I'm already half spoiled by the french title.. with "the last jedi", you don't know if it's singular or plural. In French, you have to specify whether it's singular or plural. They chose plural.
Sion: The failure is yours. No longer do your whispers crawl within my skull, no longer do we suffer beneath teachings that weaken us. And now you run in search of the Jedi... They are all dead, save one. And one broken Jedi cannot stop the darkness which is to come.
Kreia: Perhaps... We shall see.
Atton Rand: The Jedi... The Sith... You don't get it, do you? To the Galaxy, they're the same thing: Men and women with too much power, squabbling over religion, while the rest of us burn!
Vrook: You were deafened.
Kreia: At last you could hear.
Kavar: You were broken.
Kreia: You were whole.
Zez-Kai-Ell: You were blinded.
Kreia: And at last, you saw.
Kreia: A culture's teachings, and most importantly, the nature of its people, achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking. Too long did the Republic remain unchallenged. It is a stagnant beast that labors for breath; and has for centuries. The Jedi Order was the heart that sustained its sickness — now the Jedi are lost, we shall see how long the Republic can survive.
Kreia: You see, the war, the true war, has never been one waged by droids, warships, or soldiers. They are but crude matter, obstacles against which we test ourselves. The true war is waged in the hearts of all living things, against our own natures, light or dark. That is what shapes and binds this galaxy, not these creations of man. You are the battleground. And if you fall, the death of the Republic will be such a quiet thing, a whisper, that shall herald the darkness to come.
We won't win this war by fighting what we hate; we'll win it by saving what we love.
You can't solve every problem by jumping into an X-Wing and blowing something up.
Sincerely I think complaining about physics (and their consistency) in Star Wars is completely missing the point of these movies.
So i have now seen Last Jedi, and to me instead of branching out to do something different, it feels like they made Empire Strikes back for 2017. Don't get me wrong i enjoyed the film, but i don't know what film the critics are watching calling it a masterpiece etc. It has many many flaws.
First off, Snoke after being made to be them mega threat turns out to be a sidious rip off, that scene where he and rey are talking i couldn't help think, thats come straight from Return of the Jedi.
So i have now seen Last Jedi, and to me instead of branching out to do something different, it feels like they made Empire Strikes back for 2017. Don't get me wrong i enjoyed the film, but i don't know what film the critics are watching calling it a masterpiece etc. It has many many flaws.
First off, Snoke after being made to be them mega threat turns out to be a sidious rip off, that scene where he and rey are talking i couldn't help think, thats come straight from Return of the Jedi. Also snoke is useless.
Characters feel forced and flat, General hux for example is a like a brat who has chucked his toys out of his pram, instead of being well a general. How he became a general is beyond me, he makes no tactical desicions other than shout and rant at people on how hard is it to destroy one figther. The relationship between Finn and Rose is forced, Kylo still has his temper tantrums and cant be taken seriously. The ending is bad, i mean bad. I was expect Luke to be bad ass, as he should be at the height of his force powers and we get that! It feels like they forgot that the film needed to end and thought crap we need to end this film, someone just write something. The humor was tacked on and forced and was out of place for what was meant to be a darker film.
It did have good points and i did enjoy it, I loved seeing Adrian Edmondson(Eddie from Bottom) in the film and was a better character than Hux! but its a film i wouldnt pay to see at the cinema, i would wait until home release. I still want to know what film the critics saw?
I watched the whole movie, yes kylo killing snoke is a departure to RotJ, but the attack at the end, is very battle of hoth, you've got the trenches, the turrets and the walkers.
The Last Jedi, for those that have played the games, and the ST in general is what Obsidian's Sith Lords was to Bioware's Knights of the Old Republic.
It's a deconstruction, but also a reconstruction, of many of the series' sacred cows, and how much we THINK we know about its characters and themes.
However, one thing that kept throwing me for a loop (or a literal facepalm) was those nonsensical bits where they disregard gravity and/or inertia.
The bombers thing, and frankly all the space battles in the modern Star Wars films, was atrocious when good old fashioned dive bombers existed since the original movie (plus the Y-wings were far better designed than these fat B-wings. I'll take ****ty space battles if we get good character writing and light saber fights but the space combat hasn't been there since RotJ.
It's do-not-pay-for-this category for me. Unfortunately, I did.Nope, nope, nope, if it was designed by committee they wouldn't have dared make a movie that doubts even for a moment the integrity of Luke Skywalker which isn't mischaracterized, Johnson just remembered the flaws of his character (remember the moment he lost his **** in ROTJ when Vader suggested Leia might turn to the dark side) instead of remembering only the quiet Jedi-like part of the character.
Too many inconsistencies, Luke is very underutilized and badly mischaracterized. Snoke is truly easy come easy go, and then there's Kylo Ren who can't be taken seriously in any scene.
The final scene did nothing but underline the fact that the First Order are the good guys in my mind, although I suspect the original intention was something else.
This is design-by-committee and directed by the marketing department, and reeks of carefully tested audience reactions.
The final scene did nothing but underline the fact that the First Order are the good guys in my mind, although I suspect the original intention was something else.
The final scene did nothing but underline the fact that the First Order are the good guys in my mind, although I suspect the original intention was something else.
Remind me what the final scene was?
The one with the force sensitive kid with the broomstick and the rebel alliance ring, sincerely I don't know what to think of someone who unironically says the genocidal space nazis commanded by the member of a death cult are the good guys.
Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?
Any faction using children as its soldiers or agents as portrayed in the movie gets labelled as Bad Guys in my books. Your interpretation may vary.
The whole point of Luke's path in the original trilogy was that his bravado is little by little changing towards wisdom. The person who turned Darth Vader back to the light and wiped off emperor Palpatine doesn't become something what was depicted in the movie. They don't quit on the universe when they are needed once again.The whole point was that he could resist his darker inpulses, but that doesn't mean he suddenly doesn't have them anymore, he ultimately resisted the temptation in both cases but in the second the timing was tragically wrong.
I'm all for grumpy older heroes, but this was one was off. I seriously hoped to see a training session from the Shaw kung fu movies, but nope. And what was the point of the mirror scene for Rey?She asked who her parents were and the vision she had was of just herself, her deepest reason for the question is having a past on which she could rely on but the vision was basically "nope, you only have yourself".
- Lol @ WW2-style heavy bombers having to arm their bombs and open the bomb doors manually. I understand where they are coming from with this old school stuff, but it gets kinda cringy at this point. They also come up as much less useful than good old Y-wings given how vulnerable they looked. I feel like they missed an opportunity to do a more lengthy Memphis Belle-style bombing run.Why does the bombers in FS2 and its total conversion mods didn't drop bombs on targets?
- Speaking of the bombers. A big-ass dreadnought gets taken by a single bomber managing to drop its bombs ? I know this is Star Wars but its still kinda silly.
Why does the bombers in FS2 and its total conversion mods didn't drop bombs on targets?
I am sure the FSO team will figure out to implement this feature that allows bombers to drop bombs on targets.
She asked who her parents were and the vision she had was of just herself, her deepest reason for the question is having a past on which she could rely on but the vision was basically "nope, you only have yourself".
I liked this film a fair bit (and it left me with a lot to think about) but I have never seen a major pop culture movie where the people who dislike it so clearly, totally do not understand the movie. It's like some sort of forcing function for comprehending stories.
Also, I love Porgs. For the porg-haters, this is why: https://screenrant.com/star-wars-last-jedi-porg-design-puffin/ In other words, a protected species was given CGI costumes because they literally could not disturb them during filming so they instead found a way to add them. That is simply great, no matter what you think of their actual presence in the film.
750 million isn't that great, considering TFA got 2 billion, entering the top ten list of all time. It may not even reach one billion, time will tell.
That Forbes article is way over the top, but it may well have a sad point: the stupid masses may not like it, which can have a dire effect on the whole thing.
-Yooooodaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! Out of everything in this movie, that was by far the moment I was happiest about not being spoiled on. I had a big doofy grin on my face the entire time he was on-screen. Crazy senile ESB Yoda is the goddamn best. :D
-With all apologies to Mark Hamill, I thought Luke's character arc was handled just fine.
I don't think I've seen the former Empire or the First Order routinely kidnapping kids to make them stormtroopers - training a soldier doesn't require that long time to begin with. Secondly, kidnapped people would be a terrible idea to begin with for the base of an army. I have always thought the stormtroopers were either cloned or drafted. Sending children to Jedi academy is different as they would see only practise fields for the first ten years. The difference in the ending is that Rebel Alliance is now fully using children as its agents and risking their lives as well. What they are trying to say in the end is that there's now hope, but it comes off in a way that they are desperate enough to use children and can't convince adults to their cause.
Why does the bombers in FS2 and its total conversion mods didn't drop bombs on targets?Yeah, these bombs in FS2 does have thrusters like missiles. Is it possible to have them no thruster glows in POF files?
I am sure the FSO team will figure out to implement this feature that allows bombers to drop bombs on targets.
Just have a launcher that points downward instead of forward. Done.
But I doubt anybody will do it (except maybe in an atmosphere situation where there's gravity), because in space, it's dumb.
...I remember reading the opening crawl of TFA and thinking, "Okay wait what happened to the New Republic and where the hell did these First Order guys come from and how did they get a massive superweapon and what's going on here?" Sure, you can get by mostly fine without it, but it's hard to see how things got to this juncture. Hell, maybe Disney's saving that for an interquel.
Yeah, Holdo felt like something of a throwaway character. We were told about her being Leia's trusted subordinate more than we actually got to see it. Ackbar deserved some of that screentime.The voice actor died before production began, I guess Johnson didn't want to recast the role.
Yeah, Holdo felt like something of a throwaway character. We were told about her being Leia's trusted subordinate more than we actually got to see it. Ackbar deserved some of that screentime.
Random shower thought: near the start of the film, Luke scoffs at Rey asking him for help, wondering if he's supposed to stand in front of the entire First Order waving a lightsaber at them. So then where does he find himself in the end? Yep. :D
Saw the film. Loved it. Best Star Wars film after Rogue One, messy editing and mostly extraneous sequences aside. I'm especially impressed with the way this film managed to end on the same note as Empire did without at any point feeling like an Empire retread.
Also, the way Rian Johnson shat all over JJ Abrams' Mystery Box makes me an instant fan.
(Also, that single sequence where the Supremacy gets taken out by a Mon Cal cruiser FTL'ing through it and its fleet is the most beautiful CGI carnage sequence I've seen in years.)
I've run into one or two other people who absolutely hated the movie, and I genuinely cannot fathom where they're coming from. It's fascinating.Because when you spend 5 minutes thinking about the film, it's just absolutely riddled with plotholes and really, really dumb stuff.
Because when you spend 5 minutes thinking about the film, it's just absolutely riddled with plotholes and really, really dumb stuff.
Nah, not really. Ackbar's entire claim to fame is a meme, endlessly repeated. His inclusion as major character would have been fan-service for the sake of fan-service.In universe, Ackbar's claim to fame is winning the Battle of Endor despite overwhelming odds. Unlike whatever victory Holdo won, that's a battle we actually got to see, making his competence much less of an informed characteristic. Show don't tell and all that. Holdo is a character they did not need. Yes, maybe it's a bit of fan-service, but it absolutely would have a purpose. An admiral-type was needed. Ackbar serves fine, and was far more known to the audience, adding an emotional impact to his sacrifice. I didn't care when Holdo died because the only thing I ever saw her do is **** the situation up by deciding subordinates did not need to be kept informed.
Why didn't the Star Destroyers right next to the dreadnought at the start of the movie shoot down the bombers? Why bother showing a fleet at all if you're going to treat ships as though they were alone?
Admiral Holdo was a ****ing idiot.
"Our actual leader got taken out by an enemy attack, morale is low, we keep losing ships, and no one has any idea what the plan is. Clearly, when my CAG makes these concerns known to me like a good officer should, the way forward is to tell him to **** off, rather than take him aside and explain things."
Poe shouldn't have taken matters into his own hands, but Holdo a terrible leader. Literally the first thing Leia does when Poe wakes up is explain the plan.
Also, filmmakers need to learn that when a villain chooses not to execute prisoners in a straightforward, efficient manner, but instead chooes some silly mthod that'll take longer, it eliminates any and all tension, and it makes the villain in question look like a moron.
Phasma is a moron.
Unrelated: it's interesting to me how much Star Wars is anti-democracy. Or maybe anti-government. The old Republic bureaucracy and division kept it completely incapable of accomplishing anything even as its civil institutions were co-opted from within and one of its member worlds was under occupation. Until they voted in a dictator.
The New Republic was seemingly completely unable or unwilling to recognize or deal with an existential threat.
It's in rather stark contrast to the Empire and the First Order. Especially the First Order, which recovered from a significant blow at the end of TFA only to actually win the war.
Basically, in Star Wars, government is either ineffective or tyrannical. It's strange because it isn't the focus of the movies, but its a thread that remains very consistent through all of them.
A good officer which just got demoted for disobeying a direct order and in the process losing irreplaceable assets for a minor victory.
Poe is not as important as he thinks he is, basically.
And amateur film critics need to learn that making villains 100% effective and pragmatic is not always the correct narrative choice.Hard to take her seriously when she ****s up every time she appears.
And Hux is a buffoon. So?Hux actually doesn't do too badly in this movie. He lets Poe stall him at the start of the movie. Beyond that, he doesn't **** up very much this time.
I think Battuta talked about this once, where any depiction of a fanatical tyrannical regime cannot help but be enticing to at least some portion of the viewership.Maybe if Star Wars did a better job of showing effective democratic government, it wouldn't look like there are no effective democratic governments in Star Wars. The EU novels didn't have an issue doing that, and the movies don't have an issue with showing effective tyrannical government either. Democracies have gotten the short end every time.
A good officer which just got demoted for disobeying a direct order and in the process losing irreplaceable assets for a minor victory.
Poe is not as important as he thinks he is, basically.
Has nothing to do with Poe and everything to do with keeping your chain of command aware of your intent and making sure morale doesn't tank completely. This is an integral part of command. She completely fails to do either, keeping everything to herself, and she lost control of her subordinates because of it.
Yeah, Poe ****ed up. She ****ed up more.
QuoteAnd Hux is a buffoon. So?Hux actually doesn't do too badly in this movie. He lets Poe stall him at the start of the movie. Beyond that, he doesn't **** up very much.
I think Battuta talked about this once, where any depiction of a fanatical tyrannical regime cannot help but be enticing to at least some portion of the viewership.Maybe if Star Wars did a better job of showing effective democratic government, it wouldn't look like there are no effective democratic governments in Star Wars. The EU novels didn't have an issue with it, nor do the movies have an issue with showing effective tyrannical government.
Why didn't the Empire launch fighters when they established the blockade around Hoth? Why bother showing that Star Destroyers carry TIEs when they're only going to be treated as big dumb battleships?
This is CinemaSins level of bad film criticism. Please get beyond it.
But, did she?
The film follows Poe's POV in his scenes. Poe, who has been demoted, is not part of the command crew at that moment, and has thus no need to know the plans, is furious that said plans haven't been shared with him. He storms on the bridge, all but screaming "What do you intend to DO?" when Holdo's plan is already being executed as they speak. She obviously explained it to someone, just not Poe.
You're looking at these scenes and you are, naturally, siding with Poe since he's the dashing hero we're supposed to like. But he's very deeply wrong in his little arc here, unwilling to make the sacrifice that Holdo is making. By the same token, you are wrong in your assessment of her character, because all we know of her is stuff Poe knows and thinks of her. I would make a point here about a commanding officer not needing to be liked by her subordinates, only respected and obeyed, and Poe fails spectacularly here.
Then he gets thrown around by Kylo Ren, gets some hard derision from Snoke once he's out of earshot, loses a dreadnought because he's too busy being prank called by a rebel pilot....Sure, but out of all the First Order commanders, he's also the least stupid. Kylo Ren's having a serious emotional breakdown, and Phasma can't do anything right. I will say that the First Order's panoply of laughably incompentent commanders is an issue both TLJ and TFA have. Weak villains cheapen every one of the heroes' victories. I don't find the First Order intimidating. I find them bumbling and pathetic, even when they win. They're not even in the same league as the Empire was in the OT.
He's basically the Richard-Spencer-esque laughing stock of the First Order command team.
How do you show an effective democracy in this context, where all the main hero figures are renegades and lone hero types or magical space cops and the big democratic government is actually more like a supersized version of the UN? We never see "Government" in the sense that we understand the word; We never get to know what the average planetary government is like, because it's really not important to Star Wars as a whole.Maybe don't establish in your opening crawls that the current democratic government can't govern. The Phantom Menace's second half was almost entirely about showing how useless the pre-Palpatine Republic was. In TFA's case, the Resistance itself says something about the New Republic's ability to defend itself. Why hasn't its military taken action? Why is an independent Not-Rebel Alliance all that's standing between a resurgent Empire and the Republic? The movies go out of their way to show the two democracies we know of aren't actually doing a good job. Seems to me they could do the opposite just as easily. The now-Legends EU novels managed it just fine.
This is CinemaSins level of bad film criticism. Please get beyond it.
I spent a couple hours thinking about it and I have to conclude that what you just said is wrong. I'm not saying that the movie is perfect (because no movie is), but "absolutely riddled with plot holes and really dumb stuff"? No. Not hardly.Damn dude, really got me there. That's some high level debating skills right there. I'm wrong, movie is actually good. The critics just have to get beyond it. :lol:
(As an aside: I love how the middle part of a trilogy is "riddled with plotholes" when we're just in the middle of some of these plot threads.)
Spoon, if you want me to expend effort reacting to your writing, you should put effort into your posts first.The E, I don't want you to expend any effort into your writing, your opinion is wrong anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Most criticisms of Holdo's character seem to stem from "She didn't do what I think was the correct course of action for someone in her position" and I'm left wondering how that constitutes a plot hole or negative criticism.It's neither. It's perfectly believable that someone in such a high command position could **** up like that. It's not a criticism of the movie, just of the person. Her failure is one of leadership.
He's a damn good pilot and the Resistance desperately needs them? Hell, the Rebellion made Han and Lando generals.
He's a damn good pilot and the Resistance desperately needs them? Hell, the Rebellion made Han and Lando generals.Good pilot doesn't mean he's a good commander. By all means, stick him in a fighter, but the fact that he's so willing to tell his chain of command to **** off when he thinks he's right means he's completely unreliable. He shouldn't be put in command of anything. I get that movies tend to glorify the whole 'loose cannon' thing, but this movie does a fairly good job of showing why behavior like that can't be tolerated. Poe is a really, really, really ****ty subordinate. A hero complex is dangerous.
Well yeah, but in that case somebody told Alliance leadership about Lando's little maneuver at the Battle of Tanaab. Totally different.It kinda is, yeah. I've seen Poe be a good pilot, but leadership isn't just about how well you can fly a plane. That blurb, on its own, tells us that Lando was a decent tactician, and we already knew he had leadership skills because he was running Bespin successfully.
Spend quite some time listening to nerds on the internet talking about the movie, most of which I agree with.
Red letter media has a 47 minute video talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9hwGZFPSmw
Angry Joe did an hour long rant, not really a fan of his movie related stuff because he has his friends over and Joe just kind of talks over them most of the time, but the points they make are for the most part pretty spot on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL5oCP0VIEI
This isn't a review or anything, just some washed up ex-starcraft 2 player talking about it with some friends for like two hours. They hit on most points that bothered me too over the course of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNU_5og95fs
And one more 36 minute one for the road:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J08fHeAWWiU
Movie falls apart in so many ways when you actually turn your brain on.Spoon, if you want me to expend effort reacting to your writing, you should put effort into your posts first.The E, I don't want you to expend any effort into your writing, your opinion is wrong anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well yeah, but in that case somebody told Alliance leadership about Lando's little maneuver at the Battle of Tanaab. Totally different.It kinda is, yeah. I've seen Poe be a good pilot, but leadership isn't just about how well you can fly a plane. That blurb, on its own, tells us that Lando was a decent tactician, and we already knew he had leadership skills because he was running Bespin successfully.
The OT did 'show, don't tell' quite well, barring a few exceptions (like stormtroopers).
But for the sake of not wasting anyone's time, I'm just going to end it here. I'm not going to convince you, no matter how well-reasoned any arguments I might bring up are, but I would really like to implore you to listen to better critics than gaming personalities and alt-right weirdos (Armoured Skeptic? Really? Who's next, Davis Aurini?).
So people on a gaming forum shouldn't respect gaming personalities' views on a movie, and a communist is on a high horse telling us we can't respect people's opinions on a movie because of their political views. All this when Spoon said those views are his own, and is merely using those people as a vehicle to transmit his views to you. Views which you asked him for.
But for the sake of not wasting anyone's time, I'm just going to end it here. I'm not going to convince you, no matter how well-reasoned any arguments I might bring up are, but I would really like to implore you to listen to better critics than gaming personalities and alt-right weirdos (Armoured Skeptic? Really? Who's next, Davis Aurini?).
Spend quite some time listening to nerds on the internet talking about the movie, most of which I agree with.
Red letter media has a 47 minute video talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9hwGZFPSmw
Angry Joe did an hour long rant, not really a fan of his movie related stuff because he has his friends over and Joe just kind of talks over them most of the time, but the points they make are for the most part pretty spot on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL5oCP0VIEI
This isn't a review or anything, just some washed up ex-starcraft 2 player talking about it with some friends for like two hours. They hit on most points that bothered me too over the course of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNU_5og95fs
And one more 36 minute one for the road:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J08fHeAWWiU
Movie falls apart in so many ways when you actually turn your brain on.Spoon, if you want me to expend effort reacting to your writing, you should put effort into your posts first.The E, I don't want you to expend any effort into your writing, your opinion is wrong anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So people on a gaming forum shouldn't respect gaming personalities' views on a movie, and a communist is on a high horse telling us we can't respect people's opinions on a movie because of their political views. All this when Spoon said those views are his own, and is merely using those people as a vehicle to transmit his views to you. Views which you asked him for.
But for the sake of not wasting anyone's time, I'm just going to end it here. I'm not going to convince you, no matter how well-reasoned any arguments I might bring up are, but I would really like to implore you to listen to better critics than gaming personalities and alt-right weirdos (Armoured Skeptic? Really? Who's next, Davis Aurini?).
You must have missed that one line where Poe goes "That's Admiral Holdo? From the battle of <place>?" We know as much about Holdo's qualifications for military command as we do of Lando's.I didn't say she wasn't qualified for command. I said she ****ed up. It was Poe I said wasn't suitable for command because he's unreliable.
Anyways, I also find Holdo's critics a little bit beyond the red line for me. Everyone claims it's not because it's a woman, but because she should have explained Poe the Plan. But why? All she currently knows about this dude is that he's a good pilot who just had disobeyed direct orders and wasted an entire squadron of bombers, and was now out of order against a superior officer. If Holdo had been a man, would all of this criticism had ever come to light? I think maybe not! Poe was out of line and obviously if she knew him better, she would have guessed he would try his stupid mutiny. But given she didn't, I find this demand that she should have guessed it absurd and just mind bogglingly stupid.
Moving away from that, I thought Finn and Rose's interactions were some of the better written scenes.
I liked this film a fair bit (and it left me with a lot to think about) but I have never seen a major pop culture movie where the people who dislike it so clearly, totally do not understand the movie. It's like some sort of forcing function for comprehending stories.
The issue of questioning character motivations such as Luke's, is that then the motivations of everybody are under the loop equally. We only have Finn's word of him being kidnapped if even that in the actual movie, and we all know what happened with the lore expanding books. It doesn't make sense for the First Order to kidnap kids to the army due to obvious motivational or desertion reasons as clearly demonstrated by Finn himself. So it's starting to look like more the First Order either killed Finn's parents for a good reason, or took him under their custody and protection, while the kid didn't realize what's actually going on. What is actually Rey's motivation for helping anyone and not staying away from the whole intergalactic mess? While Luke was dismantled in the story, Rey appears as the unquestionable beacon of light side hope.
Jesus Christ Trashman, I can't even start to wonder how it's like to hate something for so many wrong headed reasons.
Where the hell does the First Order get the resources for all of it's stuff? Building a Death Star was considered a monumental task at the height of the Empire, when Sidious had the resources of an entire galaxy at his disposal. But somehow the remanants build planet-sized death cannons and mega-ships off screen like it's nothing.
"Let's ram at lightspeed. No one has ever thought of that in the entire history of space warfare!"
Luke simply giving up and living on an island drinking blue milk from alien big-tits?
Yoda destroying old Jedi lore because "Miss perfect Sue already knows it all!"
QuoteYoda destroying old Jedi lore because "Miss perfect Sue already knows it all!"
The entirety of ancient Jedi lore fits onto half a dozen handwritten volumes. Apparently, there just isn't that much to it, not to mention that both Yoda and Luke seem to think that most of it is actually wrong and misleading.
The point was that the guns on the First Order fleet weren't quite in range so they couldn't damage the ship shields faster than they could recharge and the cruiser was fast enough to keep them at a distance.
Luke simply giving up and living on an island drinking blue milk from alien big-tits?
I liked it. Not great, some humour fell flat and was a bit out of place, but much better than Force Awakens.
Unfortunately though, JJ Abrams is director Episode IX so it will suck without question. The only hope for Episode IX is that JJ Abrams gets fired.The point was that the guns on the First Order fleet weren't quite in range so they couldn't damage the ship shields faster than they could recharge and the cruiser was fast enough to keep them at a distance.
That makes sense, but it doesn't make sense that the Mon Calamari was quick enough to get out of range but not quick enough to pull further away. It's like they sped up to get out of range and then slowed down to allow the Cruisers to keep at distance. Didn't really bother me and could have been explained away but they didn't bother to do so.
Well, Obi Wan had a mission to fulfill (keeping Luke alive and far from the dark side) and didn't really lose his faith in the Jedi teachings.Luke simply giving up and living on an island drinking blue milk from alien big-tits?
I dunno the shock of one of your students murdering everyone in your school, after he caught you contemplating murdering him, might be reason enough for a good-hearted person to run and hide out of shame and embarassment. It makes far more sense that Luke is a bitter old man than it does that Obi wan fondly remembering Anakin after Anakin murdered a bunch of Jedi kids and Obiwan dismembered him. Though that's a problem with the prequels, not A New Hope. But yeah "Luke your dad, the guy whose arms and legs I cut off after he murdered little kids? He was a good friend". Realistically Obi Wan can only be seen to have some sort of mental break, where he's created the fantasy that Anakin and Darth Vader are entirely separate individuals.
That makes sense, but it doesn't make sense that the Mon Calamari was quick enough to get out of range but not quick enough to pull further away. It's like they sped up to get out of range and then slowed down to allow the Cruisers to keep at distance. Didn't really bother me and could have been explained away but they didn't bother to do so.
Better accelleration?
Remember that in Star Wars space is an ocean and the first order ships appeared to be still when the Raddus turned tail with the rest of the fleet.
The bombers thing, and frankly all the space battles in the modern Star Wars films, was atrocious when good old fashioned dive bombers existed since the original movie (plus the Y-wings were far better designed than these fat B-wings. I'll take ****ty space battles if we get good character writing and light saber fights but the space combat hasn't been there since RotJ.
you know, the first nuclear bomb took a monumental engineering and logistical effort to put together.
Nukes 3 through x-thousand? Not so much. There might be an analogy there for you to consider.
Judging by everyone's reaction to Holdo's maneuver as she was turning her Cruiser around, clearly they have. They know what's coming. They try to stop it. But since they don't have any ships in range to actually stop the Cruiser, they can't. So the astonishment here isn't so much about the fact that this tactic exists, it's about Holdo's willingness to use the Rebellion's last remaining capship to employ it in that moment.
QuoteYoda destroying old Jedi lore because "Miss perfect Sue already knows it all!"
The entirety of ancient Jedi lore fits onto half a dozen handwritten volumes. Apparently, there just isn't that much to it,
not to mention that both Yoda and Luke seem to think that most of it is actually wrong and misleading.
I absolutely love how Trashman first says Battuta's wrong when he says that most people who hate this movie completely miss the point, then goes on to thoroughly demonstrate how he completely missed the point.
I also love it when someone talks about "lore-raping" then claims "I'm not a fan".
I liked it. Not great, some humour fell flat and was a bit out of place, but much better than Force Awakens.
Unfortunately though, JJ Abrams is director Episode IX so it will suck without question. The only hope for Episode IX is that JJ Abrams gets fired.
The bomb wasn't that difficult to build in terms of work/resoirces, it was difficult to DESIGN (invent).
You can't honestly compare a 2m long bomb with a FTL capable station the size of a moon...or a planet.
You might as well say that a skateboard is equal to an aircraft carrier.
And again..REMNANTS.
Something for you to consider.
An unstopable tactic that makes giant death stars pointless.
Makes you wonder why the rebellion didn't simply ram small ships into the Star Destroyers at FTL. Very cost-effective tactic in terms of resources.
All the move did was introduce another plot hole.
Miss perfect Sue already knows it all then.
C'mon, you can't deny Rey is one of the worst characters ever put on TV.
Yoda didn't seem to think that way when he trained Luke.
"You miss the point because I say so!" - You****, guess I'll have to defer to your legendary good taste in nuanced storytelling.
Or maybe you missed the point?
Maybe there is no point and you rationalizing in your head, filling the holes someone else made?
Alright then Trashman, would you mind telling us exactly what you qualify as lore-raping ? I'm asking because as a long time SW fan, I didn't find anything that was particularly shocking lore-wise.There were things he didn't like but can't come up with an objective reason why it was bad. Therefore, it very vaguely raped the lore.
I mean the movie's got issues for sure, but I haven't seen anything worth that kind of hyperbolic statement.
Miss perfect Sue already knows it all then.
C'mon, you can't deny Rey is one of the worst characters ever put on TV.
I feel like a critical component that is being overlooked in this discussion is that Star Wars never was all that good.
C'mon, you can't deny Rey is one of the worst characters ever put on TV.
I think you meant overstated? Understated in that sentence implies it had virtually no impact.
If we confine ourselves to Star Wars films, she's one of the better well-rounded characters who experiences at least some growth. That alone makes her a better character than virtually every character in the combined prequel trilogy, who were all basically caricatures.
Miss perfect Sue already knows it all then.
You know the Tie Bombers drop bombs in pretty much the same manner in Empire Strikes back when they were bombing the asteroid looking for the Falcon. It's stupid, but it's not new.
I feel like a critical component that is being overlooked in this discussion is that Star Wars never was all that good.
You have to define by what criteria you define good and bad for that to actually be a point of consideration.
Because Star Wars' impact, on both culture and the entertainment media cannot be understated.
Bombing rocks like you're a destroyer looking for a submarine is still different than doing a low level carpet bombing run on a battleship. Also the Empire has more resources and far less regard for losses than the rebels in TLJ.
You're right, it's not new but 20 seconds of film vs. being the center piece of the opening sequence are different.
But there's definitely a point at which we started considering Star Wars as something more then just a couple of pretty well-made fairytales-in-space* to the point that even the guy who simply says "Look sir, droids!" gets an entire backstory all of his own (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Davin_Felth). The original trilogy is treated with a degree of reverence that it doesn't really deserve - and a reverence it was never really built for either. Hyperbolic statements like "lore raping" imply that Star Wars has something of a similar level of depth as, say, Tolkien's universe and it really doesn't.
*with a few caveats, as I think Return of the Jedi definitely punched below it's weight.
btw, Jonathan McIntosh made this video (clearly written before TLJ premiered) about how the Jedi sucks, and I can't disagree with a single word in it.
It also points to two things in my mind: One, the story within the prequels is actually a good story, two, it sucks that Lucas didn't get that the Jedi were the bad guys in it and went on to execute a pontentially great story so incredibly poorly.
btw, Jonathan McIntosh made this video (clearly written before TLJ premiered) about how the Jedi sucks, and I can't disagree with a single word in it.
It also points to two things in my mind: One, the story within the prequels is actually a good story, two, it sucks that Lucas didn't get that the Jedi were the bad guys in it and went on to execute a pontentially great story so incredibly poorly.
What I think would be interesting would be MP-Ryan shedding some light on how he thinks of the The Jedi Code of Conduct, and whether there are some parallels to the real world police jobs there. I personally think that the Star Wars universe Light side/Dark side dichotomy is likely something every officer of law experiences occasionally.
What I think would be interesting would be MP-Ryan shedding some light on how he thinks of the The Jedi Code of Conduct, and whether there are some parallels to the real world police jobs there. I personally think that the Star Wars universe Light side/Dark side dichotomy is likely something every officer of law experiences occasionally.
The Star Wars mythos is rooted in absolutism. Any law enforcement person who doesn't quickly learn to see in shades of grey finds a new job pretty quickly. Luke's story somewhat tackles this issue, but Rey's story has (so far) managed to do a much better job. Luke is still caught up in the fundamental good versus evil dichotomy trying to redeem Vader, while Rey is much more pragmatic about its actual effects on people (and Yoda gives us the hint that this is what matters). We see this with the Rey / Ben interactions. Rey is not so much bothered by the fact that Ben is still a character willing to embrace the dark side, but simply cares that he stop the wanton murder and step away from doing evil things, rather than considering him to need redemption from being evil altogether (which is important because Ben himself is not a purely evil person, despite the awful things he does). This is part of the reason I really liked TLJ - its trading in much of the good versus evil narrative of the original trilogy that Obi Wan hinted should be thrown out in ANH (and then reversed himself on later, unfortunately) for a Force balance that trades in shades of grey. Like Aesaar said, this totally follows concepts introduced KOTOR2 (which was fantastic). Luke is absolutely right - the Jedi are NOT the "good guys." Rey hasn't figured that out yet, but she has started down the path of pragmatic "goodness" that will lead her to that conclusion.
The prequels do show quite well the thing about the Jedi Order and its insane state - it was quite obvious Lucas wasn't trying to portray them as perfect - actually, quite far from perfect. This is pretty much the thing that was interesting in the prequels. It's just that the execution is all over the place there too. But I thought this was pretty obvious when the sequels rolled in.
What it comes to the inhibition of emotions, this is actually a very effective real world military teaching. This is portrayed in contemporary Polish history of Swedish-Finnish dragoons generally not shouting or showing pain when they received mortal wounds. Or Genghis Khan instructing his soldiers to look emotionless in the battle. No anger, not being scared. That sort of enemy appears non-human and disturbing. That's what that is all about. However, this is self-defense and combat related stuff, and should not be applied to normal life. The same stuff is also in the martial arts, you can't get angry, or you run the risk of becoming predictable.
What Luke Skywalker presented was the departure of this Jedi teaching: he allowed his family and friends be more important. The ROTJ ending was about him breaking the strict conduit code of Jedi and presented significant improvement of their personal lives, making them less susceptible for the Dark Side to begin with. He didn't give up on Anakin Skywalker, and that's why I think him trying to kill Ben Solo for far less was very much out of character for Luke.
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.
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.
I ****ing loved it, with all its inconsistencies, errors, going-nowhere-arcs and mediocre jokes.
I. Loved. It.
I want more of this! And I'm already regretting this because I *know* JJ will **** the ninth movie up big ****ing time.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Explain why the Jedi are supposed to be celibate orphans.
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.
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.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.
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.
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).
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.
Phasma's not dead, unless they're planning on having that actor only appear in flashbacks in the third movie she's contracted for.
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.
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.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.
Yoda would have probably put it differently if Anakin let go of his ambition and frigging told him everything.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.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.
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.
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 ****.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The over-monastic dumb jedi are a creation of the prequels. Since I don't consider the prequels and their related works to be of high enough quality to count as Official Star Wars, we don't actually know how the Jedi Order functioned, since clearly the version we were shown was too dumb to ever function.
Since I don't consider the prequels and their related works to be of high enough quality to count as Official Star Wars, we don't actually know how the Jedi Order functioned, since clearly the version we were shown was too dumb to ever function.
And the award for the stupidest post in this thread goes to .... Turambar!
No, that's crap. We're discussing the Jedi as presented in Star Wars. You can't just dismiss 3 movies because they don't fit your opinion. This just turns into a completely pointless headcanon comparison if you do.
Can I dismiss Return of the Jedi and say that the way the Empire was defeated by the Rebellion is dumb and therefore the movie shouldn't count, so the Empire is alive and well?
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.QuoteIt'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.QuoteLove 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.QuoteYoda 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.
Actually, I've come around to liking Revenge of the Sith. It's very, very flawed, but there's a great story in there, and it manages to be interesting. I like it a lot more than TFA. Also, the novelization is very, very good. I most certainly do not agree the prequels failed to fit the Star Wars universe.No, that's crap. We're discussing the Jedi as presented in Star Wars. You can't just dismiss 3 movies because they don't fit your opinion. This just turns into a completely pointless headcanon comparison if you do.
The prequels are objectively pretty ****. You have to admit that.
So if you want to claim something about Star Wars and can't find it in the orig trig, your sources are pretty suspect. If you're sourcing facts based on films you agree failed to fit the Star Wars universe, then how can you claim that arguments based on them fit the universe?
No. Because if you try, I'll flat out point out why you've ignored everything in the other films in order to do so.I don't see how 'ignoring everything in the other films' is any different than ignoring the prequels. They're all equally official.
I'm not dismissing them because they "mess with my headcanon" though, I'm dismissing them because they are of such low quality that they are less valid than fanfic.RotS is better than TFA, IMO, and I think the novelization is better than RotJ. Oh ****, I guess your opinion isn't fact. You're dismissing the prequels because you don't like them, and the direction they take the universe isn't the direction you want it to take. There is no objective reason to dismiss them, only your own personal taste.
No, sorry, in a discussion in which we are talking about the text of a work (or, in this case, the actual movies and the world presented therein), saying "I don't think these movies count" is stupid. It's derailing at best, trolling and stupidly ignorant at worst. Even Trashman pretended to take this discussion seriously; What Turambar is doing here is worse than anything Trashman did.
like if your basis for the prequels being part of THE TEXT of TLJ comes down to extratextual disney corporate directives then lmao @ you playing the aggressive literary criticism gatekeeperPretty sure saying "the prequels aren't good enough to be Real Star Wars" is also "playing the aggressive literary criticism gatekeeper".
The over-monastic dumb jedi are a creation of the prequels. Since I don't consider the prequels and their related works to be of high enough quality to count as Official Star Wars, we don't actually know how the Jedi Order functioned, since clearly the version we were shown was too dumb to ever function.
You can't ignore the prequels.
No, he declared that we don't know how the Jedi Order functions because the prequels suck and are invalid.The over-monastic dumb jedi are a creation of the prequels. Since I don't consider the prequels and their related works to be of high enough quality to count as Official Star Wars, we don't actually know how the Jedi Order functioned, since clearly the version we were shown was too dumb to ever function.
Which is just a way to shut down discussion because this way we don't really have enough info to discuss the topic unless we go into Legends (and even then, so much of the Legends EU was built on the prequels).
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.
RotJ isn't canon because I don't like the ending. Why doesn't TFA answer the question of how Vader died? That's a pretty important plot detail to leave out. Actually, scratch that, TFA isn't canon either because I think it's ****.
Luke talking to Rey about the failings of the Jedi in TLJ definitely implies the Jedi of the prequels. You can say it doesn't specifically mention the events of the prequels, but you could say that just as easily about RotJ or even ESB. Something like them happened, but not necessarily the events shown in those movies.RotJ isn't canon because I don't like the ending. Why doesn't TFA answer the question of how Vader died? That's a pretty important plot detail to leave out. Actually, scratch that, TFA isn't canon either because I think it's ****.
right, exactly: the text consisting of {ANH, TESB, TFA} suggests the inclusion of ROTJ because there's a hole in the narrative where the empire should fall; the text consisting of {ANH, TESB, ROTJ, TLJ} suggests the inclusion of TFA because there's a hole in the narrative where all these new characters were established
the text consisting of {TFA, TLJ} clearly suggests the inclusion of the original trilogy, they're nonsense otherwise; but does it similarly suggest the inclusion of the prequels? are there callbacks in the sequels that require the presence of the prequels for the narrative to make sense? this is, i think, an actually interesting question; because so far from my own recollection the answer is 'not really', that the sequels have almost pointedly avoided this
The only thing sadder than Luke's career after ROTJ is Aesaar's refusal to let go of the worst of Star Wars. Each of us is a more definitive source on what makes 'true' Star Wars than Lucas or Disney. Lucas can't write, as we've found out, and Disney only cares about how to use Star Wars to reliably make money.So you're ok with me saying RotJ didn't happen, then?
Luke talking to Rey about the failings of the Jedi in TLJ definitely implies the Jedi of the prequels. You can say it doesn't specifically mention the events of the prequels, but you could say that just as easily about RotJ or even ESB. Something like them happened, but not necessarily the events shown in those movies.
This is an acceptable position, but you can't do it selectively. If you call the canon-ness of the prequels into question, you must do the same for the OT.
Such a shame we don't know anything about how the Empire fell.
Such a shame we don't know anything about how the Empire fell.
Death star blew up. Emperor & Vader died
Actually, I've come around to liking Revenge of the Sith. It's very, very flawed, but there's a great story in there, and it manages to be interesting. I like it a lot more than TFA. Also, the novelization is very, very good. I most certainly do not agree the prequels failed to fit the Star Wars universe.
And lol, "your sources are suspect if it doesn't come from the OT". I'm sorry, what? It's all Star Wars. You don't get to decide what is or isn't valid just because you happen to dislike some of it. That's literally what headcanon is.
TFA suffers from trying to be too thematically close to ANH. The one thing I'll say for RotS is that at least it is trying to do something new. But better than TFA? No. It's a dreadful film. It only looks okay if you compare it to the other two sequels.Your opinion is noted. I like RotS more than TFA because I find RotS far more interesting. I've seen TFA twice and I have absolutely no desire to see it again.
I'm not saying I get to decide what is and isn't canon. I'm saying that if there is any kind of conflict between the films, orig trig is correct. The other films were written later, after Star Wars had become the cultural icon it is now, and are supposed to be based on those first three films. So it is perfectly valid to say "I reject your right to retcon the original films."Maybe Leia isn't remembering Padme, she's remembering Bail Organa's wife.
For instance, Leia says she knew her mother. And yet for some inexplicable reason Padme dies well before Leia should be able to remember anything about her. So I'm perfectly entitled to say that anything you are claiming about Leia's mother based on the prequels is suspect. The prequels ****ed up in a rather major fashion when it came to that issue.
I've seen TFA twice and I have absolutely no desire to see it again.
Maybe Leia isn't remembering Padme, she's remembering Bail Organa's wife.
So now we're changing the whole "Do you remember your mother? Your real mother" speech to be pretty much pointless just to make the prequels work? No. I'm not ****ing doing that. The scene with Leia and Luke had meaning because Luke was asking about his own mother, who he knew took care of Leia. I'm not changing a great scene in a good film just to justify ****ty writing in a bad one. Especially when RotS makes no attempt to clarify the stupid discrepancy they've introduced. What's the point of this change? How does it improve either film in any way to make that speech a mistake?It doesn't. I don't think it was a good change either, although I wouldn't go so far as to call RotJ a great film. It's by far the weakest film of the OT. I don't even agree it's that good a scene, because the whole "btw Leia is Luke's sister" thing is one of the dumbest things about the movie. That and the teddybears.
I said RotJ was a good film not a great one.Yeah, it would be ****. It would be **** just like making Leia Luke's sister and having an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops significantly hampered by an army of teddybears. Both of those things are things I think were far, far dumber than making Leia's recollection of her mother inaccurate or showing us that the Jedi weren't all they were cracked up to be.
If some later Star Wars film says that Luke actually died but they just found some other force sensitive kid and pretended he was Luke would that be okay? Even if the film was utter rubbish? We don't actually see Luke grow up and we know that Obi-Wan is more than willing to lie. So that would be okay cause we're just assuming that the kid taken away at the end of RotS and the guy we see in ANH are the same guy, right? Hell, we're assuming that the Luke in Empire and Return is the same Luke despite knowing that the galaxy has pretty good cloning. We can have a later film challenge our assumptions by explaining how Leia killed Luke, blew him out of an airlock but then later felt remorse and had him cloned from his hand on Bespin (which now explains why Maz has his lightsaber).
You can do all that. And it would be ****.
Challenging assumptions is a great idea. Films should totally do it. One reason I love TLJ is it constantly did that. But deliberately introducing plot holes with bad writing isn't the same thing as challenging assumptions. If any Star Wars film did any of the above things, wouldn't you feel justified in saying "Yeah, that didn't happen"?
Yeah, it would be ****. It would be **** just like making Leia Luke's sister and having an entire legion of the Emperor's best troops significantly hampered by an army of teddybears.
Both of those things are things I think were far, far dumber than making Leia's recollection of her mother inaccurate
Teddybears who had quite obviously been preparing for days if not weeks or months for the attack.The ancient Romans would have crushed the Ewoks with trivial ease. I can say that because nothing used by the Ewoks in that attack is future technology. It's not even Bronze Age technology. I absolutely will not believe that an army with firearms/energy weapons and armored vehicles could be hampered by them in any meaningful way. It's idiotic.
So? Even if you are correct why does that make it a good idea to do it? Just cause other ****ty things were in the films you get to add more ****ty things? Especially when there was no need whatsoever to do it. Especially when it adds nothing to either film.Did I say somewhere that I think the prequels were universally good and that everything they did was for the best?
I attribute the ewoks success to Chewie stealing that AT-ST, as that is what actually turned the tide of the battle. I kinda figured the whole 'overconfidence' thing was the ground forces flaw, too. Not taking defensive positions, spreading out, underestimating ewok numbers and swarming abilities... But again it is a movie, so there's always that. Still there are many expamples of a well trained, technically superior military force getting overrun with lesser, larger numbers (ie swarmed with close combat where the ranged defense doesn't hold up).Yeah, it's sorta happened in history. Except that in every historical case I can think of, the technological superiority of the loser was fairly minor. It's never been modern tech vs stone age tech, because there's literally nothing stone age tech can do to an armored vehicle. There's a reason the idea of horses charging tanks is ridiculous.
]Did I say somewhere that I think the prequels were universally good and that everything they did was for the best?
You can dismiss whatever you want, just stop at pretentiously declaring the rest of us don't know anything about "x" because you decided to dismiss the movie that deals with "x".
Say instead that you disagree with how the prequels characterized "x", and then let the adults continue the conversation.
Luke simply giving up and living on an island drinking blue milk from alien big-tits?
The Sequel Trilogy should have been planned from start to finish before filming the first one.I remember reading somewhere that Lucas actually had an outline for the Sequel Trilogy and gave it to Disney when he sold the rights for the franchise, but that it was tossed away. Obviously nobody thought about replacing it before they started filming. Oh well, we've survived the prequels, and this is much less painful to watch, even if it was made by hacks.
I remember reading somewhere that Lucas actually had an outline for the Sequel Trilogy and gave it to Disney when he sold the rights for the franchise, but that it was tossed away.
Oh well, we've survived the prequels, and this is much less painful to watch, even if it was made by hacks.
To be honest I don't think the second one was made by hacks. Yeah they made a bunch of mistakes but it's still a great film overall. But yeah, the first film is better than the prequels and even with JJ Abrams at the helm it's hard to imagine how he could **** up the third instalment that badly.Yeah The Last Jedi doesn't feel like a cheap cash grab at all, if anything it tries to do too much at once with the material it's given. I don't recall who made the KOTOR2 comparison on the HLP Discord but I think it's apt.
I find it pretty inexcusable for the trilogy to not have been planned out, apparently at all. The whole thing with big-budget movie trilogies or TV shows that cost tens to hundreds of millions to make not being planned but getting made up as as they go is the kind of madness you wouldn't believe if you didn't know. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't cost anything to plan the broad strokes of each plot and character arc beforehand and make sure they check out.
I find it pretty inexcusable for the trilogy to not have been planned out, apparently at all. The whole thing with big-budget movie trilogies or TV shows that cost tens to hundreds of millions to make not being planned but getting made up as as they go is the kind of madness you wouldn't believe if you didn't know. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't cost anything to plan the broad strokes of each plot and character arc beforehand and make sure they check out.
Yes, Luke is a hermit, and it is perfectly sensible that he's drinking milk from some native wildlife. But you don't have to show it because it adds the wrong kind of emotions for the scene.
The Leia Poppins scene... yeah, I did find that one jarring. In part because, imo, it doesn't get enough setup: It makes sense that Leia is at this point a very capable force user who is very much capable of... walking the sky, but for that to have worked it should have gotten more setup (as with a few other things in this film, such as all of the entire Finn/Rose scenes).
This is nonsense, Leia has already used her force powers to sense Luke in RotJ, it only makes sense that in 30 years, she is capable of much more. She's a Skywalker, we're given a huge amount of "setup" to this "revelation" from the get go already, there's nothing here that is bad. I loved the scene, it almost looks as if she's trying to reach her son, and then the Mary Poppins scene goes full steam and I also loved it. I can't understand the mockery and hatred towards this scene at all. It's pitch perfect, the way that she clearly masters a lot of this force stuff, but not sufficiently to the point that she doesn't still need help. She still needs someone to open her door.
The alternative explanation is that the movie is really great, but rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and apart from some of the true failings of it, they can't quite put their finger on it, so they're just fishing endlessly where the problem lies.
I don't disagree, by the way, that the scene could've been shot better, I think it's one of the few shots in the film where the CG really doesn't hold up, but I think it serves its narrative purpose quite well.
This is nonsense, Leia has already used her force powers to sense Luke in RotJ, it only makes sense that in 30 years, she is capable of much more. She's a Skywalker, we're given a huge amount of "setup" to this "revelation" from the get go already, there's nothing here that is bad. I loved the scene, it almost looks as if she's trying to reach her son, and then the Mary Poppins scene goes full steam and I also loved it. I can't understand the mockery and hatred towards this scene at all. It's pitch perfect, the way that she clearly masters a lot of this force stuff, but not sufficiently to the point that she doesn't still need help. She still needs someone to open her door.
I think the scene is great, it has been well indicated prior to this that she can do Force things (and should be able to), and the execution is pitch perfect.
When the Leia thing happened, I'm pretty sure I chuckled because it just looked so cheesy/corny/funny/etc. I don't mind what the character did in principle, but it was depicted in a way that felt almost like parody, at least on my first and only viewing thusfar.
The alternative explanation is that the movie is really great, but rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and apart from some of the true failings of it, they can't quite put their finger on it, so they're just fishing endlessly where the problem lies.
What the TLJ did in deconstruction is that they went too far with it and did it so thoroughly and made me not interested in anything they could possible do in the last installment. Frankly, Star Wars is now over for me. I guess I'm killing the past just like the movie instructed. The past was just the thing that kept me coming to see what would happen to the characters I was interested in. Those characters are no more, and the new characters couldn't be more blank or uninspiring. They had two movies to get any of Ren, Rey, Poe, Finn or Snoke interesting, and they managed none. [Obi-wan] Well done! [/Obi-wan]
It's this. It did do a good job! Now I just don't care anymore. Some part of me wanted to keep caring, but I just needed to let go.
Let it die.
I'm finally free.
Free from Disney's milking.
Thanks TLJ.
Luke's force projection thing shocked the hell out of me, and not in a good way. I thought it was cheap and cheesy. IMO nothing in the established canon shows this being a thing, or really logically leaps to it, so it feels like convenient plot device out of nowhere.
Two things I wanna say here. First, to say that TLJ and Covenant are at equal footing regarding plot and so on is preposterous, I won't even entertain that gibberish of an idea. Second, I'm a bit perplexed at the perplexity that an action movie that doesn't have plots excels in being... an action movie. Wow. I'm amazed. What next, the best comedy of the decade is a movie filled with jokes or something? Come on.
What Luis said. So what if we haven't seen particular Force powers used previously? Films set in the canonical universe get to make this up all the damn time. It's long-since been established that the Skywalkers in particular have a special affinity for the Force, so its really no surprise if they can demonstrate Force powers not previously displayed.
What Luis said. So what if we haven't seen particular Force powers used previously? Films set in the canonical universe get to make this up all the damn time. It's long-since been established that the Skywalkers in particular have a special affinity for the Force, so its really no surprise if they can demonstrate Force powers not previously displayed.
There's a great comment in Plinkett's review of Attack of the Clones where he takes the film to task for having Darth Tyranus shoot force lightning. In AotC force lightning is treated as just being something you put in a skills slot when you've gained enough Dark Side XP. In RotJ however that's not the case. As Plinkett says, the emperor shoots lightning at Luke because he wants to hurt him before he kills him. He could probably have just stopped Luke's heart with the force or crushed him into a pulp. It's actually pretty sad that people want this RPG version of the force where you slowly power up different abilities. Luke even tries to explain that's not what the force is in this film but people keep insisting it is.
People's expectations are based on their experiences and given how often people have referenced KOTOR, it shouldn't really be a surprise that the RPG idea is well enforced.
I mean both movies have non-sensical plots and are populated by downright moronic self-destructive characters showing zero competence to their tasks and top that off with utterly idiotic decisions once panicked. Both movies probably wrecked a significant fraction of interest in the follow ups and managed to render stuff made before them retroactively bad. But yes, Alien:Covenant still does a tiny bit better than TLJ in the audience reviews, so I should indeed apologize for dragging A:C to the TLJ levels. What, did you think this would go the way you thought it would? :D
I mean both movies have non-sensical plots and are populated by downright moronic self-destructive characters showing zero competence to their tasks and top that off with utterly idiotic decisions once panicked. Both movies probably wrecked a significant fraction of interest in the follow ups and managed to render stuff made before them retroactively bad. But yes, Alien:Covenant still does a tiny bit better than TLJ in the audience reviews, so I should indeed apologize for dragging A:C to the TLJ levels. What, did you think this would go the way you thought it would? :D
And at the end of the day, the image of a Jedi is more popularly associated with a super hero than with a grail knight and so the using the force is seen as a dude with special powers, not a pseudo-religious or noble vocation.
If you want an indepth look at the whole light side/dark side thing and what they mean, you can't do better than just playing through KotOR 2. It remains, IMO, the best Star Wars story ever told, in spite of all the game's flaws.
If you don't want to do that but have 2 hours to spend watching a youtube video, this looks into it quite well:
I mean both movies have non-sensical plots and are populated by downright moronic self-destructive characters showing zero competence to their tasks and top that off with utterly idiotic decisions once panicked. Both movies probably wrecked a significant fraction of interest in the follow ups and managed to render stuff made before them retroactively bad. But yes, Alien:Covenant still does a tiny bit better than TLJ in the audience reviews, so I should indeed apologize for dragging A:C to the TLJ levels. What, did you think this would go the way you thought it would? :D
You're into some kind of delusional cinemasins level of analysis here if you think I give a damn about audience scores. The fact that TLJ scores are faring a lot lower than the prequels ever were (ooh yeah) should give everyone's pause regarding "audience scores" everywhere. If there's any evidence that the audiences are generally morons, this is it. I guess George Carlin was right. Think how dumb the "average man" is. Then realise half of the population is dumber than that. If people tell me that TLJ isn't their thing, that's fine. If they tell me it's worse than Covenant or Phantom Menace I'll just say "god bless you", because their brain surely isn't.
I know you don't. But why is it so hard to believe that some people genuinely find TLJ worse than Phantom or AotC? While the prequels were bad (I specially didn't like AotC, while RotS started awful it recovered at the end), the story still carried forwards and links quite well to the original trilogy. TLJ mostly breaks everything apart and thinks it's smart and philosophical, when this is in reality quite easy to do. Far more difficult situation would have been to built on the foundations introduced in TFA in any believeable way and then going to your own direction.
I don't really think it's about deconstructing star wars. Rather people I've seen on other forums think that the film has a feminist agenda. And people are lashing out as what they perceive by Disney's star wars on the "heterosexual white man". Because you know, while every Disney Marvel movie features a heterosexual white man as the hero (until BP comes out), Disney has a "feminist agenda" because TLJ's director liked a feminist t-shirt on twitter. Just read the user reviews on rotten tomatoes, many of the complaints don't stem from the actual story. Personally I think Star Wars just has more girls in it to sell more merchandise and movie tickets.
I don't really think it's about deconstructing star wars. Rather people I've seen on other forums think that the film has a feminist agenda. And people are lashing out as what they perceive by Disney's star wars on the "heterosexual white man". Because you know, while every Disney Marvel movie features a heterosexual white man as the hero (until BP comes out), Disney has a "feminist agenda" because TLJ's director liked a feminist t-shirt on twitter. Just read the user reviews on rotten tomatoes, many of the complaints don't stem from the actual story. Personally I think Star Wars just has more girls in it to sell more merchandise and movie tickets.
Yeah, the rottentomatoes user score becomes completely unusable whenever the portion of the internet that believes that a feminist agenda against white men exists thinks that a film or series is a direct attack on them.
Luke's failures as a teacher and life as a hermit are less important than his days teaching Rey and his destruction of the jedi tree and his ultimate sacrifice to save the alliance.
I find it a bit irritating that the First Order is overtly white and human, other than Finn (who also happens to be a deserter). I don't recall anyone on the bridge crews to not be white. There's no indication that there's any racism involved, but it almost feels like to join the Dark Side, there's a unspoken requirement that you have to be human and white. I get a lot of this has to do with the Empire and First Order being modeled after Nazi Germany, but it just feels lazy at this point when the directors have made a it a point to diversify the cast. Whether or not you can attach a feminist agenda to this, I don't really know or care. It just feels like a cheap trick and adds to the list of things that make it harder to maintain suspension of disbelief.
I find it hard to detect a feminist agenda in TLJ. The most overt political statement it makes is that there's a moral complexity to arms dealers.
Did it bother you that the Empire in the original trilogy were all white and british?
Did it bother you that the Empire in the original trilogy were all white and british?
Not as much since the rebels were all white as well. It's about consistency ultimately. If the galaxy is indeed full of humans of all skin colors, facial features, etc., then it should be represented accordingly. I can forgive the original trilogy because as I understood it, Hollywood was very much white dominated and money was a bigger issue for the producers then.
What did bother me was the prequel trilogy where the aliens were racist stereotypes, which was about as lazy.
I feel like TLJ is a half-ass attempt at diversifying the cast. Our main leads, Rey and Kylo Ren, are both white. The First Order is still white, even though there's no in universe reason for it. For all the talk about diversifying the cast, it still feels very much like token minorities being thrown into minor roles to show "diversity."
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Finn isn't a main lead in TFA, and in TLJ, it seems to be turning into more of an ensemble cast.
And to be honest I didn't notice any minorities in secondary/background roles on either side in TLJ
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Finn isn't a main lead in TFA, and in TLJ, it seems to be turning into more of an ensemble cast.
And to be honest I didn't notice any minorities in secondary/background roles on either side in TLJ
So we have Poe, Leia, Han, Luke, Rey, DJ, Hodor, Rose, Finn, Kylo Ren, Hux, and Phasma. Am I missing anyone?
Everyone's white except for Finn and Rose, who are black and asian. How does this not fit the token minorities setup?
We see some minorities in the ship crews in the Resistance, but as far as I can tell, none in the First Order.
Well for one thing Poe is not white. Oscar Isaac's mother is from guatemala and his father is cuban. Isaac is actually his middle name, his family name is Estrada. Don't know if hispanic is the term but central american at any rate.Well, "hispanic" or "latino" seems to be more of northern America thing, on the other side of the Atlantic that would pretty much qualify as white.
Yep, I can pretty much confirm, but then again I heard of cases of mixed black-white couples that got away with it because the white part was of Italian origins during Jim Crow times, boy even racism is weird in the US.Well for one thing Poe is not white. Oscar Isaac's mother is from guatemala and his father is cuban. Isaac is actually his middle name, his family name is Estrada. Don't know if hispanic is the term but central american at any rate.Well, "hispanic" or "latino" seems to be more of northern America thing, on the other side of the Atlantic that would pretty much qualify as white.
Well for one thing Poe is not white. Oscar Isaac's mother is from guatemala and his father is cuban. Isaac is actually his middle name, his family name is Estrada. Don't know if hispanic is the term but central american at any rate.Well, "hispanic" or "latino" seems to be more of northern America thing, on the other side of the Atlantic that would pretty much qualify as white.
The Last Jedi does build upon the foundations in TFA, characters develop. Finn is still a coward at the start of the movie, then starts to grow a backpone. Po is a hothead but starts to be a leader. Rey is a child, lashes out to defend herself, but then develops some compassion and starts to empathize with Ben. The movie picks up right after the last movie ended with a conventional attack on the Rebel base and trying to get away. The Resistance stood alone and is trying to bring allies into the fight. etcetera The movie even tries to explain why Rey is such a bull**** natural with the force. What did people want? Backstory on generic 2d hologram villian? Backstory on generic good vs evil dynamic?
I don't really think it's about deconstructing star wars. Rather people I've seen on other forums think that the film has a feminist agenda. And people are lashing out as what they perceive by Disney's star wars on the "heterosexual white man". Because you know, while every Disney Marvel movie features a heterosexual white man as the hero (until BP comes out), Disney has a "feminist agenda" because TLJ's director liked a feminist t-shirt on twitter. Just read the user reviews on rotten tomatoes, many of the complaints don't stem from the actual story. Personally I think Star Wars just has more girls in it to sell more merchandise and movie tickets.
With Luke people also seem to fail to grasp the fundamental role that he's playing in the story. He's not the hero anymore. He can't be. Because the movie is NOT about him. What these movies do right is that they focus on important times in the characters life. You know, there's an idea that if you're telling a story you ask "is this the most important thing that's ever happened to this character? And if not, why isn't this story about that instead of this other thing". Stories aren't interested in happily ever after. That's the end of the story not the middle of it.
All those years when Rey was scavenging junk? don't matter. This is important.
Finn's life as a janitor? Doesn't matter. It's when he defected that matters.
Kylo as a student and a pawn? Less important than becoming supreme leader.
Luke's failures as a teacher and life as a hermit are less important than his days teaching Rey and his destruction of the jedi tree and his ultimate sacrifice to save the alliance.
First of all, if you as a director are hired to make a sequel and that the sequel is supposed to follow immediately after the first movie, then make sure the story continues from the first movie. This is already failed at the beginning of TLJ. If Luke wants to die alone and forgotten, he doesn't leave maps behind him. Yes, there's plenty of reasons why this could have happened anyways, but it's a failure in the direction to not show this. It's an obvious conflict and breaks the continuity unless some info is given about this. Another thing is that showing only the "relevant" bits (haha) of some character's life, you end up with a mish mash of some seconds long clips that reveal no real identity. The lulls are important in the stories, as that's the point where the characters tend to actually come alive. It's interesting that nowadays in Robocop (1989) lulls suddenly are far more interesting scenes than the actual action scenes used to be. And talking about cutting to the chase, how does Canto Bight enhance anything? Release the animals and leave the kids enslaved? :lol:
I don't find the character development particularly functional, Finn for example was more relatable in the first movie than in TLJ. They could have pushed him to a Han Solo type scoundrel which would have made more sense given that he is a deserter, but instead he is eagerly shooting his squadmates in the end of the movie.
That's him going back to storm trooper basically, or something even worse. Poe is a ridiculous stereotype of a Topgun combat pilot to begin with. Most dudes falling to this category in the army failed or cracked on the first month. Worse, his mutiny does not lead to any kind of punishment, i.e. the surroundings are not reacting to his continuing stupidity when he probably should have been shot for his actions inadvertently exposing the escape pods to the First Order.
Note that the movie starts from the assault against Le Resistance base and ends with pretty much the same. What did Le Resistance accomplish in the movie?
The deconstruction of Star Wars is related to Luke character (and what the character actually represented in his era), destruction of the idea that the Force has to be harnessed, learned and actually practised to become useful. It also now makes it official there's a nerfing and buffing trait built-in to the Force itself :rolleyes: It just wasn't awake in the beginning of New Hope, but better late than never in TLJ. Understandably, this cheapens and trivializes the entire thing as now Force sensitives should be popping up like mushrooms. Most of the relatable stuff in the installments were gone after RotJ, and this I think is what made the OT work as well as it did while prequels had little to relate to even if that was intentional by Lucas.
After TLJ, it appears that the Empire actually had it right all along, the Rebels just want to usurp the power to themselves and change nothing.
First of all, if you as a director are hired to make a sequel and that the sequel is supposed to follow immediately after the first movie, then make sure the story continues from the first movie. This is already failed at the beginning of TLJ. If Luke wants to die alone and forgotten, he doesn't leave maps behind him.
IIRC, The Resistance being funded by the Republic is actually mentioned as the reason why The First Order blows them up in the first place.
You must have really hated it. :p
I have yet to rewatch it to join either one of you on that one, but somehow I'm not really that eager to do that.
But that doesn't make an inch of sense. Why is it still called the "Resistance"? Resistance to what, if they won the war? Once guerrilla armies win the war, they stop being guerrilla armies. They coalesce within the governments. To call it "Resistance" still is silly.
More to the point, it could *not* be silly, if we add to it a number of headcanons (or external material, the fashion nowadays). But that should have been settled in the movie itself. It would have been somewhat easy to do, just grab the same plot device that kickstarted BattleStar Galactica - the old General Leia with the old Resistance guard, oldfashioned and out of place within the larger Republic. Then, First Order hits the entire Republican fleet and planet with its STARKILLER base, and thus the only ones left around who are near the base are these old fashioned guys, the only squadrons lying around are these X Wings, (no bombers) etc.
I have yet to rewatch it to join either one of you on that one, but somehow I'm not really that eager to do that.
Which one? The Force Awakens? I find that very interesting since you said you loved the first one at the time and actually argued I was wrong about some of the things you now say were glaring errors that distracted you the first time you watched the film. I'm honestly not saying this to be an arsehole and dance around saying "you were wrong and I was right!" but I find it fascinating that the very thing you lambasted several people including myself over as just being nitpicking has become one of your major problems with the film. I just find it interesting how fluid our perceptions of that film are.
And I'm not just picking on you. I said that I'd give TFA 7.5 / 10 at the time. I can't possibly see myself giving it that high a mark today.
-Mop-up operations pushed what was left of the Empire, leaderless and in disarray, into the outer fringes of the Galaxy.
The "Resistance" part of TFA was the Big Dumb Object that I couldn't ignore for the sake of suspense of disbelief. It's so mind boggingly pointing to the lack of any atom of thought being put to what are the political realities 30 years after the battle of Endor that it becomes impressive as a statement itself "I refuse to think!" I can almost hear JJ shout directly to my brain. And when you put the Prequels into context, it looks like it was intentional, as a 10 meter tall middle finger to George Lucas. Which is a shame, given how talented he clearly was in building out the canvas in which they made a new Star Wars with so many things right.
Thing is, the kind of canvas JJ is interested in is about characters, action pieces, tensions and mystery boxes. The whole "worldbuilding" trend in writing has absolutely evaded the likes of him, to whom that word must be some kind of dirty four letter shenanigan. To this guy, putting a black dude in a stormtrooper helmet and make him defect is "worldbuilding" enough, but then he refuses to think this through and makes Finn shout in joy while he's killing his former comrades (at least in TLJ Finn is embued with a suicidal mania, which makes more sense).
There, I just fixed TFA.
J.J. also doesn't have a sense of space and distances, or at least isn't remotely interested in conveying it to the audience. He made this mistake in Star Trek too. It all appears to happen in the same system. The StarKiller base is in the same system as the entire Republic, which is in the same system of that ancient not-female-Yoda character, which is the same system as the resistance base planet. It's also the same sun that seemingly doesn't quite disappear while the StarKiller base is charging up that is all fine at the end illuminating the resistance planet as if nothing had happened.
Quote-Mop-up operations pushed what was left of the Empire, leaderless and in disarray, into the outer fringes of the Galaxy.
Incidently, Battle of Jakku (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Jakku)
Ultimately, while the time-and-distance thing is annoying and could have been easily fixed with a little less lazy writing, I think the fact that it could have been easily fixed by expanding the timescale is why it doesn't piss me off nearly as much as some of the other flaws in TFA. I don't find the film less entertaining for those flaws, as they intruded on my "going along with the film" much less than the "why the **** is there a Resistance?!?!" thoughts.
I understand how my words fail to convey what I meant here. I never disagreed that there were flaws in the movie, but that the overall experience was a blast, which it was! It is true what you say here, that as time went on, this tiny rock in the shoe called "Resistance vs Republic" started to annoy the hell out of me, to the point where I eventually think it's the biggest problem of that movie, despite all of its other mistakes / errors / character flaws / etc.
I'm not saying the next director should have made a perfect job of explaining all the stupidity originating from TFA. However, I don't think a professional director should ignore significant plot points of an earlier film. Some times you just end up with a ****ty hand, and have to deal with it the best you can. I don't get to ignore such things as volume requirements of a pre-existing system used in factories for example. If there's something stupid done in the earlier system and a larger volume would be needed to get it good, I just have to suck it up and make the best I can to design a better system to fit in the volume available. Just do the best you can to explain the mess in the beginning of the movie and then subvert it to your own story. What I see here is that Rian Johnson still did have significant room to expand the story, and the fact that JJ Abrams left the First Order and Resistance practically ungrounded also offered a great opportunity for him to take the story where he wanted to go. But he gave up, which I took to be quite unprofessional. Then there's always a possibility the backstory has been told in far more detail in some god damn magazine that everybody was supposed to have read before the movie (MP-Ryan listed one which I from other sources understood to actually be the backstory). But this shouldn't happen with a movie to begin with.
QuoteI'm not saying the next director should have made a perfect job of explaining all the stupidity originating from TFA. However, I don't think a professional director should ignore significant plot points of an earlier film. Some times you just end up with a ****ty hand, and have to deal with it the best you can. I don't get to ignore such things as volume requirements of a pre-existing system used in factories for example. If there's something stupid done in the earlier system and a larger volume would be needed to get it good, I just have to suck it up and make the best I can to design a better system to fit in the volume available. Just do the best you can to explain the mess in the beginning of the movie and then subvert it to your own story. What I see here is that Rian Johnson still did have significant room to expand the story, and the fact that JJ Abrams left the First Order and Resistance practically ungrounded also offered a great opportunity for him to take the story where he wanted to go. But he gave up, which I took to be quite unprofessional. Then there's always a possibility the backstory has been told in far more detail in some god damn magazine that everybody was supposed to have read before the movie (MP-Ryan listed one which I from other sources understood to actually be the backstory). But this shouldn't happen with a movie to begin with.
Have you considered that maybe Rian Johnson took this story exactly where he wanted it to go? And that the direction he wanted to go in wasn't the direction you wanted to go in?
I mean, you're saying a lot of things here, that he's unprofessional, that he gave up, that he should've stuck to whatever JJ Abrams had in mind (when it is likely that JJ Abrams didn't have anything in mind), all based on you not liking the movie that much. I'd say you were overreaching quite heavily here. You don't like TLJ discarding the irrelevant story hooks TFA set up, fair enough, but don't pretend like there was some grand master plan that Johnson intentionally ****ed up beyond repair.
Also, another thing to keep in mind: Whatever Johnson has in mind for Star Wars was so convincing to Disney that they gave him creative control over the future of Star Wars, not just in directing TLJ, but also in masterminding the SW films after Episode 9.
Of course Johnson has done what he wanted to do. The whole point was that he did in a way that broke the continuity of the OT and prequels in a very jarring way, managed to make the Force look even cheaper than it was in TFA, and deconstructed Luke Skywalker, and did even that very poorly. This makes it look like he never understood what Luke or Force actually represented to the audience. The metamorphical level (which I think was quite important for hooking in the adults) is completely missing from the prequels, but even more so, from seventh and eight episode. Nobody expected that from JJ Abrams, but that Johnson fails here too is telling.
Why is it so difficult to believe some people were genuinely interested in Abrams hooks? Regardless how irrelevant they were, they ARE still in the film, and with the members of the original cast, they were pretty much the only things that kept viewers interested. The story continuity is built from these hooks, which Abrams left (luckily) quite open ended. But the change of Luke Skywalker from the end of TFA to the beginning of TLJ looks very jarring. That's a result of Johnson's choices. The result of Johnson's choices is also that we still have no on-screen idea of the backstory between La Resistance and First Order. The result of Johnson's choices is the weird pacing of the film, that there are no relatable characters any longer, no underlying philosophical messages except I guess ****'s random, and even with all the reigns in his hands, he STILL had to pull a deus ex machina at the end.
Getting your ideas sold on executive level is a easier than you think. Getting the ideas sold on the people who actually build, do or make them otherwise happen is far harder. Based on what we saw in TLJ, what makes you think Johnson is going to do any better than JJ Abrams? Both directors are very flawed but in different areas. JJ Abrams is an action director with no patience to world building or even pausing the action. Johnson is a director who can't pace things and can't differentiate dramatic scenes from comedic. As a writer he thinks he is clever, but that's a common problem with a lot of authors. In reality he can't anticipate the general audience reactions, nor can he make characters or the world relatable in any way. He doesn't understand the importance of building on somebody else's work, he wants to go his way or the highway.
Guess what would likely happen if a personality like Kylo Ren actually were your commanding officer or even NCO? I think that the moment his staff knows he can't determine who did something in any reasonable time, they'd mercilessly play practical jokes or prank him at any given opportunity to disgrace him as much as they could. They would stand emotionless in rows when Ren is shouting in bouts of epic RAEG "Who did that?" and laugh about it loudly in the barracks whenever superiors aren't listening. Even the superiors could participate in that game once they figure it out. The sad thing is, Johnson has no idea about this.
he should've stuck to whatever JJ Abrams had in mind (when it is likely that JJ Abrams didn't have anything in mind)
Why is it so difficult to believe some people were genuinely interested in Abrams hooks? Regardless how irrelevant they were
But the change of Luke Skywalker from the end of TFA to the beginning of TLJ looks very jarring.
The result of Johnson's choices is also that we still have no on-screen idea of the backstory between La Resistance and First Order.
You are really bad at this whole film analysis thing, aren't you?
TFA and TLJ, TLJ in particular, are all about the Star Wars fandom and how it has mythologized the original trilogy. That's the metaphorical hook here. When Han says in TFA that, "It's real. All of it.", that's him talking straight to you, that's JJ Abrams telling you that, yes, everything you thought about how good the OT was and how magical it was is all real and justified.
TLJ is the next step. It's about how Star Wars has been better in our memory than it actually was in reality; it's telling you, straight up, that the magic of those films is still there, but it's futile to recreate it verbatim; You might end up in an okay place, but it will never be a good place again. You need to reinvent it, make it matter to you personally, in order for it to be actually good.
What the films are telling you is that this window dressing doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader and the Empire vs Luke, Leia and Han and the Rebellion or Snoke, Kylo Ren and the First Order vs Rey, Finn, Poe and the Resistance: There's always going to be fascists, and there's always going to be people brave enough to say ¡No pasarán! and stand up for themselves and everyone else.
If what hooks you into Star Wars are the worldbuilding aspects, yeah, then these new films aren't going to be for you, because Johnson thinks that characters and how they change and act is more interesting than figuring out exactly which school of Sith Snoke belonged to. And, let me be absolutely clear on this: The fact that these are open questions is JJ Abrams' fault. He could have provided answers, but chose not to, expecting someone else to actually do the heavy lifting and finish his thoughts for him instead of telling their own story. If you think what Johnson did was disrespectful, I think that what Abrams did was worse.
How many film scripts and concepts have you sold to Disney recently? I'm just asking because I am not sure that whatever experience you have is entirely transferable here.
Wait, are you under the impression that the films want you to think that Kylo Ren is an intimidating or even effective figure?
I mean, fair enough, people were thinking that the Prequels were trying to portrait the Jedi as good....
By the way, where does TFA state Luke became a hermit and ran away?
As for Karajorma, I wasn't aware Rian Johnson had publicly complained about the backstory being unavailable for him. Unfair yes, but it doesn't matter in the end. That statement also means the story line was open and he HAD the time to fill in what he needed for the second installment. He could have left parts of it open. Instead he chose to wreck it all, invalidating the point of watching the first movie in the trilogy. Now this really is quite unprofessional and amateurish, and this in a series of movies famous for their continuity! Did he really even spare a second of thought to what it would do with respect to the general reception of the trilogy? Besides, what did Disney ask Abrams to do? Direct the first movie of a trilogy is one thing, but what does that contract say about the entire story line? If it wasn't part of his contract, there's your answer. And having seen enough corporate BS for my life time, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if this actually happened.
But humor me why would Snoke keep Rey around otherwise, if he isn't supposed to be even effective? To have a force sensitive pet to berate? Or to have a fall guy available if plans don't come to fruition? Ren isn't even good at lip service to stroke Snoke's ego, so he isn't even good as a yes-man. Although, yes, we probably haven't yet seen a mentally unstable emo that ends up killing his dad and nearly offing his mum so I guess that's a first.
By the way, where does TFA state Luke became a hermit and ran away? I recall the opening text crawl said he has disappeared, but not much else. Having checked it today, the ending scene in TFA looks quite different in tone than how it continues in TLJ.
The fact that Rian complained that no one knew the backstory (and notice he complained about no one knowing it, not that he didn't have access to it!) means that d) is the most likely. In which case this is 100% JJ Abrams fault for introducing plot points he didn't understand.
I don't know what Abrams did on Felicity, but if you look at Alias, it's all the same bull****.
Bob Chipman sums it up best regarding how "Star Wars killed everything about the Force, Luke, etc"
Luke should've turned up in his moss covered X-Wing, right after Rey hits her triple, shouting "GREAT SHOT KID, THAT WAS 1 IN A MILLION", then ejected right into the air, pausing momentarily in the Crait sun, before IGNITING HIS GREEN LASER SWORD, then BAM ! 3 point Superhero Landing, as in the background the x-wing continues on it's trajectory into the side of an AT-M6.Then, ****ing duel of the fates starts playing, and Luke ignites a second blade out of the bottom of his sword, going full maul-style double ended, he rips off his top leaving a high waisted Ben Swolo style look, being a totally ripped old man, we see he's covered in all sorts of sweet jedi style tats. Then the First Order ****ing just open up on him, and he's force dashing, flipping and ****ing ping ponging all over the place, reflecting bolts straight back at them, and slicing legs off the AT-M6's, force lifting them into each other and throwing the wreckage at Kylos ship, which gets smashed out the air. Then the whole ****ing atmosphere breaks above them, and the shattered wreckage of the supremacy, just tears down towards the Crait surface heading towards them, impacting the plains,gouging whole plumes of salt into the air, and it hurtles on a collision course for Luke and the base. Luke just ****ing stares it down, steel eyed and confident he raises one hand in front of him, then the other beside it, and in one sharp intense moment he ****ING FORCE RIPS THE WHOLE SHIP IN HALF, the 2 ruined pieces strewn to either side of him, as they crash into the mountain ranges to the left and right of the base. Then out of the wreckage, ****!, It's SNOKE!, with a big ugly whelted scar across his midriff, and he's got the Knights of Ren with him, Then BOOM! we find out he is DARTH PLAGUEIS, and the knights are all resurrected clones of other EU Darths ! It's ****ing darthapalooza, and Luke doesn't care, because he's brought some friends too, the Slave 1 lands behind him, and there's Boba Fett (****ING FACE TURN !!), and Ahsoka, and Starkiller and Dash Rendar, and every other bit of fanservice he could recruit, and it's a ****ing glowstick swinging rave, every bit as good as the battle of Genonsis in AOTC. Luke wrecks everyone, he and Ahsoka kiss, then you see the wreckage of Kylos ship move, and Ren emerges, pissed as hell, about to start some frothing rant about some ****, but LUKE COCKPUNCHES HIM ! ****ing cuts him off mid sentence, then gestures over to R2 and 3PO saying "take these 2 over to the garage, I want them cleaned up before dinner, you can waste time with your friends when your chores are done", and Kylo slopes off droids in tow.
Luke stands in full frame shot, double ended lightsaber pointed skyward, Ahsoka draped around his feet in a perfect Hildebrandt poster tribute, then looks over his shoulder to see all the force ghosts ever, just fist pumping the air breakfast club style and high fiving each other.
****ing perfect. That's the Luke Skywalker and Star Wars I know and love.
Bob Chipman sums it up best regarding how "Star Wars killed everything about the Force, Luke, etc"I don't concur with him on everything but he knows his stuff for sure.
Loved this comment on youtubeoh my god it's beautifulQuoteLuke should've turned up in his moss covered X-Wing, right after Rey hits her triple, shouting "GREAT SHOT KID, THAT WAS 1 IN A MILLION", then ejected right into the air, pausing momentarily in the Crait sun, before IGNITING HIS GREEN LASER SWORD, then BAM ! 3 point Superhero Landing, as in the background the x-wing continues on it's trajectory into the side of an AT-M6.Then, ****ing duel of the fates starts playing, and Luke ignites a second blade out of the bottom of his sword, going full maul-style double ended, he rips off his top leaving a high waisted Ben Swolo style look, being a totally ripped old man, we see he's covered in all sorts of sweet jedi style tats. Then the First Order ****ing just open up on him, and he's force dashing, flipping and ****ing ping ponging all over the place, reflecting bolts straight back at them, and slicing legs off the AT-M6's, force lifting them into each other and throwing the wreckage at Kylos ship, which gets smashed out the air. Then the whole ****ing atmosphere breaks above them, and the shattered wreckage of the supremacy, just tears down towards the Crait surface heading towards them, impacting the plains,gouging whole plumes of salt into the air, and it hurtles on a collision course for Luke and the base. Luke just ****ing stares it down, steel eyed and confident he raises one hand in front of him, then the other beside it, and in one sharp intense moment he ****ING FORCE RIPS THE WHOLE SHIP IN HALF, the 2 ruined pieces strewn to either side of him, as they crash into the mountain ranges to the left and right of the base. Then out of the wreckage, ****!, It's SNOKE!, with a big ugly whelted scar across his midriff, and he's got the Knights of Ren with him, Then BOOM! we find out he is DARTH PLAGUEIS, and the knights are all resurrected clones of other EU Darths ! It's ****ing darthapalooza, and Luke doesn't care, because he's brought some friends too, the Slave 1 lands behind him, and there's Boba Fett (****ING FACE TURN !!), and Ahsoka, and Starkiller and Dash Rendar, and every other bit of fanservice he could recruit, and it's a ****ing glowstick swinging rave, every bit as good as the battle of Genonsis in AOTC. Luke wrecks everyone, he and Ahsoka kiss, then you see the wreckage of Kylos ship move, and Ren emerges, pissed as hell, about to start some frothing rant about some ****, but LUKE COCKPUNCHES HIM ! ****ing cuts him off mid sentence, then gestures over to R2 and 3PO saying "take these 2 over to the garage, I want them cleaned up before dinner, you can waste time with your friends when your chores are done", and Kylo slopes off droids in tow.
Luke stands in full frame shot, double ended lightsaber pointed skyward, Ahsoka draped around his feet in a perfect Hildebrandt poster tribute, then looks over his shoulder to see all the force ghosts ever, just fist pumping the air breakfast club style and high fiving each other.
****ing perfect. That's the Luke Skywalker and Star Wars I know and love.
Loved this comment on youtubeoh my god it's beautifulQuoteLuke should've turned up in his moss covered X-Wing, right after Rey hits her triple, shouting "GREAT SHOT KID, THAT WAS 1 IN A MILLION", then ejected right into the air, pausing momentarily in the Crait sun, before IGNITING HIS GREEN LASER SWORD, then BAM ! 3 point Superhero Landing, as in the background the x-wing continues on it's trajectory into the side of an AT-M6.Then, ****ing duel of the fates starts playing, and Luke ignites a second blade out of the bottom of his sword, going full maul-style double ended, he rips off his top leaving a high waisted Ben Swolo style look, being a totally ripped old man, we see he's covered in all sorts of sweet jedi style tats. Then the First Order ****ing just open up on him, and he's force dashing, flipping and ****ing ping ponging all over the place, reflecting bolts straight back at them, and slicing legs off the AT-M6's, force lifting them into each other and throwing the wreckage at Kylos ship, which gets smashed out the air. Then the whole ****ing atmosphere breaks above them, and the shattered wreckage of the supremacy, just tears down towards the Crait surface heading towards them, impacting the plains,gouging whole plumes of salt into the air, and it hurtles on a collision course for Luke and the base. Luke just ****ing stares it down, steel eyed and confident he raises one hand in front of him, then the other beside it, and in one sharp intense moment he ****ING FORCE RIPS THE WHOLE SHIP IN HALF, the 2 ruined pieces strewn to either side of him, as they crash into the mountain ranges to the left and right of the base. Then out of the wreckage, ****!, It's SNOKE!, with a big ugly whelted scar across his midriff, and he's got the Knights of Ren with him, Then BOOM! we find out he is DARTH PLAGUEIS, and the knights are all resurrected clones of other EU Darths ! It's ****ing darthapalooza, and Luke doesn't care, because he's brought some friends too, the Slave 1 lands behind him, and there's Boba Fett (****ING FACE TURN !!), and Ahsoka, and Starkiller and Dash Rendar, and every other bit of fanservice he could recruit, and it's a ****ing glowstick swinging rave, every bit as good as the battle of Genonsis in AOTC. Luke wrecks everyone, he and Ahsoka kiss, then you see the wreckage of Kylos ship move, and Ren emerges, pissed as hell, about to start some frothing rant about some ****, but LUKE COCKPUNCHES HIM ! ****ing cuts him off mid sentence, then gestures over to R2 and 3PO saying "take these 2 over to the garage, I want them cleaned up before dinner, you can waste time with your friends when your chores are done", and Kylo slopes off droids in tow.
Luke stands in full frame shot, double ended lightsaber pointed skyward, Ahsoka draped around his feet in a perfect Hildebrandt poster tribute, then looks over his shoulder to see all the force ghosts ever, just fist pumping the air breakfast club style and high fiving each other.
****ing perfect. That's the Luke Skywalker and Star Wars I know and love.
Some people really just wanted new Star Wars to be Ready Player One but with only Star Wars.
I see Bob is too lazy to hide his Bostonian accent anymore.He stopped trying because in the comments there were always people complaining that he didn't do a good enough job of it.
Loved this comment on youtubeoh my god it's beautifulQuoteLuke should've turned up in his moss covered X-Wing, right after Rey hits her triple, shouting "GREAT SHOT KID, THAT WAS 1 IN A MILLION", then ejected right into the air, pausing momentarily in the Crait sun, before IGNITING HIS GREEN LASER SWORD, then BAM ! 3 point Superhero Landing, as in the background the x-wing continues on it's trajectory into the side of an AT-M6.Then, ****ing duel of the fates starts playing, and Luke ignites a second blade out of the bottom of his sword, going full maul-style double ended, he rips off his top leaving a high waisted Ben Swolo style look, being a totally ripped old man, we see he's covered in all sorts of sweet jedi style tats. Then the First Order ****ing just open up on him, and he's force dashing, flipping and ****ing ping ponging all over the place, reflecting bolts straight back at them, and slicing legs off the AT-M6's, force lifting them into each other and throwing the wreckage at Kylos ship, which gets smashed out the air. Then the whole ****ing atmosphere breaks above them, and the shattered wreckage of the supremacy, just tears down towards the Crait surface heading towards them, impacting the plains,gouging whole plumes of salt into the air, and it hurtles on a collision course for Luke and the base. Luke just ****ing stares it down, steel eyed and confident he raises one hand in front of him, then the other beside it, and in one sharp intense moment he ****ING FORCE RIPS THE WHOLE SHIP IN HALF, the 2 ruined pieces strewn to either side of him, as they crash into the mountain ranges to the left and right of the base. Then out of the wreckage, ****!, It's SNOKE!, with a big ugly whelted scar across his midriff, and he's got the Knights of Ren with him, Then BOOM! we find out he is DARTH PLAGUEIS, and the knights are all resurrected clones of other EU Darths ! It's ****ing darthapalooza, and Luke doesn't care, because he's brought some friends too, the Slave 1 lands behind him, and there's Boba Fett (****ING FACE TURN !!), and Ahsoka, and Starkiller and Dash Rendar, and every other bit of fanservice he could recruit, and it's a ****ing glowstick swinging rave, every bit as good as the battle of Genonsis in AOTC. Luke wrecks everyone, he and Ahsoka kiss, then you see the wreckage of Kylos ship move, and Ren emerges, pissed as hell, about to start some frothing rant about some ****, but LUKE COCKPUNCHES HIM ! ****ing cuts him off mid sentence, then gestures over to R2 and 3PO saying "take these 2 over to the garage, I want them cleaned up before dinner, you can waste time with your friends when your chores are done", and Kylo slopes off droids in tow.
Luke stands in full frame shot, double ended lightsaber pointed skyward, Ahsoka draped around his feet in a perfect Hildebrandt poster tribute, then looks over his shoulder to see all the force ghosts ever, just fist pumping the air breakfast club style and high fiving each other.
****ing perfect. That's the Luke Skywalker and Star Wars I know and love.
I'd pay actual money to see that clip.
It's a bit odd that a parody of MRAs has the media blaming MRAs for it.I'm not sure it's meant to be a parody, I saw people expressing worse stuff completely seriously.
I'm sure MRAs are going to call their edit "the chauvinist edit", similarly to how the KKK calls song of the south "the racist movie" and feminists call the scum manifesto "the misandric book".
Yeah, that scene explicitly says "Luke tried to train new Jedi, failed, and then went off to find the original Jedi temple".
Wrong again. JJ Abrams collaborated with Rian Johnson on the plot line for TLJ during its development. If none of JJ Abrams ideas for the contents of his mystery boxes made it into the final film that suggests that
a) He flat out refused to explain them to Rian even though they had extensive discussions during which he explained his vision of the 2nd film.
b) He knew the answers to the questions and asked Rian to leave them for the 3rd film.
c) Rian Johnson or Johnson AND Abrams decided that his ideas weren't that good and came up with better ones.
d) He had no idea how to deal with those hooks in the first place.
The fact that Rian complained that no one knew the backstory (and notice he complained about no one knowing it, not that he didn't have access to it!) means that d) is the most likely. In which case this is 100% JJ Abrams fault for introducing plot points he didn't understand. Next most likely is b) but even there, the fault still lies with JJ Abrams. You can't complain that Rian didn't reveal secrets if he was deliberately forbidden to by Abrams. If you want to blame Rian Johnson for TLJ you're going to have to prove that c) happened and that JJ Abrams disagrees with Rian's changes. Good luck!
The funny thing is you are acting like Rian destroyed all chance of their being answers to these questions. That's nonsense. Several of JJ Abrams mystery boxes are still left unopened. Luke's Lightsaber's origins. Whether Rey really was the child of nobodies or if Ren simply lied. Lots of mysteries left. And JJ Abrams is up next. So how about waiting to judge how good the answers to JJ Abrams mysteries are for when you see JJ Abrams try to answer them? If he can't do a good job himself, then it becomes even more unfair to complain at someone else not doing a good job.
I'd pay actual money to see that clip.
Further commentary about Johnson from Hamill and also Disney seems to indicate he is easy to work with. This is not necessarily a good thing in director, as it can also signify he is open for all sorts of ideas and may not have a very strong vision of where he wants to take things. It's kind of funny that the episodes that were mostly defined by the cast and the staff arguing most with the director (Ep. 4-6) turned out to be the best. Kubrick and Verhoeven are notorious, but are pretty consistent in getting good stuff out.
It depends on how one takes Rian saying no-one knew the backstory. I take that as it wasn't explicitly known by even JJ Abrams or Disney. I can see this kind of situation arising when a Star Wars trilogy is being planned by Disney for the first time. It is well possible that JJ Abrams' contract didn't state anything about him creating the backstory. It will be interesting to hear if JJ Abrams says anything about this during the time he directs Episode 9.
Regarding the four choices, it's also possible Rian managed to convince JJ Abrams out of his ideas, leading him to think his were better. That's another way to think about it. However, this doesn't mean Abrams didn't have ideas, but that Johnson had ideas that sounded better on paper, the key word being "sounded". Further commentary about Johnson from Hamill and also Disney seems to indicate he is easy to work with. This is not necessarily a good thing in director, as it can also signify he is open for all sorts of ideas and may not have a very strong vision of where he wants to take things. It's kind of funny that the episodes that were mostly defined by the cast and the staff arguing most with the director (Ep. 4-6) turned out to be the best. Kubrick and Verhoeven are notorious, but are pretty consistent in getting good stuff out.
Further cases of series that I have never watched would indicate that Abrams has a habit of adding complexities to the plot, so that does weigh the scales against Abrams.
Rian didn't destroy all the mysteries, that's true. But he sure wiped out most of the interesting ones. The open ones I don't particularly care about due to Johnson's failure of advancing the character development in Episode 8. I had to check some of the key moments from the OT to check if it all was just nostalgia, but in my case it's really not. The older movies still manage to pull the most convincing and impressive Yoda. Without any CGI fighting.
Rey's parents being nobodies fits perfectly within the themes of the movie: that you need to let go of the past to move forward. It doesn't matter who her parents are, and her obsessing over her parents is one of the things that held her back.
If JJ decides than Kylo Ren was lying and Rey's parents were important, it would cheapen her character development and this movie so much.
The four-dimensional hall of dark side mirrors also telegraphed that reveal very well, I thought. It basically culminates in a classic JJ Abrams carrot-on-a-string manoeuvre, making it look like it chickened out of the reveal, but in fact it told you everything there is to know about Rey's parents right there.
So, on the one hand, we have JJ Abrams. A director who openly admits that he likes setting up mysteries, but isn't interested in resolving them.
On the other, we have Rian Johnson saying that JJ Abrams set up a bunch of mysteries with no resolution planned in advance.
And you're still saying that it's Johnson's fault?
Also, wow, you are really reaching here. Disney, after acquiring Marvel and their track record of building a universe using planning across multiple films and genres, has no idea how to structure a trilogy?
For all your talk about how successful you are at your company, please let me know which company that is so I can avoid having to deal with them in any way. A director being "difficult to work with" isn't an indicator of quality. Tommy Wiseau is really difficult, and the worst. Spielberg isn't, and makes really good movies. Is a manager who's difficult to work with automatically a good manager? No. Is a manager who's easy to work with a spineless pushover? No.
Right. TLJ "fails to advance character development". In a movie that has all of its main cast go through substantial character development.
Basically a lot of people are pissed off that they spent ages trying to figure out who Rey and Snoke were and when they didn't get their answers they got mad at Rian Johnson rather than blaming the people who set the unsolvable puzzles in the first place. Mika's doing the exact same thing.
Episode XI Attack of the Orphans
After space crawl explaining how the galaxy is on the verge of progressive enlightenment, the scene shifts to the Melenium Falcon drifting in space.
- Inside the falcon, the remaining 10 members of the resistance are passing judgment on Chewbacca, who has been accused of an found guilty of killing and attempting to consume a sentient being. For his crime, Chewbacca is flushed into the vacuum of space. Unfortunately, he does not have the force to save him.
- C3-PO and R2-D2 are the only two who object to the verdict and are immediately destroyed and used to construct a much needed second bathroom in the falcon (a quick vote also officially changes the name of the falcon the the "Millennial Falcon").
- General Liea gives everyone remaining a participation trophy then quietly disappears down the hallway of ship, never to been seen again. (see I removed the last pieces of the saga in the first ten minutes)
- Rey takes command and using her new godlike (excuse me, godess like) force powers, force projects the Millennial Falcon back to Jakku.
- After arriving at Jakku, Rey renames the Resistance, Tolerance (with a upper T). Tolerance beings to enforce strong environmental regulations to combat global warming.
- Soon after taking control of the planet, Rey finds Poe guilty of overly manly thoughts and must decide of getting a sex change, so he can better understand of plight of an oppressed female or Poe must work 25 years of hard labor in an environmental work camp. Poe chooses the latter.
- Because of his status of a minority, Finn is allowed to remain with Tolerance but must never speak or have any thoughts of his own.
- Rose realizes she is actually in love with Rey and only had feelings for Finn because of society peer pressure.
- meanwhile Kylo is still stuck at the abandoned rebel base that Tolerance escaped from. Since the only female in the First Order was killed off, frustration mounds as all the white males remaining in the First Order do not have enough intelligence to figure out how to leave the planet.
- Hex, in a sudden flash of brilliance, advises Kylo to order all remaining First Order personnel to refer to themselves as gender fluid.
- After Kylo gives the order (known as order #metoto) he contacts Rey on Forcetime with news of his/her revelation. Delighted that Kylo has enlightened himself, Rey orders Uber for all First Order forces and they travel to Jakku to meet with Tolerance.
- After Kylo and Rey meet at Jakku, force ghost Luke Skywalker appears to both of them. Luke wants to finally impart with final wisdom of the force to them.
- Incensed by Luke's remark that he somehow can so a Millennial anything, Rey convicts Luke of white privilege and sentences him to imprisonment. In a shocking twist, and surprise cameo, the new ghostbusters appear and suck force ghost Luke into a trap and he his never seen again.
- The movies ends with the entire remaining cast holding hands and singing "We Are the World" and dancing around a large fire pit with anything remotely Star Wars burning intensely.
Are you calling me out on being also a Star Wars fan? No, I haven't spend a single second thinking who Snoke and Rey were between TFA and TLJ, I really do have other stuff to do.
What do you mean by "unsolvable puzzles"? If Johnson was going to ignore something, parts of those "unsolvable" puzzles would have been a far more safer option than ignoring the character development in the original trilogy.
Millennial Falcon:lol:
Abrams set up the plot devices, that's true. But to say they are unresolvable or unworkable is not - Johnson just gave up in trying or working around them. But I think that's going to be bad from the point of view of his customer (who likely is only now starting to realize what's happened), and any explanation for at least some of the points would have been received better by the general audience than just ending them up. It's Johnson's decisions that make the movie look like a mess, and I've already said several times that the story line was still recoverable at the beginning of TLJ. It's certainly not that any more. I personally didn't think TFA was a particularly good movie, left me with the feeling alright, I see what you're doing but let's see where you headed next. Pretty much the only reason I came to see TLJ were the plot hooks and the old cast. There's no reason to see Episode 9 any longer.
What I did was providing an alternate explanation for why the movie is a mess also from the cutting perspective. That's because the director has allowed all sorts of ideas to be included in his vision. I find it hard to believe the Canto Bight animal rights (ignoring slave kids) is particularly Johnson's idea, or the Porgs in the Millennium Falcon. Or Chewbacca going vegan in a particularly jarring scene that NO bird actually does. These are likely coming directly from Disney.
The point is, until you have worked under a weak director, you don't see through the signs of him mishandling stuff. With Johnson here, I'm seeing enough inconsistency that could indicate he isn't a particularly visionary guy and is instead a yes-man, so I'm saying it out. You are right to criticize that, since I can't provide direct evidence. But it's risk I'm willing to accept.
Here I disagree. The only person who changed was Luke, and that's... let's say just a story of its own. Disclaimer: I don't see death as a particularly good character development. I mean sure, it's something new, but also a bit... abrupt.
Also, found this gem from the depths of the internjetQuoteEpisode XI Attack of the Orphans
QuoteThe point is, until you have worked under a weak director, you don't see through the signs of him mishandling stuff. With Johnson here, I'm seeing enough inconsistency that could indicate he isn't a particularly visionary guy and is instead a yes-man, so I'm saying it out. You are right to criticize that, since I can't provide direct evidence. But it's risk I'm willing to accept.
There's some truth to this, namely that he couldn't manage all the little things that went into the movie in a more coherent, satisfying whole. This is no argument to whether if the guy has a "vision" or not. Those are absolutely separate things!
QuoteEpisode XI Attack of the Orphans
The funny thing is, I could actually see myself paying money to see that :lol: Particularly the Ghost busters and Force Ghosts. :lol:
And yet you've posted answer upon answer on this page trying to blame Rian Johnson for JJ Abrams faults? Perhaps thinking about who Snoke and Rey were would have been a better use of your time.
Unsolvable in that there is no satisfying answer to them. I challenge you to come up with an answer for who Snoke is that would have added anything to film number 8. As for your continued claims of lack of character development, chanting it like a mantra does not make it true. The problem that people are complaining about in the film is that Luke's character developed in a direction they didn't like. If you're going to keep claiming that Luke's character didn't develop at all, then you're only proving that you have no idea what the words character development mean.
Let's see, what was the character development for the main cast.
Rey: learns that being a Jedi doesn't mean being a Jedi fangirl. That she has to make her own decisions and her own name and that she can't rely on Luke or her parents to make her important in the grand scheme of things.
Finn: has to come to terms with being a part of the resistance and that looking out for yourself and your loved ones exclusively is not enough, not in the face of something like the Empire.
Poe: learns that heroics have their place, but not when they lead to pyrrhic victories.
That's just the heroes, of course. Kylo Ren also has his own arc, and in every case, these characters make decisions over the course of the film that they wouldn't have been able to make at the film's start.
I am curious now, though. What do you think character development is, Mika?
Kylo Ren, [sigh]. He is one of the movie "baddies" you'd really like to smack down and tell him to grow a pair of balls. He's probably going to cry like a baby in Episode 9 because Rey makes him see the error of his ways.
Johnson not only managed to squash it down, but instead of ignoring the stupid parts of the hooks, he ignored parts of the original trilogy instead, with rather predictable results.
However, the First Order was essential for the Eight Installment. So is it a remnant of the Empire or not? How on Earth does it have such a vast fleet that rivals the Empire? How was Snoke able to convince anyone to join his cause, and more so, what does Snoke even represent? If he isn't a Sith, what does he want to do with the galaxy? Where do the First Order's resources come from? What is the balance of power between the Republic and the First Order?
Protip: Don't do this if you as a CEO don't want to get labelled for pushing agendas. Makes one wonder about the target group analysis of the marketing department...
(https://i.redditmedia.com/_dx7VB8xv6FtVNRQ_MOOVh9XDcaw-vdapmnZJGCyzSo.jpg?w=1024&s=c60f3deff2cb8d3c9657b6d9c38b349e)
Anyone sitting down to write a screenplay on November 1, 1994, as Lucas apparently did, would have been interrupted eight days into the writing process by one of the most seismic midterm in postwar American history. Republicans took the House and the Senate for the first time in 40 years. A resurgent GOP under House Speaker Newt Gingrich started pushing its tax-cutting, regulation-slashing 'Contract with America.' Democrats, whose messaging had improved since Ted Kennedy's "Star Wars" flub, started calling it a 'Contract On America.'
It was perhaps no co-incidence, then, that Lucas started writing about a "Trade Federation," aided and emboldened by corrupt politicians, embroiled in some sort of dispute over the taxing of trade to the outlying star systems. We never learn what the dispute is about -- whether the Trade Federation was pro- or anti-tax. But what we know is that the name of the leader of the Trade Federation -- never actually spoken in the movie, but noted in the script from the start -- was Nute Gunray. By 1997, when the GOP Senate leader was Trent Lott, Lucas named the Trade Federation's representative in the Galactic Senate: Lott Dodd. We're a long way from the subtlety of his [George Lucas's] [North] Vietnam metaphor here.
Johnson not only managed to squash it down, but instead of ignoring the stupid parts of the hooks, he ignored parts of the original trilogy instead, with rather predictable results.
Snoke's history was not essential for Episode 8, a short part of it could have worked in 9. However, the First Order was essential for the Eight Installment. So is it a remnant of the Empire or not? How on Earth does it have such a vast fleet that rivals the Empire? How was Snoke able to convince anyone to join his cause, and more so, what does Snoke even represent? If he isn't a Sith, what does he want to do with the galaxy?
Where do the First Order's resources come from? What is the balance of power between the Republic and the First Order? None of that is available anywhere. Because of it, there's no telling what was at stake in the battles of Episode 8. La Resistance started running, and they are still running with less people around at the end of the movie. All that changed is apparently "now there's hope", while galaxy gave them a massive middle finger.
The issue with Rey having the character development of your interpretation is that it doesn't make sense to me. She was already a strong willed urchin in Episode 7, and having been basically a slave until her adulthood makes this development quite disconnected from the backstory shown in TFA. She would have already known the difference in the sense that she decides for herself. The interesting thing about her would have been the moral backbone; having lived under extreme poverty, she still has a very strong moral backbone whereas many people around her didn't. She certainly would have been tempted with quick cash-ins and other illegality to improve her position, but she has refused to do that. How does she see the world in this way even after such a rough childhood?
Finn's development on him coming to terms with La Resistance works somewhat, but still, he is a deserter, and no army employs a deserter in their ranks by default. Very few people in La Resistance knew who he was even if he was injured at the end of Ep 7, and was in coma for the beginning of Eight. More could have been done by handling the deserter part to flesh out the character in his new surroundings better. Why would he attempt to sacrifice himself after knowing the people from La Resistance for a couple of days??? The rest about stopping the First Order doesn't work, as thinking about that would be pretty much essential already as a storm trooper on the First Order side. Unless you mean storm troopers cannot think due to some chip installed in them, but even then Finn deserted.
The point about Poe's heroics is problematic in two fronts: it gets mudded by the rest of the film, and secondly, person with his temperament would never have been any general, possibly not even a pilot. The problem with the wanton heroics point is that Holdo sacrifices herself and manages to create a massive disruption in the First Order. Then we get Finn about to wreck the cannon which could have taken out the ground forces of the First Order in Krayt. Finally, Luke gets himself killed to save the few remnants of Le Resistance. Furthermore, his character's actions do not lead to, let's just say, feedback from the mechanics and friends of the bomber squad he managed to wipe out. Making the point this way would have been way more effective. What do we have now? A decisive battle where the Resistance soliders MUST remain at their stations given the information they had; it's do or die situation for them and the Resistance.
Only at the moment when Luke arrives becomes the retreat justified as the opposition is distracted. However, Poe makes the decision before that, but to accomplish what exactly? Retreat option for the fleet was certainly there in the beginning of the episode, but in Krayt, it's really not an option. That's not learning to assess the situation, it's just again a bad decision from his part. Of course, had he wanted to save the people from his perspective certain death with AT-ATs to fight in better positions, then it somewhat works. Unfortunately, the speeders were still likely the best bet they had, nothing in the base could otherwise touch the AT-ATs so they would have been overrun anyways.
Kylo Ren, [sigh]. He is one of the movie "baddies" you'd really like to smack down and tell him to grow a pair of balls. He's probably going to cry like a baby in Episode 9 because Rey makes him see the error of his ways. Luckily, I don't need to see it.
Protip: Don't do this if you as a CEO don't want to get labelled for pushing agendas. Makes one wonder about the target group analysis of the marketing department...
(https://i.redditmedia.com/_dx7VB8xv6FtVNRQ_MOOVh9XDcaw-vdapmnZJGCyzSo.jpg?w=1024&s=c60f3deff2cb8d3c9657b6d9c38b349e)
One aspect of what I find off-putting about TLJ was the weird and out-of-place... pathos, I guess? There were a whole bunch of supposedly-inspirational one-liners with the word "rebellion" in it, and it always felt like fanservice or name-dropping. "The Rebellion is reborn today", yay fistpump wait what? "We have everything we need to build a Rebellion" yay fistpump wait wtf does that even mean? "Rebel scum!" woo yeah awesome moment, or wait that's just the most obvious callback. And hope this, hope that, spark that will light the fire, bla bla bla. Then an emotional moment is made out of a freed animal getting released to join its herd, rich people are shown to be awful, arms trade is shown to be bad, "this is how we win", and so on.
Obviously the problem is not that a movie has slavery and it's bad, heroes freeing an animal and that's good or jedi masters inspiring hope, but I find it hopelessly clumsy and out of place how the cinematography focuses on spelling out those things and how characters join in on the commentary. It's like if in RotJ Han, Luke and Leia were poignantly lamenting how this is the Ewoks' habitat that the Empire is destroying, with sad music and a shot of a clearcut area. Or if in ANH Leia was constantly going on about how there is still hope, despite that that's what the plot of the movie was already expressly about.
In the OT, no one ever (?) makes inspirational speeches, no one is dismayed by the depravity in Jabba's palace (C-3PO perhaps excluded), and heck, no one (?) even talks about how the Empire is bad because there's simply no need. It's space opera with spaceships and lasers and wizards, and while it has emotion, it's based on the characters, not on abstract concepts or morals.
This stuff is hard to explain, so no nitpicking, please!
I honestly feel as if the Rebellion side of the film was more of an afterthought compared to the Jedi side of the film.That's the impression I got as well. It feels as if they carefully planed out Luke, Rey & Kylo's story, then scrambled to find something to do for everybody else. Holdo doesn't bring a whole lot beyond being an expandable one-shot character, Rose is alright, but I feel like the Finn/Rose side arc should have been a Poe/Finn/Rose side-arc, with the rest of the Resistance being left out entirely until the final parts of the movie.
Anyone commented on how Rey got less jedi schooling than like did?I'm not sure she got that much less actually. The timeline is kinda muddy in this regard in both TLJ & ESB, it depends on how long you think it took Han & co to go to Bespin vs how long the chase lasted in TLJ.
Then again, we live in a time where a not insignificant percentage of the population isn't really on-board with that whole "fascism bad" thing....
Don't you then run into a similar issue where somehow Luke can reach Dagobah, train, and then reach Cloud City in the same time span as it takes for the Falcon to just travel straight to Cloud City (interludes aside, but they don't take nearly as long)?
If anything, TLJ kinda sidesteps that because there is, as far as I know, nothing that ties Rey's storyline down to a timespan: Rey's story can take months becuase there's nothing in the script that states that it occurs simultaneously to the rebel plot - The Canto Blight plot does suffer from this, however.
I was thinking about this earlier, but Rey has visions of and communicates with Kylo Ren, while he is with the fleet chasing the Resistance, which could imply both plot lines are somewhat in sync, though with the Force giving visions of things-to-be & so forth, who knows. :confused:QuoteIf anything, TLJ kinda sidesteps that because there is, as far as I know, nothing that ties Rey's storyline down to a timespan: Rey's story can take months becuase there's nothing in the script that states that it occurs simultaneously to the rebel plot - The Canto Blight plot does suffer from this, however.
This is correct, I think.
No, because the Falcon doesn't have the hyperspace drive working.
QuoteNo, because the Falcon doesn't have the hyperspace drive working.
I wanted to rebuke that by saying taht they seemed to have fixed that but then I realized that I am getting hung up on details in a drama film this is probably bad.
I thought the Finn/Rose/DJ plot arc was one of the better part of the film. Was it squeezed into the film that was already trying too much? Sure, but that's a greater fault of the overall directing and writing to put so much in so little time. Personally, I would have been OK with that whole plot being made into its own film like Rogue One.
It was definitely contrived but not anymore than the rest of the film. In terms of characters, Finn sees a lot of character development over that arc. Rose is a bit more flat, but she's the foil to Finn, serving to give him a reason to fight. Then toss in DJ whose loose allegiance adds a much needed shade of gray into the universe. Are we suppose to believe that every rogue has a heart of gold and will fight for the Resistance/Rebellion/Republic?
I was half expecting the First Order to execute DJ but was very glad they didn't. The Empire and First Order aren't supposed to be evil for the sake of being evil. I thought it was a very poor portrayal in some of the earlier films where the Empire kills the Trade Federation leaders for seemingly no real purpose other than to show how evil they were. The whole arc demonstrates the resourcefulness and fairness of the First Order as a regime and why people in the Universe would actually agree to having them around. It demonstrates the prudence of DJ, who while empathetic to Rose and Finn (going so far as to giving back Rose her necklace), is ultimately a pragmatic individual. It demonstrates that placing your trust in strangers, a reoccurring theme in the films, is a dangerous decision, something that's never really shown in the films. I hope this is the last we see of DJ because I don't want them to turn him into yet another rogue with a heart of gold (i.e. Solo, Lando) or to make him into somekind of villain, which is not the purpose of his character.
If it had been its own film, I would put it alongside Rogue One, forming a sort of anthology series that explores what kind of people inhabit the universe.
I always assumed Luke's training with Yoda actually took weeks slash months. The MF took forever to reach cloud city. You can see it by the way Han and Leia's relationship completely changes from the asteroid belt to cloud city. That isn't a couple days' worth of development.
Both blow up inhabited planets without warning.
Anyone have issues with del toros character and the fact he had access keys to the first order flagship / shield handwavium on a fricking fob?
Both blow up inhabited planets without warning.
[sidious] Something something something dark side.............[/sidious]
Should've put Phasma on Canto Bight to recognize + pursue Finn, thus not wasting her character + giving Canto a better tie to the overall story.
Although having her go to Canto Bright could have been quite a plot hole. Either she just randomly happens to be there or we're expected to believe that the First Order can somehow detect Rose and Finn leaving and yet still manage to miss the entire rebel fleet of shuttles leave. There might be ways to write around that but they don't come to mind.
The only interesting thing Boba Fett ever do was **** up and die, so I think they actually nailed that part of his character pretty well.
He deals with the fact vader co-killed his dad pretty well too...
He deals with the fact vader co-killed his dad pretty well too...
I will forever love this movie for actually pushing Star Wars forward and asking questions about the nature of the Force and who 'deserves' to hold its power.
YOU GUYS. "How it should have ended" did The Last Jedi and it's amazing.
I will forever love this movie for actually pushing Star Wars forward and asking questions about the nature of the Force and who 'deserves' to hold its power. Also for the Poe/Holdo arc and the lightspeed ram.
This movie didn't take the cowardly step of ignoring the prequels. Instead it said, 'given what we saw of the Jedi and their clear failures, where do we go next with the role of the Force?'
The things I mostly didn't like about 8 is how other than a couple character developments, the plot didn't really go anywhere. The whole movie was, essentially, a single battle where therebelsresistance was defeated but implied they'll come back stronger (like always).
The things I mostly didn't like about 8 is how other than a couple character developments, the plot didn't really go anywhere. The whole movie was, essentially, a single battle where therebelsresistance was defeated but implied they'll come back stronger (like always).
But enough about Empire Strikes Back, how did you feel about the new movie?
Just because ESB did it 20 years ago, didn't make it good.
how they're bad ships and stupidly designed and only there because of Rian Johnson's love of WW2 bombers.
Now, I don't know whether Johnson has any particular love for these things, but I do know that George Lucas has: While making the original Star Wars, Lucas used guncam footage from WW2 fighters and bombers as placeholders for all the spaceship stuff that ILM hadn't filmed yet; these explicit references and allusions (which, granted, carried more resonance in the 1970s than they do today) are part of the Star Wars canon. TLJ using footage like this or setups like this isn't a "plothole"; it's a deliberate way of evoking something from our own history.
I'd argue it's a clichéd trope at this point. Maybe in the 1970s it was a fresh idea to allude to WW2, but I'm frankly tired of space Nazis.
If we want to argue that the new trilogy is good art, then it needs be relevant to the context of its time period, which at the moment, really isn't about imperialistic fascist regimes but something closer to cronyism, cynicism, and social unrest.
The critic from the video "A Critique of Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Part 1" actually makes a good point early on at 7:35 about making a trilogy of film where the bad guys are puny and trying to survive against the good guys. This would be infinitely more relevant to the social discourse of our time. Instead, we get another Deathstar, another not Empire, another desert child protagonist, and another resistance. If we are to judge the new trilogy as art, then it's from an artist who is too afraid to move out from under the shadow of previous artists, recycling overused tropes and unwilling to embrace something new.
I liked this film a fair bit (and it left me with a lot to think about) but I have never seen a major pop culture movie where the people who dislike it so clearly, totally do not understand the movie. It's like some sort of forcing function for comprehending stories.And he's mostly correct: A lot of criticism of this movie is based around a fundamental misunderstanding of what this movie is and what it is intending to do.
If we want to argue that the new trilogy is good art, then it needs be relevant to the context of its time period
then it's from an artist who is too afraid to move out from under the shadow of previous artists, recycling overused tropes and unwilling to embrace something new.
Oh? Then why are you watching Star Wars?
What you are missing, I think, is that both TFA and TLJ are commentaries on Star Wars as a cultural phenomenon. There's also some other messages in there, about how we need to resist the fascists and their fanboys, how we need to have hope and make hope even when it seems we can't have any, but the core of TFA and TLJ is about Star Wars. TFA is, very intentionally, a sort of retread of A New Hope: It retells that story with slightly rejiggered roles not just to serve as an entry point for contemporary kids, but also as a nostalgia boost for people like us who saw the original films as kids. Han says, in TFA, "It's real. All of it.", and at that point, he's talking to you, the middle-aged viewer and is telling you that yes, Star Wars is still magic, can be magic again, even after all that prequel nonsense.
TLJ, in its rejection of several of the oh so important plot hooks TFA set up, is saying "Yes, we can have that magic back, but we shouldn't try to remake the old. Instead, we need to rebuild it, excise the flaws that one George Lucas put into it in the 70s and 90s, and make it matter to us, as we are right now.
I would argue that imperialistic fascism is a relevant topic for today, purely based on how much of it seems to be making a resurgence lately, but that's neither here nor there.
I think that a film about how the bad guys are a menace, yes, but an ultimately pathetic and weak one is a good message if we look at current politics around us. Hux is a buffoon, caught up in cosplaying as something intimidating he vaguely remembers from his history lessons. Kylo Ren is a mess of anxiety and parental issues, who has retreated into a power fantasy (urged on by a father figure that is in turns abusive and nurturing; the very image of a really toxic relationship there). We are asked to laugh at Hux and empathize with (but not exactly forgive or let go) Kylo, and I don't really see what's wrong with that. Neither of these characters are as intimidating or formidable as Tarkin or Vader were, sure, but that's the point. It's not a flaw in the movies or their writing that these people don't seem as grand as the old villains: That they aren't on that same level despite making every attempt at it (just like certain tiki-torch wielding idiots aren't on the same level as the people they're emulating, yet still a thing we need to take serious and combat lest they get real power) is their tragedy.
Again: TLJ and TFA are movies about Star Wars, about how we've talked about Star Wars over the years and how these films have shaped our expectations and realities. If the prequels as a whole were a deconstruction of the Jedi mythos as set up in the original films (which is a theory that isn't without merit), this new trilogy is shaping up to be a reconstruction of it, an attempt to give Star Wars its mythological qualities back that got lost in all the midichlorians and trade federations and bouncy ball Yodas. As commercial artistic endeavours go, this is much more valid than most other ways I could think of to continue the Star Wars saga.
QuoteIf we want to argue that the new trilogy is good art, then it needs be relevant to the context of its time period
No. Good art doesn't need to be relevant in the context of its own, or in fact any, time period. Whether or not it is is a factor in how popular a given work is on release or afterwards, but popularity and goodness aren't exactly related.
I disagree with this in the context of The Last Jedi, which is not at all afraid to move things in quite a few new directions with Rey and Kylo Ren in particular (and indeed the entire "Last Jedi" plot).
And I do feel that "Powerful political faction trying to return to an idealized image of what once was", as is the First Order, never really ceases to be relevant, but here it is used in particular to contrast both Luke and Rey's motivations: The First Order wants to return to "what once was*", Luke wants to burn it all down, whilst Rey takes the old (or, well, steals it from under Luke's nose but okay) and strives to build upon it in a better direction. It takes three distinct approaches to our world: The New Order's regressivism, Luke's radicalism, and Rey's incrementalism, and clearly picks sides for Rey.
I see that it's been bombed on Amazon. 39% 5* reviews, 34% 1* reviews.
At least you can dig into the written reviews to find the truth though. And you can see that disparity of 5s and 1s immediately. Most films will be served quite well by the system, but those that aren't aren't completely failed either.I see that it's been bombed on Amazon. 39% 5* reviews, 34% 1* reviews.
Which only goes to show the flaw with things like Amazon, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. If a film is that divisive then a score around 50% is probably unrepresentative of most people's experience of the film. Either they liked it a lot more, or a lot less.
YOU GUYS. "How it should have ended" did The Last Jedi and it's amazing.
Can you point out the plotholes without linking to a YouTube rant longer than the film?
I am genuinely curious about this; I consider myself an attentive viewer, and yet, none of the flaws this film has register as a plot hole to me.
I don't get how like could force project himself non materially but leave a set of cufflinks or whatever it was for darth emo to find.
Also, I don't need sources to share my opinion, thank you very much. Luke, in TLJ, is no longer a hero who earned my respect and interest... now he's a lightsaber-throwing, whiny-pants. As I recall, he grew out of being a whiny-pants in the OT.
The fact that luke has been established in the OT as not giving upTM. Learning to not give upTM is pretty much his entire character arc. He grows from a whiny farmboy who pouts when his uncle doesn't give him what he wants to a Jedi knight with the force of will to face the single most evil being in the known galaxy and throw his only weapon aside, trusting that the cybernetic terror that his father had become was not truly irredeemable.
Luke's actions in the NuTrilogy, from his almost-attack on Ben (why is Vader deserving of Luke's faith but his nephew - who has not yet committed any overt acts of evil, I might add- not?) to his return to the whiny farmboy are, from my perspective contrary to every essential milestone of his character development in the original trilogy.
Luke almost killed Vader when he lost it, same here, only Ben is just a kid and didn't get that that was just a fleeting moment of temptation.
"Never. I will never join the dark side. You have failed, your Highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me."
(with a strong undercurrent of "and if you don't like it, you can kill me, but I ain't moving")
Him going farmboy again is his rejection of the role of saviour of the galaxy he thinks he's wholly inadequate for, hell, in many ways the movie is about thrusting responsiblities on people who may not feel they are up for it or don't want to assume them.
Also, I don't need sources to share my opinion, thank you very much. Luke, in TLJ, is no longer a hero who earned my respect and interest... now he's a lightsaber-throwing, whiny-pants. As I recall, he grew out of being a whiny-pants in the OT.
Saying he disregarded Luke's character isn't an opinion, it's a statement of fact. I'm challenging it, because I think it's incorrect. What parts of Luke's character, that are actually part of his character and not the collective rememberings of 40 years of Not Canon Anymore?
Luke almost killed Vader when he lost it, same here, only Ben is just a kid and didn't get that that was just a fleeting moment of temptation.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. Are you explaining Luke's momennt of weakness when he went to kill Ben in his sleep after a vision of Ben's possible fall to the dark side, or Ben's reaction in flipping his **** at waking up to find his uncle ready to kill him (as he thought)? Because, if the latter, then I agree: Ben reacted as well as one could bloody well expect. But if you're talking about Luke suffering from a 'fleeting moment of temptation' like the time he went berserk on Vader in RotJ, then sorry but no. Because Luke explicitly realises how close he came to falling then and explicitly turns his back on the dark side right after that scene.Quote from: Luke Skywalker"Never. I will never join the dark side. You have failed, your Highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me."
(with a strong undercurrent of "and if you don't like it, you can kill me, but I ain't moving")
Very definitive, if you ask me.Him going farmboy again is his rejection of the role of saviour of the galaxy he thinks he's wholly inadequate for, hell, in many ways the movie is about thrusting responsiblities on people who may not feel they are up for it or don't want to assume them.
He explicitly claims the mantle of a Jedi in the above quote, ffs. He knows that Jedis were the "guardians of peace and prosperity etc", as recounted by Obi-Wan and doubtlessly by Yoda. He knows what path he's choosing and we know that he tried to reestablish the order.
You might say that his failure complex stems from his failure with Ben, but I have already explained how that failure is based on actions that contradict what is probably his most Crowning Moment of Awesome establishing scene(s).
So, yeah...if they wanted Luke to fail at something, and impose a self-exile on himself, that'd be OK with me. But the fact that they chose to make him fail at the thing that he already succeeded in, in probably his most character-defining moment makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Also, if he wanted to hide away from the rest of the galaxy, why leave a puzzle map behind, ffs
But newsflash! The genre's called fantasy!
It's meant to be unrealistic (you myopic manatee)
Ah: and here we come to the crux of the matter. What I believe is the main difference in how we view Luke and the narrative in general.Except the Catharsis in greek tragedy wasn't about heroes overcoming their flaws but about heroes flaws (modern tragedy mostly) or their destiny (ancient tragedy mostly) crashing down on them hard. The catharsis was about living the negative emotions on a safe space (the theather) not about the characters themselves overcoming anything.
The character development of a real person certainly allows for backtracking, not getting over stuff, 'unintuitive' changes etc. That is only fair, and I would not respect any 'realistic' narrative that didn't allow for this.
However, if I may quote J.R.R.Tolkien from the amazing ERBoH episode:QuoteBut newsflash! The genre's called fantasy!
It's meant to be unrealistic (you myopic manatee)
Luke is/was the main character in a fantastical narrative, with heavy morality undertones. Star Wars is not science fiction; it is space fantasy. Within the context of the established nature / type of this narrative, heroes overcome the faults that plague them. It's part of the Aristoteleian catharsis, the climax of the story. It's not meant to be realistic.
If, as a writer, you are attempting to subvert (heh) this established motif, you are more than welcome to do this. But, if you do so, you have the responsibility to show your audience how and why the WHITE KNIGHTTM, despite appearances, failed to completely overcome that one flaw of his.
You do not do this by having the hero explain his deeds and actions to theMary Sueplucky successor, nor by a two-minute flashback. Not when you are working against 3 movie's worth of character development. That is emotionally jarring for the viewer, it pretty much falls within the capital sin of telling, not showing, and it is bad writing for a fantasy story.
If you really, really, really need to have Luke **** up back to where he started (and recreate his entire character arc thanks to the oh-so-important influence of your new hero, ahem), then chop off half (or all) of the casino arc, and use that time to show us more of his fall to despair.
Except the Catharsis in greek tragedy wasn't about heroes overcoming their flaws but about heroes flaws (modern tragedy mostly) or their destiny (ancient tragedy mostly) crashing down on them hard. The catharsis was about living the negative emotions on a safe space (the theather) not about the characters themselves overcoming anything.
Also Rey isn't a Mary Sue, she is an "ace" character at best, and sincerely I'm kinda sick of that argument when nobody bats an eye at nu-Kirk getting a command without even finishing the academy (and you can clearly see Abrams avoiding the same mistakes with Rey almost surgically).
This is going down a whole new rabbit hole... but nuKirk vs Rey is as a comparison is laughable. The first nuST nearly opens with Kirk's main character flaw. One of the main threads of nuST is how Kirk and Spock overcome their respective flaws to become something more.
TFW opens, middles, and ends with Rey kicking ass, taking names, and having a solution to every problem. You can argue there are moments where character flaws are hinted at, but there is nothing even remotely close to a "stole stepdad's vintage car and drove it off a cliff" moment... or a bullheaded bar fight because of an ego...
The thing is that tragedy is present in Star Wars since the beginning, and tragedy isn't something that's distinct from fantasy.Except the Catharsis in greek tragedy wasn't about heroes overcoming their flaws but about heroes flaws (modern tragedy mostly) or their destiny (ancient tragedy mostly) crashing down on them hard. The catharsis was about living the negative emotions on a safe space (the theather) not about the characters themselves overcoming anything.
It's a good thing we're talking about catharsis in the context of a fantasy story and not a tragedy (ancient or modern), then.
My intention when using the term was to reference the climactic moment in the story. In tragedies, sure, it's all about the collapse of the protagonists' world all around them; in the archetypical fantasy 'triumph of the underdog' story (where SW belongs), it's all about the heroes overcoming obstacles and winning. In both cases, the point is to draw out an emotional response from the audience.
QuoteAlso Rey isn't a Mary Sue, she is an "ace" character at best, and sincerely I'm kinda sick of that argument when nobody bats an eye at nu-Kirk getting a command without even finishing the academy (and you can clearly see Abrams avoiding the same mistakes with Rey almost surgically).
Sure, NuKirk is just as bad a Gary Stu, IMO. I don't bat an eyelid because I'm asleep halfway through the NuST films. The only thing that keeps me awake is Cumberbatch chewing the scenery in the second one.
This is going down a whole new rabbit hole... but nuKirk vs Rey is as a comparison is laughable. The first nuST nearly opens with Kirk's main character flaw. One of the main threads of nuST is how Kirk and Spock overcome their respective flaws to become something more.
TFW opens, middles, and ends with Rey kicking ass, taking names, and having a solution to every problem. You can argue there are moments where character flaws are hinted at, but there is nothing even remotely close to a "stole stepdad's vintage car and drove it off a cliff" moment... or a bullheaded bar fight because of an ego...
A Mary Sue is a character that literally warps the story around them because they need to be awesome, Kirk basically made Starfleet command acting out of character because he had to be captain at the end.
Rey is just good at stuff, which is an "ace" trait rather than intrinsically sue-ish.
I.. er... wut. No. You are quite wrong in what you think a Mary Sue is. Go use the internet. Come back when you're done.Given that I happen to know many, many, many different definitions of "Mary Sue" and most of them agree that Kirk is more of a Sue than Rey, perhaps you should state what definition you're using.
Meh. I watched that video. It didn't change my opinion of the film. I never had an issue with the direction Rian was trying to take the story. I said months ago in one of these threads (Rogue One maybe?) that I wanted to see new things in Star Wars. Morally grey force users? Count me in for that!Also going to second this. I have no interest in going to see the final installment. There was NONE of the build-up that we got in Empire Strikes Back.
My issue is with the way Rian told that story... Notably lacking any nuance or subtlety. It was RAWR THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO THE WAY YOU THINK RAWR in every single plot point. And in doing that, he killed every thread of mystery and destroyed every last character I was connected to without giving me someone else to latch on to first. Now, like the rest of the galaxy at the end of the movie, I don't care what happens to the Resistance.
I've been trying to hammer that home since I rejoined this thread, but counterpoints keep nitpicking other bits. My biggest problem with this film, by far, is that by trying to subvert everything ever, Rian subverted my interest in the whole plot going forward.
Also, I note that video didn't really bother even touching the issues with Holdo....
Meh. I watched that video. It didn't change my opinion of the film. I never had an issue with the direction Rian was trying to take the story. I said months ago in one of these threads (Rogue One maybe?) that I wanted to see new things in Star Wars. Morally grey force users? Count me in for that!
My issue is with the way Rian told that story... Notably lacking any nuance or subtlety. It was RAWR THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO THE WAY YOU THINK RAWR in every single plot point. And in doing that, he killed every thread of mystery and destroyed every last character I was connected to without giving me someone else to latch on to first. Now, like the rest of the galaxy at the end of the movie, I don't care what happens to the Resistance.
I've been trying to hammer that home since I rejoined this thread, but counterpoints keep nitpicking other bits. My biggest problem with this film, by far, is that by trying to subvert everything ever, Rian subverted my interest in the whole plot going forward.
Also, I note that video didn't really bother even touching the issues with Holdo....
Or compare it to Empire, which is now regarded as the best of the original trilogy, but was wildly divisive upon release.....
Are you purely making a debate point here, or do you really think that in coming decades people will be talking about TLJ the way they talk about ESB now?
But I was attached to the characters in Empire as a kid when I saw it the first time... not to mention that movie came with the biggest reveal in the history of movies. There's inherent interest there to find out how the characters are going to deal with all of that.
I don't care how any of the TLJ characters are going to deal with... what's the biggest problem for them right now, that there's only 30 of them?
You can compare TLJ to ESB in that they were divisive upon release and that they are "the dark chapters".. but not much more. Nothing in TLJ comes even close to the kind of "No, Luke, I am your father" stuff that happened in Empire. No one character is in peril. No one flew off into the space sunset to do a thing. They escaped... to fight another day. That's it. Booooooring.
This is probably the best Star Wars film I've seen in a theater :cool:
Rian is like the hipster director of the Star Wars films. He did all these things just because it would be different and he thinks that makes it inherently good. He was so interested in subversion that he did nothing episodic in an episodic franchise.
Or compare it to Empire, which is now regarded as the best of the original trilogy, but was wildly divisive upon release.....
I also feel bad for Mark Hamill. Out of thee three old stars he was the most inspired and pumped-out to see himself returning to big screen. You can see his enthusiasm in many interviews and panel discussions prior TFA. "Luke" was the starring moment of his life, and a major alter ego of his. He knew his character inside out and what he represented: The youthful optimism and the attitude of never giving up. After TLJ Hamill has said many times, that this TLJ version wasn't "his Luke". He also threw a few passive aggressive statements against the movie.
TLJ outright mocked these people, and as a film it's of course "artistically" allowed to do that, but as a business practice it's never a good idea to insult your own base audience. Somehow I've seen this same kind of audience/customer mocking in contemporary video games too, but that's a totally different topic.
One has to wonder what is the motivation behind this "mocking". TFA only gave a laughable 10 seconds of Luke, and in TLJ the character was first ridiculed and then killed off. Leia almost had memorable and emotional death on-screen that we all expected after Carrie Fisher's death, but instead she turns into a flying superman and is still unceremoniously killed off-screen before IX. Han Solo is dead and he never got to meet old Luke. With the old cast gone, the reason to see IX is gone for many.
I will never for the life of me understand for an instant how anything that happened in TLJ "destroyed the character" of Luke Skywalker.
Yeah, but the point was that he didnt let that get him down or convince him that the galaxy didnt need Jedi.
TLJ outright mocked these people, and as a film it's of course "artistically" allowed to do that, but as a business practice it's never a good idea to insult your own base audience. Somehow I've seen this same kind of audience/customer mocking in contemporary video games too, but that's a totally different topic.
One has to wonder what is the motivation behind this "mocking". TFA only gave a laughable 10 seconds of Luke, and in TLJ the character was first ridiculed and then killed off. Leia almost had memorable and emotional death on-screen that we all expected after Carrie Fisher's death, but instead she turns into a flying superman and is still unceremoniously killed off-screen before IX. Han Solo is dead and he never got to meet old Luke. With the old cast gone, the reason to see IX is gone for many.
Wtf are you banging about? "mocking" ?? For ****s sake, I can't facepalm any longer. "oooh they wrote the characters I loved so much in a different way, they're mocking me!!" What the hell is this, are we in kindergarten again? Jesus F Christ.
Yeah, but the point was that he didnt let that get him down or convince him that the galaxy didnt need Jedi.
Yeah, but the point was that he didnt let that get him down or convince him that the galaxy didnt need Jedi.
“It is tragic. I'm not a method actor, but one of the techniques a method actor will use is to try and use real-life experiences to relate to whatever fictional scenario he's involved in. The only thing I could think of, given the screenplay that I read, was that I was of the Beatles generation - ‘All You Need Is Love’, ‘peace and love’.
“I thought at that time, when I was a teenager: ‘By the time we get in power, there will be no more war, there will be no racial discrimination, and pot will be legal.’ So I'm one for three. When you think about it, [my generation is] a failure. The world is unquestionably worse now than it was then.”
Then you felt it right. He was slightly insane from isolation, frustration, sadness and numbness. He decided that the best thing for the entire galaxy was for him to seclude himself. His remarks on why the resistance would even care about his being are a good meta-commentary as well, something like "do you expect me to get there and destroy everything with my light saber?", which points to something I always felt was off in the original trilogy: why all the fuss about these knights and so on, when the actual big problem was these giant death weapons and fleets to begin with? Vader would tell me I lacked faith and so on, but the entire trilogy doesn't really disprove the cynical guy at the original death star. They were just lucky that Gin's father placed a loophole at the north pole of that giant sphere.
That is true, but you're wrong in saying that the original trilogy didn't place these jedi "front and center". In fact, if anything, the "new ones" walked the walk, and the originals only talked the talk. Benkept saying that without Luke, everything would be lost, the empire would win, etc., etc., (while Yoda pointed out there was another) as if this one jedi was the difference between victory and defeat of the whole war between the empire and the rebels.
BEN
It is you and your abilities the
Emperor wants. that is why your
friends are made to suffer.
LUKE
And that is why I have to go.
BEN
Luke, I don't want to lose you to
the Emperor the way I lost Vader.
LUKE
You won't.
YODA
Stopped they must be. On this
all depends. Only a fully trained
Jedi Knight with the Force as his
ally will conquer Vader and his
Emperor. If you end your training
now, if you choose the quick and
easy path, as Vader did, you will
become an agent of evil.
Of course, if you actually watch RotJ, this notion is preposterous. Yes, he convinced Vader to kill Palpatine, but I'm pretty sure the blastwave from the core reactor explosion ignited by the Falcon would also do the trick.
Oh come on let's not be pedantic, ok? I've seen the movie 20 times or some such, of course I wasn't saying that he convinced Vader to kill Palpatine literally. He asked for his help and Vader then killed Palpatine.
There's a overwhelming importance given to the Jedi in the original movies
in contrast to what they actually do, which is little more than being good Bond-like agents with light swords.
The very fact that Luke is brought to the Emperor and given the chance to fight in his own hall is proof of this over importance to this kind of people.
And Luke is still the absolute least of TLJ's problems.
How did the First Order come to be? Who cares.
What I don't understand is how fans like this film less than Force Awakens.
How is that proof of their over importance?
Combine that with the by now well trodden complaints (Canto Bight, Hux, "humour", Phasma, Luke, hyperspace ramming, Leia flying, not telling Poe the plan, etc. etc.), any one or two of which might have been overlooked otherwise, and the response shouldn't be surprising.
What I don't understand is how fans like this film less than Force Awakens.
Because while TFA had its flaws, it had a consistent tone, didn't undercut it's dramatic moments with poorly played humour, more or less followed the established rules of the Star Wars universe, and, most importantly, it served it's purposes - to reboot Star Wars, introduce a new set of likable protagonists, interesting antagonists, and set up story threads for the next movie/movies to follow while telling an interesting, self contained story.
As a direct sequel, and the middle movie in a trilogy, TLJ had a different set of purposes - to develop existing characters, introduce new ones as required, follow and develop the plot threads from the first movie and set up an epic climax in movie three, while telling an interesting, self contained story.
How is that proof of their over importance?
Imagine an emperor of some random empire bringing a skilled swordsman that is out to kill him to his presence, so he could "turn him". And he does that by letting him best your second-in-command so he could substitute him. How is this not a proof of the over importance of this sort of people, that you're willing to do this sort of stuff.
Combine that with the by now well trodden complaints (Canto Bight, Hux, "humour", Phasma, Luke, hyperspace ramming, Leia flying, not telling Poe the plan, etc. etc.), any one or two of which might have been overlooked otherwise, and the response shouldn't be surprising.
I'm not buying any one of those complaints though. The response is not surprising given the aforementioned market of dunking on everything that strays off the established things that Will Never Be Changed Or Else GamerGate Will Happen Again. Or something.
Things come too easily to characters in Force Awakens, sometimes handed to them when they're not even looking for it.This. So very much this.
I see people complaining about humor, and then I think about Yoda screwing with Luke when he first lands on Dagobah. "Ooh? Awwwww!"
What I don't understand is how fans like this film less than Force Awakens.
Because while TFA had its flaws, it had a consistent tone, didn't undercut it's dramatic moments with poorly played humour, more or less followed the established rules of the Star Wars universe, and, most importantly, it served it's purposes - to reboot Star Wars, introduce a new set of likable protagonists, interesting antagonists, and set up story threads for the next movie/movies to follow while telling an interesting, self contained story.
As a direct sequel, and the middle movie in a trilogy, TLJ had a different set of purposes - to develop existing characters, introduce new ones as required, follow and develop the plot threads from the first movie and set up an epic climax in movie three, while telling an interesting, self contained story.
Okay sorry, now I have a new question.
Why are you celebrating Episode VII as a reboot and not judging it as a sequel?
There are very few points in Last Jedi where you're allowed to feel anything.
Because of its place within the broader structure of the series. RotJ is a narrative full stop. It finishes the stories started in the previous movies. TFA is the start of a new set of stories - the (mostly) new cast, new place in the timeline, new villain etc. all set it pretty clearly apart from what came immediately before it. Not so for TLJ, which is a narrative semicolon - everything before and after are going to be pretty effectively isolated from each other, which is not what you want out of the middle film in a trilogy.
It still gets judged as part of the franchise by how well it follows the established rules of the universe - pretty much every movie since the original has been judged that way. And TFA passes that test far better than TLJ, IMO.
As for the humour, it's partially subjective, partially timing, and partially volume for me. Last Jedi had too many (volume) bad (subjective) jokes that undercut what should have been dramatic moments. Consider K2-SO from Rogue One. He'd effectively been the comic relief of that movie, but they used him sparingly, and during his death scene, that was all left aside so that the audience could feel the emotional significance of the moment. There are very few points in Last Jedi where you're allowed to feel anything.
There are very few points in Last Jedi where you're allowed to feel anything.
I'd argue TFA does something far worse than that: In a very JJ Abrams fashion, it takes its subject material for granted and demands you feel a certain way but refuses to actually work to deliver those emotions. You're expected to cheer at the Millennium Falcon blowing some TIE fighters or from Rey beating Kylo Ren or the Resistance blowing up Starkiller base, but there's no real journey to any of that. Here, have the Millennium Falcon, you're good at flying it! Here, have a lightsaber, you're good at wielding it! Here, use the Force to perform a mind trick. It's sure good you know how to do it when you only learned the Force was real an hour of movie ago! No work involved at all.
I would agree if not for the fact they called it Episode VII. If they just wanted to reboot it they should have just put the story in the universe but otherwise separate, but instead they put a VII on it and threw in the old cast to get it legitimacy. Once you put the VII on there, it should have some through-line from the previous movie, and TFA has next to nothing.
I would agree that TLJ's comedy was bad, for me it was the worst parts of the movie from start to finish. But otherwise I enjoyed it. I don't know if the Comedy is Rian Johnson, Abrams, or Disney- but given the merchandise possibilities of those dumb birds, I would guess it's Disney.
"Comedy" is the last thing I'd describe TLJ as. See, this is the sort of thing where I feel like people are watching two completely-different films. I just cannot grok some of the reactions I've read.
Okay. You're allowed to think that, but I think you're misguided.
To me, the title is a minor element compared with the narrative structure of the films, both as individual elements and combined into a series. Ask yourself the question: Would your opinion be so radically changed if they'd just called it Star Wars 7, instead of episode 7? Or just Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Everything else stays the same, just those two words are removed, and your opinion completely changes?
Incidentally, one question is why do people have a problem with Holdo not telling Poe her plan, but they don't have a problem with Han saying he'll get past the shield generator without saying how, and with Finn saying he can deal with the shield generator without saying how. Like the entire plan to destroy the base rests on that Shield Generator getting removed and everyone's like "yeah, I trust him. Haven't seen him for years, and there's only like 3 of them and the base is a whole planet, but yeah- they said they can get it done so let's launch the attack"
One of those situations and those plans resembles a real military, the other does not. Most fans it seems would get wrong which is which.
Adama: In your opinion, off the record, what was Garner's flaw?
Apollo: He was used to working with machines. Command is about people.
Adama: Remember that, as you take command of "The Beast". Garner was my decision; his failures, my responsibility. Don't let me fail a second time. Congratulations, Commander.
Holdo had a responsibility to demonstrate that she could be trusted and a subsequent role to understand the disposition of her subordinates. Not being one of the legends or iconic leaders surely made her job more difficult, but it doesn't change the fact that she failed to handle them. Arguably, you could even say it was Leia's fault for not introducing her properly as a contingency should she herself become incapacitated.
She was the ranking officer. She was known to Poe by reputation already.
Her only failure was to underestimate the amount of bull**** Poe had in his head; She expected him to behave as an officer on a warship operating in combat conditions is supposed to and he failed spectacularly at it. Yes, she didn't explain her plans to him, but why should she? Poe, without his fighter and squadron, is dead weight; possibly useful cargo at best. She did explain her plans to the other ship captains and the transport pilots, aka the people who actually needed to know about them.
Sure, being a leader means making yourself understood and communicating your plans effectively. But that only goes so far; A fighter pilot without a fighter (who was just on the receiving end of an official reprimand due to his inability to follow orders, let's not forget) is less of a "need to convince" person than, say, a transport pilot who will be tasked with evacuating the ship and bringing its crew down to a safe base.
I keep coming back to this: You're taking Poe's side here, trying to excuse his behaviour by blaming Holdo for not making sure that Poe Dameron, Hero of the Republic, is kept informed at all times. Where is the condemnation for Poe deciding to do a mutiny? Why is it Holdo's responsibility to inform him of the things she's doing (in addition to all the other people she apparently briefed on her intentions), and not Poe's responsibility to get a clear picture of the situation before ****ing it all up (Incidentally, him learning to do that is his character arc for this movie!)?
Poe: Are you filling up the transports?
Poe: All of them?
Poe: We're abandoning ship? Is that...
Poe: That's what you got?
Poe: That's what you brought us to?
Poe: Coward.
Poe: Those transports ships are unarmed, unshielded.
Poe: We don't stand a chance.
Holdo: Get this man off my bridge.
Why did Holdo not address a legitimate concern raised by one of her subordinates? Here's the abridged quote straight from the film.QuotePoe: Are you filling up the transports?
Poe: All of them?
Poe: We're abandoning ship? Is that...
Poe: That's what you got?
Poe: That's what you brought us to?
Poe: Coward.
Poe: Those transports ships are unarmed, unshielded.
Poe: We don't stand a chance.
Holdo: Get this man off my bridge.
Why Holdo couldn't just address this concern boggles my mind. To me, Holdo comes off as being prideful or too restrictive in her command style to break military protocols.
Her mistake in this situation was being lenient on Dameron. She should've thrown him in the brig, honestly.
...Holdo failed to either tell Poe her plan (even after he raised legitimate concerns) or to lock him up in the brig after multiple accounts of insubordination.
TLJ, sometimes, is not very subtle in its allegories. The allegory here, of a competent woman in charge being undercut by a man just because the man was too arrogant and self-absorbed to think of any strategy besides the one he had in his head as viable, is pretty clear.
Holdo was not the right person for the circumstances. She didn't have the universal renown and respect that Leia held. She wasn't empathetic enough nor was she strict enough. Going back again to Battlestar Galactica, Adama was an extraordinary leader because he understood people and was willing to bend the rules when it was needed, thereby preventing a lot of terrible outcomes from happening. It's what makes him better than Colonel Tigh or Admiral Cain. Holdo might have been a capable tactician (assuming things like the hyperspace ram was a novel idea), but she was not the leader given the desperate situation at hand.
The allegory is beyond obvious. There's nothing wrong with the allegory itself, but in this case, it feels tacked on and handled without any sense of tact or finesse by the film makers, especially how common this setup is played up in stories. Holdo could have been a man or a droid, and it wouldn't have done anything to change the way the character and plot was handled.
Poe's lesson comes at such an incredibly high price that he honestly should have just been sacked of his command.
This is my problem with the subplot. Poe is supposed to learn a lesson, and the audience is supposed to be thinking: "Ah, I shouldn't have been supporting Poe. He was rash and got people killed!" Instead, I'm thinking to myself: "What a horrible tragedy. Poe is terrible. Holdo should have done something about it. If only Leia had the forethought to appoint a more capable leader if she were removed from command."
There are so many ways they could have done this in a more sensible manner. Holdo could have simply told Poe the plan, and he could disagree and run off to start the mutiny anyways. Holdo could have put him into the brig, and he broke out to start the mutiny. There could have been suspicion of a spy onboard that makes revealing the plan risky. Poe could have been the only person trying to usurp Holdo. Or even simply not having 2/3 of the resistance blown up because of Poe's decision.
It's not that people don't understand the idea or lesson being told. It's just handled in such a way that it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion where the director's intent was a safety video about trains, but everyone is too busy being preoccupied by the horrific crash in front of them. A lot of people claimed the casino subplot was hamfisted, but that was handled far better than the Poe/Holdo plot, which I wished was its own film.
Hang on, how do you know all this? Specifically the "universal renown" bit? Because the film does establish the fact that Poe has at least heard of her deeds but hasn't served under her yet; she is known by reputation by everyone in that scene (except of course, the audience).
This is the tricky bit about TLJ: The film puts you into that situation where you're inclined to side with Poe because he's the POV character and the one we already know, not because he's in the right. Everything you've seen of Holdo is colored by Poe's reactions to her, she is cast in a disfavourable light because the film pretends to show you the traditional narrative of a plucky hero who knows better than the person in command. You feel she's a bad leader because Poe thinks she's a bad leader, not because she actually shows poor leadership (She makes one mistake, yes, but one that is pretty understandable: After all, who would be stupid enough to do a mutiny while the ship is under fire?). Leia trusts Holdo. That should have been enough for Poe, why isn't it enough for you?
I disagree. By making her a middle-aged woman with pink hair in a feminine dress, the film sets you up to react exactly as Poe does: Astonishment, then derision. She could've been Ackbar, yes. She could've been another character we know. But if she had been any of those, the entire arc ceases to work, because you lose the element where you're inclined to agree with Poe because of deeply ingrained stereotypes.
QuotePoe's lesson comes at such an incredibly high price that he honestly should have just been sacked of his command.
He was, remember? After losing the bombers?
QuoteThis is my problem with the subplot. Poe is supposed to learn a lesson, and the audience is supposed to be thinking: "Ah, I shouldn't have been supporting Poe. He was rash and got people killed!" Instead, I'm thinking to myself: "What a horrible tragedy. Poe is terrible. Holdo should have done something about it. If only Leia had the forethought to appoint a more capable leader if she were removed from command."
She did. You were just too absorbed in Poe's bull**** and your preconceptions of what Star Wars protagonists do to see her.
QuoteIt's not that people don't understand the idea or lesson being told. It's just handled in such a way that it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion where the director's intent was a safety video about trains, but everyone is too busy being preoccupied by the horrific crash in front of them. A lot of people claimed the casino subplot was hamfisted, but that was handled far better than the Poe/Holdo plot, which I wished was its own film.
Nope, gonna keep disagreeing on that.
However, Ron Howard attributed at least the right things: he is sad that the backlash of Last Jedi is affecting his movie.you think I didn't see Solo because of The Last Jedi (which I loved), and not because I don't actually give a **** about Han Solo?
Yeah, Abrams is not remotely a good storyteller. Did no one else sit through a significant chunk of Lost?
The mutiny was problematic but not for any of the reasons mentioned here. It's problematic because the girl on the bridge sided with Poe. How is she on the bridge, working directly with Holdo, but has no clue of what's going on? The mutiny should have been about the lower decks versus the command staff, not about Poe & his friends vs the newcomer.
Poe blabbing the plan to two rebel agents onboard the imperial flagship proves that Holdo was right to not tell him anything. He should however have been barred from the bridge earlier.
Hux isn't supposed to be competent.
Hux isn't supposed to be competent.
However, Ron Howard attributed at least the right things: he is sad that the backlash of Last Jedi is affecting his movie.you think I didn't see Solo because of The Last Jedi (which I loved), and not because I don't actually give a **** about Han Solo?
Abrams was unfazed. “‘Star Wars’ is a big galaxy, and you can sort of find almost anything you want to in ‘Star Wars,'” he said. “If you are someone who feels threatened by women and needs to lash out against them, you can probably find an enemy in ‘Star Wars.’ You can probably look at the first movie that George [Lucas] did [‘Star Wars: A New Hope’] and say that Leia was too outspoken, or she was too tough. Anyone who wants to find a problem with anything can find the problem. The internet seems to be made for that.”Yes, equate piss poor character development to criticism against women. It tells volumes the original Leia is much stronger as a character than Rey. Funnily enough I don't think I've ever heard anybody complain about Leia in the original trilogies. Strangely also nobody at LucasFilm ever heard of Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley or Sgt. Vasquez. It was never about the fact that they were women, it was always about the fact that these characters work and were believable.
I believe it was also me who first said here in January that Kennedy and Johnson both failed to uphold the value of the brand to the parent company, putting politics before happy customers. This, generally, is an idiotic business decision, and the results are in. What has also happened behind the scenes is that women will have harder time getting CEO level positions in the future thanks to Kennedy's legacy.
It's one thing to misunderstand their target audience, but to go on and insult them is nearly unprecedented. It's tragic that they for some reason couldn't comprehend average fan is a man, and in their 30s and 40s :lol: To get younger audience to the theater, you'll need to convince their parents first! Lando touted being pansexual certainly helped people make their decisions about watching Solo, it certainly did in my case, so thanks for the heads up! Then again, I lost my interest to Star Wars movies already. Seen from the management point of view, this is still a gold mine!
So "The Fandom Menace" is at play indeed, and Disney is about to witness the full power of a consumer boycott. It's as if millions of people had suddenly looked at each other after Last Jedi and asked "you guys see what I'm seeing?" and nodded. No further actions were planned, everybody just knew what had to be done. I'd go on and say the only way they can bring Episode 9 back is to fire Kathleen Kennedy publicly (Tip: Disney, this must be public, there's no credibility otherwise that they would have changed their ways) and bring back the original people responsible for writing and directing Episodes 4-6. Of course, nobody who is actually good in his profession would agree to work with what Ep. 8 left with, so that's pretty unlikely. So the two things above and one more episode in the trilogy might do the trick - I'm thinking somebody waking up from coma and saying "WTF was that about?"
Seriously the overall reaction to this movie has convinced me once and for all that your average movie-goer is dumber than a sack of bricks.
Oh this half a year has been quite interesting on what it comes to Last Jedi apparently. I'm trying so very hard not to write half of the below as direct quotes from Star Wars, but let's see how that goes.
We have now seen some results of the film being published, including the home theater releases, so the facts are in. Guess what, the DVD sales of the Last Jedi are about -75 % compared to the Force Awakens. We also see that Solo movie has lost money instead of making it. Currently estimated to be about 50-100 millions in the negative, though this is likely an optimistic estimate, given the movie has practically been re-shot. However, Ron Howard attributed at least the right things: he is sad that the backlash of Last Jedi is affecting his movie. The sales of Star Wars merchandise has gone significantly down too.
There's been a leak from Disney that is about retiring (read: firing) Kathleen Kennedy in September. Other movie projects than Episode 9 have been put on hold, and that's including Rian "Ruin" Johnson's trilogy as is the Ben Kenobi movie. Further adding pressure to Disney's executive level is that they have invested a significant amount of money to Star Wars theme parks, which now will face a problem of missing visitors due to all time low interest in Star Wars.
Now, there was some talk here that the reception of Last Jedi may become similar to the reception of Empire Strikes Back. I'd like to know now when do people say that would happen, 'cause it's been about 7 months already and the general opinion doesn't seem to change? On the contrary, it still seems to be going to the other direction... I believe it was also me who first said here in January that Kennedy and Johnson both failed to uphold the value of the brand to the parent company, putting politics before happy customers. This, generally, is an idiotic business decision, and the results are in. What has also happened behind the scenes is that women will have harder time getting CEO level positions in the future thanks to Kennedy's legacy. It's still even more baffling Disney hasn't told LucasFilm employees to STFU in Twitter, there's still a lot of fan blaming going on, and given the Disney's public relations department, I would have expected this to stop already.
So not only have Kennedy and Johnson managed to deconstruct and subvert the Star Wars franchise, they have nearly succeeded in deconstructing the fan base, the LucasFilm company and the Disney's four billion dollar investment in the truest Elopian fashion. With this background, it's astonishing the LucasFilm board of directors is still intact, i.e. has not been fired as it should have been. It's one thing to misunderstand their target audience, but to go on and insult them is nearly unprecedented. It's tragic that they for some reason couldn't comprehend average fan is a man, and in their 30s and 40s :lol: To get younger audience to the theater, you'll need to convince their parents first! Lando touted being pansexual certainly helped people make their decisions about watching Solo, it certainly did in my case, so thanks for the heads up! Then again, I lost my interest to Star Wars movies already. Seen from the management point of view, this is still a gold mine!
So "The Fandom Menace" is at play indeed, and Disney is about to witness the full power of a consumer boycott. It's as if millions of people had suddenly looked at each other after Last Jedi and asked "you guys see what I'm seeing?" and nodded. No further actions were planned, everybody just knew what had to be done. I'd go on and say the only way they can bring Episode 9 back is to fire Kathleen Kennedy publicly (Tip: Disney, this must be public, there's no credibility otherwise that they would have changed their ways) and bring back the original people responsible for writing and directing Episodes 4-6. Of course, nobody who is actually good in his profession would agree to work with what Ep. 8 left with, so that's pretty unlikely. So the two things above and one more episode in the trilogy might do the trick - I'm thinking somebody waking up from coma and saying "WTF was that about?"
JJ Abrams is now destined to become the fall guy. If I were him I'd actually bail out of Ep. 9 by any means necessary.
Adama was an extraordinary leader because he understood people and was willing to bend the rules when it was needed, thereby preventing a lot of terrible outcomes from happening.
Holdo might have been a capable tactician (assuming things like the hyperspace ram was a novel idea), but she was not the leader given the desperate situation at hand.
Start with executive producer saying he doesn't need to cater to male fans. (https://screenrant.com/star-wars-kathleen-kennedy-male-fans/)
Well done for not understanding your core audience. That alone itself isn't problematic though, but it is alarming.
Seriously the overall reaction to this movie has convinced me once and for all that your average movie-goer is dumber than a sack of bricks.
Adama also had a mutiny on his ship in case you're forgetting. So apparently even competent leaders who understand people can have a mutiny. And Adama had a lot more reason to expect a mutiny than Holdo did.
Even later on in the film, once his plan is in action, Poe has come in shouting and screaming about what a dreadful job she's doing but doesn't actually tell her he has anything better in mind. Remember, Poe deliberately doesn't tell Holdo his plan. And there is no reason for Holdo to believe that anyone would come up with it, let alone actually put it into action without telling her. You are blaming Holdo for the unforgivable mistake of failing to take into account the plotting of an underling that she doesn't know about! We understand Poe's reasons for the mutiny, but put yourself in her place. With no actual plan on how to save the ship, what possible reason would Poe have to mutiny? So that he could do the exact same thing he thinks she is doing? She doesn't see the mutiny coming because, from her point of view, there is no sensible reason to mutiny.
From the time Holdo finds out that Poe does have a plan until the mutiny a grand total of about 30 seconds elapses. Really? That's a massive failure of command on Holdo's part? Not seeing that the officer who has already done something mind-blowingly stupid and reckless is going to do something even more moronic? Bear in mind that a competent leader would be going over the plan in her head at the same time and trying to figure out where Poe's stupidity might **** up their plan. She really doesn't have much time to consider what idiocy is coming next.
The failing of the film with respect to Poe/Holdo is that it gives the viewer too much credit. It assumes that once it's explained that Holdo was in the right, people will see it. That they'll put themselves in Holdo's shoes and realise that she wasn't what we thought she was. A lot of us do. Which is why arguments that Holdo is a bad leader get such a strong pushback. She wasn't incompetent. She wasn't even in the wrong. Once we get told about Crait we can see we've been played by the film. Holdo did have a plan, she did have logical reasons for keeping it to herself and her senior officers, and she's had to deal with a petulant officer who is demanding access to top-secret mission plans which he has no need to know. We've been completely in the wrong to support Poe.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't get it. Leia's comment about how "She was more interested in protecting the light than seeming like a hero" was meant to impart that but it's obvious from this thread that it's not enough. I've got no idea how you could point that out without grinding the film to a halt though, so I can understand why they went this way and put their faith in the fans to do what Star Wars fans always do and explain things to those who thought it an important but minor issue. I guess they never expected the internet to be so violently against Holdo that they refused to accept that they'd been tricked.
Holdo isn't given the same treatment by the writers. If she had taken more proactive steps, then I would have been sympathetic to her situation. When it seems like death is inevitable, morale will be at an all time low. I'll draw comparison between how Adama handled the situation after the fall of the colonies with Holdo's command after the fall of the New Republic and the Resistance base. Adama told a lie to his crew. He could have just told everyone to have hope, but instead purposefully fabricated something with no basis whatsoever because it inspired hope. By contrast, Holdo told the survivors to think of what General Leia would have said, to have hope. The difference here is that Adama took an active role by lying to his crew whereas Holdo gave no tangible solution for the problem at hand and even exasperated the situation by referring to Leia, further distancing herself and reminding the crew that their beloved leader is incapacitated.
You cannot have a mutiny without a significant portion of the crew.
So if we are supposed to be condemning Poe for his actions, then why aren't we condemning everyone else who agreed to mutiny? There is leeway in saying that a particularly stubborn individual defies all expectations, but when it's a group of people conducting an act of mutiny, then you cannot say there is not a morale problem.
if Holdo failed to pick up on this point because she is too busy going over the plan, then it's a failure in command.
That aside, I don't envy the situation Holdo is in. It's tough, definitely, but it doesn't change the lack of action on her part to address morale. She's very mechanical in this regards, focusing too much on the plan and not enough on the people, which returns to my thesis that Holdo isn't a capable leader because she can't read her subordinates
Star Wars isn't very subtle about what it's trying to do.
But intentions don't translate to expectations and emotions without a good execution. I've already listed a bunch of ways they could have done this without making me feel like Holdo isn't trying very hard. Having the whole casino subplot undoubtedly restricted the amount of attention they could have given to Poe/Holdo.
A big criticism of Star Wars and is that they have a tendency to stick too much in too little time. This happened with the prequels, and it undoubtedly happened in TLJ. I don't see why I should forgive Star Wars for this failing of scope, when pacing and narrative is part of the art of cinema and story telling in general. Star Wars doesn't get a free pass just because it's Star Wars. If the plots are too bloated and crowd each other out, then that's a bad thing.
There are four hundred of us...
on three ships.
We're the very last of the Resistance
You know...
Just this morning, I had to stun...
three people who were trying to jump ship.
In this escape pod.
You keep mentioning Adama and I don't particularly want to get into a comparison because those things always get sidetracked. But he's massively flawed as a leader. That was absolutely the intention of the show. I honestly don't think you're being at all fair. You're waving away complaints about Adama but using them to fuel your argument for Holdo.
I can never tell whether people who don't like Kylo Ren either don't understand what his purpose as a character is or don't understand why he is the way he is, because it's always one or the other.
This is pure bull**** and you know it.
Yes let's have Star Wars keep catering to basement-dwelling neckbeards instead of, y'know, half of the population of the planet.
Yes let's regress the entire franchise 40 years that is a great plan.
So your criticizing the producer based on a quote she gave on the eve of the best of the new movies?
I'm sorry but catering to old fans is a flawed strategy. Why? Because people die. They die, they move on, they get busy, or worst of all, they have less money to spend on star wars merchandise. To be successful you need to cater to a new audience and bring in new fans, and if the movie is good enough to retain the old fans, bonus. If not- could be worse.
If I'm not mistaken, the 30s something has the most disposable income. So why appeal to a 50-yo fan?
I am 99% certain that I'm not supposed to be laughing at Ren outside of the SNL skit. You can write a character that's struggling with a crisis, even one that's sympathetic, but it doesn't mean the audience has to like them. And really that's the issue I had the film. I mentioned this way back earlier on this thread that the pacing was all over the place. The only time I actually feel sympathetic to Kylo Ren is when I abstract him away from the film, which is also the same way I feel about Anakin. Conceptually, they are characters I should be caring about, but when I watch the movies, I don't feel it. And that's the problem.
So to be specific, I like Kylo Ren conceptually, but I dislike Kylo Ren when I see him in the film. Maybe I'd like TLJ more if I was reading it as a novel.
That's not her only quote about it.
So for Kennedy, girls cannot identify with Luke Skywalker. Keeping things equal, then men should not be able to identify with Rey. Obviously that's never been the case. For some reason, men have been able to identify with Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley and all the other well-written characters. I do expect women are actually able to do the same regardless of the gender.
He was, remember? After losing the bombers?He actually wasn't. He was demoted. Rank and post are two different things. He was not relieved of his command. He still answered to Leia. At no point are we shown that there's a higher-ranking pilot on the Raddus, which means that in spite of his demotion, he was still the CAG.
So for Kennedy, girls cannot identify with Luke Skywalker. Keeping things equal, then men should not be able to identify with Rey. Obviously that's never been the case. For some reason, men have been able to identify with Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley and all the other well-written characters. I do expect women are actually able to do the same regardless of the gender.
Canto Bight is weak, Benicio del Toro's character is no Lando in terms of screen presence (not to say he needs to be a Landolike character; I just don't find him equivalently compelling)
I actually really liked Canto as a character, both what he is conceptually and how he was portrayed.
Canto Bight is the subversion of Han Solo. Where Han is over the top, borderline bombastic, Canto is low key.
Canto Bight is the planet, not the codebreaker.
Canto Bight is the casino planet
I rewatched this movie on Netflix (my third viewing) and I've decided that it's an amazing final act saddled with some questionable buildup. Basically everything involving Finn, Rose, and the Heroic Gambit (including said gambit's conclusion on the flight deck of the Supremacy) is kind of flat and unengaging to me. Canto Bight is weak, Benicio del Toro's character is no Lando in terms of screen presence (not to say he needs to be a Landolike character; I just don't find him equivalently compelling), and Luke/Rey has to carry the movie for the first act.
Once Rey gets to the Supremacy it's just about all great from there to the end.
The sequel trilogy is about how the people who grew up with Star Wars relate to it, so it is by nature reflexive on the OT and the PT (with Luke here being the guy who watched the prequels and became disillusioned; he has to be convinced there is still a story to be told).
I'm curious how much of an impact this has on its audience.
I very much disagree with your justification on poorly written characters, especially in the case of Holdo who is barely a character and more of a plot obstacle. She literally shows up out of nowhere to be an opposing force to Poe.
And then there's the ending which continues to leave me uncaring about it at all. This being the middle movie in a trilogy should have been more like a tv mid-season finale. Give me something. Instead it's more like the season finale to Bones. For those of you who didn't watch Bones, it ends with the murder-mystery solving team essentially getting ready for the next murder-mystery. They'll go on solving murders forever. Sure, you can force in some stuff.. "How is Bones going to raise kids and solve murders at the same time?" or "what's the new Lab going to be like with Hodgens as the boss?", but they aren't really lingering questions that need another season to answer. It's the same with TLJ. The rebels escape again is really all there is to it. How are they gonna rebuild? It's not important because we know they just will. It's Star Wars. Everything else is wrapped up. All the lose threads are tied up (or rather cut off). The rebels will go on rebelling ad infinitum. Which really speaks to the whole corporitization of nu Star Wars. Of course they'll go on rebelling forever. How else is Disney going to keep this going? For as much as TLJ tries to push the boundaries and make Star Wars different, I partially feel it did nothing at all. Could we really have Star Wars without stormtroopers or rebels in orange? I'd like to be proven wrong.
Let's take the next trilogy 30-40 years down the line. The First Order is gone, and Rey is off doing who knows what, having started a new kind of Jedi or whatever. We meet new heroes and new antogonists that don't wear plastic helmets and aren't obsessed with the last trilogy's villain. If they really want to let the past die, let's go somewhere really new with a story about characters that exist in the Star Wars universe instead of getting just another Star Wars universe film with people in it.
The rebels will go on rebelling ad infinitum. Which really speaks to the whole corporitization of nu Star Wars. Of course they'll go on rebelling forever. How else is Disney going to keep this going? For as much as TLJ tries to push the boundaries and make Star Wars different, I partially feel it did nothing at all. Could we really have Star Wars without stormtroopers or rebels in orange?
So what you're saying is is that you want to see safe **** that is exactly what you expect it to be instead of films that are somewhat more forward-looking. Got it.
Tell us, how much did you pledge to the "Remake TLJ" campaign?
Please now define "safe ****" and "forward-looking" in this context. What are they supposed to mean? With the cultural background of living next to Soviet Union and my parents teaching me the necessary media reading skills, my commie-radar is tingling when I read such vague and good sounding words. For them to have any meaning to me, they need to be defined. So what's this forward-looking stuff you are talking about? It sounds eerily similar to the "progressive movement" what I heard from radios back then.
I also remind you that as a CEO, you have a responsibility of taking care of the property of the owners. If at any point it turns out that things the company has done, have been done for ideological reasons instead of maximizing the benefit of the owners, you are actually liable for prosecution. Granted, it is art we are talking about, so it's difficult to define where things actually do become irresponsible. The way I see it, Kennedy could actually be sued. Instead she will be offered a golden parachute.
I've been asked if I see it odd that female heroes that I linked are from movies 35-39 years ago. First of all, the discussion started from people not believing the big shots actively blaming fans, and I provided the quotes. I then expanded the discussion to the point of view of business: if you already have a customer base with a known age and gender composition, it's not a good business move to alienate it in search of the new customers. Why? Because Kennedy managed to do that.
Truth to be told, I haven't seen a lot of good characters in the recent action movies at all. Not even men. The last good ones are Dredd 3D and Sin City (Marv), but even then they are not original characters, but instead adopted from comic books. The same Dredd 3D actually has one of the better woman anti-heroes in Rookie Andersson. After that, there's a long line of silence until the 90s. Alex Murphy, Terminator, John Rambo would be the first ones to come in to mind. Matrix was original in its plot and action sequences, but the characters were the weak point of the movie. Ash is luckily still the same in the Ash vs Evil Dead series. Jyn in Rogue One was the latest woman character in Star Wars so there's that too. She just wasn't a particularly shining character.
I very much disagree with your justification on poorly written characters, especially in the case of Holdo who is barely a character and more of a plot obstacle. She literally shows up out of nowhere to be an opposing force to Poe.
You're obviously over generalizing my point in order to try and prove it false. You're a writer, I expected better from you.
If you can't look at TLJ and see that it absolutely has faults even if you still like it, then this is not a conversation worth having with you.
I've been asked if I see it odd that female heroes that I linked are from movies 35-39 years ago. First of all, the discussion started from people not believing the big shots actively blaming fans, and I provided the quotes. I then expanded the discussion to the point of view of business: if you already have a customer base with a known age and gender composition, it's not a good business move to alienate it in search of the new customers. Why? Because Kennedy managed to do that.
Ugh. Ok, I'm gonna stop discussing this movie. You all that are for the movie are more interested in pummeling us who disagree into submission than having a discussion.
Instead of trying to understand my more nuanced general disappointment with the film, you're nitpicking any example I try to use to help explain how I feel. It's annoying and I expected better from many of you because I now you're much smarter than that.
Additionally, if you can't look at TLJ and see that it absolutely has faults even if you still like it, then this is not a conversation worth having with you.
So I'm gonna move on. I tried.
It's the number of stupid things along with a nothing ending.
Counting up the deserters and mutineers, that's at least 17 people who are clearly suffering from morale issues. That's a little over 4% of the remaining survivors, likely coming up to 6% if we discount the injured and incapacitated and grant that were probably a couple more deserters.
Given the objective of the mutiny was to seize control of the bridge, it wouldn't make sense to make it a widespread mutiny.
You keep bringing up the point about the 30 seconds before the mutiny started. I'm not arguing that was when she failed. Holdo failed several hours before when she had the time to reassure the remaining survivors after Leia was incapacitated.
If Holdo had a line where she said something along the lines of, "I should have kept a tougher lease on Poe" instead of that silly "He's a troublemaker. I like him" line, I probably also would have been more favorable towards Holdo. Admitting fault is another characteristic that for me anyways defines good leadership.
And I keep bringing up Adama because whenever I watch BSG, it feels believable compared to when I watch pretty much anything Star Wars. Adama as a character sold me on the idea that he's a good leader, whereas Holdo just doesn't unless I'm willing to abstract away a lot of things and just roll with what the film wants me to think.
At the very start of the film, Poe disobeys a direct order from Leia.
Which really speaks to the whole corporitization of nu Star Wars. Of course they'll go on rebelling forever. How else is Disney going to keep this going? For as much as TLJ tries to push the boundaries and make Star Wars different, I partially feel it did nothing at all. Could we really have Star Wars without stormtroopers or rebels in orange? I'd like to be proven wrong.
So by your own figures 6% of the ship (most of whom were people Poe's subordinates) vs 94% of the ship. That's not proof of widespread dissatifaction with Holdo. Bear in mind that Poe is charismatic enough that most of his squadron follow him to their own deaths. It's pretty believable that he could have told them about Finn and Rose and talked them into a mutiny even if they'd actually known Holdo's plans. He truly believed his plan had a chance. He put it into action long before he knew what Holdo was or wasn't doing. He could easily have argued that Holdo's plan is too risky (If the First Order do see them leave the ship they'll all be slaughtered) and his plan allows them to jump out with their flagship intact.
And as I keep pointing out to you there is no reason for her to believe she was failing at that point. From her point of view there is absolutely no sensible reason to mutiny against her. Bear in mind, she has valid reasons for keeping her plan secret given that it absolutely relies on stealth. You want her to be going out and giving speeches about how she has a plan. Speeches that will do little to convince Poe that she's not just faking it. Instead she is doing what a good leader should be doing, demonstrating her competence by leading. By acting as if she does have a plan and is executing it instead of hand-holding. Had it not been for Poe's plan (Which as I keep pointing out she doesn't know about!) she would have come through it looking like Adama in Hand of God. Stop picturing everything from the view we have in the film and imagine it from the viewpoint of someone not invested in the Poe/Holdo conflict. Holdo comes out pretty well if you do that. At no point does she look defeated. She had a plan and she unflappably carried it out, even when some dumb idiot got in her way.
Like I said, the problem with the film is that it does such a good job of convincing you that Poe is correct and that Holdo isn't a good leader that you're still having trouble seeing that you were wrong after it's revealed you were tricked.
If you look at that line, she's basically saying she doesn't have any ill feelings towards Poe for his actions. And he mutinied against her something that would piss off most people. Holdo however doesn't blame him for it. She sees that with the information he had, maybe she'd have done the same thing. That's actually a far more important admission than her trying to blame herself for things she couldn't possibly have foreseen. I agree the line is somewhat silly, but the intention behind it isn't.
We see Adama from the point of view of Adama. We have lots of reasons to see why he is a good leader. With Holdo we have a few minutes of screen time seen from the point of view of a character who we are supposed to side with. Of course we aren't going to see the good leader stuff, it goes against the narrative. I'm sure if the first time and only time we saw Adama was from the point of view of the people who believed that he was being influenced by Boomer, we'd see him as a weak leader too.
Which brings me to another point, why isn't Leia considered a weak leader then? Not only does Poe disobey her, but so does his entire squadron. They all die following Poe when they could have listened to her and lived.
The issue I feel here is that we have different valuation on what actions are more important for the situation at hand. It seems to me that you believe secrecy about the plan was more important here whereas I felt it was unnecessary and actually harmful to the crew's morale. I mentioned that if they even so much as dropped a simple line about there being a potential spy on-board then secrecy would have made a lot more sense. But as it stands, I don't actually see a reason why it would have made any sense. Am I expected to believe that someone in the Resistance was going to open a communications channel with the First Order to sell out their own after hearing about stealth transports? There's no mention of traitors, communication bugs, or anything that would lead to me think secrecy was important at the moment. Everyone onboard has a vested interest to not leak that info. It was only when DJ got involved (who is a mercenary outsider) that the plan was leaked, and as you said, there's no reason for Holdo to expect DJ to even be a factor in the circumstances. For her to have foreseen DJ leaking the plan would require her to also foresee Poe running off and bringing back an outsider.
If you look at that line, she's basically saying she doesn't have any ill feelings towards Poe for his actions. And he mutinied against her something that would piss off most people. Holdo however doesn't blame him for it. She sees that with the information he had, maybe she'd have done the same thing. That's actually a far more important admission than her trying to blame herself for things she couldn't possibly have foreseen. I agree the line is somewhat silly, but the intention behind it isn't.
Following from my perception of Holdo, this line honestly felt out of left field. Up to this point, Holdo had acted on what seemed like pride about running a strict ship. It makes her feel close minded and inflexible. My conclusion then was that she had either purposefully withheld that information in order to teach Poe his place or treated people mechanically on a need to know basis, both of which I saw as bad decisions given the circumstances.
I think the issue here is that there really isn't anything that was done by Holdo that would imply she was right. As you said before, the film expects us to assume she was right all along, but what was she even right about? To have blind faith in your superiors? To escape on stealth transports, which in itself seemed to be Leia's idea to begin with given she is the one who explained it to Poe. Actions speak a lot more than words, but everything about Holdo being a good leader seems to depend on us extrapolating and interpreting from lines given to us. We are told she was the commander for a significant battle. But depending on how you interpret that, it could simply mean she is an excellent tactician, not necessarily someone who can inspire people. The fact that we don't see her successfully raising morale only adds to the idea that she is not the inspirational leader needed for the situation. I will say that her decision to remain to act as a distraction (even as contrived as it is that we are expected to believe that there is no autopilot on ships) demonstrated a quality in her character, and I did mentioned that she redeemed herself in the end.
If you don't believe there is a morale crisis, then of course we are going to disagree on the requirements for being the fleet leader at the moment. But deserters, mutineers, the seemingly hopeless circumstances, and just the general mood of the crew implies to me that morale is at an all time low. Of course you can say the film purposefully withheld the remaining 94% of the crew who are actually joking around and not experiencing a crisis, but that is both incredibly cheap on the part of the film and very hard to believe given the factors at hand.
Ultimately, I reconciled that Holdo was the wrong leader for the circumstances. She seemed like someone who runs a strict ship, likely getting very excellent performance from her crew, but was the wrong person to be leading the Resistance in Leia's place. To me, Holdo comes off as someone who is a little prideful about her command but nonetheless is probably capable as a tactician that unfortunately was forcibly promoted/pushed into a position that she did not have the skills to handle. She is the excellent auxiliary commander that reliably executes the orders from her superiors to an exacting detail but falters when she is expected to be the inspirational leader that keeps people together.
Not sure how DJ is relevant. Poe transmitted information to Rebels onboard a ship at high risk of being captured. That is beyond stupid. Particularly when Poe already knows that Kylo can just mindrip **** right out of your head having suffered this in TFA.
If you want to look at the realistic side of things. We know from Grace/Finn that people have been ditching the ship. Is Holdo going to communicate the plan when people are deserting ship in escape pods? Can those escape pods be captured and their crew interrogated by the FO?
The line is one of the problems with the film anyway. Not because it reveals anything about the speaker but because a character in the movie is telling the audience how they should feel about another character.
There's a lot I like about the film but the Poe "arc" is a waste of time. Does this guy care that information he leaked lead to the deaths of hundreds of rebels? Doesn't seem to. Poe was in the wrong, but where is this guy's reckoning? Recognizing Holdo as right and himself as wrong is a very small thing. He should be mad at himself for what he let happen. But his ego is never torn down far enough.
How did Leia come up with this idea when she was in a coma exactly? She only woke up after the mutiny took place. Preparations were already well under way.
If there was a morale crisis, the film doesn't properly convey it except for the remark about deserters. The only thing it conveys is that Poe is repeatedly insubordinate.
How do you infer that Holdo runs a tight ship when Poe never gets thrown into the brig?
As I mentioned earlier, we're arguing over something that's ultimately going to come down to our personal beliefs and evaluation on what is considered a morale issue. At this point, we've probably picked over all the relevant details to continue this particular branch of the discussion.
The issue I feel here is that we have different valuation on what actions are more important for the situation at hand. It seems to me that you believe secrecy about the plan was more important here whereas I felt it was unnecessary and actually harmful to the crew's morale. I mentioned that if they even so much as dropped a simple line about there being a potential spy on-board then secrecy would have made a lot more sense. But as it stands, I don't actually see a reason why it would have made any sense. Am I expected to believe that someone in the Resistance was going to open a communications channel with the First Order to sell out their own after hearing about stealth transports? There's no mention of traitors, communication bugs, or anything that would lead to me think secrecy was important at the moment. Everyone onboard has a vested interest to not leak that info. It was only when DJ got involved (who is a mercenary outsider) that the plan was leaked, and as you said, there's no reason for Holdo to expect DJ to even be a factor in the circumstances. For her to have foreseen DJ leaking the plan would require her to also foresee Poe running off and bringing back an outsider.
You keep assuming I'm siding with Poe here.
Stop treating it as a dichotomy between Poe and Holdo.
Actions speak a lot more than words, but everything about Holdo being a good leader seems to depend on us extrapolating and interpreting from lines given to us.
If you don't believe there is a morale crisis, then of course we are going to disagree on the requirements for being the fleet leader at the moment. But deserters, mutineers, the seemingly hopeless circumstances, and just the general mood of the crew implies to me that morale is at an all time low. Of course you can say the film purposefully withheld the remaining 94% of the crew who are actually joking around and not experiencing a crisis, but that is both incredibly cheap on the part of the film and very hard to believe given the factors at hand.
I did in fact said that Leia was partly to blame for the issue, for not being more strict on Poe, for not picking someone who was more charismatic to lead in her place. But she was incapacitated
Ultimately, I reconciled that Holdo was the wrong leader for the circumstances. She seemed like someone who runs a strict ship, likely getting very excellent performance from her crew, but was the wrong person to be leading the Resistance in Leia's place. To me, Holdo comes off as someone who is a little prideful about her command
he is literally depicted as a sort of super hacker or code breaker. It would seem entirely in line that he hacked into the Resistance's networks and got a hold of the details regarding the stealth transports.
People deserting and the seemingly lack of care about this happening is one reason why I believe Holdo's command was poor. She didn't have to communicate the exact plan, but even offering the idea that there is a plan is far better for morale than her speech about having hope.
She explained the plan to Poe, with seemingly no time to have learned about it after waking up. I suppose she could have woken up before, gotten briefed about the plan, and just hadn't had the chance to greet the rest of the crew. But that's a lot of blanks to assume. It seemed more to me that the intent was that Leia had it planned all along and that Poe's mutiny was him going against her wishes. Holdo was simply the trusted lieutenant to carry out her plans.
I've said you have no proof that there is. I'm pointing out that you've made up your entire argument and that the film doesn't bear it out. That's not the same thing as making up my own side of the argument. It's nothing to do with personal beliefs and everything to do with the fact that you're arguing things not in evidence as if they were facts that should be obvious to everyone.
Akalabeth has basically got to the crux of my argument before I could. People have been deserting the ship. They are being followed by a ship with two mind readers on board. It would literally mean the end of the rebellion if they allow any deserters with knowledge of the plan to get captured by the First Order.
I haven't said morale isn't at a low. What I'm arguing is that you don't have any proof that this lack of morale translates into a lack of faith in the leadership. Holdo is quite clearly doing something. She obviously seems to believe that her plan will work. That could easily translate into faith in her. Especially amongst the crew who know that she was Leia's pupil. The remainder of the crew have no other plans, so why would they be against the only person who seems to have a way out of the problem?
QuoteI did in fact said that Leia was partly to blame for the issueYou've missed my point again. And this time it's especially mystifying how, given that I was quite clearly talking about Poe getting his squadron killed. But to make things clear, Poe along with his entire squadron completely disregard Leia's orders and attack the dreadnought. This results in most of them being killed. Unlike Holdo, Leia does know Poe. If command is supposedly about people, surely this makes Leia a worse leader than Holdo. She has no control over the troops under her command.
But yet it's Holdo you've singled out as the example of a bad commander.
You've missed my point again here. I'm simply challenging your assumption that Holdo is a bad leader. I never said you were on Poe's side. Look closely at my argument and you'll see that I've merely pointed out that since we're seeing things from Poe's point of view. Until Leia shoots him we're supposed to believe that he is in the right. Then we're supposed to quickly realise that wasn't the case. The film does a good job of setting up the former but doesn't do as well at the latter. You believe that Holdo was a poor leader because the film sets up that expectation by only showing you things from one point of view. We never got an objective view of what was going on.
Everything about her being a bad leader depends just as much on extrapolating and interpreting from lines given to us. As I keep pointing out, you have no proof that anyone besides Poe (and the people he convinced) had any problem with her.
I hope you see how this pretty quickly gets ridiculous. We have scant facts. I can just as easily argue that you have no proof that the First Order would be able to capture/detect or bother to capture any deserters rather than just blowing them up, that you're extrapolating that Holdo's decision to be secretive was a good thing. Without extrapolating, there is literally two factors to consider. A mutiny of at least 4.25% occurred, and she had a plan to hide out on a planet. And with only these two factors, I would say her leadership abilities are inconclusive, given that there are way too many other factors that cannot be evaluated with an opinion based extrapolation.
I already addressed this with my response to Akalabeth. If you're not going to address the response I made there, then I'm not going to bother reiterating it here.
She didn't have to communicate the exact plan, but even offering the idea that there is a plan is far better for morale than her speech about having hope.
Alright. Maybe this is true, but aren't you also asserting things without proof from the film, such as Holdo being Leia's pupil?
And if this is your point, then I feel like the only actual meaningful disagreement we have in terms of actually critiquing the film is that you think they did a good job of getting the audience to side with Poe whereas I thought they just made Poe looked dumb and Holdo a mostly non-factor.
So what's really going on here is that you thought the Poe/Holdo subplot was executed better than I thought it was, even though we both seem to a negative view of its execution overall.
For the first half of the execution to be effective, it is not enough that Holdo comes off as being in the wrong but that Poe has to also come off as being in the right. The subtle difference here is that I felt both Holdo and Poe were in the wrong. And in the second hald of the subplot, the film failed to convince me to think Holdo was in the right, and Poe still remains idiotic for me. Comparatively speaking, you hold the opinion that the film convinced people that Poe was right and Holdo was wrong, but then failed to make it seem that Holdo was right while making it almost ambiguous whether or not Poe was right.
Not sure how DJ is relevant. Poe transmitted information to Rebels onboard a ship at high risk of being captured. That is beyond stupid. Particularly when Poe already knows that Kylo can just mindrip **** right out of your head having suffered this in TFA.
DJ is the person who ultimately sold them out. I don't believe it's actually quite made clear how the First Order learns about the stealth transports, but it would make sense that DJ past that bit of information along when he was selling out. Plus, he is literally depicted as a sort of super hacker or code breaker. It would seem entirely in line that he hacked into the Resistance's networks and got a hold of the details regarding the stealth transports. And yeah, Poe is stupid and should have been locked up. What's your point there?
People deserting and the seemingly lack of care about this happening is one reason why I believe Holdo's command was poor. She didn't have to communicate the exact plan, but even offering the idea that there is a plan is far better for morale than her speech about having hope.
How did Leia come up with this idea when she was in a coma exactly? She only woke up after the mutiny took place. Preparations were already well under way.
She explained the plan to Poe, with seemingly no time to have learned about it after waking up. I suppose she could have woken up before, gotten briefed about the plan, and just hadn't had the chance to greet the rest of the crew. But that's a lot of blanks to assume. It seemed more to me that the intent was that Leia had it planned all along and that Poe's mutiny was him going against her wishes. Holdo was simply the trusted lieutenant to carry out her plans.
If there was a morale crisis, the film doesn't properly convey it except for the remark about deserters. The only thing it conveys is that Poe is repeatedly insubordinate.
Then we obviously have read the details in the movies differently. What do you want me to say at this point? The body language of the crew, such as Rose crying about the lost of her sister, likely reflecting that several people have lost loved ones, has put the crew's morale at an all time low. Slowly, one by one, the fleet went down from 3 to 1 ship. Each time a ship is left behind and blown up, the survivors are reminded of what seemed to be their pending fate. A bridge controller, someone who is in close contact with Admiral Holdo, is convinced that her own commanding officer does not have a plan that will save them and agrees to join a mutiny, a decision that no sane person would take lightly given the possible consequences of such an action. If these aren't signs that morale is low, then I don't know what you would consider them.
In this context? Safe **** would be the kind of movie that doesn't dare to imply that Luke never really overcame his issues or that he had difficulty transitioning from student to mentor.
Safe **** would be to take everything in TFA at face value and go the expected route with every mystery box JJA shat out (i.e. ignore the buffoonishness of Hux and turn him into the competent commander folks imagined him to be, give Rey some form of backstory connecting her to someone in the lore, get Luke into the fight as a new leader alongside Leia, have a bunch of cameos of existing characters like Ackbar, Wedge or Lando show up to suck fanboy dick...).
Safe **** is a studio so utterly controlled that nothing that would ever imply that the status quo may not be eternal can leak.
Safe ****, in essence, is making the movie you wanted to see, with the people and press releases you would have written. Guaranteed crowd pleaser. Also guaranteed to be vapid ****e.
At worst, AT WORST, Kathleen Kennedy presided over ONE (count 'em, ONE) movie that failed to make its money back. Overall, her work provided billions of dollars in revenue to Disney.
But she insulted you personally, didn't she, and that can't stand, right?
It's also generally a good idea to try to expand your audience and keep it at a healthy mixture of old and new fans, not cater to the old fans exclusively.
You really need to watch more movies. Wasn't it you, a couple years back, who was having a moment of utterly insane opinions where you couldn't believe modern SF/F novels were comparable to old ones?
Why do you feel alienated by the casting of a woman in the lead role?
It's worth noting that the quote you've referenced of Kennedy is her response to fan criticism.
So for Kennedy, girls cannot identify with Luke Skywalker. Keeping things equal, then men should not be able to identify with Rey. Obviously that's never been the case. For some reason, men have been able to identify with Sarah Connor, Ellen Ripley and all the other well-written characters. I do expect women are actually able to do the same regardless of the gender.
Does it not strike you as problematic that your go-to female characters to identify with are from movies that debuted 39 and 35 years ago?
Please now define "safe ****" and "forward-looking" in this context. What are they supposed to mean? With the cultural background of living next to Soviet Union and my parents teaching me the necessary media reading skills, my commie-radar is tingling when I read such vague and good sounding words. For them to have any meaning to me, they need to be defined. So what's this forward-looking stuff you are talking about? It sounds eerily similar to the "progressive movement" what I heard from radios back then.
In this context? Safe **** would be the kind of movie that doesn't dare to imply that Luke never really overcame his issues or that he had difficulty transitioning from student to mentor.
Safe **** would be to take everything in TFA at face value and go the expected route with every mystery box JJA shat out (i.e. ignore the buffoonishness of Hux and turn him into the competent commander folks imagined him to be, give Rey some form of backstory connecting her to someone in the lore, get Luke into the fight as a new leader alongside Leia, have a bunch of cameos of existing characters like Ackbar, Wedge or Lando show up to suck fanboy dick...).
Safe **** is a studio so utterly controlled that nothing that would ever imply that the status quo may not be eternal can leak.
Safe ****, in essence, is making the movie you wanted to see, with the people and press releases you would have written. Guaranteed crowd pleaser. Also guaranteed to be vapid ****e.
But let's address the other bit. There actually is quite a large danger in suggesting that there is a plan. If someone doesn't believe her they might still desert. If they get picked up and have their minds read, they might get the First Order wondering if there actually is any escape. From there it's just a matter of sticking a star destroyer over every liveable world and sending down some probes to totally **** up the plan. Probes are cheap, Vader sent out thousands of them, the only thing stopping Hux from doing it is the certainty that the rebels have no way out. Make a crack in that, and the whole plan could fall apart.
So while Hux may or may not be smart enough to figure all that out just from some deserter saying that Holdo said she has a plan, it makes perfect sense for Holdo to keep the fact she has a plan to herself and the officers she trusts. Even if it is damaging to morale. It's not like the people on the ship are going to do anything like mutiny (no reason to, they have no other plans as far as she's aware). But if she tells them there's a plan and it goes wrong, it's the end of the rebellion.
Let me ask you a question then. The first time you watched the film, did you think Poe's plan was going to work? Or did you believe that Holdo had something up her sleeve?
Depends on what you mean by wrong and right. If you mean Poe's plan is the one that will save the day, yeah the film convinced me of that before pulling the rug out from under me. If you mean that his actions were the right ones for him to have taken, nope. The film didn't convince me of that because I don't think it tried to. We're still supposed to be seeing Poe as a hot-head. We're just supposed to think that for once his hot-headedness is going to save the day rather than ruining it.
Dude you honestly need to stick to the film. It's made explicitly clear in the film that DJ takes note of the communication from Poe. That's all that DJ needs to sell out the transports. The bridge officer mentions something about scanning for cloaked ships and bingo that's it. Some off-screen stealth hacking did not take place.
The point is, it's ironic you're faulting Holdo for not telling Poe the plan when Poe demonstrates that he has no military acumen whatsoever, particularly when it comes to military intelligence. Regardless of how the First Order came to get that information, it is insane that Poe would transmit the Rebel plan to Rebel infiltrators onboard the enemy flagship.
SO- instead of assuming that Leia woke up and learned about the plan. You assume that in the time between the fleet arriving behind the rebels and Ren's wingman blowing out the bridge, Leia formulated the plan and communicated to a captain onboard on the other ships? Have you heard the term Occam's Razor? Which of those two possibilities is more likely, especially in a Star Wars movie.
How realistic is it for a ship to go from disciplined to mutinous in a day? You've oft mentioned BSG, in that series one of the episodes has the Cylons jump in behind the fleet every 30 minutes after a jump or somesuch, this happens in the wake of their entire civilization being nuked out of existence, the fleet totally destroyed, millions dead. And in this pursuit no one can get any sleep, they're running on fumes and desperate but in that moment no one even considers mutiny.
You're also making assumptions about the film that are not explicitly shown on the film. All we see from the film is that Poe has a problem with Holdo, and that the girl on the bridge is on Poe's side. We don't see the rest of the crew behaving erratically or mutinous. Rose for example wasn't mutinous, she was doing her duty until for some reason she decided "hey I'm going to go AWOL to try and save the ship because some peanut lady in a hologram told me to".
In TLJ Poe disobeys direct orders, gets a bunch of people killed, and is merely demoted. Then leads a mutiny, and is he executed? Nope. Just thrown in a transport and 10 minutes later he's leading the defense of the base. He also allows secret information to get into Imperial hands? Any consequence? Zero. So Poe is insubordinate, he's complicit with desertion, he's an intelligence leak, he's mutinous and after all that he's still commanding the defense and will probably lead the Rebel military in EpIX. And in a military like that, you want to criticize Holdo's command abilities? I dunno, it's very odd battle to fight in my opinion.
Yes, it is a hard pill to just accept that this is just how the Resistance as an organization works. But to be fair, with the number of people they had left in the end, it wouldn't make sense to not put Poe on the frontlines. He's flawed, but he's still supposed to be competent at some things.
I don't see why I'm not allowed to criticize Holdo in this regards. I criticize Leia for creating this hairball of a paramilitary group (but I guess we can say that's partly the fault of JJ Abrams really). I've already established that one of my gripes about the film is that there are a lot of seemingly incompetent people around, and it's hard for me to be attached to the characters as a result.
Fair, but only if you allow the audience to make extrapolations. If we allow this to be the rationale for Holdo's decision, then you would have to grant my extrapolation about the morale problem.
Ultimately, I'm probably not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. I walked out disliking the movie, and nothing I've read, heard or thought since has changed my initial impression. I know it's a bad movie. You clearly feel the opposite. But I hope that you will at least realise that following conventions does not in and of itself make a film bad, and that defying narrative convention simply for the sake of defying it is not in and of itself positive. A bad movie that subverts your expectations is still a bad movie.
TLJ isn't a mil-sim, it's a space adventure.
I've never said your point of view isn't possible, just that it isn't conclusive. You can claim that Holdo is a bad leader and I can claim she's good and there isn't enough evidence to prove either of us correct. You claim that there is a significant morale problem caused by Holdo which leads to people being against her. I can just as easily argue that isn't true.
I've given you a counterpoint to pretty much every argument you've made. I've explained in a perfectly consistent manner exactly why it would be a very sensible idea to avoid telling the rest of the crew that she has a plan, yet you still keep insisting you're right. If we're going to argue about what film makers expect, it's usually having the same view of their characters that they do. Holdo was obviously not meant to be a bad leader, so given that you haven't got proof she is, why are you insisting on interpreting things that way?
Depends on what you mean by wrong and right. If you mean Poe's plan is the one that will save the day, yeah the film convinced me of that before pulling the rug out from under me. If you mean that his actions were the right ones for him to have taken, nope. The film didn't convince me of that because I don't think it tried to. We're still supposed to be seeing Poe as a hot-head. We're just supposed to think that for once his hot-headedness is going to save the day rather than ruining it.
You guys can, again, just safely ignore Mika.
My two cents is that the movie is all about misunderstandings and how nobody's really perfect, everyone shat the bed (some more than others) and everyone makes amends at the end, except for Ben, who still has a grudge at that point.
My only big no no is how Holdo dismisses all the mutiny with Leia with a snarky "it's Poe, he's alright" or something. Felt off. She should still be pissed.
I have a few of these "hmmms" all over the movie, but at the end I loved it.
Hey Mika I'm curious to hear what your analysis is when it actually includes the things that made Star Wars ludicrously successful, like merchandising or literally anything besides the movies themselves.
And, of course, the other way to read the numbers you just mentioned: Star Wars movies have recouped over one and a half billion dollars in post-expense revenue in four years which is pretty ****ing phenomenal.
The possibility that Star Wars is a long-term investment which will almost certainly worth ignoring. Why would anyone pay 4 billion dollars now for something that will make them 6 or 7 over time? That's just stupid. If you buy something for billions of dollars today it must make that money back tomorrow.
In case it's not perfectly clear, the above is posted because your idiotic crusade to prove that this is all because a woman?!?! is in charge is ****ing disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.
What they see is a trend line pointing downwards and steeply; and it is a very worrifying for the top brass. Revenues have been on a steady decline from the Force Awakens, ending with Solo in the negative, the first Star Wars movie ever having done so. Couple that with the fact people are starting to leave Star Wars altogether casts a very heavy shadow to the investments in theme parks and in merchandise business. Who wants to take his children to Disney's Pansexual Land? :lol: Essentially, this is a book case of a management level failure. Not only was Last Jedi a poorly reviewed movie, but it also managed to damage the brand itself. And yes, I've been vocal about other management failures such as Nokia's Elop, but that didn't belong to Hard Light Productions context at all, so you never saw it.
Both you and Karajorma are getting there.
Why do you feel alienated by the casting of a woman in the lead role?
It's worth noting that the quote you've referenced of Kennedy is her response to fan criticism.
Except, I didn't say I felt alienated by casting women in the lead roles. It's what LucasFilm and Disney have publicly stated. It's a PR stunt that attempts to spin things around and tries to apply guilt to the people who didn't like the movie so that they would at least shut up. It's similar to what happened with Sony and the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters. They blamed the fans for the poor success of that movie, claiming fans hated women leads. Didn't work well that time, and it doesn't work for LucasFilm and Disney either. Well, Disney and LucasFilm actually went even further and claimed bots were affecting the movie reviews (seriously!!!). :lol:
At this point in time, I have yet to see a personal failure of this level (and the ensuing physical / psychological pummeling that follows) from Rey or Finn. I expect people and characters to make mistakes - bad, crippling mistakes, as a matter of course. I don't care how many tight spots they have managed to get themselves out of - I want to see them get themselves into tight spots, because they had the information, they had the option to choose, and they still chose wrong. Make your protagonists **** up, Disney!
We can all be safe, since Mika is on the front lines, fighting the culture war for us.
You know, I would invite you to check the history of box office returns for the preceding two Star Wars trilogies, just to see how you can twist the same phenomenon happening there into something that doesn't apply to the new films.
The only film that you have a point on is Solo.... which was a production disaster and was based on giving fanboys like you exactly what they always wanted (except without, you know, making sure that said fanboys were actually interested)
| Episode | Gross | Studio Gross | Production cost | Marketing cost | Profit | Profit/Cost |
| Phantom Menace | 1.03 B | 515 M | 115 M | 58 M | 342 M | 2.0 |
| Attack of the Clones | 650 M | 325 M | 115 M | 58 M | 152 M | 0.9 |
| Revenge of the Sith | 849 M | 425 M | 113 M | 57 M | 255 M | 1.5 |
| Force Awakens | 2.07 B | 1.03 B | 200 M | 100 M | 730 M | 2.4 |
| Rogue One | 1.06 B | 530 M | 200 M | 100 M | 230 M | 0.77 |
| Last Jedi | 1.33 B | 665 M | 200 M(1 | 100 M | 365 M | 1.2 |
| Solo | 370 M | 185 M | 300 M | 100 M(2 | ~ -200 M | -0.5 |
| Episode | RT | Metacritic | POS | MIX | NEG | RT Reviews |
| Phantom Menace | 6.6 | 6.0 | 595 | 518 | 225 | 1.2 M |
| Attack of the Clones | 6.6 | 6.0 | 513 | 413 | 206 | 851 K |
| Revenge of the Sith | 6.2 | 7.6 | 1282 | 242 | 145 | 33.7 M :doubt: |
| Force Awakens | 8.6 | 6.9 | 4594 | 965 | 1375 | 228 K |
| Rogue One | 8.4 | 7.6 | 2222 | 399 | 267 | 100 K |
| Last Jedi | 5.8 | 4.5 | 2697 | 1020 | 3524 | 200 K |
| Solo | 7.0 | 6.2 | 586 | 178 | 245 | 36 K |
There's no eyerolling smilie that would ever express what my eyes are trying to do with my skull right now.
Just to point out a simple thing that you're probably missing out (amongst all the others that I just can't bother with): the movies are not the only profit-making things about Star Wars. I'd even guess they're not even representative of the majority of revenue.
The way I see it, the public reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic would likely provide a more reliable result.
I get what you're saying, but if they had done that, it would have been an utter Empire remake, and do we really need any of that, again?
I'm more interested in new storylines. Contrary to some opinions, there's more to writing than just Joseph Campbell's mythic structure, and surely there's more things to say about human nature and the universe than having the protag being cut his hand by his father.
So how does that apply to Han and Leia? They screwed up because they trusted Lando? Or because Han didn't pay his debts? Or Leia was arrogant thinking she could save Han so got forced into being a slave?
Also does Finn trying to do a kamikaze count? Or getting his back slashed open by a light sabre? The guy seems governed by fear, fear of Empire, fear of Rey getting hurt- it's not very well articulated in the movies but it does drive most of his actions. First movie he spent running, second movie tried to kill himself to get some revenge. . .
No no, clearly it was Luke going off half-cocked and walking right into a confrontation with the bad guys.
Naturally, this is entirely different from what Rey did, just because this trilogy's Vader turned on the Emperor a movie earlier. :rolleyes:
Anyone who thinks Rey walking onto the flagship wasn't a colossal ****ing mistake even though it ended up working out well in the end is missing the point.
The way I see it, the public reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic would likely provide a more reliable result.
Oh you poor deluded fool....
Oh no.... The Last Jedi only grossed six times its production budget at the box office, is the second highest-grossing film in the franchise, and the eleventh highest-grossing film ever (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/), ever. WHAT A FLOP!!! CANCEL STAR WARS!!! WOMZ RUINED STAR WARS!!!
:lol:
I mean, The Dark Knight is a better movie than Citizen Kane, internet nerds on imdb said so. :rolleyes:
"but look at these reviews at this site that got brigaded by insecure right wingers!"
I'm saying that I find it utterly jarring that some of the new characters have yet to experience any significant personal failure and its consequences, two movies in. We have been shown them making mistakes; let them get slapped down for them, instead of circumstances or other characters always bailing them out.
All of that, yes (with the exception of Leia trying to rescue Han - I think she had a pre-arranged plan B in Luke). Also, they spend one-and-a-half movie sniping at each other like angry hedgehogs, because of their own personal pride and need of control, instead of being honest about their growing attraction; which leads them to having a love confession right when Han is about to be subjected to a possibly fatal procedure. Go on and re-watch the carbonite bath scene, look at how Fisher plays Leia, and tell me that both characters are not thinking I should have said this sooner, and we could have been happy all this time. Not to mention the utter horror that is Han's frozen rictus, to hammer in the point.
I'm kinda on the fence with Finn, frankly. I have noted that underlying fear that you mentioned and I find it a fascinating part of the character, even though (as you said) it's not explored as much or as clearly as I would like).
I mean, The Dark Knight is a better movie than Citizen Kane, internet nerds on imdb said so. :rolleyes:
Yeah, they tend to do that. Absolute scoring does not matter here, as we are looking for relative changes between the scores. Note also that I compared the results within the franchise as Star Wars is one of the few franchises where you can actually do that.
Nope. As Enioch said, if adjusted to inflation, Last Jedi is nowhere near being a top earner of the franchise.
I get it, albeit Poe having to watch many of his comrades being shot down because of his mistakes was something that existed.
I think you're touching on part of the problem here. It's a fact that nowadays, half of starwars fandom are young people who grew up with the prequels, and actually liking them. This cannot have no consequences.
Most Star Wars movies came out before internet was a mass thing and before internet assholes learned to use bots or move en masse to **** on something they didn't like.
It's still better than either Attack of the Clones or Sith, and given that some (crazy) people would rate Sith as better than Jedi that probably says something. If a movie that fans hate does better than a movie that supercedes one of the original trilogy, then- that's a bad thing?
Also comparing ratings to the prequels or the original trilogy is pointless. Passion doesn't last 19 years, it cools with time- so anyone who hated the prequels probably doesn't care to rate it or hates it less with time- especially with the catharsis of the RLM reviews that ripped all three movies a new one. Whereas passion would play a huge part in the TLJ reviews, with many of them probably written within a day of the viewing.
Dude, it was still a minority of people using internet extensively, internet became really widespread only with smartphones and social media. Also we didn't have Gamergate inaugurating the geekdom assholes hysteria movements yet.
Most Star Wars movies came out before internet was a mass thing and before internet assholes learned to use bots or move en masse to **** on something they didn't like.
No they didn't! There were internet review sites already around the middle of 90s. I had a rather nice broad band at that time as a university student around 2002. Steam was also launched two years later with Half Life 2. There's plenty of reviews already from 1999 and 2002 in IMDB. How do you distinguish between internet assholes moving en masse to **** something they didn't like and people who are genuinely disappointed and angry? There's really no evidence of this in the RT or MC ratings, there's no suspiciously large differences in the number of reviews between Force Awakens and Last Jedi. There's actually 10 % LESS reviews in the RT for Last Jedi than Force Awakens.
It's still better than either Attack of the Clones or Sith, and given that some (crazy) people would rate Sith as better than Jedi that probably says something. If a movie that fans hate does better than a movie that supercedes one of the original trilogy, then- that's a bad thing?
Also comparing ratings to the prequels or the original trilogy is pointless. Passion doesn't last 19 years, it cools with time- so anyone who hated the prequels probably doesn't care to rate it or hates it less with time- especially with the catharsis of the RLM reviews that ripped all three movies a new one. Whereas passion would play a huge part in the TLJ reviews, with many of them probably written within a day of the viewing.
It's even with Revenge of the Sith when adjusted to inflation. The table can certainly be off about 10 %, and that's within the difference margin.
There's also a counter to your point, though. The nostalgia feeling may uplift the results slightly, but not significantly for it to matter for the discussion. Why? Because similarly how the current movie business model is pretty much that >85 % of total gross is earned on first 40-50 days, it is also very likely so that the reviews are accumulated similarly for the first two to three months. For Attack of the Clones for example, there's about 8 pages of reviews for 2018 on RT, indicating a rate of 160 reviews per half a year. Total number of review pages is 1488, and 8 pages makes for 5.7 per milles of reviews. Assuming similar review speed for linear distribution, it would require about 93 years to get 1488 pages of reviews. So no, it's not linear, and quite likely heavily weighed for the beginning for the reasons I gave. So if there's a positive trend over time, I'd think the effect of it is less than 10 % of the total rating. The big flurry of initial reviews is actually included for the data for Rotten Tomatoes (est. 1999) and for Metacritic (est. 2001).
On an unrelated topic I do see that Abrams crony-ism is in full swing again, first Greg Grunberg and now fricken Keri Russel is going to be in Star Wars? Come on- man. I know she's been acting and **** but f-off man, why doesn't he get Scott Speedman and Tangi Miller in there while he's at it.Wow, I don't like the guy, but I don't care enough about him to mind who he puts in his work.
Or you know, people could have just listen to batts when he suggested not engaging with him.
Or you know, people could have just listen to batts when he suggested not engaging with him.On an unrelated topic I do see that Abrams crony-ism is in full swing again, first Greg Grunberg and now fricken Keri Russel is going to be in Star Wars? Come on- man. I know she's been acting and **** but f-off man, why doesn't he get Scott Speedman and Tangi Miller in there while he's at it.Wow, I don't like the guy, but I don't care enough about him to mind who he puts in his work.
Incidentally, I was looking for some pages of Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones reviews with Last Jedi reviews. They all got panned, but there's one thing that's missing from the prequel reviews: reviewers are not saying in significant numbers that Star Wars is dead. Now they do. That's the striking difference.
Star Wars will never die. These idiots will keep going to watch it even if they hate them all. You could make a Holiday Special reboot and it would still make millions from these morons.
Star Wars will never die. These idiots will keep going to watch it even if they hate them all. You could make a Holiday Special reboot and it would still make millions from these morons.
Well it's Disney. They must make Jedi High School! People will love it! ;)
They did that already, there were YA novels about teenage Jacen and Jaina Solo at the Jedi Academy.Heh, those were the first, and just about the only, EU novels I ever read. How were they? Well...Kevin J. Anderson.
They did that already, there were YA novels about teenage Jacen and Jaina Solo at the Jedi Academy.Heh, those were the first, and just about the only, EU novels I ever read. How were they? Well...Kevin J. Anderson.
Dude, it was still a minority of people using internet extensively, internet became really widespread only with smartphones and social media. Also we didn't have Gamergate inaugurating the geekdom assholes hysteria movements yet.
Yeah and if you count international sales Last Jedi would be ahead of both Jedi & Empire who made less internationally than they did domestic. There has been speculation about how much money studios actually see from international sales but given how hard hollywood is catering to China or putting chinese content into damn-near every movie, they obviously make something.
The reviews honestly don't matter, all that matters is the money. The fact that Zach Snyder still has a job after poor reviews of every DC movie he's made is proof of that (and yes I know those are critical reviews not audience reviews). And those movies are less profitable than Last Jedi so- I'm sure Warner Brothers would love a DC movie that did as poorly as Last Jedi.
As for Solo, according to Box Office Mojo it's made money domestically- did it perform below expectations because of Last Jedi? Or because of the summer release? Or because of the subject matter? Who knows. There are a lot of variables but as long as it's made its money back I don't see it having that big of an impact. And Episode IX isn't coming out for a year and a half, the fact it's back to Abrams and the time is so long I'm sure a lot of those "dead to me" star wars fans will go back and spend more money. I mean they did see Episode VII even after the prequels "raped their childhood", so are they really going to stay away from Episode IX? Stay away from Billy Dee? I seriously doubt it. Given history I don't think EpIX will outperform TFA but it will do better than Last Jedi.
The point where Mika said anonymous online reviews on RT or Metacritic are more trustworthy than professional reviews is the point where you all should have given up. Anybody who thinks that is so utterly divorced from reality that arguing with him just tars you by association.
But Mika's third-rate spin is comedy gold. Keeping him wound up until Episode IX comes out would be a service to the forum.
My problem with all these people who cry that Star Wars being dead is not that they do so, is that they keep doing so, forever, and won't stop until everyone agrees with their whining. If Star Wars was really dead, they would have sung something at the funeral and moved on. Hey, like I did to Mass Effect. Or when I watched Die Hard 4. Heck, Dragon Ball is 100% **** nowadays. Sometimes, things just stop being good and I move on.
Not these guys though. They'll hammer their points home til the end of time, and if there are people who disagree, they must be PWNED and DEBUNKED and DESTROYED, the artists should be EXPOSED for the LIES and DESTRUCTION they have made to their beloved precious thing, and (of course) DUG UP all the IDEOLOGICAL LEFTIST UNDERPINNINGS that wrecked star wars like commies do of everything I guess. And this discussion will go to the END OF TIMES, because apparently being mad at this stuff is the neverending story of a huge chunk of some people's lives.
If Star Wars ever dies, it will be at the hands of this hatedom, not anything else, for Hollywood will always try to milk it in multiple, different ways. Just like Star Trek (oh wait, there's another hatedom in there too).
Dude, it was still a minority of people using internet extensively, internet became really widespread only with smartphones and social media. Also we didn't have Gamergate inaugurating the geekdom assholes hysteria movements yet.
I really don't think availability of smartphones and social media matters much for the movie reviews. It's bloody difficult to write any reviews from mobile devices, as text editing is very cumbersome with them. Note that I happen to live in a country that was the poster child of connectivity and internet connections, so there's that.
Oh, just like they moved on from Solo? Also, you forgot "cultural marxists", let us not forget the cultural marxists. I reckon that should also be part of the above. :lol: :lol:
How does Solo "make money domestically"? What does that mean? The production cost is split between domestic and international markets? According to IMDB, it's made 380 mils gross world wide by 12th of July. The production cost is estimated at 300 mils. That's 80 millions surplus, with the exception that the world wide gross is split about 50/50 between the studio and theaters. That means studio got about 190 millions, pushing the movie well to the negative of around -110 mils. And that's without accounting the marketing costs.
Mika, 90% of those user reviews on aggregators are just a score plus a badly spelled rant (or even just a "Dis movie suX coz SJW!!!"), you can do that on a smartphone or tablet easily or ye know, using bots.
PS: Most people that start with tablets or smartphones write a lot with them, it's mostly us computer nerds that have problems if they don't have a mouse and a full sized keyboard because we know better, hell I saw my cousin write long e-mails on a fricking i-pad.
A key component to the idiocies that are peddled in this vast community of TLJ haters is that the badness of this movie was something that wrecked SOLO's chances to succeed. It's like everything else these people say, they take a bunch of facts and then construe an entire silly narrative that caters to their idiocies.
Of course, a simpler explanation is that the movie was too close, it was by far too uninteresting, it had production problems from the get go, there was no hype for it whatsoever, and the word of mouth was "meh it's alright I guess". This doesn't drive sales through the roof.
I loved TLJ, and guess what. I didn't go see SOLO. The thought of doing that never even crossed my mind.
So no, Mika, once again, you're wrong. I guess there's a consistency to admire here.
Oh I thought it was 200 million like the other movies, and since it's made more than 200 domestically- either way that sounds more of a Solo problem not a Last Jedi problem.
Is it Last Jedi's fault that Howard decided to re-shoot 70% of the movie? That's probably why the budget is as high as it is. Filming is the most expensive part of production and the dude essentially did it twice
Taking a bunch of facts and then constructing a so called "narrative" that fits the facts is called analysis. Doing this stuff for a company is part of my actual job.
Your simpler explanation fails to take account other movie franchises; there Marvel vs Star Wars audiences are then assumed to behave differently (Star Wars fans get fatigued while Marvel's don't). Nobody provides any grounds for this. If the audience behavior differs, then provide the reasons why and how they differ. Furthermore, name me one person who didn't want to see the continuation to Empire Strikes Back within 6 months instead of waiting three years when they were originally made?
Production problems are nothing new for Star Wars. New Hope was marred with them too, and eventually saved in the editing phase.
The question is, why is there no hype and why is the movie uninteresting? If people didn't see the movie to begin with, so how could they tell it's not interesting? If the movie premise was uninteresting, how come that's the case? There's a rather amusing speculation of why that came to be but that's no longer discussion from the management point of view.
Star Wars is way smaller than people realise. It's almost entirely about a single family and a few friends, despite the backdrop of galactic proportions. So, of course, when you try to make spin offs, the board at Disney is at odds at what they can do. They have no idea. Rogue Squadron was a kind of an exception, because they actually took the time to create a new story that could be anchored in ANH, but these guys will just do things that are too obvious, and thus boring. "Hey, we know you like the Millenium Falcon! And Solo! Let's make a new film called... ahhhh.. SOLO!" Then, they'll do this movie called KENOBI, or another movie called "I_RECOGNIZE_THIS". It's pandering to the lowest denominator. Once you see the title of the movie, you basically know you've seen it in your head.
MARVEL does not suffer from this lack of material to create new movies from. All they have to decide is what movies *not* to create, because once someone says "Captain Marvel is greenlit", they all basically know what to do. In Star Wars, they have no idea. So they just rehash the same kinds of people, the same kinds of robots, the same kinds of biomes, aesthetics and so on.
QuoteProduction problems are nothing new for Star Wars. New Hope was marred with them too, and eventually saved in the editing phase.
A New Hope wasn't reshot almost entirely. Try again.
I have already written about this: there's no good "lore" to write these new spinoff movies.
There are a lot of people that literally don't have a computer and still go around *****ing and writing wall of texts on forums and message boards, either that or all those "sent from iPhone" signatures are for show.
Mika, 90% of those user reviews on aggregators are just a score plus a badly spelled rant (or even just a "Dis movie suX coz SJW!!!"), you can do that on a smartphone or tablet easily or ye know, using bots.
PS: Most people that start with tablets or smartphones write a lot with them, it's mostly us computer nerds that have problems if they don't have a mouse and a full sized keyboard because we know better, hell I saw my cousin write long e-mails on a fricking i-pad.
Actually, no. If you start to ignore negative one liner reviews, you should do so for the positive ones as well (there's quite a bunch of them as well if you look through the reviews), and if not, then why not? Written text reviews are actually a minority, most of the people rate the movie just by giving the score number. E-mails are about the longest thing you can write with a mobile or pad. Pads and phones are mostly used for one line at a time chat communications, not writing reviews. If you use Pad for professional writing and text editing work, you really are wasting time. Of course, that's one way to make oneself look busy, though.
The written reviews, for those who wanted to say something about their rating, are a sample of the entire number of reviews. One review means nothing, but if the same issue is mentioned in 30 % of the reviews, that's likely quite valid.
MARVEL does not suffer from this lack of material to create new movies from. All they have to decide is what movies *not* to create, because once someone says "Captain Marvel is greenlit", they all basically know what to do. In Star Wars, they have no idea. So they just rehash the same kinds of people, the same kinds of robots, the same kinds of biomes, aesthetics and so on.
Plinkett does his thing.
Scathing review. But it's well done.
Plinkett does his thing.
Scathing review. But it's well done.
Couldn't make it two minutes in without getting tired of his bull**** persona.
Is there a summary of his arguments somewhere?
Really? You don't like his persona?
Damn Germans, no sense of humor :P
1. The film overall felt overstuffed
2. The script suits a comedy film more than an action adventure
3. Leia should've done the hyperspace kamikaze in stead of purple haired lady
4. Leave Luke out of the film after Rey leaves his planet
5. End the film just as Kylo asks Rey to join him
6. The myriad of fridge logic, and there was a lot.
7. Tonal dissonance. The aforementioned awkward comedy. Rey going through traumatic arc similar to Luke in ESB and still being "Yippie! shooting TIEs in the Falcon is fun" after it all. The fact that the film ends on a cheery note despite the Resistance basically being wiped out to 12 survivors in a stock light freighter.
8. TFA was generally criticized for being a psuedo copy of ANH. On the surface TLJ subverted a lot of tropes. However, when you break it down beat by beat its almost formulaic in taking the plot points of ESB and simply doing the opposite.
9. Not actually focusing on a particular storyline. Instead of having an A storyline: Rey/Luke/Kylo with the space chase as the B storyline we have more storylines than needed and none get the focus to standout.
If you can get past the dumb persona the Plinket Reviews of Star Wars films actually do provide a pretty in depth analysis of the content. It's not the typical "Wah Wah they ruined my SW" crap that seems to be drowning my YouTube feed.
Quote1. The film overall felt overstuffed
A fair criticism. Not one I share, but it's a legitimate criticism.
QuoteIf you can get past the dumb persona the Plinket Reviews of Star Wars films actually do provide a pretty in depth analysis of the content. It's not the typical "Wah Wah they ruined my SW" crap that seems to be drowning my YouTube feed.
Really?
I mean, going back to their prequel reviews, that's pretty much the tone that I got from them. While there are legitimate criticisms to be levelled at the production of the Prequels, I get the feeling that a large part of the objection to the plot comes from a feeling of betrayal that the Jedi (to take an example) weren't the ultimate good guys that Obi-Wan described them to be in ANH.
Don't get me wrong, the prequels are still bad films, but I for one think that they say a lot more interesting stuff about Star Wars than what they get credit for.
You know how you can get beaten down by life and depression and **** and ride a momentary high of doing something that feels good, if only for a moment?
Also, let's not forget something here: Rey's arc is actually quite different from Luke's. Yes, Luke does defy Yoda and heads off to Bespin. But while Luke does suffer grievous injury and is shaken by the revelations he gets, he doesn't fail. He achieves what he sets out to do. Rey on the other hand (and every other main character, including the villains) resoundly fails. She doesn't get Luke back in the action in the way she was hoping she would. She doesn't manage to turn Kylo to the light. She can't stand up to Snoke. In TLJ (unlike other films in the franchise), characters are allowed to fail and learn from their failures. It's kind of a theme in the film.
Couldn't make it two minutes in without getting tired of his bull**** persona.
Is there a summary of his arguments somewhere?
The characters come off as inept and somewhat buffoonish, at least from my pov. ESB established the Empire as a formidable foe with an inflexible resolve to eradicate the rebels and our heroes. In the TLJ, the First Order are no less successful in achieving their goals, I mean they virtually eliminated the Resistance entirely, but the screaming, frothing-at-the-mouth officers and lack of composure serve to make them come across as being less threatening than they should. I've seen a lot of comparisons between General silly english guy (can't remember the name) and Grand Moff Tarkin for instance. Or Piett. They had that creepy Nazi orderliness down to a tee.
Snoke at least came across as daunting and powerful, he was a credible villain. General silly english guy, Phasma and Kylo just don't strike me as credible villains that our heroes have to watch out for. This film manages to make both the heroes and villains fail utterly (to echo yourself). It could've worked, but for me at least it just makes everyone seem ****ing incompetent. I mean what is Phasma supposed to learn from her encounters with Finn? Kylo seemed like he turned a page only to go back to more or less exactly what he'd been doing since TFA. Noone's changed, noone's moved forward.
Finn almost did, I feel like his bits with Rose - where she points out the unethical **** going on - was a further evolution of his character and another step away from just another dumb, evil storm trooper. I guess you could characterise his attempted sacrifice as being part of this?
I've come around to liking how buffoonish and bumbling the First Order is because it feels so much like what the Nazis were compared to Imperial Germany.
A bunch of frequently stupid people ranting about the good old days they were never a part of, who have no idea how to run a country or an army, leading a bunch of old officers only in it because what else are they going to do?
I just wish we had more character interactions between Hux and old officers like the dreadnought's captain. I enjoyed how sick of Hux's **** that guy obviously was.
Nope. All of the primary POV characters changed (except Phasma, where I do agree that the films so far have done both the character and the actress a massive disservice).QuoteFinn almost did, I feel like his bits with Rose - where she points out the unethical **** going on - was a further evolution of his character and another step away from just another dumb, evil storm trooper. I guess you could characterise his attempted sacrifice as being part of this?
Finn's arc is about him coming to terms with the fact that, when you are faced with a great evil, you can't run away without suffering moral injury. All throughout TFA and most of TLJ, his only goal is to get away from the First Order, as fast and far as possible. Him taking a stand against that evil because it's the right thing to do and stepping into the role of actual, bona-fide hero is a massive shift in the character.
Rey's arc is about her needing to come to terms with her own past and her expectations for her future. For a long time, the hope that her parents would one day come and rescue her was propelling her forward. Then, when TFA happened, it was the idea of becoming a Jedi under the tutelage of the great Luke Skywalker. Now, after TLJ, she knows that the only one who can define her role and who can actually make things better for herself and the people she cares about is .... herself. Hers is a story of a person who thought she was self-sufficient, only to realize that she built her foundations on unstable ground; she now has to build new, stronger foundations for herself.
Poe's arc is about him learning that the capability to do great heroics and the capability to lead are two very different things. His is a story of a young, brave, capable officer learning what command responsibility actually is.
Kylo's arc mirrors Rey's: He, too, has to figure out who he is after his foundations have been knocked out from under him.
While that aspect may very well be correct, the rest of it doesn't quite line up with reality. In TLJ, this seemingly incompetent First Order apparently destroyed The New Republic and The Resistance. By comparison, Nazi Germany was pretty much defeated by 1942, arguably doomed to fail once they decided to continue a war of aggression after The Fall of France. In short, I need to be convinced that The New Republic was France in WW2 for me to accept this short of analogy, but the new trilogy hasn't quite done that. And so it just comes off as being whacky.
Just saw this interesting article (https://filmschoolrejects.com/what-the-last-jedi-does-to-subvert-genre-conventions/) based on a video essay which may or may not have been posted in here before. The article actually gets into Kylo's arc, which the video doesn't cover.
Yeah those two posts do summarize how I feel about the film.And it's not even that new a thing to have attacks by ridiculously vulnerable craft, in TIE Fighter (which I have been replaying in the last fest weeks) both empire and rebels sometimes use troop transports for heavy warhead attacks, and they are basically sitting ducks that make the Y-Wings look like A-wings in comparison.
I did like the big dumb bombers though, I like that the rebels in an age of long range precision strikes with torpedoes only have carpet bombers remaining.
If you asked RAF Bomber Command in WW2 if they'd sacrifice a dozen Lancasters to bag the Tirpitz they would not have blinked an eye.
They were irreplaceable because the writer needed the dumb B-17 sequence to have gravitas so they put in a throw away line.
I liked wing commanders dumb space depth charges :/
I liked wing commanders dumb space depth charges :/
I liked Wing Commander for all it's dumbness!
(Except Hobbes's betrayal and "Sleeper agent" stuff, that can go die in a fire)
There's also the "Luke almost kills Ben and he fights back moment", which was subpar-ly written for me.
The way to tell the story from Luke's point of view is still unsympathetic towards him, and drives the point home that he is still very much a freaked-out moron that behaves like a 20 year old scared little **** every time the DARK SIDE turns up. It needed more. I'll give you an example of what I have in mind, despite the fact that I'm not a writer, and I'd be a terrible one.
Imagine he tells Rey his side of the story.
LUKE: It wasn't like that at all. One night, I suddenly woke up feeling a tremendous power in the camp. A dark power.
Then you see what he's telling. A student (youngling?) comes up to him with both his hands on his throat, while he is still getting out of bed. He was being choked up by an invisible force. Luke frees him, and sits him on a rock or something, comforts him hearwarmingly in a second and quickly gets his light saber and walks out of his hut, hand out in search for the source of this great dark power, scared and enraged for his students.
REY: Snoke!
LUKE: (nods)
First, he goes to a hut where he knows most of his students lie. They're alright. Then he goes for the dark side. He gets to another hut, light saber turned on in hand, opens the door and only finds someone lying down, covered in a mantle. The hut is filled with Dark Force "magic" (how you'd convey this on the screen is up to good writers and screenwriters, not me). He tensely goes to it, only to see Ben's face. With horror and surprise, he is taken aback, and then Ben wakes up and defends himself with all his might.
Now, this rendition is not perfect. But I'd argue would be better. Again, like previous posts have said, TLJ would much improve for this sort of small rewritings that would still maintain the intentions and structure and themes and whatnots, but make the audience go with you.
Wait what's a matter with black storm troopers? I thought they were super cool:
I assume when someone uses the "Cinema Sins" type label, they mean the use of videos of that type to make arguments, not that Cinema Sins itself is bad. I went out and watch a few Cinema Sins videos, and it seems pretty obvious that the presenter is making the video for purposes of entertainment, with intentionally superficial critiques. Using Cinema Sins in the context of movie discussion is like using political satire as a source in a political discussion.
Yeah but at least you would convince half of the audience they'd also behave like Luke did. As it is, you sacrifice empathizing with Luke's behavior for "symmetry". Which, you know, I value a lot. It's my field, I work with that very concept every ****ing day. But form comes in service of function, not the other way around.There is also the point I don't think we are fully expected to sympathize with Luke, remember that the movie itself maintain that he made a mistake however well-intentioned.
You thought it was great, I thought the blade showed promise but needed a lot more tempering. Fair enough.
Persoanlly, I thought i was a flaming, stinking turd the likes of which is seen once in a millenia.
I didn't catch that typo! :lol:Persoanlly, I thought i was a flaming, stinking turd the likes of which is seen once in a millenia.
Sometimes you just need to save a line for posterity.
Oh come on.
I really was going to stay out of this thread, but this is just too silly. Rian & friends are now blaming Russian trolls trying to rig the election for TLJ's mixed response.
Link (http://The Verge: Half of the Star Wars: The Last Jedi backlash was Russian bots and trolls.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/2/17927696/star-wars-the-last-jedi-russian-trolls-bots-study)
I guess those bots are posting all the YouTube videos and arguing on forums, too? Bryan See?
Rian & friends are now blaming Russian trolls trying to rig the election for TLJ's mixed response.
Link (https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/2/17927696/star-wars-the-last-jedi-russian-trolls-bots-study)
And just to be totally clear: this is not about fans liking or not liking the movie - I've had tons of great talks with great fans online and off who liked and disliked stuff, that's what fandom is all about. This is specifically about a virulent strain of online harassment.
Oh come on.
I really was going to stay out of this thread, but this is just too silly. Rian & friends are now blaming Russian trolls trying to rig the election for TLJ's mixed response.
Oh come on.
I really was going to stay out of this thread, but this is just too silly. Rian & friends are now blaming Russian trolls trying to rig the election for TLJ's mixed response.
Link (https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/2/17927696/star-wars-the-last-jedi-russian-trolls-bots-study)
I guess those bots are posting all the YouTube videos and arguing on forums, too? Bryan See?