bbb wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They haven't mirrored Luke and that seems to be what people are complaining about.

If you want to ignore every conversation sure, but most are complaining that she's not getting a heroes journey so much as she already seems to be very powerful, strong, without any buildup as to why she's already this amazing jedi thus far without need for assistance or training.

She doesn't need to really be Luke so much as the odd narrative of what a plucky scavenger whose lived her entire life gathering scrap for food tokens is now suddenly able to mind trick and lightsaber duel with the best of them. It seems like it wants to have it's cake of "The hero improves overall through their journey" while having "Strong powerful character who really doesn't have too many hurdles to overcome". Which is why it's hard for me to take the stakes for IX seriously at this point where it seems like the main problem facing the resistance is that they aren't that competent and the only reason they are around still is because the First Order is even more incompetent.

From the start of TFA to the end of TLJ how much time has elapsed? A month, maybe? Junk scavenger to going toe-to-toe with the most elite hand-to-hand Stormtroopers and a powerful force user with maybe 20 years of training under two other powerful force users all in a month's time.

You're overestimating. By a month. TLJ literally picks up the same moment TFA ended: Rey handing Luke the light saber.
The Resisty had her travel time from their random planet to island world to, apparently, pack for evacuation. Because winning against 'StarKiller base' meant losing everything else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The original three films were directed by three different directors.

But they were all written by George Lucas.
TLJ was written by Rian Johnson and TFA was a joint project between JJ Abrams, Michael Arndt and Lawrence Kasden.

 gorgon wrote:

 bbb wrote:
From the start of TFA to the end of TLJ how much time has elapsed? A month, maybe? Junk scavenger to going toe-to-toe with the most elite hand-to-hand Stormtroopers and a powerful force user with maybe 20 years of training under two other powerful force users all in a month's time.

Take a minute and really consider everything that farmboy-with-no-training Luke does in ANH.

It's fascinating how people are willing to make huge allowances for Luke, but not for Rey.

I get that to an extent, but part of the success that he has in ANH is due to the Empire letting them escape. Jumping from bullseyeing womp rats in a T-16 to making attacking the Death Star in an X-Wing is a big jump but they set up that he can fly something and has good aim. Also, he has a friend from home who was already an X-Wing pilot so Biggs could have vouched for him. Obi Wan references that his dad was a great pilot too. Then there are a few years between ANH and ESB for him to develop as a warrior.

Rey gets none of that. She can hold her own against other scavengers, but that's about it. From there she rapidly develops new talents out of thin air.

 bbb wrote:

Rey gets none of that. She can hold her own against other scavengers, but that's about it. From there she rapidly develops new talents out of thin air.

My impression is that was she was pretty accomplished as a hand to hand fighter. Most of the sword fights she's in are also fairly standard; they aren't leaping off mountains or doing huge amounts of force work during the fights. In fact they are fairly standard hand to hand fights with the core difference being that its an energy sword instead of a blade or staff.

We also see that even though she uses the sabre she clearly favours the staff weapon that she still carries around with her. As alluded to earlier in the thread if her lightsabre crystal is now cracked in half we might well see her with a staff or duel blade sabre.

It might have helped if we saw her in one or two more fights during her scavenger times.


Luke also did passably well against Vader the first time he fought him, despite having very little training by that point besides the laser droid in the Falcon (I doubt that between A New Hope and Empire he got much time to practice swordcraft)

A Protagonist Jedi wielding a double bladed light saber would be pretty cool to see, something we haven't seen since Darth Maul, a villain and Sith.

 Overread wrote:


Luke also did passably well against Vader the first time he fought him, despite having very little training by that point besides the laser droid in the Falcon (I doubt that between A New Hope and Empire he got much time to practice swordcraft)

If by passably well you mean lost his hand and nearly fell to his death, sure, he did passably well. Considering how Vader tried talking him over to the dark side, its implied that he was just toying with Luke. You don't kill prospective apprentices.

Yeah Luke does pretty poorly against Vader, who only uses one hand against them, and then gets bored and starts lobbing boxes at him instead.


Along with the hand cutting bit.

 Overread wrote:

 bbb wrote:

Rey gets none of that. She can hold her own against other scavengers, but that's about it. From there she rapidly develops new talents out of thin air.

My impression is that was she was pretty accomplished as a hand to hand fighter. Most of the sword fights she's in are also fairly standard; they aren't leaping off mountains or doing huge amounts of force work during the fights. In fact they are fairly standard hand to hand fights with the core difference being that its an energy sword instead of a blade or staff.

We also see that even though she uses the sabre she clearly favours the staff weapon that she still carries around with her. As alluded to earlier in the thread if her lightsabre crystal is now cracked in half we might well see her with a staff or duel blade sabre.

It might have helped if we saw her in one or two more fights during her scavenger times.

Luke also did passably well against Vader the first time he fought him, despite having very little training by that point besides the laser droid in the Falcon (I doubt that between A New Hope and Empire he got much time to practice swordcraft)

She def is pretty handy with her staff - in fact was expecting her to go with staff-sabre from the get go in this film, her hand to hand combat skills were not for me in doubt, but again if the supposed theme was "new" - having her go no Luke how do I make this work as a staff would have been good and her showing off some moves with it.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Overread wrote:


Luke also did passably well against Vader the first time he fought him, despite having very little training by that point besides the laser droid in the Falcon (I doubt that between A New Hope and Empire he got much time to practice swordcraft)

If by passably well you mean lost his hand and nearly fell to his death, sure, he did passably well. Considering how Vader tried talking him over to the dark side, its implied that he was just toying with Luke. You don't kill prospective apprentices.

Well I consider it passably good considering that every other fully trained Jedi that went against Vader wound up rather dead.

 Overread wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Overread wrote:


Luke also did passably well against Vader the first time he fought him, despite having very little training by that point besides the laser droid in the Falcon (I doubt that between A New Hope and Empire he got much time to practice swordcraft)

If by passably well you mean lost his hand and nearly fell to his death, sure, he did passably well. Considering how Vader tried talking him over to the dark side, its implied that he was just toying with Luke. You don't kill prospective apprentices.

Well I consider it passably good considering that every other fully trained Jedi that went against Vader wound up rather dead.

Because Vader was trying to KILL them. Vader was not trying to kill Luke.

And nor was Kylo Ren trying to kill Rey, for that matter.

Kylo's also pretty severely wounded during their fight in Ep7. There's a reason the movie points out how destructive a bowcaster is at several points prior to Chewie putting a bolt in his side.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And nor was Kylo Ren trying to kill Rey, for that matter.

This is an important point that those pushing the 'Mary Sue' agenda overlook.

I'd also suggest that TLJ also refutes the 'Mary Sue' position through her complete failure on Snoke's ship. She's no match for him whatsoever, and she also fails to turn Kylo as she thought she could. Yes, she shows fancy swordwork after Snoke's death. And yet the saber skills are the weakest part of the Mary Sue agenda. She clearly has more hand-to-hand combat experience than Luke ever had as a farmboy, and it's also clear that this trilogy has returned to the more instinctive, partially-controlling-your-actions Force of the OT.

But sure, it's much more realistic that a farmboy who can fly a futuristic cropduster can become an expert spaceship dogfighter overnight. If one believes that the Force is making that happen for Luke, then why the outrage over it granting abilities to Rey?

 gorgon wrote:


But sure, it's much more realistic that a farmboy who can fly a futuristic cropduster can become an expert spaceship dogfighter overnight. If one believes that the Force is making that happen for Luke, then why the outrage over it granting abilities to Rey?

That is the only thing that Luke accomplishes (not a minor one, of course). But he must be babysit by Han and Obi wan for all the rest, and in a lesser extent by Leia. He is constantly mocked, doubted, and must be saved from the Tusk Raiders, and even the glorious final fight would have been a failure without Han coming back (first greater step of Han development, undone in TFA).
Even in the subsequent movies he fails, makes mistakes until he reaches a true maturity.
Is not only that Rey learns faster and is more efficient, but is more welcomed by strangers and needs no rescuers. She looks like a power fantasy and makes me care less about her. Truth to be told, she is far less obnoxious in TLJ.
I am amazed that this must be repeated over and over.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Mark Hamill said he didn't agree with the portrayal of Luke in this film and I agree with him..

He said that after reading the script for the first time. He changed his mind and admitted he was wrong after seeing the finished movie.

Mark Hamill doesn't like TLJ's Luke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0biqMZrxJ0

I'm starting to think you want to like TLJ more than you actually like TLJ.

 gorgon wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And nor was Kylo Ren trying to kill Rey, for that matter.

This is an important point that those pushing the 'Mary Sue' agenda overlook.

I'd also suggest that TLJ also refutes the 'Mary Sue' position through her complete failure on Snoke's ship. She's no match for him whatsoever, and she also fails to turn Kylo as she thought she could. Yes, she shows fancy swordwork after Snoke's death. And yet the saber skills are the weakest part of the Mary Sue agenda. She clearly has more hand-to-hand combat experience than Luke ever had as a farmboy, and it's also clear that this trilogy has returned to the more instinctive, partially-controlling-your-actions Force of the OT.

But sure, it's much more realistic that a farmboy who can fly a futuristic cropduster can become an expert spaceship dogfighter overnight. If one believes that the Force is making that happen for Luke, then why the outrage over it granting abilities to Rey?

complete failure? not even close.

Also not only does she win her fight easily against the most elite guards in the universe, she saves emo who lost against them. she also easily escapes after the fight while emo gets knocked unconscious. she also bested luke in combat, they made her so much more powerful than emo, she has become mary and has no depth as a character. she's already beaten kylo twice, luke once, is there going to be any tension in the "final" showdown between the two? no, emo will need the training montage just to put up fight against her.


it's a space movie, it's kind of a given most people can fly the ships. I wouldn't call luke an expert dogfighter, he barely did anything in the fight above the deathstar, he needed more saving by the other pilots, and help from a ghost to make an impossible shot. it was probably ben who changed the course of the torpedo because luke had missed and that's why it does a 90 degree turn. a expert pilot could fly a ship through another ship and come out the other side, like mary does when she get's in the falcon and flies it through the star destroyer. That would take exceptional skill and years of flying the ship to know how much space it needs to fit and how to turn it to fit better. so again she shows all the traits of a mary sue.

 gorgon wrote:


But sure, it's much more realistic that a farmboy who can fly a futuristic cropduster can become an expert spaceship dogfighter overnight. If one believes that the Force is making that happen for Luke, then why the outrage over it granting abilities to Rey?

In ANH we get:

1. exposition from multiple people that Luke's a good pilot (obi wan, biggs).
2. exposition from obi-wan that Luke's father was a good pilot
3. Luke being visibly unimpressed with the difficulty of the shot based on his own piloting.


In star wars piloting ability is basically transferable from any craft to any other craft. It's always been like that. Luke is not especially good at much of anything except flying in ANH.

In TLJ we get:

Finn (who is not a pilot of anything, as established in TFA) being allowed (and able, with some mid flight coaching) to pilot a cropduster.


I don't get why Luke being a good pilot guided by the force is in any way unbelievable or comparable to Rey not actually needing any instruction in order to lift an avalanche of boulders, beat down Luke in a fight, gain a strong enough combat form with a lightsaber to beat the best hand to hand combatants the First Order can find without ANY training from ANYONE. She can also read people's minds because hers got read once and do jedi mind tricks before learning that the Force is not just a power you use to move things.

Rey is absolutely more talented, less trained, and more proficient than Luke in nearly every way.

Remember when people said Disney wasn't going to gak up Star Wars, and they totally would respect the franchise and not run it into the ground?

Well, if you don't see it now maybe the 20-something movies they have planned will change your mind.

TLJ was a dumpster fire. Tarkin is spinning in his grave.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Also not only does she win her fight easily against the most elite guards in the universe, she saves emo who lost against them.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I agree with the broad strokes of your argument. But Rey fought fewer guards than Kylo and visibly struggled against her last adversary. When you make false claims you invalidate your own argument, even if it is a strong argument.

*waiting for someone to correct one of my posts in 3, 2, 1....*

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The original three films were directed by three different directors.

But they were all written by George Lucas.

No, they weren't.

ANH was written by Lucas. ESB and RotJ were written by other people from George's ideas.

 Scrabb wrote:
...

*waiting for someone to correct one of my posts in 3, 2, 1....*

...Still holding, so apparently a good job!!

 Scrabb wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Mark Hamill said he didn't agree with the portrayal of Luke in this film and I agree with him..

He said that after reading the script for the first time. He changed his mind and admitted he was wrong after seeing the finished movie.

Mark Hamill doesn't like TLJ's Luke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0biqMZrxJ0

I'm starting to think you want to like TLJ more than you actually like TLJ.

http://comicbook.com/starwars/2017/12/21/star-wars-the-last-jedi-mark-hamill-luke-skywalker-reaction/

 insaniak wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The original three films were directed by three different directors.

But they were all written by George Lucas.

No, they weren't.

ANH was written by Lucas. ESB and RotJ were written by other people from George's ideas.

Really? Because on their wikipedia pages, it says the story was by Lucas. Ergo, he wrote it.

 insaniak wrote:

http://comicbook.com/starwars/2017/12/21/star-wars-the-last-jedi-mark-hamill-luke-skywalker-reaction/

You see an actor with creative differences coming around to a new way of looking at things.

I see a professional being professional who is clearly disappointed in the writers.



I mean, mentioning in passing that Mark Hamill changed his mind is more convincing than playing his actual retraction because you can see how painful it is for him to get those words out while promoting for the movie he is in.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Really? Because on their wikipedia pages, it says the story was by Lucas. Ergo, he wrote it.

There's a pretty big difference between writing the story and writing the screenplay.

The bigger difference between the original trilogy and the new movies is that George kept overall creative control and kept a pretty tight grip on how the movies developed. So the impact of having different writers and different directors was vastly reduced. Disney have instead given the directors much more creative control over their projects... although given that this has resulted in two of them needing to be replaced and their movies reworked, whether or not that's ultimately a good idea is debatable.

 Scrabb wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


But sure, it's much more realistic that a farmboy who can fly a futuristic cropduster can become an expert spaceship dogfighter overnight. If one believes that the Force is making that happen for Luke, then why the outrage over it granting abilities to Rey?

In ANH we get:

1. exposition from multiple people that Luke's a good pilot (obi wan, biggs).
2. exposition from obi-wan that Luke's father was a good pilot
3. Luke being visibly unimpressed with the difficulty of the shot based on his own piloting.

Do you genuinely think that Luke shooting a critter from his small aircraft is equivalent to a space battle with enemy professional fighter pilots and ground emplacements, while racing at the target at spaceship speed? That line is meant to show Luke's naivete.

Regarding the establishment of Luke as a good pilot, there are lots of great civilian pilots IRL who in no way would be able to hold their own in *air combat*. What's more, one actually needs to some familiarity with a given aircraft to fly it effectively. And what we're looking at in ANH isn't going from one plane to another, but from an aircraft to a spaceship. Even if the Force is involved, the scenario is utterly ridiculous, and much less realistic than someone already skilled in close combat fighting well under a Force boost.

So it's apparently one set of rules for Luke, and another for Rey.

Actually it would, given that Luke had R2 as a co-pilot. (Astromech droids perform simple repairs and do various calculations for the ships).

His kills in that battle, aside from the Death Star all rely upon the technology of the ship. His few TIE kills are near purely from his targetting computer early on. As Obi-wan has to tell him "Let go and use the force" for the rest.

And his small aircraft (The T-16 Skyhopper) is a spaceship, well noted for having nearly the same control scheme as that of an X-wing, an Ion Drive and pressurized cockpit that allowed for it to go trans-orbital. Though some of these details are EU I admit, but that's because I did enjoy the books.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A Protagonist Jedi wielding a double bladed light saber would be pretty cool to see, something we haven't seen since Darth Maul, a villain and Sith.

I agree. Considering Rey is proficient with a staff, I'd actually be disappointed if she didn't craft a dual bladed saber. She can incorporate her current staff and the pieces of Luke/Anakin's broken light saber.
It might even be neat if she found Luke's green light saber and had a half blue, half green staff saber, but that's probably too far into fanboy wishlisting

It would be SO AWESOME if Rey crafted a unicorn light sabre.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be SO AWESOME if Rey crafted a unicorn light sabre.

You mean like a light saber sticking out of her head? That would be pretty cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A Protagonist Jedi wielding a double bladed light saber would be pretty cool to see, something we haven't seen since Darth Maul, a villain and Sith.

I agree. Considering Rey is proficient with a staff, I'd actually be disappointed if she didn't craft a dual bladed saber. She can incorporate her current staff and the pieces of Luke/Anakin's broken light saber.
It might even be neat if she found Luke's green light saber and had a half blue, half green staff saber, but that's probably too far into fanboy wishlisting

Dare to dream! A bi colored saber staff would look friggen amazing.

While a staff would make sense for her, I can't help but wonder if breaking Luke's saber (and the resultant damage to the crystal in it) is setting her up for a blue version of Kylo's messy-bladed saber, to keep the whole mirror-image thing going.

 gorgon wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


But sure, it's much more realistic that a farmboy who can fly a futuristic cropduster can become an expert spaceship dogfighter overnight. If one believes that the Force is making that happen for Luke, then why the outrage over it granting abilities to Rey?

In ANH we get:

1. exposition from multiple people that Luke's a good pilot (obi wan, biggs).
2. exposition from obi-wan that Luke's father was a good pilot
3. Luke being visibly unimpressed with the difficulty of the shot based on his own piloting.

Do you genuinely think that Luke shooting a critter from his small aircraft is equivalent to a space battle with enemy professional fighter pilots and ground emplacements, while racing at the target at spaceship speed? That line is meant to show Luke's naivete.

Regarding the establishment of Luke as a good pilot, there are lots of great civilian pilots IRL who in no way would be able to hold their own in *air combat*. What's more, one actually needs to some familiarity with a given aircraft to fly it effectively. And what we're looking at in ANH isn't going from one plane to another, but from an aircraft to a spaceship. Even if the Force is involved, the scenario is utterly ridiculous, and much less realistic than someone already skilled in close combat fighting well under a Force boost.

So it's apparently one set of rules for Luke, and another for Rey.

FIne, you win, they're both mary sue. Happy now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would be SO AWESOME if Rey crafted a unicorn light sabre.

You mean like a light saber sticking out of her head? That would be pretty cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
A Protagonist Jedi wielding a double bladed light saber would be pretty cool to see, something we haven't seen since Darth Maul, a villain and Sith.

I agree. Considering Rey is proficient with a staff, I'd actually be disappointed if she didn't craft a dual bladed saber. She can incorporate her current staff and the pieces of Luke/Anakin's broken light saber.
It might even be neat if she found Luke's green light saber and had a half blue, half green staff saber, but that's probably too far into fanboy wishlisting

Dare to dream! A bi colored saber staff would look friggen amazing.

she said she wanted a pink and sparkly one, if she get's it I'll walk out of that movie.

she said she wanted a pink and sparkly one, if she get's it I'll walk out of that movie.

Eh, still better then the Lightsaber Whip idea that came from the old EU.

 Scrabb wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Also not only does she win her fight easily against the most elite guards in the universe, she saves emo who lost against them.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I agree with the broad strokes of your argument. But Rey fought fewer guards than Kylo and visibly struggled against her last adversary. When you make false claims you invalidate your own argument, even if it is a strong argument.

*waiting for someone to correct one of my posts in 3, 2, 1....*

keep waiting, It's not worth my time to rewatch the movie just to count who fought more guards. struggling in star wars means losing a hard, or an arm, coming out unscathed is winning easily.

A pink Neon light saber would actually look really good as long as it didn't drop fairy sparkles or something.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disney knows how to make money man...How many of you people that didn't like the movie saw it twice? My 2 best friends both did and several in this thread. Starwars is automatic money.

And didn't the first one make double the BO bank on franchising or something like that?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
And didn't the first one make double the BO bank on franchising or something like that?

ANH is the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time. Made around 3 billion dollars when inflation is applied.

Gone with the wind #1 ????? before my time - has a guy names Clark Gable in it (I know who that is)
Avatar #2 ( First film to really be made for 3d...no suprise)

Starwars merchandice has made something like 32 billion total.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Also not only does she win her fight easily against the most elite guards in the universe, she saves emo who lost against them.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I agree with the broad strokes of your argument. But Rey fought fewer guards than Kylo and visibly struggled against her last adversary. When you make false claims you invalidate your own argument, even if it is a strong argument.

*waiting for someone to correct one of my posts in 3, 2, 1....*

keep waiting, It's not worth my time to rewatch the movie just to count who fought more guards. struggling in star wars means losing a hard, or an arm, coming out unscathed is winning easily.

No worries mate. That wasn't a challenge to you. I was just preparing for foot in mouth syndrome.

 insaniak wrote:
While a staff would make sense for her, I can't help but wonder if breaking Luke's saber (and the resultant damage to the crystal in it) is setting her up for a blue version of Kylo's messy-bladed saber, to keep the whole mirror-image thing going.

That would be pretty cool.

 Manchu wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
While a staff would make sense for her, I can't help but wonder if breaking Luke's saber (and the resultant damage to the crystal in it) is setting her up for a blue version of Kylo's messy-bladed saber, to keep the whole mirror-image thing going.

That would be pretty cool.

Actually, I kinda hope not. Kylo's saber is messy specifically to symbolize his conflicted nature. I actually hope he gets a traditional solid saber in IX to symbolize his new resolve as Supreme leader.

But yeah, Rey needs a staff lgihtsaber combo AT MINIMUM. Double bladed if possible and bi-color green & blue.

-

Why are people referring to it as a 'messy saber?' It's clearly designed to ape a basic cruciform sword.

Messy in reference to the jagged, fluctuating blade. In Rebels you see a similar design but with a stable blade, which is presumably what Ren's would look like if he knew how to actually build one...


@Galef: My bet is on Ren getting both a new saber and a new set of Vader-esque armour for IX, and I'd love to see a staff for Rey. Preferably single-ended and blue, and in a perfect world built into her existing staff to symbolism her old and new lives coming together. I reckon a double-colour one would look a little naff, but each to their own.

Ren's saber being all crackly is due to him using a cracked crystal in its construction. (illustrated dictionary for TFA)

I'm assuming he didn't have access to a proper crystal (given how the Empire did mine Illum (it was under embargo and imperial blockade after the clone wars to harvest the crystals for the DS superlasers and all.) and Luke didn't know about the place since he didn't get proper temple schooling and all.

Luke built his own saber from Kenobi's spare parts on Tattooine (deleted scene from ROTJ) - it's not like he ventured to illum to get a fresh one.

 chromedog wrote:
Luke built his own saber from Kenobi's spare parts on Tattooine (deleted scene from ROTJ) - it's not like he ventured to illum to get a fresh one.

This is the basis for the fan theory that Luke's green crystal is the same as Qui-Gon's, because Obi-wan may have had it in his hut on Tattooine.
If true, and Rey somehow incorporates Luke's green saber, THAT would be the oldest "light saber" we've seen on screen. But I doubt that would happen.

A single bladed blue light "staff" is the bare minimum that NEEDS to happen for Rey in IX. She could still use it as a traditional staff for non-lethal defence and activate the blue blade when needed to fight Kylo. As you mention, it would be the perfect combination of her old and new lives and kinda appropriate for the new generation of Jedi.

-

 Galef wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Luke built his own saber from Kenobi's spare parts on Tattooine (deleted scene from ROTJ) - it's not like he ventured to illum to get a fresh one.

This is the basis for the fan theory that Luke's green crystal is the same as Qui-Gon's, because Obi-wan may have had it in his hut on Tattooine.
-

Not sure where that theory came from... Luke used an artificial crystal that he made himself.

Although that was explained in Shadows of the Empire (not sure where else it was mentioned) so may not still be cannon.

 insaniak wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Luke built his own saber from Kenobi's spare parts on Tattooine (deleted scene from ROTJ) - it's not like he ventured to illum to get a fresh one.

This is the basis for the fan theory that Luke's green crystal is the same as Qui-Gon's, because Obi-wan may have had it in his hut on Tattooine.
-

Not sure where that theory came from... Luke used an artificial crystal that he made himself.

Although that was explained in Shadows of the Empire (not sure where else it was mentioned) so may not still be cannon.

If that is from SotE, than it is most definitely NOT canon any longer. Everything written prior to Disney owning Lucasfilm is not canon.

The theory comes from the lack of canon info available. Obi-wan likely still had Qui-Gon's lightsaber and Luke built his lightsaber from parts from Obi-wan's Hut (deleted RotJ scene has him putting the final adjustments to his light saber on Tattooine). So it wouldn't be a stretch to think that Lukes used the crystal from Qui-Gon's saber

-

 Galef wrote:

If that is from SotE, than it is most definitely NOT canon any longer. Everything written prior to Disney owning Lucasfilm is not canon.

Yes, I'm aware of the nuking of the EU. More specifically, though, in the absence of any other information, it's not necessarily not still canon. I'm fairly sure that SotE wasn't the only place it was mentioned, and IIRC the scene in SotE is basically just a slight re-write of a deleted scene from the opening of RotJ. So it remains to be seen whether they choose to stick with that story or come up with a different backstory for Luke's second saber. And, really, the fact that the saber was constructed from parts left in Kenobi's home comes from the same place...

The theory comes from the lack of canon info available. Obi-wan likely still had Qui-Gon's lightsaber and Luke built his lightsaber from parts from Obi-wan's Hut (deleted RotJ scene has him putting the final adjustments to his light saber on Tattooine). So it wouldn't be a stretch to think that Lukes used the crystal from Qui-Gon's saber
-

Obi Wan may have still had Qui Gon's lightsaber in his possession at the time of Order 66, but he almost certainly wasn't carrying it around with him. So unless he snuck back to the temple on Coruscant to collect his belongings after dropping Luke on Tattooine, it seems extremely unlikely that he would have had it during his exile.

 gorgon wrote:


Do you genuinely think that Luke shooting a critter from his small aircraft is equivalent to a space battle with enemy professional fighter pilots and ground emplacements, while racing at the target at spaceship speed? That line is meant to show Luke's naivete.

You frame the question well if you want what Luke does to look impossible. But I honestly think it is easier to hit the stationary target with the military grade navicomputer than the moving target of equal size from a 'cropduster.'

I think that line is meant to show Luke's experience blasting difficult targets and the one guy who thought the shot too difficult was meant to be viewed as a naysayer. Certainly came off as such to me. Look, one of the other rebel pilots, Biggs Darklighter (Or Red Three if you like) grew up with Luke. He's one of the friends Luke had that moved on to bigger and better things. He came from the same exact humble beginnings as Luke and made it as a military pilot without force powers. Luke got personal coaching from Ben as he took the shot.

Yes, there's no substitute for an actual fight, but ANH does a great deal better establishing familiarity before achievement for Luke than for Rey. I believe it's fairly obvious when the contents of the movies are examined.

Regarding the establishment of Luke as a good pilot, there are lots of great civilian pilots IRL who in no way would be able to hold their own in *air combat*. What's more, one actually needs to some familiarity with a given aircraft to fly it effectively. And what we're looking at in ANH isn't going from one plane to another, but from an aircraft to a spaceship.

I believe Luke's ship was space capable.

Even if the Force is involved, the scenario is utterly ridiculous, and much less realistic than someone already skilled in close combat fighting well under a Force boost.

You believe Luke surviving a dogfight in space is utterly ridiculous even after involving the force? We see things so differently. I'd have believed that sequence without the force for Luke, and we get better exploits than that from Poe in the new installments without force sensitivity.

So it's apparently one set of rules for Luke, and another for Rey.

I agree with you, but the other way round from where you see it. Rey just does more. It's not even one of the things that bothers me about TLJ, but I definitely think Luke had it harder than Rey getting to where he ended up.

Which is to say, he ended up getting bitchslapped around by Rey because she wouldn't accept his lies and decided she was going to beat the crap out of him until he admitted his deepest darkest secrets to her.




Edit: You know what? No. You are being absolutely ridiculous. In TFA Rey is the one who outmaneuvers "enemy professional fighter pilots" in the ship she did mechanical work on and lines up a shot for a fixed point turret. In TLJ Rey shoots three ties with her opening salvo from said turrets in her first shot and exclaims "this is fun!" This Millennium Falcon turret shot scene is the very next scene she is in after her force pull duel with Kylo Ren. The Falcon then draws off the entire FO fighter cadre because Kylo is emotionally compromised and kills them all. Rey then uses the force to open up the back door of mountain and saves everyone. Only then do we get a dramatic stare down between Rey and Kylo in their weird force link (So the Light side is trying to seduce the dark side now? Or vice versa? Since the force always has a balance rise up per snoke or whatever) But we still don't know how Rey feels about these developments! She was super chipper when killing FO dudes so can't have been terribly affected by Kylo's refusal to give up the FO's murderous ways.... Or maybe she is torn. Does she still think he can be redeemed? Does she want to kill him now just like Luke did? Was Luke right at first? Or later on when he decided to sacrifice himself to buy hope for the Resistance? Hope that is spreading through a LIE that he (Luke) actually went toe to toe with the new AT-AT variants and the dark knight Kylo Ren? He's perpetuating the same myths he despised after falling from grace. He never passed on his failure, the great teacher (according to Yoda) so the galaxy is just going to repeat it all again.

This movie can't find it's own backside to pat itself on the back for how clever it is. It is a shambles. We get a dramatic shot of resistance troopers lining up the salt trenches just like ESB. But they don't do anything at all and run away but magically don't make it to the Falcon despite not dying at any point.

Finn and Rose randomly go everywhere without harm. From the middle of the FO fleet Rose flies them to safety, then strands them on foot closer to the FO troops than the base gate by crashing into Finn's scrapper because you can't win by killing what you hate, because Finn was totally motivated by hatred there and not, y'know belief in the cause Rose instilled in him. No worries, they outrun the FO to the door a second time on foot.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Everything you examine closely falls apart. And Luke Skywalker surviving a space battle is ridiculous? You Must think Star Wars a whole fundamentally ridiculous.

*You must think Star Wars as a whole is fundamentally ridiculous*

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They haven't mirrored Luke and that seems to be what people are complaining about.

I think you've mistaken people explaining they don't like Rey because of lack of character development then using Luke as an example of character development.

Not that they want Rey to mirror Luke.

We could use characters from hundreds of other films to demonstrate the same thing.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Many TV series, like game of thrones, have multiple directors and manage just fine to stay cohesive.

Game of Thrones has failed to do this. It did pretty well while it was guided by the novels (written by a single author), but once it went off the rails laid down by George Martin, the plot nosedived.

 Scrabb wrote:
*You must think Star Wars as a whole is fundamentally ridiculous*

Well... yes, but that's all fiction in general so I kind of got over it a long time ago

 AlexHolker wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Many TV series, like game of thrones, have multiple directors and manage just fine to stay cohesive.

Game of Thrones has failed to do this. It did pretty well while it was guided by the novels (written by a single author), but once it went off the rails laid down by George Martin, the plot nosedived.

I agree it hasn't been as good since they lost the novels for guidance, but IMO it's still relatively cohesive and feels like it's progressing rather than just building up and burning down the story from one director to the next. Certainly when compared to TFA and TLJ.

I think having different directors can be good for giving films in a series a different feel, but with JJ and Johnson it doesn't even feel like they're travelling to the same destination let alone being on the same road.

I saw Kevin Smith's review of TLJ and he described it as "feth you JJ" moments, of course Kevin Smith loved it (and I don't expect him to hate on it given from what I understand he knows the directors personally, and he's the sort of guy who seems to like everything anyway) but to me there's too many "feth you JJ" moments in TLJ for its own good.

 AlexHolker wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Many TV series, like game of thrones, have multiple directors and manage just fine to stay cohesive.

Game of Thrones has failed to do this. It did pretty well while it was guided by the novels (written by a single author), but once it went off the rails laid down by George Martin, the plot nosedived.

That's hilarious - the novels fell off the rails and became turgid nonsense about half way through - the show is not perfect but its a million times better than the books at this point.

 AlexHolker wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Many TV series, like game of thrones, have multiple directors and manage just fine to stay cohesive.

Game of Thrones has failed to do this. It did pretty well while it was guided by the novels (written by a single author), but once it went off the rails laid down by George Martin, the plot nosedived.

The problem with GoT the series is that they have to compress remaining ~2 books to 13 episodes. They have to make massive quantum leaps to conclude the story.

Although, some of the storylines written for the show are really bad, it's true. Dorne storyline was at least moderately interesting in the books, but awful in the series. Lets not even mention shows almost comical relying on 'surprise stabbings'. Like five major characters have been killed by "two people talking blah blah - then one suddenly stabs the another" - a "really shocking new plot twist". Yawn.

Backfire wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Many TV series, like game of thrones, have multiple directors and manage just fine to stay cohesive.

Game of Thrones has failed to do this. It did pretty well while it was guided by the novels (written by a single author), but once it went off the rails laid down by George Martin, the plot nosedived.

The problem with GoT the series is that they have to compress remaining ~2 books to 13 episodes. They have to make massive quantum leaps to conclude the story.

Although, some of the storylines written for the show are really bad, it's true. Dorne storyline was at least moderately interesting in the books, but awful in the series. Lets not even mention shows almost comical relying on 'surprise stabbings'. Like five major characters have been killed by "two people talking blah blah - then one suddenly stabs the another" - a "really shocking new plot twist". Yawn.

Lets maybe drop the GoT tangent? My fault, I'm sorry I bought up GoT, it was really just a throwaway comment on a series I felt remained relatively cohesive story (though maybe some ups and downs in quality) in spite of multiple directors rather than the directors seemingly fighting against each other like TFA and TLJ.... I didn't mean it to be a whole discussion on GoT unless people wanted to specifically relate it back to TLJ.

 gorgon wrote:

Regarding the establishment of Luke as a good pilot, there are lots of great civilian pilots IRL who in no way would be able to hold their own in *air combat*. What's more, one actually needs to some familiarity with a given aircraft to fly it effectively. And what we're looking at in ANH isn't going from one plane to another, but from an aircraft to a spaceship. Even if the Force is involved, the scenario is utterly ridiculous, and much less realistic than someone already skilled in close combat fighting well under a Force boost.

I think in SW universe, there is fairly standardized and accessible UI amongst the flying craft, with computers doing most of the flying work and pilot simply giving commands. I think something like this may have even been mentioned in the lore somewhere. So basically, if you can fly one craft, you can fly all of them, save perhaps some unique alien designs. It's not like Cessna 152 pilot trying to take off in F-4 Phantom.
(Also, I think Luke had access to simulators in Tatooine.)

And really, if you think about it, such thing makes sense. Galactic civilization is tens of thousands of years old. Over the years, there would have been a trend for standardized controls, much in the same fashion as computer OS UI's are nowadays very similar.

As for Rey, I think she came across slightly Sue-ish in TFA, and none at all in TLJ. In TFA she was shown multi-skilled - excellet pilot, mechanic, hand-to-hand fighter (though she couldn't shoot), AND she suddenly became powerful Force user. Luke couldn't consciously use Force at all in the first movie, and only could do some basic tricks in the second before Yoda trained him. Rey by contrast is doing pretty much what Luke was in RotJ after just few minutes.
IMO, the problem was that there was no foreboding at all about her Force proficiency. Even my 7 year old nephew pointed it out after the movie. "It was weird how she was suddenly able to defeat that guy who had trained so much more..."
Even with Anakin there was some foreboding, his Jedi reflexes which allowed him to compete in pod racing.
They should have dedicated just like 10 seconds of screentime to Rey's Force connection in TFA, it would have opened up the character much more. Say a scene where Stormtrooper shoots Rey at close range, who somehow dodges the bolt. Then Finn asks "How did you do that?" Rey: "Did what?" Or prophetic dreams or something, it ain't rocket science.

 insaniak wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Mark Hamill said he didn't agree with the portrayal of Luke in this film and I agree with him..

He said that after reading the script for the first time. He changed his mind and admitted he was wrong after seeing the finished movie.

Mark Hamill doesn't like TLJ's Luke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0biqMZrxJ0

I'm starting to think you want to like TLJ more than you actually like TLJ.

http://comicbook.com/starwars/2017/12/21/star-wars-the-last-jedi-mark-hamill-luke-skywalker-reaction/

Sorry to bring this up again, but it's interesting to actually watch through some interviews from that same string of interviews. If you search youtube you can find a few videos where Mark is being interviewed by various web folks while wearing the same clothes with the same background, it seems they set up just to do a bunch of quick interviews one after the other. Mark actually looks like he's getting a bit sick of interviews during this particular set of them

If you watch a few of them I still don't get the impression Mark liked how he had to portray Luke, at best I think he recognised that Luke shouldn't be playing a large part because it's about the new kids. Even in Mark's twitter post he says he regrets voicing his concerns, but didn't actually state anything contrary to his previously stated opinions about Luke.

I think Mark still wasn't happy about Luke's portrayal but just accepts the movie wasn't about him*** and regrets giving haters something to point to when they're complaining about the film.

***Of course I'm happy enough that Luke didn't play a major role, my gripe is that he seemed so massively out of character. I could have believed Luke being a bad teacher, but throwing away the light sabre (and I think he called it a "laser sword" or something like that), not immediately running back when he finds out Carrie and Harrison are in danger (or dead), the whole fact he ran away from everyone to be on an island without giving his friends an east way to find him right after he unleashed Kylo on the universe and it seems he was aware of Snoke as well, the bit about him drawing a sabre on Kylo (remembering this is the guy who almost died because he refused to kill his father who had actually done horrible things), him being ready to throw in the towel with Rey because she did something ill advised (when he had done things which Yoda AND force ghost Obi Wan specifically told him were the path to destruction and the dark side).

Did Rian even watch the original trilogy before deciding how Luke should act in TLJ?

The 'laser sword' reference was another throwback. Anakin refers to Qui Gon's laser sword in TPM, which is in turn a nod to Lucas, as that's what he originally wanted to call them before everyone else involved convinced him the 'light saber' would be a better choice.

And his almost-murder of Kylo is explained in the movie. He refused to kill his father because he could sense the good in him. In Ben Solo, he could find only darkness. The fact that he pulled back from that action, and that he took the consequences of it so personally seem well enough in character to me.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Personally I wish they had another director for Ep. 9 to provide a third vision in this trilogy. That's more interesting to me than consistency and predictability. *shrug*

What?? Thats not how a Trilogy is supposed to work. A Trilogy is one continuous story, it HAS To be consistent. Otherwise its just a horribly disjointed and incoherent mess.

Imagine what the Lord of the Rings would have been like, if Fellowship of the Ring was directed by Peter Jackson, Two Towers was directed by Michael Bay and then Return of the King was directed by Quentin Tarantino.

Much better than The Hobbit trilogy, that's for sure.

Other examples would be the Star Wars prequels and the Matrix trilogy. So having same director/writer over the trilogy is no guarantee of quality and 'coherency' is no good if's it's coherently crap.

And as I pointed earlier, original SW trilogy was hardly 'coherent' in this sense either as they had multiple directors and screenwriters, even Lucas really had not made any decisions where to go after ANH and much of it was made up as they went along.

As for Snoke, I agree with the sentiment that hype around him was more with the fanbase than the movies itself. It was sort of a meta mystery. Contrast this to first trilogy, where Emperor was just mentioned in passing and was developed into character of his own later - but they could have easily chosen another route and ignore him entirely, or assassinated him in one scene or even offscreen or whatever. Or prequel trilogy where they did start building mystery villain and much of the movies were Jedi trying to figure out who he was and eventually he was revealed (though viewers of course knew by then, but it was meta-knowledge).

Thing is, characters in the movies seemed to know who Snoke was, or at least his background wasn't very relevant to them. Nobody ever speculated about Snoke's identity or where he came from, hence there is no reason to complain about 'mystery' aspect as no such thing was presented - just like with the Emperor in OT. I do agree they should have told us little bit more about him, just a side comment or something, no need for boring exposition monologues or such. With Emperor, his title was self-explanatory and it was mentioned he disbanded the Senate so that already told us a lot about his character. That he was Darth Sidious or former Chancellor who grabbed power was NOT needed for the story initially (and reading the novelization, nothing like that was even envisioned at that point).

It was also mentioned that he was crueler and far more powerful then Darth Vader, which did help hype him up given Darth Vader had his infamous constant force chokes for failure.


Also no it wasn't just the fanbase given that they teased a lot of things over time when it came to the character of Snoke through interviews and other such things, and the new director apparently decided "Nah" and enjoyed trolling fans who liked such a direction on his twitter.

Not to say we learned much of the backstory behind the Emperor.. But he was essentially power over an entire galaxy, while Snoke just randomly appears on the scene and is pretty powerful and is in control of Empire Remnants? One's basically your classic tyrant story while one makes one wonder "Where was this guy previously when he's this strong given that the Emperor doesn't like competition"

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It was also mentioned that he was crueler and far more powerful then Darth Vader, which did help hype him up given Darth Vader had his infamous constant force chokes for failure.

Emperor? No, not originally, in ANH he was just mentioned in passing. In second movie they build him up and he showed up briefly, and in retrospect it is really textbook way to present major villain. When Emperor finally arrives in person it is presented as a big deal and it IS a big deal. However his origin still isn't mentioned anywhere. It is no longer relevant subject for the characters to discuss.

Now, if in Ep.2 Darth Tyranus had suddenly killed off Sideous after his character had been hyped up as a mystery villain, that would have been more in line what people are complaining about now - but nothing like that was done with Snoke. Characters in the movie didn't care about his 'mystery background', so I didn't care either. Sure, they COULD have build up Snoke into great villain by exploring his background and goals and abilities, but they chose to use his character for another purpose and I am fine with that.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Also no it wasn't just the fanbase given that they teased a lot of things over time when it came to the character of Snoke through interviews and other such things, and the new director apparently decided "Nah" and enjoyed trolling fans who liked such a direction on his twitter.

I don't watch interviews or extras or any of that stuff, so I have been entirely ignorant about it, and good for me. Movie should stand on its own without the viewer meta or Extended Universe knowledge. Such things are just bonuses for the more rabid fans and you should never base the storybuilding around them. That's one thing which went wrong in prequels and TFA, too much meta and fan service creeping inside the movies. Hey, Anakin built C3PO! Boba Fett's dad was source for the Clones! Chewbacca used to fight alongside Yoda! Finn and Rey stumble upon Millenium Falcon! Yawn. I say we give a medal for Rian Johnson for successful trolling around this idiocy.

I wonder if the Third film might answer Snokes history. If we consider that the remains of the Rebellion can fit onto the Falcon and lost most of their upper ranks and lower ranks at the same time then it might be that the Rebels can't win by a major military feat again.


So we might well see Rey or others go on a quest to find out more about Snoke; how he came to power so fast; how he equipped and armed the First Order - ergo the history of the Order beyond it being remnant of the Imperial Fleet (as its very clear the First Order is more than just remains).

With the hope that if they find out about Snokes history it might lead them to how to defeat the First Order. Also it was hinted in this last film that not all the other Jedi in training were killed; Snoke might well have had a favourite, but he might have trained others as well

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Sorry to bring this up again, but it's interesting to actually watch through some interviews from that same string of interviews. If you search youtube you can find a few videos where Mark is being interviewed by various web folks while wearing the same clothes with the same background, it seems they set up just to do a bunch of quick interviews one after the other. Mark actually looks like he's getting a bit sick of interviews during this particular set of them

If you watch a few of them I still don't get the impression Mark liked how he had to portray Luke, at best I think he recognised that Luke shouldn't be playing a large part because it's about the new kids. Even in Mark's twitter post he says he regrets voicing his concerns, but didn't actually state anything contrary to his previously stated opinions about Luke.

I think Mark still wasn't happy about Luke's portrayal but just accepts the movie wasn't about him*** and regrets giving haters something to point to when they're complaining about the film.

While I am not 100% happy with treatment of Luke in the movie myself, is this really subject we need to dwell on any longer? Do people remember anymore that Alec Guinness hated the part of Obi-Wan and thought his dialogue was awful and childish and TBH, it shows in his performance. He only took the part because of huge wads of cash he made from it.

Backfire wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Sorry to bring this up again, but it's interesting to actually watch through some interviews from that same string of interviews. If you search youtube you can find a few videos where Mark is being interviewed by various web folks while wearing the same clothes with the same background, it seems they set up just to do a bunch of quick interviews one after the other. Mark actually looks like he's getting a bit sick of interviews during this particular set of them

If you watch a few of them I still don't get the impression Mark liked how he had to portray Luke, at best I think he recognised that Luke shouldn't be playing a large part because it's about the new kids. Even in Mark's twitter post he says he regrets voicing his concerns, but didn't actually state anything contrary to his previously stated opinions about Luke.

I think Mark still wasn't happy about Luke's portrayal but just accepts the movie wasn't about him*** and regrets giving haters something to point to when they're complaining about the film.

While I am not 100% happy with treatment of Luke in the movie myself, is this really subject we need to dwell on any longer? Do people remember anymore that Alec Guinness hated the part of Obi-Wan and thought his dialogue was awful and childish and TBH, it shows in his performance. He only took the part because of huge wads of cash he made from it.

Given that to him at the time it was a one time role in something he didn't expect to do amazingly. And on the other hand you have someone who constantly comes back for cameo's, loved discussing it with fans, and in general has practically embraced the role. Mark is very well known that if he embraces a role he wholeheartedly does so such as he did VA work for the Joker in the batman series. It tends to be a bit more of something that people take notice of comparatively.

In general, it's not going to sway people though. People will use it for either sides opinions no matter what he says. He could say he absolutely hated TJA and people would try and spin it otherwise, he could say he loved it with his heart and people would spin it otherwise.

 Overread wrote:
I wonder if the Third film might answer Snokes history. If we consider that the remains of the Rebellion can fit onto the Falcon and lost most of their upper ranks and lower ranks at the same time then it might be that the Rebels can't win by a major military feat again.


So we might well see Rey or others go on a quest to find out more about Snoke; how he came to power so fast; how he equipped and armed the First Order - ergo the history of the Order beyond it being remnant of the Imperial Fleet (as its very clear the First Order is more than just remains).

With the hope that if they find out about Snokes history it might lead them to how to defeat the First Order. Also it was hinted in this last film that not all the other Jedi in training were killed; Snoke might well have had a favourite, but he might have trained others as well

That sounds pretty good. Sadly, Disney has much worse plans I fear.

Well yes we know about the other Jedi he had with him. The Knights of Ren were mentioned back in TFA, and that Kylo was a master rank amongst them.

Speaking for myself, I didn't care who Snoke was.

The scenario is that the Resistance needs something to resist and Snoke's New Order fills that role. It doesn't really matter what their back story is, in my view.

Which would be okay to me if this was some new series with new lore to establish rather then an established setting with it's own internal logic and universe.

It is a bit biased to say such, but if this had been an entirely new series.. Well the first movie would still be a ripoff of Star Wars, we wouldn't have gone in with preconceptions either.

Well, there is a Snoke book coming out this year, but I doubt we'll get an answer on film. Afterall, we knew next to nothing about Palpatine for a good 16yrs and most people were ok with that.

What we really need more info on are the Knights of Ren, which only get a mention in TFA but nothing in TLJ.
If we don't see anything about these guys in IX, I will admit this series has bad writing (but I'm not admitting that yet)

Thing is with Palpatine we didn't really need to know much because we didn't really know much of anything of the before - Palpatine was a creature in the "now" along with the rest of that saga.

However for this new Trilogy we already know a huge chunk of the history; as a result everyone wants to know what happened in the decades since the Return of the Jedi and the rise of this new First Order and this new leader Snoke - we want to know why he arose then and only then; at the very least learn how he came to power if not his back-story.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is with Palpatine we didn't really need to know much because we didn't really know much of anything of the before - Palpatine was a creature in the "now" along with the rest of that saga.

However for this new Trilogy we already know a huge chunk of the history; as a result everyone wants to know what happened in the decades since the Return of the Jedi and the rise of this new First Order and this new leader Snoke - we want to know why he arose then and only then; at the very least learn how he came to power if not his back-story.

I agree with what you are saying. I was merely stating that Snoke is being portrayed in the same "creature in the now" way.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It doesn't really matter what their back story is, in my view.

TBH I don't understand your perspective on this point. I can see that you may not care what the backstory is because, essentially, you don't care very much about the movie generally. But who Snoke is clearly does matter. The FO is not the Empire. It's some kind of radical new threat to galactic peace. Understanding its leader, who he is, what motivates him - this is essential to understanding what the FO is all about. Similarly, he turned Kylo Ren to the dark side and has acted as his mentor for years. So understanding Kylo, one of the main characters, is also a matter of knowing things about Snoke. I mean, sure, they are The Baddies. They are Bad because this is a Space Opera where you have to have Baddies. So if we're just going to regress to the level of, "who cares it's just Star Wars" that's fine - but apply it to the whole film, not just to people criticizing the film. If Star Wars doesn't need to be even basically competent because it's just dumb schlock, you're essentially conceding that TLJ is dumb schlock. Which isn't praise.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is with Palpatine we didn't really need to know much because we didn't really know much of anything of the before

We didn't need to know much about the Emperor (who had no name in RotJ) because the story wasn't about the rise of the Empire or the fall of Anakin Skywalker. By contrast, the Disney movies are about the rise of the FO (specifically as a vehicle of Snoke's agenda*) and the fall of Ben Solo. These elements are not a given for the very fact that these are SEQUELS.

This is weird even in TFA. Hux gives his maniacal anti-Republic speech but ... uh, does that have anything to do with Snoke? Like, is Snoke also rabidly anti-Republic? Why did Snoke approve the construction and use of Starkiller Base?

If the answer is just, Disney wanted a Death Star then, yes, people are justified in telling Disney to feth off.

So the OT is also dumb schlock then? Even after ROTJ we know very little about the Emperor beyond eeeeevil. We learn that he turned Vader but not how or why, and have no clue how he rose to power. We also know nothing about the order that he and Vader belong to.

He's the Emperor of the Empire and an evil Force wizard, but otherwise he's a blank slate and not a fully formed character. His death has no meaning to us beyond the end of the Empire as we know it and Vader's turn. But that works well enough.

Snoke's end echoes this, because his death is about Kylo's ascension to control of the FO. It's actually an improvement on the OT model, since like Vader he's more interesting than his boss ever was.

EDIT: I don't see how this trilogy is about the rise of the FO or Snoke. Clearly those things already happened. And I think it's curious to characterize the FO as a radical new threat when it's very obviously presented as the remnants of the old Empire.

That just speaks to the way TLJ ignores the setup of TFA. In TFA we meet The First Order. They're kinda like the Empire, but more Nazi. And then in TLJ they're like, "Nazis? Who said anything about Nazis?"

 bbb wrote:
And then in TLJ they're like, "Nazis? Who said anything about Nazis?"

Well, to be fair, TLJ certainly has a Nazi color palette.

 Manchu wrote:

Thing is with Palpatine we didn't really need to know much because we didn't really know much of anything of the before

We didn't need to know much about the Emperor (who had no name in RotJ) because the story wasn't about the rise of the Empire or the fall of Anakin Skywalker. By contrast, the Disney movies are about the rise of the FO (specifically as a vehicle of Snoke's agenda*) and the fall of Ben Solo. These elements are not a given for the very fact that these are SEQUELS.

This is weird even in TFA. Hux gives his maniacal anti-Republic speech but ... uh, does that have anything to do with Snoke? Like, is Snoke also rabidly anti-Republic? Why did Snoke approve the construction and use of Starkiller Base?

If the answer is just, Disney wanted a Death Star then, yes, people are justified in telling Disney to feth off.

Where have you got that this trilogy is to do with the rise of the First Order? The First Order had already risen at the beginning of TFA, hence the official peace between the New Republic and the FO, with the Resistance engaging in an unofficial war.

As for why Snoke wanted Starkiller Base, what better way to kill the entire political leadership, not to mention the fleet, of his only military competitor? The Loss of Starkiller Base wasn't even that big of a blow considering it had achieved its main objective. In reality, it made more sense for the First Order to build Starkiller Base than it did for the Empire to build the Death Star, considering the enemy of the First Order had a centralised structure to target.

Isn't it pretty well established that the Death Star was a pretty dumb idea in universe? All the eggs in one basket, sort of thing?

The idea of the Death Star was to destroy the concept of the Republic. Don't forget at the very start of a New Hope the senate was still functioning. The Emperor had control, but only so far as the senate allowed him to up until that point.

So he built the Death Star; the idea being that once he dissolved the senate (a massive thing really that was only commented on in brief during the film) each regional (planet/system) area would control itself. With the Imperial army ruling over all - with the Death Star (and likely in time, multiple death stars) allowing him to have the ultimate threat to prevent any world from turning against Imperial Order.

The idea of the Death Star is that it would have fired a handful of times and then been a massive threat to any world that disobeyed.
It's like a nuclear weapon today - with the only differences being that only the Empire would have had one - and they would use it without worry o fallout (ergo its not an idle threat).


First Order took that tech to a new level to produce a long ranged planet killer in order to, again, fracture the unity of the worlds.

 gorgon wrote:
So the OT is also dumb schlock then?

RotJ is pretty scholcky yes, no point in pretending it is some kind of masterpiece. But it's better than The Last Jedi by miles. And moreover, ESB is an actual masterpiece - the argument that TLJ doesn't have to be competent because Star Wars is schlock ignores that while Star Wars has been truly dire (prequels) it's not perforce the nonsensical garbage we get through most of TLJ.

 gorgon wrote:
Even after ROTJ we know very little about the Emperor [...]

Already addressed above.

 gorgon wrote:
I don't see how this trilogy is about the rise of the FO or Snoke. Clearly those things already happened.

No, what you are seeing in TFA is the literally explosive entrance of the FO onto the galactic political stage.

 gorgon wrote:
And I think it's curious to characterize the FO as a radical new threat when it's very obviously presented as the remnants of the old Empire.

That is actually incorrect. The actual Galactic Empire still exists, albeit as the merest shadow of its former self. They have a peace treaty with the Republic. Courscant is still its capital. By contrast, the FO is indeed a new threat built together by Snoke and hardliner Imperials who rejected peace. It's not your fault that you got this wrong; TFA should have explained it. Same goes for this:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The First Order had already risen at the beginning of TFA, hence the official peace between the New Republic and the FO, with the Resistance engaging in an unofficial war.

The FO was never at peace with the Republic. The FO exists because its founders, aside from Snoke, explicitly rejected this peace.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
As for why Snoke wanted Starkiller Base, what better way to kill the entire political leadership, not to mention the fleet, of his only military competitor?

Competitor for what? Snoke's goals are never explained so his war against the Republic doesn't make any sense. It makes sense why second-generation Imperial hardliners like Hux hate the Republic. Why Hux's boss leads the organization this way, however, is a mystery.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Thing is with Palpatine we didn't really need to know much because we didn't really know much of anything of the before

We didn't need to know much about the Emperor (who had no name in RotJ) because the story wasn't about the rise of the Empire or the fall of Anakin Skywalker. By contrast, the Disney movies are about the rise of the FO (specifically as a vehicle of Snoke's agenda*) and the fall of Ben Solo. These elements are not a given for the very fact that these are SEQUELS.

This is weird even in TFA. Hux gives his maniacal anti-Republic speech but ... uh, does that have anything to do with Snoke? Like, is Snoke also rabidly anti-Republic? Why did Snoke approve the construction and use of Starkiller Base?

If the answer is just, Disney wanted a Death Star then, yes, people are justified in telling Disney to feth off.

Where have you got that this trilogy is to do with the rise of the First Order? The First Order had already risen at the beginning of TFA, hence the official peace between the New Republic and the FO, with the Resistance engaging in an unofficial war.

As for why Snoke wanted Starkiller Base, what better way to kill the entire political leadership, not to mention the fleet, of his only military competitor? The Loss of Starkiller Base wasn't even that big of a blow considering it had achieved its main objective. In reality, it made more sense for the First Order to build Starkiller Base than it did for the Empire to build the Death Star, considering the enemy of the First Order had a centralised structure to target.

It was an official peace between the New Republic and the Empire, with the First Order as a risen terrorist group.

The worst name in Star Wars, after Jar Jar Binks,

Is Snoke.

Supreme Leader Snoke. What garbage.

Yes, it's a terrible name but it might have eventually developed a better ring to it (e.g., Boba Fett, Count Dooku) if the character had not turned out to be a mascot for the IDGAF school of screenwriting.

I disagree. I counter with Sheev Palpatine that they eventually saddled him.

He needed a title though that's for sure.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Sorry to bring this up again, but it's interesting to actually watch through some interviews from that same string of interviews. If you search youtube you can find a few videos where Mark is being interviewed by various web folks while wearing the same clothes with the same background, it seems they set up just to do a bunch of quick interviews one after the other. Mark actually looks like he's getting a bit sick of interviews during this particular set of them

If you watch a few of them I still don't get the impression Mark liked how he had to portray Luke, at best I think he recognised that Luke shouldn't be playing a large part because it's about the new kids. Even in Mark's twitter post he says he regrets voicing his concerns, but didn't actually state anything contrary to his previously stated opinions about Luke.

I think Mark still wasn't happy about Luke's portrayal but just accepts the movie wasn't about him*** and regrets giving haters something to point to when they're complaining about the film.

While I am not 100% happy with treatment of Luke in the movie myself, is this really subject we need to dwell on any longer? Do people remember anymore that Alec Guinness hated the part of Obi-Wan and thought his dialogue was awful and childish and TBH, it shows in his performance. He only took the part because of huge wads of cash he made from it.

Given that to him at the time it was a one time role in something he didn't expect to do amazingly. And on the other hand you have someone who constantly comes back for cameo's, loved discussing it with fans, and in general has practically embraced the role.

Didn't Harrison Ford hate playing Han Solo as well? In that case I don't think it hurt Han as a character.

But yeah, Mark clearly likes Luke. Before watching TLJ I had heard some of Mark's comments and just assumed that maybe Mark had built Luke up in his mind to be something different. After watching the movie I feel the opposite, like Rian hadn't even seen the original trilogy to think about how Luke should be behaving in TLJ.

In general, it's not going to sway people though. People will use it for either sides opinions no matter what he says. He could say he absolutely hated TJA and people would try and spin it otherwise, he could say he loved it with his heart and people would spin it otherwise.

I've tried to not go beyond what Mark has said in his own words. I reckon Mark genuinely like TLJ as a movie, but it's clear he doesn't like the portrayal of Luke. So I've only bought up Mark's comments in that same respect, with regard to character flaws with Luke specifically.

In some aspects at least I feel like I'm on the same page as Mark. I enjoyed the movie, I just think it has a whole bunch of glaring flaws which if fixed could have taken it from "enjoyable action flick" to "good movie worth putting on a pedestal". One of those things is how Luke was portrayed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
The 'laser sword' reference was another throwback. Anakin refers to Qui Gon's laser sword in TPM, which is in turn a nod to Lucas, as that's what he originally wanted to call them before everyone else involved convinced him the 'light saber' would be a better choice.

Interesting throwback.... they should have made another character use it though so it didn't make Luke look like someone in the early stages of dementia.

And his almost-murder of Kylo is explained in the movie. He refused to kill his father because he could sense the good in him. In Ben Solo, he could find only darkness.

Sorry but that just sounds like BS to try and handwave away something Luke wouldn't do. He could only find darkness? In a kid? A kid of his best mate and his sister? A kid who is blatantly obviously presented as conflicted (thus can't be only dark inside)? That's just weaksauce.

I could believe Luke being a poor teacher who couldn't teach Kylo, but not doing what he did.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
they should have made another character use it though so it didn't make Luke look like someone in the early stages of dementia

LOL good point. FWIW, I didn't see it as an allusion to George Lucas but as an attempt at irony, with Luke deliberately undermining the mystique of the light saber by calling it a name that someone who doesn't give a gak about SW would call it. "Johnny, clean up your damn toy! I just stepped on a laser sword or something!"

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
He could only find darkness? In a kid? A kid of his best mate and his sister? A kid who is blatantly obviously presented as conflicted (thus can't be only dark inside)? That's just weaksauce.

Yes that is correct - PLUS, if there is "only darkness" there then ... the fething movie needs to explain why that is the case.

I'm actually disappointed in Mark. I guess he needed the money. Though he made something like 20 million through NCIS. He could have just told them to shove it and they would of had to change his role to his bidding.

I am SOOO sorry to bring this up, but I was actually feeling guilty that at nearly every scene with Leia I expected her demise just to answer the question of what happens in IX with her character.

*** RIP sweet Carrie*** sniff...

 Manchu wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
He could only find darkness? In a kid? A kid of his best mate and his sister? A kid who is blatantly obviously presented as conflicted (thus can't be only dark inside)? That's just weaksauce.

Yes that is correct - PLUS, if there is "only darkness" there then ... the fething movie needs to explain why that is the case.

I took this scene (in which Ben is clearly NOT a boy, but a very young man) to be that Snoke was not only corrupting Ben, but distorting the thoughts of Luke too.
We have no idea if Luke even knew of Snoke's existence at that moment. Snoke could have been working behind the scenes to manipulate Luke's doubts about Ben so that he "only saw darkness"
Afterwards, Luke would have just thought Snoke was tempting Ben

Snoke's ability to manipulate minds through the force is established (he connected Kylo and Rey's thoughts). So why is it such a stretch to imagine that Snoke was working both Ben and Luke against each other to further push Ben to the dark side? Luke may not have known this at the time and still cannot shake the guilt?

OR, Luke only saw darkness, but that doesn't mean only darkness existed. This could easily be a similar situation as Anakin and Padme, (so like father, like son), in which the Character sees a powerful vision of a possible future and in their effort to stop it, they end up causing it.

-

Snoke likely started work almost as soon as Palpatine fell so its not a stretch to consider that he was behind the events at the training school. Especially when you consider that Kylo didn't just run from his master trying to kill him, but also destroyed the training camp and took other students with him whilst killing others.

That's a huge stretch for a character who, when he went to bed, was totally unaware of being at any threat.

Curious that Snoke didn't use that moment to kill Luke - if he was part of that moment - though could be that Snokes control at distance was limited - could even be that Snoke intended all the trainees to die but that Kylo rejected that (just like he didn't strike Luke down fully)

 Galef wrote:
I took this scene (in which Ben is clearly NOT a boy, but a very young man) to be that Snoke was not only corrupting Ben, but distorting the thoughts of Luke too.

Galef, that's a perfectly fine rationalization/speculation. But it's not an explanation that appears in the film.

 Manchu wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I took this scene (in which Ben is clearly NOT a boy, but a very young man) to be that Snoke was not only corrupting Ben, but distorting the thoughts of Luke too.

Galef, that's a perfectly fine rationalization/speculation. But it's not an explanation that appears in the film.

What they could have done during the throne room scene, was have Snoke gloat about how he influenced the mind of Kylo into thinking Luke was attacking him and have him be the overall architect of the whole situation, then go on about Kylo being weak willed and how he'd be nothing without him. Or something.

I think it Snoke were any more insulting in that scene it would have been too obvious that he wanted Kylo to turn against him. As it stands whilst we saw Snoke cut in half there's still an outside chance that Snoke (or the force controlling Snoke) organised that rising of Kyle - possibly in a bid to have Rey join him - knowing that Rey would never joint Snoke, but that through the mind link she might have joined Kylo.

Whilst its not a plot line I can see them certainly following, its a potential one at the very least.

Honestly i think the movie was confused. It didn't totally know what it wanted to do. It just needed a more cohesive plot. Some scenes amounted doing much of nothing for the rebels. Then they could've done other things and gotten far less losses later on. Will explain later but my internet is about to cut out.

I don't think Star Wars is "dumb schlock". I think it's a space fantasy action epic.

It's not a detective film or a documentary, so it presents a different kind of content and plot.

Star Wars draws on common legendary archetypes such as the princess needing help, the farmboy become hero, the evil magician, etc.
Also, by the 9th film in the series, it has generated its own set of tropes and themes, for example that the hero will be strong in the Force, and the Force will enable the hero to be effective, but the hero will be opposed by someone strong in the dark side of the Force.

From this angle it's clear that Snoke is an evil magician/king character. To me it simply is unnecessary to document his back story. To do so would slow down the exciting progression of space fights and spectacular alien worlds, which is the true strength of Star Wars films.

OTOH it is necessary to explain Ren and Luke's back story, to show why Luke has become a disillusioned old man hiding on a remote island when people may have expected him to burst out as a hero to save the rebellion.

The way things are set up, understanding why Luke and Ben are the people they've become requires a better understnading of Snoke. It's not a matter of Snoke for Snoke's sake, as it were.

To me, I was able to understand or perhaps accept the Snoke story in the minimal way it was presented in the film.

I think that extra detail would be better presented in a novel or sourcebook.

 Galef wrote:
Well, there is a Snoke book coming out this year, but I doubt we'll get an answer on film. Afterall, we knew next to nothing about Palpatine for a good 16yrs and most people were ok with that.

AIUI, some Snoke information has already been released in "new EU" material and there are no "shocking" revelations there. They already flat out stated he is not Plagueis. I think this is good - they really needed to move out of "in this enormous galaxy, every bad guy is a Sith and all heroes are related to Skywalkers" -paradigm.

I agree with the sentiment that more information should have been provided from First Order. I mean it is pretty confusing watching the TFA: apparently "Republic" is a neighbour state of First Order, who nuke them with Starkiller. The Resistance seems like some other state, but why they call themselves "Resistance"? Seems pretty weird name for a state..
It all does make sense when you read the background - it is retelling of story how Third Reich came to being, with rump Empire as Weimar Republic and First Order as Nazi Party who rebels against "shameful" treaty of Versailles and its restrictions. But you shouldn't have to read the outside information to get the movie! I think what happened is that they read all the criticism of the prequels, how there was too much boring political dialogue (in reality there wasn't so much of it, it just was really boring). I am pretty sure they cut out LOTS of exposition from TFA script to make it absolutely sure audience won't get bored. Now, instead they got confused - but that was seen lesser evil as bored. TFA was committee work where they wanted to take no risks at all.

^If you know the above bit about First Order, you don't need to know anything more about Snoke. Then you already know why First Order is and what makes them tick, and its obvious they need a leader and Snoke is that guy. But we weren't told that, so the Snoke arc also feels unresolved.

In WW2, all you needed to know was that Hitler is a bad dude who invaded your country and had some pretty horrible policies. You didn't need to know he was disgruntled WW1 vet who had lived in poverty in Vienna. And there was never a scene where Hitler mocked Churchill and revealed he was in fact reborn Emperor Wilhelm II.

 Galef wrote:

What we really need more info on are the Knights of Ren, which only get a mention in TFA but nothing in TLJ.
If we don't see anything about these guys in IX, I will admit this series has bad writing (but I'm not admitting that yet)

Knights of Ren is almost only unresolved plotline left in the saga, so it is very obvious they will follow that route. In fact it almost writes itself: they need a new villain who is scarier than Hux and more evil than Kylo. Episode 9 will probably open with a meeting of Knights of Ren. Some of them might not be happy about Kylo's Supreme Leadership and question his position. One of them is REALLY evil and thinks Kylo is a wuss and wants to do something which even he thinks is excessive (though it is pretty hard to think what this could be, since Kylo Ren already cheered on when First Order massacred billions of civilians). They butt heads through the movie and eventually come to confrontation where Kylo Ren discovers even he has limits and redeems himself tiny bit by stopping the other Knight from doing something truly horrible. Rey cries, everyone else cheers, fireworks, roll credits.

What I am curious about is if they will show the rump Empire. And if they do, who is the current Emperor?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From this angle it's clear that Snoke is an evil magician/king character. To me it simply is unnecessary to document his back story.

I think you completely miss the point of backstory then.

I don't need backstory to tell me what role a character plays (in fact one of the coolest things about giving a backstory is the potential of making it a winding path so that you DON'T know what role the character is playing). I like backstory to give me a reason to care about a character, whether it's the hero or the villain.

At no point was I wondering about what roles Snoke, Rey, Kylo, Finn, Poe and whoever else played. The backstory is partly there to place them in the universe and partly as a springboard for actually giving a crap about the character. It's not the ONLY thing nor is it even always necessary, it's just one part of the puzzle to make compelling characters that we care about and in turn care about the story as a whole.

One of the nice things about a trilogy vs a one off is sometimes you can start off with no backstory but build a character through real time development or gradual exposition so that by the last movie you feel like you've grown with the character. You get an impression of them from the first movie which you hold with you from the moment you leave the cinema until a year or two or three when the next one comes out and then you grow further with them in that movie and so on until the last movie when the gak hits the fan.

If the writers and directors have done their jobs right, by the last movie nothing more than a look or a single sentence can be enough to elicit great emotion.

The shame about Snoke dying the way he did is that it looked like they were building him up to be something and cut it short such that his death drew forth zero emotion. Instead he's just generic bad guy who we don't give a crap about, it could have been a faceless Stormtrooper for all I cared. A wasted opportunity.

I don't think the Knights of Ren are going to supersede Kylo in any way, he was their master even before he became Supreme Leader. My guess based on what we have so far is that they were the handful of students who helped Kylo take down Luke's temple, but unlike Kylo I don't think they were ever Snoke's apprentice. I expect them to function something like the Inquisitors in the Empire, hunting down potential Jedi and rumours of rebellion, trained in the Dark Side but with a focus purely on combat and interrogation. I also don't think they'll have sabers; if Kylo is their leader and even he only has a cracked crystal blade then I can't imagine his subordinates having anything more than the kind of weapons Snoke's guard have.

I could see a situation where Kylo calls the Knights together and challenges them to test their strength against one another, leaving most dead and taking the last as his apprentice. This would help set him up as a true Supreme Leader with his own lackey (just as Ren was to Snoke and Vader was to Palpatine), and answer the question of where the Knights are pretty resolutely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

The shame about Snoke dying the way he did is that it looked like they were building him up to be something and cut it short such that his death drew forth zero emotion. Instead he's just generic bad guy who we don't give a crap about, it could have been a faceless Stormtrooper for all I cared. A wasted opportunity.

He couldn't have served his purpose in the narrative as a faceless Stormtrooper. But he could have as a reincarnated Palpatine, or a surviving Plagius, or an ancient Jedi from the Old Republic, or any number of other ideas that were mooted. But any 'reveal' there would have made absolutely no difference to that scene or its stakes and would be done purely for shock value and so a few 'fans' could loudly proclaim that their theory was right.

Snoke was never a character. Snoke was a step in Kylo Ren's journey, which is the only element of that relationship that actually matters.

'Snoke tortures Rey, taunts Kylo, is killed by Kylo' serves exactly the same purpose as 'Snoke tortures Rey, taunts Kylo, turns out to be (INSERT THING HERE), is killed by Kylo'. The only difference is that in the latter, you have to break all the tension of that incredible set of scenes to stop and explain the 'reveal' to an audience that largely won't understand, appreciate or care about it and just want to get back to the story of the characters that actually matter, which in this film is almost exclusively Rey, Ren and Luke. (Finn, Poe and Rose are all great characters whose scenes are enjoyable, but their storylines are incidental to the central thrust of the movie)

@AllSeeingSkink

Good point that "backstory" isn't just a matter of trivia but rather constitutes characterization. But I think Kilkrazy is arguing that we don't need to care about Snoke as a character, and so he doesn't need a backstory. And that's fair enough.

The issue with Snoke isn't that we need to care about him. The issue is, his character is key to why the plot is happening at all. He has apparently masterminded the rise of the First Order. He also apparently schemed to destroy the new Jedi order and seduce Ben Solo to the dark side. Why?

"Because we want to make money on Star Wars sequels," is not a sufficient explanation.

The term "backstory" is just a red herring. What is required - and bizarrely missing - is motivation, goals, and stakes.

Fair enough if we don't need to care about Snoke specifically.

My problem was I was struggling to care about most of the main characters in the film. I think some weren't too badly but for the most part at this stage I don't care about most of them - which is not somewhere I think I should be 2 films in to a trilogy. As a comparison by the end of The Two Towers I was invested in most of the main characters. Something like Sam's speech "That there's some good in this world, Mr Frodo, and it's worth fighting for", a line that sticks with me because of how well everything that led up to that point drew me in to caring about the characters.

I can live with not knowing certain aspects between the films (though would prefer if they were giving us a bit of a slow reveal rather than, well, nothing).

 Manchu wrote:

Good point that "backstory" isn't just a matter of trivia but rather constitutes characterization. But I think Kilkrazy is arguing that we don't need to care about Snoke as a character, and so he doesn't need a backstory. And that's fair enough.

The issue with Snoke isn't that we need to care about him. The issue is, his character is key to why the plot is happening at all. He has apparently masterminded the rise of the First Order. He also apparently schemed to destroy the new Jedi order and seduce Ben Solo to the dark side. Why?

Power doesn't need a motivation, power is its own motivation. Everybody knows this. Nothing like that was told about the Emperor in OT either. It's just that situation there was much clearer by default - there was an evil Empire led by evil Emperor - that was sufficient for a viewer. By contrast, First Order is much more ambiguously set up - much like Trade Federation in prequels.

@AllSeeingSkink

Yes, I agree. I think Kylo Ren has a lot of potential as a character. However, he could be a lot stronger if I had any actual idea of why he is so enmeshed in the dark side. I mean, this isn't a trivial issue considering that his character development and identity is fundamentally a question of him feeling conflicted about light and darkness ... so ... one would think explaining this would be obvious, right? And since Snoke is the one responsible for Ben falling, wouldn't it be obvious that you should explain how/why in the goddamn movie? Plus there's the whole, 'what the feth is going on in this setting anyway?' problem, which is also just a matter of explaining what Snoke is up to.

@Backfire

Uh, Snoke already has power. So he just wants more power? All the power? UNLIMITED POWAH??? Yeah, this is Prequels level garbage. Again, conceding that it's garbage doesn't amount to a defense of the film.

The FO is not ambiguous, really. The maniacal Hux speech makes it clear that the FO fanatically opposes liberal democracy. The problem is, why does Snoke care about hardliner Imperial politics? Because not only is he the leader but he also seems to be the one supplying the considerable resources (and the films constangly draw attention to the resource-poor Resistance in contrast to the overwhelming power of the FO), although this too is never explained. Neither the setting or plot really makes any sense without more information about Snoke.

 Manchu wrote:

Uh, Snoke already has power. So he just wants more power? All the power? UNLIMITED POWAH??? Yeah, this is Prequels level garbage. Again, conceding that it's garbage doesn't amount to a defense of the film.

But Snoke doesn't have all the power yet. He rules the First Order, but First Order doesn't rule everything, it is made abundantly clear. It rules much less than Empire did before Battle of Endor, and were we ever questioning Emperor's motivations?

 Manchu wrote:

The FO is not ambiguous, really. The maniacal Hux speech makes it clear that the FO fanatically opposes liberal democracy. The problem is, why does Snoke care about hardliner Imperial politics? Because not only is he the leader but he also seems to be the one supplying the considerable resources (and the films constangly draw attention to the resource-poor Resistance in contrast to the overwhelming power of the FO), although this too is never explained. Neither the setting or plot really makes any sense without more information about Snoke.

I disagree. Making up some "special" motivation for Snoke would have made the story less, not more. What if Snoke was bastard son of Palpatine who wanted revenge against Skywalkers? Would it made him a better villain? No. Searching for some personal retribution would have made him look petty and small-minded when he was already getting keys to the entire damn Galaxy. Also it would have continued the regrettable trend of Star Wars universe feeling restricted and inbred.

Of course, they could have made the story about Snoke seeking revenge, but then FO would have become nothing but a device for Snoke for his small goal. It's a possible route, but it was better route where the First Order was the end in itself. This is the scenario which they used in OT and it worked very well. We did not need to know about Snoke for the movie to work, just like we did not need to know about Emperor to make the movies work. Only problem was that First Order was too poorly explained, so that left people craving for more information about ANYTHING.

 Manchu wrote:


Yes, I agree. I think Kylo Ren has a lot of potential as a character. However, he could be a lot stronger if I had any actual idea of why he is so enmeshed in the dark side. I mean, this isn't a trivial issue considering that his character development and identity is fundamentally a question of him feeling conflicted about light and darkness ... so ... one would think explaining this would be obvious, right?

From what we have so far, I think it's a combination of factors that starts with Snoke's influence and ends with the glimpses we have of Ren's upbringing. Leia and Luke both refer to Snoke manipulating Ben Solo, but we also know that you can't just whammy someone onto the Dark Side, there has to be a trigger for all that.

My guess there is that it all ties into Ben Solo's family and his place within it; his mother is a political leader, his father is a war hero, his uncle is a Jedi Master, and he's... no one, really. But his grandfather was known and respected across the galaxy, and I think Snoke's promise to him is basically 'join me, and I will make you a second Vader.' Given all his lines about letting the past die and cutting it away, I figure a lot of it comes down to the immense weight of expectation placed on him just due to his heritage. Leia wants him to be the next Luke, Luke is terrified he'll become the next Vader, everyone expects him to be powerful and significant and what we don't yet know is whether he wanted any of that, or whether he just wanted to be Ben Solo.

For all the talk of who Snoke is or how the FO rose, the story I really want to see covered in some form is Ben Solo's before his fall. He's a fantastic character and there's so many elements to that that would be really fascinating to see. How was his relationship with his father and mother? Was Han ok with him becoming a Jedi, or did he want to keep him away from that (TFA states that it was Leia that sent him away)?

When he was training, was he close to Luke as family or was he just another student? Did Luke push him away even before the fall because he was afraid of there being another Vader (probably one of the reasons Luke doesn't have kids either)? Was he an inspiration to the other students at the academy because everyone expected a Skywalker to be a great Jedi, or was he a disappointment to them and an outcast?

I can't see any child of Han and Leia being a fundamentally bad person from the outset, but I can see all that weight of expectation slowly crushing him through his formative years, making him susceptible to Snoke's influence. If everyone expects him to be Someone, and then Snoke turns up and says that the easiest way to reach that point is to take the power for himself and follow in Vader's footsteps, that could easily appeal, especially after Luke's moment of weakness.

@Backfire

In contrast to Snoke, the Emperor's motivation is not required to explain anything about the setting, plot, or story.

Snoke's motivations could be explained in a way that makes SW more rather than less interetsing. For example, what if Snoke doesn't actually care about ruling an empire but needs an army of fanatics to pursue some other goal, related to the larger issue of the Force (tying in nicely to the relationships between Luke, Ben, and Rey)? There are plenty of creative, talented people in Hollywood who could come up with better ideas than you or I ... or, apparently, Disney executives.

@Paradigm

It's easy to care about Ben. First, he's related to no less than four characters we already care about and have cared about for decades. Second, he is a muti-dimensional character with clearly established motivation and complex problems. Third, his character arc provides an interesting connection/relationship to another character, Rey. Fourth, he has a cool look.

Yeah, I'd love to know why he actually became a bad guy. Although this story is ostensibly told THREE TIMES in TLJ the movie still fails to provide the key information, which relates to how/why Snoke corrupted him.

Backfire wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Uh, Snoke already has power. So he just wants more power? All the power? UNLIMITED POWAH??? Yeah, this is Prequels level garbage. Again, conceding that it's garbage doesn't amount to a defense of the film.

But Snoke doesn't have all the power yet. He rules the First Order, but First Order doesn't rule everything, it is made abundantly clear. It rules much less than Empire did before Battle of Endor, and were we ever questioning Emperor's motivations?

 Manchu wrote:

The FO is not ambiguous, really. The maniacal Hux speech makes it clear that the FO fanatically opposes liberal democracy. The problem is, why does Snoke care about hardliner Imperial politics? Because not only is he the leader but he also seems to be the one supplying the considerable resources (and the films constangly draw attention to the resource-poor Resistance in contrast to the overwhelming power of the FO), although this too is never explained. Neither the setting or plot really makes any sense without more information about Snoke.

I disagree. Making up some "special" motivation for Snoke would have made the story less, not more. What if Snoke was bastard son of Palpatine who wanted revenge against Skywalkers? Would it made him a better villain? No. Searching for some personal retribution would have made him look petty and small-minded when he was already getting keys to the entire damn Galaxy. Also it would have continued the regrettable trend of Star Wars universe feeling restricted and inbred.

Of course, they could have made the story about Snoke seeking revenge, but then FO would have become nothing but a device for Snoke for his small goal. It's a possible route, but it was better route where the First Order was the end in itself. This is the scenario which they used in OT and it worked very well. We did not need to know about Snoke for the movie to work, just like we did not need to know about Emperor to make the movies work. Only problem was that First Order was too poorly explained, so that left people craving for more information about ANYTHING.

Well somehow in between the two films (which is a coupe of days?) the First Order goes from being backwater to controlling the whole galaxy and with a few hundred people opposing it - total. I assume that's why they don't care about loosing dreadnoughts or even the supergiant Snokeship - cos they won in a epic blitzkrieg that conquered everything in a day or two.

So by the start of TLJ he already has truly massive amount of power and seem quite comfortable about it. Its unclear why he even needs Kylo anymore and that seems to occur to him when they meet aboard the Snokeship. He has truly massive amounts of armies and ships and stuff, a emo Vader wannabee serves what purpose apart from alleviating the boredom of total power.

A more ambitious film might look at what happens when you do in fact have total power as Ben seems to be set for inheriting - what do you do now, what incentives do you have - Snoke and co don't seem to have families, the only person who Ben seems to have a connection to has just run off, so now you have a young man with gigantic war machine at your disposal, the power of life and death over hundreds of worlds and their populations and unstable and dubious advisors - what do you do and why?

But I guess it will just be funny useless robots and not-puffins unite to defeat the evil with the power of love - or something.



Problem is that the film was more interested in tie-in commercial Casino's and soft toys than anything else.

I've been thinking about Rey's new Light Saber...And I really want it to be a double bladed purple light saber.

Double bladed would be appropriate because of how skilled she is with a quarter-staff, and she could even incorporate her old staff into the handle as others have mentioned earlier.

And it should be purple, to reflect how she is attuned with both the Light and Dark side of the force. Remind you of anyone? Thats right - Mace Windu, and his swanky purple light saber. And this would be a nice nod to the direction I want Disney to take new generations of Jedi - Grey Jedi, who utilize both sides of the force and seek a true balance between Light and Dark.

The less said about Mace Windu, the better. This includes purple lightsaber references.

"Grey Jedi" is pretty weak stuff. The problem is, Lucas portrayed Jedi as some kind of celibate Buddhist paladins in his Prequels. They live according to a strict(ish) monastic code but they are not particularly Good.

So yes, I would welcome a version of Jedi that were not so priggish and uptight and authoritarian.* I'd be (more than) okay with them having romantic relationships. But they still need to be heroic good guys. The Jedi knights (as in King Arthur's knights) should be adventurous, chivalrous do-gooders. Not bathrobed space cops.

Pushing down some other mystical hoo doo path is just more prequels garbage.

*Please see Tales of the Jedi for more.

A saber staff with a blade only at one end would be a nice weapon for her. Lightspear/halberd.

 Manchu wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink

Good point that "backstory" isn't just a matter of trivia but rather constitutes characterization. But I think Kilkrazy is arguing that we don't need to care about Snoke as a character, and so he doesn't need a backstory. And that's fair enough.

The issue with Snoke isn't that we need to care about him. The issue is, his character is key to why the plot is happening at all. He has apparently masterminded the rise of the First Order. He also apparently schemed to destroy the new Jedi order and seduce Ben Solo to the dark side. Why?

"Because we want to make money on Star Wars sequels," is not a sufficient explanation.

The term "backstory" is just a red herring. What is required - and bizarrely missing - is motivation, goals, and stakes.

Honestly Manchu while i thought it was kinda cool how Ben betrayed him it seemed kind of like a pushover moment for somebody that was manipulating Ben and Rey. Also he tells his apprentice what he did and gives him reason to betray snoke. Course maybe snoke was a bit arrogant and didn't expect that betrayal. In the case of the story though what i really HATED was the fact they didn't give him more character. It's not just doing it for that sake but telling us where he came from, why he was there, why a sith lord came out of nowhere with no known name or previous background and started an extremist military movement that somehow managed to over-power the current military force in the galaxy with nobody from 'the resistance' noticing. There's a million questions about snoke left un-answered and they probably never will be considering we're already on the 2nd film. If another dark side version of somebody doesn't pop up the whole background of snoke will be entirely pointless. He's a big bad one dimensional villain that came out of ****ing nowhere. I realize the emperor sorta wasn't fleshed out much either in the original trilogy but in his case there's a hint at more having happened before the original trilogy and low and behold he orchestrated the whole creation of the empire and he was given plenty of depth then. In the case of snoke i don't realize where they can talk about him. The original trilogy has nothing having to do with him and the new trilogy gave him no backstory whatsoever. You can't just make somebody the most powerful bad guy and not give him even anything resembling a story somewhere in the lore. It just makes the bad guy feel empty and lack depth of any kind.

I'll write more later but let's be honest if i wrote more now it wouldn't be read. Walls of text have a habit of destroying anybody's attention span.

 Manchu wrote:
The less said about Mace Windu, the better. This includes purple lightsaber references.

"Grey Jedi" is pretty weak stuff. The problem is, Lucas portrayed Jedi as some kind of celibate Buddhist paladins in his Prequels. They live according to a strict(ish) monastic code but they are not particularly Good.

So yes, I would welcome a version of Jedi that were not so priggish and uptight and authoritarian.* I'd be (more than) okay with them having romantic relationships. But they still need to be heroic good guys. The Jedi knights (as in King Arthur's knights) should be adventurous, chivalrous do-gooders. Not bathrobed space cops.

Pushing down some other mystical hoo doo path is just more prequels garbage.

*Please see Tales of the Jedi for more.

Sounds good to me!

And now apparently I need to find Tales of the Jedi?

 Manchu wrote:
The less said about Mace Windu, the better. This includes purple lightsaber references.

"Grey Jedi" is pretty weak stuff. The problem is, Lucas portrayed Jedi as some kind of celibate Buddhist paladins in his Prequels. They live according to a strict(ish) monastic code but they are not particularly Good.

So yes, I would welcome a version of Jedi that were not so priggish and uptight and authoritarian.* I'd be (more than) okay with them having romantic relationships. But they still need to be heroic good guys. The Jedi knights (as in King Arthur's knights) should be adventurous, chivalrous do-gooders. Not bathrobed space cops.

Pushing down some other mystical hoo doo path is just more prequels garbage.

*Please see Tales of the Jedi for more.

I might be in the minority but I really liked the Buddhist paladin shtick. However, grey Jedi Luke or Rey I think would have been the most interesting way to go with the story.

If Manchu is referring to the Dark Horse comic series I quite enjoyed those. Have all the DH omnibuses.

 Alpharius wrote:
And now apparently I need to find Tales of the Jedi?

Available in convenient omnibus format:
Volume One
Volume Two

Unfortunately, they have become super expensive.

 Eldarain wrote:
If Manchu is referring to the Dark Horse comic series I quite enjoyed those.

Yes, I am referring to those. For many years, those comics were all we really knew of the past of this setting. Before the dark times; before the Prequels.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I really liked the Buddhist paladin shtick

butwhy.gif

Truly, it's dire stuff. Why can't they be more like actual knights? Why, for example, are they celibate? I mean, I know the actual answer is, so George Lucas could right a "love story.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
what i really HATED was the fact they didn't give him more character

In a way, you're preaching to the choir. After all, I am the main person arguing that TFA and TLJ do a completely gak job explaining key concepts necessary for the plot to have any meaning, i.e., WTF is this conflict about, WTF is going on with the Force, and WTF is Kylo Ren so angsty about? I would say it's no coincidence that some further characterization of Snoke could help shed (obligatory, necessary, required, non-optional, non-trivial, non-extra) light on these rather important points. But TFA set this stuff up as intentionally mysterious. And TLJ has no genuine interest in any of it.

OTOH I hate Snoke. I hate that Disney SW has to invent a Palpatine rip-off as the master for a Faux Vader so the two of them can rule the Not Empire. I hate his stupid name. I hate his lame ass visual design. I hate that he's introduced in a deliberately withholding style.

So I was happy to see Kylo Ren bisect him. But that should have been the climax of the movie and it should have taken place after the movie explained some stuff about him, like this whole "awakening" business/why he wants to kill off the Jedi, how/why he is in charge of the FO, and how he turned Ben Solo.

While i liked the whole bit with Rey and Ben i didn't like a lot of the other sub-plots.

Not-Leia and Poe (going for a han solo-leia relationship) exchange arguments and she has a plan she never speaks to poe or the rest of the crew about which leads poe, finn and chubby asian girl (can't remember her name) to go to casino world, find master saboteur, fail at their mission and kill more rebels. In fact had Not-Leia just told the plan there'd be no heroic sacrifice and more rebels would've lived. Course there'd be more FO people too. Honestly if it was that easy to kill the FO why'd they not do that sooner? Anyway it made that whole relationship thing between Poe and Not-Leia pointless and there was no depth about Not-Leia making the heroic sacrifice less impactful. It honestly should've been Leia to make said heroic sacrifice and the event should've been started by Poe's hot-headedness as a lesson in not being so hot-headed. Instead it was started by seemingly incompetent leadership which led to no character development. Most of that sub-plot just felt empty. It kinda really annoyed me.

 Xenomancers wrote:
grey Jedi Luke or Rey I think would have been the most interesting way to go with the story

The most interesting direction would have been:

- no Vice Admiral Holdo or Rose Tico
- Finn and Poe go on an adventure to save the Resistance fleet/find Luke and Rey
- Luke explains he believes defeating Sith/reviving the Jedi "awoke" Snoke, because the Force = balance
- Luke went into hiding and severed his connection to the Force to restrain the power of Snoke and Kylo
- realizing that this plan failed and Rey's power is the result of the Force balancing against Snoke training Kylo, Luke agrees to train Rey
- in the course of her training, Rey realizes that she and Kylo can find balance together
- Luke thinks it's too dangerous/reflects on his own rushing to confront Vader/rushing to teach Ben Solo
- at this point in the Finn/Poe story, Leia dies somehow - Luke feels it through the Force; realizing his family and friends are dead, he wonders if Rey is right
- Rey goes to Kylo but he rejects her pleas as "Jedi sentimentality"
- Finn and Poe figure out how to save the Resistance fleet/obligatory space battle
- in a climactic moment, Kylo changes his mind and betrays Snoke; they face and defeat Snoke together
- movie ends with Kylo reaching out to Rey just as TFA ended with Rey reaching out to Luke
- cue Star Wars music

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
if it was that easy to kill the FO why'd they not do that sooner?

Same bs happens in R1 when the Rebels just ram their ram ships into Star Destroyers.

 Eldarain wrote:
A saber staff with a blade only at one end would be a nice weapon for her. Lightspear/halberd.

That could work. Double ended lightsabers just lead to stupid fighting styles and the sequels have been far better than the prequels in that regard.


I'm still a little confused that Kylo Ren assumed so readily that Luke wanted to kill him. Luke had already decided against it so it's not as if Kylo Ren could've read that from him. Also Rey assuming that Ren was telling the proof to the point of clobbering Luke from behind speaks poorly of her character. Luke telling her because she was willing to kill him was weird too.

I agree at disliking rose in many ways. I feel like she was made for the sake of the writer trying to write themselves into it. Also possibly admitting it might have been a politically correct character. However considering some movies and shows about hapless beta male losers getting the beautiful girl normally reserved for the alpha male makes me go easier on her character.

My main issue with rose though is when she tried to prevent Finn making a heroic sacrifice because 'i love you! *kiss*'. My issue from that is they went on a mission called 'Operation BS' where they take salt-speeders to do....something to the FO i guess. As Finn is about to make the whole run mean something she saves him which allows the FO to get at the resistance base. Which is absolutely stupid. I mean she could've taken the fall for him which would've sucked and ****-blocked Finn's heroic moment but it'd have a reason. Instead that whole run against the FO did nothing and people died needlessly.

My issue with a lot of the movie is in many cases it feels like it can't commit to something. Poe's and Not-Leia's not-romance, Finn's heroic not-sacrifice and Luke dying or not to buy time for the resistance.

TLJ could easily have been a good movie. See bullet points above.

Rose and Holdo are both totally unnecessary. Rose gives a cheesy speech about rich people being corrupt. Bold card for Disney to play. She then does something that has every probability of killing Finn (and her) to "save him" and gives a cheesy speech about love. Holdo exists so Poe learns not to make heroic sacrifices even though that's exactly what she does. These characters are fething garbage by every measure.

TLJ had it pretty easy. Audiences already like Rey, Kylo, Finn and Poe. So you'd obviously let Finn and Poe have a fun adventure B Plot, right? You know, to balance out the heavier A Plot of Rey and Kylo. Wrong, you split them up and introduce new, unlikable characters to constantly undermine them because you want to portray them as idiots and failures. So there is no fun in the movie.

FFS.

You got a point manchu and usually we agree on a lot. I did like Rogue One however.

I think Holdo could've been ok if they added more depth to her (and made the adjustments to her and Leia that i suggested) but Rose not so much. Rose messing up Finn's heroic sacrifice for a love triangle in a relationship really bugged me because it made the heroic and foolish run worthless. Honestly i think it is just Rose loving Finn but Finn isn't feeling it as much.

Yeah I think she has a crush on him. I mean, she treats him like a celebrity. Then she stuns him because poor Finn is just a vehicle for slapstick, I guess. Except in TFA he got a badass moment to pick up a lightsaber even considering he knew he was about to get his ass handed to him because he wanted to defend his friend. In this one, you think he might get badass moments but they are all fethed up. His fight with Phasma is interrupted and she's killed by gravity/fire. And of course Rose t-bones his rickety speeder in a move that logically would have killed them both. I'm glad Finn didn't die but on the other hand all he got to do in the movie is tag along as a sidekick to Rose "I am a marketing ploy" Tico.

I don't think there is any saving Holdo. The only point she serves is to make Poe look dumb. Poe's arc could have been, brash hothead becomes mature leader without totally undermining him - especially when doing so all hangs off a woman in an ugly cocktail dress refusing to explain her plan.

If by marketing ploy you mean to sell it to the politically correct audience then yeah.

To be fair Finn was a bit of a vehicle for slapstick in TFA as well but i think you mentioned that. Btw is it me or do the PC audience just not care that most of both movies Finn has sucked and Rey was OP in TFA? I actually felt bad how much Finn sucked in many cases. He deserves better. At least they toned Rey down a bit more for this movie though.

Did anyone see how the codebreaker managed to find out about the shuttle stealth codes to give them to the First Order? Rose and Finn never knew about them.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
Did anyone see how the codebreaker managed to find out about the shuttle stealth codes to give them to the First Order? Rose and Finn never knew about them.

He's a skilled hacker who plays both sides by his own admission. He likely has a lot of dirt on both sides already and used his knowledge of the codes as leverage.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
Did anyone see how the codebreaker managed to find out about the shuttle stealth codes to give them to the First Order? Rose and Finn never knew about them.

He's a skilled hacker who plays both sides by his own admission. He likely has a lot of dirt on both sides already and used his knowledge of the codes as leverage.

But rather than make a fortune from his dirt, he hangs around getting wasted in jail and agreeing to go on suicide missions he could easily have been killed on.
Smart bloke.

I still think the hacker would be 10 times a better character if switched out with Tyrone Biggums from Chappelle's show.

That and when Rey is with endless versions of her she should've made a music video with her visual echoes ;P.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Interesting throwback.... they should have made another character use it though so it didn't make Luke look like someone in the early stages of dementia.

What?

It's a laser sword. He called it a laser sword.

If I refer to a .44 magnum as a pistol, that's not a sign that I'm losing my marbles. It's just a sign of me using a generic name for something. And in the scene in which Luke uses it, he's using it in a derogatory fashion... it's specifically supposed to sound silly.

Sorry but that just sounds like BS to try and handwave away something Luke wouldn't do..

No, it's an explanation that was clearly presented in the movie for something that Luke considered for a brief instant and then realised he couldn't do.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:
Did anyone see how the codebreaker managed to find out about the shuttle stealth codes to give them to the First Order? Rose and Finn never knew about them.

I think Poe mentioned the plan vaguely over the com to Finn and Rose. I just assumed the Codebreaker overheard them and made an educated guess.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
To be fair Finn was a bit of a vehicle for slapstick in TFA as well but i think you mentioned that. Btw is it me or do the PC audience just not care that most of both movies Finn has sucked and Rey was OP in TFA? I actually felt bad how much Finn sucked in many cases. He deserves better.

The elevator pitch for Finn is good ("He's a Stormtrooper who defected after the First Order carried out a massacre.") but Abrams never committed to that idea.

Anything written about Finn should have started from two axioms:
- Finn has spent years being trained to kill for the First Order.
- Finn left the First Order because he is a conscientious objector.

For one example, wouldn't Finn have been a more interesting character if the reason he and Poe were shot down over Jakku was because he hesitated when escape meant killing a TIE pilot that an hour ago might have been his friend?

 AlexHolker wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
To be fair Finn was a bit of a vehicle for slapstick in TFA as well but i think you mentioned that. Btw is it me or do the PC audience just not care that most of both movies Finn has sucked and Rey was OP in TFA? I actually felt bad how much Finn sucked in many cases. He deserves better.

The elevator pitch for Finn is good ("He's a Stormtrooper who defected after the First Order carried out a massacre.") but Abrams never committed to that idea.

Anything written about Finn should have started from two axioms:
- Finn has spent years being trained to kill for the First Order.
- Finn left the First Order because he is a conscientious objector.

For one example, wouldn't Finn have been a more interesting character if the reason he and Poe were shot down over Jakku was because he hesitated when escape meant killing a TIE pilot that an hour ago might have been his friend?

There is no way anyone involved in creating TLJ would have considered something so intelligent or meaningful.

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Interesting throwback.... they should have made another character use it though so it didn't make Luke look like someone in the early stages of dementia.

What?

It's a laser sword. He called it a laser sword.

If I refer to a .44 magnum as a pistol, that's not a sign that I'm losing my marbles. It's just a sign of me using a generic name for something. And in the scene in which Luke uses it, he's using it in a derogatory fashion... it's specifically supposed to sound silly.

Agree to disagree I suppose. Anakin using the term laser sword is specifically to show the kid knows something about Jedi but is for the most part ignorant, which is why it also makes Luke come across as suffering from dementia.

I wouldn't describe it as the generic term for a light sabre akin to using the word pistol because other than the Anakin quote as far as I'm aware it's never used in-universe (I didn't even know about that one until you brought it up) where as the word "pistol" is common usage to describe a family of weapons.

Isn't it supposed to be a plasma weapon rather than a laser anyway? EDIT: Apparently Lucas calls them laser swords out of universe, but still my point remains that the only time they've been called that in universe in the movies was to demonstrate a relative ignorance of a child talking about Jedi.

Sorry but that just sounds like BS to try and handwave away something Luke wouldn't do..

No, it's an explanation that was clearly presented in the movie for something that Luke considered for a brief instant and then realised he couldn't do.

Yeah, a BS and poorly considered explanation.

By the end of RotJ Luke demonstrates sufficient control and wisdom to not get spooked in to doing something so stupid, we've already seen Luke's ability to calmly deal with dark side users who have committed horrible atrocities, let alone some kid who has done nothing except demonstrated some latent dark side tendencies.

So why has Luke become stupid? They even could have made some interesting story about Luke being deceived, or used Snoke's mind manipulation abilities to show Kylo only think he's being attacked and retaliating, instead they leave us with a Luke acting nothing like Luke would act.

I honestly wondered if they were trying to make us think Luke was suffering dementia. He reminded me of an elderly WW2 vet who's starting to lose their mind.

So why has Luke become stupid?

Because he became a true Jedi, and like all Jedi before him the plot demands that he be jaw droppingly dumb and oblivious, least he use his powers for actual good and solve a problem or two

/sarcasm (but not really)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
He's a skilled hacker who plays both sides by his own admission. He likely has a lot of dirt on both sides already and used his knowledge of the codes as leverage.

LordofHats wrote:I think Poe mentioned the plan vaguely over the com to Finn and Rose. I just assumed the Codebreaker overheard them and made an educated guess.

I suppose that could make sense. Still seems a bit of a stretch to me but it's hardly the biggest pitfall in the film.

I thought Luke’s sneer and derision was enough to show he was mocking Rey. Not dementia. Honestly, how did anybody miss that? It wasn’t deep.

That said, it’s hard watching the classic characters go. Ben is the only character I feel is currently worth investing emotion into (from the audience), Finn is underused and should be WAY more interesting, and it feels like they have no idea what to do with Poe except “amazing pilot, but brash”. Rey is kinda blah. Rose annoyed me.

It feels like even the prequel characters were easier to get emotionally invested in, even when you knew how they would later die; it’s weird saying that. I didn’t hate TLJ, but it is nowhere near ESB. TFA was better, too.

I feel like Finn should be a much darker and more serious character, almost emotionally cold and callous, given that he was indoctrinated from a young age to be a Stormtrooper. He's a conscientious objector sure, but he should still be emotionally and mentally fethed up by his upbringing as a child soldier in a Totalitarian Military regime and his character Arc should be about healing and learning to develop compassion. I mean, he was basically in the Star Wars version of the Hitler Youth and Waffen SS.


Poe should be the comedic character, not Finn.

Another 'cool' thing about Luke in the new trilogy.

He sees Rey's raw strength and, lack of resistance to the call of the dark side, says he's only seen this raw strength once before, in Kylo Ren. This strength, he says, didn't scare him enough then. "It does now."

Luke went to Kylo's sleeping quarters in the middle of the night with his lightsaber. He knew there was a problem. There were warning signs of some kind. Luke claims he went to talk to Kylo (in the middle of the night, with his laser sword, while Kylo was asleep). He senses darkness in him-a terrible, overpowering, irreversible darkness-and decides, for the briefest moment, to cut down his nephew/apprentice.

Let's compare.

That was Luke Skywalker back when he wasn't afraid enough of the power he sees in the new generation. What does he do to Rey when he senses her power and actual demonstrated willingness to embrace the dark side of the force for answers? Storms off in a huff and never warns her against the dark side again, just keeps ranting about the failures of the jedi and how they need to end.

Much wow.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I thought Luke’s sneer and derision was enough to show he was mocking Rey. Not dementia. Honestly, how did anybody miss that? It wasn’t deep.

Oh I understood the mocking bit, but him also acting so whacky made me wonder if we were supposed to think Luke was losing his mind. Where Luke of the original trilogy was so willing to help his friends to the point it was almost a character flaw (running off to face Vader to save his friends when both Yoda and force ghost Obi Wan told him he wasn't ready), Luke of TLJ seems to have internalised everything and is now unable to think outside the box he's created for himself.

I'm happy enough that the story is no longer about Luke, it's not his job to save the galaxy anymore, but it's also against the character profile created in the original trilogy for him to act like he is in TLJ.

It's worth bearing in mind that there's about as much time between the new trilogy and RotJ as there is between AotC and RotJ. Luke is more than twice the age now he was at the end of the OT. There's plenty of time for radical shifts in personality and character there, especially given that he lives a life of heightened emotion and drama given his role as Jedi Master, war hero and sole remaining Jedi. And to quote his other famous role, 'all it takes is one bad day'.

Luke is broken after watching everything he fought for crumble, everything he built was destroyed, and his friends are dying. He is emotionally shot. And seeing this new unknown with the hope of the universe in her eyes, after he’s given up...he’s just nasty. I don’t think he’s wacky or deranged or demented. Just that he’s given up and a broken shell of who he once was.

 Paradigm wrote:
It's worth bearing in mind that there's about as much time between the new trilogy and RotJ as there is between AotC and RotJ. Luke is more than twice the age now he was at the end of the OT. There's plenty of time for radical shifts in personality and character there, especially given that he lives a life of heightened emotion and drama given his role as Jedi Master, war hero and sole remaining Jedi. And to quote his other famous role, 'all it takes is one bad day'.

Except his bad day happens after his bad deed.

Except they took the character least likely to fall in that particular manner and gave him the fell deed without indication of that character shift prior to the deed.

Except a radical shift in personality is necessary for perfectly selfish and immoral people to reflexively consider murdering their nephew while they are sleeping over fear of the future.

Show us this life of 'heightened emotion.' Heck, tell us about it. Per the story so far all of Luke's trauma has been as a result of his deed.



And honestly, people generally become more of who they are as time passes, not less.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I feel like Finn should be a much darker and more serious character, almost emotionally cold and callous, given that he was indoctrinated from a young age to be a Stormtrooper. He's a conscientious objector sure, but he should still be emotionally and mentally fethed up by his upbringing as a child soldier in a Totalitarian Military regime and his character Arc should be about healing and learning to develop compassion. I mean, he was basically in the Star Wars version of the Hitler Youth and Waffen SS.

Wait. Finn isn't a 'conscientious objector.' He freaked out about killing a village of civilians, but he has zero qualms about violence. He happily shot up his former comrades before/as he jumped ship, happily fought them in hand to hand, and happily tried to kill his commander in a burning hanger. As a sorta-kind member of the Resisty (he doesn't really commit to their cause, just rescuing Rey, fleeing for Rey and then wandering about looking for some guy after getting stunned), he doesn't at all act like a conscientious objector.

But you are right- he should have some effect of indoctrination and whatnot, not just more quips about being a janitor.

Finn had the potential to be an incredible asset to the trilogy. As someone who had presumably grown up with pro-First Order blinkers on he could have been used as a perfect exposition vehicle to lay out exactly what the situation with the Republic/Empire/Resistance/FO was. He could have offered some sort of insight into Snoke & Kylo.

And hell, maybe a concientous objector character would have been a novel twist. Someone who sees the eternal war between light and dark (Jedi vs Sith, various shades of Republic vs various shades of Empire etc) going back thousands of years for what it is and tries a new approach. Maybe his principled stand for peace inspires Rey to not seek the mantle of a Jedi to continue 'the war' but to finally try to balance the Force and 'end this destructive conflict'.

But hey, cowardice, janitor jokes and abject failure work too I guess.

The weird thing is he has more of a connection to Kylo aside from strange force powers. Heck, he has far more narrative connections in general compared to Rey.

Kylo raised by good parents, turned to evil through an inner turmoil while Finn was raised from a child to be apart of the First Order as part of it's program turned to good out of hatred for the senseless killing.

Could've turned out interesting if we had a main character who wasn't a force user, but the force user was a side character.

I'll throw in another voice of disappointment in the way they handled Finn's character. He could have been so cool, but they mired him down in minstrel show antics.

In my opinion, both Finn and Rey are very poorly written and handled characters. The actors are great and the characters could have been as well - but when you write characters for the sake of tokenism it ends up being pretty much just as boring and offensive as writing them as stereotypes.

I'd say they ARE stereo types. Aren't black people commonly used as comic relief? And Rey is your typical perfect white Disney princess.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd say they ARE stereo types. Aren't black people commonly used as comic relief? And Rey is your typical perfect white Disney princess.

I guess that's kind of what I meant. When you try to write characters as a reaction to stereotypes, they are still ultimately based on those stereotypes. They aren't multi-dimensional and interesting characters, they're just the black guy and the strong woman. But yes, Finn especially is pretty much a one-man minstrel show. It's possible that I'm off base and they wrote a comic relief character and then just happened to cast a black guy in the part, but it really would have been nice if there were more to the character either way.

Finn is a case study in wasted potential. I love the concept of a Stormtrooper defector, but they've completely wasted it.

It also would have been cool if he'd retained some of his Stormtrooper gear, like his E-11 Blaster Rifle, incorporated parts of his armour (a greave here, a vambrace there, a shoulder pad etc) into his new Rebel outfit, repainted in Rebel colours.

Something like Baze Malbus.

There's an Imperial Assault dude who does exactly that.

See, that guy looks pretty cool.

 Compel wrote:
There's an Imperial Assault dude who does exactly that.

See, thats what Finn should look like! That dude is even black too.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd say they ARE stereo types. Aren't black people commonly used as comic relief? And Rey is your typical perfect white Disney princess.

I guess that's kind of what I meant. When you try to write characters as a reaction to stereotypes, they are still ultimately based on those stereotypes. They aren't multi-dimensional and interesting characters, they're just the black guy and the strong woman. But yes, Finn especially is pretty much a one-man minstrel show. It's possible that I'm off base and they wrote a comic relief character and then just happened to cast a black guy in the part, but it really would have been nice if there were more to the character either way.

There could have been: it was almost half-way through TFA before it was certain that he wasn't the force wielding focal point of the new trilogy.
Even after that he could have been the tactics guy, leading the Resisty forces to victory.

But instead he gets improbable knowledge of top secret equipment locations and specifications through the power of mopping.

True, I have no idea how they made their decisions during TFA and JJ certainly seems to make a lot of stuff up as he goes along. But that idea only adds to the aura of missed potential around the new movies. I mean who sets up a character to be a bad ass and then just decides to make him a plucky custodian, like that's going to add something of value? Madness.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd say they ARE stereo types. Aren't black people commonly used as comic relief? And Rey is your typical perfect white Disney princess.

The closest fit to a Disney Princess narrative is Cinderella, but with the Skywalker lightsaber as the glass slipper, Luke as Cinderella, and Rey as Prince Charming.

 Riquende wrote:
He could have offered some sort of insight into Snoke & Kylo.

We got that from Hux, not Snoke, addressing the FO at Starkiller when it is fired. That makes it very clear that most people in the FO have no idea Snoke exists; at best they know him as Supreme Leader.

 Riquende wrote:

And hell, maybe a concientous objector character would have been a novel twist. Someone who sees the eternal war between light and dark (Jedi vs Sith, various shades of Republic vs various shades of Empire etc) going back thousands of years for what it is and tries a new approach.

The thrid way is pretty much why Snoke valued Kylo.

I finally saw this so I can venture into the these parts with something to say.

It is pretty simple really. TLJ and TFA have sucked because the creators literally have nothing to say.

I will take the Prequels over what Disney has given gen us so far because at least those had some flawed, obvious, and blunt messages to talk about. These are just lifeless, thoughtless shells of movies obviously made as cash-ins.

Too bad.

You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

 dogma wrote:


We got that from Hux, not Snoke, addressing the FO at Starkiller when it is fired. That makes it very clear that most people in the FO have no idea Snoke exists; at best they know him as Supreme Leader.

Yeah, but in my head I'm rewriting the entirety of both films so that scene wouldn't necessarily exist (nor too would the Starkiller base).

 Easy E wrote:
I finally saw this so I can venture into the these parts with something to say.

It is pretty simple really. TLJ and TFA have sucked because the creators literally have nothing to say.

I will take the Prequels over what Disney has given gen us so far because at least those had some flawed, obvious, and blunt messages to talk about. These are just lifeless, thoughtless shells of movies obviously made as cash-ins.

Too bad.

I was just thinking the same thing myself.

Cut Jar-Jar out of the prequels so I can cope with them and I'd find them more palatable than these two films. Heck, leave Jar-Jar in, I'll still take the Prequels.

There! Are you happy now, Disney? Pleased with yourself? You've got me preferring the Prequels to your movies!

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

I don't think you can articulate the messages in the film, or else you would have done it by now and actually engaged in conversation. There are people here arguing against aspects of the film far more effectively than you with your empty, angry proclamations. It's this kind of hyperbolic, opinion-as-fact posting that kills intelligent conversation.

 gorgon wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

I don't think you can articulate the messages in the film, or else you would have done it by now and actually engaged in conversation. There are people here arguing against aspects of the film far more effectively than you with your empty, angry proclamations. It's this kind of hyperbolic, opinion-as-fact posting that kills intelligent conversation.

I argued some page ago, I cannot repeat myself for those that do not bother to read.
If you consider consistent writing the writing of a movie that shows a character interrupting an heroic sacrifice because "we have to save what we love" 10 minutes after Holdo is shown as heroic and 10 minutes before Luke dies for an heroic effort to save the crew, I just lose my will to argue to be honest. You are all putting a considerable effort to justify something that is just unprincipled and shallow.
Is not circumscribed to that, of course. See freeing space ponies for 10 minutes and ignore the child slaves.
The movie seems written by and for those that spend time on twitter virtue-signalling and then doing nothing in their life to change 1 inch of the reality they live in.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

I don't think you can articulate the messages in the film, or else you would have done it by now and actually engaged in conversation. There are people here arguing against aspects of the film far more effectively than you with your empty, angry proclamations. It's this kind of hyperbolic, opinion-as-fact posting that kills intelligent conversation.

I argued some page ago, I cannot repeat myself for those that do not bother to read.
If you consider consistent writing the writing of a movie that shows a character interrupting an heroic sacrifice because "we have to save what we love" 10 minutes after Holdo is shown as heroic and 10 minutes before Luke dies for an heroic effort to save the crew, I just lose my will to argue to be honest. You are all putting a considerable effort to justify something that is just unprincipled and shallow.
Is not circumscribed to that, of course. See freeing space ponies for 10 minutes and ignore the child slaves.

Agreed - the films fails to engage on any level - for me it fails as an action movie and certainly has no deeper meaning alongisde the fact that its lazy and badly paced with massive internal inconsistancies and terrible characterisations.

It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

 Mr Morden wrote:

It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

I did read reviews written by people I used to respect completely missing whole scenes and praising the movie.
I cannot take seriously most critics anymore after this movie.
Also, all the blogposts all over the internet exercising damage control. Bunch of sellouts.

 Mr Morden wrote:


It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

No, what beggars belief is that you can apparently straight facedly advance this argument over the possibility that somebody liked something simply because you didn't.

I mean, the movie is (perhaps deeply) flawed, but let's reign in the hyperbole a tad?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

No, what beggars belief is that you can apparently straight facedly advance this argument over the possibility that somebody liked something simply because you didn't.

I mean, the movie is (perhaps deeply) flawed, but let's reign in the hyperbole a tad?

If its deeply flawed then why are the "Critical" reviews so good - the answer is obvious, if there were some who liked it then fair enough - but I thought these so called critics were supposed to be somewhat independant and look at the good and bad of films in thar way.

Flawed =\= bad.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

No, what beggars belief is that you can apparently straight facedly advance this argument over the possibility that somebody liked something simply because you didn't.

I mean, the movie is (perhaps deeply) flawed, but let's reign in the hyperbole a tad?

The movie has fundamental editing, pacing and tone problems that go well beyond "b-but hyperspace weapons".
I don't expect a critic to pickup force powerlevel inconsistencies, but to point out such things.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Flawed =\= bad.

So they should have pointed out its flaws....they don't

Believe what you like - to me this is the only logical explanation.

I've seen the Last Jedi three times now and I can say honestly I really like it. In my case it is because I'm judging it based solely on itself. The prequels so thoroughly killed my star wars fandom I gave away all my copies of all the movies. And really didn't care about the new trilogy. The only reason I saw the Force Awakens was because a friend gave me a free ticket. It was enjoyable, but unremarkable. All it did was prove to me was Disney was capable of making a Star Wars movie. Something I feel Lucas lost.

I think as time goes on the Last Jedi will be considered the best of this trilogy. Only in retrospect will it be judged fairly. Empire wasn't universally loved when it came out. Only after Return of the Jedi was it viewed as the best. I think this will be a similar situation.

I don't think explicit outright bribery happens. I do think that high profile critics enjoy getting invited to early screenings and having opportunities to rub shoulders with Hollywood stars, and are well aware that being too harsh on certain releases will be detrimental to that.

To kinda add fuel to the fire... This article has been shared a lot on my twitter feed over the last few days.

https://bittergertrude.com/2018/01/04/why-so-many-men-hate-the-last-jedi-but-cant-agree-on-why/

I've been reviewing my feelings on the film and I think that, while the premise may be true for some people, ultimately it's a flawed concept overall.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Flawed =\= bad.

So they should have pointed out its flaws....they don't

Believe what you like - to me this is the only logical explanation.

I think it's flawed as a SW fan. I'm not saying that a critic who isn't necessarily as invested in the IP as me would have the same feelings, nor would they necessarily feel any issues were significant in the context of a popcorn blockbuster that may be more detrimental to a more "worthy" title.

Ultimately you'll have to accept that people who aren't as big a fans are going to have a different perspetive, and if they came away having largely enjoyed the 2 hours they spent watching the film, it's going to largely generate positive reviews.

It's the whole Dr Who thing writ large, people are revisiting things from their childhood that are still fundamentally being made for children, and trying to impose adult sensibilities on it. There's room for a bit of a nod here or there, but ultimately you're going to have to decide if you can still get joy from the property, or accept that it's not being made for you any more and move on.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

I think as time goes on the Last Jedi will be considered the best of this trilogy. Only in retrospect will it be judged fairly.

I agree with the bolded part, but disagree with the rest. Time won't be kind to this film. I think in 15-20 years most people will comfortably place every prequel ahead of it in any sort of ranking order.

I don't want to get all conspiratorial either but I can imagine that there is a huge amount of pressure on film critics and the publications they write for to stay in the graces of major production and distribution companies, many of which spend millions of dollars in advertising.

Yeah, but there'd be a backlash at the blog level, the people wi nothing invested except a ticket and nothing to gain apart from enjoying writing their thoughts for others to read.

 Riquende wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

I think as time goes on the Last Jedi will be considered the best of this trilogy. Only in retrospect will it be judged fairly.

I agree with the bolded part, but disagree with the rest. Time won't be kind to this film. I think in 15-20 years most people will comfortably place every prequel ahead of it in any sort of ranking order.

No amount of time will suddenly make the acting or directing for the prequels good.

 Compel wrote:
To kinda add fuel to the fire... This article has been shared a lot on my twitter feed over the last few days.

https://bittergertrude.com/2018/01/04/why-so-many-men-hate-the-last-jedi-but-cant-agree-on-why/

I've been reviewing my feelings on the film and I think that, while the premise may be true for some people, ultimately it's a flawed concept overall.

I agree that if the movie were truly bad there'd be a broader consensus as to why, but the rest smells of bovine excrement.

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't want to get all conspiratorial either but I can imagine that there is a huge amount of pressure on film critics and the publications they write for to stay in the graces of major production and distribution companies, many of which spend millions of dollars in advertising.

So I guess Warner Bros isn't spending enough to get good reviews of it's DC movies.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't want to get all conspiratorial either but I can imagine that there is a huge amount of pressure on film critics and the publications they write for to stay in the graces of major production and distribution companies, many of which spend millions of dollars in advertising.

So I guess Warner Bros isn't spending enough to get good reviews of it's DC movies.

Disney is not nice in particular with the "naysayers".