Author Topic: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi  (Read 103343 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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?

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.
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.
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi


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
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 04:45:20 pm by Enioch »
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline mjn.mixael

  • Cutscene Master
  • 212
  • Chopped liver
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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?

Firstly. No. You claiming my opinion is a statement of fact does not make it so. It's not like the movies give us a bullet point list of character traits and how they change. Those are open to interpretation in their nuances, same as how the Rian changed traits that I consider key traits.

As for what I dislike, Enioch is pretty much getting there.

And I will state it more explicitly this time. You can disagree with my point 2 as much as you want. Hell, even if I concede my point 2... My point 8 is still the most important of my thoughts and still holds true. I do not want to watch more of this Luke and the rest of the characters and plot are bland, annoying, or both.

And the main point of what Rian did is subverted (lols) by the very fact that we are going back and doing a Solo movie now. Why should I care about leaving the past behind if Disney can't even commit to that.
Cutscene Upgrade Project - Mainhall Remakes - Between the Ashes
Youtube Channel - P3D Model Box
Between the Ashes is looking for committed testers, PM me for details.
Freespace Upgrade Project See what's happening.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
I will point out that Luke going off to sulk wasn't a creation of Rian's. JJ Abrams set that up and since it was the central point of the film, there wasn't much Rian could do with it. I'll agree that because of the way it was shown, the moment of weakness seems like an inconsistent thing for Luke to do, but all the other reasons for him to go off and sulk are even worse. I still think that whoever had to make episode 8 was painted into a corner by JJ Abrams and his ****ing mystery boxes.

As for the stuff about Luke's character. People can change. People who are hugely optimistic are exactly the kind of person in the most danger of becoming cynical as they get older. The film shouldn't have just shown Luke's single moment of weakness. Instead it should have shown the whole chain leading up to it. Luke does say that he knew that Ren was falling, that he saw the dark side taking him over in training. We should have seen a whole series of examples of Luke's frustration at his inability to stop him being seduced by the dark side leading to the moment when Luke realises that he's much further gone than he realised. The film does imply that's what happened, but it should have been shown on screen.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 06:54:18 pm by karajorma »
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

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

 

Offline mjn.mixael

  • Cutscene Master
  • 212
  • Chopped liver
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Eh... JJ setup Luke going off someplace for a sad reason. Rian's the one who decided that was Luke casually tossing a lightsaber that should have been wildly significant to him.

And even if I concede everything about Luke and suddenly decide he's my favorite character... he's gone. There is nothing left that I'm actually looking forward to seeing in a new Star Wars Ep9. Rian went so far into the idea that "everything we fans wanted to know about or see doesn't matter" that all that's left is Resistance vs First Order space battles. Both are groups we know next to nothing about and I'm invested in the survival or destruction of neither.

The Resistance, who seemed decently large and well organized in TFA, is now down to like 40 people that the galaxy obviously doesn't care about. Probably because...

The First Order, as far as I can tell, is not much more than a somewhat formidable terrorist organization after Starkiller. They aren't some overwhelming empire in control of the galaxy. If they are, it's been horribly portrayed. But their actual leader is dead and the two that are left are an idiot and an emo.. neither of which suggest to me they can actually succeed without Snoke. Not to mention the loss of a huge number of warships from the hyperspace thing. What does the First Order still have? What do they control, if anything?

I feel much like the Resistance allies seem to feel. Let them go have their space battles and kill each other off. I've got other things to do.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2018, 07:56:08 pm by mjn.mixael »
Cutscene Upgrade Project - Mainhall Remakes - Between the Ashes
Youtube Channel - P3D Model Box
Between the Ashes is looking for committed testers, PM me for details.
Freespace Upgrade Project See what's happening.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Meh, Luke was always overrated anyways. He was a man, and men have arcs that don't always go in the same bright, colorful direction. I think Luke's arc in the OT is great, well told and well finished. But those moments do not exactly inform what he is going to do with the rest of his life. 30 years is a *LOT*. Much can and indeed did, change.

JJ Abrams did create loner Luke who saw Ben destroy the entire village (and the rest of his apprentices) in a fire. Look the original VII movie's trailer if you doubt me. When Luke throws the light saber, I didn't even wince, or flinch. It felt so natural to me. Of course he has been in hiding and sulking ever since Ben did that ****, why would he care about a weapon that only gave him pain and misery at the end, meaninglessly? And I was genuinely surprised at the overall surprised faces that everyone else shared with that in the interwebs.

I personally love this part of the movie. Grey Jedi Luke is the best Jedi ever in all of these movies, and by doing this, Ryan made sure that *all* of the movies' Jedis are accounted for. Of course someone like Luke would learn about the "golden era" of the Jedis and be struck with their uncaring, emotionless ridiculous and overly idiotic plans to keep the galaxy "safe". He knows how the Force works and couldn't but be struck at the arrogance of these guys. All of these emotions aren't "intellectual" stuff. They are directly informed by his own failure, which mirrored Yoda's and Kenobi's with Vader. He comes to realise that if there are no more Jedis, there won't ever be Siths anymore, so he tries to nullify himself.

He is obviously wrong, because Ren already exists, so what the Force does is, it balances the dark side with the coming of Rey (and others). When he understands this latter point, he gives in and helps his sister. As he should.

I dunno, it totally worked for me. Kinda reminded me of that LotR character King Theoden, who was apathetic before waking up to heroic feats.

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi


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

OK, Luke before realizing what he was doing had gone full berserk and why?
Because Vader threatened Leia and by extension his friends.
It took him two full minutes of swinging wildly at Vader before finally calming down.
What I'm saying is that whatever he had seen when "scanning" Ben made him flip his **** for one fatal moment and he couldn't forgive himself for it.
It's his basic character flaw, he may have learned to rein it in but not as good as he thought.
And yes, this **** happens, people that think they have learned their lesson making the same mistake again later when they have their guard down is nothing new.

"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.

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:

Quote
But 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 the Mary Sue plucky 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.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. I found Luke's arc in this movie to be very well executed and well-paced.

Secondly, we never see Luke overcoming this impulsiveness or protectiveness. We see him pull back from the brink, but there is nothing in that final confrontation in the throne room that shows Luke deciding to go on a very different path. Assuming that Luke at some point found records of the previous Jedi order and their teachings and tried to look for answers to his personal dilemmas there, I can certainly see him being frustrated with those just as much as he was frustrated with Yoda (who, let's remember, was all but ready to give up on Luke when he jumped into the X-Wing to go to Cloud City). Luke being disillusioned with the Jedi is, to me, perfectly consistent with his prior portrayal.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
Fair enough. I must concede that the entire discussion has urged me to rewatch TLJ (shudder) just to actively look for the points that you guys brought forward; I'll reserve comment for now. That said, I hope that you can also grant that mjn's point 2 (I.e. the interpretation of Luke's character arc) is quite subjective.

In all honesty, Luke's arc in the new series (as problematic as I find it) is not my main problem with it. That lies more with our new characters, matters of choices and consequences in the context of the plot, and the fact that, whatever bad things seem to happen to the heroes, it is never their fault. (arguable exception: the Poe mutiny arc).
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline The E

  • He's Ebeneezer Goode
  • 213
  • Nothing personal, just tech support.
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
I think that disagreeing with the direction that they took Luke is fair. I just believe that going beyond "I don't like this" to "This is a plot hole and makes no sense" is a step too far. One is a very definite statement of opinion, the other veers too far into a statement of objective fact.
If I'm just aching this can't go on
I came from chasing dreams to feel alone
There must be changes, miss to feel strong
I really need lifе to touch me
--Evergrey, Where August Mourns

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
I don't think mjn or I ever claimed that the Luke problem was a plothole; we just called it bad writing and there's a difference between the two. For the record, I do not think there are plotholes here.

I think there are plotholes in the movie, but not here. And, concerning plotholes in TLJ, I do not think they're the main problem with the movie either. My problem, as I said above, lies with the characters.

'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.

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:

Quote
But 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 the Mary Sue plucky 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).
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.

Quote
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).

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.
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

  

Offline mjn.mixael

  • Cutscene Master
  • 212
  • Chopped liver
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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...
Cutscene Upgrade Project - Mainhall Remakes - Between the Ashes
Youtube Channel - P3D Model Box
Between the Ashes is looking for committed testers, PM me for details.
Freespace Upgrade Project See what's happening.

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.

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.
The thing is that tragedy is present in Star Wars since the beginning, and tragedy isn't something that's distinct from fantasy.
Note that Tolkien himself indulged in tragedy throughout his books, Boromir, Thorin, and all those Silmarillion characters are tragic figures undone by their basic flaws or their destiny, sometimes both.
And Star Wars itself has tragedy in it with the story of Anakin Skywalker, Yoda and Obi Wan. Star Wars isn't just "triumph of the underdog".

Quote
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).

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.

You are one of the few that does and for that I salute you.
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline mjn.mixael

  • Cutscene Master
  • 212
  • Chopped liver
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.
Cutscene Upgrade Project - Mainhall Remakes - Between the Ashes
Youtube Channel - P3D Model Box
Between the Ashes is looking for committed testers, PM me for details.
Freespace Upgrade Project See what's happening.

 

Offline AdmiralRalwood

  • 211
  • The Cthulhu programmer himself!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: *SPOILER THREAD* Star Wars: The Last Jedi
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.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Codethulhu GitHub wgah'nagl fhtagn.

schrödinbug (noun) - a bug that manifests itself in running software after a programmer notices that the code should never have worked in the first place.

When you gaze long into BMPMAN, BMPMAN also gazes into you.

"I am one of the best FREDders on Earth" -General Battuta

<Aesaar> literary criticism is vladimir putin

<MageKing17> "There's probably a reason the code is the way it is" is a very dangerous line of thought. :P
<MageKing17> Because the "reason" often turns out to be "nobody noticed it was wrong".
(the very next day)
<MageKing17> this ****ing code did it to me again
<MageKing17> "That doesn't really make sense to me, but I'll assume it was being done for a reason."
<MageKing17> **** ME
<MageKing17> THE REASON IS PEOPLE ARE STUPID
<MageKing17> ESPECIALLY ME

<MageKing17> God damn, I do not understand how this is breaking.
<MageKing17> Everything points to "this should work fine", and yet it's clearly not working.
<MjnMixael> 2 hours later... "God damn, how did this ever work at all?!"
(...)
<MageKing17> so
<MageKing17> more than two hours
<MageKing17> but once again we have reached the inevitable conclusion
<MageKing17> How did this code ever work in the first place!?

<@The_E> Welcome to OpenGL, where standards compliance is optional, and error reporting inconsistent

<MageKing17> It was all working perfectly until I actually tried it on an actual mission.

<IronWorks> I am useful for FSO stuff again. This is a red-letter day!
* z64555 erases "Thursday" and rewrites it in red ink

<MageKing17> TIL the entire homing code is held up by shoestrings and duct tape, basically.