driven by her as a character? She's mostly just running away from guys shooting at her, and in the end she goes to find Luke because like Luke, she (presumably) wants to be someone and make a difference.

If anything, I'd say that she has (a little bit) less character development than Luke, and her mindset and motivations are less clear. Based on what I recall, that is.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Does anyone remember the most iconic scene of A New Hope? Luke standing heartbroken on a sand dune, watching the setting of twin suns? The uplifting music? His tortured face beneath wind-swept hair?
That shot isn't in this movie. There's NOTHING like that in this movie. Rey can't eat her space porridge for 5 minutes before she has to save/steal BB8 from another scavenger.

Think of your favourite scenes in Star Wars  and try to find their analogue in this movie.  And if you do happen to find your favourite scene, think about what precede it in old movie and what precedes it in this one.  I'd be curious what people came up with, if anything.

Leia to Han: "Bring back our son". Boom, mike drop.

That's your favourite scene?
Personally the fact that Leia and Han haven't been together the whole movie and that beyond seeing his son 5 minutes earlier, their relationship or depth of pain with regards to Ben is not really established left that scene pretty flat for me  And it was hard for me to care about their loss when the value of their relationship to him or each other is not really expressed.

But if it worked for you, awesome.  I can see how you might connect that scene with say when Leia lost Han in ESB.

[MP-Ryan]

-snip-

Luke's cliched motivations are spoon-fed to us; Rey's are implied through her actions and acting.  Both are legitimate storytelling devices, but Rey's encompasses a greater arc; she undergoes a tectonic shift from a girl who perceives herself as an independent nobody on a planet no one cares about waiting for the family that abandoned her with a veneer of self-assurance but in reality a great deal of insecurity, to an independent-minded girl who has discovered she is not only more powerful than she ever though, but that she can leverage those powers and develops a sense of self and belonging to a greater purpose in a reality she always thought to be a myth.  She grows.  At the start of the film, her self-assuredness is an illusory armour; by the end she's dropped the act and all the self-assurance we see is real.

Luke's discovery of the Force and his affinity is couched in a very formulaic "There's this thing called the Force, your dad was a wizard, you should try it too, your dead mentor can speak into your thoughts."  His story isn't organically or believably developed as a three-dimensional character; he is a cliche from start to finish. Boy-orphan-mentored-criticalevents-HERO!  Rey is most certainly not.  Her arc doesn't even follow a predictable pattern; on first viewing there remains a great deal of uncertainty about Rey's development (particularly with the Force) despite the obvious indicators to the audience right up until she successfully repels Ren out of her mind, and by the end of the lightsaber duel with Ren we're left wondering if she's actually wandering a little closer to the Dark side than we first assumed.  Rey faces genuine peril of the soul in the course of TFA; at no point in ANH can the same be said of Luke.  Luke's most perilous moments come instead in ROTJ where the chances of him being pushed to the Dark become very real in the confrontation with Vader/Palpatine.

[Luis Dias]

It is my favorite emotional scene and it worked very well because it sold itself well. It didn't overexpressed itself. It was simple but a powerful sentiment that every father understands. My other favorite emotional scene was the confrontation between Han and Ren. Han is offering himself to his son. "Come back, we miss you". You see Ren's struggle. He asks his father to help him do something he can't on his own. That is, he is just unable to go to the dark side by himself. He needs help doing it. His father doesn't understand but of course he wants to help. Then he realises that what Ren needs is to kill him.

That moment "rhymes" (ahah) with Luke's moment in RoTJ when about to kill his father and deciding not to. If he did so, he would turn to the dark side. Ren "completes" his destiny and falls to the dark side by killing his father.

But even then, after realising what Ren had done, Han touches his son's face with love. You might find that "didn't work", but as a father, I tell you, it does. It resonates entirely. "Yes, you killed me, I don't care, I love you son".

Regarding Luke's "looking outside to the sun", with William's tune powefully making the point, well, I agree that's a good shot, but it kinda backfires when you realise this moment is given more importance than the one when his uncle and aunt are dead. Right at the next scene, he's all "well, I might as well become a Jedi". If THAT sequence was done in 2016, you'd be all over it criticizing it like a Hawk.

And I'm still baffled by your Degobah's handwavingness "Yoda used the Force, done". WTF. You were previously saying Ren couldn't detect **** with the force 100 meters away, but somehow Yoda makes an XWing fly over to the exact 1000 meter radius of his house on a whole planet? Now, the movie treats that plot hole brilliantly. First, because it communicates to the audience that Luke is just lost. His XWing is in bad shape. He's within a jungle. Yoda could be anywhere. And now this stupid little brat is pissing him off. Then the revelation comes that he's Yoda, he was just testing him. And before the audience goes "WTF, how did Luke reached Yoda within a planet so soon?", two more important emotions are expressed to the audience: the excitement of Luke of finding Yoda and Yoda's denying him any training. The question of "Where is Yoda" becomes irrelevant now because it was quickly substituted by "can Luke convince Yoda to teach him?"

That's good storytelling, but the plot hole exists and it is baffling once you think about it and go "wait a minute". (more subtle than Kirk finding Spock in a icy moon, but still) Then he has a vision of his friends suffering after a long training session.

Another plot hole: How the **** does Vader know that by making his friends suffering, he will make Luke see visions of this and thus prepare a trap for him? Did Vader also have a "vision" of his own? (Perhaps I've just probably answered my own question). Nevertheless, it's never even hinted at. We are left with "our imaginations" to "fill in the blanks". Which I have not a problem with, but apparently you do.

[MP-Ryan]

But even then, after realising what Ren had done, Han touches his son's face with love. You might find that "didn't work", but as a father, I tell you, it does. It resonates entirely. "Yes, you killed me, I don't care, I love you son".

Agreed, that scene worked brilliantly.  It's arguable that it only worked brilliantly because many of the fans of the OT grew up to become parents at the time when they saw TFA, but that's one moment that I really don't care if they exploited the crap out of us; the scene works and is extremely poignant.  Though the whole catwalk thing annoyed me a wee bit.

it kinda backfires when you realise this moment is given more importance than the one when his uncle and aunt are dead. Right at the next scene, he's all "well, I might as well become a Jedi". If THAT sequence was done in 2016, you'd be all over it criticizing it like a Hawk.

EXACTLY.  I don't find that scene iconic at all.  The fact that Luke basically ignores the death of the only family he ever knew is jarring as hell.

And I'm still baffled by your Degobah's handwavingness / How the **** does Vader know

TESB is rife with timeline/spatial problems.  TFA has them too - the scale complaint is one I genuinely do agree with - but the OT is no saint in this regard.  Consider:  in the span of time, that's presented as quite short, that Han/Leia/Chewy/droids escape from Hoth, land on an asteroid, fix the ship, fly to Bespin, and get captured, Luke manages to fly to the Degobah system, locate Yoda, begin Jedi training (which we've been led to believe is substantial and lengthy), made it what appears to be a considerable way through, then fly to Bespin to the "rescue."  Then, in ROTJ, he goes back and Yoda says his training is basically complete except for Vader.  Uh, really?  At best, from the pacing and timeline it seems like he spent days to weeks (I'm being generous) on Dagobah, flies off to Bespin, loses a hand, tracks down Han, rescues everybody, flies back to Dagoba, and now he's a Jedi. Either Jedi training is the shortest elite training known to man, or there are some problems with the timeline.

It's what I was getting at earlier about plot point relevance; the OT has little timeline break between films, and it's shortened further by the little side-forays in which no time actually passes in the films and yet significant time is alluded to have passed based on the significance attributed later to those events.  Next to Lucas' "remastering" in the Blu-ray editions I'm watching, timeline inconsistency is the one thing that's most annoying me in the entire rewatch.

[Akalabeth Angel]

It is my favorite emotional scene and it worked very well because it sold itself well. It didn't overexpressed itself. It was simple but a powerful sentiment that every father understands. My other favorite emotional scene was the confrontation between Han and Ren. Han is offering himself to his son. "Come back, we miss you". You see Ren's struggle. He asks his father to help him do something he can't on his own. That is, he is just unable to go to the dark side by himself. He needs help doing it. His father doesn't understand but of course he wants to help. Then he realises that what Ren needs is to kill him.

That moment "rhymes" (ahah) with Luke's moment in RoTJ when about to kill his father and deciding not to. If he did so, he would turn to the dark side. Ren "completes" his destiny and falls to the dark side by killing his father.

But even then, after realising what Ren had done, Han touches his son's face with love. You might find that "didn't work", but as a father, I tell you, it does. It resonates entirely. "Yes, you killed me, I don't care, I love you son".

Cool. I'm not going to debate what should and should not resonate with you emotionally. I thought Ren had some decent acting in the patricide scene, but from the surroundings and the lack of compassion shown in Ren it was pretty clear that Solo was a goner so again, that's another scene that didn't resonate with me but I can see it resonating with some people.

Was just curious what scenes a person enjoyed in the old movies and what scene they appreciate in this one.

Regarding Luke's "looking outside to the sun", with William's tune powefully making the point, well, I agree that's a good shot, but it kinda backfires when you realise this moment is given more importance than the one when his uncle and aunt are dead. Right at the next scene, he's all "well, I might as well become a Jedi". If THAT sequence was done in 2016, you'd be all over it criticizing it like a Hawk.

Those scenes are treated roughly the same. Not sure what you found lacking from the latter one. Personally I like 'em both.
It's possible that the picture of two setting suns is more likely to be celebrated than two burnt skeletons in the smoking ruin of their house.

And I'm still baffled by your Degobah's handwavingness "Yoda used the Force, done". WTF. You were previously saying Ren couldn't detect **** with the force 100 meters away, but somehow Yoda makes an XWing fly over to the exact 1000 meter radius of his house on a whole planet? Now, the movie treats that plot hole brilliantly. First, because it communicates to the audience that Luke is just lost. His XWing is in bad shape. He's within a jungle. Yoda could be anywhere. And now this stupid little brat is pissing him off. Then the revelation comes that he's Yoda, he was just testing him. And before the audience goes "WTF, how did Luke reached Yoda within a planet so soon?", two more important emotions are expressed to the audience: the excitement of Luke of finding Yoda and Yoda's denying him any training. The question of "Where is Yoda" becomes irrelevant now because it was quickly substituted by "can Luke convince Yoda to teach him?"

Well unlike 99% of Star Wars fans, my favourite movie is not ESB so frankly I'm not that invested in it. I prefer Return of the Jedi, probably as a product of circumstance of when I saw it and because Luke going ape**** on Vader, fighting him across the room and onto his knees is probably the best 10 seconds of the entire saga.

Incidentally, the difference between Ren finding Rey and Luke finding Yoda is that Luke doesn't find Yoda. Yoda finds him. 
How does Luke land near him? Who knows. Call it a plot hole or some contrived convenience. But once he's landed near Yoda, there's plenty of reason for Yoda to find him. Including the disturbance that his ship would cause and also the spiritual connection that Obi Wan has with both Yoda and Luke.

Vader never finds Luke. Luke always goes to him.
Luke doesn't find Yoda. Yoda comes to him. He doesn't find Ben in ANH either until Ben comes to him.
The only time a force user finds another person, beyond sensing that they're around, is when they are both consenting. Darth Vader finds Obi Wan, and Obi Wan knows it's going to happen and consents to the meeting, possibly even seeking Darth Vader out.

Another plot hole: How the **** does Vader know that by making his friends suffering, he will make Luke see visions of this and thus prepare a trap for him? Did Vader also have a "vision" of his own? (Perhaps I've just probably answered my own question). Nevertheless, it's never even hinted at. We are left with "our imaginations" to "fill in the blanks". Which I have not a problem with, but apparently you do.

Vader's established knowledge of the force led him to believe that Luke's connection with his friends would draw him out?

Yoda says the future visions are based on feeling. Vader tortures Han for no reason. Luke feels his pain and goes to him.
Similarly in ANH Obi Wan feels the emotion's of Alderan's people when it is destroyed and with that knowledge divines the fate of the planet before Solo or the others did.

[Luis Dias]

Yoda's house is absolutely near the XWing, they don't have to travel thousands of miles which would be the minimal "average" for any random planet crash. In ANH, the droids still do travel quite a lot before being found by Luke's uncle (which comprise probably the most boring scenes around the whole saga, including those three other movies).

"Call it a plot hole"? Aleluia, we have a concession. But since you prefer the one with the ewoks, I guess it's not a biggie.

For the record, I also do love those ten seconds of Luke's rage against his father in RToJ. You're basically watching the hero of the trilogy pwning the villain and yet your emotions are all like "NO, DON'T! DON'T DO THAT!", it's ****ing brilliant. Then it cuts to two Ewoks destroying an AT-AT with tree trunks. Yeaah... such perfect movies...

[Akalabeth Angel]

Yoda's house is absolutely near the XWing, they don't have to travel thousands of miles which would be the minimal "average" for any random planet crash. In ANH, the droids still do travel quite a lot before being found by Luke's uncle (which comprise probably the most boring scenes around the whole saga, including those three other movies).

Yeah his house is near the place Luke's X-wing landed. Just like Rey's forest getaway is near the place Kylo Ren landed.  But again Yoda finds Luke not the other way around.
It's just lazy storytelling that Ren finds Rey. It would matter less if it was the exception not the norm. But finding people out of the blue for little or no reason is exactly how everyone operates in TFA.

"Call it a plot hole"? Aleluia, we have a concession. But since you prefer the one with the ewoks, I guess it's not a biggie.

Nah I prefer the one with Mon Calamaris, B-Wings, Lando Calrissian, Luke vs Vader, etcetera.
The Ewoks don't bother me, it would be better if they had real weapons. At least composite short bows instead of bows made by 5th graders. 

And in fact I prefer the Ewoks in RotJ to the Wookies in Revenge of the Sith. At least the Ewoks are cunning.
The wookies in AotC meanwhile are hiding behind 5 feet of steel on the beach and when the enemy finally attacks they all get out of cover and stomp up and down yelling on the beach. They should have all been mercilessly gunned down to a man. Far cry from the competence of the Hoth battle. That's the difference you get when you have the Norwegian army portray a land battle as compared to George Lucas and his Wookie VFX team.

Nevertheless, it's never even hinted at. We are left with "our imaginations" to "fill in the blanks". Which I have not a problem with, but apparently you do.

Incidentally, I want to call into question this prevailing defense tactic people are using to say "use your imagination".  Contrary to what has been suggested by Scotty, imagination is not tied to all forms of escapism. If you're reading a book or a comic book/graphic novel, then yes imagination comes into play because the pace of reading is set by you the viewer and because your mind tries to recreate the description in your mind based on your pool of knowledge.

But in the space of a video game or a movie, imagination in general doesn't factor into it.  If you're using your imagination while watching a movie, you are at that moment NOT watching the movie, and in fact the movie has lost you the viewer until this imagination everyone's touting has reconciled the problem in the viewer's mind. the viewer is fundamentally disconnected from the experience, probably because their suspension of disbelief has been broken or because the movie has simply failed to engage them. There are some exceptions, such as when a person is recounting an experience and their words are driving the narrative, or in a Hitchcock film for example where there's a murder happening and the camera shot is only a closed door. But in those cases, the movie essentially pauses and creates a pace where the audience can put their imagination into practice. It encourages and facilitates it through the use of static shots and other techniques. Once the movie re-establishes pacing, that moment is gone and the audience is back into simply viewing and experiencing the film.

Imagination thus, is fundamentally removed from experiencing a movie. As a general rule it is something that happens AFTERWARDS, when you try to recreate or expand the experience in your mind, or BEFORE a movie when you've seen only bits and pieces and try to put the pieces together and fill in the blanks. But only rarely DURING a movie and even then only with specific author intent.

[swashmebuckle]

I said that, as a film, TFA is objectively better than the OT films based on the sum of the constituent grounds by which films are ordinarily analyzed, and I'll point out that no one has actively demonstrated where any of the criteria I used were false or inappropriate.

It's not that your criteria are false, they're just incomplete. Notably, you're omitting most of the things that are actually noteworthy if you want to analyze Star Wars: its imagination, ambition, the breadth of its inspiration, etc.

Of course it's fine that TFA is your favorite, but the things you are summing up to come to the conclusion that it is somehow objectively best are like...TFA's cheesy one liners are delivered in a less cheesy way! Or TFA's overwrought bad guy speeches seem slightly less overwrought! These aren't serious examples I'm giving, but the point is we aren't dealing with a serious character study or something. Granted the criteria you're focused on aren't straight up quibble territory like most of what this thread has been dedicated to, but they are relatively minor stylistic aspects when compared to the movie's lack of the aforementioned qualities like creativity and all that.

[karajorma]

ANH gave us cliched characters with a wider range of supporting cast.

You do realise that a major reason why the OT characters and plot seem so clichéd is cause everyone has been copying them for the last 35 years, right?  

[Luis Dias]

ANH gave us cliched characters with a wider range of supporting cast.

You do realise that a major reason why the OT characters and plot seem so clichéd is cause everyone has been copying them for the last 35 years, right?  

That reminds me of an old joke. A guy takes a recommendation from a friend and goes watch "Romeo and Juliet" by Shakespeare.
"So, whaddaya thought, good right?"
"Nah, it was fillled with clichés".