maybe, but it's better than keeping her character alive and using her death to try and bring in more money to the next film by using her name.
You do know she died after filming for this film was completed? What would you rather they did, alter her final film, throwing away parts of her final work because she happened to die after it?
Ya, they could have done away with her cameo at the end. all she does is stun flyboy, then say what a nice piece of meat he is. easily lost to give a proper tribute to carrie.
Well, apart from her conversation with Poe on the transport, and her reuniting with Luke, and then talking with Rey about how Luke had died but was at peace. The whole film is a tribute to Carrie and preserving her final work is the best way to honour her.
Kilkrazy wrote: To some extent everything is pandering to the marketing department. Look at the Lego shelf of your local toy shop.
To go back a page, though, I liked the Leia in Spaaace scene because:
We all know that Carrie Fisher died before finishing the film, and this created some expectation that her character would be killed off during the film.
This expectation was borne out when Kylo Ren attacked Leia's ship and targetted the bridge.
This set the scene for Kylo to destroy his mother, completing his journey to the Dark Side, and this was emphasised by the shots of the two of them "looking" at one another.
But our expectations were confounded when Kylo withheld his attack, only to be confounded again as some other FO fighter launched a missile at the bridge.
So Leia seemingly died, but again our expectation of the narrative was reversed, when she saved herself by Force powers.
To me this was a very exciting sequence of events. I don't mind that Scientific American says you can't survive in space for more than 15 seconds, because Star Wars demands a large amount of suspension of disbelief in lots of areas.
So your Expectations. Were. Subverted. .?
I did enjoy a lot of the toying RJ did with the setup JJ left to him, but I got tired of the forced nature of all the subversions shortly after this scene. I love the idea behind space Leia, but the execution was pretty embarrassing in my view.
I think everyone's expectations were subverted. The problem is that a lot of people didn't like it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A tribute to a deceased cast or crew member is normally given by some kind of "in memoriam" notice in the credits.
Didn't buy it - the whole film was really just used to reset the universe to Star Wars.
Luke is Kenobi, dies so that the rebels can escape
The remaining rebels are now a few people fighting a massively powerful empire under a dark lord.
The bad guys are still bad guys
The good guys are good guys
There is nothing new or "subversive" in the entire film, there are plot holes and WTF moments but that's about it.
Leia dies - sadly the actress died so that was a given, not the directors choice. Not sure about her superwoman moment but meh its a Space Opera, nothing more.
Oh apart from:
People get rich dealing guns - wow Mr Director your social commentary is so awesome.... not.
You know, I read that article, and it kind of bothers me for
two reasons.
1) It misses the point of "stories". In all it's ranting about how "happy endings" are unrealistic and time goes on, it misses the point that stories do end.
2) It seems to imply that 'after' the happy ending, there's nowhere to go but down, for the characters.
Number 2 especially bothers me, because there's plenty of places to go. Here is my idea for the sequels:
Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.
Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!
Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."
Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.
Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...
Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.
Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!
Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."
Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.
Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...
Star Wars: Civil War
There would have to be a part where Leia, Ben and Poe plans a counter-attack against the Remanant that is pretty much terrorism, and Han, Rey, Finn, and Luke have to oppose her forcefully, when pacifism fails.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You know, I read that article, and it kind of bothers me for
two reasons.
1) It misses the point of "stories". In all it's ranting about how "happy endings" are unrealistic and time goes on, it misses the point that stories do end.
2) It seems to imply that 'after' the happy ending, there's nowhere to go but down, for the characters.
Number 2 especially bothers me, because there's plenty of places to go. Here is my idea for the sequels:
Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.
Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!
Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."
Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.
Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...
Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.
Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!
Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."
Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.
Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...
Star Wars: Civil War
There would have to be a part where Leia, Ben and Poe plans a counter-attack against the Remanant that is pretty much terrorism, and Han, Rey, Finn, and Luke have to oppose her forcefully, when pacifism fails.
Yeah...I think I've seen that one before...
But what if we narrow the focus to the Luke-Ben dynamic? Ben, a young Jedi with a penchant for wearing black, has grown bitter and sometimes cruel, flirting with the DS after terrible battles against the FO. Jedi Master Luke, still noble and disturbed by Ben's actions, is however responsible for a great tragedy that leaves the Republic suspicious of their protector. Meanwhile, the bald-headed villain Snoke manipulates the two Jedi against one another in order to eliminate Luke, of whom he is jealous and fearful.
speaking of the 'light saber' 'laser sword' issue. My boy wanted to see order 66 go down so we watched ep 3 tonight. Count dooku asked obi & ani to hand over their "swords" when they went to free palpatine.
Funnily enough for all the things I disliked about this movie, Carrie doing a Space Mary Poppins didn't really bother me. We know she has a force affinity from previous films and it's hardly unbelievable that she wouldn't learn to do some stuff.
It might have looked a bit clunky visually speaking but it didn't really bother me.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So I have just had the First Order vs Republic dichotomy explained to me. I understood it and was fairly entertained.
Now if only the movie wasn't wallowing in its own gak so much so it could tell me itself.
Instead of myself or other users on here having to google/wookiepedia it.
Absolutely agree. The rise of the First Order and the Republic's ineffective response is actually pretty interesting, not only would covering some of that have made the new films more understandable, it also could have been really interesting to see on the screen.
I think what might have happened is that there's been an over-reaction to the faults of the prequels. Those films were rightly criticsed for filling up lots of screen time with fairly dry galactic politics, it stopped the story gaining any kind of momentum. The new films have taken the lesson that all that stuff should be dropped entirely, but I think that's a mistake. The OT did a great job of including enough of the greater picture in scenes that were also advancing the plot or developing characters. For instance, when Tarkin mentions the dissolution of the Senate it is great writing, because it not only raises the stakes by telling us Tarkin can use his super-weapon without any kind of normal constraint, it also tells us part of the bigger story of a galactic Empire in the final stages of usurping total control of the galaxy.
The new films could have done something similar, particularly TFA, which could have included just a few references to the Republic's disarmament, and refusal to respond to the rise of the FO. The film didn't need to stop dead to explain any of this, it could have been included in already existing scenes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: I thought the whole point of the first film was that he had chosen a side - did we really need a half hour and pointless "adventure" crowbarred so badly into the middle of the film, considering how slow the pace already was, to tell us this again.
Then you probably need to watch TFA again. Finn's loyalty was to Rey, he went to the Starkiller just to get Rey back and considered the Resistance operation to stop the base to be not his problem. TLJ picked up where that left off, he was concerned about Rey, and while he worked with the resistance he did it for his own reasons - he was hunted by the FO, and it's where his BFF Rey was. Over TLJ Finn changed.
Kaiyanwang wrote: We should not need to go for Wookiepedia. The movie must make sense on their own. I really don't care about Wookepedia, books or whatever.
Sure, and the complaint I've agreed with several times, and made myself, is that important setting detail isn't included in the films themselves. However, this is very different to the argument you made, that the events in the films could not have happened. That complaint is false, the background is actually pretty solid. It just should have been in the movies.
You've made some bad assumptions.
1) The Death Star could only be created by a organisation with the resources of the Empire. It is entirely possible that while still an incredible creation, such a thing could have been built by a much smaller organisation, if that organisation had the will and the technology (a tech you'll note was developed before the Empire's formation).
2) There is no concept of process improvement. While Star Wars tends to stick to a fairly static tech base, it is hardly unthinkable that having built a death star then lessons learned from that build might help you develop something much bigger 30 years later. Nimitz class carriers were displace five times as much as Yorktown class carriers, and they were 30 years apart in development.
3) That because only 30 years passed between RotJ and TLJ, it was not possible for the FO to build a large empire in that time. To take single example, Charlemagne expanded from control of Frankia, about 1.2m square kms, to the Holy Roman Empire, an area about 4.4m square kms. That took about 30 years. And that's through conquest and forcing other nations to cede land. Consider an organisation with loyalties to an old order, that might willingly join the new organisation, how much that might help expansion.
None of this is a defence of Starkiller as a concept to include in TFA. It was lame, because on the screen it felt like nothing more than a retread of the Death Star, but bigger. But that wasn't your complaint, your complaint was that that Starkiller should have been impossible for the First Order, because they aren't as big as the Empire was. That's a complaint that only works if we make all your incorrect assumptions.
1) The DS is aknowledges ad incredibly big in ANH. "That's no moon". For sure is not anything anyone could build on a whim
You can acknowledge something as an incredible piece of engineering, while recognising that it would be possible for an organisation smaller than the whole galaxy to create it. The US Nimitz class carriers are stunning to see, and only one country has ships even close to that size. But if they wanted to commit the resources there's quite a few other countries that could build ships that size, or bigger.
2) The "process improvement" could involve the type of beam (that has, it seems, FTL flight because the SK has none), not digging up a whole planet with a volume orders of magnitude bigger
Doing things on a greater scale is a regular part of process improvement.
2b) let's ignore the stupidity of the weapon, that can only shoot once
Sorry, are you saying Starkiller can only shoot once? Didn't you notice how the weapon fired, and was in the process of recharging to shoot again? What are you talking about here?
3) You insist with completely preposterous historical comparison. Franks and swords is not like galactic republic and space nazi with FTL travel and lazors. There is nothing that can be used as an example here. Just stop. Is embarrassing.
If we can't use historical comparisons to decide on the plausibility of rapid expansion... what are we using? What basis are you using to say an empire can't expand rapidly in a 30 year period? Nothing other than you saying "I don't like that".
Also, calling the fleet as target does not make the scene less stupid. The republic just put all the eggs in one basket for plot convenience. In case, it makes everything even more incredible, puts one out of the movie, and makes me do not care for the supposed "good guys" because are just too stupid.
Yeah, how crazy it is to have a movie where the good guys make a big mistake and this leaves them vulnerable to a usurping evil force. What horrible, terrible, core plot of thousands of movies.
Is just an example of the bad writing leitmotif of these movies.
Don't use words you don't understand.
Also, I strongly suggest to state clearly the "hidden motivations", or just let them go.
You need to read the thread. I have said, repeatedly, that the reason I am in this thread is to figure out those motives. But I have given an answer, which I'll repeat for you now, noting I don't think this answer is entirely satisfactory;
"I don't have a particularly good answer. If I did I would have satisfied my curiousity and stopped posting here. The answer I do have is TLJ failed to capture the heroic nature of previous Star Wars films. Even the darker films, particularly ESB, were only dark in the circumstances it put the heroes in, but the actions of the heroes heroic and successful. But with this film our heroes weren't just in dire circumstances, their actions actually failed and in a few instances actually made things worse in permanent ways. That's quite a deviation from normal Star Wars, and it gave this film a very different feel. I can see how for some people that would mean it didn't feel like Star Wars, even on a subconscious level.
I don't think that's a complete answer though, but it's as close to a satisfying answer as I've got so far."
sirlynchmob wrote: and there have been a lot of reasons listed to dislike TLJ, I was going with the original with v'ger which is usually considered one of the worst movies ever made.
The original Star Trek is a very flawed movie, but it's far from one of the worst of all time.
That's the point, there is no one unifying theory to dislike either, you either liked it or you didn't. dismissing peoples reasons because you don't approve or believe them, makes you look like you're pushing a reason onto them..
I am not pushing a reason on to anyone. I've said many times my interest in posting in this thread is largely to figure out what the reason could be.
especially when you post stuff like this:
This doesn't mean anyone is lying, afterall that player might genuinely believe he is out there for the game and his club. It's just that what people actually believe is quite complex, and people don't always know their own minds that well.
but you do eh? you know their minds better than they do?
I've explained this several times. It is a basic reality that the reasons people give for their thoughts and actions aren't always what's actually going on. This basic reality is the reason for all kinds of analysis. For psychiatric analysis, and for film and literature analysis. If people immediately knew why they reacted to something in a certain way, there'd never be any reason for any kind of deep analysis.
What I've done here isn't something bizarre. I've just read reasons people have given, made a personal assessment as to whether they're the sorts of things that actually cause people to react against a movie. This isn't strange. Its something everyone does regularly. No-one just blindly takes absolutely everyone at their word all the time, but this isn't about thinking someone else is a liar, its just accepting that people don't always know exactly why they think or act as they do.
There are lots of subconscious reasons people react for or against something. People can sometimes realise those subconscious impulses, but other times they do not. I myself and not completely sure why I bought in TLJ as much as I did, there are flaws in the movie that have I felt took me out of other films, but not here. Part of figuring out why some people reacted against this film is me figuring out why I reacted for it so strongly.
Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?
I've explained this several times. It is a basic reality that the reasons people give for their thoughts and actions aren't always what's actually going on. This basic reality is the reason for all kinds of analysis. For psychiatric analysis, and for film and literature analysis. If people immediately knew why they reacted to something in a certain way, there'd never be any reason for any kind of deep analysis.
What I've done here isn't something bizarre. I've just read reasons people have given, made a personal assessment as to whether they're the sorts of things that actually cause people to react against a movie. This isn't strange. Its something everyone does regularly. No-one just blindly takes absolutely everyone at their word all the time, but this isn't about thinking someone else is a liar, its just accepting that people don't always know exactly why they think or act as they do.
There are lots of subconscious reasons people react for or against something. People can sometimes realise those subconscious impulses, but other times they do not. I myself and not completely sure why I bought in TLJ as much as I did, there are flaws in the movie that have I felt took me out of other films, but not here. Part of figuring out why some people reacted against this film is me figuring out why I reacted for it so strongly.
I've got a theory on that one.
Does this movie require that sort of psycho analysis? no. Do you analyze all movies like that, or just this one?
Why not take people at their word on what they like and don't like. Or do you go this deep when people don't like the same foods as you?
If your partner doesn't like the shirt you're wearing and asks you to throw it out, do you try to figure out why? or just take their word for it and throw it out?
when it comes to any art (especially abstract stuff) you either like it, or you don't. there is no grand unifying theory as to why. If you have to figure out why you like something, then odds are you didn't and you're trying to convince yourself you did.
That did a great job of getting at the core of the reaction against TLJ. Thanks Easy E. Your responses have been very illuminating for me.
It seemed a bit simplistic. I know people who disliked the movie for those reasons and others who didn't mind that at all, but disliked it for other reasons. There are multiple vectors from which to dislike the film.
I don't. That's a good pick up. I think my answer implied I was looking for some grand theory that explained all fans. Cheers for noting that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?
That's also a good question. Starting from liking the film and then seeing the reactions against it, I naturally looked what caused people's dislike. What's been good about the process, in amidst a lot of frustration from some weirdly defensive and at times hostile responses is that it has given me some insight in to why I reacted so positively to the movie.
Does this movie require that sort of psycho analysis?
It's not the movie that's being analysed, but the reactions.
Do you analyze all movies like that, or just this one?
When discussing films, people will talk about what caused strong reaction, either positive or negative. And that discussion is never as inane as just saying 'people said they liked/disliked it because of z, therefore z'.
Or do you go this deep when people don't like the same foods as you?
Exactly how deep do you think this is? Reading a response, not taking it as face value, but instead taking it in combination with other responses and other pieces of analysis
If your partner doesn't like the shirt you're wearing and asks you to throw it out, do you try to figure out why? or just take their word for it and throw it out?
Depends, if I have three other shirts in similar styles with similar colours that she's previously said she liked, it would pique my curiousity.
when it comes to any art (especially abstract stuff) you either like it, or you don't. there is no grand unifying theory as to why.
There are reasons why people do and don't like things. If we didn't discuss those reasons there wouldn't be Geek Media.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It seemed a bit simplistic. I know people who disliked the movie for those reasons and others who didn't mind that at all, but disliked it for other reasons. There are multiple vectors from which to dislike the film.
That doesn't make it simplistic. It means it isn't a complete reason, isn't a universal reason. Which is true, but I don't think the writer presented it as a complete reason, nor does it have to be in order to be interesting.
We have to be careful in acknowledging that while reactions and the reasons for those reactions are diverse, we shouldn't go too far and deny the existence of any groups of similar responses.
When discussing films, people will talk about what caused strong reaction, either positive or negative. And that discussion is never as inane as just saying 'people said they liked/disliked it because of z, therefore z'.
Exactly how deep do you think this is? Reading a response, not taking it as face value, but instead taking it in combination with other responses and other pieces of analysis
You do realize with those two statements you're calling me a liar right?
I state my opinion about a movie, then you dismiss my opinion and not take it at face value, ie calling me a liar for voicing my opinion.
by all means, let's discuss the reasons for liking and disliking a movie, but let's not dismiss others and assume what they mean.
sirlynchmob wrote: You do realize with those two statements you're calling me a liar right?
I am not calling you a liar. To go back to the shirt example, if my wife told me she thought a shirt of mine was ugly and I should throw it out, and I noted I have a few other shirts that have similar styles and colours, I wouldn't be calling her a liar.
As I've said a bunch of times now, the human mind is complex and people don't always know why they think or do things. People know this to be true. When a friend is sitting there eating a pizza and tells everyone its okay because vthey're going to start dieting tomorrow, no-one believes them but it isn't because they think the person is lying and is trying to deceive everyone about going on a diet tomorrow.
I state my opinion about a movie, then you dismiss my opinion and not take it at face value, ie calling me a liar for voicing my opinion.
I haven't dismissed your opinion. I've said the reasons you gave for disliking the movie might not be what actually caused you to react against the film.
Sebster, I find it simplistic because it assumes all complains about Luke all stem from the same feeling, the same inability of fans to appreciate the real life lesson that gak sucks then you die. But many, like Manchu earlier, pointed out that for them the problem goes beyond the inevitable Sequel-Undoing-Predecessor issues. It's possible to be okay with the idea that all our heroes will live to taste the ashes of their victories and yet still have problems with how this particular film went about things with these particular characters. Even people who dislike Failure Luke might have reacted to him better with some context or filled in background.
Anyway, for me, I'm a negative person. I tend to be critical to movies unless they actively win me over somehow. TLJ won me over in many ways. Between the score and RJ's use of the camera, the film makes me interested in events that my brain registers as stupid in real time. The emotional scenes affected me even when they were contrived or facile (bomber, Snoke/brosabers, hyperram, Luke's stand), because of how they were 'told'. RJ was able to get better, more convincing performances out of the cast than I expected, or knew what to leave out (sometimes. Maybe), giving noticing stupid arcs a compelling dimension. The humor landed for me because much of it followed my sensibilities or was barbed at things I hated (Hux, JJ). The subversions were mostly fun because they did challenge my expectations and kept me pondering what would happen . Basically, I enjoyed seeing RJ exercise his craft, be it transitions that aided momentum, knowing when to let the film breathe, getting some compelling interplay between characters I suddenly care anything about, beautiful shots or old camera tricks. It was all down to his competence behind the camera (and not with a pen), and the talent of his crew.
Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to keep me from noticing that he gak the Star Wars bed.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?
I've seen plenty of people say it's great, was lots of fun, is up there with ESB etc, but these are just conclusions, not reasons.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Sebster, I find it simplistic because it assumes all complains about Luke all stem from the same feeling, the same inability of fans to appreciate the real life lesson that gak sucks then you die.
But that's only a problem if we consider it the problem that every complainant had, or the problem no complainant had. Instead, having read through a lot of surface level complaints about TLJ, at a complete guess I'd say it was maybe part of the negative reaction among, say, somewhere between a third to half. Noting those numbers I've given are somewhere between a guess and completely made up.
It's possible to be okay with the idea that all our heroes will live to taste the ashes of their victories and yet still have problems with how this particular film went about things with these particular characters. Even people who dislike Failure Luke might have reacted to him better with some context or filled in background.
Sure, and I will note that if a person did dislike the new films for turning the OT heroes in to failures and undid their achievements, that isn't an invalid reason for disliking the films. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to see that. That it is a necessary part of sequels and a reality of life doesn't mean it is something people will enjoy being added to Star Wars.
I'm not looking for why people didn't like it so I can claim that reason is invalid, I'm just looking for why.
Anyway, for me, I'm a negative person.
I'm the opposite. I used to be inherently critical of movies, but for a long time now I've tried to go with the movie just because I love being in that moment of loving the story. I'm happy to talk about the weaker bits of a movie afterwards, but in the film I'm looking to enjoy it as best I can. That doesn't mean I'm not critical of films, I hate that feeling of trying to get in to a movie but I can't because its badly mad or I just don't gel with the movie's sensibilities. I didn't have that problem with TLJ, at all.
Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to keep me from noticing that he gak the Star Wars bed.
And I've never just never been that fussed about keeping settings sacred. Interesting how different people view this stuff.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?
I've seen plenty of people say it's great, was lots of fun, is up there with ESB etc, but these are just conclusions, not reasons.
At the end of the day I think it's a flawed film that is none the less a fun ride. If it were a stand alone film with no heritage and no future a lot of the flaws would be forgotten by the time you walked out of the cinema. As a member of the Star Wars saga the problems linger.
"The necessary disappointment of epilogues."
There's nothing necessary about it. This story is a disappointment because Kennedy and Co decided to make an epilogue so bloated that it smothered the main story and doesn't even fit in its own trilogy. A good storyteller can have compelling stakes in their movie without killing an entire star system of extras; these are not good storytellers.
I think if I were going to pitch the new trilogy, the set up would be something like the galaxy being 150 years on from the originals. The Empire a long forgotten blip in Republic history. Luke was never able to re-found a full order of Jedi as his own training wasn't really geared towards it, but this didn't immediately end in tragedy, just the fulfillment of the 'prophecy' by ending the formal orders of both Jedi and Sith.
You can keep the character of Rey largely intact as a scavenger on a forgotten world who kickstarts... something by finding a holocron, which gives you the capacity to bring in Luke, Yoda or even Ewan McGregor's Obi Wan (to re-legitimise him in readiness for a new film) to bridge the gap of knowledge (holocrons were partially interactive after all).
I'm not sure where the story would go from there, or how you'd bring in Finn & Poe (or similar versions thereof). Maybe you could try to retell the story of a weak Republic struggling to mediate across member worlds (only this time without all the "Palpatine's behind it all" gambits) and Finn could be a soldier in one of the more aggressive factions and Poe a pilot for one of their nearby targets. Or perhaps a pilot in some sort of Space-UN peacekeeping task force.
"The necessary disappointment of epilogues."
There's nothing necessary about it. This story is a disappointment because Kennedy and Co decided to make an epilogue so bloated that it smothered the main story and doesn't even fit in its own trilogy. A good storyteller can have compelling stakes in their movie without killing an entire star system of extras; these are not good storytellers.
It would be a mistake to conflate not needing to do something with needing not to do something.
Star Wars has always been a combination of epic galactic scale with personal elements. From that viewpoint, the latest film tells a classic Star Wars story of a few heroes and villains fighting it out against an enormous background.
Right soapparently my (and others) "hidden reasons" are:
You need to read the thread. I have said, repeatedly, that the reason I am in this thread is to figure out those motives. But I have given an answer, which I'll repeat for you now, noting I don't think this answer is entirely satisfactory;
"I don't have a particularly good answer. If I did I would have satisfied my curiousity and stopped posting here. The answer I do have is TLJ failed to capture the heroic nature of previous Star Wars films. Even the darker films, particularly ESB, were only dark in the circumstances it put the heroes in, but the actions of the heroes heroic and successful. But with this film our heroes weren't just in dire circumstances, their actions actually failed and in a few instances actually made things worse in permanent ways. That's quite a deviation from normal Star Wars, and it gave this film a very different feel. I can see how for some people that would mean it didn't feel like Star Wars, even on a subconscious level.
I don't think that's a complete answer though, but it's as close to a satisfying answer as I've got so far."
I question how you can make an assessment of myself or anyone else on this thread via our responses in a forum, you do not know me (us), you do not know what feel, what my life expereinces are or what i felt about this film ther than what I have expressed on this limited format.
And unsurprisngly you are wrong:
The last Jedi is not a dark film because there is vritaully nothing to take seriously - its Space Opera - in this case poor Space Opera but its nothing more. The bad guys are no more or less bad than previous films, the setting is reset to the start of the original Starw Wars trilogy. The characters are mostly cardboard cut outs with no emotional connection so I donlt care if most of the die - they are nobodies, mostly stupid nobodies.
Funny you should bring up the ESB because this film is a cheap badly constructed rip off in many ways - throughout that fim the rebels loose - same as this one, it ends with the new great hope of the resistance not only defeated by Darth Vader and physically crippled but emotionally destroyed. At the end of TLJ there is a newe great hope who is still bright and shiny - Rey may feel a little conflicted by Ben but she is not in the same state as Luke at the end of ESB.
The Rebels - well the Ship of Fools is gone but apparently they have firends all over the place (or not) or maybe, we don't really know as the team that made the film can;t be bothered to actually thinkk through any aspect of their turgid creation - well we know that there are a few slave kids who like badges and maybe one who will be the next Luke/Rey/ etc.
Yes in TLJ the Ship of Fools is destoryed but the ragged remnants escape -as they always do in Star Wars films having destroyed the enemies latests super ship, their leader is killed - they now have an damaged and emotional man-child as a leader with his minions apparently looking to bump him off when they can. The end of TLJ is standard Star Wars - its really not dark. Lots of people do stupid things in a stupid moive full of plot holes but thats not dark thats stupid and plot holes - different thing.
Oh year there is the dark and oh so subversisve - bad people make guns that good and buy people buy and make thise bad people rich = wow this director is someone who can really exmaine the nature of humainty, probe the darkness of the human soul - donl;t worry I am sure Disney will buy him a golden glove or even an oscar.
If you want sci-fi dark - there are many much much better - watch Battlestar Galatica in particular the epsiode "33" and see how dark is done properly (as well as tension, decent characters and plot which almost always this film fails at)
LOL, you're a riot, I'll say I'm not calling you a liar, then go and call 1/2 of you liars.
somewhere between a third to half. Noting those numbers I've given are somewhere between a guess and completely made up.
I'm not trying to poop on your parade here, but you need to understand how your coming across. and understand some people get defensive and hostile when called liars.
person A "I don't like pizza"
You: "your just making that up"
sounds pretty rude right? it's like you just called them a liar.
Here's a helpful suggestion for you: Just state why you like the movies and quit being patronizing by looking for reasons of those who don't like the movie by claiming they're wrong.
I was done with the movie by the casino scene, I had stopped enjoying the movie and was ready to leave. My daughter who sat through TFA (age 4) and R1 (age 5)didn't for this movie (age 6), she checked out just before they went to hoth 2.0. only my boy seemed to enjoy it. so from my family that's 1 out of 3 stars. ergo the movie was bad and failed to entertain 66% of us. But my boy might not of enjoyed it that much, because yesterday he was telling me how dumb the jedi were for not seeing order 66 coming, and wanted to see ep3 so he could see them pay for it (age 9)
does my 6 yo need a reason? or is it just Determinism and her response is predetermined?
For those without kids, having them sit through a movie is a sign they liked it, when they're bored they'll start talking, squirming, and requesting numerous bathroom breaks or snacks so they can get out of there.
Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.
Sebs, like all analysts is trying to get to the "root" of the issue. Many times, people tell you symptoms and not the root. As he says, this is basic human brain interaction. Your frontal brain is focused on the "What", while your deep brain (limbic maybe?) is focused on the why. The deep brain does nto control language and therefore makes it hard to express deep felt feeling in language. This is nuero-science, and not up for debate. Getting all bent out of shape because Sebs is trying to understand the "Why" that your brain has a hard time expressing is not going to help anyone.
Now, after great thought, I can see why some would like this movie. The same way I see how many would love other movies. However, the need to subvert expectation and the (un)intended context that created in the subtext of the film made me react negatively to it. The subtext I took away from it goes against my own personal ethos and what I thought I had understood about the ethos of Star Wars. That was my reaction deep brain reasoning. When it came to the "what" I really struggle to explain what exactly made me feel this way.
Now, intellectually I understand why they made the choices they did and what they were trying to accomplish. However, my heart (Deep brain) rejects those choices based on my feelings.
Sure, and the complaint I've agreed with several times, and made myself, is that important setting detail isn't included in the films themselves. However, this is very different to the argument you made, that the events in the films could not have happened. That complaint is false, the background is actually pretty solid. It just should have been in the movies.
I don't care. Not in the movie; not in the discussion. Is that simple.
You can acknowledge something as an incredible piece of engineering, while recognising that it would be possible for an organisation smaller than the whole galaxy to create it. The US Nimitz class carriers are stunning to see, and only one country has ships even close to that size. But if they wanted to commit the resources there's quite a few other countries that could build ships that size, or bigger.
But they don't want to commit. You just self defeated your point. The FO has to build super-dreadnought, destroyers and whantot. It just does not hold water. Is too much stuff to build for a lesser organisation.
Doing things on a greater scale is a regular part of process improvement.
This is not an answer or an argument and I don't understand why is here.
Sorry, are you saying Starkiller can only shoot once? Didn't you notice how the weapon fired, and was in the process of recharging to shoot again? What are you talking about here?
No FTL travel implied. Consumes suns. What do you think?
If we can't use historical comparisons to decide on the plausibility of rapid expansion... what are we using? What basis are you using to say an empire can't expand rapidly in a 30 year period? Nothing other than you saying "I don't like that".
You cannot us the conquering with horses, footsoldiers and iron of a part of europe space battles. And even in this case, the position the Republic was in is not equivalent. Just stop. It makes no sense and derails the discussion.
Yeah, how crazy it is to have a movie where the good guys make a big mistake and this leaves them vulnerable to a usurping evil force. What horrible, terrible, core plot of thousands of movies.
Well written movies have the villain out-wit the good guys, not people get the idiot ball for plot convenience. Is contrived, and put you out of the movie.
Don't use words you don't understand.
A leitmotif is something that recurs (originally, in a musical sense). Is usually used for thematic reasons, here I used it as if something bigger. Is a recurring occurrence that these people write crap. It was not intended to be used to describe the themes of the movie (because if it has themes, it contradicts them one scene later). Also, I am afraid you are not in the position to play it like you are the smartest dude in the room my friend, regardless how much delusional you are about it. You failed to grasp basic elements in the OT (Like when Luke became a Jedi) and then doubled down. I start to wonder why I have to discuss movies with you in the first place.
You need to read the thread.
Ironic
I have said, repeatedly, that the reason I am in this thread is to figure out those motives. But I have given an answer, which I'll repeat for you now, noting I don't think this answer is entirely satisfactory
Nice dodge here my dude. I ask again - what are these hidden reasons?
Also, stop poisoning the well. You are implying a lot of things and then retreat when people get too much aware. Your are incredibly dishonest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.
Nope. Posters have been implied being X and Y and to have "hidden reasons" that they "cannot understand" to dislike the movie. All written with a badly dissimulated contempt. So is not "in our head".
Easy E wrote: Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.
Sebs, like all analysts is trying to get to the "root" of the issue. Many times, people tell you symptoms and not the root. As he says, this is basic human brain interaction. Your frontal brain is focused on the "What", while your deep brain (limbic maybe?) is focused on the why. The deep brain does nto control language and therefore makes it hard to express deep felt feeling in language. This is nuero-science, and not up for debate. Getting all bent out of shape because Sebs is trying to understand the "Why" that your brain has a hard time expressing is not going to help anyone.
Now, after great thought, I can see why some would like this movie. The same way I see how many would love other movies. However, the need to subvert expectation and the (un)intended context that created in the subtext of the film made me react negatively to it. The subtext I took away from it goes against my own personal ethos and what I thought I had understood about the ethos of Star Wars. That was my reaction deep brain reasoning. When it came to the "what" I really struggle to explain what exactly made me feel this way.
Now, intellectually I understand why they made the choices they did and what they were trying to accomplish. However, my heart (Deep brain) rejects those choices based on my feelings.
Search your feelings. You know what is true.
I think you are absolutely correct.
My family and I came to the film expecting an exciting Star Wars spectacular, without much preconceptions about what this might mean in terms of character and plot development. We got what we expected and enjoyed it.
Clearly a lot of people had a stronger vision for what they wanted to be in the film, and it wasn't delivered, and they were disappointed.
Starkiller base may have actually been less resource intensive to build than the Death Star.
1) It made use of an already existing planetary body, rather than building a moon-sized space station.
2) It made use of an external power supply, stars, rather than needing to house generators sufficient in power to provide it's weapon with the energy it required.
3) The planet was extremely rich in kyber crystals, allowing the planet itself to provide the resources required to build it.
4) The natural magnetic field of the planet was used to help contain the energy stored from the stars prior to firing. This means less resources spent on creating artificial containment fields.
As time goes on, I'm noting a bit of a pattern in opinions among people I talk to. It seems that how well you like the movie is inversely proportional to the number of Star Wars characters you know by name. It's universally panned by my X-wing group, but generally was enjoyed by any randoms I talk to.
So I think that Easy E's assessment of its subtext running counter to the perceived ethos of Star Wars may be a good point, as my experience is that people who just wanted a Space Fantasy spectacular had fun, but people with investment in the setting range from "Disapointed" to "Livid".
An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.
That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: As time goes on, I'm noting a bit of a pattern in opinions among people I talk to. It seems that how well you like the movie is inversely proportional to the number of Star Wars characters you know by name. It's universally panned by my X-wing group, but generally was enjoyed by any randoms I talk to.
So I think that Easy E's assessment of its subtext running counter to the perceived ethos of Star Wars may be a good point, as my experience is that people who just wanted a Space Fantasy spectacular had fun, but people with investment in the setting range from "Disapointed" to "Livid".
I would definitely be an outlier in your theory. I enjoyed the movie, but I also had like a dozen theories in my head going in based on tons of outside movie stuff, like Clone Wars and Rebels stuff.
None of my theories panned out....yet.
I still quite enjoyed the movie, particularly more the second time.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Starkiller base may have actually been less resource intensive to build than the Death Star.
1) It made use of an already existing planetary body, rather than building a moon-sized space station.
2) It made use of an external power supply, stars, rather than needing to house generators sufficient in power to provide it's weapon with the energy it required.
3) The planet was extremely rich in kyber crystals, allowing the planet itself to provide the resources required to build it.
4) The natural magnetic field of the planet was used to help contain the energy stored from the stars prior to firing. This means less resources spent on creating artificial containment fields.
Ehh - Pluto which is technically not a planet - it's smaller than earth moon but we will use that as a guide at 1477 miles in diametre. I do not support the idiotic attempts by people to figure the size of starkiller by doing pixel comparisons that show no figure of scale and also - a 650 diameter planet is just silly - That's nearly 3 times smaller than earths moon.
If star killer is the size of pluto it has a trench around it probably 100-200 miles wide and hundreds of miles deep around the entire planet...That kind of work alone I feel would be nearly double the work to complete a death-star and that doesn't include the materials they would need to collect and mine to create the weapon itself.
The death-star was roughly 120 miles in diameter - it's not even close on the construction scale. It might be easier to maintain but you first have to build it.
Xenomancers wrote: An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.
That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.
This vaguely reminds me of something from the old EU. Remember the Star Wars book about the zombie outbreak? There were a lot of people who were onboard with zombies in the Star Wars setting.
I've always felt that a good setting was bigger than the stories set in it. Star Wars had a great fairy tale story, but it was only possible because of the setting. No matter how much I loved Vader, Han and Leia, they were still just people, and their stories were told already; it was the setting that gave rise to them that captured my imagination.
Some people in this thread have stated that they don't feel the setting is important. That's fine. Viva la difference. But at the same time, would they have had a lesser experience if the new film had made the effort to stay consistent with the setting? It's not like the Star Wars universe is just one tossed out background out of hundreds--it's literally the most valuable sci fi setting ever created.
Xenomancers wrote: An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.
That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Starkiller base may have actually been less resource intensive to build than the Death Star. 1) It made use of an already existing planetary body, rather than building a moon-sized space station.
The difference in order of magnitude is enormous. Remove stuff (and is not only removal, thr cannon and thr "belt" are built) is not easy or free of cost, time, resources.
2) It made use of an external power supply, stars, rather than needing to house generators sufficient in power to provide it's weapon with the energy it required.
This does not make the building per se easier. Also, I ask again... Is the Stakiller implied to FTL travel? If not, its construction is not even the biggest problem.
3) The planet was extremely rich in kyber crystals, allowing the planet itself to provide the resources required to build it.
Not in the movie. Discarded.
4) The natural magnetic field of the planet was used to help contain the energy stored from the stars prior to firing. This means less resources spent on creating artificial containment fields.
Easy E wrote: Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.
Sebs, like all analysts is trying to get to the "root" of the issue. Many times, people tell you symptoms and not the root. As he says, this is basic human brain interaction. Your frontal brain is focused on the "What", while your deep brain (limbic maybe?) is focused on the why. The deep brain does nto control language and therefore makes it hard to express deep felt feeling in language. This is nuero-science, and not up for debate. Getting all bent out of shape because Sebs is trying to understand the "Why" that your brain has a hard time expressing is not going to help anyone.
Now, after great thought, I can see why some would like this movie. The same way I see how many would love other movies. However, the need to subvert expectation and the (un)intended context that created in the subtext of the film made me react negatively to it. The subtext I took away from it goes against my own personal ethos and what I thought I had understood about the ethos of Star Wars. That was my reaction deep brain reasoning. When it came to the "what" I really struggle to explain what exactly made me feel this way.
Now, intellectually I understand why they made the choices they did and what they were trying to accomplish. However, my heart (Deep brain) rejects those choices based on my feelings.
Search your feelings. You know what is true.
Nice post.
If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way. People in Hollywood don't keep bashing superhero movies and these megafranchises because of the genres -- it's because they see studios increasingly unwilling to take chances on fresh ideas and instead focusing more on serving the equivalent of safe restaurant chain food to audiences increasingly trained to expect it. It's a bad self-reinforcing loop.
Fortunately, television has become somewhat of a refuge for creative types, and as I said previously, it was my Twin Peaks experience in 2017 that got me to take a very hard look at myself and how I experience entertainment.
The troubling part to me is that this behavior isn't exclusive to entertainment, as you perhaps unintentionally suggested in your political reference. When I see people discuss directors and say "he/she hates these characters/this franchise/etc.," (and this is definitely a thing I see on forums and social media) it seems awfully similar to someone on one side of the political aisle saying that someone the other side "hates America/this group/etc." simply because of a different viewpoint. That's a poisonous mind set -- "if you disagree with me, you hate me and/or the things I value, and are actively trying to harm my pursuit of happiness." And people weren't always like this...not to this degree at least.
Can anyone honestly say that this thread DOESN'T have some resemblence to the extinct U.S. politics thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm not trying to poop on your parade here, but you need to understand how your coming across. and understand some people get defensive and hostile when called liars.
person A "I don't like pizza"
You: "your just making that up"
sounds pretty rude right? it's like you just called them a liar.
That's not what sebster is saying. And to be fair, some of the posts in this thread start more like this:
Person A: "Pizza is objectively terrible."
The opening of a conversation has a lot to do with how the rest follows.
If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way.
I agree on many of the following points but I am a bit perplexed by this. I think that attribute the dislike to the audience expectations is very reductive and playing at the same tune of that sellout journalist I linked.
Xenomancers wrote: An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.
That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.
This vaguely reminds me of something from the old EU. Remember the Star Wars book about the zombie outbreak? There were a lot of people who were onboard with zombies in the Star Wars setting.
I've always felt that a good setting was bigger than the stories set in it. Star Wars had a great fairy tale story, but it was only possible because of the setting. No matter how much I loved Vader, Han and Leia, they were still just people, and their stories were told already; it was the setting that gave rise to them that captured my imagination.
Some people in this thread have stated that they don't feel the setting is important. That's fine. Viva la difference. But at the same time, would they have had a lesser experience if the new film had made the effort to stay consistent with the setting? It's not like the Star Wars universe is just one tossed out background out of hundreds--it's literally the most valuable sci fi setting ever created.
Absolutely the most valuable setting ever. Much like 40k is the most value setting in wargamming. It's not the best game by a mile - even the players will tell you that. It's all about the lore and the factions. Disney is too stupid to understand that. Do you think anyone would give a dang about 40k if they say...removed space marines from the lore and all that was left to oppose the xenos/choas was a small group of sisters of battle? Aint no one got time for that!
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: As time goes on, I'm noting a bit of a pattern in opinions among people I talk to. It seems that how well you like the movie is inversely proportional to the number of Star Wars characters you know by name. It's universally panned by my X-wing group, but generally was enjoyed by any randoms I talk to.
So I think that Easy E's assessment of its subtext running counter to the perceived ethos of Star Wars may be a good point, as my experience is that people who just wanted a Space Fantasy spectacular had fun, but people with investment in the setting range from "Disapointed" to "Livid".
I agree. The people who dislike it the most are clearly people who have read lots of the novels, watched the cartoon series, and know lots of character names that don't appear in the core films.
If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way. People in Hollywood don't keep bashing superhero movies and these megafranchises because of the genres -- it's because they see studios increasingly unwilling to take chances on fresh ideas and instead focusing more on serving the equivalent of safe restaurant chain food to audiences increasingly trained to expect it. It's a bad self-reinforcing loop.
I don't think that's quite right, but it might depend on what superhero films and franchises you're thinking of. Broadly speaking, the only films that I can really think of that sort of cover that are the 3 new Star Wars films (yes, including TLJ) and, well, Superman Returns. I might be misunderstanding your frame of reference though.
Like, the Transformers franchise doesn't really work as that example, because the whole thing is, in practical effect, there is no fan service, or at least, as the franchise continues on. If anything, it's the opposite, with many of the 'G1' fans abandoning the series relatively early on in its franchise when they saw the lack of 'memberberries.' - It became its own monster (beloved in China), very very quickly.
Conversely, the Turtles series, again started with the 'meh old fans' then in the sequel tried to bring them back, but by then, the fans from the 90's had essentially written it off. - I've still not seen the sequel, even though I'm relatively sure I'd enjoy it.
The Last Jedi, no I think it's something else that's a problem and yeah, I don't agree with the concept of "everyone who dislikes The Last Jedi you're a mysoginist," though I completely believe they do exist and have been their typical terrible selves threatening people.
- But then, well, I would say that I wasn't a mysoginist, wouldn't I?
I think there's definitely a thing of people being ok with The Force Awakens, really liking Rogue One, but strongly disliking The Last Jedi, so such pithy 'conclusions' just don't ring right to me.
It's simply that everyone expresses complaints more easily than praise. Modern social media/forums/IMDB etc give everyone easy access to do their complaining in an echo chamber which amplifies it.
The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.
Does that mean everyone likes it? Of course not. The x% of people who didn't like it just are making a lot more noise than the y% of people who did. That's just the way of the world.
The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.
Eh. Much more that it wouldn't have been a best-selling film if it had come in blockbuster season rather than the nadir of the year and if it hadn't had the Star Wars tag on it.
You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.
Xenomancers wrote: You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.
Xenomancers wrote: You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.
Right, but that isn't a quality thing. Disney simply demanded that movie theaters give them a larger percentage of ticket sales or they wouldn't get the film. At all.
Because Disney + Star Wars can simply make that kind of demand, regardless of the film, and long before even preview screenings.
It will be interesting to see what the deals, ticket sales and overall reaction on Solo will be, because that's coming out square in the middle of a lot of competition and has a lot of bad press associated with the production of the film and the director changes.
If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way.
I agree on many of the following points but I am a bit perplexed by this. I think that attribute the dislike to the audience expectations is very reductive and playing at the same tune of that sellout journalist I linked.
What exactly was Hornaday selling out to? Do you have any evidence to support your claim that she was selling out by simply explaining what film critics do, and a pretty standard approach to film criticism (it was Ebert's, Kael's, and Sarris's as well) or are you just making this claim because she liked it? Is your thought that she was somehow paid by Disney to write it? If so, and if you have evidence, the WP would like to know as it is expressly against their rules of employment. As it is with most major newspapers.
A couple things to keep in mind with critics: 1) they have likely seen more films than you ever will in your lifetime and they watch a lot of movies that they would not choose to because their editors assign them their "stories" (unlike us who watch movies we want to watch). 2) many of the critics who work for major publications have studied film as an academic discipline for years with degrees in the field. It doesn't make their opinion of any given film more or less valuable than yours, but it does change how one approaches a movie. 3) film reviewers' pieces are quite distinct from academic analyses. I teach film, and I routinely get asked to peer review academic pieces for journal articles. Let me just say, If you think the praise for this film has been glowing from the film critics, wait 3-6 months until the journal essays start trickling out. It's actually a bit weird because most of the time the films being discussed there are either foreign, old, or small indies.
The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.
Eh. Much more that it wouldn't have been a best-selling film if it had come in blockbuster season rather than the nadir of the year and if it hadn't had the Star Wars tag on it.
Quality has nothing to do with popularity. If it did, McDonalds and Subway would be the best haute cuisine diners and Transformers would be routinely nominated for best picture. And Justin Bieber would be the pinnacle of musical art.
Is expected to get 600-700m less than the previous main trilogy movie.
Yeah, I think that the early success was from hype over Lukes return, it being a main series Star Wars film, and hope of it delivering on the tantalizing hints dropped by TFA. It will be interesting to see how the next two films (Solo and Episode IX) do, after this film "Subverted" those points.
It's simply that everyone expresses complaints more easily than praise. Modern social media/forums/IMDB etc give everyone easy access to do their complaining in an echo chamber which amplifies it.
The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.
Does that mean everyone likes it? Of course not. The x% of people who didn't like it just are making a lot more noise than the y% of people who did. That's just the way of the world.
Sure it would, name recognition will draw in more people than a solid story. TLJ is pretty much riding the wave of TFA, because people wanted to see what happened next. The real test of time will be the opening for IX, how many still care to see how the story ends.
So far though TLF hasn't even earned more than the phantom menance to put some perspective on it, and it's not even 1/2 way to nearing a new hopes earnings. It still needs another billion just to match TFA.
TFA is at 88% rotten tomatoes, 49% for TLJ based on people not critics.
So we can get plenty of objective data to say TLJ is not doing well.
What exactly was Hornaday selling out to? Do you have any evidence to support your claim that she was selling out by simply explaining what film critics do, and a pretty standard approach to film criticism (it was Ebert's, Kael's, and Sarris's as well) or are you just making this claim because she liked it? Is your thought that she was somehow paid by Disney to write it? If so, and if you have evidence, the WP would like to know as it is expressly against their rules of employment. As it is with most major newspapers.
I have no evidence about Hornaday being paid by Disney but she is part of a very disturbing trend of critics and experts jumping of a bandwagon of audience-bashing. Taking into account the priorities of the audience one could justify some bashing *but* I observed such phenomenon for mediocre movies like TLJ and Ghostbusters. Movies that did not resonate with the audience like the narrative wanted them to be. And let's be honest, the article has faulty premises. Yes, you should not demand specific happening or elements from a movie but she is creating a strawman because this does not mean the movie should not make sense. So if she is not a sellout for Disney, she is one on a ideological level - she wants the movie to succeed for what it represents and if the audience wants a non-cynical, logic story, well is to blame. She dos not come out as objective to me, regardless the money involved. If you don't believe my idea of "critics hamfisting narratives", look back some page ago for the other critic linked. That woman is a professional, too.
A couple things to keep in mind with critics: 1) they have likely seen more films than you ever will in your lifetime and they watch a lot of movies that they would not choose to because their editors assign them their "stories" (unlike us who watch movies we want to watch).
Nice angle on the assignment, this is something one not in the field do not take in consideration. I have the luxury of being more passionate about what I write on a professional level. See below for the rest, answered with (2)
2) many of the critics who work for major publications have studied film as an academic discipline for years with degrees in the field. It doesn't make their opinion of any given film more or less valuable than yours, but it does change how one approaches a movie.
On principle, the fact that she is a critic makes her opinion more accountable than mine about movies, in the very last. As a scientist I have to face this kind of problem with people like anti-vaxxers and similar skeptics. My opinion in the matter counts more than theirs (sorry if this hurts someone's feeling), and Hornaday opinion on film theory counts more than mine. This of course, is valid for critics with an academic (or equivalent) background, and not to many "alternative" ones without background that become youtubers and review stuff because OMG I AM SUCH A NERD. Nonetheless, I cannot help to notice trends and to read the motivations online about the defenders of this movie. Not much logic, much box-checking and political angles. This, discounting authentic "fix" articles taking on a specific plot hole or problem people constantly report. Or sudden appearance of pieces stating that "at least the new movies are not the prequels, amrite?" Many critics come from humanities if I am not mistaken and, basing my experience on ex-girlfriends, sister, and so on, I find humanities nowadays a festering ground of incredibly biased worldwiews. Also, I don't want to sound dismissing but I have to bring on the table experiments and evidence to make a statement. This of course dismissing scientific frauds and other plagues affecting modern science, but better to avoid a 7265472547625393729797 words rant from my part in that regard. What has a film critic to bring as a support of his statements? (for this reason, I have to stop calling the critic a sellout. Better a bandwagoner? I will go for bandwagoner.)
3) film reviewers' pieces are quite distinct from academic analyses. I teach film, and I routinely get asked to peer review academic pieces for journal articles. Let me just say, If you think the praise for this film has been glowing from the film critics, wait 3-6 months until the journal essays start trickling out. It's actually a bit weird because most of the time the films being discussed there are either foreign, old, or small indies.
I have to ask to elaborate on this. Not to be confrontational but to be sure what you are meaning.
Xenomancers wrote: You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.
Right, but that isn't a quality thing. Disney simply demanded that movie theaters give them a larger percentage of ticket sales or they wouldn't get the film. At all.
Because Disney + Star Wars can simply make that kind of demand, regardless of the film, and long before even preview screenings.
It will be interesting to see what the deals, ticket sales and overall reaction on Solo will be, because that's coming out square in the middle of a lot of competition and has a lot of bad press associated with the production of the film and the director changes.
Hard to really say...They are going to ramp up the advertising. People will feel the spark of nostalgia and want to believe it will be a good film - It will make a billion in a week - almost automatically. Will it come close to R1? I think less.
Episode 9 will likely not do as well as ether main act film ether.
@kianwang: our discussion has gotten a bit big, so I'll try to post it like this. If anything doesn't make sense, please PM me.
1) film critics routinely differ from audiences. You mention Ghostbusters. I would point you to The American, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. Most of the time the critical reception for movies is actually lower than the audience reception. They have different eyes and hearts and opinions. Que sera. Don't accuse somebody of selling out or taking money for something if you have no evidence of it. It makes you, not your target look bad.
2) the critics' opinions on whether or not you will like a given film is what I was meaning as purely subjective. If it is a good film or not is a bit more (or at least can be a bit more based on formative criteria) objective. Your subjective experiences with ex girlfriends and sisters should probably be best left outside of the discussion about who/what the arts are unless you want me to chime in with what my biology professor wife says about stuff (you don't).
3) as a science based guy, I know it may shock you, but the arts have peer reviewed journals too. It goes through the same process (often times, strangely, and horribly, through the same people--yeah, I have to edit your poorly written claptrap too) of being sent out to other university professors. It takes a while for them to look it over, evaluate what you wrote, judge what you wrote, and edit. To put it a different way, it is the difference between publishing in Scientific American vs, the AAAS.
I do sometimes wonder about the purpose of film critics. - Are they like Art Critics, where their purpose is about being in the know enough to judge the technique of the craft?
Or is their job to be a tour-guide to help people pick what films they want to spend their hard earned money on?
Are they both? Are they different? Are people mistaking one for the other, are some masquerading as one, but actually the other?
When I came out of "The Force Awakens" my opinion was: "It was actually really good, I just kinda wish it wasn't made." - That second part was because of what happened to good ol' Han.
But that comment was aware of my own personal hangups, I was still able to accept that in between the sorta-tears-ish that I liked the film.
TLJ is different and it's not because people have suddenly become far happier to complain about things in the last 2 years. Heck, it's been 6 years since the first Hobbit film came out!
Gordon Shumway wrote: @kianwang: our discussion has gotten a bit big, so I'll try to post it like this. If anything doesn't make sense, please PM me.
1) film critics routinely differ from audiences. You mention Ghostbusters. I would point you to The American, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. Most of the time the critical reception for movies is actually lower than the audience reception. They have different eyes and hearts and opinions. Que sera. Don't accuse somebody of selling out or taking money for something if you have no evidence of it. It makes you, not your target look bad.
2) the critics' opinions on whether or not you will like a given film is what I was meaning as purely subjective. If it is a good film or not is a bit more (or at least can be a bit more based on formative criteria) objective. Your subjective experiences with ex girlfriends and sisters should probably be best left outside of the discussion about who/what the arts are unless you want me to chime in with what my biology professor wife says about stuff (you don't).
3) as a science based guy, I know it may shock you, but the arts have peer reviewed journals too. It goes through the same process (often times, strangely, and horribly, through the same people--yeah, I have to edit your poorly written claptrap too) of being sent out to other university professors. It takes a while for them to look it over, evaluate what you wrote, judge what you wrote, and edit.
1) That's true, but in those cases (for the movies you name, or others) I don't see a continuous bashing of the audience that just "did not get the movie", a political angle on WHY they did not get the movie (an explanation that some poster here tried to throw into the discussion in a non-overt way, BTW). I retracted in an edit the "sellout" - you are perfectly right about that - no evidence. But please, at least let's recognise that there is a pattern in these movies that is well beyond the mere disconnect between audience and critics. There is a whole level of online publication attacking the public for not liking the movie for the wrong reason. This cannot help to make me at least suspicious. And happened for two movies charged without reasons with a political meaning AND important for the continuation/reboot of franchises. I cannot help thinking about it.
2) Is not just subjective experience, is a trend in academia. And in my humble opinion is not going to end well. We are educating people that look at everything as is a nail, because they only have an hammer.
3) I have to apologize about that. I meant the online pieces. My musicologist ex-gf did show me very well the peer review process for journal articles in her field. Also, please remember that I added a sentence to show I claim no high ground in this regard. But I ask: pieces like the one I linked.. are they peer reviewed as well? By whom? And on which basis?
Compel wrote: I do sometimes wonder about the purpose of film critics. - Are they like Art Critics, where their purpose is about being in the know enough to judge the technique of the craft?
Or is their job to be a tour-guide to help people pick what films they want to spend their hard earned money on?
Are they both? Are they different? Are people mistaking one for the other, are some masquerading as one, but actually the other?
When I came out of "The Force Awakens" my opinion was: "It was actually really good, I just kinda wish it wasn't made." - That second part was because of what happened to good ol' Han.
But that comment was aware of my own personal hangups, I was still able to accept that in between the sorta-tears-ish that I liked the film.
TLJ is different and it's not because people have suddenly become far happier to complain about things in the last 2 years. Heck, it's been 6 years since the first Hobbit film came out!
I was kinda like meh after the force awakens. The movie wasn't great but I felt like EP 8 had a lot of potential. I sure didn't go on any rants about how bad the film was. Except with a few friends of mine who really liked kylo - I said Kylo was great until he took of his mask. I just kind of kept everything else to myself. Hoping that Disney could correct course - and I gave Rouge one a lot of praise (it's really my favorite starwars movie overall.)
TLJ is different - it is a failure as a film in practically every way. Plus it's loaded with stupid political BS.
It sort of depends on the critics you read and what you want to get from them. They are sort of art critics in that they look at movies as works of art. That said, they write for popular media whose readership isn't exactly people who are looking for that sort of analysis. So they try to appeal to that too. To be honest, they are a dying breed. They admit it as well. All we are going to have in a few years is IGN and GAwker crap "Analysis" who maybe took an arts course once. The more people keep bitching about how movie critics have gotten paid for their opinion, the faster we get there.
Film Crictics are paid to watch films they often dislike and tell you so. They are seldom objective and I would never make any decision to watch a film based on such biased opions.
They are to me at least merely worthless parasties.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The more people keep bitching about how movie critics have gotten paid for their opinion, the faster we get there.
I take happily this point and bow in light of the anti-vaxxers. In a way, I would be like them. Since I assume you studied hard for your title, you have been not even enough bitter toward me. Thank you for that. But my perplexity on the noise-to-signal ratio for these "faux political" movies remains.
Film Crictics are paid to watch films they often dislike and tell you so. They are seldom objective and I would never make any decision to watch a film based on such biased opions.
They are to me at least merely worthless parasties.
This is not fair. You know, this remembers me a discussion I had with friends in humanities when I was in Bern for my work. I talked about applications of my work in animal welfare and human health, and a guy with a thesis on a famous (and absolutely beautiful) comic book expressed his disappointment on the less impactful nature of his work. I was very pissed at him. My job consists in make your survival more likely (and with the raising economic disparities, this is becoming less and less likely for a given individual, BTW. Cyberpunk, here we come). But humanities celebrate the human; the culture, the history, what is us. Arts in specific the beauty (among other things) of being human. And remember us that there is more to mere survival - as long as there is not only survival, we are a civilisation. A full utilitarian approach is dehumanising at the end. And to maintain this status, we need discussion about it. Only what is discussed remains alive.
@kiayanwang: I don't see Hornaday's piece as attacking anybody's take on the movie as "wrong". Does she? The headline supposes it, but her piece is a bit more nuanced, isn't it? She implies that people should go into a movie without preconceived notions. I would want a critic to do that wouldn't you?
2) i am not concerned about my students. They understand perfectly well what a hammers' purpose is and what we use nails for.
3) no, newspaper articles are not peer reviewed in the same way academic articles are. As a scientist, I know you know this.
Manchu wrote: Every time I come back to this thread, there is one point that needs to made again and again:
- people who didn't like the movie talk about the movie
- people who liked the movie talk about people who didn't like the movie
-people who didn't like the movie accuse those who did of being paid to say so. Or did you forget you said that?
I retracted that statement and, speaking of nuance, I said that you can get 0 money and be a sellout as well - if you abandon integrity of your analysis for an agenda. Again, regardless of the basis of my statement, I still have received no satisfactory explanation about a specific pattern observed in many critics. Why No Contry for Old Men is not defended like TLJ, even if both movies have a dissonance between critics and audience, you reported? You said it depends from the quality of the critic, I will raise my hands and think about that.
Gordon, the common thread behind Hornaday and others who are speaking out in defense of the movie is that they start straight from the supposition that there is no valid reason not to like the movie. Then, all of them try to guess at what the "real" reason behind some people's dislike of the movie is; variously producing answers such as "misogyny", "having the wrong expectations" or "watching movies wrong". And, as Manchu said above, most people who try to defend the movie do so by attacking the "hidden motivations" of those who dislike it.
Ok, what is the agenda Hornaday was promoting? The only thing she really said in the piece was that one should leave their preconceptions at the door. Hardly a clear liberal or conservative screed there. Or did I miss some dog whistles there?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: Gordon, the common thread behind Hornaday and others who are speaking out in defense of the movie is that they start straight from the supposition that there is no valid reason not to like the movie. Then, all of them try to guess at what the "real" reason behind some people's dislike of the movie is; variously producing answers such as "misogyny", "having the wrong expectations" or "watching movies wrong". And, as Manchu said above, most people who try to defend the movie do so by attacking the "hidden motivations" of those who dislike it.
I have no reason to dismiss or question people's motivation (actually, Hornaday didn't really either). Let people dislike something for whatever stupid reason. Let people like it for the same stupid reasons. People should really not get so worked up over other people's likes or dislikes. That is just silly pants.
Hornady's piece doesn't present any agenda necessarily, nor did I say she appeared to promote one, though many others clearly have. Still, her premise is that if you don't like the movie, you suck at watching movies.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, what is the agenda Hornaday was promoting? The only thing she really said in the piece was that one should leave their preconceptions at the door. Hardly a clear liberal or conservative screed there. Or did I miss some dog whistles there?
An agenda is not necessarily political (albeit SW has been politicised and many bloggers/authors attributed a political reason, conscious or not, to the dislike for TLJ - and to a lesser extent, TFA). What I read is an undermining of the fandom and a certain way to tell stories. Or to demand coherence and logic from what you view. Unless there is some pre-conception that if a movie belongs to a certain genre, characters and motivations can be crap no matter what. For sure, her previous positive review of the movie. A baffling 3/4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/star-wars-the-last-jedi-brings-the-band-back-together-with-love/2017/12/12/37d62242-d47a-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.99fa2442e752 How she got to watch the movie? Was it a preview? How people from preview are selected? What happens if you don't please the Mouse? http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/disney-los-angeles-times-critics-boycott/ https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/7/16617394/la-times-disney-media-ban-blackout Maybe the article can look innocent by itself but it comes out in the context of many, many other "fixing" this or that plot hole, interviewing the director about a "perceived" problem of the movie, with the inevitable flock of pieces bashing the audience itself. Like with ghostbusters. Coincidentally, another movie that less stellar chances in China compared to something like Transformers, and that was pushed on the "female" angle as well. Another weird coincidence, BTW. As if betting to a greater female audience is a way to recover from a less stellar china? Speculation, I know. (she did not pushed this angle but other did).
When one opens the browser, reads and puts it all together, at the cost of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, cannot help to see a pattern in which the viewer is told to shut up and be a good, and devoid of criticisms, consumer because this is a circus that feeds many.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: Hornady's piece doesn't present any agenda necessarily, nor did I say she appeared to promote one, though many others clearly have. Still, her premise is that if you don't like the movie, you suck at watching movies.
Also this. This looks like grasping at straws - as if she is desperate to make a point.
Manchu wrote: Every time I come back to this thread, there is one point that needs to made again and again:
- people who didn't like the movie talk about the movie
- people who liked the movie talk about people who didn't like the movie
-people who didn't like the movie accuse those who did of being paid to say so. Or did you forget you said that?
I retracted that statement and, speaking of nuance, I said that you can get 0 money and be a sellout as well - if you abandon integrity of your analysis for an agenda.
Again, regardless of the basis of my statement, I still have received no satisfactory explanation about a specific pattern observed in many critics. Why No Contry for Old Men is not defended like TLJ, even if both movies have a dissonance between critics and audience, you reported?
You said it depends from the quality of the critic, I will raise my hands and think about that.
Is No country For Old men under attack? Was it ever really this contentious?
In my opinion TLJ does filmy things very well and Star Warsy things poorly. That is why filmy people like it more and Warsies like it less. I suppose it could also be divisive between people who like themes and tone against people who like plot and character. It's the Astronaut vs Caveman of cinematic experiences.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: I've never seen the movie, but No Country for Old Men was surprisingly weak for a Cormac McCarthy novel. Perhaps the dichotomy between fans and critics there has to do with expectations.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Ok, what is the agenda Hornaday was promoting? The only thing she really said in the piece was that one should leave their preconceptions at the door. Hardly a clear liberal or conservative screed there. Or did I miss some dog whistles there?
An agenda is not necessarily political (albeit SW has been politicised and many bloggers/authors attributed a political reason, conscious or not, to the dislike for TLJ
- and to a lesser extent, TFA).
What I read is an undermining of the fandom and a certain way to tell stories.
Or to demand coherence and logic from what you view. Unless there is some pre-conception that if a movie belongs to a certain genre, characters and motivations can be crap no matter what.
For sure, her previous positive review of the movie. A baffling 3/4.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/star-wars-the-last-jedi-brings-the-band-back-together-with-love/2017/12/12/37d62242-d47a-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.99fa2442e752 How she got to watch the movie? Was it a preview? How people from preview are selected?
What happens if you don't please the Mouse?
http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/disney-los-angeles-times-critics-boycott/ https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/7/16617394/la-times-disney-media-ban-blackout Maybe the article can look innocent by itself but it comes out in the context of many, many other "fixing" this or that plot hole, interviewing the director about a "perceived" problem of the movie, with the inevitable flock of pieces bashing the audience itself. Like with ghostbusters.
Coincidentally, another movie that less stellar chances in China compared to something like Transformers, and that was pushed on the "female" angle as well. Another weird coincidence, BTW. As if betting to a greater female audience is a way to recover from a less stellar china? Speculation, I know.
(she did not pushed this angle but other did).
When one opens the browser, reads and puts it all together, at the cost of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, cannot help to see a pattern in which the viewer is told to shut up and be a good, and devoid of criticisms, consumer because this is a circus that feeds many.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Luciferian wrote: Hornady's piece doesn't present any agenda necessarily, nor did I say she appeared to promote one, though many others clearly have. Still, her premise is that if you don't like the movie, you suck at watching movies.
Also this. This looks like grasping at straws - as if she is desperate to make a point.
Is she the one who is desperate to make a point? What is the point she is desperate to make? I see her making her point about film critics. It doesn't seem all that desperate (her arguments are clearly laid forth and logical-free to agree or disagree). She doesn't seem to have much of a political axe to grind. What precisely are people disagreeing with her on? If anything, I would accuse her of not having a raisin de etra at all, but for some reason people want to dispute something.
I disagree with anyone who says the movie made sense, and that if "you didn't make sense of it, you <insert thingy here>"
The thingies I have seen:
1) Care too much
2) Are misogynistic
3) Expect too much (often followed with 'its's Star Wars after all')
4) watch movies wrong (??? I use my eyeballs, idk about you)
5) other spurious things.
Is she the one who is desperate to make a point? What is the point she is desperate to make?
That the movie is not hot garbage and the praise is appropriate. All build on a false premise about expectation. Expectation of "Specific X" happening vs Expectation of quality in script and characters, in specific.
Is she the one who is desperate to make a point? What is the point she is desperate to make?
That the movie is not hot garbage and the praise is appropriate.
Ok, glad she could have that reasonable debate with you. Seriously, if you aren't willing to discuss and perhaps to reflect, what is the point of art criticism in the first place? If that is your perspective, why are you even here if not to just spout off and hope others just agree with you?
Azreal13 wrote: Because for some it isn't enough to dislike the movie, there seems to be a drive to prove people who think differently wrong.
Erm, I think you missed the part where people who like the movie are telling those they don't like it because misogyny, because they're watching it wrong, because hidden reasons, because fanboyism, because dishonesty and throw in that they lack the mental capacity to understand why they didn't like it.
I think the "don't like" crowd have been relatively good as far as saying "this is why I don't like it, you may still like it but I still think those are flaws"... the other side seems much less friendly with their suggestions of bigotry, dishonesty, hidden reasons and stupidity of those who disliked the film.
I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.
My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.
My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.
There are literally pages worth of posts in this thread in which multiple posters flat out reject that people can dislike this movie without having some kind of ulterior motive, not to mention dozens of opinion pieces and articles from prominent blogs and publications which do the same. Many of the latter ascribe some kind of socially malicious intent to expressing criticism of the movie. You yourself might as well be dismissing those here who have criticized the movie as neck-bearded fanboys.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.
My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
In this thread I've read people being unsatisfied with the reasons people have given for disliking the film and talking about motives other than those stated. I've read posts that ascribe some of the hate as misogyny. "Fanboyism" was me paraphrasing but refers to the suggestion for disliking it isn't because it's a bad movie as people are saying, but rather because they can't see the good movie past their passion for Star Wars. I've seen a post that suggested people who don't like the movie don't understand why they don't like the movie (I paraphrased it as ascribing stupidity, because really, that's what it is when you don't actually back it up with good reasoning as to why you think they don't understand... a rose by any other name and all that jazz).
Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.
Oh definitely I think there's more aggressive negativity toward the film.... but it is *toward the film* and those involved in making it, really not all that much to other viewers. EDIT: But maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, this thread does go by pages at a time without me checking in on it. It might as well be a politics thread with how fast it moves.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread
And then he posts:
Azreal13 wrote: My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not sure I've seenanyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.
My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.
There are literally pages worth of posts in this thread in which multiple posters flat out reject that people can dislike this movie without having some kind of ulterior motive, not to mention dozens of opinion pieces and articles from prominent blogs and publications which do the same. Many of the latter ascribe some kind of socially malicious intent to expressing criticism of the movie. You yourself might as well be dismissing those here who have criticized the movie as neck-bearded fanboys.
I've just underlined a critical phrase in my comment on an 80+ page thread.
anyone who cares about the details more than you do is a fatty nerd. It's lame to care about things you personally don't value.
Remember a decade ago when they ascribed such attention to consistency as a neurological disorder? "SpergLords" they called us. That term isn't much in use these days, but still when someone enjoys things differently they must be broken.
I just really hate the Lol Nerds go-to anti-criticism.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread
And then he posts:
Azreal13 wrote: My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
Your comment being relevant is, of course, predicated on me being in the "like" camp. My actual opinion is neutral, bordering on the apathetic, but from what I've seen (just for clarity) the negative opinions by and large seem to be backed with more rabid attitudes.
But maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, this thread does go by pages at a time without me checking in on it. It might as well be a politics thread with how fast it moves.
Precisely this, as we approach a month on general release, I think the only people who are going to keep posting will be the ones with the strongest feelings, and it's perhaps best to let them circle around each other until the inevitable heat death of the thread.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread
And then he posts:
Azreal13 wrote: My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
Your comment being relevant is, of course, predicated on me being in the "like" camp. My actual opinion is neutral, bordering on the apathetic, but from what I've seen (just for clarity) the negative opinions by and large seem to be backed with more rabid attitudes.
ya people get a bit testy when they're called liars for pages on end after stating their opinions.
Azreal13 wrote: You were never called a liar, you just didn't grasp the point Sebster was trying to make.
I paraphrased, but that is the gist of what his point is. He's calling everyone who doesn't like the movie liars, not in that exact word, but the meaning is clearly there.
seb 'You didn't like the movie, it couldn't possible because of the valid reasons you've listed, you made that up to cover for some other nefarious reason.'
Compel wrote: I do sometimes wonder about the purpose of film critics. - Are they like Art Critics, where their purpose is about being in the know enough to judge the technique of the craft?
Or is their job to be a tour-guide to help people pick what films they want to spend their hard earned money on?
Are they both? Are they different? Are people mistaking one for the other, are some masquerading as one, but actually the other?
When I came out of "The Force Awakens" my opinion was: "It was actually really good, I just kinda wish it wasn't made." - That second part was because of what happened to good ol' Han.
But that comment was aware of my own personal hangups, I was still able to accept that in between the sorta-tears-ish that I liked the film.
TLJ is different and it's not because people have suddenly become far happier to complain about things in the last 2 years. Heck, it's been 6 years since the first Hobbit film came out!
I was kinda like meh after the force awakens. The movie wasn't great but I felt like EP 8 had a lot of potential. I sure didn't go on any rants about how bad the film was. Except with a few friends of mine who really liked kylo - I said Kylo was great until he took of his mask. I just kind of kept everything else to myself. Hoping that Disney could correct course - and I gave Rouge one a lot of praise (it's really my favorite starwars movie overall.)
TLJ is different - it is a failure as a film in practically every way. Plus it's loaded with stupid political BS.
I wish it had more politics, personally. Then it could be about something beyond 'happy love rebels and evil people beat each other up on ships,' where the the wider universe is irrelevant.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread
And then he posts:
Azreal13 wrote: My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.
Your comment being relevant is, of course, predicated on me being in the "like" camp. My actual opinion is neutral, bordering on the apathetic, but from what I've seen (just for clarity) the negative opinions by and large seem to be backed with more rabid attitudes.
ya people get a bit testy when they're called liars for pages on end after stating their opinions.
Yeah. I liked the film enough to see it three times, but what brought me back into the thread were all the anti-haters in the first forty or so pages going on and on about the haters and belittling all the criticisms. They were being willfully blind and insulting. Some may have gone too far the other way, but that was in reaction to the hostility already present.
Star Wars is a huge franchise in many posters' lives; of course they will be passionate.
Compel wrote: I do sometimes wonder about the purpose of film critics. - Are they like Art Critics, where their purpose is about being in the know enough to judge the technique of the craft?
Or is their job to be a tour-guide to help people pick what films they want to spend their hard earned money on?
Are they both? Are they different? Are people mistaking one for the other, are some masquerading as one, but actually the other?
When I came out of "The Force Awakens" my opinion was: "It was actually really good, I just kinda wish it wasn't made." - That second part was because of what happened to good ol' Han.
But that comment was aware of my own personal hangups, I was still able to accept that in between the sorta-tears-ish that I liked the film.
TLJ is different and it's not because people have suddenly become far happier to complain about things in the last 2 years. Heck, it's been 6 years since the first Hobbit film came out!
I was kinda like meh after the force awakens. The movie wasn't great but I felt like EP 8 had a lot of potential. I sure didn't go on any rants about how bad the film was. Except with a few friends of mine who really liked kylo - I said Kylo was great until he took of his mask. I just kind of kept everything else to myself. Hoping that Disney could correct course - and I gave Rouge one a lot of praise (it's really my favorite starwars movie overall.)
TLJ is different - it is a failure as a film in practically every way. Plus it's loaded with stupid political BS.
I really liked Rouge One too, Obi Wan Kenobi is great at cabaret.
On a less comedic note I think Rogue One has a clear narrative arc and the actions of characters carry weight because the story has purpose. TLJ starts with the unresolved question of what will happen with Kyle Ren and Rey and the movie ends with the question remaining unresolved. The core conflict for the key characters has been unresolved for 1.5 movies already. In the OT we had ANH that was a self contained story and then we had the Luke and Vader conflict revealed at the end of ESB that was then resolved in RotJ. With the new movies it feels like the movies themselves don’t know what to do with Ren, Rey and Finn which makes it difficult for me as a member of the audience to care about them as they meander through the movies.
Azreal13 wrote: You were never called a liar, you just didn't grasp the point Sebster was trying to make.
I paraphrased, but that is the gist of what his point is. He's calling everyone who doesn't like the movie liars, not in that exact word, but the meaning is clearly there.
seb 'You didn't like the movie, it couldn't possible because of the valid reasons you've listed, you made that up to cover for some other nefarious reason.'
No, his point was that the reasons we tell ourselves we do things often aren't the actual reasons we do things, because as a species we're pretty spectacular at fooling ourselves. It's what the whole therapy/psychology industry is based on.
There was no implication of any fabrication or underhanded motivation, except perhaps to oneself. It's not necessarily I view I agree with, but I can absolutely see that there was no intended accusation of dishonesty.
No, but it is still bad form to indulge in amateur psychoanalysis of users based on forum posts rather than talk about the film.
Even if sitting in judgement over other people's unconscious psyche were a desirable thing, it's still ridiculously rude to do it, and ridiculously off topic to boot.
Azreal13 wrote: You were never called a liar, you just didn't grasp the point Sebster was trying to make.
I paraphrased, but that is the gist of what his point is. He's calling everyone who doesn't like the movie liars, not in that exact word, but the meaning is clearly there.
seb 'You didn't like the movie, it couldn't possible because of the valid reasons you've listed, you made that up to cover for some other nefarious reason.'
No, his point was that the reasons we tell ourselves we do things often aren't the actual reasons we do things, because as a species we're pretty spectacular at fooling ourselves. It's what the whole therapy/psychology industry is based on.
There was no implication of any fabrication or underhanded motivation, except perhaps to oneself. It's not necessarily I view I agree with, but I can absolutely see that there was no intended accusation of dishonesty.
Does this also mean that the people who enjoyed the movie are also fooling themselves? They didn't like it because it was good, but because it stoked some weakness in them or their understand of art?
I don't. I also don't subscribe to Sebsters' incredibly condescending posts being what they say they are instead of being motivated by disdain he has but doesn't consciously know he has for people with different opinions.
Depends, are you aiming to get dinged for breaking rule 1?
Edit for clarity : Because being uncomplimentary about other posters outside of direct interactions has gotten me dinged, not because I'm going to report or anything.
Well, for me, the whole film was rather like Les Dawson playing piano.
To explain the reference for the unfamiliar, Les Dawson was a comedian at his peak in the 1970s. He was actually also a talented pianist, but, for comic effect, he would occasionally, and very deliberately, play the wrong notes. So you'd have several seconds of beautifully rendered classical music, and just at the right/wrong moment, he'd hit a flat or sharp note.
This was the film for me, just as it felt like a Star Wars film, it would hit a bum note and jar me out of the groove I was finding.
Plus I think if you remove Finn and every plot element and character contingent on his existence in the film, you improve the whole immeasurably, and probably bring the running time down to something more appropriate.
Crucially, nobody's arguing the movie is 10/10 good. The real issue is why are some people willing to overlook what they concede are the flaws - and why are other people unwilling to overlook those same flaws?
Note, when I say "flaws" I am NOT referring to issues that can just be handwaived away because "only dorks could care about that." For example, Luke throwing away Anakin's lightsaber. No one has to be obsessed to understand that this is out of character. All that's required is a basic grasp of the story of RotJ. The issue there seems to be, either you think the movie sufficiently explained Luke's character changing between RotJ and TLJ - or you don't.
But let's use an example that doesn't potentially implicate varying generational perspectives. Is Kylo Ren's fall to the Dark Side adequately explained by TLJ? I would argue no, because the ultimate answer is "Snoke did it," which dismisses the importance of how he did it. Folks willing to overlook this omission don't seem to question whether there is an omission; rather, they question if the omission matters in the first place. So I'd say, it matters because Kylo Ren is a main character inasmuch as the A Plot of TLJ pivots on his motivations. A major question our throughline protagonist must confront is, is it possible to empathize with Ben/Kylo?
This isn't a question about Snoke "for the sake of Snoke" so arguing that "Snoke isn't that important" is irrelevant. This is ultimately a question about Kylo, who is unquestionably important, and how Rey feels about him - which is also unquestionably important. At this point, if we're dealing with someone who can concede that the movie failed to explain something of obvious importance, we can get to the issue of why they are willing to overlook that. The answer I have seen is, that will be explained in the next movie. Maybe so, but how does that excuse this movie?
Azreal13 wrote: So you'd have several seconds of beautifully rendered classical music, and just at the right/wrong moment, he'd hit a flat or sharp note.
The comparison is a good one - but it raises the question: was this supposed to be a comedy? Is that what we should conclude from so many wrong notes?
Azreal13 wrote: Plus I think if you remove Finn and every plot element and character contingent on his existence in the film, you improve the whole immeasurably, and probably bring the running time down to something more appropriate.
I think you're on the right track. The problem is, TLJ is worse without Finn because then you have the completely valid criticism "hey what about Finn?" So it's not that Finn shouldn't have an important role in this movie; it's that this movie failed to do that correctly.
The how Ben fell isn't important to this narrative, what's important is that he fell and what's important to our sympathies is that he be seen to be struggling with it.
Your (and my) curiosity about the detail is natural, but all that's necessary for the story is that it happened.
Azreal13 wrote: So you'd have several seconds of beautifully rendered classical music, and just at the right/wrong moment, he'd hit a flat or sharp note.
The comparison is a good one - but it raises the question: was this supposed to be a comedy? Is that what we should conclude from so many wrong notes?
I think I've seen commentary from Johnson about the humor, so yes, evidently it was an intention, but I'm not specifically meaning just jokes in this case, but "not my Star Wars" moments, which are probably going to be personal to everyone. One of mine, for instance, was Luke throwing away the saber, but not because he threw it away, I can understand that, but the fact he threw it over his shoulder, rather than just onto the ground. The gesture just seemed wrong, and too comic given that it was supposed to follow the climax of TFA.
Azreal13 wrote: Plus I think if you remove Finn and every plot element and character contingent on his existence in the film, you improve the whole immeasurably, and probably bring the running time down to something more appropriate.
I think you're on the right track. The problem is, TLJ is worse without Finn because then you have the completely valid criticism "hey what about Finn?" So it's not that Finn shouldn't have an important role in this movie; it's that this movie failed to do that correctly.
Can't agree. It's not just that he is, to use the language in the script, a self-confessed monster - WHY is the most important issue in this movie. You can tell because the movie spends its extremely precious running time going over the relevant narrative not once, not twice, but three times. And yet after three times, we still don't have an actual answer. This isn't important on my terms; these are the film's own terms.
So here's the best defense I can come up with so far: if this issue is too clear then there isn't enough dramatic tension in Rey's arc - with all the facts, she could make a totally rational choice and seeing her struggle to make choices at an emotionL level is more interesting. The problem there is, although that approach does create truly engaging tension for Rey, we don't have enough information to understand our secondary protagonist, Kylo/Ben.
Although I like this character, I can see why many people don't like him and specifically why they criticize him for being too pathetic. Without knowing why he's so broody-moody, he comes off as an irritating, angsty teen. And that's pretty underwhelming, for a figure who is also portrayed as terrifying. There's certainly a fascinating irony here but it's stretched too thin now that two thirds of the trilogy are complete without the necessary exposition.
Azreal13 wrote: The gesture just seemed wrong, and too comic given that it was supposed to follow the climax of TFA.
I totally agree. It's not just that Luke has some major baggage, which is fine and could be really interesting if we got to dig deep into what and why, but the problem is the film treats this character's baggage with such frivolity. Like in your example - these are wrong notes.
I don't think they could, without really moving SW in a different direction. Unlike the Mad Max films, SW doesn't abandon significant characters in one movie when it's time for the next one. But in any case, I think we can agree that TLJ is grievously flawed in what it decided to do with him.
As I understood it, the repeat of the story of the night Luke went to Ben's hut was to illustrate the whole "from a certain point of view" element that's run through the films, rather than anything to do with Ren's back story. Luke and Ben's recollections of the exact same events are very different especially. (Like Luke's eyes appearing to glow much like Palpatine's during Ben's recollections.)
Let's be fair, even Anakin's fall isn't really adequately explained during the prequels either. and that's kind of the whole point of the trilogy, the leap from fear of bereavement to yellow eyed child killer is enormous.
Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.
I don't think they could, without really moving SW in a different direction. Unlike the Mad Max films, SW doesn't abandon significant characters in one movie when it's time for the next one. But in any case, I think we can agree that TLJ is grievously flawed in what it decided to do with him.
You know what, I think Finn should have died in the TIE crash at the start of TFA in retrospect. He would have helped Poe (who was supposed to die in it) and shown that the First Order wasn't exclusively full of fanatics. Rey meets BB8 independently of him, Poe could have survived the crash on screen and fled Jakku with Rey on the Falcon, and then most of what Finn then contributes could have been covered by other characters, cut completely or simply dealt with by exposition.
You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.
I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.
Azreal13 wrote: The how Ben fell isn't important to this narrative, what's important is that he fell and what's important to our sympathies is that he be seen to be struggling with it.
Your (and my) curiosity about the detail is natural, but all that's necessary for the story is that it happened.
Disagree. Kylo/Ben (I'll be using his two names interchangeably here) is a fascinating character and we have an assertion from Leia that snoke caused Ben's (Kylo's) fall to the darkside. Is she familiar with the events TLJ spends time on? That Luke drew his lightsaber with intent? That Kylo has personally killed other trainees for not joining him? (Is that even true? Luke says Kylo himself did the deed, but he did not witness it) Was Snoke manipulating Kylo mentally? Was Snoke also manipulating Luke? He has claimed the ability to connect the mind of his apprentice with a lifeform Snoke had never physically interacted with. Maybe Snoke created a bond between himself and Kylo, and the darkness Luke saw in Ben was Snoke himself.
Remember, Ben (Kylo) struggles with a pull to the light. Why? Why did Ben succumb to the dark side?
I had a fun head canon idea about where this is all going/ way to redeem the story:
Leia is good at sense applications of the force and in reaching out with her emotions. We see her spontaneous ability with this in the original trilogy. In TLJ Kylo refrains from taking the shot on the command deck that would have hit his mother. I believe she was reaching out to him specifically and he sensed that. Now, what if Ben was actually really bad at sensing others in the force? Like, had to be within 100 yards of them? If he thought his mother had died because she was in a coma and unable to reach out to him during the space chase (Ben would have assumed she would continue reaching out to him to turn him if she had survived the blast) his willingness to continue the destruction of the resistance afterwards would make sense, as there's nothing there but reminders of his dead mother.
Kylo rejected the world of Luke Skywalker and understandably hates the man. He also rejected living under Snoke, for perhaps obvious reasons. He wants to escape his past and hopes to have found someone to journey through the future with in Rey. Someone else who's had great power foisted upon them and been tragically failed by their parental figures. Is there more to this past? What did Snoke do? Did Ben have an objective greater than killing Snoke? He tells Han he knows what he has to do, and then kills him. Was that part of going deep cover to kill Snoke the only way he could?
What if Snoke swooped down on the new training temple the moment Luke was out of commission and Kylo's options were bend the knee or die? (Luke surviving this event is tough, but maybe even puts Ben in a good light, that he was somehow able to lie to Snoke and hide it, just as he hid his murderous intent behind another action?) What if this is/was a professor Snape vs Lord Voldemort dynamic?
I keep going back to TFA and how Kylo draws on his grandfather's mask for strength as he is in service to the supreme leader. The prophecy said that One would be born who would bring balance to the force. If you ascribe to the school of thought "the dark side is always an imbalance" and Snoke (who is definitely a dark side user) survived the events of ROTJ, then the prophecy would not be fulfilled. Ben knows the story of Vader, Luke and the emperor. He knows the prophecy.
Idle speculation, but what if Kylo is naturally gifted at dark side applications of the force and weak at light side applications? What if he is an unbalancing agent through no agency of his own? "The light will always rise to meet the darkness" Rey would be his opposite, naturally gifted at the natural, light side flow of the force, but susceptible to dark side temptations like anyone else, and being uniquely strong in the light and weak in the dark aside from her own choices?
Perhaps Kylo's motivations changed when (in his mind) his mother died and he decided to just take what he could out of his miserable life? What if he had originally intended to be the left hand of the force itself and kill the actual last remaining Darksider in the galaxy? That would be cool. It almost fits into the movies as given.
But yeah, why Ben Solo had this darkness inside him, and why Luke went to his quarters armed in the middle of the night are questions I believe left unanswered.
Manchu wrote: You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.
I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.
Given Rey's apparent affinity with the dark side, maybe we still can?
Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.
But where was Luke? How did he not notice the gradual corruption of his top student? How did Snoke do it? Was he a trusted teacher on sight? Did he do mental projections exclusively? What is Kylo's motivation now?
Kylo Ren is basically the protagonist of the new trilogy.
Manchu wrote: You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.
I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.
Why not? Luke did say she went straight to the dark side without even attempting to resist.
Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.
But where was Luke? How did he not notice the gradual corruption of his top student? How did Snoke do it? Was he a trusted teacher on sight? Did he do mental projections exclusively? What is Kylo's motivation now?
Kylo Ren is basically the protagonist of the new trilogy.
That's one hell of a stretch. Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.
Manchu wrote: You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.
I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.
Why not? Luke did say she went straight to the dark side without even attempting to resist.
There's also something as obvious as the semiotics of their wardrobes. Luke in ROTJ notwithstanding, light side Jedi wear earth tones. By the end of TLJ, Rey is in decidedly grey looking clothing, compared to the pale creams and beiges she started in.
Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.
But where was Luke? How did he not notice the gradual corruption of his top student? How did Snoke do it? Was he a trusted teacher on sight? Did he do mental projections exclusively? What is Kylo's motivation now?
Kylo Ren is basically the protagonist of the new trilogy.
To be honest that sounds like a more interesting movie than the one we got - and a good one to make at this point in time while Mark Hamill is the right age to be playing the role of Luke.
Manchu wrote: You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.
I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.
Why not? Luke did say she went straight to the dark side without even attempting to resist.
There's also something as obvious as the semiotics of their wardrobes. Luke in ROTJ notwithstanding, light side Jedi wear earth tones. By the end of TLJ, Rey is in decidedly grey looking clothing, compared to the pale creams and beiges she started in.
so she's 1/2 way to the dark side then. from white to grey to black, unless she stays grey and goes and finds that bindu thing from rebels. assuming it's still alive, I haven't caught the last season yet.
I suspect that where we're heading, the ostensibly "good" force user will use dark side power without falling, and the ostensibly "bad" force user will return partially to the light (but still be a bit of a dick.) Boom, Anakin brought balance to the force, it just took a couple of generations and a whole yin-yang thing.
Azreal13 wrote: I suspect that where we're heading, the ostensibly "good" force user will use dark side power without falling, and the ostensibly "bad" force user will return partially to the light (but still be a bit of a dick.) Boom, Anakin brought balance to the force, it just took a couple of generations and a whole yin-yang thing.
So the light Sode and the dark side are gone, now we have the 50 shades of grey side.
Also, I preferred Darth Vader back when he was a fallen Jedi, a relic from the old order, made fun of by members of the general staff (before he chokes them) and having his religion made fun of too.
I didn't like the fact that Lucas turned him into space Jesus.
The prequels didn't have to be written about Vader, because we already knew everything we needed too about his fall. He was Luke's father, Obi Wans friend and was seduced by the power of the dark side.
As for Kylo, we've had 2 films and they still haven't adequately explained his fall the same way that ANH managed it in about 5 minutes in Obi-Wan's hut.
Is she the one who is desperate to make a point? What is the point she is desperate to make?
That the movie is not hot garbage and the praise is appropriate.
Ok, glad she could have that reasonable debate with you. Seriously, if you aren't willing to discuss and perhaps to reflect, what is the point of art criticism in the first place? If that is your perspective, why are you even here if not to just spout off and hope others just agree with you?
Come on Gordon is not me. She has a public and she is in damage control after the general backlash. And her answer is that "we are watching the movie wrong".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: No, but it is still bad form to indulge in amateur psychoanalysis of users based on forum posts rather than talk about the film.
Even if sitting in judgement over other people's unconscious psyche were a desirable thing, it's still ridiculously rude to do it, and ridiculously off topic to boot.
This; is true that human perception is hilarious, we are biased apes. But this element was used to directly and arbitrarily dismiss other people arguments. In the discussion, it was easy to read this as a suggestions that one does not like a movie because is sexist/has problem with female protagonists.
EDIT: I have seen people moved back to the actual plot, is for the better. Time zones.
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.
Obi-Wan and Anakin were busy fighting a war. This is an environment in which a Jedi is more likely to be tempted by the dark side, and another Jedi is less likely to see it happening until it's too late.
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.
Obi-Wan and Anakin were busy fighting a war. This is an environment in which a Jedi is more likely to be tempted by the dark side, and another Jedi is less likely to see it happening until it's too late.
Anakin's fall doesn't have anything to do with war. Anakin falls in nice friendly environments- a kitchen/dining room where he decides to murder a village on his mother's behalf, and an opera when he decides to do anything at all to save his wife. In battle he's largely rational and mostly quipping and making jokes. The clone wars cartoon has several Jedi that fall on account of the war. Anakin calmly agrees to a Faustian pact because he's a moron that doesn't recognize self fulfilling prophecies or blatant, obvious manipulation. He doesn't fall so much as shrug and say 'yeah, ok. Dead kids coming right up.'
As to Rey's costume, the grey palette probably is meant to suggest moral ambiguity. But there is no question that, by the end, she's a good guy. There is no indication whatsoever that Rey's extremely fast development of Force abilities is a matter of her falling to the Dark Side.
Manchu wrote: As to Rey's costume, the grey palette probably is meant to suggest moral ambiguity. But there is no question that, by the end, she's a good guy. There is no indication whatsoever that Rey's extremely fast development of Force abilities is a matter of her falling to the Dark Side.
We don't see her in any moral situation during the movie to suggest she's either light or dark. Yet another failing in story telling.
We do see her embrace the darkness during her "training" and she also stole the jedi books.
Luke had a hard choice in empire, save his friends or finish his training. Yoda warned him, if he saved his friends he would sacrificed all they had fought for. Yoda obviously saw the rise of the first order and warned luke his training was more important as the rebels victory amounted to nothing in the end.
If he had finished his training he might have ended up a better teacher and not lost ben.
Looking forward to the next movie though, you have to wonder how the rebels will recover from their defeat during the movie. Aside from the upcoming handwaving in a new fleet with no explanations. They lost hard and the rebellion is dead, the first order won. Imagine you're a leader of one of the worlds and leia shows up and asks you to pledge your planet to aid in her cause. She brings nothing to the table to offer, she has no means to offer protection for your planet, she's asking you to commit your world against the first order. It would take many generations to rebuild any kind of resistance and what leader would risk the existence of their world for a lost cause?
Manchu wrote: As to Rey's costume, the grey palette probably is meant to suggest moral ambiguity. But there is no question that, by the end, she's a good guy. There is no indication whatsoever that Rey's extremely fast development of Force abilities is a matter of her falling to the Dark Side.
We don't see her in any moral situation during the movie to suggest she's either light or dark. Yet another failing in story telling.
That's my biggest problem with her. Any temptation, or refusal of temptation, falls flat.
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.
Obi-Wan and Anakin were busy fighting a war. This is an environment in which a Jedi is more likely to be tempted by the dark side, and another Jedi is less likely to see it happening until it's too late.
Anakin's fall doesn't have anything to do with war. Anakin falls in nice friendly environments- a kitchen/dining room where he decides to murder a village on his mother's behalf, and an opera when he decides to do anything at all to save his wife. In battle he's largely rational and mostly quipping and making jokes. The clone wars cartoon has several Jedi that fall on account of the war. Anakin calmly agrees to a Faustian pact because he's a moron that doesn't recognize self fulfilling prophecies or blatant, obvious manipulation. He doesn't fall so much as shrug and say 'yeah, ok. Dead kids coming right up.'
I've been watching the prequels again recently, my goodness I hate Jar Jar and Anakin.
The prequels had a lot of failings, I think one of the bigger ones was attempting but failing to produce a likeable Anakin. If they'd done that they could have then built on it to make us feel disappointed or sad when he fell to the dark side for whatever reason.
My pet theory with the prequels is that TPM needn't exist, the trilogy can start where it does at the start of AOTC, any small amount (and it really is a small amount) of necessary info from TPM can be integrated through exposition or flashback, and we've got a whole extra movie for a longer and more plausible fall to the DS for Anakin.
Trouble is, had it happened that way we'd have had a whole extra movie's worth of Christensen, so small mercies!
95% of Star Wars is set in austere environments like desert or ice planets, or in space. It is quite a treat to visit a lush resort on a proper world.
The casino is an counterpoint to the "hives of scum and villainy" cantinas in ANH and TFA, featuring a better class of scum..
It gives Finn an active role. Without this, he would sit out 90% of the film. It also develops Finn's character from half-shirker to committed Resistance fighter.
It introduces a spunky new female character, who ends up providing a new love interest and setting up a possible love triangle with Finn and Rey, complicated by Poe's attentions at the end of the film.
There were some good comedy moments and BB8 had an important part.
The alien horse chase scene was exciting, and emphasises the Resistance's qualities of compassion for the oppressed. (Being really good guys, basically.)
The child slaves introduced here re-appear at the end of the film as the live spirit and future of the Resistance. This scene also validates Luke's self-sacrifice in his one-man stand.
Azreal13 wrote: My pet theory with the prequels is that TPM needn't exist, the trilogy can start where it does at the start of AOTC, any small amount (and it really is a small amount) of necessary info from TPM can be integrated through exposition or flashback, and we've got a whole extra movie for a longer and more plausible fall to the DS for Anakin.
Trouble is, had it happened that way we'd have had a whole extra movie's worth of Christensen, so small mercies!
I don't hate TPM as much as most people (other than aforementioned Jar Jar and Anakin) but yeah, it doesn't really add anything much to the saga. Don't some super nerds recommend a viewing order that completely skips TPM for that reason? Watching AotC straight after TPM makes Anakin's advances toward Portman even stranger/creepier.
I don't know whether Christensen is just a bad actor or was badly directed, I haven't seen him in anything else that I can remember. Watching AotC now and my goodness he's terrible, the over acting is insane, he swings from annoyingly angsty, weirdly nice and creepy with his advances toward Portman. Everyone around him acts relatively normally but he just over acts to the max.
I'm left wondering how Vader ended up such a cool and collected villain when Anakin is portrayed as so emotionally wild in the prequels.
It gives Finn an active role. Without this, he would sit out 90% of the film. It also develops Finn's character from half-shirker to committed Resistance fighter.
Couldn't he have also had a part in the film that didn't involve something that proved ultimately pointless in quality and overall feel? If nothing else it could have been written better to tie in given that "The First Order can strike at any time!" He could've had a bigger part overall without needing to be regulated to a pointless side quest.
There were good things about the Finn sidequest. My main gripes were firstly that it was an ultimately pointless side quest the motivation of which was a miscommunication between Holdo and Poe. Secondly the political commentary about the rich scum, poor slaves and animal abuse just felt excessively forced. Thirdly I'm not really a fan of Rose as a character. Fourthly I think Finn could have actually done something useful in this film .
Azreal13 wrote: My pet theory with the prequels is that TPM needn't exist, the trilogy can start where it does at the start of AOTC, any small amount (and it really is a small amount) of necessary info from TPM can be integrated through exposition or flashback, and we've got a whole extra movie for a longer and more plausible fall to the DS for Anakin.
Trouble is, had it happened that way we'd have had a whole extra movie's worth of Christensen, so small mercies!
I don't hate TPM as much as most people (other than aforementioned Jar Jar and Anakin) but yeah, it doesn't really add anything much to the saga. Don't some super nerds recommend a viewing order that completely skips TPM for that reason? Watching AotC straight after TPM makes Anakin's advances toward Portman even stranger/creepier.
I don't know whether Christensen is just a bad actor or was badly directed, I haven't seen him in anything else that I can remember. Watching AotC now and my goodness he's terrible, the over acting is insane, he swings from annoyingly angsty, weirdly nice and creepy with his advances toward Portman. Everyone around him acts relatively normally but he just over acts to the max.
I'm left wondering how Vader ended up such a cool and collected villain when Anakin is portrayed as so emotionally wild in the prequels.
Yes, the supposed "ideal" viewing order is IV, V, II, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX. However that way means Anakin's fall is spoiled by ESB and ROTS spoils the Luke and Leia sister reveal in ROTJ.
The real ideal viewing order is to watch the original trilogy without interruptions by the prequels as it preserves all the twists of the original films which are, thanks to being in hugely superior films, better than those of the prequels.
Azreal13 wrote: My pet theory with the prequels is that TPM needn't exist, the trilogy can start where it does at the start of AOTC, any small amount (and it really is a small amount) of necessary info from TPM can be integrated through exposition or flashback, and we've got a whole extra movie for a longer and more plausible fall to the DS for Anakin.
Trouble is, had it happened that way we'd have had a whole extra movie's worth of Christensen, so small mercies!
I don't hate TPM as much as most people (other than aforementioned Jar Jar and Anakin) but yeah, it doesn't really add anything much to the saga. Don't some super nerds recommend a viewing order that completely skips TPM for that reason? Watching AotC straight after TPM makes Anakin's advances toward Portman even stranger/creepier.
I don't know whether Christensen is just a bad actor or was badly directed, I haven't seen him in anything else that I can remember. Watching AotC now and my goodness he's terrible, the over acting is insane, he swings from annoyingly angsty, weirdly nice and creepy with his advances toward Portman. Everyone around him acts relatively normally but he just over acts to the max.
I'm left wondering how Vader ended up such a cool and collected villain when Anakin is portrayed as so emotionally wild in the prequels.
Yes, the supposed "ideal" viewing order is IV, V, II, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX. However that way means Anakin's fall is spoiled by ESB and ROTS spoils the Luke and Leia sister reveal in ROTJ.
The real ideal viewing order is to watch the original trilogy without interruptions by the prequels as it preserves all the twists of the original films which are, thanks to being in hugely superior films, better than those of the prequels.
Yeah I'm slowly watching all the films again because it's been so many years since I last saw the original trilogy I'm hoping it'll feel somewhat fresh when I go through them again.
After a while I decided to just watch in numerical order, seeing as I already know all the big twists and didn't want to be going back and forth between the trilogies.
When I put them on for my family, it felt a bit like visiting an old friend I hadn't seen for years.
Why I like the chase act.
This extended slow act refreshes the mind after the intense action sequence at the beginning of the film.
The inexorable advance of Fate upon the Rebels ratchets up the tension through the middle of the film.
It offers a backdrop for the development of various plot lines; the strange behaviour of Admiral Hondo leading to Poe's mutiny, the excursions of Rey, Finn and Rose, and Rey and Kylo's steamy telepathic communications.
Azreal13 wrote: My pet theory with the prequels is that TPM needn't exist, the trilogy can start where it does at the start of AOTC, any small amount (and it really is a small amount) of necessary info from TPM can be integrated through exposition or flashback, and we've got a whole extra movie for a longer and more plausible fall to the DS for Anakin.
Trouble is, had it happened that way we'd have had a whole extra movie's worth of Christensen, so small mercies!
I don't hate TPM as much as most people (other than aforementioned Jar Jar and Anakin) but yeah, it doesn't really add anything much to the saga. Don't some super nerds recommend a viewing order that completely skips TPM for that reason? Watching AotC straight after TPM makes Anakin's advances toward Portman even stranger/creepier.
I don't know whether Christensen is just a bad actor or was badly directed, I haven't seen him in anything else that I can remember. Watching AotC now and my goodness he's terrible, the over acting is insane, he swings from annoyingly angsty, weirdly nice and creepy with his advances toward Portman. Everyone around him acts relatively normally but he just over acts to the max.
I'm left wondering how Vader ended up such a cool and collected villain when Anakin is portrayed as so emotionally wild in the prequels.
Yes, the supposed "ideal" viewing order is IV, V, II, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX. However that way means Anakin's fall is spoiled by ESB and ROTS spoils the Luke and Leia sister reveal in ROTJ.
The real ideal viewing order is to watch the original trilogy without interruptions by the prequels as it preserves all the twists of the original films which are, thanks to being in hugely superior films, better than those of the prequels.
well Vader had a personality chip installed
for the viewing order though, you forgot some:
Rebels, R1, IV, V, II, CW (movie, series for those that liked it), III, VI, VII, IX. (if watched with the kids put on ewok movie to send them off to bed)
VIII ultimately adds nothing to the series so once IX comes out it can easily be skipped. It doesn't answer any questions, there's no twists, and no foreshadowing, no reveals. Just hold up a flash card saying snoke dies, the rebellion is destroyed, then move on to IX. If IX ends up being pointless as well the entire new trilogy can just be left off the list.
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.
Obi-Wan and Anakin were busy fighting a war. This is an environment in which a Jedi is more likely to be tempted by the dark side, and another Jedi is less likely to see it happening until it's too late.
Anakin's fall doesn't have anything to do with war. Anakin falls in nice friendly environments- a kitchen/dining room where he decides to murder a village on his mother's behalf, and an opera when he decides to do anything at all to save his wife. In battle he's largely rational and mostly quipping and making jokes. The clone wars cartoon has several Jedi that fall on account of the war. Anakin calmly agrees to a Faustian pact because he's a moron that doesn't recognize self fulfilling prophecies or blatant, obvious manipulation. He doesn't fall so much as shrug and say 'yeah, ok. Dead kids coming right up.'
I've been watching the prequels again recently, my goodness I hate Jar Jar and Anakin.
The prequels had a lot of failings, I think one of the bigger ones was attempting but failing to produce a likeable Anakin. If they'd done that they could have then built on it to make us feel disappointed or sad when he fell to the dark side for whatever reason.
The Clone Wars show does a better job of showing Anakin and his relationship to those around him far better than the prequels. If the devs of that show had ever considered doing a version of the events of Order 66 and Anakin's fall/Obi-Wan's exile, I'd have lapped it up.
Kilkrazy wrote:When I put them on for my family, it felt a bit like visiting an old friend I hadn't seen for years.
Why I like the chase act.
This extended slow act refreshes the mind after the intense action sequence at the beginning of the film.
The inexorable advance of Fate upon the Rebels ratchets up the tension through the middle of the film.
It offers a backdrop for the development of various plot lines; the strange behaviour of Admiral Hondo leading to Poe's mutiny, the excursions of Rey, Finn and Rose, and Rey and Kylo's steamy telepathic communications.
I didn't mind the slowness of the chase. I quite liked it, having an ultimately-doomed threat.
What I don't like is the plot lines you describe, seeing as they all stem from bad writing:
- Holdo's strange behaviour makes no sense. There is no reason for her to not tell Poe, or even broadcast ship-wide what her AND LEIA'S plan was. If Poe knew it was Leia's plan, and with his X-Wing gone, he would have no choice by to follow.
- This stops him mutinying, so cuts that plotline out.
- Finn and Rose have no need to leave and engage in a dull sidequest which takes the action away from the chase.
Rey and Kylo's situation has pretty much nothing to do with the chase scene: it's only until we have the resistance attempting to disable to tracker and on Crait that their paths ever really cross.
Hondo's silence, or rather the lack of an on-screen exposition of her plan, is necessary to keep the audience in suspense, and it was highly effective. I was biting my nails, almost shouting at the screen that there has to be a better plan.
It preserves the tension of the stern chase, and also sets up Hondo's heroic self-sacrifice in the end.
As for the Finn side-quest, my earlier post on that shows I think it also was a really good act. (Of the screenplay.)
Kilkrazy wrote: Hondo's silence, or rather the lack of an on-screen exposition of her plan, is necessary to keep the audience in suspense, and it was highly effective. I was biting my nails, almost shouting at the screen that there has to be a better plan.
It preserves the tension of the stern chase, and also sets up Hondo's heroic self-sacrifice in the end.
The problem is, whilst it creates good tension the first time you watch it, it makes no logical sense.
I can't personally say my standards are the benchmark, but if spectacle comes before actual character-driven logic, that's poor.
It's not even that there wasn't an on-screen exposition - the audience doesn't necessarily need to know - it's the fact that no-one aside from Holdo it seems was told anything. Why? Why wouldn't she tell the whole ship, let alone Poe, their best pilot?
It's not to say I didn't think the tension was bad. But artificially manufacturing it when that makes no sense in the world is not good writing.
As for the Finn side-quest, my earlier post on that shows I think it also was a really good act. (Of the screenplay.)
I think it could have been handled better.
Taking Finn away from the group removes the "trapped" nature of the fleeing crew (if Finn can leave, why can't they just do multiple trips evacuating? They were going to abandon the MonCal cruiser anyway).
Finn can be given a part in the plot without separating him from the resistance fleet.
Rose isn't amazing - she appears to know WAY too much above what is logically expected of her, the "love" aspect hardly factors in (there's hardly any chemistry between them - why introduce this one when you have a perfectly good Poe/Finn set up ready made?) We already had a love triangle possibility between Rey/Finn/Poe - no need to introduce new characters.
The counterpoint to Mos Eisley and the "desert or ice planets" exists in the prequels, where Obi-Wan is offered deathsticks, and on planets like Coruscant, Bespin, Utapau and Naboo. We didn't need to see this, really.
I didn't really see much comedy in it, but then, it is subjective. YYMV
I disliked the horse chase mostly because of the fact they left the slave children behind, but chose to save the slave horses instead. I know they try and paint that as their "good" deed, but I couldn't shake off them leaving the children.
The children at the end didn't really do anything for me - I think the rest of the film had made me quite bitter. As for how they got the ring confused me, but I didn't mind seeing the child use the force and look at the stars.
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.
Obi-Wan and Anakin were busy fighting a war. This is an environment in which a Jedi is more likely to be tempted by the dark side, and another Jedi is less likely to see it happening until it's too late.
Anakin's fall doesn't have anything to do with war. Anakin falls in nice friendly environments- a kitchen/dining room where he decides to murder a village on his mother's behalf, and an opera when he decides to do anything at all to save his wife. In battle he's largely rational and mostly quipping and making jokes. The clone wars cartoon has several Jedi that fall on account of the war. Anakin calmly agrees to a Faustian pact because he's a moron that doesn't recognize self fulfilling prophecies or blatant, obvious manipulation. He doesn't fall so much as shrug and say 'yeah, ok. Dead kids coming right up.'
I've been watching the prequels again recently, my goodness I hate Jar Jar and Anakin.
The prequels had a lot of failings, I think one of the bigger ones was attempting but failing to produce a likeable Anakin. If they'd done that they could have then built on it to make us feel disappointed or sad when he fell to the dark side for whatever reason.
I don't even think it was attempted. Let's look at Annie in AotC.
He complains constantly, to Kenobi, to Padme (about Kenobi), about sand, about whatever.
Tries to talk over and preempt his Master and the woman he's supposed to be protecting (and unconvincingly 'loves')
He just jumps at everything pretty brainlessly, and keeps making the same mistakes over and over again (leading to dropping, losing and finally destroying his lightsaber)
He treats average people like crap ('Jedi Business')
Commits mass murder basically for the lulz, demands ultimate power and frankly tells people (well, mostly Padme) that he'd use it selfishly and unjustly (while admitting to mass murder, which... should be a clue that romance with this dudebro is Bad Idea)
Wherever they thought they were going with this character, Kenobi's wistful regret about his loss in the original film is terribly out of place.
"When I first met your father, he was an annoying little brat, and my exact words were 'pathetic life form.' In training he was a constant headache with few redeeming qualities, and in retrospect it was of no surprise let alone a betrayal, just the obvious conclusion to a man obsessed with his own selfish desires above everything else."
well that might be pretty close to the truth of it all, but ben cared little about the truth, he just needed luke to want to be a jedi and to kill vader.
so when he told luke "Anakin was a great warrior and a skilled pilot" it was certainly true from a certain point of view
Azreal13 wrote: Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.
Obi-Wan and Anakin were busy fighting a war. This is an environment in which a Jedi is more likely to be tempted by the dark side, and another Jedi is less likely to see it happening until it's too late.
Anakin's fall doesn't have anything to do with war. Anakin falls in nice friendly environments- a kitchen/dining room where he decides to murder a village on his mother's behalf, and an opera when he decides to do anything at all to save his wife. In battle he's largely rational and mostly quipping and making jokes. The clone wars cartoon has several Jedi that fall on account of the war. Anakin calmly agrees to a Faustian pact because he's a moron that doesn't recognize self fulfilling prophecies or blatant, obvious manipulation. He doesn't fall so much as shrug and say 'yeah, ok. Dead kids coming right up.'
I've been watching the prequels again recently, my goodness I hate Jar Jar and Anakin.
The prequels had a lot of failings, I think one of the bigger ones was attempting but failing to produce a likeable Anakin. If they'd done that they could have then built on it to make us feel disappointed or sad when he fell to the dark side for whatever reason.
I don't even think it was attempted. Let's look at Annie in AotC. He complains constantly, to Kenobi, to Padme (about Kenobi), about sand, about whatever. Tries to talk over and preempt his Master and the woman he's supposed to be protecting (and unconvincingly 'loves') He just jumps at everything pretty brainlessly, and keeps making the same mistakes over and over again (leading to dropping, losing and finally destroying his lightsaber) He treats average people like crap ('Jedi Business') Commits mass murder basically for the lulz, demands ultimate power and frankly tells people (well, mostly Padme) that he'd use it selfishly and unjustly (while admitting to mass murder, which... should be a clue that romance with this dudebro is Bad Idea)
Wherever they thought they were going with this character, Kenobi's wistful regret about his loss in the original film is terribly out of place. "When I first met your father, he was an annoying little brat, and my exact words were 'pathetic life form.' In training he was a constant headache with few redeeming qualities, and in retrospect it was of no surprise let alone a betrayal, just the obvious conclusion to a man obsessed with his own selfish desires above everything else."
Yeah looking at AotC by itself it's almost impossible to like Anakin, but from TPM it seems like we were supposed to like him. As annoying as the kid was, he was friendly, idealistic and it seems like they were trying to portray him as wise for his age.
Turn around to AotC and he's almost impossible to like; stupid, impulsive, angsty, creepy, anything wise he might say sounds like it was unconvincingly parroting Obi Wan.
Kilkrazy wrote: Hondo's silence, or rather the lack of an on-screen exposition of her plan, is necessary to keep the audience in suspense, and it was highly effective. I was biting my nails, almost shouting at the screen that there has to be a better plan.
It preserves the tension of the stern chase, and also sets up Hondo's heroic self-sacrifice in the end.
As for the Finn side-quest, my earlier post on that shows I think it also was a really good act. (Of the screenplay.)
Each to their own Glad you enjoyed it, interesting how different people can enjoy different things.
I sat there thinking through the tedious chase what really - this is so stupid, and dull and slow...... the sheer time wasted on the Ship of Fools meant I could sit there going - why don't they use the various escorts and jump to different locations, why are the Imperials not sending fighter, why are all the rebels such idiots, Why are a couple of people popping out to have an adventure. Personally I felt no tension partly because it was so laughably stupid, and partly because I didn't care about any on one the Ship and had been given no reason to. If they had either had better pacing or had internally coherent reasons then year it would have been good, but that IMO required a much more competent team than worked on this mess - maybe they should watch BSG "33" and learn how to build tension and characters.
Then when the movie finished - turns out my friends thought the same. Then various other people of different ages and genders, most of whom just went to watch a fun action film which is all most of us expect from Star Wars. Only one of us was a big fan and yeah he hated it, but he hated TFA, we didn't.
Most of us did not think it was a bad Star Wars film we thought it was a bad film period. Some fun bits - the first action sequence was cool, Rey and Ben were good all the time they were on screen, I quite liked Angry Luke, Poe was ok I guess, rest was crap - mostly due to lazy, weak writing in my opinion.
But according to some any one who disliked such a film had "hidden reasons" that they keep harping on about, because they know our minds better than us because they are supra genius's or something. Not that they are willing to tell us what those secret reasons were of course.
Kilkrazy wrote: Hondo's silence, or rather the lack of an on-screen exposition of her plan, is necessary to keep the audience in suspense, and it was highly effective. I was biting my nails, almost shouting at the screen that there has to be a better plan.
It preserves the tension of the stern chase, and also sets up Hondo's heroic self-sacrifice in the end.
As for the Finn side-quest, my earlier post on that shows I think it also was a really good act. (Of the screenplay.)
I found the chase to be poorly paced and it ruined the tense nature by having characters just randomly flying off on their own adventure.
Holdo's silence I agree was good at keeping some tension (I'm not sure I'd use the phrase "highly effective") but when the stupidity of it all was revealed I was mostly just face palming at the stupidity and was glad to see the dumbarse Holdo die (other than the further stupidity of the suicide jump being such a highly effective manoeuvre I was left wondering why they didn't just do that earlier).
I remember turning to my friend during some scene on the Rebel ship where everyone was just moping about (presumably shortly after the bridge explosion) and suddenly asking "hang on, aren't they still in a battle"? For me, there was absolutely no tension in the middle of the film, which was why it seemed to drag so much I checked my watch 2 or 3 times to see just how long was left of the movie.
I've spoken to a grand total of two people IRL who said they liked this film, one was very glowing in his review but the other admitted they'd fallen asleep in the middle part...
Kilkrazy wrote: Hondo's silence, or rather the lack of an on-screen exposition of her plan, is necessary to keep the audience in suspense, and it was highly effective. I was biting my nails, almost shouting at the screen that there has to be a better plan.
It preserves the tension of the stern chase, and also sets up Hondo's heroic self-sacrifice in the end.
The problem is, whilst it creates good tension the first time you watch it, it makes no logical sense.
I can't personally say my standards are the benchmark, but if spectacle comes before actual character-driven logic, that's poor.
It's not even that there wasn't an on-screen exposition - the audience doesn't necessarily need to know - it's the fact that no-one aside from Holdo it seems was told anything. Why? Why wouldn't she tell the whole ship, let alone Poe, their best pilot?
It's not to say I didn't think the tension was bad. But artificially manufacturing it when that makes no sense in the world is not good writing.
Well, they did have me spending a large portion of the movie thinking that Holdo was an Imperial spy. Really should have remembered the ol' saying "Never Attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence" before making a bet on the issue.
Kilkrazy wrote: Hondo's silence, or rather the lack of an on-screen exposition of her plan, is necessary to keep the audience in suspense, and it was highly effective. I was biting my nails, almost shouting at the screen that there has to be a better plan.
It preserves the tension of the stern chase, and also sets up Hondo's heroic self-sacrifice in the end.
The problem is, whilst it creates good tension the first time you watch it, it makes no logical sense.
I can't personally say my standards are the benchmark, but if spectacle comes before actual character-driven logic, that's poor.
It's not even that there wasn't an on-screen exposition - the audience doesn't necessarily need to know - it's the fact that no-one aside from Holdo it seems was told anything. Why? Why wouldn't she tell the whole ship, let alone Poe, their best pilot?
It's not to say I didn't think the tension was bad. But artificially manufacturing it when that makes no sense in the world is not good writing.
Well, they did have me spending a large portion of the movie thinking that Holdo was an Imperial spy. Really should have remembered the ol' saying "Never Attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence" before making a bet on the issue.
Its a good point - I did wonder that myself at some points but yeah the Ship of Fools was exactly that.
if this had been a Michael Bay film or similar the critics would have been screaming about implausible the whole plot was, the lack of characterisation in favour of spectacle and the general pacing problems but no apparently it was a cinematic triumph.
On Holdo not revealing her plan: Remember that while Leia is grooming Poe to be a leader, Holdo has no reason to reveal jack $h!+ to a hot-shot fly boy (in her opinion).
Not only did this provide tension from a technical point of view, it also helped develop Poe from a brash impulsive loner to a thoughtful leader.
I still feel like it should have been Ackbar that did the heroic sacrifice, preferably with some dialogue between him and Hux where Hux says something like "We do not accept your surrender" to which Ackbar replies "This is not a surrender General Hux...*activates light speed*....IT'S A TRAP!"
But in general Holdo's actions in the movie did not bother me one bit and I felt she was used effectively.
Galef wrote: On Holdo not revealing her plan: Remember that while Leia is grooming Poe to be a leader, Holdo has no reason to reveal jack $h!+ to a hot-shot fly boy (in her opinion). Not only did this provide tension from a technical point of view, it also helped develop Poe from a brash impulsive loner to a thoughtful leader.
But that's backward. The decisions should be logic and in character (unless is in character doing something dumb, but I had the impression the authors wanted to show Holdo as a competent commander). What they did here is to write down a situation, and tailor the characters around it, regardless of how much sense that would make. There is no reason, unless is a "meta" reason, to withdraw information. In-universe is a nonsense.
Galef wrote: On Holdo not revealing her plan: Remember that while Leia is grooming Poe to be a leader, Holdo has no reason to reveal jack $h!+ to a hot-shot fly boy (in her opinion).
Not only did this provide tension from a technical point of view, it also helped develop Poe from a brash impulsive loner to a thoughtful leader.
I still feel like it should have been Ackbar that did the heroic sacrifice, preferably with some dialogue between him and Hux where Hux says something like "We do not accept your surrender" to which Ackbar replies "This is not a surrender General Hux...*activates light speed*....IT'S A TRAP!"
But in general Holdo's actions in the movie did not bother me one bit and I felt she was used effectively.-
Hmm not sure his leadership skills are tremendously impressive after he has been humiliated for no reason - true the writers could not be bothered to generate some narrative, use the fact that they were supposed to be in a life or death situation - although most of the time it looked like a pleasure cruise, or anything. If they had had a Imperial spy plot or something to build up suspicion amongst the remaining members of the Ship of Fools. Something to make it more interesting, actually build tension etc.
So Poe: Ok - then he and his pilots jump on skimmers for a obviously suicide mission, except he gives up halfway through. So what has he learnt? What is demonstrable thoughtful about his later actions here I am missing?
One of them carries on to try and save them but hey wait a idiot knocks him of course because "love" and he wasn't committing suicide in the right way - stupid Finn.
Urggh its all so very poor. Also is everyone given really short names for marketing or just cos its easier for the writers.
Galef wrote: On Holdo not revealing her plan: Remember that while Leia is grooming Poe to be a leader, Holdo has no reason to reveal jack $h!+ to a hot-shot fly boy (in her opinion).
Not only did this provide tension from a technical point of view, it also helped develop Poe from a brash impulsive loner to a thoughtful leader.
-
Holdo with holding her plans from the crew shows her utter failure at leadership. He's not just a pilot, he's the senior pilot, the CAG even, who would be briefing the transport pilots on the mission and where they were going to and where to land at.
In todays navy once the thought of abandoning ship happens, the entire crew is briefed on nearest land, who controls the land (friend/foe) and direction towards nearest friendlies. Holdo with holding that puts the lives of everyone at risk. Then the select few goes around and starts destroying all sensitive information.
Then her plan just to drive off til she runs out of fuel and hopes the first order blows up the ship is ill concieved, at some point Hux would have realized (he had plenty of time to think of plans) that after the ship is out of fuel just take control of it and raid it for all the rebellions secrets. codes, base locations, fleet compositions.
her plan just seemed designed to end the resistance, not save it. She needs to be stripped of command and put behind a desk where she can't endanger anyone.
Galef wrote: On Holdo not revealing her plan: Remember that while Leia is grooming Poe to be a leader, Holdo has no reason to reveal jack $h!+ to a hot-shot fly boy (in her opinion).
Not only did this provide tension from a technical point of view, it also helped develop Poe from a brash impulsive loner to a thoughtful leader.
I still feel like it should have been Ackbar that did the heroic sacrifice, preferably with some dialogue between him and Hux where Hux says something like "We do not accept your surrender" to which Ackbar replies "This is not a surrender General Hux...*activates light speed*....IT'S A TRAP!"
But in general Holdo's actions in the movie did not bother me one bit and I felt she was used effectively.
-
She didn't have a reason? How about three people trying to flee that very morning because morale was so low? How about Poe, a charismatic figure in the Rebellionsistance begging for her to give him hope? How about, a significant portion of the crew were ready to mutiny because she was such a poor leader? How about because two others absconded with the only hyperdrive capable shuttle in the resistance and the resistance's most valuable military asset (BB-8 is the John Matrix of droids) because they thought Holdo had no plan?
If a movie wants to keep the audience in suspense about a character's plan without making he character come across as a sociopath, the typical trope is "Okay. Here's my plan...[cut away]"
Galef wrote: On Holdo not revealing her plan: Remember that while Leia is grooming Poe to be a leader, Holdo has no reason to reveal jack $h!+ to a hot-shot fly boy (in her opinion).
Not only did this provide tension from a technical point of view, it also helped develop Poe from a brash impulsive loner to a thoughtful leader.
I still feel like it should have been Ackbar that did the heroic sacrifice, preferably with some dialogue between him and Hux where Hux says something like "We do not accept your surrender" to which Ackbar replies "This is not a surrender General Hux...*activates light speed*....IT'S A TRAP!"
But in general Holdo's actions in the movie did not bother me one bit and I felt she was used effectively.
Found an interesting bit from Mcstabbington on GitP forums:
I think the biggest problem is simply that the writers assume our empathy. They assume that if put a character on screen, we the audience will simply automatically empathize with them because, after all, they are on-screen and we did already decide to see the film. This allows them to skip storytelling steps and "get to the good parts" more quickly, but it doesn't work in the long run because it doesn't actually mesh well with human nature. As much as I might want to like a character from the Star Wars franchise, I'm a human before I'm a Star Wars fan, and as a human, I kind of need a reason why I should invest myself in the fate of this character. And if you don't give me that reason, I'm simply not going to care.
This is one of the reasons, maybe the reason why the best film maker of the last two generations is Steven Spielberg. Spielberg always takes time to establish his characters with scenes that don't just say "this is a swell guy", but tell us important things about them that always tie back into the larger plot conflict. I mean, just think about Jurassic Park for a moment. The first scene with Alan Grant actually doesn't get us to like him much at all, as he spends the most memorable part of it scaring the bejeezus out of a little kid. But by the end of five minutes with him, we know that he's very good at a very painstaking, very technical profession, we know what he likes (digging up dinosaurs), we know what he doesn't like (children), we know he's in low-key conflict with Ellie about the possibility of having children, we know he's always scrounging for funds, which makes offers like Hammond's impossible to pass up. And every one of these pieces of information comes in handy over the course of the film, and his earlier, somewhat minor flaws make his character all the stronger later when he steps up and refuses to abandon the kids to the T-Rex like the bloodsucking lawyer.
And it's also precisely why moments like The Brachiosaur Reveal work so well: because it's not about introducing the brachiosaur. It's about introducing Alan Grant to the brachiosaur. This is why we spend about 40 seconds of screen time just watching Alan Grant and Ellie react to the brachiosaur before we ever see it, and then we spend about 2 1/2 minutes more of screen time just watching them be gobsmacked by what they're looking at. Absent that emotional connection, and learning what the characters feel about what they're seeing, it's just CGI. And I don't care about just CGI. There's a reason why that moment sticks out as one of the best scenes I've ever seen in theaters, whereas so many CGI spectacles like it have gone in one eye and out the other, and that reason is because the emotional connection I've built with the characters root me to the moment.
And I'm willing to bet that even though very few of us have seen Jurassic in the last decade, all of us remember, scene for scene, exactly what I'm talking about, and exactly what we all felt.
The reason why I bring Jurassic Park up is precisely because I don't think The Force Awakens did a similarly good job establishing any of the characters, and The Last Jedi, no matter what you think about the plot, simply had too much plot to even consider re-establishing characters. And that's why we all think "Gosh, this is well-acted, but I'm not sure I really get why anyone is doing anything." Basically, what Jurassic Park did that this trilogy does not is set up character details that are then relevant to the conflicts that the characters later have to struggle with. Alan Grant starts off not liking kids because they get in the way of his painstaking work. And that changes over time as he's lost in a park with real-live dinosaurs, and has two children literally depending on him for their lives. Character and conflict match plot.
By contrast to Alan Grant, what do we really know about Rey that we can then tie back into the plot later on? In her introduction on Jakku, she's alone, and she's extremely poor, and she seems likable enough, and she doesn't sell off BB-8, which is very nice of her. Okay, but now the necessary follow-up question is "Does any of this tie into the plot later?" And we have to note that no, it really doesn't. Circumstance throws her in with potential comrades, but she never really accepts those people as comrades. She spends all her time with Han and Finn telling them why she shouldn't team up with them, until she's captured, and she only links up with them at the very, very end, and then she runs off to meet someone else in the next film that she doesn't know. So being alone doesn't seem like a conflict that the plot resolves. She never wants for food or money, so being poor isn't resolved, and indeed, doesn't even really seem to bother her all that much. "Likable" isn't a plot point. And the last time she really interacted with BB-8 was halfway through the first film.
That, I think, is why the films seem so disjointed, as if they were assemblages of parts that work piece by piece, but never cohere into whole films: because there really isn't an overarching plot that ties directly to the character conflicts. The closest we come to a genuine conflict for Rey is that she doesn't know her parents. Which, don't get me wrong, I'm fine with dismissing the ridiculous savior with the storied genetic line trope. It's just that, what do we have to work with without that? We're left with the fact that Rey seems likable, and if this were a Straight Guys Talkin' 'Bout Star Wars segment, I'd mention that I personally find Daisy Ridley very adorable. But there's absolutely no there there for us to invest ourselves in the character. Certainly nothing that ties into the larger conflicts of the story like we get with Alan Grant. And because of that, I neither know nor care about what she does with the frankly ridiculous amount of power she's been handed. To be honest, I don't even see any real sign, other than the films telling us over and over, that's she's actually a good guy at all. Certainly she's not outright villainous like Kylo Ren, but you don't become a hero by simply opposing the villain, and aside from kinda/sorta opposing Kylo, sometimes, we haven't actually seen her do anything for explicitly heroic reasons. Even "saving" Finn seems more accidental than anything, as she doesn't even speak with him until the end of the next film.
And that's a flaw that repeats itself with character after character. Finn just wants to flee the First Order, which, hey, understandable. But then he's all about saving someone that, from the way its presented on screen, he couldn't have known for more than three or four days. And I don't care how scary those giant living boogers were or how cute Daisy Ridley is, 3 or 4 days is not enough time for anyone I know to believably come around from "protecting my own life" to "risking my life for them". Same with Rose Tico. Her intro through her sister is definitely strong, but then goes from outright tazering Finn to abandoning ship with him in minutes because of . . . um, technobabble? And then she comes to love Finn over . . . 18 hours?(!!!) And she fell in love with Finn because, um, they saved some mutant mules together. Because animal cruelty is bad and definitely ties in with Rose's introduction, I guess. Same still with Poe. Granted, he's more of a plot device in the first movie. But when they give him a plot in the second movie, it's how he literally gets hundreds of people killed because he has no faith in the chain of command. Literally, if Poe doesn't send Finn and Rose off, Holdo's plan goes off without a hitch, and hundreds of lives are saved. And yet in Holdo and Leia's last scene, the discussion is about how Poe is so gosh darn likable, rather than what would be the most fitting method of executing him for disobeying a superior officer and mutiny in time of war.
That's really the problem with this trilogy: name a character, and then name a relationship or conflict that was a) given enough time to breathe, and b) emerges organically from the introduction of the character. It's really hard to do with these films. Which is a problem because, while I cited Jurassic Park as an example of how it's supposed to work, most of us learned these very storytelling rules from the Original Trilogy. And we also know when these storytelling rules are not followed, precisely because the prequels were much poorer films for not following those rules.
I've gone on too long, but I will say this. As much as I believe J.J. Abrams sincerely wants to avoid making the prequels, I also believe he sincerely doesn't understand, or is being paid too much to keep the movies on a timetable to want to understand, what broke the prequels. He seems to be on the impression that so long as he avoids stuff like intergalactic politics, he's avoiding the mistakes of the prequels. And he doesn't seem to get that we only noticed that the politics were slow and didn't make sense because we were bored out of our skulls and didn't care about any of the characters in the prequels. And everything else, including the dramatically increased pace of the films, is just window-dressing so we don't notice it until we're well out of the theater.
Have to say, that post was bang on. Basically sums up the lack of investment for viewers in the new series and why the characters seem so one-note for the most part. The closest the new trilogy has to a relatively coherent character is Kylo Ren.
Yeah that post sums up how I feel more or less. I'm ready for this trilogy to end, its over halfway done with and i'm not invested at all. The sooner it's over the sooner things can move on and they can try to do better next time. I still feel TLJ is a contender for the worst SW film to date. I think it's funny Hamill went back on a lot of what he said, almost as if Disney gave him a firm tap on the shoulder.
Pretty long post to essentially sum up what everyone has been saying for 86 pages. Bad character development. Can't care about characters you don't know. Can't like a movie when you don't care about anyone in it.
The difference between this and the prequels (which aren't nearly as bad as TFA and TLJ) is they get a bit of borrowed development from OT. We know who Obi and Anakin become - hence we already have an attachment to the characters.
Sigh...as much as I actually enjoyed TLJ, I can agree with all the above. I've got plenty of head canon to "explain away" most of it though, whether it's true or not.
I am still holding out that IX reveals some deeper meaning/truth/something that retro-actively strengthens VII & VIII, while at the same time ties everything together with the prequels. JJ has his work ahead of him for sure.
I think it just goes to show that Star Wars films are far more tell than show.
It's hard to have empathy for a character you've only just met and have no reason to like. I didn't care about Anakin's fall, because he spent the majority of the first 3 films being an unlikable bellend.
Holdo not revealing the plan was necessary for the suspense of the plot, but if you need a character to behave in an idiotic way to maintain suspense there's something wrong with the plot.
This is my single main issue with the film because it's so stupid. What practical reason was there for Holdo to withhold her plan? Was she afraid it would leak? Cause a panic? That no one would go along with running away? IDK the film never explains. She just bad mouths Poe for being a war movie cliche and tells him to feth off, which is all well and good until not knowing there is a plan has Poe go and take a course of action that ultimately to ruins the plan. If Poe had known there was a plan he wouldn't have sent two people off on Finn and Rose's Excellent Adventure and they never would have been captured and the Codebreaker would never have revealed the plan to the Empire.
Even worse, after Poe feths everything up and stages a mutiny, everyone just forgives him cause "I like him" and "he'll be a great leader" even though his leadership so far has been really gak. Being a great pilot it turns out doesn't translate to being any good at planning. Honestly all the people complaining that Rey is a Mary Sue seem to have completely overlooked Poe at this point. Rey makes mistakes and gets called on them. Does things she knows are stupid. Poe makes hordes of mistakes, does stupid stuff, never really seems to feel bad about it, and everyone loves him regardless no matter how badly he feths up.
Mr Morden wrote: I question how you can make an assessment of myself or anyone else on this thread via our responses in a forum, you do not know me (us), you do not know what feel, what my life expereinces are or what i felt about this film ther than what I have expressed on this limited format.
You seem to be assuming I am trying specifically to determine your specific reasons for liking or disliking this film. I'm not. I'll be blunt. I really don't care about what you personally think at all. I am looking at a general level at the overall response, and trying to look past the surface level complaints and conclusions, and trying to see what is driving the overall reaction from a lot of fans. The idea that I have to know you personally is silly.
The last Jedi is not a dark film because there is vritaully nothing to take seriously - its Space Opera - in this case poor Space Opera but its nothing more.
And here you're trying to argue that a film can't be dark because it is in a highly romantic genre like space opera. That is complete nonsense. Simply because a film is fantastical doesn't mean the emotions it is primarily aiming to hit can't be negative emotions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: LOL, you're a riot, I'll say I'm not calling you a liar, then go and call 1/2 of you liars.
I'm not calling anyone a liar. I'll explain again, through a different example than last time, maybe I'll have better luck with this one.
Consider you're at a game with a friend, and the ref makes a tight call against your friend's team. Your friend explodes, just starts screaming obscenities at the ref. Your friend sits down and you ask him why that call made him so mad, and your friend says the ref is a filthy cheat. You've been to many games with your friend and he's never blown up like this before, and never before mentioned that he thought any ref was trying to cheat. Nor was the call that bad, it was tight and could have gone either way, but you didn't think it was inherently the wrong call. Considering that maybe something else that a genuine conviction that the ref is actually a cheat caused your friend's reaction doesn't mean you think your friend is a liar who is hiding his real reason. It just means knowing that we are emotional creatures who aren't always aware of the emotions driving our thoughts, and so often give logical sounding answers to explain underlying emotional reactions. So maybe your friend reacted out of pent up frustration, either at his team performing worse than expected, or pressures at home or at work, or maybe he just got caught up with the emotion of the rest of the crowd, who do regularly attack the ref. It could be lots of things, and everyone understands that thinking it isn't that your friend actually literally believes the ref is a cheat doesn't mean thinking your friend is a liar.
I'm not trying to poop on your parade here, but you need to understand how your coming across. and understand some people get defensive and hostile when called liars.
You should understand when I keep saying that I'm not calling anyone a liar, and am looking at something that has nothing to do with lying, and you keep complaining about being called a liar, it makes this whole thing pretty ridiculous.
sirlynchmob wrote: I paraphrased, but that is the gist of what his point is. He's calling everyone who doesn't like the movie liars, not in that exact word, but the meaning is clearly there.
seb 'You didn't like the movie, it couldn't possible because of the valid reasons you've listed, you made that up to cover for some other nefarious reason.'
No, that isn't what I said. It isn't what I meant. And I've stated that many times. And here it is, I'll say it again. I don't think anyone is lying about anything they say about this movie.
But I do believe that many people don't have perfect insight in to exactly why they react against a movie (or react in favour of it, for that matter). Often a reaction to a movie is on a subconscious level - if a movie isn't causing some kind of subconscious reaction its probably failing entirely. But we aren't generally consciously aware of that subconscious reaction. Very few viewers would be aware when watching Dunkirk that an auditory trick was being used through the movie, cycling a fading base sound with a rising treble sound to give the listener the feel of a constantly rising pitch, but they would have felt the tension. So if a viewer comes out of the film saying 'that film had lots of tension' that's a genuine reaction. If they said it was because the story of Dunkirk was such a great story, they're not lying, but that probably isn't what caused a lot of their engagement in the story. That music, as well as some extraordinary editing and a whole lot of other technical achievements produced a lot of the reaction on a subconscious level.
Now, not all subconscious effects are a result of that kind of film trickery. Plenty of subconscious affects are more around the story, how we buy in to the story of the movie, or in some cases how we might react against the story. Easy E has done a great job explaining why he thinks he might have reacted against TLJ on a more subconscious level.
Thing is, people don't have to spend a second of their time considering those reactions if they don't want to. But instead of just not engaging in that part of the conversation, instead people have been incredibly hostile to the idea of anyone suggesting that we react to films in ways that aren't immediately known. So hostile in fact they've claimed that just saying there might be subconscious reactions to a movie the viewer isn't immediately aware of means saying the viewer is a liar. That's really quite an incredible thing. It's really taken me by surprise, to be honest. I assumed most people knew there was a lot of subconscious stuff going on in their mind, that they aren't always aware of. But it seems lots of people are actually really hostile to that idea, angrily so.
If that is a concept people really are this hostile towards in general, it actually helps explain a lot. And not just about TLJ.
Easy E wrote: Sebs, like all analysts is trying to get to the "root" of the issue. Many times, people tell you symptoms and not the root. As he says, this is basic human brain interaction. Your frontal brain is focused on the "What", while your deep brain (limbic maybe?) is focused on the why. The deep brain does nto control language and therefore makes it hard to express deep felt feeling in language. This is nuero-science, and not up for debate. Getting all bent out of shape because Sebs is trying to understand the "Why" that your brain has a hard time expressing is not going to help anyone.
Thanks. That explained everything really well.
Now, after great thought, I can see why some would like this movie. The same way I see how many would love other movies. However, the need to subvert expectation and the (un)intended context that created in the subtext of the film made me react negatively to it. The subtext I took away from it goes against my own personal ethos and what I thought I had understood about the ethos of Star Wars. That was my reaction deep brain reasoning. When it came to the "what" I really struggle to explain what exactly made me feel this way.
Now, intellectually I understand why they made the choices they did and what they were trying to accomplish. However, my heart (Deep brain) rejects those choices based on my feelings.
Thanks. I will say it wasn't just a need to subvert expectation, although that played a big part is exacerbating the issue. I think the primary issue is that in order to set up meaningful stakes in this movie the achievements of past films had to be undone. This is a problem for any unplanned sequel. The Matrix ended with Neo shown with absolute power within the Matrix, and leaving the machines with an ultimatum. The sequels pick up by narrowing Neo's powers down to literally just those seen, and then have another two movies just to reach that same point of deal making. So I just accepted that the price of having more stories in the same setting, they have to undo the happy ending. Its like reading comics, part of wanting more stories about Batman fighting the Joker means accepting that Batman's win is only passing because the Joker is just gonna break out of Arkham again.
But just because I was resigned to this, doesn't mean everyone else has to be, or should be. The end result is ultimately, as you said, nihilist, which the original Star Wars never was. And it certainly didn't help that the films actually drew attention to this with Snoke's speech about good and evil always rising to fight, a scene that was all the more problematic because it will probably be completely forgotten about, never mentioned again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaiyanwang wrote: I don't care. Not in the movie; not in the discussion. Is that simple.
You're not following. The film can be criticised for not including necessary background information. It can be said, quite reasonably, that the background makes little sense without that information.
But you can't complain that the events are impossible or can't happen, when there is detail showing how what happened could quite plausibly happen within the Star Wars universe.
But they don't want to commit. You just self defeated your point. The FO has to build super-dreadnought, destroyers and whantot. It just does not hold water. Is too much stuff to build for a lesser organisation.
Again, you're not following. The Empire built ships and military weapons up to a certain scale. The FO built bigger. Calling that a fairly boring approach from the creators of the new trilogy is a legitimate complaint. But saying it is impossible within the setting because the FO is a smaller empire is a nonsense complaint, because making that assessment means knowing whether how much of its total production the Empire chose to put towards military assets, which is something we do not know.
This is not an answer or an argument and I don't understand why is here.
It's there because its an obvious answer explaining why FO tech was advanced from Empire tech. Because tech advances. The second time you do something, you do it better than the first effort.
No FTL travel implied. Consumes suns. What do you think?
Starkiller was mobile. This wasn't shown clearly in the movies. But what was shown clearly in the movies is that having fired once, the weapon was loading up to fire a second time. Which makes your complaint that it was a one shot weapon plainly false.
You cannot us the conquering with horses, footsoldiers and iron of a part of europe space battles. And even in this case, the position the Republic was in is not equivalent. Just stop. It makes no sense and derails the discussion.
Given we don't have any real world examples of galactic empires, we use the examples we have. If you don't think those examples can be used, then we have no basis for comparison and no means to determine whether the rate of expansion shown was fast enough. So there are two options - we use the historic examples we have, in which case we have seen empires expand at a rate equal to or faster than the FO. Or we don't accept that historic empires can be used to estimate how fast galactic empires might expand, in which case we have no frame of reference and no means of saying whether the FO was too fast.
So either way your complaint is nonsense.
Well written movies have the villain out-wit the good guys, not people get the idiot ball for plot convenience. Is contrived, and put you out of the movie.
That's not how all movies work. Not every film is meant to be a battle of wits between very smart characters. Very often stories will show fatal mistakes as terrible, even foolish, to make a point about the flaws of the good guys. I mean for God's sake, Palpatine being right under the noses of the Jedi Order wasn't a flaw because it made the Jedi mistake so terrible, it was a deliberate bit of writing to say something about the Jedi order.
A leitmotif is something that recurs (originally, in a musical sense). Is usually used for thematic reasons, here I used it as if something bigger. Is a recurring occurrence that these people write crap. It was not intended to be used to describe the themes of the movie (because if it has themes, it contradicts them one scene later).
No, you misused the word because you don't understand. A leitmotif is part of a deliberate pattern, a writer will deliberately use a melody or a variation on that melody each time a character appears, for instance. But instead you used it to describe regular instances of what you thought was bad writing. That's not what the words means, there are other words tha can be used to describe that pattern, such as say... pattern. Dropping in lietmotif is trying to impress with knowledge you don't have.
Nope. Posters have been implied being X and Y and to have "hidden reasons" that they "cannot understand" to dislike the movie. All written with a badly dissimulated contempt. So is not "in our head".
You posted this immediately after complaining that I was trying to poison the well. What the hell is going on here?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Some people in this thread have stated that they don't feel the setting is important. That's fine. Viva la difference. But at the same time, would they have had a lesser experience if the new film had made the effort to stay consistent with the setting? It's not like the Star Wars universe is just one tossed out background out of hundreds--it's literally the most valuable sci fi setting ever created.
I believe that's a reference to my post to you, and note I never said settings didn't matter. I said I wasn't that fussed about keeping them sacred. The difference there is huge. I go to these movies in large because of the settings, they're settings I've watched and played in through the WEG rpg for literal decades. But I'm not going in bothered by any changes made to advance that setting. That's all I'm saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaiyanwang wrote: Yeah of course they will make money, especially playing this dirty, but investors will notice the drop from the previous movie.
Disney is a $50 billion organisation. Investors barely noticed The Lone Ranger and John Carter of Mars suffering horrifc tanks. The idea that investors will be shouting angry questions at the AGM because TLJ dropped from TFA is a bit silly. Investors will likely be very pleased with all three Disney Star Wars movies cracking a billion in box office takes, because that will mean god knows how much in related merchandise sales.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Even if sitting in judgement over other people's unconscious psyche were a desirable thing, it's still ridiculously rude to do it, and ridiculously off topic to boot.
There's no judgement. I've said repeatedly that I am not for one second saying anyone's reaction to the movie was wrong. Quite the opposite, it is because I accept the reaction as genuine, I want to figure out the cause.
I have said this so many times. It is increasingly looking like you are deliberately ignoring my actual posts so you can enjoy being offended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Does this also mean that the people who enjoyed the movie are also fooling themselves? They didn't like it because it was good, but because it stoked some weakness in them or their understand of art?
No-one is being fooled. Not being aware of why you reacted for or against a certain piece of art doesn't mean you are fooling yourself with your opinion. It certainly doesn't mean your opinion is wrong. I've said this so many times.
The reaction a person has to TLJ or any other story or any other piece of art is genuine. That they might not be entirely across why they reacted as they did, either favourably or negatively, doesn't mean their reaction is any less genuine. But other people are allowed to try and look a little deeper, accept that people don't always know exactly why they reacted as they did, either positively or negatively, and maybe get a better understanding of the movie and the audience reaction.
And yes, that works for anyone. If you want to go back to my original review in this thread, read that and think I didn't get to the real core of my reaction in favour of the movie, you are not only allowed to do that, an assumption that I didn't do a good job of really explaining or understanding my reaction would probably be accurate. And I only say probably because I can't remember what I wrote.
Are you actually saying that you don't believe people have subconscious, emotional reactions that they aren't always aware of?
I also don't subscribe to Sebsters' incredibly condescending posts being what they say they are instead of being motivated by disdain he has but doesn't consciously know he has for people with different opinions.
Please stop doing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: - Holdo's strange behaviour makes no sense. There is no reason for her to not tell Poe, or even broadcast ship-wide what her AND LEIA'S plan was. If Poe knew it was Leia's plan, and with his X-Wing gone, he would have no choice by to follow.
But senior command doesn't tell junior officers what the big plan is. You don't tell your whole ship about your secret stealth get away because if someone gets captured, then the enemy will find out. Instead you tell people what they need to know to perform their part of the plan. This is a movie where we actually got some level of operational security. Typically in movies the heroes will butt heads with command, go off and do their own thing and be proven right because they're the heroes and so they're always right and command are just idiots. In this movie the heroes were actually wrong, they should have accepted there was a plan they couldn't be told about yet.
The film subverted a major Hollywood cliche, I thought that part was great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaiyanwang wrote: There is no reason, unless is a "meta" reason, to withdraw information. In-universe is a nonsense.
There's no reason not to tell everyone? In a war. About a stealth operation to sneak away from the enemy pursuers.
No reason at all. Because if there's one thing we know about military life, it is that they always make sure to tell absolutely everyone about every detail of what command is planning.
What about the bit where after the mutiny command geeked out about how much they liked Poe, gave him command of their last defensive action, and gave zero repercussions for inciting a mutiny?
LordofHats wrote: This is my single main issue with the film because it's so stupid. What practical reason was there for Holdo to withhold her plan? Was she afraid it would leak? Cause a panic? That no one would go along with running away?
Seriously, if the film had spent ten seconds to explain that command doesn't actually explain their plans to junior officers I would have thought that incredibly patronising. I really thought command making sure plans are on a need to know basis was something that most people knew about. Especially when the plan is built around stealth and deception.
I mean, there's plenty of holes in the plot. But Holdo keeping the escape plan secret wasn't one. It's actually one of the more sensible bits of bits of plotting you'll see in a Star Wars movie.
What about the bit where after the mutiny command geeked out about how much they liked Poe, gave him command of their last defensive action, and gave zero repercussions for inciting a mutiny?
Did those parts subvert your expectations?
That was a massive plot hole. Mindbendingly stupid, to be honest
Seriously, if the film had spent ten seconds to explain that command doesn't actually explain their plans to junior officers I would have thought that incredibly patronising. I really thought command making sure plans are on a need to know basis was something that most people knew about. Especially when the plan is built around stealth and deception.
I mean, there's plenty of holes in the plot. But Holdo keeping the escape plan secret wasn't one. It's actually one of the more sensible bits of bits of plotting you'll see in a Star Wars movie.
Holdo didn't have to literally tell people her plan. But she went off and acted like she didn't even have one. She blew Poe off when he asked, despite there being fundamentally nothing about her plan that necessitated withholding it from him (and he even liked it once he understood it). Her shrugging things off and leaving massive uncertainty about what was going to happen is the only reason it didn't work in the first place. Holdo is initially presented as a good leader, but she spends most of the movie coming off as needlessly confrontational with her subordinates which isn't something I'd associate with a good leader (in fact it's a great sign of a horrible leader). She recognizes that Poe is hot headed and reckless, but apparently completely misses that he's popular among the troops and she chooses to agitate him rather than assuage his uncertainty, which anyone with any sense could see was not just his.
I have an issue with the whole thing on a plot level. It comes off as a contrived conflict necessary for the plot to function, but that in its own singular existence makes no sense. It's forced. It's especially weird given Holdo later statement that she liked Poe, turning the whole thing on its head cause she could have just pulled him aside, told him the plan, and asked for his support in keeping everyone on board and maybe not mutinying?
That was a massive plot hole. Mindbendingly stupid, to be honest
I think it could have been overlooked as a "we need your stubborn daring do right now" kind of thing if not for the to the side conversation between Leia and Holdo where both massively overlook that he staged a mutiny and decide they like his attitude... for staging a mutiny... At that point it's just mind bending and compacts with the earlier problem that the conflict between Poe and Holdo hinges on a really forced decision making process.
We found out that Rey’s parents were a bunch of nobodies which made a lot of people mad. In a universe obsessed with linage fans felt let down by this reveal. However, Johnson believes that the seeds for this reveal were laid out in The Force Awakens and making her a nobody is more interesting on a character level.
It was hinted at in VII when Maz [Lupita Nyong’o] says the answers lay ahead, not behind, but it was something that was obviously still on Rey’s mind and the audience’s mind. It felt like a powerful thing that she was still holding on to this notion of the past defining her. And I guess I was entirely looking at it from a perspective of, what would be the thing that would be the most difficult for her to hear? The easiest thing for her to hear would be, “Yes, you are so-and-so’s daughter,” or, “Yes, here’s where you fit into this. Here’s the answer.” The tougher thing to hear is, “You’re going to have to stand on your own two feet. You’re going to have to figure out what you’re worth in this world yourself. Your place in this story is not going to be handed to you. You are going to have to find it.” That to me was the most interesting and toughest thing for Rey.
LordofHats wrote: Holdo didn't have to literally tell people her plan. But she went off and acted like she didn't even have one. She blew Poe off when he asked, despite there being fundamentally nothing about her plan that necessitated withholding it from him (and he even liked it once he understood it).
The plan was to use stealth to sneak away from pursuing FO. If the FO uncovered the plan they would have been able to look for the transports and pick them off. Which actually did happen. So trying to keep that from junior officers, keeping to a need to know basis just makes sense.
I agree that Holdo could have communicated that there was a plan, instead of just seeming evasive. But honestly that seems like a nitpick. I mean this is a film with some pretty loose justification going on (exactly how did 'stealth' hide the transports, and then stop working when the FO was told to look in that direction?), so when the complaint boils down to Holdo kept the plan secret as she should, but doing so in a way that seems like she has no plan at all, I don't think this rates as an issue.
It's especially weird given Holdo later statement that she liked Poe, turning the whole thing on its head cause she could have just pulled him aside, told him the plan, and asked for his support in keeping everyone on board and maybe not mutinying?
Telling specific members of the crew a plan, not because they have a sufficient rank, not because they need to know to perform part of the mission, but just because they're a troublemaker and might help keep other disaffected crew onside? That's a terrible idea.
I think it could have been overlooked as a "we need your stubborn daring do right now" kind of thing if not for the to the side conversation between Leia and Holdo where both massively overlook that he staged a mutiny and decide they like his attitude... for staging a mutiny... At that point it's just mind bending and compacts with the earlier problem that the conflict between Poe and Holdo hinges on a really forced decision making process.
It can be seen as needing just anyone at all in order to man the ships and attempt some kind of defense. The situation was desperate enough that putting Poe in a ship was probably justified, but giving him command was ridiculous. Hell, if the mutiny resulted in him being busted down to just the rank of pilot, but then he still took command when everyone of a rank was dead, then it would have been a stretch but acceptable. But I guess that would have necessitated another character as the commander that would have been introduced and then killed a few minutes later, in a film already stuffed with extraneous bits. So I don't know... meh.
Starting from the point that Holdo did actually have a plan, because she executed it.
Once the Rebellion understood about the tracking gizmo, it was the only plan that had a chance of working; creep near to a sanctuary at sub-light, then disperse the transports in a dandelion manoeuvre screened by a suicide attack on the enemy fleet.
As said above, it is not customary for military commanders to share the details of their plans with all and sundry. Who knows whether there might be a spy on board, or someone might escape in a pod and get captured, or the Empire might simply intercept the communications between the different ships.
I think if Hondo had got everyone together and told them she had a great plan to save the Rebellion, but no-one was to know what it was, this would have made a ludicrous scene.
The action that played out was in my view dramatically very effective, because the audience did not know about the plan. Any kind of exposition of a plan would have compromised this aspect.
Kilkrazy thing is that the characters we follow are shown to associate strongly with the leaders of the Rebellion. Ergo we are used to them having some idea of what the grand plan is, furthermore the briefing scene basically ends with "Ok we don't have a plan, there is no plan, now all go do your jobs". Now granted they likely did all have jobs to do, but the audience is left with a "we don't have a plan" view.
Whilst that works it also starts to break apart when the team leave to the casino - wait why isn't everyone doing that - for what reason are they not smuggling their leaders out - why are they all staying there in the creeping forward ship etc....
I said it earlier, but I think they should have made more noise - even just 5 second talking scene - to expose that they thought there was a spy on board hence the secrecy with the plan. From that we can more logically see why the early part of the escape works as it does; then we can see the rising tension as the fear of the potential spy is crippling the upper ranks into a lack of any action (there is no plan) until the mutiny and then revelation that there IS a plan; with the potential spy part being left unresolved (its served its purpose by then and not finding the spy even leaves it there as a potential plot hook for the next film - and even if they never find a spy the idea that there are spies makes logical sense in a wartime situation).
That's a case where I have to disagree.
To the extent there is any leadership left, it consists of more junior military commanders (the other ship captains) or civilian political personnel.
Rey is on a side quest.
Leia and Finn are in hospital.
Poe is in some disgrace for getting the bombing wing wiped out.
The high command like Admiral Akbar are dead.
For me, the whole sequence worked very well without exposition of a spy or other reasoning. It puts the audience in the same position as the crew, wondering what is going on and why.
sebster wrote: If the FO uncovered the plan they would have been able to look for the transports and pick them off. Which actually did happen. So trying to keep that from junior officers, keeping to a need to know basis just makes sense.
That's the thing though. If Holdo had told Poe the plan he liked earlier he wouldn't have sent Rose and Finn off to find the Codebreaker. If Rose and Finn never left to find the Codebreaker then they'd have never tried to disable the tracker, never gotten caught, and the Codebreaker wouldn't have revealed the plan.
The act of not telling Poe even the most basic aspects of how there was a plan is what ruined the plan.
I mean this is a film with some pretty loose justification going on (exactly how did 'stealth' hide the transports, and then stop working when the FO was told to look in that direction?), so when the complaint boils down to Holdo kept the plan secret as she should, but doing so in a way that seems like she has no plan at all, I don't think this rates as an issue.
I agree its a nitpick, and one that probably would be overlooked, or viewed as a sort of irony given how trying to hold out on vital information is what caused vital information to be exposed, but there's just so much to nitpick about everything going on in Poe's story. I especially like it's premise and it's easily the most full of potential of the three main plots of the movie imo, but they just ruined it with so many little things that just keep building over its course I can't overlook tiny stuff that in a more well executed plot line I'd probably be willing to overlook.
Telling specific members of the crew a plan, not because they have a sufficient rank, not because they need to know to perform part of the mission, but just because they're a troublemaker and might help keep other disaffected crew onside? That's a terrible idea.
Withholding that you have any plan at all, and then allowing rumor to spread that your plan is simply "abandon ship and take our chances in unarmed tiny shuttles" is an even more terrible idea. This imo only became an issue because of an offhand conversation consisting of about four lines where Holdo admits to liking Poe after he staged a mutiny that could have potentially killed everyone on board after his super risky plan failed. That one line throws the entire series of her interactions with him into question. Either she likes him and thinks he's capable of being a good leader when the time to bat comes up, or she thinks he's reckless and can't be trusted and should be kept far away from anything of importance. That pendulum just doesn't swing both ways, and sure as hell not after a mutiny is staged.
I can understand not telling every single person about the plan, but Poe was still a high ranking pilot. It made it even more silly when Holdo told Poe she knows how to deal with hot shots like him (can't remember the exact wording) because it's what ultimately lead to them being whittled down to almost nothing.
As for telling the rest of the people on board, I can understand wanting to keep it quiet, but it's also equally stupid to come across like you're not doing anything. With what I assumed was probably hundreds or thousands of people on board, if they all believe they're just floating slowly to their death some of them are going to end up making trouble, whether it's mutiny or defection or taking matters in to their own hands.
What the command needed to do was think up something that at least made it look like they were trying (I dunno, like sending ships off to try and contact potential allies) to keep spirits up then when the secret rebel base pops up go "haha, this was our plan all along".
I think it's worth pointing out that even with his demotion, Poe was still probably in a top 5 list for ranking personnel if only because so many people after the initial attack were dead or incapacitated. There's basically Holdo, the ship captains, that one lady, and we don't really see anyone else seemingly in any position of authority. Sticking to the guns of a "you need to learn a lesson about responsibility" demotion in the middle of a crisis seems a little petty, especially if we're to believe Holdo deep down thought he was capable of filling big shoes.
Skink exactly - Poe isn't a low ranking officer even if he was "demoted*". And it seems clear that the crew of the ship don't really have much to do other than lick their wounds and hide on the ship. There's no montage scene showing how hard they are all working; if anything we are shown that the key members are mostly loafing around whilst others are seeking to escape the ship (and being prevented to do so by an officer who took it upon herself to guard the escape pods).
If anything they are too blatant with how they are setting up the crew to mutiny. They should have built a montage or other scene into the early part to be clearly filling the bulk of the crews time. The mutiny will still fit as you just fill in that the crew are all working very hard to achieve "nothing" since they are unaware of the greater plan at work.
Indeed they "sort" of do this as most of the non-central characters do appear to be always working and moving with purpose in the background - but because they are in the background that fact is not really highlighted to the viewer.
*heck considering how many fighter pilots they have at this stage even being a low ranking one is still a pretty high rank. They don't have a fleet as much as a handful.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I can understand not telling every single person about the plan, but Poe was still a high ranking pilot. It made it even more silly when Holdo told Poe she knows how to deal with hot shots like him (can't remember the exact wording) because it's what ultimately lead to them being whittled down to almost nothing.
As for telling the rest of the people on board, I can understand wanting to keep it quiet, but it's also equally stupid to come across like you're not doing anything. With what I assumed was probably hundreds or thousands of people on board, if they all believe they're just floating slowly to their death some of them are going to end up making trouble, whether it's mutiny or defection or taking matters in to their own hands.
What the command needed to do was think up something that at least made it look like they were trying (I dunno, like sending ships off to try and contact potential allies) to keep spirits up then when the secret rebel base pops up go "haha, this was our plan all along".
Think about that for a second though, if there were thousands of people on board, not telling them we're abandoning ship is akin to the scene in titanic where they lock up the third class passengers so the first class passengers can evacuate. It really just shows what a horrible person Holdo is.
anyone who thinks holdo withholding information from the crew is a good idea has obviously never spent any time in the military.
LordofHats wrote: Pretty sure they openly state there's only 200 of them on board don't they? Or is that latter?
I think its more than 200 considering the number of transports that escape and who appear to be filling the ship in the background ;however yes they are down to critically low numbers of people. After the ice battle the number appears to be down into the tens considering they all fit onto the Falcon. Considering the number of upper ranks they lost; the number of lower and also the lack of any other worlds joining their rebellion it gives the impression that, by the end of the film, the Rebellion is well and truly smashed (as opposed to, say, the end of Empire Strikes Back where the Rebellion actually ends on a fairly positive note - having suffered a lot of defeats they are shown to be actually safe and in a fairly good level of order and regrouping).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I can understand not telling every single person about the plan, but Poe was still a high ranking pilot. It made it even more silly when Holdo told Poe she knows how to deal with hot shots like him (can't remember the exact wording) because it's what ultimately lead to them being whittled down to almost nothing.
As for telling the rest of the people on board, I can understand wanting to keep it quiet, but it's also equally stupid to come across like you're not doing anything. With what I assumed was probably hundreds or thousands of people on board, if they all believe they're just floating slowly to their death some of them are going to end up making trouble, whether it's mutiny or defection or taking matters in to their own hands.
What the command needed to do was think up something that at least made it look like they were trying (I dunno, like sending ships off to try and contact potential allies) to keep spirits up then when the secret rebel base pops up go "haha, this was our plan all along".
Think about that for a second though, if there were thousands of people on board, not telling them we're abandoning ship is akin to the scene in titanic where they lock up the third class passengers so the first class passengers can evacuate. It really just shows what a horrible person Holdo is.
anyone who thinks holdo withholding information from the crew is a good idea has obviously never spent any time in the military.
Yeah but they can't tell people too early because if the FO finds out about it from a spy or whatnot they can just jump some ships there and destroy the plan (of course another issue is why the FO didn't just jump ships in front of them in the first place).
You really need to take a breath and a long hard look at your posts and realise how condescending they are. You talk about us getting angry - we didn't post this, now did we:
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.
- change the feth words to what they actually are and thats a explosion of anger and insults. I donlt know why you are so hugely invested n this film or what need you have to justfiy it to yourself and to others but its probably going to give you an ulcer.
This imo only became an issue because of an offhand conversation consisting of about four lines where Holdo admits to liking Poe after he staged a mutiny that could have potentially killed everyone on board after his super risky plan failed. That one line throws the entire series of her interactions with him into question. Either she likes him and thinks he's capable of being a good leader when the time to bat comes up, or she thinks he's reckless and can't be trusted and should be kept far away from anything of importance. That pendulum just doesn't swing both ways, and sure as hell not after a mutiny is staged.
Agreed - also wondered about the reaction if a male commander had said yeah but she's cute so whatever after a female characrter had staged a mutiny and potentially nearly killed everyone.
The plan on the Ship of Fools was a nothing but poorly written plot device to have Finn and Rose haev an adventure - they had multiple ships so could have scattered early on in the oh so long and tedious chase. Every aspect of this points towards rushed and/or lazy writting or lack of ommunication between writting teams.
Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
Aye but the mutiny she should have expected. You can't take the last remaining rebels, likely most of the loyalist and most die-hard of the bunch; and leave them with hints of some superplan without any details or anything to go by whilst running from a doom-ship that's firing on them. Esp when your fleet of 3 is soon a single ship - having the other two blasted away.
Esp if you don't at least let the team leaders and middle ranks at least have some idea that there's a plan you are working toward. If you ignore the middle and lower ranks that way then sure they are going to get more and more desperate; even more so when in one scene you suddenly lose most of your upper ranks.
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
But she calls him out on being a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff, what's a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff going to do when there is apparently no plan to get them out of "certain" death?
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
But she calls him out on being a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff, what's a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff going to do when there is apparently no plan to get them out of "certain" death?
Why should she reveal the big picture to a hot-shot who doesn't understand the big picture stuff?
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
But she calls him out on being a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff, what's a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff going to do when there is apparently no plan to get them out of "certain" death?
Why should she reveal the big picture to a hot-shot who doesn't understand the big picture stuff?
It's not that she has to reveal the plan, but that she has to reveal ANY plan.
My first thought at the end of the briefing where she is put in charge and where everyone important is getting their orders was "Wait what orders." She dismisses the entire briefing without actually giving them any structure, plan or solution other than "we are working on it". This she keeps up right until after the crew mutiny.
She gives them no order other than that they are not fighting back; not doing anything specific (other than licking wounds after defeat) and that they are running their only last ship to the last dribbles of fuel - where upon the big shp behind them will destroy them without question.
The viewer notices this very early on that there is no structure of guidance to key characters who are in key positions within the rebellion. It sets the mutiny scene up wonderfully; but at the same time provides no actual reason for Holdo to have withheld the information as to the plan or at least to any structure of any plan to survive the situation. Essentially we see the upper handful of the rebellion close ranks on the rest of the rebellion without any reasoning
Also its not that big a picture to reveal - the are running to hidden rebel base that's basically a huge fortress where they'll then have a staging ground to contact other nations/worlds to give them aid like they did in times past. It's a very simple plan. You don't have to "get the big picture" to get that plan However if the Imperials knew of it (spy) then they would most certainly have jumped ahead of the fleeing transport; or otherwise have found ways to scupper the plan (evne just paying attention to the transports more so when they fled
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
But she calls him out on being a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff, what's a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff going to do when there is apparently no plan to get them out of "certain" death?
Why should she reveal the big picture to a hot-shot who doesn't understand the big picture stuff?
it leads one to conclude she left him out of the loop because she was going to leave him on the ship to die.
Poe's expected to fight for the cause, die for the cause, lead the cause, but trust him with the plan? that's just to far. Holdo logic.
It's called training, apparently Poe is just supposed to read minds to learn what the big picture is on his own, then still not be trusted with the big picture.
In that case one must conclude that Holdo was going to leave everyone on board the ship to die, since she did not confide in any of them.
However obviously this isn't the case, since her plan from the beginning was to get everybody off the ship at the last minute, and she protected their retreat by her own sacrifice.
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
I'm not saying she should have known it would happen or planned to prevent it, merely that as a matter of plot the whole "suspense" is dependent on a really bizarre series of decisions from Holdo that seem to be made only so that the plot can occur. It doesn't flow naturally imo from the characters themselves (namely the one who claims to like Poe after the fact, yet completely blew him off and went out of her way to agitate him earlier in the film). The film presents Holdo as both liking Poe, and after a mutiny he engineered at that, and treating him like someone who can't be trusted with even rudimentary information. It's contradictory, but it was apparently necessary for the plot to function while retaining Poe's hero status so that's how the plot went.
It makes the whole thing feel like a contrivance rather than a wholistic development.
The whole thing would have been resolved in my eyes if Holdo had simply never liked Poe, and the consequences of Poe's actions (he literally fethed everything) actually being called out. There was a learning experience here, but literally no one calls Poe out on how badly he fethed that up, and even the person who presumably would have most reason to be upset with him, after already not liking him, suddenly revealing she actually likes him deep down? It causes the entire plot to fall apart into a convenient series of events that depends of inconsistent characterization.
Kilkrazy wrote: In that case one must conclude that Holdo was going to leave everyone on board the ship to die, since she did not confide in any of them..
Exactly and that's why there was a mutiny.
Don't forget these are the most loyal and last of the rebellion - those who would lay down their lives willingly and remain on the ship if they knew that at least Leia and the other leading members were able to escape to continue the fight against the First Order. You can't just take people with that level of dedication and mindset and leave them nothing to go on for no reason.
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
But she calls him out on being a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff, what's a brash hot shot who doesn't comprehend big picture stuff going to do when there is apparently no plan to get them out of "certain" death?
Why should she reveal the big picture to a hot-shot who doesn't understand the big picture stuff?
Mostly because they have a tendency to go off and do something stupid, or come up with their own plan that ends up ruining what you were originally planning to do.
She doesn't have to give him everything, just something to keep the faith.
At which point you can have some plot for him becoming an actual leader.
Throw Finn on the medical ship as he needs to recuperate or something, he still tries to leave to go find Rey, Rose can still stun him. They end up fighting off a boarding action where they develop chemistry and he invests in the resistance.
Kilkrazy wrote: In that case one must conclude that Holdo was going to leave everyone on board the ship to die, since she did not confide in any of them.
However obviously this isn't the case, since her plan from the beginning was to get everybody off the ship at the last minute, and she protected their retreat by her own sacrifice.
To the people onboard, that did appear to be the case. As a wise man once said "in the absense of facts, rumors fill the void" All good leaders know this and account for it by getting the facts out by holding a mission briefing. I learned it at a leadership course, go figure.
No, she probably didn't see the mutany coming or the side plot, but that really goes back to her horrible plan and execution of it. Let's remember sacrificing herself was not part of the plan, her plan was to run her ship out of gas and hope the first order blew it up. But in all likelyhood that ship would have just been captured comprimising the entire rebellion and ensuring any "friends" still out there loyal to the rebellion we're not long for the world. She had a horrible plan, a illconcieved plan that if she had held a briefing with her senior staff, would have revealed it was doomed to fail.
You're not following. The film can be criticised for not including necessary background information. It can be said, quite reasonably, that the background makes little sense without that information.
But you can't complain that the events are impossible or can't happen, when there is detail showing how what happened could quite plausibly happen within the Star Wars universe.
You said it yourself: without that background it makes no sense. So why discuss? This means that that information is necessary to attempt maintain a suspension of disbelief. I say attempt because most of this additional material is written by people desperate to make this preposterous stuff work.
Again, you're not following. The Empire built ships and military weapons up to a certain scale. The FO built bigger. Calling that a fairly boring approach from the creators of the new trilogy is a legitimate complaint. But saying it is impossible within the setting because the FO is a smaller empire is a nonsense complaint, because making that assessment means knowing whether how much of its total production the Empire chose to put towards military assets, which is something we do not know.
This is not how world-building works. If there is a discrepancy, is generally acknowledged. Say, two officers discussing it ("boy, we are going all in with the resources for this fleet"). They just did not care because nothing in the FO makes sense.
Also, this is not an answer. If people have problem with scale, pointing out at nonsense, discrepancies and whatnot, you cannot just write it down as a nonsense and call it an argument. If you don't have anything to advance the discussion, do not bother to answer.
Starkiller was mobile. This wasn't shown clearly in the movies. But what was shown clearly in the movies is that having fired once, the weapon was loading up to fire a second time. Which makes your complaint that it was a one shot weapon plainly false.
But will eventually run out of the energy used. Also seeing that during the rebel attack with Poe they have to eat a star, is quite clear they run out of resources very fast.
Sorry, it does not hold water.
And again. "This wasn't shown clearly in the movies.". Why you people defend this stuff?
Given we don't have any real world examples of galactic empires, we use the examples we have. If you don't think those examples can be used, then we have no basis for comparison and no means to determine whether the rate of expansion shown was fast enough. So there are two options - we use the historic examples we have, in which case we have seen empires expand at a rate equal to or faster than the FO. Or we don't accept that historic empires can be used to estimate how fast galactic empires might expand, in which case we have no frame of reference and no means of saying whether the FO was too fast.
I have another option: let's stop to use false comparison to defend a poorly written movie and a poorly built setting.
So either way your complaint is nonsense.
"your refusal to accept my nonsense is nonsensical"
That's not how all movies work. Not every film is meant to be a battle of wits between very smart characters. Very often stories will show fatal mistakes as terrible, even foolish, to make a point about the flaws of the good guys. I mean for God's sake, Palpatine being right under the noses of the Jedi Order wasn't a flaw because it made the Jedi mistake so terrible, it was a deliberate bit of writing to say something about the Jedi order.
Are you aware of the scale? Reading the rest of what you wrote I suppose not. You are comparing the arrogance of a single man to the logistic of a galactic republic. You are really fond of comparisons that do not hold water. Also, since this is a republic, is I think less centralised in command so I guess the single guy that realised "uuh, we should probably not put all the eggs in one basket" was not force chocked to shut him up.
No, you misused the word because you don't understand. A leitmotif is part of a deliberate pattern, a writer will deliberately use a melody or a variation on that melody each time a character appears, for instance. But instead you used it to describe regular instances of what you thought was bad writing. That's not what the words means, there are other words tha can be used to describe that pattern, such as say... pattern. Dropping in lietmotif is trying to impress with knowledge you don't have.
This is what I answered above. Of course is not deliberate, but is so frequent it looks like it is. After all, many critics and defenders agree with me. "It's SUPPOSED to suck, is a deliberate artistic choice". Get it now? Do you need signs with the fingers, a drawing?
You posted this immediately after complaining that I was trying to poison the well. What the hell is going on here?
I am not going to answer this. Anyone with half wit that followed your posts is aware of what happened.
Disney is a $50 billion organisation. Investors barely noticed The Lone Ranger and John Carter of Mars suffering horrifc tanks. The idea that investors will be shouting angry questions at the AGM because TLJ dropped from TFA is a bit silly. Investors will likely be very pleased with all three Disney Star Wars movies cracking a billion in box office takes, because that will mean god knows how much in related merchandise sales.
And in fact, the Lone Ranger and John Carter got immediately 4 sequels planned each. I find it amusing that you keep bringing argument against your points.
Hell, Whedon was canned for going 100m under.
There's no judgement. I've said repeatedly that I am not for one second saying anyone's reaction to the movie was wrong. Quite the opposite, it is because I accept the reaction as genuine, I want to figure out the cause.
I have said this so many times. It is increasingly looking like you are deliberately ignoring my actual posts so you can enjoy being offended.
Nope, you are just dishonestly backtracking now.
There's no reason not to tell everyone? In a war. About a stealth operation to sneak away from the enemy pursuers.
No reason at all. Because if there's one thing we know about military life, it is that they always make sure to tell absolutely everyone about every detail of what command is planning.
Poe is a commander, is the guy who blew the Death Star III. In every other movie, we see the commanders brief the whole alliance before the mission. Pilots, personnel, everything. I have shown Ackbar and Lando discuss a change of plan in RotJ. It does not fit with anything showns before, characters, organisation, anything.
Disregarding the sheer insanity of the situation setup. Poe not knnowing an high ranking officer in a small rebel organisation.
Is just a very weak situation created to make a point. "Just follow the orders". Wow, the emperor would have loved it.
Kilkrazy wrote: In that case one must conclude that Holdo was going to leave everyone on board the ship to die, since she did not confide in any of them.
However obviously this isn't the case, since her plan from the beginning was to get everybody off the ship at the last minute, and she protected their retreat by her own sacrifice.
To the people onboard, that did appear to be the case. As a wise man once said "in the absense of facts, rumors fill the void" All good leaders know this and account for it by getting the facts out by holding a mission briefing. I learned it at a leadership course, go figure.
No, she probably didn't see the mutany coming or the side plot, but that really goes back to her horrible plan and execution of it. Let's remember sacrificing herself was not part of the plan, her plan was to run her ship out of gas and hope the first order blew it up. But in all likelyhood that ship would have just been captured comprimising the entire rebellion and ensuring any "friends" still out there loyal to the rebellion we're not long for the world. She had a horrible plan, a illconcieved plan that if she had held a briefing with her senior staff, would have revealed it was doomed to fail.
It also appeared to the audience that Holdo didn't have a plan. I think this was a deliberate piece of writing to increase the tension and doubt in the audience's mind.
If this required Holdo to not be the best admiral in the Star Wars history by not informing Poe about it, then it was a price worth paying. There are good "in universe" reasons why Holdo wouldn't tell Poe.
You can say the plan was ill-conceived by hindsight, but there doesn't seem to have been a better plan available, given the tactical situation of the fleets.
And after all, Holdo's plan actually worked. Many of the transports escaped to the secret base. They were able to contact the outer rim systems for help, and would have been able to hold out against the Empire except for the battering cannon.
The "she can't tell poe the plan because their might be spies" argument breaks once you examine the situation - knowing what the plan was after the fact.
If there is a spy on the ship and they have the ability to communicate with the first order. No plan relying on stealth or misdirection is going to work.
Once the spy informs the first order that the transports are being loaded - they know what to expect - and we know what happens when they expect the plan. The transports get blown up by the doom ship.
All it took to foil this plan was the suggestion that the transports were going to try to get the the planet using stealth.
Lets just call it like it is. Holdo was Disney's attempt to make a strong female leader. The issue is Disney thinks the best way to actually do this is to have this female leader treating men like insects. These aren't actually leadership qualities - they are feminist qualities. It really shows. They think they can cover it up with the self-righteous suicide but that also fails because we know this ship should actually have an auto pilot.
I mean, all of this nit-picking about Holdo's plan completely dissolves away behind the "why didn't the FO just hyperspace ahead of them?" question for me.
That's just a hole that I can't fill, even by reading Wookieepedia.
Stuff should be explained in the narrative and the bad guys should be a credible threat.
Kilkrazy wrote: In that case one must conclude that Holdo was going to leave everyone on board the ship to die, since she did not confide in any of them.
However obviously this isn't the case, since her plan from the beginning was to get everybody off the ship at the last minute, and she protected their retreat by her own sacrifice.
To the people onboard, that did appear to be the case. As a wise man once said "in the absense of facts, rumors fill the void" All good leaders know this and account for it by getting the facts out by holding a mission briefing. I learned it at a leadership course, go figure.
No, she probably didn't see the mutany coming or the side plot, but that really goes back to her horrible plan and execution of it. Let's remember sacrificing herself was not part of the plan, her plan was to run her ship out of gas and hope the first order blew it up. But in all likelyhood that ship would have just been captured comprimising the entire rebellion and ensuring any "friends" still out there loyal to the rebellion we're not long for the world. She had a horrible plan, a illconcieved plan that if she had held a briefing with her senior staff, would have revealed it was doomed to fail.
It also appeared to the audience that Holdo didn't have a plan. I think this was a deliberate piece of writing to increase the tension and doubt in the audience's mind.
If this required Holdo to not be the best admiral in the Star Wars history by not informing Poe about it, then it was a price worth paying. There are good "in universe" reasons why Holdo wouldn't tell Poe.
You can say the plan was ill-conceived by hindsight, but there doesn't seem to have been a better plan available, given the tactical situation of the fleets.
And after all, Holdo's plan actually worked. Many of the transports escaped to the secret base. They were able to contact the outer rim systems for help, and would have been able to hold out against the Empire except for the battering cannon.
How much tension do you need though? The whole rebelion is on 3 ships being chased by a doom ship. It's a tense situation.
Plus - there is a better plan. Instead of letting the other 2 ships run out of fuel. Hyperdrive suicide them. You could at least bring down the doom ship.
I've been saying for a while- Poe is absolutely the worst person to lock out of the loop on any plan.
1) Commands the Starfighter force, providing him with troops directly loyal to him.
2) Riding a personal high of being the hero of Starkiller Base, and the at worst Pyrrhic victory against the Dreadnaught. he can likely draw upon any potential mutineers not under his command, on the basis of reputation.
3) Very Recently demoted. A lot of people likely still think of him as Commander Dameron, so he draws a bit more support that way.
4) History of disobeying orders if he feels that it's the right thing to do.
So, he has both troops available to help a mutiny plan, and is the sort of person who would stage a mutiny. You do not want him floating around getting bored and desperate.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean, all of this nit-picking about Holdo's plan completely dissolves away behind the "why didn't the FO just hyperspace ahead of them?" question for me.
That's just a hole that I can't fill, even by reading Wookieepedia.
Stuff should be explained in the narrative and the bad guys should be a credible threat.
OFC - the entire situation is silly. The whole movie never should have happend and the resistance is too weak to even care about.
Kilkrazy wrote: In that case one must conclude that Holdo was going to leave everyone on board the ship to die, since she did not confide in any of them.
However obviously this isn't the case, since her plan from the beginning was to get everybody off the ship at the last minute, and she protected their retreat by her own sacrifice.
To the people onboard, that did appear to be the case. As a wise man once said "in the absense of facts, rumors fill the void" All good leaders know this and account for it by getting the facts out by holding a mission briefing. I learned it at a leadership course, go figure.
No, she probably didn't see the mutany coming or the side plot, but that really goes back to her horrible plan and execution of it. Let's remember sacrificing herself was not part of the plan, her plan was to run her ship out of gas and hope the first order blew it up. But in all likelyhood that ship would have just been captured comprimising the entire rebellion and ensuring any "friends" still out there loyal to the rebellion we're not long for the world. She had a horrible plan, a illconcieved plan that if she had held a briefing with her senior staff, would have revealed it was doomed to fail.
It also appeared to the audience that Holdo didn't have a plan. I think this was a deliberate piece of writing to increase the tension and doubt in the audience's mind.
If this required Holdo to not be the best admiral in the Star Wars history by not informing Poe about it, then it was a price worth paying. There are good "in universe" reasons why Holdo wouldn't tell Poe.
You can say the plan was ill-conceived by hindsight, but there doesn't seem to have been a better plan available, given the tactical situation of the fleets.
And after all, Holdo's plan actually worked. Many of the transports escaped to the secret base. They were able to contact the outer rim systems for help, and would have been able to hold out against the Empire except for the battering cannon.
It didn't create tension, it just made Holdo look laughably incompetent, I saw a captain removed from command for less. As someone who's been to a briefing for a swim call. Swim call is when they let us sailors off the ship in the middle of the ocean. the military is all about briefings and letting us know what's going on.
No, there was absolutely no reason to keep Poe out of the loop. if he's that untrusted Poe should leave the rebellion over this. Not that there's a rebellion to leave, because it's dead and over.
You don't need hindsight, if your plan starts with only you knowing it, it's doomed to fail. If you only trust some of your crew then your breeding a hostile work place with no morale, and that directly leads to human errors and mutiny's. A mission briefing that included Poe and the other senior staff would more than likely reveal better plans. Her plan did not work, it ended the rebellion causing the deaths of almost everyone.
On the "just hyperdrive ahead" is easily explained. Hyperdrives likely can't work on short distances, so the First Order can't just leap ahead because the ship will leap so far ahead that the Rebel ship will run out of fuel before it even catches up. Similarly its space, so the Rebel ship could just take a change its angle; the First Order would have had to have built a net of additional ships ahead in order to block the path of the fleeting rebel ship.
Well, Poe was captured and mind tortured by Kylo in TFA. So maybe Holdo didn't want to clue him in on the plan just in case Kylo was able to tap into his mind? This would have meant the majority of people needed to be kept in the dark too.
While I agree this would have been good to show on screen, it is clear the filmmakers chose to keep the audience in the dark to build suspense (an not make Poe look stupid until the right moment) Remember, one of the main themes of this movie is failure and what it costs and can teach us.
Kilkrazy wrote: In that case one must conclude that Holdo was going to leave everyone on board the ship to die, since she did not confide in any of them.
However obviously this isn't the case, since her plan from the beginning was to get everybody off the ship at the last minute, and she protected their retreat by her own sacrifice.
To the people onboard, that did appear to be the case. As a wise man once said "in the absense of facts, rumors fill the void" All good leaders know this and account for it by getting the facts out by holding a mission briefing. I learned it at a leadership course, go figure.
No, she probably didn't see the mutany coming or the side plot, but that really goes back to her horrible plan and execution of it. Let's remember sacrificing herself was not part of the plan, her plan was to run her ship out of gas and hope the first order blew it up. But in all likelyhood that ship would have just been captured comprimising the entire rebellion and ensuring any "friends" still out there loyal to the rebellion we're not long for the world. She had a horrible plan, a illconcieved plan that if she had held a briefing with her senior staff, would have revealed it was doomed to fail.
It also appeared to the audience that Holdo didn't have a plan. I think this was a deliberate piece of writing to increase the tension and doubt in the audience's mind.
If this required Holdo to not be the best admiral in the Star Wars history by not informing Poe about it, then it was a price worth paying. There are good "in universe" reasons why Holdo wouldn't tell Poe.
You can say the plan was ill-conceived by hindsight, but there doesn't seem to have been a better plan available, given the tactical situation of the fleets.
And after all, Holdo's plan actually worked. Many of the transports escaped to the secret base. They were able to contact the outer rim systems for help, and would have been able to hold out against the Empire except for the battering cannon.
It didn't create tension, it just made Holdo look laughably incompetent, I saw a captain removed from command for less. As someone who's been to a briefing for a swim call. Swim call is when they let us sailors off the ship in the middle of the ocean. the military is all about briefings and letting us know what's going on.
No, there was absolutely no reason to keep Poe out of the loop. if he's that untrusted Poe should leave the rebellion over this. Not that there's a rebellion to leave, because it's dead and over.
You don't need hindsight, if your plan starts with only you knowing it, it's doomed to fail. If you only trust some of your crew then your breeding a hostile work place with no morale, and that directly leads to human errors and mutiny's. A mission briefing that included Poe and the other senior staff would more than likely reveal better plans. Her plan did not work, it ended the rebellion causing the deaths of almost everyone.
Overread wrote: On the "just hyperdrive ahead" is easily explained. Hyperdrives likely can't work on short distances, so the First Order can't just leap ahead because the ship will leap so far ahead that the Rebel ship will run out of fuel before it even catches up. Similarly its space, so the Rebel ship could just take a change its angle; the First Order would have had to have built a net of additional ships ahead in order to block the path of the fleeting rebel ship.
If it's not possible - they should have stated it was not possible.
Seriously, if the film had spent ten seconds to explain that command doesn't actually explain their plans to junior officers I would have thought that incredibly patronising. I really thought command making sure plans are on a need to know basis was something that most people knew about. Especially when the plan is built around stealth and deception.
I mean, there's plenty of holes in the plot. But Holdo keeping the escape plan secret wasn't one. It's actually one of the more sensible bits of bits of plotting you'll see in a Star Wars movie.
Although your comment makes sense, it doesn't really match the Star Wars movies. Whoever is in charge always has a gathering to discuss the "plan". It consists of all the top brass, leaders of groups like Red Squadron, and main characters. So even though this isn't sensible it is a theme that shows up in the movies. However I could let it pass if Holdo handled Poe better. Howe about she place both her hands on his shoulders and she whispers "I need you to trust in me and the force". Instead she was snarky and came off as a very unlikable character.
Just to add to that: the movie put emphasis on these briefing because they show, too, without telling, that the rebels are not "empire with different color"*. They are more "democratic" if you wish, and show to their soldiers the reasons an attack is called. Also it shows a smaller difference between the grunt and the high command. Compare with how the empire is depicted. Orders are just given, troopers do not share the same space of the officers, more often than not. High stratification, blind loyality is expected. Or else. And pray you don't feth up.
Now watch the movie again and tell me to which one of the two organisations Holdo's behaviour is more similar.
And again, if the rebels are few hundreds, how is even possible Poe is unaware of who Holdo is until she is appointed. Is just so contrived.
*I would argue that Holdo stems from the cynical view of the authors. Many parts of the movie suggest that for the writers, the rebels ARE just the empire with different colours.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Just to add to that: the movie put emphasis on these briefing because they show, too, without telling, that the rebels are not "empire with different color"*. They are more democratic and show to their soldiers the reasons an attack is called.
Also it shows a smaller difference between the grunt and the high command.
Compare with how the empire is shown. Orders are just given, troopers do not share the same space of the officers, more often than not. High stratification, blind loyality is expected. Or else. And pray you don't feth up.
Now watch the movie again and tell me to which one of the two organisations Holdo's behaviour is more similar.
And again, if the rebels are few hundreds, how is even possible Poe is unaware of who Holdo is until she is appointed.
Is just so contrived.
*I would argue that Holdo stems from the cynical view of the authors. Many parts of the movie suggest that for the writers, the rebels ARE just the empire with different colours.
Exactly! If you look at the last post on the previous page you can see four screen shots of plans being presented in previous movies.
All the people in those pictures were taking an active role in the plan being laid out and were being briefed immediately before the commencement of the plan.
There is zero need to brief people if they are not required to know. Poe was not necessary for the successful implementation of Holdo's plan. The whole ship would have been briefed on emergency evacuation procedures many times over and would be able to orderly load into the transports once it was time to do so, whether they had prior warning or not.
This is exactly what happens in the film, also. Poe attempts his mutiny, is knocked out and then everybody gets on the transports without any trouble.
Overread wrote: On the "just hyperdrive ahead" is easily explained. Hyperdrives likely can't work on short distances, so the First Order can't just leap ahead because the ship will leap so far ahead that the Rebel ship will run out of fuel before it even catches up. Similarly its space, so the Rebel ship could just take a change its angle; the First Order would have had to have built a net of additional ships ahead in order to block the path of the fleeting rebel ship.
It's a really good thing this is explained in the narrative, so that I have a reason to assume its validity. Instead of assuming it's a random internet-viewer's ass-pull to try to justify the bad writing and gloss over a plot hole larger than the Death Star.
Oh, wait, it is an internet-user's ass-pull to justify bad writing.
There is zero need to brief people if they are not required to know. Poe was not necessary for the successful implementation of Holdo's plan. The whole ship would have been briefed on emergency evacuation procedures many times over and would be able to orderly load into the transports once it was time to do so, whether they had prior warning or not.
This is exactly what happens in the film, also. Poe attempts his mutiny, is knocked out and then everybody gets on the transports without any trouble.
Poe was a commander, not a grunt, even after demotion. Is really all built to create a false problem and make a point.
A point, I repeat, that the emperor would have loved.
Overread wrote: On the "just hyperdrive ahead" is easily explained. Hyperdrives likely can't work on short distances, so the First Order can't just leap ahead because the ship will leap so far ahead that the Rebel ship will run out of fuel before it even catches up. Similarly its space, so the Rebel ship could just take a change its angle; the First Order would have had to have built a net of additional ships ahead in order to block the path of the fleeting rebel ship.
It's a really good thing this is explained in the narrative, so that I have a reason to assume its validity. Instead of assuming it's a random internet-viewer's ass-pull to try to justify the bad writing and gloss over a plot hole larger than the Death Star.
Oh, wait, it is an internet-user's ass-pull to justify bad writing.
Oh. Back to square one.
It isn't explained why they don't just hyperdrive to the obelisk in 2001, so do you have no reason to assume that they are capable of doing so but decide not to? Sometimes the absence of people doing something indicates that such a thing is impossible without it needing to be said.
Nowhere, in any of the films, have we ever been shown a hyperdrive being used for short jumps. Why didn't the Star Destroyers chasing the Millennium Falcon in ESB jump ahead of it? Does ESB now have a huge plot hole? Or is it more likely that the reason they don't do that kind of manoeuvre despite multiple instances of where it would be useful is, despite it not being stated, that such a manoeuvre is impossible?
Overread wrote: On the "just hyperdrive ahead" is easily explained. Hyperdrives likely can't work on short distances, so the First Order can't just leap ahead because the ship will leap so far ahead that the Rebel ship will run out of fuel before it even catches up. Similarly its space, so the Rebel ship could just take a change its angle; the First Order would have had to have built a net of additional ships ahead in order to block the path of the fleeting rebel ship.
It's a really good thing this is explained in the narrative, so that I have a reason to assume its validity. Instead of assuming it's a random internet-viewer's ass-pull to try to justify the bad writing and gloss over a plot hole larger than the Death Star.
Oh, wait, it is an internet-user's ass-pull to justify bad writing.
Oh. Back to square one.
It isn't explained why they don't just hyperdrive to the obelisk in 2001, so do you have no reason to assume that they are capable of doing so but decide not to? Sometimes the absence of people doing something indicates that such a thing is impossible without it needing to be said.
Nowhere, in any of the films, have we ever been shown a hyperdrive being used for short jumps. Why didn't the Star Destroyers chasing the Millennium Falcon in ESB jump ahead of it? Does ESB now have a huge plot hole? Or is it more likely that the reason they don't do that kind of manoeuvre despite multiple instances of where it would be useful is, despite it not being stated, that such a manoeuvre is impossible?
The reason they don't hyperdrive to the monolith in 2001 is because they don't have hyperdrives. That's... kind of a silly thing to say, really. They even talk about how many months it takes to fly there. Really it's one of the hardest sci-fi movies I can think of.
And you could assume it's impossible for a whole variety of reasons. And yes, without rewatching ESB, if the star destroyers don't hyperspace in front of the Millenium Falcon, then it's a huge plot hole. At the time, I missed it, but I'll make sure to point it out next time people are talking about how awesome ESB is. This is without rewatching it, mind; there may be an actual reason that is onscreen that neither of us can remember.
And no, actually, I don't accept that it's impossible. Because there's no reason it would be impossible. I literally can't think of one. To assume it is because it's never been done is kind of silly. It's like saying "Oh, nuclear war is impossible because it's never been done." Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it couldn't happen, so when it becomes the obvious solution, then do it. Or, explain why you can't do it.
But nowhere is it outright stated in 2001 that they do not have hyperdrives. By your logic assuming that they don't is an internet ass-pull.
I can think of a reason for it to be impossible to complete small hyperspace jumps.
We assume that a ship must accelerate before it can enter hyperspace (as seen by the fact that the Rebel fleet accelerates visibly in ROTJ when it is jumping to the Death Star, The Star Destroyer accelerates visibly when leaving its rubbish behind in ESB, Wookieepedia also states that you can only enter hyperspace after accelerating to speeds exceeding the speed of light). So the Star Destroyer would have to accelerate to lightspeed before it could enter hyperspace. As such it will travel a long way before it enters hyperspace, then it would travel in hyperspace and then would have to decelerate and drop back out of hyperspace.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But nowhere is it outright stated in 2001 that they do not have hyperdrives. By your logic assuming that they don't is an internet ass-pull.
Sorry but what kind of logic is this? You take a whole different movie, with none of the elements established in the movie discussed beyond "space", and arguably talking AIs, and use it as an example? I don't follow the line of reasoning.
Also, if the FO has trackers, even if the jump can be close to the rebels but not TOO close (it makes sense, more in tune with the universe than the rest of the sequels) is just enough to hyperspace some star destroyers beyond, in line with the rebel route, and come back. You create in this way a trap. Rebel admirals will probably immediately recognize that is a trap (I trust at least one guy on that) and move in a different axis. But now they are going out of fuel and not escaping in the direction they did choose. You put them in a lose-lose situation.
The reason that the ISD don't use hyper-drive to chase the falcon is simple. They were already in effective weapons range. They already had fighters on her tail. Then she flew into an asteroid field.
Xenomancers wrote: The reason that the ISD don't use hyper-drive to chase the falcon is simple. They were already in effective weapons range. They already had fighters on her tail. Then she flew into an asteroid field.
No no don't look at it in this way - you must have a "hidden reason" - why do you "hate" the film - what is "really" wrong with you. I know of course but I wonlt tell you, because reasons.
......... Just watch it and embrace the stupidness but then rail against it in any other film- then my son you will be a true film critic.
The hyperspace issues are just one of many many narrative problems which people will ignore because
a) To them its not a problem, they enjoyed it for what it was - fair enough
or
b) Flaws are not flaws they are just too clever for us stupid people to follow.
Exactly! If you look at the last post on the previous page you can see four screen shots of plans being presented in previous movies.
Yeah, I added to that. I should have quoted. Thank you for researching the pics, they make a way better point.
Thanks! They were a little hard to find, especially for TFA. The prequels were a bit odd. I don't think those kind of meetings were used much. Most prequel meetings were the Jedi Council. It seems like they never really had a plan in those movies.
A Town Called Malus wrote: But nowhere is it outright stated in 2001 that they do not have hyperdrives. By your logic assuming that they don't is an internet ass-pull.
If you can't see the difference between "Canon says they have hyperdrives, but we have to assume they don't use them because of 'contrived reasons that are never explained'." and "They don't have hyperdrives because it's hard sci-fi." then I don't know what to tell you.
Marmatag wrote: Come on you're chasing someone in space, just use the Picard maneuver.
Actually the Picard manoeuvre is when you jump to warp speed for a micro second and thus cause a duplication to occur on your opponent's sensors, allowing you to get in a cheap shot, or to sneak away.
This doesn't work in Star Wars because they seem to fight their battles in visual range.
Marmatag wrote: Come on you're chasing someone in space, just use the Picard maneuver.
Actually the Picard manoeuvre is when you jump to warp speed for a micro second and thus cause a duplication to occur on your opponent's sensors, allowing you to get in a cheap shot, or to sneak away.
This doesn't work in Star Wars because they seem to fight their battles in visual range.
But the Picard manoeuvre also works in visual range. The display screen of the Enterprise visually shows two Stargazers when Picard uses it.
Marmatag wrote: Come on you're chasing someone in space, just use the Picard maneuver.
Actually the Picard manoeuvre is when you jump to warp speed for a micro second and thus cause a duplication to occur on your opponent's sensors, allowing you to get in a cheap shot, or to sneak away.
This doesn't work in Star Wars because they seem to fight their battles in visual range.
But the Picard manoeuvre also works in visual range. The display screen of the Enterprise visually shows two Stargazers when Picard uses it.
Exactly, display screens. They have information relayed by the sensors which get confused and double them up.
It wouldn't work if they opened the window and looked out them.
But you might have problems with atmospheric containment at that point.
welshhoppo wrote: Don't forget, Star Wars uses WW2 technology in space.
In RotS we literally have ships lined up side by side and broadsiding each other.
The First Order obviously haven't developed radar yet.
It's even worse than that.
The casino-codebreaker-fellow is like "better turn on your scanners" so then they turn on their scanners, spot the transports, and start shooting.
It's literally "not developed Radar" it's "inexplicably leaving the radar off until someone not even in our chain of command offhandedly references it."
welshhoppo wrote: Don't forget, Star Wars uses WW2 technology in space.
In RotS we literally have ships lined up side by side and broadsiding each other.
The First Order obviously haven't developed radar yet.
It's even worse than that.
The casino-codebreaker-fellow is like "better turn on your scanners" so then they turn on their scanners, spot the transports, and start shooting.
It's literally "not developed Radar" it's "inexplicably leaving the radar off until someone not even in our chain of command offhandedly references it."
Like I said - it was a fail plan all the time. If your planned relies on the enemy just being stupid. "Hopefully they have their scanners turned off" - it's a MGaking fail plan. Holdo is responsible for this fail plan because she didn't even consult her staff about it. Please continue to tell us how competent she is as a commander!
"Aye boyo, you'd better turn on your radar." Said the codebreaker guy.
"Radar! Of course, we have radar!" facepalms Colonel donkey-cave.
"And this time there's no one to jam it!" replies Dark Helmet (flashback scene to the Spaceballs Jammed Radar gag)
"Turn on the radar!" calls Colonel donkey-cave, through his commlink.
- cut to bridge -
"Radar? He wants us to turn on the radar?"
"Ray-dahr. Ray - door. No, hm, doesn't ring a bell."
"Maybe he means the Whips, the Boops, and the Blaapts?" - cameo Radar Guy from the first Spaceballs.
If they didn't know to look for the transports as they slowly made their way to the only planet around, then why couldn't the transports just jump to hyperspace? They weren't looking for them anyway.
The apparent reason that Holdo did not tell Poe about her plan was to create tension between them so that Poe would have a plot arc, essentially breaking the fourth wall. The same applies to the whole casino subplot.
Regarding the FO not having the capacity to jump a short distance ahead, we were literally shown in the film Finn and Rose jumping away and then jumping back.
Because it's a space fantasy reasons can always be contrived why things happens, but it's one of my core complaints about TLJ - things seem to happen specifically to hit certain plot points rather than the plot forming naturally. You can get away with a couple of hard to believe things in a movie but TLJ just overloads on them. It just had too many points where I thought "huh, what? why? that's stupid". The audience shouldn't have to be coming up with the reasons why anything and everything happens the way it does.
Kilkrazy wrote: Some of the transports don't have hyperdrive.
The purpose of getting into the range of the planet was to allow the transports to get there in sub-light drive.
Which in itself is a bit odd because the Rebels typically aim to have hyperdrives on all their craft. Even their small fighters have hyperdrive (opposed to the Empire who doesn't bother).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It just had too many points where I thought "huh, what? why? that's stupid".
When Holdo told Leia she would go down with the ship, my wife turned to me and asked, "why can't a robot do that?" Good question. We eventually found out, the reason is because a droid probably would not have made the executive decision to turn the ship around and hyperspace into Snoke flying wing.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It just had too many points where I thought "huh, what? why? that's stupid".
When Holdo told Leia she would go down with the ship, my wife turned to me and asked, "why can't a robot do that?" Good question. We eventually found out, the reason is because a droid probably would not have made the executive decision to turn the ship around and hyperspace into Snoke flying wing.
Though this does go back to the droid missile problem.
"Why can't a robot do that?" is a very good question, especially with hyperspace missiles. I mean, in the lore we've had the CIS exist, which specifically used underhanded tactics and cared so little for its droids that them being smashed apart by their own commanders is routine.
Surely you can bodge together some asteroids with hyperspace engines and zip around piloted by a droid.
Just keep in mind that she didn't stay intending to use the hyperspace missile strategy. (But honestly why wouldn't she have? She has nothing to lose/everything to gain.) It's only later on that she comes up with this plan to distract the baddies from firing on the transports.
Maybe it was only theoretically possible and nobody tried it before because nobody wanted to die? Theoretically, bulletproof vest should work. Who wants to test them personally unless needed? Why not test it on a droid ship? It's expensive? Why are people spending so much time on something they don't like? People have lots of time to do do stuff they don't like doing. Why would people do stuff they don't like doing? People are strange and have personal plot holes
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Star Wars is driven by dramatic and narrative tension rather than documentary logistical considerations.
Tension is undermined, and sometimes entirely defeated, by inexplicable plot developments because they distract the audience.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why are people spending so much time on something they don't like?
Because the particular something is part of a wider something that they do care about. No plot hole there.
My view of it is that the plot developments in the film are not inexplicable, do not distract the audience, and do not undermine but actually increase the tension.
This certainly is my subjective experience of watching the film.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Star Wars is driven by dramatic and narrative tension rather than documentary logistical considerations.
Tension is undermined, and sometimes entirely defeated, by inexplicable plot developments because they distract the audience.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why are people spending so much time on something they don't like?
Because the particular something is part of a wider something that they do care about. No plot hole there.
So your time spent on discussing something with people you don't know for validating the two movies of a cannon of now nine movies was well spent. God I wish I had your time and had nothing better to do with my plot. I need more plot holes in my life. I'm going to start discussing my life in terms of plot from now on. So thanks for that, at least.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view of it is that the plot developments in the film are not inexplicable
Why must a human being, as opposed to a robot, remain on the ship when everyone else abandons it?
Gordon Shumway wrote: So your time spent on discussing something with people you don't know for validating the two movies of a cannon of now nine movies was well spent. God I wish I had your time and had nothing better to do with my plot. I need more plot holes in my life. I'm going to start discussing my life in terms of plot from now on. So thanks for that, at least.
So how I spend my time is, in your view, a waste that you can't afford - and yet you can spare the time to criticize me for how I spend my time. Just noting the irony ... and here we see, again, the dichotomy of discussing the movie versus discussing people who don't like the movie, a.k.a., ad hominem.
Manchu wrote: Just keep in mind that she didn't stay intending to use the hyperspace missile strategy. (But honestly why wouldn't she have? She has nothing to lose/everything to gain.) It's only later on that she comes up with this plan to distract the baddies from firing on the transports.
The fact that Holdo intended to stay on the ship before she decided to hyperspace ram Snoke's ship is an extremely idiotic scene. They're in space, the ship is going to continue moving on its present course at its present speed whether there is anyone on board or not. The only reason for Holdo to stay aboard is if she wanted to change the course of the ship she certainly didn't have to stay aboard to keep it on course.
Holdo making her suicide attack on Snoke's ship was terrible for the narrative of the movie. Holdo was introduced seemingly just to become a martyr for the cause. This led to the inartfully contrived love interest with Rose and Finn because Rose has a crush on Finn the hero of the resistance (Finn's a hero because he defected from the FO and lost a lightsaber fight with Kylo Ren and then spent days in a bacta tank). Rose has to stop Finn from martyring himself by smashing his speeder into the battering ram cannon because we can't have the only useful tactic available to the "good guys" to be martyring themselves in suicide attacks. Rose has her dramatic speech before she passes out about how the Resistance shouldn't fight to destroy what they hate but should instead fight to save what they love. So Rose wants Finn to fight to save what he loves from being destroyed by the FO but she doesn't want Finn to fight the FO because he hates them from trying to destroy what he loves. That level of nuance is such a splitting of hairs that it's irrelevant. It's a horrible garbling of Yoda's fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side speech to Luke.
TLJ leaves us with the Resistance being about two dozen devout true believers on the Millennium Falcon who rely on propaganda to win the sympathy of people in the galaxy, their most successful tactic is suicide attacks, and the weapons they buy to use to fight the FO support the vice laden lifestyles of amoral wealthy 1%er arms dealers, and whose calls for aid in their desperate hour of need went unanswered. They are the galaxy's only hope for defeating the FO, the guys that dress up like Nazis, blow up planets for fun and have a seemingly inexhaustible military industrial complex supporting their vast array of warmachines and warships that are incredibly ineffective.
Perhaps I'm setting up another red herring. The issue is actually not whether the question raised by the plot can be answered, or even whether it is not answered, but rather that the plot has raised the question at all. Writers plant seeds and then reap pay off. Plot developments make sense because the how/why of the development was already explained beforehand, when the seed was planted. If the writer doesn't plant the seed explaining the later pay off then the development rings hollow, doesn't make sense, and/or causes the audience to focus about something other than the emotional beat of the scene. In the scene in question, Holdo explains that she has to stay behind. She even says why, but her explanation doesn't make sense in a setting with robots.
My wife is not a Star Wars fan at all but this distracted her enough to lean over to me and ask the genuine question, why can't a robot do it? I am a Star Wars fan and I had no credible answer for her.
@Prestor Jon - you make excellent points there, reminding us that we're not just talking about a confluence of excusable flaws
Kilkrazy wrote: My view of it is that the plot developments in the film are not inexplicable
Why must a human being, as opposed to a robot, remain on the ship when everyone else abandons it?
Gordon Shumway wrote: So your time spent on discussing something with people you don't know for validating the two movies of a cannon of now nine movies was well spent. God I wish I had your time and had nothing better to do with my plot. I need more plot holes in my life. I'm going to start discussing my life in terms of plot from now on. So thanks for that, at least.
So how I spend my time is, in your view, a waste that you can't afford - and yet you can spare the time to criticize me for how I spend my time. Just noting the irony ... and here we see, again, the dichotomy of discussing the movie versus discussing people who don't like the movie, a.k.a., ad hominem.
ill put it in quotes as it doesn't really advance the discussion at all .
Spoiler:
When the hominem is the only reason ("I did or did not like something personally, but meh, you may get something different") to judge, yeah. Gonna go for the hominem. It isn't exactly irony when I spend a grand total of five minutes reading your insights and then realizing you haven't been all that insightful. What insight has your criticism brought to the film? If the film doesn't deserve any of your insight, why keep trying to be insightful about it? If you aren't trying to be insightful, what is your point? It really is no different from the US politics thread at all. The difference is you care about it. That's it. The vile hate and lack of listening (Sebster must think we all just ignore his points) is no different. The lack of listening and thinking and common ground is the same. Sorry about not providing a citation earlier for my claim about you saying critics were paid for their oinions. I looked for about five minutes and only found you talking about how Disney was making some sort of conspiracy to like their movie and demean people who didn't -got a source for that? Other than the standard ad stuff to promote a movie?.
"Why can't a robot do it?" Because the Empire (FO) doesn't waste fire on escaping vehicles with no life signs. That's why They might think it just malfunctioned.
This was established in the very first SW movie. Come on guys. I thought you were SW fans!
There's a difference between whether one likes a movie and whether a movie is good or bad. I have been solely talking about the latter. Your response has consistently been ad hominem and now you admit as much, seemingly because you don't or can't or won't distinguish between (dis)liking a movie and talking about the merits and flaws of a movie. I suspect that's why you can't understand that critical analysis of film is an end in itself, like any other hobby.
As such, there's no reason for me to care about whether you find my posts insightful.
Moreover, there actually is common ground here. Nobody pretends TLJ is a flawless masterpiece. And pretty much everyone seems to like at least some element in the picture, too, even if it's just a premise that they believe the film ultimately failed to deliver on. As I posted several days ago, what many people seem to be interested in ITT is why someone else couldn't overlook the flaws that they were able to overlook or vice versa.
@Galef
If the FO was scanning the Resistance ship for life signs, they would have noticed that the Resistance abandoned ship.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view of it is that the plot developments in the film are not inexplicable
Why must a human being, as opposed to a robot, remain on the ship when everyone else abandons it?
Gordon Shumway wrote: So your time spent on discussing something with people you don't know for validating the two movies of a cannon of now nine movies was well spent. God I wish I had your time and had nothing better to do with my plot. I need more plot holes in my life. I'm going to start discussing my life in terms of plot from now on. So thanks for that, at least.
So how I spend my time is, in your view, a waste that you can't afford - and yet you can spare the time to criticize me for how I spend my time. Just noting the irony ... and here we see, again, the dichotomy of discussing the movie versus discussing people who don't like the movie, a.k.a., ad hominem.
ill put it in quotes as it doesn't really advance the discussion at all .
Spoiler:
When the hominem is the only reason ("I did or did not like something personally, but meh, you may get something different") to judge, yeah. Gonna go for the hominem. It isn't exactly irony when I spend a grand total of five minutes reading your insights and then realizing you haven't been all that insightful. What insight has your criticism brought to the film? If the film doesn't deserve any of your insight, why keep trying to be insightful about it? If you aren't trying to be insightful, what is your point? It really is no different from the US politics thread at all. The difference is you care about it. That's it. The vile hate and lack of listening (Sebster must think we all just ignore his points) is no different. The lack of listening and thinking and common ground is the same. Sorry about not providing a citation earlier for my claim about you saying critics were paid for their oinions. I looked for about five minutes and only found you talking about how Disney was making some sort of conspiracy to like their movie and demean people who didn't -got a source for that? Other than the standard ad stuff to promote a movie?.
Wow - Have you read Sebsters "how much can I talk down to you" posts. Also he was the one screaming and shouting at people with feth this and feth that, its also sad you that have resorted to a personal attack on the person not the actual content of his arguments - really.sad
Actually I said that the critics must have been paid for the scores they gave to a truely awful film - I could not see any explanation and stand by it now. But then i regard them with contempt anyway..
Why can't a robot do it?"
Because the Empire (FO) doesn't waste fire on escaping vehicles with no life signs. That's why
They might think it just malfunctioned.
This was established in the very first SW movie. Come on guys. I thought you were SW fans!
Er because apparently the FO can not tell the entire ship is empty so how do they know that its a droid???
Galef wrote: "Why can't a robot do it?"
Because the Empire (FO) doesn't waste fire on escaping vehicles with no life signs. That's why
They might think it just malfunctioned.
-
If the FO only fires on ships with life signs why can't the FO detect that all the life forms are leaving the ship? Wouldn't they notice the difference between thousands of life signs on the ship and only one?
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Star Wars is driven by dramatic and narrative tension rather than documentary logistical considerations.
Tension is undermined, and sometimes entirely defeated, by inexplicable plot developments because they distract the audience.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Why are people spending so much time on something they don't like?
Because the particular something is part of a wider something that they do care about. No plot hole there.
My view of it is that the plot developments in the film are not inexplicable, do not distract the audience, and do not undermine but actually increase the tension.
This certainly is my subjective experience of watching the film.
I think the opposite and both are views are equally valid as you say its a art form so completely subjective.
What's the problem in discussing geeky passions? In the main boards we discuss games with plastic toy soldiers we enjoy. Is perfectly normal in this context be invested in this geeky medium/genre and discuss the pleasure or disappointment taken from a movie/book/whatever. Is not that I stop people IRL discussing this. I have to care about money, work, politics and so on.
Galef wrote: "Why can't a robot do it?"
Because the Empire (FO) doesn't waste fire on escaping vehicles with no life signs. That's why
They might think it just malfunctioned.
This was established in the very first SW movie. Come on guys. I thought you were SW fans!
Yeah, that was a plot hole from the OT. Bit naff to only destroy escape pods with human life forms in a universe with droids. Because a droid can do most anything a meatbag could do.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Regarding the FO not having the capacity to jump a short distance ahead, we were literally shown in the film Finn and Rose jumping away and then jumping back.
Because it's a space fantasy reasons can always be contrived why things happens, but it's one of my core complaints about TLJ - things seem to happen specifically to hit certain plot points rather than the plot forming naturally. You can get away with a couple of hard to believe things in a movie but TLJ just overloads on them. It just had too many points where I thought "huh, what? why? that's stupid". The audience shouldn't have to be coming up with the reasons why anything and everything happens the way it does.
Kilkrazy wrote: Some of the transports don't have hyperdrive.
The purpose of getting into the range of the planet was to allow the transports to get there in sub-light drive.
Which in itself is a bit odd because the Rebels typically aim to have hyperdrives on all their craft. Even their small fighters have hyperdrive (opposed to the Empire who doesn't bother).
That is a great point. The resistance was able to do 2 targeted jumps to make it right back to where they started. If they can do it so can the FO.
Kaiyanwang wrote: What's the problem in discussing geeky passions?
In the main boards we discuss games with plastic toy soldiers we enjoy.
Is perfectly normal in this context be invested in this geeky medium/genre and discuss the pleasure or disappointment taken from a movie/book/whatever.
Is not that I stop people IRL discussing this. I have to care about money, work, politics and so on.
Absolutely nothing. And I have no desire to stop anybody from discussing whatever they want. I just recognize that that some discussions seem to beget the question as to why are people engaging with it? Like, if people really hate GW, fine, they will complain for a bit and then usually disappear from the boards after a bit of time. If people hate a given movie, fine, they will complain and that will be that, and maybe bring up their complaints when the discussion arises again. This discussion (and not just here, but the interwebs at large) seems to be hugely disproportionate to what is being discussed. Lots of people seemed to really dislike the new Blade Runner. They were vociferous and verbose and at times astute. But the discussion about SW seems to have hit a new level of geekdom. Maybe this is what Sebster was (perhaps a bit too aggressively, though I didn't find it offensive) trying to examine. Maybe it is just that SW means so much to people. I don't know what it is, and I am not trying to discount any individual claims or complaints about the movie here (I don't think I have ever stated my personal opinion of the movie here because I don't think anybody would much care, nor should they from some random bloke on the Internet), but make an observation about the larger discussion. It just seems weird people are so invested in hating something so much that they have to make their hate known in every minute way.
Kaiyanwang wrote: What's the problem in discussing geeky passions? In the main boards we discuss games with plastic toy soldiers we enjoy. Is perfectly normal in this context be invested in this geeky medium/genre and discuss the pleasure or disappointment taken from a movie/book/whatever. Is not that I stop people IRL discussing this. I have to care about money, work, politics and so on.
Absolutely nothing. And I have no desire to stop anybody from discussing whatever they want. I just recognize that that some discussions seem to beget the question as to why are people engaging with it? Like, if people really hate GW, fine, they will complain for a bit and then usually disappear from the boards after a bit of time. If people hate a given movie, fine, they will complain and that will be that, and maybe bring up their complaints when the discussion arises again. This discussion (and not just here, but the interwebs at large) seems to be hugely disproportionate to what is being discussed. Lots of people seemed to really dislike the new Blade Runner. They were vociferous and verbose and at times astute. But the discussion about SW seems to have hit a new level of geekdom. Maybe this is what Sebster was (perhaps a bit too aggressively, though I didn't find it offensive) trying to examine. Maybe it is just that SW means so much to people. I don't know what it is, and I am not trying to discount any individual claims or complaints about the movie here (I don't think I have ever stated my personal opinion of the movie here because I don't think anybody would much care, nor should they from some random bloke on the Internet), but make an observation about the larger discussion. It just seems weird people are so invested in hating something so much that they have to make their hate known in every minute way.
I think there is a certain complexity to this, but it can be ascribed to the whole forum phenomenon in general. Before the movie, one can look for confirmations for his hype. After a movie like this, belonging to an "historic" geek franchise (if you allow me), ends up being so divisive, I think that people that found it awful need catharsis. In addition, since there is a certain circus already discussed praising the movie, I think they try (it is at least partially valid for myself, so I'd say we try) to find a certain validation. See if someone else feels that all the praise is undeserved, if they are insane for thinking that the movie is bad, if someone else found as well a given element or character inconsistent or obnoxious. Defenders have probably felt the opposite - for whatever reason (that me, an "hater" to say, does not understand) they had a good time. So they will defend the movie, they will defend the authenticity of what they felt. So ultimately, we are validating our emotional investment in the franchise. SW means a lot and part of the emotional investment can be ascribed to that, but I think it can happen even for a one(two now)-hit-wonder movie like Blade Runner. Or for those that watched the first one and do not find the second one fitting*.
*
Spoiler:
And they are heretics and wrong and I launched a distress call for the Flesh Tearers - they will take care of this
LordofHats wrote: That's the thing though. If Holdo had told Poe the plan he liked earlier he wouldn't have sent Rose and Finn off to find the Codebreaker. If Rose and Finn never left to find the Codebreaker then they'd have never tried to disable the tracker, never gotten caught, and the Codebreaker wouldn't have revealed the plan.
The act of not telling Poe even the most basic aspects of how there was a plan is what ruined the plan.
That's right, but it doesn't mean Holdo was wrong. Holdo held information on their stealth escape to a need to know basis, and then expected lower ranked troops to do their job and obey orders. The mistake was with Poe and company for refusing to follow their orders and do their jobs.
Funny thing is, the plot line of lower ranked troops ignoring direct orders and doing what the know best is a regular cliche in Hollywood. It's just that in all those movies because those lower ranks are the heroes then they're totally right to ignore orders, and everything works out fine and their disobedience saves the day. Here, finally, was a movie that suggested that maybe chains of command and discipline to follow orders is actually an important thing and that just because you're the hero doesn't mean you know everything.
And people are complaining about it. Oh well.
Withholding that you have any plan at all, and then allowing rumor to spread that your plan is simply "abandon ship and take our chances in unarmed tiny shuttles" is an even more terrible idea. This imo only became an issue because of an offhand conversation consisting of about four lines where Holdo admits to liking Poe after he staged a mutiny that could have potentially killed everyone on board after his super risky plan failed. That one line throws the entire series of her interactions with him into question. Either she likes him and thinks he's capable of being a good leader when the time to bat comes up, or she thinks he's reckless and can't be trusted and should be kept far away from anything of importance. That pendulum just doesn't swing both ways, and sure as hell not after a mutiny is staged.
The dialogue could have been a little tighter, I agree. Well, I'd have to see the movie again to know for certain what was said, but my recollection is as you say, that Holdo did nothing to convince people there was a plan, but it was secret right now. It's a bit of the film that could justify a second viewing.
Gordon Shumway wrote: That is nicely put, thanks, but why this film now? Is it really that much worse than TFA in people's minds or feelings?
Yes, as seen in the lower box office take, lower ranking on rotten tomatoes and our site (51%) which is way down from any other star wars movie. It is objectively a worse movie than TFA, it does nothing for character development, it has no reveals, and no foreshadowing, when the updated list on the preferred viewing order comes out, my money is on people just leaving TLJ off the list with Ep1.
Gordon Shumway wrote: That is nicely put, thanks, but why this film now? Is it really that much worse than TFA in people's minds or feelings?
For what concerns me, I find an absurdity to hate this movie and like TFA. TFA is as much as incoherent and illogical. The characters are as much as awful and wasted (but some was spared, Johnson went full auto in TLJ). The worldbuilding as much as bad. Is just build cleverly to be fast and based on nostalgia so the trick works better. It does to Solo what TLJ did to Luke. Arguably, Rey is slightly better in TLJ, Kylo too possibly, and Johnson's style, when he does not want to reference the matrix or has other extremely cringe-y ideas for shots, at least has a personality. A crappy personality maybe, or at least schizophrenic, but different from what I feel from J.J. "if stock photos were a movie" Abrams. TLJ has even worse tone problem IMHO. Also is ESB reversed so is as much as dishonest as TFA. Now you are the expert here so you will tell me where I am wrong. But this is how I feel. TFA and TLJ are both awful, sometimes for different reasons (opposite, actually) and sometimes for the same ones.
You really need to take a breath and a long hard look at your posts and realise how condescending they are. You talk about us getting angry - we didn't post this, now did we:
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.
- change the feth words to what they actually are and thats a explosion of anger and insults. I donlt know why you are so hugely invested n this film or what need you have to justfiy it to yourself and to others but its probably going to give you an ulcer.
You've misread that completely. Like a lot of people, I use the word feth for lots of reasons. Here I was showing exasperation that after putting in my first post that I didn't think much of the patriarchy reason, people still chose to pretend that was my intent, and then they continued to pretend that was the case even as I repeatedly told them otherwise.
You really need to take a breath and a long hard look at your posts and realise how condescending they are. You talk about us getting angry - we didn't post this, now did we:
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.
- change the feth words to what they actually are and thats a explosion of anger and insults. I donlt know why you are so hugely invested n this film or what need you have to justfiy it to yourself and to others but its probably going to give you an ulcer.
You've misread that completely. Like a lot of people, I use the word feth for lots of reasons. Here I was showing exasperation that after putting in my first post that I didn't think much of the patriarchy reason, people still chose to pretend that was my intent, and then they continued to pretend that was the case even as I repeatedly told them otherwise.
So you're upset people aren't blindly taking you at your word?
Galef wrote: "Why can't a robot do it?"
Because the Empire (FO) doesn't waste fire on escaping vehicles with no life signs. That's why
They might think it just malfunctioned.
This was established in the very first SW movie. Come on guys. I thought you were SW fans!
If the FO was scanning the Resistance ship for life signs, they would have noticed that the Resistance abandoned ship.
Prestor Jon wrote: If the FO only fires on ships with life signs why can't the FO detect that all the life forms are leaving the ship? Wouldn't they notice the difference between thousands of life signs on the ship and only one?
Scrabb wrote: Yeah, that was a plot hole from the OT. Bit naff to only destroy escape pods with human life forms in a universe with droids. Because a droid can do most anything a meatbag could do.
That's kinda the point of the joke. The Empire didn't fire on the pod with Threepio and R2 because it had no life signs. So Holdo "had to stay on the ship" to make sure there was a life sign for the FO to keep firing at.
It's entirely ridiculous in both cases, but 100% Star Wars
Gordon Shumway wrote: Is it really that much worse than TFA in people's minds or feelings?
I'd give TFA a B and TLJ a C-. TFA arguably had a tougher job, what with having to establish new characters and a new scenario. On the latter point, it was pretty weak - just recycling the basic premise of the original trilogy - but there was a promise of something fundamentally entertaining thanks to fresh, likeable characters. I thought TLJ could easily match TFA's entertainment value just by continuing on with the same likeable cast. I never imagined those characters would be split up, juxtaposed against new and unlikeable characters, and made to fail over and over again. Fortunately, TLJ managed to focus on Rey and Kylo and created some interesting moments between these two. However, it's hard to see how the situation has meaningfully developed. Instead of reaching out into a new direction, TLJ reaffirms Disney's extremely conservative strategy from TFA while abandoning the strengths of that approach (good pacing, clear themes).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: It's entirely ridiculous in both cases, but 100% Star Wars
I don't know what this means. Ridiculous = Star Wars?
Holdo actually explains why she has to stay on the ship during her conversation with Leia and it has nothing to do with life signs. I wish I could remember the exact line but she basically says she has to pilot the ship.
I'll put myself down as one of those people, particularly having recently rewatched TFA (I've posted a bit about that earlier, so I'll try to avoid repeating myself.)
Broadly speaking, TFA I'd rank a 7. TLJ, maybe a 3.5.
In context, RoTJ a 8.5, ANH, 9, Rogue One and ESB a 10. Clones would be a 2, TPM a 1.
I wouldn't say that's a scale compared to every film I've ever seen ever but some sort of relative Star Wars scale or the like.
Anyhow...
I think it does kind of come down to that 'not subverting expectations' thing. TFA really felt, to me, that it had the spark of Star Wars magic to it. Maybe it's a music thing, I dunno. In any case, there's a different feeling to it.
Like, you have "The garbage will do" line and then there's the reveal of the Falcon with the classic motif. "Duh duh dun, duh dun, duh dah dah dah dah dun."
Or you have Han's "it's true, the force, the jedi, the light, the dark all of it is true" speech. There's the magic and wonder there.
Ok, sure, we do see that Han has fallen back to his old ways, but we still learn that he has developed and grown as a character. No more "hokey religion."
Contrast with TLJ. Ok, sure, the tossing the lightsaber away was kind of funny. But it also did something too. It tossed the magic away as well.
For all the talk of embers of hope in TLJ, the whole 'subverting expectations' thing felt like there was a running undercurrent of, "haha nerds, you actually are emotionally invested in this crap. Losers." that seemed to run through it.
And that contributed to some of the certain more traditionally magical scenes, not really ring true to me. - Like I said, I thought Yoda was some sort of Snoke force manipulation thing messing with Luke for ages.
And while the Binary Sunset at the end, with the boy feels like it should be a thing to cause the magical warm and fuzzies. It doesn't quite marry up with the almost sort of nihilistic, "well, this genre is a giant mess of dumb and you're dumb for caring about lots of this' that kind of feels like an undercurrent throughout much of the film.
I think chewing on this is why I end up being more against the film as time goes on.
If it weren't 3am, I'd also want to compare and contrast the "hope" taglines found in TLJ and comparing it to the same in "Rogue One" which, in my view, DOES feel genuine and DOES manage to keep that film holding the 'magic' of Star Wars, despite it being, ultimately, a war film where the bad guys manage to successfully murder the entire cast.
sebster wrote: Holdo held information on their stealth escape to a need to know basis, and then expected lower ranked troops to do their job and obey orders. The mistake was with Poe and company for refusing to follow their orders and do their jobs.
I have a lot of complaints about R1 but one of them is definitely NOT that Jyn Erso and her pals disobeyed orders in order to get the Death Star plans.
To paraphrase Kilkrazy, this isn't a documentary about military hierarchy. The one and only reason Holdo doesn't tell anyone about her plan* or that she even has a plan is to make the audience suspicious of her/supportive of Poe, so that ultimately Poe can be wrong. People in the audience understand that they were tricked and they resent it. Naturally, they look for a way for Poe, a character they like, not to be dumb and wrong/not to have a seemingly unnecessary mutiny/sidequest to Disney World casino planet.
I'm sure Holdo's motive can and will be explained in a novel or a comic book. It doesn't matter because this moment doesn't land in the movie. The risk of pulling a fast one on the audience is that it'll feel like contempt rather than entertainment unless it's actually clever. This wasn't clever, at all.
*Well, I suppose you could also argue she was making a point that a female commander doesn't need to justify herself to male subordinates, but that's just as metatextual and nonsensical from an in-setting perspective.
Kaiyanwang wrote: You said it yourself: without that background it makes no sense. So why discuss? This means that that information is necessary to attempt maintain a suspension of disbelief. I say attempt because most of this additional material is written by people desperate to make this preposterous stuff work.
You still can't see the distinction. You claimed what happened was impossible, that it couldn't be explained. It was possible, and there was even an explanation given the supporting materials to the film. The existence of that material doesn't invalidate the complaint that it should have been explained in the movie, but it does invalidate the complaint you made, that it couldn't be explained at all.
This is not how world-building works. If there is a discrepancy, is generally acknowledged. Say, two officers discussing it ("boy, we are going all in with the resources for this fleet").
No, world building isn't about setting up expositional dialogue for every bit of detail that may interest a fan. The suggestion you give is horrible writing. I mean, just imagine the rebels explaining their desperate plan to fire a torpedo down the exhaust port of the Death Star, and then they cut to a couple of storm troopers having a quick explanation about why the exhaust port can't be covered with a protective screen.
Also, this is not an answer. If people have problem with scale, pointing out at nonsense, discrepancies and whatnot, you cannot just write it down as a nonsense and call it an argument. If you don't have anything to advance the discussion, do not bother to answer.
That's a dishonest complaint. I didn't just say that's nonsense. I said 'that's nonsense, because', and then explained why it was nonsense.
But will eventually run out of the energy used. Also seeing that during the rebel attack with Poe they have to eat a star, is quite clear they run out of resources very fast.
Sorry, it does not hold water.
I literally just explained to you that Starkiller was mobile, and you ignore that and repeat your complaint. Please read what I actually write.
And again. "This wasn't shown clearly in the movies.". Why you people defend this stuff?
You're confused, again. I am not defending the movie, I am trying to bring some clarity to where the movie's problem lie, so there can be a sensible conversation. This means when you complain about Starkiller being dumb because it was a one-shot weapon, I will reply by pointing out it is nonsense to complain the weapon was a one-shot weapon, when the movie showed it charging for a second shot.
It isn't clear in the movie how it managed to prep for a second shot, which means that is a reasonable complaint.
I have another option: let's stop to use false comparison to defend a poorly written movie and a poorly built setting.
And there it is. You backed youself in to a corner, having originally complained that the FO grew too fast, I pointed out that historical empires did often expand quite rapidly over similar time periods. Not wanting to admit your complaint was false, you instead decided to claim that we can't use historic empires as a reasonableness check. Which led me to ask what we should use instead, real intergalactic empires?
Seeing your complaint disappear in to absolute silliness, instead of doing the honest thing and admit your complaint was poorly thought out, instead you just respond with a content free generalised complaint about the movie.
Are you aware of the scale? Reading the rest of what you wrote I suppose not. You are comparing the arrogance of a single man to the logistic of a galactic republic. You are really fond of comparisons that do not hold water. Also, since this is a republic, is I think less centralised in command so I guess the single guy that realised "uuh, we should probably not put all the eggs in one basket" was not force chocked to shut him up.
No, the idea of writing mistakes deliberately to be big, even foolish, doesn't change if you move from the individual to the organisation. Organisations can be written to be foolish as well. I can't even begin to understand why you'd try to argue otherwise.
And your rebuttal of my example, Palpatine fooling the whole Jedi order is completely incoherent. The Jedi Order isn't a single man.
This is what I answered above. Of course is not deliberate, but is so frequent it looks like it is.
Nope, that's gibberish. If you'd attempted it as a joke, then I could squint and pretend you knew what the word actually meant, and it just turned out as a misfiring joke, but there's no point pretending you were attempting a joke. You thought any pattern could be a leitmotif, because you didn't understand the actual meaning of the word.
And in fact, the Lone Ranger and John Carter got immediately 4 sequels planned each. I find it amusing that you keep bringing argument against your points.
You're confused, again. The idea that sequels are planned and then cancelled due to a poor box office is regular studio operations. Your earlier claim was that the parent company and its investors would notice the slight under-performance of a single film. That's an incredibly silly claim.
Hell, Whedon was canned for going 100m under.
Are you referring to Whedon leaving Marvel? He wasn't fired, your claim is false.
You still can't see the distinction. You claimed what happened was impossible, that it couldn't be explained. It was possible, and there was even an explanation given the supporting materials to the film. The existence of that material doesn't invalidate the complaint that it should have been explained in the movie, but it does invalidate the complaint you made, that it couldn't be explained at all.
If you ask me why lightnighs happen, and I answer "is the sky spirits". This is an explanation, but not a good one. You can cite books or just stuff pulled out your arse but is just incoherent stuff devoided of any logic. The fact that there is one, any explanation does not male the scene or situation worthy of consideration. This is an impressive lack of basic logic.
No, world building isn't about setting up expositional dialogue for every bit of detail that may interest a fan. The suggestion you give is horrible writing. I mean, just imagine the rebels explaining their desperate plan to fire a torpedo down the exhaust port of the Death Star, and then they cut to a couple of storm troopers having a quick explanation about why the exhaust port can't be covered with a protective screen.
World building is about setting up a believable and immersive world and these movies fail miserably at it. World building can happen in a smart way, using cinematic language (say the first shots in mad max fury road about the city, or you know, the first shots of ANH) or more awkwardly with exposition, especially if the writers are at the level of the ones we have to deal with now.
Also, nice strawman. Exposition (if really needed) does not necessarily mean LONG exposition.
That's a dishonest complaint.
So, the arguments are running out. Good.
I literally just explained to you that Starkiller was mobile, and you ignore that and repeat your complaint. Please read what I actually write.
Is mobile? When is said or shown? Has FTL travel? Who knows? I suppose I have to go and read a book.
You're confused, again. I am not defending the movie, I am trying to bring some clarity to where the movie's problem lie, so there can be a sensible conversation. This means when you complain about Starkiller being dumb because it was a one-shot weapon, I will reply by pointing out it is nonsense to complain the weapon was a one-shot weapon, when the movie showed it charging for a second shot.
"you are confused". I find amusing that you keep using condescending expressions, and yet you deny being condescending.
Also, you are being dishonest because the point was not about the single shot, but the limited amount of shots. Even if the SK base can shoot twice instead of once before running out of energy, this does not resolve the fundamental logistic problems pointed out. The shots are limited because during the rebel attack they have to absorb another star. How the planet gets there is swept under the rug. This is your level: you remain attached to pointless details but you are unable to grasp the big picture, while there is a big contradiction on a greater level.
And there it is. You backed youself in to a corner,
You are genuinely delusional.
having originally complained that the FO grew too fast, I pointed out that historical empires did often expand quite rapidly over similar time periods. Not wanting to admit your complaint was false, you instead decided to claim that we can't use historic empires as a reasonableness check. Which led me to ask what we should use instead, real intergalactic empires?
I already told you that you have no sense of scale. I don't care which comparison you want to use to explain this FO nonsense. Just use something else because the scale of the things involved is absolutely different. And even if there IS a plausible answer, this does not excuse this absolute parody of a good storytelling, because the jump between the end of RotJ and what we see shows a reversal of the situation that needs too many gap to be filled in a satisfactory manner and maintain immersion in the setting. So even if you find a comparison less preposterous of "guys, galactic empires and star destroyers work totally like germanic tribes and horses - see how well educated and well versed in history I am!" the story remains garbage.
Seeing your complaint disappear in to absolute silliness, instead of doing the honest thing and admit your complaint was poorly thought out, instead you just respond with a content free generalised complaint about the movie.
I leave this part here just because is perfect by itself - is a shining example of your complete lack of insight, especially in light of the criticism people already moved to you.
Bonus because we have 90 pages of thread in which the movie is picked apart on any level, from character and emotional investment to true nerdy stuff.
Amazing. Amazing.
No, the idea of writing mistakes deliberately to be big, even foolish, doesn't change if you move from the individual to the organisation. Organisations can be written to be foolish as well. I can't even begin to understand why you'd try to argue otherwise.
And your rebuttal of my example, Palpatine fooling the whole Jedi order is completely incoherent. The Jedi Order isn't a single man.
Y..you just used the writing of the prequels to reject my point? Today is not my birthday, man.
"Look, is not written like an incoherent mess! is more like THAT movie" *points at movie that is written like an incoherent mess*
It would be just amusing, but you are so smug about it it becomes kinda sad, to be honest.
Nope, that's gibberish. If you'd attempted it as a joke, then I could squint and pretend you knew what the word actually meant, and it just turned out as a misfiring joke, but there's no point pretending you were attempting a joke. You thought any pattern could be a leitmotif, because you didn't understand the actual meaning of the word.
You can research my posts concerning other matters, or just what I write if I am focused, to understand that is not the first time I used the word. Or that I use similar comparisons, even far-fetched.
Hell, I once compared GW's corporate behaviour to one of a Psychopath. One can disagree but as I said before, you are just not intellectually in the condition to behave in such dismissing way toward anyone involved in the thread.
Also I found at first amusing your determination in this particular, off topic matter. Then I remembered that this is your posting style. You dismiss people, poison the well because your own arguments are devoid of any susbtance. Only to backtrack cowardly when someone points it out.
You're confused, again. The idea that sequels are planned and then cancelled due to a poor box office is regular studio operations. Your earlier claim was that the parent company and its investors would notice the slight under-performance of a single film. That's an incredibly silly claim.
Are you suggesting that anyone with millions in Disney is indifferent to how a supposed cash-cow franchise is going? Are you for real? Not even asking questions to the management?
Are you referring to Whedon leaving Marvel? He wasn't fired, your claim is false.
Whedon butted heads with the execs, the movie got 100 less than estimated. Then he says he's done.
Pure coincidence, of course.
Sorry. I'll make an effort to leave the thread before getting too worked up.
:
Kilkrazy wrote: Holdo couldn't have known that someone was going to exceed their authority and send someone else off to do a secret mission that was going to go wrong and so on, and so on.
It is only hindsight that tells you it would have been prevented if...
But they did know that people where trying to abandon the ship. She knew morale was low and that Poe was a hothead likely to take rash action, right?
I find it funny that the rebellion against the authoritarian regime has such a strict view on the role of subordinates and the privilege of the elite. Don't ask questions, soldier. Know your place.
Overread wrote: On the "just hyperdrive ahead" is easily explained. Hyperdrives likely can't work on short distances, so the First Order can't just leap ahead because the ship will leap so far ahead that the Rebel ship will run out of fuel before it even catches up. Similarly its space, so the Rebel ship could just take a change its angle; the First Order would have had to have built a net of additional ships ahead in order to block the path of the fleeting rebel ship.
It's a really good thing this is explained in the narrative, so that I have a reason to assume its validity. Instead of assuming it's a random internet-viewer's ass-pull to try to justify the bad writing and gloss over a plot hole larger than the Death Star.
Oh, wait, it is an internet-user's ass-pull to justify bad writing.
Oh. Back to square one.
It isn't explained why they don't just hyperdrive to the obelisk in 2001, so do you have no reason to assume that they are capable of doing so but decide not to? Sometimes the absence of people doing something indicates that such a thing is impossible without it needing to be said.
Nowhere, in any of the films, have we ever been shown a hyperdrive being used for short jumps. Why didn't the Star Destroyers chasing the Millennium Falcon in ESB jump ahead of it? Does ESB now have a huge plot hole? Or is it more likely that the reason they don't do that kind of manoeuvre despite multiple instances of where it would be useful is, despite it not being stated, that such a manoeuvre is impossible?
First of all, they did jump ahead of the Falcon in ESB. Don't you remember the scene where the Falcon makes the one star destroyer collide head on with the other two? That star destroyer was coming from...in front of the Falcon.
Second, in this very movie we see that Finnrose's shuttle is capable of popping out of lightspeed in orbit of Canto Bight. That is precise enough of a jump to plot a course to "ahead of the Raddus". If small jumps aren't kosher, then have the star destroyer jump out of system and then back into system. They had a whole day to work it out, and we know hyperdrives can jump again fairly quickly after a jump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: That is nicely put, thanks, but why this film now? Is it really that much worse than TFA in people's minds or feelings?
For me, TFA was worse in every way. It broke the setting and characters even more than the prequels. TLJ broke those things, too, but it didn't affect me so much since the setting was already broken.
That star destroyer was not one following behind the falcon which then jumped ahead. In fact we are not shown that one jumping at all. It is part of Vaders squadron and the more likely answer is that it was already in the Hoth system but far enough out it could move to intercept at sublight speed.
Also, how far was Canto from where they initially jumped? Also, jumping to a fixed point in your nav computer (a planet) is different to trying to jump ahead of a fleet of vessels on no fixed course.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Star Wars is driven by dramatic and narrative tension rather than documentary logistical considerations.
To me it's the shear volume of plot points that hinged on silliness that was a problem. It was a distraction that occurred far too often through the film. It was just so clunky.
We get caught up arguing individual points where we can invent reasons for why, but arguing the individual points misses the overall complaint that it was jarring to have such a clunky narrative. You can get away with one or two or three things where the audience goes "huh, what? why? how?" but TLJ went too far IMO.
It ends up being like bad fan fiction, where you can see the author wants certain things to happen but can't think up a good logically sound backstory for them so things just happen because they happen and the only explanation for why they happen is because they need to happen for the story to function.
On the other hand a good writer and/or editor will pick up on things that drag the reader/audience out of immersion.
The Dreadnought not having guns to deal with a light fighter. The FO not having fighters scrambled at the same time. The fact the slow chase started at all. Holdo acting like an incompetent leader at a time of low morale. Finn and Rose being able to figure out in 10 seconds the details of the new technology that is allowing them to be tracked. The FO not just jumping ahead. The logical flaw of Rose saving Finn because she loves him after only being with him for a few hours... but dooming a whole bunch of other people at the same time. Finn and Rose somehow traversing the battlefield safely. Rey figuring out how to pick up heavy rocks just at the right time. Rey beating down on Luke, an experienced and trained Jedi master. Luke having a massive unexplained character change. That Luke's neighbours and all the life on his island somehow stayed hidden until the moment they need to be revealed for comic effect. Holdo having to stay on the ship. The hyperdrive jump being a hugely effective weapon for destroying big enemy ships. Rose saying "now it's worth it" or whatever it was after releasing the big horse like thingo.... which will probably be hunted down and killed/recaptured the next day or another one captured to replace it (not to mention she did nothing to save the slave kids). A big chunk of the plot relying on a miscommunication between a commander (Holdo) and a senior officer (Poe). Snoke, who appears to be the most powerful dark side user we've encountered who can apparently read minds and inject thoughts, not seeing his apprentice manipulating the sabre next to him.
And I probably missed some because it's been a few weeks since I saw the film now. Each one individually can be argued but that such a huge list exists in the first place is the problem.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view of it is that the plot developments in the film are not inexplicable
Why must a human being, as opposed to a robot, remain on the ship when everyone else abandons it?
In Star Wars people usually do things because it is more dramatic, and they certaily do all the heroic things, because the audience identifies with people not with robots.
Luke defends the Falcon against with a B17 style set of turret guns, rather than a robot point defence system.
Luke drops un-guided torpedoes into the Death Star's thermal vent, instead of using infra-red homing missiles which would have guided themselves.
Han, and in later films Rey pilots the Falcon through tight, twisty tunnels without the benefit of terrain avoidance radar systems.
When robots do things in Star Wars it is a secondary, supporting role, and often a comedy act of some kind.
C3PO is humanoid, and talks like a prissy valet.
R2D2 saves the party by manipulating computer records, but also manages to electrify himself in a Laurel and Hardy style.
BB8 gets mistaken for a slot machine, and later uses the coins as a non-lethal weapon to save Finn and Rose.
Kilkrazy wrote: My view of it is that the plot developments in the film are not inexplicable
Why must a human being, as opposed to a robot, remain on the ship when everyone else abandons it?
In Star Wars people usually do things because it is more dramatic, and they certaily do all the heroic things, because the audience identifies with people not with robots.
Luke defends the Falcon against with a B17 style set of turret guns, rather than a robot point defence system.
Luke drops un-guided torpedoes into the Death Star's thermal vent, instead of using infra-red homing missiles which would have guided themselves.
Han, and in later films Rey pilots the Falcon through tight, twisty tunnels without the benefit of terrain avoidance radar systems.
When robots do things in Star Wars it is a secondary, supporting role, and often a comedy act of some kind.
C3PO is humanoid, and talks like a prissy valet.
R2D2 saves the party by manipulating computer records, but also manages to electrify himself in a Laurel and Hardy style.
BB8 gets mistaken for a slot machine, and later uses the coins as a non-lethal weapon to save Finn and Rose.
The audience
And in Rogue One K-2SO was probably the most effective member of the team, had a great character, good lines and "died" heroically.
They wanted the Admiral to sacrifice herself and set up a series of nonsensical situations to enable that.
You really need to take a breath and a long hard look at your posts and realise how condescending they are. You talk about us getting angry - we didn't post this, now did we:
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.
- change the feth words to what they actually are and thats a explosion of anger and insults. I donlt know why you are so hugely invested n this film or what need you have to justfiy it to yourself and to others but its probably going to give you an ulcer.
You've misread that completely. Like a lot of people, I use the word feth for lots of reasons. Here I was showing exasperation that after putting in my first post that I didn't think much of the patriarchy reason, people still chose to pretend that was my intent, and then they continued to pretend that was the case even as I repeatedly told them otherwise.
I am sorry but not knowing you or your mind/ intent (and not being rude enough to pretend I do) I saw a series of expletives aimed directly at those you were arguing with - how else was I supposed to read it? Imagine if you had said that to the person in public.
The FO not having fighters scrambled at the same time.
They have incompetent, ill-experienced officers thanks to rapid expansion. They are also led by buffoon picked for zeal, not competence. The only good commander they had wanted ships scrambled. How the movie doesn't show you all that?
The fact the slow chase started at all.
I see this complaint all the time and it doesn't make any sense. In all of old SW canon, you needed to detect a star or planet to exit hyperspace with any accuracy. Microjumps are not possible, which is why Rebellion was so shocked when Thrawn started doing them using his Interdictors on battlefield to direct his ships with fake planet-like gravity. He still needed a help of dark jedi master to do it with any accuracy, though. Did any of the complainers ever read any SW books at all?
Holdo acting like an incompetent leader at a time of low morale.
Need to know. She is veteran of old rebellion, when traitors were common, and she suspects they have a traitor aboard right now. Why she should tell a plan to someone who frakking blabbed all their secrets to enemy last movie (and pissed away her bomber wing ignoring orders in this one) when there is zero reason to?
Note that Poe is an idiot who blabbed the evacuation plan to Finn over unsecured channel leading to deaths of all people in shot down transports, and that the other rebels don't act surprised when Holdo orders fueling of the transports - which means this was not in any way secret plan, everyone who needed to know did. Why Holdo needs to tell it to one moron who has nothing to do with it? Because he has 'protagonist' written on his forehead?
Finn and Rose being able to figure out in 10 seconds the details of the new technology that is allowing them to be tracked.
Yeah, rebel technician and someone who actually worked for the other side figuring out stuff they had reasons to know about (unlike other rebels) makes no sense
The FO not just jumping ahead.
See above.
The logical flaw of Rose saving Finn because she loves him after only being with him for a few hours... but dooming a whole bunch of other people at the same time.
So love is logical now? What? If you actually watched this movie, you'd see she was also very socially inept, and Finn was first person who shown real interest in her. How is it so difficult to follow?
Rey figuring out how to pick up heavy rocks just at the right time.
If you ignore whole training she had, yeah, only suddenly figuring out
Rey beating down on Luke, an experienced and trained Jedi master.
He stopped using force. Yet, he was holding his own until she pulled a lightsaber. What?
Luke having a massive unexplained character change.
He literally lost the child of his sister to dark side and saw him murder all the other apprentices. He failed in the same way Obi-Wan did, and it was way worse for him, because it was personal. How it was unexplained?
Snoke, who appears to be the most powerful dark side user we've encountered who can apparently read minds and inject thoughts, not seeing his apprentice manipulating the sabre next to him.
I like how people complain about one of the most beautiful points of the movie. Yes, he can read minds. That's why he failed. Kylo synchronized moving his hand and emotions on both lightsabers, showing Snoke what he wanted to see, then lit the 'wrong' one. In literally every single SW movie, the flaw of the darksiders is overconfidence and being blinded by their own strenght. What, Kylo was supposed to then face audience and run midichlorian-like exposition why his trick worked?
You know, I am reading TLJ criticism and I am more and more puzzled. All the complainers want is actually in the movie, it's just shown, not told in midichlorian-like exposition telling you why Anaking build C-3PO out of junk parts that were scrapped thanks to rise in general poverty due to trade federation tax debacle caused by the deadlock in the senate caused by the Sith, like prequels did, ineptly. All the dots are there, you just need to connect them - and it genuinely seems to me complainers didn't pay attention in the cinema, like, at all. Especially the bits about no awe and wonder. Force is being back to being mystical power like in TOT, instead of midichlorian fodder, Yoda is again trolling, wise jedi master, instead of bad CGI puppet with bad lines, the scenery and direction is breathtaking, places we see feel like genuine alien worlds, not cheap stages, what exactly this movie lacked in the wonder department that literally all other SW movies didn't do worse?
Did the movie needed more exposition? It was pretty long as it is, and I don't think it would have helped any. I actually liked lack of 'as we both know, let me just repeat that bit of data for no reason' scenes. Everything had a purpose, served to grow characters in some way. Poe not getting told stuff and the disasters he caused let him grow better suited to command role he will probably have in next movie. Note how he called off speeder attack when he saw it was useless, when Poe from the start of the movie would have thrown more good money after bad. Rey faced her fears - the scene in the cave was beautiful callback to EP V. Luke saw his greatest fear, Vader. Rey also did, her greatest fear being alone. Not Kylo, she bested him once already. Not Snoke, she didn't know anything about him. Her greatest fear was being orphaned and left alone. Abrams would probably waste the scene on cheap laser sword fight, what this movie did was genius in comparison. Even Finn learned his kamikaze-like determination to strike back on FO might not be a good idea. I have no idea how you can see all the massive amounts of thought that went into all this and rate the film 3 because the writer didn't whack you over the head with script and exposition every 5 minutes. It would made the movie worse, not better. TLJ is easily top 5 SW movie of all time, I'd even possibly rate it higher than TFA or RotJ.
I can't be bothered going through all these points as they've been discussed on the past 80 or so pages already and I don't feel like rehashing them again. The point wasn't the points themselves but that rather they were jarring WTF moments in the story.
But did you look at the dates of the wiki article you linked?
In commission: June 1915 - 1927
Effective fighter and bomber planes has been around how long when that ship was built? I'm not sure effective bombers existed at all when it was built. Starfighters have existed for how many millennia by the time the FO is building the dreadnought?
Also the dreadnought is MASSIVE. It needs to function more like an entire fleet would in the modern world. You can have individual combat ships that don't have light guns if they always sail next to ships that do. That doesn't apply to dreadnoughts that are the size of a small country as it'll be out of the range of support ships.
I can imagine the engineers first meeting.
Intern Engineer: So I designed this MASSIVE ship, look how MASSIVE it is! It's going to take millions of man hours to make and have a crew of thousands! Senior Engineer: Cool, so what guns does it have? Intern Engineer: Some really big planet bombardment ones and some to take out enemy destroyers! Senior Engineer: So where are the light guns? Intern Engineer: Oh it doesn't need them. Senior Engineer: Oh ok, so will it be impenetrable to fighter level weaponry? Intern Engineer: Nope. Senior Engineer: Ok, I see no problem here. Lets go ahead with the build!
These were all just "wtf, why?" moments for me. As I said, it's like bad fan fiction. They want to do something (heroic fighter pilot taking on a dreadnought!) without thinking through the reasoning.
You can invent reasons to make them work but it's the difference between a well written story and badly written one.
I actually was ok with the Dreadnought for reasons I hated much of the nonsense later.
The Dreadnought does have AA guns but these are knocked out by Poe.
The fact that it does not have fighter cover is called out by its commander and also shown to be stupid because the ship is destropyed,
Fighters in Star Wars are devestating against captial ships - confirmed here
However this makes the crap we have on screen later much much worse:
1.The Rebel Ship of Fools is almost destroyed by 3 fighters - it had no fighter cover itself depsite just showing how powerful they are. Two Imperial pilots are killed (good exchange for destroying a hanger bay full of fighters and the command bridge) and the important guy is called back.
2.They Imperials now don't launch any fighters to finish the job because - nope no reason - just a poor director, there is no taunting, no officer saying - should we not finish them Sir, nothing - they just plot along behind the Ship of Fools wake so the Director can indulge in Casino World Aventures and his even more stupid Mutiny plot.
3.The rebels have mutiple ships that are all hyperspace capable, do they consider splitting up - nope the Admiral just smirks a bit and implies she has a plan. Awesome. Some of the crew may be mliatary and used to obeying orders but the whole point is that the reblsl are a rag tag bunch isn;t it some of whom might need hey i donlt know maybe some motivation. But no the Director/ Writters are not that competant.
4. The Bumbling twosome blunder off to Casino world and have an exciting adventure where they manage to release some horses. their "love story" is about as convincing as padme and Ani.
5. The Imperial fleet still trduges behind the Ship of Fools, doesn;t launch fighters, fires their apparently crappy guns occassionally to give the CGI people something to do and play cards or something. This continues until half the audiaence is hopefully dozing so they won't notice how stupid the mutiny plot is
6. The Mutiny plot. Poe does something depserate and arguably stupid, but in keeping with the whole rebel ethos. Gets slapped down but because the Admiral and Leia think he is cute - walks away - I am sorry what?
7. The Ship of Fools crew goes off to the remaing hanger where the crappy, no hyperspace but super stealth transports are located and blast off.
8. The First Order Ships notice nothing - Really!.... The Admiral acting as decoy does not immediately jump away to lure the FO away but instead plods along - because - - nope no reason.
9. The Ship of Fools turns around, no one notices, the ISDs throttle back or something so they can;t get into range.
10.The Fo get told to turn their sensors on - Really!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh look rebels escaping -
11.The Ship fires it super guns (but surprisngly ineffecive against the Ship of Fools) at the transport who fly in a straight line to make the enemy gunnery easier - cos thats how they roll
12. Admiral decides - hey maybe I will just ram the big ship and apparently its the most powerful weapon anyone ever had.
Mr Morden wrote: I actually was ok with the Dreadnought for reasons I hated much of the nonsense later.
Yeah and I'm fine that some people were fine with it. I personally wasn't satisfied with the reasons given in the film to explain the lack of light guns capable of taking out a fighter and also not launching fighters immediately. Some things are just a given - like having light guns to deal with light aircraft and launching fighters in a warzone. This is stuff we figured out almost immediately after aircraft became effective war machines and in the Star Wars universe starcraft have been effective war machines for literally thousands of years.
It was one of many "wtf" moments for me which stopped the story from drawing me in.
If that were the ONLY issue I had with the film I would just shrug it off.
I think I have finally worked out why I didnt like this movie....
I was bored, normally I would not get up and go grab a drink or something in a movie, but in this one, I didnt even think twice about it, I remember the little exchange at the start of the film and had a little chuckle, then it dragged on, then we had the bomber scene and I thought meh!, as the film went on I kept thinking "the republic fleet will turn up anytime now!"
Never happened, ok, the film went on and I got more and more bored, even to the point I got out my phone (I was at the back dont worry), glancing up anytime I heard something interesting happening, saw space leia do her thing and thought "WTF is this crap now?" not because of the jedi stuff, but the space stuff, how long was she out there???
movie rolls on and other stuff happens, casino stuff, animal rights stuff, rich people are evil stuff, picked up some fella stuff, heading home stuff, then back to the chase.... that would never end.... space and all that jazz again, Captain Pink hair I immediately hated due to breaking the chain of command in a crisis situation (I work for the military) and she continued to be a horrible character, but I think disney intended that... I hope, I even saw her "sacrifice" as a cowards way out, since she would have been court martialed anyway, but thats here nor there! non with the story!
then we have the hyperspace torpedo moment, it was really pretty, looked cool, then my brain kicked in and went "feth off, do they even know how that would work??"
moving on the the salty planet that is also red! something happens... imperials land, rebels hide in a mountain, they sally out in land speeders, driving right at the gorrila at-ats.... the asian chick falls on love with the black fella somehow ?? but he doesnt look interested, Brutal, um, look turns up, but doesnt ?? when he came on camera I was like "he had a hair cut, dyed his beard and got some new rags, good job, groomed before the battle!"
he walks out and gets shot by lots of big monkey At-ats, walks out, at this point i was "oh feth yes! luke is about to go to town on these bitches!" Kylo drops down after another tantrum, goes to fight luke and i thought "ah, he is gonna let him kill him, ben Kenobi moment" nope, its an illusion, the rebels escape....
movie ends and luke lays down for a nap, some kid gets a broom with the force.
So after all that, Rey.... meh, poe.... meh, Kylo.... I actually didnt mind him in this film oddly, cant even remember the rest of the casts names, and there in lies the problem with this film for me, it was utterly forgettable, it treated me in the same manner and Start trek, it felt like the director was sitting there on my shoulder and calling me a slow over and over again, I felt insulted it was so boring and even now I am struggling to remember a good moment from it.
This is not some SJW crap, this isnt overanalysing the movie, this is just my impression of it, it was just a bad film, I think the thing that is making it worse though is it was a bad film called STAR WARS!
A Town Called Malus wrote: That star destroyer was not one following behind the falcon which then jumped ahead. In fact we are not shown that one jumping at all. It is part of Vaders squadron and the more likely answer is that it was already in the Hoth system but far enough out it could move to intercept at sublight speed.
Also, how far was Canto from where they initially jumped? Also, jumping to a fixed point in your nav computer (a planet) is different to trying to jump ahead of a fleet of vessels on no fixed course.
Solar systems are huge. A second, wider net of Star Destroyers would have taken a huge number of ships to be worthwhile. It turns out it is actually two star destroyers who show up, and they seem to catch the heroes by surprise. We don't see them jump in, but they are coming towards a fleeing Falcon head on, so they either jumped in or outran the Falcon and turned around. Either way, there is no plot hole there--we see the Empire use its fleet to get ahead of their prey in exactly the manner that the FO DOESN't.
Formosa wrote: I think I have finally worked out why I didnt like this movie....
I was bored, normally I would not get up and go grab a drink or something in a movie, but in this one, I didnt even think twice about it, I remember the little exchange at the start of the film and had a little chuckle, then it dragged on, then we had the bomber scene and I thought meh!, as the film went on I kept thinking "the republic fleet will turn up anytime now!"
Never happened, ok, the film went on and I got more and more bored, even to the point I got out my phone (I was at the back dont worry), glancing up anytime I heard something interesting happening, saw space leia do her thing and thought "WTF is this crap now?" not because of the jedi stuff, but the space stuff, how long was she out there???
movie rolls on and other stuff happens, casino stuff, animal rights stuff, rich people are evil stuff, picked up some fella stuff, heading home stuff, then back to the chase.... that would never end.... space and all that jazz again, Captain Pink hair I immediately hated due to breaking the chain of command in a crisis situation (I work for the military) and she continued to be a horrible character, but I think disney intended that... I hope, I even saw her "sacrifice" as a cowards way out, since she would have been court martialed anyway, but thats here nor there! non with the story!
then we have the hyperspace torpedo moment, it was really pretty, looked cool, then my brain kicked in and went "feth off, do they even know how that would work??"
moving on the the salty planet that is also red! something happens... imperials land, rebels hide in a mountain, they sally out in land speeders, driving right at the gorrila at-ats.... the asian chick falls on love with the black fella somehow ?? but he doesnt look interested, Brutal, um, look turns up, but doesnt ?? when he came on camera I was like "he had a hair cut, dyed his beard and got some new rags, good job, groomed before the battle!"
he walks out and gets shot by lots of big monkey At-ats, walks out, at this point i was "oh feth yes! luke is about to go to town on these bitches!" Kylo drops down after another tantrum, goes to fight luke and i thought "ah, he is gonna let him kill him, ben Kenobi moment" nope, its an illusion, the rebels escape....
movie ends and luke lays down for a nap, some kid gets a broom with the force.
So after all that, Rey.... meh, poe.... meh, Kylo.... I actually didnt mind him in this film oddly, cant even remember the rest of the casts names, and there in lies the problem with this film for me, it was utterly forgettable, it treated me in the same manner and Start trek, it felt like the director was sitting there on my shoulder and calling me a slow over and over again, I felt insulted it was so boring and even now I am struggling to remember a good moment from it.
This is not some SJW crap, this isnt overanalysing the movie, this is just my impression of it, it was just a bad film, I think the thing that is making it worse though is it was a bad film called STAR WARS!
Brilliant summary - pretty much my experience especially boredom thoughout the mid section.
Kilkrazy wrote: It isn't the difference between a well-written story and a bad one. it is the difference between hard SF and space fantasy.
If those were WTF moments for you, have you enjoyed a single one of the Star Wars films?
They are all like this, full of stuff that doesn't make practical sense but makes visually dramatic and exciting cinema.
They are not all like this. Not at all. Only the prequels and sequels are like this, and they are widely disliked. (Well, Jedi also has a lot of issues, but at least wraps up the trilogy.). Do you really believe the original Star Wars and Empire are the same poor quality as the rest?
It would not need to be a huge numbers of ships if said ships are fast enough to effectively adopt intercept courses. Which some Star Destroyers are, such as the one which chased the Millennium Falcon above Tatooine (which was gaining on it prior to the Falcon going to lightspeed). Hence why the Falcon resorts to a 90 degree turn to change the axis of its velocity, making use of its greater manoeuvrability.
And again, there is no evidence they jumped into the system immediately ahead of the Falcon. If they could jump into the system immediately in front of the Falcon, why wouldn't they do that and be immediately in tractor beam range? As opposed to jumping into a fixed point near the Falcons current projected path and then move at sublight velocity back towards them.
Kilkrazy wrote: It isn't the difference between a well-written story and a bad one. it is the difference between hard SF and space fantasy.
If those were WTF moments for you, have you enjoyed a single one of the Star Wars films?
They are all like this, full of stuff that doesn't make practical sense but makes visually dramatic and exciting cinema.
They are not all like this. Not at all. Only the prequels and sequels are like this, and they are widely disliked. (Well, Jedi also has a lot of issues, but at least wraps up the trilogy.). Do you really believe the original Star Wars and Empire are the same poor quality as the rest?
Why doesn't the Millenium Falcon have robot guns?
Why doesn't the Rebellion attack the thermal exhaust with heat-seeking missiles?
Why do Stormtroopers wear expensive armour that doesn't even stop pistol shots?
Why does Chewbacca carry a blaster that looks like a crossbow?
Why does the Empire use gigantic walking tanks modelled on elephants?
Why does the Rebellion defend its base against them with guns incapable of penetrating their armour?
Why do the Rebel snowspeeders have harpoon guns?
Because of the Rule of Cool. All of the films are like this.
Galef wrote: Let's all not forget that SW is NOT Science Fiction, it's Fantasy in space.
Yes indeed but my problem was that it was not "Cool" many of the elements were (to me) stupid, lazy, or dull.
I love fantasy films and one of my major gripes with film critics is how much they tear them apart due to plot holes - now when these appear in this film - apparently they are all just part of a glowing glorious vision of perfection.
Really.
The narrative, pacing characters, plot and event the action is far weaker in TLJ than any of the fantasy films I watched and enjoyed this year. Even Geostorm was better than this crap.
Galef wrote: Let's all not forget that SW is NOT Science Fiction, it's Fantasy in space.
Its a Fantasy Sci Fi, or sci fi fantasy, the Science Fantasy genre hasnt really been ever clearly defined like Sci Fi and Fantasy has, but people normally go "space ships! Sci Fi!" or "Orcs! Fantasy!"
There is a general recognition of Hard SF, which extrapolates from contemporary knowledge of scientific laws. For example, ships can't move faster than light, but life extension through telomere editing may be possible, or simultaneous interstellar communication using quantum entanglement.
Kilkrazy wrote: It isn't the difference between a well-written story and a bad one. it is the difference between hard SF and space fantasy.
If those were WTF moments for you, have you enjoyed a single one of the Star Wars films?
They are all like this, full of stuff that doesn't make practical sense but makes visually dramatic and exciting cinema.
They are not all like this. Not at all. Only the prequels and sequels are like this, and they are widely disliked. (Well, Jedi also has a lot of issues, but at least wraps up the trilogy.). Do you really believe the original Star Wars and Empire are the same poor quality as the rest?
Why doesn't the Millenium Falcon have robot guns?
Why doesn't the Rebellion attack the thermal exhaust with heat-seeking missiles?
Why do Stormtroopers wear expensive armour that doesn't even stop pistol shots?
Why does Chewbacca carry a blaster that looks like a crossbow?
Why does the Empire use gigantic walking tanks modelled on elephants?
Why does the Rebellion defend its base against them with guns incapable of penetrating their armour?
Why do the Rebel snowspeeders have harpoon guns?
Because of the Rule of Cool. All of the films are like this.
the falcon also forgets where it's guns are, top & bottom in ep 4, in the front for ep 6 with no gunners in the guns han & luke used, then back to top & bottom for ep7
the hoth scene makes sense actually, think back to many of the gun control conversations we've had. if any group actually rebelled against the government, do you think they would have access to weapons to stop a tank? Nope, the underdogs are always under equipped, it makes their win that much more impressive. Plus if you're always on the run the big guns probably get left behind.
the speeders probably had cables to pull the other vehicles out of the snow
Need to know. She is veteran of old rebellion, when traitors were common, and she suspects they have a traitor aboard right now. Why she should tell a plan to someone who frakking blabbed all their secrets to enemy last movie (and pissed away her bomber wing ignoring orders in this one) when there is zero reason to?
Note that Poe is an idiot who blabbed the evacuation plan to Finn over unsecured channel leading to deaths of all people in shot down transports, and that the other rebels don't act surprised when Holdo orders fueling of the transports - which means this was not in any way secret plan, everyone who needed to know did. Why Holdo needs to tell it to one moron who has nothing to do with it? Because he has 'protagonist' written on his forehead?
But then after Poe mutiney's she decides he's leadership material ???
She doesn't trust him with the escape plan, but trusts that moron to lead the rebellion?
I've stated why she needed to tell him a few times now, and in not doing so makes her the worst admiral in existance. It's hard to inspire confidence in your crew when you treat them like slaves.
the falcon also forgets where it's guns are, top & bottom in ep 4, in the front for ep 6 with no gunners in the guns han & luke used, then back to top & bottom for ep7
Eh, the Falcon is the kind of ship which would have multiple weapon setups, to make it unpredictable. Such as the blaster cannon that drops out the bottom to fire on the Snowtroopers as it is powering up to escape from Echo Base.
If you actually watched this movie, you'd see she was also very socially inept, and Finn was first person who shown real interest in her. How is it so difficult to follow?
