Voss wrote: I love that you're trying to make this a significant issue, but it isn't.
This applies so much more fittingly to you than to sebster.
Galef wrote: So it would make sense for him to have at least as much power now (at his peak) as either Anakin or Luke at their peaks.
Training is not a good measure of how powerful a Force user is. The degree of Force sensitivity seems to be at least as important - and, conceptually, it would be more important.
Xenomancers wrote: Then he loses to a trash boy and a girl with no training. It's a huge plot hole and it kills the story for me. I mean it absolutely kills it for me. I don't care how strong they want you to believe Rei is.
Kylo did not lose to Rey because she is a Mary Sue. He lost for 2 reasons.: 1) He wasn't trying to kill Rey...at all. He was trying to bring her to the Dark side, just like Vader did to Luke in ESB. 2) Kylo was probably dying during that scene and only survived because of his connection to the force. He had just been shot in the gut by Chewie's bowcaster, a weapon which was featured REPEATEDLY throwing armoured stormtroopers across the screen. Kylo took such a blast to the gut with no armour on. Just look how sweaty he is when he confronts Rey & Finn...in the snow. He's only holding it together by inflicting pain onto himself to draw on the Dark side to keep standing.
If that "kills the story" for you, than maybe you should pay more attention to the movie. They SPECIFICALLY showcase Chewie's bowcaster earlier in the movie for this very setup. There are no plot holes, all the info is there and makes perfect sense.
Xenomancers wrote: Then he loses to a trash boy and a girl with no training. It's a huge plot hole and it kills the story for me.
This isn't a plot hole; it's a plot development. Kylo on Jakku is ruthless and angry and focused. He obviously has some kind of past with the character played by von Sydow - but he murders him, nonetheless. On Takodana, Kylo terrorizes and easily captures Rey. Only after she detects his emotional insecurities during her interrogation and after he kills Han does Kylo lose his focus and start making mistakes. Even then, he has zero problems dispatching Finn. And by the way, just so the audience wouldn't have trouble following this, the movie includes shots of Kylo punching himself in his side where Chewy shot him to ramp up his pain and anger so that he could focus his power. And even if you missed it then, the movie also includes a shot of Kylo losing his focus altogether right before Rey cuts his face.
Xenomancers wrote: Then he loses to a trash boy and a girl with no training. It's a huge plot hole and it kills the story for me.
This isn't a plot hole; it's a plot development. Kylo on Jakku is ruthless and angry and focused. He obviously has some kind of past with the character played by von Sydow - but he murders him, nonetheless. On Takodana, Kylo terrorizes and easily captures Rey. Only after she detects his emotional insecurities during her interrogation and after he kills Han does Kylo lose his focus and start making mistakes. Even then, he has zero problems dispatching Finn. And by the way, just so the audience wouldn't have trouble following this, the movie includes shots of Kylo punching himself in his side where Chewy shot him to ramp up his pain and anger so that he could focus his power. And even if you missed it then, the movie also includes a shot of Kylo losing his focus altogether right before Rey cuts his face.
Thats very deep for a B movie serial. I think you're reading too much into it. But each to his own.
Manchu wrote: just so the audience wouldn't have trouble following this, the movie includes shots of Kylo punching himself in his side where Chewy shot him to ramp up his pain and anger so that he could focus his power.
Yet there were a bunch of people that didn't understand what the point of him doing that was. I specifically recall having to tell people that it was probably something done to boost his adrenaline and anger to keep himself in the fight and focused. Only then did some of them go "Oh yeah that makes sense."
Same thing with Kylo vs Finn, people had to be specifically told he was just toying with him, because all they saw was Finn standing his ground, getting a hit in and then being beaten. They didnt get that it was Kylo toying with him until Finn actually did something dangerous and then he ended the fight.
The plot of TFA regading Kylo could not be more clear:
- introduced as powerful and ruthless
- easily captures Rey
- Rey freaks him out during interrogation
- kills Han to get clarity, doesn't work
- "slays" Finn in fit of anger
- wants to train Rey rather than kill her
- loses to Rey
These movies are made with children in mind so they can't be but so complicated.
Manchu wrote: Only after she detects his emotional insecurities during her interrogation and after he kills Han does Kylo lose his focus and start making mistakes. Even then, he has zero problems dispatching Finn. And by the way, just so the audience wouldn't have trouble following this, the movie includes shots of Kylo punching himself in his side where Chewy shot him to ramp up his pain and anger so that he could focus his power. And even if you missed it then, the movie also includes a shot of Kylo losing his focus altogether right before Rey cuts his face.
That's part of the problem though. Kylo Ren can't mind read Rey but she can mind read him before Han is killed. She's more powerful than him. They're both receiving training so she's still going to be ahead.
Luke was more powerful than Vader, and he still got his butt whupped. Twice. It was only by tapping into his anger that Luke managed to get the better of Vader in the end.
And, really, while Rey held her own in the fight at the end of TFA, we don't know how it would have actually played out if it had run its course. All we know is that Rey managed to get the upper hand before the planet falling apart put an end to further shenanigans.
And whether or not any of that matters going forward will really depend on just what they have planned for those two characters.
Xenomancers wrote: Then he loses to a trash boy and a girl with no training. It's a huge plot hole and it kills the story for me.
This isn't a plot hole; it's a plot development. Kylo on Jakku is ruthless and angry and focused. He obviously has some kind of past with the character played by von Sydow - but he murders him, nonetheless. On Takodana, Kylo terrorizes and easily captures Rey. Only after she detects his emotional insecurities during her interrogation and after he kills Han does Kylo lose his focus and start making mistakes. Even then, he has zero problems dispatching Finn. And by the way, just so the audience wouldn't have trouble following this, the movie includes shots of Kylo punching himself in his side where Chewy shot him to ramp up his pain and anger so that he could focus his power. And even if you missed it then, the movie also includes a shot of Kylo losing his focus altogether right before Rey cuts his face.
Thats very deep for a B movie serial. I think you're reading too much into it. But each to his own.
Yeah... hard to take you seriously at this point Frazz.
Disciple of Fate wrote: My problem with that part is that he was sent there and not escorted. This type of behaviour seems pretty much critical to avoid in childhood indoctrinated troops, yet they handle it like a slap on the wrist of what we see on screen. No escort, no restraining etc. I would assume they would have no problems disposing of people who keep disobeying. Yet Finn gets the tough love approach. At what point does a evil murderous organization turn on its own? How hard up are they for people that they don't just throw Finn in prison untill he is re-brainwashed (which incidentally might be a better way to get him in contact with Poe, using his experience in sanitation/systems to escape?).
Sending him without an escort was silly, but given it only backfired because a rebel pilot was on the ship at that exact moment, and it still required an impossible plan to work, I'm willing to give it a meh. Or at least a 'well that's just how Star Wars and similar genre stuff works' pass.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Yep. Going on what was apparently his first combat mission as a stormtrooper, complete with the greenhorn shakes. He seems fine when strapped into a seat firing a gun (like a simulator), and has no qualms with shooting loads of people (ones he knew and worked with no less) in that situation, but out in the field he's routinely useless and making obvious mistakes. Exactly what you'd expect from a poorly trained part timer.
Oh look, you realised your argument fell apart, so now you're trying to reboot. Nope. Doesn't work that way. You used the 'teacher' argument, and I explained to you why 'sanitation' doesn't mean 'teacher', it means 'school'. Which makes your argument terrible.
I love that you're trying to make this a significant issue, but it isn't. Semi-competent sidekick worked sanitation, so I call him a janitor.
I'm not making this a significant issue, I'm just explaining to you the mistake you made, and you keep trying to deny it, so this drags on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: His abilities are well on display in the story. He catches a blaster shot mid air and freezes it in place. This is probably the greatest example of power ive seen in starwars. Then he loses to a trash boy and a girl with no training. It's a huge plot hole and it kills the story for me. I mean it absolutely kills it for me. I don't care how strong they want you to believe Rei is. Luke - the man who defeated vader - still got beat by Vader royally the first time they fought. Anakien lost to Duku after being trained by the greatest Jedis. This is just to stupid to even consider it starwars cannon IMO.
When Luke confronted Vader Luke was confused, and unaware of the truth. Vader was in control. The second time they met, Luke is in control, he now knows the story, and is committed to redeeming his father even at the cost of his own life. As Luke shows his commitment to his father and to the light side, it is Vader who becomes conflicted, and is defeated.
Kylo Ren had something similar. Early in the film he was committed to his path, but after Rey opened some emotional holes, and after Kylo struggled with what killing his own father meant, he became weaker. Having been shot by the bowcaster probably didn't help either. On the other Rey, who up until this point was shown searching for answers, was now shown in a moment of absolute clarity and focus on defeating Kylo.
This is how Star Wars works. It was never a kung fu drama about who had the best training. It was always about Jedi battles representating internal character struggles. Just look at the training Luke goes through, it wasn't about technique or balance - it was about self discovery, 'do or do not' etc...
Though I understand that a lot of people can miss this, as Lucas himself forgot it for most of the prequels.
sebster wrote: When Luke confronted Vader Luke was confused, and unaware of the truth. Vader was in control. The second time they met, Luke is in control, he now knows the story, and is committed to redeeming his father even at the cost of his own life. As Luke shows his commitment to his father and to the light side, it is Vader who becomes conflicted, and is defeated.
Kylo Ren had something similar. Early in the film he was committed to his path, but after Rey opened some emotional holes, and after Kylo struggled with what killing his own father meant, he became weaker. Having been shot by the bowcaster probably didn't help either. On the other Rey, who up until this point was shown searching for answers, was now shown in a moment of absolute clarity and focus on defeating Kylo.
I think this fits in well with the theory that TFA remakes beats from the whole OT. Rey even taps into the dark side for a moment, just like Luke does in RotJ
I also think this is the "raw power" the Luke is referring to in TLJ trailer. It didn't scare him enough when fighting Vader, but it does scare him now that it turns Ben Solo to the dark side (speculation, of course)
sebster wrote: This is how Star Wars works. It was never a kung fu drama about who had the best training. It was always about Jedi battles representating internal character struggles. Just look at the training Luke goes through, it wasn't about technique or balance - it was about self discovery, 'do or do not' etc....
This is how Star Wars works. It was never a kung fu drama about who had the best training. It was always about Jedi battles representating internal character struggles. Just look at the training Luke goes through, it wasn't about technique or balance - it was about self discovery, 'do or do not' etc...
100% true. However, if Luke had been taught to parry properly, maybe he'd still have his hand?
I mean, Yoda could have shown him a few YouTube clips and that would have helped a little. Something?
100% true. However, if Luke had been taught to parry properly, maybe he'd still have his hand?
There's only so much you can squeeze into a week and a half. It's impressive that Luke even knew which end of the lightsaber to point at people, let alone fight anything with it.
100% true. However, if Luke had been taught to parry properly, maybe he'd still have his hand?
There's only so much you can squeeze into a week and a half. It's impressive that Luke even knew which end of the lightsaber to point at people, let alone fight anything with it.
imagine what he could have done if had a good training montage!
100% true. However, if Luke had been taught to parry properly, maybe he'd still have his hand?
There's only so much you can squeeze into a week and a half. It's impressive that Luke even knew which end of the lightsaber to point at people, let alone fight anything with it.
Luke must've found it very strange to fight Vader.
Being force sensitive, like his Father before him he's likely been able to tap into The Force to some degree all his life - including being able to react to things before they happen (hence the familial piloting ability).
When you've just had that knack all your life, how weird must it be to come across someone who's actually honed that ability?
Luke must've found it very strange to fight Vader.
Being force sensitive, like his Father before him he's likely been able to tap into The Force to some degree all his life - including being able to react to things before they happen (hence the familial piloting ability).
When you've just had that knack all your life, how weird must it be to come across someone who's actually honed that ability?
Why didn't Luke get into sportsball as a kid? I'm sure Tattooine has an intragalactic soccer team or something! He could have gone pro! He could have been somebody. He could have been a contender. LEIA!!!!!
Alpharius wrote: I'm pretty sure he was the Planetary Womp Rat Shooting Champion?
I'm surprised how often people forget this and act like Luke just jumped into an X-Wing and flew it with no prior experience. To be fair they never actually showed him flying prior to that, and it was just an offhand comment towards the end of the film, but still.
Alpharius wrote: I'm pretty sure he was the Planetary Womp Rat Shooting Champion?
I'm surprised how often people forget this and act like Luke just jumped into an X-Wing and flew it with no prior experience. To be fair they never actually showed him flying prior to that, and it was just an offhand comment towards the end of the film, but still.
Two comments - Obi Wan mentions at the start that he's heard Luke is a good pilot, like his father.
They expanded on it all in the EU stuff, with the idea that the X-wing and Luke's T-16 were made by the same company and shared very similar control interfaces.
Blimey, that crept up on me... and I need to have a dissertation written by then...
I was very pleased to hear that the run time for TLJ is a full two and a half hours. The fact that they're letting Johnson have a release longer than the 2:20 that pretty much every Disney movie in the last few years has capped at is quite encouraging; that and the fact they've given him the keys to a new trilogy before TLJ even releases says that they're very pleased with what he's done thus far and have a great deal of faith in him...
Which with any luck means we're in for a bloody good film come December....
Is that a CGI face on Chewbacca? Tell me I'm seeing things because that looked fake as hell. It's almost (but not quite) as bad as Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Seriously, Disney, WTF?!?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, just read a fan theory that Rey has been cloned from Lukes lost hand.
Pretty sure that's not really how cloning works. Male donor would only produce male clones. On account they're clones.
Well, technically you could get a female clone from a male source by simply duplicating the male's X chromosome and discarding the Y. What you cannot get is a male clone of a female, because there is no Y chromosome.
However, it's still a dumb theory. I am doubling down on the Rey Skywalker theory though, as that is not only the strongest theory, but it is the only one that would make sense to a casual audience member. These stories need to be easy to follow and 90% of the current theories need extra source material (i.e. not the movies) or too much exposition to explain.
It would also provide some really nice symmetry for the Saga as Kylo is the Son of the Daughter of Anakin and Rey would be the Daughter of the Son of Anakin. Anakin's light & dark sides personified.
Oh and Rey may not be her name after all. Some translated the symbols on the rebel helmet she was wearing in TFA and it have the name Reigh on it. Some other cannon source shows that she has a journal from a captain Reigh. So she probably told Finn her name was Rey as a cover. If true, this indicates that Rey knows more than she let on in TFA.
Also, just read a fan theory that Rey has been cloned from Lukes lost hand.
Pretty sure that's not really how cloning works. Male donor would only produce male clones. On account they're clones.
I think you could clone a female from a male - just replace the Y chromosome with a copy of the X (and hope Luke didn't have any recessive genetic disorders in his X chromosome).
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, just read a fan theory that Rey has been cloned from Lukes lost hand.
Pretty sure that's not really how cloning works. Male donor would only produce male clones. On account they're clones.
Well, technically you could get a female clone from a male source by simply duplicating the male's X chromosome and discarding the Y. What you cannot get is a male clone of a female, because there is no Y chromosome.
However, it's still a dumb theory.
I am doubling down on the Rey Skywalker theory though, as that is not only the strongest theory, but it is the only one that would make sense to a casual audience member.
These stories need to be easy to follow and 90% of the current theories need extra source material (i.e. not the movies) or too much exposition to explain.
It would also provide some really nice symmetry for the Saga as Kylo is the Son of the Daughter of Anakin and Rey would be the Daughter of the Son of Anakin. Anakin's light & dark sides personified.
Oh and Rey may not be her name after all. Some translated the symbols on the rebel helmet she was wearing in TFA and it have the name Reigh on it. Some other cannon source shows that she has a journal from a captain Reigh. So she probably told Finn her name was Rey as a cover. If true, this indicates that Rey knows more than she let on in TFA.
-
Or she never knew her name, and chose one? At the age we see her in her vision, that's entirely possible.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or she never knew her name, and chose one? At the age we see her in her vision, that's entirely possible.
Possible, maybe, but certainly not plausible. Children who are old enough to speak are able to know their name.
Another clue that Luke dropped her off on Jakku is the shuttle from that vision. In Legends, Luke has a personal shuttle that looks just like it (boxy with 2 main engines and fins down the sides)
Disney is clearly taking bits and pieces from Legends stories (which is where the clone of Luke's hand comes from) so I would not be surprised.
My hope is that Kylo left her on Jakku to go along with the idea that he's something of a failure at being Vader.
It saddens me to realize that I am super excited for this film and super excited for the week immediately after it, but ultimately resigned to the misery that is the next year of hearing about how its the worst movie of all time. :-(
LunarSol wrote: It saddens me to realize that I am super excited for this film and super excited for the week immediately after it, but ultimately resigned to the misery that is the next year of hearing about how its the worst movie of all time. :-(
I'm old, and perhaps my memory is growing hazy. But I don't remember it being a 'thing' in my youth to plunk down good money for a movie in order to hate-watch it. It seems to be something people do now.
I suppose it's partially a geek thing? God knows geeks obsess over minutiae, and *love* to sound smart by spouting jargon ("it had some pacing issues in the third act"). Still, to me it's a weird mindset to dwell in such pre-planned, gleeful negativity.
I don't really care though. I'll probably enjoy TLJ no matter what the hipster doofus prick at the comic store has to say about it.
LunarSol wrote: It saddens me to realize that I am super excited for this film and super excited for the week immediately after it, but ultimately resigned to the misery that is the next year of hearing about how its the worst movie of all time. :-(
I'm old, and perhaps my memory is growing hazy. But I don't remember it being a 'thing' in my youth to plunk down good money for a movie in order to hate-watch it. It seems to be something people do now.
I suppose it's partially a geek thing? God knows geeks obsess over minutiae, and *love* to sound smart by spouting jargon ("it had some pacing issues in the third act"). Still, to me it's a weird mindset to dwell in such pre-planned, gleeful negativity.
I don't really care though. I'll probably enjoy TLJ no matter what the hipster doofus prick at the comic store has to say about it.
Agreed. If I am spending good money to watch a movie (likely several times) I am going to do my best to enjoy it rather than pick it apart. Acknowledgement of a movies flaws can be fun for discussion, but it should never be the main take-away.
It's been a good movie year. I have enjoyed Thor: Bosom Buddies, Justice League, Murder on the Orient Express, Wonder Woman, Guardians of the Galaxy II, Logan, and The Dark Tower.
LunarSol wrote: It saddens me to realize that I am super excited for this film and super excited for the week immediately after it, but ultimately resigned to the misery that is the next year of hearing about how its the worst movie of all time. :-(
I'm old, and perhaps my memory is growing hazy. But I don't remember it being a 'thing' in my youth to plunk down good money for a movie in order to hate-watch it. It seems to be something people do now.
I suppose it's partially a geek thing? God knows geeks obsess over minutiae, and *love* to sound smart by spouting jargon ("it had some pacing issues in the third act"). Still, to me it's a weird mindset to dwell in such pre-planned, gleeful negativity.
I don't really care though. I'll probably enjoy TLJ no matter what the hipster doofus prick at the comic store has to say about it.
Agreed. If I am spending good money to watch a movie (likely several times) I am going to do my best to enjoy it rather than pick it apart. Acknowledgement of a movies flaws can be fun for discussion, but it should never be the main take-away.
-
I don't understand going to watch a movie you don't think you will like - why bother, watch it later for free on Sky etc - thats what i do with films I am unsure of.
I quite enjoyed TFA so likely see this - that film was not as good as the second half of Rogue One but much better than its first half.
Mr Morden wrote: I don't understand going to watch a movie you don't think you will like - why bother, watch it later for free on Sky etc - thats what i do with films I am unsure of.
I quite enjoyed TFA so likely see this - that film was not as good as the second half of Rogue One but much better than its first half.
I guess my original point is that it's Star Wars, so I'm gonna enjoy it no matter what. I enjoyed the Prequels after all, and we all know how flawed those are
But I do kinda agree with your assessment of TFA vs R1.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
I rarely see this happen. More often than not they go to it, watch it, like it even if they see the flaws, then respond to other people's adoration by digging their heels into the flaws and losing sight of what they liked. Contrary opinions get a lot of attention, and people inherently like to stand out. Rewatching a film is a totally different experience in many cases (as my daughter has quickly forced me to learn ) and if you go back to a film intent to see how bad the flaws are, they'll be all you see.
Ultimately what its really about is that most films people LOVE are in the B+/A- range. Are there better films? Sure. Does that make these films lesser films? I guess. Does that make lesser films bad? No, but people love them some binary logic. It doesn't help that true A/A+ films are exceedingly rare and hard to come by. Even the academy listing is often a mix of B/B+/A-/A stuff where its quite common for even the winner to be more of a B film that only really works for the awards crowd. It takes years to really see what lasts and by then public opinion has cemented people's opinions pretty hard.
Me neither. I might go to a movie I think I'll enjoy and end up not liking it, but that's always a risk. Then again, my expectations for movies aren't very high. I don't go to movies expecting paradigm shifts in how I look at the world. If I want that, I'll read a good book.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
It's not like I do it on purpose. I can love a dumb film if it just doesn't hit me in the face with it or slow down so much that I have to think about the film to occupy myself. That's what happened with BVS. I went because I expected it to be fun in the way that pre-Iron Man superhero films were fun, but instead found myself studying the film and its fractal pattern of flaws for lack of fun to distract me. TFA had the same problem. The first half was pretty fun, if stupid, but then it started adding up and getting in my face until nothing in the film rose above the obvious, glaring flaws. As a JJ film, it's even worse later when the rush wears off and you actually think about the film "cooly". The pacing problems didn't help, either. It was like being force-fed cake instead of enjoying it.
When I know I won't like a film, I don't go see it. If I was tricked by word of mouth, I walk out of the theater. The only time I sat through a movie I knew I would hate was Peter Jackson's King Kong. Ten minutes in, I wanted to get our money back, but my friends wanted to MsT3k the film instead (which I thought was rude to the customers who paid to enjoy the movie for what it was), and my wife didn't want us to have to wait in the lobby or the mall. I honestly would have preferred to spend that time at a dentist's office rather than sit there feeling hours of my life disappear forever. But I have a good dentist.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
I have no idea how they're distinct things for you.
How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?
I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
I have no idea how they're distinct things for you.
How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?
I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.
Because one can still appreciate the sheer spectacle of a movie even whilst acknowledging that it was pretty dumb and didn't make much sense.
The prequels were poorly written, but I still loved the battle scenes and Lightsabre duels.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
I have no idea how they're distinct things for you. How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?
I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.
That's not what we are doing. We are going into the movie from the perspective that everything that happens in the movies is true and is really happening in the movie, regardless of whether it makes sense from a narrative point of view. Life does not always fit a story telling narrative with satisfying or cathartic resolutions. So if we are suspending our disbelief that magic space wizards aren't real and thus buying into the idea that they are, why would it need to fit into a perfect story?
Now if a movie is truly, truly bad your mind will disconnect with it and not allow this kind of relaxed viewing. Anakin & Padme's "love" story bordered on this, and thus is a major reason that EpII is considered one of the worst SW films. Also the lack of a compelling single villain to drive the action
Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why. When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold. It isn't until the 3rd or 4th viewing that I really dig into any imperfections, but even then it is to imagine how the movie could be even better, not for just how bad it is.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
I have no idea how they're distinct things for you.
How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?
I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.
Because one can still appreciate the sheer spectacle of a movie even whilst acknowledging that it was pretty dumb and didn't make much sense.
The prequels were poorly written, but I still loved the battle scenes and Lightsabre duels.
So, unlike what Grotsnik said, you aren't 'simply watching it.' You are in fact considering what you're watching, or you wouldn't be acknowledging that it was pretty dumb and didn't make much sense while appreciating the spectacle.
That's not what we are doing. We are going into the movie from the perspective that everything that happens in the movies is true and is really happening in the movie, regardless of whether it makes sense from a narrative point of view.
Accepting the premise of the movie is not the same as not thinking about the movie.
Life does not always fit a story telling narrative with satisfying or cathartic resolutions. So if we are suspending our disbelief that magic space wizards aren't real and thus buying into the idea that they are, why would it need to fit into a perfect story?
I don't understand the relevance of the question (or indeed what you mean by 'perfect story'). Life never fits a story telling narrative (except, very rarely, by sheer accident).
No one, so far as I know, is positing the idea of believing magic space wizards are real. This isn't a 'suspending disbelief' question- again, accepting the premise of the film is not the same as not thinking about what you are watching.
Most of the big flaws of the prequels (and TFA for that matter) are actually internal- they stand out for being inconsistent or incoherent with what was already established, or laughable on a very basic point of human (or alien) nature. Or, for TFA basic physics- that travel time and distance are real, and you can't see explosions from the surface of another planet in a different star system, much less as they happen.
Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why.
When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold.
Not going to lie. It has never occurred to me to distort my mindset in order to watch something.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
I have no idea how they're distinct things for you.
How would someone turn off their brain and not consider what they're doing/watching/reading?
I'm not being insulting, I just have no idea how thought can be compartmentalized and kept away from any activity, or why it would be a good thing to do so.
That's not what we are doing. We are going into the movie from the perspective that everything that happens in the movies is true and is really happening in the movie, regardless of whether it makes sense from a narrative point of view.
Life does not always fit a story telling narrative with satisfying or cathartic resolutions. So if we are suspending our disbelief that magic space wizards aren't real and thus buying into the idea that they are, why would it need to fit into a perfect story?
Now if a movie is truly, truly bad your mind will disconnect with it and not allow this kind of relaxed viewing. Anakin & Padme's "love" story bordered on this, and thus is a major reason that EpII is considered one of the worst SW films. Also the lack of a compelling single villain to drive the action
Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why.
When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold.
It isn't until the 3rd or 4th viewing that I really dig into any imperfections, but even then it is to imagine how the movie could be even better, not for just how bad it is.
-
I only notice issues with a film if it intrudes on the narrative structure enough to disconnect me. I seldom notice the "obvious blue screen" effects etc that friends comment on - truth be told I prefer it that way. I might think about them afterwards but if I am into the film then i am into it and it needs something to jar me out of it. However some films i just can't connect with and I just watch it mentally picking it apart because I am nto enjoying it.
On the prequals I could not accept alot of what was happening and that throws me out of the link and so I notice everything bad about as i go along.
This is another reason I absolutely hate any form of talking or loud eating when in the cinema - can disconnect me.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't get people that go to a movie to dissect it, rather than simply watch it.
I rarely see this happen. More often than not they go to it, watch it, like it even if they see the flaws, then respond to other people's adoration by digging their heels into the flaws and losing sight of what they liked. Contrary opinions get a lot of attention, and people inherently like to stand out. Rewatching a film is a totally different experience in many cases (as my daughter has quickly forced me to learn ) and if you go back to a film intent to see how bad the flaws are, they'll be all you see..
I do think you see this in some cases. A live-action version of the Simpsons comic book guy that kronk posted was in the comic store the other day gleefully and near-hysterically railing against every second and facet of Justice League, and it was blatantly obvious that he only bought a ticket so that he could loudly carp about it. Everyone isn't that guy, though.
The underlined bit absolutely happened with TFA. It might actually be an all-time great example of 'post-theater opinion drift'.
Cue me sounding like an old fart, but the internet has had a lot to do with this kind of phenomena, whether we're talking about movies or politics. You get these zones that are one part echo chamber and one part combustion chamber, in which negativity and extreme views are both repeated and augmented. That just doesn't happen the same way with real-life conversation. Even at the comic store, most folks were just tuning out the aforementioned goofball.
Also, just read a fan theory that Rey has been cloned from Lukes lost hand.
Pretty sure that's not really how cloning works. Male donor would only produce male clones. On account they're clones.
you could in theory produce a female clone (XX) from a male doner (XY) but not the reverse, although they wouldn't fit the classic definition of an identical individual
Rey was conceived by the force just like Anaken.
Snoke is Darth Plagus.
Fin and Poe fall in love this episode.
She's all the bits of Anakin that were not hate and rage he forced out to become Vader. This includes the few things he actually loved about sand, which is why she's so desperate to stay on Jakku.
I only notice issues with a film if it intrudes on the narrative structure enough to disconnect me. I seldom notice the "obvious blue screen" effects etc that friends comment on - truth be told I prefer it that way. I might think about them afterwards but if I am into the film then i am into it and it needs something to jar me out of it. However some films i just can't connect with and I just watch it mentally picking it apart because I am nto enjoying it.
On the prequals I could not accept alot of what was happening and that throws me out of the link and so I notice everything bad about as i go along.
This is another reason I absolutely hate any form of talking or loud eating when in the cinema - can disconnect me.
It's interesting to note the different ways that people absorb movies. For me, it's largely about the visuals... I rarely notice plot issues unless they're really obvious. Even most of the bigger issues with TFA only really clicked when I was talking about the movie with friends afterwards... At first watch, they were just things that happened. I'm far more likely to be jarred out of my absorption by bad special effects than by bad writing.
Funnily enough, I have the same thing with music... There are songs I've been listening to all my life that I couldn't for the life of me tell you the lyrics to, because I tend to focus on the sound rather than the words. My wife will poke fun at the lyrics to a song I like, and I'll be all 'What on earth are you talking about?'...
gorgon wrote: I'm old, and perhaps my memory is growing hazy. But I don't remember it being a 'thing' in my youth to plunk down good money for a movie in order to hate-watch it. It seems to be something people do now.
I agree there's a lot of people who enjoy hate-watching popular movies, and they happen to be quite vocal on the internet. But I'm not sure all much negative criticism is necessarily due to people going in to a movie already decided to hate-watch it.
I mean, personally I love movies and every movie I watch I sit down hoping I'll enjoy myself for the next couple of hours. I absolutely hate that feeling part way through a movie when I realise I hate what I'm seeing on the screen.
In contrast, I remember about 30 minutes in to The Force Awakens when I realised I was really enjoying myself, and it was such a relief to have good Star Wars on the big screen again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: Think of it like watching a movie when you were a kid. Some movies you just loved at that age, but now when you watch them you have no idea why.
When I watch a SW movie for the first time, I try to put myself in that innocent, almost gullible mindset and it amplifies my enjoyment of the movie 10 fold.
It isn't until the 3rd or 4th viewing that I really dig into any imperfections, but even then it is to imagine how the movie could be even better, not for just how bad it is.
I don't think it was your intent, but there seems to be an assumption in your post that analysis of a film is inherently critical. That watching and not thinking is the way you most enjoy a movie. That's probably true for a lot of movies, but not all of them. Some movies are appreciated more as you think about them, as you realise all the interesting ways that parts of the film connected together that weren't immediately apparent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: It's interesting to note the different ways that people absorb movies. For me, it's largely about the visuals... I rarely notice plot issues unless they're really obvious. Even most of the bigger issues with TFA only really clicked when I was talking about the movie with friends afterwards... At first watch, they were just things that happened. I'm far more likely to be jarred out of my absorption by bad special effects than by bad writing.
I think different films the focus should be different. Sometimes visuals make the film, other times it is the the plot. For Star Wars, its the characters. That's why I loved TFA but hated the prequels, even though the plot in TFA wasn't really that much better than the prequels. Because TFA had fun, engaging characters, and that's what I love in Star Wars movies.
Funnily enough, I have the same thing with music... There are songs I've been listening to all my life that I couldn't for the life of me tell you the lyrics to, because I tend to focus on the sound rather than the words. My wife will poke fun at the lyrics to a song I like, and I'll be all 'What on earth are you talking about?'...
I'm the same. I used to know the lyrics to every song I loved, but then a friend showed me to focus on different instruments, and hear the song with that as the thing you're focusing on. Now many of my favourite songs I know maybe one line in the chorus, if that
I don't think it was your intent, but there seems to be an assumption in your post that analysis of a film is inherently critical. That watching and not thinking is the way you most enjoy a movie. That's probably true for a lot of movies, but not all of them. Some movies are appreciated more as you think about them, as you realise all the interesting ways that parts of the film connected together that weren't immediately apparent.
Turning my brain off can be fun, but if it's absolutely necessary to avoid glaring flaws and plot holes then the movie is probably just gak. A good example is Chappie which I recently watched on Netflix. I could ignore the bonkers and brain dead logic many of the characters seemed to run on for most of the film up until the climax at which point people just stopped acting like people and started acting like... whatever kind of moron wouldn't throw he plot into the blender.
LordofHats wrote: Turning my brain off can be fun, but if it's absolutely necessary to avoid glaring flaws and plot holes then the movie is probably just gak. A good example is Chappie which I recently watched on Netflix. I could ignore the bonkers and brain dead logic many of the characters seemed to run on for most of the film up until the climax at which point people just stopped acting like people and started acting like... whatever kind of moron wouldn't throw he plot into the blender.
That law is good law. I really like that bit at the end "There is nothing wrong with liking a work for what it is without thinking about it too much. Moff's Law is a response to those who tell critics that they're being stupid by analyzing the work and should just sit back and enjoy it mindlessly."
I would add to that, though. I'd say that different films deserve different kinds of analysis. Pointing out the lack of safety railings in Star Wars is funny, but it isn't a sensible criticism because the films are space opera. Whereas pointing out the bizarrely dangerous stuff lying around the laundry room in the Fugitive is a genuine complaint, because that's meant to be a fairly believable, real world thriller.
Ah, but could Moff's Law not also be used to attempt to legitimise film based snobbery?
It's one thing not to like any given film, that's completely normal (I for one think Donnie Darko is a steaming pile, and always have), but quite another to go on and on and on about it to the point it's clear you're not so much criticising the film, but criticising people who are enjoying it.
We see such things when it comes to the Transformers films. Me, I have a weak point for all but The Racist One and The Dinobot One. I just kinda enjoy them. I know they're not good films. No need to belabour the point.
In fact, thinking about it, that's a toxic streak running through all the Nerd Lands. But that's a whole other topic.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Ah, but could Moff's Law not also be used to attempt to legitimise film based snobbery?
He accounts for that eventuality;
I don't know anyone who thinks every work they encounter ought to only be enjoyed through conscious, active analysis — or if I do, they're pretty annoying themselves.
At the end of the day I think it really comes down to how you enjoy film. Different styles work for different people and I think this reflects a lot in the movies we like. For example, Battleship. It's stupid. It's so fething stupid. I mean it was bound to be, come on it's based on a board game everyone cheats at and then gives up on. That's how I feel about it. Other people though love it, and I can see why cause if you're not shaking your head in disbelief at all the tiny stupidities that pile on as the film plays out it's got lots of stuff to like. Cool set pieces, good effects, ship porn, a reasonably clever tie in to the actual board game, Sir Liam being awesome even though he's only in like four scenes or something.
In fact, thinking about it, that's a toxic streak running through all the Nerd Lands.
You should hear me rant about everything wrong with "fandom." I can go on for pages and it would be really awkward
I'll never understand what it is about Nerds that means we can't just accept people have varying tastes, and someone liking a given film isn't in fact a thinly veiled personal insult to someone that didn't (and indeed, vice versa. And the Fred Savage/Judge Reinhold film Vice Versa, wot I saw in the cinema in York many many moons ago)
I'll never understand what it is about Nerds that means we can't just accept people have varying tastes, and someone liking a given film isn't in fact a thinly veiled personal insult to someone that didn't (and indeed, vice versa. And the Fred Savage/Judge Reinhold film Vice Versa, wot I saw in the cinema in York many many moons ago)
I think that this is one of those questions where, if we figure it out, we could apply the answer to a lot of real life issues.
LordofHats wrote: At the end of the day I think it really comes down to how you enjoy film. Different styles work for different people and I think this reflects a lot in the movies we like. For example, Battleship. It's stupid. It's so fething stupid. I mean it was bound to be, come on it's based on a board game everyone cheats at and then gives up on. That's how I feel about it. Other people though love it, and I can see why cause if you're not shaking your head in disbelief at all the tiny stupidities that pile on as the film plays out it's got lots of stuff to like. Cool set pieces, good effects, ship porn, a reasonably clever tie in to the actual board game, Sir Liam being awesome even though he's only in like four scenes or something.
Battleship is one of those weird films that's every kind of stupid imaginable, but still has you on your feet cheering when they powerslide the titular ship at the end. It's also a movie that's insanely loaded with effort, from the red peg missiles the aliens fire to the grid search late in the film. I also can't tell if the aliens are intentionally non-hostile to make a point or if that itself is a nod to the turn based nature of the game. I have a hard time considering it that bad since its obviously memorable. Speed Racer is similar in a lot of respects.
Film is mean to be analyzed because all works have a message and sub-text. It is screenwriting 101. It is trying to tell you something about how the world works, and you are doing a film a dis-service by not trying to figure out what it is.
Even a movie like StarCrash is trying to tell you something about the world. Starcrash is mostly telling you to go to sleep. Most other movies have a better and more refined message.
Consider how my English Literature GCSE destroyed my love of reading. Rather than simply enjoying the story, we had to sit there, week after week, picking it apart and viewing it through a lens set not by the author, but by the Exam Board. We studied four books - Macbeth, Buddy, Empty World and Z for Zacariah. I really can't tell you much about any of those, barring Macbeth, and that's been gleaned through popular culture. So intent were they on subtext, they forgot to let us just read the damned things.
It seriously took me a good three or four years to re-learn reading for leisure.
By all means, pick it apart once you've seen it. But it seems peeps go in with a mental notebook, and dissect each scene as it unfurls - likely missing the plot as it develops.
Good example? Terminator Genisys. So many reviews claiming plot holes - when if they'd just paid attention to the plot, they'd have correctly identified them as plot hooks - mysteries to be explored in the next instalment (which we're now not getting).
Consider TFA. I saw it in the cinema three times.
First, was simply to see the first new Star Wars films in yonks, and the first Star Wars film where we had no idea where it'd end up since 1983's Return of the Jedi. Just to enjoy the film.
Second? To take in the cinematography and world building, now I was familiar with the plot - to appreciate another part of the film maker's art.
Third? Because I enjoyed it!
I dunno. I just think those going in to be hypercritical are missing the sheer enjoyment of seeing a new film - they're so obsessed with seeking subtext and reading between the lines, they forget to just see what's in front of them.
It feels like it though - of course, most 'armchair critics' piling on the 'hip to hate wagon' are simply gleaning their opinions from somewhere online.
Entertainment is a laudable goal but there are many movies not meant to entertain you at all, but educate, enrage, sadden, etc. Those are emotional responses not meant to entertain.
The only universal statement about film is that they are meant to tell you something about how the creators think world works. By not trying to see what this nuance is you are actually dismissing the work and treating it as somethign lesser than it is.
Now, that doesn't mean there are no pretensious reviews or reviewers out there, or that you even have to agree with their takes. I mean, one of my favorite interpretations of Star Wars is that it is Anti-government agitprop based on the Vietnam War; because it is amusing and a creative thought experiment. However, I don;t think that was Giorge Lucas' intent when he made it.
MacBeth is a cracking story on its own and does entertain, but it also tells us a great deal about human nature. To view it simply as entertainment is devaluing it.
I'm with Doc on this one, while I agree that there are some films that are certainly not designed to entertain but to inform or provoke a response, I don't think Star Wars is among them. At its best, it's 100% entertainment and fun, and anything beyond that is a bonus and/or the product of people overthinking it for the last 40 years.The only 'lesson' of Star Wars is that evil, power hungry tyrants are bad and people who stand up to them are good, which is pretty much a given.
I don't think it's a genre thing, plenty of more ambitious films with a point to make exist in genres dominated by entertainment-led areas (Logan or Watchmen spring to mind; totally unpleasant to watch and several steps removed from the common ideal of the comic book movie, but still excellent pieces of film), but I don't think they are inherently worth more or, conversely, that the ones without a point are worth less. Give me A New Hope and a 4-hour long Star Wars film that's also a stunning exploration of the human psyche, and I'll still take ANH every time because it's just about the most fun you can have sitting in front of a screen.
Not every film is made to purely entertain, but equally, I'd argue some definitely are, and for me SW is definitely in the latter category.
Consider the difference between a good kid's film, and an awful kid's film.
They can be glorified toy adverts, but they still need some element of plot (Transformers The Movie vs Thundercats - LionO The Klutz Drops The Sword of Omens Every Five Seconds)
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm down with the idea of a film that's just meant as entertainment. However, those films fare the worst when they don't actually entertain.
However, that is really boring to talk about. It is a boring, subjective binary.
Did you think the movie was entertaining? Yes/No
..... and what? The discussion is pretty much over.
I think The Dark Knight is a very entertaining film. However, I "hate" the subtext of the movie and the issues it raises and the answers it gives to those issues. If the only question we asked about a movie was, "Is it entertaining?" Then, they answer would be yes. However, there is a lot more to the movie than that one, simplistic and boring question.
Given that we've got 13 pages of conversation here over a handful of trailers for a Star Wars film, I think even if TLJ is a purely entertainment-led movie with no point or theme or commentary to make, I daresay there's going to be no shortage of discussion.
I'd also argue that whether or not you enjoy the film while you're watching it is more important than any discussion you have afterwards with this sort of movie.
Consider the difference between a good kid's film, and an awful kid's film.
Honest question: what is the difference?
Paradigm wrote: Given that we've got 13 pages of conversation here over a handful of trailers for a Star Wars film, I think even if TLJ is a purely entertainment-led movie with no point or theme or commentary to make, I daresay there's going to be no shortage of discussion.
I'd also argue that whether or not you enjoy the film while you're watching it is more important than any discussion you have afterwards with this sort of movie.
Hmm. No, can't agree.
The fleeting enjoyment of two hours of being bombarded by light and sound can be pleasant*, but isn't more important.
*but often is distinctly unpleasant, given the current tendency to crank both of those up beyond normal tolerances. And the extra unpleasantness of being surrounded by fellow animals yammering and bleating while chewing their cud, and adding to the general stickiness of the floors.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm down with the idea of a film that's just meant as entertainment. However, those films fare the worst when they don't actually entertain.
However, that is really boring to talk about. It is a boring, subjective binary.
Did you think the movie was entertaining? Yes/No
..... and what? The discussion is pretty much over.
Why does there need to be a discussion? Or can't people wax lyrical about what aspects they found entertaining, the discussion itself being entertainment.
Yeah, most post-film conversations I have with my friends will skew far more towards 'remember that bit where X character did Y cool thing and it was awesome?' rather than 'You know, that scene game me a whole new perspective on the meaning of life'...
There are exceptions, there are plenty of films that exist purely to provoke thought and discussion, but for a mass media blockbuster that's really a secondary concern.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm down with the idea of a film that's just meant as entertainment. However, those films fare the worst when they don't actually entertain.
However, that is really boring to talk about. It is a boring, subjective binary.
Did you think the movie was entertaining? Yes/No
..... and what? The discussion is pretty much over.
I think The Dark Knight is a very entertaining film. However, I "hate" the subtext of the movie and the issues it raises and the answers it gives to those issues. If the only question we asked about a movie was, "Is it entertaining?" Then, they answer would be yes. However, there is a lot more to the movie than that one, simplistic and boring question.
I in no way advocated limiting the discussion to whether or not the film was entertaining. I merely suggest that a film that is entertaining will produce the kind of discussion most posters seem to want, discussion focusing on what is "right" with the film as well as what is "wrong" with it, what the subtext is or isn't, which characters had the most interesting roles, the plot, the cinematography, the world building, etc.. A movie that fails to entertain provokes discussion mostly about what was wrong with it if it provokes any discussion a all. Whinch is rough for the rare fans of those films.
Consider the difference between a good kid's film, and an awful kid's film.
Honest question: what is the difference?
s.
The same as the difference between any good film and bad film: one is a competently-made, coherent piece of art that tells a compelling story. The other is not. Obviously there is a lot of blurring between the categories in the middle, which is where discussion comes in. Nobody thinks Toy Story was an awful film, and only dangerous lunatics think Cars 2 was a good kids film, but what about Cars 3, Finding Dory, or A Bug's Life? Plenty of room for differing opinions and enlightening discussion.
I think its a false distinction, to be honest, thinking about the film can be a big part of the entertainment a person gets from the movie. I think people missing that is part of the reason why people think that analysing the film is a purely negative experience, about finding faults in the movie. And even finding faults doesn't necessarily mean the film is worse because of it.
There's a bit in Clerks where one of the characters is talking about all the contractors who ended up innocent victims when the Rebellion blew up the Death Star. Kevin Smith was just having fun with it, it wasn't actually a criticism of Star Wars. Its the kind of thinking that can only happen because people love the movie. But George Lucas missed that, he took it as a criticism of his movies, and to be fair some people probably aped Smith's line and repeated it to Lucas at conventions as a criticism. Anyhow, Lucas then decided to include a bit in Attack of the Clones to show the Death Star engineers were bug people, to defeat that original criticism. This was awful because it means Lucas thinks it becomes more acceptable to kill bystanders if they're ugly aliens, but more than that Lucas is trying to engage in some kind of confrontational relationship with the fans, as if the things they talk about are complaints that he can write out of the films. It felt to me like Lucas was trying to one up the fans who spent time thinking about his film, by retconning their funny observation out of existence.
There's a bit in Clerks where one of the characters is talking about all the contractors who ended up innocent victims when the Rebellion blew up the Death Star. Kevin Smith was just having fun with it, it wasn't actually a criticism of Star Wars. Its the kind of thinking that can only happen because people love the movie. But George Lucas missed that, he took it as a criticism of his movies, and to be fair some people probably aped Smith's line and repeated it to Lucas at conventions as a criticism. Anyhow, Lucas then decided to include a bit in Attack of the Clones to show the Death Star engineers were bug people, to defeat that original criticism. This was awful because it means Lucas thinks it becomes more acceptable to kill bystanders if they're ugly aliens, but more than that Lucas is trying to engage in some kind of confrontational relationship with the fans, as if the things they talk about are complaints that he can write out of the films. It felt to me like Lucas was trying to one up the fans who spent time thinking about his film, by retconning their funny observation out of existence.
The designers were bug people. (Probably). That doesn't mean the people working on the Death Star were- I think you're inventing this confrontational relationship a bit, as the Genosisaisans don't provide an out for the criticism, and nothing really suggests he created them to create that 'out'
Especially since a lot of the alien designs for the prequels were often entirely in the hands of artists and designers, and he and his upper minions just wandered along and approved or rejected things (if you want to depress yourself, the documentaries for the prequels are incredibly boring bouts of pure awkward, with a lot of nodding at storyboards while unconvincingly making speeches about how awesome the films will be, then everyone not trying to look upset at the private screening).
That said, I could easily believe he got offended at that bit in Clerks. I just don't think the sequence in Clones existed to refute it.
But I do think one of the reasons Star Wars is so popular is because the fans are willing to think about it, and build the universe out of the bones presented on screen. If it were merely enjoyed, there wouldn't be prequels or sequels. It'd be largely forgotten like so many other sci-fi films.
Voss wrote: I think you're inventing this confrontational relationship a bit,
No there was definitely a confrontational relationship. The only question has ever been does it run both ways, and I think the answer is yes but the vehemence is much stronger and clearer on the fan side than on Lucas. Following the prequels, where instituted some of the first rounds of retcons to the Expanded Universe many fans did what fans always do; they bitched like little brats. It wasn't that big at the time, but I think it started the downward spiral of the relationship between the fans and the creator of the franchise. I don't think it really started till after Episode III though. Anything before that is I think bitter fans justifying their bitterness by retroactively declaring "Lucas started it." After episode III though, retcons became so targeted and convenient that I don't think it's possible to ignore that Lucas was making changes not just because he could but because he wanted to prove he could. Retcons to the Dathomir force witches, the Mandalorians, Korriban, even the force itself all dragged up popular elements that were mostly the domain of the EU and seemed to twist them around simply because Lucas had gotten into a spat with his own fans and content creators. He famously snubbed some of the most popular elements of works by Timothy Zahn (the "grey" force) and Karen Travis (Mandalorians) within months of those authors criticizing his relationship with fans.
It really came down to the war of who "owns" Star Wars. Not in a legal sense mind you, that's obvious, but in a more conceptual sense. Does Star Wars belong to Lucas solely, or to the the people who consumed it? The big issue I think is that in a lot of ways Fans created more Star Wars than Lucas ever did. There are thousands of books, comics, games, and guides to the Star Wars universe that were created under official license and elements of the Expanded Universe on the heels of the pretty bad prequels became much more popular among fans than what Lucas was doing. When criticism of minor retcons began to be thrown his way he seemed to go out of his way to retcon things as if to prove that "it's mine and I can do what I want." In the closing years of his tenure some of these changes became so clearly spiteful that I don't think it's possible to ignore that the confrontational relationship was going both ways. It all ends of course with loads of interviews after he sold LucasArts that basically amounted to "woe is me everyone hates me I just want to make movies feel sorry for me hate my fans they're the reason I sold Star Wars."
Yes, I dare say a great many workmen did go up with it. And yes, some may have been entirely innocent craftsmen etc.
The natural and trumping counter? Better a comparative handful of innocents snuff it there and then, than cry off and let The Emperor have his biggest toy back. Because you really, really think he would've stopped at just the one?
Given how long it took them to build the Death Star we see in a New Hope, delays shown in Rogue One not allowing, there's no way the Second Death Star was only built post Yavin. Not a hope in heck.
I mean, we know Palpatine came into ownership of the plans at the beginning of the Clone Wars. Then, three years later at the end of the Clone Wars, they've just about done the super structure.
Now, there's about the same time gap between A New Hope, and Return of the Jedi.
Think about it. The second one must've been under construction long before Yavin. Otherwise, it'd be nowhere near completion.
And does Palpatine really strike as an 'all me eggs in one basket' type? I say not even remotely. Indeed, I don't think he'd be willing to risk the tiny sliver of a chance that Vader or Tarkin might take against him when the Death Star became operational. Hence, the plan was always to have multiple out there - and it's likely the defeat at Yavin (when the mask finally slipped, and he stopped pretending to be benevolent) put paid to a third and fourth for the time being, preferring to escalate construction on the second.
So the deaths of workers are very much justified. They couldn't been warned (ref, Guy Fawkes), and the Death Star had to be stopped there and then, or else all was lost.
See, Kevin Smith. Just not as good as people think!
But I do think one of the reasons Star Wars is so popular is because the fans are willing to think about it, and build the universe out of the bones presented on screen. If it were merely enjoyed, there wouldn't be prequels or sequels. It'd be largely forgotten like so many other sci-fi films.
I think in many cases it's just that they enjoyed so much they (and, I guess, me) simply want more of it, to be enjoyed. More Rogue Squadron please, pew-pew-pew. Not debates on the socio-economic/geo-political climate that exists as a sub-text by Lucas/Foster/Brackett/Kasdan et al. Yes, there's world-building, fleshing out the galaxy for your rpgs, wargames and novels but it's not the kind of story where we worry about innocents on the Death Star, rights for self-aware machines or whatever.
I think the problem with the Old EU is that, ultimately, it was all quite aimless in the end, in that it just wasn't building toward anything.
Now not all of it was terribad - but a significant portion of it was.
When Disney took over, we got a bunch of new books to bridge between ROTJ and TFA. And in those, they do delve into the socio-political stuff, and in a way I found smarter than the old EU.
They had to. They had to begin to explain how we got from ultimate victory to the rise of Neo-Nasties. That's a chain of events which would be dull to film In-Universe, but fun to read.
But I do think one of the reasons Star Wars is so popular is because the fans are willing to think about it, and build the universe out of the bones presented on screen. If it were merely enjoyed, there wouldn't be prequels or sequels. It'd be largely forgotten like so many other sci-fi films.
I think in many cases it's just that they enjoyed so much they (and, I guess, me) simply want more of it, to be enjoyed. More Rogue Squadron please, pew-pew-pew. Not debates on the socio-economic/geo-political climate that exists as a sub-text by Lucas/Foster/Brackett/Kasdan et al. Yes, there's world-building, fleshing out the galaxy for your rpgs, wargames and novels but it's not the kind of story where we worry about innocents on the Death Star, rights for self-aware machines or whatever.
I think this is a good point too and would expand on it by pointing out that people have different lines here. I can totally ignore the C3PO and R2D2 are treated as property despite seemingly being sentient machines able to feel and have original ideas. They're basically slaves, but they're robots so whatever. Everyone who is friends with them treats them nicely. It's easy to ignore. On the other hand, the Clones are living people grown to be soldiers, are given no rights or choices, but are expected to fight and die for a government they have been conditioned to respect with patriotic fervor. The Clones are slaves, and somehow we're supposed to see the separatist freedom fighters who wage war with stupid drones as worse because... they're the bad guys? IDK. I could swear the Jedi had some bit somewhere about being the defenders of freedom, up until freedom became inconvenient. That bugged me. It always has. I obviously have a limit where I'm no longer able to able to sit back and ignore that the presumed message of the films (good is good and evil is evil) is getting really really gray.
Ahhh....but it's all about Palpatine's manipulations.
Why raise a Clone Army? Because they're not Real People. That's a hook you can present to the populace to persuade the Jedi that, perhaps, it's actually no different to eating meat 'if we didn't need it, they wouldn't exist' type stuff.
The Jedi are supposed to be these moral paragons (or at least Lucas wants us to buy into the idea that they are), but the reality is that the Jedi he presents are dogmatic hypocrites so obsessed with the idea of the Republic they willfully choose to support a corrupt and broken system until they decide that system isn't working for them because diplomacy and protecting the Republic were all well and good until they decided the guy in charge they didn't like was someone they really really didn't like. A guy they never would have bought such an excuse from, and the Jedi never really seem to question what they're doing at any point in time thinking that "he we treat them respectfully and care then the obvious moral black hole that the clones represent for us can be ignored." It circles back and just calls attention to the way droids are handled in the universe, so where I didn't care before now I do because Lucas stretched my ability to overlook the undertones of his work too far.
It's commented upon that Padawns are becoming more and more reckless - it could be that sheer modernity has corrupted the Jedi Order.
There's a very interesting chat with Yoda during a Rebels episode where we 'nutshells' the Clone War for Ezra. He explains the Jedi became too arrogant, too sure of themselves. After all, the Sith hadn't been a problem for centuries. They allowed themselves to be manipulated into becoming Generals, and that corrupted them further.
Yoda blames the Jedi entirely for Palpatine's rise. They should've seen it coming, but were too cosy with the politics.
There's a very interesting chat with Yoda during a Rebels episode where we 'nutshells' the Clone War for Ezra. He explains the Jedi became too arrogant, too sure of themselves. After all, the Sith hadn't been a problem for centuries. They allowed themselves to be manipulated into becoming Generals, and that corrupted them further.
Yoda blames the Jedi entirely for Palpatine's rise. They should've seen it coming, but were too cosy with the politics.
I remember it. I was glad to see Disney simply rolling with the most straight forward narrative, instead of continuing that confusing and contradictory hand waving Lucas was trying.
To me, Disney are doing what an experienced Fallout 4 player is doing - going in and scrapping the settlement, so it can now be re-founded with a better idea of how things go together.
Lucas didn't do that, and arguably couldn't. Can you imagine the vitriol he'd have received if he decided swathes of the Old EU were suddenly not canon anymore?
Seriously, breaking with canon is the best move Disney pulled.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Lucas didn't do that, and arguably couldn't. Can you imagine the vitriol he'd have received if he decided swathes of the Old EU were suddenly not canon anymore?
Yes because he basically did and the vitriol was extreme. I remember when the Mandalore episodes of Clone Wars aired and fans of the Republic Commando, Boba Fett fans, and basically anyone who was really into the Mandalorians as a "third great power of the galaxy" got outraged because those episodes retconned everything. Then some Halo fans got outraged cause when Karen Travis quit the Star Wars EU because of those episodes she brought her crap to the Halo EU and retconned most of Eric Nylund's work there (and Eric Nylund was the Halo EU at the time). So yes. This is me blaming Lucas for ruining Star Wars and Halo (factitiously)
Seriously, breaking with canon is the best move Disney pulled.
It was something I think Disney could do that Lucas couldn't. If Lucas did it fans would have just interpreted it as him throwing out all the good stuff to replace with more Jar Jar Binks garbage. Disney could because by that point I think most fans (who cared anyway) had grown weary of the constant retreading of the EU, as well as Lucas' meddling and wanted a do over. So there was a little bit of a double standard there, but yes. I think Disney had to do it and as disappointed as I am that I'll never see Mara Jade or the Solo twins on screen *shrug* I'm over it. Lucas had dragged the franchise so down nothing Disney did could make it worse and so far I've been pleased with what they're putting out. Faith in Lucas was pretty much dried up, but on the heels of the MCU I think faith in Disney to do better was quite high.
Backing up a bit to the literary criticism topic, there can be quite a difference between what the film-makers intend and what's actually in the film. Does anyone think that George Lucas was advocating that democracy was inferior to rule by an overclass of genetically superior ubermensch? Because that's what Luke's story shows - that the Rebel Alliance can only triumph because of the actions of a wizard's apprentice.
Which is really something that was introduced late in the development of the story; it was barely hinted at in Star Wars, developed a little more in the sequels, built up in the EU and then cemented by the prequels. In Star Wars, we're told that Anakin was a skilled pilot when Obi-Wan met him, not a powerful Force-user. the implication I had for decades was that being a Jedi (or Sith) was a matter of training and practice, not simply of genetics. Han could've become a Jedi, if he didn't spend so much time scoffing about the Force. It just happened that Luke was sufficiently impressionable that he took Obi-Wan's teachings to heart. Likewise, concept art had Stormtroopers armed with lightsabers - the idea being that Jedi were better with them than everyone else, not that you needed magic powers to even wield one. (which got contradicted later, anyway, with the Darksaber).
It also had the side effect of concentrating the stories on the Skywalker/Solo family, because they've got the right "blood" to be the hero(ine)s of the piece.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Backing up a bit to the literary criticism topic, there can be quite a difference between what the film-makers intend and what's actually in the film. Does anyone think that George Lucas was advocating that democracy was inferior to rule by an overclass of genetically superior ubermensch? Because that's what Luke's story shows - that the Rebel Alliance can only triumph because of the actions of a wizard's apprentice.
This was a general problem with the prequels in my view. Lucas seemed to think he was telling one story, but the story on screen didn't match it all. There is Death of the Author, but that concept isn't a permission that anything goes either way. I think one of the reasons the prequels ended up being so bad falls on Lucas' voice as an film maker being completely incoherent. In the Original trilogy he was reigned in and the simplicity of the tale was part of its strength. the prequels threw that out, choosing to try at something more complex with plots and schemes, and honestly Lucas just isn't clever enough to pull that off or sync it up with a good vs evil tale.
The thing is that I just don't think Lucas can be credited with having been the one who made it work. His original screen play is terrible. The history of the original trilogy has been well documented and it was a team of people, of whom Lucas was but one, who really brought it together and made it work.
The prequels on the other hand were just Lucas exercising his own inflated sense of artistic merit because he seemingly didn't learn from his prior experience that working with others helped him make Star Wars. He's always seemingly been convinced that it was just his brilliance and everyone should innately respect his brilliance even when he's putting out stuff that is mediocre at best.
Oh, and on the subject of civilian casualties, military contractors and Geonosians, some things to consider:
the Death Star Skeleton that Darth Vader, the Emperor and Scorpius Tarkin view at the end of episode RotS doesn't appear to be the one we see in action in R1 and ANH; the shape's slightly wrong and the superlaser's in the wrong place. And Rebels shows us twice that the Geonosians were all but exterminated by the Empire and their orbital factories ransacked. It's likely that the workers on the "production" DS1 were human (at least, the overseers would have been; I don't know if the Wookiee slaves are still canon).
Season 4 of rebels has an episode where various people (human and alien) have basically been kidnapped and press ganged by the Empire into working on a "secret project" that is obviously the Death Star. So really they weren't contractors as much as slave labor
LordofHats wrote: The thing is that I just don't think Lucas can be credited with having been the one who made it work. His original screen play is terrible. The history of the original trilogy has been well documented and it was a team of people, of whom Lucas was but one, who really brought it together and made it work.
The prequels on the other hand were just Lucas exercising his own inflated sense of artistic merit because he seemingly didn't learn from his prior experience that working with others helped him make Star Wars. He's always seemingly been convinced that it was just his brilliance and everyone should innately respect his brilliance even when he's putting out stuff that is mediocre at best.
See, this is an interesting thing to me.
Many people knocked Rogue One because of a perceived lack of character development. And some have thrashed out missives in their mum's basement that the same applies to TFA, and therefore all the new trilogy.
Except, they're forgetting we knew very little about the characters in the original trilogy. If you properly sit down and think, you can begin to figure out what you know from the film, and what we've learnt from every other source. It gets even harder when you limit your knowledge to the film release schedule!
Many people knocked Rogue One because of a perceived lack of character development. And some have thrashed out missives in their mum's basement that the same applies to TFA, and therefore all the new trilogy.
Except, they're forgetting we knew very little about the characters in the original trilogy.
I agree. I get a good laugh every time someone complains "how does Rey/Fin know how to fly a ship" and I'm like "how did Luke know how to fly an X-Wing?" Farm boy got more kills on the Death Star than the "so precise" Storm Troopers and people want to complain about Rey knowing how to swing a laser sword when we already saw her swing a wacky bow staff thing. I can see it a bit in Rogue one, cause I feel like at least two of the characters didn't really need to be in the film but they took up space anyway, but I didn't think R1s cast was anymore shallow than any of the other characters.
The only explanation we get about Luke's piloting skill is that he already had his "T-16", whatever that was. Essentially, it's like saying that an F-15 has the same controls as a single-seat Cessna, and that if you can fly the latter, the former will be fine. Utter nonsense, but the film just tosses out the line and carries on, so it's OK.
Essentially, Star Wars treats single-seat fighters and small freighters as if they're cars and pickups and vans.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: they're forgetting we knew very little about the characters in the original trilogy
ANH sufficiently characterizes the protagonists: Luke is a wide-eyed hayseed from nowhere, Han is a smuggler who owes money to a crimelord, Leia is a politician trying to overthrow the Empire. The audience doesn't need exhaustive biographical information. To the contrary, characterization should be concise and direct. Because the point is for the protagonists to have comprehensible, relatable motivations. Contrast these simple, effective characterizations with Blind Kung Fu Man and Mr. Big gun in R1. They are Guardians of the Whills and BKFM, in contrast to his comrade Mr Big Gun, has not lost his faith in the Force. What's a Guardian of the Whills? What are the Whills? What does the Force religion teach? Why would Mr. Big Gun have a crisis of faith while BKFM doesn't? None of this is touched on at all in R1, which is no surprise - there's no time to go into all that. The result is, I have only the very weakest sense of who either of these characters are or why they do anything. It's not just that I don't care about them; there's nothing for me to care about.
This was a mistake but it wasn't an accident. Disney isn't just making these films to sell movie tickets. The larger point is to revise and expand the SW IP. The committee of marketing analysts and accountants who design these products wants to emphasize the entire licensing web. So they introduce a character or concept in one channel and expand on that in various other channels.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: they're forgetting we knew very little about the characters in the original trilogy
Luke is a wide-eyed hayseed from nowhere, Han is a smuggler who owes money to a crimelord, Leia is a politician trying to overthrow the Empire.
Blind Kung Fu Man and Mr. Big gun in R1. They are Guardians of the {Temple}, in contrast to his comrade Mr Big Gun, has not lost his faith in the Force.
The audience doesn't need exhaustive biographical information. To the contrary, characterization should be concise and direct.
I shuffled your stuff around a bit to show that the guys in R1 got just as much characterization as Han, Luke, and Leia in your analysis. Therefore, by your own admission, R1 characters were just fine for the needs of the movie.
So you re-wrote my post to prove that you missed my point.
"The audience doesn't need exhaustive biographical information. To the contrary, characterization should be concise and direct. Because the point is for the protagonists to have comprehensible, relatable motivations."
Manchu wrote: So you re-wrote my post to prove that you missed my point.
"The audience doesn't need exhaustive biographical information. To the contrary, characterization should be concise and direct. Because the point is for the protagonists to have comprehensible, relatable motivations."
But they did, didn't they?
Jyn Erso was honouring the dying wishes of her Father who she idolised, and the values and sense of morality that he instilled in her. Galen Erso was following his conscience. The monk guy felt he was serving the will of the Force. His bodyguard buddy was protecting his best friend (basically a Chewbacca life debt type of character). The Imperial Pilot was honouring his Friend Galen Erso, and following his own conscience. The Captain/sniper guy was an idealistic Rebel fighting for the cause. The Droid is a Droid.
The Imperial Commandant type guy was an ambitious career Imperial, climbing the ranks at whatever cost necessary. Vader is Vader.
No, BKFM and Mr. Big Gun did not have comprehensible, relatable motives.
We know they are Guardians of the Whills but (in addition to the audience not knowing what "the Whills" is? are?) they don't seem to be guarding anything. We have no idea what they believe or why. We have no idea what "trusting the Force" means to them. This is actually why the big "trust in the Force" scene makes no sense and has no emotional meaning. He walks to the Plot Device and doesn't get shot. Then he pushes the button and gets shot. So why did the Force protect him up til he pushed the button? Are we talking about the Force or just the script writer? The script writer needed him to get to the button under fire. "So the Force did it."
Contrast this to the "trust the Force" scene in ANH: this scene was set up earlier in the movie when we see Ben train Luke. So it made sense later on, that if Luke trusted in the Force, rather than his targeting computer, that he could - as Ben said - reach out with his feelings and make the shot. Because this makes sense to the audience (set up/pay off), the audience can see how Luke has developed as a character over the course of his arc: he wanted to be part of something bigger and learn the ways of the Force - and when the moment came, he embraced it. What do we learn about BKFM when he walks up to the Plot Device chanting? The answer is Nothing. He's been chanting like that the whole time. Nothing impactful is going on and it has no meaning, other than simply advancing the plot and disposing of a now-unnecessary ancillary character.
Characters with clear motivations tend to be more relatable, more understandable, and therefore more interesting than characters with unclear motivations. R1 really proves this point. The strongest character is Krennic, partially because he has a clear agenda.
This isn't the only measure of good characters. But it is very important, especially for tracing a development arc. For example, Snarky Robot is enjoyable thanks to his wise cracks. But why does he do anything that he does? Programming? His own choice? We don't know and that diminishes the death scene of this otherwise engaging character.
- They believe in a religion the Empire is trying to repress, so they resist it.
- Chirrut, if you'll excuse the pun, has blind faith as his primary motive, while Baze is arguably more interested in staying true to his friend than to the Force.
- Both of them believe the Empire is evil.
As for Chirrut being protected until his death, it makes perfect sense. He believes the Force is guiding him towards a specific purpose, comes to the realisation that this purpose is to play a part in the larger victory against the Empire by performing one crucial action, and once this purpose has been fulfilled, his work is done. He says as much himself. 'All is as The Force wills it.' The Force, as a guiding hand (at least as he envisions it) protects him as long as it needs to until his job is done, at which point he dies content. Baze dies moments later having reconciled his faith in The Force and his faith in his friend, having witnessed the latter essentially perform a 'miracle' under the influence of the former.
It all makes perfect sense within the rules of the universe.
R1 does not explain that the Empire is repressing any religion. Neither character has any lines revealing their political positions. BKFM "has faith" but the meaning of this is completely unexplained and unexplored by the movie.
Your interpretation of the blind faith scene is fine. But the film called R1 does nothing to set that up. For example, BKFM could have been characterized as searching for his purpose. Then we could have a scene where he comes to a realization. But that's not the scene we actually have because there was no set up.
Why does it make sense that he would get shot after pushing the button? Imagine this: Luke trusts the Force, turns off his targeting computer, reaches out with his feelings, makes the shot, the torpedoes go in - and then his X-Wing gets shot by a TIE Fighter and he is killed. "All is as the Force wills it," is not a sufficient explanation.
Mr Big Gun gets angry and starts killing people before being killed by a stray grenade. Now with him, we have some set up: for whatever unknown reasons the film can't be bothered to explain, Mr. Big Gun is disenchanted with his mysterious religion that the film cannot be bothered to explain. When he sees BKFM die he recovers some of his faith. So that would be the time for pay off. But instead the movie has him killed by a stray grenade after he shoots some goons who are not obstacles to the plot in any way, shape, or form. Shrug, I guess.
It's Star Wars. The explanation is the rest of Star Wars. It's a standalone film, but you can't take it in a vacuum.
Do you really need R1 to spell out that the Empire is against anyone who believes in The Force and the teachings of The Jedi? That's been there since Admiral Motti mocked Vader's 'sorcerer's ways' and Jedi past in ANH. Chirrut and Baze made their political positions quite clear when between the two of them, they murdered a platoon of Stormtroopers. It's clear from the writing/directing/acting in Chirrut's final scene that he's realised his purpose and resigned himself to his fate.
Baze dies to a stray grenade after attempting to avenge his fallen friend, which can be read as either a reflection of how The Force has always been shown to work (use it to seek vengeance, you'll meet a sticky end) or highlighting the fact that even with The Force in play, this is still a war and people still die due to bad luck and chance. It's a counterpoint to Chirrut's miraculous survival which hammers home that not everyone gets to be the hero.
Yeah call me crazy but I think movies that substitute setting - or in this case, a brand of IP - for characterization are bad.
It's not enough to have BKFM endlessly chant a line about the Force to establish what he, as a character (rather than an action figure), is about and why he does stuff.
Are you seriously arguing that Mr. Big Gun died because the Force punished him for being angry that his buddy died?
I'm saying that's definitely one way of reading that scene. Time and time again, Star Wars has shown that a) The Force can influence all manner of 'random' events and b) those who invoke it in the name of revenge meet unfortunate demises. So yes, him chanting 'The Force is with me, and I am one with the Force' while violently and pointlessly gunning down the troopers who killed his friend (as you say, it serves no tactical purpose, thus it's clearly just an attempt to inflict pain and take revenge) is deeply hypocritical and it's not unreasonable to suggest that it's a form of poetic justice being dished out by the Force's guiding hand.
It's not substituting brand for characterisation, it's assuming that someone who's going to watch the 8th Star Wars film to be released over the last 40 years has at least some knowledge of how Star Wars as a setting works, and doesn't need to rehash 'Light Side, Jedi= Good, Dark Side, Sith, Empire= Bad' every single time.
But at the same time, you seem to be suggesting that I should understand BKFM's motivations because I have seen other films where people talking about trusting the Force are Good Guys.
I'm not seeing the conflict there. Those who have been shown to put their faith in the Force have typically (though not always) done so with good intentions. That doesn't mean any time someone invokes faith in the Force that they are either a good guy or going to be protected in any way. Baze invokes the Force for good while carrying out an act of evil, and thus it's no wonder it didn't protect him as it did Chirrut.
It all depends on how you look at The Force on the spectrum between 'it's a guiding force with a will of its own, which steers everyone in the universe towards their destiny and acts through Force users' and 'the Force has no will, and is bent into shape by the will of Force users'. From everything we've seen, it's somewhere in between; predetermined destiny does seem to be a thing and The Force aids and pushes people towards fulfilling it (Chirrut, Luke's trench run), but equally, exceptionally powerful individuals manage to use it to achieve their own ends (Anakin's creation, Palpatine clouding the Jedi's perception if that's still canon).
Paradigm wrote: IPalpatine clouding the Jedi's perception if that's still canon.
It is, but now he's got the help of a Dark Side nexus or something being directly under the Jedi Temple that he's also using to help manipulate them, or something. Its dumb.
If R1 is really showing us how the Force is punishing Mr. Big Gun then it is an even worse movie than I thought. That is most emotionally deaf interpretation of the scene imaginable. It is supported by nothing previously explained or portrayed in R1. I don't think there is any other scene in a SW movie that shows the Force punishing someone for shooting storm troopers in anger and sorrow (Luke on the Death Star after Vader kills Ben, for example).
I flat out do not accept that a stand-alone movie like R1 should be let off for failing to establish its characters just because in other SW movies there are people who "trust in the Force." BKFM is not in other SW movies. He's only in R1. If R1 fails to establish his character, that's all we got.
Manchu wrote: But at the same time, you seem to be suggesting that I should understand BKFM's motivations because I have seen other films where people talking about trusting the Force are Good Guys.
Or you could go with the information actually presented: they're temple guardians whose temple has been ransacked- those crystals the Empire is carrying off. So ex temple guards fighting back against the empire that sacked their temple. Huzzah, actual motivation, established shortly after they're introduced.
That's just as good if not better than untrained farm boy, smuggler with heart of eventually gold, and Princess who apparently inherited a noble tile from her father the elected Senator because the boys need a princess to rescue from the tower, even if she hauls her own weight for a couple scenes, then stands around biting her lip in a command center and hands out medals and creepy smiles.
Manchu wrote: But at the same time, you seem to be suggesting that I should understand BKFM's motivations because I have seen other films where people talking about trusting the Force are Good Guys.
Or you could go with the information actually presented: they're temple guardians whose temple has been ransacked- those crystals the Empire is carrying off. So ex temple guards fighting back against the empire that sacked their temple. Huzzah, actual motivation, established shortly after they're introduced.
That's just as good if not better than untrained farm boy, smuggler with heart of eventually gold, and Princess who apparently inherited a noble tile from her father the elected Senator because the boys need a princess to rescue from the tower, even if she hauls her own weight for a couple scenes, then stands around biting her lip in a command center and hands out medals and creepy smiles.
Yes, exactly. To say that these characters have clear motivations when given broad strokes, while others are not when given with the same style of broadstrokes is disengenious.
Now, not liking the broadstrokes that were used to "motivate" those characters is a different argument, but saying they were not as good is just not true. I mean, untrained farm boy isn;t a motivation.... it is an archetype. No different than BKFM and Big Gun guy.
Not really because a golly gee farmboy living in the middle of nowhere and his yearning to see the wider world doesn't require any knowledge of any other movie or anything that the movie is responsible for explaining. "Guardian of the Whills" is meaningless to the audience. "Protectors of the temple" is equally meaningless. What's the temple? Why is it significant? Something to do with yet another brought-up-then-abandoned bit of non-exposition, the kyber crystal. OK so the temple is connected to these crystals and the Empire wants the crystals so therefore the guardians of the temple don't like the Empire. We're still missing any connection between the crystals and the Force or any explanation of what BKFM belives/what Mr Big Gun no longer believes. Tellingly, even R1 doesn't care about these topics because I have just addressed them at greater length than the actual film.
Easy E wrote: [untrained farm boy isn;t a motivation.... it is an archetype.
Whoa there, everyone knows Luke wanted to be part of something bigger because he was a nobody from nowhere.
No, there's more - that's the initial set up. Then Ben offers him that chance, which he declines. Then he sees his hime and his family have been destroyed and again he wants to leave, but now with a purpose rather than just a sentiment. Already from the start, Luke's motivation becomes developed.
Easy E wrote: Only because we are dealing in Archetypes.
Yeah, there is a bit of dialog about leaving the farm and going tot he Academy, but that is about it.
l
Yep. He wanted to be an Imperial Officer. (give that a think for a minute, really let it settle in there) If there is another academy for something else, we're not given any indications as to what it might be.
Then his family is killed, and now he wants revenge, and he gets swept along by stronger characters, and put in a pilot's seat like he always dreamed, with a ghost space wizard riding shotgun for reasons.
Next movie he's told that revenge is probably bad, and wanting adventure and excitement is bad (but his new life consists solely of adventure and excitement, so...whatever, Yoda) so he thinks he's setting out to get himself killed, but his friends are in trouble so he has to go.
Third, he finds out he probably has to die on a new trip, but can get his level up if he kills or redeems his father, and goes with redeem his father because... mass murder is secretly fine if you say you're sorry later*. Or if your kids say that they're fine with it, I guess.
Gosh, those clear motivations.
*though Vader is never actually sorry, he was just fatally wounded while killing his boss, after failing to kill his son. Completely in accordance with the way of the Sith, he took advantage of his master's distraction. Not that anyone knew anything about the Sith at the time, it was a religion with no real tenets... Huh, so was being a Jedi in fact. Vader was all that left of their religion, supposedly, and mostly what he did was choke people, particularly for lack of faith.
I'd think the Empire killing off the Jedi, hunting them down, and then proceeding to strip the temple of kyber crystals is clear repression. Doesn't he have a line along the lines of there is nothing to guard (at the temple) anymore?
Related TLJ. I find myself surprisingly unexcited for the upcoming movie. Something just seems off. I've been rereading the Thrawn Trilogy and I can't help but think the PT/ST jacked up what could have been six really good movies if Lucas had had someone there to rein him in. As much as I like Kylo Ren the direction of the ST just seems really off and incredibly politically implausible.
trexmeyer wrote: I'd think the Empire killing off the Jedi, hunting them down, and then proceeding to strip the temple of kyber crystals is clear repression. Doesn't he have a line along the lines of there is nothing to guard (at the temple) anymore?
Yes, he does. Which fleshes him out just as much as any other character in SW.
Someone posted an interview with Gollum's (Snokes) actor on another site. It is... irritating.
Basically the First Order has unlimited resources, because reasons.
The Resisty is the Republic's military, because the writers/directors are idiots.
And Snoke is Evil because reasons... that TLJ won't explore.
Fun!
New thread or old, I'd like to chime in with the polite request that everyone be VERY CAREFUL with spoilers here. Obviously, please spoiler tag everything even remotely relevant to the film, but also keep in mind that if there's a spoiler at the top of the post, it will show up when hovered over (easy to do by mistake while scrolling though) and things like that, so please just be mindful of that sort of thing.
And with that, I'm bowing out now until my mind has been blown one again by Star Warsy goodness.... And man am I hyped, especially having just seen an initial reaction from the premiere that called it the best Star Wars film ever.... High praise, let's hope it lives up to it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So, from a Mod point of view, would a second The Last Jedi thread intended to contain spoilers from those that’ve seen it be ok?
It would be properly labelled so nobody can accidentally blunder in?
Would just be cool to have somewhere to froth over it.
This is definitely the thread for trailers for this movie.
Most modern day movie goers know that most trailers show too much, so they should also know to be careful when viewing any trailers ever...
Anyone still running around in here once this movie hits theaters has either seen it, doesn't care, or is being so reckless that no one talking about the film here should care.
Don't weep for the stupid you'll be crying all day
The early spoilers I'm hearing are so terrible that I am holding off on getting tickets. If they turn out to be true I might even not bother watching it at all.
trexmeyer wrote: The early spoilers I'm hearing are so terrible that I am holding off on getting tickets. If they turn out to be true I might even not bother watching it at all.
Breotan wrote: I believe the embargo is lifted on Tuesday.
I'm pretty sure that's what Charlie at Emergency Awesome on YouTube said. I've also seen the tweets from the people that attended the premier and they've all been generally good.
I have tickets to an 8:00 show at my local Alamo Drafthouse for this Thursday and I can't wait!
It's not MY source. There's stuff on Reddit and a few other sites out there. Including confirmation of spoilers by a user that leaked the entire JL plot quite a bit in advance. IE JL was released worldwide Nov 17? so about 25 days ago. 82 days ago he
Spoiler:
said Batman and the team intentionally bring back Superman and the best action sequence was confirmed Superman vs the team.
It's not MY source. There's stuff on Reddit and a few other sites out there. Including confirmation of spoilers by a user that leaked the entire JL plot quite a bit in advance. IE JL was released worldwide Nov 17? so about 25 days ago. 82 days ago he
Spoiler:
said Batman and the team intentionally bring back Superman and the best action sequence was confirmed Superman vs the team.
Among other things.
Honestly I don't think that's really evidence of anything. It was blatantly obvious that was going to happen, and anyone whose seen enough films/read enough books/is already familiar with all the other times this exact thing happened in the comics could have predicted it would happen and thrown it out there. It's so obvious I challenge that it doesn't even belong in spoilers especially since a certain logo was all over toys and promotional material for the film weeks before it actually hit theaters. I looked at the thread but most of it is just back and forth comments over whether or not the OP is lying and then I stopped scrolling XD
It's not MY source. There's stuff on Reddit and a few other sites out there. Including confirmation of spoilers by a user that leaked the entire JL plot quite a bit in advance. IE JL was released worldwide Nov 17? so about 25 days ago. 82 days ago he
Spoiler:
said Batman and the team intentionally bring back Superman and the best action sequence was confirmed Superman vs the team.
Among other things.
Honestly I don't think that's really evidence of anything. It was blatantly obvious that was going to happen, and anyone whose seen enough films/read enough books/is already familiar with all the other times this exact thing happened in the comics could have predicted it would happen and thrown it out there. It's so obvious I challenge that it doesn't even belong in spoilers especially since a certain logo was all over toys and promotional material for the film weeks before it actually hit theaters. I looked at the thread but most of it is just back and forth comments over whether or not the OP is lying and then I stopped scrolling XD
He posted this as well...
Spoiler:
ViewerAnon posted this on SHH:
Wonder Woman and Cyborg are pretty similar to Black Widow and Hulk, without the romantic aspect. He's scared of the scope of his powers. He's getting stronger and doesn't know why. When we first meet him in an apartment, he's just learned he can fly for the first time. Diana is a calming presence, convincing him to trust the others and that he can control himself. He's always in conflict, especially when his Kryptonian suit keeps trying to attack Superman on its own.
Set piece 1: The bank scene, where a group of terrorists try to murder men, women, and children. Roose Bolton unloads an automatic rifle on the group (DIANA: They're children. ROOSE: And they always will be.), but she blocks every bullet.
Set piece 1A: Steppenwolf arrives with parademons through a portal and steals the mother box from the Amazonians. They try to play keep away with the box. As each Amazonian dies, she ties the box to an arrow and fires it to the woman in front of her. But Steppenwolf catches it and disappears with the box.
Set piece 1B: Atlantis. Steppenwolf shows up for the mother box. Mera tries to stop him but he throws her against the wall. Steppenwolf disappears with the box just as Aquaman arrives.
Set piece 2: Joe Morton and members of Star Labs are being held hostage by parademons as Steppenwolf searches for the human mother box. This is the first scene with the League together, minus Superman. Flash is freaked out because he's never gone into battle before. Batman tells him just to save one person. "What do I do after that??" "You'll know."
They manage to save the hostages (mainly Flash getting them out), but Steppenwolf overpowers the group. This is happening under Gotham harbor. An explosion causes a cave in and water to come rushing, but Aquaman appears and saves everybody (this is his first scene with the group). The bit from the trailer with Aquaman chuckling at Batman's costume is here, not with the bat signal. Look closely at the ground and you can see he's standing on rock.
Set piece 3: The resurrection of Superman, who is confused and attacks the JL team when they find him again by the broken statue. He grabs Batman ("Tell me... do you bleed?") and throws him into a police car. (There's a funny bit with Batman in pain on the ground saying, "Yeah, something is definitely broken.") Lois appears - Bruce apparently sent for her - and she hugs Clark. He then flies with her to the Kent farm, which has been sold.
Set piece 4: The final battle. Steppenwolf unites the three mother boxes at a nuclear power plant in Russia. The League arrives. He knocks them around. Superman turns up and turns the tide. (At one point, Flash and Superman race to save civilians. Flash gets to a family in a truck and pushes them to safety. He thinks he won, but he looks over and sees Superman is carrying a whole apartment building full of people.)
In the end, Steppenwolf, frightened, is attacked by parademons who kill him (FX were unfinished, but I think they drag him through a portal). His helmet clangs back to the ground.
Honestly I could have thrown all that together just from watching the trailers, paying attention to the casting, and then applying basic reasoning. The only thing that lends the guy credibility is if he accurately predicted some of that dialogue. I haven't seen JL, but I think the dialogue would be hard to know before hand through guess work.
Though this does make me want to experiment. No one open this unless you want my guesses maybe ruining the film;
Spoiler:
The "not-Hoth" scene will be the opening of the movie, with the rest of the film as a quasi-chase feature similar to Empire Strikes back because I figure they'll keep running with the rehashing of the original trilogy bit here. By that same bit, Luke will obviously be reluctant to train Rey until some force ghost or something convinces him otherwise. I'd say Poe and Fin go on another excellent adventure but I haven't seen anything in the trailers showing them working together. No idea what Poe will be doing but Fin will clearly go off with a new female character (who totally isn't all over the toys for this film at all) and do something important and there will be in love dodecahedron territory. Maybe retrieve Rey or find something the Resistance needs really badly. At some point Poe will do something stupid but brave again and from the trailers I predict Leia will not be happy with him when he does it. Rey shows back up towards the end, abandoning her training with Luke just like Luke did with Yoda and needs rescuing at some point.
Despite the trailers making it seem like she might I think Leia will survive the film but be resolved in some way to explain why she won't be around in Episode IX. Luke on the other hand, because I can't fathom them actually keeping focus on the new cast so long as he's alive, will die but he'll become one with the force or some such. Probably won't outright kill him cause I don't think they'll do him in like they did Han. He'll give Kylo a good spanking and then just putter out cause he's old or maybe just let it all go because he's ready to not be around anymore. Bit of an Obi-Wan moment but more epic to send off the character.
Given the most recent "Don't let anyone spoil this" trailer which is stupid as feth cause it basically is a spoiler I predict that Kylo and Rey play a little "will they won't they" trying to entice the other to their side. Doesn't work for either of them cause that's just too obvious but they end up in a quasi-alliance at some point cause they gotta keep Kylo from going full evil. I bet Snoke gets beat by the team up and then Rey and Ren go their own ways. Ren ends up advancing to control of the First Order while Rey leaves to join whatever is left of a shattered barely there at all Resistance with things looking somewhat bleak but everyone resolved with hope or some fluffy nonsense like that.
Someone just let me know how much I got right sometime
Voss wrote: The designers were bug people. (Probably). That doesn't mean the people working on the Death Star were- I think you're inventing this confrontational relationship a bit, as the Genosisaisans don't provide an out for the criticism, and nothing really suggests he created them to create that 'out'
In the director's commentary for AotC Lucas said he literally made them bug people to address that particular complaint.
But I do think one of the reasons Star Wars is so popular is because the fans are willing to think about it, and build the universe out of the bones presented on screen. If it were merely enjoyed, there wouldn't be prequels or sequels. It'd be largely forgotten like so many other sci-fi films.
Absolutely. And this is one thing that I will give Lucas credit for - he said he didn't worry too much about plot or story, his focus was to create characters and locations that would inspire kids to take and put in to their own stories. Dude nailed it there, not just with the concept but also with the delivery.
Which is why it shows how wrong he got it when years later he was inventing a bug people race in AotC for the express purpose of shutting down one fan's fun observation of contractors on the Death Star.
Yes, it is a ridiculous argument. It's applying modern war concerns of collateral damage and proportionality to a space opera about rescuing princesses, space wizards and blowing up planet destroying mega weapons. That's why its in a comedy movie. Because it's funny to apply real world logic to fantasy movie.
Which is the point, once Lucas puts his film out there the fans have run with it, taken it in all kinds of directions. Plenty of it was terrible (hands up if you've tried to play a grim dark grey Jedi rpg campaign, because I have and it was not good). But some of it is really fun, and some of it is really funny. But all of it comes out of loving the source material.
Lucas doesn't get that. He did once, because he gave us films that invited us to use his characters and locations to make our own stories, but then he stopped for some reason or another, and instead he started resenting other people finding stuff in his stories that he didn't intend. Bit of a shame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: ANH sufficiently characterizes the protagonists: Luke is a wide-eyed hayseed from nowhere, Han is a smuggler who owes money to a crimelord, Leia is a politician trying to overthrow the Empire. The audience doesn't need exhaustive biographical information. To the contrary, characterization should be concise and direct. Because the point is for the protagonists to have comprehensible, relatable motivations. Contrast these simple, effective characterizations with Blind Kung Fu Man and Mr. Big gun in R1. They are Guardians of the Whills and BKFM, in contrast to his comrade Mr Big Gun, has not lost his faith in the Force. What's a Guardian of the Whills? What are the Whills? What does the Force religion teach?
Exactly. Characterisation isn't about lots of background exposition, its about giving us a character with understandable motivation who approaches the events of the story in their own unique way.
As to the Whills, one draft of Star Wars was originally called "Adventures of the Starkiller as taken from the Journal of the Whills". Which is a quite an achievement as a film title, as not only is it too long somehow every single word of it makes me care less about the movie. Apparently its a book from the Star Wars universe that told the events of Star Wars. Because almost every script at one stage or another gets all meta and does something silly like that before dropping it by the end.
This was a mistake but it wasn't an accident.
That's a really good line and I'm going to steal it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Only because we are dealing in Archetypes.
Yeah, there is a bit of dialog about leaving the farm and going tot he Academy, but that is about it.
There's Luke looking in off in to distance as the twin suns set, as he dreams of a life in the stars, one of Star Wars best single moments. It's also one of the best bits of character development I've seen, because it not only tells me Luke's motivation, it also makes me want the same thing. That was some great story telling.
This is my least favorite week in nerddom. Tons of random theories and "comfirmations" and "leaks". Some of which could be true, most of it just trolls trying to get clicks.
I've heard some weird things and am not very good at avoiding spoilers (read: I don't really care to avoid spoilers because even if I know what's going to happen, I still feel its impact). I knew Han was going to die in TFA prior to seeing it, but nothing compares to sitting in the theatre and seeing it for yourself.
I'm pretty good at it - borne of practice from watching The Walking Dead.
Indeed, the only spoiler I managed not to dodge this week has been one for The Walking Dead - thanks to the FB sidebar of 'suggested stories which yet again you in fact have no interest in whatsoever'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reviews are out.
Seems those Hipsters claiming 'seen it all in the trailers' are wrong, again.
As are those claiming from the trailers it's obvs just a rehash of Empire....
The media reviews have got me worried. 4 stars for The Last Jedi
Why is this a concern for me? Because TFA got 5 stars across the board, and that was a burning sack of horsegak of a film, IMO, easily the worst in the franchise.
So, if they're saying that Last Jedi ain't as good as TFA...
As you get older, you realise that time and money are in short supply.
As a result, I have to carefully pick and choose films, and reliable reviews from trusted sources, can help with the decision making.
Or I can just wait a few months and get a pirate DVD version from someone.
Just kidding, just kidding. support your local copyright laws and give the artists their reward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Even if its as crap as The Phantom Menace, its still worth at least one viewing...because its Star Wars.
I've probably said this a hundred times before, but for all its faults, and they are many, Phantom Menance is miles ahead of TFA.
Lucas gave us new landscapes, some pod racing, tried new stuff, a new story, a half-decent score, which resulted in PM having the Star Wars 'feel' in a way that TFA never did.
Phantom's heart was in the right place, it was poor execution that let it down.
TFA in comparision, is a souless, rehashed, travesty of a film, dreamed up by a Disney committee with the soul aim of squeezing every last penny out of the public, for as long as they can.
I won't deny I've enjoyed SW in the past, but these days I couldn't really care that much for it, so why am I posting about it, comes the obvious reply.
Because it;s everywhere, and it's infested our media and popular culture to an unhealthy degree.
I pick up The Times, a once serious British newspaper, and I expect serious analysis on world politics, economics etc etc
and what do I get? Bloody Star Wars!
I turn on the TV for BBC news, a once serious and respected news outlet. We're sorry to interupt our report on the war in Yemen. Who cares if kids are dying, who cares about geo-politics.
There's a man dressed like Darth fething Vader, and he's been standing outside this cinema for 3 weeks to see the new SW film, and he got there by pushing a full-scale replica of a Tie-fighter, 10,000 miles from the south pole, or some other fething horsegak like that!
Everywhere I go, everything I read, or watch, even when I'm avoiding it, it's Star Wars, bloody Star wars!
Rant over! and good luck to anybody else who likes it. It's clearly not for me anymore!
Posting the spoilers here just so that when it comes out we can all check back and see if what I heard is actually true.
Spoiler:
Are you sure you want to?
Rey's parents are random junkers who abandoned her because FO was hunting down force sensitive children. Sees this in a vision with Ren?
Rey is captured and tortured by Snoke. Kylo Ren intervenes, kills Snoke (apparently) and the two fight off Snoke's guards to escape. No backstory on Snoke. Ren goes to be the leader/Emperor of the First Order basically.
Luke initially refuses to train Rey, finally concedes. Rey leaves to help the Resistance and Luke stays behind. Luke later has to reconnect with the Force to help her and somehow "projects" himself across the galaxy to help the Resistance escape Ren's onslaught. He does, but collapses from the effort. Back on Acht-To Luke seemingly weeps joyously after having regained his faith and vanishes a la Obi-Wan and Yoda.
Everywhere I go, everything I read, or watch, even when I'm avoiding it, it's Star Wars, bloody Star wars!
If it makes you feel better, your two princes are apparently in the film as stormtroopers.
Ok, so that probably won't make you feel better. But all it co-opted was a very boring report by some scientists who sort of claim that most yeti sightings are probably bears (according to hair samples), but that doesn't mean they're going to rule out the existence of actual yetis.
Thanks, BBC America!
Why is this a concern for me? Because TFA got 5 stars across the board, and that was a burning sack of horsegak of a film, IMO, easily the worst in the franchise.
So, if they're saying that Last Jedi ain't as good as TFA...
Star ratings are meaningless. I like TFA (and having watched all eight films back to back, it's definitely superior to the prequels). if you give it 1/5 and I avoid watching it for that reason, then I've done myself a disservice. read some reviews, and see if you agree with the reasons for the ratings. Get familiar with reviewers, then you'll learn which ones have tastes that align with yours, and they'll be better for basing your judgements on than fifty anonymous internet "ratings".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Off to the IMAX on Saturday lunchtime. Guess I'll need to stay off the Internet for a couple of days.
Or accept that your average reviewer likely isn't as into Star Wars as the average Star Wars fan - and that can colour the distinction between it being a good movie (well shot, decently acted, no plot holes etc) and a great Star Wars movie.
Me, I am massively overexcite for tonight. Waited so long to see this, and now I'm a mere.......13 hour and 13 minutes (ominous) from seeing it on the Big Screen.
And here's an interesting side though, if the Han Solo movie remains a May release, then next Christmas we'll be able to binge All Of Star Wars on our tellysetboxtvs - including Clone Wars and Rebels.
But on a serious note....I'm mostly hoping Phasma gets more screen time. She was a late addition to TFA, and I'm a big fan of the actress. Here's hoping she gets to be as much of a badbottom in this as she is in Game of Thrones.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: But on a serious note....I'm mostly hoping Phasma gets more screen time. She was a late addition to TFA, and I'm a big fan of the actress. Here's hoping she gets to be as much of a badbottom in this as she is in Game of Thrones.
Spoiler:
From what I've heard consistently from various reports, don't get your hopes up about Phasma. I'm talking Boba Fett levels of uselessness, sadly
Why is this a concern for me? Because TFA got 5 stars across the board, and that was a burning sack of horsegak of a film, IMO, easily the worst in the franchise.
So, if they're saying that Last Jedi ain't as good as TFA...
Star ratings are meaningless. I like TFA (and having watched all eight films back to back, it's definitely superior to the prequels). if you give it 1/5 and I avoid watching it for that reason, then I've done myself a disservice. read some reviews, and see if you agree with the reasons for the ratings. Get familiar with reviewers, then you'll learn which ones have tastes that align with yours, and they'll be better for basing your judgements on than fifty anonymous internet "ratings".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Off to the IMAX on Saturday lunchtime. Guess I'll need to stay off the Internet for a couple of days.
The prequels were original and telling a story of the origins of our favorite characters. TFA was a new hope do over with and with a death star that isn't even cool "star killer base" OMG. There is no way you can honestly say it's better than the prequels.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Still totes worth doing, as I find it helps cleanse the brain of The Phantom Menace quite nicely, as it makes up for all that waste time.
Hmmm...can I get my hands on the two Ewok films, and as many episodes of Droids and Ewoks as possible, really go all out?
Why would you even watch the prequels if you feel that way? Wasting more time to clear out already wasted time is...well, it doesn't add weight to the narrative of the thread where only bad meanies could dislike TFA, and not discerning viewers.
The Ewok films used to be on YouTube. Now the only option to buy seems to be $60 DVds? I feel like the advice I want to give could start another Chinese recasting debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Can't get that other than bootleg piracy, and that's something I opt out of every time.
But if it's officially released, sure!
YouTube has enough snippets of it through various reviews and highlight vids that you should have no problem viewing it in its entirety, albeit not in linear order.
Well saw the film. Not bad, not good. Would be better without original trilogy imo. Now too match rehash. Though leaves me hope next film can't be rehash of originals but new.
Had it's moments. Loved first Luke scene and whole audience cracked laughter there.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Still totes worth doing, as I find it helps cleanse the brain of The Phantom Menace quite nicely, as it makes up for all that waste time.
Hmmm...can I get my hands on the two Ewok films, and as many episodes of Droids and Ewoks as possible, really go all out?
Why would you even watch the prequels if you feel that way? Wasting more time to clear out already wasted time is...well, it doesn't add weight to the narrative of the thread where only bad meanies could dislike TFA, and not discerning viewers.
I did it because I've not seen the prequels since they came out in the cinema, and I wanted to see if my opinion had subsequently been affected by public opinion. Turns out I still don't like 'em. I also wanted to see if the full story works as one large narrative. IMO, the TV series are good, but they spoil the flow of the films.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this may or may not be of interest. From the follow-up videos to the ones in the SFDebris link I posted earlier, Rotten Tomatoes scores for the first six episodes of Star Wars, based on contemporary professional reviews:
Star Wars: 79%
Revenge of the Sith: 68%
The Empire Strikes Back 52%
The Phantom Menace 40%
Attack of the Clones 37%
Return of the Jedi 31%
Why is this a concern for me? Because TFA got 5 stars across the board, and that was a burning sack of horsegak of a film, IMO, easily the worst in the franchise.
So, if they're saying that Last Jedi ain't as good as TFA...
Star ratings are meaningless. I like TFA (and having watched all eight films back to back, it's definitely superior to the prequels). if you give it 1/5 and I avoid watching it for that reason, then I've done myself a disservice. read some reviews, and see if you agree with the reasons for the ratings. Get familiar with reviewers, then you'll learn which ones have tastes that align with yours, and they'll be better for basing your judgements on than fifty anonymous internet "ratings".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Off to the IMAX on Saturday lunchtime. Guess I'll need to stay off the Internet for a couple of days.
The prequels were original and telling a story of the origins of our favorite characters. TFA was a new hope do over with and with a death star that isn't even cool "star killer base" OMG. There is no way you can honestly say it's better than the prequels.
No comedy combat robots in TFA,
No Jar Jar fethin Binks -
The prequels are like jazz: you have to watch the scenes that aren't in the film.
Honestly, I can grok the perspective that the prequels had originality, tried to paint a big picture and refresh the pool of Star Wars ideas. Unfortunately, I tend to fall more in with the "they suck" crowd. But I tend to judge movies more harshly than many...
I didn't realize the earlier video was from SF Debris. I'll have to watch it now. Chick is one of those reviewers I might not always agree with, but I respect his opinions because they are well thought and explained.
A beautiful, terrible movie with some great scenes and unexpected twists, but also highly self referential with annoying Disney-esque humor sums it up for me.
Antario wrote: A beautiful, terrible movie with some great scenes and unexpected twists, but also highly self referential with annoying Disney-esque humor sums it up for me.
Just watched it, and this sums up my feelings about it. Some reveals that I liked but slso tons of wasted opportunities. Were it not for the overbearing, misplaced humor it would be a mediocre movie. Disney made sure its a pretty terrible one.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Still totes worth doing, as I find it helps cleanse the brain of The Phantom Menace quite nicely, as it makes up for all that waste time.
Hmmm...can I get my hands on the two Ewok films, and as many episodes of Droids and Ewoks as possible, really go all out?
Why would you even watch the prequels if you feel that way? Wasting more time to clear out already wasted time is...well, it doesn't add weight to the narrative of the thread where only bad meanies could dislike TFA, and not discerning viewers.
I did it because I've not seen the prequels since they came out in the cinema, and I wanted to see if my opinion had subsequently been affected by public opinion. Turns out I still don't like 'em. I also wanted to see if the full story works as one large narrative. IMO, the TV series are good, but they spoil the flow of the films.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this may or may not be of interest. From the follow-up videos to the ones in the SFDebris link I posted earlier, Rotten Tomatoes scores for the first six episodes of Star Wars, based on contemporary professional reviews: Star Wars: 79% Revenge of the Sith: 68% The Empire Strikes Back 52% The Phantom Menace 40% Attack of the Clones 37% Return of the Jedi 31%
How is the Empire Strikes Back only 52%? That movie had some great scenes and provided the necessary dramatic elements after the Rebellion's victory in A New Hope. Also surprised that the Return of the Jedi was only 31%. I mean, I know it has Ewoks, but that's a little harsh, no? And really, revenge of the Sith is 68%? That movie with Darth Edgelord Skywalker and the Nooooooo scene? Wut?
Just seen the last jedi and I was pretty unimpressed, I was not expecting much after TFA but the comedic relief (most of which was not funny) every ten seconds was pretty grating as was the lack of in universe consistency. Space battles were good and loved the red dudes which were badass for mooks. Hamill really killed it as well.
Just seen the last jedi and I was pretty unimpressed, I was not expecting much after TFA but the comedic relief (most of which was not funny) every ten seconds was pretty grating as was the lack of in universe consistency. Space battles were good and loved the red dudes which were badass for mooks. Hamill really killed it as well.
Well he did say they were contemporary reviews (as in people who've gone back today/recently and reviewed the films.
Now stop and think for a moment about why someone would go back and review movies that are older than I am
Even as a contemporary review it doesn't make sense. I repeat, 68% for revenge of the sith is just wrong.
I guess 52% for Empire Strikes Back makes sense for that time. It was a huge tonal shift and did end on a cliff hanger. I personally liked it for that and thought it provided a good contrast with the previous film, but I can see how it would have been shocking for people at that time.
I guess they really hated Ewoks back then. Can't say I blame them
Just seen the last jedi and I was pretty unimpressed, I was not expecting much after TFA but the comedic relief (most of which was not funny) every ten seconds was pretty grating as was the lack of in universe consistency. Space battles were good and loved the red dudes which were badass for mooks. Hamill really killed it as well.
Well he did say they were contemporary reviews (as in people who've gone back today/recently and reviewed the films.
Now stop and think for a moment about why someone would go back and review movies that are older than I am
Sorry, no; Reviews contemporary to the films; so, reviews from 1977 from Star Wars, from 1980 for ESB, etc. It also only looks at equivalent sources of reviews. For example, in 1977, the reviews that RT have records of were from newspapers and TV reviewers, so for the modern films, they only took reviews from the same sources. When they took all reviews, the prequels scored higher (83% for RotS, 68 for TPM, 63 for AotC)
Just seen the last jedi and I was pretty unimpressed, I was not expecting much after TFA but the comedic relief (most of which was not funny) every ten seconds was pretty grating as was the lack of in universe consistency. Space battles were good and loved the red dudes which were badass for mooks. Hamill really killed it as well.
Well he did say they were contemporary reviews (as in people who've gone back today/recently and reviewed the films.
Now stop and think for a moment about why someone would go back and review movies that are older than I am
Sorry, no; Reviews contemporary to the films; so, reviews from 1977 from Star Wars, from 1980 for ESB, etc. It also only looks at equivalent sources of reviews. For example, in 1977, the reviews that RT have records of were from newspapers and TV reviewers, so for the modern films, they only took reviews from the same sources. When they took all reviews, the prequels scored higher (83% for RotS, 68 for TPM, 63 for AotC)
*contemplates total brain failure*
I do remember Revenge of the Sith getting goodish reviews when it came out but I think that's just because it was so much better than the two films that came before it while still being pretty bad. It just looked really good, and still does really, in comparison.
I think that on the whole Revenge was a more concise film. It was still bad, but Attack of the Clones every time I rewatch it just reminds me that the Jedi really were just too dumb to live. That entire plot was migraine inducing, convoluted, and just plain forced. I mean what sane human being reacts like Padme to finding out her "friend" just committed a mass murder? And she's supposed to be a pacifist! There's a lot in the prequels that plays out like horrible fan fiction and I think Attack of the Clones has some of the worst of it while also having great moments like Chris Lee, Yoda kicking butt, and seeing a horde of Jedi on screen in a fight.
Mediocrity is a very, very generous term. I will admit though that I have quite enjoyed watching the Fall of the Jedi fan edits of the prequels, they still are not great but they are definitely a hell of a lot more watchable.
Its a cracking film on the whole. The two main plot lines are very satisfying, and feel well paced. The side story in Kanto Bight doesn’t quite work for me, but then we’re not there for very long.
Some bits of the humour verge toward Jar Jar Buffoonery, but are few and far between. Certainly it’s rare enough that anyone who claims the Porg On The Windshield bit ruins the movie is just seeking attention.
The battle scenes are just superb, and the opening ups the stakes very nicely.
Favourite bit for me was Yoda’s Star turn, and Snoke himself.
Overall, I don’t see many people being disappointed with this. Not unless it’s a conscious decision to be so because Edge Lord.
First you are rude and condescending, I am a massive Star Wars fan, my Avatar is from a pretty obscure part of the lore/EU and I didn't like the film. Not because I am an "Edgelord", but because it lacked internal consistency, the characters were for the most part crude caricatures with very little development. Snoke, the new badass lord of the Sith had a stupid accident that doesn't serve the franchise in any way. Reys whole built up back story is non existent, Jedi suddenly develop new super powers for no apparent reason, if they could do that before then how the hell did 66 happen. The comedy was so poor it even devolved to your mum jokes, the silly/cute bits I can stand, but that type of gak has no place in SW. New super weapons! hurray! that made no more sense than the last... were used in place of any sort of realistic approach (like launching the 300 odd fighters you have on your capital ships when blockading a planet, 12 will do...). Yoda... Ackbar... Hyperspace tracking, that's new. Apparently it possible due to some macguffin that they couldn't even be assed to explain in any way, shape or form beyond its from that glowey gak behind the door (even though we know a tiny transponder is needed). Oh and being explosively decompressed has a few hours of hospital care needed to cure (not even in a bacta tank). Casino planet? why? worked for the whole hope vibe at the end but otherwise not. Laser weapons now travel in arcs as well... Ad infimum.
But, as I said Mark Hamill was excellent really well played, consistent and well developed. Graphics as always are spectacular, loved the way they tied the unnecessary trench run with the DS from RTJ. The FO army was pretty damn spectacular and the Praetorian guard rocked. The Mon Cal cruiser bit at the end was also pretty damn good, TIE/vn as well. I liked how Poe developed but not how.
I just find it really annoying how they feel that working within the rules of the universe don't matter and after how gritty RO was that they felt in necessary to produce that.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: So, to recap, the only positive review in this thread is from the guy who rails against the haters? Were there any other positive reviews yet?
I can only hope having adjusted expectations will help the rest of us enjoy the film more.
Well it's not mega horrible movie if you can accept it's not really a new movie but remix of original trilogy with new tech, has very little internal consistency and space battle logic leaves often lots to be hoped for like.
Spoiler:
You are trying to mount an escape, big fleet appears and you...send in ONE fighter to knock out guns? What the other fighters were doing? And since when empire lost so much technology their ships are even WORSE vs fighters(having been ridiculoulsly weak against them before as well) that one fighter has no issues and taking just few out makes one of the big ships of empire fleets so vulnerable suddenly? And what were star destroyers doing there? Not helping out for sure...
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Damn. Internal consistency and space battle competence were my things. Expectation adjusted accordingly. Thanks!
So, it has rehashed elements, but takes them to new places or has characters react differently?
Well technically new places but really that's more of in name. One white place is pretty much same as another and does it REALLY have huge impact if there's some other colour as well. Black background, red background. Sure not same room but not really that it matters for story.
Seriously some big scenes are like replace Kyle with Darth Vader and Rey with Luke and it would be just scene from originals with new actors.
But on more positive note Luke scenes were good and for me were worth the trip alone. Liked how they did his major scene toward the end. Also liked how certain event was described in not as black&white as it might have been but it had two sides and was more of grey. Yey.
But without Luke in this it would have been very bad movie for me. Well some of Rey's scenes even without Luke were also good enough. Not spectacular but good enough. Leia scenes were alright except for the space scene.
But on the flip side I'm hopeful that next movie won't be quite as bad rehash on the simple fact there's not much significant rehashing to do from original trilogy so if it's rehashing it's going to have to rehash TFA and TLJ!
The Last Jedi? It should have been named The Last Star Wars film. This is how a franchise dies.
If TFA was a burning sack of horsegak, then this is a burning sack of horsegak, tied to other burning sacks, thrown in a dumpster fire full of gak, had another burning dumpster dropped on top of it, and then had a flight of B-52s fly over and carpet bomb it!
An awful, awful, awful, bloated mess of a film...
Come back George Lucas - I forgive you. You are a giant compared to this Disney comittee that make films by group think.
They should have drawn a line under ROTS and left the story arc untouched forever more, with ROTJ being the last apperance of Luke Skywalker.
New Star Wars films? Fine. Do a new story arc, with new characters, in this infinite galaxy. Do something else, anything. If need be, paint Star Wars on a box and film that for 3 hours...Hell, that would have been better than this mess.
Spoiler:
Luke I-don't-want-to-be-found-Skywalker, but here's a map showing you where I am anyway.
Rebel troops evacuating a base, with Imperial, sorry, first order troops turning up? I've seen that before somehwere.
Captain Chrome. Fething useless and overated. As expected.
Snoke? Yout build this guy up for months, a billion geek specualtion videos and blogs, and the end result is that he's fething useless.
Yoda? Feth me...
One ship takes out a star battleship/dreadnought, aircraft carrier whatever they call it? Glory fething be!
And the steaming pile of gak on the cake, the crowning glory of this disaster: Princess Leia floating around in space like a bad music video from the 80s..
Holy fething horsegak!
I'd rather be beaten to death with a Jar Jar binks toy than have to watch this mess again. Bad characters, plot holes as wide as the grand canyon, and convinient plot devices that I could see coming before I even sat down to watch this film.
Phantom Menace? Last jedi makes it look like Citizen Kane.
Damn you Disney!
If this film didn't have the previous films and the hype machine behind it, then it would bomb like the US airforce in Vietnam!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Overall, I don’t see many people being disappointed with this. Not unless it’s a conscious decision to be so because Edge Lord.[/spoiler]
I'll be seeing it this weekend or as soon as I get over this flu. Setting my expectations very low...I didn't like the last two movies that much and from the sounds of it this is more of the same.
Thargrim wrote: I'll be seeing it this weekend or as soon as I get over this flu. Setting my expectations very low...I didn't like the last two movies that much and from the sounds of it this is more of the same.
Set them really low.
This scene should tell you about the quality of this movie:
Spoiler:
There is literally a book burning in this film, where the old jedi knowledge is burned by a force ghost who calls lightening from the sky, because the knowledge can be found in Rey and the books aren't. Luke is distraught at this but the force ghost simply whacks him on the head then laughs and says "page turners they where not".
Yes, Yoda commits a book burning on ancient Jedi knowledge and texts.
There are many more scenes which are making the rounds at the moment, like the scene where snoke dies, leia doing the superman in space or B grade fight scene where Kylo and Rey team up in a Power Ranger style action sequence. people are also hating Lukes character assassination. A fair few slow motion shots in this too...
Honestly I caution you to expect far, far less in this movie than the others... and the others are pretty bad.
On the bright side there are going to be a lot more comedic reviews next year. Best thing about these new movies are the reviews ripping into them.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Overall, I don’t see many people being disappointed with this. Not unless it’s a conscious decision to be so because Edge Lord.[/spoiler]
Seriously..
Yeah I've just read the plot synopsis on Wikipedia and, well...I'm already disappointed. Won't be in any rush to go see it with my friends.
Which is a complete 180 from my previous statement...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Even if its as crap as The Phantom Menace, its still worth at least one viewing...because its Star Wars.
The more time that passes after the viewing- the further I get from the spectacle on the screen- the more I'm disliking this film. I'm really, really disappointed with the way they've handled technology.
Spoiler:
I think it can be perfectly summed up with the 'Cloaked Beacon'- a device that simultaneously broadcasts a galaxy wide signal (from a wrist watch sized device no less) yet can't be detected. Throw in the whole 'They're tracking us through hyperspace!' 'But that's impossible!' bit and suddenly the whole plan about a codebreaker (couldn't say slicer? really?) and some secret new tech and busting into the freaking command ship becomes massively questionable (before you even consider it was an utterly pointless subplot!). Worse they know immediately how to circumvent it and which room it's on- in a ship that is sixty kilometers long.
"General Leia, they're tracking us through hyperspace!"
"But that's not possible!"
"It must be some new kind of never before seen technology! "
"Or, you know, I am wearing a galaxy wide beacon. Could be they picked that up. Or a tracker. Or a spy. Wait, no- definitely some never before seen technology. Quick, concoct a horrifyingly convoluted plan that will fail but eat up screen time!"
No, all the books. There weren’t that many, and why would you leave some? Which is probably why Yoda burned it, to stop Luke entering and finding them gone, as well as appearing to make a point.
As for Jedi Astral Projection? That’s not a sudden superpower. At all. First instance I’m sure Of occurs in Rebels Season 1, when Yoda has a chat with Ezra.
Seriously, some of the comments above sound more like people just read a bunch of spoilers, rather than actual watched the film.
Sure, there’s a scene or two I find didn’t quite land. But nowhere near enough to derail the film as a whole. Leia In Space was a bit much, and I felt Canto Bight could’ve been handled better. But those are really quite minor parts of the whole.
As for the humour? Remember, first and foremost this is a family film, intended for as wide an audience as possible. It’s not for the 40 year old neckbeard market. Like, at all.
I didn't like it. I wouldn't say it was an objectively bad film but yeah...
I didn't like it.
For what this means for me, as a bit of context.
Rogue One is my favourite Star Wars film and one of my favourite films.
The original trilogy, I really, really like them and, to be honest, I can't really choose between them. Luke, Vader and Palpatine on the Death Star is one of my favourite film situations.
I am somewhat positive towards 'The Force Awakens' but it doesn't top any real lifetime lists or the like.
I actively like the second half of 'Revenge of the Sith'. I am, overall, ambivalent towards 'Attack of the Clones' and the first half of RotS.
I actively, strongly dislike The Phantom Menace. I dislike the Last Jedi less than The Phantom Menace.
No, all the books. There weren’t that many, and why would you leave some? Which is probably why Yoda burned it, to stop Luke entering and finding them gone, as well as appearing to make a point.
As for Jedi Astral Projection? That’s not a sudden superpower. At all. First instance I’m sure Of occurs in Rebels Season 1, when Yoda has a chat with Ezra.
Seriously, some of the comments above sound more like people just read a bunch of spoilers, rather than actual watched the film.
Sure, there’s a scene or two I find didn’t quite land. But nowhere near enough to derail the film as a whole. Leia In Space was a bit much, and I felt Canto Bight could’ve been handled better. But those are really quite minor parts of the whole.
As for the humour? Remember, first and foremost this is a family film, intended for as wide an audience as possible. It’s not for the 40 year old neckbeard market. Like, at all.
Totally off to see it again come payday.
It is amazing how you cant discuss the film without Ad hominem. Yes you like it, others don't. How about you grow up?
tneva82 wrote: Seriously some big scenes are like replace Kyle with Darth Vader and Rey with Luke and it would be just scene from originals with new actors.
It's Abrams' modus operandi. You should be expecting this by now.
Kojiro wrote: The more time that passes after the viewing- the further I get from the spectacle on the screen- the more I'm disliking this film. I'm really, really disappointed with the way they've handled technology.
Spoiler:
I think it can be perfectly summed up with the 'Cloaked Beacon'- a device that simultaneously broadcasts a galaxy wide signal (from a wrist watch sized device no less) yet can't be detected. Throw in the whole 'They're tracking us through hyperspace!' 'But that's impossible!' bit and suddenly the whole plan about a codebreaker (couldn't say slicer? really?) and some secret new tech and busting into the freaking command ship becomes massively questionable (before you even consider it was an utterly pointless subplot!). Worse they know immediately how to circumvent it and which room it's on- in a ship that is sixty kilometers long.
"General Leia, they're tracking us through hyperspace!"
"But that's not possible!"
"It must be some new kind of never before seen technology! "
"Or, you know, I am wearing a galaxy wide beacon. Could be they picked that up. Or a tracker. Or a spy. Wait, no- definitely some never before seen technology. Quick, concoct a horrifyingly convoluted plan that will fail but eat up screen time!"
Spoiler:
And wasn't millenium falcon tracked as well in new hop? Yeah real never seen before thing...
tneva82 wrote: Seriously some big scenes are like replace Kyle with Darth Vader and Rey with Luke and it would be just scene from originals with new actors.
It's Abrams' modus operandi. You should be expecting this by now.
Unsurprisingly, this thread is a dumpster fire already.
Saw the movie tonight. I loved every minute of it and I can't wait to see it again with the kiddos over their Christmas break (and then again a couple more times probably).
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Blown away by several parts. No, not DA BEST MOVIE EVAH material but more than enough to sate the feelings of this life long Star Wars fan.
A festering turd of a film. It's a chaotic mess, massive plot problems, pacing problems, dialog problems (platitudes, exposition when it's not necessary, no exposition when it is necessary). No tension, too much humor (and no I don't mean the Porg, I actually liked them..they were the most endearing characters in the film), lack of character development, particularly at the expense of diversity, (look see! An asian girl!)
But most (and worst) of all, a complete lack of understanding (or just failure to adhere to) the rules of mythology that make it great.
Just saw it. I must say Wow what a waste of time. I think it's actually worst Star Wars movie I have ever seen. I'm still trying to understand how it has gotten the good reviews it has. If this is the future I'm afraid the franchise is in deep trouble.
Kojiro wrote: The more time that passes after the viewing- the further I get from the spectacle on the screen- the more I'm disliking this film. I'm really, really disappointed with the way they've handled technology.
Spoiler:
I think it can be perfectly summed up with the 'Cloaked Beacon'- a device that simultaneously broadcasts a galaxy wide signal (from a wrist watch sized device no less) yet can't be detected. Throw in the whole 'They're tracking us through hyperspace!' 'But that's impossible!' bit and suddenly the whole plan about a codebreaker (couldn't say slicer? really?) and some secret new tech and busting into the freaking command ship becomes massively questionable (before you even consider it was an utterly pointless subplot!). Worse they know immediately how to circumvent it and which room it's on- in a ship that is sixty kilometers long.
"General Leia, they're tracking us through hyperspace!"
"But that's not possible!"
"It must be some new kind of never before seen technology! "
"Or, you know, I am wearing a galaxy wide beacon. Could be they picked that up. Or a tracker. Or a spy. Wait, no- definitely some never before seen technology. Quick, concoct a horrifyingly convoluted plan that will fail but eat up screen time!"
Spoiler:
And wasn't millenium falcon tracked as well in new hop? Yeah real never seen before thing...
Honestly sounds like the typical technological nonsense I expect of the franchise. Anyone remember Center Point station? Anyone And did the “Empire” forget again that they have intereictors? I’ll bet they did!
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Ok, that is just nonsense. What got released around that time? Because in order for those movies to rate that highly the competition must have sucked.
A New Hope went up against Smokey and the Bandit (Smokey had a larger opening weekend )
Empire went up against The Shining ROJ went up against Chained Heat
LordofHats wrote: Honestly sounds like the typical technological nonsense I expect of the franchise. Anyone remember Center Point station? Anyone And did the “Empire” forget again that they have intereictors? I’ll bet they did!
Spoiler:
The problem is that we get a long technobabble rant about how to solve the problem, with an insanely convoluted plan that in the end, that has zero impact on the story. Technobabble should be used to smooth over cracks in the plot, not create useless ones! All that screen time could have been given to Luke actually doing something awesome or heaven forbid- some actual development of Rey and Ren's relationship to at least try and justify her actions towards him. Because characters should have good reasons to trust each other, especially if the last time they met they were trying to murder each other. Ultimately Finn and Rose got to do something, but if they disappeared and showed up at the end with no explanation other than 'we failed' nothing changes.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly sounds like the typical technological nonsense I expect of the franchise. Anyone remember Center Point station? Anyone And did the “Empire” forget again that they have intereictors? I’ll bet they did!
Well they have seemed to forget any semblance of point defence weapons or scanners against smaller craft.
Spoiler:
I swear they have been able to spot x-wing's before nevermind lot bigger transport vehicles! Umm...what? And then suddenly when TOLD there's transports in they suddenly can spot them at will?
Saw the movie tonight. I loved every minute of it and I can't wait to see it again with the kiddos over their Christmas break (and then again a couple more times probably).
Why is it a 'dumpster fire?' Because people have differing opinions?
Though it seems worth noting that the negative opinions have reasons attached, and the positive ones are just 'Yay, Star Wars!' so...
Now granted, some of the positivity comes from the people counting down with spam posts, so they probably couldn't change their public opinions now, but still. Anyone could spend some time talking about what actually impressed them.
Voss wrote: Now granted, some of the positivity comes from the people counting down with spam posts, so they probably couldn't change their public opinions now, but still. Anyone could spend some time talking about what actually impressed them.
Spoiler:
Luke scenes
In particular how he threw off lightsaber away cracked whole audience here.
Got laugh at how Snope/whateva the entirely forgettable new Emperor refered to Kyle as kid with a mask. Much like viewers noted he was just whiny kid with a mask after TFA Kyle had somewhat better moments than last movie.
Liked the lesson Poe got.
Luke&Leia reunion.
Nice trick with Luke's projection how he appeared as younger one. Didn't realize he was projection but did note something's weird with his appearance. Also nicely explained how he survived all that AT-AT fire that initially made me groan "You got to be KIDDING ME?". Nice one.
Visually top notch. Just wish it had story to make full use of it...
And here's how I would have improved the movie:
Spoiler:
No original trilogy(problem here being if you have seen episodes 5 and 6 this movie actually offers nothing new!), bit more internal logic, more sense to battle sequences(like how they took out that dreadnought...Would it hurt the studio to send MORE than 1 fighter to knock out weapons?). Get rid of the code breaker story line or make it matter. As it is all it did was introduce romantic partner for Finn but that's it...
No Leia in space and somehow survives just like that. Don't think Jedi has been noted to have such a power and besides Leia isn't even trained Jedi...They could have written scene almost same way and have Leia go into healing state without having her be deep vacuumed and saved "because plot says so"
It had it's moments and could have been much better especially if there hadn't been original trilogy already but boy they can somehow miss so badly.
tneva82 wrote: Seriously some big scenes are like replace Kyle with Darth Vader and Rey with Luke and it would be just scene from originals with new actors.
It's Abrams' modus operandi. You should be expecting this by now.
Mister Not-Involved-In-This-Film? Why?
He is credited as an executive producer, but I agree it didn't really have any of his hallmarks so I imagine his impact was very minimal.
LordofHats wrote: Honestly sounds like the typical technological nonsense I expect of the franchise. Anyone remember Center Point station? Anyone And did the “Empire” forget again that they have intereictors? I’ll bet they did!
Well they have seemed to forget any semblance of point defence weapons or scanners against smaller craft.
Spoiler:
I swear they have been able to spot x-wing's before nevermind lot bigger transport vehicles! Umm...what? And then suddenly when TOLD there's transports in they suddenly can spot them at will?
Yeah, that's covered as well....
Seriously, a lot of the complaints I'm seeing appear to stem from peeps missing stuff in the movie, rather than it not being there in the first place?
Spoiler warnings in the thread title, so I'm not going to bother trying to keep the spoiler tags straight.
Saw it, entertaining but not great is my opinion. I have to agree with previous criticism of the pacing, technobabble "plot" elements, lack of coherent structure, and idiotic space battles. FFS, why does the rebellion resistance only have three capital ships and a dozen fighters? Why does everything come down to a single fighter wrecking stuff while the capital ships are little more than target practice? And if your ridiculous space B-17 is able to take down a capital ship in a single bombing run why don't you just build a few hundred of them, accept that people die in a war, and send them on a bombing run that wipes out the whole Imperial First Order fleet. This isn't 1977 anymore, we aren't limited by model technology and can actually put lots of ships on the screen at once.
tneva82 wrote: And wasn't millenium falcon tracked as well in new hop? Yeah real never seen before thing...
It was, but that was specifically because the Empire put a tracking beacon on the ship. They didn't magically gain the ability to track a ship through hyperspace, an ability which is simultaneously so shocking that none of the leadership had prepared for it or believed it to be possible but so obvious that a random maintenance worker knows exactly what's going on, to the point of knowing exactly what the limitations of the device are and how to disable it. And even that explanation doesn't make sense. So you disable it for six minutes, and jump to hyperspace. Seven minutes later they switch on the new tracking device, spot your location, and jump the fleet in to kill you.
Swastakowey wrote: There is literally a book burning in this film, where the old jedi knowledge is burned by a force ghost who calls lightening from the sky, because the knowledge can be found in Rey and the books aren't. Luke is distraught at this but the force ghost simply whacks him on the head then laughs and says "page turners they where not".
Yes, Yoda commits a book burning on ancient Jedi knowledge and texts.
Honestly, this part makes 100% sense. A fundamental part of the story, starting at least as far back as ROTJ, is that the jedi are too concerned with rules and traditions rather than the real world around them. They've lost sight of the core identity of the light side, of doing what is right, and replaced it with the Star Wars equivalent of the real-world biblical literalists who argue that the earth must be 6000 years old (younger than recorded history) because that's what the chain of genealogy says while ignoring all that stuff about loving thy neighbor and helping the poor. Yoda makes the very relevant point that keeping the jedi rules that destroyed them in the first place is repeating the mistakes of the path, that it's time to move on. The only problem IMO is that the books aren't actually destroyed, making the lesson rather pointless.
Where? They mention cloaks of some kind, but then as soon as someone says "HAY GUYS THERES A TRANSPORT" they're able to target them from extreme range and destroy them with single, perfectly accurate shots. It's more technobabble that works one way until the plot requires that it work differently.
When they decide to flee upon the shuttles, it's mentioned that the First Order are focussed upon the carrier. Switching on the cloaking thing means they can likely slip past unnoticed.
Then, when the game is rumbled, an order is given to use a more specific scan, when the transports are spotted.
They mentioned they're doing something to hide themselves from scanners, not actual cloaking. So knowing they're doing something like that, they probably needed to tweak their scanners. As said, space is big and ranges are extreme. Spotting them visually was out, so they're relying on whatever they use as 'scanners'.
However, this begs the question of how the hacker knew that plot since he was never involved with anybody who knew they were doing that.
As I noted earlier, a lot of the criticism I've seen in this particular thread has made me wonder if it's from people that have actually been to see the film.
Such as the book burning comment, when No Books Were Burnt In The Making Of This Film, or claiming the cloaking thing isn't resolved, when it is.
The film isn't perfect, but I really enjoyed it on the whole. The only bits I'd have done differently would be Leia In Space (why not have her use The Force to avoid being sucked out in the first place, rather than reeling herself back in.) and Canto Bight could've been a bit punchier - I think they spent too much time on the escape chase.
But those claiming it's the worst Star Wars film ever? Really? Really really?
LordofHats wrote: Honestly sounds like the typical technological nonsense I expect of the franchise. Anyone remember Center Point station? Anyone And did the “Empire” forget again that they have intereictors? I’ll bet they did!
Well they have seemed to forget any semblance of point defence weapons or scanners against smaller craft.
Spoiler:
I swear they have been able to spot x-wing's before nevermind lot bigger transport vehicles! Umm...what? And then suddenly when TOLD there's transports in they suddenly can spot them at will?
Yeah, that's covered as well....
Seriously, a lot of the complaints I'm seeing appear to stem from peeps missing stuff in the movie, rather than it not being there in the first place?
Spoiler:
No it was not covered how empire lost ability they used to have. They have tracked LOT SMALLER X-WINGS for christ sake! Now they can't spot big cargo transport? The kind they used in Hoth(they were seen) and even in the start of the film(they were seen). But no. "Empire's scanners aren't designed to detect small crafts". Yeah well except they have been able to do that for decades in-universum time.
Wouldn’t the original trilogy have been so much better if everyone had fretted about fuel all the time rather than just jumping across the galaxy to do what needed to be done? Why were the First Order fleet very slowly following with the same few ships lobbing the odd shot every now and then? They have fighters, as we saw them early on. They have more ships, as the dreadnaught in the beginning isn’t supposed to be unique. Are there literally no reinforcements nearby they could use to head off the Resistance?
There are no words to describe how dreadful the bit with Leia floating through space bit was.
Why is everyone astounded that they’re being tracked through hyperspace? Literally in a New Hope Leia tells Han, in HYPERSPACE, “They’re tracking us. It’s the only explanation for the ease of our escape”. Why aren’t their first thoughts either a homing beacon or a traitor on board, either of which are very plausible?
So it seems that the most devastating WMD in Star Wars is to launch yourself into hyperspace directly at your enemy. Why has no body done this before? What’s the point of guns on ships if you get a much better effect by having your fleet accompanied by drone/droid ships that can be set to jump into enemy ships as needed? Why, when everything was looking grim at Endor did Ackbar not order the entire Rebel fleet to jump directly towards the Death Star?
Who was Admiral Purple? Just a character dumped into the film to give Poe someone to rail against. But because that’s how she was introduced there was no real story there, she came across as some sort of tyrannical supply teacher making things unfair for the cool kid who just wants to fight. Why not have her in the film from the beginning? She could have done something heroic early on so that when she’s butting heads with Poe there’s some doubt with the audience as to who’s in the right. Or make remove her entirely and have that role filled by Ackbar, who seemed to just get killed offscreen as an afterthought?
Daisy Ridley’s acting in the early scenes on the Island was just dire. She had no chemistry with Mark Hamill but she did improve later on.
The bombers at the beginning were just ridiculous. Having such a design flaw as ‘any damage to the huge bomb magazine causes the ship to explode dramatically’ is bad enough, but how are they supposed to be used? Their only tactic is to float slowly over an undefended target and drop their payload. This sort of works, but on a ship used by the good guys? Is part of the Resistance doctrince razing civilian cities?
And also on the bombers, what was causing the bombs to fall out of them onto the dreadnaught?
Was there any point at all to anything Finn (and Rose) did in this film beyond adding an hour to the run time? Their side adventure played out like a bad RPG campaign, with the GM having to suddenly conjure up an alternative expert codebreaker as the players totally screwed up meeting the one guy in the galaxy who can help them (as per Maz). “No wait, there’s another one in the same buliding, and he’s in your cell, even though he can get out at any time!” Those circumstances were so fortuitous I was sure it was going to be some First Order plot, somehow. But in the end it just went literally nowhere.
Who was that guy anyway? IMDB lists him as ‘DJ’ but I don’t think he was named in the film. How was he able to tell the First Order about the Resistance transports? He didn’t know about that. Finn or Rose didn’t know. And did he get away? Who knows.
Those fancy secret Resistance rings, with their super-high-tech yet super-visible levers.
Why have two completely separate infiltration missions on the same ship and then not have them play into each other somehow? I almost feel like they had 2 competing storylines for the Snoke’s ship sequence and just decided to do both because they really needed Rey’s Snoke scenes but literally couldn’t think of anything else Finn should be doing. And did Rey just go from the ‘throne room’ to being on the Falcon magically?
‘Battering Ram Cannon’. Not only is that the single stupidest name for a weapon in any film ever, how does it even make sense? Who in the First Order would be familiar with the concept of a battering ram having grown up in a high-tech galaxy?
And what was the Resistance plan in that battle anyway with those speeders? Not just “why were they not utilising their increased manoeuverability to attack the flanks of the walkers” (because we all know it was just an ESB homage) but literally what were they trying to do to the battering ram cannon? I wondered if they were trying the Zapp Brannigan ‘clog it up with the wreckage of their speeders’ and it seems Finn was doing exactly that until Rose tried to nobly sacrifice herself to stop Finn nobly sacrificing himself… what?
Kylo’s decision to fire all guns at Luke was surprisingly sound and the sequence was pretty cool. It was slightly marred a few seconds later when Finn dragged Rose back through the doors. Did he just walk through all that firepower?
I could have laughed at the “we know all our secret allies have seen our message, but they’re not responding” bit. I had visions of the officer studying some sort of space WhatsApp, seeing all the ticks turn blue and not getting any replies (and I thought maybe Rey and Kylo had each swiped right on the Force-based dating app, Sabr)
And who is Snoke anyway? Is it important and was it ever? I suppose we’ve still got Force Ghosts that can infodump but at the moment it seems he’s ‘just some guy’. I was thinking afterwards that I’d have loved if it had been some sort of Wizard of Oz con job that Kylo found out about.
Also it would have been great to have a dual face/heel turn in the throne room with Kylo ending up with Leia (and obviously not trusted by anyone else) and Rey not quite having turned evil but become very dangerous and pretty much just acting on instinct, lashing out at everyone. It would have actually been a twist and given some meaning to Luke’s worries about her.
Anyway, thank the Force the Resistance is now in such a good place, ready to kickstart a whole new Rebellion, even if the whole thing can be carried by the Falcon.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Seriously, a lot of the complaints I'm seeing appear to stem from peeps missing stuff in the movie, rather than it not being there in the first place?
If you have to pay careful attention to the exact technobabble statement made about why the plot device works the way it does for a scene to make sense then the movie has failed.
So what you're saying is we should be able to ignore any dialogue because reasons, and then criticise the film for putting in an explanation we chose to ignore?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So what you're saying is we should be able to ignore any dialogue because reasons, and then criticise the film for putting in an explanation we chose to ignore?
When it's a throwaway line that is easy enough to miss that multiple people in this thread missed it, and consists of little more than "the plot requires us to see them now, do the technobabble thing", yeah, we shouldn't give the film credit for the "explanation".
Wouldn’t the original trilogy have been so much better if everyone had fretted about fuel all the time rather than just jumping across the galaxy to do what needed to be done? Why were the First Order fleet very slowly following with the same few ships lobbing the odd shot every now and then? They have fighters, as we saw them early on. They have more ships, as the dreadnaught in the beginning isn’t supposed to be unique. Are there literally no reinforcements nearby they could use to head off the Resistance?
Yeah or howabout using some ships do micro hyperspace jump to get ahead?
Why is everyone astounded that they’re being tracked through hyperspace? Literally in a New Hope Leia tells Han, in HYPERSPACE, “They’re tracking us. It’s the only explanation for the ease of our escape”. Why aren’t their first thoughts either a homing beacon or a traitor on board, either of which are very plausible?
Yeah. Tracking through hyperspace is old tech. Why they figure it's not that rather than some never seen before tech and also correctly surmis what it is, where it is and how to stop it?
So it seems that the most devastating WMD in Star Wars is to launch yourself into hyperspace directly at your enemy. Why has no body done this before? What’s the point of guns on ships if you get a much better effect by having your fleet accompanied by drone/droid ships that can be set to jump into enemy ships as needed? Why, when everything was looking grim at Endor did Ackbar not order the entire Rebel fleet to jump directly towards the Death Star?
Good question! X-wing sized craft doing that likely has pretty darn good impact as well. Can't be price because they can massproduce x-wings with hyperspace and sure is cheaper than losing lots of them in head on assault with tons of casualties.
The bombers at the beginning were just ridiculous. Having such a design flaw as ‘any damage to the huge bomb magazine causes the ship to explode dramatically’ is bad enough, but how are they supposed to be used? Their only tactic is to float slowly over an undefended target and drop their payload. This sort of works, but on a ship used by the good guys? Is part of the Resistance doctrince razing civilian cities?
Yeah seemed kinda stupid design. Very vulnerable, hard to hit and rebels had better bombing platforms before...
And also on the bombers, what was causing the bombs to fall out of them onto the dreadnaught?
It was The Force!
Was there any point at all to anything Finn (and Rose) did in this film beyond adding an hour to the run time? Their side adventure played out like a bad RPG campaign, with the GM having to suddenly conjure up an alternative expert codebreaker as the players totally screwed up meeting the one guy in the galaxy who can help them (as per Maz). “No wait, there’s another one in the same buliding, and he’s in your cell, even though he can get out at any time!” Those circumstances were so fortuitous I was sure it was going to be some First Order plot, somehow. But in the end it just went literally nowhere.
Nope. That was literally just to give Rose screen time for future romance plot between them no doubt.
And did Rey just go from the ‘throne room’ to being on the Falcon magically?
Yeah last we heard of her she used escape pod/Vessel. Next she's on falcon.
And what was the Resistance plan in that battle anyway with those speeders?
Die? The way tie's took out those in the initial run should have meant the mere 13 speeders should have been dead before falcon arrived.
Guess just humour for kicking through side of pod. That seemed to be whole point of that scene.
And who is Snoke anyway? Is it important and was it ever? I suppose we’ve still got Force Ghosts that can infodump but at the moment it seems he’s ‘just some guy’. I was thinking afterwards that I’d have loved if it had been some sort of Wizard of Oz con job that Kylo found out about.
Palpatine mkII. Remember these aren't really new stories but original trilogy with new tech.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So what you're saying is we should be able to ignore any dialogue because reasons, and then criticise the film for putting in an explanation we chose to ignore?
When it's a throwaway line that is easy enough to miss that multiple people in this thread missed it, and consists of little more than "the plot requires us to see them now, do the technobabble thing", yeah, we shouldn't give the film credit for the "explanation".
Or people could, y'know. Pay attention. And it's clearly not a throwaway line if it's of import to the plot?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So what you're saying is we should be able to ignore any dialogue because reasons, and then criticise the film for putting in an explanation we chose to ignore?
When it's a throwaway line that is easy enough to miss that multiple people in this thread missed it, and consists of little more than "the plot requires us to see them now, do the technobabble thing", yeah, we shouldn't give the film credit for the "explanation".
Or people could, y'know. Pay attention. And it's clearly not a throwaway line if it's of import to the plot?
Line that conveniently ignores previously set capabilities of ships in SW universum.
The ships have been shown to have ability FAR beyond this. Tracking big ships AND x-wings at the same time. Total lack of internal logic or total collapse of Empire's technology(at which point there needs to be some explanation how the star destroyers have become so lousy old tech in the meanwhile)
Or cloaking tech has been improved. Because that's how technology often works - such as Radar being ace up until Stealth technology, and Stealth Technology being ace up until an improvement in detecting technology etc etc.
Spoiler:
Plus, it's established that Crait was a secret Rebel base that nobody knew about. So as far as The First Order knew (and this is an important part of this plan), the Resistance had nowhere to run to that wouldn't make their predicament a whole lot worse. So they had no reason to be looking for sub-light only shuttles trying to do a runner.
Seriously, it's all there in the movie.
For clarity - I don't especially care if you like how the movie explains stuff. That's up to you. But to claim there is no explanation when there in fact is, is a problem.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or cloaking tech has been improved. Because that's how technology often works - such as Radar being ace up until Stealth technology, and Stealth Technology being ace up until an improvement in detecting technology etc etc.
Except the cloaking tech does nothing once someone (who doesn't even know about the escape plan!) says "HAY GUYS THERE MIGHT BE A SHIP THERE". That inconsistency is the problem. It's 100% effective when the plot requires it, then 0% effective once the plot requires it.
Plus, it's established that Crait was a secret Rebel base that nobody knew about. So as far as The First Order knew (and this is an important part of this plan), the Resistance had nowhere to run to that wouldn't make their predicament a whole lot worse. So they had no reason to be looking for sub-light only shuttles trying to do a runner.
That doesn't make sense because any habitable planet is better than being destroyed aboard the ship, and the rebels had already abandoned their other ships without a fight once they ran out of fuel. Any sensible enemy would be watching for transports/escape pods/etc attempting to flee inevitable death. And their best fire control sensors would already be focused on the area to guide shots on the big ship, it's not like the shuttles appeared in the middle of nowhere where nobody was looking.
The spoiler tag is in the title. If you open a thread titled "spoilers here" you have only yourself to blame if you see something you didn't want to see.
Fandoms are terrible. They are never concerned with good storytelling. A large portion of Star Wars fans just wanted Jacen/Jaina 2.0 and there was never a chance Disney would do that.
Nearly all the negative reaction I've seen has been the following:
They didn't explain Snoke! Well, they didn't ever explain Palpatine either. It was literally the same story. They both corrupted a Skywalker/Solo. Now both got offed by one.
The way Snoke was killed was lame. This is pure opinion. I thought it was brilliant. Maybe not as far as plot goes, but the actual execution of the scene. Also followed by what might be my favorite Star Wars fight.
Luke wasn't powerful enough, good enough, didn't fight, etc. Luke is probably extremely powerful when emotionally balanced. The scene with Kylo as a kid was him out of balance and his body is only human. I know people don't like his arc, but it makes sense. He just contemplated murdering his apprentice in his sleep and created a second Vader essentially...He's going to be broken inside to some degree. And if he really is a wrecking ball then he is TOO powerful for the plot and a trump card. You can't have him involved because in person he would just swoop in and clean house. What did people want? Luke shows up, kills/turns Kylo, and Force Pushes a few walkers around? Where's the third film if he ends it all now?
Yoda burned the books! Yoda didn't. Rey took him. Yoda trolled Luke. You see the books on the Falcon after the rescue.
There's too many female characters! This movie panders to SJW Laura Dern's awful purple hair aside, why is it a problem if there are new female/minority characters in films? The issue should be the writing and acting, not their existence.
Rose crashing into Finn was dumb/illogicalWTF. Do people really act logically 100% of the time? Especially in a life or death situation? Especially when you're infatuated with the other person?
Cruiser crashing into the Supremacy I can't defend this, but it was a gorgeous shot. This is the only irredeemable/unfixable element of the film to me.
But as a whole it's not a great movie. Star Wars has never been a particularly great story. Absolutely brilliant world setting and imagery from ANH onwards, but rarely a good story.
It'll be interesting to see if Disney continues to support RJ after this mess.
trexmeyer wrote: They didn't explain Snoke! Well, they didn't ever explain Palpatine either. It was literally the same story. They both corrupted a Skywalker/Solo. Now both got offed by one.
The difference is the story leading up to them. Palpatine, even in the OT, had a plausible reason to exist. He's the emperor, and had a long time (the OT implies it's been decades, if not longer, since the empire took over) to build up his power. Snoke, on the other hand, appears out of nowhere. He doesn't exist in the OT, nobody knows he exists as he's building up his new empire, and suddenly he's this powerful dark jedi that can crush people with a thought? It just feels like he appears because the plot needs him, and disappears once it is done.
Rose crashing into Finn was dumb/illogicalWTF. Do people really act logically 100% of the time? Especially in a life or death situation? Especially when you're infatuated with the other person?
The issue IMO is that it conflicts with her story up to that point. She stops Finn from fleeing, lectures him on being selfish, and then approves when he gets it and stays to fight. Then, when she has a choice between selfishness and duty, she throws away the only chance of saving the rebel base to protect a love interest she's barely just met. And the movie portrays this as a virtuous act! It would have made a lot more sense if Finn's response had been "you ing idiot, don't you remember what you told me? Now they're going to die!". TBH I was really expecting it to be her making the suicide run, the way they set her up, and IMO that's the way it should have been.
But as a whole it's not a great movie. Star Wars has never been a particularly great story. Absolutely brilliant world setting and imagery from ANH onwards, but rarely a good story.
I disagree with this very strongly. The OT is a good story, in part because it's a simple story. It might not be a great work of literature, but it executes the standard "hero's journey" concept effectively, and there's never a point where you're thinking WTF is this nonsense. It wasn't until the prequels that things started to go downhill.
I stand by ANH not being a good story. It's a very black and white, overly simple film with nice window dressing. ESB improves the trilogy dramatically and RoTJ wraps up at least the Luke-Vader thread, but takes a step back as far as Leia and Han's respective stories go.
TFA starts what, 20 years after ANH? That's sufficient time for Snoke to emerge and take over a portion of the Imperial remnant.
As far as Rose goes, it doesn't have to make sense. A character being stupid isn't necessarily bad story telling. It's not even inconsistent. She's infatuated with him. That explains the entire scene.
trexmeyer wrote: I stand by ANH not being a good story. It's a very black and white, overly simple film with nice window dressing.
Black and white is fine, in the right genre. And ANH draws directly from source material that audiences and critics love.
TFA starts what, 20 years after ANH? That's sufficient time for Snoke to emerge and take over a portion of the Imperial remnant.
That's assuming he started immediately after ROTJ and the last (canon) view we had of the Star Wars universe. That's a bad assumption. He's obviously very old, so how and why exactly did he hide for so long? Why was nobody aware that this powerful dark jedi existed? It's well established that power is inherent and with you from an early age, you don't suddenly become a powerful force user and ruler of the empire at 90 years old.
As far as Rose goes, it doesn't have to make sense. A character being stupid isn't necessarily bad story telling. It's not even inconsistent. She's infatuated with him. That explains the entire scene.
The point is that the movie portrays it as her doing the right thing. If, instead, the other characters were critical of her actions and it was presented as emotions overcoming reason with terrible results then it would have been better. Still not great, as it throws away her "Finn's conscience" role that was previously established, but at least more appropriate. But that's not the scene we got.
It's in the books. Remember, we knew precious little of Palpatine (including his name!) from the original trilogy. We knew little about his climb to power (other than he dissolved a Senate).
Snoke? Hints as to his origin lie in the Aftermath trilogy, particularly the third one.
There's also the 'certain point of view' narrative sewn throughout which I greatly enjoy. The story of Luke and Kylo from three perspectives (how Rey was told it, how Kylo tells it, and how Luke tells it). Snoke's overconfidence when he's having his vision of Kylo (turning the lightsaber to his true enemy), Poe and Vice-Admiral Thingy being at loggerheads. I appreciate that level of stuff myself.
And speaking of origins, I was dead chuffed that Rey is in fact a no-one. I feel that was a brave move, and I think it paid off. Rather than tying powerful Force users to a bloodline, it shows the Force can manifest in pretty much anyone.
I wonder if Luke's horror at Rey not even trying to resist The Dark Side will make her a better Jedi Master/Trainer? Luke couldn't help Kylo in that sense. Whereas Rey kind of embraced it, only for it to show her nothing. I mean, that's a useful perspective when training someone, no?
Totally going to see this again on payday. This time in 3D, and possibly IMax, which I've never been to before.
I didn't see it as the movie portraying it as being good or bad. She clearly thought it was the right thing and Finn disagreed. I think you're reading way too much into that scene.
Snoke could have been a myriad things. Someone in the Unknown Regions/Wild Space, an acolyte of Palpatine, a stranger from beyond the galaxy, an ancient being, it doesn't appear to matter unless he can come back from being really, clearly dead. The obsession over him was ludicrous.
Forgot to mention people being upset over Rey Nobody. Kylo could be manipulating her, but one of the long standing criticisms of Star Wars is that there has been too much elitism in the films. Having "nobodies" come up and make a stand changes that. I know people don't like her "power" but Snoke's explanation that the force balances itself does make sense...and doesn't bode well for the galaxy. If there is always a Palpatine/Vader/Kylo to oppose a Yoda/Luke/Rey then that's truly a galaxy of suck.
I rather like how this film tossed aside all of the speculation. Part of it is that Star Wars has become so big that people are always speculating. Part of it was Abrams being involved.
Snoke has a weird name. He's the leader of the Empire, and if we look at a picture of Vaders helmet and angle it a certain way Snokes scars line up! He's a reincarnation/clone/resurrected Vader! But he kinda looks like Plaguies from that novel cover, he's definitely Plagueis which means he created Rey!
Dead. Shut up.
Reys parents left her on Jakku, and Rey has a memory of them! Her parents must have been important. Maybe she is a Kenobi/Palpatine/Skywalker/Windu/immaculate forception/etc?
Nope, stop that. She's nobody. Her parents were donkey-caves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
trexmeyer wrote: It'll be interesting to see if Disney continues to support RJ after this mess.
They seem to like his work, since he's heading up the next trilogy. Unless this film makes no money (hahaha it will make a billion) they will let him do his trilogy.
TFA had people knocking it for not being anything new.
TLJ gets a knocking for being something new.
Whilst Rogue One remains my hands down favourite so far, I think it's now Rogue One, Empire, The Last Jedi as my top three. I don't think it's a great coincidence that each has, in it's own way, pushed what a Star Wars film can be.
Seriously you can't see how basically every plot point in last jedi was taken from either empire strikes back or last jedi?
ONLY exception might be the gambling planet thing and even that only in that it was 100% useless that didn't add up to anything but screen time for Finn and the girl.
Others...Just renamed and recast characters and then major scene from original films checklist gone through. You do NOT get new story by just changing names and actors.
No new story to be seen in either TFA or TLJ. Just original trilogy reskinned.
That or I'm world's best guesser in movie stories seeing there was nothing surprising or new for me and I hadn't even paid one second before movie thinking what the story line might be. Hadn't even watched the trailer.
[spoiler]
I just saw the movie. I loved everything about Star wars, including prequels, for 40 years. I can not believe I am saying this, I did not like it. I hope others can find the magic and fulfillment in it as I have found in the others. Lukes resistance to help, bad fight choreography in Snokes chamber, how fast it seemed to move at one point, then drag on at another. (How did R2 get on the falcon, when Chewie shows up at the end for help in the salt flats)... For the record Kylo Ren, the maniac is the only one filling Reys head on who her parents are. So ultimately it could just be a lie, so I take some hope that some mystery is still there, though I never thought she was a Walker or Solo or Kenobi.
And when I say I didnt like it, I try to go through the things I didnt like and justify it or explain it. I am not going to list them all, but for example Like the kylo/rey and red guards fight. I get that it must have to seem lethargic, because no one was suppose to be able to fight like Anakin, and his scenes were insane during the AOTC and ROTS. But I am just actually sad, that I could not find the magic in it. Again, I hope I am in the minority on my opinion and the magic of Star Wars carries on for most. But it seems the message I got from being a fan for the last 40 years was. "Let the Old Past die", and the little boy sweeping at the end, as if I am passing Star Wars to another Generation, and the Veteran fans were not considered during the writing/filming. I am genially sad.
I could not do any better, I have always defended star wars and loved it. This movie left me with out.
Rogue One was so well done IMO, the scenes, the backgrounds, the editing. Maybe JJ will step aside for the next one and Let the writers/directors of Rogue one step in.
Ultimately, I hope others can find the magic in this movie. [spoiler]
Saw it last night, and call be shallow but I really enjoyed it. The space battles, the banter the whole thing. Ok, maybe there was a scene or two when I felt they could have done better somehow, but ultimately, well worth seeing again!
Faves
Spoiler:
Luke's Skywalker - grumpy, fed up, to be honest, with the whole 'Legend of Skywalker' thing (a bit like Mark Hamill, really).
Rey's training - "I can feel something!". "It must be the Force!"
The Two Apprentices - a darkly serious version of the joke above. They think they know it all, can see into each other, but it turns out they no nothing.
Poe's arc - hotshot pilot getting everyone else killed learning to see (a glimpse at least) of a bigger picture.
Millennium Falcon to the rescue! - Come on - that shadow was cool.
The veteran captain of the Dreadnought. Grizzled. Matter-of-fact. If he was in charge the war would have over years ago!
Snoke's monologuing like a real super-villain. Right up to his defeat!
Yodas back! Moving around like a proper Jim Henson creation.
BB-8's evil twin.
The slow inevitable demise of the Resistence. As ideas fail one after another, raising the stakes each time.
Luke's' end scenes from Crait onwards - striding out like the legend he is to face down Kylo and the whole army to gazing out to two suns as he fades away.. as some hopeful kid light years away does likewise
OK - the disappointing bits
Spoiler:
Leia surviving space. Ok - she must have picked up some Jedi skills - but I think it could have been handled a bit better.
Phasma - underused again.
Battering Ram Cannon - a lame name - how about Siege Cannon.
The Resistance Bombers were a bit disappointing.
The casino - a bit of padding - maybe if some other plot element could have been thrown in. But then they planted the seed of rebellion on the planet...
...I think that's it.
If you have to read the books to understand the movie and find it plausible then the movie is not done well.
Remember, we knew precious little of Palpatine (including his name!) from the original trilogy. We knew little about his climb to power (other than he dissolved a Senate).
The difference is that Palpatine doesn't immediately follow a movie saying "yay, the good guys won, the dark side is defeated". It's ok if you don't know how he got into power because you can assume it happened somewhere in the thousands of years of history before Star Wars begins. You have no starting assumption that there shouldn't be any dark jedi left (or at least any with any real power). If you're going to overturn that assumption and bring Snoke into power in a very short time then there's a lot more of an expectation that you explain just where everything came from and why nobody knew about him until you needed a villain for the new milking of the cash cow trilogy.
It's the same problem that TFA has with the First Order in general. The Empire is defeated, the Republic is restored, and suddenly the Empire is back for no apparent reason? And you have to go read the EU books to get the information that the Republic is still around, the First Order is some backwater bunch of kids pretending to be a new Empire (and magically getting a whole navy and a new death star), and the Resistance is really an unofficial covert ops division of the Republic military.
It's the same problem that TFA has with the First Order in general. The Empire is defeated, the Republic is restored, and suddenly the Empire is back for no apparent reason? And you have to go read the EU books to get the information that the Republic is still around, the First Order is some backwater bunch of kids pretending to be a new Empire (and magically getting a whole navy and a new death star), and the Resistance is really an unofficial covert ops division of the Republic military.
The new Battlefront story content, "Operation Resurrection" actually details the First Order's rise to power way better(and is canonically taking place right during the events of TFA). They're far from a "backwater bunch of kids pretending to be a new Empire".
It's the same problem that TFA has with the First Order in general. The Empire is defeated, the Republic is restored, and suddenly the Empire is back for no apparent reason? And you have to go read the EU books to get the information that the Republic is still around, the First Order is some backwater bunch of kids pretending to be a new Empire (and magically getting a whole navy and a new death star), and the Resistance is really an unofficial covert ops division of the Republic military.
The new Battlefront story content, "Operation Resurrection" actually details the First Order's rise to power way better(and is canonically taking place right during the events of TFA). They're far from a "backwater bunch of kids pretending to be a new Empire".
Why we have to read books and play games to enjoy a movie?
You don't have to like that, but you do have to accept that.
Wouldn't it be better though if all of the information is self contained? Referring to information from an external source that not everyone might have had access to is not good story telling. If you have to read a book and play a game in order to understand a movie's plot, then wouldn't that mean that the movie has failed to properly tell its story?
Han Solo started off as a smuggler who didn't care about anybody, but by his actions in a New Hope, when he saves Luke, we see how he changes from scoundrel to good guy over three films.
Luke starts off a as naïve farmboy who's in a sulk because he can't hang around with his friends, then learns a few hard lessons about life and becomes a better person for it.
TFA and Last Jedi just throw all that out the window, and sends them straight back to square one.
The Han of old wouldn't still be running around in The Falcon, and the Luke of old wouldn't be hiding out on that island like some tax exile.
That is the most unforgivable part of these new films.
You don't have to like that, but you do have to accept that.
Wouldn't it be better though if all of the information is self contained? Referring to information from an external source that not everyone might have had access to is not good story telling.
If you have to read a book and play a game in order to understand a movie's plot, then wouldn't that mean that the movie has failed to properly tell its story?
And if you only watch the second film of a trilogy, do you expect to walk away knowing all?
No. Of course you don't. And if you do, might want to have a wee think.
As I've said before. Sit yourself down, and write down everything you know about Star Wars. Then strip out all the stuff that is not in the actual films.... You'll be surprised at how little that actually is.
Voss wrote: Why is it a 'dumpster fire?' Because people have differing opinions?
It's a dumpster fire because Star Wars fans cannot have rational discussions with acting like donkey-caves, which was pretty obvious in this thread and every other thread about Star Wars on this forum. I've been guilty of this in the past as well so I'm not implying my hands are clean.
It was mainly meant to be hyperbolic, but when I wrote it is was a bunch of people telling each other they were wrong for having opinions that disagreed with their own.
Though it seems worth noting that the negative opinions have reasons attached, and the positive ones are just 'Yay, Star Wars!' so...
Now granted, some of the positivity comes from the people counting down with spam posts, so they probably couldn't change their public opinions now, but still. Anyone could spend some time talking about what actually impressed them.
Well, I don't owe you or anyone else an explanation of why I like what I like, but since this is a thread about the movie and I was pleased after leaving the theater last night, I felt it was a good place to offer my positive opinion.
But since I'm feeling generous...
1. The acting was fantastic. Domhnall Gleeson was great, Adam Driver was even better, and I continue to enjoy Daisy Ridley as Rey. And of course, Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker filled me with joy.
2. The special effects were gorgeous and the practical effects were great. As primarily a scale model builder, I love practical effects in movies.
3. Yoda.
4. There were twists I didn't see coming and I enjoyed that immensely.
5. Porgs were great. Fight me.
6. Serious gut-punches. Luke Skywalker has always been my favorite character and seeing him become one with the Force and fade away got me. It got me good.
7. The Kylo and Rey fight scene was fething sweet. My theater cheered.
8. Holdo punching the Raddus through the First Order fleet at lightspeed was one of the coolest things I've ever seen in a Star Wars movie.
9. Yoda.
There were things I didn't think quite worked, mainly the Canto Bight parts, but with the kid using the Force at the end kinda made up for it, because I thought it was great. I would have liked more Finn because I love his character and they didn't use him nearly enough, what when they did use him for was the weakest part of the movie. Benicio del Toro's stutter annoyed me, a lot. Of course the various plot holes and conveniences were there, but I don't let that gak ruin my movie-going experience. The one that really bothered me was the, "Oh yeah, there's a planet we can use right over there!"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Han Solo started off as a smuggler who didn't care about anybody, but by his actions in a New Hope, when he saves Luke, we see how he changes from scoundrel to good guy over three films.
Luke starts off a as naïve farmboy who's in a sulk because he can't hang around with his friends, then learns a few hard lessons about life and becomes a better person for it.
TFA and Last Jedi just throw all that out the window, and sends them straight back to square one.
The Han of old wouldn't still be running around in The Falcon, and the Luke of old wouldn't be hiding out on that island like some tax exile.
That is the most unforgivable part of these new films.
These movies don't look like something written by people. Is as if they used a software to put them together, unable to grasp how humans work.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Han Solo started off as a smuggler who didn't care about anybody, but by his actions in a New Hope, when he saves Luke, we see how he changes from scoundrel to good guy over three films.
Luke starts off a as naïve farmboy who's in a sulk because he can't hang around with his friends, then learns a few hard lessons about life and becomes a better person for it.
TFA and Last Jedi just throw all that out the window, and sends them straight back to square one.
The Han of old wouldn't still be running around in The Falcon, and the Luke of old wouldn't be hiding out on that island like some tax exile.
That is the most unforgivable part of these new films.
These movies don't look like something written by people. Is as if they used a software to put them together, unable to grasp how humans work.
I blame George Lucas for a lot of things, but his heart was always in the right place, but compare his dictatorship with running your film past a 30 man Disney committee meeting, and it's clear that dictatorship can sometimes be useful in the creative arts.
) and if you go back to a film intent to see how bad the flaws are, they'll be all you see.
ing idiot, don't you remember what you told me? Now they're going to die!". 
