Unit1126PLL wrote:
See the problem with "you can dodge it" is that you can't see it coming.

For a while now it's been canon that you can't sense things in hyperspace. In fact, it's even stated outright in TLJ: the whole "hyperspace tracking!?" fiasco.

So presumably, the hyperspace droid missiles are moving faster than the information that says they were even launched...

I assumed you'd have to be in sensor range and then they'd have to line up for the shot and then enter hyperspace. Could also require certain amounts of mass. I can think of a million reasons it's a known tactic and doesn't work but they all suppose some kind of rational thinking for how it works in the first place. Which we're never going to get so meh. It was a pretty shot and means the FO took a solid hit which can be used to grow a new rebellion.

So, Star Wars was always fundamentally a morality play about Good vs. Evil, right and wrong. What does this movie tell us about those things? What did Empire tell us about those things?

 Easy E wrote:
So, Star Wars was always fundamentally a morality play about Good vs. Evil, right and wrong. What does this movie tell us about those things? What did Empire tell us about those things?

Let the past and those pesky Jedi go. Or maybe not.
Sacrifice for a cause is noble. Well no wait, is not.
For sure, do not put authority in discussion. But no worry, if you do, you will not face serious consequences.
Ideals are important. But everyone is corrupt, so don't care about that.
Training is vital. No wait, you will just succeed because of the way you are born.

I supposes it says that the Sith are wrong, because only Sith deal in absolutes.
Boy, I miss the Emperor.

https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/the-last-jedi-is-a-star-wars-movie-about-fandom-and-the-lure-of-myth.html?via=recirc_engaged

I ran across this review that claims the movie is about Fandom and not for Fans.

According to Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, he chose to make “fairy tales” because he “wanted to return to more traditional values that held a special appeal for our rootless society.” Fairy tales belong to the realm of narrative that the critic Northrop Frye called “romance,” the presentation of an “idealized world” where “heroes are brave, heroines beautiful, villains villainous, and the frustrations, ambiguities, and embarrassments of life are made little of.” The counterthrust to romance is “irony,” exemplified by Don Quixote. Large swaths of our pop culture belong here, particularly stories about people with a “romanticized” idea of the world or of themselves. In a spoof like Spaceballs, the romantic fool is the implied author, the guy who thought he could forge a fairy tale for our rootless society. The winking irony of many Marvel movies does not qualify, as it functions not to undermine the romance but to make it more palatable.

That part makes a lot of sense and explains exactly why I do not like this film. I don't want Irony in my Star Wars, I want folk tales.

 Easy E wrote:
https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/the-last-jedi-is-a-star-wars-movie-about-fandom-and-the-lure-of-myth.html?via=recirc_engaged

I ran across this review that claims the movie is about Fandom and not for Fans.

According to Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, he chose to make “fairy tales” because he “wanted to return to more traditional values that held a special appeal for our rootless society.” Fairy tales belong to the realm of narrative that the critic Northrop Frye called “romance,” the presentation of an “idealized world” where “heroes are brave, heroines beautiful, villains villainous, and the frustrations, ambiguities, and embarrassments of life are made little of.” The counterthrust to romance is “irony,” exemplified by Don Quixote. Large swaths of our pop culture belong here, particularly stories about people with a “romanticized” idea of the world or of themselves. In a spoof like Spaceballs, the romantic fool is the implied author, the guy who thought he could forge a fairy tale for our rootless society. The winking irony of many Marvel movies does not qualify, as it functions not to undermine the romance but to make it more palatable.

That part makes a lot of sense and explains exactly why I do not like this film. I don't want Irony in my Star Wars, I want folk tales.

Its amusing how much time and effort was spent thinking up this BS to explain the bad stuff ini the TLJ - either the writer is the directors fanboy (somewhat ironically) and/or Disney are paying him more than most critics

Hulksmash wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
See the problem with "you can dodge it" is that you can't see it coming.

For a while now it's been canon that you can't sense things in hyperspace. In fact, it's even stated outright in TLJ: the whole "hyperspace tracking!?" fiasco.

So presumably, the hyperspace droid missiles are moving faster than the information that says they were even launched...

I assumed you'd have to be in sensor range and then they'd have to line up for the shot and then enter hyperspace. Could also require certain amounts of mass. I can think of a million reasons it's a known tactic and doesn't work but they all suppose some kind of rational thinking for how it works in the first place. Which we're never going to get so meh. It was a pretty shot and means the FO took a solid hit which can be used to grow a new rebellion.

Why would you have to line up the shot? Presumably every war-fleet has stationary support facilities / dockyards / whathaveyou that are vulnerable to a well-aimed strike.

As for it requiring a lot of mass, well, it is easier to strap engines to an asteroid than it is to build a starship, so you /still/ have the cost-effectiveness of capital ship problems.

Really, this is the first inkling we've had that it even works. A throwaway line in episode 4, something like "the death-star has plebotinium shields so our old Droid hyperspace weapons don't work" or even a line after-the-fact in TLJ with them saying "good thing it was a massive cruiser, an x-wing at hyperspace wouldn't have done anything!" or "boy really got the drop on them so they didn't turn on the phebotinium shields that every ship has that totally puts the kabosh on this tactic" or literally any indication of any reality other than one in which 'the entire military infrastructure of every organization that has ever existed is dumb.'

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/the-last-jedi-is-a-star-wars-movie-about-fandom-and-the-lure-of-myth.html?via=recirc_engaged

I ran across this review that claims the movie is about Fandom and not for Fans.

According to Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, he chose to make “fairy tales” because he “wanted to return to more traditional values that held a special appeal for our rootless society.” Fairy tales belong to the realm of narrative that the critic Northrop Frye called “romance,” the presentation of an “idealized world” where “heroes are brave, heroines beautiful, villains villainous, and the frustrations, ambiguities, and embarrassments of life are made little of.” The counterthrust to romance is “irony,” exemplified by Don Quixote. Large swaths of our pop culture belong here, particularly stories about people with a “romanticized” idea of the world or of themselves. In a spoof like Spaceballs, the romantic fool is the implied author, the guy who thought he could forge a fairy tale for our rootless society. The winking irony of many Marvel movies does not qualify, as it functions not to undermine the romance but to make it more palatable.

That part makes a lot of sense and explains exactly why I do not like this film. I don't want Irony in my Star Wars, I want folk tales.

Its amusing how much time and effort was spent thinking up this BS to explain the bad stuff ini the TLJ - either the writer is the directors fanboy (somewhat ironically) and/or Disney are paying him more than most critics

WTAF did I just read? Hilarious.

Reading that felt like someone vomited out a dictionary.

I'm still not entirely sure there was a point in it... I think it's just a really long winded way of the common idea of: "TLJ subverted expectations and some people don't want their expectations subverted when it comes to their Heroes Journeys in SPAAAACCCEEEEE.

The subverting expectations thing is one thing but then there's being unbelievable.

It's crucial to recognize that expectations exist much of the time because something is believable. For example, if I release a pen in midair on the surface of the Earth, I expect it to fall.

Someone interested in making their primary angle "subverting expectations" might make the pen hover! HOW SUBVERSIVE!

But that just leaves me asking why? Why does the pen hover? Is there some rationality I am missing? What is happening here? This makes no sense!

 Manchu wrote:
Disney didn't commission a work of art. It commissioned a product meantbto appeal to as many people as possible. Now, it could have still appealed to a huge number of people had it been competent. But the bigger issue here is, it will still appeal to a huge number of people despite being largely incompetent.

That's what makes SW worth $4.5 billion to Disney. Lucas demonstrated you could trot out utter gak and make tons of money as long as the turds were SW brand turds.

It's obviously an artistic, creative endeavor like any other film. I applaud Disney for allowing the director to make his voice clearly heard.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Please tell me the real reason I didn't like it? I am intrigued as I was both bored and exasperated from about half an hour in and the other 11 people of varied age and gender I have chatted to face to face about it said the same.

As I said these are categories that many of us highlighted as being issues with the film that are completed unrelated to the either the "gender problem" myth or the "superfan" myth that is being propagated.

The issue is that all your comments are incredibly subjective. You see underutilized characters, others see characters they don't care to get to know anyway. Pacing serves a given story. Citing 'narrative flaws' is mostly just saying you didn't like the story. Etc.

When you get to 'characterization', I think that's closer to where the truth lies for a lot of the film's detractors. The movie simply wasn't what some expected or wanted it to be. And casual fans can be vulnerable to demands and expectations just like superfans -- those aren't unique to a certain audience segment, although the degree may be different.

 Xenomancers wrote:
What are the real critiques of the PM though?

Not The Phantom Menace. Twin Peaks (The Return). The reason I brought it up is because these fan battles are almost a blow-by-blow replay of what went on with fans regarding that show during the summer. TP actually made its point about demands and expectations in a harsher and clearer way, and it's what what woke me up and made me more aware of my ego when I engage with a creative work.

Gorgan - yes its subjective but do you think any of my points about what is see as the flaws in the narrative structive of the film are incorrect or are actually make sense somehow?

Did none of the points I raise cause any issues with your enjoyment of the film? Peronsally I could not reach the level of immersion in a film that allows me to ignore plot holes simply due to the pacing issues i found with it - and the highly varied group of firendfs, work colleagues and their families thought the same - so its not just me.

Do you think that Finn and Phasma are actual characters in the film , never mind well developed?

Can you articulate what the director was trying to say and why he neeeded to do it in a action movie franschise in this particular way apart from a gaurented audiance of course.

I recall Twin peaks first time round - quite enjoyed it but I found it became very self induglent and rambling - espeically when they had guest director of the week, hence I found it unsatisfying.

Real quick for another question that just occured to me:

Why didn't the First Order send half or a third of their star destroyers into hyperspace to jump in front of the rebel ships? Presumably you could cover 100 kilometers, 100,000 kilometers, or 500,000 kilometers in the blink of an eye, so the idea that FTL ships are too slow to keep up with other ships not-FTLing makes me wonder...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Pretty obviously it isn't easy to use hyper space missiles, because as you say, the Death Star, etc....

The fact that hyper missiles don't exist shows that the suicide attack by Admiral Hondo was an extreme situation.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, I think that was at least part of the point of having him shirtless - so that Rey could see the big scar she left on him, which humanizes him a bit in her eyes as well as reminds her (and the audience) that they have some history already. Of course, it's also done to create some puzzling sexual tension between them.

Snoke's line about light rising to meet darkness isn't an explanation, really. Actually, the line itself is yet another thing that requires explanation. Is that really how the Force works? According to who? Since when? Is Luke a response to Vader and is Ben a response to Luke, if Rey is a response to Ben? Is this something that only started recently? Is that the Awakening? Is it speeding up? Should we expect a new bad guy to arise in response to Rey now?

@reds8n

As Bob pointed out, I think del Toro's part was designed (ultimately) to push the theme of Expect X But Receive Y, where X = things work out and Y = things get fethed. But I very much agree it was all confusing. I am not sure why Finn got a lecture about moral relativism, especially right after Rose just gave him a lecture on morality, too. None of this stuff sets up any conflict that Finn must resolve as part of his arc. I honestly don't know that Finn even has an arc in this movie.

Finn begins the film motivated by only his personal relationships ("Where's Rey" and taking his plan to Poe) and his anger. ("It was worth it to smash up this town."). By the end, Rose has taught (Er, lectured?) him not to act out of hate but from love (very ROTJ theme there), and Finn gives a speech about hope and the resistance or something, concepts that are bigger than just him and his friends.

As for the Force, it was all laid out in a previous film: there are equally many wise old beings as cruel dark beings, the wise teach while the dark usurp, when one light being dies his dark match also must die and vice-versa, and assembling the kyber crystal during the Triple Conjunction will restore balance to the Force, and Skeksis and Mystic will become one again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Pretty obviously it isn't easy to use hyper space missiles, because as you say, the Death Star, etc....

The fact that hyper missiles don't exist shows that the suicide attack by Admiral Hondo was an extreme situation.

But... why?

They obviously don't. But they should. Because it's ridiculously effective.

The only reason that I can think of why they don't is because the entire military infrastructure of every faction is clinically slowed.

Heck, the fething CIS during the Clone Wars series used a Venator as a bomb (or so my friend tells me) to try to hit a Republic meeting... and they don't hyperspace into the meeting with their droids because reasons?!?!?!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Real quick for another question that just occured to me:

Why didn't the First Order send half or a third of their star destroyers into hyperspace to jump in front of the rebel ships? Presumably you could cover 100 kilometers, 100,000 kilometers, or 500,000 kilometers in the blink of an eye, so the idea that FTL ships are too slow to keep up with other ships not-FTLing makes me wonder...

Because the writter / director wanted a specific situation but could not be bothered to have any form of narrative that actually explained the situation

Yes they could have done that
Yes they could have swarmed them with fighters

There is no reason why they wouldn't. Maybe the inevitable novilisation will have something - when they get someone to try and sort out all the nonsense.

Pretty obviously it isn't easy to use hyper space missiles, because as you say, the Death Star, etc....The fact that hyper missiles don't exist shows that the suicide attack by Admiral Hondo was an extreme situation.

Promlem is that the Admiral made it look sooo easy - she just turned the ship round to vaguely face the enemy ship who were still ambling along and pushed the button - could not be more simple apparently.

"So easy even a droid could do it!" one might say.

And yeah. The movie just gets worse the more I think about it, at least from a military perspective.

Star Wars should be instead called Star Oops: with the subtitle And you thought some of the military blunders in Real Life were bad...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"So easy even a droid could do it!" one might say.

And yeah. The movie just gets worse the more I think about it, at least from a military perspective.

Star Wars should be instead called Star Oops: with the subtitle And you thought some of the military blunders in Real Life were bad...

but then they could not have a whole suicide attacks are good - but only when you do it with love - or something equally mad.

Man is so funny to watch and read all the back and forth on these movies. Obviously they mean a lot to many of us. My home office has a ton of Star Wars stuff (among other interests) including an original A New Hope era movie poster. Everyone who knows me thinks I am a massive fan, but that is only part true.

I recognize the appreciation and influence Star Wars had on me as a kid. Star Wars, GI Joe, and Japanese robots (I spent some time in Asia as a kid). What I love from Star Wars centers around A New Hope. Everything I need to know about the universe, the rebels, and the Empire are explained in that movie. Its a classic underdog vs the champ story, and has a great cast of characters that are still classic to this day. It's just Epic.

Throw in Rogue One, and I have two bookends for what I think is the most interesting time in the Star Wars universe. I love Empire Strikes back and feel Return of the Jedi is ok.

The rest of the movies range from crap to pretty good. I think if I were to read them in print without the movies, I might like them more, but its things like Jar Jar stepping in crap, or a two-headed pod-racer announcer, how disappointing emo-Anakin was, just loses me. Even though I DISLIKE more Star Wars films than LIKE, and I do not follow Rebels or read any novels, I still cherish part of the universe to be a big fan of it.

I guess you can say I take what I need, and dump the rest.

I think we can all agree though, I highly doubt fans are going to care about Rey, Fynn, and Poe in 30 years like most of us cared about Luke, Han, and Leia. Thats just the way that it is.

Speaking of books, has anyone read the old novels? I think they are all labelled Legends now. Like the Heir to the Empire? I never did, but since I do not like Disney's direction, I thought I would pick up a few of those books as they were best sellers in their day.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"So easy even a droid could do it!" one might say.

And yeah. The movie just gets worse the more I think about it, at least from a military perspective.

Star Wars should be instead called Star Oops: with the subtitle And you thought some of the military blunders in Real Life were bad...

but then they could not have a whole suicide attacks are good - but only when you do it with love - or something equally mad.

Yeah I didn't get that message at all.

Also, another minor nitpick, but in the next movie I really want to see a "trebuchet starship" and "ballista cheese-cutter" to go with the "battering ram cannon". Because whomever came up with the name "battering ram cannon" should be thrown out a window like one of those bad comics.

It's telling that at first, I thought Finn was joking. Like "oh, lol, battering ram cannon, that fits with all the other dumb humor in this movie." and then he was like "yeah miniaturized death-star tech" and I was like "oh. He's serious. That's literally the name. Oh."

Here's a name I made up in two seconds: AT-AG; all terrain assault gun.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Real quick for another question that just occured to me:

Why didn't the First Order send half or a third of their star destroyers into hyperspace to jump in front of the rebel ships? Presumably you could cover 100 kilometers, 100,000 kilometers, or 500,000 kilometers in the blink of an eye, so the idea that FTL ships are too slow to keep up with other ships not-FTLing makes me wonder...

Because it would have been boring if the First Order was able to use its massive numerical superiority easily to englobe and destroy the Rebel fleet.

Therefore you have to accept that there is a technical reason why such a manoeuvre was not attempted. E.g. there was only one ship with a hyperspace tracker, so splitting the fleet in half might just lose half of them out of communication range, and achieve nothing.

Or, it may be because the First Order thought they had a guaranteed win anyway, and didn't see any need to try different tactics.

Perhaps it's simply that Snoke enjoyed watching the Rebellion slowly running out of fuel and hope before their inevitable destruction.

 gorgon wrote:

The issue is that all your comments are incredibly subjective. You see underutilized characters, others see characters they don't care to get to know anyway. Pacing serves a given story. Citing 'narrative flaws' is mostly just saying you didn't like the story. Etc.

On the other hand, saying "well, that is just subjective" is not a great counter-argument.

Also, these movies are made now hiring cheap directors and actors that are under the orders of a committee. You are really overthinking this space ramming issue.
Is just crappy writing from mercenary hacks that do not care about the universe.
Cynical hacks, I have to add, like the article in Slate linked, and people even better pointed out in the thread days ago.
Cynical hacks that want a deconstruction of an ancient and epic archetype, burned down under post-modernist lenses. A sign of the zeitgeist I guess.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Real quick for another question that just occured to me:

Why didn't the First Order send half or a third of their star destroyers into hyperspace to jump in front of the rebel ships? Presumably you could cover 100 kilometers, 100,000 kilometers, or 500,000 kilometers in the blink of an eye, so the idea that FTL ships are too slow to keep up with other ships not-FTLing makes me wonder...

Because it would have been boring if the First Order was able to use its massive numerical superiority easily to englobe and destroy the Rebel fleet.

Therefore you have to accept that there is a technical reason why such a manoeuvre was not attempted. E.g. there was only one ship with a hyperspace tracker, so splitting the fleet in half might just lose half of them out of communication range, and achieve nothing.

Or, it may be because the First Order thought they had a guaranteed win anyway, and didn't see any need to try different tactics.

Perhaps it's simply that Snoke enjoyed watching the Rebellion slowly running out of fuel and hope before their inevitable destruction.

Or perhaps that sort of gak should be explained in the narrative so that I'm not forced to ask some random dude on the internet forum for a list of "possibilities" with no evidence whatsoever that any of them are more true than these following suggestions:

Perhaps the navigator droids were all hungover from a rad droid batchelor party and they couldn't jump.
Perhaps the hyperdrives catch fire unless you spray them with urine but there wasn't enough coffee to go around.
Perhaps the "hyperspace jump" button had an out of order sticker put on it as a prank that no one thought to remove.

I Exalted the post above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As well as this one.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"So easy even a droid could do it!" one might say.

And yeah. The movie just gets worse the more I think about it, at least from a military perspective.

Star Wars should be instead called Star Oops: with the subtitle And you thought some of the military blunders in Real Life were bad...

but then they could not have a whole suicide attacks are good - but only when you do it with love - or something equally mad.

Yeah I didn't get that message at all.

Also, another minor nitpick, but in the next movie I really want to see a "trebuchet starship" and "ballista cheese-cutter" to go with the "battering ram cannon". Because whomever came up with the name "battering ram cannon" should be thrown out a window like one of those bad comics.

It's telling that at first, I thought Finn was joking. Like "oh, lol, battering ram cannon, that fits with all the other dumb humor in this movie." and then he was like "yeah miniaturized death-star tech" and I was like "oh. He's serious. That's literally the name. Oh."

Here's a name I made up in two seconds: AT-AG; all terrain assault gun.

yeah that was bad - I think it just highlighted how lazy this film os - they know they have a vast audience they know they will watch it. They make sure the critics do as they are told

Why bother trying that hard.

KTG17 wrote:

I think we can all agree though, I highly doubt fans are going to care about Rey, Fynn, and Poe in 30 years like most of us cared about Luke, Han, and Leia. Thats just the way that it is.

The OT is memorable because it has the language of the Myth. The sequels are made by people without sense of wonder, or of poetry (not in the George Lucas meme sense) hired to please who watches movies "ironically" waiting for the cheap pleasure of a twist or of fast images moving. These are tv series made movies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Real quick for another question that just occured to me:

Why didn't the First Order send half or a third of their star destroyers into hyperspace to jump in front of the rebel ships? Presumably you could cover 100 kilometers, 100,000 kilometers, or 500,000 kilometers in the blink of an eye, so the idea that FTL ships are too slow to keep up with other ships not-FTLing makes me wonder...

Because it would have been boring if the First Order was able to use its massive numerical superiority easily to englobe and destroy the Rebel fleet.

Therefore you have to accept that there is a technical reason why such a manoeuvre was not attempted. E.g. there was only one ship with a hyperspace tracker, so splitting the fleet in half might just lose half of them out of communication range, and achieve nothing.

Or, it may be because the First Order thought they had a guaranteed win anyway, and didn't see any need to try different tactics.

Perhaps it's simply that Snoke enjoyed watching the Rebellion slowly running out of fuel and hope before their inevitable destruction.

Or perhaps that sort of gak should be explained in the narrative so that I'm not forced to ask some random dude on the internet forum for a list of "possibilities" with no evidence whatsoever that any of them are more true than these following suggestions:

Perhaps the navigator droids were all hungover from a rad droid batchelor party and they couldn't jump.
Perhaps the hyperdrives catch fire unless you spray them with urine but there wasn't enough coffee to go around.
Perhaps the "hyperspace jump" button had an out of order sticker put on it as a prank that no one thought to remove.

Your ideas are very funny, but I think mine make more sense.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

I think we can all agree though, I highly doubt fans are going to care about Rey, Fynn, and Poe in 30 years like most of us cared about Luke, Han, and Leia. Thats just the way that it is.

The OT is memorable because it has the language of the Myth. The sequels are made by people without sense of wonder, or of poetry (not in the George Lucas meme sense) hired to please who watches movies "ironically" waiting for the cheap pleasure of a twist or of fast images moving. These are tv series made movies.

Maybe, but lets also not forget that Star Wars version 1 was a disaster, and it took a team of editors led by Lucas's wife to make it something that we all love today: version 1.1.

Then Lucas ruined it again with version 1.2: The Special Edition.

I don't know if many of you are aware of this, but there was a big moment in TFA that Lucas wanted inserted into the movie, but JJ said no way, where Chewie, after hanging out with Han for decades, says in english, "Hey Han, what did the Apple say to the Orange?"

And Han, so shocked that Chewie said something in english, didn't have time was ask what before Chewie answered, "Or-ange you glad you aren't a Banana?"

True Star Wars history.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Also, another minor nitpick, but in the next movie I really want to see a "trebuchet starship" and "ballista cheese-cutter" to go with the "battering ram cannon". Because whomever came up with the name "battering ram cannon" should be thrown out a window like one of those bad comics.

It is obviously shorthand used by soldiers who cannot easily understand the physics of the weapon, probably don't care, and are primarily concerned with a "battering ram cannon" at the door.

KTG17 wrote:

Speaking of books, has anyone read the old novels? I think they are all labelled Legends now. Like the Heir to the Empire? I never did, but since I do not like Disney's direction, I thought I would pick up a few of those books as they were best sellers in their day.

They're great fun - particularly the Timothy Zahn trilogy.

Part of the reason why I can't get too upset about some of the things in the new movies I don't like. To me, they're one take on what could have happened after Return of the Jedi. The Zahn novels are a different take. I don't treat one as more canonical or authoritative than the other. (My Star Wars RPG games are set in the Imperial era rather than after, so I don't even have to managed shared expectations in that regard.)

Any others you recommend?

Kilkrazy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Real quick for another question that just occured to me:

Why didn't the First Order send half or a third of their star destroyers into hyperspace to jump in front of the rebel ships? Presumably you could cover 100 kilometers, 100,000 kilometers, or 500,000 kilometers in the blink of an eye, so the idea that FTL ships are too slow to keep up with other ships not-FTLing makes me wonder...

Because it would have been boring if the First Order was able to use its massive numerical superiority easily to englobe and destroy the Rebel fleet.

Therefore you have to accept that there is a technical reason why such a manoeuvre was not attempted. E.g. there was only one ship with a hyperspace tracker, so splitting the fleet in half might just lose half of them out of communication range, and achieve nothing.

Or, it may be because the First Order thought they had a guaranteed win anyway, and didn't see any need to try different tactics.

Perhaps it's simply that Snoke enjoyed watching the Rebellion slowly running out of fuel and hope before their inevitable destruction.

Or perhaps that sort of gak should be explained in the narrative so that I'm not forced to ask some random dude on the internet forum for a list of "possibilities" with no evidence whatsoever that any of them are more true than these following suggestions:

Perhaps the navigator droids were all hungover from a rad droid batchelor party and they couldn't jump.
Perhaps the hyperdrives catch fire unless you spray them with urine but there wasn't enough coffee to go around.
Perhaps the "hyperspace jump" button had an out of order sticker put on it as a prank that no one thought to remove.

Your ideas are very funny, but I think mine make more sense.

And both are equally supported by the narrative, which simply throws up its hands and says "feth it" when the plot hole is pointed out, allowing the viewer to assume whatever they choose because who gives a feth, right? I mean they got their money from me.

I personally choose to assume that the QT-3.14 hyperdrive has a known issue where it malfunctions when a swift, simple, and easy victory would be assured by its use. Oh, and it's a feature, not a bug.

dogma wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Also, another minor nitpick, but in the next movie I really want to see a "trebuchet starship" and "ballista cheese-cutter" to go with the "battering ram cannon". Because whomever came up with the name "battering ram cannon" should be thrown out a window like one of those bad comics.

It is obviously shorthand used by soldiers who cannot easily understand the physics of the weapon, probably don't care, and are primarily concerned with a "battering ram cannon" at the door.

Yes, obviously shorthand. Which is why, after using it, the soldier, Fin, who doesn't care, mentions that it uses miniaturized Death Star tech and goes into some detail about how they couldn't kill it except by shooting it straight down the barrel.

Because the details of its construction are irrelevant and the soldiers don't care. Right.

Also remember Fynn was on the custodian staff, and was prob well versed in the technical data in all the weapons the First Order had. He was, after all, a grunt.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

KTG17 wrote:
Any others you recommend?

Rebel Dream and Rebel Stand were fun. It and The Last Jedi share some similarities, but the novels handle things much better.

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

Krull Glaive lightsaber or get out.


Really, though, polearms? Then the lightlongbow? The lightsaber crossbow? Lightbullets?

Yes, obviously shorthand. Which is why, after using it, the soldier, Fin, who doesn't care, mentions that it uses miniaturized Death Star tech and goes into some detail about how they couldn't kill it except by shooting it straight down the barrel.

Because the details of its construction are irrelevant and the soldiers don't care. Right.

A soldier can refer to something using shorthand or slang and still understand it. If someone says a type of breaching charge is "like a torpedo" it doesn't mean it literally has a propeller and goes in the water. It also doesn't mean they don't understand the limitations and weaknesses of what they're working with.

But I'm sure deliberate obtuseness and condescension makes a way better point than actually reading a post. Obviously, right?

I just don't get why, "Siege Cannon" wasn't the immediate go-to than, "Battering ram cannon."

 dogma wrote:
Didn't Palapatine mock Leia by saying her kid was his new body?

IIRC that was DEII. Palpatine's immortality plan faced two obstacles: (1) he was running out of clones (thanks to Dark Side Luke and others killing them) and (2) he was "wearing out" his remaining ones more quickly. I believe he planned to use Anakin Solo as his new body, figuring it would last longer. But yeah I am sure he also meant to mock Leia.

 ScarletRose wrote:

Yes, obviously shorthand. Which is why, after using it, the soldier, Fin, who doesn't care, mentions that it uses miniaturized Death Star tech and goes into some detail about how they couldn't kill it except by shooting it straight down the barrel.

Because the details of its construction are irrelevant and the soldiers don't care. Right.

A soldier can refer to something using shorthand or slang and still understand it. If someone says a type of breaching charge is "like a torpedo" it doesn't mean it literally has a propeller and goes in the water. It also doesn't mean they don't understand the limitations and weaknesses of what they're working with.

But I'm sure deliberate obtuseness and condescension makes a way better point than actually reading a post. Obviously, right?

I'm also certain that referencing medieval siege engines in a galaxy where they have been at the tech-level of Star Wars for 25,000 years is very informative and people are acutely aware of its limitations and capabilities.

Seriously. It may not bother you, but it's a siege cannon, certainly. It kinda resembles a battering ram, maybe, if you're one of the people that understands the difference between a medieval siege ram and a modern police-style ram... sort of. The name "battering ram cannon" barely makes any sense, unless there's such a plethora of gated fortifications that it was specifically designed to be a battering ram... that fired lasers..

fethin' hell I'd've been more acceptable of a literal laser-capped battering ram (like some sort of lightsabre ram) than whatever this machine is actually called.

Some people like starwars for the cool sci-fi machines, and "battering ram cannon" doesn't really scratch that itch as well as AT-AT or even just the phrase "Imperial walkers" does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I just don't get why, "Siege Cannon" wasn't the immediate go-to than, "Battering ram cannon."

This, exactly. Was there ever even a medieval period in Star Wars with analogous siege engines to the 'battering ram'?

I'm also certain that referencing medieval siege engines in a galaxy where they have been at the tech-level of Star Wars for 25,000 years is very informative and people are acutely aware of its limitations and capabilities.

How many medieval battering rams have the average person on the street seen (or built)? It's something people know about from fiction or heavily fictionalized books/films or that they know from context.

And yeah, it doesn't bother me because I'm not going over the dialog of every film with a fine tooth comb looking for problems. I'm sure there were bad lines in the OT too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I just don't get why, "Siege Cannon" wasn't the immediate go-to than, "Battering ram cannon."

This, exactly. Was there ever even a medieval period in Star Wars with analogous siege engines to the 'battering ram'?

Modern police use battering rams to knock in doors. I don't recall Stormtroopers using them in the movies, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have access to them either. Sometimes you need to bash your way through a door.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Spoiler:

Honestly I think the biggest flaw with it was "why didn't you just kamikaze one of your smaller ships that was going to have to be left behind for lack of fuel anyway?" They abandoned two ships that could have pulled that stunt and crippled their pursuers.

Absolutely. It's been stated a few times in this thread but everyone kind of figures this out after they look back at the film. How did this make it past screen writing phase?

Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Spoiler:

Honestly I think the biggest flaw with it was "why didn't you just kamikaze one of your smaller ships that was going to have to be left behind for lack of fuel anyway?" They abandoned two ships that could have pulled that stunt and crippled their pursuers.

Absolutely. It's been stated a few times in this thread but everyone kind of figures this out after they look back at the film. How did this make it past screen writing phase?

This flaw has always been in Star Wars. Instead of building a Deathstar, twice, and then Star Killer Base, the Empire and then the First Order could have destroyed planets by just having their numerous Star Destroyers drop kinetic weapons on planets to destroy them. A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels. SW bad guys have always had cool wardrobes and terrible resource management.

And the good guys, apparently, too.

Maybe the reason I just don't like this movie is it took me till now to realize it.

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

Well - they could have done it before they ran out of fuel. Maybe they could have sacked 1 ship and transferred fuel to the other. In any case though. It makes no sense that the Raddus would be in effective weapons range after just turning a 180 and hitting hyper drive. You don't have to slow down to turn around in space.

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

They could have transferred fuel to them, or simply come up with that ballsy course of action on the realization they'd lose the ships anyway from the get go. I can on a level understand why it might not be the first thought. After all ramming your own ship into the enemy isn't usually any captain's first course of action, but I find it kind of inconceivable that they didn't do it the first place if it's that effective. Even with a smaller ship they still could have conceivably disabled Snokes ship which would have made it impossible to keep tracking them.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

This is fair, but I still think it's a glaring hole in a chase scenario full of holes. Why didn't the First Order send some ships off to the side and hyperspace them in front of the Resistance fleet to cut them off? Because the plot demanded it I suppose. Who doesn't prefer an 18 hour chase where anything can happen to quickly dealing with your enemy... Why didn't the massive First Order fleet just deploy hordes of Tie Fighters to blow the enemy ships apart? Has the not-Empire seriously not learned yet that swarms of fighter craft are really really good for taking down capital ships? The Resistance just fething did it like 20 minutes ago with a bunch of ships that looked like they came from a scrap heap don't give me that "you're out of range we can't support you" nonsense. The Resistance is down to 3 ships, one of which is a medical frigate, and you guys have how many Star Destroyers loaded with Ties? Even if Kylo hadn't gotten the "budget demanded" shot of the century and blown up every resistance fighter the First Order still could have swarmed the Resistance to death in ties.

As much as I even enjoyed the film a lot of it ran on really questionable internal logic.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

Well - they could have done it before they ran out of fuel. Maybe they could have sacked 1 ship and transferred fuel to the other. In any case though. It makes no sense that the Raddus would be in effective weapons range after just turning a 180 and hitting hyper drive. You don't have to slow down to turn around in space.

You do in SW, that's always been the rules. It might not make physical sense, but ships in SW have always acted like aircraft in an atmosphere, they can't just flip over while maintaining momentum like a BSG Viper...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Spoiler:

Honestly I think the biggest flaw with it was "why didn't you just kamikaze one of your smaller ships that was going to have to be left behind for lack of fuel anyway?" They abandoned two ships that could have pulled that stunt and crippled their pursuers.

Absolutely. It's been stated a few times in this thread but everyone kind of figures this out after they look back at the film. How did this make it past screen writing phase?

This flaw has always been in Star Wars. Instead of building a Deathstar, twice, and then Star Killer Base, the Empire and then the First Order could have destroyed planets by just having their numerous Star Destroyers drop kinetic weapons on planets to destroy them. A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels. SW bad guys have always had cool wardrobes and terrible resource management.

Well we actually have source on this from ANH. Han says something to the effect of "it would take "more than" all the firepower in the entire imperial fleet to destroy a planet" Han might not be qualified to knows this but it is something. You are correct though that a star destroyer has everything it needs to destroy a planet already - just by using impulse engines and crashing into the planet given it's mass - would probably kill everything alive on the planet just like an asteroid would. Or like you mention with tractoring huge rocks at a planet. It would be a little easier to stop those plans though as all you'd have to do is destroy a star destroyer to stop it. You'd never have a chance to stop a hyperspace missile.

 Easy E wrote:
So, Star Wars was always fundamentally a morality play about Good vs. Evil, right and wrong. What does this movie tell us about those things?

Fundamentally nothing.

WHICH IS A HUGE SHAME.

The key question is, Why did Ben Solo turn to the dark side? Rian Johnson even knew this was the key question because he had characters attempt to explain it three times. But none of those three instances addresses the question. Yes, we finally understand that Luke intended to murder Ben, changed his mind right before doing it, but tragically not before Ben woke up to his estranged Uncle Luke hovering over his bed with a drawn and ignited lightsaber like a mega creeper horror movie killer. But keep in mind, the whole reason Luke intended to murder him, almost did so, then at the last minute backed down, is because he believed Ben Solo was already too far gone down the path of darkness. How/why this happened IS NOT EXPLAINED except "Snoke did it."

Now this could have been really good. It's not hard to imagine a very compelling story here. Ben is not only the heir of a generation of galactic heroes he's also the heir apparent of the whole Jedi legacy. That's enormous pressure. What if he was having trouble living up to those expectations? So he used the age-old short cut: the Dark Side. Meanwhile, out beyond known space, an ancient dark side power is stirring and becomes aware of Ben Solo's raw power when he starts to use the dark side. This is Snoke, and he uses Force Skype to remotely instruct Ben in dark techniques. Luke becomes aware of this and warns Ben not to indulge in anger, fear, aggression.

And here is where the new movies could have made a huge difference and told a compelling moral story: What if the dark side is addictive? What if Ben agreed with Luke that he shouldn't be using dark side powers - i.e., that he should "stay clean" - but he just couldn't?

This would have made so much sense. Yoda told Luke, once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Vader told Luke, it is too late for me my son/you don't know the power of the dark side. Hell, the idea that the dark side is not a moral choice but rather an addiction even helps the Prequels make more sense.

This would make Rey's compassion for Kylo Ren much more believable. If she figured out that he's an addict, that he's not just an donkey-cave, it would make more sense for her to believe she could help him/that he deserved help.

Finally, this would also make sense of why Luke failed Ben. Luke did not have to deal with his dad trying to "get sober" because Vader died immediately after saving Luke from Palpatine. Therefore, in Luke's mind, the light and the darkness are moral choices. His dad ultimately chose him over the dark side. But with addiction, we're talking about compulsory behavior. If Vader had survived that encounter, do you think he would have been good from then on out? Pretty doubtful.

 Manchu wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, Star Wars was always fundamentally a morality play about Good vs. Evil, right and wrong. What does this movie tell us about those things?

Fundamentally nothing.

WHICH IS A HUGE SHAME.

The key question is, Why did Ben Solo turn to the dark side? Rian Johnson even knew this was the key question because he had characters attempt to explain it three times. But none of those three instances addresses the question. Yes, we finally understand that Luke intended to murder Ben, changed his mind right before doing it, but tragically not before Ben woke up to his estranged Uncle Luke hovering over his bed with a drawn and ignited lightsaber like a mega creeper horror movie killer. But keep in mind, the whole reason Luke intended to murder him, almost did so, then at the last minute backed down, is because he believed Ben Solo was already too far gone down the path of darkness. How/why this happened IS NOT EXPLAINED except "Snoke did it."

Now this could have been really good. It's not hard to imagine a very compelling story here. Ben is not only the heir of a generation of galactic heroes he's also the heir apparent of the whole Jedi legacy. That's enormous pressure. What if he was having trouble living up to those expectations? So he used the age-old short cut: the Dark Side. Meanwhile, out beyond known space, an ancient dark side power is stirring and becomes aware of Ben Solo's raw power when he starts to use the dark side. This is Snoke, and he uses Force Skype to remotely instruct Ben in dark techniques. Luke becomes aware of this and warns Ben not to indulge in anger, fear, aggression.

And here is where the new movies could have made a huge difference and told a compelling moral story: What if the dark side is addictive? What if Ben agreed with Luke that he shouldn't be using dark side powers - i.e., that he should "stay clean" - but he just couldn't?

This would have made so much sense. Yoda told Luke, once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Vader told Luke, it is too late for me my son/you don't know the power of the dark side. Hell, the idea that the dark side is not a moral choice but rather an addiction even helps the Prequels make more sense.

This would make Rey's compassion for Kylo Ren much more believable. If she figured out that he's an addict, that he's not just an donkey-cave, it would make more sense for her to believe she could help him/that he deserved help.

Finally, this would also make sense of why Luke failed Ben. Luke did not have to deal with his dad trying to "get sober" because Vader died immediately after saving Luke from Palpatine. Therefore, in Luke's mind, the light and the darkness are moral choices. His dad ultimately chose him over the dark side. But with addiction, we're talking about compulsory behavior. If Vader had survived that encounter, do you think he would have been good from then on out? Pretty doubtful.

Manchu, you and I have disagreed mightily on TFA and R1 in other threads.

Every. Thing. You. Have. Said. About. TLJ. In . This. Thread. Is. Right.

I propose that you should write the next episode of Star Wars.

I just assumed that as Snoke linked Rey and Kylo, he was able to link to Ben and manipulate him from who knows where. While not really explained, it's a sufficient inference to explain what happened. I still think this was a missed opportunity though simply because I think we all were hungering for a lot more than an inference we have to draw on our own. For such a long movie they really didn't cover a whole lot. Too much time spent juggling four different sub-plots.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

Well - they could have done it before they ran out of fuel. Maybe they could have sacked 1 ship and transferred fuel to the other. In any case though. It makes no sense that the Raddus would be in effective weapons range after just turning a 180 and hitting hyper drive. You don't have to slow down to turn around in space.

You do in SW, that's always been the rules. It might not make physical sense, but ships in SW have always acted like aircraft in an atmosphere, they can't just flip over while maintaining momentum like a BSG Viper...

Can't recall any time that a situation really called for an about face in starwars to really test that theory. OFC one of the dumbest things in ANH was when they had to fly down the trench under gun fire over the deathstar when they could have just flown directly at the target and avoided all of it...it even would have fixed the issue with the angling. You expect more out of writers today though.

In the 70's average people knew practically nothing about space. Carl Sagan Cosmos didn't come out until after ANH (starwars probably started to get people interested in space (and alien)) You'd think landing on the moon might have done it...nope Starwars did it. Today - the average person knows a lot more. You have to make your film believable to the viewer or it's going to get ragged on.

 LordofHats wrote:
I just assumed that as Snoke linked Rey and Kylo, he was able to link to Ben and manipulate him from who knows where. While not really explained, it's a sufficient inference to explain what happened. I still think this was a missed opportunity though simply because I think we all were hungering for a lot more than an inference we have to draw on our own. For such a long movie they really didn't cover a whole lot. Too much time spent juggling four different sub-plots.

While that works as an explanation, Luke even tells Rey that when Luke went to check on Ben that fateful night he could sense that Snoke has already connected to Ben. Of course that just raises more questions like, did Luke know Snoke existed? Did Luke fail Ben by not preparing him to deal with Snoke or did Luke fail Ben because he didn't know Snoke was even a threat until it was too late?

I know I'd like to know. How Snoke fits into the Star Wars universe in a more grand sense might be irrelevant for the plot of the films themselves but I still want to know. Guy seems really strong to have simply appeared from nowhere. Certainly in the new films he's treated as something the heroes have known about for sometime but I'd like to see the background there.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I just assumed that as Snoke linked Rey and Kylo, he was able to link to Ben and manipulate him from who knows where. While not really explained, it's a sufficient inference to explain what happened. I still think this was a missed opportunity though simply because I think we all were hungering for a lot more than an inference we have to draw on our own. For such a long movie they really didn't cover a whole lot. Too much time spent juggling four different sub-plots.

While that works as an explanation, Luke even tells Rey that when Luke went to check on Ben that fateful night he could sense that Snoke has already connected to Ben. Of course that just raises more questions like, did Luke know Snoke existed? Did Luke fail Ben by not preparing him to deal with Snoke or did Luke fail Ben because he didn't know Snoke was even a threat until it was too late?

Luke knew Snoke existed. When he confessed to Rey - he said he knew Snoke had already had turned Kylo. I'm pretty certain of that - anyone remember exactly what Luke said?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Luke knew Snoke existed. When he confessed to Rey - he said he knew Snoke had already had turned Kylo. I'm pretty certain of that - anyone remember exactly what Luke said?

Luke could have found out about Snoke long after that flashback occurred. Hind sight and all that can change how someone recounts events, so it wouldn't matter what Luke specifically said.
Until we find out otherwise, my headcanon for Snoke is that he influenced Ben's darkside AND Luke's doubts long before revealing himself. It makes Luke's doubts less ....disappointing... if they were not truly his own, but the manipulations of a darkside entity Luke was unaware of.

It could also add to Luke's reason for exiling himself. Not only did he fail to see Ben turn, but he failed to realize that he could be manipulated by Snoke. This would also reinforce his comment that the Jedi are arrogant and need to end. He too let his arrogance blind him.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Luke knew Snoke existed. When he confessed to Rey - he said he knew Snoke had already had turned Kylo. I'm pretty certain of that - anyone remember exactly what Luke said?

Luke could have found out about Snoke long after that flashback occurred. Hind sight and all that can change how someone recounts events, so it wouldn't matter what Luke specifically said.
Until we find out otherwise, my headcanon for Snoke is that he influenced Ben's darkside AND Luke's doubts long before revealing himself. It makes Luke's doubts less ....disappointing... if they were not truly his own, but the manipulations of a darkside entity Luke was unaware of.

It could also add to Luke's reason for exiling himself. Not only did he fail to see Ben turn, but he failed to realize that he could be manipulated by Snoke. This would also reinforce his comment that the Jedi are arrogant and need to end. He too let his arrogance blind him.

-

Entirely possible. I just thought I specifically remember him saying to Rey "I knew snoke had turned him" to me that would mean that he (in that moment) knew who snoke was.

Also - Jedi need to chill on this feeling bad when they can't sense the dark side. Palpatine rose up in front of the entire Jedi Council of masters. "Hard to see the dark side is." Don't feel bad luke! Also - all these force ghosts flying around...someone could have given him a tip.

Does RT usually count 2.5/4 reviews as rotten?

 Easy E wrote:
I propose that you should write the next episode of Star Wars.

It'd be a much easier job if I got to write TLJ, too. As it stands, whatever is interesting in Episode IX is going to have to be invented specifically for Episode IX rather than flowing from TLJ.

The Luke-Rey-Kylo-Snoke spectrum is the best, strongest part of TLJ but it's mostly squandered. The amazing Reylo team up should have been the climax of the movie. And the movie should have visually/emotionally paralleled TFA: TFA ends with a shot of Rey reaching out to Luke and TLJ should have ended with a shot of Kylo Ren reaching out to Rey.

Adding characters like Holdo and Rose was a mistake. The heavy, emotional "A Plot" about Rey and Kylo should have been balanced by a lighter, heroic "B Plot" starring Finn and Poe. In this way, TLJ could have been a tight, fun, but also moving film.

Killing Luke rather than Leia was also a mistake, and not just because Carrie Fisher died. Leia has nothing to do in TLJ except serve as an inspiration. Her death would have actually enhanced this role. It would also, in combination with Han's death, create a super interesting emotional arc for Luke - he's been gone all these years and now his best friends are dead. It's too late for them - but not too late for Rey. Luke should have been portrayed as seeing the error of his ways and agreeing to train Rey as a Jedi.

Why couldn't we have such a film? Basically, because the main goal was to expand the IP - so we got a bloated, meandering, and ambiguous movie.

 LordofHats wrote:
Guy seems really strong to have simply appeared from nowhere.

I'm fine with him appearing from nowhere - as long as there is a reason for him to do so.

The obvious one would be, he was drawn into the affairs of the galaxy when Luke terminated the Sith legacy. Although this was invented after RotJ, reading the prequels back on that movie, we can see that there are two "dynasties" (Sith and Jedi) that each need an heir but there is only one candidate (Luke) and he can't (or rather won't) chose both - that's not how Luke's worldview works. He has been taught that you either choose good or you choose evil - and he has chosen good. So one legacy persists while the other goes extinct and this creates a directional pressure, a vacuum, drawing darkness into the galaxy - hence Snoke arrives.

But the truth about the Force is, as Rian Johnson allows Luke to explain in TLJ, it's not dependent on Jedi and Sith. Light and darkness are characteristics invented by those traditions to distinguish themselves from one another for the sake of galactic politics. The Force itself is no more riven than any other natural phenomenon (day/night, life/death).

Luke should have explained that he withdrew from the galaxy and from the Force itself not just because he was bitter about failing Ben Solo but because he thought this is what was meant by balance - that without the presence of powerful light, there would be no powerful darkness. Thus, exile was a sacrifice Luke made to restrain the power of Snoke and Kylo Ren. But Luke was wrong. Exiting the system did not limit their power; it called forth the power in Rey.

Once Luke realized this, he should have been willing to train Rey. Because it basically is an example of his own lesson: the Force isn't about Jedi in general or him in particular.

KTG17 wrote:
Man is so funny to watch and read all the back and forth on these movies. Obviously they mean a lot to many of us. My home office has a ton of Star Wars stuff (among other interests) including an original A New Hope era movie poster. Everyone who knows me thinks I am a massive fan, but that is only part true.

I recognize the appreciation and influence Star Wars had on me as a kid. Star Wars, GI Joe, and Japanese robots (I spent some time in Asia as a kid). What I love from Star Wars centers around A New Hope. Everything I need to know about the universe, the rebels, and the Empire are explained in that movie. Its a classic underdog vs the champ story, and has a great cast of characters that are still classic to this day. It's just Epic.

Throw in Rogue One, and I have two bookends for what I think is the most interesting time in the Star Wars universe. I love Empire Strikes back and feel Return of the Jedi is ok.

The rest of the movies range from crap to pretty good. I think if I were to read them in print without the movies, I might like them more, but its things like Jar Jar stepping in crap, or a two-headed pod-racer announcer, how disappointing emo-Anakin was, just loses me. Even though I DISLIKE more Star Wars films than LIKE, and I do not follow Rebels or read any novels, I still cherish part of the universe to be a big fan of it.

I guess you can say I take what I need, and dump the rest.

I think we can all agree though, I highly doubt fans are going to care about Rey, Fynn, and Poe in 30 years like most of us cared about Luke, Han, and Leia. Thats just the way that it is.

Speaking of books, has anyone read the old novels? I think they are all labelled Legends now. Like the Heir to the Empire? I never did, but since I do not like Disney's direction, I thought I would pick up a few of those books as they were best sellers in their day.

The Timothy Zahn trilogy still hold up, although they are very dated in their 'canon'. Thrawn is still the second most interesting villain in the entire franchise for me, and I'm surprised Disney hasn't Marvelled such a valuable and beloved part of their IP into the movies. (Although I hear they are backdooring him in through the cartoon.)

I'd suggest a conservative reading list for the old EU. Anything that strikes you as off, annoying or boring can be jettisoned without loss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

How many turbolasers does each Stardestroyer have? How many on the Supremacy? How many shots would it take to destroy all of those transports, and then we are left with how many unentaged turbolasers that could hit the Raddus? Each answer raises more questions. However you rationalize it, the hyperspace ramming scene either breaks the setting or requires deep stupidity on the part of dozens.

I'm not even going to get into the silliness of how poorly acceleration is understood into this film.

 Compel wrote:
I just don't get why, "Siege Cannon" wasn't the immediate go-to than, "Battering ram cannon."

Probably so the 7 year old who wrote the script and plot can recall what it does - give the kid a break - he had to write the entire screen play in his lunch break in crayon.

Prestor Jon wrote:
A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

How many turbolasers does each Stardestroyer have? How many on the Supremacy? How many shots would it take to destroy all of those transports, and then we are left with how many unentaged turbolasers that could hit the Raddus? Each answer raises more questions. However you rationalize it, the hyperspace ramming scene either breaks the setting or requires deep stupidity on the part of dozens.

Apparently none - the only time any Imperial Ships fire that I recall are the Dreadnought and the two big guns on the Super-Giant Ship. I assumed that the ISds were actually cardboard cut outs around a single tie fighter- which is why they were completely useless in the film.

Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

 Manchu wrote:
Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

True - maybe they had "run out of ammo or fuel" or something equally stupid. At least Vaders one had some ammo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

Or an old frieghter with a droid pilot jumps to hyperspace throuhg the planet - that seems to be the most effective waeapon in anyones arsenal now. Another legacy of this turd of a film.

 Manchu wrote:
Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

The turbogunner's Union is just too powerful. "Two shots and then I'm on my break."

At least they remembered to deploy some TIEs. I almost think captaining a Stardestroyer is like being Superman: it makes you forget most of your powers just when they'd be the most useful. "Rebellion fleet? How am I going to defeat them with my mobile garrison, heavy landers and 64 walkers?"

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

The turbogunner's Union is just too powerful. "Two shots and then I'm on my break."

LOL turbogunner's union

Must be why they didn't shoot down r2's escape pod in ANH, they might need the shots for one with life signs

If nothing else, this thread has given us "ForceSkype"!

(It has, of course, given us a lot of good discussion too!)

Force Skype wasn't our doing, unfortunately. That was a meme like the day after the movie came out.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface. You don’t need to kill everyone or all life forms or blow up the planet that’s a crazy amount of overkill. Send the Imperial fleet to cordon off a rebel planet and bombard it with kinetics until all major cities are rubble and the climate is wrecked. If that doesn’t kill everyone that’s great the survivors can tell everyone else not to feth with the Empire.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface. You don’t need to kill everyone or all life forms or blow up the planet that’s a crazy amount of overkill. Send the Imperial fleet to cordon off a rebel planet and bombard it with kinetics until all major cities are rubble and the climate is wrecked. If that doesn’t kill everyone that’s great the survivors can tell everyone else not to feth with the Empire.

Hi.
I am the Imperial Inquisition.
You are hired.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface. You don’t need to kill everyone or all life forms or blow up the planet that’s a crazy amount of overkill. Send the Imperial fleet to cordon off a rebel planet and bombard it with kinetics until all major cities are rubble and the climate is wrecked. If that doesn’t kill everyone that’s great the survivors can tell everyone else not to feth with the Empire.

Unless they have a shield that can deflect any bombardment. Those seem fairly easy to install.

Also, with the capability to Base Delta Zero a planet, fetching rocks would be a waste of a Star Destroyer's time against an undefended target.

Basically, if a dozen star destroyers or an Executor can't pummel the shields away, it's going to take a bit more than a few score asteroids.. If the rocks can do the job, then a few teraton-range broadsides are faster and cheaper.

 Manchu wrote:
As explained many times ITT already, terms like "backstory" are red herrings. No one wanted much less expected TLJ to be a Snoke biopic. What folks did expect, rightfully, was some explanation for all the issues TFA offered as tantalizing mysteries/required the audiense to (presumably temporarily) overlook: what happened to the Empire, what is the origin of the First Order, why did Ben Solo fall to the dark side, how is Rey related to all this? etc, etc, etc. And Snoke was presented to us as the crux of all these dangling threads. After all, Snoke is the leader of the First Order, Snoke is responsible for frustrating the efforts of Luke and turning Ben, Snoke is the character who introduces the mysterious concept of the Awakening. Therefore Snoke is the natural mascot for TLJ's failure as a compelling sequel to TFA: rather than extrapolating on issues raised by TFA, TLJ either ignores or glosses over those issues.

I really didn't want to get in to rehashing all the complaints, because as you said you guys have put your side so many times already, and to be honest I just don't buy it at all. The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now. Things were good, then evil took over is a fantasy standard. Ben Solo's fall was entirely explained - he was being lured by Snoke, Luke went to confront him, panicked and almost moved to strike Ben, Ben saw this and freaked out. There's probably a nitpick that it's a cliche, but complaining that it's unexplained doesn't work.

So Snoke isn't really the issue, it's these underlying things... which aren't actually issues either. It's turtles all the way down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You should try asking someone who's been divorced, why they got divorced. There's almost never a reason for it, it's usually an accumulation of all the nitpicks.

Interesting analogy. Thing is, when you ask someone why they got divorced and they say its because they didn't do the ironing on time and didn't want to go dancing often enough, then most people know that's not the real reason. That doesn't mean the person is covering up the real reason, it may be complex enough that the person can't really explain it themselves, but whatever it is we know it isn't because of the ironing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Many of us have been extremely clear about this stuff and very few if any have cited any element of gender as a negative

Dude, I said that. "I know there's been some gender stuff saying it's male reaction against this and that... and I don't think that's the reason." I included that line precisely because my point, that there was some underlying issue, might have sounded like I was hinting at that gender reason, when I didn't intend that at all. But I include that line and you still assume that's what I'm getting at. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Why'd Disney greenlight JJ mysteries, then greenlight Rian Johnson dismissing those mysteries, the rehire JJ? (non-rhetorical question)

Because Johnson didn't 'dismiss' those mysteries. That's just a weird assumption many people on the internet made. This trilogy isn't being made up on the fly, with a new director being told to make something starting after the last person's movie, like some kind of $600 million 'post the next sentence' game.

The mystery of Rey's parents was created in TFA with the knowledge that part of Rey's journey in the following movies would involve learning Rey's parents aren't anyone special, that her story isn't one of legacy but of self-creation.

 sebster wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As explained many times ITT already, terms like "backstory" are red herrings. No one wanted much less expected TLJ to be a Snoke biopic. What folks did expect, rightfully, was some explanation for all the issues TFA offered as tantalizing mysteries/required the audiense to (presumably temporarily) overlook: what happened to the Empire, what is the origin of the First Order, why did Ben Solo fall to the dark side, how is Rey related to all this? etc, etc, etc. And Snoke was presented to us as the crux of all these dangling threads. After all, Snoke is the leader of the First Order, Snoke is responsible for frustrating the efforts of Luke and turning Ben, Snoke is the character who introduces the mysterious concept of the Awakening. Therefore Snoke is the natural mascot for TLJ's failure as a compelling sequel to TFA: rather than extrapolating on issues raised by TFA, TLJ either ignores or glosses over those issues.

I really didn't want to get in to rehashing all the complaints, because as you said you guys have put your side so many times already, and to be honest I just don't buy it at all. The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now. Things were good, then evil took over is a fantasy standard. Ben Solo's fall was entirely explained - he was being lured by Snoke, Luke went to confront him, panicked and almost moved to strike Ben, Ben saw this and freaked out. There's probably a nitpick that it's a cliche, but complaining that it's unexplained doesn't work.

So Snoke isn't really the issue, it's these underlying things... which aren't actually issues either. It's turtles all the way down.

Here's the thing. There is a different standard that A New Hope must be held to, as opposed to The Last Jedi. A New Hope was a standalone film, so a few vague lines about "The Emperor" or "The Republic" would do for backstory, as they were simply archetypes that could be used to understand the stories context. However, the Last Jedi owes its existence to the fact that people are invested in the Star Wars Saga. An explanation may therefore be expected as to where elements of this movie fit with the previous six films, plus cartoon series, plus a standalone movie and another cartoon series that are being released simultaneously to the current trilogy.

 sebster wrote:

Because Johnson didn't 'dismiss' those mysteries. That's just a weird assumption many people on the internet made. This trilogy isn't being made up on the fly

Somebody should tell him.

 Mr Morden wrote:
None of the command crew save for Leia and Poe have any real attempt at making them characters and certainly don't make you care one way or another if they die - because you know nothing about them.

This complaint, that there are only two bridge characters given significant characterisation, is a complaint that is being made at the same time people are complaining that there was too much focus on secondary characters.

The chase being so very very slow and uneventful means no tension is generated, especially when they are trapped except two people can pop off for an adventure on Casino World - which itself disrupts the (lack of) pace and serves no purpose except possibly to give a new theme to related resorts etc.

The casino element was awkwardly included, but saying it served no purpose is an extraordinarily silly complaint. It was the casino scene that brought in the theme of hope to the downtrodden, that made it clear who the Resistance was fighting for. And it was a means to give Finn time with his new love interest. You can say you don't want those things in a movie, you can say they should have somehow been accomplished more cleanly, but saying they served no purpose is clearly wrong.

Self sacrifice is bad, well its good, no its bad, we are not sure but we should in by love or something

And here again you're ignoring the actual text of the movie to complain about the movie. It's made clear, nail hammered in to the head clear, that sacrifice to protect your loved ones is good, but sacrifice out of hate is bad. There's a nitpick that this explained far too obviously, but then people like yourself missed it completely.

This is what I mean when I say even after reading so many complaints, I am still none the wiser about what it is that set people against this movie. Because all these complaints are things people find (often incorrectly) once they've decided to find things to complain about in a movie they didn't like. They're not the actual reason. What that reason is I would like to know.

 sebster wrote:

And here again you're ignoring the actual text of the movie to complain about the movie. It's made clear, nail hammered in to the head clear, that sacrifice to protect your loved ones is good, but sacrifice out of hate is bad. There's a nitpick that this explained far too obviously, but then people like yourself missed it completely.

But this is cheesy and arbitrary. The sacrifice Finn was going to make was nothing different from what Holdo or Luke did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


The casino element was awkwardly included, but saying it served no purpose is an extraordinarily silly complaint. It was the casino scene that brought in the theme of hope to the downtrodden, that made it clear who the Resistance was fighting for. And it was a means to give Finn time with his new love interest. You can say you don't want those things in a movie, you can say they should have somehow been accomplished more cleanly, but saying they served no purpose is clearly wrong.

The whole casino was a clear example of " we need to find SOMETHING these people can do". Is a containment plot without rhyme or reason.
Also I find jarring that you name the love interest, because is awfully shoehorned and quite hastily executed. It adds awkwardness to an already clumsy sub-plot.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Poor Characterization: The only backstory we get is one massive out of character moment for Luke, when he walks into Kylo's room contemplating murder.

Luke didn't walk in contemplating murder. He went in to talk with Ben, was shocked at how far his mind had fallen to the dark side, and had one single moment of fear and murder, which he resisted.

This is what I mean. People are complaining about things that are the opposite of what was actually in the film. This is very weird.

Also, can anyone name any sort of character arc that is experienced? Rey goes looking for Luke to teach her to be a Jedi, then decides "Screw it, I'm doing it myself".

Going looking for a mentor and realising that you don't need someone else to make you capable is a character arc.

Poe leads an early attack against the Dreadnaught, makes a decision that would be bad for the resistance if not for unknown factors (Loses bombers, but prevents the Dreadnaught from joining the ship chase). In the end, he leads a suicidal attack, and makes a decision that would be bad for the resistance if not for unknown factors (Door gets kicked in, but there is a back door and Luke turns up).

Poe in the first scene undertakes a delaying operation, which he decides to turn in to an attack on a Dreadnought, he is chewed out for disobeying orders and costing the Resistance valuable assets. He is told he needs to be a leader. He later disobeys his commander's orders, and ends up undermining the plan to escape. In the final attack he leads a desperate attack, realises it is hopeless and makes the command decision to call off the attack and not waste anyone's lives. That's a character arc.

 sebster wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Poor Characterization: The only backstory we get is one massive out of character moment for Luke, when he walks into Kylo's room contemplating murder.

Luke didn't walk in contemplating murder. He went in to talk with Ben, was shocked at how far his mind had fallen to the dark side, and had one single moment of fear and murder, which he resisted.

This is what I mean. People are complaining about things that are the opposite of what was explicitly stated in the film. This is very weird.

Luke was the guy that insisted in saving his mass-murderer father and spent time in captivity of Jabba to give the crime lord a chance.
His true triumph in the OT is the moment in which he throws away a lightsaber to do not harm his parent. In front of the emperor.
And yet in TLJ he draws the saber in front of his sleeping relative because of a perception. This is asinine.
Disregarding the awful, awful scene in which the aforementioned triumph is destroyed by a genuine, undignified parody of the lightsaber throwing in RotJ.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Going looking for a mentor and realising that you don't need someone else to make you capable is a character arc.

A great character arc indeed! And what did she actually learn, compared to say, Luke leavin Yoda without ending his training?

Poe in the first scene undertakes a delaying operation, which he decides to turn in to an attack on a Dreadnought, he is chewed out for disobeying orders and costing the Resistance valuable assets. He is told he needs to be a leader. He later disobeys his commander's orders, and ends up undermining the plan to escape. In the final attack he leads a desperate attack, realises it is hopeless and makes the command decision to call off the attack and not waste anyone's lives. That's a character arc.

You have a surprisingly open definition of character arc. Again, what did Poe learn? How this affected him, if he has been literally treated like a child by Holdo and Leia, considered irresponsive and yet not punishable?
This, disregarding the pure idiocy of the Holdo plot by itself. Compare with what Akbar and Lando do in RotJ, how they improvise and communicate when they discover the new DS is operative.
Just imagine one of the two withdraw informations like Holdo did.

@sebster

I know you will argue in good faith and I hope you trust I will do the same. For example, I think it's fine that Rey's parents are nobodies. That makes her more rather than less interesting, considering that we know Force sensitivity can be hereditary. The implication is that her power is not an inherited trait. Great! But then the issue becomes, where does her power come from?

Snoke says darkness rises and light rises to meet it. Great! But that's actually another question rather than an answer: why does the Force sometimes work one way and sometimes work another way? This could have been answered pretty easily, especially in the context of Rey's training by Luke. But the movie is bizarrely committed to Luke being so bitter and curmudeonly that, even as he remarks on Rey's takent, he seems to have no interest on how this could be, something the audience has been primed to find interesting.

Likewise, the issue could have easily been addressed in the context of Snoke completing Kylo Ren's training. But nope. So much for that whole "awakening" thing, you know that concept that was important enough to be the title of Episode VII. So here we have mystery raised and teased but just sidestepped completely. And for what? TLJ is a LONG movie but can't find the time? Because ... casino races?

On to the issue of Luke Skywalker, nephew murderer: We know Luke and Ben had already fallen out because Ben is not living in the Temple and because Luke explains as much. So why go at night, when Ben might be asleep? Why stand there hovering over him? Why draw his weapon and activate it? This is pretty clearly premeditated. It's also very telling that Luke lies about all of this to begin with, clearly ashamed of himself. Yes, he pulled himself back from murder. But he absolutely was committed to that course of action, before suddenly changing his mind/finding himself unable to do such a horrible deed. Ben probably woke up because he sensed the danger and darkness.

As detailed above, Ben's fall is actually not explained.

 Xenomancers wrote:
100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Its a setting where shields and defensive weaponry is minimally explained. Perhaps shields and defensive weapons will in most circumstances render a hyperspace attack impossible, but in this circumstance it worked because General Hux didn't realise they were attacking. Hux screwing up and no seeing an attack coming is certainly established, but the rest is fanwank, I'll admit that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
That part makes a lot of sense and explains exactly why I do not like this film. I don't want Irony in my Star Wars, I want folk tales.

That made a lot of sense as an explanation for the negative reaction from so many. Thanks for posting that.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I recall Twin peaks first time round - quite enjoyed it but I found it became very self induglent and rambling - espeically when they had guest director of the week, hence I found it unsatisfying.

TP: The Return is very, very different. Reading the reactions here to a very mildly subversive film like TLJ, I *cannot imagine* the reactions some of you would have to TP:TR. It's ultra-artistic, confounding and aggravating, and breaks just about every rule of television. But there's never been anything like it, and it's probably a genuine masterpiece and a career-defining work for David Lynch.

 Asmodai wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Part of the reason why I can't get too upset about some of the things in the new movies I don't like. To me, they're one take on what could have happened after Return of the Jedi. The Zahn novels are a different take. I don't treat one as more canonical or authoritative than the other. (My Star Wars RPG games are set in the Imperial era rather than after, so I don't even have to managed shared expectations in that regard.)

I think this is a fantastic attitude.

@Manchu -- To me, it appears that you wanted the film to be much more about the Force than it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
That made a lot of sense as an explanation for the negative reaction from so many. Thanks for posting that.

Never underestimate the power of 'I WANT'. It has a lot to do with why Hollywood looks like it does these days.

 sebster wrote:

Its a setting where shields and defensive weaponry is minimally explained. Perhaps shields and defensive weapons will in most circumstances render a hyperspace attack impossible, but in this circumstance it worked because General Hux didn't realise they were attacking. Hux screwing up and no seeing an attack coming is certainly established, but the rest is fanwank, I'll admit that.

If we have to go in lengths to explain such preposterous scene, the scene is not very good in the first place. Furthermore, one would ask why the absence of shields in a starship during a battle, and why such absence has not been pointed out in a series in which such changes and elements are even plot points. It really does not hold water in any meaningful way. Setting, narration. Nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:


Never underestimate the power of 'I WANT'. It has a lot to do with why Hollywood looks like it does these days.

So, the implication is that these movie are not crappy because of the sloppy writing, but because we, the fans, are too demanding and dare to find connection and logic to these story we make the mistake to do not watch at a distance, ironically.
How dare we to have conjectures or doubts about what we are watching! Just turn off your brain, bro!

 gorgon wrote:
@Manchu -- To me, it appears that you wanted the film to be much more about the Force than it was.

In fairness, the first movie in this trilogy is called The Force Awakens and the second is called The Last Jedi.

Moreover, I don't think there's much point talking about the really bad stuff in this movie, i.e., everything that did not involve Rey and Kylo.

@Kaiyanwang: Again, the red flag of shifting the convo away from the film ... criticiizing the audience rather than the film. It's a good tactic, ask Sony.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
But this is cheesy and arbitrary. The sacrifice Finn was going to make was nothing different from what Holdo or Luke did.

He did it while angry and that makes it bad. This would be arbitrary nonsense in any other franchise, but Star Wars is a setting where emotions are literally written in to the magical powers of the universe. I do agree it was cheesy. Note my issue with Mr Morden's complaint is that this was not clearly set up, where as it was actually so clearly set up that it was cheesy, as you said yourself. This make Mr Morden's complaint bad.

Which gets to my primary point in this thread - the criticisms of the TLJ are incredibly bad. Not because TLJ is a perfect movie or a film everyone must love, but because the actual criticisms people are making are generally either nonsense or really minor. This doesn't mean they're wrong for not liking the movie, their dislike is valid, but its interesting how people have struggled to articulate more meaningful reasons. I think Easy E's comment about TLJ deviating from fantasy in many places is the closest I've seen to a satisfying answer.

The whole casino was a clear example of " we need to find SOMETHING these people can do". Is a containment plot without rhyme or reason.

It was the primary plot for delivering the core theme of the movie. It showed who the 'hope' they kept going on about would be delivered to.

Yes, it was awkwardly justified and fit in to the movie, that's a fair complaint. But saying it had no purpose is incredibly wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Here's the thing. There is a different standard that A New Hope must be held to, as opposed to The Last Jedi. A New Hope was a standalone film, so a few vague lines about "The Emperor" or "The Republic" would do for backstory, as they were simply archetypes that could be used to understand the stories context. However, the Last Jedi owes its existence to the fact that people are invested in the Star Wars Saga. An explanation may therefore be expected as to where elements of this movie fit with the previous six films, plus cartoon series, plus a standalone movie and another cartoon series that are being released simultaneously to the current trilogy.

That's a fair point. I will admit in TFA I was annoyed about 'the Resistance', I didn't know what they were resisting or why they weren't part of a regular Republic army. I needed Wookiepedia to sort that out. Once I learned that, though, most everything fell in to place, at least as well as it ever does in Star Wars.

 sebster wrote:

He did it while angry and that makes it bad. This would be arbitrary nonsense in any other franchise, but Star Wars is a setting where emotions are literally written in to the magical powers of the universe. I do agree it was cheesy. Note my issue with Mr Morden's complaint is that this was not clearly set up, where as it was actually so clearly set up that it was cheesy, as you said yourself. This make Mr Morden's complaint bad.

Star Wars is indeed a setting where emotions are literally written in to the magical powers of the universe, but you are confusing the effect of emotions on the force users on the morale and the choices of characters that have nothing to do, at least directly, with the force, Luke excluded. Who knows what Holdo was thinking during the ram. probably "I will save my friends" but "f*** the FO" too, I guess. Who knows. Is really muddy the difference between Rose's sister action and Finn's. Too thin, actually to be a nuance of a well thought script. I explain it way better concluding that the writers are amoral hacks.

Which gets to my primary point in this thread - the criticisms of the TLJ are incredibly bad. Not because TLJ is a perfect movie or a film everyone must love, but because the actual criticisms people are making are generally either nonsense or really minor. This doesn't mean they're wrong for not liking the movie, their dislike is valid, but its interesting how people have struggled to articulate more meaningful reasons. I think Easy E's comment about TLJ deviating from fantasy in many places is the closest I've seen to a satisfying answer.

I strongly suggest to reread the thread, because you either did not read many previous comments, included a very good post about post-modernism. Or if you don't want (you can definitively and understandably decide that your time can be better spent), I kindly ask you to do not jump at such simplistic conclusion. To me, here you are sounding like " the criticisms of the TLJ are incredibly bad, because I don't like TLJ being criticized" (I recognize the irony of jumping to a conclusion myself, but at least we are even I guess. Assuming I am wrong, see how you sound?).

It was the primary plot for delivering the core theme of the movie. It showed who the 'hope' they kept going on about would be delivered to.
Yes, it was awkwardly justified and fit in to the movie, that's a fair complaint. But saying it had no purpose is incredibly wrong.

First and foremost, to make a good (or at least a decent) movie you have to fit a plot or sub plot well in the whole framework, if is really something thought-out to have some kind of message. If you bore to death the audience with the essential core of your movie, you made a truly awful job.
Secondly, the movie has no message. The movie does not know what he want to be because those who wrote it have a point of view that make them see in contempt the morality of the OT. See how, from R1 they bash on your head BUT THE REBELS ARE ACTUALLY QUITE SCUMMY TOO.
See the severe schizophrenia about the concept of sacrifice (regardless of how much in denial you are about that).
Se the utter incapability to understand that a main character has to be challenged to elicit sympathy in the audience.
And so on.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Luke was the guy that insisted in saving his mass-murderer father and spent time in captivity of Jabba to give the crime lord a chance.
His true triumph in the OT is the moment in which he throws away a lightsaber to do not harm his parent. In front of the emperor.
And yet in TLJ he draws the saber in front of his sleeping relative because of a perception. This is asinine.

Luke was also the guy who the Emperor goaded in to murderous rage, to the point where he only finally overwhelmed Vader by giving in to that hate and battering Vader down and striking off his hand, putting his lightsaber to Vader before then, seeing Vader now helpless, he finally relents.

You're arguing it is out of character for the guy who previously had a furious rage tying to murder his Dad to have a furious rage where he almost killed his apprentice/nephew.

A great character arc indeed! And what did she actually learn, compared to say, Luke leavin Yoda without ending his training?

She learned she was already capable.

You have a surprisingly open definition of character arc. Again, what did Poe learn?

I have the actual definition of a character arc, where are character thinks or acts one way, experiences some stuff, and ends up thinking or acting a different way. Poe was impulsive and reckless, and by the end learned to consider the lives of the people he was leading. It wasn't great cinema, but claiming it wasn't there is delusional.

That doesn't work. You can't see an FTL attack coming. You can only see the ships pointing at you before hand. In any fleet engagement, one ship might be a hyperram torpedo waiting to strike. By your very argument, if there are defenses against hyperram attacks, they must be commonly used. Hux should not have needed to personally order the hyperram defenses to activate. That has got to be part of standard procedure. If the FO is so pathetically stupid that they don't take the most common, sensible actions without a direct order from their fieldmarshall then they are too unforgivably stupid to be satisfying opponents.

Either, a) there is a common defense against hyperram, but Hux the Embarrassment and every officer under him are too stupid to remember it, b) there is no defense against hyperram and every other combatant in the franchise is a moron, or c) the writers were lazy and the Story Committee were ignorant.

 sebster wrote:


Luke was also the guy who the Emperor goaded in to murderous rage, to the point where he only finally overwhelmed Vader by giving in to that hate and battering Vader down and striking off his hand, putting his lightsaber to Vader before then, seeing Vader now helpless, he finally relents.

You're arguing it is out of character for the guy who previously had a furious rage tying to murder his Dad to have a furious rage where he almost killed his apprentice/nephew.

But then he overcame that and became a Jedi. They did to him what they did to Han. Han in TFA is again the smuggler in ANH. Because nostalgia.
All his progression in ESB and RotJ is annihilated.

She learned she was already capable.

If you consider this a defensible point, there is not that much I can do any further.

I have the actual definition of a character arc, where are character thinks or acts one way, experiences some stuff, and ends up thinking or acting a different way. Poe was impulsive and reckless, and by the end learned to consider the lives of the people he was leading. It wasn't great cinema, but claiming it wasn't there is delusional.

Which true consequences Poe faced? Also, he did not act in a different way. He is explicitly told to do his usual stuff with no true difference given.
The only difference that now looks "tamed" and Holdo and Leia talk about him like a child in a previous scene.

 Manchu wrote:
I know you will argue in good faith and I hope you trust I will do the same.

Of course. We don't agree on a great deal (although before this thread I think Star Wars is something we mostly agreed on). But I think both of us are always trying, painfully so at times, to explain a point, and never just trying to score cheap points.

The implication is that her power is not an inherited trait. Great! But then the issue becomes, where does her power come from?

Does it have to come from somewhere? I've never liked that the existence of great Jedi families means that all the great Jedi must come from these families.

Snoke says darkness rises and light rises to meet it. Great! But that's actually another question rather than an answer: why does the Force sometimes work one way and sometimes work another way?

Honestly I just let that line wash over me. I've little time for metaphysics poppycock in movies at the best of times, and none at all for Star Wars are the prophecy junk of the prequels. And this line is just way too Dark Crystal. I also doubt it will have any role to play in the conclusion of the trilogy.

Does this mean the line is a flaw, as its a bit of teasing exposition that will go nowhere? I think so.

On to the issue of Luke Skywalker, nephew murderer: We know Luke and Ben had already fallen out because Ben is not living in the Temple and because Luke explains as much. So why go at night, when Ben might be asleep? Why stand there hovering over him? Why draw his weapon and activate it? This is pretty clearly premeditated.

But there's no point using implication when Luke's specific words were that he went there to talk to Ben, was shocked when he learned how far Ben's mind had gone, and then makes that momentary decision to commit murder, which he then backs away from.

It's also very telling that Luke lies about all of this to begin with, clearly ashamed of himself. Yes, he pulled himself back from murder. But he absolutely was committed to that course of action, before suddenly changing his mind/finding himself unable to do such a horrible deed. Ben probably woke up because he sensed the danger and darkness.

As detailed above, Ben's fall is actually not explained.

Yes, Luke was clearly ashamed of this. Again though, that isn't just something we can conclude, Luke outright states it, saying he failed Ben, to which Rey replies that Ben failed him.

I agree that we get no detail for Ben's fall other than inner turmoil and Snoke's manipulation. As to whether this is a flaw of the trilogy or not I am not sure yet. It depends how the third film resolves Rey and Ben's story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
If we have to go in lengths to explain such preposterous scene, the scene is not very good in the first place. Furthermore, one would ask why the absence of shields in a starship during a battle, and why such absence has not been pointed out in a series in which such changes and elements are even plot points. It really does not hold water in any meaningful way. Setting, narration. Nothing.

In Star Wars shields aren't passive, they are managed and focused. It isn't too hard to see why Hux would not commit shields to resisting a rebel ship that has been abandoned and is expected to be going in to hyperspace.

I'll say again, that's just fanwank on my part. It's me coming up with a setting consistent explanation for something that wasn't explained in the movie. If people want to buy in to my setting consistent explanation, use a different one, or just say the whole thing makes no sense that is up to them. And people are able to say that it wasn't explained in the movie but should have been. But what people can't do is say that the scene breaks the whole setting. That's plainly false.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yes, obviously shorthand. Which is why, after using it, the soldier, Fin, who doesn't care, mentions that it uses miniaturized Death Star tech and goes into some detail about how they couldn't kill it except by shooting it straight down the barrel.

Because the details of its construction are irrelevant and the soldiers don't care. Right.

All of which sounds like the practical implications of the technology involved, as opposed to the technology itself. Finn is giving voice to the FO Popular Mechanics article he read, or came across through scuttlebutt.

Hell, even people who are intimately familiar with military technology regularly use stupid names to refer to it; that's why the SR-71 is called the "Blackbird".

 sebster wrote:
The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now.

That's just wrong, in an ongoing saga you can have issues in one movie that weren't relevant to others.

Not all movies in a saga are going to be held to the same standard as far as exposition is concerned. As a series develops there's a greater requirement for exposition, because people are familiar with the world so leaving gaps becomes more obvious. You can't have an hour long chunk at the start of ANH explaining the universe because it'd completely mess with the mystery of the universe and give terrible pacing, indeed ANH had to be a stand alone movie.

Rather as each movie in the saga is released it fills in a bit more of the background. ANH is like falling asleep and waking up in another country - everything is different but it's to be expected because you're not in the same place. TFA/TLJ is like falling asleep and waking up with your house on fire, you are in the same place, you had a certain continuity and cohesive structure and now everything has changed.

One of the gripes about TLJ is that TFA seemed to be setting up for some interesting exposition, but instead Johnson was so set on subverting expectations and whatnot that we very little exposition.

@sebster

The dynastic impulse of SW is fine with me. But pushing the boundaries here is totally welcome, too. I really like the idea that Rey isn't "royalty," as it were, ya know, despite her name and all. It also serves as another nice contrast with Kylo. He's a prince, literally and figuratively. One of the reasons I like these two characters, especially together, is this is prime "high romance" territory - where SW is at its best. (Hence the dynastic impulse in the first place.)

But again - if she isn't born to it, wherefore Rey's enormous talent? This is a wonderful, engrossing mystery. It actually drives her character development. Like the audience, she's struggling to understand her place in all this. And everything from the titles of these movies to their dialog suggests that the question of "why Rey?" ties into the ongoing metphysical conflict of the wider saga. So by sidestepping this issue, TLJ squanders a major point introduced by TFA. The closest TLJ gets is a line you concede is throw-away (although please note it was a key note in the marketing for the film). I didn't like it when TFA refused to explain anything about Rey but I figured this would be covered in TLJ. But TLJ doesn't even seem to care.

Be careful about Luke's words - remember they are lies or at least hugely significant omissions. Also note that although Rey concludes Ben failed Luke, Luke reasserts that he failed Ben when he confronts Kylo Ren on the salt planet. We are missing the key point about this key point.

TBH I don't think there is any reason to suspend judgment of TLJ until Episode IX comes out. That's sort of how I played it with TFA, reasoning that the first movie would have to be super conservative and basically forgiving the movie because at least it was fun. TLJ purposefully ruins the fun of the characters I like without meaningfully developing their personalities. I don't think TLJ sets up any especially interesting plot developments for the next go around. Episode IX will need to invent whatever it is ultimately about, probably by revisiting the very threads from TFA that RJ/KK/Disney left dangling.

 Manchu wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I propose that you should write the next episode of Star Wars.

It'd be a much easier job if I got to write TLJ, too. As it stands, whatever is interesting in Episode IX is going to have to be invented specifically for Episode IX rather than flowing from TLJ.

The Luke-Rey-Kylo-Snoke spectrum is the best, strongest part of TLJ but it's mostly squandered. The amazing Reylo team up should have been the climax of the movie. And the movie should have visually/emotionally paralleled TFA: TFA ends with a shot of Rey reaching out to Luke and TLJ should have ended with a shot of Kylo Ren reaching out to Rey.

Adding characters like Holdo and Rose was a mistake. The heavy, emotional "A Plot" about Rey and Kylo should have been balanced by a lighter, heroic "B Plot" starring Finn and Poe. In this way, TLJ could have been a tight, fun, but also moving film.

Killing Luke rather than Leia was also a mistake, and not just because Carrie Fisher died. Leia has nothing to do in TLJ except serve as an inspiration. Her death would have actually enhanced this role. It would also, in combination with Han's death, create a super interesting emotional arc for Luke - he's been gone all these years and now his best friends are dead. It's too late for them - but not too late for Rey. Luke should have been portrayed as seeing the error of his ways and agreeing to train Rey as a Jedi.

Why couldn't we have such a film? Basically, because the main goal was to expand the IP - so we got a bloated, meandering, and ambiguous movie.

 LordofHats wrote:
Guy seems really strong to have simply appeared from nowhere.

I'm fine with him appearing from nowhere - as long as there is a reason for him to do so.

The obvious one would be, he was drawn into the affairs of the galaxy when Luke terminated the Sith legacy. Although this was invented after RotJ, reading the prequels back on that movie, we can see that there are two "dynasties" (Sith and Jedi) that each need an heir but there is only one candidate (Luke) and he can't (or rather won't) chose both - that's not how Luke's worldview works. He has been taught that you either choose good or you choose evil - and he has chosen good. So one legacy persists while the other goes extinct and this creates a directional pressure, a vacuum, drawing darkness into the galaxy - hence Snoke arrives.

But the truth about the Force is, as Rian Johnson allows Luke to explain in TLJ, it's not dependent on Jedi and Sith. Light and darkness are characteristics invented by those traditions to distinguish themselves from one another for the sake of galactic politics. The Force itself is no more riven than any other natural phenomenon (day/night, life/death).

Luke should have explained that he withdrew from the galaxy and from the Force itself not just because he was bitter about failing Ben Solo but because he thought this is what was meant by balance - that without the presence of powerful light, there would be no powerful darkness. Thus, exile was a sacrifice Luke made to restrain the power of Snoke and Kylo Ren. But Luke was wrong. Exiting the system did not limit their power; it called forth the power in Rey.

Once Luke realized this, he should have been willing to train Rey. Because it basically is an example of his own lesson: the Force isn't about Jedi in general or him in particular.

This is why I like TLJ less the more I think about it - I didn't really go in with any expectations and was entertained except for a few falws, but on reflection there's so many missed opportunities in it.

There are other movie series that I can watch time and time again and still be impressed by how well made they are and I'm not constantly thinking "they should have done this, they should have done that, character X is unnecessary, character Y has no development which is why I don't care when they died" and so on.

For example the emotion that both Luke and Snoke's deaths evoked were mainly disappointment, I see that as a flaw in the movie.

sebster wrote:I agree that we get no detail for Ben's fall other than inner turmoil and Snoke's manipulation.

We don't even get that. Luke and Leia blame Snoke and imply he was involved in some fashion, but other than their belief that their son/nephew was corrupted by the bad, ugly man, nothing in the movie actually demonstrates that.

For all we know (which is just shy of nothing), Snoke found him sulking somewhere a couple years later*, and lured him to the First Order with a series of cunningly placed Darth Vader collectibles, at which point Benlo signed up for a name change

*or the next day, given how these directors treat time and distance, and then TFA starts the day after that.

The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now.

This is entirely weird. The Republic's fall didn't need to be explained in the original- the setting was the Empire. The Empire was in place and functioning, and 'sweeping away the last remnants of the old republic,' the people who remembered it were old men- Kenobi, basically. While it wasn't explained in detail, there was plenty of time for it to have happened, and it's fall doesn't directly affect any of the main cast- it happened before they were born/when they were little kids. So you have an established empire consolidating the last of its power after winning decades ago with a choke hold on the galaxy. This is perfectly reasonable as presented.

In TFA you have a functioning republic. In TLJ, it is gone, and the first order had won everywhere in the galaxy and taken over. Now go back to the end of TFA: it ends on Rey handing Luke the lightsaber. Skip the intro space battle- the beginning of the movie for Rey, it picks up the Exact Same Moment- Rey handing the lightsaber to Luke. So in the course of essentially no time at all , the First Order conquered the entire galaxy*. Instantaneous Galactic Conquest bloody well requires some explanation. Not just telling the audience It Is So (don't question it) in the opening text crawl, with a couple snippets of dialogue wrapped around an anachronistic Verizon joke.


(Side note: there is a slight time lapse from victory at Starkiller base, the time it took for the Falcon to reach Island Planet from Evacuation Planet (Travel from Starkiller to Evacuation Planet is presented in TFA as instantaneous). But TLJ strongly suggests the Resisty used this time evacuating and nothing else. It's a matter of days at most, after you know, the FO losing their absurdly resource intensive superweapon. It seems not to matter for anyone, and that time actually happens offscreen after Rey gets hugged by Leia in TFA and before she gets to Luke.)


*give or take Hutt Space (never appearing in films) and the Unexplored Regions (ditto). The Republic, Empire and First Order are all shown exercising power in the Outer Rim if they feel like it.

 Manchu wrote:
I didn't like it when TFA refused to explain anything about Rey but I figured this would be covered in TLJ. But TLJ doesn't even seem to care.

....

TBH I don't think there is any reason to suspend judgment of TLJ until Episode IX comes out.

I think even if IX answers the questions of TFA in a more satisfying manor, TLJ is still a failure. As the middle movie in a trilogy TLJ should have been answering some questions, raising new questions and leaving some unanswered in a way that entices us even more for IX. I don't think it handled that well at all. If IX turns out good it'll be in spite of TLJ, not because of anything TLJ built towards.

@AllSeeingSkink, I agree - the very best thing in TLJ (seems most agree on this) is the Reylo team up ... but that happens a long time before the end of the film and the script basically undoes it immediately. Pretty much the rest of TLJ is stuff the saga must recover from rather than build upon.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I'm also certain that referencing medieval siege engines in a galaxy where they have been at the tech-level of Star Wars for 25,000 years is very informative and people are acutely aware of its limitations and capabilities.

The Death Star didn't just shock people because The Empire was willing to use it, it shocked people because The Empire had that capability.

 Manchu wrote:
@AllSeeingSkink, I agree - the very best thing in TLJ (seems most agree on this) is the Reylo team up ... but that happens a long time before the end of the film and the script basically undoes it immediately. Pretty much the rest of TLJ is stuff the saga must recover from rather than build upon.

I think I said this up thread, but I expect a Jacen/Jaina dynamic in the third film. Chewie may get crushed by a moon.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
But then he overcame that and became a Jedi.

He was already a Jedi when he met with his Dad. That was the point.

Then even as a Jedi he gave in to temptation and that murderous rage, because life as a force user is a constant challenge. That's the whole point of the series.

If you consider this a defensible point, there is not that much I can do any further.

Well, you certainly can't attempt to support or justify your argument, we've established that.

Which true consequences Poe faced?

All those dead people. While a fairly crude character arc overall, complaining about a lack of consequences is very weird.

 sebster wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
But then he overcame that and became a Jedi.

He was already a Jedi when he met with his Dad. That was the point.

Then even as a Jedi he gave in to temptation and that murderous rage, because life as a force user is a constant challenge. That's the whole point of the series.

Not...really. Even if you go with the odd theory that he magically becomes a Jedi for initiating the confrontation rather than seeing it through successfully, I can't swallow the idea that the whole point of the series is 'the challenges of life as a space wizard.' That speaks to zero people in the audience. Just maybe it's something about ideals, redemption and there are lines you don't cross? Something perhaps the audience can identify with?

All those dead people. While a fairly crude character arc overall, complaining about a lack of consequences is very weird.

Which ones? The dead people at the beginning when he hadn't learned his lesson and accomplished something, or the dead people at the end when he had 'learned his lesson' and stopped them from accomplishing anything? One is a real consequence of command positions, particularly in resistance movements (though arguably too real for star wars) and the other is a really bizarre place to end up at the conclusion of an 'arc.' It wasn't even learning the value of retreat, just being indecisive, which is a patently horrible trait for anyone in a leadership position. He led them out to die with no real plan, then retreated with no expectation of rescue or relief.

At least at the beginning of the film, the dreadnought was prevented from firing on the evacuation ships, which it was maneuvering to do (since they didn't bother firing with the star destroyers, fighters or prioritizing the fleeing ships over the ground base in the first place)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's just wrong, in an ongoing saga you can have issues in one movie that weren't relevant to others.

But when its the same thing and no-one thought it was a problem before, and now suddenly it is, that's a good sign there's inconsistent standards being applied.

Someone brought up marriage as an analogy earlier, it was a good analogy. It's like when suddenly you get really pissed at some quirk from your partner, like if every time you ask what they want for dinner they reply by asking what you want. It never bothered you, now it suddenly does, and there's a reason for that but it isn't because that quirk is actually that bad.

Not all movies in a saga are going to be held to the same standard as far as exposition is concerned. As a series develops there's a greater requirement for exposition, because people are familiar with the world so leaving gaps becomes more obvious. You can't have an hour long chunk at the start of ANH explaining the universe because it'd completely mess with the mystery of the universe and give terrible pacing, indeed ANH had to be a stand alone movie.

Heh, you should read the original opening crawl for Star Wars. Its a horrific pile of gibberish, talking about vast battles between Sith and Jedi, and it goes on forever.

Anyhow, I don't really agree with your point, because you don't add more exposition as a story continues. Exposition is used at the start to get everyone up to speed and begin the intitial story. After that existing events should be more an more sufficient to explain where the story is going. If a story adds more and more exposition to explain its expanding story that's a sign a story is losing narrative drive.

What I think might be happening is people are using exposition incorrectly, and it's causing some confusion. A complaint that we should have seen the fall of the Republic is fair, it's just that it shouldn't have been done with exposition - it should have been shown, either in TFA or TLJ.

One of the gripes about TLJ is that TFA seemed to be setting up for some interesting exposition, but instead Johnson was so set on subverting expectations and whatnot that we very little exposition.

People are really taking that 'subverting expectations' thing and running with it to mean all kinds of stuff. And of course people are still assuming that Johnson was told to just go and make the next film in the trilogy with no guidance on the overall arc of the series. It doesn't work that way. Johnson worked with a story given to him. Johnson didn't decide Rey's origin, he didn't decide Snoke's fate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The dynastic impulse of SW is fine with me. But pushing the boundaries here is totally welcome, too. I really like the idea that Rey isn't "royalty," as it were, ya know, despite her name and all. It also serves as another nice contrast with Kylo. He's a prince, literally and figuratively. One of the reasons I like these two characters, especially together, is this is prime "high romance" territory - where SW is at its best. (Hence the dynastic impulse in the first place.)

I agree, and those are good points showing the opposite origins of the two characters.

But again - if she isn't born to it, wherefore Rey's enormous talent? This is a wonderful, engrossing mystery.

This only remains a mystery if you refuse to accept the answer given - there is no great answer that fits in place with the existing story. What's she's learned is she has no connection to past events.

It actually drives her character development. Like the audience, she's struggling to understand her place in all this.

And she's learned that. Her place isn't defined by ancestry or legacy. She enters this fresh, able to choose how to engage with the rest of the story.

Be careful about Luke's words - remember they are lies or at least hugely significant omissions.

I don't think there's any reason to doubt Luke at that stage. On a meta level, that's the confessional part of the story, where people finally tell the truth and and everyone just knows that this version is the real, absolute truth, because it's a movie and that's how movies work.

TBH I don't think there is any reason to suspend judgment of TLJ until Episode IX comes out.

I'm suspending judgement because some things we haven't seen, like Ben's fall, will only be missed if the story moves in certain ways. If the third film follows a path of redemption for Ben, then little on his original fall will have been a terrible omission, for instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
We don't even get that. Luke and Leia blame Snoke and imply he was involved in some fashion, but other than their belief that their son/nephew was corrupted by the bad, ugly man, nothing in the movie actually demonstrates that.

Luke literally says he could feel Snoke's influence in Ben's mind. He's a fething Jedi, they can sense what is happening in other people's minds. WTH.

This is entirely weird. The Republic's fall didn't need to be explained in the original- the setting was the Empire. The Empire was in place and functioning, and 'sweeping away the last remnants of the old republic,' the people who remembered it were old men- Kenobi, basically. While it wasn't explained in detail, there was plenty of time for it to have happened, and it's fall doesn't directly affect any of the main cast- it happened before they were born/when they were little kids. So you have an established empire consolidating the last of its power after winning decades ago with a choke hold on the galaxy. This is perfectly reasonable as presented.

In TFA you have a functioning republic. In TLJ, it is gone, and the first order had won everywhere in the galaxy and taken over. Now go back to the end of TFA: it ends on Rey handing Luke the lightsaber. Skip the intro space battle- the beginning of the movie for Rey, it picks up the Exact Same Moment- Rey handing the lightsaber to Luke. So in the course of essentially no time at all , the First Order conquered the entire galaxy*. Instantaneous Galactic Conquest bloody well requires some explanation. Not just telling the audience It Is So (don't question it) in the opening text crawl, with a couple snippets of dialogue wrapped around an anachronistic Verizon joke.

France fell in six weeks. This idea that it must take years of epic fighting is false. Especially when we're talking about a disjointed, notably ineffectual collection of independant planet states.

Note I think it still would have been good to show this fall. It's just I don't think it's a huge omission that makes everything else impossible to follow or enjoy.

FWIW I think the error here could have been resolved with the starkiller attack in TFA - it shouldn't have hit some generic planets, it should have wiped the Republic fleet in dock. That would explain why the attack on the star killer base was done by a handful of fighters, and explain why the Republic was quickly overrun.

Prestor Jon wrote:
You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface.

Rods from God are overrated. Dropping tungsten rods from orbit only have about the same kinetic energy as conventional explosives of the same mass.

 sebster wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Why'd Disney greenlight JJ mysteries, then greenlight Rian Johnson dismissing those mysteries, the rehire JJ? (non-rhetorical question)

Because Johnson didn't 'dismiss' those mysteries. That's just a weird assumption many people on the internet made. This trilogy isn't being made up on the fly, with a new director being told to make something starting after the last person's movie, like some kind of $600 million 'post the next sentence' game.

The mystery of Rey's parents was created in TFA with the knowledge that part of Rey's journey in the following movies would involve learning Rey's parents aren't anyone special, that her story isn't one of legacy but of self-creation.

You are giving Disney way too much credit.

Johnson told HuffPo that when he was writing the script for “The Last Jedi” and it came time to address Rey’s parents, the reveal was going to have to answer the following question in a way that best serviced Rey’s arc moving forward: “What’s going to make life hardest on her?” Johnson says that when Luke learns Darth Vader is his father in “The Empire Strikes Back” it’s “the hardest thing the character could possibly hear in that moment.” For Rey, the hardest thing would be hearing she’s not special at all.

“And same thing with Rey and her parentage,” Johnson said. “The easy thing would be, ‘Yes, your parents are so and so and here’s your place in the world. There you go.’ The hardest thing she could hear would be […] ‘No, you’re not going to get the answer. This is not going to define you. You’re going to have to find your own place in this world. Kylo is going to use that even as leverage to try and make you feel insecure, and you’re going to have to stand on your own two feet.’”

Source

The mystery of Rey's parents weren't a setup for Johnson's reveal, it was just another of Abrams' mystery boxes that Johnson filled in years later.

 sebster wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
None of the command crew save for Leia and Poe have any real attempt at making them characters and certainly don't make you care one way or another if they die - because you know nothing about them.

This complaint, that there are only two bridge characters given significant characterisation, is a complaint that is being made at the same time people are complaining that there was too much focus on secondary characters.

The chase being so very very slow and uneventful means no tension is generated, especially when they are trapped except two people can pop off for an adventure on Casino World - which itself disrupts the (lack of) pace and serves no purpose except possibly to give a new theme to related resorts etc.

The casino element was awkwardly included, but saying it served no purpose is an extraordinarily silly complaint. It was the casino scene that brought in the theme of hope to the downtrodden, that made it clear who the Resistance was fighting for. And it was a means to give Finn time with his new love interest. You can say you don't want those things in a movie, you can say they should have somehow been accomplished more cleanly, but saying they served no purpose is clearly wrong.

Self sacrifice is bad, well its good, no its bad, we are not sure but we should in by love or something

And here again you're ignoring the actual text of the movie to complain about the movie. It's made clear, nail hammered in to the head clear, that sacrifice to protect your loved ones is good, but sacrifice out of hate is bad. There's a nitpick that this explained far too obviously, but then people like yourself missed it completely.

This is what I mean when I say even after reading so many complaints, I am still none the wiser about what it is that set people against this movie. Because all these complaints are things people find (often incorrectly) once they've decided to find things to complain about in a movie they didn't like. They're not the actual reason. What that reason is I would like to know.

Reasons I disliked this film are really very simple and hopefully understandable:

1. It was boring, we had a action sequences and then just tedium before actions sequence time, a more accomplished team making the film might have constructed a more coherent and better paced narrative but this seemed beyond the abilities of those working on this one. Because the pacing is often so very slow, the characters often unengaging there is time to absorb just how stupid so many plot elements are.
2. The film was far far too long for the limited and often dull content, I found the characters other than the two leads and maybe Poe uninspiring and uninteresting.
3. The plot was not only badly drawn out and often used simply for marketing - see toy animals and Casino World but it often made no sense. I am sorry but we have brought up enough times why so many aspects were badly constructed and laughable in many cases. Again f this had been a lower budget movie the Critics would have been all over it pointing out the flaws but no - money and power talks.
4. Lazy writing - very little thought went into many of the sequences or the overall narrative - almost every scene has a "WTF" moment that some time spent on script might have solved.
5. I resent paying the money for what I saw .

Other than the internet, I chatted to 11 people about this - mixed ages and genders - only one of which was the "Superfan" of the conspiracies, true he hated TLJ like the rest of us, but he also hated TFA which we all enjoyed for the silly action movie it was - nothing special but it was quite fun.

Its so much easier to say "No the film was good, the audience is too stupid to appreciate it" rather than accept the flaws - monumental ones in my opinion.

on your specific points:

I never said we have too many secondary character - more that they are involved in stupid boring or unimportant elements within the narrative. Given the sheer length of time we spent on the "Chase" seeing something of the people and how they dealt with the fear etc might have relieved the tedium of that element.

We have very little insight into the emotional state of the Admiral when she suddenly decides to ram the heck out of the super giant ship (cool pic - stupid plot again) but I Doubt the only thing she was thinking about was "love" and again there was nothing that said Finn was acting out of hate - he just seemed to be the only one left to save the others - until the "love interest" crashed into him, preventing that sacrifice and leaving them stranded in front of the Imperials - bt of course they were ignored and wandered back in. When the speeder squadron set out with barely capable machines it was obvious that it was a suicide mission and yet no one questioned it until Rose suddenly decided to screw up the mission at the end.

Casino - is horribly awkward because it throws the already badly paced film into a nose dive, the fact that there is time for two people to not only escape the unescapable pursuit but they can fly off to casino world - (being a world for the rich and powerful has no defences or security to keep an eye open for odd people in shuttles). Then they wonder about like idiots, get three slave kids likely heavily punished or killed following their escape, let loose some space horses that can later be sold as soft toys by Disney and find a dodgy bloke who turns out to be ..... dodgy. The love interest element is terribly lazy - like so much of the writing in this film - bit of romance in a film is great but again they could not be bothered to actually write this. They could have had the two of them off on the mission before the stupid chase and actually built up some chemistry between them but nope - too much for this director.

The whole hope of the downtrodden thing is specifically subverted by the fact that a) the newly formed resistance is so very incompetent b) the "good guys" are highlighted as financing the same people as the bad guys - I am not sure if you missed that but it was clearly part of the narrative that nothing would change no matter who won because nothing had changed when the Empire fell, the same people make money selling guns and weapons to the Republic and the FO as they did to the Rebellion and the Empire. I am not sure how you missed this it was sledgehammered in like all of the plot points. We also had the "no one cares" transmission element - probably because the timeline makes no sense and the FO conquered the entire galaxy in about an hour - somehow.

Yep I really disliked this film, all but one of the real not internet people I spoke to about it said the same. A film can be many things - a piece of art, a fun thing to experience, a discussion about issues. I found none of those things within this film and importantly it did not make me want to see the next film in the sequence - in fact the opposite.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface.

Rods from God are overrated. Dropping tungsten rods from orbit only have about the same kinetic energy as conventional explosives of the same mass.

 sebster wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Why'd Disney greenlight JJ mysteries, then greenlight Rian Johnson dismissing those mysteries, the rehire JJ? (non-rhetorical question)

Because Johnson didn't 'dismiss' those mysteries. That's just a weird assumption many people on the internet made. This trilogy isn't being made up on the fly, with a new director being told to make something starting after the last person's movie, like some kind of $600 million 'post the next sentence' game.

The mystery of Rey's parents was created in TFA with the knowledge that part of Rey's journey in the following movies would involve learning Rey's parents aren't anyone special, that her story isn't one of legacy but of self-creation.

You are giving Disney way too much credit.

Johnson told HuffPo that when he was writing the script for “The Last Jedi” and it came time to address Rey’s parents, the reveal was going to have to answer the following question in a way that best serviced Rey’s arc moving forward: “What’s going to make life hardest on her?” Johnson says that when Luke learns Darth Vader is his father in “The Empire Strikes Back” it’s “the hardest thing the character could possibly hear in that moment.” For Rey, the hardest thing would be hearing she’s not special at all.

“And same thing with Rey and her parentage,” Johnson said. “The easy thing would be, ‘Yes, your parents are so and so and here’s your place in the world. There you go.’ The hardest thing she could hear would be […] ‘No, you’re not going to get the answer. This is not going to define you. You’re going to have to find your own place in this world. Kylo is going to use that even as leverage to try and make you feel insecure, and you’re going to have to stand on your own two feet.’”

Source

The mystery of Rey's parents weren't a setup for Johnson's reveal, it was just another of Abrams' mystery boxes that Johnson filled in years later.

That article goes on to say...

“Anything’s still open, and I’m not writing the next film,” he said. “[J.J. Abrams and Chris Terrio] are doing it.” Johnson appeared to be speaking more about the franchise as a whole, but technically that would also include the actual truth behind Rey’s parents.

Johnson sure is making it sound like the movies are written in a vacuum instead of having a cohesive direction. I'm sure it's not as extreme as that, but it definitely lends credence as to why TFA and TLJ feel disjointed.

i personally don't mind whether or not Rey is someone or no one, I just don't think they've done a great job building her character arc and better handling the parentage thing IMO could have been a way to bring more depth to her character as JJ seemed to be setting up in the first film.

 Manchu wrote:
Why'd Disney greenlight JJ mysteries, then greenlight Rian Johnson dismissing those mysteries, the rehire JJ? (non-rhetorical question)

What mysteries? As I explained already, TFA never hinted once there was some sort of great mystery around Snoke. Everybody in the movie seemed to know who he was. I see absolutely no evidence Kasdan and JJ planned some big plot twist around it. I mean, sure they could have - after all Lucas did not plan any of the plot twists of Episodes V-VI when he was writing ANH - but there was no hints to that direction.

As for Rey's parents, that revolved entirely around Rey's character and nobody else cared. It is understandable that an abandoned child would daydream about her parents being some special people who would one day come back to get her and have good explanation for everything. Maz flat out told her to forget about the whole issue.

And really, the idea that "Your real name is...Rey Skywalker" is incredibly lame and seriously doubt the writers of TFA ever planned anything like that, especially in light of the criticism SW universe has got for being so inbred. The theme of Rey needing to get over her gone parents is so obvious that it is hard to think there was any other plan in the beginning.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

You do in SW, that's always been the rules. It might not make physical sense, but ships in SW have always acted like aircraft in an atmosphere, they can't just flip over while maintaining momentum like a BSG Viper...

Can't recall any time that a situation really called for an about face in starwars to really test that theory.

Number of "I can't shake them!" -moments in the movies...
Any way, in Star Wars one just has to suspend disbelief about how the space works (starting right from the sounds). Sure they could have made them more realistic later, but then they would have seen and felt much different from the originals and people would have complained.

 Xenomancers wrote:

In the 70's average people knew practically nothing about space. Carl Sagan Cosmos didn't come out until after ANH (starwars probably started to get people interested in space (and alien)) You'd think landing on the moon might have done it...nope Starwars did it. Today - the average person knows a lot more. You have to make your film believable to the viewer or it's going to get ragged on.

Ummm...have you ever watched say, 'Armageddon'? That movie has LESS realistic space physics than Star Wars...it's just how Hollywood writes space.

As for the fighters crippling big space battleships - that has always been part of the SW canon. Big ships are exceedingly vulnerable to small starfighters. Enormous "Executioner" went down when a tiny A-Wing smashed on its bridge! It has its roots on WW2 naval combat where aircraft were extremely dangerous to ships. There were real-life instances of capital ships being crippled or even sunk by damage done by one aircraft. Star Wars is basically WW2 in space.

Also, I think there is sort of 'logarithmic' scale in Star Wars space combat. In very first movie, Rebels destroy Death Star with like three squadrons of fighters and the Death Star has only equally small number of fighters for its defence. In reality (well, in Star Wars reality) there were probably like a several hundred, or couple of thousands of fighters involved in both sides - movie just couldn't depict them all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 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.

Yeah. Maybe some people don't like to see so many chicks in charge but they are a tiny minority. Hey, original trilogy had women holding the two highest positions of the Rebellion.

Really the problem of TLJ is that it is too long and has too many characters in it. It is a common problem with all sequels/prequels - you want to keep the old characters because fans want to see them, but you also need to introduce new characters so you can keep the franchise alive and fresh. So, this creates 'this person needs something to do so we can justify his/her existence in the movie' plotlines.

So the whole Casino world angle is "have something to do for Finn" -plotline. They added Rose so he would have a sidekick/possible romantic interest. Yes, the plotline has other purposes, most notably the "heroes should sometimes fail" -tension purpose from the story viewpoint but lets ignore it for this purpose.
Also, they don't want ALL storylines to run parallel as this creates a Phantom Menace mess, where there were four intertwined storylines running at same time. So they have to resolve some storylines after resolving the others, this then creates an exhausting double climax for the movie. As a result, TLJ has too many things going on for too long, making it difficult to concentrate and get invested. Thus, some people's reaction is "okay, I don't like it" but they have hard time pointing why. So they start pointing on number of other things, which are not necessarily relevant to the issue.

It is somewhat same thing which happened with Phantom Menace. People didn't like it and pointed at the obvious - Jar Jar Binks and Jake Lloyd. My first reaction after the movie was "okay, Anakin was really awful character, and Jar Jar was pretty stupid. But I guess it was okay otherwise". So I rewatched it and tried to ignore the annoying bits. What happened? The movie felt really boring. Directing was so uninspired and flat. Characters showed no emotion. Comedic villains were awful and felt completely incompetent and not scary at all. "Serious" villain Darth Maul had like 2 lines in the movie and only showed up for swordfights. Who cares if he lived or died? Main actors looked annoyed through the whole movie and particularly Obi-Wan's deliveries were super flat and wooden, so were other Jedi. Plot didn't make much sense either.

For me, difference with prequels and Disney movies is that while Disney movies do have their faults, the good bits are good - directing is dynamic, dialogue more interesting, characters are emotionally compelling and easy to get invested in. It is comparable to Return of the Jedi, which is hardly masterpiece and has some real bad stuff going on, but good bits there are REALLY good. Prequels had none of that. They had same flaws as the Disney movies or RotJ, but none of the upsides.

Backfire wrote:

What mysteries? As I explained already, TFA never hinted once there was some sort of great mystery around Snoke.

Aside from the Wizard of Oz hologram.

I have to say I didn't find that mysterious as it looked like the same communication system the Emperorused to talk to Darth Vader in earlier films.

 sebster wrote:

He was already a Jedi when he met with his Dad. That was the point.

Then even as a Jedi he gave in to temptation and that murderous rage, because life as a force user is a constant challenge. That's the whole point of the series.

Nope. Luke becomes a true Jedi in the very moment he refuses to kill Vader. Previously in the movie Yoda tell him that he is not a Jedi yet. Luke points it out stating it in the very throne room scene. If you missed this, I see why we are still discussing.
Seriously this is a big one.

Well, you certainly can't attempt to support or justify your argument, we've established that.

I made my points. Is you that are trapped in a circular argument. "Her arc is that she is already prepared".
That is not an arc. Is a poorly written character without true motivations or consequences. Is horrible writing.
Is like watching the story of a robot. Not even that, because in the universe droids for sure have personalities.

All those dead people. While a fairly crude character arc overall, complaining about a lack of consequences is very weird.

But that is not aknowledged by his character. Not even truly by the resistance, he would have been shot in another instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Why'd Disney greenlight JJ mysteries, then greenlight Rian Johnson dismissing those mysteries, the rehire JJ? (non-rhetorical question)

What mysteries? As I explained already, TFA never hinted once there was some sort of great mystery around Snoke. Everybody in the movie seemed to know who he was.

But there is nothing left to the audience to catch what/who he really is and place him within the story build so far.

It's telling that I like the prequels more than TLJ.

Episode 1: The Phantom Menace military logic thoughts
1) Battle droids can and do exist, but are cheap and therefore ill-programmed.
1a) Expensive battle droids exist (destroyer droids) and are as badass as one might expect them to be.
2) The Jedi are more like policemen and less like soldiers, being both too ill-trained and insufficient in number to stop an invasion.
3) Aiming is easy for good guys and hard for bad guys.
4) Large ships are vulnerable to small fighters.
5) Lasers go straight.

All of these either answer military logic questions from the OT (could one make and mass-produce an army of droids?) and otherwise preserve the established logic.

The Clone Wars:
1) Clones are much much harder to produce than droids, even with accelerated development, but are much better at the whole 'war' thing, at least compared to the cheap ones.
2) Different companies have different takes on droids (B2 vs B1 Battle Droid), each emphasizing different aspects.
3) The Republic had had 1,000 years of peace, and even lacked an army if it weren't for Darth Sidious's scheming.
4) Armies fight like Napoleonic times. It's not realistic, but it's SW.
5) Jedi prove once again that they are not an army but merely peacekeepers, getting slaughtered by the Droid Army until the real Clone soldiers show up.
6) Lasers go straight.

All of these merely add to the building body of information we have on warfare in the Star Wars universe while upholding existing knowledge. The Clone Troopers are even obvious forerunners to the Storm Troopers, and the design of the Death Star is mentioned as a superweapon of incredible power. This helps explain why the Empire was able to build it: it was originally designed by the Techno-Union and Trade Federation and all the industrial and technical experts of late-stage capitalist republic. Too bad it had one flaw...

The Revenge of the Sith:
1) Ships fire broadsides at each other at point-blank range like it's the 18th Century. Well, this bothered me, but it's not terribly inconsistent with the rest of Star Wars.
2) Not much changes about the military setting in this film; leaders are still as supremely important as ever.
3) Lasers go straight.

Revenge of the Sith had the least amount of armies involved (a lot of it was internal politicking after Dooku was swiftly executed) but nothing in them ruined the logic of the setting for me. A lot of it was silly, a lot of it was unrealistic, and a LOT of it was pretty stupid, but none of it fundamentally redefined the setting for me.

TLJ did. TLJ has the following incongruencies with military logic in Star Wars:

1) Lasers don't, in fact, go straight.
2) Capital ships are vulnerable to fighters but only if it's the BBEG capital ships. The Good Guy capital ships apparently crush fighters if they're inexplicably "uncovered" by the capital ships, whatever that means. (Are the anti-ship turbolasers the same as the AA turbolasers? Can the Good Guy ships not fire both at the same time? What does it even mean? Unexplained.)
3) Apparently, you can do Massive Damage to the enemy with a starship ram, just make sure it's in hyperspace. Where did this come from? Why did the notoriously clever and ruthless Droid army never use this tactic, especially since it wasn't costing lives? Why wasn't this done to the Death Star when it was literally seconds from nuking Yavin-IV?
4) Large doors are apparently more effective at stopping ground assaults than planetary shield generators... and orbital bombardments too. I spot some Design Flaws at Hoth, or at least bad planning - did you see those huge doors on the hangar? Even with the shield down, they could hold out for months, if the Large Door logic works like it does in TLJ, where you need specialized superlasers to blow it up.
5) Leaders aren't very important. Or they are, maybe, sometimes.

Unlike the Prequels, which were just kind of annoying, TLJ actively makes me question the plots and competence of the OT characters more. This is more upsetting than the prequels, because the OT is supposed to be sacred, and untouchable. Now, when I watch ANH, I'll just be like "did no one think about strapping R4-D17 to an X-wing and hyperspacing through the reactor? It's not even mentioned as a possibility.... god what a bunch of idiots." and I'll never be watching episode 5 without going "they don't have the firepower to break through the doors on hoth, you idiots! You don't need to evacuate, you can hold out for months. They don't have a Battering Ram Cannon!", nor will I be able to watch episode 6 without going "Oh, the Emperor died. No one probably cares, because not a single First Order trooper even noticed when Snoke died. There's no sign they even knew who was in charge. Did Snoke lead from the shadows in his big super-flagship that most everyone seemed to agree was Snoke's flagship?"

Backfire wrote:


As for Rey's parents, that revolved entirely around Rey's character and nobody else cared. It is understandable that an abandoned child would daydream about her parents being some special people who would one day come back to get her and have good explanation for everything. Maz flat out told her to forget about the whole issue.

And really, the idea that "Your real name is...Rey Skywalker" is incredibly lame and seriously doubt the writers of TFA ever planned anything like that, especially in light of the criticism SW universe has got for being so inbred. The theme of Rey needing to get over her gone parents is so obvious that it is hard to think there was any other plan in the beginning.

This has been stated so many times I cannot believe it must be repeated again.
People did not wonder Rey parentage because they wanted another episode of a space soap opera. They tried to (kinda desperately) justify the absolute impossible perfection of her character with a weird parentage (someone proposed other things, like a memory loss. Possibly JJ will go for this, making TLJ an even more pointless movie).
This is because they tried to give the universe they were watching consistency. To make Rey more believable and, consequently, likeable.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Backfire wrote:


As for Rey's parents, that revolved entirely around Rey's character and nobody else cared. It is understandable that an abandoned child would daydream about her parents being some special people who would one day come back to get her and have good explanation for everything. Maz flat out told her to forget about the whole issue.

And really, the idea that "Your real name is...Rey Skywalker" is incredibly lame and seriously doubt the writers of TFA ever planned anything like that, especially in light of the criticism SW universe has got for being so inbred. The theme of Rey needing to get over her gone parents is so obvious that it is hard to think there was any other plan in the beginning.

This has been stated so many times I cannot believe it must be repeated again.
People did not wonder Rey parentage because they wanted another episode of a space soap opera. They tried to (kinda desperately) justify the absolute impossible perfection of her character with a weird parentage (someone proposed other things, like a memory loss. Possibly JJ will go for this, making TLJ an even more pointless movie).
This is because they tried to give the universe they were watching consistency. To make Rey more believable and, concsequently, likeable.

But really, if only thing you can do is a really bad explanation, maybe it is best to leave it unexplained.
Big problem with Rey's character in TFA is that with basically no foreboding at all, she suddenly found out she was a major Force user. This was huge contrast to slow path to Jedi powers shown by Luke. Or other Jedi who started their training as small children. Even 9-year old Anakin was already thought too old!
Other than, her character is hardly 'perfect'. She couldn't shoot and doesn't come across terribly intelligent. She is inexperienced and easily led around - this is even more obvious in TLJ.
I am pretty sure there was some foreboding in original script of TFA, just like there probably was more exposition about Galaxy's political state. They cut it out to keep the movie compact.

This is why I don't like the idea about JJ Abrams writing & directing the last part. He is pretty weak writer and cares nothing about plot consistency and plausibility.

Backfire wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Backfire wrote:


As for Rey's parents, that revolved entirely around Rey's character and nobody else cared. It is understandable that an abandoned child would daydream about her parents being some special people who would one day come back to get her and have good explanation for everything. Maz flat out told her to forget about the whole issue.

And really, the idea that "Your real name is...Rey Skywalker" is incredibly lame and seriously doubt the writers of TFA ever planned anything like that, especially in light of the criticism SW universe has got for being so inbred. The theme of Rey needing to get over her gone parents is so obvious that it is hard to think there was any other plan in the beginning.

This has been stated so many times I cannot believe it must be repeated again.
People did not wonder Rey parentage because they wanted another episode of a space soap opera. They tried to (kinda desperately) justify the absolute impossible perfection of her character with a weird parentage (someone proposed other things, like a memory loss. Possibly JJ will go for this, making TLJ an even more pointless movie).
This is because they tried to give the universe they were watching consistency. To make Rey more believable and, concsequently, likeable.

But really, if only thing you can do is a really bad explanation, maybe it is best to leave it unexplained.
Big problem with Rey's character in TFA is that with basically no foreboding at all, she suddenly found out she was a major Force user. This was huge contrast to slow path to Jedi powers shown by Luke. Other than, her character is hardly 'perfect'. She couldn't shoot and doesn't come across terribly intelligent. She is inexperienced and easily led around - this is even more obvious in TLJ.
I am pretty sure there was some foreboding in original script of TFA, just like there probably was more exposition about Galaxy's political state. They cut it out to keep the movie compact.

This is why I don't like the idea about JJ Abrams writing & directing the last part. He is pretty weak writer and cares nothing about plot consistency and plausibility.

I totally agree on Abrams, just a couple of remarks: a bad explanation is bad, but writing a character that is believable can avoid such bad explanation.
Rey looks (I mean in facial expressions and such) and sounds as thick as the actual actress, but then she bypasses the compressor. In TFA is like Kylo, it looks like there was a previous different script and we witness the background radiation of that.
The perfection springs, among other things, from the lack of dependence form others (less in TLJ I think - I prefer Rey in TLJ than in TFA). Compare to all the times Luke must be saved in ANH. I can count at least three.
I am so mad. Just think if they let the Starkiller for episode IX, focused on the search for Luke with more Snoke and temple background, and let Leia train Rey to show she herself trained between RotJ and TFA.
These movie had the potential for being awesome.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Backfire wrote:
[
What mysteries? As I explained already, TFA never hinted once there was some sort of great mystery around Snoke. Everybody in the movie seemed to know who he was.

But there is nothing left to the audience to catch what/who he really is and place him within the story build so far.

He's leader of the First Order, the bad guys looking to take over the Galaxy. Basically, he has the some role as the Emperor in the first trilogy and we never learned more about him either, in the original trilogy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have to say I didn't find that mysterious as it looked like the same communication system the Emperorused to talk to Darth Vader in earlier films.

I was bit different looking IMO, but I only took it to mean that Snoke had added some special effects to look more intimidating.
Though, I did have a pet theory that it wasn't a hologram at all - it was Snoke himself. Ie. that he was entirely a Force Ghost with no physical body.
That would have been kinda cool, though maybe opened too many can of worms about Force Ghosts which are kinda out of control already.

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You should try asking someone who's been divorced, why they got divorced. There's almost never a reason for it, it's usually an accumulation of all the nitpicks.

Interesting analogy. Thing is, when you ask someone why they got divorced and they say its because they didn't do the ironing on time and didn't want to go dancing often enough, then most people know that's not the real reason. That doesn't mean the person is covering up the real reason, it may be complex enough that the person can't really explain it themselves, but whatever it is we know it isn't because of the ironing.

For the one going through the divorce, it is about the ironing, You don't get to be the judge on what is a worthy reason or not. You shouldn't be so dismissive of peoples reasons and feelings.

the bottom line is people don't like the movie, and their reasons for it are not up for others to approve of. Nor are their reasons for you to assign, just because people don't like the movie doesn't mean it has anything to do with the patriarchy.

Go ask people why they don't like the first star trek movie, then come back and let me know their approved reasons for it. It's art, some like it, some don't, reasons are not required it's all subjective.

Backfire wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Backfire wrote:
[
What mysteries? As I explained already, TFA never hinted once there was some sort of great mystery around Snoke. Everybody in the movie seemed to know who he was.

But there is nothing left to the audience to catch what/who he really is and place him within the story build so far.

He's leader of the First Order, the bad guys looking to take over the Galaxy. Basically, he has the some role as the Emperor in the first trilogy and we never learned more about him either, in the original trilogy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have to say I didn't find that mysterious as it looked like the same communication system the Emperorused to talk to Darth Vader in earlier films.

I was bit different looking IMO, but I only took it to mean that Snoke had added some special effects to look more intimidating.
Though, I did have a pet theory that it wasn't a hologram at all - it was Snoke himself. Ie. that he was entirely a Force Ghost with no physical body.
That would have been kinda cool, though maybe opened too many can of worms about Force Ghosts which are kinda out of control already.

As for how much we know about the Emperor vs Snoke:

The Emperor:
1) Values individual strength. ("Your weakness is the trust in your friends!")
2) Is cunningly good at planning. ("Witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!")
3) Overthinks things (His plan overlooked the simplest foil: hostile natives on the moon of Endor)
4) Is so badass he doesn't even need a lightsabre, iirc.
5) Is supremely confident to the point of arrogance. ("And your overconfidence is your [weakness].")

Snoke:
1) May value individual strength? His line about "spunk" is kinda indicative of this, but it's delivered weirdly, and he certainly seems to trust his friends (He trusts Kylo so much that he doesn't even suspect hostility when he is "about to strike down his foe!" with the lightsabre).
2) May be good a planning? Who knows. The First Order took over the galaxy in the time it took Rey to hyperspace over to Ach-To and hand over a lightsabre. I guess that's pretty cunning, if it even was his plan.
3) May over think things? I guess? It never really comes up. Is he even in charge?
4) Doesn't really seem that badass. Sure, he can connect two people on opposite sides of the galaxy and unite their thoughts... I guess that's badass. I don't know, how much of it is the Force and how much of it is his control over it?
5) Is supremely confident to the point of arrogance, I suppose. That part we know is true.

I completely feel like Snoke is a mystery to me.

@Backfire

"Ummm...have you ever watched say, 'Armageddon'? That movie has LESS realistic space physics than Star Wars...it's just how Hollywood writes space."

No it's not - in Armagedon they had some decent space physics.

#1 - The Russian space station went into a roll to create artificial gravity.

#2 - The space ships used Lunar Gravity assist to reach the required speed to land on the asteroid. True it would have made more sense to pull out in front of the asteroid and slow down rather than fly through tail debris. However - it was an action flick - you can expect things to be made more action packed than they need to be.

#3 - The moons Gravity put the asteroid into a 3 axis rotation...hindering communication.

I'd say the director (Michael Bay) had a pretty solid understanding of how gravity works. He even very cleverly used the environment of space to enhance the production of the film and create interesting plot elements. IE - there never would have been a suspenseful scene of earth trying to blow up the asteroid with ICBM's if they hadn't lost communication with the men on the ground.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Backfire wrote:
[
What mysteries? As I explained already, TFA never hinted once there was some sort of great mystery around Snoke. Everybody in the movie seemed to know who he was.

But there is nothing left to the audience to catch what/who he really is and place him within the story build so far.

He's leader of the First Order, the bad guys looking to take over the Galaxy. Basically, he has the some role as the Emperor in the first trilogy and we never learned more about him either, in the original trilogy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have to say I didn't find that mysterious as it looked like the same communication system the Emperorused to talk to Darth Vader in earlier films.

I was bit different looking IMO, but I only took it to mean that Snoke had added some special effects to look more intimidating.
Though, I did have a pet theory that it wasn't a hologram at all - it was Snoke himself. Ie. that he was entirely a Force Ghost with no physical body.
That would have been kinda cool, though maybe opened too many can of worms about Force Ghosts which are kinda out of control already.

As for how much we know about the Emperor vs Snoke:

The Emperor:
1) Values individual strength. ("Your weakness is the trust in your friends!")
2) Is cunningly good at planning. ("Witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!")
3) Overthinks things (His plan overlooked the simplest foil: hostile natives on the moon of Endor)
4) Is so badass he doesn't even need a lightsabre, iirc.
5) Is supremely confident to the point of arrogance. ("And your overconfidence is your [weakness].")

Snoke:
1) May value individual strength? His line about "spunk" is kinda indicative of this, but it's delivered weirdly, and he certainly seems to trust his friends (He trusts Kylo so much that he doesn't even suspect hostility when he is "about to strike down his foe!" with the lightsabre).
2) May be good a planning? Who knows. The First Order took over the galaxy in the time it took Rey to hyperspace over to Ach-To and hand over a lightsabre.
3) May over think things? I guess? It never really comes up. Is he even in charge?
4) Doesn't really seem that badass. Sure, he can connect two people on opposite sides of the galaxy and unite their thoughts... I guess that's badass. I don't know, how much of it is the Force and how much of it is his control over it?
5) Is supremely confident to the point of arrogance, I suppose. That part we know is true.

I completely feel like Snoke is a mystery to me.

Evil characters in fantasy often are mysterious. It adds to their fear factor.

Yep but they also usually get a bit more to do!

When he turned up in TLJ I actually thought - ok cool he is going to do something - he made a few evil overlord snarky remarks in the two scenes and then got killed.

Its Space Opera so I felt a bit let down with him getting diced so quickly

- seriously Battle Beyond the Stars was so so much better than this.

 Manchu wrote:
Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

That's different - you disable a ship with ion torpedos and you take advantage of it by pushing it into the sheild gate (and the other ISD that wasn't smart enough to realize what was happening in time) Also - it seems like this ship (hammerhead corvette) is actually designed to push things in space. Something like a battle tugboat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Evil characters in fantasy often are mysterious. It adds to their fear factor.

There's "mysterious" as in "fearfully mysterious" like Sauron in Lord of the Rings, whom we know very little about (at least in the OT, lol. The Silmarillion actually makes him out to be quite awesome). We know he's in charge, and in possession of some very dark magic, with the will to dominate all life. But we don't know how he is doing these things, why now, or how deep the corruption truely goes in the heart of the world. That's terrifying.

For Snoke... I don't even know if he's really a force user. I mean, he says he is, and I think he grabs a lightsabre at one point. The other characters seem to agree with him, I guess, so it'd follow. I have no idea what his motivations are: power? Like Sauron, is he trying to dominate all life in the galaxy? Or money? Or is he just a spiteful jerk that wants to KILL ALL JEDI and decided that a galactic takeover might bring Luke out from hiding and make him easier to find? Or is he trying to do a Palpatine impersonation like Kylo Ren is with Vader? I also have no idea if he's even In Charge: he only talks to Hux and Ren (I think?) and the rest of the First Order either doesn't know he existed or doesn't seem bothered by his death, which tells me he's not really that important because no one gives a gak, and as soon as he dies, Ren and Hux have a momentary power struggle, then Ren wins, and then it's Business As Usual for the rest of the FO.

When Sauron died, his mysterious will to dominate Middle Earth shattered, and everything he had wrought crumbled. When Palpatine died, the Empire shattered and the Sith were finally wiped out (except not apparently). When Snoke died... well, stuff just sorta ticked on without him. That's not a scary villain, that's like, a mook that everyone talks about is scary.

Backfire wrote:

He's leader of the First Order, the bad guys looking to take over the Galaxy. Basically, he has the some role as the Emperor in the first trilogy and we never learned more about him either, in the original trilogy.

I keep reading this analogy with the emperor and I find it baffling, every single time.

The Emperor is slowly but logically build in the OT.
In ANH, he is a shadow presence, we see his will through Vader and Tarkin. A single sentence in the officer board room described us that there is some sort of new order: someone dissolved the senate. They call this guy the Emperor and the overall authoritarian motif (and Vader and Tarkin statements along with the introduction) tells us that this is a situation in which the bad guy is some fascist organisation. It is enough to look at history (and even to the uniforms of the officers) to have this impression reinforced. We know that in history dictators of many sorts deprived people of freedom removing authority from the parliament. We don't need exposition because is something we know in real life. We don't need exposition in SW movies to know or infer that characters drink, eat or go the the bathroom.
In ESB, the force angle is emphasized and Vader is shown interacting more directly with the Emp. We know now he is not only the big boss but he is a space wizard as well.
In RotJ, the Emperor is shown in person, is implied being more evil than Vader ("I hope so, Commander, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"). And then is shown being a masterful manipulator, on small and big scale. This, by the way, solidifies what implied in ANH - the guy is obviously evil but a skilled politician. He probably not only used brute force to get into the position.

There is enough for the story. Fascist government, planet destroyers, rebels against that. Evil space wizard, temptation.
The prequels explained more, some of that makes no sense on the detailed scale, but at least we have Ian McDiarmid. Even prequel haters (I am not a big fan) love him. By the way, the prequels introduce the rule of Two, the fact that Palpatine was looking for revenge among other things (from Ep I, remember what Maul says).

Flash forward to TFA. In RotJ, the whole galaxy is shown happily celebrate the death of Emp. The republic is implied as re-established. This makes people assume that the majority of people are under the democracy.
Yet, for nostalgia's sake, the resistance are the underdogs. Because how can play people into thinking that TFA is a good movie, otherwise?
Is because part of the empire remained authoritarian and refused to join? Is unclear. We really have no idea about the scope of the first order. If they are still in charge of a good part of the galaxy, why they look more like school shooters and nazi cosplayers? There is a huge dissonance.
The bosses are a caricature (Hux) a deconstruction (Kylo) and another guy that is not an actual character, too: Snoke. Snoke is put there only for nostalgia (HEY GUYZ 'MEMBER THE EMPEROR?).
Snoke makes no sense for the rule of two. Was he a rejected student form the emperor? Would be cool. Just a sentence ("I will show he rejected me for the wrong student" or something) could have given him a sort of motivation. Even in the OT, so black and white, the emperor is shown as having at least more than one motivation driving him. Order, absolute power, legacy.
Snoke is "LMAO EVIL". How he knows the Force? how can be so powerful? How the other characters know him, but there was no trace in the OT? He appears in an established universe but since he was only a placeholder for nostalgia, he is just an underdeveloped magic box of that hack of JJ.
What are the resources of these people? He is a space noble from a family of force sensistives, full of resources? This could have been a throwaway line too. SOMETHING.

This is like the Starkiller. People want me to believe that a faction that is a splinter of the imperials (because if is not a splinter, the Republic needs WAY MORE than the ragtag of Leia to fight them) can build the Death Star x1000. Is just an assault to logic and I have to believe it because "dude these movies are for children". No they are not at the moment, actually. Too cynical.

Snoke needs something more than just "he is Snoke" because he is late to the party. He cannot sit anywhere like the Emp did. He needs to adjust to where the other characters are, and to the rules already written. This is basic narrative and how you cannot grasp it is beyond me.

These people are taking you all for the nose, show an utter contempt for the audience and you are here defending them.
Is hilarious.

All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

Starkiller is also very stupid...maybe the most stupid thing ever.

It fires cross galaxy with hyperspace deathstar lasers that can change direction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

Any of the examples above need a sentence no longer of 1 minute. In a movie with the casino sub-plot, I wish to remember.
And this just giving up to any subtlety or skill from the creator's part into showing and not telling what happened.
Which is the crucial issue. A lack of a simple worldbuilding without dumb exposition. Something very common in modern "popcorn" cinema.

Also, the basic inconsistency of the Resistance being the underdogs even if the FO is the remnants can be picked up watching TFA for the first time as the first SW movie by anyone with half a brain.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt people did not watch at least once the originals before watching TFA. Since it was BUILD on nostalgia, I can bet the movie was really betting on the older fanbase to bring the new people.
BTW, with Last Jedi they are now 600 millions under in the very least. Possibly 700-800.

Finally, the lack of a proper building does indeed ruin the immersion and enjoyment to people. Or in the very least, make an emotional attachment to that world less strong and ultimately fails to build up a movie that becomes a classic. Is just another marvel movie in the meatgrinder.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

I think it's also important to make the villain credible, whether you give a gak about the original movies or not.

I think the major word that I can use to sum up my problem with the movie is believability. A villain has to be believable to be a credible threat that the audience wants to see the heroes beat. Snoke didn't strike me as that believable. He has no apparent motivations (though we can speculate on whether it is money, power, revenge, or fanboyism for Palpatine), no apparent importance to the First Order (utterly no one seems shaken or alarmed by his death. Even Hux and Ren go immediately to their ambitions rather than their shock/horror/sense of liberation), and no real threat (he taunts people a lot, but the real threat in the film seems to be incompetence itself. If fear is the mind killer, then stupidity is the everything-killer).

Seriously. Most of the dangers encountered by any given character (good or bad!) in TLJ are products of either their own or someone else's incompetence.

I can only reiterate that although these points are important to you, my wife, my daughter and I didn't mind about them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can only reiterate that although these points are important to you, my wife, my daughter and I didn't mind about them.

If you don't think that the believability of the film is important, then I don't know what to tell you. I can't enjoy something I'm not invested in, and I can't invest in something if it doesn't invest in making me care. Having an unbelievable scenario with an unbelievable villain with no real sense that any of it is important means the tension is gone. With no credible threat, the heroes are sure to win, and with no credible heroes, I don't really care even if they do.

Credibility/believability of the characters is what gets my emotional and mental investment, not just pretty graphics and pew pew noises and bright neon signs saying [HEROIC CHARACTER SELF-SACRIFICE DETECTED: EXECUTE SADNESS.EXE].

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can only reiterate that although these points are important to you, my wife, my daughter and I didn't mind about them.

I enjoyed part of the movie too, you know.
Some costume design, the use of red. The "red scenes" in the movie are absolutely gorgeous. Other shots were fantastic, I find incredible are from the same guy of the matrix dodge of the lightsaber. For one, I have no problems with space bombers because SW has a dogfight vibe that is not supposed to be what a space fight should be - and that's great is consistent in the universe (this is the basic problem of the hyperspace ram - is actually too smart for the universe, at the point of being stupid because it ruins it).

Also, I have a guilty pleasure of watching ironically post apocalyptic shlock with bad effects and acting. Truly enjoy. But these are not movies that will remain with me.

How much of this new trilogy emotionally resonates compared to the old one? This is what I ask. It's cynical and poorly build. It has none of the language of the myth of the originals. Those appealed to something archetypal in humans.
How much will it stay with us compared to the OT?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can only reiterate that although these points are important to you, my wife, my daughter and I didn't mind about them.

If you don't think that the believability of the film is important, then I don't know what to tell you. I can't enjoy something I'm not invested in, and I can't invest in something if it doesn't invest in making me care. Having an unbelievable scenario with an unbelievable villain with no real sense that any of it is important means the tension is gone. With no credible threat, the heroes are sure to win, and with no credible heroes, I don't really care even if they do.

Credibility/believability of the characters is what gets my emotional and mental investment, not just pretty graphics and pew pew noises and bright neon signs saying [HEROIC CHARACTER SELF-SACRIFICE DETECTED: EXECUTE SADNESS.EXE].

I can only reiterate that my wife, my daughter and I didn't find the believability of the film to be lacking.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can only reiterate that although these points are important to you, my wife, my daughter and I didn't mind about them.

I enjoyed part of the movie too, you know.
Some costume design, the use of red. The "red scenes" in the movie are absolutely gorgeous. Other shots were fantastic, I find incredible are from the same guy of the matrix dodge of the lightsaber. For one, I have no problems with space bombers because SW has a dogfight vibe that is not supposed to be what a space fight should be - and that's great because is ok since is consistent in the universe (this is the basic problem of the hyperspace ram - is actually too smart for the universe, at the point of being stupid because it ruins it).

Also, I have a guilty pleasure of watching ironically post apocalyptic shlock with bad effects and acting. Truly enjoy. But these are not movies that will remain with me.

How much of this new trilogy emotionally resonates compared to the old one? This is what I ask. It's cynical and poorly build. It has none of the language of the myth of the originals. Those appealed to something archetypal in humans.
How much will it stay with us compared to the OT?

Only time will tell.

Perhaps a new generation of girl fans will emerge, hooked on the combination of strong female leads and Kyle Renlo's sweaty torso and emo posturings.

Voss wrote:

sebster wrote:I
The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now.

This is entirely weird. The Republic's fall didn't need to be explained in the original- the setting was the Empire. The Empire was in place and functioning, and 'sweeping away the last remnants of the old republic,' the people who remembered it were old men- Kenobi, basically. While it wasn't explained in detail, there was plenty of time for it to have happened, and it's fall doesn't directly affect any of the main cast- it happened before they were born/when they were little kids. So you have an established empire consolidating the last of its power after winning decades ago with a choke hold on the galaxy. This is perfectly reasonable as presented.

In TFA you have a functioning republic. In TLJ, it is gone, and the first order had won everywhere in the galaxy and taken over. Now go back to the end of TFA: it ends on Rey handing Luke the lightsaber. Skip the intro space battle- the beginning of the movie for Rey, it picks up the Exact Same Moment- Rey handing the lightsaber to Luke. So in the course of essentially no time at all , the First Order conquered the entire galaxy*. Instantaneous Galactic Conquest bloody well requires some explanation. Not just telling the audience It Is So (don't question it) in the opening text crawl, with a couple snippets of dialogue wrapped around an anachronistic Verizon joke.

Actually, no, they say it in the opening crawl that First Order is "deploying his legions to take over the Galaxy", indicating that the process is only beginning, and in fact they even say it again in the movie: when Resistance flees to the Salt Flats planet (forgot the name), they send out distress calls for potential allies which they hope will ride in and defeat First Order. Now, maybe they have some wishful thinking there but that they even attempt such a move tells us there are plenty of other factions left in the Galaxy with military stregth. They don't come: maybe they feel they are too weak to fight First Order, maybe they are too disorganized, maybe they actually agree with the First Order, whatever they reason, they don't come to help, but they are there.

Another thing which tells us that First Order doesn't have iron grip over the Galaxy is the presence of independent arms dealers in the Casino world who sold weapons for both Resistance and First Order. If FO controlled everything, they would have no need for such dealers. FO could just order built whatever they want, and stop Resistance or anyone else buying weapons.

I repeat that the problem is that they explained the whole thing so poorly in TFA. Instant assumption of the viewer was that First Order = Imperium and Resistance = Rebel Alliance and I have read lots of people wondering exact same as above: "How did First Order conquer the Galaxy so quickly?" Well, they did not. TFA just set up the scene so badly that viewers went to natural, but wrong conclusions about this being the exact same story.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

More to the point, Snoke doesn't matter. TLJ reveals Kylo Ren to be the true villain in this trilogy. Yes, Snoke was the one who turned him. But the OT still worked even though we knew nothing about how Palpatine turned Vader, and that whole trilogy is ultimately about Vader's turn away from Palpatine through his son's faith in him.

Palpatine was a cackling evil wizard leader. Snoke is the same. We're even given visual and audio shorthand for this through the imagery and soundtrack in the throne room scene. That's more than enough for most people to understand what they need to understand about Snoke. And more isn't needed anyway for a *secondary* villain that's meant to expire in an ignominious moment that elevates another character.

And I think you put your finger on something important here. Yes, I think there are at least some people so steeped in all the ancillary material around the OT and prequels that they're uncomfortable 'knowing' so little about the events and characters in these movies. Hell, because of their age, some of them will have never known a SW saga without all the extra novels and sourcebooks and RPGs and cartoons. I'm sure Disney will be pumping out material to fill the yearning from that group, but as of right now this is kinda how it felt being a SW fan back during the OT.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

Disagree somewhat - watching a sequel to a film tends to have at least some continuity so the audience are comfortable. A short sequence of the FO crushing the Republic (or whatever they called it) would have been handy, evocative and scene setting. Same as a better script which gave more flavour to the characters

Many times in this film IMO you don't need more time you just need to spend it better, the old sentence here of there can be brilliant for backstory - eg less Casino world nonsense more on the people.

Fair enough that your wife and child enjoyed it - several teenage children of those I spoke to did feel as we "adults" did - increasingly bored and disinterested as the film progressed. We all felt that the final action sequence being too much after too little and really most of us thought the film was ending when the rebels went down to the base.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

Disagree somewhat - watching a sequel to a film tends to have at least some continuity so the audience are comfortable. A short sequence of the FO crushing the Republic (or whatever they called it) would have been handy, evocative and scene setting. Same as a better script which gave more flavour to the characters

Many times in this film IMO you don't need more time you just need to spend it better, the old sentence here of there can be brilliant for backstory - eg less Casino world nonsense more on the people.

Fair enough that your wife and child enjoyed it - several teenage children of those I spoke to did feel as we "adults" did - increasingly bored and disinterested as the film progressed. We all felt that the final action sequence being too much after too little and really most of us thought the film was ending when the rebels went down to the base.

You know what would have been a cool sequence you could put in the background of the Casino World that would really flesh things out?

A shot of uniformed First Order stormtroopers marching a column of uniformed New Republic soldiers as prisoners. Right there you learn 3 things, and it's 'shown not told':

1) The First Order is indeed overthrowing the Republic even as we speak, dismantling its existing structure.
2) The New Republic did indeed keep garrison forces on worlds, even Casino World, and these had to be overcome - though after the fall of the capitol, some gave up without a fight. (how blasted the Republic troopers look could tell whether there was a fight or not)
3) The First Order is everywhere, and there is real danger for the Resistance.

It also would've also given Rose and Finn something important to do with their plotline: instead of releasing space-horseys, they could've released angry Republic troopers, and the FO kept their weapons nearby of course because of sheer villainous incompetence. Then you could have an outright battle in the streets between the now reinvigorated garrison and the First Order, destroying the Casino World with the very weapons that its patrons sold to the warriors. If you wanted to keep the bad humor, you could have a surrendering civilian with his hands up getting prodded by the barrel of a gun and saying "stop it! I sold you that!" or something in an alien language.

That way, even though Finn and Rose's plot "failed", something that affected the wider universe would have been accomplished, and you would have seen evidence that the First Order are taking over the galaxy, and you could have hamfisted your "capitalism is bad" motif in as well.

I felt the scenes in the last film of the Star Killer blowing up all the Republic planets was a good indication of how the Resistance came to be running away at the start of the next film.

This is the same point that comes up again and again. Lots of you guys seem to have wanted much more detail in the exposition and background than the film delivered.

It wasn't necessary for the film to "work", but it has left you unsatisfied.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I felt the scenes in the last film of the Star Killer blowing up all the Republic planets was a good indication of how the Resistance came to be running away at the start of the next film.

This is the same point that comes up again and again. Lots of you guys seem to have wanted much more detail in the exposition and background than the film delivered.

It wasn't necessary for the film to "work", but it has left you unsatisfied.

I know you 'trust' the film a lot more than I do, but this just jumps right back to believabiliy. There are hundreds of examples of governments that stay intact when the capitol has been destroyed, evacuated, or occupied. In fact, Republics seem to be more resilient in this way than Empires because of the distributed nature of their governance (i.e. it's not the charisma of one man that holds everything together).

The premise of the new trilogy seems to be that the Republic just up and folded when the capitol and their main fleet was wiped out. Is there no resistance at all? Is there some? Were there secondary or garrison fleets? Were there naval shipyards that had their own defense forces? Is the First Order at all hampered by these efforts of the Republic, or are they just focused exclusively on the three Resistance vessels?

Backfire wrote:

Voss wrote:

sebster wrote:I
The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now.

This is entirely weird. The Republic's fall didn't need to be explained in the original- the setting was the Empire. The Empire was in place and functioning, and 'sweeping away the last remnants of the old republic,' the people who remembered it were old men- Kenobi, basically. While it wasn't explained in detail, there was plenty of time for it to have happened, and it's fall doesn't directly affect any of the main cast- it happened before they were born/when they were little kids. So you have an established empire consolidating the last of its power after winning decades ago with a choke hold on the galaxy. This is perfectly reasonable as presented.

In TFA you have a functioning republic. In TLJ, it is gone, and the first order had won everywhere in the galaxy and taken over. Now go back to the end of TFA: it ends on Rey handing Luke the lightsaber. Skip the intro space battle- the beginning of the movie for Rey, it picks up the Exact Same Moment- Rey handing the lightsaber to Luke. So in the course of essentially no time at all , the First Order conquered the entire galaxy*. Instantaneous Galactic Conquest bloody well requires some explanation. Not just telling the audience It Is So (don't question it) in the opening text crawl, with a couple snippets of dialogue wrapped around an anachronistic Verizon joke.

Actually, no, they say it in the opening crawl that First Order is "deploying his legions to take over the Galaxy", indicating that the process is only beginning, and in fact they even say it again in the movie: when Resistance flees to the Salt Flats planet (forgot the name), they send out distress calls for potential allies which they hope will ride in and defeat First Order. Now, maybe they have some wishful thinking there but that they even attempt such a move tells us there are plenty of other factions left in the Galaxy with military stregth. They don't come: maybe they feel they are too weak to fight First Order, maybe they are too disorganized, maybe they actually agree with the First Order, whatever they reason, they don't come to help, but they are there.

Another thing which tells us that First Order doesn't have iron grip over the Galaxy is the presence of independent arms dealers in the Casino world who sold weapons for both Resistance and First Order. If FO controlled everything, they would have no need for such dealers. FO could just order built whatever they want, and stop Resistance or anyone else buying weapons.

I repeat that the problem is that they explained the whole thing so poorly in TFA. Instant assumption of the viewer was that First Order = Imperium and Resistance = Rebel Alliance and I have read lots of people wondering exact same as above: "How did First Order conquer the Galaxy so quickly?" Well, they did not. TFA just set up the scene so badly that viewers went to natural, but wrong conclusions about this being the exact same story.

I don't think anyone really understood the whole resistance thing - it was poor.

I would agree its another narrative cockup but the weird thing about that is that the Republic fleet by this point - at most a day or two after the end of TFA is one cruiser, some escorts and some unarmed transports without hyperspace. If the FO is still moving to take control what the hell happened to the republic military?? why can't anyone name the potential allies and say - well at least the Republic of X still holds out or something. Again its just lazy writing.

Its it supposed to be that they disarmed themselves after the Empire was defeated? Casino World nonsense suggests that nope - arms sales to both sides is going well (It is amusing that they won't buy each others stuff though).

Both the TFA and TLJ seemed desperate to reset the clock on Star Wars despite all the talk by critics of subverting - the makers just seemed to have been told or wanted to go back to the glory days when the Good Rebellion was fighting the Evil Empire and that's fair enough - Star Wars is Space Opera after all.

An angle that could have been taken (though it was not and probably will never be) is the First Order as a terrorist organization dedicated to the Empire, like an "alt-right" organized terrorist cell.

Then Star Wars would become a drama about how authoritarian the new Republic became in cracking down: would history repeat itself? Would Leia and Han and Rey and Finn (or the other hypothetical characters of the new trilogy) be able to prevent another Supreme Chancellor from gaining emergency powers? etc. etc.

It probably wouldn't have been a good direction to take it, but I think it'd have been a neat look at current political trends from a fiction perspective.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I felt the scenes in the last film of the Star Killer blowing up all the Republic planets was a good indication of how the Resistance came to be running away at the start of the next film.

This is the same point that comes up again and again. Lots of you guys seem to have wanted much more detail in the exposition and background than the film delivered.

It wasn't necessary for the film to "work", but it has left you unsatisfied.

Didn't it blow up two?

For very many us it was necessary for it to "work" -

if you need less meat in a film fair enough - but if the film pace is going to be so slow that you get time to actually think about the film and what's happening and it makes no sense - that's a problem for those who are thinking as they watch and going - hey what? I am not talking here about the "superfan Conspiracy" I am talking about some kids who have seen one other SW film or some of my friends who might have seen more once but can't recall them that well or really care.

They went to be entertained, nothing more and were not.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Backfire wrote:

He's leader of the First Order, the bad guys looking to take over the Galaxy. Basically, he has the some role as the Emperor in the first trilogy and we never learned more about him either, in the original trilogy.

I keep reading this analogy with the emperor and I find it baffling, every single time.

The Emperor is slowly but logically build in the OT.
In ANH, he is a shadow presence, we see his will through Vader and Tarkin. A single sentence in the officer board room described us that there is some sort of new order: someone dissolved the senate. They call this guy the Emperor and the overall authoritarian motif (and Vader and Tarkin statements along with the introduction) tells us that this is a situation in which the bad guy is some fascist organisation. It is enough to look at history (and even to the uniforms of the officers) to have this impression reinforced. We know that in history dictators of many sorts deprived people of freedom removing authority from the parliament. We don't need exposition because is something we know in real life. We don't need exposition in SW movies to know or infer that characters drink, eat or go the the bathroom.
In ESB, the force angle is emphasized and Vader is shown interacting more directly with the Emp. We know now he is not only the big boss but he is a space wizard as well.
In RotJ, the Emperor is shown in person, is implied being more evil than Vader ("I hope so, Commander, for your sake. The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"). And then is shown being a masterful manipulator, on small and big scale. This, by the way, solidifies what implied in ANH - the guy is obviously evil but a skilled politician. He probably not only used brute force to get into the position.

There is enough for the story. Fascist government, planet destroyers, rebels against that. Evil space wizard, temptation.

Yes, I agree with all of the above, but you are missing the whole picture. You are explaining ENTIRE Empire, which Emperor is only a part of. By contrast, those complaining about Snoke's lack of "background" or "mystery" are complaining about the character itself. This is the crucial difference which I have been trying to get across.

Original trilogy Emperor had no more told about his background that Snoke. There was nothing about how he came to power or what he wanted. He wasn't even mentioned as Sith (because the concept didn't exist back then). But the EMPIRE was much better fleshed out, indeed as you say, the whole term is fairly self-explanatory.

By contrast, First Order is not. Starting right from the name, what the heck does that mean? Is it an order, like a spoken command, or like brethren of Knights, or like a political party? And so on, and so on. Since First Order was not explained in the TFA, its leader also felt poorly explained. Now, they could have done it so that Snoke was the main villain to whom FO was only a tool for some nefarious plan. Maybe he wanted to use Galaxy's riches to build himself planet out of gold. Maybe he wanted to suck all the Midichlorians to himself and become god. Or something. However, the writers chose (imo correctly) to make the story about the First Order itself, to which Snoke was only one of the people working for - like a Chairman in a company. In this viewpoint, there is no need to tell us about Snoke's background anymore than of Hux or Phasma. In fact, just as Rian Johnson correctly said, "shocking revelation" that Snoke was actually Palpatine's long lost brother or Grand Moff Tarkin who somehow survived the Death Star's destruction would have only distracted from the story and made the whole Star Wars saga again feel like some inbred cast of a soap opera.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

The bosses are a caricature (Hux) a deconstruction (Kylo) and another guy that is not an actual character, too: Snoke. Snoke is put there only for nostalgia (HEY GUYZ 'MEMBER THE EMPEROR?).
Snoke makes no sense for the rule of two. Was he a rejected student form the emperor? Would be cool. Just a sentence ("I will show he rejected me for the wrong student" or something) could have given him a sort of motivation.

No. This kind of inbred crap is exactly what the Star Wars universe doesn't need any more. In with the new, out with the old.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Snoke is "LMAO EVIL". How he knows the Force? how can be so powerful?

None of that was told about the Emperor either. He was just a generic Dark Side master. It was kinda implied that his knowledge of Force made him the Emperor but that's it. Concept of Sith did not exist yet, and it was made clear Emperor was not a Jedi. Force is not a monopoly of Jedi, or a duopoly of Sith & Jedi.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

How the other characters know him, but there was no trace in the OT?

30 years passed in an enormous Galactic civilization. It would have been a huge coincidence if somebody HAD known him in the OT.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

This is like the Starkiller. People want me to believe that a faction that is a splinter of the imperials (because if is not a splinter, the Republic needs WAY MORE than the ragtag of Leia to fight them) can build the Death Star x1000. Is just an assault to logic and I have to believe it because "dude these movies are for children". No they are not at the moment, actually. Too cynical.

I agree, but this is not a fault of characterization of Snoke. Nor it is fault of Rian Johnson.
Maybe Starkiller base was a new secret weapon devised by old Empire, which was left unfinished when the Empire collapsed. Or an old alien artifact which they found and refurbished. Anyway, it's another example of how poorly things were explained in TFA.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Snoke needs something more than just "he is Snoke" because he is late to the party. He cannot sit anywhere like the Emp did. He needs to adjust to where the other characters are, and to the rules already written. This is basic narrative and how you cannot grasp it is beyond me.

Again, the ideas how "Snoke should have been fixed" are invariably ideas of how to backtrack Snoke to OT/PT. None of those are examples of 'good narrative', much less universe building. Chief problem of nearly all Star Wars fiction written, programmed or directed after Return of the Jedi is the inability to come up with anything new which stands on its own without having to retort to "wink wink, nudge nugde" fan service throwback to inviolable canon of the Original Trilogy. Making Snoke a comeback of some old character would have only furtherly emphasized the need to rely on increasingly aged crutches of the old canon.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

Disagree somewhat - watching a sequel to a film tends to have at least some continuity so the audience are comfortable. A short sequence of the FO crushing the Republic (or whatever they called it) would have been handy, evocative and scene setting. Same as a better script which gave more flavour to the characters

Many times in this film IMO you don't need more time you just need to spend it better, the old sentence here of there can be brilliant for backstory - eg less Casino world nonsense more on the people.

Fair enough that your wife and child enjoyed it - several teenage children of those I spoke to did feel as we "adults" did - increasingly bored and disinterested as the film progressed. We all felt that the final action sequence being too much after too little and really most of us thought the film was ending when the rebels went down to the base.

You know what would have been a cool sequence you could put in the background of the Casino World that would really flesh things out?

A shot of uniformed First Order stormtroopers marching a column of uniformed New Republic soldiers as prisoners. Right there you learn 3 things, and it's 'shown not told':

1) The First Order is indeed overthrowing the Republic even as we speak, dismantling its existing structure.
2) The New Republic did indeed keep garrison forces on worlds, even Casino World, and these had to be overcome - though after the fall of the capitol, some gave up without a fight. (how blasted the Republic troopers look could tell whether there was a fight or not)
3) The First Order is everywhere, and there is real danger for the Resistance.

It also would've also given Rose and Finn something important to do with their plotline: instead of releasing space-horseys, they could've released angry Republic troopers, and the FO kept their weapons nearby of course because of sheer villainous incompetence. Then you could have an outright battle in the streets between the now reinvigorated garrison and the First Order, destroying the Casino World with the very weapons that its patrons sold to the warriors. If you wanted to keep the bad humor, you could have a surrendering civilian with his hands up getting prodded by the barrel of a gun and saying "stop it! I sold you that!" or something in an alien language.

That way, even though Finn and Rose's plot "failed", something that affected the wider universe would have been accomplished, and you would have seen evidence that the First Order are taking over the galaxy, and you could have hamfisted your "capitalism is bad" motif in as well.

That's great

If only the highly paid director and his team had had this level of insight into actual filmmaking - ah well.

 gorgon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

More to the point, Snoke doesn't matter. TLJ reveals Kylo Ren to be the true villain in this trilogy. Yes, Snoke was the one who turned him. But the OT still worked even though we knew nothing about how Palpatine turned Vader, and that whole trilogy is ultimately about Vader's turn away from Palpatine through his son's faith in him.

Palpatine was a cackling evil wizard leader. Snoke is the same. We're even given visual and audio shorthand for this through the imagery and soundtrack in the throne room scene. That's more than enough for most people to understand what they need to understand about Snoke. And more isn't needed anyway for a *secondary* villain that's meant to expire in an ignominious moment that elevates another character.

And I think you put your finger on something important here. Yes, I think there are at least some people so steeped in all the ancillary material around the OT and prequels that they're uncomfortable 'knowing' so little about the events and characters in these movies. Hell, because of their age, some of them will have never known a SW saga without all the extra novels and sourcebooks and RPGs and cartoons. I'm sure Disney will be pumping out material to fill the yearning from that group, but as of right now this is kinda how it felt being a SW fan back during the OT.

There is a big difference with the OT. In the OT, we just knew Vader fell. Then discovered he was Luke's Father. That is the level of detail we were operating at. The fact that the emperor (I described above) is revealed being another space wizard implies his role in the corruption of Vader (until they state clearly Vader is his disciple). The conflict within Vader is the loyality to the family vs the emperor. For luke is to the Jedi vs familial love. He finds a fantastic synthesis of that in the redemption.
Snoke comes into play in a story that has Luke, the Luke that redeemed Vader, well detailed. They did nothing to make the fall of Kylo believable. Is kinda like "dunno mane, he looked very dark-sidey to me, better to draw a lightsaber for good measure". More detail of Snokes would have served the narrative to make the fall more poignant.
Currently is something that goes in circles. Kylo is evil because Luke wants to lightsaber him (or at least is tempted). Luke wants to lightasber him because is evil.
It makes no sense. And since, opposite to Vader, we HAVE details of when and where Kylo corruption happened (training, Luke Jedi's temple), is difficult to imagine when and how Snoke came into play. What was he? The dude that sold Kebab outside the temple?

Also, FYI, I hated any ancillary material that was not X-Wing an TIE fighter videogames. Gotta build a better strawman I guess.

@Backfire I am not advocating a forceful re-insertion of old elements. But the new stuff must fit to do not create inconsistencies.
I stated that I am ok with any Snoke background - not necessarily backtracking but the characters needed more support. A skilled writer can create something new without shoehorning.
You say it would be strange in OT to know about Snoke - fine. But how can we then explain a power so big?
In narration, one should give details in proportion with the importance of the story. Unless you want to do like our good old RJ - for this guy, the story is secondary to the subversion of expectations.
I think Unit above gave a nice example of a subverted plot with an inverted FO/Republic that is way more compelling than anything these toothless hacks writing nu-wars ever conceived.
I already explained that the Emp was not only a generic user. Some other poster went in detail (Morden, some post ago) but in RotJ alone his ability to be a manipulator has more effect on the plot than the fact that is a wizard. Your conclusion that it was the force that made him Emperor is factually wrong. Don't believe me? Relevant imperial officers don't even believe in the force.

Backfire, those are all excellent points.

Perhaps I would be less concerned with TLJ in general if TFA explained anything about the First Order.

As it stands, I feel like they are still trying to show the "plucky underdog vs galaxy spanning empire" story again, only this time in order to establish the galaxy spanning empire they had to REALLY bend (or in my case break) suspension of disbelief about how galactic conquest even works.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

That's complete bull. There are dozens of techniques to flesh out a backstory, especially one as important as "how did we get here from there?" Any decent director can think of a way to catch up the audience without boring them or ruining the pacing (not that the pacing wasn't already Canto Bighted). Iran Johnson understands visual storytelling far better than JJ ever did, and his little Roshomon scenes demonstrate he is perfectly capable of incorporating important background into a film. RJ just didn't care, and may even have been hostile to the very idea of tying his movie (and JJ's) to the greater series.


Man, remember how boring it was in The Usual Suspects when we learned about Keyser Soze's background and how he formed his reputation. Totally ruined that film it did.

The problem I have with Snoke isn't that he needs fleshing out for his own sake, but his influence seems like such a large, missing part of Kylo Ben's story.

"I was too late, Snoke had got to him." Wow... how? What did he do, or say to achieve that? What is it that Ben Solo wanted so much to let him fall for the temptation of darkness?

And can the pointless "Well it was the same with the Emperor" comments please stop?

a) It wasn't relevant in the OT because it wasn't his story, and crucially neither was it Vader's. We only needed to know him from Luke's point of view. Conversely, Kylo Ren from the first film isn't a simple Vaderesque antagonist, and this is immedately in TLJ expanded upon with his chats with Rey.

b) It's hardly a secret that in the majority of cases probably, issues with the OT will be merrily glossed over because most of us were likely kids when we first saw the OT and it's waving a huge 'free pass' in our faces when we try to critically analyse it. It's hugely unfair on all moden SW films that they don't get that, but there's simply no way for them to do so, and I can't just force myself to enjoy something.

Backfire wrote:
TFA never hinted once there was some sort of great mystery around Snoke. Everybody in the movie seemed to know who he was.

But nobody in the audience knows.

 Riquende wrote:
Kylo Ren from the first film isn't a simple Vaderesque antagonist

That's right, he's actually much more like a protagonist - especially inasmuch as we know much, much more about him than Rey.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

That's complete bull. There are dozens of techniques to flesh out a backstory, especially one as important as "how did we get here from there?" Any decent director can think of a way to catch up the audience without boring them or ruining the pacing (not that the pacing wasn't already Canto Bighted). Iran Johnson understands visual storytelling far better than JJ ever did, and his little Roshomon scenes demonstrate he is perfectly capable of incorporating important background into a film. RJ just didn't care, and may even have been hostile to the very idea of tying his movie (and JJ's) to the greater series.


Man, remember how boring it was in The Usual Suspects when we learned about Keyser Soze's background and how he formed his reputation. Totally ruined that film it did.

I think we have a new term -
Canto Bighted:
After TLJ premiered a worthless subplot on a planet called Canto Bight, film critics have used the term "Canto Bighted" to refer to any subplot that was created simply include characters that don't have any relevance to the story being told. It has a strong association with films that run too long due to bad subplot.

This was a pretty good take on the subject....

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-jedi-killed-my-childhood-and-thats-exactly-wh-1821429836

A regular part of the makeup of hero stories is that there’s a problem—a monster to defeat, an issue to solve, an institution to topple—that the older generation has either allowed to happen or is actively participating in. It requires a young hero, a new generation, to solve the problem that the older generation can’t, or won’t. Older characters can at best act as mentors to the heroes—but they must fail so that the heroes can succeed.

For a kid, it’s an intrinsic, powerful story. It makes up the bulk of Western mythology, from the stories of Greek heroes like Perseus, Theseus, Achilles, to the tale of Beowulf. It connects to kids fundamentally. That’s why people have been telling stories about heroes, just like this, for thousands of years. But with few—very few exceptions—these heroes don’t get old. We don’t want to see our heroes turn into mentors, because we don’t want them supplanted. There’s something inherently tragic about aging from a hero to a mentor (or even worse, the hero becoming part of the problem). The message is that no one stays a hero forever. It’s why this part of the story is usually left untold.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Lasers go straight.

Not sure why you're hung up on this given that Star Wars lasers do not behave like actual lasers, and the "lasers" in question may not have been in universe lasers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

...nor will I be able to watch episode 6 without going "Oh, the Emperor died. No one probably cares, because not a single First Order trooper even noticed when Snoke died.

That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There's no sign they even knew who was in charge. Did Snoke lead from the shadows in his big super-flagship that most everyone seemed to agree was Snoke's flagship?"

Probably, yeah. That's why Hux is addressing the troops when Starkiller is fired. Going back to the OT, who does Palpatine talk to? Vader, and that's it.

Ultimately, I find this installment nihillistic.

Even if as a hero you succeed... it doesn't matter. There will be someone else along who will be just as bad or worse than what you defeated.

Therefore, even if Episode IX has a happy ending, I will just shrug my shoulders. It won't matter. This movie proved that no matter what incredible accomplishments you achieve, they are meaningless. Even if it is achieved by Rey, Finn, Poe, etc.

Benicio Del Toro's character sums up everything wrong with this movie pretty well and articulates the world-view of the film. It doesn't matter. You kill them today, they kill you tomorrow. So does Snoke, light rises to battle darkness and vice versa.

Luke made the only rational response to such an existential world.... the only way to win was to not play the game and cut yourself off from the Force. However, even that failed.

 dogma wrote:

That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

It isn't, actually. It wasn't addressed at all [originally], and isn't the main thrust of the story. That is about Luke, Leia, Vader and Han. The Skywalker family and friends.

The fall of the Empire is left for post film EU to make a hash of, RotJ ends with the victory celebration of the battle and destruction of the Death Star.


For all the issues RotJ has, not showing what happens in the galaxy isn't one of them. While the setting is big, the scope of the film is actually really small and personal.
It's a difference that Johnson really fails to understand- he doesn't take time for personal, and seems to think having characters wave at bigger concepts as they pass by in the background makes for a big story.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) Is so badass he doesn't even need a lightsabre, iirc.

He uses one in RotS, when everyone that isn't Samuel L. Jackson dies to a weird corkscrew attack.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) May value individual strength? His line about "spunk" is kinda indicative of this, but it's delivered weirdly, and he certainly seems to trust his friends (He trusts Kylo so much that he doesn't even suspect hostility when he is "about to strike down his foe!" with the lightsabre).

Palpatine trusted Vader, and then got thrown down a hole.

 dogma wrote:

That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

I think that the birth of an imperial remnant is way more logical and makes way more sense than "empire immediately dismantle" (but would have been anticlimatic for the end of the OT). EDIT: Also, Voss has been way more insightful about the scope and focus of the story.

But in that case, why do not show that the FO is more than the people unde Kylo, Hux and Snoke? It looks like they had this idea, but scrapped it, but still filmed some of its elements.

Voss wrote:

For all the issues RotJ has, not showing what happens in the galaxy isn't one of them. While the setting is big, the scope of the film is actually really small and personal.

The Special Edition has scenes of people partying throughout the galaxy, including one of statues being ripped down on Coruscant.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

But in that case, why do not show that the FO is more than the people unde Kylo, Hux and Snoke? It looks like they had this idea, but scrapped it, but still filmed some of its elements.

They didn't scrap it, they put it in ancillary media.

 Easy E wrote:
Benicio Del Toro's character sums up everything wrong with this movie pretty well and articulates the world-view of the film. It doesn't matter. You kill them today, they kill you tomorrow.

Another thing DelToro's character tries to illustrate is that the "worst people in the galaxy" (arms dealers) make money by selling to the 'bad guys' and the 'good guys', but the good guys were so massively outnumbered I can't see how they would really make anyone rich.

 dogma wrote:
That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

TBF this was another Special Edition blunder.

 Easy E wrote:
This was a pretty good take on the subject....

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-jedi-killed-my-childhood-and-thats-exactly-wh-1821429836

A regular part of the makeup of hero stories is that there’s a problem—a monster to defeat, an issue to solve, an institution to topple—that the older generation has either allowed to happen or is actively participating in. It requires a young hero, a new generation, to solve the problem that the older generation can’t, or won’t. Older characters can at best act as mentors to the heroes—but they must fail so that the heroes can succeed.

For a kid, it’s an intrinsic, powerful story. It makes up the bulk of Western mythology, from the stories of Greek heroes like Perseus, Theseus, Achilles, to the tale of Beowulf. It connects to kids fundamentally. That’s why people have been telling stories about heroes, just like this, for thousands of years. But with few—very few exceptions—these heroes don’t get old. We don’t want to see our heroes turn into mentors, because we don’t want them supplanted. There’s something inherently tragic about aging from a hero to a mentor (or even worse, the hero becoming part of the problem). The message is that no one stays a hero forever. It’s why this part of the story is usually left untold.

Well, I appreciate his ability to recognize the role his ego plays, and that he's in a state of arrested development, LOL. I think his older/younger take is a little simplistic and still a bit self-centered. I'm older than he is, and to me TLJ felt more like a natural evolution than a death of childhood or whatever hyperbolic label you want to slap on it.

I'm also not sure how much of a SW O.G. he is when he's too young to have experienced the summer of '77.

But I think he has a point regarding the new generation. My kids aren't nearly as attached to Luke, Han and Leia as they are to Rey, Finn and Poe (and even Kylo). And not because of "Disney shoved Mary Sues down their throats" or any such nonsense. The OT heroes simply aren't their heroes like they were mine at their age.

Although, we have no idea what happened immediately after the various celebrations shown in the Special Edition.

We see scenes like this all the time in the real world.

We then often also see the mass graves resulting afterwards...

 dogma wrote:


They didn't scrap it, they put it in ancillary media.

That should not be a way to fix a movie.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

That's complete bull. There are dozens of techniques to flesh out a backstory, especially one as important as "how did we get here from there?" Any decent director can think of a way to catch up the audience without boring them or ruining the pacing (not that the pacing wasn't already Canto Bighted). Iran Johnson understands visual storytelling far better than JJ ever did, and his little Roshomon scenes demonstrate he is perfectly capable of incorporating important background into a film. RJ just didn't care, and may even have been hostile to the very idea of tying his movie (and JJ's) to the greater series.


Man, remember how boring it was in The Usual Suspects when we learned about Keyser Soze's background and how he formed his reputation. Totally ruined that film it did.

My point is that Snoke's back story doesn't need fleshing out in the film at all.

Similarly, the Resistance clearly is a sub-rosa anti-First Order military movement which was being financed by the Republic because they didn't dare begin open warfare against the FO. Something like the Contras or Hezbollah.

This was obvious from the few lines of exposition in the two films.

 dogma wrote:
That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

No it wasn't. A New Hope spelled it out for you: the Emperor forfeited the legitimacy of the Senate in favour of ruling by fear, and ruling by fear only works as long as you can maintain at least the appearance of strength.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 dogma wrote:


They didn't scrap it, they put it in ancillary media.

That should not be a way to fix a movie.

That assumes the film needs "fixing".

For me, I was happy to see the second Death Star destroyed, the Imperial fleet routed, and the Ewoks celebrating in their little village. (Well, maybe not the last bit.) This showed that Good had won over Evil, and would all live happily ever after.

I didn't need to see a long exposition of how the news was distributed around the galaxy, and people reacted in different solar systems, and so on. It wasn't necessary to the completion of the story.

 gorgon wrote:


But I think he has a point regarding the new generation. My kids aren't nearly as attached to Luke, Han and Leia as they are to Rey, Finn and Poe (and even Kylo). And not because of "Disney shoved Mary Sues down their throats" or any such nonsense. The OT heroes simply aren't their heroes like they were mine at their age.

I think that this is normal and even good. My only question is: are they attached to Poe Finn etc as much as you were to Luke and Leia?
Is this the same level of emotional involvement, for the way the story and characters are build?

Beside that point (that is still the most important!) I have still some issues:
- I have some issues with how the protagonists of a story are represented in their failing, struggles and priorities. I just doubt that Rey can "teach" as much as Luke for the simple low failures ->lessons occurrence compared to Luke.
- This is more far fetched but - one can watch a movie and only unconsciously perceive some of its part. If the movie is build to be watched in an "ironic" way, could it risk to be "absorbed" in a different way from the viewer, kids included? And consequentially "experienced" in a less immersive way?
As killcrazy said before, probably only time will tell.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 dogma wrote:
That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

No it wasn't. A New Hope spelled it out for you: the Emperor forfeited the legitimacy of the Senate in favour of ruling by fear, and ruling by fear only works as long as you can maintain at least the appearance of strength.

Regional governments were still in place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That assumes the film needs "fixing".

I meant TFA. I am ok with with RotJ.

 AlexHolker wrote:
No it wasn't. A New Hope spelled it out for you: the Emperor forfeited the legitimacy of the Senate in favour of ruling by fear, and ruling by fear only works as long as you can maintain at least the appearance of strength.

Yeah, and The Empire, with all it's materiel, would remain strong even in the event of Palpatine's death; someone would take power.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

That's complete bull. There are dozens of techniques to flesh out a backstory, especially one as important as "how did we get here from there?" Any decent director can think of a way to catch up the audience without boring them or ruining the pacing (not that the pacing wasn't already Canto Bighted). Iran Johnson understands visual storytelling far better than JJ ever did, and his little Roshomon scenes demonstrate he is perfectly capable of incorporating important background into a film. RJ just didn't care, and may even have been hostile to the very idea of tying his movie (and JJ's) to the greater series.


Man, remember how boring it was in The Usual Suspects when we learned about Keyser Soze's background and how he formed his reputation. Totally ruined that film it did.

My point is that Snoke's back story doesn't need fleshing out in the film at all.

Similarly, the Resistance clearly is a sub-rosa anti-First Order military movement which was being financed by the Republic because they didn't dare begin open warfare against the FO. Something like the Contras or Hezbollah.

This was obvious from the few lines of exposition in the two films.

None of that is 'clear.' The term Resistance implies that they aren't operating with the financing or blessing of the Republic, there is nothing to establish why the Republic wouldn't be in open warfare against a hostile force dedicated to its destruction (it isn't like there are other galactic nation-states to disapprove), and so on and so on. The First Order is well known by everyone presented in the film, and given their only goal (destroy the Republic), there is no reason not to fight them openly.

The fact that the Republic is not in open warfare, and is financing the Resistance to clandestinely oppose the FO, shows that the Republic doesn't want to be in open warfare with the FO, and prefers to operate clandestinely through the Resistance.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact that the Republic is not in open warfare, and is financing the Resistance to clandestinely oppose the FO, shows that the Republic doesn't want to be in open warfare with the FO, and prefers to operate clandestinely through the Resistance.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.

For starters they could have said that the republic funds the resistance. Seems to me they are pretty poorly funded if the entire resistance fits on 3 ships and can't even do combat with a small division of FO ships.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


But I think he has a point regarding the new generation. My kids aren't nearly as attached to Luke, Han and Leia as they are to Rey, Finn and Poe (and even Kylo). And not because of "Disney shoved Mary Sues down their throats" or any such nonsense. The OT heroes simply aren't their heroes like they were mine at their age.

I think that this is normal and even good. My only questio is: are they attached to Poe Finn etc as much as you were to Luke and Leia?

No, but that's because Rey and company have exponentially more competition for my kids' hearts and minds. I don't think it's possible for anything to be the same kind of phenomenon today the way SW was in 1977. It was so bold and different than anything anyone had ever seen, and yet also somehow scratched an itch.

Just imagine a world in which sci-fi blockbusters weren't a thing. Heck, the concept of a summer blockbuster had only been introduced two summers earlier with Jaws. People predominantly watched 3 network channels (4 if you count PBS), and specialty cable channels were barely a thing. Certainly there was no 'geek media,' other than maybe a few magazines. Cartoons were for Saturday mornings. No one even had VCRs or rented movies for them, so you saw SW in a theater or not at all. A common thing you'd say to a new kid on the playground was "how many times have you seen Star Wars?"

Perhaps it's because I was there for the (very dramatic) arrival of SW, and then saw the rise of all the ancillary material, the prequels, and just SO MUCH content in general that I'm more in tune with Johnson's inclination to break eggs. *shrug*

 gorgon wrote:


No, but that's because Rey and company have exponentially more competition for my kids' hearts and minds. I don't think it's possible for anything to be the same kind of phenomenon today the way SW was in 1977. It was so bold and different than anything anyone had ever seen, and yet also somehow scratched an itch.

This is a very valid point, actually.

Yeah wait the Resistance is funded by people?

That's part of the long post I wrote earlier: I have no idea what's going on. Who are the Resistance resisting? The First Order? Isn't the First Order itself a 'resistance' within the New Republic? Or is it a separate galactic nation-state that formed out of old curmudgeonly Imperials?

 sebster wrote:
FWIW I think the error here could have been resolved with the starkiller attack in TFA - it shouldn't have hit some generic planets, it should have wiped the Republic fleet in dock. That would explain why the attack on the star killer base was done by a handful of fighters, and explain why the Republic was quickly overrun.

Just a little point here (possibly several pages late too), but I thought that TFA was pretty obvious that that is exactly what happened. Hux's speech calls out the fleet as a target, (as well as the Senate) and then during the (admittedly quite weird) Starkiller shooting sequence they show some (admittedly not too many) capital ships being caught up in the explosion.

At least if I remember correctly.

The Resistance are resisting the First Order.

The First Order is a new version of the Empire -- Nazis In Spaaace! if you will.

Yeah, the Republic war fleet is destroyed at its dock when Starkiller Base fired. That's explicitly stated, and isn't where my problem lies.

My problem lies with the idea that because its major fleet got destroyed, the Republic just rolls over and dies in a few hours.

Surely they had a fleet at Coruscant, even if it's not the capitol, just because it's a major trade hub and dockyard? Presumably Corellia is guarded by some kind of warships, even if just to deter pirates. There could even be a battleship or two out on patrol, just like modern navies do, to keep an eye on those pesky First Order fellows. (Assuming the FO is another nation-state in the galaxy and not a terrorist/insurgent organization. That bit's not clear to me, but I feel safe assuming they're a whole other nation to the Republic to explain away some of the major issues I have.)

It's not like the American navy collapsed after Pearl Harbor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Resistance are resisting the First Order.

The First Order is a new version of the Empire -- Nazis In Spaaace! if you will.

Right so are they:

1) The Imperial Remnant, as in a whole other nation state that now owns only part (half? A third? An eighth?) of the galaxy due to some unexplained division of powers to end the Galactic Civil War?
2) An insurgency supporting the old, fallen regime (hence the name First Order) against a galaxy-spanning New Republic?
3) An extragalactic threat from somewhere beyond that galaxy that just happens to include a lot of ex-Imperials?
4) Something else??

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact that the Republic is not in open warfare, and is financing the Resistance to clandestinely oppose the FO, shows that the Republic doesn't want to be in open warfare with the FO, and prefers to operate clandestinely through the Resistance.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.

Well, it could not be a tautology. 'Not being in open warfare because they aren't in open warfare' is not an explanation at all, let alone a clear one.
It could, instead, present a reason for why the Republic isn't fighting. Not just claiming that it isn't because it isn't.

Dont' forget (5) all of the above.

 Manchu wrote:
Dont' forget (5) all of the above.

No kidding. Each is equally plausible.

It's hard for me to stomach "WE FIGHT DA NAZIS" when it's like, Albania sending four dogs and a wolf to attack 1938 Germany. Like, I almost would roll my eyes at that plot.

Conversely, if they're an insurgent group within the New Republic, then my eyes roll even harder.

"Wow, stocks are up on the planet-killing superlaser market. And I hear Kuat Drive Yards produced another 200 Destroyers and a Dreadnought or two!"
"Yeah man, isn't this era of peace great?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Dont' forget (5) all of the above.

No kidding. Each is equally plausible.

It's hard for me to stomach "WE FIGHT DA NAZIS" when it's like, Albania sending four dogs and a wolf to attack 1938 Germany. Like, I almost would roll my eyes at that plot.

Conversely, if they're an insurgent group within the New Republic, then my eyes roll even harder.

"Wow, stocks are up on the planet-killing superlaser market. And I hear Kuat Drive Yards produced another 200 Destroyers and a Dreadnought or two!"
"Yeah man, isn't this era of peace great?"

When i first saw the movie this is the stuff I was spouting for days. The setting is BS. The FO should not exist and if there was some great battle that raised them above the power of 1000 planets combined...WHY AREN'T WE SEEING THAT? That is much more interesting than this find Luke so he can commit suicide and the entire resistance escapes on the falcon. Come on man...

The resistance is too weak for me to care about.

I think you are ignoring the elephant in the room - the time between TFA and TLJ is couple of day maximum, and the grip on the Galaxy is way tighter on the second movie.

This First Order is amazing! It really deserves the galaxy.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
This First Order is amazing! It really deserves the galaxy.

All they needed was a huge military setback to give themselves the self-belief to go out there and get things done.

Guys.... no one responded to Leia's signal for aid. it is clear the galaxy has spoken and they PREFER the First Order to the Resistance.

I bet it was because General Leia used an unsecured Force Skype for communications. On the Holo-Net you can see a meme with General Leia on the bridge of the cruiser that says..... but her Force Skype!. That is why the Galaxy must prefer the First Order.

Voss wrote:
Not...really. Even if you go with the odd theory that he magically becomes a Jedi for initiating the confrontation rather than seeing it through successfully,

You're working on the weird assumption that Jedi is a qualification, like you reach a certain point and then you get a certificate and a ceremony where you throw your hate in the air at the end.

I can't swallow the idea that the whole point of the series is 'the challenges of life as a space wizard.' That speaks to zero people in the audience. Just maybe it's something about ideals, redemption and there are lines you don't cross? Something perhaps the audience can identify with?

You can't get it because you're being silly on purpose. The idea of walking a fine line, always wary of giving in to base emotions, is a very common and effective theme in stories. Making that story about a space wizard changes nothing about the universality of the theme. Just as a father redeeming his son doesn't lose its universality because its a space wizard son redeeming a space wizard father.

Which ones? The dead people at the beginning when he hadn't learned his lesson and accomplished something, or the dead people at the end when he had 'learned his lesson' and stopped them from accomplishing anything?

Where he disobeyed command, accidentally revealed their plan, and that led to dozens of transports getting blown up, killing lots of people. Don't make me explain the simple stuff.

 sebster wrote:

Voss wrote:
Not...really. Even if you go with the odd theory that he magically becomes a Jedi for initiating the confrontation rather than seeing it through successfully,

You're working on the weird assumption that Jedi is a qualification, like you reach a certain point and then you get a certificate and a ceremony where you throw your hate in the air at the end.

That's what the trials are for, to earn the title of jedi by showing your qualified to be one. If they pass they throw their hate in the air and wave it like they just don't care

 Mr Morden wrote:
Reasons I disliked this film are really very simple and hopefully understandable:

You gave conclusions, not reasons. We've talked about this already.

Its so much easier to say "No the film was good, the audience is too stupid to appreciate it" rather than accept the flaws - monumental ones in my opinion.

I've said probably five or six times now that people's reaction to the film, not liking it, is legitimate. The question has been why, and the answers I've seen have been very terrible, with a couple of exceptions. I'm looking for an understanding of what's really driven some people's strong negative reaction.

I never said we have too many secondary character

I never said you said there were. I was only noting that there were complaints there was too much focus on secondary characters, and also complaints that secondary characters weren't developed sufficiently. That doesn't make either complaint wrong, and technically they could both be true, but it is interesting to note both complaints being made to highlight the generally incoherent overall negative reaction.

We have very little insight into the emotional state of the Admiral when she suddenly decides to ram the heck out of the super giant ship

She's a long term servant of the cause, that cause is on its last legs, if can't understand why she'd volunteer to run a suicidal distraction mission so the last remnants of the Resistance can escape I can't help you. If you can't understand why she'd change that plan to a kamikaze mission when the transports were uncovered then, once again, I can't help you.

but I Doubt the only thing she was thinking about was "love"

She was doing the one thing she could to protect the remaining transports. Protecting what she loved. I mean come on man, this stuff isn't great because it's so obvious, but here you are pretending you can't figure it out.

The whole hope of the downtrodden thing is specifically subverted by the fact that a) the newly formed resistance is so very incompetent b) the "good guys" are highlighted as financing the same people as the bad guys - I am not sure if you missed that but it was clearly part of the narrative that nothing would change no matter who won because nothing had changed when the Empire fell

That's an extraordinarily weird conclusion. The revelation of a large middle ground between the good of the Resistance and the evil of the First Order doesn't mean nothing had changed and nothing would ever change.

I'll say it again. I respect people not liking the film, that's their response and its legitimate. And I believe there are legitimate reasons that people disliked the movie. I just would like to get an understanding of what those reasons actually are, and so far what I've read has been unconvincing and generally incoherent.

On the terms of the films themselves, becoming "Jedi" is a milestone. In fact, Luke becoming a Jedi is the backbone of the Original Trilogy.

Luke's declaration of intent in ANH is that he wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father.

Vader's appraisal of Luke in ESB is that he's impressive but he is not a Jedi yet.

When Luke refuses to give i to to darkness, he declares that he is a Jedi like his father before him.

 sebster wrote:

Voss wrote:
Not...really. Even if you go with the odd theory that he magically becomes a Jedi for initiating the confrontation rather than seeing it through successfully,

You're working on the weird assumption that Jedi is a qualification, like you reach a certain point and then you get a certificate and a ceremony where you throw your hate in the air at the end.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Nope. Luke becomes a true Jedi in the very moment he refuses to kill Vader.

You seem to have an idea that becoming a Jedi means no longer having any internal battles. So all thse Jedi and Jedi Masters walking around in the prequels were all perfect beings who always acted perfectly at all times. They were never concerned about acting out of pride, or rage, because they were Jedi now and couldn't ever make mistakes any more.

This whole thing is very silly.

I made my points. Is you that are trapped in a circular argument. "Her arc is that she is already prepared".

That's a deliberate mistatement of the arc I explained to. Debate honestly or stop posting.

To explain again, Rey started the film looking to discover her place in the universe and her purpose. She was looking for this both with her search for her parents, and in a mentor relationship with Luke. Over the course of the film she learned that neither her parents nor Luke would give her that place or purpose, instead everything she needed she already had, and her purpose was on she had to find for herself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
For the one going through the divorce, it is about the ironing, You don't get to be the judge on what is a worthy reason or not. You shouldn't be so dismissive of peoples reasons and feelings.

Most people don't actually do a very good job of knowing their own minds that well. The whole field of psychiatry exists because human thought processes are very complex and often take years of analysis to get to real, underlying causes for why people do stuff. To return to the marriage example, marriage counselling exists in large part to help couples understand the real relationship dynamics, which aren't necessarily obvious to either partner. The complaint about ironing could actually be symbolic of pent up frustration that their partner doesn't appreciate the importance of routine to their ability to relax, while to the other partner it could be symbolic of their own frustration of feeling controlled, being told when they have to do certain chores.

Now, here we're talking about just a movie, and not a very complex one at that. So I'm not talking about going in to any kind of deep analysis. I'm just saying it is possible, and even quite easy to see someone's stated reason, and know that reason is unconvincing, and probably not what's really driving their opinion.

Nor are their reasons for you to assign, just because people don't like the movie doesn't mean it has anything to do with the patriarchy.

Holy fething gak feth. feth. I said in my first fething post that I thought those patriarchy reasons weren't right. I've corrected people each time they mistakenly assumed that I thought they were. Still people post stuff like that. fething stop it. fething read what I'm actually fething writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Also, the basic inconsistency of the Resistance being the underdogs even if the FO is the remnants can be picked up watching TFA for the first time as the first SW movie by anyone with half a brain.

Yeah! I mean only 30 years passed. Believing the First Order could build a new military capable of exceeding the Republic would mean believing something as crazy as Germany going from defeat in 1919 to having an army in 1939 that could conquer France in six weeks. What nonsense.

 sebster wrote:
[Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
For the one going through the divorce, it is about the ironing, You don't get to be the judge on what is a worthy reason or not. You shouldn't be so dismissive of peoples reasons and feelings.

Most people don't actually do a very good job of knowing their own minds that well. The whole field of psychiatry exists because human thought processes are very complex and often take years of analysis to get to real, underlying causes for why people do stuff. To return to the marriage example, marriage counselling exists in large part to help couples understand the real relationship dynamics, which aren't necessarily obvious to either partner. The complaint about ironing could actually be symbolic of pent up frustration that their partner doesn't appreciate the importance of routine to their ability to relax, while to the other partner it could be symbolic of their own frustration of feeling controlled, being told when they have to do certain chores.

Now, here we're talking about just a movie, and not a very complex one at that. So I'm not talking about going in to any kind of deep analysis. I'm just saying it is possible, and even quite easy to see someone's stated reason, and know that reason is unconvincing, and probably not what's really driving their opinion.

Why do you assume such things? You even stated yet another valid reason to not like the movie. It's not a very complex one.

If none of the reasons listed have convinced you that people just don't like the movie, what do you think their "real" reasons are?

and I'd still like to see the valid reasons you accept for people not liking the first star trek movie.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I would agree its another narrative cockup but the weird thing about that is that the Republic fleet by this point - at most a day or two after the end of TFA is one cruiser, some escorts and some unarmed transports without hyperspace.

You have tied all your confusion to an assumption that the events of the various plots are being told in chronological order. Following the same thought process, we would have to conclude that all of Luke's in ESB takes place during the time in which Han, Leia etc are hiding in a space monster's stomach and kicking it on Cloud City.

Or you know, you can realise that its common place for films with seperate plot threads to synch those plots for pacing, not chronological accuracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Man, remember how boring it was in The Usual Suspects when we learned about Keyser Soze's background and how he formed his reputation. Totally ruined that film it did.

That's a really weird example to pick to try and say that you can reveal parts of a villain's character and still keep him cool and scary. Because the whole point of The Usual Suspects was that everything was unknown and we had no way of knowing if any part of the story Soze told was true, including that origin story. Soze is as unknown at the beginning of the film as he is at the end.

Top 10 films of 2017

1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi - £73.1m
2. Beauty And The Beast - £72.4m
3. Dunkirk - £56.6m
4. Despicable Me 3 - £47.8m
5. Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 2 - £41m
6. Paddington 2 - £39.3m
7. It - £32.3m
8. Thor: Ragnarok - £31m
9. Spider-Man: Homecoming - £30.4m
10. La La Land - £30.4m


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
On the terms of the films themselves, becoming "Jedi" is a milestone. In fact, Luke becoming a Jedi is the backbone of the Original Trilogy.

Luke's declaration of intent in ANH is that he wants to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father.

Vader's appraisal of Luke in ESB is that he's impressive but he is not a Jedi yet.

When Luke refuses to give i to to darkness, he declares that he is a Jedi like his father before him.

This film is The Last Jedi, presaging the death (or transcendence) of Luke and the fact that Rey isn't a Jedi.

It remains to be seen if Rey will try to use the Jedi Texts stolen from the Tree Temple to become a new Jedi.

 sebster wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Reasons I disliked this film are really very simple and hopefully understandable:

You gave conclusions, not reasons. We've talked about this already.

Its so much easier to say "No the film was good, the audience is too stupid to appreciate it" rather than accept the flaws - monumental ones in my opinion.

I've said probably five or six times now that people's reaction to the film, not liking it, is legitimate. The question has been why, and the answers I've seen have been very terrible, with a couple of exceptions. I'm looking for an understanding of what's really driven some people's strong negative reaction.

I never said we have too many secondary character

I never said you said there were. I was only noting that there were complaints there was too much focus on secondary characters, and also complaints that secondary characters weren't developed sufficiently. That doesn't make either complaint wrong, and technically they could both be true, but it is interesting to note both complaints being made to highlight the generally incoherent overall negative reaction.

We have very little insight into the emotional state of the Admiral when she suddenly decides to ram the heck out of the super giant ship

She's a long term servant of the cause, that cause is on its last legs, if can't understand why she'd volunteer to run a suicidal distraction mission so the last remnants of the Resistance can escape I can't help you. If you can't understand why she'd change that plan to a kamikaze mission when the transports were uncovered then, once again, I can't help you.

but I Doubt the only thing she was thinking about was "love"

She was doing the one thing she could to protect the remaining transports. Protecting what she loved. I mean come on man, this stuff isn't great because it's so obvious, but here you are pretending you can't figure it out.

The whole hope of the downtrodden thing is specifically subverted by the fact that a) the newly formed resistance is so very incompetent b) the "good guys" are highlighted as financing the same people as the bad guys - I am not sure if you missed that but it was clearly part of the narrative that nothing would change no matter who won because nothing had changed when the Empire fell

That's an extraordinarily weird conclusion. The revelation of a large middle ground between the good of the Resistance and the evil of the First Order doesn't mean nothing had changed and nothing would ever change.

I'll say it again. I respect people not liking the film, that's their response and its legitimate. And I believe there are legitimate reasons that people disliked the movie. I just would like to get an understanding of what those reasons actually are, and so far what I've read has been unconvincing and generally incoherent.

Ok I don't think that anything I say will fulfil what you seem to want.

I have told you that myself and many friends did not like, I have told you why both in general (long, boring, badly written) and specific terms (some but not all of the specific plot points that I and other find damages the narrative) - you need to accept that these are my reasons - I honestly do not have some hidden reason that say I hate the director's work (now if it had been Christopher Nolan you would have had a point but I only vaguely even know the name of this guy) or I love the original series sooo much or whatever.

Overview: I did not like this film because to me (and my friends) it was too long, often boring, filled with narrative inconsistencies and flaws that I could not ignore due to the poor pacing. How does this not make sense???????? These are my reasons.

More and more I think you have decided that I (and others) have some "real" reason and I would prefer that you articulate this if you feel this strongly that consciously or unconsciously we are concealing these "real" reasons. That's the reason people are challenging you - you keep making this assertion that we are wrong because we actually have hidden reasons - its actually very passive aggressive and what makes it worse is you can't see it and are getting emotional about it when challenged.

See:

Holy fething gak feth. feth. I said in my first fething post that I thought those patriarchy reasons weren't right. I've corrected people each time they mistakenly assumed that I thought they were. Still people post stuff like that. fething stop it. fething read what I'm actually fething writing.

You are not getting what I am saying about various of these issues - please read them more carefully.

I did not say that love of her comrades was not present when the Admiral rammed the Super ship - I said it was not the only thing - surely it would have been a gamut of emotions including potentially anger and sorrow. But somehow when Finn does it - it all must be hate? Sorry but that does not fly and made no sense to me in that he was sacrificing himself so that others could survive - not because he wanted to kill bad guys. Its a poorly written and foolish element in the film - there is no difference n the two acts but somehow one is good, the other is not.

Again you are missing the point in that scene about the arms dealers and as has been stated - its a very odd thing to try and crowbar into the Space Opera theme of the film. Watch it again - the statement is nothing will change = the rich get rich whatever side wins.

You have tied all your confusion to an assumption that the events of the various plots are being told in chronological order. Following the same thought process, we would have to conclude that all of Luke's in ESB takes place during the time in which Han, Leia etc are hiding in a space monster's stomach and kicking it on Cloud City.

Or you know, you can realise that its common place for films with separate plot threads to synch those plots for pacing, not chronological accuracy.

Ok now that's just getting silly, plenty of films have odd narrative time or hop back and forwards and that's acceptable.

That the First Order seems to have conquered the entire galaxy without any resistance from anyone except the Ship of Fools is just bizarre and speaks to the filmmakers requirements not to "subvert" but merely reset the film universe - a continuation of the theme in the first film. For their limited vision to work we have to have plucky hero's fighting giant monolithic Empires and Corporations - its easy, lazy writing but that's all they seem to be willing to undertake.

Now if that's all they wanted to do - that's fine - but lets not have any pretence about it being a intellectual or meaningful film - its Space Opera and in this specific case - bad Space Opera. Shame really.

Has there ever been any notion that Star Wars is an intellectual kind of film?

I've always viewed it as Space Opera, or space fantasy, or a fairy tale in space, and I believe it is a highly successful example of this genre.