BrianDavion wrote: tyhe subversion of expectations I think is why so many people bash TLJ myself. Look, star wars will never be a best picture film, ut's not that type of movie, what it is those is comfortable, it uses elements from many of the favorite stories of the past (the whole monomyth) to generate a new story that feels, old, familer, like a pair of comfortable shoes.
Star Wars is, to use a meal analogy, not that fancy novue dish custom crafted by an artisan master chief that combines flavors together in some new and strange cominbation to win awards (55 dollars a plate, portions are tiny!). Star Wars is your box of Mac and Cheese, it's that thing you ate growing up, you know it's not the best thing in the world, but it's comfortable, and sometimes you just want comfortable.
Nope I bash TLJ becuase it is such a awful film, not a bad "Star Wars" film its simply a terrible film - its dull, tedious, badly written, worse directed and with zero interest in characters or plot.
Says the guy who was over the moon for Thor 2, the movie equivalent of store-brand mac and cheese.
which gets back to my earlier comparison. Mac and Cheese movies aren't always a bad thing, they're comfortable, they're familer, they remind us of our childhood.
And BAD films are just BAD - pretending that it has "something to say" or "Oh wow man it subverts the narrative" is no excuse for terrible plot, writing, directing or characters - just because its "Arty" doe snot preclude it being popular - that is what the more pretensious and snobby critics believe but Feth them
Critics liked TLJ because it was distinctly different from earlier installments, had powerful emotional moments and well-set up climatic scenes, presented a new, more mystical take on Force and had defined character arc for main protagonist. This was in strong contrast with TFA, which was well done and evenly paced movie but very soulless, flat, took no risks, corporate committee work at its best and worst. Critics were not hardcore fans and did not care whether Holdo maneuver made any kind of sense in-universe, or whether Luke even briefly contemplating killing his student while he was asleep was in-character, or whether it was even remotely plausible that one X-Wing could clear out turrets from a dreadnought sized ships.
For me, movie is usually as good as its best scenes. If the movie has scenes I want to seek out from Youtube and watch again just to relive the moment, it counts as a success in my books, glass half full. TLJ had plenty of stuff done bad and the weird four-act pacing deflated the end of movie somewhat. But it still had good scenes which I would want to watch again. TFA doesn't. Prequels mostly don't. TRoS, iffy.
A defined character arc , Oh now thats hilarious, a new and more mystical take in the force - when and where?
Powerful emotional moments - Please just stop - it had the emotianal resonsance of a dead fish. Name one? Seriously just one?
Well set up climatic scences - oh god really - after the ship of fools tediously wondered along waiting to be blown up for what seemed like 5 hours - or did you mean "lets go on a trip to Casino world"
The "nitpicking" bits are just poor but not game breakers as I and pretty much all my friends was bored stupid by the sheer awfulness of the plot, direction and writing well before that.
Backfire wrote: Critics liked TLJ because it was distinctly different from earlier installments, had powerful emotional moments and well-set up climatic scenes, presented a new, more mystical take on Force and had defined character arc for main protagonist.
Powerful moments like the fake out death of Leia before she turns into a poorly animated version of Mary Poppins to save the day? Or the LOL, NOPE! block of Finn doing anything meaningful with his character? The well setup climatic scene of freeing domesticated animals on Planet Vegas while leaving child slaves in the most useless and worst executed story arc in Star Wars' history excluding maybe only the Sand is Coarse CGI schlockfest Anakin/Padme falling in love in a field of Dire Space Ticks? A more mystical take on the force that consisted of tickle fetishes and the galaxy far far away's treatment of the Jedi tradition by Yoda with all the respect of a fart joke? Well... at least we agree on it being distinctly different and that the critics liked it.
reds8n wrote: Or maybe the guys under the control of Snoke/Palpatine didn't kill her as that was kind of the whole point of Palpatine's plan.
Her actually being killed might've thrown a bit of a spanner in the works here eh ?
So why was Snoke goading Kylo into killing Rey, if he didn't want Rey dead? It definitely seems that Snoke didn't intend/expect to die.
So, unless Snoke's guard weren't actually working for Snoke, and were working for Palpatine more directly, why didn't they intervene when Snoke wanted Rey dead at Kylo's hands?
It's pretty clear at this point that at the time of writing TLJ, there was no real Palpatine envolvement, but a "Master of the Sith" beyond Snoke. There's 0% of "Palpatine needs his granddaughter to kill him to possesses/live on in her Malkevich style/its not really clear" in anything until the title card of 9 hits.
BrianDavion wrote: tyhe subversion of expectations I think is why so many people bash TLJ myself. Look, star wars will never be a best picture film, ut's not that type of movie, what it is those is comfortable, it uses elements from many of the favorite stories of the past (the whole monomyth) to generate a new story that feels, old, familer, like a pair of comfortable shoes.
Star Wars is, to use a meal analogy, not that fancy novue dish custom crafted by an artisan master chief that combines flavors together in some new and strange cominbation to win awards (55 dollars a plate, portions are tiny!). Star Wars is your box of Mac and Cheese, it's that thing you ate growing up, you know it's not the best thing in the world, but it's comfortable, and sometimes you just want comfortable.
Nope I bash TLJ becuase it is such a awful film, not a bad "Star Wars" film its simply a terrible film - its dull, tedious, badly written, worse directed and with zero interest in characters or plot.
Says the guy who was over the moon for Thor 2, the movie equivalent of store-brand mac and cheese.
which gets back to my earlier comparison. Mac and Cheese movies aren't always a bad thing, they're comfortable, they're familer, they remind us of our childhood.
And BAD films are just BAD - pretending that it has "something to say" or "Oh wow man it subverts the narrative" is no excuse for terrible plot, writing, directing or characters - just because its "Arty" doe snot preclude it being popular - that is what the more pretensious and snobby critics believe but Feth them
Critics liked TLJ because it was distinctly different from earlier installments, had powerful emotional moments and well-set up climatic scenes, presented a new, more mystical take on Force and had defined character arc for main protagonist. This was in strong contrast with TFA, which was well done and evenly paced movie but very soulless, flat, took no risks, corporate committee work at its best and worst. Critics were not hardcore fans and did not care whether Holdo maneuver made any kind of sense in-universe, or whether Luke even briefly contemplating killing his student while he was asleep was in-character, or whether it was even remotely plausible that one X-Wing could clear out turrets from a dreadnought sized ships.
For me, movie is usually as good as its best scenes. If the movie has scenes I want to seek out from Youtube and watch again just to relive the moment, it counts as a success in my books, glass half full. TLJ had plenty of stuff done bad and the weird four-act pacing deflated the end of movie somewhat. But it still had good scenes which I would want to watch again. TFA doesn't. Prequels mostly don't. TRoS, iffy.
A defined character arc , Oh now thats hilarious, a new and more mystical take in the force - when and where?
Powerful emotional moments - Please just stop - it had the emotianal resonsance of a dead fish. Name one? Seriously just one?
Well set up climatic scences - oh god really - after the ship of fools tediously wondered along waiting to be blown up for what seemed like 5 hours - or did you mean "lets go on a trip to Casino world"
The "nitpicking" bits are just poor but not game breakers as I and pretty much all my friends was bored stupid by the sheer awfulness of the plot, direction and writing well before that.
I feel like there’s just no convincing those who didn’t like TLJ that there was anything (let alone a lot of things) good about it. TLJ did have its moments, certainly more than the prequels did (barring maybe 3, but that one is up for debate to me). I think the main reason a lot of us liked TLJ is that it’s not a rehash of things in the OT. TFA was well executed and well written (at the time, not knowing what the end would look like) but honestly, beyond that it was pretty drab. It was fun, but it didn’t really do anything new. It had the same plot beats as 4 did. There weren’t really any new ideas introduced. And if you think about it, how do you make a new trilogy about where some wannabe Empire emerges after the Empire is dead? The whole premise was, honestly, complete garbage. It wasn’t telling a new story. I mean, hell, they literally made another Death Star, and even sort of joked about it being another Death Star. Come on guys, really? You couldn’t think of something else? Even the basic visuals were pretty meh. We were given sort of new X-Wings. We were given sort of new TIEs. Even the characters weren’t that well done either. Someone said that Finn was pretty flawed as a character from the beginning and I agree. JJ gave us a janitor stormtrooper, Of all the defector stormtroopers that could’ve been done, he went with one that was honestly pretty uninteresting. Rey was a mystery, and, arguably, maybe there was something more there. I mostly gave TFA a pass since the rest of the movies weren’t out. Now that 9’s out, I’m pretty unimpressed with 7 as well.
Episode 8 at least tried to put some new ideas out there. You don’t have to like the new ideas, but trying something that wasn’t “let’s rehash the OT” was a good stand out to me and to others on this thread as well, I think. Whether or not those ideas paid off to you, well, I don’t think there’s really any way people who don’t think so will be convinced otherwise. TLJ was not without flaws. The whole Canto Blight sequence was contrived and sort of dull. If anything, however, my biggest complaint would be that it didn’t go far enough.
I’m not sure who wrote that the critics were paid to like TLJ, but stuff like that really annoys me. It seems to imply that nobody liked TLJ, and that only morons or paid off people did. For one, those very same “paid off” critics then went on to pretty universally dislike 9. For another, it’s a great way to invalidate someone’s opinions on why they may actually have liked 8. It’s really hard to have a discussion on 8’s merits and demerits when it mostly devolves into how there is no way that 8 can ever have merits in anybody’s eyes. It’s fine not to like TLJ, and it’s equally fine to like it. There are a lot of people who did like TLJ. Far from a minority. Hell, George Lucas himself liked 8 the most, I think (iirc)
Honestly, Episode 9 was far worse than both 7 and 8 since it did not even try to work with the plot points given to it. It was poorly made from a filmmaking standpoint, regardless of the actual plot decisions. The movie was so poorly paced, with so little time spent on anything, that it’s hard to really say I enjoyed anything. Visually there were some new things. The final battle, however, was pretty lame. Check out Episode 3’s opening battle and do a compare and contrast. Rogue One’s final battle was spectacular as well. And honestly, I really doubt JJ Abrams had any plan even in 7. There wasn’t so much as a hint about Palpatine in 7, nor any of the decisions in 9.
Really the whole sequel trilogy was a huge set of missed opportunities. JJ Abrams decides to do a new Empire vs Rebels dynamic, for some strange reason. The CGI and modern VFX were essentially wasted on visualizing barren planets we had already seen in the OT. Even the ships were mostly the same as before, and while before I was willing to give them a break on this point, the fact that the final movie did next to nothing with even the plot makes me rethink this whole thing. I wanted to see more of the Star Wars universe, which is enormous. Throwing out the EU meant they had no bounds. They had a clean slate. But instead we got characters who were squandered opportunities, along with very little world building.
What you've just said about Rise of Skywalker (I haven't seen it, can't be bothered) is really what the rest of the world has said about The Last Jedi. It was objectively a bad film. That's not to say you can't enjoy a poorly written, poorly designed, incoherent film...loads of people love bad movies. Heck they're cult-films in many ways. There are some downright atrocious films that have garnered huge cult followings because they're charming or they're amusing, or they just scratch an itch.
My favourite film was a financial flop (in theaters, it ended up being a big DVD hit). It wasn't a terrible movie, just a serious flop at the box office. That doesn't detract from my enjoyment of it.
If you take Star Wars out of The Last Jedi it would have been a 12% critic score film that would have disappeared within a month of its release. No one would ever talk about it again until some YouTube mentioned it 10 years hence in a "Worst 10 Science Fiction films of...." video, etc. It was simply an awful movie, and I mean from an objective viewpoint. Terrible writing, wandering and poorly conceived plot, awful character development, inconsistent with the entire canon of the Star Wars established universe, a plot driven by convenience and not practical problem solving, massive continuity issues, etc. It is just as bad as most people say it is. They're not saying that because they're sexist or they hate (insert your chosen agenda/bias, etc.). They're critiquing the film because it was genuinely bad.
Does that mean you have to feel bad for enjoying it? No. I'd argue most of us have sat through a film starring Pauly Shore...almost none of us can throw stones in this glass house. However, trying to defend The Last Jedi as if it was a misunderstood brilliant film is laughable. That smacks of the exhausting and inane "Art student" approach of "Well it's just above your understanding..you can't see the real genius" garbage that I sat through in college while in a theater program, etc.
If you took the Star Wars out of TLJ, you’d have a campy movie with a lot of fun stuff and stupid characters. It would sit happily between Fkash Gordon and Chronicles of Riddick.
Secretly an artificial creation of Darth Sidious, Snoke was engineered on Exegol, a legendary Sith-affiliated planet hidden in the Unknown Regions, where loyalists of the Sith Eternal awaited the return of the Sith.
......
Ultimately, Snoke's entire existence was built for this moment: to serve as a final test for Ren. He not only tested Ren's worthiness as a disciple, but also his capacity to inherit the Sith legacy. His role had been designed by the Sith Eternal cultists to act as a final crucible, to groom and mold Ren into a master of attack and cunning. Ren became the new Supreme Leader of the First Order, but after encountering a revived Sidious on Snoke's homeworld of Exegol, he aspired to rule the galaxy as Emperor of the Final Order.
The problem with that is none of it is even hinted at until RoS, which is the hallmark of bad plotting and makes it pretty clear that the whole thing was a hurried, desperate retcon in an attempt to surprise the audience. There are so many plot holes created by this, as discussed elsewhere here and it's pretty typical of JJ's approach to surprise storytelling - throw out something completely random and absolutely unknowable and act like it was the plan all along. It's the opposite of good, coherent storytelling. The fact it's then revealed within literally the first 5 minutes of RoS as a voiceover narration shows how rushed and poorly thought through the whole thing was.
It's also just going way too far to try to explain the sloppiness of the fight choreography in TLJ.
ultimately the problem is a lack of a real story arc planned through the movies. (this is why I lay the blame largely at Kath Kennedy's feet)
THAT was the problem, all three films where meandering and directionless. and yeah I agree TFA started out kinda weak. the core idea "well what if there was a group of "neo-Imperials" who where a threat but not eneugh people reckongized the threat until it was too late" was good. but it coulda been handled MUCH better." the poroblem with the sequal trilogy ultimately is it doesn't feel like the original trilogy achomplished ANYTHING. which really is an ultimate sin.
BrianDavion wrote: ultimately the problem is a lack of a real story arc planned through the movies. (this is why I lay the blame largely at Kath Kennedy's feet)
THAT was the problem, all three films where meandering and directionless.
This. It feels like a feud between artists has been fought on the back of the most popular franchise of all time, to the detriment of the product. The cherry on top is the overt political messaging present in all three movies, but mostly in TLJ, which just feels out of place.
I do realize that some of these talking points are becoming more and more relevant in our society and some of these are certainly things to consider and address, but I wish they hadn't used Star Wars as a platform to market their perspective on things.
BrianDavion wrote: ultimately the problem is a lack of a real story arc planned through the movies. (this is why I lay the blame largely at Kath Kennedy's feet)
THAT was the problem, all three films where meandering and directionless.
This. It feels like a feud between artists has been fought on the back of the most popular franchise of all time, to the detriment of the product. The cherry on top is the overt political messaging present in all three movies, but mostly in TLJ, which just feels out of place.
I do realize that some of these talking points are becoming more and more relevant in our society and some of these are certainly things to consider and address, but I wish they hadn't used Star Wars as a platform to market their perspective on things.
I don't see the politics myself. beyond maybe Johnson's trying to move away from the bloodlines and destiny aspect at the core of SW. And frankly I see that more as a failure to understand that SW is supposed to be, essentially, a futuristic fairy tale.
What's been hilarious this past month is watching the pro-VIII and pro-IX factions on various internet communities have it out, from a position of hating both.
What you've just said about Rise of Skywalker (I haven't seen it, can't be bothered) is really what the rest of the world has said about The Last Jedi. It was objectively a bad film. That's not to say you can't enjoy a poorly written, poorly designed, incoherent film...loads of people love bad movies. Heck they're cult-films in many ways. There are some downright atrocious films that have garnered huge cult followings because they're charming or they're amusing, or they just scratch an itch.
My favourite film was a financial flop (in theaters, it ended up being a big DVD hit). It wasn't a terrible movie, just a serious flop at the box office. That doesn't detract from my enjoyment of it.
If you take Star Wars out of The Last Jedi it would have been a 12% critic score film that would have disappeared within a month of its release. No one would ever talk about it again until some YouTube mentioned it 10 years hence in a "Worst 10 Science Fiction films of...." video, etc. It was simply an awful movie, and I mean from an objective viewpoint. Terrible writing, wandering and poorly conceived plot, awful character development, inconsistent with the entire canon of the Star Wars established universe, a plot driven by convenience and not practical problem solving, massive continuity issues, etc. It is just as bad as most people say it is. They're not saying that because they're sexist or they hate (insert your chosen agenda/bias, etc.). They're critiquing the film because it was genuinely bad.
Does that mean you have to feel bad for enjoying it? No. I'd argue most of us have sat through a film starring Pauly Shore...almost none of us can throw stones in this glass house. However, trying to defend The Last Jedi as if it was a misunderstood brilliant film is laughable. That smacks of the exhausting and inane "Art student" approach of "Well it's just above your understanding..you can't see the real genius" garbage that I sat through in college while in a theater program, etc.
Again though, I’d say that it’s not really a majority of people that disliked TLJ. It’s probably somewhere around half, which is substantial, but by no means literally everyone. It’s sort of annoying to discuss this movie when people just start getting into “critics were paid off” or “you must be a moron for liking the movie”, which is increasingly what I’ve seen with discussing this movie.
As for taking the Star Wars out of this movie...I’d argue take the Star Wars out of any of these movies and they’d be panned by everyone.
Anyways, TLJ imo is by no means perfect. But for what it was, I thought it was a fun film, and enjoyed the general direction taken. Most of the criticisms I’ve seen have to do with either canon or specific plot decisions, which I think I’m just going to have to agree to disagree. I would largely agree though that TLJ has pacing problems (my comment on Canto Blight). It also does have focus issues. If anything, the movie did not go far enough, and the ending could really have gone further with the initial direction it took. It isn’t perfect, and I’ll be the very first to admit it. My point is that out of the sequel trilogy, it at least attempted new things, which is far more than can be said for the other two.
I haven’t seen much politics in the new movies. If anything, they’re mostly the same as the OT, with the exception of 8, which did try to move into new territory.
The handling of the core idea of new imperials wasn’t done well at all. It sort of forcibly reset the universe to Empire vs Rebels again, which is stupid. Here’s the thing: the preceding trilogies have al brought something new about the Star Wars universe. The OT established it and grew it. The Prequels weren’t great, they were mostly bad (though I liked 3 personally), but they did bring new stuff about Star Wars. We saw what the major populated centers looked like. We saw what the universe was like before the Empire. We saw more about what society in this universe looks like. It was poorly executed, of course, but there’s a wealth of new things in the prequels.
What did the sequels bring? Next to nothing. 8 tried, but it ultimately wasn’t enough. They talk about a New Republic and then swiftly destroy it. What I wanted to see was more about what this new society looked like. What challenges they were facing from the old power structures of the Empire. Maybe a deeper exploration of who the Sith are. Imagine how cool it would’ve been if they visualized something like ship yards in space. Hell, you know what would’ve been amazing as a sequel trilogy? The fall of Kylo Ren. We just watch as his acts of terror become more and more dark. So dark that Finn, a grizzled veteran, defects. The mystery being who is behind all of this (and then reveal Snoke at the end of it all).
That’s just an idea, but I honestly wanted to see more of the universe than more barren wastelands and more Death Stars, and whatever the hell 9 was.
As for defending 9, I haven’t seen too many spirited defenses of 9. There’ve been very few defenses.
What you've just said about Rise of Skywalker (I haven't seen it, can't be bothered) is really what the rest of the world has said about The Last Jedi. It was objectively a bad film.
And yet TLJ was critically acclaimed and tallied an 'A' Cinemascore. That's the exact opposite of what you describe. In online self-reinforcing nerd bubbles, sure, it was a creative and conceptual disaster akin to Cats, Gigli, The Postman, or Ishtar. But most of the rest of the world didn't see it that way. I know that makes some uncomfortable, and that's why the "Disney paid off the critics!" conspiracy-mongering started. Soothes the ol' cognitive dissonance. But it's okay to strongly dislike something that lots of other people enjoyed.
Tons of people watched 'Friends' back in the day. I gave it a try but thought it was a painfully pedestrian sitcom and didn't get into it. Doesn't mean that it was 'objectively bad', that everyone who liked it was an idiot, or that there was some conspiracy to hide the truth. It was obviously a *good television show* that just wasn't to my taste. And if someone thought it meant this or that about me, it's not something that would bother me.
Cripes...BBQ. It's like religion in some parts of this country. Complete with holy wars over which regional variant is best. To me, it's good...but just cooked meat. Personally, I'd rather have a steak or -- if the mood struck me for BBQ -- Korean BBQ. Doesn't make everyone else 'objectively wrong' or mean that the Illuminati are pushing slow-cooked proteins on an unwilling public. I'm the one swimming upstream. And it's fine. Really.
TLJ reminds me a bit of Black Panther in that the film appeals to a large segment of the population while leaving another large segment cold. There were all kinds of theories about why critics "pretended" to like BP, too. Sometimes it's really hard to understand why a lot of people like something you didn't or hate something you enjoyed.
However, I feel BP was more successful overall because it succeeded with more subgroups than TLJ mostly owing to the facT that it was ....wait for it.. Objectively better.
BP is a weird comparison. I've seen people mostly get hung up on "how" good it is, which mostly turns into a debate over whether a dodgy CGI fight at the end keeps it from being more than a very good super hero flick. I rarely see people decry it as actually bad, outside of rants that seem to have some very questionable motives. I wouldn't consider it anywhere nearly as divisive as TLJ. I also think BP is the better film, but comparing them, particularly with any kind of objective merit gets into CinemaSin nonsense that's not a particularly healthy way to approach films.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: TLJ reminds me a bit of Black Panther in that the film appeals to a large segment of the population while leaving another large segment cold. There were all kinds of theories about why critics "pretended" to like BP, too. Sometimes it's really hard to understand why a lot of people like something you didn't or hate something you enjoyed.
However, I feel BP was more successful overall because it succeeded with more subgroups than TLJ mostly owing to the facT that it was ....wait for it.. Objectively better.
FWIW, I thought BP was a good movie albeit one with substandard special effects (even in comparison with Civil War that visually portrayed the same character much better). TLJ was kind of the opposite in that it was a substandard movie with very nice effects. The fact that BP was nominated specifically in the effects category was a big indication to me that alot of people (critics and voters) were propping it up likely for woke points in the aftermath of and to avoid another #oscarssowhite controversy. YMMV.
There were a lot of posters on Dakka who did not understand how honest critics could possibly give BP such a high score. BP, like TLJ, did a lot of things that appeal directly to the types of viewers who are movie critics or critic-adjacent, sometimes at the cost of not doing things that's appeal to action or comic movie fans. The main point of my comparison is that both films had a divisive element along the same critics vs real fans lines, although BP's was much less pronounced.
I believe it was less pronounced in BP because BP was better written and directed...outside of action sequences, which were just...ooof.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: TLJ reminds me a bit of Black Panther in that the film appeals to a large segment of the population while leaving another large segment cold. There were all kinds of theories about why critics "pretended" to like BP, too. Sometimes it's really hard to understand why a lot of people like something you didn't or hate something you enjoyed.
However, I feel BP was more successful overall because it succeeded with more subgroups than TLJ mostly owing to the facT that it was ....wait for it.. Objectively better.
FWIW, I thought BP was a good movie albeit one with substandard special effects (even in comparison with Civil War that visually portrayed the same character much better). TLJ was kind of the opposite in that it was a substandard movie with very nice effects. The fact that BP was nominated specifically in the effects category was a big indication to me that alot of people (critics and voters) were propping it up likely for woke points in the aftermath of and to avoid another #oscarssowhite controversy. YMMV.
That may be. I tend to be more charitable and assume people really just wanted to reward Black Panther however they plausibly could because they enjoyed it...and didn't realize the effects nod was not plausible.
Either way, I'll take a well written movie with pretty bad effects over an effects masterpiece with a terrible story.
Personally, I like both movies because they're actually about something. That's generally my barometer over whether a movie stands out for me, even if I can enjoy a movie that isn't trying to say more that what's on the surface (insert ironic Aquaman joke here). To me, in an era where television has the time to flesh out characters and really give weight to a story, the advantage of film is the ability to deliver themes and message in a focused and succinct manner, though in truth, most films are still happy to just spit out a plot. BP and TLJ both stand out to me as genre films that really get this, even if I have issues with the latter's failings on the succinct and focused parameters.
That may be. I tend to be more charitable and assume people really just wanted to reward Black Panther however they plausibly could because they enjoyed it...and didn't realize the effects nod was not plausible.
FWIW, here are actual VFX artists going over the finale in detail starting at about 3 minutes. I think they did later videos comparing the scene with the big Civil War fight both in terms of special effects and stunt coordination as they also have a series where they bring in professional stunt men (including the guy who did the BP stunts in Civil War) to evaluate those scenes.
And this got nominated for best SFX with an entry by Disney/Marvel specifically including this scene in their "for your consideration" promo materials sent to voters.
deltaKshatriya wrote: Again though, I’d say that it’s not really a majority of people that disliked TLJ. It’s probably somewhere around half, which is substantial, but by no means literally everyone.
This got me thinking about what some numbers actually say. Did a quick comparison of the Disney Star Wars movies from their ratings on IMDB. That's only going to count people who have an account on IMDB and rate movies there, so it might capture the general movie going public more than rabid SW fans, but you can see an interesting trend. More than three-quarters of those who rated TFA and RO have it a rating of 10, 9, 8, or 7. That number drops to less than two-thirds for TLJ and ROS.
LunarSol wrote: Personally, I like both movies because they're actually about something. That's generally my barometer over whether a movie stands out for me, even if I can enjoy a movie that isn't trying to say more that what's on the surface (insert ironic Aquaman joke here). To me, in an era where television has the time to flesh out characters and really give weight to a story, the advantage of film is the ability to deliver themes and message in a focused and succinct manner, though in truth, most films are still happy to just spit out a plot. BP and TLJ both stand out to me as genre films that really get this, even if I have issues with the latter's failings on the succinct and focused parameters.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Some movies deliver (or attempt) themes while maybe failing on plot or other "surface level" fundamentals. Some people enjoy the attempt, others only see the failure. I believe it was Tolkien (correct me if I'm wrong) who said something along the lines of the story has to work first as a story, otherwise the themes are meaningless. I personally don't 100% agree, but I've gotten annoyed at enough attempted-great films and books to see where he's coming from.
I also felt like TLJ took more interesting risks in camera work and letting some scenes breathe, but clearly they didn't all pay off.
That may be. I tend to be more charitable and assume people really just wanted to reward Black Panther however they plausibly could because they enjoyed it...and didn't realize the effects nod was not plausible.
FWIW, here are actual VFX artists going over the finale in detail starting at about 3 minutes. I think they did later videos comparing the scene with the big Civil War fight both in terms of special effects and stunt coordination as they also have a series where they bring in professional stunt men (including the guy who did the BP stunts in Civil War) to evaluate those scenes.
And this got nominated for best SFX with an entry by Disney/Marvel specifically including this scene in their "for your consideration" promo materials sent to voters.
You don't have to convince me that BP didn't deserve that nomination. I was already there when I saw that final fight scene. I'm just saying I think there might have been other motivations than virtue signaling for academy members to acquiesce to Disney's formidable Oscar machine.
I see it more as a case of "I like Black Panther. The kids today like Black Panther. Let's get Black Panther 'all up in this' as they say by nominating it as much as possible. Did Black Panther have effects? Then nominate it for effects! That Andy Sirkis mocap character was phenomenal." I'm sure there were some who voted only for woke reasons, but I'd bet there was probably an order of magnitude more people who voted for it because it was a movie they had seen and could remember.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Doesn't imdb rank Christopher Nolan as the greatest director of all time? I wouldn't put much stock in their numbers (or any numbers off any website, in this day and age).
Some of it comes down to dodgy elements of the categorization. While BPs effects have some weak bits, a lot of them are made up for on the strength of its art direction. It only gets to be a real problem when that gets stripped away and you have 2 mostly identical characters in similarly colored and ultimately boring background.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If you took the Star Wars out of TLJ, you’d have a campy movie with a lot of fun stuff and stupid characters. It would sit happily between Fkash Gordon and Chronicles of Riddick.
I've said similar things about it as well. It would have been quite an entertaining sci-fi flick, if it hadn't been trying and failing to be a STAR WARS film.
What you've just said about Rise of Skywalker (I haven't seen it, can't be bothered) is really what the rest of the world has said about The Last Jedi. It was objectively a bad film.
And yet TLJ was critically acclaimed and tallied an 'A' Cinemascore. That's the exact opposite of what you describe. In online self-reinforcing nerd bubbles, sure, it was a creative and conceptual disaster akin to Cats, Gigli, The Postman, or Ishtar. But most of the rest of the world didn't see it that way. I know that makes some uncomfortable, and that's why the "Disney paid off the critics!" conspiracy-mongering started. Soothes the ol' cognitive dissonance. But it's okay to strongly dislike something that lots of other people enjoyed.
Tons of people watched 'Friends' back in the day. I gave it a try but thought it was a painfully pedestrian sitcom and didn't get into it. Doesn't mean that it was 'objectively bad', that everyone who liked it was an idiot, or that there was some conspiracy to hide the truth. It was obviously a *good television show* that just wasn't to my taste. And if someone thought it meant this or that about me, it's not something that would bother me.
Cripes...BBQ. It's like religion in some parts of this country. Complete with holy wars over which regional variant is best. To me, it's good...but just cooked meat. Personally, I'd rather have a steak or -- if the mood struck me for BBQ -- Korean BBQ. Doesn't make everyone else 'objectively wrong' or mean that the Illuminati are pushing slow-cooked proteins on an unwilling public. I'm the one swimming upstream. And it's fine. Really.
Critics loved it because it was different.
Remember, these people get paid to watch movies day in, day out. They watch new movies like you watch new TV episodes... possibly more. They watch SO MANY movies that by the time they establish themselves as serious critics they're BORED with the average movie. Show them something that defies their expectations and they tend to like it simply BECAUSE it defied their expectation.
Even when defying those expectations takes the movie out of the realm of verisimilitude for the established movie world.
As far as the politics of the sequel trilogy... well, I don't think that was as much in the movies, as in the reactions of Lucasfilm employees when TLJ was not universally loved. If I don't like a movie because of plot points X, Y, and Z, and your reaction is 'you must be a racist sexist pig because of A, B, and C'... yeah, that's politics raising it's ugly head.
deltaKshatriya wrote: Again though, I’d say that it’s not really a majority of people that disliked TLJ. It’s probably somewhere around half, which is substantial, but by no means literally everyone.
This got me thinking about what some numbers actually say. Did a quick comparison of the Disney Star Wars movies from their ratings on IMDB. That's only going to count people who have an account on IMDB and rate movies there, so it might capture the general movie going public more than rabid SW fans, but you can see an interesting trend. More than three-quarters of those who rated TFA and RO have it a rating of 10, 9, 8, or 7. That number drops to less than two-thirds for TLJ and ROS.
It does show that while people weren’t nearly as up on TLJ as Rogue One, or TFA, it was still relatively positively received. 64% rated it 7 or higher. Interestingly enough though, it’s almost identical to RoS, where 65% also rated it 7 or higher. That’s pretty much the same really. They are well within variance of each other. It does make the notion that TLJ was universally hated a moot point. About half liked it, about half didn’t which is about what I’ve seen. I feel like that TFA really benefitted from benefit of the doubt, since neither of the two sequels were out. Moreover, it was fairly well made for what it was. It just wasn’t super fresh.
Rogue One is, by far, imo, the most compelling movie made by Disney. It shows that Disney is capable of making really good Star Wars movies. I suspect, however, they mainly aren’t good at working on expanding on the movies. Rogue One worked because we already knew about the Death Star and its flaws. The sequel trilogy needed to expand beyond the first 6 films and that’s where they came up short, imo.
I do agree on the point that critics literally watch media all the time. Something that is different sometimes does stick out to them. It’s a very different lens to look at media from.
I'm never quite sure what I think about Rogue One. The third act is phenomenal but almost entirely for reasons that aren't related to the movie itself. That goes a long way and has me rewatching it multiple times, but honestly you could cut the entire cast and just give me a short story about Red Squadron and the Tantive IV and I'd be just as happy. The actual cast feels a little too big and doesn't get fleshed out enough to be interesting before being rather clinically culled. It makes the first 2/3rds of the film really dull on rewatch.
Contrasting that, Finn's story ending in failure actually makes Canto Blight more compelling for me on rewatch. I still find it too long and its soapbox moments stick out and drag things on without really adding to the plot (they're the stuff that TV and comics generally add to the universe), but the focus on just a few characters works better for me than RO's extended cast.
The Rogue One formula was pretty straight forward as a plot/story arc.
Dirty Dozen in SPAAAACCCCCEEEEEE!
That is easier to execute. The new Trilogy had no such grounding. In a way Rogue One and Solo are the most "Disney/Marvel" of the new Wars films. They are simply different genre of movie with a Star Wars film put on top, and that is why they work so much better. Many Marvel movies do the same thing only with Superheroes.
BP getting an effects nomination over Aquaman was bonkers. Bonkers. I thought it was a good film though. Probably not equal to the hype, but still a good film.
I liked R1 and thought it was a good SW film, but for whatever reason it didn't really stick with me and I don't feel compelled to rewatch it. TLJ improves when rewatched IMO...not that anyone could convince its biggest critics to do that. *shrug*
That's my experience. It's part of the reason its length really bothers me more than anything these days. I like it better the more I watch it, but its a little long to watch as much as I'd like.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If you took the Star Wars out of TLJ, you’d have a campy movie with a lot of fun stuff and stupid characters. It would sit happily between Fkash Gordon and Chronicles of Riddick.
I've said similar things about it as well. It would have been quite an entertaining sci-fi flick, if it hadn't been trying and failing to be a STAR WARS film.
What you've just said about Rise of Skywalker (I haven't seen it, can't be bothered) is really what the rest of the world has said about The Last Jedi. It was objectively a bad film.
And yet TLJ was critically acclaimed and tallied an 'A' Cinemascore. That's the exact opposite of what you describe. In online self-reinforcing nerd bubbles, sure, it was a creative and conceptual disaster akin to Cats, Gigli, The Postman, or Ishtar. But most of the rest of the world didn't see it that way. I know that makes some uncomfortable, and that's why the "Disney paid off the critics!" conspiracy-mongering started. Soothes the ol' cognitive dissonance. But it's okay to strongly dislike something that lots of other people enjoyed.
Tons of people watched 'Friends' back in the day. I gave it a try but thought it was a painfully pedestrian sitcom and didn't get into it. Doesn't mean that it was 'objectively bad', that everyone who liked it was an idiot, or that there was some conspiracy to hide the truth. It was obviously a *good television show* that just wasn't to my taste. And if someone thought it meant this or that about me, it's not something that would bother me.
Cripes...BBQ. It's like religion in some parts of this country. Complete with holy wars over which regional variant is best. To me, it's good...but just cooked meat. Personally, I'd rather have a steak or -- if the mood struck me for BBQ -- Korean BBQ. Doesn't make everyone else 'objectively wrong' or mean that the Illuminati are pushing slow-cooked proteins on an unwilling public. I'm the one swimming upstream. And it's fine. Really.
Critics loved it because it was different.
Remember, these people get paid to watch movies day in, day out. They watch new movies like you watch new TV episodes... possibly more. They watch SO MANY movies that by the time they establish themselves as serious critics they're BORED with the average movie. Show them something that defies their expectations and they tend to like it simply BECAUSE it defied their expectation.
Even when defying those expectations takes the movie out of the realm of verisimilitude for the established movie world.
As far as the politics of the sequel trilogy... well, I don't think that was as much in the movies, as in the reactions of Lucasfilm employees when TLJ was not universally loved. If I don't like a movie because of plot points X, Y, and Z, and your reaction is 'you must be a racist sexist pig because of A, B, and C'... yeah, that's politics raising it's ugly head.
Eh. What blows a giant hole in that theory is the critics giving Marvel movie after Marvel movie solid marks, even though those are as formula as they come. I know, I know...THEY'RE ALL PAID OFF BY DISNEY!!1! Doesn't work that way, but whatevs.
Critics with some pedigree -- i.e. not some random blogger being paid by the word -- look at films a little more deeply. They look at story, writing, performances, etc. Something different will attract their attention, but if they take their work seriously their review of a film doesn't end there. It wasn't that TLJ was just different -- there are lots of ways of getting to 'different' and plenty are bad. Same goes for 'subverting expectations'. What attracted them to TLJ seemed more specifically about more thematic complexity than other SW films, and even some meta-commentary.
That doesn't mean it's the moviegoing experience everyone wants. That's fine and I guarantee Rian Johnson himself would tell you that. All creative people understand this. But someone not liking a creative work doesn't make said work 'bad' either. Things can be really special AND not at all to someone's taste. Both can be 100% true.
Regarding politics, one side painting with too wide of a brush doesn't mean the bad actors weren't there on the other side. The situation was more complex than either side let on. We really have to get back to being able to handle the barest minimum of complexity in our conversations.
Eh. What blows a giant hole in that theory is the critics giving Marvel movie after Marvel movie solid marks, even though those are as formula as they come.
Critics tend to overvalue novelty, but its not the only factor. It's also worth noting that while Marvel has a formula, its spent a good deal of time avoiding being particularly formulaic. The biggest movies in the franchise took some pretty big risks. It's a franchise of solid, good enough movies with 1 "big idea" every once in a while to keep people on their toes. The most maligned films are easily the most formulaic. Iron Man 2 and Avengers 2 both suffer almost entirely from the inorganic world building detours that have been the major failings of most other cinematic universes. The formula films tend to be workhorse character introductions that are fun, but not particularly riveting. But then they take a chance, go completely crazy and give us Guardians or destroy SHIELD or the Avengers themselves. They let Thanos win or let Thor reboot himself into the kind of film everyone dreamed things like Jupiter Ascending could be. Some of this is just that superheroes are to modern critics what gangster tales were to the generation of critics before; something they loved as a child, brought to life with dedication and care, but as far as being formulaic, the Marvel films that stick with people are generally the ones willing to take big risks time and time again.
gorgon wrote: Regarding politics, one side painting with too wide of a brush doesn't mean the bad actors weren't there on the other side. The situation was more complex than either side let on. We really have to get back to being able to handle the barest minimum of complexity in our conversations.
True, but as I said, if I'm criticizing points X, Y, and Z, but being called a racist sexist pig because of A, B, and C WHICH I NEVER ADDRESSED MUCH LESS CRITICIZED is. at best, a straw-man fallacy.
Were there bad actors among those criticizing TLJ? Yes, yes there were. They were the ones criticizing A, B, and C. What happened to Kelly Trahn on Tiwtter is tragic... but had nothing to do with me. I'm not even ON twitter, and said more than once the actors did the best they could with the sewage sandwich script they were handed.
But when the writing is bad and fails even the most basic tests of verisimilitude and internal logic (why didn't the First Order - who apparently had PLENTY of fuel - just split their fleet, have half trail the Resistance while the other half got in front of them? One Resistance sandwich, coming right up! When Kylo Ren killed Snoke, he became the Supreme Leader of the First Order. Thus, the Red Guard became HIS guards. Why did they then ATTACK HIM?), then criticizing these points is entirely valid and have NOTHING to do with racism or sexism.
Not to mention how insulting your fanbase is a good way to murder a franchise. Yes, they've survived so far, but Solo demonstrates there's a price to be paid for it, and sooner or later that price is too high for a business to pay anymore.
Vulcan wrote: When Kylo Ren killed Snoke, he became the Supreme Leader of the First Order. Thus, the Red Guard became HIS guards. Why did they then ATTACK HIM?)
He murders the leader of the First Order and then kills any witnesses before pinning it on Rey. Hux even briefly presumes the title before Kylo makes it very clear that will not be the case.
There are very few declared bodyguards I can think of that would just stand by and give polite applause about that sort of thing?
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the other hand, I do feel for Vulcan and his ilk.
It’s absolutely fine by me not to like any given film. But sadly, TLJ was the subject of a sustained campaign by interwebular tosspots to rubbish it because of frankly dubious reasons.
Same with Ghostbusters, the one in 2016. I enjoyed it, as did others. Others did not. All fine and dandy and that. But there’s those that put it down to ‘muuhhhhhhhhhhhhh...... wimmins. And they’re well documented campaign has tainted negative criticism, however constructive.
Right, that's my point. Kylo betrays the First Order and kills its leader. There's nothing at that point that makes him the new Supreme Leader and the guards simply act to kill the traitor. When they fail, Kylo gives Hux a weak excuse and takes the title, because... honestly, who is going to challenge him at that point?
Vulcan wrote: When Kylo Ren killed Snoke, he became the Supreme Leader of the First Order. Thus, the Red Guard became HIS guards. Why did they then ATTACK HIM?)
He murders the leader of the First Order and then kills any witnesses before pinning it on Rey. Hux even briefly presumes the title before Kylo makes it very clear that will not be the case.
Except that's not what happened. There was a moment's surprise, and then the guards moved to attack Rey and Ren. They SHOULD HAVE done something along the lines of bowing or kneeling to their new master. If they had, THEN your theory would make sense. Instead, they quickly moved to attack Ray and Ren, and they were forced to defend themselves.
Sure, Ren probably spun the story that way afterwards, but I doubt anyone believed it. If Rey was strong enough to fight the entire guard AND Kylo Ren, then she was unlikely to have spared him after killing everyone else.
Right, that's my point. Kylo betrays the First Order and kills its leader. There's nothing at that point that makes him the new Supreme Leader and the guards simply act to kill the traitor. When they fail, Kylo gives Hux a weak excuse and takes the title, because... honestly, who is going to challenge him at that point?
I'm sorry, isn't the WHOLE POINT of the Rule of Two "Kill your master, take his place, take on a new apprentice"? That's Rule One of the Dark Side the past couple thousand years!
Sure, Ren probably spun the story that way afterwards, but I doubt anyone believed it. If Rey was strong enough to fight the entire guard AND Kylo Ren, then she was unlikely to have spared him after killing everyone else.
Hux clearly DOESN'T believe it. He's also immediately aware he's completely powerless to do anything about it.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes. But the guards probably don't know that. They're not Sith, just bodyguards.
They're pretty BAD bodyguards, given that Snoke gets killed before they can react...
At which point, if they're not going to serve Kylo Ren and their old paymaster is dead, why risk getting killed themselves by attacking Ren and Rey?
Well, I would argue 1) all Star Wars villains are bad villains because they constantly order their bodyguards to stand down/leave the room when dealing with the hero. So thats really on Snoke/the Emperor, not the bodyguards.
2) They're probably brainwashed to follow Snoke to the death.
Grey Templar wrote: Yes. But the guards probably don't know that. They're not Sith, just bodyguards.
They're pretty BAD bodyguards, given that Snoke gets killed before they can react...
At which point, if they're not going to serve Kylo Ren and their old paymaster is dead, why risk getting killed themselves by attacking Ren and Rey?
Well, I would argue 1) all Star Wars villains are bad villains because they constantly order their bodyguards to stand down/leave the room when dealing with the hero. So thats really on Snoke/the Emperor, not the bodyguards.
2) They're probably brainwashed to follow Snoke to the death.
So not professionals, but brainwashed fanatics then. Well, that explains why they failed then.
Believe me, nobody in Star Wars is competent at anything they do.
The Empire is laughably terrible at being a domineering empire in terms of tactics and equipment and numbers. The only reason they are successful is because the entire galaxy is full of complete wussies who don't dare resist, despite the fact that weapons of all kinds are easily acquired and indeed are owned in large numbers by the civilian population. And the only reason the Rebellion struggles to overthrow the Empire is because they too are horrible at their job+hindered by the general population's inability to conduct violence.
Vulcan wrote: They're pretty BAD bodyguards, given that Snoke gets killed before they can react...
Not that they could either. It was pretty subtle up to the point it was revealed. Their attention was probably focused on Rey and Ren just like Snoke himself.
At which point, if they're not going to serve Kylo Ren and their old paymaster is dead, why risk getting killed themselves by attacking Ren and Rey?
It's called loyalty. It's basically the number 1 prerequisite for bodyguards. They probably assumed, not entirely without cause, that Ren was in league with Rey to kill Snoke and help the Resistance.
This is a strange thing to debate. The bodyguards reacted the minute Snoke was killed, which happened quickly. Moreover, Kylo Ren’s loyalty was never in question as far as Snoke was concerned till that point. Why would the bodyguards be worried about him? And the assassination was pretty subtle.
This is a really specific thing to break down. Leaving aside that all the Star Wars movies have some really wonky moments, I’d say that any movie analyzed at this level would probably not hold up.
I detest The Last Jedi but aside from the choreography goofs that I did not notice at all in that scene when I saw it in the cinema, I really have no issue at all with how that scene played out.
I may have issue with it happening *at all* in the scheme of things, but that's more general complaints about the movie than what happened in that specific scene.
Vulcan wrote: They're pretty BAD bodyguards, given that Snoke gets killed before they can react...
Not that they could either. It was pretty subtle up to the point it was revealed. Their attention was probably focused on Rey and Ren just like Snoke himself.
At which point, if they're not going to serve Kylo Ren and their old paymaster is dead, why risk getting killed themselves by attacking Ren and Rey?
It's called loyalty. It's basically the number 1 prerequisite for bodyguards. They probably assumed, not entirely without cause, that Ren was in league with Rey to kill Snoke and help the Resistance.
Ah... in the real world, if you get killed, your bodyguard won't go on a suicidal rampage trying to kill your killer. This goes double if it was done in a manner they have no way of defending against. If they're law enforcement, they'll try to arrest you, but other than that once the principle gets killed the job has just ended and you're not getting paid to die for a dead man.
Azreal13 wrote: Which is weird when you think about it, because the Star Wars property is so typically strong on its verisimilitude.
Sarcasm?
Me, for the entire fight, I was wondering who hired the Power Rangers, what their motivation was, and why the choreography was so terrible and telegraphed, even by Power Rangers standards.
It’s absolutely fine by me not to like any given film.
.
stop getting the Internet wrong...
still not entirely sure the wammin hater troll mans, and their SJW counterparts actually exist, but a lot of content creators rely on them for clicks and coin so no need for any actual proof
Vulcan wrote: They're pretty BAD bodyguards, given that Snoke gets killed before they can react...
Not that they could either. It was pretty subtle up to the point it was revealed. Their attention was probably focused on Rey and Ren just like Snoke himself.
At which point, if they're not going to serve Kylo Ren and their old paymaster is dead, why risk getting killed themselves by attacking Ren and Rey?
It's called loyalty. It's basically the number 1 prerequisite for bodyguards. They probably assumed, not entirely without cause, that Ren was in league with Rey to kill Snoke and help the Resistance.
Ah... in the real world, if you get killed, your bodyguard won't go on a suicidal rampage trying to kill your killer. This goes double if it was done in a manner they have no way of defending against. If they're law enforcement, they'll try to arrest you, but other than that once the principle gets killed the job has just ended and you're not getting paid to die for a dead man.
they're proably not guarding snoke for the money. these aren't contract bodyguards for a celberty singer. they're hand chosen body guards for the supreme leader of the First Order. Chosen specificly for their fanatical loyalty to him.
It’s absolutely fine by me not to like any given film.
.
stop getting the Internet wrong...
still not entirely sure the wammin hater troll mans, and their SJW counterparts actually exist, but a lot of content creators rely on them for clicks and coin so no need for any actual proof
Oh they definitely exist. You just don't see them that much because they're often at home.... clicking click bait and answer the call to make sure that people aren't saying the wrong things on the interwebs.
Regarding SW villains asking their bodyguards to either stand down to leave the room when facing the "hero" in the movie: It's more than just arrogance on their part (though that certainly play a part), but also an acknowledgement by said villain that his bodyguards are likely no match for the hero and will thus get in the way.
Of all the decisions I disliked in TLJ, the gaurds attacking Ren/Rey was never one of them. That makes perfect sense and Snoke/Ren were NOT Sith and didn't have some Dark side Rule of 2 thing going on. Guards saw their master killed by a traitor and acted accordingly, it's that simple. Plus it gave us one of the highlight saber fights in the whole trilogy. THEN Ren spun the "the girl killed Snoke" biz to deceive Hux and take the Supreme leader title by intimidation
they're proably not guarding snoke for the money. these aren't contract bodyguards for a celberty singer. they're hand chosen body guards for the supreme leader of the First Order. Chosen specificly for their fanatical loyalty to him.
To Snoke, and not to the First Order, and the rest of the leadership let him do it knowing they could be used against them at Snoke's whim.
Well, that makes sense. It's no dumber than allowing a General to exercise detailed command over naval elements, or allowing Hux to be in charge of anything of importance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: Plus it gave us one of the highlight saber fights in the whole trilogy.
Ah... sure. Whatever you say. I'm sure my opinion of it was expressed somewhere up-thread, probably repeatedly. No need for me to repeat it again.
they're proably not guarding snoke for the money. these aren't contract bodyguards for a celberty singer. they're hand chosen body guards for the supreme leader of the First Order. Chosen specificly for their fanatical loyalty to him.
To Snoke, and not to the First Order, and the rest of the leadership let him do it knowing they could be used against them at Snoke's whim.
Well, that makes sense. It's no dumber than allowing a General to exercise detailed command over naval elements, or allowing Hux to be in charge of anything of importance.
you're looking at the first order as a group that's intreasted in checks and balances....
thats now how the first order works
Right, that's my point. Kylo betrays the First Order and kills its leader. There's nothing at that point that makes him the new Supreme Leader and the guards simply act to kill the traitor. When they fail, Kylo gives Hux a weak excuse and takes the title, because... honestly, who is going to challenge him at that point?
I'm sorry, isn't the WHOLE POINT of the Rule of Two "Kill your master, take his place, take on a new apprentice"? That's Rule One of the Dark Side the past couple thousand years!
That's the Sith rule, but Snoke is not a Sith, neither is Kylo Ren.
How do we know that? AFAIK there's no conclusive statements made either way in the new trilogy.
I've admittedly only watched them once and don't have an eidetic memory.
Then again, even if they are Sith, I'm not sure there's anything in their rulebook that prohibits a Master from having a fanatically loyal bodyguard as an extra insurance against his apprentice killing him.
they're proably not guarding snoke for the money. these aren't contract bodyguards for a celberty singer. they're hand chosen body guards for the supreme leader of the First Order. Chosen specificly for their fanatical loyalty to him.
To Snoke, and not to the First Order, and the rest of the leadership let him do it knowing they could be used against them at Snoke's whim.
Well, that makes sense. It's no dumber than allowing a General to exercise detailed command over naval elements, or allowing Hux to be in charge of anything of importance.
you're looking at the first order as a group that's intreasted in checks and balances....
thats now how the first order works
They're not COMPETENT enough to consider checks and balances... or their own safety, for that matter.
The rule of 2 has had masters with multiple apprentices before. The master just pits the apprentices against each other to prove which is strongest and which is dead. Palpatine had both duku and maul remember?
Lance845 wrote: The rule of 2 has had masters with multiple apprentices before. The master just pits the apprentices against each other to prove which is strongest and which is dead. Palpatine had both duku and maul remember?
Dooku was recruited after Maul was lost. But yes, the rule of 2 has always been more of a ... guideline... than a rule.
Lance845 wrote: The rule of 2 has had masters with multiple apprentices before. The master just pits the apprentices against each other to prove which is strongest and which is dead. Palpatine had both duku and maul remember?
Dooku was recruited after Maul was lost. But yes, the rule of 2 has always been more of a ... guideline... than a rule.
No he wasn't Dooku was the guy who helped set up the clone facilities AND the droid army AND the whole separatist cause. Dooku had been working for Palpatine for years by the time Episode 1 rolled around.
Lance845 wrote: The rule of 2 has had masters with multiple apprentices before. The master just pits the apprentices against each other to prove which is strongest and which is dead. Palpatine had both duku and maul remember?
Dooku was recruited after Maul was lost. But yes, the rule of 2 has always been more of a ... guideline... than a rule.
No he wasn't Dooku was the guy who helped set up the clone facilities AND the droid army AND the whole separatist cause. Dooku had been working for Palpatine for years by the time Episode 1 rolled around.
Agreed, Maul died (the first time...) in 32 BBY. Dooku was recruited in about 42BBY.
I found this really interesting tidbit on Wikipedia. What's fascinating is how different and also how similar George Lucas' ideas for the sequel trilogy were.
In May 2011, Lucas was in Orlando, Florida, to celebrate the opening of Star Tours – The Adventures Continue at Walt Disney World. He was invited to breakfast by Disney CEO Bob Iger, who asked Lucas if he would be willing to sell his company to Disney. Lucas had begun to consider retiring, but was not ready to do so at that time.[38] Lucas considered directing Episode VII for a May 2015 release[39] and then selling his company,[40] but decided to leave the franchise in the hands of other filmmakers, announcing in January 2012 that he would step away from making blockbuster films.[41]
In early 2012, after being disappointed by the weak performance of Red Tails, Lucas announced to The New York Times that he was planning to retire.[42] While he was in New York, he asked Kathleen Kennedy to lunch, knowing that she was in town working on Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. He asked Kennedy if she would be a co-chair at Lucasfilm with him, with the intention of transferring leadership entirely to her after about a year. She began working for him on June 1, 2012; Lucas soon proposed that they work together on the sequel trilogy.[43] They brought in Michael Arndt to write a draft of Episode VII based on Lucas's synopsis. Star Wars screenwriting veteran Lawrence Kasdan was hired to support Arndt.[b] After making an appearance at Star Wars Celebration VI in late August, Lucas took Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher to lunch and asked if they would be willing to reprise their roles for the new films.[44][45] They agreed, as did Harrison Ford after being promised that Han Solo would be given meaningful closure.[44]
Details of his sequel trilogy treatments included the conclusion of the Skywalker family's story, with its third generation being portrayed in their twenties.[46][47] Lucas hoped to explain concepts he had imagined when he originally drafted his saga in the 1970s. Most specifically he revealed the "symbiotic relationships" between the Jedi, the Force, midi-chlorians (microscopic lifeforms, first mentioned onscreen in 1999's The Phantom Menace), and the Whills (all-powerful creatures first mentioned in the title of the original outline of Star Wars, Journal of the Whills):[48]
[The next three Star Wars films] were going to get into a microbiotic world. But there's this world of creatures that operate differently than we do. I call them the Whills. And the Whills are the ones who actually control the universe. They feed off the Force. Back in the day, I used to say ultimately what this means is we were just cars, vehicles, for the Whills to travel around in. We're vessels for them. And the conduit is the midi-chlorians. The midi-chlorians are the ones that communicate with the Whills. The Whills, in a general sense, they are the Force. ... But it's about symbiotic relationships. I think, personally, one of the core values we should have in the world, and kids should be taught, is ecology, to understand that we all are connected. (Lucas, 2018)[49]
By June 2012, Lucas had agreed to sell his company, provided that Kennedy would replace him as president of Lucasfilm. Iger agreed, while insisting that Disney would have final say over future movies.[50] Lucas's final stipulations before the sale in late 2012 were that his story treatments would be used and that the number of Disney employees who could read them would be limited.[51] Lucas gave Kennedy the final draft of his story treatments during the October 2012 sale.[52] The same month, the Disney sale and production of the sequel trilogy were announced to the public.[53] Lucas stated, "I always said I wasn't going to do any more, and that's true, because I'm not going to do any more. But that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to turn it over to Kathy to do more."[54] Both plot outlines, the one written in the 1980s and the one written in the 2010s, were given to Iger around the time that Disney acquired Lucasfilm.[55]
In January 2013, George Lucas held the first story briefing about the as-yet untitled Episode VII at Skywalker Ranch. Related concept art stemming from these session includes the following story elements:[56]
A teenager female young Jedi Padawan named Kira, described as a "loner, hothead, gear-headed, badass." (The female Padawan was retained, albeit renamed Rey. The phonetically similar name Qi'ra would be used for the girlfriend of a young Han Solo in the anthology film Solo: A Star Wars Story.)
The teen character friend was a teenager named Sam who carried a blaster. He was renamed into the stormtrooper character, Finn. (Both are young adults instead of teens, in the film).[57]
Regarding the character of Luke Skywalker:
An older Luke Skywalker who, decades after the fall of the Empire, exiled himself to the remote planet where the first Jedi temple was located. The first Jedi temple concept art was bell-shaped, and designed by VFX art director James Clyne. (The idea and designs would later be reworked as the planet Ahch-To, briefly seen at the end of Episode VII: The Force Awakens, and explored in Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.)
Luke would have started off reluctant to train the female Padawan, but eventually have a change of heart and agree to train her. (This idea was fully incorporated in The Last Jedi.)
Lucas seemingly had planned for Luke dying at the end of Episode VII. (This element was instead incorporated into Episode VIII.[58] Conversely, some months later, Mark Hamill contradicted the statement and said that George Lucas' original vision for the ending of Episode IX was to have Luke dying there instead of a simple cameo, leaving his sister Leia as a Jedi).[59]
Luke was going to be a "Colonel Kurtz type, hiding from the world in a cave". Luke was going to be in a self-imposed exile, haunted by the betrayal of one of his students, and spiritually in a dark place". (Which is how Luke was presented in The Last Jedi, this preceded the involvement of both, J.J. Abrams and Rian Johnson).[57]
Luke was going to appear with dialogue in the first film. (Pushing Luke to a speechless cameo at the end of the first film, was writer Michael Arndt's idea; he entered after Lucas had left).[60]
The main antagonist would be a man named Skylar that would be corrupted by a character named Talon, until both became the same character Skylar. In some drafts, this character was not anyone's son, and in others it was not decided whose son he was. Skylar ultimately became Ben Solo, the fallen son; this was George Lucas's idea (not J.J. Abrams), and his backstory was to be explored beginning in Episode VII.[60]
At some point after that conference, Lucas decided not to do the film himself. In 2015, Lucas revealed (to his disappointment) that his outlines had been discarded in order to "make something for the fans".[61][62] The same year, Episode VII writer and director J. J. Abrams revealed that Disney had given him a mandate to discard Lucas's story and "start from scratch".[63] Disney was faced with the challenge of pleasing devoted Star Wars fans more so than with the company's other franchises.[64]
The first film in the sequel trilogy was titled Episode VII: The Force Awakens and was written by Lucasfilm veteran Lawrence Kasdan, along with its director J. J. Abrams, and Michael Arndt. Bob Iger's memoirs, published in 2019, recount that Lucas was upset after hearing the plot of The Force Awakens in meetings, specifically about elements that were derivative of the original 1977 film.[c] Lucas felt betrayed by Iger and Abrams because they discarded some of his sequel trilogy ideas.[67] In 2018, Lucas revealed a few elements of his discarded pre-Disney script about midichlorians, a microbiotic world, and the Whills.[68]
As announced by Lucasfilm, the sequel trilogy meant the end of most of the existing Expanded Universe, so as to give "maximum creative freedom to the filmmakers and also preserve an element of surprise and discovery for the audience". Only Episodes I–VI would remain canon to the franchise, along with The Clone Wars animated film and series. Most everything produced after the announcement would also be considered canon.[69]
A wounded Kylo pushes Rey to the edge of a ravine as the planet collapses around them. Using all her strength to push him back, Rey remembers "use the Force," closes her eyes and sings:
"Dance your cares away, worries for another day
Let the music play, Down in fraggle rock"
Did you know? The Sith Eternal fleet seen in #StarWars: #TheRiseofSkywalker was created by Sith cultists on Exegol, who indoctrinated Exegol’s population with Sith values and raised and trained their children to become officers, mechanics and soldiers for the Final Order
Still curious to know how one single planet, over 30 or so years, can create more Star Destroyers, with even more superior weaponry, than the entire Empire could.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Still curious to know how one single planet, over 30 or so years, can create more Star Destroyers, with even more superior weaponry, than the entire Empire could.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Still curious to know how one single planet, over 30 or so years, can create more Star Destroyers, with even more superior weaponry, than the entire Empire could.
Sith values?
yep. They had exactly two enginneers, a master and an apprentice, and the apprentice has to kill the master to advance. Sith values.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Still curious to know how one single planet, over 30 or so years, can create more Star Destroyers, with even more superior weaponry, than the entire Empire could.
Sith values?
yep. They had exactly two enginneers, a master and an apprentice, and the apprentice has to kill the master to advance. Sith values.
I got the impression because the Officer that killed Hux (I forget his name) mentioned that he served Palps for years that the "Sith" fleet was being constructed DURING the reign of the Empire. Palps always has plans on the back burner and I think his end goal was to create terror with a single Death Star, then back that up with a whole fleet of Star Destroyers with DS tech.
I imagine the reason the Empire didn't have them ready during the orig trig was because some rebel farmboy destroyed the first DS and they had to divert resources from building the Sith fleet to get a new one ready.
Which kinda plugs the plot hole on who they were able to build the 2nd DS so fast when it took almost 20 years to build the first one.
Galef wrote: I got the impression because the Officer that killed Hux (I forget his name) mentioned that he served Palps for years that the "Sith" fleet was being constructed DURING the reign of the Empire. Palps always has plans on the back burner and I think his end goal was to create terror with a single Death Star, then back that up with a whole fleet of Star Destroyers with DS tech.
I imagine the reason the Empire didn't have them ready during the orig trig was because some rebel farmboy destroyed the first DS and they had to divert resources from building the Sith fleet to get a new one ready.
Which kinda plugs the plot hole on who they were able to build the 2nd DS so fast when it took almost 20 years to build the first one.
I think Rogue One's explanation (that the superlaser's final touches were a mystery the galaxy's finest minds were puzzling over for decades until Galen Erso definitively solved it) does a better job covering that.
Plus... Those ships would render the death star completely redundant anyway.
Yeah, if there's anything that really peeves me about the new trilogy (amongst an entire mountain of things), reducing it back to the super-weapon/deathstar threat TWICE just smacked of laziness and boredom to me. The worst part is that it was just the scale too. Starkiller station, bigger and spooookier Death Star! The exegol fleet? Deathstar x 1000.
The First Order should have been an underground terrorist movement that would have provided a contrast to the Rebels own cells during the time of the Empire, basically doing a role-reversal, with the First Order finding sympathizers (super easy given the Empire's infrastructure didn't collapse overnight), and taking advantage of the New Republic's unwillingness to wield military might like the Empire to spread their influence. It becomes a lot less simple and gives some grey area as well as to how you deal with insurgencies like this without becoming as tyrannical as the Empire was.
Captain Joystick wrote: Plus... Those ships would render the death star completely redundant anyway.
Exactly. Palpatine creates a DS to be a terror symbol for the empire, then backs it up with super laser Star Destoyers that make the inevitable destruction of said DS irrelevant
Captain Joystick wrote: Plus... Those ships would render the death star completely redundant anyway.
Exactly. Palpatine creates a DS to be a terror symbol for the empire, then backs it up with super laser Star Destoyers that make the inevitable destruction of said DS irrelevant
I liked Starkiller base as a superweapon. It was essentially a glass cannon rather than an ongoing threat. It did the job of decapitating the Republic and throwing the Galaxy into chaos, but it wasn't really capable of being an ongoing threat without a third shot barring towing a planet through hyperspace. Granted, it would be more interesting as a one shot weapon, but then there'd be no pressure to destroy it. The Sith fleet goes into my dumb superweapon bin though right alongside the Suncrusher and original Darksaber.
Grimskul wrote: The First Order should have been an underground terrorist movement that would have provided a contrast to the Rebels own cells during the time of the Empire, basically doing a role-reversal, with the First Order finding sympathizers (super easy given the Empire's infrastructure didn't collapse overnight), and taking advantage of the New Republic's unwillingness to wield military might like the Empire to spread their influence. It becomes a lot less simple and gives some grey area as well as to how you deal with insurgencies like this without becoming as tyrannical as the Empire was.
While I could totally see the merit of such a scenario, I think it would have alienated children, the main (and targetted) audience of Star Wars movies. It's more of a political thriller type of scenario that would work better in some sort of one shot movie and it could be made in the future (thus giving us the rise of the First Order which could certainly be interesting).
The First Order should have been an underground terrorist movement that would have provided a contrast to the Rebels own cells during the time of the Empire, basically doing a role-reversal, with the First Order finding sympathizers (super easy given the Empire's infrastructure didn't collapse overnight), and taking advantage of the New Republic's unwillingness to wield military might like the Empire to spread their influence. It becomes a lot less simple and gives some grey area as well as to how you deal with insurgencies like this without becoming as tyrannical as the Empire was.
A lot of this is touched upon in Battlefront 2's "Resurrection" DLC. It was purposely held back from the game's initial release to come out with "The Last Jedi" as a free bit because of spoilers contained in there.
The First Order isn't considered, prior to The Force Awakens, anything but a rumor by Republic Intelligence. A last gasp by the Empire to make itself sound far, far more put together than it actually is.
Grimskul wrote: Yeah, if there's anything that really peeves me about the new trilogy (amongst an entire mountain of things), reducing it back to the super-weapon/deathstar threat TWICE just smacked of laziness and boredom to me. The worst part is that it was just the scale too. Starkiller station, bigger and spooookier Death Star! The exegol fleet? Deathstar x 1000.
The First Order should have been an underground terrorist movement that would have provided a contrast to the Rebels own cells during the time of the Empire, basically doing a role-reversal, with the First Order finding sympathizers (super easy given the Empire's infrastructure didn't collapse overnight), and taking advantage of the New Republic's unwillingness to wield military might like the Empire to spread their influence. It becomes a lot less simple and gives some grey area as well as to how you deal with insurgencies like this without becoming as tyrannical as the Empire was.
But see, this would require foresight and planning on Disney's part and also taking risks, something Disney isn't really too keen on. I hope that now that the Skywalker saga is finished that we can move on to something way more interesting.
Well, it would have been more original, lets grant him that. It is particularly amusing that the 'bitter old Luke' characterization which was so reviled by many OT fans and cited as an example how Disney writers were clueless, was actually Lucas' own idea. In fact they kept surprisingly much of the Lucas ideas, I was previously under impression they discarded nearly everything. Also Lucas' version of the trilogy would have necessited dumping the EU, just as Disney did.
In related news, 'Rise of the Skywalker' novelization has been released and supposedly it has been source of some further outrage. Particularly,
Spoiler:
...it is revealed that Rey's father was not Palpatine's biological son, but a failed clone. Why would that cause outrage, I have no idea. It is hardly worse than any of the story concepts shown in the movie and if anything, it makes much more sense than Palpatine having a family we never saw or were told about before.
Easy E wrote: I liked bitter old Luke. Very reflective of real life. You do something to change the world, and realize it didn't change squat.
It would have been strange to me that Luke Skywalker age 60-ish, Jedi master in exile, would be fundamentaly the same stary-eyed nothing-boy from Tatooine. It would have been fairly ridiculous. I personnaly liked his portrayal in the TLJ. Mark Hamil aged well as an actor too.
Regarding the two deathstars and the exegol fleet... We can ad hoc some strategy on to it.
The first death star existed to scare the rebels, and was intentionally designed with a fatal flaw to teach them they could kill a deathstar.
The second deathstar was never really designed as a super weapon in the same way as the first was being used. It was always designed as a trap. The rebels had already learnt they can destroy a fully operational deathstar, so an incomplete one would be a cakewalk, right? Actually, no. It was designed for a huge battle of attrition which would wipe out most of the rebel fleet.
So we see the deathstar projects were actually red herrings designed to make the rebels over commit and lose most of their fleet, thereby allowing the exegol fleet being deployed with impunity, instead of being deployed and then defeated ship by ship by a cohesive rebel fleet.
Easy E wrote: I liked bitter old Luke. Very reflective of real life. You do something to change the world, and realize it didn't change squat.
Right. Having a republic that doesn't oppress and kill non-humans and non-conformists is exactly like an empire that commits genocide.
Nothing changed!
LunarSol wrote: I quite liked bitter Luke. I'm just really sad that it didn't translate into a more sarcastic Luke Force Ghost mocking Kylo for his failures in 9.
That was indeed a missed opportunity especially considering that they foreshadow the idea in VIII. Then again, the same thing happened with Kenobi's threat of killing him making him more powerful than Vader could possibly imagine. That never materialised either.
epronovost wrote: Then again, the same thing happened with Kenobi's threat of killing him making him more powerful than Vader could possibly imagine. That never materialised either.
Although it turns out now that ghost Kenobi could have called down a lightning strike on Vader, or just smacked him with a lightsaber. He just didn't for some reason. Because ghost jedi are jerks, I guess?
The new trilogy is just a product of the times. Marvel is awesome, but with the downside that everyone right now tries to make their movies like superhero movies.
I think it was Jez Goodwin that said on one of the warhammer community podcasts that sometimes it is worth twisting the canon to better suit the media/consumption of the art. Your suggestion on the ‘emergent super heroes’ star wars seems to align to that.
Which is a terrible trend if true. If the story has to be changed to suit everyone's taste, then there is no coherent story, just another cash grab that is full of inconsistencies, as why bother with such trifling matters as a consistent, competently written narrative if it makes you money?
epronovost wrote: Then again, the same thing happened with Kenobi's threat of killing him making him more powerful than Vader could possibly imagine. That never materialised either.
Although it turns out now that ghost Kenobi could have called down a lightning strike on Vader, or just smacked him with a lightsaber. He just didn't for some reason. Because ghost jedi are jerks, I guess?
It's certainly all retcon, but worth remembering that killing Vader wouldn't have accomplished anything. That's sort of the whole point of RotJ. The Emperor is simply too powerful to take down in a fight, he's taken out essentially by the machinations of fate and for that to work, Vader needs to be very much alive.
epronovost wrote: Then again, the same thing happened with Kenobi's threat of killing him making him more powerful than Vader could possibly imagine. That never materialised either.
Although it turns out now that ghost Kenobi could have called down a lightning strike on Vader, or just smacked him with a lightsaber. He just didn't for some reason. Because ghost jedi are jerks, I guess?
It's certainly all retcon, but worth remembering that killing Vader wouldn't have accomplished anything. That's sort of the whole point of RotJ. The Emperor is simply too powerful to take down in a fight, he's taken out essentially by the machinations of fate and for that to work, Vader needs to be very much alive.
While I don't subscribe to the sort of video gamey interpretation that force users unlock specific abilities as they level up - I'm pretty sure if it was you could safely bet Yoda could do stuff with it that Kenobi could not.
They both ultimately do the same thing though: provide wise council at a critical moment, and spur Luke on to save the galaxy.
AegisGrimm wrote:Jedi in the three trilogies are thus:
Jedi in Episode 1-3: Knights
Survivors during Episode 4-6: Ronin
Force-Users in Episodes 7-9: Emerging superheroes
The new trilogy is just a product of the times. Marvel is awesome, but with the downside that everyone right now tries to make their movies like superhero movies.
I think Jedi in the prequels are more like monks, bang on about the superhero thing though. I don't think I've ever heard someone articulate my problem with Rey so succinctly.
