[Scotty]

Because she's in a different situation, probably.  She's strapped to a chair.  She's also strong in the Force, instinctively.  We see that in four or five different places during the movie.  There's a very strong implication that she's the awakening in the Force that Snoke spoke of.

You know all of this, Akalabeth.  Why is "instinct" an unacceptable answer?  She could have heard it in a story when she was little.  She could have felt it in the vision when she touched the lightsaber the first time.  She could have gazed deeper into Ren's mind than we realize.  Use your imagination, jesus.

[MP-Ryan]

More to the point, we see - we're not told, we actually see - the mental battle between Rey and Ren where she puts all the earlier clues from the film together and it finally clicks for her that she's a Force user.  Rey's character arc in TFA is literally the journey of self-discovery where she realizes that she has a strong affinity for the Force.  She's given breadcrumbs the whole way, and the audience knows from the moment her and Finn hug after defeating the TIE fighters on Jakku, but she doesn't actually figure it out until that moment with Ren, and you see the realization in her face.

As an aside, this is also why I say the acting and character development in TFA is much better than the OT; in any of the OT films, that would have been explained to death via dialogue.  In TFA, all of that consideration information and realization is conveyed by the body language and reactions of the characters themselves which evolve over the course of the film, which is infinitely more believable.  Compare to Luke's "oh-I-can-use-the-Force moments, which are literally explained to death (Obi-Wan and Luke dialog on the Falcon, followed by Dead Obi-Wan in Luke's head when he's shooting at Storm Troopers during the escape from the Death Star, followed by Dead Obi-Wan in Luke's head during the trench run; there isn't a shred of character acting in the whole film as far as Luke's development goes).

[Phantom Hoover]

it's kind of annoying when you're not an idiotic broken record and the goodposters ignore you and reply to him anyway

[Scotty]

It's easier to respond to someone who is wrong than someone you merely disagree with.

[MP-Ryan]

it's kind of annoying when you're not an idiotic broken record and the goodposters ignore you and reply to him anyway

There wasn't much to say.  The statement was correct, but you didn't apply a value judgement by saying leaving those things out made TFA NOT work.  If that's the implication then I do disagree; in general, and after watching it again, out of Episodes 4-7 I find ANH the least enjoyable of the bunch precisely because of its pacing and tendency to over-explanation.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Because she's in a different situation, probably.  She's strapped to a chair.  She's also strong in the Force, instinctively.  We see that in four or five different places during the movie.  There's a very strong implication that she's the awakening in the Force that Snoke spoke of.

You know all of this, Akalabeth.  Why is "instinct" an unacceptable answer?  She could have heard it in a story when she was little.  She could have felt it in the vision when she touched the lightsaber the first time.  She could have gazed deeper into Ren's mind than we realize.  Use your imagination, jesus.

Yes. I know this. She does not. That's the point.

Luke mimics Obi Wan because he learned from Obi Wan and Yoda.
Rey learned from Kylo Ren. She should be mimicking him.

Similarly when Rey "uses the force" during the light saber fight.  How does she know to calm herself? Her only force teacher has been Kylo Ren. He's powerful and angry all the time, if she wants to be powerful she should likewise get angry.

Rey draws upon knowledge that she doesn't know and has no reason to know. You believe it because you know this knowledge yourself already. "She's good, so of course she acts like a good Jedi," even though the only "Jedi" she's met is a fallen one. 


Rey doesn't think in either of those scenes because thinking would require her to draw upon information that she knows.

For example, if she had a glimpse of his mind like say Harry Potter gets a glimpse of Professor Snapes mind and we are shown images of Luke training Ben then what she does would make sense. We would be shown that she's seen proper training from a "real" Jedi and can act upon the information that Luke has told Ben but Ben has rejected.  But this doesn't happen.

She essentially knows things for no reason. She doesn't think for herself and is thus not a believable character.

[Phantom Hoover]

It's easier to respond to someone who is wrong than someone you merely disagree with.

The amount of virtual ink that you have spilled in this thread to absolutely no effect leads me to think it would be easier still to ignore him entirely.

[MP-Ryan]

She essentially knows things for no reason. She doesn't think for herself and is thus not a believable character.

aaaaaaand I'm done wasting my time.

[Akalabeth Angel]

She essentially knows things for no reason. She doesn't think for herself and is thus not a believable character.

aaaaaaand I'm done wasting my time.

Again, explain to me why Rey would manipulate someone like a good Jedi, instead of manipulating someone like a fallen Jedi (Kylo Ren).
How does she know to do that?   Imagine you're someone who's seeing a Star Wars movie for the first time.  You've never heard the line "these aren't the droids you're looking for".  Can you explain her behaviour in the context of this one film?

I've already asked Scotty. He didn't have a logical answer and instead offered up theories or became aggressive instead. Do you have an answer?

[MP-Ryan]

Against my better judgment...

I should not have to and will not waste time and paragraphs explaining the just because one has seen psychopathic behaviour modelled does not mean one will emulate it.  Rey is aware of the Jedi and Force mythos and what they were capable of ("I thought they were a myth!"), and in testing her powers it is plausible/reasonable/believable that she would opt to try an option that is minimally-violent, quiet, and allows multiple chances for success.

In fact, given all the character development devoted to Rey up until that point in the film, it would be ridiculously unbelievable for her to resort to powers of a Dark Jedi.  She didn't learn anything from Ren and her mind other than that she could use the Force and had significant strength with it; it's not like she downloaded a "this is how I use the Force" manual (and even if she had, Ren was trained as a Jedi first).

[Scotty]

I gave you a number of possibilities that were internally consistent with both the story presented in TFA, and with Star Wars in general.  I don't really give a **** whether they pass an arbitrary logic test administered by an obviously biased observer.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Against my better judgment...

I should not have to and will not waste time and paragraphs explaining the just because one has seen psychopathic behaviour modelled does not mean one will emulate it.  Rey is aware of the Jedi and Force mythos and what they were capable of ("I thought they were a myth!"), and in testing her powers it is plausible/reasonable/believable that she would opt to try an option that is minimally-violent, quiet, and allows multiple chances for success.

So basically, your theory is that because Rey knows OF the Jedi, she also knows extensively ABOUT the Jedi and what they were capable of and also how they fought. Knowledge which in the film is neither qualified in its extent or drawn upon during the times where Rey would have used it.  For example before trying to influence the guard, she does not say to herself "In the old stories . . ." She just does it.

In fact, given all the character development devoted to Rey up until that point in the film, it would be ridiculously unbelievable for her to resort to powers of a Dark Jedi.  She didn't learn anything from Ren and her mind other than that she could use the Force and had significant strength with it; it's not like she downloaded a "this is how I use the Force" manual (and even if she had, Ren was trained as a Jedi first).

People learn from experience and even good people do questionable things in desperate situations. Especially people who have been surviving by themselves.

Either way, like Scotty, your explanation is a theory. To an outsider, who hasn't seen the other films her actions would not make sense because unlike an experienced viewer, she would seem to be drawing upon previous experiences or examples not in the film.  They would think that she invented what she does. That she came up with force persuasion in that manner all on her own. There's no information in the film to suggest that her knowledge of the Jedi is anything more than a name and further there's nothing to tell the audience what a Jedi actually is.

The film assumes that the audience knows and like the rest of the movie assumes that the characters know what the audience does even when they have no reason to.

I gave you a number of possibilities that were internally consistent with both the story presented in TFA, and with Star Wars in general.  I don't really give a **** whether they pass an arbitrary logic test administered by an obviously biased observer.

I'm interested in facts not possibilities.
You began answering my questions with facts but when my questions asked for facts that you couldn't find, you created possibilities. This is the very definition of a plot hole. A failing of logic. The movie does not move logically, so you need to create reasons why that is.

Furthermore your theories are not consistent with Star Wars.
Luke learned force persuasion from Obi Wan's example, not instinctively.
Luke learned patience from Yoda, not instinctively.
Anakin learned the Jedi teachings from Obi Wan and Qui Gonn, not instinctively.
Every youngling in the temple learned to use a lightsaber by Yoda, not instinctively.
Luke knew how to fly an Xwing because he flew had a jet and is called a pilot, not because he's a mechanic and drove his hover vehicle around Tatooine.

In general, none of the exceptional things Rey does is drawn from her own experience except her mechanical prowess and her ability to climb and use a weapon.

[MP-Ryan]

Yup, against better judgment confirmed.  Have fun.

[Scotty]

I'm interested in facts not possibilities.
You began answering my questions with facts but when my questions asked for facts that you couldn't find, you created possibilities. This is the very definition of a plot hole. A failing of logic. The movie does not move logically, so you need to create reasons why that is.

Right, because when something isn't explicitly defined, it therefore cannot be any of a number of reasonable possibilities.

Akalabeth, this attitude, right here, is why conservation of detail is a dying art.  Use your ****ing imagination for once.

[Akalabeth Angel]

I'm interested in facts not possibilities.
You began answering my questions with facts but when my questions asked for facts that you couldn't find, you created possibilities. This is the very definition of a plot hole. A failing of logic. The movie does not move logically, so you need to create reasons why that is.

Right, because when something isn't explicitly defined, it therefore cannot be any of a number of reasonable possibilities.

Akalabeth, this attitude, right here, is why conservation of detail is a dying art.  Use your ****ing imagination for once.

What do you do for a living? I work professionally in film and have a degree in literature. I have lived a life studying and telling stories. I make a living by using my imagination.
My competence in movie making and storytelling is objectively superior to anyone discussing the film in this thread who cannot demonstrate a similar background.

At the end of this discussion, everyone's answers to my criticism amounts to theories and fan fiction. You are not drawing your answers from the artwork itself but from your own experience or imagination. And that's what the movie is relying upon, it's relying upon your foreknowledge of Star Wars to make any sense and its relying upon your nostalgia of the property and your dissatisfaction with prequels to earn an irrational appreciation of it which is strong enough to override the rationally-demonstrated problems with plot.  Even when Karajorma or I have asked people to place themselves in the shoes of a first-time viewer of star wars, you cannot do it, you're too tied to your experience with Star Wars, an experience which you inevitably fall back upon to justify problems withe movie. An experience which I've said time and again now that the movie is relying upon to make a modicum of sense.

So when I tell you that the movie has problems then listen, because you just might learn something new about story telling.

[AdmiralRalwood]

So when I tell you that the movie has problems then listen, because you just might learn something new about story telling.

For the love of all that is good and right in the universe, shut the **** up.

[Scotty]

At the end of this discussion, everyone's answers to my criticism amounts to theories and fan fiction. You are not drawing your answers from the artwork itself but from your own experience or imagination.

This is literally the ****ing point of any form of escapist media.  I find the idea that imagination should not be be involved in an audience's experience to be utterly abhorrent to the concept of actual entertainment.  If that's what you actually think (and all signs in this thread point to that being true), then I submit that you are bad at your job.

None of what I've described in the entire last page (with the exception of rebutting Kara's points about Han) have included any mention of the original trilogy, the points therein, the characterizations therein, or referenced abilities revealed there in.  Every single thing I have said in the last page of discussion has been rooted firmly in the movie at hand, and the conclusions I draw are drawn from the movie with no influence from the rest of Star Wars.

Now put your dick back in your pants, because none of us care what you do with it or how big you wish it was.

[Ghostavo]

To be honest, the moment Rey influenced the guard, you could clearly see the movie was going into comedy/parody territory.

Although it was kind of jarring depending on what you got from the movie until that point, it was not unique within the series as some, especially episode 1, had those kind of moments.

YMMV, but I'd rather not have it that way in the movie.

[NGTM-1R]

Conservation of detail is only telling the audience what they need to know.

Nope. That's actually not what conservation of detail is about. You are allowed, and indeed in some cases encouraged, not to tell the audience things they arguably need to know to understand what's going on. This is because their understanding of such details is not required or even not sought. (c.f. Stanley Kubrick)

Conservation of detail is actually telling the audience what they need to care about. The distinction seems significantly more subtle than it actually is.

Take FreeSpace for an example. We have, over numerous discussions, inferred that there must be greater limitations on the use of subspace travel than we know; otherwise why so few people jump out to get away from us is hard to explain. However, while we are the beneficiaries of this, we never need to care about what exactly those rules are because they never become something that we as players can interact with, can use or avoid. We don't have to care about them. So we aren't told.

Or, take a Batman story. Sometimes, we're told about  J. Random Street Thug before he gets taken down, sometimes not. This has nothing to do with needing to know; we're here for Batman beating this guy up, and he WILL get beat up. We're told him about him to make us care.

My personal favorite example of this is in the opening scenes of Dredd, where we're shown the title character pick up his Lawgiver pistol for the first time. The pistol checks his DNA and gives an all-clear. We're not told this because we need to know it. Why? In a later scene, someone steals Anderson's Lawgiver and tries to use it on her. We're given a very clear shot of the pistol's unauthorized user alarm going off before it literally blows up. So we didn't need to know that it had that function because we're shown that later when it's a need-to-know matter. We're shown it so that if we get to the later scene and remember, we care about it differently. So that we think "Oh, you stupid son a *****!" and not "Oh no!"

Your endless ranting about hyperspace in the FoTG thread indicated, of course, that you didn't understand this, so I perhaps shouldn't be surprised.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Conservation of detail is only telling the audience what they need to know.

Nope. That's actually not what conservation of detail is about. You are allowed, and indeed in some cases encouraged, not to tell the audience things they arguably need to know to understand what's going on. This is because their understanding of such details is not required or even not sought. (c.f. Stanley Kubrick)

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.

My personal favorite example of this is in the opening scenes of Dredd, where we're shown the title character pick up his Lawgiver pistol for the first time. The pistol checks his DNA and gives an all-clear. We're not told this because we need to know it. Why? In a later scene, someone steals Anderson's Lawgiver and tries to use it on her. We're given a very clear shot of the pistol's unauthorized user alarm going off before it literally blows up. So we didn't need to know that it had that function because we're shown that later when it's a need-to-know matter. We're shown it so that if we get to the later scene and remember, we care about it differently. So that we think "Oh, you stupid son a *****!" and not "Oh no!"

Yeah, it's called foreshadowing.
It's information that the audience needs to know to justify the explosion of the gun later on.  If the gun exploded without presenting that information earlier, they wouldn't buy it.
Similarly if Rey uses the force to persuade someone in a Jedi-like way without having been shown it earlier, or without it being presented in the film earlier, the audience won't believe it. Those that care about characters and their development don't believe it from the start. Those that cares less but have seen the earlier movies will reconcile it's use through the previous movies and justify her knowledge of it with the "the force".

Your endless ranting about hyperspace in the FoTG thread indicated, of course, that you didn't understand this, so I perhaps shouldn't be surprised.

Conservation of detail.  Why does Han say "We need to go to hyperspace while inside the hangar!" (roughly)
If going to hyperspace while inside a hangar is normal, it wouldn't be necessary for him to say that he's in a hangar.  He needs to say that to both create the idea that it's possible to the audience, and also to create the idea that it's 'newer and more exciting than anything seen before in Star Wars!' Wow.  If he had just said "we need to go to hyperspace", and there wasn't an alien on the windshield blocking the view and the ship went through the hull of the ship during its acceleration the audience, even the die-hard Star Wars fans, wouldn't accept it.

So contrary to your claims. Abrams both needs to introduce a new idea, and needs to confuse the situation (with the D&D Monster) in order for the audience to buy into it.  Despite the previous movies not spelling out the rules, the actions within those movies created an unspoken set of rules which needed to be re-written.

Similarly Han needs to justify the lightspeed through a planetary shield in order for it to be accepted. The information that it is dangerous is used specifically to placate star wars fans into believing it's possible. 

Neither bit of information is necessary for the film's story. The fact that he almost crashes on Starkiller is ultimately irrelevant to any events before or after. The information is necessary to reconcile the film with a knowledgeable star wars audience. It's essentially a universe-hole band-aid. And it's also used to make lightspeed 'super exciting'. In fact every time we see Han enter lightspeed it's something super exciting, not the act of escaping a situation but the act of entering lightspeed itself. Lightspeed has both been under-minded in how it is used, and changed into something dangerous. And if you want to argue Conservation of Detail, there are whole swaths of this film which could be completely cut including the crash sequence.