Author Topic: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi  (Read 103319 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Well January 5th finally comes to China and I can stop ignoring huge swaths of the internet after attending a midnight showing.

I ****ing loved it, with all its inconsistencies, errors, going-nowhere-arcs and mediocre jokes.

I. Loved. It.

Agree with this 100%. Definitely the best of the non original trilogy SW movies I've seen.

Quote
I want more of this! And I'm already regretting this because I *know* JJ will **** the ninth movie up big ****ing time.

That is almost certain. At the very least they need to get Johnson to write the damn thing since he seems to know what he's doing. JJ Abrams hasn't got a clue how to end anything.

Yes, Holdo wasn't the perfect general that would cater to every Poe's whims, but she did try to calm him down referencing Leia's motto. When he pressed on, he was totally out of order. No general would take that well. But even if she explained it, I'm pretty sure there would be scuffle too. Perhaps she realised there was no arguing with this idiot and decided to get him out of the bridge.

I think the main reason why it feels slightly off is because we the audience recognize the trope instantly and realise the catch is there is no plan or something to that effect. In "real life", however, that guy would face court martial

That I think is the flaw though. It's not that she doesn't tell Poe the plan, it's that she doesn't tell Poe there is a plan. We'd have been less on his side if it seemed like she wasn't just watching the entire resistance die just because she didn't know what was going on. Hell, there's absolutely no reason they couldn't have tried both her plan and Poe's at the same time.

My question is, "what was Leia's plan if Poe's bombing run didn't take out the dreadnought?" It was turning it's big ****-off gun on the command cruiser, right as it got exploded.

The plan was to be gone long before the Dreadnaught had a chance to fire. They would have done it too if Poe hadn't disobeyed orders. Admittedly it would have gone badly for the resistance when they found that the First Order could track them but except for that it was actually a pretty smart plan.



Anyway, I might have more to say when it's not 4am.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
By far the biggest problem with Holdo's part of the story was the failure to justify why she kept even the existence of the plan totally secret other than as a narrative contrivance to build tension.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
His videos only use a "gentler" tone but the stupidity is all the same, for example Anakin was shown crying not as a sign of weakness but of regret, that's Michael Moore level of manipulation.

That argument is supported by the films though. Over and over, Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda warn Anakin that emotional involvement and emotional attachment are bad, that he has to be strong and stoic. When Anakin is shown crying, the film explicitly tells us that this is a bad thing. That this moment of weakness is a part of its journey to the dark side and to evil. McIntosh posits, and the films support, the notion that true Jedi are always operating on a level of stoicism and detachment, that they must not care about individuals. That they must not show even the most basic of emotions, as doing so would weaken them in their fight against the Sith ... who, incidentally, are all about emotion.

No, the bad thing is that he killed sand children for revenge, not that he's crying, his crying is a symptom there is still something in him that recoils in horror at what he's done.
Hell, especially the latter moment on the bridge is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign that the guy regrets having become such a monster.
Hell, Lucas supervised Clone Wars and there's plenty of Obi Wan or Ahsoka getting emotional there without them going to the dark side.

By far the biggest problem with Holdo's part of the story was the failure to justify why she kept even the existence of the plan totally secret other than as a narrative contrivance to build tension.

Possibility of a mole and fear that Poe would do something stupid (which he punctually did).
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 02:50:13 pm by Det. Bullock »
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
His videos only use a "gentler" tone but the stupidity is all the same, for example Anakin was shown crying not as a sign of weakness but of regret, that's Michael Moore level of manipulation.

That argument is supported by the films though. Over and over, Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda warn Anakin that emotional involvement and emotional attachment are bad, that he has to be strong and stoic. When Anakin is shown crying, the film explicitly tells us that this is a bad thing. That this moment of weakness is a part of its journey to the dark side and to evil. McIntosh posits, and the films support, the notion that true Jedi are always operating on a level of stoicism and detachment, that they must not care about individuals. That they must not show even the most basic of emotions, as doing so would weaken them in their fight against the Sith ... who, incidentally, are all about emotion.

No, the bad thing is that he killed sand children for revenge, not that he's crying, his crying is a symptom there is still something in him that recoils in horror at what he's done.
Hell, especially the latter moment on the bridge is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign that the guy regrets having become such a monster.
Hell, Lucas supervised Clone Wars and there's plenty of Obi Wan or Ahsoka getting emotional there without them going to the dark side.

Hmm. Explain all the various instances of Jedi teachers telling their students about the dangers of emotional attachment then. Explain how Anakin's existing emotional attachments to Padme and his mother aren't the tragic flaw of his character. McIntosh's thesis is that the Jedi are emotionally stunted by design, that the ideal Jedi is someone who has no attachments, nothing to get him or her or it worked up about, and that their outright refusal to find ways to deal with people who have these attachments is one critical factor in their downfall.

It's very simple. Lucas portrays the Jedi as good. He tells us, over and over, that the basic Jedi philosophy that Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Yoda personify in the prequels and OT is one of stoicism, detachment, and centering. That a Jedi only ever acts after calm contemplation, not out of rash desires. That a Jedi has no worldly attachments, but only cares about the world and the people in it in a holistic way. He then tells us that rejection of this philosophy, as personified by Anakin and, partially, by Luke, is dangerous and bad. Anakin defies the Order's teachings, and winds up a mass murderer; Luke defies Yoda's and Obi-Wan's teachings and loses his arm.

This fits into the grand complex of dangerous philosophies that are gathered under the header of Toxic Masculinity. Lucas tells us that emotions are dangerous. That to be strong, to be good, means to be stoic. That when we allow ourselves to care or to love, we open ourselves up to danger, to loss and tragedy. This is bad philosophy, and thankfully, TFA and TLJ are positioning themselves to reject it. Because caring or loving should never, ever be a bad thing.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
His videos only use a "gentler" tone but the stupidity is all the same, for example Anakin was shown crying not as a sign of weakness but of regret, that's Michael Moore level of manipulation.

That argument is supported by the films though. Over and over, Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, Yoda warn Anakin that emotional involvement and emotional attachment are bad, that he has to be strong and stoic. When Anakin is shown crying, the film explicitly tells us that this is a bad thing. That this moment of weakness is a part of its journey to the dark side and to evil. McIntosh posits, and the films support, the notion that true Jedi are always operating on a level of stoicism and detachment, that they must not care about individuals. That they must not show even the most basic of emotions, as doing so would weaken them in their fight against the Sith ... who, incidentally, are all about emotion.

No, the bad thing is that he killed sand children for revenge, not that he's crying, his crying is a symptom there is still something in him that recoils in horror at what he's done.
Hell, especially the latter moment on the bridge is not a sign of weakness, it's a sign that the guy regrets having become such a monster.
Hell, Lucas supervised Clone Wars and there's plenty of Obi Wan or Ahsoka getting emotional there without them going to the dark side.

Hmm. Explain all the various instances of Jedi teachers telling their students about the dangers of emotional attachment then. Explain how Anakin's existing emotional attachments to Padme and his mother aren't the tragic flaw of his character. McIntosh's thesis is that the Jedi are emotionally stunted by design, that the ideal Jedi is someone who has no attachments, nothing to get him or her or it worked up about, and that their outright refusal to find ways to deal with people who have these attachments is one critical factor in their downfall.

It's very simple. Lucas portrays the Jedi as good. He tells us, over and over, that the basic Jedi philosophy that Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Yoda personify in the prequels and OT is one of stoicism, detachment, and centering. That a Jedi only ever acts after calm contemplation, not out of rash desires. That a Jedi has no worldly attachments, but only cares about the world and the people in it in a holistic way. He then tells us that rejection of this philosophy, as personified by Anakin and, partially, by Luke, is dangerous and bad. Anakin defies the Order's teachings, and winds up a mass murderer; Luke defies Yoda's and Obi-Wan's teachings and loses his arm.

This fits into the grand complex of dangerous philosophies that are gathered under the header of Toxic Masculinity. Lucas tells us that emotions are dangerous. That to be strong, to be good, means to be stoic. That when we allow ourselves to care or to love, we open ourselves up to danger, to loss and tragedy. This is bad philosophy, and thankfully, TFA and TLJ are positioning themselves to reject it. Because caring or loving should never, ever be a bad thing.
If a protagonist is pictured as "good" it doesn't mean he's not flawed and that is true for collectives like the Jedi, there are entire story arc in Clone Wars (made under his supervision) that show how the Jedi council often act like dicks or are utterly clueless (usually both), the point doesn't come across well in the movies but the Jedi aren't absolute good like that essay assumes and the jedi perspective is not absolute like they think.
Qui Gon screams NO at Anakin when he's about to take his revenge on innocents, not when he's crying.
Hell, one would think why then Lucas approved the story in which Obi Wan grieves for the murder of the Duchess of Mandalore if he really thought the Jedi philosophy as expressed in the movies was all that.
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Hmm. Explain all the various instances of Jedi teachers telling their students about the dangers of emotional attachment then. Explain how Anakin's existing emotional attachments to Padme and his mother aren't the tragic flaw of his character. McIntosh's thesis is that the Jedi are emotionally stunted by design, that the ideal Jedi is someone who has no attachments, nothing to get him or her or it worked up about, and that their outright refusal to find ways to deal with people who have these attachments is one critical factor in their downfall.

It's very simple. Lucas portrays the Jedi as good. He tells us, over and over, that the basic Jedi philosophy that Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Yoda personify in the prequels and OT is one of stoicism, detachment, and centering. That a Jedi only ever acts after calm contemplation, not out of rash desires. That a Jedi has no worldly attachments, but only cares about the world and the people in it in a holistic way. He then tells us that rejection of this philosophy, as personified by Anakin and, partially, by Luke, is dangerous and bad. Anakin defies the Order's teachings, and winds up a mass murderer; Luke defies Yoda's and Obi-Wan's teachings and loses his arm.

This fits into the grand complex of dangerous philosophies that are gathered under the header of Toxic Masculinity. Lucas tells us that emotions are dangerous. That to be strong, to be good, means to be stoic. That when we allow ourselves to care or to love, we open ourselves up to danger, to loss and tragedy. This is bad philosophy, and thankfully, TFA and TLJ are positioning themselves to reject it. Because caring or loving should never, ever be a bad thing.

McIntosh's theory is wrong.
Going to the dark side is being in a state where you're ruled by your passions and where you act without thinking.  This is exemplified in Jedi where Luke, in moments of weakness, acts out of pure emotion and tries to murder the emperor and then goes ape **** on Vader.  It's only the visual of Vader's severed hand that breaks this emotional state and allows him to think once more, whereupon he makes the choice to throw away his weapon.

The Dark Side is about losing control of yourself.

The Light side is about retaining control and acting with deliberate thought and consideration.


I don't know how anyone can argue for emotional detachment in a series of movies where Jedi constantly tell their pupils to "use your feelings".

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Explain why the Jedi are supposed to be celibate orphans.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Explain why the Jedi are supposed to be celibate orphans.

Why Celibacy? Because as Yoda says "A Jedi must have the deepest commitment".
Being a Jedi is a higher calling, like a religious vocation. Just as priests take vows of celibacy so do Jedi. Because they are expected to devote their life to the cause of helping others and protecting the galaxy.

There's nothing in the movies to say that you need to be an orphan. When Anakin is interviewed, the council doesn't care that his mother is alive, they only care that Anakin is afraid.


 
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
This is bad philosophy, and thankfully, TFA and TLJ are positioning themselves to reject it. Because caring or loving should never, ever be a bad thing.

Incidentally I think this statement is wrong as well. 
The only thing to me that the end of Last Jedi suggested is that Rey is going to be alone.  She was building a relationship with Finn, but while absent he got closer to Rose. And she was building a relationship with Ben, and then he went down a path she refused to follow.  Her parents, are allegedly never coming back though it wasn't clear to me how Kylo knew anything about them-  I thought he was just bull****ting at first to manipulate her as Snoke manipulated him.

Whatever the case, I expect that in the next movie, Rey is going to realize that yeah she's alone but part of being a Jedi is to be alone.  She'll have to sacrifice her relationships to do what the world asks of her.  She's someone with a power and responsibility that other people don't have and can't understand, so like Gandalf, Merlin, Frodo, etcetera she'll stand alone and devote herself to that task because that's the sacrifice she must make to be a Jedi.  To give everything of herself in order to help others.

And Kylo will be alone as well, but unlike Rey, his loneliness is a curse not a calling.  Just as Vader was cursed to be alone: He lost Padme when he went down the dark path, and when he re-united with his son it was only when he was dying. Curse of isolation and then redemption through ultimate sacrifice, but there's no happy ending.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 06:43:53 pm by Akalabeth Angel »

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Hmm. Explain all the various instances of Jedi teachers telling their students about the dangers of emotional attachment then. Explain how Anakin's existing emotional attachments to Padme and his mother aren't the tragic flaw of his character. McIntosh's thesis is that the Jedi are emotionally stunted by design, that the ideal Jedi is someone who has no attachments, nothing to get him or her or it worked up about, and that their outright refusal to find ways to deal with people who have these attachments is one critical factor in their downfall.

It's very simple. Lucas portrays the Jedi as good. He tells us, over and over, that the basic Jedi philosophy that Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Yoda personify in the prequels and OT is one of stoicism, detachment, and centering. That a Jedi only ever acts after calm contemplation, not out of rash desires. That a Jedi has no worldly attachments, but only cares about the world and the people in it in a holistic way. He then tells us that rejection of this philosophy, as personified by Anakin and, partially, by Luke, is dangerous and bad. Anakin defies the Order's teachings, and winds up a mass murderer; Luke defies Yoda's and Obi-Wan's teachings and loses his arm.

This fits into the grand complex of dangerous philosophies that are gathered under the header of Toxic Masculinity. Lucas tells us that emotions are dangerous. That to be strong, to be good, means to be stoic. That when we allow ourselves to care or to love, we open ourselves up to danger, to loss and tragedy. This is bad philosophy, and thankfully, TFA and TLJ are positioning themselves to reject it. Because caring or loving should never, ever be a bad thing.
George Lucas tells us the Jedi are good, but he definitely doesn't show this.  Yeah, the prequels present the Jedi as good, but what they show, especially Revenge of the Sith, is that the Jedi's detachment from humanity is a significant failing.  Anakin goes to Yoda because he's afraid his wife will die, and all Yoda offers is a bunch of platitudes about how he needs to let go of the **** he cares about.  Obviously, this doesn't convince Anakin.  Yoda's so deep into Jedi teachings that he just can't understand how this doesn't help.  The Ep.3 novelization emphasizes this in a pretty big way, too.  Palpatine exploits this, but he's not the one who creates the problem.  The Jedi failed Anakin, and that's why he turns away from them.

The OT also does this.  Sure, again, it tells us the Jedi were all good, but it's that same Jedi philosophy that made Obi-Wan lie to Luke about who his father was.  Sure, Luke loses his hand when he doesn't heed Yoda's advice, but at the same time, it was Luke caring that made him try to turn Vader, and Vader caring about his son that made him turn against Palpatine.

Star Wars talks about the Jedi pretty much the same way as it talks about the Republic: It talks them up a lot, but in practice, they fail, and it's their failures that leads to their collapse.

But this is why I love KotOR2.  It's all about how both Jedi and Sith teachings are completely full of ****.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 08:19:45 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Lets conveniently forget about scruples and use this army of genetic slave soldiers... :rolleyes:
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
One thing I loved about the movie is that it even went out of its way to deal with the stupid things JJ Abrams did without actually making it a lesser film.

For instance Captain Phasma is a stupid, badly written, non-character. They talked her up all through the run up to the 1st film and then did absolutely nothing interesting with her, even when the opportunities were slapping them in the face. Is there anyone who thinks TFA wouldn't have been slightly improved if the battle Finn has was with Phasma instead of some nameless stormtrooper? Not only would it make more sense for Phasma to abandon her blaster to prolong the battle with a traitor, it would be a non-backstory reason for Finn to dislike her enough to stick her in a trash compactor. To this day I've never heard an explanation why they did things that way and I can only conclude it was massive arrogance on the part of someone involved with the film overruling everyone who was screaming the obvious at them.
 TLJ gave us a Phasma / Finn fight. They had the sense to give Finn a weapon he actually should be expected to know how to use. They didn't treat it as some kind of epic combat and only made it last about a minute. And then they wiped out a character who shouldn't have survived past the first film anyway.

Secondly they killed off Snoke. ****ing A! No one honestly can say they gave a **** about Snoke as a character. With Snoke we only cared about his back story and how that fits in with Kylo Ren. And anyone who believes JJ Abrams definitely had a back story for Snoke, the First Order and how the Republic / Rebellion arose is ****ing fooling themselves as Abrams has proved time and time again that he makes stuff up based on "rule of cool" and then later tries to retcon it into making sense (Usually with very little success). Rian Johnson appears to have known that, and decided that since Snoke was never going to be more than a one-dimensional, cardboard cut-out of Palpatine we might as well replace him with someone more interesting.

Thirdly, Luke running off never rang true. We were only given some ****ty explanation that he'd gone to find the 1st Jedi Temple because Kylo Ren turned to the dark side. None of that fit with Luke's character in the earlier films. TLJ found a way to make it believable. It wasn't simply that Luke ****ed up training Kylo or that he didn't see the darkness in him. The shame of deciding to murder his own nephew even if only for a split second is something that could make you believe that Luke would decide to run away so that he'd never be tempted to train a Jedi ever again.

Fourth, Ren's parents were yet another mystery set up by TFA. And it was a massive pile of manure which JJ Abrams had dumped on the trilogy hoping he could plant roses in it. It was bound to have a disappointing reveal because if she was of Skywalker blood it would seem stupid. And if she wasn't a Skywalker, why would we give a damn? There's no one else in the universe we give a **** about* Full points to Rian Johnson for sweeping up that massive turd and throwing it out by revealing that Rey's parents were nobodies. Yeah, he couldn't make it into something actually good but thank **** he decided to remove it.

Finally, Kylo Ren was an angsty twat in the first film. He still was in the second but now we know why. If your uncle tried to murder you in your sleep and then you ended up being raised by Emperor Palpatine II, you'd probably end up being an angsty twat too. They gave us a reason why he ended up that way despite having parents like Leia and Han who obviously loved him. It's not a perfect explanation, but it's a lot better than anything we had from the 1st film.



*At least no one white. Mace Windu's love child or some descendent of Lando could, with very inspired writing, be turned into something interesting. More likely they'd **** it up.

By far the biggest problem with Holdo's part of the story was the failure to justify why she kept even the existence of the plan totally secret other than as a narrative contrivance to build tension.

Possibility of a mole and fear that Poe would do something stupid (which he punctually did).

I never said it was a stupid mistake or that she acted incorrectly for her character. But by being overly secretive she caused the very disaster she was trying to avoid.

This was one thing I loved about the film, the heroes and villains were all shown to have flaws but remained relatable characters. Finn attempts to desert (again!). Rey proves that she'd fall for a really obvious trick when she goes with Ben in front of Snoke without realising she's being set up. Luke makes massive mistakes believing he can train a Jedi as well as Yoda even when Obi told him that was a disaster. And he still needs Yoda's guidance before the end. Poe is overconfident even when warned that his rash plans can destroy everything. Ackbar requires oxygen and air pressure to live (Too soon?)

There's a big side-arc involving Finn and Rose, which feels rather out-of-place, given the part of the main plot that runs in parallel with it.  It feels like the whole casino adventure was meant to take days of in-universe time, and the writer only realized after it was written that the Rebel fleet has hours of fuel left for the chase sequence.  I get why it wasn't cut:  It's basically the entire time that Finn and Rose have to interact in this film, and they're being set up for more in Episode IX.  The compression of the timeframe makes the whole sequence feel inartful, though, especially the way that the film cuts back and forth between the Casino and the chase.

That was one problem I did have with the film. As far as my mind canon goes, they kept ****ing up the fuel reserve figures and it actually took 72 hours+ to run out of fuel. That not only makes Finn's arc make more sense but it also explains why Poe and his pilots would increasingly become stir-crazy at the fact it seems that absolutely nothing is being done to save them. 70 hours of constant bombardment with no hope of rescue beyond the one that your superior officer doesn't want to do would be enough to make anyone want to mutiny.

And to be fair to the film, it's not like Empire didn't do the exact same thing with Luke's training on Degobah. How long are we supposed to believe Luke spent there before running off to Cloud City? If I can ignore that (and I can cause I love Empire), I can ignore a lesser mistake in this film.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 10:30:53 pm by karajorma »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Phasma's not dead, unless they're planning on having that actor only appear in flashbacks in the third movie she's contracted for.

 
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Phasma's far and away the worst character in these films.  Some attempt to make a Boba Fett stormtrooper, but just like Boba Fett she is not that interesting in reality.  Though BF grew some huge fandom, presumably in part because of the EU material.

And it's amazing that Phasma is such a **** character when Breanna of Tarth is a complete badass, or at least she was until I quit watching.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Phasma's not dead, unless they're planning on having that actor only appear in flashbacks in the third movie she's contracted for.

If you're going to bring her back have her in a wheelchair or something. Maybe then we can have some character development.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Oh, god, I hate McIntosh analyses, he cannot really see nuances in anything, he makes good points a minute then he proceeds to say something utterly stupid or superficial the next because everything must be either "good" or "bad" with no place for "mixed bag" or "flawed" or whatever.

I tottaly get your emotional reaction, he's specifically terrible on twitter or any other places, but I find his videos well done. Of course, they push his ideas, which are very ... ahh... lopsided, but if you view it as a "case" being done with an argument, then it goes easier on the stomach. I'm sure there are counter arguments, and counter evidences you can bring to the table. As far as I can tell, some details may be off here and there, but his overall analysis is somewhat correct. The uncaring, unfeeling Jedi Order was just too cold and too rigid to deal with someone so emotionally broken as Anakin, thus creating Darth Vader. I wish the movies were more aware of this tension and executed it better. As it stands, it just feels they were just stupid and blind to what was unfolding, like distracted parents not realising they were parenting a future mass murderer.

His videos only use a "gentler" tone but the stupidity is all the same, for example Anakin was shown crying not as a sign of weakness but of regret, that's Michael Moore level of manipulation.

You're the one misreading the whole analysis here. Anakin's emotions are signalled by the movies as signs of his own inherent weaknesses which made him vulnerable to the Dark Side. It matters not what specific emotion he's having when he's crying or whatever. McIntosh was not referring to "weakness" in that way "oh look at him how weak", but rather "look at him, how wrecked he is, him and his emotions, clearly he belongs to the Dark Side". That is to say, by denying Anakin the right to emote, they pushed him to the wrong side of the Force.

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Oh, god, I hate McIntosh analyses, he cannot really see nuances in anything, he makes good points a minute then he proceeds to say something utterly stupid or superficial the next because everything must be either "good" or "bad" with no place for "mixed bag" or "flawed" or whatever.

I tottaly get your emotional reaction, he's specifically terrible on twitter or any other places, but I find his videos well done. Of course, they push his ideas, which are very ... ahh... lopsided, but if you view it as a "case" being done with an argument, then it goes easier on the stomach. I'm sure there are counter arguments, and counter evidences you can bring to the table. As far as I can tell, some details may be off here and there, but his overall analysis is somewhat correct. The uncaring, unfeeling Jedi Order was just too cold and too rigid to deal with someone so emotionally broken as Anakin, thus creating Darth Vader. I wish the movies were more aware of this tension and executed it better. As it stands, it just feels they were just stupid and blind to what was unfolding, like distracted parents not realising they were parenting a future mass murderer.

His videos only use a "gentler" tone but the stupidity is all the same, for example Anakin was shown crying not as a sign of weakness but of regret, that's Michael Moore level of manipulation.

You're the one misreading the whole analysis here. Anakin's emotions are signalled by the movies as signs of his own inherent weaknesses which made him vulnerable to the Dark Side. It matters not what specific emotion he's having when he's crying or whatever. McIntosh was not referring to "weakness" in that way "oh look at him how weak", but rather "look at him, how wrecked he is, him and his emotions, clearly he belongs to the Dark Side". That is to say, by denying Anakin the right to emote, they pushed him to the wrong side of the Force.
No no no, his regret is what frames him as somewhat redeemable, not as "he belongs to the dark side", a Sith does not regret, just takes what's theirs and to hell with everyone else.
It's a common mistake among many people that watch Star Wars to think that while the Jedi way is flawed the Sith way is better *coz emotions*, they forget that Sith don't nurture emotions in general but mostly greed, hate and rage, fear as a gateway drug is not uncommon in these cases and it's a reference to nazism and similar ideologies who prey on primal fears to recruit.
Love for a Jedi is something he must be careful not to spoil to the point that the now heavily institutionalized Jedi order of the old republic avoids it almost entirely (Jedis are shown to be friends with people and in theory could have flings, but not steady relationships, there are exceptions for members belonging to species whose numbers are dwindling), for a Sith is poison.

Hmm. Explain all the various instances of Jedi teachers telling their students about the dangers of emotional attachment then. Explain how Anakin's existing emotional attachments to Padme and his mother aren't the tragic flaw of his character. McIntosh's thesis is that the Jedi are emotionally stunted by design, that the ideal Jedi is someone who has no attachments, nothing to get him or her or it worked up about, and that their outright refusal to find ways to deal with people who have these attachments is one critical factor in their downfall.

It's very simple. Lucas portrays the Jedi as good. He tells us, over and over, that the basic Jedi philosophy that Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Yoda personify in the prequels and OT is one of stoicism, detachment, and centering. That a Jedi only ever acts after calm contemplation, not out of rash desires. That a Jedi has no worldly attachments, but only cares about the world and the people in it in a holistic way. He then tells us that rejection of this philosophy, as personified by Anakin and, partially, by Luke, is dangerous and bad. Anakin defies the Order's teachings, and winds up a mass murderer; Luke defies Yoda's and Obi-Wan's teachings and loses his arm.

This fits into the grand complex of dangerous philosophies that are gathered under the header of Toxic Masculinity. Lucas tells us that emotions are dangerous. That to be strong, to be good, means to be stoic. That when we allow ourselves to care or to love, we open ourselves up to danger, to loss and tragedy. This is bad philosophy, and thankfully, TFA and TLJ are positioning themselves to reject it. Because caring or loving should never, ever be a bad thing.
George Lucas tells us the Jedi are good, but he definitely doesn't show this.  Yeah, the prequels present the Jedi as good, but what they show, especially Revenge of the Sith, is that the Jedi's detachment from humanity is a significant failing.  Anakin goes to Yoda because he's afraid his wife will die, and all Yoda offers is a bunch of platitudes about how he needs to let go of the **** he cares about.  Obviously, this doesn't convince Anakin.  Yoda's so deep into Jedi teachings that he just can't understand how this doesn't help.  The Ep.3 novelization emphasizes this in a pretty big way, too.  Palpatine exploits this, but he's not the one who creates the problem.  The Jedi failed Anakin, and that's why he turns away from them.

The OT also does this.  Sure, again, it tells us the Jedi were all good, but it's that same Jedi philosophy that made Obi-Wan lie to Luke about who his father was.  Sure, Luke loses his hand when he doesn't heed Yoda's advice, but at the same time, it was Luke caring that made him try to turn Vader, and Vader caring about his son that made him turn against Palpatine.

Star Wars talks about the Jedi pretty much the same way as it talks about the Republic: It talks them up a lot, but in practice, they fail, and it's their failures that leads to their collapse.

But this is why I love KotOR2.  It's all about how both Jedi and Sith teachings are completely full of ****.
Yoda would have probably put it differently if Anakin let go of his ambition and frigging told him everything.
The force vision of a loved one dying is not something that could be changed, the only way Yoda could tell him differently was lying, his message is not "do not grieve", it's just that it's a fact of life and nothing can be done about it.
Star Wars is a weird fusion of modern and ancient tragedy in that it's both destiny (or the will of the Force, or the Gods) and character flaws (like in a modern tragedy) that make it.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 06:51:45 am by Det. Bullock »
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
No no no, his regret is what frames him as somewhat redeemable, not as "he belongs to the dark side", a Sith does not regret, just takes what's theirs and to hell with everyone else.
It's a common mistake among many people that watch Star Wars to think that while the Jedi way is flawed the Sith way is better *coz emotions*, they forget that Sith don't nurture emotions in general but mostly greed, hate and rage, fear as a gateway drug is not uncommon in these cases and it's a reference to nazism and similar ideologies who prey on primal fears to recruit.

Has anyone in this thread actually said this? Because if you think someone did, you have misread something really really badly.

The thing about Sith and emotions is that the Sith are, on some level, more honest about them. Having emotions is a natural part of life, and the Sith's willingness to draw strength from them is on a fundamental level more healthy than the Jedi approach, even if the Sith only draw on emotions that are coded negatively.

Quote
Love for a Jedi is something he must be careful not to spoil to the point that the now heavily institutionalized Jedi order of the old republic avoids it almost entirely (Jedis are shown to be friends with people and in theory could have flings, but not steady relationships, there are exceptions for members belonging to species whose numbers are dwindling), for a Sith is poison.

Please point to the actual scene where someone actually says this about flings and exceptions for people belonging to low-population species.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
No no no, his regret is what frames him as somewhat redeemable, not as "he belongs to the dark side", a Sith does not regret, just takes what's theirs and to hell with everyone else.

You're talking past me or McIntosh's point. It's even moot, given Yoda's speech to little Anakin wherein he makes it very clear that his feelings towards his mother are dangerous and a source for concern and immediately censored. You personally might think that these emotions are not bad or are good to have, or whatever, but that's not what the movies are telling us. All the six of them clearly state that the Jedi should forgo all feelings altogether. I'd add that while it is true that no one is forced to be a Jedi, there's never been even a moment wherein this question is asked about Anakin. Why not? Why can't Kenobi just talk him out of this life that is eating his insides apart? Again, bad story telling, etc., but the point remains: the Jedi are terrible at dealing with Anakin's emotions. They give him terrible advice and worse instructions.

Quote
It's a common mistake among many people that watch Star Wars to think that while the Jedi way is flawed the Sith way is better *coz emotions*, they forget that Sith don't nurture emotions in general but mostly greed, hate and rage, fear as a gateway drug is not uncommon in these cases and it's a reference to nazism and similar ideologies who prey on primal fears to recruit.

It may well be a common mistake, I don't ****ing know why you have brought it up here. Perhaps another common mistake here is to misinterpret what I, McIntosh and The_E have been saying as "Dark Side is good coz they emote". Perhaps this mistake can be averted by actually reading what people are saying.

Quote
Love for a Jedi is something he must be careful not to spoil to the point that the now heavily institutionalized Jedi order of the old republic avoids it almost entirely (Jedis are shown to be friends with people and in theory could have flings, but not steady relationships, there are exceptions for members belonging to species whose numbers are dwindling), for a Sith is poison.

It's not "avoided", it's specifically stated that it is forbidden. Like priesthood, etc. But this is besides the points that were made. Anakin was mismanaged by the entire Jedi Council in such an infantile manner that there can only be two options: either they were incredibly stupid, rendering the entirety of the very idea of this elite Council a cruel hilarious joke, or they are so autistically incapable of understanding emotions and dealing with them that I'm even amazed they didn't self destruct earlier in this very same manner.

Mind you, this is not something that somehow McIntosh "figured out". This was obvious from the movies themselves from the get go.

Quote
Yoda would have probably put it differently if Anakin let go of his ambition and frigging told him everything.
The force vision of a loved one dying is not something that could be changed, the only way Yoda could tell him differently was lying, his message is not "do not grieve", it's just that it's a fact of life and nothing can be done about it.
Star Wars is a weird fusion of modern and ancient tragedy in that it's both destiny (or the will of the Force, or the Gods) and character flaws (like in a modern tragedy) that make it.

Every good spiritual master knows when their pupils are lying to protect themselves or their ego, and Yoda is supposedly the best of the Galaxy. I came off that scene thinking really bad of Yoda, how incredibly dumb he is not to see that Anakin was just trying to tell him something deeply personal that he otherwise really couldn't, and then went on to say the dumbest kind of words meshed in sentences. McIntosh is 100% correct here, sorry.

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Careful going too far down the rabbit hole on "feelings," especially based on bull**** in the prequels.  Obi Wan repeatedly tells Luke in the OT to trust in his feelings (this is in fact how Luke manages to destroy the Death Star in ANH) so while the prequel-era Jedi might be dicks about feelings, both Obi Wan and Yoda seem to have learned from that by the time the OT starts up ~18-20 years later.  Luke, OTOH, seems to have forgotten parts of that little lesson.

TLJ does all kinds of interesting things to our understanding of the Force and the relationship between the Jedi/Sith, and I find all of that refreshing.  I agree almost entirely with karajorma and Luis.  It was a flawed film, but it did so many interesting things for complexity of the morality in the universe that I find it very easy to forgive those problems and really love the things it did well.

And Phasma better be dead.  It drives me crazy, because Gwendoline Christie is a fantastic actress and they utterly and completely wasted her in Star Wars, to the point that I feel sorry for her and want to kick the writer(s) that had anything to do with Phasma.  Poor choices everywhere.  Snoke's demise, however, was perfect.  I'm not sure if Abrams and Johnson set this up on purpose, but Snoke was always going to be a cardboard cutout character and setting him up as an obvious Palpatine analog and then literally slicing him out of the film to make Ren far more interesting was absolutely perfectly done.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]