Kilkrazy wrote: 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.
Star Wars doesn't fall into this genre.
True but it does fit neatly into the Science Fantasy genre
From Princess Leia to Rey, and Padmé if you acknowledge the existence of the sequels, it's fair to say that Star Wars wouldn't be the global phenomenon it is today without strong female characters.
So it came as a surprise to many when Pedestrian reported that a male activist had made a fan edit of Star Wars: The Last Jedi which cuts out the film's female characters, reducing the running time from 106 minutes to just 46 minutes. The angry fan then illegally uploaded the film online.
Titled The Last Jedi: De-Feminized Fanedit, Laura Dern's character, Admiral Holdo, was cut from the film entirely. While Daisy Ridley, Carrie Fisher and Kelly Marie Tran, all had their roles drastically reduced.
"The intro sequence is now very watchable and actually much cooler without all of Leia's nit-picking," the unknown uploader wrote. "Now it's all one united Resistance fighting without inner conflict and that's much more satisfying to watch. Due to the extreme shortening, the whole movie is much more fast-paced now."
apparently john B. and mark H, got a good laugh out of it.
From Princess Leia to Rey, and Padmé if you acknowledge the existence of the sequels, it's fair to say that Star Wars wouldn't be the global phenomenon it is today without strong female characters.
So it came as a surprise to many when Pedestrian reported that a male activist had made a fan edit of Star Wars: The Last Jedi which cuts out the film's female characters, reducing the running time from 106 minutes to just 46 minutes. The angry fan then illegally uploaded the film online.
Titled The Last Jedi: De-Feminized Fanedit, Laura Dern's character, Admiral Holdo, was cut from the film entirely. While Daisy Ridley, Carrie Fisher and Kelly Marie Tran, all had their roles drastically reduced.
"The intro sequence is now very watchable and actually much cooler without all of Leia's nit-picking," the unknown uploader wrote. "Now it's all one united Resistance fighting without inner conflict and that's much more satisfying to watch. Due to the extreme shortening, the whole movie is much more fast-paced now."
But... why? thats a lot of effort to go through to just be ignored lol.
I liked the "male Activist" comments, do we know thats true or is it yet another snipe ?
apparently john B. and mark H, got a good laugh out of it.
The Falcon doesn't have robotic gunners because ANH portrayed space combat as WW2 dog fighting. It's a genre conceit. Another such genre conceit is that droids, despite having personalities, are ultimately mere objects relative to sentient organisms.
Not that genre is even relevant to the problem of Holdo's remaining aboard. That would be a basic screenwriting fumble. In order for her sacrifice to be dramatic, it must be motivated by some credible reason - and of course that reason cannot tautologically and metatextually be "in order to be dramatic." In this case, Holdo explains that she has to pilot the ship - the ship which is moving directly forward through empty space at a constant speed. Wha?
It's quite clear that the actual reason the scriptwriter needed Holdo on the ship is so that there was a character on board who could make a dramatic decision at a key moment. A droid or an autopilot program can't do that, at least not in an exciting way.
To be clear, it's fine for Holdo to stay on the ship and ultimately heroically kill herself (good riddance). What is not fine is providing little or no set up to generate pay off.
As to that MRA "fan" edit - such actions are totally irrelevant until magnified through the clickbait media industry.
Given all so far, it just seems like someone trolling with easy bait that they knew would easily be picked up and spread near and far. Just add a few typical words "MRA, Male Activist, Angry Fan, etc." and you've got yourself something to set yourself up for easy clickbait.
Manchu wrote: The Falcon doesn't have robotic gunners because ANH portrayed space combat as WW2 dog fighting. It's a genre conceit. Another such genre conceit is that droids, despite having personalities, are ultimately mere objects relative to sentient organisms.
Not that genre is even relevant to the problem of Holdo's remaining aboard. That would be a basic screenwriting fumble. In order for her sacrifice to be dramatic, it must be motivated by some credible reason - and of course that reason cannot tautologically and metatextually be "in order to be dramatic." In this case, Holdo explains that she has to pilot the ship - the ship which is moving directly forward through empty space at a constant speed. Wha?
It's quite clear that the actual reason the scriptwriter needed Holdo on the ship is so that there was a character on board who could make a dramatic decision at a key moment. A droid or an autopilot program can't do that, at least not in an exciting way.
To be clear, it's fine for Holdo to stay on the ship and ultimately heroically kill herself (good riddance). What is not fine is providing little or no set up to generate pay off.
As to that MRA "fan" edit - such actions are totally irrelevant until magnified through the clickbait media industry.
Agree about the fan edit lol
As for purple chick, Holdo, She is a traitor and a coward, her actions led to the deaths of a lot of people, her "suicide" smacked of the actions of a coward who didnt want to accept the consequenses of her actions, if it were real life she would be up for a long prison sentence for gross negligence.
Poe on the other hand, I would have him in military prison for failing to follow a direct order and that resulted in the deaths of a lot of personel.
The whole Rebel chain of command are totally incompetent in this movie, no wonder no one came to there aid.
Manchu wrote: The Falcon doesn't have robotic gunners because ANH portrayed space combat as WW2 dog fighting. It's a genre conceit. Another such genre conceit is that droids, despite having personalities, are ultimately mere objects relative to sentient organisms.
Not that genre is even relevant to the problem of Holdo's remaining aboard. That would be a basic screenwriting fumble. In order for her sacrifice to be dramatic, it must be motivated by some credible reason - and of course that reason cannot tautologically and metatextually be "in order to be dramatic." In this case, Holdo explains that she has to pilot the ship - the ship which is moving directly forward through empty space at a constant speed. Wha?
It's quite clear that the actual reason the scriptwriter needed Holdo on the ship is so that there was a character on board who could make a dramatic decision at a key moment. A droid or an autopilot program can't do that, at least not in an exciting way.
To be clear, it's fine for Holdo to stay on the ship and ultimately heroically kill herself (good riddance). What is not fine is providing little or no set up to generate pay off.
As to that MRA "fan" edit - such actions are totally irrelevant until magnified through the clickbait media industry.
Agree about the fan edit lol
As for purple chick, Holdo, She is a traitor and a coward, her actions led to the deaths of a lot of people, her "suicide" smacked of the actions of a coward who didnt want to accept the consequenses of her actions, if it were real life she would be up for a long prison sentence for gross negligence.
Poe on the other hand, I would have him in military prison for failing to follow a direct order and that resulted in the deaths of a lot of personel.
The whole Rebel chain of command are totally incompetent in this movie, no wonder no one came to there aid.
The resistance doesn't have military prisons. They are too busy running away all the time to have a prison and are basically obliterated anyways. Poe proved during the dreadnought attack and the mutany that he has more support than aynone else involved in the resistance. He should be in charge - and also - there is no way that purple hair and leia would have been able to take back the ship. It's likely Poe would have killed her for abandonment of duty during wartime (this is usually accompanied by an execution) If I were Poe - I would have ended her life. You gotta put things in perspective - everyone is being driven to their deaths by a madwomen. Who takes over the ship and doesn't kill the captain? (That's just poor planning)
I assume because there's that scene where she's introduced and vaguely talked about as if there was that one battle or whatever in which she was exceedingly good and therefore had a reputation. Which you'll probably find in a handy bit of background reading you probably didn't know existed, just like with TFA.
I could be making that up as something I extrapolated from that scene though.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I assume because there's that scene where she's introduced and vaguely talked about as if there was that one battle or whatever in which she was exceedingly good and therefore had a reputation. Which you'll probably find in a handy bit of background reading you probably didn't know existed, just like with TFA.
I could be making that up as something I extrapolated from that scene though.
Regardless of her history - the soldiers of the resistance chose to follow Poe. It's a pretty big deal when you consider the entire resistance is on that ship.
Also - I don't intend to read anymore starwars books. All the SW books I've read were invalidated with the wave of a hand. Not risking that again.
A Town Called Malus wrote: A few pilots joined in the mutiny with Poe. It was hardly a show of majority support.
All the pilots? On the dreadnought attack. Can't remember exactly how many supported him at the mutiny but from what I remember it was everyone in the room.
A Town Called Malus wrote: A few pilots joined in the mutiny with Poe. It was hardly a show of majority support.
Vice Admiral lady had to sort the mutiny out herself. No one came to her aid. And the low ranking definitely not naval (she was responsible for on planet evacuation duties as established in one of the first shots of the movie) background officer lady joined the mutiny.
At least, that's the impression I got from the movie. Then Princess Leia recovers and is all "mutiny? not on my watch!" And everyone (even Poe) is all like "Leia!? You've saved us!!"
Again, there's probably some supplemental material that will prove what I just opined incorrect but that is the impression I got from the movie.
A Town Called Malus wrote: A few pilots joined in the mutiny with Poe. It was hardly a show of majority support.
Vice Admiral lady had to sort the mutiny out herself. No one came to her aid. And the low ranking definitely not naval (she was responsible for on planet evacuation duties as established in one of the first shots of the movie) background officer lady joined the mutiny.
At least, that's the impression I got from the movie. Then Princess Leia recovers and is all "mutiny? not on my watch!" And everyone (even Poe) is all like "Leia!? You've saved us!!"
Again, there's probably some supplemental material that will prove what I just opined incorrect but that is the impression I got from the movie.
I can't see her backstory being that interesting enough to be put in to new supplemental materials.
there were 3 ships, and she commanded none of them.
she was an admiral on Akbar's ship, yet not on the bridge
so we have this admiral in charge of what exactly? the more I think about it, she must be a supply officer and promoted herself to admiral on the way to the meeting.
She must also have been really bad as a supply officer because she didn't even requisition fuel for any of the ships.
admiral in charge of what exactly? the more I think about it, she must be a supply officer and promoted herself to admiral on the way to the meeting
She was the Admiral of Walking Around Slowly.
She is introduced as a Vice Admiral. But keep in mind, Poe himself has to recognize, validate and explain who she is to the alien pilot sitting next to him (and the audience). Which helps contribute to the mess of the whole thing, as he is stuck as the POV character, the opposition character and the one signaling that the people he's opposing are in fact legitimate.
And both Holdo and Leia are alternately reprimanding him while simultaneously grooming him as the next leader of the Resisty, both before and after each individual episode of rebellion against their leadership. (leading the bombers, questioning 'the plan,' actually leading the mutiny, etc).
There was a huge chunk of story on the ship of death, which really would have benefited from Finn actually being there and interacting with the Resisty, either providing an outsider point of view for the power struggle or bringing a different set of options, but mostly shouldering some of the necessary character duties (rather than dumping all of thm on Poe), and not wasting time on the casino planet interlude. Rose could have been caught between leadership and heroes, and had to make a real decision.
One thing that confused me was the blonde mini-Leia (Billie Lourd?), she seems to be important or at least, seems to be that she's going to be important. She joins in on the rebellion against the rebellion but... That's kinda it...
She is introduced as a Vice Admiral. But keep in mind, Poe himself has to recognize, validate and explain who she is to the alien pilot sitting next to him (and the audience). Which helps contribute to the mess of the whole thing, as he is stuck as the POV character, the opposition character and the one signaling that the people he's opposing are in fact legitimate.
Not only - Poe does not expected Holdo to look like that. Is implied that is because she is a woman I guess? What else, correct me I would be happy to be proven wrong. I came to the conclusion because I cannot help to think the writers wanted to make a point. I hope is not because the ways she dresses or the hair colour, in a setting with weird aliens. It would be a nonsense. But if I am right, this is the same Poe that follows Leia without question, and organises the mutiny with the support of a female officer. But he does not like THAT woman. Out of a sudden.
She is introduced as a Vice Admiral. But keep in mind, Poe himself has to recognize, validate and explain who she is to the alien pilot sitting next to him (and the audience). Which helps contribute to the mess of the whole thing, as he is stuck as the POV character, the opposition character and the one signaling that the people he's opposing are in fact legitimate.
Not only - Poe does not expected Holdo to look like that. Is implied that is because she is a woman I guess? What else, correct me I would be happy to be proven wrong. I came to the conclusion because I cannot help to think the writers wanted to make a point.
I hope is not because the ways she dresses or the hair colour, in a setting with weird aliens. It would be a nonsense.
But if I am right, this is the same Poe that follows Leia without question, and organises the mutiny with the support of a female officer.
But he does not like THAT woman. Out of a sudden.
I'm going to go with the purple evening gown and matching dye job. Really doesn't say "Vice Admiral".
At least Snokes gold bathrobe screamed "I'M THE SUPREME LEADER, AND I DON'T GIVE A !"
That is not a reference I was expecting in this thread.
But yeah, the thing about the bombers troubles me as well.. Who signed off on the attack in the first place? It wasn't Poe that originally did it, and it seemed like if there was anyone above him to stop such a thing they'd be able to do it quite easily.
Lord Scythican wrote: 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.
That's true, we haven't seen much secrecy before this. But then that's really been not because the setting doesn't have secrets, its more that as we've followed our heroes through the story, and the rebel plan is only revealed at the point when they reached a need to know position.
So I'm not disagreeing with your point, just noting the difference is due to TLJ having a different type plot, it isn't due to previous films not having any
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.
Yeah, I don't mind her being snarky, to be honest a senior officer dealing with an unfolding crisis would be at least that snarky with a junior officer repeatedly demanding information she's deemed classified. I think the issue is the other part you raise, that she did nothing to satisfy him that there was a plan, even if it was one that Poe couldn't be told at that time. That is a weakness that could have been corrected in a line like the one you suggested.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: 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.
No, the complaint is that in order to justify Jyn and friend's deciding on their own mission, they had to make the Rebellion cowards who had to be dragged in to their own war.
To paraphrase Kilkrazy, this isn't a documentary about military hierarchy.
It isn't a documentary about hierarchy, but that doesn't mean hierarchy can't drive plot points.
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 wrote earlier that I think one underlying reason many people had for rejecting TLJ is because it doesn't have the traditional heroic action of Star Wars movies. Even when Star Wars films have been dark, the actions of the heroes have been successful, but in TLJ the heroes actually made mistakes, and their mistakes had lasting consequences. You just described that reaction exactly.
Kaiyanwang wrote: 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.
Your response is incoherent, because the explanation given in the supporting materials was fine. Because there was nothing wrong with it you lurched from complaining that there's no possible answer to complaining that the answer should have been in the film. Now that I've pointed out to you that you changed your complaint, you've decided to go back to complaining that the explanation was no good. But of course, you've done that without giving a single complaint about the explantion, because you're just making this up as you go along.
So, the arguments are running out. Good.
You trimmed the quote, again. to hide the part where I explain how you failed. That isn't honest. And you are resorting to these dihonest tactics because your claims are falling apart.
Is mobile? When is said or shown? Has FTL travel? Who knows? I suppose I have to go and read a book.
That's right, its info not included in the movie. Which you'll note I've said many times is an actual complaint that can be made about TFA.
Whereas your complaint, that Starkiller was dumb because it was a one shot weapon in a movie that showed it charging for a second shot... was a very silly complaint.
"you are confused". I find amusing that you keep using condescending expressions, and yet you deny being condescending.
Pointing out your confusion is a necessary component of moving this conversation forward. It's only once we recognise where you're at that we can start going forward.
Also, you are being dishonest because the point was not about the single shot, but the limited amount of shots.
Here's your actual line;
"2b) let's ignore the stupidity of the weapon, that can only shoot once"
So now we have to believe that when you said the weapon can only shoot once, your problem was that it had a limited number of shots, but more than one.
Yeah.
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.
For all this angst, you still haven't managed to explain exactly what real world intergalactic empire growth rates you're using to decide the FO grew implausibly quickly. After all, if using historic empires is 'preposterous', then you must have some real intergalactic empires to compare to.
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.
I can use Shakespeare if you want. Othello perhaps. I just used the prequels because its the closest comparison, and one I knew you'd be familiar with. The quality of the piece doesn't matter, what was important is you realising that your earlier claim, that stories are always about making the hero and villain as clever as possible was wrong. Many writers will make a deliberate choice to make a mistake, even a foolish one, to say something about the character.
Or that I use similar comparisons, even far-fetched.
Oh wow. And now you say using leitmotif was a comparison. So it turns out you maybe don't understand what comparison means, either.
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?
If you think the AGM of a $55 billion dollar company are filled with questions about how a single film only returned 75% of its predecessor, then you just have no clue how major business operatesy. If you think those questions would be angry because TLJ only grossed $1.3bn on a $200m investment, then we're dealing with something far greater than just business ignorance.
I mean, were you predicting similar angry questions when Rogue One 'only' grossed $1bn? That was a $700m drop from TFA.
Whedon butted heads with the execs, the movie got 100 less than estimated. Then he says he's done.
Pure coincidence, of course.
Not coincidence, contrivance. This is one of those really simple things. Marvel has been ludicrously profitable. Whedon himself delivered them what was at the time the third highest grossing film in history. After that he oversaw creative in the film division, during which time we saw the most extraordinary streak of commercial success we will see in any major studio in any of our lifetimes. Disney isn't going to remove anyone from that team because a single film project was slightly less profitable than hoped.
Sorry. I'll make an effort to leave the thread before getting too worked up.
Sorry mate, what? Are you apologising to me? If so, there's no need. In amongst a lot of really weirdly hostile responses from a few posters, your posts I found interesting. We disagreed, but I felt you were always making your case and moving the conversation forward. I think it in talking to you that I got the language to actually explain what I was really looking to do.
Hey I'm with you on R1. How dumb is it that outsider/nobody Jyn Erso has to lecture the leadership of the Rebellion? Just like R1, TLJ promotes a boring character (Vice Admiral Ho Hum) at the expense of something already estalished with the audience (Poe's heroism). But TLJ is even more awkward about it because Holdo's silence is intended to make the audience suspicious of her/sympathetic to Poe's frustrations.
That was my point, by the way. I mean, I get that people want heroes in SW movies rather than, you know, fething idiotic failures. That's a great point and I agree with it. But the fact that audiences resent being hoodwinked by hamfisted screenwriting is a seperate point.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: 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.
You're right that we've gotten caught up debating a lot of plot points. But I think the issue isn't that there's lots of these minor issues. I'd argue that each Star Wars film has a lot of these points, but for some reason they've managed to dominate people's thinking when it comes to TLJ but not with other Star Wars movies.
Mark Kermode will often comment on minor faults in movies, but he mentions these points not because they really matter by themselves, but to make the point that when the story and characters don't engage the viewer then they start noticing all those other minor things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: 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.
You were supposed to read it as the natural outcome of someone repeating a point many times, and finally saying it with some exasperation. We'll use someone in public, like you suggested. Consider everyone sitting in a big circle, discussing TLJ. One person suggests there's some bigger reasons for the negative reaction but he's not sure what they are, though he doesn't think they're related to the patriarchy stuff that some people have suggested. Then for the next 20 minutes people kept telling him it isn't the patriarchy and that he's wrong for saying it was the patriarchy, to which he keeps replying he doesn't think it is the patriarchy and made a point of saying that in his first post. But people hear that, and then keep saying he is wrong for saying it was the patriarchy.
Would you think it totally out of the blue if that guy eventually said 'its not the fething patriarchy and I fething made that clear from the beginning?' Would you consider that man angry for eventually responding forcefully? Or would you think he was exasperated, and looking for a way to make a point people should have realised the first time he said, and every time after that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: 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.
The Resistance were leaving hyperspace following a panicked evacuation. They had no idea the FO were capable of following them, and were not prepared to scramble fighters when the FO suddenly appeared. They were in the act of scrambling fighters when Kylor & friends wipedthe hangar bay.
2.They Imperials now don't launch any fighters to finish the job because - nope no reason
There was something there about the fighters needing to return to the cover of the capital ships, or something. It might have been after a couple of the FO fighters got wipied, maybe. This was a bit that should have been shown better, I agree. Probably by showing the Rebels begin to react, and have Poe or maybe even Rose scramble some kind of AA defense and start popping the fighters.
China's review of TLJ: "It's certainly no Transformers: The Last Knight!"
Star Wars: The Last Jedi wasn’t the movie that Chinese audiences were looking for. The science-fiction sequel tanked in China, following up a disappointing $28.7 million debut with one of the worst second-weekend declines the Chinese box office had ever seen. To kick the movie while it was down, it came in second that weekend to the third film in a sexist domestic romantic-comedy series, The Ex-File 3: The Return of the Exes.
After a 92% drop in its second weekend, Star Wars: The Last Jedi has already been pulled from Chinese theaters, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Jimmy Wu, chairman of nationwide Chinese cinema chain Lumiere Pavilions, told THR:
“The Last Jedi has already been completely pulled from cinemas here. It’s performed much worse than we could have expected.”
While Rian Johnson‘s film has shot to the top of the box office in North America, becoming the highest-grossing movie of 2017, Disney and Lucasfilm have failed to crack the ever-perplexing Chinese market, which controls a huge portion of the worldwide box office grosses thanks to its standing as the second-largest film market in the world. According to Forbes, Last Jedi is the worst-performing big budget movie in China since 2013’s The Lone Ranger. At this rate, Last Jedi will finish in China with only $50 million, performing worse than box office disappointments like Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets ($62 million) and Geostorm ($65.6 million).
So what’s the cause of this surprising drop? Chinese market research experts tell THR that it’s because Chinese audiences are largely unfamiliar with the franchise, which has no cultural “legacy” in the country. The original trilogy never received a wide release in China, and young audiences mostly flocked to The Force Awakens out of curiosity, and Rogue One out of excitement for its Chinese stars Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen. But the box office performances of Star Wars movies have been degrading across the board, market researcher James Li said, with Force Awakens raking in $124 million in 2016 and Rogue One earning $69 million in 2017 — both well below Disney’s forecasts.
Aside from familiarity with the franchise, it may also be the melting pot of Western and Eastern mythology that Star Wars draws on — Arthurian legends wrapped up in Akira Kurosawa cinematic inspirations. THR notes that the emotional climax of the film revolves around Luke Skywalker’s (Mark Hamill) reveal at the end, which only left Chinese audiences thinking “So who is this old guy, suddenly, and why are we supposed to care?” Li added:
“Because of the complex characters and themes, the prequels, and all of the multi-generational layers that are part of the culture, or cult, of Star Wars, it’s been hard for young Chinese filmgoers to get into the franchise.”
The Chinese box office has been a tough nut to crack for Hollywood lately, with domestic films far out-grossing Western blockbusters predicted to be surefire hits. That’s the only explanation for the runaway performance of the weekend’s box office winner, The Ex-File 3: Return of the Exes, an archaic rom-com about playboy bachelors freed from the confines of relationships. Yes, this is the movie that beat out Last Jedi.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: 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?
You've missed what he's saying. The point is that complaints like these ones, that a capital ship lacked any defense against fighters, those kinds of complaints are in the all the movies. ANH is a masterpieces, but it ended by firing a missile down an exhaust port that has no covering, something far more inexplicable than a dreadnought lacking AA guns. ESB is an even greater movie, but the first we see of the Empire has them using giant thousand ton APCs... that walk for some reason? And that walk so badly you can trip them over with a single cable that's just been magnet locked to the APC. And if you trip one of these things over, then suddenly your guns will be able to fire through its shields.
There's loads of military stuff in the Star Wars films that makes no sense. The military tech runs on a much higher level of rule of cool than 40K. So if people are going to say that a dreadnought lacking AA defences is an issue in TLJ, then they have to say that similar stuff exists in all the Star Wars movies.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: 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?
You've missed what he's saying. The point is that complaints like these ones, that a capital ship lacked any defense against fighters, those kinds of complaints are in the all the movies. ANH is a masterpieces, but it ended by firing a missile down an exhaust port that has no covering, something far more inexplicable than a dreadnought lacking AA guns. ESB is an even greater movie, but the first we see of the Empire has them using giant thousand ton APCs... that walk for some reason? And that walk so badly you can trip them over with a single cable that's just been magnet locked to the APC. And if you trip one of these things over, then suddenly your guns will be able to fire through its shields.
There's loads of military stuff in the Star Wars films that makes no sense. The military tech runs on a much higher level of rule of cool than 40K. So if people are going to say that a dreadnought lacking AA defences is an issue in TLJ, then they have to say that similar stuff exists in all the Star Wars movies.
That's a major point.
Another one is that the dreadnaught does haveAA defences. They are the small gun turrets that Poe spends a lot of effort to blow up, having used the ruse of a parley to get within their effective arcs of fire..
sirlynchmob wrote: 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.
Dude, the Rebellion had capital ships. They had an Ion Cannon capable of incapacitating a Star Destroyer. We can conclude that major elements of society were working with and supplying the rebels with major equipment.
That said, I didn't have a problem with that scene either. Major armies get caught on the hop by new enemy weapons. Sometimes they know about the weapon, but don't realise its numbers or its upgrades. Before the invasion of France the 75mm gun of the Sherman was deemed sufficient, as they felt it sufficient to penetrate the MkIV, and heavier tanks would be matched by specialist units. They didn't realise the Germans had upgraded the armour on the MkIV, and Panthers were far more common than they realised.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Hey I'm with you on R1. How dumb is it that outsider/nobody Jyn Erso has to lecture the leadership of the Rebellion? Just like R1, TLJ promotes a boring character (Vice Admiral Ho Hum) at the expense of something already estalished with the audience (Poe's heroism). But TLJ is even more awkward about it because Holdo's silence is intended to make the audience suspicious of her/sympathetic to Poe's frustrations.
That was my point, by the way. I mean, I get that people want heroes in SW movies rather than, you know, fething idiotic failures. That's a great point and I agree with it. But the fact that audiences resent being hoodwinked by hamfisted screenwriting is a seperate point.
I think there was a delicate balance to find with Holdo not telling the escape plan from Poe. They needed to give us reason to believe Poe's actions were necessary, but then understand Holdo's actions when the revelation came. They didn't find the balance, they went too far in making Holdo hide the plan.
But even if they'd got the balance perfect, almost everyone that disliked that part of the film would still have disliked it, because of the nature of the scene itself.
I think you're wrong in saying they sacrificed Poe's heroism. Being a hero isn't about always make the right choice. That's unfortunately how it works out in lots of movies, but that's only because people want power fantasies about always being right, rather than actual heroes. That's why I really liked that part of TLJ, it showed heroes who screw up, make a bad call, but then keep going, keep trying to do the right thing. It was far from perfectly executed, but as I hinted at above, I'm not sure the execution is actually what most people had a problem with, it was the very concept itself.
Has ESB slipped your mind? The film where Han decides to hide out at Cloud City and ends up in carbonite as a result? The film where Luke rushes off to save his buds only to get his hand chopped off and find out Vader's his dad? Nobody complains about this stuff. To the contrary, ESB is widely considered a fantatsic movie by fans, critics, and people who don't care about Star Wars.
It's not just that Finn and Poe make mistakes. It's that they are failures, and for no good reason. It's pretty obvious that Rian Johnson doesn't even want Finn in the movie, so he gets to tag along with Rose for slapstick. Leia is flat-out wrong about the bombers. Holdo is a flat-out terrible leader. But somehow these women are supposed to teach Poe lessons?
Furthermore, if you like heroes that screw up then you must hate Rey.
Manchu wrote: Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?
I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.
After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.
Manchu wrote: Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?
I think there is an element of that. Whether it is due to revisionism or the golden spectacles of nostalgia or other reasons.
Another critique I read said that ESB was quite criticised in its time and the two films are both bridge films in their series, which is a difficult position to occupy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Speaking for myself, I enjoyed both films about equally on first viewing in the cinema.
Casting my mind back to 1980, I think I felt a bit disappointed that the ending of ESB was clearly a pointer to an inevitable sequel. This kind of sequelitis was far less common in those days than it is now. However, once the whole saga was wrapped up in RotJ, the series of three makes a satisfying whole.
Manchu wrote: Has ESB slipped your mind? The film where Han decides to hide out at Cloud City and ends up in carbonite as a result? The film where Luke rushes off to save his buds only to get his hand chopped off and find out Vader's his dad? Nobody complains about this stuff. To the contrary, ESB is widely considered a fantatsic movie by fans, critics, and people who don't care about Star Wars.
Oh, they did complain a lot back in the day. Australia's largest fan-club for SW had complaints letters whinging about how it ruined their childhood, and they completely screwed up the luke character, etc, etc.
It's the best of the original trilogy, but it's still far from a good movie. Me, I like bits in most of the movies (except those execrable ewok films), even if I dislike other bits of those same movies. Take what you like, discard the rest, move on. Stop fighting what you hate, and save that which you love instead.
Another one is that the dreadnaught does haveAA defences. They are the small gun turrets that Poe spends a lot of effort to blow up, having used the ruse of a parley to get within their effective arcs of fire..
That bit I fully agree with and was the best action sequence in the film (despite the slightly silly bombers), Poe takes out the AA defences, the Rebels fly in and blow up the big capital ship even as the Commander is lamenting the idiocy of the overall commander in not having fighter cover already launched. All makes sense within the narrative.
That's unfortunately how it works out in lots of movies, but that's only because people want power fantasies about always being right, rather than actual heroes. That's why I really liked that part of TLJ, it showed heroes who screw up, make a bad call, but then keep going, keep trying to do the right thing. It was far from perfectly executed, but as I hinted at above, I'm not sure the execution is actually what most people had a problem with, it was the very concept itself
But that's now what happens in most movies - the hero/ heroine usually makes mistakes - there is absolutely nothing new in this film that's not been done so many times, the idea that there is anything new or indeed "subversive" is laughable, Even looking at the previous Star Wars films -the main cast often screw up and keep going, hell that's most of ESB! Again I really wish you wouldn't decide you now what other people think.
They needed to give us reason to believe Poe's actions were necessary, but then understand Holdo's actions when the revelation came. They didn't find the balance, they went too far in making Holdo hide the plan. But even if they'd got the balance perfect, almost everyone that disliked that part of the film would still have disliked it, because of the nature of the scene itself.
Again you are making assumptions about people and why they disliked it. The execution was so awful that its hard to say whether it would have worked or not, a competent director and writing team can do wonders with most plots. Also the pay off is terrible - Poe mutinies in the middle of a battle (well slow slow chase) and Leia and Admiral laugh it off with "well he is cute", that's awful is it not?
There was something there about the fighters needing to return to the cover of the capital ships, or something. It might have been after a couple of the FO fighters got wipied, maybe. This was a bit that should have been shown better, I agree. Probably by showing the Rebels begin to react, and have Poe or maybe even Rose scramble some kind of AA defense and start popping the fighters.
They specifically call out to Ben to return as he is not under their ships cover or something - despite the ships also being out of range (great work script) - there is simply no reason shown why the rest of the fleet don't launch any expendable fighters is not clear or even qualified, you just needed someone on the Imperial Bridge saying
"I will mop them up with fighters sir" "No I want to enjoy this" or some other nonsense - we know that the commander is a bit of prat and a short exchange like this would have helped. But this is all over the place in the film - its so lazily written.
You were supposed to read it as the natural outcome of someone repeating a point many times, and finally saying it with some exasperation. We'll use someone in public, like you suggested. Consider everyone sitting in a big circle, discussing TLJ. One person suggests there's some bigger reasons for the negative reaction but he's not sure what they are, though he doesn't think they're related to the patriarchy stuff that some people have suggested. Then for the next 20 minutes people kept telling him it isn't the patriarchy and that he's wrong for saying it was the patriarchy, to which he keeps replying he doesn't think it is the patriarchy and made a point of saying that in his first post. But people hear that, and then keep saying he is wrong for saying it was the patriarchy.
Would you think it totally out of the blue if that guy eventually said 'its not the fething patriarchy and I fething made that clear from the beginning?' Would you consider that man angry for eventually responding forcefully? Or would you think he was exasperated, and looking for a way to make a point people should have realised the first time he said, and every time after that?
We are not all sitting in a circle of friends - I don't know you, have no context, have no history with you and vice versa. Its a bunch of strangers chatting about a film, somewhat awkwardly as none of us know each other. Then as we are chatting, several people say nah we didn't like this film and give general reasons - boring, length, lack of characterisation etc. Some agree, some disagree.
Then one member of the group keeps saying - "yeah but that's not the real reason is it - I know you say that but you don't really mean it, there is something else behind what you are saying".
The people challenged in the group look at each other and this other stranger a little askance and say "what? What do you mean"
He doesn't elaborate but just says, "yeah you might think this is your reasons but no its your subconscious talking, I am pretty sure I know what your real reasons are but I am not going to tell you."
The people get a bit confused, " So what are you saying, these are the specific things we don't like?"
"Nope I won't accept those reasons, that's not why you didn't like it"
"Say what? You think X, Y or Z but we are not saying that?"
"No not really, but its something else?"
"Well what?"
"I can't tell you but its not the reasons you think it is or what you are saying."
And then when people get irritated by this repeated line - that person is surprised - can you not see why we found this irritating?
What I don't understand is given all the problems with the film - some of which even the most ardent defenders agree with - why are the critics so positive, what has made them do this when similar and often lesser plot problems are ripped into with gusto in action films. I am much more suspicious of their reasons than people chatting about it.
I think the reason is the disproportionate reaction to what really seem pretty trivial examples of "bad script" or "bad plot".
As you said, the point about not launching fighters could easily be solved by a single line saying "Let's not because a reason" but it's hard to see why the lack of this line ruins the film.
I personally thought the script and plot were fine. The one thing that annoyed me while I was watching it was Admiral Hondo, but her plotline resolves and in retrospect it can be seen as a way of increasing dramatic tension in the audience. In other words, for me to get annoyned was exactly the reaction the plot/script was intended to create, and made it much more understandable why some crew were impelled to desert/escape and others to mutiny. I sat there thinking "WTF is Hondo doing, hasn't she got a plan?" not "This is a crappy plot and script."
I honestly think this whole sequence would have been much less emotionally involving if it had been given even a small amount of exposition to clarify Hondo's thinking.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the reason is the disproportionate reaction to what really seem pretty trivial examples of "bad script" or "bad plot".
As you said, the point about not launching fighters could easily be solved by a single line saying "Let's not because a reason" but it's hard to see why the lack of this line ruins the film.
I personally thought the script and plot were fine. The one thing that annoyed me while I was watching it was Admiral Hondo, but her plotline resolves and in retrospect it can be seen as a way of increasing dramatic tension in the audience. In other words, for me to get annoyned was exactly the reaction the plot/script was intended to create, and made it much more understandable why some crew were impelled to desert/escape and others to mutiny. I sat there thinking "WTF is Hondo doing, hasn't she got a plan?" not "This is a crappy plot and script."
I honestly think this whole sequence would have been much less emotionally involving if it had been given even a small amount of exposition to clarify Hondo's thinking.
Hmm sort of - but for me I sat there thinking exactly that - if it had been one thing here and there - no probs its an action movie - no movie ever made is perfect and often suspension of disbelif is vital to enjoy the film. but here, for this film I found myself going Wtf in every scene that inovled someone from the Shp of Fools - wether that be the mutiny adn its (lack of ) consequences for the mutiniers, the lack of fighters, the Imeprial ships doing nothing, the rebels doing nothing - just killed any immersion and indeed just became boring.
Its a steady rolling build up or so many moments that could have been shown better, could have been written better, could have been directed better but were not, that end up building to a mountain of rubbish.
and at the end of the film as the three of us were walking out we turned to each other and said - "well that was crap." Not that was a bad Star Wars film, just that it was a bad film and a bad experience not to be repeated when the next one comes out. we even blamed one of the group as her choices of films seemed to be jinxed - she had persuded us to watch Geostorm (sadly) - although looking at the two - Geostrom was they better of the two very poor films.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the reason is the disproportionate reaction to what really seem pretty trivial examples of "bad script" or "bad plot".
As you said, the point about not launching fighters could easily be solved by a single line saying "Let's not because a reason" but it's hard to see why the lack of this line ruins the film.
I personally thought the script and plot were fine. The one thing that annoyed me while I was watching it was Admiral Hondo, but her plotline resolves and in retrospect it can be seen as a way of increasing dramatic tension in the audience. In other words, for me to get annoyned was exactly the reaction the plot/script was intended to create, and made it much more understandable why some crew were impelled to desert/escape and others to mutiny. I sat there thinking "WTF is Hondo doing, hasn't she got a plan?" not "This is a crappy plot and script."
I honestly think this whole sequence would have been much less emotionally involving if it had been given even a small amount of exposition to clarify Hondo's thinking.
The problem with Holdo's "choice" isn't that it creates tension. Tension is good.
The problem is that it is done not because of an organic reason for the character, but simply to create tension.
As a result, it creates this weird "I created tension because it creates tension", when in a good script, it should be "I created tension, because my character would do X". Creating tension is not a good reason to create tension, which is exactly what Holdo does.
I disliked Holdo. And that's exactly what the film wanted me to do. Kudos for prompting that reaction. However, when I realised HOW they prompted that dislike, I was angry at the script, for lazily manipulating the audience.
As an example, say you and I have an intellectual challenge. I challenge you that I can make you laugh at something. You agree, and go in expecting the "showing you something funny, telling you a joke" thing. Instead, I tickle you and force you to laugh. It's not smart, it's not witty, it's forced human reaction - and that's what the script does.
It doesn't give good reasons or development to create a natural tension, so it withholds information which would naturally have been there. It's forced tension, because the situations for that tension are falsely manipulated.
Again - the tension isn't an issue. When Holdo wasn't telling the plan, I was annoyed at her. However, when the wool was pulled off my eyes, I saw there was no reasonable explanation for WHY she withheld that information, except to create tension. It's like "why did you punch them in the face?" "so I could punch them in the face". It exists only to fulfil itself.
In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.
Your response is incoherent, because the explanation given in the supporting materials was fine. Because there was nothing wrong with it you lurched from complaining that there's no possible answer to complaining that the answer should have been in the film. Now that I've pointed out to you that you changed your complaint, you've decided to go back to complaining that the explanation was no good. But of course, you've done that without giving a single complaint about the explantion, because you're just making this up as you go along.
I) I already said that moving the discussion to the additional material does NOTHING. There is just too much too explain to fill the gap when one watches the movie. One is pulled out from the movie, immersion is broken, enjoyment is lessened and going to "fix it" post-movie, reading a bunch of glorified fanfiction is not going to help. II) I refuse to accept explanations outside the movie, especially if these esplanation are written by glorified fanfiction writers hired to fill all the gaps the movie writers left. And I refuse to accept a lot of crap I read here and everywhere, convoluted explanations that make no sense with the premises left in RotJ, the universe, and basic logic. But naturally, I am the one making things up.
You trimmed the quote, again. to hide the part where I explain how you failed. That isn't honest. And you are resorting to these dihonest tactics because your claims are falling apart.
You are not in the condition to call anyone dishonest here. Declaring that "I failed" is not enough. Is post after post after post that you have an axe to grind and no substance in your statements.
That's right, its info not included in the movie. Which you'll note I've said many times is an actual complaint that can be made about TFA.
And this a fundamental one. The movie is filled with that garbage.
Whereas your complaint, that Starkiller was dumb because it was a one shot weapon in a movie that showed it charging for a second shot... was a very silly complaint.
I cannot genuinely understand if you have an axe to grind, you are being genuinely obtuse or else.
Pointing out your confusion is a necessary component of moving this conversation forward. It's only once we recognise where you're at that we can start going forward.
There is not confusion barring the one you are making yourself. You continually move the goalpost genuinely convinced that you are contributing to the discussion whatsoever, while in your last post you just conceded the basic points I was attacking (that started the discussion), while being undeservedly condescending. You are the one that keeps bringing up fanfiction, books, made up explanations, history - anything barring what is in the movie (that you already accepted as incoherent). Reread what you wrote and try to grasp the logic passages if you can.
Here's your actual line; "2b) let's ignore the stupidity of the weapon, that can only shoot once" So now we have to believe that when you said the weapon can only shoot once, your problem was that it had a limited number of shots, but more than one.
This is why I cannot understand if you are doing it intentionally, or you genuinely believe what you write. The pont is the SK base lacking FTL . Is not shown in the movie. Even if the weapon shoots twice instead of once, is an awfully low amount of shots for a galaxy-threatening weapon. Since such weapon is not shown FTL travelling, and consumes suns, it remains stupid even if it shoots twice. Again, you ignored any logic or context and just focused on the exact words. If it shot twice is irrelevant, during the attack is shown absorbing another sun. When that sun is consumed, what they are going to do? If the weapon is a planet, has an orbit. Are they going to detach it from this orbit for another star? It will take ages. But yeah. These are the same guy that have shown the beams go obviously FTL, but then take their good time befor hitting the planet.
For all this angst, you still haven't managed to explain exactly what real world intergalactic empire growth rates you're using to decide the FO grew implausibly quickly. After all, if using historic empires is 'preposterous', then you must have some real intergalactic empires to compare to.
I don't have to explain anything. The writers have to explain it in a plausible way. You have to find a decent example/parallelism and none of you is doing a good job.
I can use Shakespeare if you want. Othello perhaps. I just used the prequels because its the closest comparison, and one I knew you'd be familiar with. The quality of the piece doesn't matter, what was important is you realising that your earlier claim, that stories are always about making the hero and villain as clever as possible was wrong. Many writers will make a deliberate choice to make a mistake, even a foolish one, to say something about the character.
Now I want to hear it with Othello, go ahead. I suppose is like with the Franks. If is a comparison with something old enough, it looks intellectual so it must be true. Also, I am sure that we could eventually find a story in which the writers did a good job and have shown, build, a plausible downfall. But we are not discussing one of these stories, I am afraid. Your point is essentially "LOOK THERE ARE OTHER STORIES THAT DON'T SUCK" which is true. We knew that. But this one is written like crap.
Oh wow. And now you say using leitmotif was a comparison. So it turns out you maybe don't understand what comparison means, either.
The quality of the comparison does not undermine my points. You are still focusing on this because (I) is your tactics to undermine the peole you argue with, in a more or less overt manner (II) you are not bringing actual arguments. I start to understand that you think yourself as intellectually superior, this explain your dismissing behaviour, suggesting that people "don't know what they think", or focusing on petty details in order to lecture others. The harsh truth is different. I am not going to be troubled by a conversation in internet, I enjoyed the discussion with anyone else here - I just hope you don't behave like this with people in your life. Is absolutely maddening.
If you think the AGM of a $55 billion dollar company are filled with questions about how a single film only returned 75% of its predecessor, then you just have no clue how major business operatesy. If you think those questions would be angry because TLJ only grossed $1.3bn on a $200m investment, then we're dealing with something far greater than just business ignorance.
AGM or not, someone will be questioned, especially after Solo if it does not stand on its legs. 1.3b vs 2b is 65% but does not matter, they are going to get some more since the movie is still in theaters. In these days, sequels are expected to gross as much. There are 700m less you have to explain. This is not a joke. TLJ started like TFA, but has an historical week-to-week drop. The drop is a record by itself, I linked it some post ago. This is not a joke. China is a big market for blockbusters, and this is the third movie, in decline instead rising compared to the others. This is not a joke. They paid 4b for SW, in 2012. People will be asked questions for this, I cannot believe in the opposite.
Also, do you think that all of that 1.3b goes to disney? Half of that is american, 65% goes to disney. The rest has a lesser return. so is 600-700m Plus you have to add marketing. For big blockbusters is huge, like 50% of the production cost afaik. And we see SW everywhere. So is more 300m cost (best case scenario but I think we are close to 100% here), 700m cashed in. Which is good, but less impressive of what you make it sound. Meanwhile, the brand could be damaged and more and more people upset, losing enthusiasm for the franchise. Not necessarily showing up next time, or buying merchandise. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-18/-star-wars-toy-sales-fall-in-2017-as-movie-tie-fatigue-sets-in
I mean, were you predicting similar angry questions when Rogue One 'only' grossed $1bn? That was a $700m drop from TFA.
R1 is a spinoff. Is not the main story. This is the main story with the characters of the old trilogy and the new ones. R1 is targeted at the old farts. TLJ at everyone. Is not nearly enough the same situation.
Not coincidence, contrivance. This is one of those really simple things. Marvel has been ludicrously profitable. Whedon himself delivered them what was at the time the third highest grossing film in history. After that he oversaw creative in the film division, during which time we saw the most extraordinary streak of commercial success we will see in any major studio in any of our lifetimes. Disney isn't going to remove anyone from that team because a single film project was slightly less profitable than hoped.
I think we can only wait and see. Rumors say Johnson is still getting the trilogy but hey. What happens next will be quite interesting to see.
Manchu wrote: Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?
I've never trusted them. Just look at any cult classic, hated by critics, loved by many.
Also Disney bans critics from previews if they don't like their coverage. see LA times. So critics won't be as critical as they're now stepping on egg shells now to not offend the movie makers.
The user reviews are the more telling number and the one I'd put more stock into. 97% ESB, 49% last jedi, which closely mirrors the poll here on dakka.
Manchu wrote: Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?
I've never trusted them. Just look at any cult classic, hated by critics, loved by many.
Also Disney bans critics from previews if they don't like their coverage. see LA times. So critics won't be as critical as they're now stepping on egg shells now to not offend the movie makers.
The user reviews are the more telling number and the one I'd put more stock into. 97% ESB, 49% last jedi, which closely mirrors the poll here on dakka.
Exactly.
[Emperor throne room voice] Oh no.. those apples looked so nice close to the oranges...
Manchu wrote: Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?
I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.
After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.
I agree 100%. If IX turns out to be garbage, people's opinions of TLJ will be validated. However, I'm gonna wait til IX before I declare TLJ the worst SW movie. I went into the film with this expectation and was able to really enjoy it, even more the 2nd time.
The point of that post is that many people had VERY similar opinions about ESB in 1980. if the internet had existed back then, there would probably be tons of backlash.
But then RotJ came out and tied everything up nicely. In retrospect, ESB then became hailed as THE best SW movie.
So why don't we just cool our jets and wait for IX?
Manchu wrote: Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?
I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.
After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.
I agree 100%. If IX turns out to be garbage, people's opinions of TLJ will be validated. However, I'm gonna wait til IX before I declare TLJ the worst SW movie. I went into the film with this expectation and was able to really enjoy it, even more the 2nd time.
The point of that post is that many people had VERY similar opinions about ESB in 1980. if the internet had existed back then, there would probably be tons of backlash. But then RotJ came out and tied everything up nicely. In retrospect, ESB then became hailed as THE best SW movie. So why don't we just cool our jets and wait for IX?
-
When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt" Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up". For me is amazing because it lies on the assumption that I have to like, or at least to watch, a Star Wars movie and appreciate it whatsoever. It adds to the narrative that if I don't like it I am sexist, or I watch the movies wrong. In this case, is that I am not patient enough - I want a decent story now - how entitled I am! I mean, really? What Kathleen Kennedy has to do to make you stop falling for this? Shoot your dog while she high-fives J.J.? Scratch your car while laughing at you, pointing the finger?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: 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?
You've missed what he's saying. The point is that complaints like these ones, that a capital ship lacked any defense against fighters, those kinds of complaints are in the all the movies. ANH is a masterpieces, but it ended by firing a missile down an exhaust port that has no covering, something far more inexplicable than a dreadnought lacking AA guns. ESB is an even greater movie, but the first we see of the Empire has them using giant thousand ton APCs... that walk for some reason? And that walk so badly you can trip them over with a single cable that's just been magnet locked to the APC. And if you trip one of these things over, then suddenly your guns will be able to fire through its shields.
There's loads of military stuff in the Star Wars films that makes no sense. The military tech runs on a much higher level of rule of cool than 40K. So if people are going to say that a dreadnought lacking AA defences is an issue in TLJ, then they have to say that similar stuff exists in all the Star Wars movies.
Yes, people have always complained about the silly walkers, the small numbers of TIE fighters, the exhaust port and so on. It's why I didn't find the Dreadnaught scene to be much of an issue even though the dumb bombers bugged me. However, the entire film is built around a military chase scene that makes no sense. It's not just one silly action shot, like the tripping Walker. The whole film hinges upon a silly premise that becomes more and more stupid as time passes. If one nitpick is a little annoyance like a bee sting, then this film has made an African Killer Bee swarm out of those nitpicks. To make matters worse, there are already three good Star Wars films that demonstrate the limits of the setting to set up obstacles for their heroes to overcome, and TLJ blunders through that established setting and tramples it until it breaks. If there were just a few silly little nitpicks, like catwalks without safety handrails, they would be easy to dismiss. Whenever the entire plot of the story revolves around a problem that shouldn't exist in this universe, that's a dealbreaker (for anyone who cares about the OT more than just lol Star Wars who cares).
Manchu wrote: Sure, ESB only has 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to 91% for TLJ. Or is your point that we can't trust critiques contemporary to the movie?
I think the point is that people's reactions to the second part of a trilogy is likely to change after the third part, as happened with critical response to ESB after the trilogy was wrapped up.
After all, the only thing which prevents ESB from having plot hooks that go nowhere is the fact they are tied up in RotJ. If RotJ started with Han already rescued, for example, that plot point of him being frozen in carbonite would have been a waste of time overall in ESB.
I agree 100%. If IX turns out to be garbage, people's opinions of TLJ will be validated. However, I'm gonna wait til IX before I declare TLJ the worst SW movie. I went into the film with this expectation and was able to really enjoy it, even more the 2nd time.
The point of that post is that many people had VERY similar opinions about ESB in 1980. if the internet had existed back then, there would probably be tons of backlash.
But then RotJ came out and tied everything up nicely. In retrospect, ESB then became hailed as THE best SW movie.
So why don't we just cool our jets and wait for IX?
-
Nope, I wasted my time and my money on a rubbsh film, I may watch it on Sky when it comes on but the cinema forget it. TFA ws fun - this was garbage, another film will make no difference to that opinion even if the next film was the best in the unioverse - the fudemental flaws in the film are too great,
Kilkrazy wrote: In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.
You don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be happy to rationalize a conceit that doesn't work at face value, do you? The tension was contrived. Usually people feel cheated when they find out they invested emotion into what is essentially an illusion.
There are so many ways that they could have kept the audience's tension without requiring her to pointlessly feth with the crew and another officer that I don't feel obliged to rationalize or excuse the film's poor choice.
Having had a proper think over the movie that I saw two nights ago! It's time for my opinion!
Firstly, it's apparent that nobody in this movie, be it characters or creators, has ever picked up a physics book. Lasers don't have a limited range in space dammit!
Also, are these new ships armoured in tissue paper or something? The Dreadnought gets hit by those bombs and they seem to absolutely punch through the armour like its made of paper. They aren't even penetration bombs, they literally look like the bombing deck from a WW2 aircraft, and why the hell are those bombers so slow and how the hell are they using gravity to land them? What if the dreadnought was facing the other way? Don't they have shields? Why were they so close that they blew up on collateral damage!
But I'm not going to nit pick, but it appears that in addition to picking up parts from the previous films (Rey on the Bridge seeing the fleet get destroyed, although how did Snoke know about that? Nobody told him?) the skimmers looking a little bit like the Bespin fighters, the whole last fight basically being a poorly done version of Hoth and the fact that Kylo looks like he stole Anakin's outfit from RotS, they also picked up the prequel series' god awful toning issues. What kind of film is this supposed to be? We have a serious life or death situation filled with bad humour, well that ruins that. You can the comedy moments on the Casino World mingled with slavery issues and people getting blown up in transports.
All the tension in the film is made for tensions sake. How do the First Order know how much fuel the Mon Calamari has left? In fact, why the heck is it burning fuel! That's not how fuel works in space dammit! Why didn't they transfer the crews and fuel to the main cruiser at the start? In fact, why the hell didn't they turn around one of the smaller ships and hyperdrive that into the chasing fleet. It obviously works because Hux craps his pants when he realises that's exactly what Holdo's doing.
Also, how did she know that Poe was demoted? Leia tells him seconds before the First Order attacks again, when did she have the time to write it down? I could go into the tactical stupidity of not launching a CAP as soon as you jump out of hyperspace, but this isn't BSG.
And as for Holdo herself, I don't buy all this need to know basis. Poe is probably the most experienced pilot on the ship at this time. I don't buy the issues of trust, because no one on board suspects a spy, because no one mentions it. Also, people are fueling up those transports, so she must have told some people something. Like possibly the pilots of said shuttles who are probably wondering why the shuttes are using the fuel that the Rebels are lacking. Surely the bridge crew must have known something, and yet the bridge member who joins in the mutiny doesn't say anything either. And why was she staying back on the ship? It was flying itself fine without anyone on the bridge at that moment. Maybe you should have turned around and provided some covering fire to your escaping allies. That might have been a good idea? Maybe after doing that you could then hyperspeed the ship if that's what you wanted.
Kaiyanwang wrote: When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt"
Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up".
J. J. Abrams isn't known for writing satisfying conclusions at the best of times, he's known for the mystery box and Ponzi storytelling. And that's without Rian Johnson cutting all his plot hooks and leaving him with nothing but a dozen people in a light freighter with no allies to call on.
Kaiyanwang wrote: When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt" Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up".
J. J. Abrams isn't known for writing satisfying conclusions at the best of times, he's known for the mystery box and Ponzi storytelling. And that's without Rian Johnson cutting all his plot hooks and leaving him with nothing but a dozen people in a light freighter with no allies to call on.
"Ponzi storytelling" is beautiful. Is the best way to define J.J.
Kaiyanwang wrote: When I watched TFA and I said it sucked, people told me "the following movie will clarify your doubt"
Now that TLJ is even worse, and more divisive, I have to hear "the following movie will wrap things up".
J. J. Abrams isn't known for writing satisfying conclusions at the best of times, he's known for the mystery box and Ponzi storytelling. And that's without Rian Johnson cutting all his plot hooks and leaving him with nothing but a dozen people in a light freighter with no allies to call on.
Huh. He did that before JJ was announced as the director for IX, right? Now karma finally has JJ in its grasp.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.
You don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be happy to rationalize a conceit that doesn't work at face value, do you? The tension was contrived. Usually people feel cheated when they find out they invested emotion into what is essentially an illusion.
There are so many ways that they could have kept the audience's tension without requiring her to pointlessly feth with the crew and another officer that I don't feel obliged to rationalize or excuse the film's poor choice.
I think it does work at face value. I don't care that the tension was contrived, that is the purpose of dramatic script writing.
I think the entire chase sequence works and I don't understand why people say it's a ludicrous thing that never could happen in real life. (Points to the Battle of the River Plate, the Battle of the Falklands, etc.)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't feel obliged to rationalize or excuse the film's poor choice
Pretty important point here. Similarly, I don't feel obliged to depend upon a hypothetical sequel to validate the movie to hand. (By the way, ESB is not critically acclaimed thanks to RotJ.) Despite having a sense of fun entirely absent from The Last Jedi, The Force Awakens irritatingly asked me to care about a character about whom it refused to tell me anything. It's not good enough to say, keep buying the product if you want to know XYZ. Whether I want to know XYZ is separate matter from whether any given movie deserves praise or criticism on its own terms.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't care that the tension was contrived, that is the purpose of dramatic script writing.
I get that you find contrived writing personally acceptable. But, again, the question is whether the writing is contrived - and you seem to agree with Bob, myself, and others that the answer is yes.
Scrabb wrote: "Forget the past. Kill it, if you have to."
"But don't forget to watch our Han Solo movie, coming soon!"
Bravo! In fairness, I don't think Rian Johnson is using Kylo Ren as his mouthpiece there. After all, Rey explicitly refuses to take his advice and we are left by the end of The Last Jedi - despite all the "subverted expectations" - with the same old goodies versus baddies scenario.
I think what you're describing is "artifice" (the "made-ness" of plot) rather than "contrivance."
What I mean by contrived is more like "forced" or "inorganic" or "unfounded" - where X (e.g., Holdo staying aboard the ship) must occur in order for Y (Holdo's kamikaze attack) to occur but the plot does not credibly account for why X occurs such that it apparently occurs, achronologically, for the sake of Y.
I take your point. Let me explain the chase scenario from my viewpoint.
Let me explain the chase scenario from my viewpoint.
The Rebel base is heavily attacked and they barely get away, consequently they are unable to call long distance for help or fully load their ships with fuel.
The Rebels escape via hyperspace and think they are safe, but almost immediately the Imperial fleet arrives behind them and attacks.
During this confused initial engagement, a lucky or cunning hit takes out the main Rebel ship's bridge, killing or wounding most of the senior officers.
Admiral Hondo, the highest ranked survivor, takes command. Hondo realises several things about their situation.
1. They have enough fuel for one jump or a significant distance of travel in normal space.
2. Clearly the Imperials can track ships through hyperspace, therefore the Rebels can't escape by jumping.
3. There is a possible sanctuary planet within reach by sub-light. This base is heavily defended and has long range communication equipment.
4. A stern chase is a long chase, and the Rebels should be capable of outpacing the Imperial fleet for long enough to reach the sanctuary planet, where they will be able to call for help and hold out until it arrives.
5. Besides, who knows what may happen? "Events, dear boy, events." If all else fails, you have to hope for good luck.
The Imperial commander's situation is as follows:
A. They know they will gradually overhaul and crush the Rebel fleet in a stern chase.
B. They only have one ship capable of tracking the Rebels.
C. If the Rebels are heading somewhere it may be useful to find out where that is. And the Rebels may get reinforcements, who will need to be dealt with.
D. Therefore they should not divide their forces, and risk losing half of them on a wild goose chase. The best strategy is to carry on as they are.
In these circumstances, the chase scenario makes perfect sense for both sides.
Why did Hondo not tell people her plan?
1. Need to know. Loose lips sink ships.
2. Perhaps she overestimated the state of morale in the Rebel fleet... or maybe she didn't think it was a crucial factor.
(C. To give the audience the same mental picture of what is going on as the Rebel fleet members.)
All in all, this may well be contrived or artificed, but it makes sense and constructs the dramatic arc of the middle of the film, allowing side quests to be interwoven into the narrative.
The absolute basis of drama is that it is contrived. It is specifically to set up situations of dramatic tension and excitement.
??
Are you saying all of fiction is equally credible and satisfying because it is all fictional?
Contrived is used to describe situations that don't work in the usual remit of fiction to chain unreal events into a narrative. It means the situation did not work as written and was sort of jimmied into the story.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.
You don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to be happy to rationalize a conceit that doesn't work at face value, do you? The tension was contrived. Usually people feel cheated when they find out they invested emotion into what is essentially an illusion.
There are so many ways that they could have kept the audience's tension without requiring her to pointlessly feth with the crew and another officer that I don't feel obliged to rationalize or excuse the film's poor choice.
I think it does work at face value. I don't care that the tension was contrived, that is the purpose of dramatic script writing.
I think the entire chase sequence works and I don't understand why people say it's a ludicrous thing that never could happen in real life. (Points to the Battle of the River Plate, the Battle of the Falklands, etc.)
I don't see how it works at face value. She had a plan. She makes her senior pilot and other officers believe there is no plan because...uh tension? Mutiny is tense? But there really was a plan all along. It makes no sense logically, and her character makes no sense after the transport reveal.
Also, no one said it wouldn't work in real life. They said it wouldn't work in Star Wars. There are pages and pages covering this. If you don't understand the reasoning, fine. Please accept that others do. You've made it plain that consistency of setting (and especially the rules governing it that lead to all the, er tension) don't matter much to you. Please accept that they matter a lot to some people.
I heard someone even cared enough about the setting to pay billions of dollars for it.
@killkrazy From my point of view as someone who's served in a navy and worked with a COC.
The Rebel base is heavily attacked and they barely get away, consequently they are unable to call long distance for help or fully load their ships with fuel.
This is where you lose me. the first thing when a ship gets to their base is they start refueling and restocking. those ships weren't used in e7 so they should have been fully fueled. It's what the real navy does, and it's what the rebellion would have learned being constantly chased.
C. If the Rebels are heading somewhere it may be useful to find out where that is. And the Rebels may get reinforcements, who will need to be dealt with.
D. Therefore they should not divide their forces, and risk losing half of them on a wild goose chase. The best strategy is to carry on as they are.
that is why calling in for more of their forces is the best strategy, calling them in to cut off the rebels
Why did Hondo not tell people her plan? 1. Need to know. Loose lips sink ships.
Again, doesn't trust Poe with the plan, but thinks he's fit to lead the rebellion after his mutiny. see my previous posts about abandoning ship. So clearly 3. she's just insane. When captains don't trust their own crew, bad things happen. they're all on the same ship, they all voluntereed and joined the cause, they're trusted to run and defend the ship, but don't need to know the mission? Nope, can't buy it, my suspension of disbelief only goes so far and that's well past the point.
allowing side quests to be interwoven into the narrative.
Interwoven? I do not think that means what you think it means
I'm not implying you're wrong about your viewpoint, just adding in mine on top of yours. It's what we've seen the whole thread, some people like the movie and others don't for various reasons.
Holdo's two big moments also feel less attached to the narrative, and more "ass-pully " because they are not set up with a Chekhov's gun.
The first inkling the audience has about Crait's existence in when it is revealed with the surprise plan. No one seems to have noticed it on a scan? No imperial thought it might be the Rebels' target? It just appears. Clearly the reason is to create tension; if the audience knew about the planet, they would figure out the plan, and it's many holes, long before the film is ready to reveal it. The audience would have enough time to think about how dumb the imperials were before the payoff, something they would be up inclined to do during the climax.
Second, the hyperram. It goes against established norms in the setting and is never mentioned as a possibility. Just a single throw away line or any action that would indicate hyperram img was a viable tactic at all would have sold the scene much more believably. Instead, we are left with Stupid Star Wars.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Holdo's two big moments also feel less attached to the narrative, and more "ass-pully " because they are not set up with a Chekhov's gun.
The first inkling the audience has about Crait's existence in when it is revealed with the surprise plan. No one seems to have noticed it on a scan? No imperial thought it might be the Rebels' target? It just appears. Clearly the reason is to create tension; if the audience knew about the planet, they would figure out the plan, and it's many holes, long before the film is ready to reveal it. The audience would have enough time to think about how dumb the imperials were before the payoff, something they would be up inclined to do during the climax.
Second, the hyperram. It goes against established norms in the setting and is never mentioned as a possibility. Just a single throw away line or any action that would indicate hyperram img was a viable tactic at all would have sold the scene much more believably. Instead, we are left with Stupid Star Wars.
For the ram, Hux looks like hes about to wet himself when he realises what Holdo is about to do. Which means that he must be known that Jumping into a vessel is very dangerous.
Why no one thought of this before no one knows, you could literally install hyperdrives into Asteroids, and then throw them at people like its Starship Troopers.
Manchu wrote: I think what you're describing is "artifice" (the "made-ness" of plot) rather than "contrivance."
What I mean by contrived is more like "forced" or "inorganic" or "unfounded" - where X (e.g., Holdo staying aboard the ship) must occur in order for Y (Holdo's kamikaze attack) to occur but the plot does not credibly account for why X occurs such that it apparently occurs, achronologically, for the sake of Y.
Yeah, well said (better than I was trying to articulate earlier), that's why I was comparing it to bad fan fiction. It's like they put up a list of plot points they wanted to hit, spent 5 minutes thinking of circumstances required to hit those plot points then never spent any additional time thinking over how jarring and potentially illogical those circumstances might be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: All in all, this may well be contrived or artificed,
Agree
but it makes sense
Disagree
and constructs the dramatic arc of the middle of the film,
Disagree
allowing side quests to be interwoven into the narrative.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Holdo's two big moments also feel less attached to the narrative, and more "ass-pully " because they are not set up with a Chekhov's gun.
The first inkling the audience has about Crait's existence in when it is revealed with the surprise plan. No one seems to have noticed it on a scan? No imperial thought it might be the Rebels' target? It just appears. Clearly the reason is to create tension; if the audience knew about the planet, they would figure out the plan, and it's many holes, long before the film is ready to reveal it. The audience would have enough time to think about how dumb the imperials were before the payoff, something they would be up inclined to do during the climax.
Second, the hyperram. It goes against established norms in the setting and is never mentioned as a possibility. Just a single throw away line or any action that would indicate hyperram img was a viable tactic at all would have sold the scene much more believably. Instead, we are left with Stupid Star Wars.
For the ram, Hux looks like hes about to wet himself when he realises what Holdo is about to do. Which means that he must be known that Jumping into a vessel is very dangerous.
Why no one thought of this before no one knows, you could literally install hyperdrives into Asteroids, and then throw them at people like its Starship Troopers.
In the prequels the Jedi ships use those ring engine things for hyperdrives that break off when the ship gets to its destination. If the Jedi just rigged those up with space junk the wars of the prequels would have been over in about 5 minutes.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Holdo's two big moments also feel less attached to the narrative, and more "ass-pully " because they are not set up with a Chekhov's gun.
The first inkling the audience has about Crait's existence in when it is revealed with the surprise plan. No one seems to have noticed it on a scan? No imperial thought it might be the Rebels' target? It just appears. Clearly the reason is to create tension; if the audience knew about the planet, they would figure out the plan, and it's many holes, long before the film is ready to reveal it. The audience would have enough time to think about how dumb the imperials were before the payoff, something they would be up inclined to do during the climax.
Second, the hyperram. It goes against established norms in the setting and is never mentioned as a possibility. Just a single throw away line or any action that would indicate hyperram img was a viable tactic at all would have sold the scene much more believably. Instead, we are left with Stupid Star Wars.
For the ram, Hux looks like hes about to wet himself when he realises what Holdo is about to do. Which means that he must be known that Jumping into a vessel is very dangerous.
Why no one thought of this before no one knows, you could literally install hyperdrives into Asteroids, and then throw them at people like its Starship Troopers.
For the first, that was Hux reacting to the action while it was happening. Nowhere in the whole franchise is it mentioned as a possibility. It should have been a looming, dreadful possibility. "They can track us? We'll never escape! Unless someone were to...but no, I can't ask that of anyone."
For the second, yep. Stupid Star Wars.
Not to mention that the hyperram is inconsistent even in-universe, as in Rogue One we see some of the rebel fleet's ships try to get away in hyperspace and just crash into the Imperial ships without any significant damage to the latter.
Now suddenly a single cruiser takes out a capital ship? Nahhh.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the case of Holdo, I am happy to rationalise possible reasons why her plan was not explicated within the film because it enables the dramatic tension of the chase sequence to be maintained and exagerrated.
I think the entire chase sequence works and I don't understand why people say it's a ludicrous thing that never could happen in real life. (Points to the Battle of the River Plate, the Battle of the Falklands, etc.)
very very differnt things
the Battle of the River Plate is a running battle between warships where damage is inflicted on both sides and its a tense battle between a single pocket battleship and less powerful but more numerous cruisers.
The chase with the ship of fools has none of this - the rebels amble along in their apparently invulnerable cruise, the imperials lob the odd ineffectual shot at the cruiser. Its so very dull. The tension is to me and others Iw atched with not only negliable but the whole scene is laughable.
4. A stern chase is a long chase, and the Rebels should be capable of outpacing the Imperial fleet for long enough to reach the sanctuary planet, where they will be able to call for help and hold out until it arrives.
A chase that is unrelenting does not need to be long.
Hux and Holdo (?) agree that the Rebel fleet is fast enough to keep at extreme range, but does not have enough fuel to outrun the Imperials and eventually will halt and be destroyed. This is exactly what happens.
The objective of the Rebels is to get to a long range transmitter to call for help from the outer rim systems (or some such SW style nomenclature.) They achieve this, but no help comes.
Let me give you my rope analogy.
The narrative of a film is woven together rather like the core of a rope. It contains many small threads which wind around and join each other, leading from one to the next, and form a whole which carries the user on a journey (e.g. down a cliff. or across a river.)
Just as in a rope there cqn be individual flaws in some of the threads and splices, which don't matter when you look at the whole, a film may contain individual plot holes, lines of bad dialogue or dodgy edits.
The difference in this film is that some people don't like the journey on which it takes the viewer, and they are looking very carefully at all the individual threads to pick nits in them, which is an easy task when you concentrate on it.
I like the film's journey, and I don't care if there are a few plot holes along the way.
I must concede that the rope analogy is apt. It isn't just that Poe's prank was gauche. It isn't just that space bombers are silly. It's not just that the dynamics of the chase are dodgy. It isn't just that Leia is in the wrong vis a vis Poe. It isn't just that "Vice Admiral" Holdo is dressed and coiffured strangely for a military leader. It isn't just that she is rather poor in said capacity. It isn't just that Poe's mutiny is contrived in the sense I discussed. It isn't just that the same can justly describe Holdo's intention to remain aboard the doomed vessel. It isn't just that the hyperram tactic raises serious questions as to all other spacebourne actions we have witnessed in the series. It isn't just that salvation happens to appear outside a port window in the form of an unlooked for sanctuary planet. But all of these strands entwined together form a shabby cord that cannot survive a stout heave.
Manchu wrote: I must concede that the rope analogy is apt. It isn't just that Poe's prank was gauche. It isn't just that space bombers are silly. It's not just that the dynamics of the chase are dodgy. It isn't just that Leia is in the wrong vis a vis Poe. It isn't just that "Vice Admiral" Holdo is dressed and coiffured strangely for a military leader. It isn't just that she is rather poor in said capacity. It isn't just that Poe's mutiny is contrived in the sense I discussed. It isn't just that the same can justly describe Holdo's intention to remain aboard the doomed vessel. It isn't just that the hyperram tactic raises serious questions as to all other spacebourne actions we have witnessed in the series. It isn't just that salvation happens to appear outside a port window in the form of an unlooked for sanctuary planet. But all of these strands entwined together form a shabby cord that cannot survive a stout heave.
Agreed for me - almost every strand was rotten and failing - put them together and it unravels as you watch - in this case slowly and tediously.
Yeah, as I said a couple of pages back it's no single issue with TLJ for me, it's a cascade of many issues, some big and some small. Arguing individual issues misses the point of the shear volume of issues. Like I mentioned the dreadnought's AA in a long list of issues with the film and I accept it may not be an issue with some other folks and it's not even a big issue for me (it's probably my engineering background that grasped on to it as being absurd how you could build a ship that is basically like building a whole city and not having it absolutely bristling with guns of all sizes) BUT we end up arguing about that 1 issue and missing the point of it being such a long list of different issues.
I can pick flaws out of some of my favourite movies but it doesn't stop me enjoying them, TLJ has so many broken strands on its rope that it's added to the (relatively short) list of Star Wars movies I don't have an interest in seeing again.
Manchu wrote:I must concede that the rope analogy is apt. It isn't just that Poe's prank was gauche. It isn't just that space bombers are silly. It's not just that the dynamics of the chase are dodgy. It isn't just that Leia is in the wrong vis a vis Poe. It isn't just that "Vice Admiral" Holdo is dressed and coiffured strangely for a military leader. It isn't just that she is rather poor in said capacity. It isn't just that Poe's mutiny is contrived in the sense I discussed. It isn't just that the same can justly describe Holdo's intention to remain aboard the doomed vessel. It isn't just that the hyperram tactic raises serious questions as to all other spacebourne actions we have witnessed in the series. It isn't just that salvation happens to appear outside a port window in the form of an unlooked for sanctuary planet. But all of these strands entwined together form a shabby cord that cannot survive a stout heave.
Both Kilkrazy and Manchu do well with the rope analogy.
Kilkrazy is right in that a rope can survive with some broken strands, and that films we say are good can still have these broken strands.
Manchu I agree with in that The Last Jedi has so many broken strands, the rope simply can't hold anything. If any of these was a single issue, and the rest of the film was perfect, the rope would hold. It's just the multitude of problems people have that make it so their rope won't hold.
But as people say, the movie's constituent threads are each rotten in their own way, and the only real one that holds up to any weight at all is the Rey-Kylo dynamic...
... which is all I really wanted to see in this film anyways. Cut Snoke's death, cut the chase scene with the rebels, cut casino world, and you end up with like a 45-minute short showing Kylo and Rey verbally and mentally ratcheting up the tension as Rey trains herself because Luke can't be assed.
EDIT: Like, literally, just Ctrl + A the script, hit Delete, and then write "try harder" and send it to a real writer. That probably would've made a better movie.
The Kylo-Ren dynamic was one of the well handled things (though still not a huge fan of their characters individually speaking).
Unit1126PLL wrote: EDIT: Like, literally, just Ctrl + A the script, hit Delete, and then write "try harder" and send it to a real writer. That probably would've made a better movie.
I'm not a very creative writer but I've been amazed how many cool concepts I've read from fans on how they think this movie should have been handled. From complete rewrites to just cleaning up a lot of the bad concepts to get a similar end result with less illogical and messy junk in the middle.
When random fans can come up with better concepts than an actual professional writing team and director it's not a great sign. Normally what fans write is mostly junk
Kilkrazy wrote: There are a lot more SW films to come. Perhaps some of the fanfic ideas will get made.
The next film should be Star Wars Episode VIII: The Fanfic. I would be very happy if Disney de-canonized Episode VIII and went so far as to ignore its existence and move on to a real, actually good, Episode VIII.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are a lot more SW films to come. Perhaps some of the fanfic ideas will get made.
The next film should be Star Wars Episode VIII: The Fanfic. I would be very happy if Disney de-canonized Episode VIII and went so far as to ignore its existence and move on to a real, actually good, Episode VIII.
One of the main disappointing things about TLJ isn't that it was a bad movie in and of itself but rather that it feels like it screwed over the series for future movies. I'm not one of those "it destroyed my childhood" loons (not only since I didn't see the OT until my late teens) but I feel like TLJ has made life harder for future Star Wars unless they just throw out a lot of the junk it raised.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are a lot more SW films to come. Perhaps some of the fanfic ideas will get made.
The next film should be Star Wars Episode VIII: The Fanfic. I would be very happy if Disney de-canonized Episode VIII and went so far as to ignore its existence and move on to a real, actually good, Episode VIII.
Well, with JJ at the helm, he could do for SW what he did for Star Trek. Time travel reboot!
Have Rey find out some new force projection power to not only project across space, but also time. She goes back and kills Palpatine before the Battle of Naboo. Anakin is not found by the Jedi and the Galactic Civil war never happens. But in an twist, the Republic still becomes a dictatorship and builds a Death Star to hold power, leading to a group of Jedi fighting against the Republic. Anakin finds his way into the conflict (as an adult now, with more maturity and without a lifetime of being told he is "the chosen one"). Anakin becomes the true hero that we all thought he was when Obi-wan talked about him to Luke.
Sound ridiculous? It should. This is what you are asking for if you want VIII "de-canonized". Why not de-canonize the Prequels while we are at it? At this point, time travel is the only way to de-canonize movies.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are a lot more SW films to come. Perhaps some of the fanfic ideas will get made.
The next film should be Star Wars Episode VIII: The Fanfic. I would be very happy if Disney de-canonized Episode VIII and went so far as to ignore its existence and move on to a real, actually good, Episode VIII.
Well, with JJ at the helm, he could do for SW what he did for Star Trek. Time travel reboot!
Have Rey find out some new force projection power to not only project across space, but also time. She goes back and kills Palpatine before the Battle of Naboo. Anakin is not found by the Jedi and the Galactic Civil war never happens. But in an twist, the Republic still becomes a dictatorship and builds a Death Star to hold power, leading to a group of Jedi fighting against the Republic. Anakin finds his way into the conflict (as an adult now, with more maturity and without a lifetime of being told he is "the chosen one"). Anakin becomes the true hero that we all thought he was when Obi-wan talked about him to Luke.
Sound ridiculous? It should. This is what you are asking for if you want VIII "de-canonized". Why not de-canonize the Prequels while we are at it? At this point, time travel is the only way to de-canonize movies.
-
No it's not. You could simply say "Oopsie, I done goofed, here's the real Episode VIII."
That said...
What you wrote sounds way more fething badass than this episode 8. Especially if Battle Droids stay involved somehow - in fact, maybe the Evil Empire in your setting could use Battle Droids instead of Storm Troopers, and has the power and money to make them not "comedy droids" while still having them aim badly.
Then Anakin can struggle with the Order in the Galaxy (dark side) vs. Doing What's Right (light side) that he seems to struggle with, and with good characterization, could become a villain (or hero, as you say!) as badass as Darth Vader.
When you "zoom out" or "blur your vision" as it were, when looking at TFA and TLJ, the element that stands out is the contrast between Rey and Kylo Ren.
Ben Solo is a space prince. His parents and uncle are the Galactic Heroes. Of course he will do great things! But that doesn't work out and his response is to still try to be great, except by emulating the worst role model in his family tree.
And then we have Rey, who is Just Some Girl except she is also The Chosen One. The contradiction there doesn't phase her too much at first. She just wishes she had a mom and a dad and an uncle; i.e., a past.
Both of these characters can't get over the past, sort of like the state of the Star Wars brand itself. Kylo Ren is like the fans for whom older SW content will always be the center of their universes. And Rey is like the newcomers, who don't have a connection to that experience but still want to be a part of this multi-generational SW phenomenon.
This is really a problem. SW shouldn't be "about SW" - but the brand is so massive, it's hard to figure out how it can escape its own gravity and strike out into new territory.
I think these films will be about as relevant in the US twenty five years from now as they are in China today.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are a lot more SW films to come. Perhaps some of the fanfic ideas will get made.
The next film should be Star Wars Episode VIII: The Fanfic. I would be very happy if Disney de-canonized Episode VIII and went so far as to ignore its existence and move on to a real, actually good, Episode VIII.
Well, with JJ at the helm, he could do for SW what he did for Star Trek. Time travel reboot!
Have Rey find out some new force projection power to not only project across space, but also time. She goes back and kills Palpatine before the Battle of Naboo. Anakin is not found by the Jedi and the Galactic Civil war never happens. But in an twist, the Republic still becomes a dictatorship and builds a Death Star to hold power, leading to a group of Jedi fighting against the Republic. Anakin finds his way into the conflict (as an adult now, with more maturity and without a lifetime of being told he is "the chosen one"). Anakin becomes the true hero that we all thought he was when Obi-wan talked about him to Luke.
Sound ridiculous? It should. This is what you are asking for if you want VIII "de-canonized". Why not de-canonize the Prequels while we are at it? At this point, time travel is the only way to de-canonize movies.
-
I know you're kidding, but I would love for them to decanonize everything but the OT. Force-projected time shenanigans sound risky, but might be the only way to save the period between 50 BBY to 50 ABY. They would be hard pressed to make it worse.
Really, I just want them to pick some new time period and give us adventure stories about wandering Jedi or artifact smugglers of the Whills or...something.
Manchu wrote: Were these tales any good? If so, I'm in.
I still love them precisely because they are so weird and yet they feel Star Wars-y. I guess the context is super important. SW was probably at or near the nadir of its brand value in 1993 so they could risk doing weird stuff. Plus it was just some comic book series. I won't tell you these are great comics (1990s DH art warning!) but they do construct a believable ancient past for the SW setting and create a few great characters and concepts along the way.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The Kylo-Ren dynamic was one of the well handled things (though still not a huge fan of their characters individually speaking).
Unit1126PLL wrote: EDIT:
Like, literally, just Ctrl + A the script, hit Delete, and then write "try harder" and send it to a real writer. That probably would've made a better movie.
I'm not a very creative writer but I've been amazed how many cool concepts I've read from fans on how they think this movie should have been handled. From complete rewrites to just cleaning up a lot of the bad concepts to get a similar end result with less illogical and messy junk in the middle.
When random fans can come up with better concepts than an actual professional writing team and director it's not a great sign. Normally what fans write is mostly junk
Let's remember though, the ewok movie, the Christmas special and the black whole exist. Even George & Disney write horrible junk. Some of the fan made movies are really good, heck pink 5 was so good She's been added into other pieces like alliegence by Zahn.
Galef wrote: Well, with JJ at the helm, he could do for SW what he did for Star Trek. Time travel reboot!
Have Rey find out some new force projection power to not only project across space, but also time. She goes back and kills Palpatine before the Battle of Naboo. Anakin is not found by the Jedi and the Galactic Civil war never happens. But in an twist, the Republic still becomes a dictatorship and builds a Death Star to hold power, leading to a group of Jedi fighting against the Republic. Anakin finds his way into the conflict (as an adult now, with more maturity and without a lifetime of being told he is "the chosen one"). Anakin becomes the true hero that we all thought he was when Obi-wan talked about him to Luke.
Sound ridiculous? It should. This is what you are asking for if you want VIII "de-canonized". Why not de-canonize the Prequels while we are at it? At this point, time travel is the only way to de-canonize movies.
OOC problems demand OOC solutions. A time travel reboot doesn't fix the problems that make the new Star Wars movies bad; getting rid of Kennedy, Abrams and Johnson and starting over might.
Manchu wrote: Alternatively, that's the scene where we learn Leia suffers from dementia.
And a fan theory is born! - Leia actually died when she got blown out the Raddus and the events of TLJ happen in her last few moments as her mind comes to grips with dying. The whole movie is just a death hallucination.
Manchu wrote: Alternatively, that's the scene where we learn Leia suffers from dementia.
And a fan theory is born! - Leia actually died when she got blown out the Raddus and the events of TLJ happen in her last few moment her mind coming to grips with dying. The whole movie is just a death hallucination.
Manchu wrote: Alternatively, that's the scene where we learn Leia suffers from dementia.
And a fan theory is born! - Leia actually died when she got blown out the Raddus and the events of TLJ happen in her last few moment her mind coming to grips with dying. The whole movie is just a death hallucination.
Manchu wrote: Alternatively, that's the scene where we learn Leia suffers from dementia.
And a fan theory is born! - Leia actually died when she got blown out the Raddus and the events of TLJ happen in her last few moment her mind coming to grips with dying. The whole movie is just a death hallucination.
-
This man is an hero. He just saved J.J. Abrams.
Does that make him a hero? ...Or a monster?
J.J. would say that from his point of view, Galef is an hero. Then wink at the camera because he referenced another SW movie.
Also there is a genuine, reasonable chance that what you guys just discussed is better than what we are going to see.
I feel that The Last Jedi will not age that well as it is truely a product of the Twenty-Teens. The messages and themes it draws on are contemporary rather than timeless like the OT/Prequels.
Easy E wrote: I feel that The Last Jedi will not age that well as it is truely a product of the Twenty-Teens. The messages and themes it draws on are contemporary rather than timeless like the OT/Prequels.
Thoughts?
This....could be true. Although arguably "timeless" has become a bit subjective even today due to the way technology has changed our culture in the last few decades.
Easy E wrote: I feel that The Last Jedi will not age that well as it is truely a product of the Twenty-Teens. The messages and themes it draws on are contemporary rather than timeless like the OT/Prequels.
Thoughts?
I think its more the heavy handed nature of the messaging that'll date it rather than the message(s) itself, to borrow from another great Sci-fi saga "the slow blade penetrates the shield", I refuse to belief the younger generations can't take on new (to them) points of view unless they are screamed at them in such an obvious and telegraphed ways
Turnip Jedi wrote: I refuse to belief the younger generations can't take on new (to them) points of view unless they are screamed at them in such an obvious and telegraphed ways
I'd like to agree with you, but this is the same generation that is willingly eating Tide pods. Assuming a certain level of stupidity is warranted, at least for some.
Is the Tide Pod Challenge a real thing or is it the Vodka Tampon Craze of the twenty-teens?
Regardless of how well TLJ ages, it has already thrown up huge obstacles for any future Star Wars writer to work around. Either it will be sidelined intentionally by the franchise caretakers (and likely the whole sequel trilogy), or Star Wars will have to make the Simpsons Choice: either maintain continuity of characters and setting, locking you into a narrower field of story possibilities than in the past, or kill the past and have any character do or say whatever will propel the story you want to tell this time regardless of the effect on the overall quality of the series. (The Simpsons chose the latter. Friends and Big Bang Theory chose the former. Either way, there was a marked change in quality over time.)
What is the message of TLJ? That nothing matters? So why transmit messages. That two opposed factions are two sides of the same coin? This happens in real life, when a cynical worldview wins. That one should follow orders blindly? Is this what you want to teach younger people? That you don't need training and humility, or at least training, arrogance and vision, to become good at something? Horrible. Or that past does not matter? So when TLJ becomes an old movie, why watch it and learn from it.
Star Wars used to appeal to universal, archetypal values (in a very simplistic way, appropriate for the genre). These movies are just cynical meta-commentaries. There is nothing to learn from them.
also that female suicide is heroic and noble if for the greater good, but if a chap (even a chap of colour) attempts the exact same thing 20mins later its not and he needs a moment of ladyminoritysplaining to put him right
A Town Called Malus wrote: The message is that you shouldn't let your failures control your life and determine your future.
And this is shown exactly... how?
With which characters?
Rey forcing Luke to come to terms with his failure with Ben, capped off by Yoda reminding him that failure is an important part of learning. Luke had let that failure dominate his life and future by sealing himself off and turned his feelings of failure onto the Jedi as a whole. His "return" and coming to terms with that failure is the climax of the film.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The message is that you shouldn't let your failures control your life and determine your future.
And this is shown exactly... how?
With which characters?
Rey forcing Luke to come to terms with his failure with Ben, capped off by Yoda reminding him that failure is an important part of learning. Luke had let that failure dominate his life and future by sealing himself off and turned his feelings of failure onto the Jedi as a whole. His "return" and coming to terms with that failure is the climax of the film.
It is also shown with Poe who fails several times in the movie by having a gung-ho attitude, then he learns from it by realizing Luke is stalling for time, rather than rushing out to help like he has done the whoel movie.
Kilkrazy wrote: The film specifically mentions the outer rim systems (or something.)
Well Leia thought she had friends in the outer rim, but like usual you call up your friends to help you move and no one shows up.
They are too busy dealing with the Chiss or Killik or Yuuzhan Vong showed up. Ewoks on Endor heard the call but were having trouble getting ships to come help, something about yub nub chub. Mandalore was busy with a civil war. That mixed in with the distance, by the time anyone showed up after dealing with whatever they were it was already too late.
Rey forcing Luke to come to terms with his failure with Ben, capped off by Yoda reminding him that failure is an important part of learning. Luke had let that failure dominate his life and future by sealing himself off and turned his feelings of failure onto the Jedi as a whole. His "return" and coming to terms with that failure is the climax of the film.
But Rey says that is Ben that failed him, not the other way around. Yoda looked odd, because Yoda is the guy that said "Do. Or do not. There is no try". Before saying that books are not important. No wait Rey has them. What does it even mean? Really, what should I take from this story? It does not even stick to its own principle. Sacrifice heroic (Holdo). No wait, bad (Finn). No wait, heroic (Luke). So luke finally learns the past should not be a cage. So he sacrifices himself for his friends. While Finn has been stopped 5 mins before from doing the same. So the Finn scene alone undermines what is supposed to be the scene showing the theme of the movie. Disregarding furthermore the fact that Luke was the dude that redeemed his father with an act of compassion and even gave Jabba a chance, but his failure is here trying to murder a child in his sleep. Then he flees because feth friends. While in empire loses an hand because is too attached. Also, why we did not have a scene with the reaction of Luke to Han's death? This was something this horribly paced movie needed.
It is also shown with Poe who fails several times in the movie by having a gung-ho attitude, then he learns from it by realizing Luke is stalling for time, rather than rushing out to help like he has done the whoel movie.
If Holdo is wrong (what I think, BTW), Poe is just treated unjustly like a child after he took out an important, dangerous, fleet-destroying spaceship. If Holdo is right, Poe should be court martialed and possibly executed. That's a mutiny. He learns an important lesson over the blood of tens of fellow rebels, in that case. How in heaven is this supposed to be moral of the story? "Hey don't be gung-ho. You could cause the death of tens of people. Here, a slap on the wrist. Next time, cause the death of fellow freedom fighters in a smaller order of magnitude you little, adorable devil!"
Yoda's "do or do not" does not literally mean you either succeed or don't and that there is no value in failing. It means that you should never approach anything without the intention of succeeding and was a response to Luke's scepticism about what the Force was capable of.
I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"
Those 2 scenes were NOT the same thing. If Rose hadn't saved Finn, he would have been a crispy smear at the foot of that cannon and wouldn't have stopped it at all. His ship was already melting as he approached. Holdo, otoh, bought the Resistance actual time and destroyed several ships
Galef wrote: I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"
-
That might have been the case but it really wasn't clear. Especially since she says something along the lines of winning by love not hate rather than you were going to die without saving anyone.
It is also shown with Poe who fails several times in the movie by having a gung-ho attitude, then he learns from it by realizing Luke is stalling for time, rather than rushing out to help like he has done the whoel movie.
If Holdo is wrong (what I think, BTW), Poe is just treated unjustly like a child after he took out an important, dangerous, fleet-destroying spaceship.
If Holdo is right, Poe should be court martialed and possibly executed. That's a mutiny. He learns an important lesson over the blood of tens of fellow rebels, in that case. How in heaven is this supposed to be moral of the story? "Hey don't be gung-ho. You could cause the death of tens of people. Here, a slap on the wrist. Next time, cause the death of fellow freedom fighters in a smaller order of magnitude you little, adorable devil!"
The mishandling of Dameron Poe in this movie cannot be overstated. He gets thousands (thousands!) of people killed. That's a stupid situation to write one of your heroes into, but if you do, he needs to be a broken man after that, and hated by the survivors. You can maybe build a redemption story from there. He'll probably have to die heroically. Instead, he's just sort of "aw shucks, you were right all along admiral lady! I'm such a dummy. I learned my lesson though and that's what really matters. Hey! It's BB-8!" *kneels down and greets his droid like it was a puppy*. And the survivng rebels are totally cool with this. "Yeah, all but 14 of us are dead and it's all your fault, but I'm glad we all learned a lesson from this".
The mishandling of Poe's character screwed up the movie on so many levels. Poe makes the same mistake 3 times over the course of the movie, with more disastrous consequences each time. First he gets Leia angry with him because he decides to defy orders and gets all the bombers wiped out by successfully continuing the attack on the dreadnought. Then he defies Holdo and sends Finn and Rose on their mission to sneak onto Snoke's ship which leads to almost every transport being blown up. Poe's mutiny is why Finn, Rose and the hacker are on Snoke's ship which leads to the FO finding out about the transports and destroying most of them. Then once they're in the mining base on Crait Poe leads the suicidal attack and outer defense that gets even more people killed. The remaining members of the resistance had no chance to fend off the FO but instead of spending time building defenses inside the mine behind the giant door Poe leads them outside where in mere minutes the majority of them are killed by the FO. The outer defenses and speeder attack serves no military purpose and is doomed to fail but Poe has to lead a suicidal defense because he's a pilot so he has to fly something even if it gets more people killed needlessly. The entire Poe story arc hammers home the point that defying orders and doing it your own way is a terrible idea.
This contrasts directly with the theme of the past doesn't matter and authority isn't necessary which is front and center during the Rey/Ren storyline. Kylo Ren is on a mission to prove that he doesn't need his Skywalker family and that he won't be trapped into a life defined by their past glories. Kylo Ren doesn't need Luke or Snoke to master his force powers and rule the galaxy. Kylo Ren wants to show the galaxy and himself that he doesn't need the past and he wants to show Rey that she doesn't either. Rey learns that her parents are nobodies and she shouldn't waste time thinking about them anymore. She also decides she doesn't need a Jedi mentor she will figure things out for herself. Is Poe's arc supposed to convince us that the choices Ren and Rey are making are doomed to lead to tragedy and death?
It is also shown with Poe who fails several times in the movie by having a gung-ho attitude, then he learns from it by realizing Luke is stalling for time, rather than rushing out to help like he has done the whoel movie.
If Holdo is wrong (what I think, BTW), Poe is just treated unjustly like a child after he took out an important, dangerous, fleet-destroying spaceship. If Holdo is right, Poe should be court martialed and possibly executed. That's a mutiny. He learns an important lesson over the blood of tens of fellow rebels, in that case. How in heaven is this supposed to be moral of the story? "Hey don't be gung-ho. You could cause the death of tens of people. Here, a slap on the wrist. Next time, cause the death of fellow freedom fighters in a smaller order of magnitude you little, adorable devil!"
The mishandling of Dameron Poe in this movie cannot be overstated. He gets thousands (thousands!) of people killed. That's a stupid situation to write one of your heroes into, but if you do, he needs to be a broken man after that, and hated by the survivors. You can maybe build a redemption story from there. He'll probably have to die heroically. Instead, he's just sort of "aw shucks, you were right all along admiral lady! I'm such a dummy. I learned my lesson though and that's what really matters. Hey! It's BB-8!" *kneels down and greets his droid like it was a puppy*. And the survivng rebels are totally cool with this. "Yeah, all but 14 of us are dead and it's all your fault, but I'm glad we all learned a lesson from this".
The mishandling of Poe's character screwed up the movie on so many levels. Poe makes the same mistake 3 times over the course of the movie, with more disastrous consequences each time. First he gets Leia angry with him because he decides to defy orders and gets all the bombers wiped out by successfully continuing the attack on the dreadnought. Then he defies Holdo and sends Finn and Rose on their mission to sneak onto Snoke's ship which leads to almost every transport being blown up. Poe's mutiny is why Finn, Rose and the hacker are on Snoke's ship which leads to the FO finding out about the transports and destroying most of them. Then once they're in the mining base on Crait Poe leads the suicidal attack and outer defense that gets even more people killed. The remaining members of the resistance had no chance to fend off the FO but instead of spending time building defenses inside the mine behind the giant door Poe leads them outside where in mere minutes the majority of them are killed by the FO. The outer defenses and speeder attack serves no military purpose and is doomed to fail but Poe has to lead a suicidal defense because he's a pilot so he has to fly something even if it gets more people killed needlessly. The entire Poe story arc hammers home the point that defying orders and doing it your own way is a terrible idea.
This contrasts directly with the theme of the past doesn't matter and authority isn't necessary which is front and center during the Rey/Ren storyline. Kylo Ren is on a mission to prove that he doesn't need his Skywalker family and that he won't be trapped into a life defined by their past glories. Kylo Ren doesn't need Luke or Snoke to master his force powers and rule the galaxy. Kylo Ren wants to show the galaxy and himself that he doesn't need the past and he wants to show Rey that she doesn't either. Rey learns that her parents are nobodies and she shouldn't waste time thinking about them anymore. She also decides she doesn't need a Jedi mentor she will figure things out for herself. Is Poe's arc supposed to convince us that the choices Ren and Rey are making are doomed to lead to tragedy and death?
I honesty believe only a psychopath could write Poe like that. But we are talking about people that wrote characters that considered a success to free ponies for 5 minutes leaving behind child slaves. That scene, too, was supposed to "send a message".
Galef wrote: I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"
-
That might have been the case but it really wasn't clear. Especially since she says something along the lines of winning by love not hate rather than you were going to die without saving anyone.
the whole ESB homage scene made absolutely no sense akin to charging a tank battalion on push bikes.
Galef wrote: I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"
Those 2 scenes were NOT the same thing. If Rose hadn't saved Finn, he would have been a crispy smear at the foot of that cannon and wouldn't have stopped it at all. His ship was already melting as he approached.
Holdo, otoh, bought the Resistance actual time and destroyed several ships
-
I take exception to that argument.
Finn is the one character that knows the most about the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the actual gun in question. He's the one that informed them the mouth of the cannon was their only shot. Finn is the furthest thing from suicidal. He was being heroic. Rose didn't say there was no chance of stopping the gun. She said killing what we hate isn't how the resistance is going to win.
It's the culmination of their arc in the movie.
Finn starts out intensely loyal to, and protective of, the people immediately in his life, Poe and Rey. Rose teaches him there is a galaxy of hurt out there, and there are bad people doing the hurting, which is why the resistance fights. (She does this while crapping all over him and telling him he's actually motivated by cowardice. Which is not true. He's developed past self-preservation mode as of TFA showing he's willing to tango with a dark side user to protect Rey).
While teaching him, Rose herself realizes freeing what we care about from slavery (or "saving what we love") is more important than destroying (or hurting) the bad people doing the bad thing.
So the suicide run Finn goes out on, he goes out on informed by the (slightly) out of date moral code Rose instilled in him. Remember, Roses' sister died heroically and self sacrificially to destroy the dreadnought. Her saving him was entirely about embracing the new code of conduct she had ascribed to and precisely zero percent about what was 'possible.' (see- how she managed to overtake him from a perpendicular angle after turning around/ how they got out of the battlefield [hint: I have no idea])
Rose's "I saved you dummy" was protagonist logic. She knew she and Finn were important enough characters that both of them would survive her ramming him and escape the First Order soldiers by the end of the movie. I kid you not.
Galef wrote: I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"
Those 2 scenes were NOT the same thing. If Rose hadn't saved Finn, he would have been a crispy smear at the foot of that cannon and wouldn't have stopped it at all. His ship was already melting as he approached.
Holdo, otoh, bought the Resistance actual time and destroyed several ships
-
Really and that's based on what?
He was the only one who knew anything about the stupidly named cannon and may have destroyed it, we will never know.
So its better to crash into them and leave both stranded at the feet of the FO troops - who yet again don't bother to do anything - cos reasons mainly that the writers /director can't be bothered (yet again). Oh but they escape or something off screen - cos again lazy lazy writing.
So Holdo knew she could wipe out the fleet, which again brings it back around to - so why is it possible then, why not earlier, why not with other ships, why does it need her to stay on board (The FO can't even detect the fleeing transports, never mind the fact that only one person is on board)?
Every moment in both of the scenes was just really poor and lazy writing.
Well, at the end of the day, I saw it as X and it made prefect sense to me.
If other people want to see it as Y and hate the movie for it, that isn't any of my business.
Galef wrote: Well, at the end of the day, I saw it as X and it made prefect sense to me.
If other people want to see it as Y and hate the movie for it, that isn't any of my business.
-
If other people want to make up reasons for nonsense and love the movie for it, that's up to them
TLJ had a message (something about having hope or some sappy nonsense like that), but the message is contradicted numerous times within the film itself, and even presented in such a way as to make "having hope" appear disturbingly fanatical, bordering on suicidal so I don't think it really matters.
Like a lot of more recent block buster films that dared to try and be a bit more thought provoking than a typical action block buster the message became nonsense because the people making the movie either didn't care enough to think it through, or were too lazy to bother being consistent.
Easy E wrote: I feel that The Last Jedi will not age that well as it is truely a product of the Twenty-Teens. The messages and themes it draws on are contemporary rather than timeless like the OT/Prequels.
Thoughts?
Manchu wrote: I think these films will be about as relevant in the US twenty five years from now as they are in China today.
I've changed my mind since first posting that. I'd give it closer to ten rather than twenty five years.
Galef wrote: I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt.
Yeah, Finn's sacrifice would have made sense and would have been an emotional point in the movie. Holdo's sacrifice didn't and wasn't.
Holdo's sacrifice wasn't emotional? Are you telling me you could watch all those beautiful Star Destroyers and that 60km Adonis of a command cruiser broken and shattered with dry eyes?
Easy E wrote: I feel that The Last Jedi will not age that well as it is truely a product of the Twenty-Teens. The messages and themes it draws on are contemporary rather than timeless like the OT/Prequels.
Thoughts?
Manchu wrote: I think these films will be about as relevant in the US twenty five years from now as they are in China today.
I've changed my mind since first posting that. I'd give it closer to ten rather than twenty five years.
I forgot to compliment you on that line about TLJ being no Transformers5. I think that should be the cinematic equivalent of "one billion Red Chinese don't give a damn".
Seeing how Disney is hiding Solo like some basement mutant, I think it's safe to see they are becoming aware of the potential legacy their new trilogy will have in regards to long term viability of the brand.
Galef wrote: Well, at the end of the day, I saw it as X and it made prefect sense to me.
If other people want to see it as Y and hate the movie for it, that isn't any of my business.
-
You started this line of dialog by suggestion there was no comparison to be had between two examples of (attempted) heroic self sacrifice in a film with multiple self sacrificial moments by the resistance:
1. Roses' sister's self immolation in order to take down a dreadnought (successful, died)
2. Holdo's kamikaze ramming of the FO fleet in order to distract their firepower (successful, died)
3. Finn's kamikaze run at the siege gun in order to buy time for the resistance (unsuccessful, survived)
4. Roses' kamikaze ramming of Finn to save him (successful, survived)
5. Master Luke's illusion projection to buy time for the resistance (successful, died)
Do you not think the film itself invites comparisons between these acts? And even if it doesn't, wouldn't you say that, in and of itself, would then be a weakness of the film if we have contradictory scenes that convey different messages through similar circumstances? I just don't understand how you can say it is somehow wrong to compare Finn and Holdo's actions because one succeeded and the other didn't.
Do you grant at least that Rose's arc starts with her sister's actions and culminates in her own? Do you think she'd have tried to save her sister if given the chance, even if it meant leaving the FO dreadnought intact? Does it matter?
LordofHats wrote: TLJ had a message (something about having hope or some sappy nonsense like that), but the message is contradicted numerous times within the film itself, and even presented in such a way as to make "having hope" appear disturbingly fanatical, bordering on suicidal so I don't think it really matters.
Like a lot of more recent block buster films that dared to try and be a bit more thought provoking than a typical action block buster the message became nonsense because the people making the movie either didn't care enough to think it through, or were too lazy to bother being consistent.
I think the "Have Hope" message is an area where the movie badly violates the rule of "Show, don't tell". What the movie shows us is the opposite of hope- every plan failed, Luke dead, Ackbar dead, Kylo deciding "Yup, I'm evil now!", the Resistance with fewer people than Rogue Ones suicide squad, and in general every bright point from the previous trilogy has turned to ash. Then they turn to the camera, and declare "It's okay, we'll inspire people!".
Compare that to Empire- Han is frozen in carbonite, the rebels were chased off of Hoth, Luke lost a hand and found out Vader's his dad. Does Leia give some hammy speech about the night being darkest before the dawn? No. She reveals the first hints of force power, rescues Luke, and then goes on to reveal the largest concentration of Rebels we have seen yet. Lando and Chewie head off on a rescue mission, and Luke gets a new hand.
So, while both are a loss for the protagonists, Empire ends on the note of regrouping, growing from experience, and going forwards, combined with a beautiful shot of the Galaxy. TLJ, however, ends with everything from the previous five movies in flames, and the rebellion down to a dozen people vs the SuperEmpireUltra++. But don't worry, hope! Apparently.
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
Kilkrazy wrote: The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
If you want to take it that way, of course.
Kind of like how the local kindergarteners playing "zombie" and miming shooting each other in the head proves that apocalyptic thinking resonates in modern society?
Kilkrazy wrote: The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
If you want to take it that way, of course.
Of course that scene also reminds you that when the resistance operatives met those child slave stable hands they freed the poor cute animals but left the children behind. Anakin was once a child slave too and he was rescued by the Jedi, but there are no more Jedi around to rescue that boy. All the resistance has left are a couple dozen people on the Falcon whose calls for aid, even when they used Leia’s name, went unheeded by the rest of the galaxy. That scene also asks you to believe that the resistance, while fleeing on the Falcon, managed to produce and distribute propaganda about Luke’s sacrifice across the galaxy so those kids on Canto Bight could talk about it in secret which strains credulity more than a little bit.
The resistance is weaker than ever, the FO is still the strongest military force who already destroyed half a dozen planets but somewhere in the galaxy there is an 8 year old boy who’s starting to harness force powers. I guess Episode IX can set up Kyle Ren as the new Vader/Emperor leading the FO as the new Empire and Rey as the new Obi Wan who can find and train the unnamed stable boy with force powers as the next Luke so Episode X can be a remake of Episode IV A New Hope, bringing us around in a complete circle.
One of the most unfortunate implications of TLJ is that the Dark Side/Light Side conflict is an unending cycle, that there can be no victory that isn't fleeting and hollow.
Kilkrazy wrote: The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
If you want to take it that way, of course.
Kind of like how the local kindergarteners playing "zombie" and miming shooting each other in the head proves that apocalyptic thinking resonates in modern society?
Do you think modern society is a science fantasy film?
Kilkrazy wrote: The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
If you want to take it that way, of course.
Kind of like how the local kindergarteners playing "zombie" and miming shooting each other in the head proves that apocalyptic thinking resonates in modern society?
Do you think modern society is a science fantasy film?
Dystopian, really.
Really, the kids having hope worked for me, but after so many Star Wars tie in commercials starring kids playing at being Jedi, the impact isn't what it should have been. Seeing child slaves beyond hope of rescue playing with toys representing a dead political movement as a sign of hope is darkly funny.
On a lighter note, this film really cements the Earnest series as part of the SW canon. Earnest also fought a child-imprisoning troll, knew the importance of the high ground, had a dog copilot, levitated and could even cast lightning from his hands. He also learned from his many, many failures.
Kilkrazy wrote: The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
If you want to take it that way, of course.
Of course that scene also reminds you that when the resistance operatives met those child slave stable hands they freed the poor cute animals but left the children behind. Anakin was once a child slave too and he was rescued by the Jedi, but there are no more Jedi around to rescue that boy. All the resistance has left are a couple dozen people on the Falcon whose calls for aid, even when they used Leia’s name, went unheeded by the rest of the galaxy. That scene also asks you to believe that the resistance, while fleeing on the Falcon, managed to produce and distribute propaganda about Luke’s sacrifice across the galaxy so those kids on Canto Bight could talk about it in secret which strains credulity more than a little bit.
The resistance is weaker than ever, the FO is still the strongest military force who already destroyed half a dozen planets but somewhere in the galaxy there is an 8 year old boy who’s starting to harness force powers. I guess Episode IX can set up Kyle Ren as the new Vader/Emperor leading the FO as the new Empire and Rey as the new Obi Wan who can find and train the unnamed stable boy with force powers as the next Luke so Episode X can be a remake of Episode IV A New Hope, bringing us around in a complete circle.
It also implies that the Resistance was something that children on these worlds were looking to rather than the governemnt of the Republic (or whatever it called itself) as it appears that the First Order took over everywhere in at most a day or two. So is the message that everyone but the Ship of Fools was corrupt and evil or at least complicit?
Again its another example of the sheer laziness and ineptitude of the filmakers - if this had been a few years later then maybe made sense, but all they want to do is copy elements of the first films like the resistance but can;t be bothered to set any kind of scene that makes sense.
Let me be clear: I got misty eyed during that scene each time I saw the film, and saw it as a successful and powerful demonstration of Luke's success and the rebirth of hope. But I also thought it also looked like a Target ad. TLJ seems to work quite well on some levels while completely undercutting itself on other levels. I can't take the film too seriously or it falls apart.
Kilkrazy wrote: The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
If you want to take it that way, of course.
Anakin was a force-sensitive slave who idolized Jedi. This is going to go well.
Kilkrazy wrote: The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.
If you want to take it that way, of course.
Anakin was a force-sensitive slave who idolized Jedi. This is going to go well.
Could be where you next dark side leader comes from - slave child grows up in terrible conditions, finds he can use powers, takes vengeance and goes to the dark side.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One of the most unfortunate implications of TLJ is that the Dark Side/Light Side conflict is an unending cycle, that there can be no victory that isn't fleeting and hollow.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: One of the most unfortunate implications of TLJ is that the Dark Side/Light Side conflict is an unending cycle, that there can be no victory that isn't fleeting and hollow.
you been talking to Kreia ?
The force reflects human nature. Conflict is eternal. Kreia was misguided to think eliminating the force would eliminate suffering.
I felt the film was too clunky, I had no desire to watch it again, if it's on the plane next time I fly I might watch it, but ehh.
It was all over the place.
The 5 second Star Wars bit from Daicon IV entertained me more lol
They always do, and are easily retconnable. There was a lot more information and stuff in the TFA novel, a fair number of it ignored when it came to TLJ.
Kilkrazy wrote: For 80% of the audience, the films are the thing.
In 40 years I've never read or watched anything outside the films except the West End Games Star Wars games (RPG and flying game.)
Hey! I just recently bought the main RPG rulebook in MINT just for nostalgia. I never played the game really, but I liked the minis for the Miniatures game.
But I will be honest, its the lack of connection that I have with the new stuff that is motivating me to do this. I just want more of the old stuff to be honest.
Next I am going to tackle the novels that came out after ROJ, even though they are not canon anymore. I think they are referred to as Legends now. At any rate, I missed the whole boat on them, and they seem to have been popular, so it looks like I have something to fall back on instead of what Disney is putting out.
The RPG is really good and had excellent sourcebooks.
I am sad that I sold off my Star Wars RPG stuff years ago. (Although it's only nostalgia, as I don't ave any opportunities for RPGs nowadays.)
However, Disney can't just recycle old stuff in the age of Han Solo, the Rebel Alliance and Luke Skywalker. The story has to advance into the future, with new characters and letting go of the old ones. Or just stagnate.
I can't remember what happened to most of my WEG books. I have acquired pdfs of them all so I got rid, which was a huge mistake as you just don't ever get the urge to pick up a random pdf and flick through it.
I did however ensure I kept at least the Rebel Alliance and Imperial sourcebooks. These two pretty much inform my views on the galactic civil war and whilst I'm happy for them to be built on (as Rebels and Rogue One mainly do), anything that outright contradicts them in new media is just ignored in my headcanon.
The sad part of this whole thing is that if the characters in the movie Rogue One hadn't been so myopic and selfish, they could have prevented a lot of the tragedy that occurred in TLJ.
kronk wrote: The sad part of this whole thing is that if the characters in the movie Rogue One hadn't been so myopic and selfish, they could have prevented a lot of the tragedy that occurred in TLJ.
Selfish people...
Spoiler:
Tarkin deleted the data for them. Unfortunately, there was a backup.
Disney is now so wary of the Star Wars brand's dismal performance in China that they have removed the words "Star Wars" from the title of the soon to be released (but still completely secret) Han Solo movie. In China, it will be called "Solo Ranger."
Yes, Disney are plainly pretty worried about the evolving Solo disaster. They probably realize they have more to lose than gain from a releasing a trailer.
BTW "Star Wars" ("星球大战") was prominently featured on the R1 posters in China:
Manchu wrote: Disney is now so wary of the Star Wars brand's dismal performance in China that they have removed the words "Star Wars" from the title of the soon to be released (but still completely secret) Han Solo movie. In China, it will be called "Solo Ranger."
I have literally just written out, thought better of, and then deleted five separate takes on "Solo Ranger". This is glorious news. I look forward to Star Wars's eventual Hong Kong scenes and transforming droids.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The missing Solo trailer is a running gag in some places. People at Disney HQ must be soiling themselves.
If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
Alternatively, he could have just posted his script online and people could read it themselves in under one hour.
If your critique is 5 hours long, then it should not be presented in a video form.
I listened to a couple of bits (maybe 5 minutes worth) and what he said seemed good, but yeah, screw listening to 5 hours of it, especially since the guy has a relatively monotonous voice.
kronk wrote: The sad part of this whole thing is that if the characters in the movie Rogue One hadn't been so myopic and selfish, they could have prevented a lot of the tragedy that occurred in TLJ.
Selfish people...
Spoiler:
This is the cheeky kind of comment that I love. Exalt
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
I'll give it a listen, but before I do can I ask if it's like a lot of YT reviews in harping on about SJW/Feminazis/etc? I'm interested in a discussion its failings as a film, not hearing a rant about Hollywood agendas.
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
I'll give it a listen, but before I do can I ask if it's like a lot of YT reviews in harping on about SJW/Feminazis/etc? I'm interested in a discussion its failings as a film, not hearing a rant about Hollywood agendas.
I listened to part 1 and more or less half of part two, so far is more about character motivation, logic, consistency etc
No idea about the rest.
The saddest part is that the main gist of complaints against the last jedi might end up convincing disney they need to play it safe and fun for every movie. The last jedi at least tried to brooch relatively new storytelling. I mean if you're gna copy stuff , it might as well be battlestar galactica.
Earth127 wrote: The saddest part is that the main gist of complaints against the last jedi might end up convincing disney they need to play it safe and fun for every movie. The last jedi at least tried to brooch relatively new storytelling. I mean if you're gna copy stuff , it might as well be battlestar galactica.
Well as the main gist seems to be it's a horrible story with 2d characters, How do you play it safe from there? write a good story with interesting characters? I'd hope so.
instead of introducing characters to try to appeal to a larger box office opening in China, just play it safe and introduce a memorable character that contributes to the story.
Kylo ren is the most 3d character in any star wars movie. People only ever complain about him being whiny and not as terrifying as darth vader, duh that was the point. i'd liek to point out if you're a basic grunt he's gna kill you just as quickly as vader does.
Luke would never try to kill his nephew he is perfect saint/paragon of light. well he didn't he just had a half second madness and ignited his lightsaber. In parallel to return of the jedi, he almost totaaly loses it at one point tough holds back from actually slaughtering vader thus leading to his triumph over the emperor.
It wastes the setup of TFA for rey's parentage and Snoke. The only scene in TFA where Rey's parentage is discussed ends with Maz Kanata's line : "The belonging you seek is not behind you ..." But I just wondered what reveal about Rey's family could they have made? Snoke yeah could be a waste but really we didn't need another emperor so why not off him, gives us more time to focus on the actually important pay off next movie. Tough I do understan the dissapointment there.
It has no central theme. Yes it does failure and coping with it.
There are some legitimate criticisms but the whole it betrays star wars doesn't make any sense to me.
I started watching Mauler's first video but his arguments don't hold water. The way he compares to the originals disproves his point. Did destroying the death star not even slow down the empire? then what was the point? No the prequels didn't do world building with their politics, they just delivered a story badly. Star wars movies do almost no world building for the universe. We only once here a story/myth.
There are some very legit criticsm as well. Gosh that opening space battle was painfull to watch the first time around. I hate action scenes that are a contest of dumb.
P.S. I have not read through this entire thread, so I am presuming a number of things.
Earth127 wrote: The saddest part is that the main gist of complaints against the last jedi might end up convincing disney they need to play it safe and fun for every movie. The last jedi at least tried to brooch relatively new storytelling. I mean if you're gna copy stuff , it might as well be battlestar galactica.
What about just writing a believable story with good characters that overcome challenges instead of a bland rehash with empty mistery boxes (TFA) or DUDE SUBVERSIONS (TLJ)? You can make a good movie in few ways, but you make a bad movie in many, many ways. At this point in the trilogy, don't even have a main character sensibly invested in the main story so far. Is a disaster.
Also, the prequels were bad but the worldbuilding is good. Just wasted.
Remember when we saw Luke struggling away with Yoda on Degoba? And he couldn't lift the x wing out of the swamp because he didn't believe it? And he fought Vader and got his ass kicked both physically and emotionally? That element is sorely missing from the new movies. Ray went straight to mind tricking Daniel Craig and so on.
Earth127 wrote: The saddest part is that the main gist of complaints against the last jedi might end up convincing disney they need to play it safe and fun for every movie. The last jedi at least tried to brooch relatively new storytelling. I mean if you're gna copy stuff , it might as well be battlestar galactica.
What new storytelling elements did you think TLJ broached?
I didn't get the sense of anything new so much as old elements of storytelling poorly executed, or elements that are intentionally avoided for good reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: Kylo ren is the most 3d character in any star wars movie. People only ever complain about him being whiny and not as terrifying as darth vader, duh that was the point. i'd liek to point out if you're a basic grunt he's gna kill you just as quickly as vader does.
I think Kylo is one of the stronger points of the movie, but still overall not a great character.
I don't really have the complaints that he was whiny in TLJ, he came across as that in TFA, not so much TLJ.
I didn't hate the Kylo-Rey dynamic until I remembered Kylo's history from TFA, then it's a bit "wtf", she watched him kill his father out of the blue for little apparent reason in TFA, the dude is a sociopath.
Kylo isn't so much a 3d character as a whacko.
That I see Kylo as one of the stronger elements isn't really a great compliment to the film
Kylo comes across as dangerous because he is unstable, whereas Vader was calm and collected, which is a more terrifying thought IMO. One of the reasons the prequels were disappointing is because the fall of Vader undermined the presence that Vader had; Anakin just came across as an impulsive moron who fell to the dark side for rather shallow reasons ("Oh I want to save my girlfriend and make the universe a better place where everyone listens to me, so I'll just go kill these dozen younglings, yeah, that'll help").
Though personally I don't think Kylo needs to be like Vader, I'm happy for him to carve out his own path.
Earth127 wrote: The saddest part is that the main gist of complaints against the last jedi might end up convincing disney they need to play it safe and fun for every movie. The last jedi at least tried to brooch relatively new storytelling. I mean if you're gna copy stuff , it might as well be battlestar galactica.
What about just writing a believable story with good characters that overcome challenges instead of a bland rehash with empty mistery boxes (TFA) or DUDE SUBVERSIONS (TLJ)? You can make a good movie in few ways, but you make a bad movie in many, many ways. At this point in the trilogy, don't even have a main character sensibly invested in the main story so far. Is a disaster.
Also, the prequels were bad but the worldbuilding is good. Just wasted.
I didn't mind TFA mystery boxes because I figured they were leading somewhere, I was expecting a complicated trilogy fulls of twists and gradual reveals.
That expectation was subverted when Rian just lopped the head off TFA and made what could basically be a standalone fanfic film.
Why didn't the First Order launch shuttles to move towards the Raddus (remember that smaller ships are faster...) and then just hyperspace ram them once in optimal range?
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
I'll give it a listen, but before I do can I ask if it's like a lot of YT reviews in harping on about SJW/Feminazis/etc? I'm interested in a discussion its failings as a film, not hearing a rant about Hollywood agendas.
You should be fine. He makes the occasional aside in his videos to talk about other reviews he's seen, but that tends to be when they made a stupid argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Why didn't the First Order launch shuttles to move towards the Raddus (remember that smaller ships are faster...) and then just hyperspace ram them once in optimal range?
Be careful - finding fault with a "critically aclaimed" film means one of these things:
You are not clever enough to understand it
You are sexist, racist etc
You missing the point of the film
Characters, plot and inernal consistancy do not matter if its considerd artistc
You are too old
Remember its never the film (or the critics) who are wrong - its you.
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
That's twice as long as the actual film.
Yoda wrote:A life to get, someone needs.
I'm kind of impressed that someone takes it so seriously as to put in this much effort. At another level, though, it looks obsessive.
One might think if the film actually was that bad it would be easily demolished in a much shorter piece.
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
That's twice as long as the actual film.
Yoda wrote:A life to get, someone needs.
I'm kind of impressed that someone takes it so seriously as to put in this much effort. At another level, though, it looks obsessive.
One might think if the film actually was that bad it would be easily demolished in a much shorter piece.
Errr, you do realise this thread is up to 100 pages? We've probably dissected the movie more in this thread than that youtube dude has done in his long arse review. Not all those posts are by 1 person of course, but I'm sure if you flick through your posts alone you would have written at the very least several pages about it.
One might think if the film actually was that bad it would be easily demolished in a much shorter piece.
I think there's a lot of relatively short statements that show why it's bad, obviously this dude wanted to do a more in depth analysis. I have only watched a small chunk of what the youtube dude said, but he keeps coming back to the same themes as to why he thinks the movie is bad (like many of us have said in this thread, consistency issues, immersion issues, poor character development, logic issues, Rian clearly just wanting scene X so contriving scene Y so it can happen, it being written like a fanfic and so on).
In any case, the dude has accumulated around 700k views from his handful of TLJ critiques, so it's probably time better spent than discussing movies on a forum about toy soldiers.
Mauler did a thorough dismantling but IMHO he is also wrong. He's acribing virtues to the other star wars movies they did not posses (including the prequels) confuses story in a prequel for worldbuilding. In f act lack of worldbuilding I'dd say is one of Star wars' main characteristics. It's masssively stick to the current important information.
Yes Rey is apparently more talented in learning basic force abilities than Luke was on Dagobah. Or at least she is quicker to grasp what Luke is telling her. But she is thrown around like a ragdoll by Snoke. He dies blind in his arrogance by unexpected apprentice backstab.
Luke I have already adressed.
Time and basic plot points are indeed all over the place in this movie but cohesiveness in theme is not.
Does the casino scene feel padded and strange? yes, but woud I heave preferred it being cut entirely? It would need character interaction between Rose/ Finn/Poe as replacement not a bigger fight scene with Phasma.
And boy do military tactics make no sense in Star Wars. Poe is an idiot saved only by his Skywalker lvl ace flying skill. But the movie is consistent in this depiction. I am a big fan of battlestar galactica and I guess Rian johnnson is as well.
Earth127 wrote: The saddest part is that the main gist of complaints against the last jedi might end up convincing disney they need to play it safe and fun for every movie. The last jedi at least tried to brooch relatively new storytelling. I mean if you're gna copy stuff , it might as well be battlestar galactica.
I mean TLJ is basically a very poor copy of 33 minutes.
Earth127 wrote: Mauler did a thorough dismantling but IMHO he is also wrong.
He's acribing virtues to the other star wars movies they did not posses (including the prequels) confuses story in a prequel for worldbuilding. In f act lack of worldbuilding I'dd say is one of Star wars' main characteristics. It's masssively stick to the current important information.
Yes Rey is apparently more talented in learning basic force abilities than Luke was on Dagobah. Or at least she is quicker to grasp what Luke is telling her. But she is thrown around like a ragdoll by Snoke. He dies blind in his arrogance by unexpected apprentice backstab.
Luke I have already adressed.
Time and basic plot points are indeed all over the place in this movie but cohesiveness in theme is not.
Does the casino scene feel padded and strange? yes, but woud I heave preferred it being cut entirely? It would need character interaction between Rose/ Finn/Poe as replacement not a bigger fight scene with Phasma.
And boy do military tactics make no sense in Star Wars. Poe is an idiot saved only by his Skywalker lvl ace flying skill. But the movie is consistent in this depiction. I am a big fan of battlestar galactica and I guess Rian johnnson is as well.
Well he did take the basic premise of the excelent and tense "33" episode and turn it into turgid and boring nonsense.
The Casino scene may have actually worked with out the whole lets go off on a silly adventure in the middle of a battle (well dull and tedious chase).
Sadly there is little to no actual chracter interaction between Rose and Finn - she shouts a bit but I did not see any sexual or romantic tension, no charisma between the two - they have to be together becuase that what the script says and the makers are too lazy or don't care enough to try and make us believe it.
One might think if the film actually was that bad it would be easily demolished in a much shorter piece.
I think there's a lot of relatively short statements that show why it's bad, obviously this dude wanted to do a more in depth analysis. I have only watched a small chunk of what the youtube dude said, but he keeps coming back to the same themes as to why he thinks the movie is bad (like many of us have said in this thread, consistency issues, immersion issues, poor character development, logic issues, Rian clearly just wanting scene X so contriving scene Y so it can happen, it being written like a fanfic and so on).
.. ....
Yes. That is the interesting thing. The key difference between the like and not like people are that we disagree about all these kind of points.
I mean, "Rian clearly wanting scene X so contriving scene Y so it can happen, in my view is exactly how films are made.
To complain about that is not a complaint about film-making skill, it is a complaint about the scenes which have been written.
Kilkrazy wrote: It also totally rips off a major plot point from The Iliad.
Wich one?
It is not the best made film ever but I wouldn't call unforgivably 0/10 bad by any measurement. That's reserved for battlefield earth and its ilk.
Also isn't that how you do most of the writing for any story? You first decide your general structure and major plot points/twists and then write the middle to make it cohesive and fitting.
Luke Skywalker is similar to Achilles. He is the Resistance's best warrior who takes himself off in a huff and refuses to help the cause, but eventually relents and has a huge fight with the champion of the First Order, and gets killed.
Obviously they've adapted it a bit for the Star Wars setting.
Earth127 wrote: Also isn't that how you do most of the writing for any story? You first decide your general structure and major plot points/twists and then write the middle to make it cohesive and fitting.
But it shouldn't be obvious to the audience that's what you did.
Any fool can write a few plot points on a piece of paper, the difference between good writing and bad fan fiction is making them flow together naturally instead of having circumstances awkwardly shoehorned in to force the plot points/scenes/visuals to occur. You might even end up compromising on your desire for specific scenes in order to have the story as a whole flow better.
Earth127 wrote: Mauler did a thorough dismantling but IMHO he is also wrong.
He's acribing virtues to the other star wars movies they did not posses (including the prequels) confuses story in a prequel for worldbuilding. In f act lack of worldbuilding I'dd say is one of Star wars' main characteristics. It's masssively stick to the current important information.
Yes Rey is apparently more talented in learning basic force abilities than Luke was on Dagobah. Or at least she is quicker to grasp what Luke is telling her. But she is thrown around like a ragdoll by Snoke. He dies blind in his arrogance by unexpected apprentice backstab.
Well they used the old tropes for world building, pick one feature and make the entire planet that way. the desert planet, the ice planet, The swamp planet, the jungle planet.
I saw a interesting bit from a fan of course, not that it was any way hinted at in the movie, though. It was actually ray who killed snoke and ben was telling her what to do and showed her how far to turn the saber when he turned his.
Ray isn't just more talented, she's flawless, which like superman makes for a really dull character.
Not to go on too big a tangent but I disagree with the illiad idea.
Achilles refuses out of pride and kills Hektor in vengeance and thus gets murdered in vengeance of vengeance. Luke flees out of shame and sacrifices himself to right his wrongs and save the resistance. Luke and Achilles have almost nothing in common bedsides being tragic heroes.
Rey's flawlessnes was more irritating in TFA than TLJ where she has 2 clear flaws. She jumps headlong into any situation believing herself totally right due to a combination of Naïvety and impulsiveness.
Achilles motivations are better explained and in-character.
Earth127, I suggest you to read the thread, you will find a lot of points raised against and for your argument.
I do agree that Rey is less obnoxious in TLJ but there is still the basic problem of her lack of challenge, and thus growth.
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
That's twice as long as the actual film.
Yoda wrote:A life to get, someone needs.
I'm kind of impressed that someone takes it so seriously as to put in this much effort. At another level, though, it looks obsessive.
One might think if the film actually was that bad it would be easily demolished in a much shorter piece.
You seem to forget that this franchise changed filmmaking and influenced an entire generation. There was a reason $4 billion for it was considered quite a bargain. It has a cultural impact that rivals Shakespeare's, at least for one generation, and no one would balk at a critic spending 5 hours breaking down Twelfth Night.
The film has been demolished left and right in much more concise pieces. Why should criticism be limited so?
Odd part is Shakespears influence wouldn't become apparent untill later.
Indeed as second part of a trilogy a lot of stands or falls with the next movie. I have been doing a bit reading trough this thread And it leads me to conclude that while I can ignore the many minor flaws of the movie and enjoy it others can't.
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
That's twice as long as the actual film.
Yoda wrote:A life to get, someone needs.
I'm kind of impressed that someone takes it so seriously as to put in this much effort. At another level, though, it looks obsessive.
One might think if the film actually was that bad it would be easily demolished in a much shorter piece.
You seem to forget that this franchise changed filmmaking and influenced an entire generation. There was a reason $4 billion for it was considered quite a bargain. It has a cultural impact that rivals Shakespeare's, at least for one generation, and no one would balk at a critic spending 5 hours breaking down Twelfth Night.
The film has been demolished left and right in much more concise pieces. Why should criticism be limited so?
It has also been widely praised in much more succinct format, but of course that is only because Disney paid off all the critics.
We are still left with the central contradiction that the same plot, scenes and dialogue are viewed oppositely by different groups of people.
AlexHolker wrote: If anyone wants to listen to a thorough dismantling of The Last Jedi, MauLer has finished putting out a five hour critique of the movie. Part 1Part 2Part 3
That's twice as long as the actual film.
Yoda wrote:A life to get, someone needs.
I'm kind of impressed that someone takes it so seriously as to put in this much effort. At another level, though, it looks obsessive.
One might think if the film actually was that bad it would be easily demolished in a much shorter piece.
You seem to forget that this franchise changed filmmaking and influenced an entire generation. There was a reason $4 billion for it was considered quite a bargain. It has a cultural impact that rivals Shakespeare's, at least for one generation, and no one would balk at a critic spending 5 hours breaking down Twelfth Night.
The film has been demolished left and right in much more concise pieces. Why should criticism be limited so?
It has also been widely praised in much more succinct format, but of course that is only because Disney paid off all the critics.
We are still left with the central contradiction that the same plot, scenes and dialogue are viewed oppositely by different groups of people.
For example, apparently the problem with Rey as a character is that she never has to overcome any challenges, so she is rubbish, yet from my viewing of the films she overcomes many challenges.
I don't believe we are fundamentally viewing things differently so much as weighing the same things differently. Rey may face challenges, but doesn't have a character arc defined by facing internal challenges to overcome external challenges, at least not to the extent considered Star Wars standard.
For me, the weirdest thing with Rey was how she was totally absent from any scenes immediately after the hyperspace impact. She's in the throne room, struggling over the lightsaber, and then bam! A few minutes later, Kylo wakes up and is informed she's gone. Next time we see her she's merrily blasting TIEs above Crait without an emotional care in the world, as if that whole throne room battle sequence happened to someone else.
I'm almost through the whole review now (well, okay, an hour to go) and I'm nodding along generally, though he really is belabouring many of the points. I'm also finding the video game footage distracting and sometime follow it and realise I've missed 20 seconds or so of his monologue.
I'd prefer a Plinkett review (I assume there will be one), but I remember at the time the first one appeared it was slated for being over long (Was it about an hour? I forget). And to add to the "what's the point" nerdery - a user on SD.net, which I used to peruse, wrote a huge point-by-point rebuttal in defence of TPM (I never read it but there's a link here).
For example, apparently the problem with Rey as a character is that she never has to overcome any challenges, so she is rubbish, yet from my viewing of the films she overcomes many challenges.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't believe we are fundamentally viewing things differently so much as weighing the same things differently. Rey may face challenges, but doesn't have a character arc defined by facing internal challenges to overcome external challenges, at least not to the extent considered Star Wars standard.
I think you are absolutely right.
There are some people with a particular appreciation of a "Star Wars" standard of challenges, and I'm not one of them.
For example, apparently the problem with Rey as a character is that she never has to overcome any challenges, so she is rubbish, yet from my viewing of the films she overcomes many challenges.
Can you please name some?
Overcomes life on a harsh desert planet as a scavenger for 10+ years.
Escapes the First Order.
Contacts Han Solo and gets him to like her.
Resolves some technical problems on the Falcon.
Evades the First Order again.
Participates in the successful mission to destroy the Death Star Planet.
Defeats Ren Stimpy in the snow forest.
That's just the first film. She does a ton more stuff in the second one.
But those are not presented as conflicted challenges. Rey has nothing like that. She just... kind of does that, when the plot demands it. To escape Tatooine Luke needs Obi-one, is saved by Han etc. Rey saves herself. Just take, as an example, her action of defeating Emo Ren. She did not start the movie with a true introduction to the force and a desire to learn more.. her interest kind of comes half-hearted as a consequence of what she did. Luke defeats Vader at the end of the OT, and is tempted by the dark side up the very end. And has to go through a major defeat in ESB, and must be saved by his friends, before the final maturation and victory. Same with the technical problem on the falcon. Because of Rey's background is less obnoxious and actually could make sense, but it adds up to her never failing whatsoever in anything, while not being really emotionally and morally invested in her successes. On top of that, she solves the problem in front of the OWNER of the ship. This makes the scene very different compared to, say, just solving the problem in a situation in which she was there only with Finn and Poe.
Luke couldn't even save himself from some Tuskan Raiders, Rey just casually battles stormtroopers and being shot at by TIE fighters without breaking too much of a sweat.
For example, apparently the problem with Rey as a character is that she never has to overcome any challenges, so she is rubbish, yet from my viewing of the films she overcomes many challenges.
Can you please name some?
Overcomes life on a harsh desert planet as a scavenger for 10+ years.
Escapes the First Order.
Contacts Han Solo and gets him to like her.
Resolves some technical problems on the Falcon.
Evades the First Order again.
Participates in the successful mission to destroy the Death Star Planet.
Defeats Ren Stimpy in the snow forest.
That's just the first film. She does a ton more stuff in the second one.
In none of these is she actually challenged, nor does she actually make any choices that put here there. It comes across less as her being challenged, and more the writers showing off how "Awesome" their OC is. We are left with a character who doesn't really have any motivation to do any protagonist stuff, and just ends up in scenes which she effortlessly blazes through.
Yeah, Rey is for the most part a flawless character. That naturally makes me dislike her If she gets offed at the start of the next movie I'll laugh with glee rather than feeling sad.
She's one of those characters that make me want the bad guys to win.
Luke struggled through his journey to become a Jedi and that's what makes him awesome. Even if we mere mortals can't relate to his specific journey, we can relate to his struggles in a general sense, his mistakes, his growth, his learning. Rey ends her encounter with Snoke and Kylo with her kicking arse in the falcon as if her previous scene hadn't even happened, Luke's encounter with Vader in ESB ends with him being distraught and broken hanging from an aerial with a hand missing and needing to reach out to Leia to save him.
In general I haven't agreed with folk who have said the Disney series is more childish, but when it comes to character development I reckon it is. As a child I would have been happy with such a kick arse hero, as an adult such a character just comes across as shallow as best and unlikable at worst. Childish character development doesn't just apply to Rey, the "lessons" learned by other characters in this film also seem really basic.
I've mostly been indifferent toward her, I don't like her don't hate her and never really cared about her.
I think Disney have missed one of the main things about writing a hero; they should have flaws, internal struggles and make mistakes - just like real people.
If anything flawlessness is a better trait to give the villain, because then it gives the audience an extra reason to dislike them.
No flawless villains are boring and hoorrible writing because they are invinciblke but inevetably aren't because the heroes need to win. Remember all the memes of failbaddon the armless, that's what you get when you try to write a flawless villain. The seeds of their demise should be setup from the get go. We know in ANH that is possible if unlikely the rebels may find a flaw. The abilities of the death star are insignificant compared to the power of the force.
Rey has a flaw: abandonment issues. Her parents deserted her so she jumps headlong into any sense of belonging she can get. It sets her in complete opposition to Kylo Ren who had everything she wanted.
Earth127 wrote: No flawless villains are boring and hoorrible writing because they are invinciblke
I'd argue flawless characters are boring in general, hence Rey being a boring character.
but inevetably aren't because the heroes need to win.
"flawless" is obviously an exaggeration, they need to be defeated at some point. But the perception of flawless is more what I meant; arrogant for good reason (not just arrogant while they keep bumbling around like morons).
Remember all the memes of failbaddon the armless, that's what you get when you try to write a flawless villain.
I never really followed abaddon memes so I'm not really sure what that reference is, but a movie villain doesn't really follow the same rules as a wargaming one. Wargames have to be balanced and they can't just destroy the universe by having one side overwhelm the other. You can write the fluff for a powerful character but at the end of the day they still have roughly a 50% chance of losing in any given game (and if the rules are poorly written it may be even worse than 50%)
Movies can have an imbalance between the good guys and the bad guys, and the bad guys can be completely overwhelming.
Rey has a flaw: abandonment issues.
That's a pathetically weak flaw that just makes her come across like some lost puppy dog. It is barely presented as a struggle and does little to impede her. I didn't really notice it myself but someone pointed out that Rey's weakness is that she's constantly seeking out a parent figure to teach her.... that's not a flaw that's someone who has already learned the value of being guided and taught. If her lesson is that she doesn't actually need to be guided and taught then it's a crap lesson.
Rey can just do what she needs to do when she needs to do it, she doesn't fail, she doesn't have doubts about the cause, others fail around her while she grows rather than failing herself and growing through it.
Yoda tells Luke (I can't remember the exact quote) that he has to learn through failure and pass that on to the next generation which is a bit ironic because that's exactly what Luke did in the OT, it's a lesson he already learned but Rey doesn't even need to learn.
Kaiyanwang wrote: But those are not presented as conflicted challenges. Rey has nothing like that.
She just... kind of does that, when the plot demands it.
To escape Tatooine Luke needs Obi-one, is saved by Han etc. Rey saves herself.
Just take, as an example, her action of defeating Emo Ren. She did not start the movie with a true introduction to the force and a desire to learn more.. her interest kind of comes half-hearted as a consequence of what she did.
Luke defeats Vader at the end of the OT, and is tempted by the dark side up the very end. And has to go through a major defeat in ESB, and must be saved by his friends, before the final maturation and victory.
Same with the technical problem on the falcon. Because of Rey's background is less obnoxious and actually could make sense, but it adds up to her never failing whatsoever in anything, while not being really emotionally and morally invested in her successes. On top of that, she solves the problem in front of the OWNER of the ship. This makes the scene very different compared to, say, just solving the problem in a situation in which she was there only with Finn and Poe.
I think what you are saying is wrong.
You asked for examples of challenges, I gave them, then you just say they aren't challenges.
"Rey saves herself."
How is this not overcoming a challenge?
AllSeeingSkink wrote:I'd argue flawless characters are boring in general, hence Rey being a boring character.
I would argue that Rey isn't flawless. She fails to convince Luke to rejoin the Resistance. She fails to persuade Ren not to go to the Dark Side.
I think is a matter of effort and emotional investment. Especially in the first movie, she just "does" things, better than people you would expect being the best or at least better at it. I ate breakfast today. Good job Kaiyanwang but I did not grow as a person out of it. Nor I woke up worried about it. Or the way I ate my breakfast gave away something about my personality, flaws, goals.
People refused to watch the Mauler videos above because they are too long, but there is a good part about Rey, and how much she lacks as a character. Is something that goes beyond the failure. Luke fails in ESB because is not prepared, but this is correlated to his inexperience, and will to save his friends. As an example, the arrogance part is underplayed. Is not only what happens, but what we can tell about the character from his failures and successes.
Rey fails to convince Luke to rejoin the Resistance, and fails to persuade Ren not to go to the Dark Side. Fine. What can we know about her from these events? And how well inserted is this in the framework of the story, and how well written is the care Rey has for the politics, resistance, etc?
Kaiyanwang wrote: But those are not presented as conflicted challenges. Rey has nothing like that.
She just... kind of does that, when the plot demands it.
To escape Tatooine Luke needs Obi-one, is saved by Han etc. Rey saves herself.
Just take, as an example, her action of defeating Emo Ren. She did not start the movie with a true introduction to the force and a desire to learn more.. her interest kind of comes half-hearted as a consequence of what she did.
Luke defeats Vader at the end of the OT, and is tempted by the dark side up the very end. And has to go through a major defeat in ESB, and must be saved by his friends, before the final maturation and victory.
Same with the technical problem on the falcon. Because of Rey's background is less obnoxious and actually could make sense, but it adds up to her never failing whatsoever in anything, while not being really emotionally and morally invested in her successes. On top of that, she solves the problem in front of the OWNER of the ship. This makes the scene very different compared to, say, just solving the problem in a situation in which she was there only with Finn and Poe.
I think what you are saying is wrong.
You asked for examples of challenges, I gave them, then you just say they aren't challenges.
"Rey saves herself."
How is this not overcoming a challenge?
I think we might have a different definition of what we mean when we say "Challenge". The things you refer to as challenges, I'd refer to as plot points. It would be like saying that Luke was challenged when he had to stop that AT-AT. Yeah, for a normal person that would be a challenge. But for our protagonist? It's just something that they have to do. When we say Luke gets challenged, we mean that he is constantly losing, and being saved by other characters, including the villains. So when Luke actually wins, it's worth something. This happens exactly once with Rey, when Kylo Ren decides to use her as bait to kill Snoke.
To enlarge on my viewpoint, I don't feel that the only acceptable story path for a hero is to fail at a series of physical challenges, be helped by someone else, and eventually succeed.
To enlarge on my viewpoint, I don't feel that the only acceptable story path for a hero is to fail at a series of physical challenges, be helped by someone else, and eventually succeed.
I understand your point now.
However, I don't feel that way.
EDIT: Or, more precisely, I don't feel you're being genuine. There are, indeed, more acceptable story paths for heroes than the one you propose. That doesn't automatically mean that Rey is a good hero. No one ever claimed that Luke's journey is the only journey. They were merely claiming that it was better than Rey's, and they're not wrong. The fact that there are dozens of ways one could write Rey (or Luke, for that matter) that are all quite interesting does not obviate the fact that she is, in fact, not interesting in her current iteration.
To enlarge on my viewpoint, I don't feel that the only acceptable story path for a hero is to fail at a series of physical challenges, be helped by someone else, and eventually succeed.
I understand your point now.
However, I don't feel that way.
EDIT:
Or, more precisely, I don't feel you're being genuine. There are, indeed, more acceptable story paths for heroes than the one you propose. That doesn't automatically mean that Rey is a good hero. No one ever claimed that Luke's journey is the only journey. They were merely claiming that it was better than Rey's, and they're not wrong. The fact that there are dozens of ways one could write Rey (or Luke, for that matter) that are all quite interesting does not obviate the fact that she is, in fact, not interesting in her current iteration.
Luke's journey isn't better than Rey's, it's different.
It's the difference that apparently a lot of people dislike, but that doesn't make it bad. A lot of people like it.
To enlarge on my viewpoint, I don't feel that the only acceptable story path for a hero is to fail at a series of physical challenges, be helped by someone else, and eventually succeed.
I understand your point now.
However, I don't feel that way.
EDIT:
Or, more precisely, I don't feel you're being genuine. There are, indeed, more acceptable story paths for heroes than the one you propose. That doesn't automatically mean that Rey is a good hero. No one ever claimed that Luke's journey is the only journey. They were merely claiming that it was better than Rey's, and they're not wrong. The fact that there are dozens of ways one could write Rey (or Luke, for that matter) that are all quite interesting does not obviate the fact that she is, in fact, not interesting in her current iteration.
Luke's journey isn't better than Rey's, it's different.
It's the difference that apparently a lot of people dislike, but that doesn't make it bad. A lot of people like it.
Do they "like" it? Or are merely "okay" with it?
Luke Skywalker's saga inspired and inflamed a generation. Rey's hero-saga is just... causing shitstorms.
Why not ask kids. If she means to them what Luke meant to us, job’s a good’un.
I have asked kids.
I saw the movie as a chaperone with a birthday party held for a friend's daughter. The kids saw the movie, then moved swiftly along to being children and not really giving a gak. It had the same effect on them that a normal kid's movie would have, which is pretty fine, except when compared to what the original saga did.
EDIT: They were "just okay" with it, same as I mentioned in my post.
To enlarge on my viewpoint, I don't feel that the only acceptable story path for a hero is to fail at a series of physical challenges, be helped by someone else, and eventually succeed.
I understand your point now.
However, I don't feel that way.
EDIT:
Or, more precisely, I don't feel you're being genuine. There are, indeed, more acceptable story paths for heroes than the one you propose. That doesn't automatically mean that Rey is a good hero. No one ever claimed that Luke's journey is the only journey. They were merely claiming that it was better than Rey's, and they're not wrong. The fact that there are dozens of ways one could write Rey (or Luke, for that matter) that are all quite interesting does not obviate the fact that she is, in fact, not interesting in her current iteration.
Luke's journey isn't better than Rey's, it's different.
It's the difference that apparently a lot of people dislike, but that doesn't make it bad. A lot of people like it.
I can't wait for Solo to come out and all this debate to start all over again.
Honestly, Alec Guinness himself predicted we would read way way too much into these movies and the old chap was right.
Just take what you like and move on. I highly doubt that even the most hardcore fan of Episodes 1-3 doesn't think to himself when he is all alone: "yeah, I would have some a couple of things differently. . ."
Star Wars is what it is. At the end of the day, these are just movies that affect everyone in different ways. Focus on the positive things in life, not the negative.
Not much to discuss about it on a discussion forum then, is there?
While it *may* have gone on a little long now, and while all camps are a little dug in and repeating stuff a bit now, it was certainly a pretty good discussion to have here.
Especially for a movie wich the creator , George Lucas, didn't want to be to complicated or realistic. Leading to the statement "Star wars isn't science fiction". Specifically in the sense of 2001 a space odyssey.
ANH is the story of a chosen peasant boy going on a quest with an old wizard, aided by a smuggler, to go help the princess opposing the dark lord.
I sorta said my piece and left but i'd like to dig up another scene in TLJ i didn't like. The fact if you looked they seemed to be hinting at a leia/han solo romance with holdo and poe but she dies before anything happens. They also don't give enough background on her for us to really care about her or any attachment between the two to care about a relationship. I mean i don't even think a good portion of people noticed there was something starting to go on between the two.
My main issue with the movie is it seems confused like it doesn't know what it wants to do anything so either does nothing or goes about it half-heartedly making it have less of an impact or just feel out of place. Another example is luke's death scene.
Earth127 wrote: Especially for a movie wich the creator , George Lucas, didn't want to be to complicated or realistic. Leading to the statement "Star wars isn't science fiction". Specifically in the sense of 2001 a space odyssey.
ANH is the story of a chosen peasant boy going on a quest with an old wizard, aided by a smuggler, to go help the princess opposing the dark lord.
Being forced to repeat it every time starts to be exhausting but since you completely reject the notion of posting after reading the thread (justified in this case I guess, because of the sheer size of the discussion): The fact that a movie is not set in a realistic setting does not justify any lack of consistency. Even fictional universes have their rules. If you read/watch Lord of The Rings and see the Dwarves suddenly fly and fire lightnighs from their beard, you don't just suddenly accept it because is an imaginary world and these are imaginary creatures. In that universes Dwarves don't do that, and magic is subtle and very rarely this flashy. You would be confused by the lack of setup and consistency. A lot of people found TLJ to be the same thing. And please, I think is a really bad thing to say that since a movie is for kids, is not the case for it being well written. You can write a simple story that kids can appreciate that has solid characters/story, and solid values. TLJ has nothing of this. Unless your aim is to accustom the kid to eat pig slop since very young age, in this way they will be the perfect, unquestioning customers later on.
Rey fails to convince Luke to rejoin the Resistance, and fails to persuade Ren not to go to the Dark Side. Fine.
What can we know about her from these events?
And how well inserted is this in the framework of the story, and how well written is the care Rey has for the politics, resistance, etc?
Well, we know his robot got a bigger emotional investment out of Luke with an old holo-recording than Rey did with... anything.
From failing to persuade Ren, we learned that... she's apparently capable of ship-to-ship teleports and doesn't really care about the tense situation she was just in. Or maybe that's just a problem with the story framework.
As for politics and the Resisty? She probably doesn't care much. When she arrived on Island Planet, she mostly wanted Luke to take some responsibility for the people he abandoned. But prior to that (ie, TFA) she didn't want in at all, and for most of this movie she wanted to make Ren nice, and after that... I guess she accepted the hero-protagonist slot in the story, because... it was empty now? I guess? Her quips and lines when she wanders lackadaisically back into the film on the Falcon seem to indicate a general interest in a Professional Hero position, but her general attitudes and actions suggest this may just be another passing fancy (or empty box) like training or redemptor-for-hire.
I mean sure, Finn can't do it because he was dragooned into the role of Leaky Comic Sidekick and the Official Sidequest, but theoretically Poe could still be it, except Johnson seems to feel that as the Inexplicably Designated Heir Apparent to the leadership of 10 or so people, he's disqualified.
Rey fails to convince Luke to rejoin the Resistance, and fails to persuade Ren not to go to the Dark Side. Fine.
What can we know about her from these events?
And how well inserted is this in the framework of the story, and how well written is the care Rey has for the politics, resistance, etc?
Well, we know his robot got a bigger emotional investment out of Luke with an old holo-recording than Rey did with... anything.
From failing to persuade Ren, we learned that... she's apparently capable of ship-to-ship teleports and doesn't really care about the tense situation she was just in. Or maybe that's just a problem with the story framework.
As for politics and the Resisty? She probably doesn't care much. When she arrived on Island Planet, she mostly wanted Luke to take some responsibility for the people he abandoned. But prior to that (ie, TFA) she didn't want in at all, and for most of this movie she wanted to make Ren nice, and after that... I guess she accepted the hero-protagonist slot in the story, because... it was empty now? I guess? Her quips and lines when she wanders lackadaisically back into the film on the Falcon seem to indicate a general interest in a Professional Hero position, but her general attitudes and actions suggest this may just be another passing fancy (or empty box) like training or redemptor-for-hire.
...
Yet at the end of the film, Rey pilots the Falcon through the Imperial blockade and personally rescues the entire surviving Resistance and gets them to safety.
I don't really know why you would interpret that as a kind of cynical joke.
To enlarge on my viewpoint, I don't feel that the only acceptable story path for a hero is to fail at a series of physical challenges, be helped by someone else, and eventually succeed.
And the fact you view Luke's journey as "a series of physical challenges" while listing off Rey's achievements as "beat up a dude, beat up multiple dudes, flew a ship, beat up another dude" etc is where the disconnect with everyone else is.
Luke's journey is emotional and spiritual, it's the result of that journey that allows him to perform outlandish physical feats and have the audience feel like he's earned the right. Luke at the beginning of the OT is not the Luke in ESB, and he is different and more mature again in RotJ. Each film puts him through challenges that force him to recognise things about himself and address those things in order to move forward - crikey man, almost his entire sub-plot in ESB is about his emotional and spiritual growth as a character, the zen shtick is layed on with a trowel, how can you miss and/or willfully ignore that?
Rey begins TFA as a physically capable badass, bumbles around doing AWESUM *guitar solo* stuff, using the force at a level they used in the OT to establish Obi Wan as a mystical old master-wizard dude, and shouting at people to do what she wants for two movies; has one single moment where she might potentially just about learn something about herself, which is then promptly undercut by bad editing since apparently one moment of possible emotional resonance and character growth was so terrifying for the writers they had to immediately teleport her into the Falcon so she could blow some stuff up in an appropriately awesome way, and ends the second movie as almost exactly the same person she was at the start of the first.
She doesn't even have a "path", she's a hero by writer fiat from the moment we meet her.
Watching some Mark Hamill interviews, he gets really excited about how Luke was an inspiring character for people and is touched how he could be a part of that. He says in an interview alongside Simon Pegg, talking about Luke "I'm so moved by stories of people that were inspired, people that really are facing like health issues and adversities that find determination and spiritual redemption"
I just don't see Rey the same way. Real people fail and struggle and suffer proper emotional trials, a character that kicks arse might be cool to some but just doesn't resonate with me. Luke failing to pull the X-Wing and needing Yoda to show him what can be done is better character building than Rey lifting the rocks just because the story demands it so therefore she can.
Having recently watched the OT trilogy again (first saw it in mid to late teens and haven't sat down to actually watch it properly since) I appreciate Luke more as an adult than I did as a kid because of his struggles, not just physical challenges but genuine emotional ones as well.
But in the end I think in some ways we get hung up comparing Luke to Rey simply because they're both Star Wars heroes. I don't think Luke was an exceptionally well written hero to be honest, he's just the one who happens to be the precursor of Rey.
But you can pull the heroes from almost any good movie that has a hero and see that it's their struggles and failures that make them good heroes even more than their successes, because it's their struggles that frame the significance of their achievements.
Rey fails to convince Luke to rejoin the Resistance, and fails to persuade Ren not to go to the Dark Side. Fine.
What can we know about her from these events?
And how well inserted is this in the framework of the story, and how well written is the care Rey has for the politics, resistance, etc?
Well, we know his robot got a bigger emotional investment out of Luke with an old holo-recording than Rey did with... anything.
From failing to persuade Ren, we learned that... she's apparently capable of ship-to-ship teleports and doesn't really care about the tense situation she was just in. Or maybe that's just a problem with the story framework.
As for politics and the Resisty? She probably doesn't care much. When she arrived on Island Planet, she mostly wanted Luke to take some responsibility for the people he abandoned. But prior to that (ie, TFA) she didn't want in at all, and for most of this movie she wanted to make Ren nice, and after that... I guess she accepted the hero-protagonist slot in the story, because... it was empty now? I guess? Her quips and lines when she wanders lackadaisically back into the film on the Falcon seem to indicate a general interest in a Professional Hero position, but her general attitudes and actions suggest this may just be another passing fancy (or empty box) like training or redemptor-for-hire.
...
Yet at the end of the film, Rey pilots the Falcon through the Imperial blockade and personally rescues the entire surviving Resistance and gets them to safety.
I don't really know why you would interpret that as a kind of cynical joke.
You don't? The movie doesn't even bother dealing with her at all post Snoke. She goes into the ship seeking redemption for her kidnapper. She fails. We don't see her reaction to that. We don't see her leave. We don't see her gain any knowledge at all about the current state of the Resisty. She just turns up later, guns a-blazing with a Yeehah! Quips on her lips about rocks, and a sudden complete tone shift as she dons the Annointed Hero role because the last five minutes of the movie demands it for movie purposes, not because it has anything to do with her character arc, not even a simplistic 'what have we learned today?' There is almost a reaction shot when she learns the one person she interacted with in the last movie has a new love interest, but it's left lying on the ground.
If you can't understand why post confrontation Rey is a joke, I suspect you just aren't willing to. Rey the character doesn't move in the second half the film. She's still paralyzed by Snoke. The Annointed Hero is removed from the big ship to the falcon, then the Annointed Hero moves some rocks to set the pieces up for the next film. The craft of film-making is entirely abandoned, and Johnson just shuffles tropes and roles around to provide Abrams the exact same starting point as the this film: The Resity flees a planet to escape the first order. In doing so, he stops treating them as characters, and just shoots some uninspired set pieces with tropey roles going through the motions- the villain does the stupid villain rant, the sacrifice does his thing, the sidekick learns about love, and the hero saves people just by wandering back into shot.
I agree on the struggles not the failures. Tough Rey isn't the most complex or well written character. Some aspects should have been downplayed. She isn't better at flying the falcon than han in TFA, she just knew it had been messed with. If it's a failing hero rising and learning from it, why do so many people hate Poe's arc in TLJ. He's textbook hero learing from failure but no he's just dudebro subversion. Tough the theme of his story is much better done in BSG, A show I very much believe Rian Johnson was inspired by.
There is no mathematically perfect way to write a good character, no beats you have to hit. Each is a challenge in its own right and depending on genre and type of story they vary wildly.
I watched a video by Matt Collvile critiquing the new star wars movies. Where he critizes the criticism of the characters don't grow in rogue one as "Sounding like people having a narrative hammer now approaching every problem like a nail".
So far in no star wars movie have I seen any evidence that training genuinely increases force ability. Yoda even says forget everything you have learned just feel when he asks luke to lift the X-wing. Trust in the force to blow up the death star. I don't know what luke was doing between episodes V and VI but it wasn't training with yoda. The crucial difference: he has faith in himself and his abilities unlike Dagobah (That is why you fail) . It's time to complete Kylo Ren's training. How we don't see you actually train him except linking him to Rey? Your epic last monologue leads me to believe the test was thjej training. Just hear him monolguing Kylo's thoughts. It's all about faith and certainty.
Voss wrote: You don't? The movie doesn't even bother dealing with her at all post Snoke. She goes into the ship seeking redemption for her kidnapper. She fails. We don't see her reaction to that. We don't see her leave. We don't see her gain any knowledge at all about the current state of the Resisty. She just turns up later, guns a-blazing with a Yeehah! Quips on her lips about rocks, and a sudden complete tone shift as she dons the Annointed Hero role because the last five minutes of the movie demands it for movie purposes, not because it has anything to do with her character arc, not even a simplistic 'what have we learned today?' There is almost a reaction shot when she learns the one person she interacted with in the last movie has a new love interest, but it's left lying on the ground.
If you can't understand why post confrontation Rey is a joke, I suspect you just aren't willing to. Rey the character doesn't move in the second half the film. She's still paralyzed by Snoke. The Annointed Hero is removed from the big ship to the falcon, then the Annointed Hero moves some rocks to set the pieces up for the next film. The craft of film-making is entirely abandoned, and Johnson just shuffles tropes and roles around to provide Abrams the exact same starting point as the this film: The Resity flees a planet to escape the first order. In doing so, he stops treating them as characters, and just shoots some uninspired set pieces with tropey roles going through the motions- the villain does the stupid villain rant, the sacrifice does his thing, the sidekick learns about love, and the hero saves people just by wandering back into shot.
Yeah but weren't your expectations subverted?
I mean you expected a well-crafted movie with a moving storyline that really tugged your heartstrings and made you invested in the heroes, didn't you? It's a Star Wars film after all.
But your expectations were subverted weren't they? Rian Johnson really got us there, hoo boy! I definitely feel much better knowing that he threw the franchise under the bus simply to subvert expectations.
Earth127 wrote: . If it's a failing hero rising and learning from it, why do so many people hate Poe's arc in TLJ. He's textbook hero learing from failure but no he's just dudebro subversion. Tough the theme of his story is much better done in BSG, A show I very much believe Rian Johnson was inspired by.
Previously posted. Prestor Jon nailed it perfectly.
It is also shown with Poe who fails several times in the movie by having a gung-ho attitude, then he learns from it by realizing Luke is stalling for time, rather than rushing out to help like he has done the whoel movie.
If Holdo is wrong (what I think, BTW), Poe is just treated unjustly like a child after he took out an important, dangerous, fleet-destroying spaceship. If Holdo is right, Poe should be court martialed and possibly executed. That's a mutiny. He learns an important lesson over the blood of tens of fellow rebels, in that case. How in heaven is this supposed to be moral of the story? "Hey don't be gung-ho. You could cause the death of tens of people. Here, a slap on the wrist. Next time, cause the death of fellow freedom fighters in a smaller order of magnitude you little, adorable devil!"
The mishandling of Dameron Poe in this movie cannot be overstated. He gets thousands (thousands!) of people killed. That's a stupid situation to write one of your heroes into, but if you do, he needs to be a broken man after that, and hated by the survivors. You can maybe build a redemption story from there. He'll probably have to die heroically. Instead, he's just sort of "aw shucks, you were right all along admiral lady! I'm such a dummy. I learned my lesson though and that's what really matters. Hey! It's BB-8!" *kneels down and greets his droid like it was a puppy*. And the survivng rebels are totally cool with this. "Yeah, all but 14 of us are dead and it's all your fault, but I'm glad we all learned a lesson from this".
The mishandling of Poe's character screwed up the movie on so many levels. Poe makes the same mistake 3 times over the course of the movie, with more disastrous consequences each time. First he gets Leia angry with him because he decides to defy orders and gets all the bombers wiped out by successfully continuing the attack on the dreadnought. Then he defies Holdo and sends Finn and Rose on their mission to sneak onto Snoke's ship which leads to almost every transport being blown up. Poe's mutiny is why Finn, Rose and the hacker are on Snoke's ship which leads to the FO finding out about the transports and destroying most of them. Then once they're in the mining base on Crait Poe leads the suicidal attack and outer defense that gets even more people killed. The remaining members of the resistance had no chance to fend off the FO but instead of spending time building defenses inside the mine behind the giant door Poe leads them outside where in mere minutes the majority of them are killed by the FO. The outer defenses and speeder attack serves no military purpose and is doomed to fail but Poe has to lead a suicidal defense because he's a pilot so he has to fly something even if it gets more people killed needlessly. The entire Poe story arc hammers home the point that defying orders and doing it your own way is a terrible idea.
This contrasts directly with the theme of the past doesn't matter and authority isn't necessary which is front and center during the Rey/Ren storyline. Kylo Ren is on a mission to prove that he doesn't need his Skywalker family and that he won't be trapped into a life defined by their past glories. Kylo Ren doesn't need Luke or Snoke to master his force powers and rule the galaxy. Kylo Ren wants to show the galaxy and himself that he doesn't need the past and he wants to show Rey that she doesn't either. Rey learns that her parents are nobodies and she shouldn't waste time thinking about them anymore. She also decides she doesn't need a Jedi mentor she will figure things out for herself. Is Poe's arc supposed to convince us that the choices Ren and Rey are making are doomed to lead to tragedy and death?
What he wrote is valid of Kylo too. They have no idea of where the story is going, so they don't want to show him too remorseful for Han. (albeit they did show something about his mother). So we have Ben now in a strange position: he is the Villain but Rey wants to save him, but all falls flat because we don't feel his struggle in a significant way.
I wonder if all this debate is along generational lines. Since we can't see our faces its hard to determine when you started becoming a fan. I think those that grew up with Episodes 4,5,6 when they first came out, have a much much greater attachment to Luke, Han, and so on. And I think some of this also comes from the fact that back then, many of us had toys instead of gaming consoles. We didn't read too much into the characters back then (that is something we did later), but if you were anything like me, you brought a Star Wars figure everywhere you went, and the Rebellion was fought over a hundred times in my backyard, living room, bedroom, bunk bed, in a hotel room on vacation, and so on. These characters were my friends, and still are. I think the vast majority of us older fans wanted to see Han, Luke, and Leia treated with respect in that regard, rather than props as they have been.
I think Episodes 1,2,3 had some toy effect, but no where near as much as Gen 1 did. By this time, gaming consoles were out and kids would usually rather play a game on an playstation rather than with figures. I saw this first hand with my younger brother. He had some toys, but never would play like I did as a kid. Liked Star Wars, lightsabers, and so on, but not in the same way that I did.
Well, Gen 3 is having their time with 7,8,9 and I wonder if the lines are being drawn here between older Gen 2s and Gen 1s. And consider how different the times are today versus the 80s. Back then, action movies typically focused on the action, and the hero essentially fighting against a villain who has wronged them and makes things right by blowing a bunch of stuff up (Stallone, Schwarzenegger, etc). These heroes are all larger than life and bad ass. But Luke was different. Luke was everyone of us who was just a normal kid who gets swept up in something a lot bigger than he is. Yes, he's got some family history and the ability to use a great power, but he goes through it with this charming naivety that everyone appreciates. He journey doesn't just involve physically beating his enemies, but overcoming his own struggles and place in the universe. Much like us when we were young and growing up and learning about the world.
It might be different being younger and growing up with these elements now, as the concepts aren't really new. There is a formula now and a lot of shows/movies/characters are using it. We also see a lot of female characters being the lead, and they also bring along their own struggles (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - despite how hard everyone wants to be PC and think they are the same). But then we have women being more physical and men being more emotional. Considering the pretty crap state families are in in the US with high divorce rates, drug abuse, and so on, Rey's abandonment issues are probably pretty valid and many can probably relate, but the 'old' me wouldn't have carried much of that into my backyard. I didn't care that Luke didn't have his Mom and Dad around when I was younger (I don't think I ever wondered about his mom, and didn't think of his Dad until Vader told him). To me, it was more about the physical part of the story first, then appreciating his spiritual elevation as I got older.
Younger fans could be a lot smarter than I was when I was younger, but it doesn't change what I like. I am a product of a time that produced Luke, Han, and Leia, not of a time that produced Rey, Finn, and Poe. Star Wars is first and foremost about the characters. Its what we love about the films. And I just find the older characters more interesting and relatable than the new ones. I understand the new ones, just don't have any attachment to them. And I doubt the younger fans will attach themselves to the newer ones as I did with the older ones, simply because I don't see them playing with toys like I used to (Toys R Us is going backrupt because kids don't play with toys like they used to - while collector toys are booming). I don't see them bonding with them so to speak.
So I am not sure what the future of Star Wars will be. I don't think they have a plan like Marvel does, where they (Marvel) have done an amazing job bringing characters that have been around for DECADES to film, and still have 1000s of characters to go through. Even lesser known characters like Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, and soon to be Black Panther are absolute home runs. Star Wars on the other hand, despite having a giant universe, has focused on so few characters and now that a good chunk of them are gone, or at least from the main timeline moving forward, may have a tough time getting fans to embrace the new ones. I am blown away with what Marvel has done. If there was no Episodes 1-6 and we were starting fresh with TFA, I am not sure Star Wars would move beyond Episode 9. Yet Marvel, in about a decade or so, with have a storyline that involves some 30 movies. Yes, Star Wars does have some power, but I think its in its legacy. I am not quite sure the newer films are going to be remembered as fondly a couple of decades from now as 4,5,6 have been in the same amount of time.
It's not about generations at all really. I know older people that like or dislike and younger peole that like or dislike.
Prestor john did not nail it at all. He gets some basic facts wrong:
Poe starts his mutiny when he finds out Holdo ios fuelling up the transports and refuses to believe in his plan to succeed. Poe doesn't get the sole credit for the biggest backstab of the movie, DJ (or whatever the feth his actual name is) gets the lion share of the blame.
More compicated and debatable since it uses real life military logic and that is obviously not something Star wars uses (Seriously it doesn't make sense)
Digging in against a foe bringing big weapons to bear does not work. In fact digging in barely works and would have bought them minutes probably with the gear they had. Also he doesn't at that point defy orders. Leia does give him permission. And he pulls back when it goes from being the odds are against us to pure suicide.
I'm still a bit triggered that they were closer to Crait than Earth is to its Moon during the entire chase sequence, and not one person, either in the First Order or in Poe's merry band of mutineers, ever thought that the planet they can see out the window that the Resistance is heading for might be the thing that the resistance is heading for.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm still a bit triggered that they were closer to Crait than Earth is to its Moon during the entire chase sequence, and not one person, either in the First Order or in Poe's merry band of mutineers, ever thought that the planet they can see out the window that the Resistance is heading for might be the thing that the resistance is heading for.
Weak lazy writing - the film is chocked full of it.
Back then, action movies typically focused on the action, and the hero essentially fighting against a villain who has wronged them and makes things right by blowing a bunch of stuff up (Stallone, Schwarzenegger, etc).
Have you watched the immensely popular Jon Wick films? That's exactly what they are - the Second one is almost exactly like a FPS where you kill hundreds of mooks, it even has end of level bad guys. Plenty of other action films are the same.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm still a bit triggered that they were closer to Crait than Earth is to its Moon during the entire chase sequence, and not one person, either in the First Order or in Poe's merry band of mutineers, ever thought that the planet they can see out the window that the Resistance is heading for might be the thing that the resistance is heading for.
Weak lazy writing - the film is chocked full of it.
We they really that close to Crait? Or was it just shown for the audience's convenience? I got the impression that no one knew Crait really existed until the last moment. Space is big and no one really looks out the window to search for stuff, that's what computers are for.
We (the audience) are only shown Crait when it "needed" to be revealed to us. That doesn't mean it was that close and that both the Resistance and First Order would have seen it for that entire last part of the chase.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm still a bit triggered that they were closer to Crait than Earth is to its Moon during the entire chase sequence, and not one person, either in the First Order or in Poe's merry band of mutineers, ever thought that the planet they can see out the window that the Resistance is heading for might be the thing that the resistance is heading for.
Weak lazy writing - the film is chocked full of it.
We they really that close to Crait? Or was it just shown for the audience's convenience?
I got the impression that no one knew Crait really existed until the last moment.
Space is big and no one really lloks out the window to search for stuff.
We (the audience) only show Crait when it "needed" to be revealed to us. That doesn't mean it was that close and that both the Resistance and First Order would have seen it for that entire last part of the chase.
-
Wait - really? No one on the First Order fleet or the Ship of Fools noticed a entire planetary system - cos its not just a planet its got a sun - or no light etc (*) - But given the writing team thought that
We the audience were fed crap and told it was gold - in fact are still being told it was gold. Yet some of us can smell it.
(*) (unless you are making a "realistic" movie about black holes in which case planets just illuminate themselves)
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm still a bit triggered that they were closer to Crait than Earth is to its Moon during the entire chase sequence, and not one person, either in the First Order or in Poe's merry band of mutineers, ever thought that the planet they can see out the window that the Resistance is heading for might be the thing that the resistance is heading for.
Weak lazy writing - the film is chocked full of it.
We they really that close to Crait? Or was it just shown for the audience's convenience?
I got the impression that no one knew Crait really existed until the last moment.
Space is big and no one really looks out the window to search for stuff, that's what computers are for.
We (the audience) are only shown Crait when it "needed" to be revealed to us. That doesn't mean it was that close and that both the Resistance and First Order would have seen it for that entire last part of the chase.
-
Except that it does.
Because the chase is 18 hours long at sublight speeds. Conversely, our spacecraft takes 3 days to got to the moon from the earth. So that means that even if their sublight is four times faster than ours, they were closer to Crait than the moon is to Earth when they started the chase. And if you're curious about whether or not Earth can be seen from the distance of the Moon, well, just google it.
Also, Crait orbits a star (we know this because the day is sunny when the First Order attack on Crait happens). So they're literally inside a solar system and flying towards a planet for an entire 18 hour chase and neither Poe Dameron nor the First Order could fathom what their plan could possibly be.
It's about how much of a hard core fan you are. It's the hard core fans who hate the film. Everyone else is fine with it.
I'mm 55, my wife is 51, my daughter is 18. We all liked the film. I probably liked it most.
Having previously watched all the first three films and TFA in the cinema on first release, Ive got more nostalgia built up in them.
I've never been a super fan, though, and I didn't come into the new films with any strong preconceptions about them. I had an image of what Star Wars looks like, and the Force, and quips in the dialogue, general stuff like that. These were fulfilled from my viewpoint.
The super fans expected something different. I think that is the key point.
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is a setting with star maps.
Removing parts of the map to hide stuff has been the (contrived) plot point of at least 2 movies.
Come on now.
If I can see a landmark out my window, I don't need a map to tell me I've arrived.
You can literally see Crait out the window as the viewer, so it's explicitly visible out the window, and it's been out the window for eighteen hours. As has, presumably, its sun, since that's how solar systems work.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's about how much of a hard core fan you are. It's the hard core fans who hate the film. Everyone else is fine with it.
I'mm 55, my wife is 51, my daughter is 18. We all liked the film. I probably liked it most.
Having previously watched all the first three films and TFA in the cinema on first release, Ive got more nostalgia built up in them.
I've never been a super fan, though, and I didn't come into the new films with any strong preconceptions about them. I had an image of what Star Wars looks like, and the Force, and quips in the dialogue, general stuff like that. These were fulfilled from my viewpoint.
The super fans expected something different. I think that is the key point.
Rubbish - complete and total.
Of more than 10 people I know that saw it and said how crap it was - several of them had only ever seen TFA. I liked TFA and hoped for nothing more than a fun film - instead I got occasional bits that were ok and mostly boredom.
The problem for many of us is not that its not Star Wars - its that we find almost every element is bad - writing, pacing, direction, characters
and then to top it off - we are told by the high and might critics that - no it s a cinematic gem and we should be privileged to even be allowed to watch it.
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is a setting with star maps.
Removing parts of the map to hide stuff has been the (contrived) plot point of at least 2 movies.
Come on now.
If I can see a landmark out my window, I don't need a map to tell me I've arrived.
You can literally see Crait out the window as the viewer, so it's explicitly visible out the window, and it's been out the window for eighteen hours. As has, presumably, its sun, since that's how solar systems work.
My original point is that it is "on the viewer" so the audience knows it's there. This does not mean it was there for any meaningful amount of time prior to being revealed.
Top sublight speeds in the SW galaxy could still be really, really fast compared to our current snail-paced "3 days to get to the moon".
I mean even the small transports at the beginning of the movie are able to get into orbit within SECONDS of take-off.
It is entirely possible (and indeed what I choose to believe) that for the first 17 hours of the chase, Crait wasn't a blip on anyone's radar (save Holdo cuz she knew it was there). It wasn't until the last stretch that the small planet came into view and by then the transports were on their way
Kaiyanwang wrote: This is a setting with star maps.
Removing parts of the map to hide stuff has been the (contrived) plot point of at least 2 movies.
Come on now.
If I can see a landmark out my window, I don't need a map to tell me I've arrived.
You can literally see Crait out the window as the viewer, so it's explicitly visible out the window, and it's been out the window for eighteen hours. As has, presumably, its sun, since that's how solar systems work.
My original point is that it is "on the viewer" so the audience knows it's there. This does not mean it was there for any meaningful amount of time prior to being revealed.
Top sublight speeds in the SW galaxy could still be really, really fast compared to our current snail-paced "3 days to get to the moon".
I mean even the small transports at the beginning of the movie are able to get into orbit within SECONDS of take-off.
It is entirely possible (and indeed what I choose to believe) that for the first 17 hours of the chase, Crait wasn't a blip on anyone's radar (save Holdo cuz she knew it was there). It wasn't until the last stretch that the small planet came into view and by then the transports were on their way
Except Crait has a star. A sun, you know. The thing you can see from like 96 AUs out.
"HOLDO WE HAVE NO PLAN WHERE ARE WE GOING?" *poe looks up and sees star with presumably orbiting planets* "Oh. Alrighty then." *roll credits*
Conversely
"Hah! We have the resistance now, there's no where to run!" "Uh, Hux, sir, my eyeball sensors are telling me there's a solar system up ahead." "Eyeball sensors? What you mean look out the window? How mundan- oh, oh you're right. Better hyperspace in front of them then. Send four cruisers, or something. I dunno. Fuckin' ... just fly forwards faster than they can. You have hyperdrives." *pinches nose*
Kilkrazy wrote: It's about how much of a hard core fan you are. It's the hard core fans who hate the film. Everyone else is fine with it.
I'mm 55, my wife is 51, my daughter is 18. We all liked the film. I probably liked it most.
Having previously watched all the first three films and TFA in the cinema on first release, Ive got more nostalgia built up in them.
I've never been a super fan, though, and I didn't come into the new films with any strong preconceptions about them. I had an image of what Star Wars looks like, and the Force, and quips in the dialogue, general stuff like that. These were fulfilled from my viewpoint.
The super fans expected something different. I think that is the key point.
Rubbish - complete and total.
Of more than 10 people I know that saw it and said how crap it was - several of them had only ever seen TFA. I liked TFA and hoped for nothing more than a fun film - instead I got occasional bits that were ok and mostly boredom.
The problem for many of us is not that its not Star Wars - its that we find almost every element is bad - writing, pacing, direction, characters
and then to top it off - we are told by the high and might critics that - no it s a cinematic gem and we should be privileged to even be allowed to watch it.
The film has sold 1.3 billion dollars of tickets in 6 weeks.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's about how much of a hard core fan you are. It's the hard core fans who hate the film. Everyone else is fine with it.
I'mm 55, my wife is 51, my daughter is 18. We all liked the film. I probably liked it most.
Having previously watched all the first three films and TFA in the cinema on first release, Ive got more nostalgia built up in them.
I've never been a super fan, though, and I didn't come into the new films with any strong preconceptions about them. I had an image of what Star Wars looks like, and the Force, and quips in the dialogue, general stuff like that. These were fulfilled from my viewpoint.
The super fans expected something different. I think that is the key point.
Rubbish - complete and total.
Of more than 10 people I know that saw it and said how crap it was - several of them had only ever seen TFA. I liked TFA and hoped for nothing more than a fun film - instead I got occasional bits that were ok and mostly boredom.
The problem for many of us is not that its not Star Wars - its that we find almost every element is bad - writing, pacing, direction, characters
and then to top it off - we are told by the high and might critics that - no it s a cinematic gem and we should be privileged to even be allowed to watch it.
The film has sold 1.3 billion dollars of tickets in 6 weeks.
Where do you get that distance estimate? SW ships are supposed to have hundreds or thousands of gees of acceleration. Remember how quickly the X-Wings semi-circumnavigated Yavin?
Edit: about Crait being closer than the moon is to Earth the whole chase scene.
And yes, I'm being somewhat facetious because we all know RJ and every other person working on the film has no idea how space, scale, or acceleration work.
Yeah the trope Sci-Fi writers have no sense of scale is why I started taking what movies tell me at face value. Thinking too much about it makes my head hurt. Honestlly they should avoid hard numbers.
Don't say "18 hours of fuel", say:" fuel reserves at 5% , 2% etc." I hate to sound like a broken record but once again BSG was really good at this.
Or be Doctor Who: "It's a timey whimey detector that goes ding when there's stuff".
Kilkrazy wrote: It's about how much of a hard core fan you are. It's the hard core fans who hate the film. Everyone else is fine with it.
I'mm 55, my wife is 51, my daughter is 18. We all liked the film. I probably liked it most.
Having previously watched all the first three films and TFA in the cinema on first release, Ive got more nostalgia built up in them.
I've never been a super fan, though, and I didn't come into the new films with any strong preconceptions about them. I had an image of what Star Wars looks like, and the Force, and quips in the dialogue, general stuff like that. These were fulfilled from my viewpoint.
The super fans expected something different. I think that is the key point.
I think you are mistaken. I believe the difference may lie in how you approach films in general and how others do. For example, my best friend will often love films that are pretty terrible; when asked about it all he can remember are the fifteen good minutes in a given film and how they made him feel. He watches for the good and retains it. The bad just passes him by. It's an alien mindset to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: Quick question what would you say is a wel written movie Mr. Morden?
Because while I don't think TLJ's writing should win any awards I don't think it's bad either.
At this point, please, please, please just read the whole thread. There have been tens of thousands of words written about this. It has been exhaustively covered. TLJ's writing is its weakest feature.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Where do you get that distance estimate? SW ships are supposed to have hundreds or thousands of gees of acceleration. Remember how quickly the X-Wings semi-circumnavigated Yavin?
Edit: about Crait being closer than the moon is to Earth the whole chase scene.
And yes, I'm being somewhat facetious because we all know RJ and every other person working on the film has no idea how space, scale, or acceleration work.
I happen to know that they weren't travelling a significant fraction of the speed of light, because they measured their fuel reserves in time. 18 hours at .99c is going to look like 126 hours to a stationary frame of reference, or just over five days. This means that when Rose and Finn get to Canto Bight, they have time to park, rent a room, play some games, chat some people up, maybe buy some new bombers that aren't ass or something, then find the hacker, have a drink with him, go to sleep, wake up, find the hacker again, tell him Maz sent them, and then get to their legally-parked shuttle and return to the fleet.
Based on how panicked and fast Rose and Finn seem like they feel they have to go, and they actually use a real 18 hour time limit, that tells me that they're probably not moving at any considerable fraction of C, and are moving much closer to the speed of conventional modern space ships (which ironically still do suffer from time dilation a bit, but I digress).
Also, Leia is blown out of the ship and has to Superman her way back to it. If it was travelling at some crazy velocity then the necessary Force mastery to perform this act goes from 'eye roll' to 'nope, that's me done'.
Unless of course she's blown directly in front of it and just waits for it to catch up, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the scene is presented.
Yeah the trope Sci-Fi writers have no sense of scale is why I started taking what movies tell me at face value. Thinking too much about it makes my head hurt. Honestlly they should avoid hard numbers.
Don't say "18 hours of fuel", say:" fuel reserves at 5% , 2% etc."
I hate to sound like a broken record but once again BSG was really good at this.
Unit you probably put more thought into this then Ryan Johnsson did.
Riquende wrote: Also, Leia is blown out of the ship and has to Superman her way back to it. If it was travelling at some crazy velocity then the necessary Force mastery to perform this act goes from 'eye roll' to 'nope, that's me done'.
Unless of course she's blown directly in front of it and just waits for it to catch up, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the scene is presented.
Except Leia would be going at that speed to. There is no 'air resistance" in space, so she would continue moving in the same direction as the ship.
But all this is beside the point. Star Wars is NOT true sci-fi. It does not claim to adhere to scientific principles. it adheres to the "sounds good enough for the story" principle. If you try to pull the strings, they will unravel. So don't pull the strings and enjoy the movie.
Riquende wrote:Also, Leia is blown out of the ship and has to Superman her way back to it. If it was travelling at some crazy velocity then the necessary Force mastery to perform this act goes from 'eye roll' to 'nope, that's me done'.
Unless of course she's blown directly in front of it and just waits for it to catch up, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the scene is presented.
Galef wrote:
Riquende wrote: Also, Leia is blown out of the ship and has to Superman her way back to it. If it was travelling at some crazy velocity then the necessary Force mastery to perform this act goes from 'eye roll' to 'nope, that's me done'.
Unless of course she's blown directly in front of it and just waits for it to catch up, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the scene is presented.
Except Leia would be going at that speed to. There is no 'air resistance" in space, so she would continue moving in the same direction as the ship.
But all this is beside the point. Star Wars is NOT true sci-fi. It does not claim to adhere to scientific principles. it adheres to the "sounds good enough for the story" principle.
If you try to pull the strings, they will unravel. So don't pull the strings and enjoy the movie.
-
Yeah to be fair space isn't water so she'd get blown out of the ship and then continue travelling away from it at the initial velocity she left the ship at, bringing it out of range in literal seconds given that she was accelerated out of the vessel due to an explosion and atmospheric decompression.
I mean, it still doesn't make any goddamn sense, because she should go flying off with no way of stopping, but eh. What can you do.
Riquende wrote: Also, Leia is blown out of the ship and has to Superman her way back to it. If it was travelling at some crazy velocity then the necessary Force mastery to perform this act goes from 'eye roll' to 'nope, that's me done'.
Unless of course she's blown directly in front of it and just waits for it to catch up, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the scene is presented.
Except Leia would be going at that speed to. There is no 'air resistance" in space, so she would continue moving in the same direction as the ship.
-
Would she be moving in the same direction? If the bridge is on the side of the ship and she's blown out in a roughly perpendicular direction to the ship's forward momentum then no, she really wouldn't.
It's almost like I briefly addressed in this in the post you quoted. Please read what you're replying to in future, thanks.
Riquende wrote: Also, Leia is blown out of the ship and has to Superman her way back to it. If it was travelling at some crazy velocity then the necessary Force mastery to perform this act goes from 'eye roll' to 'nope, that's me done'.
Unless of course she's blown directly in front of it and just waits for it to catch up, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the scene is presented.
Except Leia would be going at that speed to. There is no 'air resistance" in space, so she would continue moving in the same direction as the ship.
But all this is beside the point. Star Wars is NOT true sci-fi. It does not claim to adhere to scientific principles. it adheres to the "sounds good enough for the story" principle.
If you try to pull the strings, they will unravel. So don't pull the strings and enjoy the movie.
-
It's not speed but acceleration that is the issue. I propose that Leia was still within the shield bubble or gravity effect of the ship, and thus still accelerating with it. Such effects would also explain why fighters seemingly need to slow way down when they approach a Death Star or Star Destroyer (or their frame of reference), so they aren't destroyed.
But, yeah, the real answer is because the big ships are standing still until they're not because hiring anyone who knows anything is hard I guess.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's about how much of a hard core fan you are. It's the hard core fans who hate the film. Everyone else is fine with it.
I'mm 55, my wife is 51, my daughter is 18. We all liked the film. I probably liked it most.
Having previously watched all the first three films and TFA in the cinema on first release, Ive got more nostalgia built up in them.
I've never been a super fan, though, and I didn't come into the new films with any strong preconceptions about them. I had an image of what Star Wars looks like, and the Force, and quips in the dialogue, general stuff like that. These were fulfilled from my viewpoint.
The super fans expected something different. I think that is the key point.
Rubbish - complete and total.
Of more than 10 people I know that saw it and said how crap it was - several of them had only ever seen TFA. I liked TFA and hoped for nothing more than a fun film - instead I got occasional bits that were ok and mostly boredom.
The problem for many of us is not that its not Star Wars - its that we find almost every element is bad - writing, pacing, direction, characters
and then to top it off - we are told by the high and might critics that - no it s a cinematic gem and we should be privileged to even be allowed to watch it.
The film has sold 1.3 billion dollars of tickets in 6 weeks.
It simply is not a piece of crap that everyone hates except a tiny proportion of weirdos like me.
Ah so the number otf tickets sold = the quality of the film? Interesting - that applies ot all films does it?.
I and my firends are part of that ticket take - and wish we had not spent the money on crap.
Or is your argument that only "wiedo's" hate it?
Quick question what would you say is a wel written movie Mr. Morden?
Because while I don't think TLJ's writing should win any awards I don't think it's bad either.
If its not exceptionally well written why has it got almost universal praise from all those critics?
Lots of different ones in different genre's, this was the worst I have watched for quite some time - even Geostorm was better.
Goodfella's
Avengers
Schinderls List,
Dr Strangelove
Apocalypse Now
The Longest Day
Jaws
Black Hawk Down
Love and Freindship
Jurasic World
Pulp Fiction
Batman (Burton not Nolan)
Wonder Woman
The Itlaian Job (the Original obviously)
Get Cater (as above)
Life of Brian
Earth127 wrote: Unit you probably put more thought into this then Ryan Johnsson did.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:But, yeah, the real answer is because the big ships are standing still until they're not because hiring anyone who knows anything is hard I guess.
And that is why it is a bad movie.
Because some random jerk on the internet like me literally out-thought the director about the movie's own story.
Earth127 wrote: Unit you probably put more thought into this then Ryan Johnsson did.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:But, yeah, the real answer is because the big ships are standing still until they're not because hiring anyone who knows anything is hard I guess.
And that is why it is a bad movie.
Because some random jerk on the internet like me literally out-thought the director about the movie's own story.
They just thought - "its Star Wars - it sell no matter what we do, just make sure the critics do what they are told before it launches and we are golden." and they were right.
I don't believe the critics were paid off or part of a conspiracy. More likely, they learned about film instead of things like logic and physics. For some, writing is seen as a minor concern in the overall construction of a film. Those people are wrong, but still persist.
Yeah. I won't deny that TLJ is certainly artistic and visually very interesting. It's also pretty good about staying visually distinct from the rest of Star Wars while still fitting in (barely. It stretches it a bit with the battering ram cannon).
The problem is that it's like a whole bunch of awesome paintings and set-pieces with excellent visuals tied together with a rotting string and called a "movie".
I am ok with physics being wonky in SW, I have bigger problems with horrible characters in a character-driven fairy tale. About the critics there is no conspiracy, just different priorities, a lot of political complacency, and Disney giving you crap and fear of losing premieres for the wrong review - this is documented and caused protests in the past. As Gordon says, still they are not all the same.
Kaiyanwang wrote: I am ok with physics being wonky in SW, I have bigger problems with horrible characters in a character-driven fairy tale.
About the critics there is no conspiracy, just different priorities, a lot of political complacency, and Disney giving you crap and fear of losing premieres for the wrong review - this is documented and caused protests in the past.
As Gordon says, still they are not all the same.
The problem is physics affects the characters.
If you can see Crait out the goddamn window, then Poe's "WHAT IS THE PLAN" panic attack looks even more childish and stupid (like screaming about not being there yet while in the parking lot). And Hux & Co. look stupider because they can easily see the planet out the goddamn window that the Resistance is heading straight for...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah. I won't deny that TLJ is certainly artistic and visually very interesting. It's also pretty good about staying visually distinct from the rest of Star Wars while still fitting in (barely. It stretches it a bit with the battering ram cannon).
The problem is that it's like a whole bunch of awesome paintings and set-pieces with excellent visuals tied together with a rotting string and called a "movie".
Which bits were artistic?
The effects are ok - but they had how much money to throw at that aspect. Effects are always good in a blockbuster.
There was a couple of ok action scenes and Rey and Ben were good enough to keep me awake throuhg the tedium of the Ship of Fools and Casino Wordl Adventure!!!!!!!!!!
I think it's more along the lines of audiences and critics wanting different things. The inverse happened to the last showman: it was a criitical bomb but liked by audiences.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah. I won't deny that TLJ is certainly artistic and visually very interesting. It's also pretty good about staying visually distinct from the rest of Star Wars while still fitting in (barely. It stretches it a bit with the battering ram cannon).
The problem is that it's like a whole bunch of awesome paintings and set-pieces with excellent visuals tied together with a rotting string and called a "movie".
Which bits were artistic?
The effects are ok - but they had how much money to throw at that aspect. Effects are always good in a blockbuster.
There was a couple of ok action scenes and Rey and Ben were good enough to keep me awake throuhg the tedium of the Ship of Fools and Casino Wordl Adventure!!!!!!!!!!
The hyperspace ram scene struck me as a cinematic moment I will remember for a long time because of the neato visuals, and Crait's red & white pairing was visually far more interesting and imo awesome than Hoth. Being able to see the shields shimmer when the enemy shot them with lasers was cool (if a bit different from usual Star Wars). Canto Bight, whatever people might say about it, certainly looked like what I would expect a huge, opulent, overwrought resort to look like.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah. I won't deny that TLJ is certainly artistic and visually very interesting. It's also pretty good about staying visually distinct from the rest of Star Wars while still fitting in (barely. It stretches it a bit with the battering ram cannon).
The problem is that it's like a whole bunch of awesome paintings and set-pieces with excellent visuals tied together with a rotting string and called a "movie".
Which bits were artistic?
The effects are ok - but they had how much money to throw at that aspect. Effects are always good in a blockbuster.
There was a couple of ok action scenes and Rey and Ben were good enough to keep me awake throuhg the tedium of the Ship of Fools and Casino Wordl Adventure!!!!!!!!!!
The hyperspace ram scene struck me as a cinematic moment I will remember for a long time because of the neato visuals, and Crait's red & white pairing was visually far more interesting and imo awesome than Hoth. Being able to see the shields shimmer when the enemy shot them with lasers was cool (if a bit different from usual Star Wars). Canto Bight, whatever people might say about it, certainly looked like what I would expect a huge, opulent, overwrought resort to look like.
Fair enough - none of that impressed me tbh.
I think it's more along the lines of audiences and critics wanting different things.
Critics are paid to watch films they may or may not like and tell you what they thought of it. Audiences go to watch something they hope to enjoy - for one group its a just a job, for the rest its a night out.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't believe the critics were paid off or part of a conspiracy. More likely, they learned about film instead of things like logic and physics. For some, writing is seen as a minor concern in the overall construction of a film. Those people are wrong, but still persist.
I think critics were more happy to see a racially diverse cast in a movie with a strong female lead more than anything.
If I could find faults in the obvious technical failures of the film, I am sure they can as well.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah. I won't deny that TLJ is certainly artistic and visually very interesting. It's also pretty good about staying visually distinct from the rest of Star Wars while still fitting in (barely. It stretches it a bit with the battering ram cannon).
The problem is that it's like a whole bunch of awesome paintings and set-pieces with excellent visuals tied together with a rotting string and called a "movie".
Which bits were artistic?
The effects are ok - but they had how much money to throw at that aspect. Effects are always good in a blockbuster.
There was a couple of ok action scenes and Rey and Ben were good enough to keep me awake throuhg the tedium of the Ship of Fools and Casino Wordl Adventure!!!!!!!!!!
The camera work and editing and connective tissue between scenes all stood out for me on my second or third viewings. There's a lot of "cinematic" stuff going on that I am too ignorant to describe accurately, and it elevates the film above the mediocre writing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: KTG, I think you have a particular cross to bear on diversity and it is affecting your objectivity.
I mean when characters are talking. The scenes on the Fulminatrix for example feel very dynamic for dialogue because of the way the camera tracks the conversation. Also, the scene where Luke stumbles on the kids Force canoodling has a really old but effective camera trick that is just refreshing to watch in the age of CGI. RJ remembers how much you can "tell" with just a camera...until he doesn't. Space Leia was a particularly embarrassing fumble.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's about how much of a hard core fan you are. It's the hard core fans who hate the film. Everyone else is fine with it.
I'mm 55, my wife is 51, my daughter is 18. We all liked the film. I probably liked it most.
Having previously watched all the first three films and TFA in the cinema on first release, Ive got more nostalgia built up in them.
I've never been a super fan, though, and I didn't come into the new films with any strong preconceptions about them. I had an image of what Star Wars looks like, and the Force, and quips in the dialogue, general stuff like that. These were fulfilled from my viewpoint.
The super fans expected something different. I think that is the key point.
Actually i'm not that big of a fan of star wars. I think the whole thing is ok and i've never gotten the love of the franchise to the degree everybody has it.
The Last Jedi just sucks. Sides that same justification could go for the prequels as well.
in which case planets just illuminate themselves)