Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:A duel has to be more than a simple sword fight.
Actually, just getting on with it and having a simple sword fight would have been worlds better than the complete mess of pacing and dancing that characterized the 'Glaring Behind Force Fields of the Fates'
But then, so would a rap battle, given that their fight had no stakes whatsoever. Jar jar matter more to the fate of that planet than the jedi or sith did.
Right...because maul wouldn't have just crushed the small infiltration force that ended up capturing the high command of the droid army which could have just returned with another droid army...instead the Viceroy is forced to surrender to the infiltration force. If maul had won that fight or was unopposed by Jedi - Palatine could have acquired power much faster. Also...the first meeting of Sith and Jedi in combat in what? 1000 years? That is a 0 stakes fight? Right...want to know a 0 stakes fight? Lukes hologram fighting Kylo Ren - it's so insignificant and accomplishes nothing that they had to add stakes to make Luke die from Astral Projection fatigue thereby completing the movies final mission - to destroy the OT characters in the most insulting and uninteresting ways possible.
Xenomancers wrote: Right...want to know a 0 stakes fight? Lukes hologram fighting Kylo Ren - it's so insignificant and accomplishes nothing that they had to add stakes to make Luke die from Astral Projection fatigue thereby completing the movies final mission - to destroy the OT characters in the most insulting and uninteresting ways possible.
It is statements like this that make me think you and I watched a different movie. The "stakes" were to delay the FO so that the last few members of the Resistance could escape and spread hope throughout the Galaxy. Luke knew this would take the greatest toll on himself, but was worth it. Otherwise, the FO would have zero opposition and hope would have died.
Whether you think this is good writing or not is one matter (and one we can dsicuss), but saying outright that it was a "no stakes" fight is just flat out wrong as portrayed by the movie.
I can agree that having Luke die from the effort kinda sucked, but depending on how it is handled in IX, it could be worth it. We know Yoda can do summon lightening and interact physically with living beings (he hit Luke on the head with his cane). So what is to stop Luke from doing some awesome stuff as a Force ghost in IX?
Xenomancers wrote: Right...want to know a 0 stakes fight? Lukes hologram fighting Kylo Ren - it's so insignificant and accomplishes nothing that they had to add stakes to make Luke die from Astral Projection fatigue thereby completing the movies final mission - to destroy the OT characters in the most insulting and uninteresting ways possible.
It is statements like this that make me think you and I watched a different movie. The "stakes" were to delay the FO so that the last few members of the Resistance could escape and spread hope throughout the Galaxy. Luke knew this would take the greatest toll on himself, but was worth it. Otherwise, the FO would have zero opposition and hope would have died.
Whether you think this is good writing or not is one matter (and one we can dsicuss), but saying outright that it was a "no stakes" fight is just flat out wrong as portrayed by the movie.
I can agree that having Luke die from the effort kinda sucked, but depending on how it is handled in IX, it could be worth it.
We know Yoda can do summon lightening and interact physically with living beings (he hit Luke on the head with his cane). So what is to stop Luke from doing some awesome stuff as a Force ghost in IX?
-
It's insignificant because delaying the FO for something like 5 minutes just doesn't matter. Yeah - it might have helped 8 members or however many that escaped out the back door (hard to believe they don't have the entire airspace covered with ties anyways so they shouldn't even be able to escape). If Luke had intervened and challenged kylo sooner and in his physical form - you could have had some stakes and maybe saved the whole fleet is all I'm saying. I don't even care if he loses to Kylo - it would give Kylo some credit to his power and make him more intimidating.
Just in regards to the comment that Maul vs Quigon and Obiwan didn't have any emotional stakes. That is just silly. If Maul wins or is unopposed by the Jedi - he would have killed/captured Padme on Naboo and Luke/Leia are never even born (Quigon and Obi were protecting Padme as she infiltrated the palace) Even if we didn't know it at the time that is a pretty serious stake in that battle. Plus - it's not like this is some kind of side plot. Quigon and Obiwan are main characters in Episode 1 and anytime you have main characters fighting a great evil there is emotional investment.
Honestly - I really hope they don't go the jedi ghost power route with this. Though - it would give some credence to the line that Obiwan made when he sacrificed himself against Vader "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." I never took this literally though. I always assumed dead force wielders made use of their powers in more subtle ways...(kind of like angels in the outfeild) not literally summoning lightning strikes.
It opens with a Jedi fight scene which leads into the invasion of Naboo, and other Jedi fight scenes. The first hour of the movie is basically just one long series of action scenes; that's why they get boring.
He looked disinterested, half-asleep, and to be frank, I though he was hung-over.
Uh... so your objection to a hung-over character who just woke up and isn't particularly interested in the Resistance cause is that he looked disinterested, half-asleep and hung-over...?
Xenomancers wrote: If Maul wins or is unopposed by the Jedi - he would have killed/captured Padme on Naboo and Luke/Leia are never even born (Quigon and Obi were protecting Padme as she infiltrated the palace).
How would he have captured her? He clearly wasn't trying to when she went back to Naboo. He wanted to prove himself against Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan.
Xenomancers wrote: If Maul wins or is unopposed by the Jedi - he would have killed/captured Padme on Naboo and Luke/Leia are never even born (Quigon and Obi were protecting Padme as she infiltrated the palace).
How would he have captured her? He clearly wasn't trying to when she went back to Naboo. He wanted to prove himself against Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan.
Indeed, and short of plot armour the naboo soldiers could have just gunned him down. Rate of fire overcomes the ability to block blaster bolts.
Xenomancers wrote: If Maul wins or is unopposed by the Jedi - he would have killed/captured Padme on Naboo and Luke/Leia are never even born (Quigon and Obi were protecting Padme as she infiltrated the palace).
How would he have captured her? He clearly wasn't trying to when she went back to Naboo. He wanted to prove himself against Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan.
He was specifically ordered by palatine to hunt the Jedi down. Maul obviosuly knew the situation though and would destroy or capture any of palpatines enemies he came accross. If he beat Obiwan as well...Don't you think he would have proceeded to deal with padme and friends?
In regards to the action - there was a huge swath of time spent on Coresant where very little action happens...we get some more Jar Jar BS and senate stuff. Me personally - I enjoyed those little quibits but it was a legit criticism that starwars movies up to that point had had a lot more action.
Xenomancers wrote: If Maul wins or is unopposed by the Jedi - he would have killed/captured Padme on Naboo and Luke/Leia are never even born (Quigon and Obi were protecting Padme as she infiltrated the palace).
How would he have captured her? He clearly wasn't trying to when she went back to Naboo. He wanted to prove himself against Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan.
Indeed, and short of plot armour the naboo soldiers could have just gunned him down. Rate of fire overcomes the ability to block blaster bolts.
If maul got overwhelmed a blaster could kill him but he has a lot of powers at his disposal - I think Maul could easily have killed that entire group of soldiers with only his lightsaber and some dashing around. Probably wouldn't even need to do things like...drop the ceiling on them or force push them out the windows.
Xenomancers wrote: [Just in regards to the comment that Maul vs Quigon and Obiwan didn't have any emotional stakes. That is just silly. If Maul wins or is unopposed by the Jedi - he would have killed/captured Padme on Naboo and Luke/Leia are never even born (Quigon and Obi were protecting Padme as she infiltrated the palace) Even if we didn't know it at the time that is a pretty serious stake in that battle. Plus - it's not like this is some kind of side plot. Quigon and Obiwan are main characters in Episode 1 and anytime you have main characters fighting a great evil there is emotional investment.
That is not what I was talking about. What reason was there for Obi-Wan and Qui Gon to fight Maul, other than he happened to be there? There wasn't one. They never even had a conversation with him. The only reason they fought him was because Lucas felt a lightsaber battle was required. You could remove Maul from Phantom and it would change nothing regarding the motivations of the characters for the vast majority of the film.
Obi-Wan fought Vader to try and defeat his fallen pupil and give Luke time to escape (ANH), Luke fought Vader to overcome his fear (TESB), Luke fought Vader to try and bring his father back (ROTJ).
All of those are reasons come from the characters themselves. That kind of personal motivation was lacking in every fight of the prequels but Anakin vs Obi-Wan (and maybe Anakin vs Dooku 2 which had the flimsy motivation of revenge for hand loss), which had its own huge issues thanks to poor choreography and the lack of any meaningful dialogue during the fight between Obi-Wan and Anakin. Luke, who had never known his father to be anything but evil, engaged in more conversation to draw out the good in Vader than Obi-Wan did, who was meant to be like a brother to him and had known him for pretty much all of Anakins life to that point.
If maul got overwhelmed a blaster could kill him but he has a lot of powers at his disposal - I think Maul could easily have killed that entire group of soldiers with only his lightsaber and some dashing around. Probably wouldn't even need to do things like...drop the ceiling on them or force push them out the windows.
Except the only power he was shown using in the film was to pick up something and use it to push a button to open a door.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:A duel has to be more than a simple sword fight.
Actually, just getting on with it and having a simple sword fight would have been worlds better than the complete mess of pacing and dancing that characterized the 'Glaring Behind Force Fields of the Fates'
But then, so would a rap battle, given that their fight had no stakes whatsoever. Jar jar matter more to the fate of that planet than the jedi or sith did.
Right...because maul wouldn't have just crushed the small infiltration force that ended up capturing the high command of the droid army which could have just returned with another droid army...instead the Viceroy is forced to surrender to the infiltration force.
That's true regardless. The 'small infiltration force' had no reason to work at all, and there was zero reason there couldn't be more droids (or why'd the TF would be stupid enough to route army control through a single processor with no backups or autonomous functions). Everything of importance happens outside the city or in space. Neither the Naboo's nor the Trade Federation's kings/queens have any business being involved in a face to face struggle
If maul had won that fight or was unopposed by Jedi - Palatine could have acquired power much faster.
Actually, he wouldn't have. Maul winning and killing Amidala is actually a detriment to the bizarre Xanatos gambit Palpatine is running. To take over, he needs opposition and the Jedi distracted. If the Naboo just sign an agreement with the TF, even under pressure, his casus belli is essentially gone.
Also...the first meeting of Sith and Jedi in combat in what? 1000 years? That is a 0 stakes fight?
Yep. That is a basically non-existent struggle filled in elsewhere and quickly exposited in some really boring, pointless and gibbery dialogue. Two dudes against an unchallenged jedi order with the advantage somehow going to the two dudes out for 'revenge' is essentially nonsense.
--
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Obi-Wan fought Vader to try and defeat his fallen pupil and give Luke time to escape (ANH),
The latter yes, the former very much no. Kenobi isn't there to defeat Vader. He's there to distract/lock him down, and possibly intentionally there to be 'struck down' by him, in front of Luke. But at no point is he fighting to win.
@Voss
1st point - When you destroy the "droid control ship" - you destroy the droids...seems reasonable enough to me. If you find this to be a plot hole I can't even imagine what you think of TLJ. Plus there were lots of droids - they actaully got captured by them and got lucky enough to get a gun on the Viceroy. They got lucky - rebels been getting lucky in starwars since forever.
2nd point - Padme freeing Naboo from the TF would have hurt Palpatine??? Okay...I think you missed some fundmental issues in the prequels. The entire reason for the TF invading Naboo was so Palpatine could justify creating armies so he could eventually seize power all over the Galaxy. Naboo being freed delayed Palpatines plot. He probably could have acquired his clone army much sooner if Naboo was being occupied.
3rd point just doesn't make sense to me - signing a peace treaty is bad for palpatine. I agree - that is what they did. The whole nonsense about a treaty to justify the occupation...not sure what kinda treaty that is - pretty weak I must admit.
4th point - it just sounds like you don't like the lore of star-wars to me. Doesn't make the epic clash of good vs evil any less important in a film like this.
Obiwan vs Vader - yeah he was never trying to beat him. I don't think he thought he could beat him.
Xenomancers wrote: @Voss 1st point - When you destroy the "droid control ship" - you destroy the droids...seems reasonable enough to me. If you find this to be a plot hole I can't even imagine what you think of TLJ. Plus there were lots of droids - they actaully got captured by them and got lucky enough to get a gun on the Viceroy. They got lucky - rebels been getting lucky in starwars since forever.
You mean how in The Last Jedi it is specifically stated that once the First Order realise the tracking system has been shut down (one cycle, which if I remember correctly only takes seconds) they will just activate it on a different ship? Whereas the control of the droids is purely in one ship with no possibility of transferring control?
2nd point - Padme freeing Naboo from the TF would have hurt Palpatine??? Okay...I think you missed some fundmental issues in the prequels. The entire reason for the TF invading Naboo was so Palpatine could justify creating armies so he could eventually seize power all over the Galaxy. Naboo being freed delayed Palpatines plot. He probably could have acquired his clone army much sooner if Naboo was being occupied.
Actually, he initiated the invasion to weaken the current chancellor and take his place. Which he needed Amidala's help to do, due to her being able to garner sympathy and support in the senate.
Actually, he initiated the invasion to weaken the current chancellor and take his place. Which he needed Amidala's help to do, due to her being able to garner sympathy and support in the senate.
I think Palpatine's plan was to play both sides: if the Trade Federation prevailed, great, he got more influence through them. Alternatively, he could use the crisis to show himself the only man who could stop Trade Federation and propel himself Chancellor: a win-win plan.
(Or alternatively, he had foreseen it all with his Sith foresight.)
At least that's how I interpreted it. The plot was a huge mess with enormous holes, so it is hard to fathom what was the intention.
We know Yoda can do summon lightening and interact physically with living beings (he hit Luke on the head with his cane). So what is to stop Luke from doing some awesome stuff as a Force ghost in IX?
Well, my theory is that Force Ghosts aren't real: they are Force projections from memories about said person (or maybe some kind of imprints in persons psyche). According to this theory, it was actually Luke who summoned the lightning, he was just projecting Yoda to debate with himself.
We know Yoda can do summon lightening and interact physically with living beings (he hit Luke on the head with his cane). So what is to stop Luke from doing some awesome stuff as a Force ghost in IX?
Well, my theory is that Force Ghosts aren't real: they are Force projections from memories about said person (or maybe some kind of imprints in persons psyche). According to this theory, it was actually Luke who summoned the lightning, he was just projecting Yoda to debate with himself.
I cannot buy this theory because it would mean that Luke also "confirmed" that Vader was his own father and the Leia was his sister. In order for that to be true, force users are way more precognitiant than we ever thought. However, along the lines of your theory is my theory that only force users that knew the person in life can see force ghosts. So Rey could never see Yoda or Obi-wan, but could see Luke. This would also explain why Luke never saw Qui-Gon despite him being able to manifest himself in later canon sources.
We know Yoda can do summon lightening and interact physically with living beings (he hit Luke on the head with his cane). So what is to stop Luke from doing some awesome stuff as a Force ghost in IX?
Well, my theory is that Force Ghosts aren't real: they are Force projections from memories about said person (or maybe some kind of imprints in persons psyche). According to this theory, it was actually Luke who summoned the lightning, he was just projecting Yoda to debate with himself.
I cannot buy this theory because it would mean that Luke also "confirmed" that Vader was his own father and the Leia was his sister. In order for that to be true, force users are way more precognitiant than we ever thought.
Well, much of the Force precognition is subconscious (Force reflexes for example). But yes, several events in the movies probably contradict my theory.
Xenomancers wrote: @Voss
1st point - When you destroy the "droid control ship" - you destroy the droids...seems reasonable enough to me. If you find this to be a plot hole I can't even imagine what you think of TLJ. Plus there were lots of droids
There were a lot of droids. Which makes having a control ship that can be nuked by a passing battleship extra stupid. If you lose a space battle (or some idiot gets lucky), you also lose control of the the entire planet. That is insanely bad and not at all reasonable. And naturally exactly what happens. The trade federation at this stage are bumbling incompetents, not a serious threat.
TLJ was trash.
2nd point - Padme freeing Naboo from the TF would have hurt Palpatine??? Okay...I think you missed some fundmental issues in the prequels. The entire reason for the TF invading Naboo was so Palpatine could justify creating armies so he could eventually seize power all over the Galaxy. Naboo being freed delayed Palpatines plot. He probably could have acquired his clone army much sooner if Naboo was being occupied.
No, he couldn't. The conquest of the Naboo was essentially a procedural debate for the Republic Senate, setting up his political maneuvers. He wanted a patsy to disrupt the current chancellor (and presumably destabilize political alliances, though as usual we aren't shown the real work). A clone army would be useless at this point- he isn't in a position to point it anywhere, nor pressure anyone with the threat of a pair of bumbling idiots (Nute and lackey). Having a 'Sith' openly murder a ruler of a Republic world raises a lot of questions and problems. Not even the TF idiots wanted to kill her until they were way over their heads. He needs time for the Separatist threat to emerge, not just rely on the incompetent buffoons of the TF. Which is what Dooku is presumably doing off camera- building up a credible threat to require a clone army.
3rd point just doesn't make sense to me - signing a peace treaty is bad for palpatine. I agree - that is what they did. The whole nonsense about a treaty to justify the occupation...not sure what kinda treaty that is - pretty weak I must admit.
It was also what they were planning on doing- the TF wanted her to legitimize their invasion, Amidala wanted to repudiate it. Neither results in armies for Palpatine. That comes later
4th point - it just sounds like you don't like the lore of star-wars to me. Doesn't make the epic clash of good vs evil any less important in a film like this.
I... don't understand the relevance. The 'lore' has very little to do with good vs evil. Those clashes in Star Wars are very personal, not epic- Luke vs Vader, Kenobi vs Annie. Son vs father, teacher vs student.
'Sith' is just a made-up nonsense word- it actually detracts quite a lot from the story being told, if it all comes down to some inevitable perennial cycle
What did I just watch ? Was....was it a SW movie ? No, I can't believe it. I enjoyed Fifty Shade of Grey more than this...thing.
I disliked SW VII, but I was happy, because I knew they couldn't destroy SW any further. I knew it, right ?
I hated this movie since the very beggining. Everything felt so wrong... The baddies are just bad and plain stupid, so stupid...
The "heroes" just so lucky, there is a ton of childish humour...
It is a horrible movie on so many points
Xenomancers wrote: @Voss
1st point - When you destroy the "droid control ship" - you destroy the droids...seems reasonable enough to me. If you find this to be a plot hole I can't even imagine what you think of TLJ. Plus there were lots of droids
There were a lot of droids. Which makes having a control ship that can be nuked by a passing battleship extra stupid. If you lose a space battle (or some idiot gets lucky), you also lose control of the the entire planet. That is insanely bad and not at all reasonable. And naturally exactly what happens. The trade federation at this stage are bumbling incompetents, not a serious threat.
If they lose their flagship, do they care if they lose the entire planet? The Trade Federation has no interest in forcing a Pyrrhic victory on Naboo - killing everyone that matters and breaking the blockade already robs them of everything they care about, so leaving the droids to rampage across the planet achieves nothing they deem important. Palpatine has something to gain from this, but he's not in direct command of the Trade Federation.
He looked disinterested, half-asleep, and to be frank, I though he was hung-over.
Uh... so your objection to a hung-over character who just woke up and isn't particularly interested in the Resistance cause is that he looked disinterested, half-asleep and hung-over...?
Lol, I was going to say the same earlier but didn't get a chance . He portrayed that really well!
Voss wrote: There were a lot of droids. Which makes having a control ship that can be nuked by a passing battleship extra stupid. If you lose a space battle (or some idiot gets lucky), you also lose control of the the entire planet. That is insanely bad and not at all reasonable. And naturally exactly what happens. The trade federation at this stage are bumbling incompetents, not a serious threat.
Here's the thing, though - they were operating under instructions from Darth Sidious, who would have no doubt assured them that there wouldn't beany passing battleships that might cause a nuisance. The only assistance that was sent Naboo's way was a couple of Jedi negotiators.
As far as we can tell from the movie, the best the Naboo could muster were their fighters, and if it hadn't been for the wonder child accidentally flying inside the hanger bay and blowing it up from inside, they wouldn't have had a chance of taking it down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: The baddies are just bad and plain stupid, so stupid...
The "heroes" just so lucky, there is a ton of childish humour...
You just summed up every Star Wars movie made to date.
Was their something specific about this one to warrant such ire?
I really can't believe how many people are obsessing over the alleged SJW agenda. Christ. Is it really necessary to spew the same hate post after post? What is going on in your life that you feel the need to berate the movie and fans of it over and over and over...it's insane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: I am actually amazed in this politically correct world, that a black character beat up and killed a white woman. Then again, in some warped way, that is probably okay. Had Finn been white, I am not so sure that would have gone over as well. Who knows, its hard to know what is okay and not okay these days. I know it wouldn't have been okay had Phasma been a black woman.
Of course, I say this just partially screwing around. I think Phasma is lame anyway. All she did was walk around in that pose holding her blaster. She could have at least killed off a subordinate.
What is this madness?
It's a movie about a made up universe. You are the one injecting politics into this. How do you even look for something like that in the first place?
Xenomancers wrote: He was specifically ordered by palatine to hunt the Jedi down.
Does that happen in the prequels?
Xenomancers wrote: Maul obviosuly knew the situation though and would destroy or capture any of palpatines enemies he came accross. If he beat Obiwan as well...Don't you think he would have proceeded to deal with padme and friends?
How would Maul obviously know anything? He's basically portrayed as a robot with a sword, and some limited force powers in TPM.
trexmeyer wrote: I really can't believe how many people are obsessing over the alleged SJW agenda. Christ. Is it really necessary to spew the same hate post after post?
Err, you mean the 1 person obsessing over the alleged SJW agenda?
What is going on in your life that you feel the need to berate the movie and fans of it over and over and over...it's insane.
Welcome to the internet! You must be new here. The internet is an amazing place full of people with nothing better to do with their time than do things like, oh I dunno, post about a movie in a forum dedicated to toy soldiers.
So, I had the same experience as Trex: I enjoyed the film way more on a second viewing. Free from the distraction of figuring out the plot and themes, I was able to take in a lot more of the fun stuff. The film is visually striking, and the director had a gift for cinematic storytelling and finding the right "take" on a scene (flawed as the underlying premise may be). TLJ gives us a bunch of new iconic moments, such as the quiet scene, the salt stand off, the throne room, back-to-back light sabers (oh how I needed that), the bomber squad sacrifice. Some failed pretty spectacularly, like the Leia in Space scene, but the ambition was there. The film had a lot to say, not all of it profound, but that's still an improvement from the last few. I did enjoy some of the subversions, although again there were some noteworthy failures, such as setting Holdo up as the crusty old coward/traitor only surprise us with her sacrifice. The emotional beats were facile, but far more effective for me than in previous SW films. The force was mysterious again, and the setting wiped nearly clean. Hopefully this film is more like a scab being ripped off the franchise to reveal new skin rather than a grievous injury. I could enjoy more SW films like this one for what they are, even if they aren't "real" Star Wars.
However, if Disney don't take the criticisms seriously and learn some hard lessons, the franchise will only get worse. While I enjoyed the film and would even welcome more like it, I'm not blind to its flaws by any means. The worst reaction the fans can have is to sweep the criticism under a rug and pretend there were no failures to learn from in TLJ. I can understand people who hate the film. I definitely feel the people who love the film. But the people who loves this film and can't or won't see any other perspective are the fans most likely to kill the franchise.
The reaction to this film reminds me of those personality tests that ask you whether you love a song for the melody or the beat. TLJ has a beautiful melody and a godawful beat. Love it for the melody, but don't deny the beat exists.
The trick for Disney moving forward is going to be in picking the legitimate criticism out of the mass of 'Worst film evuh!' hyperbole.
Or not. There's certainly some things that could be improved, but I would be quite happy to sit through another few films just like this one, and I'm really hoping (but doubting, frankly) that the Han Solo movie is at least this good.
I think the Han Solo movie was one of the worst ideas in a franchise riddled with bad ideas.
But then, I think Disney believes wrongly that the potential of the franchise is in the OT characters and their descendants rather than in the OT's setting and themes.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think the Han Solo movie was one of the worst ideas in a franchise riddled with bad ideas.
Eh. A Han Solo prequel movie has been bounced around as an idea for as long as I can remember- at least since Empire came out. People wanted backstory on how he hooked up with Chewie and how he got the Falcon and all that stuff. When the Young Indiana Jones show happened, I remember a lot of speculation that a young Han Solo thing might also happen.
There isn't any inherent reason for it to be terrible (beyond an actor mismatch or another horrible writer/director at the helm). It could easily ditch a lot of the philosophical navel gazing and tropes and just focus on being a snappy space-buckling adventure.
People also wanted to know what Anakin was like before he became Darth Vader...
And yeah, it is an inherently terrible idea to map out the backstory for the mysterious, cynical scoundrel who only looks out for number one (and Chewy, I guess). Either it has to explain how he became so cynical and knowledgeable in the underworldwhile also naturally leading to his big arc in the OT (a subjective thing that will leave some fans unsatisfied),or it will be a total waste of time about a character who ends the movie unchanged from its beginning, or it will break continuity with the character. Han is an iconic character and Disney is the company that thinks JJ should come back for another go. There's nowhere to go but down.
godardc wrote: The baddies are just bad and plain stupid, so stupid... The "heroes" just so lucky, there is a ton of childish humour...
You just summed up every Star Wars movie made to date.
Was their something specific about this one to warrant such ire?
I don't think we saw the same movies, then. How in SW IV, the heroes succeed by having luck ? The Empire let them flee to track them to their base. Obi Wan die. Luck has the Force to help him destroy the (flawed) Death Star. The baddies aren't just idiots and don't shout "send all our fighters !" or "send all our troops" or "all our firepower !" on one target, they don't talk with one x wing for 5 min while the ennemy fleet is fleeing, etc...
How in SW V they succeed by having luck ? When he get his hand cutted ? When they get their base invaded ? When Solo get send to Jabba ? Yeah. And Jabba isn't just a random bad guy, supposedly superpowerful, but that in fact die easily in the middle of the second movie. He is a criminal, kind of a drug lord. Not just a stupid redhead making grimace every time he speaks. Seriously, did you see Hux ?!
Do you see that all the characters in SW aren't just mustache twirling villain, except in these two "movies" (VII and VIII) ?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think the Han Solo movie was one of the worst ideas in a franchise riddled with bad ideas.
But then, I think Disney believes wrongly that the potential of the franchise is in the OT characters and their descendants rather than in the OT's setting and themes.
Disney probably bought star wars just for the han solo movie. It's their go to movie idea. Orphan turned hero, and we'll get to see the parents die in some horrific fashion. I have a $20 that says fette will kill the parents.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: People also wanted to know what Anakin was like before he became Darth Vader...
And yeah, it is an inherently terrible idea to map out the backstory for the mysterious, cynical scoundrel who only looks out for number one (and Chewy, I guess). Either it has to explain how he became so cynical and knowledgeable in the underworldwhile also naturally leading to his big arc in the OT (a subjective thing that will leave some fans unsatisfied),or it will be a total waste of time about a character who ends the movie unchanged from its beginning, or it will break continuity with the character. Han is an iconic character and Disney is the company that thinks JJ should come back for another go. There's nowhere to go but down.
On the other hand, the (1978) Han Solo novels were some of the most enjoyable parts of the EU, so I don't think the concept is inherently doomed.
Normally I would say it might be interesting.. But given that it's been having alot of issues, delays, director and even writer turnovers, and that there's actually reports that the main character required an acting coach every step of the way..
Xenomancers wrote: Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.
And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?
One of my biggest concerns with a Han Solo movie is just how much character Harrison Ford brought to the role. I think there's a lot of characters in Star Wars that could be recast with little ill effect, even the major players, Han Solo is not one of them.
Though I'm willing to be proven wrong, maybe they can cast and write a role that does justice to Harrison Ford's portrayal of the character.
There's a lot of articles recently that are basically saying Disney are essentially writing off the Han Solo film as a failure, due to essentially Justice League levels of troubled production.
So, like I mentioned a couple of days ago, I've been watching The Force Awakens again in spare moments, after having seen TLJ the day it came out.
And yeah, near the end of TFA and I really do have to say, I far, far, far prefer it. I was wanting to sort of test my feelings by watching the film.
- Is it a case of 'they changed it now it sucks?'
- Is it me hating the new cast over the old one and me railing against the changing times like so many people on the internet like to claim?
I've not quite finished the film again yet (now at the final Kylo/Rey fight).
And the thing is, my feelings are pretty consistent. Aside from seeing my childhood hero getting stabbed in the heart, which, objectively, it's a great moment and not one I should whine about. Anyhow...
I genuinely like The Force Awakens. Finn and Poe are as charismatic as all hell. Kylo is different, but good all the same.
Truth is, I don't feel that Rey is the best actress around but broadly speaking, she's perfectly fine and the way she's hunting for and latches onto Han as a father figure is a good, interesting aspect to her character.
The weaknesses of the film are them overly mimicking certain original trilogy things, - but that's something The Last Jedi is just as a guilty of (more so, I'd say).
So yeah, overall, I really do feel it is the fault of The Last Jedi that I don't like it. Some reasons are, "this is dumb and stupid" (Casino planet detour), other things are a more personal, "this is completely not the direction I want to see from star wars and this personally makes me disappointed that they're going this way and I am now significantly less invested in the universe as a result."
BobtheInquisitor wrote: People also wanted to know what Anakin was like before he became Darth Vader...
And yeah, it is an inherently terrible idea to map out the backstory for the mysterious, cynical scoundrel who only looks out for number one (and Chewy, I guess). Either it has to explain how he became so cynical and knowledgeable in the underworldwhile also naturally leading to his big arc in the OT (a subjective thing that will leave some fans unsatisfied),or it will be a total waste of time about a character who ends the movie unchanged from its beginning, or it will break continuity with the character. Han is an iconic character and Disney is the company that thinks JJ should come back for another go. There's nowhere to go but down.
On the other hand, the (1978) Han Solo novels were some of the most enjoyable parts of the EU, so I don't think the concept is inherently doomed.
They were fun, but they don't really fit in the franchise now, and the story likely wouldn't justify the $150m budget. They want something that will make you laugh, make you cry, that's better than Cats.
Xenomancers wrote: Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.
And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?
For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.
Xenomancers wrote: Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.
And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?
For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.
Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!
Why does the command structure (by this I assume you mean the most senior members) being women hurt believability? Would it hurt the believability if it were entirely men?
Xenomancers wrote: Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.
And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?
For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.
Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!
That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why does the command structure (by this I assume you mean the most senior members) being women hurt believability? Would it hurt the believability if it were entirely men?
It would probably not stick out like a sore thumb if they were all men but it would also be unbelievable. In an equal setting wouldn't you expect to have some diversity?
Xenomancers wrote: Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.
And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?
For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.
Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!
That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!
Exactly why they needed a Rose, and hopefully more time for the alien Rebel guy, Benicio Del Lando, Leia's mini me bridge officer, and some of the Imperials. (Canady, we had too little time.).
Lots of films would probably be "OK" with the 1 week take here too.
But interestingly enough, there are 'disgruntled fans' in this very thread who have already seen TLJ twice!
they might have seen it twice, but did they ever pay at the box office to see it?
A great movie would have people going back to the theater a second time, a bad one like this one would probably be watched from a pirate site for the second viewing, maybe even the first.
Xenomancers wrote: Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.
And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?
For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.
Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!
That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!
Exactly why they needed a Rose, and hopefully more time for the alien Rebel guy, Benicio Del Lando, Leia's mini me bridge officer, and some of the Imperials. (Canady, we had too little time.).
Just not the "you can't park here" guy.
We didn't need rose at all though, she's the nobody character that made things much worse for the resistance with a meaningless side plot.
You just don't have to try that hard when your film breaks the box office in 2 days before anyone has even hear any reviews about it. Made their money back in 2 days.
Lots of films would probably be "OK" with the 1 week take here too.
But interestingly enough, there are 'disgruntled fans' in this very thread who have already seen TLJ twice!
Both the guys I went to see it with hated it the first time and saw it again when family came in town for Christmas. They still hated it a second time. One hated it more because he really wanted not to hate it and was hoping he missed something that could make it great.
Xenomancers wrote: Well...accepting bribes to give good reviews is believable - it is even more believable if they are also on board with the agenda. I can't conceive of someone that has actually studied film and reviews movies for a living that could possibly have anything good to say about this movie. What is the agenda? It appears to be elevation of women and minorities - which would be great if it wasn't at the expense of the quality of the story/characters.
And just how exactly does this supposed "agenda" come at the expense of quality? Are the characters somehow less enjoyable because they are not white men?
For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian. When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. I could keep going on like this with all the new characters but you get the point. It seems to me the Disney film director and staff were more concerned with character diversity than any only aspect of the film. It's shameful. The true travesty is the destruction of the old characters and the terrible story writing - I don't care what race/sex characters are - just please give me a good story with good characters.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Rose. She is included because it was important to RJ to show the little guys, the nobodies, as opposed to Jedi, Princesses, aces and senators. Her sister the bomber's sacrifice became much more personal and affecting because of her presence. And really, Star Wars needed some fresh blood in its characters.
Holdo on the other hand might fit your description, although I believe she was placed in to make the audience suspect her as the aloof Old Ruler fighting the New Rulers (Star Wars is full of that), and possibly a traitor so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!
That is probably all true in addition to my reason. You see the nobodies theme all over the place in this film. Fresh blood could have been a good thing. The one I found most interesting was Snoke and He died in his first big scene. Holdo is terrible ...also dead. Finn is only useful for bad subplots...Rey is a huge Marysue - which I'd even be fine with if she got a good backstory about why she is special - and doesn't have the ability to beat Kylo Ren and Luke in combat without training!
Exactly why they needed a Rose, and hopefully more time for the alien Rebel guy, Benicio Del Lando, Leia's mini me bridge officer, and some of the Imperials. (Canady, we had too little time.).
Just not the "you can't park here" guy.
We didn't need rose at all though, she's the nobody character that made things much worse for the resistance with a meaningless side plot.
You're being unfair here. Every character made things worse for the resistance.* Rose at least gave us the perspective of the actual nobodies the FO was grinding under foot. And really, a nobody like Rose trying to sneak onto Snoke's ship and disable the macguffin to save her friends is far more heroic in terms of personal bravery than anything Poe did. I get that you don't like her character or the actress, but that doesn't mean she didn't play an important part in the film...well, as much as anyone who isn't Luke, Rey or Ren.
*Except for BB-8, the real hero of the resistance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Star Wars is not about Box Office. It was never about Box Office. The only reason BO is important is because it predicts the fortunes of the massive merchandising empire. Right now, the prediction is looking more dire than expected.
The whole Rose side plot was just annoying in the way it came down to a silly lack of communication. Holdo knows how to deal with heroic and insubordinate commanders/captains.... tell them nothing and act like an incompetent leader so they're forced to do something reckless which feths up your escape plan
I mean, it's not terribly unbelievable that something like that might happen, I just hate it when huge plot points rest on nothing more than a lack of communication. It's a gripe of mine that started after watching too many episodes of Supernatural
If one chooses to forget that they are watching a Star Wars film and chooses to look for realism then the female leadership is a bit off putting but if one remembers this actually is a Star Wars film it makes sense. It plays on dichotomy in pretty much all instances using metaphor and the like to explore good/bad, light/dark, masculine/feminine, hegemony/diversity, ect. The Empire and the First Order are toxically masculine organizations with lots of funding and so one whereas the rebellion/Resistance have feminine leadership and are scrappy underdogs. It is a yin/yang thing.
Doesn't mean that Laura Dern's character wasn't gak or that she was well written, because she wasn't.
Aaaand we eventually reached this point
(which is a fallacy anyway because if you really watched the movie you would have seen plenty of women in the FO forces)
Ahtman wrote: If one chooses to forget that they are watching a Star Wars film and chooses to look for realism then the female leadership is a bit off putting but if one remembers this actually is a Star Wars film it makes sense. It plays on dichotomy in pretty much all instances using metaphor and the like to explore good/bad, light/dark, masculine/feminine, hegemony/diversity, ect. The Empire and the First Order are toxically masculine organizations with lots of funding and so one whereas the rebellion/Resistance have feminine leadership and are scrappy underdogs. It is a yin/yang thing.
Doesn't mean that Laura Dern's character wasn't gak or that she was well written, because she wasn't.
You know why this is a load of crap, because if you completely switched the genders/races whatever.... it would still be a crap film, sex and race has nothing to do with it, bad script, acting, characters etc.
Not some pseudo intellectual SJW breakdown of the film designed to belittle people who didn't like it (not saying that's you btw), like ghostbusters before it these fools are now trying to say this is the reason why people didn't like it.
Aaaand we eventually reached this point
(which is a fallacy anyway because if you really watched the movie you would have seen plenty of women in the FO forces)
If you don't know what something is it is perfectly fine to say "I don't understand this" instead of showing that you don't understand something.
Formosa wrote:it would still be a crap film, sex and race has nothing to do with it, bad script, acting, characters etc.
Indeed, which makes all the odd asides seem even more petty and foolish. The problem at the core isn't diveristy, or lack thereof, or some other peccadillo but overall inconsistency and poor writing.
godardc wrote: How in SW IV, the heroes succeed by having luck ?
Episode 4 opens with a scene in which C3P0 and R2D2 walk across a corridor literally through the middle of an ongoing firefight without getting so much as a scratch. Despite being (somehow) separated, C3P0 accidentally stumbles upon R2D2 getting his secret mission from Leia, and then they escape in an escape pod which is not shot down because the Star Destroyer crew assume that it is empty.
That pretty much sets the tone for the movie. The entire series is built on luck. Although (aside from Han) they call it the will of the Force.
We didn't need rose at all though, she's the nobody character that made things much worse for the resistance with a meaningless side plot.
You're being unfair here. Every character made things worse for the resistance.* Rose at least gave us the perspective of the actual nobodies the FO was grinding under foot. And really, a nobody like Rose trying to sneak onto Snoke's ship and disable the macguffin to save her friends is far more heroic in terms of personal bravery than anything Poe did. I get that you don't like her character or the actress, but that doesn't mean she didn't play an important part in the film...well, as much as anyone who isn't Luke, Rey or Ren.
*Except for BB-8, the real hero of the resistance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Star Wars is not about Box Office. It was never about Box Office. The only reason BO is important is because it predicts the fortunes of the massive merchandising empire. Right now, the prediction is looking more dire than expected.
Your imagination is running away with you. Just because I find the role meaningless does not equate to me hating the actress. I'm sure the actress did the best she could with the crap she was given, anyone in that roll would have come across as meaningless and a waste of run time on the movie. The whole casino scene just came across as they needed something for finn to do in the movie, I don't hate finn or the actor either, but horrible writing and a horrid script did nothing for either character to the point they might as well not have been in the movie at all.
Manchu wrote: How about the fact that the space battle happens to be over the planet where Luke Skywalker lives?
Anyhow, the power of coincidence isn't really one of TLJ's weaknesses.
That was no coincidence.
Vader was hot on the heels of Tantive IV, and so Leia was trying to get the Death Star Plans to Obi Wan Kenobi. She probably ordered Tantive IV to plot a course for Tatooine. And of course, Kenobi was on Tatooine watching over Skywalker.
Good point - I never figured she would go straight to Kenobi. TBH I never considered that she even knew where he was hiding out. But I guess her dad knew.
Holdo..... so that the film could...Subvert. Your. Expectations!
My expectations were not subverted. In fact, the beats of the movie drew straight from what I know about disney director decisions.
* I knew Holdo would be right about everything and make Poe look an idiot when she made her "we don't need men speech" purple hair and everything. After Poe laid himself at her feet and was visually impressed with her prior (offscreen) accomplishments.
* I knew Rose would teach Finn... whatever it was he was supposed to learn this movie. [This bit was actually well mapped out: Rose already knows the evils of the upper elite, but when she saved the animal she realized freeing the oppressed was worth doing, and burning to rich to the ground didn't accomplish that. Somehow that got turned into "don't get yourself killed attacking a FO gun" in the same movie as two acceptable literal self sacrifices... anyway]
* I knew Rey would finish with her guards first and help Kylo (yes, yes, he dealt with more.)
So, my expectations were in fact dulled. I mean, come on, it's standard stuff. Women don't lose hand fights with men. The only one who could take down Black Widow in Civil War was Scarlet Witch.
So, my expectations were in fact dulled. I mean, come on, it's standard stuff. Women don't lose hand fights with men. The only one who could take down Black Widow in Civil War was Scarlet Witch.
So, my expectations were in fact dulled. I mean, come on, it's standard stuff. Women don't lose hand fights with men. The only one who could take down Black Widow in Civil War was Scarlet Witch.
Phasma did.
Finn is also an ethnic minority.
I have seen a lot of people jump to defend this film based on the fact that men are scared of powerful women. Yet, as has been pointed out, a bad film is a bad film, regardless of sex.
So, my expectations were in fact dulled. I mean, come on, it's standard stuff. Women don't lose hand fights with men. The only one who could take down Black Widow in Civil War was Scarlet Witch.
Phasma did.
Point.
I saw her clobber him and then get sucker punched after the fact but yeah, that counts.
My problem with LJ is that I saw it in 3d which was pretty awesome except for the scenes with Holdo's right hand bridge lackey Commander D'Acy. Her nose was absolutely giant and every time she was on screen I was afraid I was going to lose an eye by having it pecked out. Forget epic shots of star destroyers reaching right out of the screen, instead you're dodging a giant schnoz coming at your face.
Sloth from The Goonies apparently grew up to be a SIthlord calling himself Snoke.
Manchu wrote: Good point - I never figured she would go straight to Kenobi. TBH I never considered that she even knew where he was hiding out. But I guess her dad knew.
This was specifically the mission given to her in Rogue One, if that's any help. - Bail Organa talks about it.
Finally seen the movie. Overall I didn't like it, there were positives. Oh, was there anything even remotely metaphorical with Rey's visit to the cave? I try to wrap my head around it but nothing clicks.
Knight wrote: Finally seen the movie. Overall I didn't like it, there were positives. Oh, was there anything even remotely metaphorical with Rey's visit to the cave? I try to wrap my head around it but nothing clicks.
Luke went to a cave, and was faced with his own reflection. Therefor...
Knight wrote: Finally seen the movie. Overall I didn't like it, there were positives. Oh, was there anything even remotely metaphorical with Rey's visit to the cave? I try to wrap my head around it but nothing clicks.
Well, when Luke visited the dark side grove on Dagobah he was faced with his greatest fears, Vader as the representation of evil in Luke's own mind and the possibility of him becoming that evil (his face in Vaders mask).
When Rey visits the dark hole she faces her greatest fear, that her parents are nobody and that she is nobody. The mirror not giving her answers about her family is because she fears there are none to give, they are nobody.
However, remember that this is the Dark Side manipulating your fears and bearing them before you, as giving in to fear is the first step down the dark path, so the visions may not be true. The dark side lures you in with promises of answers and uses the pursuit of those answers to snare you.
It snared Anakin in his pursuit of an answer to how to save Padme, it snared the Palpatine in his pursuit of an answer to become immortal etc. Note that none of them ever actually achieved those goals, none of them got the answers they sought.
I watched "The Force Awakens" again early and the distinct possibility that Rey's parents WERE nobody was essentially signposted by Maz.
Dear child. I see your eyes. You already know the truth. Whomever you're waiting for on Jakku, they're never coming back. But... there's someone who still could.
The belonging you seek is not behind you. It is ahead. I am no Jedi, but I know the Force. It moves through and surrounds every living thing. Close your eyes. Feel it.
So, yeah, to me personally, "Rey comes from nowhere" IS a suitable answer to that question and is ultimately the realisation that she needed to accept. I'm completely fine with that.
Compel wrote: I watched "The Force Awakens" again early and the distinct possibility that Rey's parents WERE nobody was essentially signposted by Maz.
Dear child. I see your eyes. You already know the truth. Whomever you're waiting for on Jakku, they're never coming back. But... there's someone who still could.
The belonging you seek is not behind you. It is ahead. I am no Jedi, but I know the Force. It moves through and surrounds every living thing. Close your eyes. Feel it.
So, yeah, to me personally, "Rey comes from nowhere" IS a suitable answer to that question and is ultimately the realisation that she needed to accept. I'm completely fine with that.
It's also worth pointing out that Anakin came from nowhere. There was no super strong Skywalker line of Jedi before him. He was born to a slave on Tatooine.
People keep claiming that after moaning about TFA being a rehashed New Hope, now we are bitching that TLJ brought too much new stuff and wasn't ENOUGH like the original trilogy.
Sorry, you can break new ground and still feel like Star Wars. It's why the great parts of the EU, like the original Thrawn trilogy, and all the X-Wing Rogue Squadron novels, are so awesome. Would have been a helluva thing to have a Star Wars movie with Wedge and Thrawn.
AegisGrimm wrote: People keep claiming that after moaning about TFA being a rehashed New Hope, now we are bitching that TLJ brought too much new stuff and wasn't ENOUGH like the original trilogy.
Sorry, you can break new ground and still feel like Star Wars. It's why the great parts of the EU, like the original Thrawn trilogy, and all the X-Wing Rogue Squadron novels, are so awesome. Would have been a helluva thing to have a Star Wars movie with Wedge and Thrawn.
What? TLJ felt like a mashup of ESB and ROTJ to me.
We didn't need rose at all though, she's the nobody character that made things much worse for the resistance with a meaningless side plot.
You're being unfair here. Every character made things worse for the resistance.* Rose at least gave us the perspective of the actual nobodies the FO was grinding under foot. And really, a nobody like Rose trying to sneak onto Snoke's ship and disable the macguffin to save her friends is far more heroic in terms of personal bravery than anything Poe did. I get that you don't like her character or the actress, but that doesn't mean she didn't play an important part in the film...well, as much as anyone who isn't Luke, Rey or Ren.
*Except for BB-8, the real hero of the resistance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Star Wars is not about Box Office. It was never about Box Office. The only reason BO is important is because it predicts the fortunes of the massive merchandising empire. Right now, the prediction is looking more dire than expected.
Your imagination is running away with you. Just because I find the role meaningless does not equate to me hating the actress. I'm sure the actress did the best she could with the crap she was given, anyone in that roll would have come across as meaningless and a waste of run time on the movie. The whole casino scene just came across as they needed something for finn to do in the movie, I don't hate finn or the actor either, but horrible writing and a horrid script did nothing for either character to the point they might as well not have been in the movie at all.
Did I mention you hating the actress? Or justify the casino?
I was stating that the character served a purpose. Maybe not a purpose you find great, but a purpose. The casino scene was just....like, I think I get many of the reasons it seemed like a good idea, but man, cut it out of the film when you see it doesn't work. Or reshoot it as something else.
Manchu wrote: Good point - I never figured she would go straight to Kenobi. TBH I never considered that she even knew where he was hiding out. But I guess her dad knew.
This was specifically the mission given to her in Rogue One, if that's any help. - Bail Organa talks about it.
Her recording pretty much laid it out in Star Wars. (Not calling it ANH.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote: People keep claiming that after moaning about TFA being a rehashed New Hope, now we are bitching that TLJ brought too much new stuff and wasn't ENOUGH like the original trilogy.
Sorry, you can break new ground and still feel like Star Wars. It's why the great parts of the EU, like the original Thrawn trilogy, and all the X-Wing Rogue Squadron novels, are so awesome. Would have been a helluva thing to have a Star Wars movie with Wedge and Thrawn.
1). Are you sure these are the same people?
2). Are you aware that being a rehash of Star Wars is the least of TFA's many, many sins?
Xenomancers wrote: For starters - when you make a new character because you want to include a more diverse cast rather than because you had a good idea for a character in the first place - the character is going to suffer. Rose is a great example of this. She is created simply to include an Asian.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. Aside from the fact that people have told you why Rose exists, even if you don't love the idea yourself, what evidence is there for the theory that any of the cast exists just for the sake of diversity? Would the character be somehow different if they were a white man instead? Is there some reason why the creator would make that particular character an Asian instead of some other character? Your entire reason for this belief seems to be "she's an Asian character I don't like", which is absurd.
When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability.
So I take it you couldn't believe the very male-dominated command structure of the rebellion in the OT?
Knight wrote: Finally seen the movie. Overall I didn't like it, there were positives. Oh, was there anything even remotely metaphorical with Rey's visit to the cave? I try to wrap my head around it but nothing clicks.
When Rey visits the dark hole she faces her greatest fear, that her parents are nobody and that she is nobody. The mirror not giving her answers about her family is because she fears there are none to give, they are nobody.
Odd that she exclaimed that she was not afraid only few moments before that. Perhaps I was only foolish to believe it to be true? I do think the thoughts and emotions of her birth are the cause of her suffering and feeling detached from the world (to certain extend this should correlate with openness to the Force, but what do I know). It's something I hope they will expand in the future. "The poor little me that is foreign and alone to this world" needs a resolution.
Talking about who is going to lead that nice group of friends that barely fill a soccer team roster.
Some deluded journalist wrote:Holdo proved herself to be the most worthy candidate, yet her jump to hyperspace that eviscerated the First Order's fleet might have been her final action, leaving audiences wondering if her ship's shield survived the maneuver.
Excellent! Just what we need a mediocre character returning next film to annoy the few fans that still look forward to it. If you are going to daydream for next movie at least bring somebody more interesting to your fanfic plot.
Also honest question because I cannot recall. Other than Finn, that nominally starts as a FO trooper, have we seen minorities among the FO crews? IIRC the Empire in the EU never had issues with humans of different shades, they were human supremacists.
Xenomancers wrote: When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. .
Ignoring for a moment that you seem to have already forgotten poor Ackbar... Why?
Not that I'm on Xeno's side here, but if that's the only "male" on the command structure it's not a great argument, a carryover from the original trilogy that dies in a manner befitting an unnamed character during the opening sequence.
First Order officers seem to be largely male and white, as was the case with the Empire. (In the EU the Empire post-Endor opened up somewhat to women and aliens, but they never really cover ethnicity beyond 'human' in most of the books). Impossible to say what sort of ethnic make-up exists amongst Storm Troopers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Not that I'm on Xeno's side here, but if that's the only "male" on the command structure it's not a great argument, a carryover from the original trilogy that dies in a manner befitting an unnamed character during the opening sequence.
Neither side had many aliens because its easier not have many and if you do mainly stick to limited cosmetic bits - see Star Trek.
There were women on both sides in officer roles - we only saw female senior commanders in the rebels. This was apparently a small part of the FO fleet - there are quite possibly female senior offices who might even be competent unlike the ones we saw in the FO.
We don't see any ISD captains either - but as none of them do a single thing in the film thats not surprising.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why does the command structure (by this I assume you mean the most senior members) being women hurt believability? Would it hurt the believability if it were entirely men?
IMO, the issue is more that Resistance is extremely diverse, with women being in majority of the leadership figures, whereas First Order is almost entirely white males. It just gives an uncomfortable vibe about this being a metaphor or statement.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think the Han Solo movie was one of the worst ideas in a franchise riddled with bad ideas.
But then, I think Disney believes wrongly that the potential of the franchise is in the OT characters and their descendants rather than in the OT's setting and themes.
Umm...Rogue 1?? It was OT setting with new characters (well, there were old characters in side roles).
However, Disney is trying to crank these movies out too quickly. Rogue1 had to be redone (and it shows) and 2 years cycle between main SW movies feels too short. Risk of messing a writing process up is considerable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Only if you think that it matters if a given character is male or female...
It seems to matter to filmmakers, hence it is impossible for me to ignore it.
With regards to the gender and ethnicity of Star Wars characters.
If you recall your Star Wars history, then you'll know that after ANH, Lucas was criticised by African American community leaders for the lack of ethnic characters in ANH.
Lucas' response was to create Lando Calrissian, the greatest Star wars character of them all
Lando works because of the natural charisma of Billy Dee Williams, and because the character is well written and believable. His role in Empire and ROTJ fits into the story and make sense.
Years ago, nobody gave two hoots that Carrie Fisher was a woman, or that Billy Dee Williams was black, because their characters worked and made sense.
IMO, a lot of the critique of new SW characters is because their back story makes zero sense, their acting is as wooden as a coffee table, and the scripts suck more than 100 hoovers at full power.
Better characters and better scripts would solve so many problems.
It seems to matter to filmmakers, hence it is impossible for me to ignore it.
It's a bit of a cyclical argument, really. It matters to film makers because it matters to audiences. People will still more readily accept men than women in certain roles, or will (as we're seeing here) complain if there are too many women in the room. Once we get to a point where we stop freaking out about a woman being in charge, and where women can be cast based on their suitability for the role instead of how much they look like a 20-year-old covergirl, it will stop being an issue.
This thread would seem to suggest there's still a way to go.
I had much of the movie spoiled for me thanks to a YouTube video. It was comparing Snokes power level to Emporer Palpatine. Before even starting he drops the spoiler right at the start........wtf guy! Best part is as the video went on I realized it didnt even need to be spoiled to compare the two.
KingCracker wrote: I had much of the movie spoiled for me thanks to a YouTube video. It was comparing Snokes power level to Emporer Palpatine. Before even starting he drops the spoiler right at the start........wtf guy! Best part is as the video went on I realized it didnt even need to be spoiled to compare the two.
True, but at this point the movie has been out long enough that "spoiler warnings" are an unnecessary courtesy. And you should also know better to even be watching videos that may potentially have spoilers if you do not wish to be spoilers.
Personally, I had the entire movie spoiled before watching, because I just cannot resist. And I am ok with it.
I still really enjoyed the movie as nothing compares to actually seeing the events unfold before your eyes.
Xenomancers wrote: When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. .
Ignoring for a moment that you seem to have already forgotten poor Ackbar... Why?
Not that I'm on Xeno's side here, but if that's the only "male" on the command structure it's not a great argument, a carryover from the original trilogy that dies in a manner befitting an unnamed character during the opening sequence.
There was a black man senior enough to command one of the three remaining ships in the fleet, but he died early on.
KingCracker wrote: I had much of the movie spoiled for me thanks to a YouTube video. It was comparing Snokes power level to Emporer Palpatine. Before even starting he drops the spoiler right at the start........wtf guy! Best part is as the video went on I realized it didnt even need to be spoiled to compare the two.
True, but at this point the movie has been out long enough that "spoiler warnings" are an unnecessary courtesy. And you should also know better to even be watching videos that may potentially have spoilers if you do not wish to be spoilers.
Personally, I had the entire movie spoiled before watching, because I just cannot resist. And I am ok with it. I still really enjoyed the movie as nothing compares to actually seeing the events unfold before your eyes.
-
The spoilers I hate are the ones that just come out of the blue. You mention to a mate you're going to see a movie and they spoil it without thinking, or you are sitting on a train and the people next to you just saw the movie and are discussing it, or you're in an unrelated forum and someone just blurts out a spoiler. It's really hard to avoid those spoilers. One time I mentioned to a mate I was just walking out the house to see a certain movie and he says "oh yeah, my Mum just saw that, apparently such and such dies in the end", another mate is a massive pain in the arse in that he just NEEDS to discuss everything, he doesn't seem to want to spoil anything but he just ends up talking about it so much that it's almost impossible to avoid having half the plot spoiled.
But if you care even slightly about not having movies or TV spoiled the last thing you do is look up videos/forums/google which have anything to do with the topic.
When it comes to movies I care about I hate spoilers, it ruins the film in that I'm just sitting there waiting for thing to happen instead of enjoying the story unfold of its own accord. As such I didn't look up anything Star Wars related prior to seeing TLJ.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think the Han Solo movie was one of the worst ideas in a franchise riddled with bad ideas.
But then, I think Disney believes wrongly that the potential of the franchise is in the OT characters and their descendants rather than in the OT's setting and themes.
Umm...Rogue 1?? It was OT setting with new characters (well, there were old characters in side roles).
However, Disney is trying to crank these movies out too quickly. Rogue1 had to be redone (and it shows) and 2 years cycle between main SW movies feels too short. Risk of messing a writing process up is considerable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Only if you think that it matters if a given character is male or female...
It seems to matter to filmmakers, hence it is impossible for me to ignore it.
Rogue One, or rather half of that film, is the best Star Wars Disney has put out so far. At this point I'd welcome Catamaran of Courage: A Porg Adventure.
Xenomancers wrote: When the entire command structure of the resistance is composed of only females it hurts believability. .
Ignoring for a moment that you seem to have already forgotten poor Ackbar... Why?
Exactly how many women in a position of authority would be a believable number for you?
I forgot about Akbar because so did the director - dead anyways. Another great character emblematic of starwars - dies off camera. To be fair though can we really call him a male? He is a fish. Asexual for all we know.
Even distribution would have been reasonable - majority women in military-leadership is a political statement. The resistance is a military organization - you would expect more males than females based on that alone. Regardless - a number that isn't a political statement is what I would prefer - so I can focus on the sci-fantacy movie I am watching without politics being rammed down my throat. Or at least -if you must do that - write a good story with good characters. Holdo is an awful character (not because her hair is pink) - her terrible leadership caused a freaking mutiny - one in which the director actually wants to feel bad about because he make her the hero of the story. Brilliant.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why does the command structure (by this I assume you mean the most senior members) being women hurt believability? Would it hurt the believability if it were entirely men?
IMO, the issue is more that Resistance is extremely diverse, with women being in majority of the leadership figures, whereas First Order is almost entirely white males. It just gives an uncomfortable vibe about this being a metaphor or statement.
It's almost as if the first order are supposed to be Nazis......
If you can successfully turn something into a nazi then you've made a villein everyone can hate without feeling bad.
Xenomancers wrote: Another great character emblematic of starwars - dies off camera.
Uh, what? What exactly made Ackbar a great character or emblematic of Star Wars? He was a minor character who had a single meme-worthy line. He had exactly zero depth or development as a character, and outside of that single line was nothing but a means of delivering the plot information to the audience.
Even distribution would have been reasonable - majority women in military-leadership is a political statement.
Is majority men also a political statement? Because that sure makes the rebellion of the OT a political movie. Are you outraged about ANH being a right-wing misogynist political statement? Or do you selectively focus on political statements that suit your ideological position?
The resistance is a military organization - you would expect more males than females based on that alone.
Why? Star Wars is not the real world. The social factors that make men dominate the military are not necessarily true there. But I suppose you're going to deny that "our current situation is universal truth" is a political statement, because it's an assumption you take for granted.
Holdo is an awful character (not because her hair is pink) - her terrible leadership caused a freaking mutiny - one in which the director actually wants to feel bad about because he make her the hero of the story. Brilliant.
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
It seems to matter to filmmakers, hence it is impossible for me to ignore it.
It's a bit of a cyclical argument, really. It matters to film makers because it matters to audiences. People will still more readily accept men than women in certain roles, or will (as we're seeing here) complain if there are too many women in the room. Once we get to a point where we stop freaking out about a woman being in charge, and where women can be cast based on their suitability for the role instead of how much they look like a 20-year-old covergirl, it will stop being an issue.
This thread would seem to suggest there's still a way to go.
Do you think that is a place that we will ever get? Do you think people will ever stop wanting to look at pretty girls instead of "not pretty girls". That will probably never happen. Do you ever think military forces which will pretty much always be majority male would prefer female leadership?
Xenomancers wrote: Do you think that is a place that we will ever get? Do you think people will ever stop wanting to look at pretty girls instead of "not pretty girls". That will probably never happen.
I don't know, do all women care only about looking at pretty boys and ignore everything else about their value as actors? Are you saying that men are inherently shallow and stupid and incapable of doing anything but looking at pretty girls, while women have managed to rise above such limits?
Do you ever think military forces which will pretty much always be majority male would prefer female leadership?
{citation needed}
Why exactly do you think that military forces will be majority-male, in a fictional setting where real-world cultural beliefs do not exist?
Also, the Rebellion and Resistance are as much political entities as they are military forces. Leia was not originally a military leader of the Rebellion, she was a part of the political wing of the anti-Empire movement, operating in the Senate.
What makes an effective leader of an irregular military and political group is not the same as what makes an effective leader within a purely military force.
People like looking at pretty people, pretty houses, etc etc
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
Most of that is correct - I had no issue with her slapping the hot shot down as they still seem to be the remnants of actual military at this point and he should have obeyed the chain of command.
That being said the whole sequence was nonsense
We have already dicussed the fighter issues
Auto-pilots are a thing in Star Wars - indeed its a plot point in the first film, so there is no reason for to stay on board.
The fact that you can just ram anything into obvilion - well thats just become the reason that no one uses captial ships.
There are so many bigger issues wth the film in terms of pacing and plot than the amount of women in it.
Mr Morden wrote: People like looking at pretty people, pretty houses, etc etc
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
Most of that is correct - I had no issue with her slapping the hot shot down as they still seem to be the remnants of actual military at this point and he should have obeyed the chain of command.
That being said the whole sequence was nonsense
We have already dicussed the fighter issues
Auto-pilots are a thing in Star Wars - indeed its a plot point in the first film, so there is no reason for to stay on board.
The fact that you can just ram anything into obvilion - well thats just become the reason that no one uses captial ships.
There are so many bigger issues wth the film in terms of pacing and plot than the amount of women in it.
How expensive are capital ships? What do you do with the crew aboard your capital ship when you decide to use it to perform a lightspeed suicide jump?
Mr Morden wrote: People like looking at pretty people, pretty houses, etc etc
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
Most of that is correct - I had no issue with her slapping the hot shot down as they still seem to be the remnants of actual military at this point and he should have obeyed the chain of command.
That being said the whole sequence was nonsense
We have already dicussed the fighter issues
Auto-pilots are a thing in Star Wars - indeed its a plot point in the first film, so there is no reason for to stay on board.
The fact that you can just ram anything into obvilion - well thats just become the reason that no one uses captial ships.
There are so many bigger issues wth the film in terms of pacing and plot than the amount of women in it.
How expensive are capital ships? What do you do with the crew aboard your capital ship when you decide to use it to perform a lightspeed suicide jump?
Do you need a captial ship or just something that go to lightspeed? Its not clear - except we know it can be done. Indeed why were they worried about the Death Star, Starkiller base etc - just get a few fighters and hyperspace the hell out of it.
Given that the rebels are now short on everything - being able to destroy anything simply by ramming it makes things a lot simpler- you just get some people who are happy to die for the cause and get them to ramming cos you cna do it from ebyond effective range of the weapons on the warships as well.
Surely hyperspace torps would be the logical next step.
I will admit when I saw the devastation of lightspeed jumping through an enemy formation I did think "err, why isn't this THE weapon of choice?"
Get something heavy, whack a light speed drive (or whatever they call them in SW) and fire them at the enemy big ships, job done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: People like looking at pretty people, pretty houses, etc etc
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
Most of that is correct - I had no issue with her slapping the hot shot down as they still seem to be the remnants of actual military at this point and he should have obeyed the chain of command.
That being said the whole sequence was nonsense
We have already dicussed the fighter issues
Auto-pilots are a thing in Star Wars - indeed its a plot point in the first film, so there is no reason for to stay on board.
The fact that you can just ram anything into obvilion - well thats just become the reason that no one uses captial ships.
There are so many bigger issues wth the film in terms of pacing and plot than the amount of women in it.
It's not all Holdo's fault, but IMO it's just a poorly written sequence of events such that when Holdo dies I have absolutely no emotional attachment to her and couldn't care less that she's going on a suicide mission.
And Poe is hardly just "a random fighter pilot", he was wing commander up until 5 minutes ago and even after being demoted is still a captain.
Xenomancers wrote: Another great character emblematic of starwars - dies off camera.
Uh, what? What exactly made Ackbar a great character or emblematic of Star Wars? He was a minor character who had a single meme-worthy line. He had exactly zero depth or development as a character, and outside of that single line was nothing but a means of delivering the plot information to the audience.
Even distribution would have been reasonable - majority women in military-leadership is a political statement.
Is majority men also a political statement? Because that sure makes the rebellion of the OT a political movie. Are you outraged about ANH being a right-wing misogynist political statement? Or do you selectively focus on political statements that suit your ideological position?
The resistance is a military organization - you would expect more males than females based on that alone.
Why? Star Wars is not the real world. The social factors that make men dominate the military are not necessarily true there. But I suppose you're going to deny that "our current situation is universal truth" is a political statement, because it's an assumption you take for granted.
Holdo is an awful character (not because her hair is pink) - her terrible leadership caused a freaking mutiny - one in which the director actually wants to feel bad about because he make her the hero of the story. Brilliant.
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
No surprise but I disagree with everything you are saying.
Akbar has 3 MEME worthy lines. "It's a trap" - "We can't repel firepower of that magnitude" and "May the force be with us". He also briefs the Alliance on the death-star 2 attack which is a pretty good scene. He didn't get a lot of screen time but everybody loved him - that's what makes him great.
Mostly men in military leadership is not a political statement. It is the norm. It will continue to be the norm because men are better soldiers (this is a fact) and men want to be lead by men. So unless you are an alien species where psychical and psychological traits are distributed differently between it's sexes - mostly men is what you would expect. It's not a misogynist political statement. It just makes sense.
Social factors aren't the primary reason why men dominate the military. It's genetics.
I suppose their could be spies on board - in which case a plan that relies on misdirection isn't going to work...The spy would just contact the ships once the alliance members began boarding the transports...plan foiled - nice try though. Figuring out how they are being tracked should have been pretty high up on her list of things to do...she did nothing about it and said nothing about it. Poe was right to remove her from command. He's not just some random pilot ether - he likely is one of the highest ranking alliance members at that point - this should put him in the know on it's own.
There's actually a novel discussing Hux and his parents, along with his rise in the First Order and how he became how he is.
Hint: His father was a straight up donkey-cave.
Of course there's a novel. I should have known.
I just pictured two ex-rebel sympathizers named Herb and Judy Huxberg, trying and failing to teach their son how to respect all living beings and generally be a free spirit.
There's actually a novel discussing Hux and his parents, along with his rise in the First Order and how he became how he is.
Hint: His father was a straight up donkey-cave.
Of course there's a novel. I should have known.
I just pictured two ex-rebel sympathizers named Herb and Judy Huxberg, trying and failing to teach their son how to respect all living beings and generally be a free spirit.
..My only image coming to mind is that one character from the old Dexter's Laboratory cartoon, and now I'm trying not to imagine a young Hux on some sort of hippie planet full of flowers moping and brooding while wishing the Empire would come bombard the planet.
Xenomancers wrote: Another great character emblematic of starwars - dies off camera.
Uh, what? What exactly made Ackbar a great character or emblematic of Star Wars? He was a minor character who had a single meme-worthy line. He had exactly zero depth or development as a character, and outside of that single line was nothing but a means of delivering the plot information to the audience.
Even distribution would have been reasonable - majority women in military-leadership is a political statement.
Is majority men also a political statement? Because that sure makes the rebellion of the OT a political movie. Are you outraged about ANH being a right-wing misogynist political statement? Or do you selectively focus on political statements that suit your ideological position?
The resistance is a military organization - you would expect more males than females based on that alone.
Why? Star Wars is not the real world. The social factors that make men dominate the military are not necessarily true there. But I suppose you're going to deny that "our current situation is universal truth" is a political statement, because it's an assumption you take for granted.
Holdo is an awful character (not because her hair is pink) - her terrible leadership caused a freaking mutiny - one in which the director actually wants to feel bad about because he make her the hero of the story. Brilliant.
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
No surprise but I disagree with everything you are saying.
Akbar has 3 MEME worthy lines. "It's a trap" - "We can't repel firepower of that magnitude" and "May the force be with us". He also briefs the Alliance on the death-star 2 attack which is a pretty good scene. He didn't get a lot of screen time but everybody loved him - that's what makes him great.
Mostly men in military leadership is not a political statement. It is the norm. It will continue to be the norm because men are better soldiers (this is a fact) and men want to be lead by men. So unless you are an alien species where psychical and psychological traits are distributed differently between it's sexes - mostly men is what you would expect. It's not a misogynist political statement. It just makes sense.
Social factors aren't the primary reason why men dominate the military. It's genetics.
I suppose their could be spies on board - in which case a plan that relies on misdirection isn't going to work...The spy would just contact the ships once the alliance members began boarding the transports...plan foiled - nice try though. Figuring out how they are being tracked should have been pretty high up on her list of things to do...she did nothing about it and said nothing about it. Poe was right to remove her from command. He's not just some random pilot ether - he likely is one of the highest ranking alliance members at that point - this should put him in the know on it's own.
You do know we are talking about an alien species that evolved long ago in a galaxy far, far away, right?
And really, the easiest explanation is that the FO simply bought the frequency codes to the locator beacons that the Arms Dealers of Endgame Space Capitalism installed on all the ships they sold to the Resistance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Ackbar totally had character. He was the Shaggy to Lando's Fred.
"Zoinks! S-s-star destroyers!"
"Give the plan a chance to work."
"We have to r-r-run away!"
"Or you could move closer to the star destroyers and flush out old man Palpatine's phantom dreadnought."
Automatically Appended Next Post: And really, for a member of a species with now binocular vision, and thus no depth perception, making the rank of Admiral tells you a lot about Ackbar's dedication and talent.
Mr Morden wrote: People like looking at pretty people, pretty houses, etc etc
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
Most of that is correct - I had no issue with her slapping the hot shot down as they still seem to be the remnants of actual military at this point and he should have obeyed the chain of command.
That being said the whole sequence was nonsense
We have already dicussed the fighter issues
Auto-pilots are a thing in Star Wars - indeed its a plot point in the first film, so there is no reason for to stay on board.
The fact that you can just ram anything into obvilion - well thats just become the reason that no one uses captial ships.
There are so many bigger issues wth the film in terms of pacing and plot than the amount of women in it.
How expensive are capital ships? What do you do with the crew aboard your capital ship when you decide to use it to perform a lightspeed suicide jump?
Do you need a captial ship or just something that go to lightspeed? Its not clear - except we know it can be done. Indeed why were they worried about the Death Star, Starkiller base etc - just get a few fighters and hyperspace the hell out of it.
Given that the rebels are now short on everything - being able to destroy anything simply by ramming it makes things a lot simpler- you just get some people who are happy to die for the cause and get them to ramming cos you cna do it from ebyond effective range of the weapons on the warships as well.
Surely hyperspace torps would be the logical next step.
Physics doesn't exist in this film. Lasers are arching in space...vaccum of space doesn't even damage leia (she was unconscious and would have stayed that way). For some reason after a giant explosion the debris from the bridge was barely moving and hovering near the ship (just like leia)
As far as psyhics is concerned. Light speed is a barrier that mass can not achieve because you would need infinite energy to get there. Objects moving near light speed would have incredible energy though. You wouldn't need to suicide space cruisers. Something the size a 16 inch battleship shell would probably be able to destroy anything in a single shot that wasn't a planet or a moon.
Xenomancers wrote: Another great character emblematic of starwars - dies off camera.
Uh, what? What exactly made Ackbar a great character or emblematic of Star Wars? He was a minor character who had a single meme-worthy line. He had exactly zero depth or development as a character, and outside of that single line was nothing but a means of delivering the plot information to the audience.
Even distribution would have been reasonable - majority women in military-leadership is a political statement.
Is majority men also a political statement? Because that sure makes the rebellion of the OT a political movie. Are you outraged about ANH being a right-wing misogynist political statement? Or do you selectively focus on political statements that suit your ideological position?
The resistance is a military organization - you would expect more males than females based on that alone.
Why? Star Wars is not the real world. The social factors that make men dominate the military are not necessarily true there. But I suppose you're going to deny that "our current situation is universal truth" is a political statement, because it's an assumption you take for granted.
Holdo is an awful character (not because her hair is pink) - her terrible leadership caused a freaking mutiny - one in which the director actually wants to feel bad about because he make her the hero of the story. Brilliant.
Actually, Poe's insubordination and recklessness caused a mutiny. It's the military, a random fighter pilot isn't owed an explanation of everything just because he's friends with one of the other leaders. And that's especially true with a plan that depends on secrecy and misdirection, against an enemy who might have spies aboard (remember, they don't know how the tracking is being done). Poe has no need to know anything more than what he is told, and has no excuse for disobeying orders or hijacking the ship. And a character doesn't become a poor leader just because they decline to recognize the obvious superiority and importance of the designated main character of the story.
No surprise but I disagree with everything you are saying.
Akbar has 3 MEME worthy lines. "It's a trap" - "We can't repel firepower of that magnitude" and "May the force be with us". He also briefs the Alliance on the death-star 2 attack which is a pretty good scene. He didn't get a lot of screen time but everybody loved him - that's what makes him great.
Mostly men in military leadership is not a political statement. It is the norm. It will continue to be the norm because men are better soldiers (this is a fact) and men want to be lead by men. So unless you are an alien species where psychical and psychological traits are distributed differently between it's sexes - mostly men is what you would expect. It's not a misogynist political statement. It just makes sense.
Social factors aren't the primary reason why men dominate the military. It's genetics.
I suppose their could be spies on board - in which case a plan that relies on misdirection isn't going to work...The spy would just contact the ships once the alliance members began boarding the transports...plan foiled - nice try though. Figuring out how they are being tracked should have been pretty high up on her list of things to do...she did nothing about it and said nothing about it. Poe was right to remove her from command. He's not just some random pilot ether - he likely is one of the highest ranking alliance members at that point - this should put him in the know on it's own.
You do know we are talking about an alien species that evolved long ago in a galaxy far, far away, right?
And really, the easiest explanation is that the FO simply bought the frequency codes to the locator beacons that the Arms Dealers of Endgame Space Capitalism installed on all the ships they sold to the Resistance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Ackbar totally had character. He was the Shaggy to Lando's Fred.
"Zoinks! S-s-star destroyers!"
"Give the plan a chance to work."
"We have to r-r-run away!"
"Or you could move closer to the star destroyers and flush out old man Palpatine's phantom dreadnought."
Automatically Appended Next Post: And really, for a member of a species with now binocular vision, and thus no depth perception, making the rank of Admiral tells you a lot about Ackbar's dedication and talent.
Moncalamari sense depth differently from us. They use their wiskers.
Just to point out this is actually explained (in other things, of course) despite being called lasers by most they are more plasma as they use a primary heated energy rich gas converted to a particle beam
Just to point out this is actually explained (in other things, of course) despite being called lasers by most they are more plasma as they use a primary heated energy rich gas converted to a particle beam
Yeah, but how does that explain arcing in deep space? Especially when previous films depict them traveling in straight lines* even when close to planetary bodies?
*yes, I am aware of some of the crazy zippy TLs in the OT that resulted from trying to animate a linear path for a laser into a scen shot with a moving camera. They were rare and not really parabolic in the manner of the artillery shell TL's of TLJ.
Mostly men in military leadership is not a political statement. It is the norm. It will continue to be the norm because men are better soldiers (this is a fact) and men want to be lead by men. So unless you are an alien species where psychical and psychological traits are distributed differently between it's sexes - mostly men is what you would expect. It's not a misogynist political statement. It just makes sense.
Social factors aren't the primary reason why men dominate the military. It's genetics.
'Men want to be lead by men' is not genetics. It's a cultural hangup that has resulted from our society insisting for such an awful long time that men are superior. If you have hangups with having a woman in charge, that's entirely on you... please don't try to project your insecurities onto the rest of us.
Having an even mix of genders in the command structure, in a ragtag group of random survivors would have been more artificial than the mostly female mix that we saw, not less.
Xenomancers wrote: Social factors aren't the primary reason why men dominate the military. It's genetics.
This is a universe in which there exist species that can rip human arms out of their sockets. The "genetics" argument doesn't work at all.
Still have to lift things/ carry things/ run places / ect. Picking the best tool for the job makes sense everywhere else in reality but when you introduce sex into the equation everyone turns into a complete idiot. It's not about fairness. It's about winning wars and winning battles. My statement isn't insecurity. You could probably look at every military on earth's command structure and not a single one of them will be majority female...a lot of different cultures - but they will all have that in common. You can call it sexism - but there are real practical reasons like the ones I'm talking about that make an entire female military command structure very unbelievable. Which is all my original scrutiny stated. You are really out of touch with reality if you don't believe that.
Physics doesn't exist in this film. Lasers are arching in space...
In the real world light arcs in space, and blasters are very clearly not lasers. Indeed, turbolasers and superlasers are obviously not lasers, lasers basically don't exist in Star Wars.
Still have to lift things/ carry things/ run places / ect.
Then every Star Wars military should be composed entirely of Wookies, regardless of sex or gender. As several people have said you're applying real-world standards to a universe where they don't apply.
Physics doesn't exist in this film. Lasers are arching in space...
In the real world light arcs in space, and blasters are very clearly not lasers. Indeed, turbolasers and superlasers are obviously not lasers, lasers basically don't exist in Star Wars.
Still have to lift things/ carry things/ run places / ect.
Then every Star Wars military should be composed entirely of Wookies, regardless of sex or gender. As several people have said you're applying real-world standards to a universe where they don't apply.
In the real world light can change direction by passing through a medium or in the presense of a very large gravity feild. Nether of these occur in the shots from Snokes ship to the resistance vessel. Even if these things were firing projectiles...they would be going straight - forces have to act on a mass for it to change direction. There are no forces in space...it's a vacuum.
In regards to wookies - lacking the ability to say words might be a big problem for them. Appears to be mostly humans in the resistance anyways.
Xenomancers wrote: Akbar has 3 MEME worthy lines. "It's a trap" - "We can't repel firepower of that magnitude" and "May the force be with us". He also briefs the Alliance on the death-star 2 attack which is a pretty good scene. He didn't get a lot of screen time but everybody loved him - that's what makes him great.
"That guy who says 'we can't repel firepower of that magnitude'" is hardly a memorable role. Everyone knows who Luke is. Hardly anyone outside the most dedicated fans knows anything about Ackbar beyond "ITS A TRAP".
But let's move beyond single lines, because the difference between one meme-worthy line and three meme-worthy lines does not make a great character. What exactly do we know about Ackbar as a character? Let's even start with the easy ones. What does he care about? Why is he fighting for the rebellion? How does he grow and develop over the course of the movie? How would the movie be different if Wedge was given that role instead? When you fail to answer those questions you'll see that Ackbar is barely move than a cardboard cutout sitting in the middle of the set, and the only reason to give him a memorable death is that he's an OT character that had screen time in a previous movie.
Mostly men in military leadership is not a political statement. It is the norm. It will continue to be the norm because men are better soldiers (this is a fact) and men want to be lead by men. So unless you are an alien species where psychical and psychological traits are distributed differently between it's sexes - mostly men is what you would expect. It's not a misogynist political statement. It just makes sense.
Yeah, thanks for proving my point there. "The truths of our world are universal, and will still be true even in a world that is entirely different" is a political statement. You just refuse to acknowledge it as one because you believe that your opinions are the norm, and should just be taken for granted.
I suppose their could be spies on board - in which case a plan that relies on misdirection isn't going to work...The spy would just contact the ships once the alliance members began boarding the transports...plan foiled - nice try though.
Assuming that brief window of opportunity is enough time to make contact without getting caught, assuming the resistance knew that merely informing the first order that transports existed at all would be enough to shoot them down (instead of needing updates on their locations, for example), assuming the spy knew anything beyond "we're boarding transports" and could pass on knowledge of their destination, etc. Information security is something you enforce by default, only stupid leaders assume that a spy is an auto-win and therefore there's no need for secrecy.
Figuring out how they are being tracked should have been pretty high up on her list of things to do...she did nothing about it and said nothing about it.
Why do you assume this is true? When a character who has already established that she is not going to tell the main character everything doesn't say anything about trying to figure out the tracking why do you assume that the answer must be that she isn't bothering to do anything about it, rather than that she is working on it but doesn't feel the need to tell the main character about it? And why do you assume that there's anything to figure out? Remember, a random maintenance worker is able to figure out exactly how the tracker works the moment she hears that it's possible. I think it's plausible that the command staff made the same conclusions, realized that the only way to escape would be via the transports, and simply didn't buy into the absurd idea of running off to find a magic plot device hacker and sneak aboard the enemy flagship (a plan which, if you recall, failed utterly).
He's not just some random pilot ether - he likely is one of the highest ranking alliance members at that point - this should put him in the know on it's own.
If he's one of the highest ranking members at that point it's only because there are so few members left that pretty much anyone with a decent rank becomes one of the highest ranking members. Nothing suggests that he's part of the resistance leadership because of formal rank, vs. being Leia's pet project (or, more accurately, being designated the main character of the story).
And besides that, do you know how "need to know" works? It doesn't matter what your rank is, if you don't need to know you don't get to know. Poe is, at best, the fighter commander on a ship that just had all of its fighters destroyed. He has no meaningful part in the escape plan, he has no need to know what it is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: In regards to wookies - lacking the ability to say words might be a big problem for them.
Not really. They can clearly speak, and their language is common enough that a poor trash scavenger from a middle of nowhere planet knows how to understand it. In fact, you could argue that the human inability to speak wookiee makes them even less suited for military roles, as they would be unable to communicate effectively with the species that makes up the majority of their unit. Humans wouldn't even be justifiable as a minority in the military.
Appears to be mostly humans in the resistance anyways.
And yet you don't object to the realism of this, despite the obvious in-universe superiority of other races as soldiers. Why do you find having lots of women in leadership roles to be implausible, while having lots of humans in combat roles is just fine? Could it possibly have anything to do with your own biases?
It seems to matter to filmmakers, hence it is impossible for me to ignore it.
It's a bit of a cyclical argument, really. It matters to film makers because it matters to audiences. People will still more readily accept men than women in certain roles, or will (as we're seeing here) complain if there are too many women in the room. Once we get to a point where we stop freaking out about a woman being in charge, and where women can be cast based on their suitability for the role instead of how much they look like a 20-year-old covergirl, it will stop being an issue.
This thread would seem to suggest there's still a way to go.
I don't mind diversity or women in leading roles. Hey, I grew up reading Claremont's X-men, where most powerful characters were nearly always women. In Star Wars comics my favourite character was Lando, and I had no idea who was that boring looking white guy who showed up in promo photos in lieu of Lando (I read the comics before I got the chance to see the movies).
I do mind when the moviemakers tout how diverse their cast is, and then limit that diversity only on good guys. All the bad guys are white males. It feels artificial, hypocritical and preachy.
It seems to matter to filmmakers, hence it is impossible for me to ignore it.
It's a bit of a cyclical argument, really. It matters to film makers because it matters to audiences. People will still more readily accept men than women in certain roles, or will (as we're seeing here) complain if there are too many women in the room. Once we get to a point where we stop freaking out about a woman being in charge, and where women can be cast based on their suitability for the role instead of how much they look like a 20-year-old covergirl, it will stop being an issue.
This thread would seem to suggest there's still a way to go.
I don't mind diversity or women in leading roles. Hey, I grew up reading Claremont's X-men, where most powerful characters were nearly always women. In Star Wars comics my favourite character was Lando, and I had no idea who was that boring looking white guy who showed up in promo photos in lieu of Lando (I read the comics before I got the chance to see the movies).
I do mind when the moviemakers tout how diverse their cast is, and then limit that diversity only on good guys. All the bad guys are white males. It feels artificial, hypocritical and preachy.
They're playing it safe. White males are politically acceptable villains.
To be fair though, they did include one white female villain, even if they did hide her face behind a Chrome dome.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Saw the movie a 2nd time today and I was almost falling asleep through most of it.
Woke myself up for the Reylo Throne Room duel, because thats my favourite part of the movie.
In the real world light can change direction by passing through a medium or in the presense of a very large gravity feild. Nether of these occur in the shots from Snokes ship to the resistance vessel. Even if these things were firing projectiles...they would be going straight - forces have to act on a mass for it to change direction. There are no forces in space...it's a vacuum.
Of course there are forces in space. Gravity and electromagnetism carry through a vacuum. Real world physics can cause some very strange things to happen, and there are "physics" in the Star Wars universe. That's why starfighters behave like IRL planes.
In regards to wookies - lacking the ability to say words might be a big problem for them. Appears to be mostly humans in the resistance anyways.
One of the main characters in the whole of the series openly states that he speaks over 6 million languages, including Ewok, the idea of a small translator droid being given out to Wookie soldiers is well within the suspension of disbelief; in fact this actually happens in the EU with Lowbacca and M-TD.
Hell, most of the main characters in the series can understand Chewie anyway.
It seems to matter to filmmakers, hence it is impossible for me to ignore it.
It's a bit of a cyclical argument, really. It matters to film makers because it matters to audiences. People will still more readily accept men than women in certain roles, or will (as we're seeing here) complain if there are too many women in the room. Once we get to a point where we stop freaking out about a woman being in charge, and where women can be cast based on their suitability for the role instead of how much they look like a 20-year-old covergirl, it will stop being an issue.
This thread would seem to suggest there's still a way to go.
I don't mind diversity or women in leading roles. Hey, I grew up reading Claremont's X-men, where most powerful characters were nearly always women. In Star Wars comics my favourite character was Lando, and I had no idea who was that boring looking white guy who showed up in promo photos in lieu of Lando (I read the comics before I got the chance to see the movies).
I do mind when the moviemakers tout how diverse their cast is, and then limit that diversity only on good guys. All the bad guys are white males. It feels artificial, hypocritical and preachy.
They're playing it safe. White males are politically acceptable villains.
To be fair though, they did include one white female villain, even if they did hide her face behind a Chrome dome.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Saw the movie a 2nd time today and I was almost falling asleep through most of it.
Woke myself up for the Reylo Throne Room duel, because thats my favourite part of the movie.
Phasma was a villain? I thought she was just product placement
Not really good product placement, she didn't appear long in either movie. Was a dirty coward in the first film, and in the second she had less fight time then "TRAITOR".
It's amazing how I'm unsure what the movie wants me to think of Commander Phasma. Is she supposed to be a strong leader that one is supposed to fear in the First Order? Or a dirty coward who can only succeed in having the starting advance in a one on one and even then a bit of distraction and she goes right down.
Which is a general problem in that the movie is trying to make us fear the First Order.. But General Hux has become a joke, Snoke was the only real threat, and Kylo keeps getting undermined by both the narrative and in his own combats.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Not really good product placement, she didn't appear long in either movie. Was a dirty coward in the first film, and in the second she had less fight time then "TRAITOR".
It's amazing how I'm unsure what the movie wants me to think of Commander Phasma. Is she supposed to be a strong leader that one is supposed to fear in the First Order? Or a dirty coward who can only succeed in having the starting advance in a one on one and even then a bit of distraction and she goes right down.
"Can't pause the movie to give exposition or character development," cries the writer/director. Truthfully, Phasma and Holdo should have an afterlife fight over who was handled worse. You can sort of see what was intended for both characters, but they don't have enough lines, screen time or stage presence to really put that intention into the film. Holdo is pretty much undermined by the script (introduced as basically the highest rank insignia still around, and literally everyone in the room is surprised), and while the shiny Stormtrooper armor is neat in concept, the half cloak and dainty weapons make it come across as foppish. Phasma should be intimidating and menacing, not just shiny.
Which is a general problem in that the movie is trying to make us fear the First Order.. But General Hux has become a joke, Snoke was the only real threat, and Kylo keeps getting undermined by both the narrative and in his own combats.
Well... become is a little strong. Hux was always a joke- a teenage Hitler caricature. Johnson just embraced it totally, and made his dismissals part of the slapstick.
Snoke... was a lurking (phantom, if you like) menace when introduced. And pretty much denied fruition in any fashion. His throne room set (particularly the curtains) and power ranger guards don't help him any. It makes him look extra fake and a bad sub-boss on a bottom tier Japanese live action-anime conversion. That he's chewing the scenery, denouncing the possibility of what is obviously going to happen to him while literally describing what is about to happen to him just makes it worse.
Kylo is actually pretty close to undermined by his own flaws, which is almost narratively satisfying.
But the nonsense he's spewing is pretty much undermined by his actions and his central conflict, so... yeah. A young and purposeless 'dark lord'
Well... become is a little strong. Hux was always a joke- a teenage Hitler caricature
Yes but that's what actually made him surprisingly more threatening in the first film. Yes Hux was a loon in the first film, but he was a fanatical loon who in the first film you could feel would do anything that would benefit the First Order to ensure it's success with zeal beyond any other. An undercurrent of "I would murder this star system and everyone in it if their corpses would fuel the rise of the First Order".. It just went from zealous loon to Looney Toons for him in the next film and then as a result it made one of the now key players in the First Order seem less threatening. Which from a narrative standpoint makes the stakes lower given and as a result it feels less like "Heroic odds overcoming the powerful villains" and more "Why is this bad guy threatening again to our heroes?"
Kylo is actually pretty close to undermined by his own flaws, which is almost narratively satisfying.
But the nonsense he's spewing is pretty much undermined by his actions and his central conflict, so... yeah. A young and purposeless 'dark lord'
Which makes us trying to figure out how he's the big bad after offing Snoke a bit of a joke.. Kylo's been undermined as a villain narrative and it's rather hard to understand why we would find him as threatening since he's not had a single win to his name aside from backstabbing Snoke at a critical moment.
I honestly think the Luke Astral Projection thing was the biggest issue, what they should have done was finally have Kylo overcome him in actual physical combat. Give us a final sendoff to Luke if you were going to just kill him off (which given a few things I believe Luke was not intended to die right then and there) and show that Darth Rage could have some measure of capability and respect as a final villain in the movies that he manages to actually overcome Luke Skywalker in a hopefully satisfying battle that would allow us the ability to imagine him as some potential threat to the heroes.
But no, he's not respected by his forces given that they still look to Hux first before him when it came down to things. Hux straight up hates him and wants to kill him off. Phasma is once again AWOL and either dead and if she does somehow come back again narratively speaking she's been a joke. What are the stakes again for our heroes personally when Rey already seems on par with Kylo and Hux is a joke? The movie is trying to ask me to imagine these two as the final villains and I'm not seeing the undercurrent of threat here.
Okay yes, I can imagine those two as actual antagonists over the Resistance barring our main heroes due to how ineffectual the Resistance has proven their inability to do much of anything worthwhile and almost seems ready and willing to just go into the slaughter.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Okay yes, I can imagine those two as actual antagonists over the Resistance barring our main heroes due to how ineffectual the Resistance has proven their inability to do much of anything worthwhile and almost seems ready and willing to just go into the slaughter.
yep they also mangaed to not ntoice a gigantic war machine being built that apparently makes the Galatic Empire look weak whilst at the same time allienating any allies apart from 3 slave kids in a stable
The filmakers obviously had their set objectives to achieve:
1) Sell cute animal toys
2) Sell Casino theme for for hotel or whatever
3) Reset the film universe to the start of Star Wars
4) Have a bit of action
By those low standards they did what they needed to do.
Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote:My 2-year-old daughter Savannah is taking Frozen in a wild new direction. When I told her I didn't think this was what Elsa was about, she told me it was bold, that I was a mouthbreathing fanboy whose vision of Elsa was childish, and that I had to let the past die; killing it if I had to
Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote:My 2-year-old daughter Savannah is taking Frozen in a wild new direction. When I told her I didn't think this was what Elsa was about, she told me it was bold, that I was a mouthbreathing fanboy whose vision of Elsa was childish, and that I had to let the past die; killing it if I had to
Probably not relevant at all, right?
Not to me - Otherwise the same argument would apply to the Prequal movies - ie they are actually good movies but people donlt like them because they are different.
I think its a bad movie due to plot and pacing reasons above all else, not because its not matching a different film - and yes I enjoyed R1 and TFA, they had their own faults but were much more enjoyable and coherent.
Xenomancers wrote: In regards to wookies - lacking the ability to say words might be a big problem for them.
Not really. They can clearly speak, and their language is common enough that a poor trash scavenger from a middle of nowhere planet knows how to understand it.
I think it's genetic, result of natural selection. People who don't understand what a Wookie is saying tend to have dramatically shortened lifespans.
Honestly Rey is just a weird outlier when it comes to that. She's been abandoned since she was five and her whole life has revolved around hunting and gathering scrap for food tokens but she can perfectly read normal stuff and old potentially flowery Jedi Texts that were around before even Yoda. She can understand Astromech Droids and Wookies, and she doesn't seem to have trouble with any other languages.
At this rate I'm going with "The force wills" to make sense of how someone who has no need for writing, or any other language aside from galactic basic for her day to day survival due to the lack of education given her life.
Is flash learning still canon? It's how they taught the clones how to adult in the prequels, and presumably useful for teaching techies the gobs of technical and geospatial data thaty'd need.
Is it possible Rey found an intact flash learning device and an intact library on one of the crashed Star Destroyers, looked at the rusty brainjack, and though, "Why not?"
No offense, but I think your vision of Kylo would have been more borring. The problem with any Star Wars villains is that they are measured against Darth Vader, one of the most famous and celebrated villain in movie history. Kylo Ren would at best, be a decent Darth Vader knockoff which is pretty bad. We don't need a Darth Vader knockoff when the real one is just around the corner. Disney, wisely, in my opinion, decided to go in the opposite direction. Instead of giving us a threatening vilain, they gave us one that might have been sympathetic, but who consistently goes against our notion of good when the time calls for it. Ren isn't made to be scarry because he is powerful and ruthless like Vader or Palpatine. Ren is threatening because we, the audience, want to give him "a second chance'' and he will not take it.
Plus, the obvious setup for this villain in the next movie is pretty simple. Ren, too young and impulsive, not ready for responsabilities of this magnitude, fails to assert his control over the First Order and turns to violence and brutality maintain his position. He gains a thousand ennemies from within and makes the entire organisation dysfunctional. This will allow rebels to sprout everywhere and run circles around him, which will drive him more unstabble, mader and more violent, which in turn will make him even more detested by his crew. Finally, in the end, Ren realise his greatest ambition. He becomes just like Darth Vader, alone, sad and empty. Heroes who try to save him all die by his hand and in the end he either end his own little tragedy or someone wisen up and finally puts him out of his misery. Ren isn't a villain that was meant to be feared, but a villain met to be both pittied and disgusted about. He surfs constantly between the two.
The ones used were memory flashes if I remember correctly, which was the basis of the whole Jango cloning thing. Where they used the prime being and passed on his knowledge and skills to the other genetic clones.
Though given a quick look at things, it seems like Flash Learning was very specifically just used for clones because of their advanced aging process. So I'm not sure if it was actually something used throughout the galaxy.
@epronovost
So essentially, all of our final villains are meant to be worthless as a challenge then to the Hero's Journey. Hux is a joke and Kylo sounds like he'll be ready killed off or dumped on a nearby non-tech planet to get stuck on forever... So what are the stakes for the final movie then? How is that not boring to have all the villains not really any sort of challenge or threat to the heroes while still trying to portray them as the massive issues our heroes must face?
Went to see the film last night, was 4/5, nice bit of entertainment, enjoyed it, won't create a new paradigm for movie entertainment and turn the world on its head.
I've read reviews online as well as much of this thread and was pretty surprised by how polarising it has been to the movie going public, rather than the movie press. And in some ways it feels like the very things that the critics like about the film (it's daring, doing something a bit different) are what turns off SW fans who are saying that the film isn't Star Wars.
Even though I don't agree, I can kind of see the point. It does shake some principles of the SW universe, and a lot of the ways that I (and I think a lot of fans) thought the plot would develop hadn't come to pass:
Rey from a long lineage of Jedi Knights (Luke's secret daughter etc.?) Nope, just the daughter of some loser junkers that happens to be very powerful with the force.
Did Kylo Ren mean to bring balance to the force with that cryptic "let me finish what you started" comment to Vader's crushed helmet? Nope, at the end of it all, he's just got power for himself.
Is Snoke actually Darth Vader or even the Emperor that survived from Episode VI? Nope, just another baddy, and half the man that those two were.
So I think much of the negative impact has been the film doesn't match what a lot of people's ideas about what SW should be, and the fact that it turns a few things on its head, rather than it expressly not being a good film. I can sympathise a bit with this, after being so hopeful about the Horus Heresy book series actually painting Horus as a believable villain, with his own motivations, rather than 'stabbed by a magic sword - mwa haha'. And it was a disappointment to me that they took the unbelievable 2D villian route and 'a wizard/chaos did it' for that series.
Anyway, I loved the action sequences, some of the space combat in particular, and the pairing of Rey/Kylo at the end of the film against the elite guards was probably one of the coolest things I have seen on film this year. The pacing was good, exciting and I liked the way that again we have seen the passing of the baton from the old guard to the new. Even though at least twice I thought "OK, they must be writing Carrie Fisher out of the story here", only for her to survive in both cases.
I do mind when the moviemakers tout how diverse their cast is, and then limit that diversity only on good guys. All the bad guys are white males. It feels artificial, hypocritical and preachy.
Do you know, not once did it cross my mind "women good, mixed race good, white men bad, OMG". I didn't even notice. I don't know if that means more about me, my upbringing/education or whether I've just not been involved in some of the online cess-pit discussions that seem to have become the norm over the past few years. I think it's so sad that this ongoing polemic seems to be stopping people from just enjoying entertainment for what it is, and not being able to watch, read or experience anything without it being run through a filter of blue vs. red, left vs. right wing.
Physics doesn't exist in this film. Lasers are arching in space...
In the real world light arcs in space, and blasters are very clearly not lasers. Indeed, turbolasers and superlasers are obviously not lasers, lasers basically don't exist in Star Wars.
Still have to lift things/ carry things/ run places / ect.
Then every Star Wars military should be composed entirely of Wookies, regardless of sex or gender. As several people have said you're applying real-world standards to a universe where they don't apply.
In the real world light can change direction by passing through a medium or in the presense of a very large gravity feild. Nether of these occur in the shots from Snokes ship to the resistance vessel. Even if these things were firing projectiles...they would be going straight - forces have to act on a mass for it to change direction. There are no forces in space...it's a vacuum.
In regards to wookies - lacking the ability to say words might be a big problem for them. Appears to be mostly humans in the resistance anyways.
Physics doesn't exist in this film. Lasers are arching in space...
In the real world light arcs in space, and blasters are very clearly not lasers. Indeed, turbolasers and superlasers are obviously not lasers, lasers basically don't exist in Star Wars.
Still have to lift things/ carry things/ run places / ect.
Then every Star Wars military should be composed entirely of Wookies, regardless of sex or gender. As several people have said you're applying real-world standards to a universe where they don't apply.
In the real world light can change direction by passing through a medium or in the presense of a very large gravity feild. Nether of these occur in the shots from Snokes ship to the resistance vessel. Even if these things were firing projectiles...they would be going straight - forces have to act on a mass for it to change direction. There are no forces in space...it's a vacuum.
In regards to wookies - lacking the ability to say words might be a big problem for them. Appears to be mostly humans in the resistance anyways.
Dark Matter. Solved.
Dark matter is theoretical and likely doesn't even exist and if it does is supposed to be concentrated in the center and outer bands of galactic discs. More likely to be the nearby planet affecting the shots anyways. However - even if the blaster shots are some kind a plasma discharge that has mass - it still wouldn't be a pronounced arc like that.
I do mind when the moviemakers tout how diverse their cast is, and then limit that diversity only on good guys. All the bad guys are white males. It feels artificial, hypocritical and preachy.
Do you know, not once did it cross my mind "women good, mixed race good, white men bad, OMG". I didn't even notice. I don't know if that means more about me, my upbringing/education or whether I've just not been involved in some of the online cess-pit discussions that seem to have become the norm over the past few years. I think it's so sad that this ongoing polemic seems to be stopping people from just enjoying entertainment for what it is, and not being able to watch, read or experience anything without it being run through a filter of blue vs. red, left vs. right wing.
I'd like to think I tick all those boxes you list, yet it was very noticeable to me. As said, I don't like too clear real world analogies, or preaching when I go to see fantasy movie. For example, in 'Kingdom of Heaven' all religious people were written as cowards or idiots or cowardly idiots. It was very disturbing, and I'm an atheist. Every time they try to put a message in a movie, it breaks down the fiction and internal consistency and makes it less believable, and takes away from the enjoyment.
I also don't like whitewashing. Or stuff like 'Last Samurai' where they had Tom Cruise lecturing Emperor of Japan what it means to be samurai.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: So essentially, all of our final villains are meant to be worthless as a challenge then to the Hero's Journey. Hux is a joke and Kylo sounds like he'll be ready killed off or dumped on a nearby non-tech planet to get stuck on forever... So what are the stakes for the final movie then? How is that not boring to have all the villains not really any sort of challenge or threat to the heroes while still trying to portray them as the massive issues our heroes must face?
And no, I don't buy that "Second Chance" threat.
Rey wants to save Kylo not kill him. Yes, if Rey was on a murder mission against Kylo Ren, then yes, he would be a pretty bad villain. A sociopathic, narcissic man-child with immense personal power at the head of an army of brainwashed killers is a gigantic threat to a group of heroes who want to prevent the death of innocent people and save the villain from folly. In fact, a mentally unstable villain is more dangerous than a rational one in such a context. The Hero's Journey isn't to defeat an evil warlord and his legion of faceless soldiers. The Hero's Journey is saving the villain from himself and prevent the death of innocent people. They hammered pretty hard in the last few scenes of the movie: "the Resistance isn't about destroying what you hate it's about saving what you love".
To be fair on the Last Samurai, it sort of makes sense to have the Emperor lectured to on what it means to be a samurai, as the Emperor was against the samurai; during the Meiji restoration the Samurai class was abolished.
It was still really dumb, and I'm sure the real emperor always intended to maintain Japan's traditions considering how that's the Emperor's job, but at least there was a sort of historical precedent behind it.
I do mind when the moviemakers tout how diverse their cast is, and then limit that diversity only on good guys. All the bad guys are white males. It feels artificial, hypocritical and preachy.
Do you know, not once did it cross my mind "women good, mixed race good, white men bad, OMG". I didn't even notice. I don't know if that means more about me, my upbringing/education or whether I've just not been involved in some of the online cess-pit discussions that seem to have become the norm over the past few years. I think it's so sad that this ongoing polemic seems to be stopping people from just enjoying entertainment for what it is, and not being able to watch, read or experience anything without it being run through a filter of blue vs. red, left vs. right wing.
I'd like to think I tick all those boxes you list, yet it was very noticeable to me. As said, I don't like too clear real world analogies, or preaching when I go to see fantasy movie. For example, in 'Kingdom of Heaven' all religious people were written as cowards or idiots or cowardly idiots. It was very disturbing, and I'm an atheist. Every time they try to put a message in a movie, it breaks down the fiction and internal consistency and makes it less believable, and takes away from the enjoyment.
I also don't like whitewashing. Or stuff like 'Last Samurai' where they had Tom Cruise lecturing Emperor of Japan what it means to be samurai.
Saladin what not written as an idiot in Kingdom of Heaven. He's the smartest guy in the film (or Bloom). It was also a great film IMO.
Last Samurai wasn't Tom Crusie lecturing the emperor what it means to be samurai (that never actually happens). It was Katsumoto teaching Tom Cruise (Nathan Algren) how to be a man after losing his self to the horrors of war. It was also about the clash of western culture on Japan of course. I love this movie (it might be my favorite movie) - it's not white washing at all. I mean...Crusie's character prefers the Samurai culture to his own.
An example of white-washing is Ghost in the Shell (with Scarlet Johansen) - which I will never see. It was strictly inserting a white woman into a roll a Japanese woman should play. I was furious about this.
An example of white-washing is Ghost in the Shell (with Scarlet Johansen) - which I will never see. It was strictly inserting a white woman into a roll a Japanese woman should play. I was furious about this.
"What issue could there possibly be with casting her?" Oshii told IGN by e-mail. "The Major is a cyborg and her physical form is an entirely assumed one. The name 'Motoko Kusanagi' and her current body are not her original name and body, so there is no basis for saying that an Asian actress must portray her. Even if her original body (presuming such a thing existed) were a Japanese one, that would still apply."
I don't care much for that movie personally though,
Not to stray off topic though.. I didn't really disagree with any of the casting choices in TLJ, Rose felt a bit bland personally but then that's because of how much of her character arc centered around Finn that it felt like she didn't really have much of her own to do. It didn't help that most of what she did during the movie was during the pointless side quest.
Rey wants to save Kylo not kill him. Yes, if Rey was on a murder mission against Kylo Ren, then yes, he would be a pretty bad villain. A sociopathic, narcissic man-child with immense personal power at the head of an army of brainwashed killers is a gigantic threat to a group of heroes who want to prevent the death of innocent people and save the villain from folly. In fact, a mentally unstable villain is more dangerous than a rational one in such a context. The Hero's Journey isn't to defeat an evil warlord and his legion of faceless soldiers. The Hero's Journey is saving the villain from himself and prevent the death of innocent people. They hammered pretty hard in the last few scenes of the movie: "the Resistance isn't about destroying what you hate it's about saving what you love".
It occurred to me yesterday that with this yin-yang setup that they've been building between Rey and Kylo, it seems likely that they will both have to die in the last movie to maintain balance.
Rey wants to save Kylo not kill him. Yes, if Rey was on a murder mission against Kylo Ren, then yes, he would be a pretty bad villain. A sociopathic, narcissic man-child with immense personal power at the head of an army of brainwashed killers is a gigantic threat to a group of heroes who want to prevent the death of innocent people and save the villain from folly. In fact, a mentally unstable villain is more dangerous than a rational one in such a context. The Hero's Journey isn't to defeat an evil warlord and his legion of faceless soldiers. The Hero's Journey is saving the villain from himself and prevent the death of innocent people. They hammered pretty hard in the last few scenes of the movie: "the Resistance isn't about destroying what you hate it's about saving what you love".
It occurred to me yesterday that with this yin-yang setup that they've been building between Rey and Kylo, it seems likely that they will both have to die in the last movie to maintain balance.
Or both live....or have a kid together.
I'm still "unsatisfied" that Rey is not Luke's daughter. It would have been nice symmetry with Kylo being the son of the daughter of the Chosen one, and Rey being the daughter of the son of the Chosen one.
If they are doing a "yin-yang" sort of thing, I can't thing of a better angle.
I suppose Kylo could have lied about Rey's parents being nobodies, or the Force showed him what he wanted to see, but 2 yrs is far too long to hold onto that theory.
Rey wants to save Kylo not kill him. Yes, if Rey was on a murder mission against Kylo Ren, then yes, he would be a pretty bad villain. A sociopathic, narcissic man-child with immense personal power at the head of an army of brainwashed killers is a gigantic threat to a group of heroes who want to prevent the death of innocent people and save the villain from folly. In fact, a mentally unstable villain is more dangerous than a rational one in such a context. The Hero's Journey isn't to defeat an evil warlord and his legion of faceless soldiers. The Hero's Journey is saving the villain from himself and prevent the death of innocent people. They hammered pretty hard in the last few scenes of the movie: "the Resistance isn't about destroying what you hate it's about saving what you love".
It occurred to me yesterday that with this yin-yang setup that they've been building between Rey and Kylo, it seems likely that they will both have to die in the last movie to maintain balance.
Maybe, but I doubt it.
In fact, I can see both of them surviving.
Also, I'm not convinced that Rey's parents are truly 'no one'...
Kylo and the Dark Side Ouija Cave might not be the most reliable sources.
Also, I'm not sure that, even IF that is the case now and what they wanted 'now', that they won't pivot off of that later.
Kylo and the Dark Side Ouija Cave might not be the most reliable sources.
Kylo had every reason to want to lie to her, to isolate her so that he was her crutch and she'd go to him.
For that reason its possible that his statement was a lie; its also likely that she's not related to him otherwise he'd have used that leverage at that point (if he knew it of course).
The Cave meanwhile, if its anything like the dark place in Dagoba (sp) then chances are Rey only took in what she had with her, and since she didn't know her parents that information wasn't in there to find.
The "You know the truth" was a repeated phrase from The Force Awakens, however. Maz said it to Rey when discussing her parents. - I had the quote a couple of pages ago.
I hated it. The writing was lazy, the pacing was all over the place, way too much narration and not enough showing, kylo getting fooled by the specter of luke was unsatisfying, the bending laser or plasma shots, the jump drive ram bomb, the keepers of the jedi island, the double cross that wasn't really a double cross but was totally a double cross...
I hate movies that narrate important parts of the story. Show me, flashback or have the actors actually act (this is probably my number one reason why out of all the reasons why, Dragon Wars is the worst movie of all time) and star wars fell into this so fully.
I really enjoyed rogue one. I felt there were some complicated characters, good pacing and for a disney movie some real life grit to the characters actions and decisions. I went into this movie with hope and couldn't get past the first 10 minutes without being annoyed.
The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, the action scenes did less than the narration to advance/reveal the plot (although the red room fight scene was okay if not a bit slow, the final planet fight was pretty but stupid)
The rich and powerful being rich and powerful was pointless (those the real bad guys, right? But why are they bad? How do you fight that? What is bad/good in that context? Good of the many v. good of the few? Technological progress at what cost? If it takes a planet of slaves to produce a galaxy worth of peace who gets to make that call? That would have been one hell of a movie if that scene had happened in the first couple minutes of the movie and the rest was pointing out how stupid both sides are for killing entire plants to line those guys pockets...But that's not what we got so it just seemed so poorly conceived.
I don't know. I hated it. Okay maybe hate is too strong of a word, it was pretty and the CGI was good but the dialog/acting/script and story were all really bad to me.
I've come to terms with the fact there's just no arguing with people right now. I remember it well in the prequel era, folks just would not listen to the idea that Star Wars films could be bad. It was a good 5 years after the trilogy ended before critical analysis flipped the critics' reviews on their head and 'common consensus' came round to realising the turkeys that we'd been sold.
If you've come into this thread with "I loved every minute" or "up there with the best of Star Wars" then I just want you to think about the scene where Luke is milking that space-Walrus. Milking that teat real good. Squeezing that green milk out. Now he's drinking that freshliy squeezed walrus-teat milk. Drinking it whilst looking at you, holding your eye. Yeah. Look at Luke. Keep looking. Loved every minute, you said.
Riquende wrote: I've come to terms with the fact there's just no arguing with people right now. I remember it well in the prequel era, folks just would not listen to the idea that Star Wars films could be bad. It was a good 5 years after the trilogy ended before critical analysis flipped the critics' reviews on their head and 'common consensus' came round to realising the turkeys that we'd been sold.
If you've come into this thread with "I loved every minute" or "up there with the best of Star Wars" then I just want you to think about the scene where Luke is milking that space-Walrus. Milking that teat real good. Squeezing that green milk out. Now he's drinking that freshliy squeezed walrus-teat milk. Drinking it whilst looking at you, holding your eye. Yeah. Look at Luke. Keep looking. Loved every minute, you said.
I enjoyed it more than all but TESB and ANH. Luke trolling Rey is preferable to all of TPM and AotC and the Ewoks.
If you've come into this thread with "I loved every minute" or "up there with the best of Star Wars" then I just want you to think about the scene where Luke is milking that space-Walrus. Milking that teat real good. Squeezing that green milk out. Now he's drinking that freshliy squeezed walrus-teat milk. Drinking it whilst looking at you, holding your eye. Yeah. Look at Luke. Keep looking. Loved every minute, you said.
Riquende wrote: I've come to terms with the fact there's just no arguing with people right now. I remember it well in the prequel era, folks just would not listen to the idea that Star Wars films could be bad. It was a good 5 years after the trilogy ended before critical analysis flipped the critics' reviews on their head and 'common consensus' came round to realising the turkeys that we'd been sold.
If you've come into this thread with "I loved every minute" or "up there with the best of Star Wars" then I just want you to think about the scene where Luke is milking that space-Walrus. Milking that teat real good. Squeezing that green milk out. Now he's drinking that freshliy squeezed walrus-teat milk. Drinking it whilst looking at you, holding your eye. Yeah. Look at Luke. Keep looking. Loved every minute, you said.
The second time I saw that scene, I was trying to tell if that was a puppet or CGI. I couldn't tell because it was so well crafted. Either way, the studio paid dozens of people hundreds of thousands of dollars for scores of hours of work to get that one gross out gag.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wonder how many Walrus Teats action figures they need to sell to recoup their investment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Then again, the novel Walrus Teats: Collision Course, which explains the background and personal struggle of Walrus Teats, will probably be a NYT Bestseller with tie-in video game, so it's all good.
And I HATED TPM and AotC when they came out. I did like RotS enough at the time to rank it above RotJ, but my opinion of it has declined over time. I don't recall anyone in person saying that the prequels were anything other than mediocre at best. Cool visuals, maybe a decent fight, but excessively childish.
I genuinely don't understand the praise for George Lucas and disdain for Disney's comedy bits when Lucas did the following:
Special edition RotJ burlesque show
Ewoks...ever
Greedo shot first...for reasons
Jar Jar Binks
Constant poop jokes
Screw it, all of TPM. "Are you an angel?" "Now THIS IS podracing!" Anakin blowing up the control ship, racist characters, etc.
AotC - Deathsticks, I hate sand-it gets everywhere, Backflipping Yoda
RotS - Yoda AND Sidious do backflips now. Oh, and the terrible Mustafar fight that devolved into a glowstick dance.
And he also signed off on the Clone Wars being made. 19% RT and 68 million Box Office (okay it was only a 9mil budget), but still.
Hell, Lucas intended to just use Star Wars sequels (and let others direct) as a revenue stream for his "real" films, but panicked after TESB had a lower box office.
TLDR: It's pretty safe to say that while he may be the "creator" I don't think he really cared all that much.
I'm confused... What was gross about it? Do people honestly have issues with the idea that milk comes from animals?
First of all, it wasn't pasteurized.
Second...sigh.
You may not have been grossed out by it, but the existence and timing of the scene, from panning to the udders to the milking to Luke swigging and offering the green milk to Rey, argue against it being a part of either character's arc or important plot exposition. Therefore the reasonable conclusion is that it was framed and paced differently from surrounding scenes because it was inserted as a comedy beat in the middle of Luke's mountain man montage. But there's nothing funny about a man drinking milk unless he does a spit take or it is disgusting in some way. He doesn't do a spit take, so by the process of elimination, it's a gross out gag. If you didn't find it funny then you are among those rarified ranks of people who thought the humor didn't land in this movie. Congratulations!
But yeah, it was a gross out gag, even if not a good one. Welcome to film making in the 2010's.
insaniak wrote: Meh, I just took it as a part of showing his off-the-grid lifestyle, and a fun nod back to the blue milk in ANH.
It was also those things.
Like, if they showed him wiping his butt with purple seaweed, it would demonstrate his off the grid lifestyle, and be a fun nod back to the existence of the Special Editions, but it would also be gross and likely only included if it was meant to be funny.
The milking scene was unexpected, but honestly if it were a feral cow he milked and drank from everyone would be going "where the heck did they get a freaking cow? Seriously it should have been some strange alien thing"
insaniak wrote: Meh, I just took it as a part of showing his off-the-grid lifestyle, and a fun nod back to the blue milk in ANH.
It was also those things.
Like, if they showed him wiping his butt with purple seaweed, it would demonstrate his off the grid lifestyle, and be a fun nod back to the existence of the Special Editions, but it would also be gross and likely only included if it was meant to be funny.
I know that you know humor is relative and all that, but...you might be reading stuff into that scene that isn't there AND wasn't intended...
Overread wrote: The milking scene was unexpected, but honestly if it were a feral cow he milked and drank from everyone would be going "where the heck did they get a freaking cow? Seriously it should have been some strange alien thing"
Maybe this is an urban/rural thing, but everyone in the theater here in the city went "eww" at that scene. If he had milked a cow and drank the milk immediately, they still would have said, "eww" but maybe not as enthusiastically.
insaniak wrote: Meh, I just took it as a part of showing his off-the-grid lifestyle, and a fun nod back to the blue milk in ANH.
It was also those things.
Like, if they showed him wiping his butt with purple seaweed, it would demonstrate his off the grid lifestyle, and be a fun nod back to the existence of the Special Editions, but it would also be gross and likely only included if it was meant to be funny.
I know that you know humor is relative and all that, but...you might be reading stuff into that scene that isn't there AND wasn't intended...
Well, then I'm far from alone. If the green milk drinking was not intended in any way to be funny and gross it sadly failed as hard as Holdo's leadership.
I think the "ew" bit is expected. It's an alien and its green so its "abnormal" to most people so its expected. Much as people not accustomed to drinking straight from a cow would likely go a bit ew at that as well (don't forget most milk is pasteurised and processed, even those fully familiar with where milk comes from might easily consider it "dirty" without being processed before consumption).
Overread wrote: I think the "ew" bit is expected. It's an alien and its green so its "abnormal" to most people so its expected. Much as people not accustomed to drinking straight from a cow would likely go a bit ew at that as well (don't forget most milk is pasteurised and processed, even those fully familiar with where milk comes from might easily consider it "dirty" without being processed before consumption).
As someone who lives on a farm with cattle (not dairy, thankfully), the reaction should be 'Ew.' They are not clean creatures, particularly this time of year- they're quite happy to lay down in their own crap as insulation.
It's completely a gross out gag. It certainly doesn't come off as an 'off the grid,' thing, given the sudden appearance of (apparently invisibility-capable) caretakers who just randomly show up after the 7th or 8th hard camera cut.
Overread wrote:The milking scene was unexpected, but honestly if it were a feral cow he milked and drank from everyone would be going "where the heck did they get a freaking cow? Seriously it should have been some strange alien thing"
Eh. Considering all the other things crammed on the tiny island that turn up unexpectedly, I'd put that reaction fairly far down on the list. A space cow probably would have been comforting, rather than a weird bipedal walrus that was rather slimy and oddly textured, with teats in the wrong place for a biped, and an inviting looking in her eye.
It's completely a gross out gag. It certainly doesn't come off as an 'off the grid,' thing, given the sudden appearance of (apparently invisibility-capable) caretakers who just randomly show up after the 7th or 8th hard camera cut.
I don't think they 'suddenly' showed up... I think it was just supposed to convey that Rey wasn't aware they were there until she snapped out of her vision.
Well, I finally saw it. It's been interesting staying away from spoilers and yet being peripherally aware of the conversation around it. I liked it, and I think I'll probably like it more the more I think about it.
I learned (re-learned?) a lot from the recent Twin Peaks revival about being aware of how I experience my entertainment, and not making demands upon it that really aren't mine to make. The director made some decisions that were never going to please a fanbase with many strong yet heterogeneous demands. And when I step back and forget about my own egotistical expectations, I think that most of his choices were what they had to be.
I haven't read all 50-odd pages of this thread -- just the last couple, actually -- and unfortunately the space cow milk discussion is the kind of thing I expected to see.
It's completely a gross out gag. It certainly doesn't come off as an 'off the grid,' thing, given the sudden appearance of (apparently invisibility-capable) caretakers who just randomly show up after the 7th or 8th hard camera cut.
I don't think they 'suddenly' showed up... I think it was just supposed to convey that Rey wasn't aware they were there until she snapped out of her vision.
However, she didn't notice them after arriving, while wandering around the island, while resting, eating or before going to sleep. Mystic Vision blindness is one thing, not noticing people while exploring, wandering around, eating in the courtyard or even who is in the little huts next to yours is just taking oblivious to a whole new level. Especially in a completely new and alien environment, for someone who probably had to pay attention and sleep lightly around greedy scavengers and whatever dangers existed on not-Tatooine.
If you've come into this thread with "I loved every minute" or "up there with the best of Star Wars" then I just want you to think about the scene where Luke is milking that space-Walrus. Milking that teat real good. Squeezing that green milk out. Now he's drinking that freshliy squeezed walrus-teat milk. Drinking it whilst looking at you, holding your eye. Yeah. Look at Luke. Keep looking. Loved every minute, you said.
I liked that scene. What's your point?
Me too, we drink milk from animals teats everyday. At least I do, a big fresh cup every morning. When I call over to my cousins house i get a cup straight from the cows, unpasteurised creamy. Leaves you with a proper milk moustache. It’s lovely, we are a family of farmers and he does dairy.
If your one of these people who thinks milk comes from Tesco’s then you have the problem.
Riquende wrote: I've come to terms with the fact there's just no arguing with people right now. I remember it well in the prequel era, folks just would not listen to the idea that Star Wars films could be bad. It was a good 5 years after the trilogy ended before critical analysis flipped the critics' reviews on their head and 'common consensus' came round to realising the turkeys that we'd been sold.
Thinking back I think you may be mistaken there. I seem to remember Phantom Menace getting rather average reviews at the time, certainly nothing like the reception from critics that The Last Jedi has received. I do think though that the levels of hype were unreal for that film, and there was absolutely no way they could have met the expectations of fans and critics (although that doesn't stop those films from being fundamentally flawed, and missing the core ethos of Star Wars and them being a bit of swashbuckling entertainment.)
Certainly remember the Matrix coming out at a similar time and blowing everyone away, and it creeping up on everyone because all of the attention was on TPM.
Yeah, TPM was widely criticised from the get go, largely for the pod race being way too long, Anakin and Jar Jar being way too annoying, and the plot just generally making no sense.
And IIRC, the two following movies got fairly mixed reactions from both fans and critics, also right from the start.
By this point, people are well across the idea that Star Wars movies can be bad movies. As much as I still enjoy the prequels, I'm aware of their flaws, and so my expectations for the current crop of movies were low.
The reason people are disagreeing with the claim that TLJ is a bad movie isn't anything to do with wearing blinkers where Star Wars is concerned... It's simply because some of us don't think it was a bad movie.
insaniak wrote: It's simply because some of us don't think it was a bad movie.
I actually think its the best Starwars Movie since the original 3
Personally I wish they'd made it a little longer to squeeze in a short scene or two about having a spy on the cruiser. That would neatly explain why the generals didn't give any of their commanders or staff order as to what their overall plan was. That would explain why the lead characters remained ignorant of the overall master plan; and also why they didn't just leap into hyperspace in the transports or escape pods etc... I get the feeling that there was a spy sup-plot there but that it potentially got cut out because of the films overall length.
I had deliberately stayed away from this forum until I saw the movie. Any of my friends who had watched it had loved it. I loved it. It seems this hasn’t passed into the internet world. There it is, I suppose people have different tastes. But I’m slightly sad at some comments because I really believe some people really don’t want to like the new films. I get that rogue one was awesome as it moved away from the main cast and I hope we see plenty more like that but the current trilogy needs to be made to wrap up the skywalker family story.
Star Wars isn’t my fav sci fi genre, 40k is because it’s serious, moody and desperate. Star Wars is cheesy, emotional, funny and cool. I love it for what it is. I think people are looking for 40k in Star Wars that’s not going to happen.
Knockagh wrote: Star Wars isn’t my fav sci fi genre, 40k is because it’s serious, moody and desperate. Star Wars is cheesy, emotional, funny and cool. I love it for what it is. I think people are looking for 40k in Star Wars that’s not going to happen.
Not in a Star Wars movie, no, but it has been done in video games like KOTOR and other parts of the old EU. KOTOR set the standard for a serious and moody Star Wars story. And I want to see a movie adaptation of KOTOR 1 & 2. Even an animated movie.
Knockagh wrote: ...the current trilogy needs to be made to wrap up the skywalker family story.
That is the exact opposite of what the sequel trilogy has done. At the end of Return of the Jedi Luke had helped Anakin find redemption in death, and Luke and Leia had restored the family honour by destroying the evil Empire that their father had helped to build - the perfect ending to the Skywalker family story. The Force Awakens undid this by adding a new generation of genocidal Skywalker, and due to deaths both in and out of universe there is no longer anyone left to expunge this new stain on the Skywalker name. Luke, Han and Carrie Fisher are all dead; all that is left of the Skywalkers is Darth Columbine.
Luke defeated the Emperor and the Alliance beat the Empire back; but at the end of Return of the Jedi things were still very much in turmoil. Honestly I wish Disney would do another "Rogue One" style story going over the events between films 6 and 7 - ergo detailing the rise of the new Republic and then its struggles and the rise of the First Order. Its' clear that whilst the Empire was hated the Republic didn't sweep in and take over super fast (indeed the last two films suggest that many systems are still pretty much running on their own or in alliances of their own.
Alpharius wrote: Also, I'm not convinced that Rey's parents are truly 'no one'...
With good reason, meta-textually. The main lesson of TLJ looking forward is that nothing in TLJ may matter at all in terms of what is important to Episode IX.
Been mulling it over, and starting to come down on the 'I don't like it' side, as broadly;
I think the uneven jumble of good bits vs bad bits imply design by a far too large committee
Choosing to embracing that whole 'this ain't yer daddys Star War son' vibe was ill judged and the critical shizz-kicking BvS / MoS took should have been a warning how badly that path can go
Too long, a good 30mins could be taken out
Going to give it another watch next week in case I was in the wrong mindset
I've had a long think, and I think the biggest issue with the new trilogy is the time they are set at.
What Disney want is a soft reboot, a newish term for a sequel that also counts as a "restart the clock" moment. Just like Jurassic World was.
However. Disney also wanted to bring in people from the original trilogy, so you could bring along the rose tinted glasses from people's childhood.
But in doing so, they have ended up breaking people's thoughts on the original trilogy as the new ones are stamping all over it. RotJ was a good final film, it wraps everything up nicely. The good guys have won, the bad guys are dead and everyone is happy.
TFA and TLJ have pooped all over this ending. Now, if it was set 100 years post RotJ it would be a different story. You'd still have the legacy of the original trilogy and then be able to bring in new blood.
Except Disney tried to milk 2 cash cows, and it hasn't done so as well as it could.
I don't think they've "pooped" all over Return of the Jedi. Remember that film only detailed the very final battle and a general celebration in the light of the death of the Emperor. It didn't cover any of the political fallout of the fall of Imperial control or anything that came after.
Like I've said; all Disney needs is to make a film or TV series that covers that time period that leads up to the rise of the First Order (honestly that should have been the first film, but First Order was already far too developed at that stage and the Republic already breaking).
If they cover that period leading into that film then it sets things up fine. It's totally expected that trying to restore a Republic on a Galactic scale after a massive fall of the old order would indeed run the risk of being fractured and breaking. We can even see this many times over in our own history on one planet where old empires crumble. Even if they peacefully end many nations can push for independence. Just look at how the British Empire has steadily dwindled despite winning WWII [here endeth the stupidly rough analogy].
First Order, outside of its diabolical leader, might even represent some return to Imperial order and life that many might well desire to have again (one assumes that not all worlds under Imperial control had a bad lot).
I do agree that the first of the new trilogy was a bit of a mess; trying to cover way too much at the same time as trying to set things up whilst removing some older characters etc.... It tried to squeeze in too much and diluted all that it had. This second film is similar, but I think manages to squeeze it all in much better.
Knockagh wrote: I had deliberately stayed away from this forum until I saw the movie. Any of my friends who had watched it had loved it. I loved it. It seems this hasn’t passed into the internet world. There it is, I suppose people have different tastes. But I’m slightly sad at some comments because I really believe some people really don’t want to like the new films. I get that rogue one was awesome as it moved away from the main cast and I hope we see plenty more like that but the current trilogy needs to be made to wrap up the skywalker family story.
Star Wars isn’t my fav sci fi genre, 40k is because it’s serious, moody and desperate. Star Wars is cheesy, emotional, funny and cool. I love it for what it is. I think people are looking for 40k in Star Wars that’s not going to happen.
I don't agree. I'm not even sure where this is coming from- I can't think of anyone looking for Grim Derp in Star Wars. Generally they're looking for a coherent but simple story, and some good lines. Not finding it, they get cranky. It has very little to do with 'not wanting' to like the new films.
Though, for a few nitpicks- 'Star Wars' isn't a genre.
And neither it nor 40k are Sci-Fi. They're Space Fantasy. No pretense at science, lots of 'wizards did it.'
Nor is 40k serious- if it ever comes across that way, either you or the author(s) have messed up in some fashion.
As for the Skywalker family story- it WAS wrapped up and fully complete. It was time for the OT characters to step into mentor roles and hand over the reins, not dig them up and beat them like dead horses. Instead they've made a mess out of coherent story with a narratively satisfying end, because they didn't feel like the new characters or story were strong enough to stand on their own.
They've basically backed themselves into two choices with the skywalker legacy: either go full monster with Emo Ren, and then kill him (and the legacy) in a horrible-yet-justifiable fashion, or pull some sort of last minute hackneyed redemption arc and send him off to an island to make babies. Thus breaking ground to redo this trilogy every decade or so.
Like I've said; all Disney needs is to make a film or TV series that covers that time period that leads up to the rise of the First Order (honestly that should have been the first film, but First Order was already far too developed at that stage and the Republic already breaking).
Already done, in books and computer games. It's bad enough that it doesn't ever need to be repeated on-screen.
I liked the film enormously by though the many points raised in the last few pages stopped it from being a great film
I get the feeling that allot of the pointless side stuff an weirdness may have been an effort from Disney to appeal to the Chinese market.
My daughter (9yo) loved it and I have now got a demand for a whole pile of Lego Star Wars kits. Sigh, mission accomplished Disney, mission accomplished.
gorgon wrote: I liked it, and I think I'll probably like it more the more I think about it.
I've been the opposite. I liked it more as the credits rolled and less as time has gone on.
That said I still like it and will probably see it again when it comes out on bluray/itunes/TV/whatever.
Well, I think that no creative work can stand up to certain types of reflection and dissection (not saying that you're doing that, just that some of that is definitely going on out there with TLJ).
What I've been reflecting on is how the movie is a commentary on Luke Skywalker as a character...who also seems to represent the SW franchise as a whole. Ultimately, what Luke couldn't overcome were demands and expectations. It's an unwinnable fight. The movie even gives us an idealized Luke who seems to meet those expectations and be winning the unwinnable fight, until we're reminded that it's an impossible illusion. And in fact the effort to meet those expectations kills him, just as trying to service fans would ultimately kill the SW franchise.
Some may certainly disagree about the execution of all of this, but I think there are some actual smarts and ideas at work here. And personally I think the idea of the movie being written by committee or the studio is 180 degrees from the truth. I can clearly see the voice of the director with this film, and that stands in stark contrast to the other big franchise at Disney right now.
Sorry...I've probably rehashed ground already trod 40 pages ago. I've stayed away from all reviews and spoilers for the past couple weeks. *shrug*
If we DID have a case of having the tweaks to the plot being:
Luke is eventually inspired by Rey and agrees to train her more thoroughly than he does (but keep the various trolling aspects that were funny, eg the 'tickling').
Have the astral projection confrontation with Kylo.
Have Luke survive and recover from it.
Then go on and have Luke trying, once again, to refound the Order, while Rey "has her own battles to fight."
Essentially, make Luke the Professor Xavier of the new Star Wars series..
We've never seen astrol projection like that before, it might be that projecting enough to have a physical effect on the world at one end has a similar effect on him at the other end. Ergo he can be shot a bazillion times to no harm, but during the fight his sabre and body clearly influence the world around him which might take its toll on his physical body.
Also my impression is that Luke is mentally burned out. We've seen that Jedi seem to have a very isolationist view of the world - Yoda, Ben, Luke - all went basically into hiding and isolate themselves. It seems that without a large body of other Jedi to keep things running, most Jedi will seek isolation.
So Luke spends decades isolated brooding his failure and likely having some feeling that all he fought for was being picked apart by politicians and all the good of the Republic was being ground down.
This is without considering the influence of the Dark Side also playing a part in things.
So I think in part Luke wanted to die; or at least to pass over. To end his torment. Sure that's not hte hero we once had, but I can see how the hero became the man that failed and that it tore him apart. When he saw Rey coming together I suspect he felt he could do more good as a guiding spirit than as a physical person everyone was hoping would sweep in and save everyone.
gorgon wrote: What I've been reflecting on is how the movie is a commentary on Luke Skywalker as a character...who also seems to represent the SW franchise as a whole. Ultimately, what Luke couldn't overcome were demands and expectations. It's an unwinnable fight. The movie even gives us an idealized Luke who seems to meet those expectations and be winning the unwinnable fight, until we're reminded that it's an impossible illusion. And in fact the effort to meet those expectations kills him, just as trying to service fans would ultimately kill the SW franchise.
Anyone who thinks like that has no business writing a Star Wars sequel, because not being that kind of bs is part of the reason why Star Wars was successful in the first place. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that if Disney kills their $4 billion investment it will not be because they made movies that respected the themes and events of the original trilogy (because they haven't).
Compel wrote: Surely that would have gone down better?
Well sure, but should films be judged primarily on how easily they're digested?
It would have been easy enough to do any number of things to better serve fans...or at least some of them. Again, just look at the other big Disney franchise. I'm glad they didn't go that route though.
gorgon wrote: What I've been reflecting on is how the movie is a commentary on Luke Skywalker as a character...who also seems to represent the SW franchise as a whole. Ultimately, what Luke couldn't overcome were demands and expectations. It's an unwinnable fight. The movie even gives us an idealized Luke who seems to meet those expectations and be winning the unwinnable fight, until we're reminded that it's an impossible illusion. And in fact the effort to meet those expectations kills him, just as trying to service fans would ultimately kill the SW franchise.
Anyone who thinks like that has no business writing a Star Wars sequel, because not being that kind of bs is part of the reason why Star Wars was successful in the first place. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that if Disney kills their $4 billion investment it will not be because they made movies that respected the themes and events of the original trilogy (because they haven't).
What does 'respecting themes and events' mean though? If you can provide a definition that means something other than fan service, I'd love to hear it.
TLJ is a creative work by a creative professional empowered by the studio to tell the story he wants to tell. He can break whatever eggs he wants. The SW universe isn't ours, and we don't get to say what the stories told in it 'should be' or 'need to be'. Personally, I'm glad for the gift of a SW film that I can actually chew on a little, instead of being the equivalent of a safe, predictable, mediocre meal at a chain restaurant. Maybe the flavors in TLJ weren't balanced, or perhaps he used too much or too little seasoning. But at least he tried to serve us something interesting.
On the other hand, using the food analogy, TLJ can be seen as going to a restaurant to order mac and cheese and getting boiled yak stomach because the chef thought you might like a surprise instead of a tired old favorite.
But has anyone actually died from using too much force before?
Luminous beams are extremely deleterious to crude matter. Rocks, X-Wings, no different! Only Different in your mind! But don't push it by trying a frigate or something. Die you could.
gorgon wrote: What does 'respecting themes and events' mean though? If you can provide a definition that means something other than fan service, I'd love to hear it.
The most consistent theme of the original trilogy is "Don't abandon your friends and family." In the first movie, Han returns at the Rebellion's darkest hour to save Luke from Darth Vader, allowing him to destroy the Death Star. In the second movie, Luke rejects the teachings of the Jedi that demand that he abandon his attachments to his friends and instead goes to rescue them - he loses a hand in the process, but everyone except Han escape only because Luke brought R2D2 with him, and the movie ends as the mission to rescue Han from Jabba begins. In the third movie, rescuing Han from Jabba makes up the first act, and in the end the Emperor is destroyed because Luke again rejects the teachings of the Jedi and saves his father from the Dark Side.
What happens in the new trilogy? The first movie has undone Han's character development by having him abandon Leia and their son at their darkest hour, returning to smuggling instead. When he tries to redeem his son he is killed, achieving nothing. The second movie has undone Luke's character development by having him try to murder his nephew and then abandon the galaxy when he turned to the Dark Side. When he returns to save Leia and what's left of the Resistance Rian Johnson handles it in the worst way possible: he doesn't return in person, but he is killed for it anyway.
Imagine the sequel trilogy was being made by somebody who hated the original trilogy like Verhoeven hated Starship Troopers - how would you distinguish it from what Disney is currently making?
Characters don't just develop like levels in a computer game. People are fragile and can be broken as much as they can be built up. Han and Luke both suffered when Kylo turned to the dark. That fragile moment broke them all. Don't forget it wasn't just Kylo running away; he slaughtered the other (or at least multiple other as its hinted that he took several students with him) students. He did what Vader did, he became Vader. Even if for only a moment,.
Consider how crushing that is to have fought a huge war against a huge empire and a monster like Darth Vader only for your son/student to become that monster almost reborn.
It crushed Luke very fast, esp because he also fell to the Dark Side for that short moment and caused the fall of Kylo. Han it st rikes me took longer, but went into brooding and I guess one day just didn't fly back from whereever he went too.
To my mind those characters all developed along a very realistic and human pathway. Sure its not the classic "hero" pathway because that wasn't the story being told. Heck a huge part of Lukes attempted message is that he isn't a hero, he is just a man, he isn't some amazing hero from a story who can sweep in and save everyone
What happens in the new trilogy? The first movie has undone Han's character development by having him abandon Leia and their son at their darkest hour, returning to smuggling instead. When he tries to redeem his son he is killed, achieving nothing.
Alternatively, Han left Leia because he had come to the conclusion that she was better off without him, but returned at the time of the Resistance's darkest hour to help two people he had only just met, and then died trying to redeem his son, planting a seed of doubt in Kylo Ren's mind about his commitment to the Dark Side...
The second movie has undone Luke's character development by having him try to murder his nephew and then abandon the galaxy when he turned to the Dark Side. When he returns to save Leia and what's left of the Resistance Rian Johnson handles it in the worst way possible: he doesn't return in person, but he is killed for it anyway.
Except he didn't try to murder his nephew. He considered it momentarily, and that momentary weakness resulted in disaster. And the way Johnson handled it is perfect for Luke's character ... the guy who beat the Emperor by throwing his lightsaber away defeated Kylo Ren without laying a finger on him.
Imagine the sequel trilogy was being made by somebody who hated the original trilogy like Verhoeven hated Starship Troopers - how would you distinguish it from what Disney is currently making?
I imagine that it might involve some sort of nonsensical, convoluted political plot, a deconstructed Jedi Order led by idiots, some absolutely atrocious dialogue (say, maybe a love scene where someone tells someone else that they love them because they're nicer than sand), a redesign of Yoda into some sort of completely different (yellow!) species, an over-reliance on CGI and retconning the Force from some sort of binding energy field into a bacterial infection...
I think I finally figured out what was really bugging me about this movie.
seeing lukes xwing at the bottom of the ocean.
so ok, luke sunk his ship because he didn't want to leave, but how did R2 get back to leia? Did luke take another astromech with him and just toss the new droid in the ocean with the ship? is that what freaked out R2 as he barely missed that fate?
If R2 did go with luke then he would have had the exact location for him.
This is the kind of sloppy writing and lack of understanding how things work in the star wars universe that had me eagerly awaiting the end of the movie so I could get out of there.
Welp finally got around to seeing it. There were some really good parts in it, and there were parts I that were just a bit too cheesy. Part of me is mostly disappointed because the general plot managed to defy convention at various points, really dangling the "will they won't they" right until the ending but there were just too many cheesy moments that pulled me back with "wait seriously?" The most egregious for me actually is;
Spoiler:
When Rose stops Fin from Kamikazing the battering ram cannon, which by the way is a terrible name come on we could have done better than that. That whole scene was like, okay yey I'm kind of glad Fin is still alive but come on it looked like his whole blaze of glory thing was gonna work and maybe save everyone and you're what, saving him because all those rebels who died in the opening scene apparently weren't loved enough? Just kind of jarring to me. I think Fin and Rose's excellent adventure was easily the worst part of the film mostly because it was hammy even by Star Wars standards and felt kind of forced. Honestly it feels like they could have cut that whole section of the movie, and just said the Rebels didn't have enough fuel to jump away again after the Empire found them with a prove or patrol (or you know, had the Empire-like guys remember Interdictors exist) and had a much more compelling space fight aspect. That Ren blew up the entire fighter bay feels less like adding tension and more like saving the budget by not having an epic space battle...)
I love how Fin not only apparently knows the exact layout of Starkiller Base but Snokes ship too. This kid must have been the best damn sanitation worker in the whole first order. And then there's Rose who is apparently so unimportant that she's just working in the underbelly of the ship all the time but that doesn't stop her from instantly knowing how a once thought impossible technology works... And Rey now knows how to lift rocks and fight like a pro with a light saber after getting only 2 of 3 promised lessons from Luke, none of which were actually about lifting rocks or fighting with a lightsaber... Even I think they're starting to stretch things in this universe with how characters just know/are able to do things. And then there's Poe's plot which I think is actually the strongest part of the film but is undermined by the stupidity of its basic premise. What is so key about the escape plan that the Vice Admiral isn't telling one of all two hundred people on their about to be destroyed ship about it? Honestly if Poe hadn't tried to three man scheme his way to victory it would have probably worked and he wouldn't have tried to three man scheme his way to victory if he knew what the plan was. Not telling him seemed more like stupidity than preventing him from being a loose cannon cause not knowing and feeling like no one was doing anything was what made him shoot his loose canon in the first place.
Also the whole "hope" bit was hammered on there so much and so hard I just kind of started laughing at it. It's just weird watching this movie really slather on the idealistic optimism while acknowledge that the majority of the galaxy doesn't give enough of a damn to get involved, and when it does is mostly just double dealing to increase their profits. Kind of feels like a half-baked cop out from a darker plot presenting the entire conflict as fundamentally meaningless to the broader galaxy cause most people will just go on living regardless of who wins which conveniently fits in better with Luke's whole "the Jedi need to die" bit.
There's a lot I like in The Last Jedi (solid 7/10) but damn is there just some stupid stuff in there too.
So, I haven't seen it yet. However, I came across a review that pretty much sums up my fears. And it made me laugh like a little kid which is something I haven't done in a long time. Enjoy.
Overread wrote: Also my impression is that Luke is mentally burned out. We've seen that Jedi seem to have a very isolationist view of the world - Yoda, Ben, Luke - all went basically into hiding and isolate themselves. It seems that without a large body of other Jedi to keep things running, most Jedi will seek isolation.
Yoda and Obi-Wan were alone because they were hiding from the Empire, not because Jedi are especially isolationist. They probably just find it easier to hide from Vader and Palpatine when they're alone on a backwater planet than when they're in public. Also probably want to avoid getting innocents killed if they are found.
I get the feeling that allot of the pointless side stuff an weirdness may have been an effort from Disney to appeal to the Chinese market.
Vaguely curious... why would the pointless side stuff and weirdness appeal to Chinese audiences?
The whole badly tagged on Rose plot/character who is shocked to encounter slavery and gambling, in a galaxy where it seems common enough, at the hands of perfidious weapons dealing capitalists. It’s beautiful in it’s ham-fisted design to both appeal to Chinese censors and the poor barstards that live with it.
Despite my Attempts to avoid spoilers I did see one interview with the lady that plays Rose and it sounds like she has been publicising the film for about six months across Asia prior to release. It really shows the limits of Disney’s creative thinking and it’s cynical marketing through the product rather than because of it.
I get the feeling that allot of the pointless side stuff an weirdness may have been an effort from Disney to appeal to the Chinese market.
Vaguely curious... why would the pointless side stuff and weirdness appeal to Chinese audiences?
The whole badly tagged on Rose plot/character who is shocked to encounter slavery and gambling, in a galaxy where it seems common enough, at the hands of perfidious weapons dealing capitalists. It’s beautiful in it’s ham-fisted design to both appeal to Chinese censors and the poor barstards that live with it.
Despite my Attempts to avoid spoilers I did see one interview with the lady that plays Rose and it sounds like she has been publicising the film for about six months across Asia prior to release. It really shows the limits of Disney’s creative thinking and it’s cynical marketing through the product rather than because of it.
The themes of right/wrong and helping to propagate wars (as generally being a bad thing), of fighting for something you believe in it is, vs the futility of it, are themes running throughout the film and not just restricted to that part of it. I don't think the scene was put in just to appeal to Chinese censors, even though I did think it was one of the weaker areas of the film.
Asia is a massive market for Hollywood - even Arnold Schwarzenegger went on tour for Terminator Genisys, then you read that the film made as much in asia as it did the rest of the world and you realise why as it stopped the film studio from making such a loss on what would otherwise have been a box office disaster. When you've got a market of 500 million middle class or whatever it is now out in China then a voracious marketing animal like Disney is always going to have to give some thought to pleasing that market (although hopefully it only goes as far as not having a plot line of an evil general Chang, with his army of chinobots trying to destroy freedom Capitalism)
When I lived out in S Korea it was pretty common to have Hollywood actors on TV shows, quite often looking bemused and probably wondering whether they should change their manager, although in this case it presumably made sense to use the Asian actor (in the same way that Matt Damon was used as a hook in the west for that Great Wall film)
Yeah it's weird. I enjoyed it a lot, and usually films with that much wonky stuff twerk me way to much for me to enjoy it but I did. The parts I liked I just liked. I seem to have had an opposite reaction to Luke's arc from a lot of people (I thought it was very good and fitting). I thought that on the whole Rey and Poe's arcs were good, if filled with cheesy nonsense and questionable underpinnings and while I didn't like Fin's arc because it seemed pointless I do still like Fin. Out of the three actors portraying the new MC's I like John Boyega the most. Most of the cheesy nonsense is stuff I'm used to from Star Wars, so I guess I'm not as put off by it as normal even though far more attention was called to it than normal.
So for me I guess that's a 7/10, which to me is "It's fun but I'll probably only watch it when it happens to be on TV."
EDIT: Honestly the winner for movies I saw for the first time this week is Jumangi: Welcome to the Jungle. There was no point in that movie where I wasn't amused and enjoying myself and it even shocked my by turning the ditzy blonde played by Jack Black into my favorite character!
gorgon wrote: I liked it, and I think I'll probably like it more the more I think about it.
I've been the opposite. I liked it more as the credits rolled and less as time has gone on.
That said I still like it and will probably see it again when it comes out on bluray/itunes/TV/whatever.
Well, I think that no creative work can stand up to certain types of reflection and dissection (not saying that you're doing that, just that some of that is definitely going on out there with TLJ).
I think for me I liked it more when I watched it simply because of the world they created which can draw me in to an otherwise bad or mediocre movie, but when the stories and character arcs within the movie fall flat it wears off pretty quick.
Things like Luke feeling out of character, Rey being a shallow character and all the plot absurdities aren't likely to make me jump up and storm out of the cinema, but they do leave a bad taste in my mouth afterwards.
The more I think about TLJ the more I dislike the fight in the throne room. Ray is very powerful with her lightsaber. Kilo is weak in that whole fight. (Which makes Ray look even stronger.) But what really bothers me is, Kilo is a "powerful" force user as shown in TFA. Why wasn't he using the force to win that fight. And how many of those red ninjas were there in that room? Seemed like a never ending supply of red ninjas.
I'm fairly sure Kylo utterly dominates most of the guard while Rey struggles with just one or two (Chain Guy and Two Swords). He's grappled at the end but until then, acquits himself very well against four guys at once.
Why would a powerful Jedi even use a lightsaber, when they could just use the force to destroy entire rooms?
I think the Force takes more endurance than most realise to use effectively. So yes you could start throwing the people around, but at the same time you'd lose your endurance fast. So they might take out one or two and then suddenly you've hardly got the strength to lift your lightsabre.
Concentration might also be a factor, the heat of battle and rush of adrenaline could make it very hard to control Force powers. In fact when you think of it we rarely see Force Powers used in battle.
It could also just be training "you use Force here and here, but here you use the light sabre"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Overread wrote: Also my impression is that Luke is mentally burned out. We've seen that Jedi seem to have a very isolationist view of the world - Yoda, Ben, Luke - all went basically into hiding and isolate themselves. It seems that without a large body of other Jedi to keep things running, most Jedi will seek isolation.
Yoda and Obi-Wan were alone because they were hiding from the Empire, not because Jedi are especially isolationist. They probably just find it easier to hide from Vader and Palpatine when they're alone on a backwater planet than when they're in public. Also probably want to avoid getting innocents killed if they are found.
Thing is they don't just go into hiding, they go into a full hermit mode level of hiding. When you see how key the are in the War and in the Jedi order before the rise of the Empire you are kind of left wondering why a character like Yoda doesn't just go into hiding but totally isolates himself when, at the point he went into hiding, he was one of the key leaders.
It's a curious observation we only really get after the three prequel films because its a side of him we never saw. In the original 3 he was an old, wise teacher rather than someone who led armies, dealt with politics and was a major leader.
notprop wrote:
The whole badly tagged on Rose plot/character who is shocked to encounter slavery and gambling, in a galaxy where it seems common enough, at the hands of perfidious weapons dealing capitalists. It’s beautiful in it’s ham-fisted design to both appeal to Chinese censors and the poor barstards that live with it.
I don't know if slavery is common enough, when you consider how big the Galaxy is its perfectly possible for characters to be raised on a world, like Naboo, where slavery just wouldn't even enter into their minds as a thing. If she grew up on one of the more core worlds (which by and large seem to be more what we'd consider civilized) then slavery at least might not be a thing.
I do agree that the leaving the Cruiser to find the hacker part was a bit ham-fisted. I still swing back to the view that a spy on the cruiser should have been a plot aspect and thus a stronger desire to keep everyone on that single ship to find the spy before letting anyone escape (otherwise why not throw a few leaders onto different transports and at least have them escape - esp since the Empire seems totally committed to just going after the main ship)
I woke have been quite interested in there being a spy plotline. You could have had something like Rose discovering a transmitter and Finn being assigned to search for it with her because he obviously can't be the spy cause he was unconcious the whole time.
Then have an adventure for them inside the cruiser. Because spaceships are big.
Overread wrote: Also my impression is that Luke is mentally burned out. We've seen that Jedi seem to have a very isolationist view of the world - Yoda, Ben, Luke - all went basically into hiding and isolate themselves. It seems that without a large body of other Jedi to keep things running, most Jedi will seek isolation.
Yoda and Obi-Wan were alone because they were hiding from the Empire, not because Jedi are especially isolationist. They probably just find it easier to hide from Vader and Palpatine when they're alone on a backwater planet than when they're in public. Also probably want to avoid getting innocents killed if they are found.
Thing is they don't just go into hiding, they go into a full hermit mode level of hiding.
Going hermit mode hiding makes sense because they're force users, they need to go somewhere that they both can't be found by conventional means nor "sensed" by Vader and Palpatine. Wasn't there some story about Yoda choosing Dagobah because it has some force juju that helps him hide his presence from Palpatine and Vader? Similar to how Luke in TLJ is on an island which has some magical dark side cave.
When you see how key the are in the War and in the Jedi order before the rise of the Empire you are kind of left wondering why a character like Yoda doesn't just go into hiding but totally isolates himself when, at the point he went into hiding, he was one of the key leaders.
Because at that stage they've lost, Yoda decides to go somewhere the Empire is unlikely to accidentally find him. The odd one is Obi Wan, it doesn't really make sense why he took Luke to Tatooine because surely there'd be a chance Vader would be drawn back there for whatever reason given that's where he grew up, and while it is an out of the way planet it's still a populated one.
When Palpatine and Vader started hunting Jedi, my understanding was many of them did start leading resistance armies and fight back, they were just all killed and the only two that remained are the ones who decided to go in to hermit mode to stay hidden instead. At the start of A New Hope that's all we have; the couple of Jedi that decided to go deep underground.
At least that's my understanding, I don't know much SW lore outside of the movies and the odd video game.
sirlynchmob wrote: I think I finally figured out what was really bugging me about this movie.
seeing lukes xwing at the bottom of the ocean.
so ok, luke sunk his ship because he didn't want to leave, but how did R2 get back to leia? Did luke take another astromech with him and just toss the new droid in the ocean with the ship? is that what freaked out R2 as he barely missed that fate?
If R2 did go with luke then he would have had the exact location for him.
This is the kind of sloppy writing and lack of understanding how things work in the star wars universe that had me eagerly awaiting the end of the movie so I could get out of there.
I imagine Luke programmed his final destination into R2's databanks, then left him behind somewhere that the Resistance might find him.
What bothers me more is why would Luke leave a map behind to lead the Resistance to his location in the first place if he doesn't want to be found and he came to Achto to die?
LordofHats wrote: When Rose stops Fin from Kamikazing the battering ram cannon, which by the way is a terrible name come on we could have done better than that.
I don't think Luke left a map on purpose, I think it's more that Han/Leia figured out he was seeking out the temple on Ach-To and so went to find a map to where that was (ie. from old data R2 pulled on the Death Star and from ancient maps that would have featured the Temple. That could be what the map Lor San Tekka gave to Poe was, data recorded before The Empire started wiping information on the Jedi.
sirlynchmob wrote: I think I finally figured out what was really bugging me about this movie.
seeing lukes xwing at the bottom of the ocean.
so ok, luke sunk his ship because he didn't want to leave, but how did R2 get back to leia? Did luke take another astromech with him and just toss the new droid in the ocean with the ship? is that what freaked out R2 as he barely missed that fate?
If R2 did go with luke then he would have had the exact location for him.
This is the kind of sloppy writing and lack of understanding how things work in the star wars universe that had me eagerly awaiting the end of the movie so I could get out of there.
I imagine Luke programmed his final destination into R2's databanks, then left him behind somewhere that the Resistance might find him.
What bothers me more is why would Luke leave a map behind to lead the Resistance to his location in the first place if he doesn't want to be found and he came to Achto to die?
LordofHats wrote: When Rose stops Fin from Kamikazing the battering ram cannon, which by the way is a terrible name come on we could have done better than that.
How about..."The Nutcracker".
Wasn't Luke on the planet of the Original Jedi Temple? (Not to be confused with Orginal Rey's.). Do they not have any history books or files from the 25,000 years of republic before the Empire? Or did Luke somehow delete the knowledge of one of the galaxy's most important historic sites?
Well one fallen Jedi (Dooku) managed to delete an entire planet (Kamino) from the Jedi Archives so I imagine its impossible for planets to slip through the cracks.
Paradigm wrote: I don't think Luke left a map on purpose, I think it's more that Han/Leia figured out he was seeking out the temple on Ach-To and so went to find a map to where that was (ie. from old data R2 pulled on the Death Star and from ancient maps that would have featured the Temple. That could be what the map Lor San Tekka gave to Poe was, data recorded before The Empire started wiping information on the Jedi.
Nope. In TFA it was specifically a map that Luke left. It even had a path tracing his route to the planet.
Of course, the problem in TFA's map plot was that the fragment in the basketball droid was big enough to locate him without the other piece- it was quite large and had at least a dozen systems shown, which they should have been able to load into a 'navi-computer' and get a destination, even if it took a couple days.
On the other side of things, the first order is apparently big enough that swarming the missing section of the map and exhaustively searching it should have been a thing they were doing,
@Bobtheinwuisitor- historical records really don't stand up that well over that kind of time period. Lost, destroyed, apocryphal, or hidden, there are plenty of reasons for that not to be known. Especially with the Jedi temple going all aflame at the end of the prequels. It begs the question of how Luke found out about it, however.
There's every chance Yoda or Ben told Luke, much like how Ben told Luke to go to Degobah
And yes several thousand years of history spread over countless worlds; yes you can very easily lose a few planets in that. Especially if the world is otherwise non-productive and not really of interest outside of a secretive order who don't advertise the world and, its likely, weren't even making much use of it for a long time. An historical relic of little importance to those outside the Jedi Order.
Consider that the world we live on today has lost whole cities to myth and legend with only a handful of references surviving.
Paradigm wrote: I don't think Luke left a map on purpose, I think it's more that Han/Leia figured out he was seeking out the temple on Ach-To and so went to find a map to where that was (ie. from old data R2 pulled on the Death Star and from ancient maps that would have featured the Temple. That could be what the map Lor San Tekka gave to Poe was, data recorded before The Empire started wiping information on the Jedi.
Nope. In TFA it was specifically a map that Luke left. It even had a path tracing his route to the planet.
Are you sure? I just had a quick scan through the TFA script and couldn't find anything to suggest Luke left it behind on purpose. It's referred to as "the map to Skywalker" but I think that could be taken as synonymous with "a map to Ach-To, where we all assume Skywalker is." R2 has it as he presumably helped Luke find the place, but Luke was pretty clear that he didn't want to be followed so there wiuld be no point to him purposefully leaving a map behind. The route was more likely just the optimal hyperspace lanes to reach the planet, rather than a Luke Was 'Ere trail.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have we lost the birth cities of any world religions? Worship of the Force was the official religion for the Republic, no?
It's never really clear how other people, outside of Jedi, regard the Force. They have "may the Force be with you" but they don't really have any focus of worship or doctrine of service or holidays or such. It's sort of just "there" like gravity.
Jedi would be closer to the worshippers of the Force itself and that's a very very niche group (on a galactic scale). So not only would lay people have no knowledge of the birthplace specifically; but chances are they just aren't interested. As for Jedi its been thousands upon thousands of years so ample time for the original birthplace to simply be forgotten. A fact that was in history books, then steadily in the older and older ones no one read; then eventually forgotten. The name might survive but the where might be lost. And then, as said, the order was slaughtered and its archived destroyed. So all knowledge of the planets coordinates could easily be lost.
Also with the Republic being as vast as it is chances are data and information get lost a LOT even without having two massive wars. In fact even with machines there's probably whole hosts of archivers whose job it is to research information that gets lost in the sea of archives.
It's kind of funny how uninterested the Galaxy is with a religious order whose members can physically demonstrate the reality of their 'deity'. And that's not even getting into their undeniable claim of an afterlife (which the prequels wisely? retconned into a special new secret technique).
And the vastness of the republic indicates to me that there should be many more backups and libraries, universities and deep storage facilities. If only .001% of the Galaxy cares about the history of the most influential religious order ever, that's still tens or hundreds of billions of people.
Because at that stage they've lost, Yoda decides to go somewhere the Empire is unlikely to accidentally find him. The odd one is Obi Wan, it doesn't really make sense why he took Luke to Tatooine because surely there'd be a chance Vader would be drawn back there for whatever reason given that's where he grew up, and while it is an out of the way planet it's still a populated one.
Actually it's been stated (whether in the movies or not I can't remember at this point) that Vader absolutely despises Tatooine due to all his issues there. From his slavery as a child, to his mothers death at the hands of the Tuskans, he has no desire to ever go back to that place.
Everything Vader cared about on that planet has either been killed, died, or otherwise is related to his own slavery, which is why Kenobi knows it's a safe place from Vader... Also it's a populated one outside the Empire's reach on an Outer Rim Hutt owned planet, which the Empire doesn't like dealing with unless they have personal business.
Bob - thing is the Jedi don't strike me as an order that rose to its position loudly and with great fanfare. If anything they operate much like Merlin in King Arthur legends - that is the force that sort of acts in the shadows and background for the most part.
Also don't forget most of their order keeps its information within itself. Even if your'e interested in the Jedi you can't know about being a Jedi unless you are a Jedi. Plus by the time of the first Prequel film we learn that Jedi of this age tend to start training people as children. Anakin is considered very old to begin training. So being indoctrinated in the ways of the Jedi began for people when they were very young; so even if they did fail or didn't achieve as high chances are they were retained within the order.
Tatooine was not part of the Republic, but it did have enough Imperial Troops to be likely part of the Empire. However being way out in the fringe chances are that instead of being under full Imperial control the Hutts sort of "ran things" for the Empire. Hence why Jabba can do what he wants with the captives in Return of the Jedi; but also why the Imperial Troops were able to operate easily on the planet during A New Hope - having informants, troops and carrying out inspections (even if they didn't find the droids they were looking for).
Overread wrote: Bob - thing is the Jedi don't strike me as an order that rose to its position loudly and with great fanfare. If anything they operate much like Merlin in King Arthur legends - that is the force that sort of acts in the shadows and background for the most part.
Also don't forget most of their order keeps its information within itself. Even if your'e interested in the Jedi you can't know about being a Jedi unless you are a Jedi. Plus by the time of the first Prequel film we learn that Jedi of this age tend to start training people as children. Anakin is considered very old to begin training. So being indoctrinated in the ways of the Jedi began for people when they were very young; so even if they did fail or didn't achieve as high chances are they were retained within the order.
They were at least known to use their powers in public. People knew what the Force was and the basics of what a Jedi was. They seemed like Wuxia heroes, wandering the Galaxy, putting things right with their mysticism and martial arts. But while people may not know the secrets of Wudang mountain, they do know it exists and where it supposedly is.
And for the record, I hate the prequels and everything they establish about the Jedi and the Force. Not that anyone's surprised.
An important point about the reception of this film is that the great majority of people going to see it don't know what "canon" even means, let's alone care about it in relation to SW or any other fandom "franchise".
Consequently, we don't care if Rey is supposed to have/not have Force powers due to being the descendant/not being the descendant of X Force Family (Skywalker.)
We only care that Rey is a fun, believable character on screen, who delivers a great performance with a bunch of good lines and scenes.
Kil conversely Anakins bloodline isn't the only one with force powers. It's not beyond all reason that another bloodline could easily have the same or even superior powers within it since those powers arose as if at random within the bloodline. So Rey could be totally unrelated.
Also whilst she is continuing the Jedi I don't think its ever really been said that her Force powers are unique in strength. I think so far her only unique thing is that she went so quickly and easily to the Dark Side but also walked away from it, apparently, just as quickly - although more with an air of "you don't have what I want" than a "this is evil and wrong"
To me that's her interesting point because it raises the question (along with the burning of the old Jedi texts) that the Jedi Order got something inherently wrong with its concept of balance and how it approached the Force. It might even be that the extremist view and approach of the Jedi created the imbalance in the Force which thus creates Sith. Note how even Luke talks of balance within the Force meaning that Good is victorious whilst the evil Sith are defeated and gone.
Because at that stage they've lost, Yoda decides to go somewhere the Empire is unlikely to accidentally find him. The odd one is Obi Wan, it doesn't really make sense why he took Luke to Tatooine because surely there'd be a chance Vader would be drawn back there for whatever reason given that's where he grew up, and while it is an out of the way planet it's still a populated one.
Actually it's been stated (whether in the movies or not I can't remember at this point) that Vader absolutely despises Tatooine due to all his issues there. From his slavery as a child, to his mothers death at the hands of the Tuskans, he has no desire to ever go back to that place.
Everything Vader cared about on that planet has either been killed, died, or otherwise is related to his own slavery, which is why Kenobi knows it's a safe place from Vader... Also it's a populated one outside the Empire's reach on an Outer Rim Hutt owned planet, which the Empire doesn't like dealing with unless they have personal business.
I have heard that argument and it still sounds a bit silly to me. Just because Vader doesn't want to go back there doesn't mean something won't draw him back there, it's pretty common for people to get dragged back to places they know even if they don't necessarily have a great desire to be there. Maybe the Empire gets a report of something going down in the Tatooine system and hearing the name Vader decides to go deal with it personally which would put Luke at a massive risk. I dunno, surely the safer bet is to go somewhere Vader has never even heard about rather than where he grew up.
Kilkrazy wrote: An important point about the reception of this film is that the great majority of people going to see it don't know what "canon" even means, let's alone care about it in relation to SW or any other fandom "franchise".
Consequently, we don't care if Rey is supposed to have/not have Force powers due to being the descendant/not being the descendant of X Force Family (Skywalker.)
We only care that Rey is a fun, believable character on screen, who delivers a great performance with a bunch of good lines and scenes.
I believe AI've seen this summed up elsewhere as "Shut up, nerd, and eat your popcorn." That approach makes for fun, popular movies, but I wonder how it will affect the deep, deep product lines. Aren't the non-casuals the ones who support the side of the industry where the real money is made?
If we're down to Bayformers levels of audience engagement, is that really a good thing?
People don't buy soundtracks for novels based on "who cares if it makes sense in the greater context?" Do they?
Overread wrote: Tatooine was not part of the Republic, but it did have enough Imperial Troops to be likely part of the Empire. However being way out in the fringe chances are that instead of being under full Imperial control the Hutts sort of "ran things" for the Empire. Hence why Jabba can do what he wants with the captives in Return of the Jedi; but also why the Imperial Troops were able to operate easily on the planet during A New Hope - having informants, troops and carrying out inspections (even if they didn't find the droids they were looking for).
It's actually not part of the Empire, but they were able to send down troops to find the people they needed. Tatooine is a lawless world owned by Jabba the hutt due to how far it is from the general imperial sphere of influence. But Jabba is smart enough to realize that if the Empire really desired and looked his way they could cause some major problems if they felt he and the lands he owned needed to be dealt with. If Darth Vader the right hand of the Emperor comes down to his personal palace and says "I want this". Jabba is not dumb enough to say no.
The Empire is massive, but it cannot be everywhere in the galaxy as it has other things to deal with in it's own territories, and the Outer Rim tends to be a more lawless, criminally owned aspect of the galaxy since most of them tend to be out of the major trade lanes. Tatooine really doesn't have much of note that the Empire wants as well.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have we lost the birth cities of any world religions? Worship of the Force was the official religion for the Republic, no?
It's never really clear how other people, outside of Jedi, regard the Force. They have "may the Force be with you" but they don't really have any focus of worship or doctrine of service or holidays or such. It's sort of just "there" like gravity.
Honestly, I'd equate it to being like wishing someone "Good Luck" when most people use it.
On another note, Spacedock has provided a bit of insight into Vice-Admiral Holdos behavior:
In short, Holdo's behavior towards Poe stems from the fact that almost all of the pilots he led in the suicide attack were from the Ninka's Taskforce. So, Purple's upset that he got a bunch of her people killed. Doesn't really make her decisions any less incompetent, but it does add a bit of depth to her character. Unfortunately, like Snoke, this is something that one line of backstory could really have helped with. Say, "After that stunt you pulled with my fighter wing, you are lucky to have free range of the ship, Captain Dameron". Such phrasing would suggest that they were under her command, while still leaving it vague enough to allow the "Potential Villain" thing that they were going for.
Kilkrazy wrote: An important point about the reception of this film is that the great majority of people going to see it don't know what "canon" even means, let's alone care about it in relation to SW or any other fandom "franchise".
Consequently, we don't care if Rey is supposed to have/not have Force powers due to being the descendant/not being the descendant of X Force Family (Skywalker.)
We only care that Rey is a fun, believable character on screen, who delivers a great performance with a bunch of good lines and scenes.
I believe AI've seen this summed up elsewhere as "Shut up, nerd, and eat your popcorn." That approach makes for fun, popular movies, but I wonder how it will affect the deep, deep product lines. Aren't the non-casuals the ones who support the side of the industry where the real money is made?
If we're down to Bayformers levels of audience engagement, is that really a good thing?
People don't buy soundtracks for novels based on "who cares if it makes sense in the greater context?" Do they?
I don't mean to belittle the super fans' interest and importance.
That said, cinema (especially blockbusters) is a mass media industry. If "super fans" constitute 10% of the potential audience, it may not be enough to justify X cinemas screening the film for Y weeks, and so on.
Kilkrazy wrote: We only care that Rey is a fun, believable character on screen, who delivers a great performance with a bunch of good lines and scenes.
I still feel Rey is one of the weak points of the new movies rather than something good about them. I enjoyed TFA and TLJ, but it was in spite of her rather than anything to do with her.
Rey might be "fun" (she's got my 8 year old female cousin hooked on Star Wars so thats a good thing), but she is hardly believable.
I don't hate her at all, I just wish she was written better. She gained the same level of proficiency with a Lightsabre in the space of one movie that took Luke Skywalker three movies to attain, for instance, and he was trained!. And we're given absolutely Zero explanation as to why.
TLJ could have explained this by making her one of Luke's Jedi youngling students who was hidden away on Jakku and her memories suppressed to protect her after the fall of his New Jedi Temple, like he was hidden away on Tatooine. In which case, she's already been trained at least partially in the use of Light Sabers, which explains why she picks it up again so quickly like riding a bike. This doesn't even require a Special Bloodline parentage, Rey would still be the child of nobody junk scavengers from Jakku, she was simply trained as a Jedi for several years from a young age before being returned and abandoned on Jakku.
Maybe I'm just not remembering it right but it seems Rey and Kylo just haven't had any real character development. Rey just jumped in to a position of power and proficiency with little to no character flaws to humanise her. Kylo has been an evil but conflicted emo kid throughout (at least there's some back story to place him in that state though). Maybe Rey is breaking him down a bit, will have to wait for the next movie.
Any of the character development that's happened in the current trilogy seems to have been ancillary characters. Poe, Finn, even Luke are the ones who have actually been growing and learning.
Rey had plenty of experience with a staff weapon though. We see her carrying her staff even through this latest film (its clearly the shape of a weapon she's most comfortable with). So she already had many of the skills, experience and muscle memory/structure to support close combat fighting. It was a shift from duel to single handed weaponary for her.
So its no surprise that she took to it quicker than Luke who hadn't ever handled anything but a blaster. Though note how he advances to Xwing pilot very fast, using his T16 skills (that we never see on screen but do hear of)
Overread wrote: To me that's her interesting point because it raises the question (along with the burning of the old Jedi texts) that the Jedi Order got something inherently wrong with its concept of balance and how it approached the Force. It might even be that the extremist view and approach of the Jedi created the imbalance in the Force which thus creates Sith. Note how even Luke talks of balance within the Force meaning that Good is victorious whilst the evil Sith are defeated and gone.
Knights of the Old Republic is one Star Wars product that takes a shades of grey approach to the force that is really good. There have been fan things that have analysed how bad the Jedi actually are, but KOTOR does present it well.
I'd be fine with the current movies exploring the faults of the Jedi more, but if that's what they're trying to do then so far it's been done quite poorly IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: Rey had plenty of experience with a staff weapon though. We see her carrying her staff even through this latest film (its clearly the shape of a weapon she's most comfortable with). So she already had many of the skills, experience and muscle memory/structure to support close combat fighting. It was a shift from duel to single handed weaponary for her. So its no surprise that she took to it quicker than Luke who hadn't ever handled anything but a blaster. Though note how he advances to Xwing pilot very fast, using his T16 skills (that we never see on screen but do hear of)
It's not just the fighting though, she just has had really very little character development; either on the ability side nor the emotional side.
You might be able to explain a couple of things she's good at naturally but at some point she ceases to be an interesting character (at least to me) because she lacks character development and depth.
I too prefer the more nuanced take on the Force of KOTOR than the black & white take of most of the Star Wars films.
I had hoped this was the path Disney was going down with the sequel trilogy (Luke's line "Its time for the Jedi to end") but nope, it appears that they're just rehashing the same old Star Wars stories we already got in the other trilogies.
Overread wrote: Characters don't just develop like levels in a computer game. People are fragile and can be broken as much as they can be built up. Han and Luke both suffered when Kylo turned to the dark. That fragile moment broke them all. Don't forget it wasn't just Kylo running away; he slaughtered the other (or at least multiple other as its hinted that he took several students with him) students. He did what Vader did, he became Vader. Even if for only a moment,.
Consider how crushing that is to have fought a huge war against a huge empire and a monster like Darth Vader only for your son/student to become that monster almost reborn.
It crushed Luke very fast, esp because he also fell to the Dark Side for that short moment and caused the fall of Kylo. Han it st rikes me took longer, but went into brooding and I guess one day just didn't fly back from whereever he went too.
To my mind those characters all developed along a very realistic and human pathway. Sure its not the classic "hero" pathway because that wasn't the story being told. Heck a huge part of Lukes attempted message is that he isn't a hero, he is just a man, he isn't some amazing hero from a story who can sweep in and save everyone
Exactly (in response to your underlined point). People never stop changing, and 35 years can change someone quite a bit. Genre fans can tend to want the next chapter in the story to be exactly the same but bigger and better, and for heroes to never fail, but that's a path that leads only to the most juvenile narratives.
And yet I contend that Luke hasn't completely changed. Luke is a dreamer and idealist, and in my life experience I've found that it's those people who are most likely to be hurt and become cynical when they fail or the world fails to become what they feel it should be. So we get that wonderful (IMO) scene with Yoda, who chastises 'young Skywalker' for still looking too much to the horizon. It's the more grounded Yoda who not only reminds Luke of the value of failure, but also shows him (and us) that their *living faith* doesn't reside in books and magic trees and temples and lightsaber fighting styles. Remember that Yoda was almost exactly in Luke's situation, and he never lost faith in Luke and Leia unlike how Luke refuses to put his faith in Rey. And we have Luke at the end, still having been chewed up and spit out by the universe, yet with faith restored as he gazes at the suns as he did as a young dreamer.
As I said, some may disagree with the execution, but I think there's some really good, mature stuff to chew on in this movie.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Maybe I'm just not remembering it right but it seems Rey and Kylo just haven't had any real character development. Rey just jumped in to a position of power and proficiency with little to no character flaws to humanise her. Kylo has been an evil but conflicted emo kid throughout (at least there's some back story to place him in that state though). Maybe Rey is breaking him down a bit, will have to wait for the next movie.
Any of the character development that's happened in the current trilogy seems to have been ancillary characters. Poe, Finn, even Luke are the ones who have actually been growing and learning.
I was talking about this with a friend. This will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers, but in some ways I think Kylo/Ben is probably a better villain than Darth Vader by the end of TLJ. He has agency that Vader never really had as Palpatine's lackey. He does what Vader "should have"(?) done and seized power from the cackling old fart. He's surpassed Vader in that respect and it's demonstrated symbolically by him getting rid of that ridiculous helmet.
I also think that Rey is a much stronger and more confident individual by the end of TLJ than she was during TFA. Just during the film she goes from someone 'looking for someone to show her place' to someone saying feth it, I'm going to make my own place.
And I don't sweat the lack of training thing. Forget about the prequel trilogy ("bury it?"). The OT showed us that those strong in the Force can deflect laser bolts, guide one's actions (*cough* lightsaber *cough*), levitate objects, and communicate at distance with little to no training. I figure it's like someone who's a truly gifted natural athlete...if you've ever been around those people, it's amazing how well they can perform even in sports they've never played before. The boy with the broom underlined that point.
EDIT: Stepping away from the analysis of the movie...was the kyber crystal in Luke's saber cut in half? If so, we're almost certainly getting saberstaff Rey in the next movie, don't you think?
Because at that stage they've lost, Yoda decides to go somewhere the Empire is unlikely to accidentally find him. The odd one is Obi Wan, it doesn't really make sense why he took Luke to Tatooine because surely there'd be a chance Vader would be drawn back there for whatever reason given that's where he grew up, and while it is an out of the way planet it's still a populated one.
Actually it's been stated (whether in the movies or not I can't remember at this point) that Vader absolutely despises Tatooine due to all his issues there. From his slavery as a child, to his mothers death at the hands of the Tuskans, he has no desire to ever go back to that place.
Everything Vader cared about on that planet has either been killed, died, or otherwise is related to his own slavery, which is why Kenobi knows it's a safe place from Vader... Also it's a populated one outside the Empire's reach on an Outer Rim Hutt owned planet, which the Empire doesn't like dealing with unless they have personal business.
I have heard that argument and it still sounds a bit silly to me. Just because Vader doesn't want to go back there doesn't mean something won't draw him back there, it's pretty common for people to get dragged back to places they know even if they don't necessarily have a great desire to be there. Maybe the Empire gets a report of something going down in the Tatooine system and hearing the name Vader decides to go deal with it personally which would put Luke at a massive risk. I dunno, surely the safer bet is to go somewhere Vader has never even heard about rather than where he grew up.
I just read the comic (Vader #6) where he goes back to Tatooine after Luke destroys the first Death Star. Vader had commissioned Boba Fett to track down the person who made the shot and Fett tracks Luke there. Vader follows the trail later and makes the comment that it was smart of Obi Wan to hide Luke on the one planet he didn't want to return to.
Breotan wrote: Lots of "Snoke isn't really dead" theories flying around the net. Anyone here think this may have legs?
It's like the Indoctrination Theory in Mass Effect: it's evidence that your storytelling is so terrible that there are people who think "the guy we saw sliced in half before his ship was smashed to pieces is actually alive" is less awful than "the powerful psychic who was listening to Kylo's thoughts right then got caught by surprise and died like a chump."
Breotan wrote: Lots of "Snoke isn't really dead" theories flying around the net. Anyone here think this may have legs?
Not really. I mean, sure, Abrams and company is going to have to pick up the pieces and come up with something from scratch for Episode 9 beyond 'Supreme Evil Leader and the (not)Empire vs. the scrappy band of Rebels, yet again. Again.'
I mean, barring a complete retcon in the opening crawl, Episode 9 will pick up exactly where this one (and 4 and 5) did: powerful Empire chasing a small band of rebels, except they have to actually get on with it and fit in a narratively satisfying conclusion for the whole trilogy, not just a failed escape attempt. TLJ really feels like it just covers the escape attempt from Hoth, but instead of escaping, they crash back on Hoth to do it over again.
But I'd hope they'd be informed enough not to pull what the Clone Wars cartoon did, and NOT pick up a variation of the 'bisected villain secretly survives on an unrelated garbage planet with robot spider legs' crap.
Breotan wrote: Lots of "Snoke isn't really dead" theories flying around the net. Anyone here think this may have legs?
It's like the Indoctrination Theory in Mass Effect: it's evidence that your storytelling is so terrible that there are people who think "the guy we saw sliced in half before his ship was smashed to pieces is actually alive" is less awful than "the powerful psychic who was listening to Kylo's thoughts right then got caught by surprise and died like a chump."
I'm actually intensely curious as to why Johnson thinks Precognitive Visions should be precisely accurate but all three people that have them basically get a Zero in Correct Interpretation.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I too prefer the more nuanced take on the Force of KOTOR than the black & white take of most of the Star Wars films.
I had hoped this was the path Disney was going down with the sequel trilogy (Luke's line "Its time for the Jedi to end") but nope, it appears that they're just rehashing the same old Star Wars stories we already got in the other trilogies.
I got the vibe from the trailers that heavy 'borrowing' from KOTOR 2 was on the cards, sadly they backed down from Luke going full on war on god like Kreia and just made him grumpy uncle Jedi
Kilkrazy wrote: An important point about the reception of this film is that the great majority of people going to see it don't know what "canon" even means, let's alone care about it in relation to SW or any other fandom "franchise".
Consequently, we don't care if Rey is supposed to have/not have Force powers due to being the descendant/not being the descendant of X Force Family (Skywalker.)
We only care that Rey is a fun, believable character on screen, who delivers a great performance with a bunch of good lines and scenes.
I know 10 people who have seen the film - only one of which was a massive star wars fan, the others including me quite liked them as action films - nothing more to them tbh.
Of those, one really enjoyed it, the rest of us thought it was a poorly written, overlong film with little attention to plot or characters - none of us care about the Extended Universe - we went to enjoy ourselves and were not entertained.
Ray is a standard action hero - far better ones than her in the cinema this year, indeed every year, but she was not the issue for us - that was the pace and the plot - or lack of the latter. - the two combine so that the ghaping narrative holes are much more obvious than if the pace was faster.
This idea that Only superfans hate the film is wrong.
I imagine they could bring Snoke back as a sort of Sith Force Ghost akin to Yoda, Obi Wan and (now) Luke. Something to do with the black Kyber crystal he wears as a ring? Maybe the crystal captured and preserved the essence of his spirit or something. Maybe if Kylo attempts to wear the ring as a symbol of office as Supreme Leader, Snoke's spirit will attempt to posses him.
Kilkrazy wrote: An important point about the reception of this film is that the great majority of people going to see it don't know what "canon" even means, let's alone care about it in relation to SW or any other fandom "franchise".
Considering most of the people I went to see it with knew nothing more of Star Wars beyond seeing the films (not TCW or Rebels), and they all said it was poor.
You don't have to be a superfan to dislike it. You don't need to be new to like it. But if lots of people are disliking it, does it matter what their relation to Star Wars is?
Consequently, we don't care if Rey is supposed to have/not have Force powers due to being the descendant/not being the descendant of X Force Family (Skywalker.)
Agreed. I love how Rey's power isn't tied to the Skywalker dynasty. It's a positive thing that power isn't tied to your birth.
The issue is that, at the current moment (emphasis this), we do no know WHY Rey is strong.
Anakin was strong with the Force because they outright told us why (Chosen One + "midichlorians").
Luke was strong with the Force because of being descended from Anakin, but realistically, he is TAUGHT all of his Force abilities and guided in them (Obi-Wan guides him when sparring against the droid, and again on the Death Star Run.)
Rey is not explained WHY she is so powerful. Will this be answered? Hopefully, probably. But right now, in it's own standing, Rey's ability is not explained adequately.
We only care that Rey is a fun, believable character on screen, who delivers a great performance with a bunch of good lines and scenes.
And for me, is she?
No.
Is Daisy Ridley's performance good? Yes. Does she have some good moments? Yes.
Is she a fun, believable character? No, not to me.
I hope I get retroactively disproven, but as it currently stands, I do not think so.
Rey is not explained WHY she is so powerful. Will this be answered? Hopefully, probably. But right now, in it's own standing, Rey's ability is not explained adequately.
It's fairy tale Magic, it doesn't do or need explanation (every step away from force-cooties is good)
Rey is not explained WHY she is so powerful. Will this be answered? Hopefully, probably. But right now, in it's own standing, Rey's ability is not explained adequately.
It's fairy tale Magic, it doesn't do or need explanation (every step away from force-cooties is good)
I find it's the combination of a lack of explanation and also a lack of development that makes me not enjoy Rey's character like I feel I could. One or the other would make her a more likeable character to me.
Maybe we'll get that in the third film, but really it needs to be something built upon across all 3 films not just dumped on you at the end (assuming we get anything, I'm guessing with JJ coming back we might get more as Johnson seemed to just enjoy tearing down expectations to the point, IMO, it hurt the progression of the movies, whereas JJ seemed to be more in to building up the story rather than just knocking down expectations).
Whilst I can see wanting to put your own stamp on it I was hoping for more from Mr J as Looper was passable despite time travel and Willis, two massive millstones in any film project
I think TFA and TLJ could be compared to Superman Returns and Man of Steel, both flawed, one out of nostalgia and one out of ill-considered deconstruction
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I too prefer the more nuanced take on the Force of KOTOR than the black & white take of most of the Star Wars films.
I had hoped this was the path Disney was going down with the sequel trilogy (Luke's line "Its time for the Jedi to end") but nope, it appears that they're just rehashing the same old Star Wars stories we already got in the other trilogies.
I got the vibe from the trailers that heavy 'borrowing' from KOTOR 2 was on the cards, sadly they backed down from Luke going full on war on god like Kreia and just made him grumpy uncle Jedi
Ugh, Kreia was basically just a mouthpiece to someone who didn't like the star wars universe, which was the main issue for me with that game seeing as she was primarily the source of everything in that game.
Also given that her idea was to kill the force (that we know of, given she's a compulsive liar), which would've ended up killing all things.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I too prefer the more nuanced take on the Force of KOTOR than the black & white take of most of the Star Wars films.
I had hoped this was the path Disney was going down with the sequel trilogy (Luke's line "Its time for the Jedi to end") but nope, it appears that they're just rehashing the same old Star Wars stories we already got in the other trilogies.
I got the vibe from the trailers that heavy 'borrowing' from KOTOR 2 was on the cards, sadly they backed down from Luke going full on war on god like Kreia and just made him grumpy uncle Jedi
Ugh, Kreia was basically just a mouthpiece to someone who didn't like the star wars universe, which was the main issue for me with that game seeing as she was primarily the source of everything in that game.
Also given that her idea was to kill the force (that we know of, given she's a compulsive liar), which would've ended up killing all things.
No it wouldn't. KOTOR 2 itself established that one can live without a connection to the Force, the Exile (PC) subconsciously cut herself off from it.
The Yuuzhan Vong race (EU) also demonstrated that its possible for life to develop and survive without the Force.
No it wouldn't. KOTOR 2 itself established that one can live without a connection to the Force, the Exile (PC) subconsciously cut herself off from it.
If you didn't realize it fully it can sound like they are literally living without the force but they are not. To put it bluntly, they are akin to a wound in the force, a black hole almost that draws upon the force within others. Dark side feeds upon it like a parasite while a light side does it akin to a symbiosis but make no mistake they still require it. They are essentially Darth Nihlus but not as powerful as the gaping hole he is but a dark sided PC could essentially become them.. But they still need the force at heart, and Kreia herself mentions that Darth Nihlus would've starved eventually.
So without the force in other individuals to feed upon they would have died just as many others would.
The Yuuzhan Vong race (EU) also demonstrated that its possible for life to develop and survive without the Force.
Yes, and most people tend to very much dislike the Yuuzhan Vong because of.. well a lot of problems that faction has presented both storywise and characterwise, a few cheered when the EU dropped and they went with it. Though it is an example nonetheless.
Breotan wrote: Lots of "Snoke isn't really dead" theories flying around the net. Anyone here think this may have legs?
As much as SW fans decry Abrams for "rehashing" old material in TFA, I think a segment of them just can't wrap their head around the idea that the "Emperor" figure is dead already in this trilogy.
Snoke will stay dead because having him live would undermine Ren's development in this movie. And let's be honest...both Snoke and the Emperor in the OT were *terrible* villains. We knew nothing about them or their motivations, only that they were cackling old Force wizards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't mean to belittle the super fans' interest and importance.
That said, cinema (especially blockbusters) is a mass media industry. If "super fans" constitute 10% of the potential audience, it may not be enough to justify X cinemas screening the film for Y weeks, and so on.
Action figure sales can't make up for that.
Again, it received an 'A' Cinemascore, which is more reliable than anything else out there for tracking audience reactions of people who have actually seen the film. So general audiences seem to like the film just fine.
There is no good outcome if you focus on trying to please superfans.
Gorgon, didn't Rogue One please both casuals and superfans? Isn't the entire MCU built on the idea of pleasing both by having continuity and fun? It's definitely possible. It just takes work, and that's hard apparently.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Gorgon, didn't Rogue One please both casuals and superfans? Isn't the entire MCU built on the idea of pleasing both by having continuity and fun? It's definitely possible. It just takes work, and that's hard apparently.
I don't think we're talking about the same things. Are you claiming that TLJ wasn't fun, and was out of continuity with the previous trilogies?
There's also quite a bit of difference in baggage between a lineup of B- and C-list superhero characters never seen on film before, and the legacies of franchises like SW and ST. There were no Iron Man, Thor or Captain America movie superfans before the current Marvel Studios films.
Breotan wrote: Lots of "Snoke isn't really dead" theories flying around the net. Anyone here think this may have legs?
As much as SW fans decry Abrams for "rehashing" old material in TFA, I think a segment of them just can't wrap their head around the idea that the "Emperor" figure is dead already in this trilogy.
Snoke will stay dead because having him live would undermine Ren's development in this movie. And let's be honest...both Snoke and the Emperor in the OT were *terrible* villains. We knew nothing about them or their motivations, only that they were cackling old Force wizards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't mean to belittle the super fans' interest and importance.
That said, cinema (especially blockbusters) is a mass media industry. If "super fans" constitute 10% of the potential audience, it may not be enough to justify X cinemas screening the film for Y weeks, and so on.
Action figure sales can't make up for that.
Again, it received an 'A' Cinemascore, which is more reliable than anything else out there for tracking audience reactions of people who have actually seen the film. So general audiences seem to like the film just fine.
There is no good outcome if you focus on trying to please superfans.
Cinema score is utterly laughable as a source, they poll people on opening night, that's it, no reviews or anything, just a poll, I trust reading through actual viewer reviews, it's easy to distinguish nerd rage and an actual issue that people have, can't do that with cinema score.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Gorgon, didn't Rogue One please both casuals and superfans? Isn't the entire MCU built on the idea of pleasing both by having continuity and fun? It's definitely possible. It just takes work, and that's hard apparently.
I don't think we're talking about the same things. Are you claiming that TLJ wasn't fun, and was out of continuity with the previous trilogies?
There's also quite a bit of difference in baggage between a lineup of B- and C-list superhero characters never seen on film before, and the legacies of franchises like SW and ST. There were no Iron Man, Thor or Captain America movie superfans before the current Marvel Studios films.
I am saying that it was fun, and also out of continuity. Because it was fun, it appealed to the mainstream and many of the fans who follow the series for certain aspects of it. For many other fans, the setting is important. In film analysis, there is an unspoken "shut up nerd" attitude towards people who would point out continuity issues based on the setting rather than the characters, but considering how many technical-minded books are sold for each movie the wrongfun crowd is quite large.
If you only want to talk long term series, TNG managed the trick. Doctor Who, too, although continuity issues are a feature for that series.
There's a pretty consistent refrain, among those who conclude that they enjoyed the film, of enumerating a list of points they found poor or at least distractingly irritating. So I think "enjoyed" is a pretty low threshold. Moreover, the other pattern these folks evince is arguing something like, "well it doesn't have to be good anyway because it's Star Wars," which ignores that Star Wars can be (or at least had been, long ago) quite a bit better than good. I'm also not convinced that it's the "superfans" who don't like TLJ. I'd say "superfans" are the people who faithfully pay their way to Celebration to cheer for Kathleen Kennedy. They seem to really like whatever they are given. So dismissing criticism of TLJ as "you can't please superfans" amounts to just that - a dismissal. I'd guess the real distinction here is between those who expect more from movies generally, not only SW movies, than a disposable experience, and those with more, uh, generous attitudes toward cinema. For the latter, complaining anout TLJ seems to strike them like complaining that a Big Mac is not filet mignon.
I see a higher amount of people who didn't like it trying to put words in others mouths who did enjoy it to try to justify the fact that they just didn't like it.
Sometimes you don't like a movie and others do. Just accept that others enjoyed the movie and go about criticising the film, not te people who enjoyed it.
Welcome to the thread, Loki. In this thread, you can find a lot of my criticism about the film itself. But as you might notice, conversation has turned once again to dismissing criticism of the film to criticism of the people criticizing it. My post is in response to that. Moreover, a quick glance at the last few pages - much less the conversation as a whole - provides examples of exactly what I'm talking about.
Galef wrote: Rey literally has to bring balance to the force by neither choosing the light nor dark side, but by using both in harmony.
Things do seem headed this way.
And although I'm sure we'll hear calls of 'ruined childhoods' from certain fans, I think it makes sense. The Jedi and Sith always seemed to be at the extreme, cartoonish ends of the light/dark spectrum. In the real world, it's possible to have emotion and passion alongside selflessness and a level of control. Seems like that should also have been possible a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...
Well that does fit.
Theres the whole kylo going about the and of sith, the end of Jedi. Somthing new. The end of thr old empire and rebels. Thr end of thr past which has caused so many wars and deaths.
Theres been no grey figures who master both sides of thr force. Windu might have been closest I know of given he used a semi sith combat style, without falling to dark side.
Maybe foreshadowing Rey and starting a new Jedi who balence both the light and thr dark side more than there previous ancestors.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Gorgon, didn't Rogue One please both casuals and superfans? Isn't the entire MCU built on the idea of pleasing both by having continuity and fun? It's definitely possible. It just takes work, and that's hard apparently.
I don't think we're talking about the same things. Are you claiming that TLJ wasn't fun, and was out of continuity with the previous trilogies?
Yep - its was overlong, often tedious and badly written, fun it was not.
It drew vaguely on some of the older films but was its own thing - if they had actually had a new story to tell, chose to focuss on characters perhaps or even a decent direrctor or screenwritter this could have been a good thing - instead we had long, boring and badly written.
I actually thought, for the amount of content it covered, that there were several points in the film that could do with more content being added. I did get to worry come around the 3/4 in that "hey is this going to suddenly end feeling really rushed?"
Wasn't Luke on the planet of the Original Jedi Temple? (Not to be confused with Orginal Rey's.). Do they not have any history books or files from the 25,000 years of republic before the Empire? Or did Luke somehow delete the knowledge of one of the galaxy's most important historic sites?
If Luke didn't the Empire most certainly did remember.
One supposes that it's no more realistic than, say, Han Solo not believing in the force despite, you know, 25,000 years or so of there being quite a lot of evidence for it existing.
One might even think that Chewbacca might maybe have mentioned that it is indeed true and that he met/knew quite a few jedi and so forth.
I'm still somewhat dubious that Leia and Han would'be named their first born/only ..( right ? Guess there still could be an unknown twin somewhere or whathaveyou...) after Ben Kenobi given that they didn't really know him at all...
.. don't think Leia even met him -- birth aside perhaps -- and it never struck me that Han seemed terribly fond of him, didn;t seemed phased by his death at all for example.
I guess he was instrumental in bringing them together and it would be awkward to name your child Death Star or Detention Level Trash Compactor.
I was a bit confused about the master code breaker....
after the person was identified --- guy with the jewelery bit on -- it looked to me as if he was oblivious but his companion/lady with him seemed to do a " double take"/similar .... and then they're never mentioned again ?
I was thinking they'he/she would turn up later -- perhaps even to break Finn & Rose out of jail -- or something but it all just seemed to fizzle out.
The sidequest was indeed the weakest part of the film but it was really odd how it all just fizzled out as it did...
... just happens to be an equally as good ..? ... criminal locked in the same cell as them ..?
So much so one wonders if there was an aborted other plotline somewhere here -- I've seen some talk about whether del Toro really was the master code guy after all and similar.
Overread wrote: I actually thought, for the amount of content it covered, that there were several points in the film that could do with more content being added. I did get to worry come around the 3/4 in that "hey is this going to suddenly end feeling really rushed?"
Oh yes there were interesting plot elelments that could have been actually expanded upon rather than say:
A waste of time trip to Casino World (coming to a Disney attraaction near you) .
or so many repeated long shots of the FO warships bumbling along doing nothing whilst their flagship fires occassionally and presumably their hundreds of fighter pilots drink and play cards.
So much so one wonders if there was an aborted other plotline somewhere here -- I've seen some talk about whether del Toro really was the master code guy after all and similar.
I have to say that, the intro "he's hazing you" bit and the end of the Casino section were the weakest of the writing. The Casino especially feels like they cut something major from it and it was harkening back to the super convenient aspects from the first of this new Trilogy (seriously the previous film was full of so many convenient things it hurt).
I'd really like to see the Casino section expanded - I think its purpose was to try and show part of the universe outside of the cruiser and battleship race and the Jedi birthworld - ergo two places that are very niche and isolated. The Casino serves its purpose of showing us how things are for a segment of the current population and in that light it really helps give an idea of why some, not all, of those allies wouldn't respond to the Rebel call to aid.
Essentially sending the message that the war was over, people didn't want to go to war again and, life under/with the First Order really isn't that bad for those in power (unless you're poor slaves). I think that message and a few other aspects could have come across stronger.
Honestly this is one film that could easily have been split into two halves with the amount of content they were trying to fit into it; in fact it would have been stronger to be two films and allow them to go into each segment in more detail to flesh them out. Flesh out the Casino; flesh out why everyone on the cruiser didn't just leap into ships and disperse everywhere (spy?); flesh out the growing divide between upper and lower ranks in the rebellion; flesh out a bit more of Rey's training etc... Although granted that cruiser could only run for so long, but the reorganising and defence of the planet could have been stretched out (the Last Order fleet blockading and then waiting for a few ships with ground forces to come; trying to reorganise itself after having taken huge damage etc...)
I do wonder if we'll see a directors cut of this film - I'd welcome some extra bits.
Galef wrote: Rey literally has to bring balance to the force by neither choosing the light nor dark side, but by using both in harmony.
Things do seem headed this way.
And although I'm sure we'll hear calls of 'ruined childhoods' from certain fans, I think it makes sense. The Jedi and Sith always seemed to be at the extreme, cartoonish ends of the light/dark spectrum. In the real world, it's possible to have emotion and passion alongside selflessness and a level of control. Seems like that should also have been possible a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...
Well that does fit.
Theres the whole kylo going about the and of sith, the end of Jedi. Somthing new. The end of thr old empire and rebels. Thr end of thr past which has caused so many wars and deaths.
Theres been no grey figures who master both sides of thr force. Windu might have been closest I know of given he used a semi sith combat style, without falling to dark side.
Maybe foreshadowing Rey and starting a new Jedi who balence both the light and thr dark side more than there previous ancestors.
I don't agree at all. The film explicitly sets up more Empire vs. Rebels, Light vs Dark and nothing else. It isn't an end of anything, just a continuation of everything that's already happened.
In fact, if 9 doesn't take an opportunity for a time skip (the way esb and rotj did), it will have to start in the same circumstance as this one, and rehash the whole thing. Despite having a half dozen B plots and nothing else, it is too compact for a larger universe. Given that, 9 is going to labor really heavily just to wrap up this trilogy in a satisfying fashion (something I'm not convinced it can do at all, given the absolute lack of plot hooks), let alone spend a lot of time setting up anything, let alone explaining the concept of 'grey Jedi' to the audience, then trying to convince them that Redemption Heroine is suddenly all about that. Might have been somewhat possible for the Rey in the first film, but she definitely donned the Anointed Hero mantle at the end of this one.
Rey's power is explained, quite clearly, by Snoke. He says (not verbatim) that he knew a light side power would emerge to match Kylo Ren's darkness and that he assumed it would be Luke, but it turned out to be Rey. Sure, you can choose to dislike that explanation, but saying that it wasn't explained makes you look extremely foolish when it is spelled out so freaking clearly.
. He portrayed that really well!
If you are going to daydream for next movie at least bring somebody more interesting to your fanfic plot.
