Kaiyanwang wrote: I have less patience for hypocrites; and Disney is incredibly hypocrite. They show themselves as modern and inclusive, but regardless they shallow statements, they wrote horrible female characters.
I don't think you understand what "hypocrisy" means. Claiming to be modern and inclusive and being terrible at writing are not mutually exclusive concepts.
- Phasma has ben introduced as a strong antagonist, it became a farce
Hardly. I don't really understand where all the expectations for her came from. If you ignore all of the marketing for her action figures and only look at what is actually shown in the movie she's a minor background character, nothing more. Whoever said she's the Boba Fett of the new series had it exactly right.
- The admiral came out as stubborn, incommunicative, incompetent. Compare with lando and Akbar in RotJ, as an example.
Well yes, but what does this have to do with feminism?
My comment above is about the chilling implication of the attraction for Ren. This would be essentially the fethed up relationship shown in that modern horror (not in the sense that has vampires) that is Twilight. I find it unacceptable from those that write that "the force is female".
Uh, what? What does any of this have to do with feminism? Rey being attracted to someone doesn't mean the creators are endorsing that as a healthy relationship. In fact, given how soon after that she rejects him and everything he stands for, I think it's pretty clearly presented as an unhealthy attraction. The reason people object to Twilight is that the author doesn't show the horror as horror, she endorses the horror and portrays it as virtue.
Well, first off they would need to be able to see ultraviolet themselves, for safety reasons. Second, it would look really bad on screen.
Totally agree with on screen, but in reality, since a lot of the complaints about the film has been based on why it isn't realistic, (not all, a lot of good structural discussion has taken place), one could train with a dummy colored light saber, and actually engage with an ultra violet one, when one wanted to. Of course, that might require training, which is silly in all the movies. None of them suggest the training is in any way physical (maybe Luke with his one handed handstand), but mental. In other words, just understanding the force is the training. Wrapping ones brain around it seems to be the key. Maybe the girl here just has a better brain. Wouldn't be the first time. Maybe in movies of this profile. Maybe that's where the criticism lies. Take a look. People who hate it seem to be predominately using the SJW tag line as a reason. Not everybody, and there are a fair amount of things to hate about the movie, but a lot.
In canon sources (ie. the movies) all lightsabers are RGB, except Mace Windu's one. Maybe the colour choice are limited and one can't just pick "a puce saber with hint of ochre" at the store?
Ashiraya wrote: I love Ren. I hated him at the start of TFA but he has really grown on me.
He is like an overly emotional insecure teenager Snape. He is really flawed and that's not a bad thing.
I agree, they are doing something different (for a Star Wars story). This is how they should have done Anakin in the prequels.
About Rey, people are wondering how she quickly became so powerful and skilled in Force despite minimal teaching. Maybe Leia gave her some tips, though it seems there really wasn't time. Luke had 2 short lessons, that's much less than he himself received from Yoda.
But the answer is obvious. Rey is Dark Side user. Dark Side is quicker and easier. You can even see it in her scenes.She is nearly always scared or angry in the scenes she uses Force. Contrast this to very different way Luke used Force in the originals.
In canon sources (ie. the movies) all lightsabers are RGB, except Mace Windu's one. Maybe the colour choice are limited and one can't just pick "a puce saber with hint of ochre" at the store?
Ok, except for Sam Jacksons one. Once you break it...really, they could be any color. I'm only pointing it out because of the other posters who want every stupid thing to be in cannon and explained until it isn't. My in cannon concern should be just as important. Or it shouldn't.
In canon sources (ie. the movies) all lightsabers are RGB, except Mace Windu's one. Maybe the colour choice are limited and one can't just pick "a puce saber with hint of ochre" at the store?
Ok, except for Sam Jacksons one. Once you break it...really, they could be any color. I'm only pointing it out because of the other posters who want every stupid thing to be in cannon and explained until it isn't. My in cannon concern should be just as important. Or it shouldn't.
Wasn't it due to stone/jewel/whatever that focuses the beam so would be limited to what properties stone is? Though maybe that's not canon due to being in books.
Nah, it was just due to Jackson wanting purple. Which is too bad, cause it could have been cool. A bit like growing up. A bit like taking in the new movies. But at some point we all have to do it. My point is pretty much the same as RH's here. No myths, no backstory, no hope is going to come to your rescue. There are no gods, there is no light, and no dark. If you want that, you are praying to the wrong gods. They aren't listening. They are Disney. Dew dew dew dit dew dit ditty dew dew dew. I liked it. Is there a way to do music here, like in notation?
I'm not sure how it's left following the Disney buy-out, but....
The Khyber crystal would, still canonically, be chosen by The Right Jedi. This is shown in an episode of Clone Wars where some Younglings are taken to find their own crystals, and the trials therein.
Sith however have used artificial crystals, and that's why their blades are red. But, I'm not 100% sure if that is still canonical.
As far as I can remember The full length Clone Wars series (EG not the shorts) is 100% Canon. As is Rebels (EG Hera and the Ghost being in Rogue One) and I think the new cartoon, "Forces of Destiny."
Gordon Shumway wrote: Nah, it was just due to Jackson wanting purple. Which is too bad, cause it could have been cool. A bit like growing up. A bit like taking in the new movies. But at some point we all have to do it. My point is pretty much the same as RH's here. No myths, no backstory, no hope is going to come to your rescue. There are no gods, there is no light, and no dark. If you want that, you are praying to the wrong gods. They aren't listening. They are Disney. Dew dew dew dit dew dit ditty dew dew dew. I liked it. Is there a way to do music here, like in notation?
Different coloured light sabers have been thing waaaaaaay before Jackson was even involved in star wars.
Clearly there's something that makes them different coloured but has that been covered in canon? One book cited crystals used in the hilt of light saber but whether that is canon or not is another question. But if we go it is then simple reason why there's no ultralight light saber: None of the crystals produce one.
Also theres a big plot hole in Roses and the First Order backstory.
Spoiler:
One of the reasons the novels give for why the Republic didn't realize the First Order was rearming was that Leia never had any hard evidence and that the First Order was being sneaky about it. So the Republic didn't just send a massive fleet once they learned they were training Stormtroopers and building Star Destroyers.
But Rose tells us that hers was one of many inhabited worlds strip mined to fund the First Order war effort and that her people were then used for target practice by those weapons. Also BF2 slightly elaborates that the FO kidnapped the vast bulk of its personal from across the galaxy as children.
Which means its impossible to have kept things like this a secret, especially since Rose would be a credible witness to such activity and its a bit difficult to conceal things like strip mining planets and bombarding them from orbit; killing millions of people tends to draw attention.
Also the FO got most of its military equipment via contacts within the wider galaxy. Did people not wonder who was building all the Star Destroyers that were filling Kuat Drive Yards? How could the FO control the flow of information and prevent the Republic from noticing or the press from finding out. People tend to notice when you are building a 60km ship above the core worlds.
If this was the plot of an animated show like Rebels I'd think it was being silly and that the writers hadn't thought this through. But apparently because Disney has spent a ton of money on this franchise they feel they don't need to bother with thinking this through and are immune from criticism. Hell, Rebels and the Clone Wars are like War and Peace compared to this rubbish.
Spoiler:
I mean Rian Johnson has, with a serious face, said that in his 2 and a half hour long film he could not spend 30 seconds explaining who his main villain was. As if we're supposed to listen to the wise film-maker and accept his wisdom. Its nonsense.
Lord of the Rings takes the time to explain who Sauron is in the opening scene and explain its own mythology. That only serves to make the film a richer and more profound experience. Why does reducing Snoke to the level of a generic character we nothing about make him a more compelling character? One they actively pushed in all of the trailer and the previous film?
When many fans were actually engaged and curious about the character Rian Johnson decides he can't spare 30 seconds to provide basic exposition. I think that really does reveal an utter contempt Rian Johnson and Disney have for Star Wars Lore and the fans. Its the complete reverse of how masterfully they have won fans over with the Marvel franchise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What gets me is this.
Adam Driver said in an interview that he had basically had to head canon what he thought Kylo Rens backstory was to help him as an actor. Which means the writers haven't even bothered to think about this themselves. I can remember watching Ridley Scott do an audio commentary on Covenant and he remarks that in the original Alien the actors asked for a little backstory to be written by the director for them to work with. He thought it was unnecessary because "you are here to die and its not relevant to the plot". But he realized that this helped the actors get into the role and he decided to do that with Covenant. Surely its better for your writers to brainstorm this stuff about the character and brief your actor on it; even if it isn't all going to be spelt out in the movie.
Plus I just compare this to books like A Song of Ice and Fire where you do feel like this is a fully realized and thought out world. Its why people got annoyed in some set pieces in the most recent GoT season. People like to feel like the story has been well thought out and isn't just there to usher us to the next big spectacle.
A film can't have that same level of detail, but I feel you should certainly attempt to do so. If your heroes are fighting to save the galaxy then it serves to tell us stuff about this galaxy to know why its worth saving.
Spoiler:
Does Holdo's speech about restoring the Republic mean anything if the film does not convey what a character within that setting would associate that with? The legacy of the rebellion, a government that had existed for thousands of years before. All because neither JJ or Rian have explained what the New Republic meant to people and why destroying it was a terrible thing for these people.
I think you do need to know those things because they would be important to our characters. Otherwise the story telling becomes increasingly shallow and superficial.
Plus, I don't get why people are calling the film morally grey and I think its even a little sickening that people think it is.
Spoiler:
For something to be morally grey there has to be some equivalency between the two sides. This does not happen in the Last Jedi. The Resistance are, as per Admiral Holdo's speech, aiming to Restore the Republic exactly like the Rebel Alliance. This is an unequivocal statement, backed up by her later heroic sacrifice. Po Dameron in the first scene says that he is "Po Dameron of the Republic Navy". So our heroes are trying to restore peace and democracy to the galaxy. In this context the First Orders attack on the Hosnian System in the previous film is an unprovoked assault against the legitimate democratic government. The insinuation is that the New Republic is clearly viewed by our characters as the expression of popular sovereignty; not as an out of touch clique of elites. So the film is definitely not critical of the good guys institutions or radically populist because our goal is to maintain the status quo from an assault by a criminal Nazi regime. Whose soldiers use entire planetary populations for target practice.
A lot of people point at the war profiteering people selling X Wings as an example of moral greyness. There are two major problems with that assessment. Firstly, this does not directly implicate the New Republic. We aren't told this is a Republic world. The people in question are corporate interests. We don't see, for example, corrupt senators who have joined the First Order. Its also a misreading of that exchange. The slicer is arguing that these capitalists can't be so bad because they also sold weapons to the good guys and so is arguing that he shouldn't be loyal out of principle. To me this was part of a core theme of Hope vs Cynicism. You see this over and over again in the film. You are not supposed to agree with this slicers opinion. The fact the capitalists sell weapons to both sides is something that criminalizes them, not the governments who buy them since the New Republic used its military as a citizen defense aimed at protecting democracy. Which means its something inconsequential to the core struggle between the First Order and the Resistance. Meaning it does not make that conflict morally grey.
For example, Roses reaction to her people being slaughtered by Imperials is not, to blame the New Republic for not helping her people. In fact she joins a military organization which per film canon in the opening of TFA we are told is supported secretly by the New Republic.
We then have Kylo Ren. Mr Emo himself. "From my point of view the Jedi are evil!". This is a weak man and I find it really sad that the audience is so primed to sympathize with a monster and have such callous disregard for his victims. Yes, Luke considers killing him. Because he rightly see's that Kylo Ren is a monster. Which is validated because he immediately runs out and we are told offhand that he slaughtered everyone in the Jedi Temple; presumably including all of the children. Whilst apparently the characters decision not to murder his mother is considered sympathetic? That's completely forgetting him murdering Han. Plus considering his goal seems to be to slaughter people who want to restore democracy are we really supposed to view him with any sympathy. This thing is an animal, he needs to be put down and I think its almost offensive that Rian Johnson thinks we should spend any time sympathizing with the villain. Its only because Rian Johnson deflects and avoids Kylo Rens crimes, as well as the crimes of the First order more generally, that people are not saying that this is a clear cut moral tale.
Another reason is the supposed criticism of some of the previous institutions in Star Wars. For example Kylo tells Rey to let the past die listing how the Sith, Empire, First Order, Jedi etc should end and a new (Second?) Order should rise. Theres one enormous problem people have willfully overlooked. Rey rejects Rens cynicism. More generally, if a villain is telling you that they hate everything about Star Wars its a bizarre conclusion to draw that they are right. Which I think relates to my above point that Rey refutes Luke on the Jedi having to end because they didn't stop Sideous and is clearly being set up to re-establish the Jedi Order. Holdo tells us about reforming the Republic and Luke that the Rebellion has been reborn. I think people are projecting their own expectations that the film would be grey. Indeed for all its faults I did not feel like it actually challenged the core pillars of Star Wars. If we had then Rey would have disbanded the Jedi, she would have joined Ren, the Republic dismissed as a failure. Indeed the very point is that you hold on to hope even in the face of failure and that the point is a moral principle not a materialist one of "oh I have this massive fleet so I always win. Might makes right!".
Which leads in to another point. Our heroes constantly lose so it must be morally grey. Again this confuses morality with power. You can still be morally right and lose. Just look at Ned Stark in Game of Thrones. Good man, but doomed. Same thing with the resistance. Unless you really believe we are supposed to criticize the Resistance for being weak and that might makes right. They are simply doing the best they can in an impossible situation imposed on them because Disney made the First Order overpowered. I mean considering three small cruisers destroyed a ridiculously large number of FO ships you have to wonder what the NR fleet could do. I mean considering that Mon Cal is considered a cruiser I am guessing the New Repbulic had a few large dreadnoughts of its own before plot device base destroyed it. All this doesn't mean we are invited to criticize the good guys. Where it does in the case of the Jedi the point is that such cynicism is misplaced and that you should always hold on to hope.
Finally we have the populism which people think subverts Star Wars "Monarchist" and "Dynastic" leanings. By making Rey a nobody it makes the stunning revelation that anyone can be a Jedi. Few points. Anakin was a slave in Episode 1 and Luke a farm boy. The Skywalkers are not even an aristocratic family with vast inherited wealth. This confuses family identity and legacy with contemporary issues. The Skywalker legacy, or the Solo legacy IS one of the common man. So its really disingenuous to imply that Rey is any different in this regard or that being from a known family would have diminished this. In fact if she really is going to become a Satele Shan Grand Jedi Master doing twirly wirly with a double light saber then she is going to have a great legacy that will presumably be passed on to her children. So its not deconstructing hero mythology at all. Plus its never been stated that ordinary people can't be Jedi. Ezra from Rebels, Ahsoka from the Clone Wars. In fact the vast bulk of Jedi are not aristocratic, they simply come from across the galaxy and are primarily defined by their role as monkish paladins; not any sort of background. Also how is it morally grey if you are stressing that one faction represents the common people and yet the other represents despotism and tyranny? I do not follow this reasoning.
I mean Rian Johnson has, with a serious face, said that in his 2 and a half hour long film he could not spend 30 seconds explaining who his main villain was. As if we're supposed to listen to the wise film-maker and accept his wisdom. Its nonsense.
Lord of the Rings takes the time to explain who Sauron is in the opening scene and explain its own mythology. That only serves to make the film a richer and more profound experience. Why does reducing Snoke to the level of a generic character we nothing about make him a more compelling character? One they actively pushed in all of the trailer and the previous film?
Have you considered that people merely assumed Snoke was the main villain of the piece, and Kylo Ren is the one the focus is actually meant to be on (and whose backstory is more than adequately explained). Sure, LotR sets up Sauron as the main antagonist, but does Melkor ever get more than a name-drop? Nope. Snoke is the Melkor to Kylo Ren's Sauron; an important figure in the setting, but as far as the story being told is concerned, simply the one who created the actual antagonist.
Again, it all comes down to people assuming things that are not implied anywhere. Rey must have important parents. Snoke must be a Someone. So on and so forth. All that is the product of 2 years of speculation fuelled by clickbait headlines and grasping-at-straws theories, and not from anything suggested in TFA.
I don't think we're being asked to sympathise with Kylo Ren, so much as empathise with his position.
That's not the same as having to accept his actions are in anyway justified.
As I mentioned a few pages back, Ben Solo is a victim. All his life (from his point of view), he's had people wanting to exploit or control his power. A power he never asked for.
His Parents sack him off because he's hard work.
His Uncle tries to kill him.
His new Master treats him like dirt.
He's deeply, hideously damaged. And as of the closing scenes of TFA, irredeemable. That was when he made the choice. He could've turned, but chose not to.
His journey isn't all that different to Anakin's - but I'd argue they've managed to tell it in a much better, and certainly more succinct, manner.
We're not meant to excuse him. We're meant to pity him.
just to throw my 2 cents in... I was very disappointed in the movie. No problem with killing characters or the direction of the film...it was the way they did it that was faintly absurd. Tons of individually gorgeous and well made scenes that didn't seem to fit into an overall narrative.
1) the force awakens only makes sense as a starting point for some interesting threads...those threads aren't really picked up. So the last jedi as a sequel to the force awakens means the force awakens is pretty pointless.
2) the bombers.... bombs in space. I'll repeat. Bombs in space. There is a reason every other "bomber" used missiles. BTW, the scene was beautifully shot. Even loved the falling bomb release part, But no tension at all... why? Cause bombs in space don't work. Just tip the bomb bay at the target and release. Same inertia...same effect. Just dumb. The grabbing of the medallion? Awesome! Thought it would connect to some force thing. How else would she have been able to get the controller? But nope...
3) space mary poppins. jesus that was awful. Wow. Leia dead early. Abrupt. Brutal. Understandable cause Fisher is dead....but no. Leia lives. So, that scene was what they intended? Really? Yeah, i get they want to show leia has force powers for film 9. But since she's dead... kinda pointless. And having her survive the movie? So now theyll kill her in the crawl of episode 9? And Holdo got the heroic death that leia should have been given. sad. More on holdo in a minute....
4)finn and rose to the casino planet. Pointless. Why not just have 1 line of dialogue explaining how they can sneak past the imperial shields? the only point was to give finn something to do, yell about consumerism and show the kids. The ending kids scene would have been fine all on its own
5) couldn't find anything better to do with poe than be a mutineer? nuff said.
6) holdo..wow. lots of possibilities absolutely wasted. Why couldn't she just say "this is the plan" ...mutiny over. No auto pilot in the star wars universe? odd. Is that all it takes to cripple the enemy fleet? Uhhh...why didn't you do that first?
7) phasma. a bad guy dying only is awesome when you feel they are bad and and dangerous. So, that was a nothing burger.
i haven't even started in on the luke stuff. I don't mind what they did....i just think they did it poorly.
In regards to some of the discussion about treatment of any non white male character. It does feel like disney was just ticking off boxes on a diveristy chart. But then again, this script felt like it was just ticking off boxes. every character was poorly written. To say they wrote a weak character for rey ignores every other weak character in the movie.
8) kylo/rey mind thing...ok, shirtless was jarring. But I liked the concept of trying to find a middle. that middle had to be defined by rey and kylo so you had to get them conversing somehow. Not bad.
9) kylo..so what is his stated purpose? beyond daddy issues what is he trying to do? i still don't know..and maybe he doesn't either. I'm ok with it. glad he smashed the helmet.
10) rey... perfectly fine with her direction. I just wish they had handled her better. Went from trying to find her place to "ill turn him' pretty quick. direction ok. handling: poor.
11) luke....milking. yuck. I have zero problem with his end. But hey need to explain that what he would do would be deadly so you understand the import of the hologram fight. also.."be seeing you"? ummm...no. he didn't strike you down and you didn't live. so...no.,
12) snoke....so...why was he in either film? to connect rey and kylo! no. you could have had the force do that without snoke. not needed. a giant pointless character that added nothing. wated opportunity IMO.
Hammil will be in Episode IX. The same way Obi-Wan was in V and VI, and Yoda rocked up in VIII.
Hence the 'be seeing you'. He became as one with The Force. What better way to distract and irritate, and possibly redeem Ben than to be constantly there, with no way for anyone to get rid of you.
So episode IX, we just get a really smug-looking Luke in the background of all Kylo's scenes, and occasionally Kylo will see him and go ballistic on something everyone else can't even see? Yep, sounds good!
I mean Rian Johnson has, with a serious face, said that in his 2 and a half hour long film he could not spend 30 seconds explaining who his main villain was. As if we're supposed to listen to the wise film-maker and accept his wisdom. Its nonsense.
Lord of the Rings takes the time to explain who Sauron is in the opening scene and explain its own mythology. That only serves to make the film a richer and more profound experience. Why does reducing Snoke to the level of a generic character we nothing about make him a more compelling character? One they actively pushed in all of the trailer and the previous film?
Have you considered that people merely assumed Snoke was the main villain of the piece, and Kylo Ren is the one the focus is actually meant to be on (and whose backstory is more than adequately explained). Sure, LotR sets up Sauron as the main antagonist, but does Melkor ever get more than a name-drop? Nope. Snoke is the Melkor to Kylo Ren's Sauron; an important figure in the setting, but as far as the story being told is concerned, simply the one who created the actual antagonist.
Again, it all comes down to people assuming things that are not implied anywhere. Rey must have important parents. Snoke must be a Someone. So on and so forth. All that is the product of 2 years of speculation fuelled by clickbait headlines and grasping-at-straws theories, and not from anything suggested in TFA.
Melkor isn't in the LoTR so it isn't a good comparison.
Well he is the leader of the First Order, corrupted Kylo, is in all the trailers and was actively hyped up by the actors and writers as the most powerful force user ever. So yes I do expect 30 seconds of exposition on who the dude is. I'd expect that of a Saturday morning cartoon, never mind a million dollar production film.
That is a very cheap defense of bad story telling. Would Frodo beating Sauron have had greater significance, which Mr Johnson insists here, if you had removed all of the exposition about who he was and what he did in the past? Knowing that Sauron was this ancient evil added weight behind his defeat. Its counter intuitive to say that giving him less exposition than Skeletor adds weight to when Kylo kills him.
But that scene isn't about Snoke. It's about Kylo, and all we need to know for the scene to work is that Snoke was Kylo's master, was the leader of the FO, was exceptionally powerful and had emotionally tortured and tormented him throughout his training. all of which we see on screen over the two films.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I don't think we're being asked to sympathise with Kylo Ren, so much as empathise with his position.
That's not the same as having to accept his actions are in anyway justified.
As I mentioned a few pages back, Ben Solo is a victim. All his life (from his point of view), he's had people wanting to exploit or control his power. A power he never asked for.
His Parents sack him off because he's hard work.
His Uncle tries to kill him.
His new Master treats him like dirt.
He's deeply, hideously damaged. And as of the closing scenes of TFA, irredeemable. That was when he made the choice. He could've turned, but chose not to.
His journey isn't all that different to Anakin's - but I'd argue they've managed to tell it in a much better, and certainly more succinct, manner.
We're not meant to excuse him. We're meant to pity him.
Which is making excuses for his behavior and diminishing his responsibility for his own actions. Pity has to be earned. Kylo has done nothing worthy of pity or sympathy. He is the cause of much of the pain and suffering in this series. His efforts to blame others for his own faults are despicable. He has twice refused open handed offers of redemption. He is scum. End of discussion.
But I would say that Rey, even Han's desire to seek the good in this man is a double edged sword. Its supposed to make us think of our heroes as compassionate. But where is the compassion for the dead of Hosnian Prime? For all those butchered by the First Order? For the younglings he murders in the Jedi Temple? These things are barely given passing mention. JJ and Johnson fixate obsessively on Kylo's "redeemable" and "sympathetic" traits as a victim so much they and their heroes lose perspective of all the horrible thing they have done. As if one mans rage outweighs the greater good, even the very lives of society. Its taking individualism to a sickening conclusion. Rey should be far more concerned for all the people who have been killed by this man, not buying into his sob story as if it even matters at this point.
Paradigm wrote: But that scene isn't about Snoke. It's about Kylo, and all we need to know for the scene to work is that Snoke was Kylo's master, was the leader of the FO, was exceptionally powerful and had emotionally tortured and tormented him throughout his training. all of which we see on screen over the two films.
That's like saying all we needed to know about Sauron is that he leads Orcs and wants his ring back. Context matters.
They had plenty of opportunities in there 2.5 hour long film to do an exposition or flashback scene. Its disingenuous to say that it would have spoiled a finale with Kylo if in a 5 minute segment we had had 30 seconds of exposition. That's shifting the goal posts and distorting the truth on Mr Johnsons part and I suspect he knows that full well considering how much bloat was the film already.
Paradigm wrote: So episode IX, we just get a really smug-looking Luke in the background of all Kylo's scenes, and occasionally Kylo will see him and go ballistic on something everyone else can't even see? Yep, sounds good!
Nah.
It'll be a smug-looking Luke in the background of all Kylo's scene repeating everything Kylo says but in a mocking, high pitched voice.
Paradigm wrote: But that scene isn't about Snoke. It's about Kylo, and all we need to know for the scene to work is that Snoke was Kylo's master, was the leader of the FO, was exceptionally powerful and had emotionally tortured and tormented him throughout his training. all of which we see on screen over the two films.
That's like saying all we needed to know about Sauron is that he leads Orcs and wants his ring back. Context matters.
Again, Kylo Ren is the Sauron of this trilogy. He is the primary antagonist, he is the nemesis for all the heroes, he is the one who poses the greatest threat to the characters arrayed against him. Snoke is a plot device to allow Kylo Ren to demonstrate his ruthlessness and provide a momentary chance for redemption which Kylo then declines.
Seriously, what do you think a complete history of Snoke would have added to this film, beyond meeting the assumption that he has to have a massively important past?
In full view and hearing of everyone else in the vicinity. And telling Dad Jokes the way only an Uncle can. And bringing up awkward anecdotes about his youth.
Paradigm wrote: What, you mean like when Luke attempts (successfully) to redeem the child-murdering, planet-destruction-watching, family-torturing Vader in RotJ?
"It is too late for me my son"
Vader sacrifices himself to save Luke dying in the process. Its an act of ultimate penance that allows him some measure of peace for his actions. As noted above, Vader accepts that he has done very bad things and probably does not deserve his sons redemption. Compare that to Kylo who continues to blame others for all the casual stuff like killing kids and patricide.
That is not the same as Rey and Han being like "yeah Kylo, you should join us on team light side again and we can kick some butt! Never mind all of that bad stuff you did."
Another key difference is that, to quote rebels, "Anakin Skywalker was weak, I destroyed him.". Obi Wan tells Luke much the same. In other words the light and dark are almost two separate personas within Vader, one which Ahsoka could not reach through the darkness and save but which Luke could. In other words these are two separate individuals because of what Anakin went through. So you save Anakin by killing Darth Vader who is the persona that did all of the terrible things.
With Kylo its all him. Rey and Leia describe there being goodness within him. But they are both proven wrong. Theres also never the same message that he has a split personality and that we should view them as two distinct personas. Again, he really is just evil.
Also we're told that Anakin was a good man several times in the OT. So we as the audience are encouraged to think the good can be returned. We're never told that Ben Solo used to be a good man. He is simply shown wrestling with whether he should kill his parents, because apparently not killing your parents makes you a good person....maybe I am old fashioned but I assumed that's an expectation and you have to raise the bar to be called a good man. So basically there is nothing worth saving. He's a wretch.
Also Anakin fell to save Padme and his good intentions destroyed him. Kylo fell, basically because he wanted power and got angry when Luke tried to put an end to him. Why he killed his father, because it would make him more powerful. This is not sympathetic.
Another key difference is that, to quote rebels, "Anakin Skywalker was weak, I destroyed him.". Obi Wan tells Luke much the same. In other words the light and dark are almost two separate personas within Vader, one which Ahsoka could not reach through the darkness and save but which Luke could. In other words these are two separate individuals because of what Anakin went through. So you save Anakin by killing Darth Vader who is the persona that did all of the terrible things.
With Kylo its all him. Rey and Leia describe there being goodness within him. But they are both proven wrong. Theres also never the same message that he has a split personality and that we should view them as two distinct personas. Again, he really is just evil.
'Ben Solo was weak and foolish, like his father. So I destroyed him.' Kylo Ren, The Force Awakens.
It's literally the same line as Anakin used in Rebels. So why is it believable that Luke can save Anakin by breaking through Vader, but Rey can't save Ben Solo by breaking through Kylo Ren? She even calls him Ben, not Kylo, every time she talks about redeeming him. It's the exact same narrative device and arc, but somehow acceptable in Old Star Wars because that's untouchable perfection, but unforgivable in New Star Wars because... well, I've no bloody idea.
The Khyber crystal would, still canonically, be chosen by The Right Jedi. This is shown in an episode of Clone Wars where some Younglings are taken to find their own crystals, and the trials therein.
Sith however have used artificial crystals, and that's why their blades are red. But, I'm not 100% sure if that is still canonical.
They actually just changed this a few months ago in the Darth Vader comic by Marvel. We see Vader build his red saber by tracking down a surviving Jedi and taking the crystal from his saber. He then fills it with his rage until it "bleeds" red.
There's a similar story where Ahsoka kills one of the inquisitors and takes the crystals from his saber. After she heals them, they turn into the white crystals we see her use in Rebels.
Paradigm wrote: But that scene isn't about Snoke. It's about Kylo, and all we need to know for the scene to work is that Snoke was Kylo's master, was the leader of the FO, was exceptionally powerful and had emotionally tortured and tormented him throughout his training. all of which we see on screen over the two films.
That's like saying all we needed to know about Sauron is that he leads Orcs and wants his ring back. Context matters.
Again, Kylo Ren is the Sauron of this trilogy. He is the primary antagonist, he is the nemesis for all the heroes, he is the one who poses the greatest threat to the characters arrayed against him. Snoke is a plot device to allow Kylo Ren to demonstrate his ruthlessness and provide a momentary chance for redemption which Kylo then declines.
Seriously, what do you think a complete history of Snoke would have added to this film, beyond meeting the assumption that he has to have a massively important past?
Because then we can think. OMG he killed Darth Plagus. Outwitted and murdered by his student just like Palpatine himself. Surely this means Kylo is as strong in the mind as Palpatine and could be a truly dark and terrible Supreme Leader in the Galaxy.
But no, apparently its better we just think of Snoke as a generic "plot device".
Paradigm wrote: But that scene isn't about Snoke. It's about Kylo, and all we need to know for the scene to work is that Snoke was Kylo's master, was the leader of the FO, was exceptionally powerful and had emotionally tortured and tormented him throughout his training. all of which we see on screen over the two films.
That's like saying all we needed to know about Sauron is that he leads Orcs and wants his ring back. Context matters.
Again, Kylo Ren is the Sauron of this trilogy. He is the primary antagonist, he is the nemesis for all the heroes, he is the one who poses the greatest threat to the characters arrayed against him. Snoke is a plot device to allow Kylo Ren to demonstrate his ruthlessness and provide a momentary chance for redemption which Kylo then declines.
Seriously, what do you think a complete history of Snoke would have added to this film, beyond meeting the assumption that he has to have a massively important past?
Because then we can think. OMG he killed Darth Plagus. Outwitted and murdered by his student just like Palpatine himself. Surely this means Kylo is as strong in the mind as Palpatine and could be a truly dark and terrible Supreme Leader in the Galaxy.
But no, apparently its better we just think of Snoke as a generic "plot device".
Again, context matters.
I don't see what adding in the existing name changes there, beyond satisfying a few fan-theories.
Plagus was exceptionally powerful. Snoke was exceptionally powerful. Palpatine killed his master. Kylo Ren killed his master. Vader killed his master. Going by the Old Republic books, which while now Legends have yet to be contradicted, all the Sith since Darth Bane were either killed, or killed their master, that's how being a Sith works.
I don't see how one adds anything more to the story than the other, beyond allowing a few people to loudly shout about being 'right' about Snoke's identity.
And to take the Plagus example, surely that also implies that Palpatine was kind of a bit crap, if his master survived after all...
Another key difference is that, to quote rebels, "Anakin Skywalker was weak, I destroyed him.". Obi Wan tells Luke much the same. In other words the light and dark are almost two separate personas within Vader, one which Ahsoka could not reach through the darkness and save but which Luke could. In other words these are two separate individuals because of what Anakin went through. So you save Anakin by killing Darth Vader who is the persona that did all of the terrible things.
With Kylo its all him. Rey and Leia describe there being goodness within him. But they are both proven wrong. Theres also never the same message that he has a split personality and that we should view them as two distinct personas. Again, he really is just evil.
'Ben Solo was weak and foolish, like his father. So I destroyed him.' Kylo Ren, The Force Awakens.
It's literally the same line as Anakin used in Rebels. So why is it believable that Luke can save Anakin by breaking through Vader, but Rey can't save Ben Solo by breaking through Kylo Ren? She even calls him Ben, not Kylo, every time she talks about redeeming him. It's the exact same narrative device and arc, but somehow acceptable in Old Star Wars because that's untouchable perfection, but unforgivable in New Star Wars because... well, I've no bloody idea.
Because Kylo Ren is not worth saving. Vader was since he was a great Jedi and a good man. Vader did not murder his own father in cold blood. When Vader says Anakin Skywalker was weak and foolish us, Luke and Ahsoka know that this isn't true. But with Kylo pretty much every scene only serves to confirm that he really is a weak and foolish man because he is STILL a weak and foolish man.
Also Vader is Lukes long lost father. Its very difficult for an orphan boy to not wish that he could have his father back, this legend that Obi Wan told him about. Why should Rey care about Kylo Ren, a total stranger? Having the hots for him would be a pretty shallow reason if we're going to go there since as pointed out he has done nothing good in the entire series.
Paradigm wrote: But that scene isn't about Snoke. It's about Kylo, and all we need to know for the scene to work is that Snoke was Kylo's master, was the leader of the FO, was exceptionally powerful and had emotionally tortured and tormented him throughout his training. all of which we see on screen over the two films.
That's like saying all we needed to know about Sauron is that he leads Orcs and wants his ring back. Context matters.
Again, Kylo Ren is the Sauron of this trilogy. He is the primary antagonist, he is the nemesis for all the heroes, he is the one who poses the greatest threat to the characters arrayed against him. Snoke is a plot device to allow Kylo Ren to demonstrate his ruthlessness and provide a momentary chance for redemption which Kylo then declines.
Seriously, what do you think a complete history of Snoke would have added to this film, beyond meeting the assumption that he has to have a massively important past?
Because then we can think. OMG he killed Darth Plagus. Outwitted and murdered by his student just like Palpatine himself. Surely this means Kylo is as strong in the mind as Palpatine and could be a truly dark and terrible Supreme Leader in the Galaxy.
But no, apparently its better we just think of Snoke as a generic "plot device".
Again, context matters.
I don't see what adding in the existing name changes there, beyond satisfying a few fan-theories.
Plagus was exceptionally powerful. Snoke was exceptionally powerful. Palpatine killed his master. Kylo Ren killed his master. Vader killed his master. Going by the Old Republic books, which while now Legends have yet to be contradicted, all the Sith since Darth Bane were either killed, or killed their master, that's how being a Sith works.
I don't see how one adds anything more to the story than the other, beyond allowing a few people to loudly shout about being 'right' about Snoke's identity.
And to take the Plagus example, surely that also implies that Palpatine was kind of a bit crap, if his master survived after all...
For somebody on a 40k forum I am baffled by your contempt for world building when writing a story. For example, in the book Master of Mankind, you have a big scary demon that stomps around and confronts the Emperor. By your reckoning, we do not need to know anything more about this demon because we know what its role is, how powerful it is and it serves its function in the plot and how our heroes respond to it. But actually the author has it that
Spoiler:
it is the demon that later is inside Abaddons sword and has said daemon be connected to the first murder (which may have been the Emperors father) and convinced that its his destiny is to kill the Emperor which is obviously connected to Abaddon in 40k
. But by your account, that does not serve the story and so is irrelevant. By my reckoning that adds a sense of drama and intensity to the Emperor confronting this Daemon beyond it simply being another daemon. You could say the same about Kabandha. Plot wise we only need to now that he is an angry bloodthirster who hates Blood Angels. But knowing how far back his history goes, that he was sent to corrupt them and failed; adds to the epic nature of the proceedings.
Basically you seem to think that making Snoke a generic cookie cutter character is a good thing.
We haven't seen Ben before he was Kylo yet. It's entirely possible that he was all set on the path to being a Big Damn Hero like Anakin before Luke was driven to try and murder him. After all, his parents were fundamentally good people and he was already training in the ways of the Jedi. Luke concedes that it was his moment of weakness that triggered Ben's fall, not any action by Ben himself.
It's perfectly understandable that that incident would set him on a darker path, and understandable that Rey would also conclude that Kylo's fall was as much Luke's fault as his own.. Rey feels betrayed on Kylo's part, as in both cases the figure they looked up to in Luke (as Master for Ben, and legend for Rey) betrayed them. If Rey can redeem Kylo, she can save Luke as well. If she can saved Luke, Luke can in turn become the master she needs him to be.
And back to Snoke, I still don't get what you think a Plagus reveal would add. To most viewers, Plagus is just a name associated with a powerful individual, exactly like Snoke. Sure, the handful of people who read the book (which I'm not sure is even part of the new canon) might get something more from it, and the people who were adamant they'd called it get their egos massaged, but it's ultimately going to be exactly as meaningful to the vast majority of cinema-goers. And, as I said before, it creates as many problems as it 'solves'; If Snoke is Plagus, how did he survive Palpatine's attempted assassination? Where was he during the era of the Empire? How is he associated with the First Order. You could say the same about Snoke, but that just proves that all you've done with the Plagus reveal is dropped a name.
I don't think you understand what "hypocrisy" means. Claiming to be modern and inclusive and being terrible at writing are not mutually exclusive concepts.
You could be right on the extent of the Hanlon Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." So even if the writer show no hypocrisy for sure they made a bad job with they female characters. If there is not hypocrisy, I can at least laugh at them I guess. In many interview, statements, or blogs by """""journalists""""" the weight of female character is literally advertised (and shown as a noverlty when is not, BTW). They are exploiting a climate to add visibility to their movies for free. So you have article there exploring the importance of this female character, another on why we need this character with the current climate, and so on. But is just a stunt for additional visibility in groups that would not be normally interested in SW (and this post- big bang theory world moved in that direction).
Phasma has been pushed and advertised as a novelty and strong female character. Yet is a complete failure. We don't need to have a character to be a major one to be interesting, sometimes a character can be one-scene wonder. Phasma is a woman that fails and surrenders. Which is fine - but all the circus built around there gave a different impression. I cannot help note the discrepancy. In the same way, I cannot help comparing the incommunicability of the admiral with the dialogue between Lando and Akbar in RotJ. The vibe in terms of trust and camaraderie is completely different. I am sure they wanted to create a strong woman in a position of command (the circus spent time on this as well) but they came out with someone less capable of being an inspiring leader.
I will keep my judgement on Rey-Ren (on Rey by herself I already said what can be said) because you could have a point about a possible late morale. We will see. But if I am right, the failure will be complete (the point Paradigm raised notwithstanding - on that regard, Vader could not have killed the father and was pushed by "love" in his first foul actions, but after the prequels, if you accept them, he is the guy whoo murdered children. TWICE. This adds to his point. A LOT).
People are upset Snoke was tossed aside without development because TFA and TLJ both indicate that his background is important to understanding what's going on with the setting and with other characters.
One of the things I don't like about TLJ is the implication that Kylo is unredeemable. This goes back to Luke tossing aside his father's lightsaber after Rey hands it to him. That lightsaber represents Luke's major achievement in his OT character arc, defying the wisdom of his mentors to risk everything and dare to embrace rather than destroy (and replace) his father. And he just throws it over his shoulder like it's garbage. That's absolute horse gak but it indicates where TLJ is headed. Later we find out Luke considered murdering Ben Solo. WTF??? How is it that the guy who saw good in Darth Vader could even waver in his committment to his young nephew? I'm not saying this is impossible under any circumstances. But it is inadequately explained by the movie despite being the most crucial reveal.
Someone brought up Prometheus and Covenant. The relationship between TFA and TLJ is very, very much like that between those two films: the first raises a bunch of interesting questions and promises to answer them "next time" but, when next time rolls around, far from answering them the new story flat out refuses to deal with them at all.
Manchu wrote: People are upset Snoke was tossed aside without development because TFA and TLJ both indicate that his background is important to understanding what's going on with the setting and with other characters.
One of the things I don't like about TLJ is the implication that Kylo is unredeemable. This goes back to Luke tossing aside his father's lightsaber after Rey hands it to him. That lightsaber represents Luke's major achievement in his OT character arc, defying the wisdom of his mentors to risk everything and dare to embrace rather than destroy (and replace) his father. And he just throws it over his shoulder like it's garbage. That's absolute horse gak but it indicates where TLJ is headed. Later we find out Luke considered murdering Ben Solo. WTF??? How is it that the guy who saw good in Darth Vader could even waver in his committment to his young nephew? I'm not saying this is impossible under any circumstances. But it is inadequately explained by the movie despite being the most crucial reveal.
Someone brought up Prometheus and Covenant. The relationship between TFA and TLJ is very, very much like that between those two films: the first raises a bunch of interesting questions and promises to answer them "next time" but, when next time rolls around, far from answering them the new story flat out refuses to deal with them at all.
I don't see that. Covenant answered a lot of questions. They explained how the xenomorphs were created, how they evolved, ect. We are to assume that they were created as a weapon by the creators - to purge life (though we don't know why they would want to do this) from a planet and we observe it when David releases the weapon on the creators themselves. These were all things that Prometheus basically suggested and covenant confirmed.
I see nothing like this fro SW. Just a lot of useless characters that don't advance the story.
At the end of Prometheus, Shaw says she will go find the Engineers and get the answers Prometheus failed to offer. In Covenant, David kills the Engineers (and possibly also Shaw) before any answers are given.
All throughout TFA, we're introduced to mystery after mystery, mostly connected to who Snoke is and why Luke has been gone, and, at the end, we see Rey about to talk with Luke. Then in TLJ, this stuff is hand waived away via dumb, inappropriate jokes.
The Khyber crystal would, still canonically, be chosen by The Right Jedi. This is shown in an episode of Clone Wars where some Younglings are taken to find their own crystals, and the trials therein.
Sith however have used artificial crystals, and that's why their blades are red. But, I'm not 100% sure if that is still canonical.
They actually just changed this a few months ago in the Darth Vader comic by Marvel. We see Vader build his red saber by tracking down a surviving Jedi and taking the crystal from his saber. He then fills it with his rage until it "bleeds" red.
There's a similar story where Ahsoka kills one of the inquisitors and takes the crystals from his saber. After she heals them, they turn into the white crystals we see her use in Rebels.
Yup. The Red Crystal are either actual Kyber Crystals infused with the dark side or synthetic crystals that have the same done to them. Blue is the normal color of a Kyber Crystal. Green is a synthetic crystal that luke manufactures to build his own light saber because he doesn't have access to a real one. The Purple one is very rare and unique and we never really get an explanation for why or how it exists. But thats pretty much all the light sabers. (Minus unique things like the Dark Saber but thats a crazy artifact from the distant past and is probably possessed by a ghost or something).
Paradigm wrote: So episode IX, we just get a really smug-looking Luke in the background of all Kylo's scenes, and occasionally Kylo will see him and go ballistic on something everyone else can't even see? Yep, sounds good!
Funnily enough... This is pretty much the exact same role Mark Hamill had in Arkham Knight...
Also, about Snoke. I think the point is this isn't his story. In same exact way that episodes 123 -456 were not palpatines.
Go back and watch 456. Those movies are ABOUT Vader and Luke. Palpatine is there but we never learn how he came to power, who his master is, or any other nonsense. It's just accepted that he is a powerful sith master and some bad news. We never get a single inkling into his history or who he is. Why is it acceptable then?
Go watch 123 (If you really hate yourself). We see palpatines rise but only in as much as it related to anakins fall. You don't see where he comes from, how he got powerful, who his master was or anything else about his backstory. Because the story is not about him.
789 are not about Snoke. It doesn't matter where he came from, who he is, or what hes doing. His purpose was to be the guy that drew Kylo into the dark and manipulated Rey. These movie are not about him. His story is irrelevant to the over all plot they are telling in these 3 movies. Just something to be explored later in books, comics, spin offs etc etc...
Lets pretend for a moment that in the movie they did say he was Plaguis reborn or mind transferred or whatever. Do you realize that that name only means something to a portion of the fans who bother to read ANY of the books, which is in turn a portion of the fans who delve into any of the expanded universe, which in turn excludes all the fans who only watch the movies?
What impact is that supposed to have on the majority of the movie going populace? What impact is that supposed to have on the 12-13 year olds for whom these are their first SW movies?
Delving into snokes story here in these movies would be a pointless distraction and be exactly the kind of bloat that makes 123 so much of a fething slog.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I would have really liked if instead of creating a new character as Vice Admiral, they would have had Akbar fulfill that role. They could have even thrown in a line when he is about to go to hyperspace, "Now, who's trapped?" At least his death would have done something as opposed to being a thowaway line.
Paradigm wrote: So episode IX, we just get a really smug-looking Luke in the background of all Kylo's scenes, and occasionally Kylo will see him and go ballistic on something everyone else can't even see? Yep, sounds good!
Funnily enough... This is pretty much the exact same role Mark Hamill had in Arkham Knight...
Hamil is such an excellent troll in general. Him basically doing the Robot Chicken "meesa sparkly" skit in the next movie would totally make my day.
As for Snoke, I think his biggest issue is the same issue the FO in general had in Ep7. Abrams just didn't really give us any idea what exactly the First Order (or the Resistance) was in that film. In 456 we understand what "the Empire" is and are therefore have a natural understanding of what "the Emperor" means (for those thinking he had any real backstory; he doesn't even get a name in the films). We didn't need to know the Emperor because we understood the organization he created. By contrast, Ep7 starts in such a weird place politically without any explanation that we don't really ever fully comprehend the First Order all the way up to their leadership.
I don't mind Jakku, but there's a lot of wasted potential not setting the opening of the film in a more populated area. That would have presented the opportunity to give us some good old propaganda holograms and recruitment reels. Snoke in Ep7 was presented more as a shadowy puppeteer than the face of the organization he serves in Ep8. Had he been presented that way from the start I think there would be far fewer questions.
Delving into snokes story here in these movies would be a pointless distraction and be exactly the kind of bloat that makes 123 so much of a fething slog.
Then why did they delve into it at all?
Palaptine doesn't show up until ESB, and even then it's brief. Snoke has ~3 minutes of screen time in TFA, and was repeatedly shown in trailers.
@LunarSol - exactly right RE: Snoke v. Palpatine ... also, Snoke is the key to why Luke was tempted to murder Ben ... and yet no explanation of how Luke's or Ben's relationship to Snoke.
@Lance845 - we see the rise of Palpatine in Eps 1 and 2. We didn't need to know this in the OT because nothing in the OT relied on that info, unlike how Snoke's background seems to be crucial to several points about TFA and TLJ.
Lance845 wrote: Also, about Snoke. I think the point is this isn't his story. In same exact way that episodes 123 -456 were not palpatines.
Go back and watch 456. Those movies are ABOUT Vader and Luke. Palpatine is there but we never learn how he came to power, who his master is, or any other nonsense. It's just accepted that he is a powerful sith master and some bad news. We never get a single inkling into his history or who he is. Why is it acceptable then?
But we do get a sense of who he is, why he matters and what role he fills in the film. How he's handled (in the OT) also proves that it doesn't have to involve bloating the film- which is something TLJ profoundly suffers from anyway. He's hinted at, then provides an important (but short) conversation with a lot of implications, and then finally is the major pivot for the climax of the final film and trilogy.
In TFA, they copy the short conversation with a lot of implications and then... set the whole thing on fire.
789 are not about Snoke. It doesn't matter where he came from, who he is, or what hes doing. His purpose was to be the guy that drew Kylo into the dark and manipulated Rey. These movie are not about him. His story is irrelevant to the over all plot they are telling in these 3 movies. Just something to be explored later in books, comics, spin offs etc etc...
Delving into snokes story here in these movies would be a pointless distraction and be exactly the kind of bloat that makes 123 so much of a fething slog.
It isn't about his story. It's about what he adds to the story the film is trying to tell, rather than wasting time on an element that doesn't go anywhere or do anything. In TFA, there is a huge pause while Cosplay Hux and Emo-Ren go snivel in front of a giant hologram. Said hologram gives permission for the decapitation strike with the superweapon on the republic, largely not for its own sake but to disrupt the Resisty's search for Luke. Then he lectures Emo-Ren about the corruption of the light. Since it turns out this doesn't matter at all, there was no reason to include it. Emo whimpers to himself enough while praying to grandpa to convey the exact same message. Similarly, if Cosplay Hux were his own boss, he can give himself the order to blow up the Republic capital, and the film can move on. Snoke is a deliberate waste of time and CGI budget, and a completely defunct and pointless story element. This is pretty much a red flag of bad movie making and bad storytelling.
In TLJ, he seems to serve as a bloated red herring that wastes screen time. Luke and Rey can just move directly to fighting the First Order and Ren, and not mess about with Gollum in a nice robe. Pacing, run time and excessive sub plots seem to be a thing with this film- not having a large and expensive element that apparently serves no point or purpose in the storytelling or action is entirely a good thing.
TFA needed Snoke because Kylo Ren needed an alternative father figure after, apparently, falling out with both his real dad and his uncle. But I guess KK and RJ realized Snoke served zero purpose going forward and used him as an excuse for Reylo drama.
Talking of purely unnecessary characters: Rose and Admiral Laura Dern. Get rid of both. Leia can do Laura Dern's part. That frees up Poe to have the long-awaited adventure with Finn. This also means Finn is not relegated to supporting a new, totally bland character. And you have a tighter, shorter film.
Of course, Disney didn't want such a film. The whole point of making these films is to grow licensing opportunities.
Delving into snokes story here in these movies would be a pointless distraction and be exactly the kind of bloat that makes 123 so much of a fething slog.
Then why did they delve into it at all?
Palaptine doesn't show up until ESB, and even then it's brief. Snoke has ~3 minutes of screen time in TFA, and was repeatedly shown in trailers.
3 minutes? Are you trying to say that is a lot? 3 minutes in a 2 hour movie means he is a major central player in the plot and deserves to be fleshed out with his backstory explained as something that is needed in the over all story ark? He got the screen time he needed to do what he had to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: @LunarSol - exactly right RE: Snoke v. Palpatine ... also, Snoke is the key to why Luke was tempted to murder Ben ... and yet no explanation of how Luke's or Ben's relationship to Snoke.
@Lance845 - we see the rise of Palpatine in Eps 1 and 2. We didn't need to know this in the OT because nothing in the OT relied on that info, unlike how Snoke's background seems to be crucial to several points about TFA and TLJ.
No it's not. Snokes background doesn't mean anything to the plot of 7 and 8. 7 and 8 are about Rey and Kylo. We have all the information needed.
Spoiler:
Snoke got to Kylo and stoked his insecurities. Luke couldn't see the scared child in front of him and instead the dark future looming. Had a moment of weakness. Pushed him away.
That is all the relevant background to this trilogy ark.
LunarSol wrote: Abrams just didn't really give us any idea what exactly the First Order (or the Resistance) was in that film. In 456 we understand what "the Empire" is and are therefore have a natural understanding of what "the Emperor" means (for those thinking he had any real backstory; he doesn't even get a name in the films). We didn't need to know the Emperor because we understood the organization he created. By contrast, Ep7 starts in such a weird place politically without any explanation that we don't really ever fully comprehend the First Order all the way up to their leadership.
I don't mind Jakku, but there's a lot of wasted potential not setting the opening of the film in a more populated area. That would have presented the opportunity to give us some good old propaganda holograms and recruitment reels. Snoke in Ep7 was presented more as a shadowy puppeteer than the face of the organization he serves in Ep8. Had he been presented that way from the start I think there would be far fewer questions.
This is one of the big problems of TFA that TLJ seems to continue. Neither organization is explained in any fashion. The FO obviously apes the Empire but... isn't it. The Resisty... doesn't really make sense in any way at all. One of the fill-in-the-gaps excuses (that wasn't in the film in any fashion) was the Republic didn't believe Leia and the other leaders about the existence of the First Order, so they went off to form the Resisty, but this explanation doesn't really hold any water- every single being they come across in the film knows exactly who the First Order are- scavengers, bartenders, pirates, bystanders in the cantina, literally everyone is 'in the know'. And this apparently continues in the TLJ, with Rose talking about the First Order strip mining planets and whatever. It's really obviously a big deal with a huge operation and massive logistics... being opposed by one noblewoman and a few old war buddies, and whoever they can talk into carrying the torch. For galaxy wide stakes, apparently.
With Snoke's presentation, it should have been consistent. A shadowy puppeteer Snoke (which he was introduced as, since Cosplay Hux is clearly a face of the FO) begs some explanation. A public Snoke requires less explanation, but still requires some sort of nod. It doesn't have to be a big one.- a would-be Rim warlord who was crushed by the Empire and now is back for revenge-fueled conquest is seriously fine. It can be tossed out by some (old guard imperial?) officer questioning his orders, 'why are we taking orders from a failed would be conqueror' before being summarily executed. Twenty seconds of dialogue and the whole matter is handled... up until Snoke is just tossed out of the plot.
Lance845 wrote: Also, about Snoke. I think the point is this isn't his story. In same exact way that episodes 123 -456 were not palpatines.
Go back and watch 456. Those movies are ABOUT Vader and Luke. Palpatine is there but we never learn how he came to power, who his master is, or any other nonsense. It's just accepted that he is a powerful sith master and some bad news. We never get a single inkling into his history or who he is. Why is it acceptable then?
But we do get a sense of who he is, why he matters and what role he fills in the film. How he's handled (in the OT) also proves that it doesn't have to involve bloating the film- which is something TLJ profoundly suffers from anyway. He's hinted at, then provides an important (but short) conversation with a lot of implications, and then finally is the major pivot for the climax of the final film and trilogy.
In TFA, they copy the short conversation with a lot of implications and then... set the whole thing on fire.
Yup. Because episode 9 isn't going to be a retred of RotJ. Snokes part in the story is done. It's not about Kylo mimicing Vader any more. That was what snoke used to manipulate kylo. Kylo has moved on and it's all new territory now. The best!
789 are not about Snoke. It doesn't matter where he came from, who he is, or what hes doing. His purpose was to be the guy that drew Kylo into the dark and manipulated Rey. These movie are not about him. His story is irrelevant to the over all plot they are telling in these 3 movies. Just something to be explored later in books, comics, spin offs etc etc...
Delving into snokes story here in these movies would be a pointless distraction and be exactly the kind of bloat that makes 123 so much of a fething slog.
It isn't about his story. It's about what he adds to the story the film is trying to tell, rather than wasting time on an element that doesn't go anywhere or do anything. In TFA, there is a huge pause while Cosplay Hux and Emo-Ren go snivel in front of a giant hologram. Said hologram gives permission for the decapitation strike with the superweapon on the republic, largely not for its own sake but to disrupt the Resisty's search for Luke. Then he lectures Emo-Ren about the corruption of the light. Since it turns out this doesn't matter at all, there was no reason to include it. Emo whimpers to himself enough while praying to grandpa to convey the exact same message. Similarly, if Cosplay Hux were his own boss, he can give himself the order to blow up the Republic capital, and the film can move on. Snoke is a deliberate waste of time and CGI budget, and a completely defunct and pointless story element. This is pretty much a red flag of bad movie making and bad storytelling.
In TLJ, he seems to serve as a bloated red herring that wastes screen time. Luke and Rey can just move directly to fighting the First Order and Ren, and not mess about with Gollum in a nice robe. Pacing, run time and excessive sub plots seem to be a thing with this film- not having a large and expensive element that apparently serves no point or purpose in the storytelling or action is entirely a good thing.
Snoke is essential to showing the evolution of Kylo. Kylo was a child worshipping his grandfathers legacy and snoke stoked that and manipulated it to turn Kylo into the tool he wanted. Snokes end is a evolution of Kylos character. It isn't about what we get out of Snoke, it's about what we get out of Kylo. Stop looking at Snokes scenes for Snokes sake and start looking at Snokes Scene for Kylo and Reys and what these characters learn, grow, and become because of it.
Rey gets to reinforce her resolve, Kylo moves forward as his own person with his own goals. Kylo isnt a vader under a emperor anymore. He is the emperor. Rey just went through what Luke did in RotJ and came out the other side firmly in her dedication to saving lives.
Manchu wrote: TFA needed Snoke because Kylo Ren needed an alternative father figure after, apparently, falling out with both his real dad and his uncle. But I guess KK and RJ realized Snoke served zero purpose going forward and used him as an excuse for Reylo drama.
Talking of purely unnecessary characters: Rose and Admiral Laura Dern. Get rid of both. Leia can do Laura Dern's part. That frees up Poe to have the long-awaited adventure with Finn. This also means Finn is not relegated to supporting a new, totally bland character. And you have a tighter, shorter film.
Of course, Disney didn't want such a film. The whole point of making these films is to grow licensing opportunities.
In an earlier draft, Poe and Finn go to the casino planet together. Johnson said he hated it because he thought it was boring and added Rose as someone who would challenge Finn.
Snoke is essential to showing the evolution of Kylo. Kylo was a child worshipping his grandfathers legacy and snoke stoked that and manipulated it to turn Kylo into the tool he wanted. Snokes end is a evolution of Kylos character. It isn't about what we get out of Snoke, it's about what we get out of Kylo. Stop looking at Snokes scenes for Snokes sake
I'm not. I'm looking at it for the movies' sake. And the character is presented as a complete waste of time.
Snoke isn't necessary for Emo Ren. His jealous fit of murder rage does not require Snoke. It requires a sense of rejection, and misguided hero worship. Both are easily provided for.
Add in some spotty recordings, and he can do the whole thing to himself.
And, Ren doing it to himself doesn't raise questions about how Luke didn't notice Snoke hanging about his new Jedi temple like pedo in a white van, which Snoke 'stoking' Ren presumably requires.
Kylo and Reys and what these characters learn, grow, and become because of it.
People are easily murdered and disposable? Emo Ren had apparently already learned that when he chops up other Jedi hopefuls in the rain. Rey learns that shortly after she learns about the force, when she just ups and blasts a stormtrooper.
Kylo isnt a vader under a emperor anymore. He is the emperor.
He isn't either. His character arc in TFA is to somehow prove himself worthy to be a vader, and he fails at it. He's so abjectly pathetic that even he doesn't think himself equal to a tortured servant and plaything.
By the end of TLJ he isn't the emperor. He's just the only guy with a lightsaber on the bad guy's side, thus to his mirror, he looks really cool. To be the Emperor he'd need to outwit and outmaneuver the entire galaxy and get them to willingly place him on the throne. Being the 'baddest dude' in charge of someone else's massive invading army is missing the point, and invading someone who magically doesn't have a fleet or army any more lacks a sense of accomplishment.
Kylo moves forward as his own person with his own goals.
Which are... what?
Seriously, no one and nothing has put forth a goal yet for any person or organization in these films.
Lance845 wrote: Snokes background doesn't mean anything to the plot of 7 and 8.
Incorrect. Luke explains that he was tempted to kill Ben Solo because Ben was too far under the influence of Snoke. How? When? Why? Not explained. As you yourself concede:
Lance845 wrote: Snoke is essential to showing the evolution of Kylo.
Gordon Shumway wrote: In an earlier draft, Poe and Finn go to the casino planet together. Johnson said he hated it because he thought it was boring and added Rose as someone who would challenge Finn.
IMO just further confirmation, in addition to the terrible jokes in TLJ, that RJ is tone deaf. Finn/Poe team up at the beginning of TFA was breathless fun. Them having an adventure together in TLJ was something I was really looking forward to. What was boring about the casino world stuff was the prequel-esque casino world stuff itself, plus Rose's inane political commentary.
Lance845 wrote: Also, about Snoke. I think the point is this isn't his story. In same exact way that episodes 123 -456 were not palpatines.
Go back and watch 456. Those movies are ABOUT Vader and Luke. Palpatine is there but we never learn how he came to power, who his master is, or any other nonsense. It's just accepted that he is a powerful sith master and some bad news. We never get a single inkling into his history or who he is. Why is it acceptable then?
I think it's because Palpatine was the first time the series did it. Snoke was the weak point of the film for me, because he came across as a Palpatine cosplayer. If he had been Plagueis or a flawed clone of Palpatine, it would have been.....something to make him distinct from his predecessor.
I think overall, I disliked the movie when it was trying to homage the original trilogy all the time (biggest offender the landspeeder / siege weapon scene which added virtually nothing to the plot or characters other than "Hey, wasn't it cool when ESB did this?"). You can say a lot of bad things about the prequels, but they were innovating and trying to do new stuff with the setting, even if a lot of that new stuff didn't work.
But on the other hand, I liked the movie a lot when it felt like it was doing its own thing and actually building on the lore (Like the bit with Yoda being "Eh, I've seen the Jedi fall too, you get over it.", or the roguish merc very much not having a heart of gold under a scummy exterior).
Overall, I had fun. (edit) And having flicked through a few pages of this thread, I should probably leave before that sense of fun starts to spoil.
We all love the original trilogy, and we'd all admit that's not perfect. No film is.
None the less, there was a rational and a logic to it.
Nobody asks where the Empire got the money from for the Death Star, because they are an Empire with resources to spare.
Nobody questions Darth Vader - one look at him tells you. When Peter Cushing talks of the Senate being dissolved and systems being cowed by the Death Star, the audience knows we're dealing with tyrants. It's self-explanatory.
Similary, background is dealt with in a subtle war. Cushing tells Vader you are the last of that order. The Clone wars is mentioned. Luke's uncle is worried he'll turn out like his father. Kenobi is hiding out in a cave, but R2-D2's message hints at a past.
It feels right when those things are mentioned. A rational is at work here.
Vader is competent. His officers are competent. They don't always succeed, obviously, but compare them to the joke that is Hux. You would fear the former, but laugh at the latter. Hux is supposed to be a 'serious' villian, a capable commander, not some blundering off. There is no menace there.
And then we get TFA. Where did the first order come from? Who is Snoke? Why did Ben turn? The Republic - what happened to it?
Simply saying you need to read 30 background novels before going to the cinema is a cop out. There were no background novels for a New Hope before it came out.
In Episode IX, the first order will be defeated, Ben will be defeated, the rebels, sorry resistance, will win, and we're right back at the end of Return of the Jedi.
A pointless story arc that should have ended with ROTJ.
This is one of the big problems of TFA that TLJ seems to continue. Neither organization is explained in any fashion. The FO obviously apes the Empire but... isn't it.
This is one area I think Ep8 was a huge improvement on. The FO is clearly expressed as a militant uprising that has decapitated the government and begun conquering the galaxy. Even the name "The Resistance" makes sense in this context. The problem lies in the way these groups were introduced in Ep7 and something I was excited to feel like Ep8 really fixed for me.
3 minutes? Are you trying to say that is a lot? 3 minutes in a 2 hour movie means he is a major central player in the plot and deserves to be fleshed out with his backstory explained as something that is needed in the over all story ark? He got the screen time he needed to do what he had to do.
Relative to Palpatine? Yes, that is a lot. He isn't just "The Emperor", who had to exist because it's called "The Empire", he is a named character featured in TFA trailers to such an extent that conversation in the run up to TFA was dominated by "Who is Snoke?".
Overall, I had fun. (edit) And having flicked through a few pages of this thread, I should probably leave before that sense of fun starts to spoil.
In other words, you are in the intermediate state between denial and acceptance that you wasted the ticket money and you don't feel is the case to go any further.
I can accept that.
Lance845 wrote: Snokes background doesn't mean anything to the plot of 7 and 8.
Incorrect. Luke explains that he was tempted to kill Ben Solo because Ben was too far under the influence of Snoke. How? When? Why? Not explained.
I agree that new trilogy leaves too many things untold about First Order, Resistance and Snoke. Where the First Order came from, how is Snoke such a powerful Force user (he is apparently not a Jedi, and no mention is made if he's a Sith either), why there was need for 'Resistance' if there already was a Republic? As said, in the first trilogy, there was little need to explain this stuff. There was the Emperor, which is self-explanatory. In prequels, there was the Republic (again, self-explanatory) and the Trade Federation, which was never explained, one of the many weaknesses of the story.
Cynic in me says they have let purposedfully things vague so people would rush in to buy EU novels and stuff.
I don't mind the Snoke angle, I think it was actually quite good, but we needed to know more to care more. Well, I guess between Episodes X and XI there will be "Rise of Snoke" standalone prequel movie...
Gordon Shumway wrote: In an earlier draft, Poe and Finn go to the casino planet together. Johnson said he hated it because he thought it was boring and added Rose as someone who would challenge Finn.
IMO just further confirmation, in addition to the terrible jokes in TLJ, that RJ is tone deaf. Finn/Poe team up at the beginning of TFA was breathless fun. Them having an adventure together in TLJ was something I was really looking forward to. What was boring about the casino world stuff was the prequel-esque casino world stuff itself, plus Rose's inane political commentary.
Whole Casino angle felt rushed, like it was thrown together quickly and had 5 minutes cut off. That said, I disagree with those who said Finn/Rose mission was pointless, or that the characters were pointless. Whole subplot existed to show that heroes don't always succeed, that First Order is not totally incompetent and that shady people found from jails perhaps aren't the most trustworthy. It's stuff like that which adds realism and tension to the story.
Lets not forget that from plot point, Luke was totally useless at end of RotJ. All that fighting with Vader and Emperor did nothing for the Rebel fleet, who won the battle anyway. If anything, Luke jeopardized the mission for very selfish reasons. But from emotional viewpoint, it was very important as it brought closure for the Skywalker story.
Also I think this is really going to dampen any sort of fan theory hype for episode 9. I really left feeling the story had very lift to discuss and they've made it very clear that they don't develop any of their characters or do any real world building. So why waste time analysing something when they are making it up. Why theorise about Kylo Ren when clearly there isn't a master plan and mysteries left. People left episode 7 feeling things left unsaid about the First Order or Snoke were questions. Episode 8 has revealed there are no answers worth knowing.
To be honest Iam more annoyed by the "screw you nerd" attitude of all the websites and Disney in reaction to the criticism. From attempts to dismiss any criticism outright. Insisting it's a conspiracy online. Belittling and making personal insinuations like people being too into the source material. As well as endless attempts to twist this into an attack on the women of the film. It's getting kind of offensive. Especially considering it has very little to do with any SJW argument or personal attacks on people. It's basically fans saying they didn't like stuff with Luke, Rey and Snoke. Are we not allowed to criticise Disney and it's creative decisions?
Plus I just feel Disney don't do any World
building. I mean we are two films in and they haven't explained where the First Order came from and why the Rebellion didn't destroy them and hang every Imperial as a war criminal. They just handwave it as Empire 2.0 along with Rebellion 2.0 with a cursory mention that "oh yeah there was a Republic but that's blown up so it's not relevant. 2nd Galactic Civil War guys!!!!"
Manchu wrote: Incorrect. Luke explains that he was tempted to kill Ben Solo because Ben was too far under the influence of Snoke. How? When? Why? Not explained.
This is an area where the First Order's depiction in Ep8 cleans up a lot of questions for me. The movie makes it easier to see them as a militant uprising and Snoke as someone feeding those dissatisfied with the Republic (or those capable of profiting from a need for increased military spending) with hatred and a cause. With an opening crawl that does more to make us understand that the Republic has been decapitated than Ep7's "who was that?" planet destruction scene pulled off; I get it and by extension, I get Snoke and by further extension, I get the references to Ben.
Ep7 makes it sound like Ben was wandering off for Sith tutoring on the side, but after seeing Ep8, I see it more along the lines of a disenchanted youth lured to the rhetoric of a charismatic madman. I'm sure there's a degree of mental contact and whispered promises, but the neat thing about what we learned in Ep8 is that it doesn't require Luke to have even been aware Snoke was anything more than a political loon at the time he failed Ben. They talk about it in hindsight like it was obviously Snoke's influence, but its not presented like Luke looked in Ben's mind and Snoke waved called dibs. It's more that Luke looked in and saw Ben daydreaming about slaughtering his classmates and freaked out about it. When he then ran away and joined the FO as their new Vader it likely became very obvious what they were really up against.
Of course, none of this is explicitly in the film, but that's the big win in my mind for Ep8. The character of the FO is so vastly improved that I don't need explicit answers the way I did after seeing Ep7. The villains plan and actions make sense in a way that informs us where they may have come from rather than have them be archetypes desperately in need of a backstory.
Plus I just feel Disney don't do any World
building. I mean we are two films in and they haven't explained where the First Order came from and why the Rebellion didn't destroy them and hang every Imperial as a war criminal. They just handwave it as Empire 2.0 along with Rebellion 2.0 with a cursory mention that "oh yeah there was a Republic but that's blown up so it's not relevant. 2nd Galactic Civil War guys!!!!"
This film did way more world building than Ep7. It actually created a setting worth investing in for the first time since.... IDK probably the Vong.
Star Wars has always been about establishing a conflict exists more than explaining how that conflict came to exist. Then they made a series of movies about explaining the backstory of the villains from the first trilogy, and it basically snuffed out the franchise for a decade.
I yearn for the days of the Trade Federation - at least you got a explanation.
They also made sense - a group of planets unhappy about Republican taxes or trade routes etc etc
As I've said before, If anybody from Disney is reading this, give me 18 months, Nicholas Cage, and $200 million dollars, and I've give you a Star Wars film to remember.
On a serious note, I've always had an idea for a SW film: The First Jedi. It would go back to the dawn of history, and the early days of wandering philosophers and sages trying to make sense of the force. Paradise Lost would be the template for its foundations. The aesthetic would be obviously familiar SW tech, but a more primeval, iron age feel, rustic - if that makes sense?
There would be no lightsabers, no Jedi temples, no Jedi, no Sith - just an old fashioned adventure, but with a moral and philisophical core, with the natural emergence of things like Jedi and Sith, and even Grey.
Overall, I had fun. (edit) And having flicked through a few pages of this thread, I should probably leave before that sense of fun starts to spoil.
In other words, you are in the intermediate state between denial and acceptance that you wasted the ticket money and you don't feel is the case to go any further.
I can accept that.
Or admitting that even Lucky Charms taste terrible if you poor them into a bowl of spoiled milk.
The crawl just says the Republic is gone. I don't see how that is better than showing the capital (and some other important planets?) getting blown up by a Death Star Analog. TLJ does even less than TFA in terms of explaining what the feth is going on in this setting.
Luke explicitly says he was tempted to kill his own nephew because Ben was too far gone under the influence of Snoke. This is TLJ's explanation of the most crucial element of the new trilogy. But TLJ gives no explanation for how or why this was the case.
One thing I really liked about TFA (and hated about R1) was that the FO was depicted as competent and threatening. TLJ was more like R1, where the Bad Guys are total rubes with like one exception. In R1, Krennic is like, "why is no one doing anything?" In TLJ, the captain of the dreadnought is like, "why didn't we scramble fighters five minutes ago?" In TFA, the FO was a fanatical movement described to us by a NSDAP-style rally speech. In TLJ, the FO is just a pack of mooks like the bad guys in Space Balls.
In what sense? Episode 8 tells you very little about the First Order or State of the Galaxy. Yes it tells you a little more than nothing. But there's nothing comparable to when Tarkin talks about the Senate being dissolved or Obi Wan about the Dark Times. It's enough to work with.
All we learn is that they are taking over the "major systems". Very generic, doesn't tell you anything. We also hear about the Resistence "allies in the Outer Rim". Again, very generic. Who are they exactly. Iam not expecting "oh Sabine is Mandalore and she'll join us" but a bit more explanation. Why does nobody on the Core Worlds support them?
We are also not told how the First Order managed to build such a massive force simply by strip mining a few worlds. But the Galactic government can only afford a single planetary defence fleet. Surely the Republic would have such an enormous economy it could build a bigger military than a small mining operation. Not to mention that it would be impossible to keep the build up a secret if they've were strip mining worlds and killing entire planetary populations for target practice as Rose tells it.
But yeah that's not a lot to go on. I mean imagine if they rebooted 40k. If they killed the Emperor and then just made a new Imperium without any explanation beyond vague insinuations and just an expectation for you to roll with it. That's how I feel with the First Order. You have to explain how these guys fit with the ending of Return of the Jedi where the Empire is defeated.
Plus they drop some confusing lines. Why does Poe introduce himself as part of the Republic Fleet (I approve of this) when we are told by Holdo that the Republic is to be restored and yet everyone's still calling themselves the Resistence.
I mean personally, you don't stop calling yourself British if Parliament gets blown up and you definetly wouldn't acknowledge the First Order had won by saying the New Republic was gone.
Manchu wrote: The crawl just says the Republic is gone. I don't see how that is better than showing the capital (and some other important planets?) getting blown up by a Death Star Analog. TLJ does even less than TFA in terms of explaining what the feth is going on in this setting.
It's probably more than just the opening crawl I suppose. The dialog throughout the escape sequence has a great sense of desperation and the characters all do a good job explaining the situation and consequences in pretty appropriate ways (even Rey fits it in while trying to win over Luke).
I really like the Starkiller speech in Ep7, but what follows is pretty confusing. We're told that they're shooting at the Republic and we get some scenes of planets blowing up, but nobody really reacts to the consequences. The FO doesn't begin their conquest and without that, we don't get the sense that the Resistance is all there is to oppose their takeover. The movie actually pretty quickly shifts to celebrating the Resistance rescue and the reunions of important characters before becoming all about rescuing the Resistance base from the second Starkiller attack. Ultimately the issue is that it never really feels like the destruction of the Republic matters the way it does in Ep8. In a lot of ways it just feels like they fired a really genocidal warning shot.
Yeah I must admit I loved when Holdo gave the speech about how we are all here to restore the Republic. It's stupid they don't consider themselves members of the Republic military. But still. It felt good and it made sense for these characters to care and feel that their nation was under assault by a criminal and fascist regime.
Which is why context matters because these things matter to our characters so it's important to know why they care about the New Republic being blown up. Episode 7 nobody cares and it goes without comment or a sense of loss. The significance of the event is lost on people and forgotten.
After the Battle of Endor, Mon Mothma negotiated peace with the Empire. This included demilitarizing the Empire, which still exists and is still headquartered on Coruscant. The Republic also demilitarized, with Mon Mothma arguing that Republic would not simply continue on where the Empire left off, holding systems together through military intimidation. So the Republic's capital was moved, on a revolving basis, among some number of member worlds and it maintained a single space fleet - the FO presumably blew up all of this in TFA.
Thing is, NONE OF THIS WAS EXPLAINED IN EITHER MOVIE. So we have to ask the question, is this information important to understand what happened in TFA?
The clear answer is YES. Without knowing this stuff, it's hard to say why Resistance and the FO even exist. Yes, I get that the FO wants to destroy the Republic (because Hux explained that in his speech) but I don't know why he targeted seven (or however many) planets. Are those all of the Republic planets? Or just the capital worlds? TLJ begins by telling us that the Republic is gone - and I guess this line in the fething crawl is supposed to retroactively explain why Starkiller Base blew up multiple planets. I was actually pretty shocked that TLJ opened with a line saying the Republic is decimated. It made me wonder what had happened between TFA and TLJ.
Just another thing that is brought up in the film solely for the sake of selling novels and comics books later on.
Manchu wrote: After the Battle of Endor, Mon Mothma negotiated peace with the Empire. This included demilitarizing the Empire, which still exists and is still headquartered on Coruscant. The Republic also demilitarized, with Mon Mothma arguing that Republic would not simply continue on where the Empire left off, holding systems together through military intimidation. So the Republic's capital was moved, on a revolving basis, among some number of member worlds and it maintained a single space fleet - the FO presumably blew up all of this in TFA.
Thing is, NONE OF THIS WAS EXPLAINED IN EITHER MOVIE. So we have to ask the question, is this information important to understand what happened in TFA?
The clear answer is YES. Without knowing this stuff, it's hard to say why Resistance and the FO even exist. Yes, I get that the FO wants to destroy the Republic (because Hux explained that in his speech) but I don't know why he targeted seven planets. Are those all of the Republic planets? Or just the capital worlds? TLJ begins by telling us that the Republic is gone - and I guess this line in the fething crawl is supposed to retroactively explain why Starkiller Base blew up multiple planets.
Just another thing that is brought up in the film solely for the sake of selling novels and comics books later on.
See I have read summaries of that and i honestly think that's just stupid. If the Rebels won a decisive victory that destroyed the Imperial Fleet they would not have allowed the Imperial Remnant to exist. It's like if Democratic Germany had a peace treaty with the Nazis and decided to disarm them. The Rebels would never legitimise the Empire and would dismantle that state, put all its elites on trial and politely hang as many of them as possible. They're Nazis. Why wouldn't the Rebels pursue unconditional surrender? In the EU it's because the Remant is reduced to three outer rim worlds and is led by a moderate Pelleon; the Empire is clearly gone. You wouldn't leave them with Coruscant and the Core Worlds. Not when you have won the war.
Yeah, that's the big gripe I have with Ep7. All that backstory is necessary to appreciate the conflict in Ep7.
On the other hand, Ep8 does a better job of expressing the backstory of the conflict. It really doesn't matter where the FO came from or how they destroyed the Republic; the film makes it pretty clear it happened and the heroes are desperately trying to hold the line as they conquer the galaxy. It doesn't even lean on Ep7 to make you aware of this, even though it probably could have. Sure, there's details left out, but those details aren't needed to define what's going on.
That's not to say Ep8 is a better starting point. Ultimately this is Rey's story; and Ep7 is about Rey's journey and much of Ep8 is a continuation of that. In terms of world building though, Ep8 gives us the interesting world that Ep7 largely skipped over.
The back story (that does not appear in either film) makes sense to me.
At Endor, the Rebellion destroyed DS2, the Executor, and killed (or "killed") the Emperor and Darth Vader. What we didn't see is the rest of that huge Imperial fleet get destroyed. And we know that the Rebel fleet that appeared on screen is almost certainly the bulk of what they had given that, as the Emperor intended, they needed to throw everything they had at this chance to take him down.
So post-Endor, the Empire is still very powerful in material terms and the Rebellion still isn't. But the Rebellion/New Republic has the edge of in-tact leadership while the Empire starts to turn in on itself as various ambitious warlords grab for power. The New Republic probably cannot beat the Empire in an actual war, if the Empire manages to get organized, which would in any case be catastrophic for the people of the galaxy. And the Empire probably cannot beat the New Republic because of their internal issues (for example, trying to keep systems from defecting). So both sides sought a political solution.
The upshot is, factions on both sides are extremely dissatisfied for the reasons you outlined - hence the Resistance and FO.
TLJ didn't give us anything in terms of explaining the setting. It just strolled on from where TFA failed to do the same.
In the first movie the explanation for why there were only X-Wings in the resistance was that A-Wings, Y-Wings, and B-Wings were part of the Republic fleet and that it was decimated when Death Star Jr. Alpha Gold destroyed that sector including the Republic Fleet but at the beginning they now have A-Wings with the bombers and X-Wings. This seems to be a film where the more you think about the worse it gets. It was pretty but a lot of it is either unethically truncated just to sell outside media (books/comics) or is just a flat out contradiction with previous information.
Also, I think this is Kylo Ren's story as he is the real hero of this trilogy so far. I want more Matt the Radar Technician as well.
Manchu wrote: The back story (that does not appear in either film) makes sense to me.
At Endor, the Rebellion destroyed DS2, the Executor, and killed (or "killed") the Emperor and Darth Vader. What we didn't see is the rest of that huge Imperial fleet get destroyed. And we know that the Rebel fleet that appeared on screen is almost certainly the bulk of what they had given that, as the Emperor intended, they needed to throw everything they had at this chance to take him down.
So post-Endor, the Empire is still very powerful in material terms and the Rebellion still isn't. But the Rebellion/New Republic has the edge of in-tact leadership while the Empire starts to turn in on itself as various ambitious warlords grab for power. The New Republic probably cannot beat the Empire in an actual war, if the Empire manages to get organized, which would in any case be catastrophic for the people of the galaxy. And the Empire probably cannot beat the New Republic because of their internal issues (for example, trying to keep systems from defecting). So both sides sought a political solution.
The upshot is, factions on both sides are extremely dissatisfied for the reasons you outlined - hence the Resistance and FO.
TLJ didn't give us anything in terms of backstory. It just strolled on from where TFA failed to do the same.
You're downplaying the significance of the Battle of Jakku. It was such a total defeat it caused Hux and the remaining fanatics to flee
To the Unkniwn Regions.
It's also extremely unclear how current some of that is. I think it mentions several rival Galactic powers including a reborn Seperatist Alliance (somebody didn't get the Disney "we hate prequels" memo). Yet it's unclear if they or the Imperial Remnant centred on Coruscant are still in existence when the films begin. What I've read doesn't give a clear picture.
But I don't think it makes sense for the Imperials to have fled if they still had substantial military assets and territory including Coruscant.
Ahtman wrote: This seems to be a film where the more you think about the worse it gets.
Ahtman wrote: a lot of it is either unethically truncated just to sell outside media (books/comics)
Ahtman wrote: Also, I think this is Kylo Ren's story
Yep, all of this is correct.
I really like the character of Kylo Ren. I wish the movies telling his story were better or, at least, not quite so soulless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Totalwar1402 wrote: You're downplaying the significance of the Battle of Jakku.
That's true - except I'm not downplaying it, I just don't know much about it because the fething movies don't explain anything about it and I haven't read the novels and comics.
Ahtman wrote: This seems to be a film where the more you think about the worse it gets.
Ahtman wrote: a lot of it is either unethically truncated just to sell outside media (books/comics)
Ahtman wrote: Also, I think this is Kylo Ren's story
Yep, all of this is correct.
I really like the character of Kylo Ren. I wish the movies telling his story were better or, at least, not quite so soulless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Totalwar1402 wrote: You're downplaying the significance of the Battle of Jakku.
That's true - except I'm not downplaying it, I just don't know much about it because the fething movies don't explain anything about it and I haven't read the novels and comics.
Most of the stuff about Jakku comes from the last Aftermath novel. I've only read a summary but it's clearly the Empires end. Also Battlefront 2 shows this.
Not a bad way to explain it, especially considering that Rimmer is a very likable character despite (because of?) being an unlikable person.
There's very few mentions to the prequels. Aside from using Sideous name he doesn't refer to anything Obi Wan didn't tell Luke.
He continued JJ Abrams attempt to dismantle the notion that the Sith are this Order that opposes the Jedi and is as central to Star Wars as the Jedi. A fan of the prequels would not do that. To paraphrase JJ "they're that prequel thing" and they prefer to just not bother developing their own identity for whatever Snoke was. Which leads to Kylos confusing line about the Sith needing to end when we have repeatedly been told that the Sith died with Vader by the show runners. Why is Kylo asking to end something that has already ended? It's a disingenuous statement.
If he was a fan of the prequels I would have expected more references to them. I mean "major planets"? Coruscant? Kashykk? Naboo? Corellia? Duro? Mandalore? There's very little of that.
So post-Endor, the Empire is still very powerful in material terms and the Rebellion still isn't. But the Rebellion/New Republic has the edge of in-tact leadership while the Empire starts to turn in on itself as various ambitious warlords grab for power. The New Republic probably cannot beat the Empire in an actual war, if the Empire manages to get organized, which would in any case be catastrophic for the people of the galaxy. And the Empire probably cannot beat the New Republic because of their internal issues (for example, trying to keep systems from defecting). So both sides sought a political solution.
See this would make some sense, but sadly in the Video Game of Loot Boxes, they give the canonical story. And it's... even more stupid than you would expect. And dumb to have as the unspoken backstory of the film and shouldn't (in my view) impact the film, because a book or film should be able to hold its own coherent narrative, without a bunch of 'well, actually...'
But what happens between Return and Awakens is
Spoiler:
the Emperor had secret orders go out in the event of his death, ordering various fleets to... destroy the worlds and planets of the Empire. Not the Rebellion worlds, but loyal Imperial worlds. Because something something out in the dark, watching him, maybe. This they then do, and infighting happens and the Rebels fight against the Empire carpet bombing their own planets and then the battle of Jakku happens and then the First Order (With Emo Ren already involved) shows up twenty some years later after whatever information, something something Skywalker, probably. Possibly because Luke randomly wandered off with a magic space compass from one of the Emperor's secret repositories* while literally everyone else (except this one Imperial, who was also trying to break into the secret vault) was trying to save and/or burn the galaxy.
*said secret repository was really sad, by the way. Its built up into something amazing, but once inside, it looks like something from Storage Wars. Even the characters were crushingly disappointed- the most interesting thing in the room were several deactivated Death Star Droids- the tall shiny ones that are walking around in the original film. It's like someone took a picture of a Star Wars storage shed on the Fox studios lot and stuck it into the game.
I haven't caught up with this thread, so I'm sure there are many points hashed out on both sides I haven't considered yet, but I really enjoyed the film even while feeling like every criticism I've seen about the film is true and accurate.
JJ only seemed to care about scenes and RJ only about themes. Both movies were just terribly constructed and poorly thought out, but TLJ managed to resonate for me where TFA left me cold.
I'm not sure where the franchise can go from here. Destroying the past tropes might clear the way for truly fresh stories, but the covenant with the audience has been broken. When the franchise becomes comfortable ignoring its own foundations for a momentary pay off, the fans won't be able to invest emotionally into the setting so deeply again.
If the prequels and TFA hadn't killed my investment in the series, I'd probably be furious. Instead, I enjoyed this elseworlds Star Wars and wonder where Disney will allow the franchise to go during its Marvel period. Fun, meaningless flings without the deep emotional attachment might be fun for a few years.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This film is as subjective as that old lady/young lady illusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't believe a lot of this information was left out deliberately to force comic book sales. Even Disney must know that people will only so many incomplete stories before they lose interest.
I believe the difference is in the backgrounds of who made the films. Neither JJ nor RJ seem to care about technical details or the nitty gritty of the setting. They want their story to override such paltry concerns as where did the FO come from or whether or not kamikaze hyperspace jumps can destroy fleets. They get so caught up in the beats and workings of a film that they destroy the story like Lenny with a mouse. The OT was put together by a lot of talented people who understood science fiction. This new series feels like was assembled by a bunch of graphic designers showing off. There is no consistency in the setting because everyone is too caught up trying to make it look good or hit the right emotional notes, or set up the next mystery for them to sit down and think if anything makes sense.
My problem with the prequels was primarily I felt they spent too long in episode 1 to the detriment of the story in 2 and 3. Make ep 1 a flashback in ep 2 and spend more time with the destruction of the republic.
My problem with 7 and 8 is that not enough time is spent prior to the movies! All that I'm hearing about the time between 6 and 7 sounds fascinating!
They should have made episode 7 a Star Wars/Romance of the 3 Kingdoms dealing with the fracturing of the empire and the resistance response. The old adage of show don't tell fits perfectly here. Show me Hux leading his faction of imperial sympathizers, backstabbing the fledgling republic and working behind the scenes to grab power. Show me the rise of Snoke and the twisting of Ben Solo. Make them legitimate threats to the republic rather than just "well we need a bad guy".
Then have a time skip or whatever and jump into the force awakens. You could have the end of this 3Kingdoms episode 7 be with the flashback in Last Jedi of the destruction of Luke's Jedi temple/Ben's defection to Snoke and then Force awakens starts after a small time skip.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Neither JJ nor RJ seem to care about technical details or the nitty gritty of the setting. They want their story to override such paltry concerns as where did the FO come from or whether or not kamikaze hyperspace jumps can destroy fleets.
More importantly, I don't think they care about the details or nitty gritty of storytelling. They want their spectacle to override any other concerns. Not the setting, the actors or even the characters. Just the explosions, CGI and other trappings.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Neither JJ nor RJ seem to care about technical details or the nitty gritty of the setting. They want their story to override such paltry concerns as where did the FO come from or whether or not kamikaze hyperspace jumps can destroy fleets.
More importantly, I don't think they care about the details or nitty gritty of storytelling. They want their spectacle to override any other concerns. Not the setting, the actors or even the characters. Just the explosions, CGI and other trappings.
I disagree slightly. I think Rian Johnson felt it was very important to structure his characters' arcs around the ideas that 1) failure is the best teacher, 2) grand personal heroics may win battles but won't win wars, and 3) the last 20 years of Star Wars were wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, subvert the dominant SW paradigm.
His reasoning is flawed. While I see the merits of his decision, I think he has cut too much fat from the steak. He also really, really sucks at finding solutions for simple problems. Why the hell would Snoke need to monologue to Rey? There are a dozen ways to add crucial background without clunky exposition...and it's not like one of the characters was asking another character for some instruction or anything....
I just saw the movie. I am very divided about it. On pure technical point of view. It's a beautiful movie, with awesome sets and environments, exceptional special effect and beautifully framed. On that I think The Last Jedi stands head and shoulder above Marvel and DC movies in term of grandeur.
I loved the scenes involving Luke, Rey, Ren and Snoke. I wished there would have been more of it. There was space and time to do more world building, focus more on what it feels to be a Jedi. These four actors were doing a great job, the ambiance was awesome. My gib takeaway from this movie are probably the confrontation with Snoke in his throne room. Well paced, clever twist and great fight (probably one of the best in Star Wars). Luke sacrifice at the end was great to. It was inspiring and I especially loved his snarky last words. Finally, the very last scene in the movie with the kids re-telling the story cemented the whole thing.
The big problem with that movie though, is that there was about an hour and a half of completly pointless stuff surrounding a character that should maybe have been kept a asleep for the entire episode. I liked Finn in the VII, he was funny and had a certain drive. I could see his character arc of transforming from a cowardly deserter to a fearless resistance leader happen. It sort of happenned in this movie, but it felt flat due to the general aimless nature of his action. His confrontation with Phasma should have been his reckonning. She is to him what Ren is to Rey afterall. The only problem is that there was no build up for their confrontation, which lasted 30 seconds ended in a sucker punch and a Disney death and phasma herself, firmly established herself as the New Bobba Fett: cool, but ultimatly just a footnote. (I did laugh though when her armor actually provided some protection against blaster shots. It was about time for armor to do something in Star Wars).
I guess I will need some time and maybe another viewing to trully make my mind on it.
Ah. So out less than a week and the director has to explain what the film meant.
Good job.
And I'm starting to see that a lot of the rationalizing in this thread is coming from the director's mouth, not from what people saw in the film...
I'm also amused at the related article on why Yoda HAD to come back and pause the movie to give his exposition. It's a nice conjunction with why it would be wrong to have exposition from Snoke.
Bobtheinquisitor wrote:Also, subvert the dominant SW paradigm.
“There are so many little details,” added producer Ram Bergman. “The first time you watch the movie, it’s a little bit overwhelming. But the second time you’re more relaxed, and you can start picking up so many details Rian planted throughout.”
“These movies are engineered to be watched over and over again,” Johnson said.
Seems to me he has the paradigm down to science. He just skimped on the art.
And 'failure is the best teacher' is very ingrained in the OT. Luke's training is a very model of learning by failure. Han screws up all the time (failure to fast talk, failure to repair, or failure to pick locks, to pick one important instance from each film)
Your #2 is pretty much the message of the prequels- TPM- dueling pointless to the overall battle, AotC- screw the coliseum spectacle, bring on the army, RotS- treachery and planning triumph over everything, especially individual heroes.
This isn't the last 20 years were wrong or subversion. These are the same elements jammed together inexpertly and presented in a clumsy fashion.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Not to mention that it would be impossible to keep the build up a secret if they've were strip mining worlds and killing entire planetary populations for target practice as Rose tells it.
Palaptine managed to create an entire army (the clones) in secret. Lots of Senators wouldn't take Amidala at her word when she said Naboo had been invaded, even though she was backed up by the two Jedi Valorum sent to negotiate with the Trade Federation. Tarkin made a point about saying Dantooine was too remote to effectively demonstrate the Death Star, and the Death Star itself was pretty much a secret.
It doesn't seem hard to hide things in the Star Wars galaxy.
Ah. So out less than a week and the director has to explain what the film meant.
Good job.
And I'm starting to see that a lot of the rationalizing in this thread is coming from the director's mouth, not from what people saw in the film...
30 secs would kill it...HAH! There would have been plenty places they could have added MORE than 30 sec without killing it. Director HAS to know he can do it without having him explain stuff for Rey for 30 secs right? I mean he's supposed to be the professional right?
Lazy that it is. Just carbon copying original trilogy with scenes reproduced in new order.
Totalwar1402 wrote: Not to mention that it would be impossible to keep the build up a secret if they've were strip mining worlds and killing entire planetary populations for target practice as Rose tells it.
Palaptine managed to create an entire army (the clones) in secret. Lots of Senators wouldn't take Amidala at her word when she said Naboo had been invaded, even though she was backed up by the two Jedi Valorum sent to negotiate with the Trade Federation. Tarkin made a point about saying Dantooine was too remote to effectively demonstrate the Death Star, and the Death Star itself was pretty much a secret.
It doesn't seem hard to hide things in the Star Wars galaxy.
Because they were on an isolated planet that was hidden from the prying eyes of the Jedi and had been making clones for years. Its like "how did Revan get his massive fleet? Oh yeah, he had a Star Forge". In both cases a clear and reasonably okay explanation is given especially since we're only told that a million clone units are being trained.
Naboo and Dantooine represent single worlds in the galaxy. What Rose alludes to is a vast industrial operation that essentially built a fleet more larger and powerful than that of the whole Galactic Empire. Per BF2 Project Ressurection (which is Canon) they confirm the FO has "enough ships to reconquer the galaxy". Its much harder to suspend disbelief in this case. Hiding a single battle station like the Death Star made sense and you're forgetting that in both cases they found out about the Death Star. They didn't learn of Starkiller base until it fired.
This is especialy true when it appears like the FO purchased its arsenal from corporate interests inside the galaxy who were also selling to the Republic. Wouldn't people notice the vast armada being built above Kuat and the Core Worlds?
On a related point. One of the main complaints I had about Episode 7 was "why is the Resistance on its own, shouldn't the entire galaxy unite against First Order because they are evil Nazis led by a Dark Lord?" I mean the Imperials are basically Orcs and aren't exactly subtle about their intentions. Its not like, I dunno, the Helghast, where they use propaganda and manipulate their own people into supporting the military. They really are just evil for the sake of being evil. So if they are going to start using their conquered subjects for target practice as Rose said why is the reaction of the whole galaxy to not rise up against the First Order?
To me this is a deeply cynical opinion for Rian Johnson to make. JJ had the excuse that he had destroyed the only military that could conceivably fight. The insinuation being that people do HATE the FO and want to fight but just don't have any ships at the minute. But in Ep8 we are told that no they do have some forces in the Outer Rim who could join them. But they don't. Why? The FO are obviously going to kill everyone in the galaxy anyway, especially if you were associated with the previous rebellion and republic; which is A LOT of people. For example, we know that worlds like Mon Cala and Mandalore rebelled against the Empire. Isn't it natural to expect the FO to begin a war of annihilation and genocide against them as revenge? Won't the Wookies be enslaved again along with all the rest of the non human species? Basically they don't have a choice in fighting the FO. They aren't going to be able to sit this one out.
I get that the galaxy rising up is, almost certainly, going to happen in the next film. But that just makes this twist feel even more insincere on RJ part and an attempt to push a cynical opinion that does not make any sense given the FO implicit intentions to kill anyone who opposed them and the Empire before them. If they want to kill every former Alliance member, and their families and their worlds that is A TON of people they want to murder. That's before you consider people objecting to having their democracy destroyed by an external invader which is itself morally bankrupt and a criminal regime.
On a related point. I get Star Wars is a family film. But I think all the Imperial fanboyism is really muddying the waters. The Empire/FO is simply not a normal government trying to maintain some sort of empire like Rome or Britain. Which is how most of our heroes react towards the Empire with generic statements about freedom and democracy. When has a character really dressed down the First Order as an evil regime that nobody supports and morally bankrupt? Rose gives an offhand line and that's about it in two films. Theres no moral condemnation.
* The FO crimes are given scarce mention and aren't highlighted. Po Dameron simply has a funny little exchange when he is talking to a man who has killed more people than Hitler. You never get the impression that people actually really hate the FO the same way a Russian in WW2 would hate the Nazis. Its all just a fun adventure in which those rascal rebels are running rings around the Empire like kids with teachers in the playground.
* Attention is not brought to the fact most of the FO are indoctrinated slave soldiers or mercenaries like Phasma. Meaning the FO only represents a few hundred officers. This isn't even a popular movement like the Helghast in Killzone. Why does nobody call them out on this?
* Its intent to commit genocide and enslave all non-humans is not made clear. When they blow up the Hosnian System no character shows any serious moral disdain or anger at this action. They simply worry about the Resistance base being blown up.
* The FO is morally bankrupt. It does not have the excuse of nationalism since it enslaves humans and treats them like animals. They don't have historical grievances like the Helghast in Killzone. This is purely a diabolical scheme of a right wing junta who want ultimate power.
* There is no attempt to qualify that the New Republic was a force for good in the galaxy, represented democracy and destroying it was a calamitous act. Its simply done to show off Starkiller Bases threat to the Resistance and then never brought up again.
* Rian Johnson reserves almost all of his moral criticism for some War Profiteering capitalists. He also has a character, with a serious face, tell us that the First Order is basically the same as the Resistance. I do not care if this man is satin himself, that is conflating the Federation from Star Trek with the Borg. You should not be implying that most people are apathetic to the FO crimes by having this "common man" give us the "word of the street" and be used as an explanation why people don't come to help the Resistance later on.
Not addressing these things really distorts the conflict and makes it feel as if the FO is some kind of force for Order and stability and actually has some basis of support. As if we should take Hux seriously in his ridiculous speech where he lies through his teeth. That people must want the Empire back. That those who oppose them are actually a small minority of idealists and not the military wing of a popular struggle to destroy an illegitimate junta that the galaxy overwhelmingly rejects as a criminal enterprise.
Again this is very much a case where context matters. I mean I see more than enough videos on Youtube of people insisting "oh the Empire is actually a force for good." "Imperials actually thought they were doing the right thing" etc etc. We and the filmmakers are so fixated on how cool the Empire/FO is that we lose sight of the fact they really are evil incarnate and a sci fi version of the most evil regime in world history.
As bad as the prequels were, everything made sense (mitichlorians aside )
It was logical, it was rational. and it tied into the story arc The first film discovers Anakin, the second film is the clones, and the third film is becoming Vader, end of the Jedi etc etc
A seamless fit.
This new trilogy is a mess, there's too much in it to be abandoned at this stage, and the third film will take us straight back to the end of ROTJ. Plus ca change.
People should complain, otherwise, the next trilogy will go down this same route. Disney don't care about stories - it's the balance sheet they look at first.
Well, seriously, how large does that really need to be? The New Republic doesn't have a standing military anything like the size of the Empire, or even the Clone Army.
Do you need many, many guns, or just enough guns that no one system can stand against you? I mean, that Dreadnought was pretty nasty, no? Is it important that you can take all systems all at once, or just eff up a couple so badly that everyone else capitulates?
Well, seriously, how large does that really need to be? The New Republic doesn't have a standing military anything like the size of the Empire, or even the Clone Army.
Do you need many, many guns, or just enough guns that no one system can stand against you? I mean, that Dreadnought was pretty nasty, no? Is it important that you can take all systems all at once, or just eff up a couple so badly that everyone else capitulates?
There's more to conquering than simply fighting!
Well a glance on Wookiepedia says that in canon there are 3.2 million inhabited worlds in the Star Wars galaxy. Some of which are Coruscant level planets and 1500 of which are full of teched out Mandalorians who in canon are very pro rebellion.
Hosnian Prime should have played out like Pearl Harbour. Yes the FO has a big military, yes they have a decisive first strike. But as soon as Fonder, Kuat, Mon Cala and the Core Worlds start mobilizing and churning out ships. As soon as local militia armies and smaller entities like the Mandalorian Sector unite against them the FO won't be able to sustain any kind of attrition battle. Eventually you would have a Battle of Midway situation and they don't have a territory or industrial base to replace their losses. As pointed out to us, the Stormtroopers take a lifetime to train and nobody volunteers to join them. Every ship and soldier they lose cannot be replaced in the short term, whereas the opposition in theory is everyone else in the galaxy. I mean Kylo Ren pretty much says he is trying to kill the Star Wars galaxy and anyone who opposes him, this is not a diplomatic man....
Its not reasonable to suggest that they can zerg rush the galaxy in order to force the plot to become a 2nd Galactic Civil War. They really would have to occupy all 3.2 million worlds and police all the sector traffic. Theres nothing wrong with the good guys being a State like the Republic, that is not inconsistent with a populist message or them being the underdogs. Think Britain during the Blitz.
You don't capitulate if your opponent plans to exterminate and enslave you. You don't capitulate if you were part of the rebellion and are likely going to be executed along with your whole family. You don't capitulate if you lost friends and loved ones to the last Empire. This is like saying Israel would capitulate if a Second Nazi Germany came storming in. Again the FO is not like the Roman Empire, its not simply about creating a stable political block that puts a certain group in charge. It is evil incarnate and would be viewed as such by people in the Star Wars universe.
The FO does not have any political legitimacy. It has no interest in making the sort of compromises and alliances that successful Empires make. In fact with Kylo Ren at the helm it is almost certainly going to crash and burn for precisely this reason. Even Hux is clearly a fanatical Nazi. These are not enlightened absolutist monarchs. Even Hitler and Stalin relied upon mobilizing popular support or at least a segment of the population. The fact the FO relies on slaves to fill most of its army is suggestive of how ineffective it is at mobilizing such support. So people will fight this regime as they have no reason to follow this regime.
But TLJ takes place more or less straight after TFA.
Simply put, Fondor et al haven't had the time.
And this is why I'm looking forward to Episode IX. There's a lot I want to know, but I wouldn't put money on how it all pans out.
With the loss of a Dreadnought, Snoke and Snoke's Ship, the FO have been shown to be vulnerable... And as you say, with Kylo 'Unstable' Ren in charge, who knows how this is going to end up? As much as he's a liability, he's also incredibly dangerous, as he's not as tied to sound, accepted military tactics.
Ah. So out less than a week and the director has to explain what the film meant.
Good job.
And I'm starting to see that a lot of the rationalizing in this thread is coming from the director's mouth, not from what people saw in the film...
I'm also amused at the related article on why Yoda HAD to come back and pause the movie to give his exposition. It's a nice conjunction with why it would be wrong to have exposition from Snoke.
Bobtheinquisitor wrote:Also, subvert the dominant SW paradigm.
“There are so many little details,” added producer Ram Bergman. “The first time you watch the movie, it’s a little bit overwhelming. But the second time you’re more relaxed, and you can start picking up so many details Rian planted throughout.”
“These movies are engineered to be watched over and over again,” Johnson said.
Seems to me he has the paradigm down to science. He just skimped on the art.
And 'failure is the best teacher' is very ingrained in the OT. Luke's training is a very model of learning by failure. Han screws up all the time (failure to fast talk, failure to repair, or failure to pick locks, to pick one important instance from each film)
Your #2 is pretty much the message of the prequels- TPM- dueling pointless to the overall battle, AotC- screw the coliseum spectacle, bring on the army, RotS- treachery and planning triumph over everything, especially individual heroes.
This isn't the last 20 years were wrong or subversion. These are the same elements jammed together inexpertly and presented in a clumsy fashion.
Interesting. The article says the same thing i came up with on my own. Good. Move forward.
Manchu wrote: @LunarSol - exactly right RE: Snoke v. Palpatine ... also, Snoke is the key to why Luke was tempted to murder Ben ... and yet no explanation of how Luke's or Ben's relationship to Snoke.
That was what I was disappointed in. Luke says "Snoke already had him in his control" or something similar. How? How did he know Snoke at that point? Why did he make the decision to "give up" and kill his nephew when he fought so hard to save his own father who had clearly gone WAY down the dark side path. What had Kylo done to make Luke give up on him, if anything? It's like they ignored everything Luke stood for and had done before.
And this is why I'm looking forward to Episode IX. There's a lot I want to know, but I wouldn't put money on how it all pans out.
With the loss of a Dreadnought, Snoke and Snoke's Ship, the FO have been shown to be vulnerable... And as you say, with Kylo 'Unstable' Ren in charge, who knows how this is going to end up? As much as he's a liability, he's also incredibly dangerous, as he's not as tied to sound, accepted military tactics.
Yes but we have had two films in which its been made very clear the good guys only ever had 1 Cruiser and two escort vessels whereas the First Order has "limitless resources" and an armada vaster and more powerful than the Galactic Empire ever had. It would be jarring to suddenly change gears into a Clone Wars style war between two powerful galaxy spanning nation states. The set up seems to be that Po will convince those wayward allies in the Outer Rim to join them so we can get a small fleet like we have at Endor. So I think they have firmly decided to make this war the 2nd Galactic Civil War. In fact it would not surprise me if the name for this conflict becomes that.
Which I think is counter intuitive. If you want to stress that "the common people rise up" then why is it only a small band of Resistance fighters are involved in that struggle? Its a fundamental contradiction. When you look at historical examples of popular revolution the fact is that they tend to form big powerful nation states to destroy those trying to put them down. In Canon they avoid this in the OT by having all of that occur post Battle of Endor when essentially the New Republic WRECKS the Empire. So I suspect that's where we are going here as well.
I also think it means the conflict has to remain small scale. We're probably never going to see the sort of vast space and land battles that we saw in the prequel trilogy. Not because the FO doesn't have those numbers, but because the opposition is being deliberately kept so small that the FO never deploys its full strength on screen. I mean look at how much ordinance and vehicles were stored in one compartment of that Mega Star Destroyer compared to the force they use on Krait? You could never do a Battle of Geonosis or Kashyyk for example. Its a very limiting conflict.
The same can be said of Force Users. Because there is no full New Jedi Order (yet) it means we can't have lots of red lightsaber wielding guys like the Sii...Knights of Ren. Doing away with the New Jedi Order gives something for Rey to achieve (at the expense of Luke) but this limits the conflict. You can't have a Geonosis or something like the Old Republic trailer in the Jedi Temple. Not because there aren't lots of Knight of Ren but because we don't have enough Jedi.
It'd be the 3rd Galactic Civil War though, given the Clone Wars was much the same
As for The Resistance, we're also seeing a Galaxy exhausted not just by war, but by oppression.
Clone Wars raged for 5 years, billions died. The Empire is founded, and begins crushing opposition. Then the Rebellion properly kicks off, leading to more loss of life and ever more draconian behaviour. Emperor falls, and the war continues for a while whilst the Imperial Remnant is driven out.
The New Republic comes in, and isn't interested in having much of a War machine, however naïve that might sound.
The wider Galaxy likely enjoyed the break of not being forced to choose sides for the first time in 30odd years.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It'd be the 3rd Galactic Civil War though, given the Clone Wars was much the same
As for The Resistance, we're also seeing a Galaxy exhausted not just by war, but by oppression.
Clone Wars raged for 5 years, billions died. The Empire is founded, and begins crushing opposition. Then the Rebellion properly kicks off, leading to more loss of life and ever more draconian behaviour. Emperor falls, and the war continues for a while whilst the Imperial Remnant is driven out.
The New Republic comes in, and isn't interested in having much of a War machine, however naïve that might sound.
The wider Galaxy likely enjoyed the break of not being forced to choose sides for the first time in 30odd years.
I am referring to the nature of the conflict. The Clone Wars is typified by these colossal battles with lots of Jedi leading legions of clones against the vast droid armies led by various lightsaber wielding baddies. The Galactic Civil War is typified by a small band of resistance fighters against the might of the Empire with the Jedi being basically extinct whilst shadowy wielders of the Dark Side work from the shadows. Both have obvious pro's and cons as settings.
Galactic Civil War:
Pro
- Goods guys are the little guys so its easier to root for them.
- Lends sense of drama and mystery to the Jedi and Sith because theres so few of them.
- Its easier to sympathize with a popular rebellion than a fictional country.
- It requires less explanation. Rebels vs Empire. The very names lets you now whats going on and what the conflict relates to. Describing why two nations are at war is more complicated and requires more elaboration.
Con
- It limits the scale of battles. Hence why an Empire which has millions of Stormtroopers only ever uses a few hundred of them in a given scene. Or fleet battles only consist of 30 or so ships a side.
- This pushes the battle to the fringes of the galaxy rather than on worlds like Coruscant. Almost all the OT takes place on desolate worlds. Which means you can't have that Battle of Stalingrad type scenario where the stakes are clear cut.
- Less Jedi and Sith.
So I feel like the New Trilogy is trying to copy a setting that has a lot of problems. Its part of the reason why KotoR was so popular. Lets have loads of Jedi, Sith and Mandalorians running around. Especially because we have already seen the Galactic Civil War and the Return of the Jedi. I don't think rehashing both of those ideas is that compelling and the negatives start to outweigh the pro's. Would it have been more interesting if the New Jedi Order was in place and the New Republic continued as a body after Hosnian Prime? Personally I think they would have helped differentiate the story and allowed for grander set piece scenes.
If they have enjoyed 30 years of peace and prosperity of the New Republic and voted for pacifist disarmament why would their reaction to a Nazi regime be one of submission? They broke the terms of a incredibly generous peace. Every Imperial above a certain rank should have been imprisoned and executed. They are the aggressor and the ones trying to bring chaos into the galaxy; not the Republic. The reaction should be one of utter outrage and anger. They have killed more people than Hitler did when he invaded the Soviet Union. If people can get behind Stalin when they're being slaughtered I am sure they can get behind the Resistance. These people are barbarians whose existence means nothing but oppression and misery for the galaxy. I mean at the end of this I do not see any vestige of the Empire surviving, certainly not a formal peace treaty. The people who support the First Order have clearly given up their humanity and killing them is justice.
Yeah I second that. I want to see Darth Revan on the big screen.
Thats one of the reasons why I like Kylo Ren and his Knights of Ren (aesthetically). They give a strong Darth Revan and Old Sith vibe with their outfits and masks.
Was it an enjoyable watch? Yes Was it thought provoking? Clearly as this thread alone jumped several pages since release
I would argue that those 2 things alone make for a "good" if not "great" movie.
Did it feel like a SW movie? Debatable, but I am firmly in the "yes" column for this.
The biggest thing to remember is that there is 1 more movie left to tie up loose ends and give real resolution. The problem with people complaining that it's too different and took the movie in an "undesired" direction is that those same people would be whining right not that it turned out exactly as they wanted it as they would claim it was too predicable/boring/unoriginal
I appreciate this new trilogy for being the perfect blend of OT nostalgia and Prequel originality. I am reserving final judgment on TLJ until EpIX, but as of now, I enjoyed the film and look forward to repeat viewings.
Edit: Side note question: Does anyone remember what young Ben's blue lightsaber looked like in the flashback? My memory is playing tricks with me as I can swear it looks just like Anakins. Could Luke have found his old lightsaber and gifted it to Ben? Then after his turn, Luke gave it to Maz for safe keeping? or Maz found it after Luke discarded it? It might add more weigh to Han recognizing the lightsaber in TFA and later Kylo saying "That lightsaber, it belongs to me"
Thats one of the reasons why I like Kylo Ren and his Knights of Ren (aesthetically). They give a strong Darth Revan and Old Sith vibe with their outfits and masks.
You're right. But JJ Abrams in an interview basically said that "the Sith were a prequel thing" in response to confused fans asking why the guys with red lightsabers in black aren't Sith. I mean I must admit I still do not get that since they haven't explained what Snoke and Ren actually are. You can't repeatedly insist they aren't Sith yet not explain what they actually are.
My gut feeling is that this is a slow attempt to dismantle and remove the Sith from canon. To isolate them as simply something very specific to Palpatines back story and not the dark reflection of the Jedi; the ancient antagonist of the Jedi and this constant presence which the Old Republic setting heavily relies on. Its the only reason you would adamantly insist that guys in black who have red lightsabers aren't Sith is because they are trying to destroy this aspect of the canon and a common consensus among the fans. Which thankfully they have failed to do.
For example the visual dictionary says that the Sith began with Darth Bane, no qualification that its those who follow the Rule of 1 so this would remove most of the Old Republic setting, and that the Sith were destroyed by a prophecy involving Darth Vader.
I asked this further up but I didn't get an answer. Why does Kylo Ren tell Rey that its time for the Sith to end? It was just a bizarre statement. It reminded me of ToR when Vitiate condemns the Sith Empire as weak and a failure. But the Sith are long gone when Kylo says this. It felt like they wanted to make a statement about Snokes way being destroyed but they never established what Snoke was so decided "forget it just have him say an end to the Sith and people will get the general gist that hes trying to kill Star Wars"
Manchu wrote: @LunarSol - exactly right RE: Snoke v. Palpatine ... also, Snoke is the key to why Luke was tempted to murder Ben ... and yet no explanation of how Luke's or Ben's relationship to Snoke.
That was what I was disappointed in. Luke says "Snoke already had him in his control" or something similar. How? How did he know Snoke at that point? Why did he make the decision to "give up" and kill his nephew when he fought so hard to save his own father who had clearly gone WAY down the dark side path. What had Kylo done to make Luke give up on him, if anything? It's like they ignored everything Luke stood for and had done before.
What a disappointment.
I agree that was my question, but I am curious if some of the Snoke assumption is the benefit of hindsight. Did Luke know at the time that Snoke had him under his control or did he just see the monster Ben would become and figure out it was Snoke later?
In general, "under control of a Sith Lord" seems to be a thing the series tosses around but never properly explores (thanks prequels). Vader speaks to serving Palpatine in a similar way in RotJ.
Manchu wrote: @LunarSol - exactly right RE: Snoke v. Palpatine ... also, Snoke is the key to why Luke was tempted to murder Ben ... and yet no explanation of how Luke's or Ben's relationship to Snoke.
That was what I was disappointed in. Luke says "Snoke already had him in his control" or something similar. How? How did he know Snoke at that point? Why did he make the decision to "give up" and kill his nephew when he fought so hard to save his own father who had clearly gone WAY down the dark side path. What had Kylo done to make Luke give up on him, if anything? It's like they ignored everything Luke stood for and had done before.
What a disappointment.
I agree that was my question, but I am curious if some of the Snoke assumption is the benefit of hindsight. Did Luke know at the time that Snoke had him under his control or did he just see the monster Ben would become and figure out it was Snoke later?
I agree that Luke probably didn't know it was Snoke until afterwards, but I do not think it "betrays" what Luke stood for in the OT at all. Luke was an idealist who heard of what a good man is father WAS and tried to bring him back. It is entirely believable that an older Luke, with more experience, would be more cautious and have a moment of doubt about a young kid who has yet to prove he is "good" in the first place. Especially if he did not know Snoke existed until afterwards. The "Darkness" he saw in Ben could have been Snoke pulling strings and Luke only found out afterwards. Remember that it was a moment of weakness in Luke, not a full commitment to the deed itself. RotJ was full of Luke's moments of weakness, even full on using the darkside to defeat Vader, then to immediately turn away from it, which not even Vader thought possible, and probably allowed Vader to do the same moments later.
No. The moment Luke turned away from killing Ben is true to his very core as a character. If you can't see that, you don't know SW at all.
Luke says he saw the darkness within him and looked into the future to see the monster he would become. Reacting poorly to visions from the Force is also pretty true to his character.
LunarSol wrote: Luke says he saw the darkness within him and looked into the future to see the monster he would become. Reacting poorly to visions from the Force is also pretty true to his character.
See I had no sympathy for Kylo over that. He must have been pretty evil for Luke to have considered doing that and his reaction "I am going to murder everyone in the Jedi Temple, ESPECIALLY the younglings, join an army of Nazis and destroy everything my family worked to restore!". This is an extreme over reaction.
The only reason given for his slide into the dark side is that his immense power made him feel as if he had a right to control and dominion over others. Luke was as right to consider killing him as Mace Windu was in trying to kill the Emperor and I felt it was very close in spirit to that idea.
I mean really, Rey buys his sob story about how "horrible master Skywalker saw I was a monster and tried to kill me." Sure, Rey does come to that realization by the end of the film with that 1000 yard stare at the falcon.
I mean when you have him basically say that he wants the Jedi, Sith, Rebels and Empire to end that's all but saying you want to destroy Star Wars. When you have a character saying things like that its probably a "subtle" cue we aren't supposed to like them. Especially when Rey is like "no Master Skywalker the Jedi weren't failures." its all about Hope (Rey - Learn from mistakes with a New Jedi Order) vs Cynisism (Ren - Kill Star Wars). I must admit I am surprised people think the intent is for RJ to destroy the original mythology; that couldn't be further from what he does as I see it.
What Rose alludes to is a vast industrial operation that essentially built a fleet more larger and powerful than that of the whole Galactic Empire.
Rose is an unreliable narrator. She was emotionally compromised by the death of her sister, and before that was tapped to prevent potential deserters from using the escape pods on the Raddus.
She is, as they say, pot committed to The Resistance.
This is especialy true when it appears like the FO purchased its arsenal from corporate interests inside the galaxy who were also selling to the Republic. Wouldn't people notice the vast armada being built above Kuat and the Core Worlds?
KDY had been building Star Destroyers, or something like them, for a long time; building some more wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
To draw an IRL comparison: Do you notice if Boeing builds a few more planes?
This is especialy true when it appears like the FO purchased its arsenal from corporate interests inside the galaxy who were also selling to the Republic. Wouldn't people notice the vast armada being built above Kuat and the Core Worlds?
KDY had been building Star Destroyers, or something like them, for a long time; building some more wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
To draw an IRL comparison: Do you notice if Boeing builds a few more planes?
Given that everyone was supposed to have disarmed everything, selling battleships would appear to be suspicious.
This is especialy true when it appears like the FO purchased its arsenal from corporate interests inside the galaxy who were also selling to the Republic. Wouldn't people notice the vast armada being built above Kuat and the Core Worlds?
KDY had been building Star Destroyers, or something like them, for a long time; building some more wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
To draw an IRL comparison: Do you notice if Boeing builds a few more planes?
Given that everyone was supposed to have disarmed everything, selling battleships would appear to be suspicious.
The Republic didn't disarm everything, they down sized their military. The Empire was supposed to disarm. Then I'm sure that independent systems are still allowed to provide for their own defense, since the Republic certainly wont protect them.
But the fact the Supremacy was built and no one batted an eye, maybe, just maybe, no one really cared who rules.
But the fact the Supremacy was built and no one batted an eye, maybe, just maybe, no one really cared who rules.
Knowing about "the casino" going in, I was actually kind of hoping that the Supremacy was some kind of giant luxury yacht and maybe we were going to see some of the private citizens of the FO or something that live on this giant flying city.
kronk wrote: Lando should have been the Casino owner. Or, at least, in there gambling and/or cheating to get some fat cat's money.
Another missed opportunity!
Even though I really like the film, I kinda agree with this, although NOT the casino owner, but as that master code-breaker Finn and Rose were supposed to contact originally.
Remember that the whole point of the casino seen was to make a political statement about how all those rich people were rich because of the conflict between the FO and Resistance
"Good guy" Lando would not own such an establishment, but very easily could be there working some angle to help the Resistance by gambling and being a contact.
So yeah, a missed opportunity, just not the one you mention
kronk wrote: Lando should have been the Casino owner. Or, at least, in there gambling and/or cheating to get some fat cat's money.
Another missed opportunity!
Even though I really like the film, I kinda agree with this, although NOT the casino owner, but as that master code-breaker Finn and Rose were supposed to contact originally.
Remember that the whole point of the casino seen was to make a political statement about how all those rich people were rich because of the conflict between the FO and Resistance
"Good guy" Lando would not own such an establishment, but very easily could be there working some angle to help the Resistance by gambling and being a contact.
So yeah, a missed opportunity, just not the one you mention
-
This is exactly the kind of small-Galaxy incestuous dynasty stuff the entire movie railed against. Might as well have Rey's parents be Snoke (General Veers all along) and Aunt Beru. No one matters in this galaxy of quintillions except for a handful of people?
Compel wrote: It's almost like it's a film franchise with enjoyable and iconic characters that people want to see more of...
A dying franchise if they can't create new iconic characters and constantly revisit and water down original iconic characters. Why create new assets when you can exhaust and possibly damage existing ones?
If the scale and texture of the setting mean nothing to the content creators, why should it mean anything to the consumers? I'm not going to play in your sandbox when you keep breaking your very few shovels and pretend a sieve is a bucket.
This is especialy true when it appears like the FO purchased its arsenal from corporate interests inside the galaxy who were also selling to the Republic. Wouldn't people notice the vast armada being built above Kuat and the Core Worlds?
KDY had been building Star Destroyers, or something like them, for a long time; building some more wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
To draw an IRL comparison: Do you notice if Boeing builds a few more planes?
Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.
Galef wrote: The moment Luke turned away from killing Ben is true to his very core as a character.
The problem isn't that Luke ultimately decided not to murder his nephew. The problem is that he decided to do it the first place. This is absolutely contrary to the resolution of his character arc in RotJ. To quote you, "If you can't see that, you don't know SW at all."
Now, I'm not saying it is totally impossible that Luke could come to that moment of activating his lightsaber right over his sleeping nephew with every intent to murder him. But if that's what happens then we need to see it explained because it is so antithetical to what we know about Luke. That's the heart of TLJ because he fulcrum on which the plot and themes depend is the relationship between Luke and Ben ... and, unfortunately, it's a failure. For example:
Totalwar1402 wrote: He must have been pretty evil for Luke to have considered doing that and his reaction "I am going to murder everyone in the Jedi Temple, ESPECIALLY the younglings, join an army of Nazis and destroy everything my family worked to restore!". This is an extreme over reaction.
Totalwar1402 makes a very good point here. If Ben was so evil that he would slaughter the padawans then why did Luke spare him? Or, if Luke was right to spare Ben, then why did Ben go on such a rampage?
These questions are not impossible to answer. But TLJ doesn't answer them. The strategy is to raise questions that will be answered in other media. In the video game industry, this is called Day One DLC.
Wasn't the idea of the 3 points of view that, Luke considered it for the briefest of moments (potentially influenced by Snoke), then immediately stopped?
Generally speaking, the point of telling the same story multiple times (especially from the same character's POV) is to undermine the characters' credibility. Luke lied to Rey and then changes his story when Rey violently confronts him. Is there a reason we should believe Luke's second story,* considering it was extracted under duress from a known liar?
Setting that aside, let's consider his second story. He had been worried about Ben for a while before that fateful night. Luke and Ben had fallen out to the point that Ben had moved out of the temple. Luke chose to confront Ben at a time when Ben was asleep. At this point, Luke draws and activates his lightsaber. This adds up to a carefully considered premeditated murder attempt rather than a fleeting temptation.
* It's also worth considering that even though Rey concludes that Ben failed Luke, rather than vice versa, when Luke and Kylo have their showdown in Act III, Luke says he failed Ben.
Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.
Did you know that Boeing is selling F/A-18s to Australia? There may have been a lot of questions involved in the approval of the sale, but I'll bet you didn't hear about them; or the construction of the fighters.
The B-52 comparison doesn't work, because they stopped getting built in '62. Once KDY started building Star Destroyer analogs it never stopped.
Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.
Did you know that Boeing is selling F/A-18s to Australia? There may have been a lot of questions involved in the approval of the sale, but I'll bet you didn't hear about them; or the construction of the fighters.
The B-52 comparison doesn't work, because they stopped getting built in '62. Once KDY started building Star Destroyer analogs it never stopped.
And this is all known and above the board- unlike what is alleged for the First Order. And if KDY is building Star Destroyers after a major disarmament treaty, why isn't that raising eyebrows?
And this is all known and above the board- unlike what is alleged for the First Order. And if KDY is building Star Destroyers after a major disarmament treaty, why isn't that raising eyebrows?
They don't really cover if they were or weren't raising eyebrows, did they?
Besides, in the great big SW universe, by the time you found out they made 10x Dreadnought class ships for the First Order, it's too late to do anything to KDY, right? I guess you can stop payment for services rendered to that point...
I would have liked Lando being the code breaker they were after. Since they don't ever actually get to talk to him it would even do a decent job of continuing the movie's themes of yanking the story away from the original cast.
LunarSol wrote: I would have liked Lando being the code breaker they were after. Since they don't ever actually get to talk to him it would even do a decent job of continuing the movie's themes of yanking the story away from the original cast.
Ah, like Lando would take the place of the play-boy, Bond-type super-spy, but instead that had to team up with Slicer DJ.
"No one said 'no' to George" is the most widely accepted explanation of why the Prequels were garbage. I have another, not mutually exclusive theory but let me start by saying, The Last Jedi is not bad because Rian Johnson had carte blanche. The Prequel Trilogy was funded by Lucasfilm, a company owned and run by George Lucas. Rian Johnson, by contrast, was answerable to a committee of Disney employees headed by an executive specially responsible for managing the Star Wars IP, a.k.a., Kathleen Kennedy (formerly of Lucasfilm Ltd.). Now, I can believe there was a strategy to have The Last Jedi ride on Rian Johnson's reputation, hence him getting the writer credit. That way, if The Last Jedi failed he could be blamed while Disney and Kathleen Kennedy enjoyed "plausible deniability." But there's no way in hell the House of Mouse gave real power to Johnson.
The Last Jedi isn't bad because no one said 'no' to Johnson. It's bad because it doesn't need to be good. The Original Trilogy was made for a market where the film itself was the main product. In those days, even a sequel to Star Wars needed to be able to stand on its own because profit was a function of how well the sequel actually performed. This is no longer the case. Filmmaking today is more risky, because it's more expensive, than ever before. The upshot, however, is that companies can use films to seed other marketing channels - not just action figures and lunch boxes but also TV networks and streaming services. These channels are less expensive and risky than filmmaking and, potentially, much more profitable.
But wouldn't a good movie make these subsidiary marketing channels more potentially profitable? One would think so! But in reality, the profitability of said channels depend on their content. The other thing about our market is, it's content-saturated. Audiences (customers) need a clear reason to dial into Streaming Service X instead of, or at least in addition to, Streaming Service Y. That's why it's important for these films to be intentionally incomplete. The strategy is to raise issues in the film that are not addressed in the film in order that the film goer will go out an affirmatively engage with the IP more broadly: not just in terms of traditional products like novels and comic books but also more widely, such as YT videos, podcasts, and blogs.
In this way, the customers are encouraged to voluntarily become increasingly invested in the IP. You won't only go see the next Star Wars movie, or Marvel movie, you'll also become enmeshed in a whole way of life ("geek culture") that makes you more likely to spend on licensed products, that makes you more susceptible to certain kinds of advertising (selling non-SW products by referencing SW), that makes you more likely to engage in the corporation's other IPs.
I think this, on an admittedly much smaller scale, is what George Lucas realized in the mid 1990s when he decided to make the Prequels Trilogy. Some of you may remember Shadows of the Empire. This was a neat experiment where Lucasfilm generated all the licensed products (novel, video game, action figures, comic books, even a soundtrack) that traditionally go along with a Star Wars movie - except there was no movie. I think Lucas concluded from this experiment that not only was there extensive market appetite for more Star Wars but also that it didn't depend on a film. In effect, Star Wars was no longer a series of movies. It was what we now call an IP.
Armed with that knowledge, Lucas proceeded to make the hugely profitable but critically panned Prequel Trilogy. Far from being a failure, the Prequels demonstrated the point of the Shadows of the Empire experiment on a much larger scale. In the 1980s or 1990s, making a widely loathed movie like the Phantom Menace (much less two further, also hated sequels to the Phantom Menace) would have sunk any franchise. What happened instead was Star Wars increased in value such that Disney bought it for $4 billion.
The unspoken promise was that Disney would make good Star Wars movies. But why would we have ever fallen for that? Lucas not only sold Disney the Star Wars IP; he sold it to them by demonstrating how it could make them tremendous amounts of money regardless of quality.
Manchu - why would you make something bad when you could make it good? There is certainly more money to be made when fans love your movie rather than when they hate it...This is just an assumption...it is possible that making the movie terrible and the social media riot that ensues might make them more money in the long run. I just don't know.
First, let's acknowledge that we're assuming that Disney can actually make a good Star Wars movie. We're all just assuming that Disney can do this but its track record so far is mixed at best. We need to really consider the possibility that making a good Star Wars movie is actually very tough and maybe ANH and ESB were fortunate flukes whereas all other SW movies are the norm. It could be the case that making a good SW movie is beyond Disney's capability and/or intention.
Second, and more importantly, the main point is that these movies don't need to be good. And if it is really tough to make a good movie then why bother trying when you don't actually need to?
Third, one thing that makes a movie feel satisfying is having a beginning and a middle and an end - conflicts are set up clearly and just as clearly resolved. But the point of these movies is not to leave you satisfied. Disney wants to leave you hungry for more. So the films are intentionally incomplete. Raising issues without resolving them doesn't mean a movie has to be bad but it does condone and encourage sloppy storytelling, which tends to make for bad movies.
Fourth, even bad press is good press. We have learned this from Ghostbusters 2016 and Donald Trump. There is so much noise in the market. No one is even looking for signal anymore. All that matters is that your noise is the loudest noise. If people don't like your movie, blame it on misogyny, racism, internet trolls.
Fifth, filmmaking is not about long term profits. Successful films don't need to be memorable. Managing an IP isn't even about long term profits. I don't think anyone at Disney knows how to make a movie that people will still care about in five years much less thirty five years.
Manchu wrote: First, let's acknowledge that we're assuming that Disney can actually make a good Star Wars movie. We're all just assuming that Disney can do this but its track record so far is mixed at best. We need to really consider the possibility that making a good Star Wars movie is actually very tough and maybe ANH and ESB were fortunate flukes whereas all other SW movies are the norm. It could be the case that making a good SW movie is beyond Disney's capability and/or intention.
That is an extremely good point and an interesting thought, Manchu.
That's a lot of text built on the assumption that the movie IS in fact bad...
FWIW though, the idea that the film itself doesn't need to be profitable was built into the the very first Star Wars movie. Lucas at this point somewhat historically passed on a good percentage of his cut of the film profits to retain the rights to make toys and stuff and no filmmaker has been offered that deal since.
I also don't think the prequel movies did as much for the value of the IP as the promise of the prequel movies did. If that was the goal, Disney wisely bid their time and waited for the prequel's abysmal reception to drain the IP of a lot of its value before scooping it up.
Just before Episode I was probably the peak value of the IP. The novels were great, the comics were great, the videogames were phenomenal, and even redone toys were a big commodity. That dried up pretty quickly after Episode I to the point where the well was running pretty dry by the mid to late 2000's.
Manchu wrote: "No one said 'no' to George" is the most widely accepted explanation of why the Prequels were garbage. I have another, not mutually exclusive theory but let me start by saying, The Last Jedi is not bad because Rian Johnson had carte blanche. The Prequel Trilogy was funded by Lucasfilm, a company owned and run by George Lucas. Rian Johnson, by contrast, was answerable to a committee of Disney employees headed by an executive specially responsible for managing the Star Wars IP, a.k.a., Kathleen Kennedy (formerly of Lucasfilm Ltd.). Now, I can believe there was a strategy to have The Last Jedi ride on Rian Johnson's reputation, hence him getting the writer credit. That way, if The Last Jedi failed he could be blamed while Disney and Kathleen Kennedy enjoyed "plausible deniability." But there's no way in hell the House of Mouse gave real power to Johnson.
The Last Jedi isn't bad because no one said 'no' to Johnson. It's bad because it doesn't need to be good. The Original Trilogy was made for a market where the film itself was the main product. In those days, even a sequel to Star Wars needed to be able to stand on its own because profit was a function of how well the sequel actually performed. This is no longer the case. Filmmaking today is more risky, because it's more expensive, than ever before. The upshot, however, is that companies can use films to seed other marketing channels - not just action figures and lunch boxes but also TV networks and streaming services. These channels are less expensive and risky than filmmaking and, potentially, much more profitable.
But wouldn't a good movie make these subsidiary marketing channels more potentially profitable? One would think so! But in reality, the profitability of said channels depend on their content. The other thing about our market is, it's content-saturated. Audiences (customers) need a clear reason to dial into Streaming Service X instead of, or at least in addition to, Streaming Service Y. That's why it's important for these films to be intentionally incomplete. The strategy is to raise issues in the film that are not addressed in the film in order that the film goer will go out an affirmatively engage with the IP more broadly: not just in terms of traditional products like novels and comic books but also more widely, such as YT videos, podcasts, and blogs.
In this way, the customers are encouraged to voluntarily become increasingly invested in the IP. You won't only go see the next Star Wars movie, or Marvel movie, you'll also become enmeshed in a whole way of life ("geek culture") that makes you more likely to spend on licensed products, that makes you more susceptible to certain kinds of advertising (selling non-SW products by referencing SW), that makes you more likely to engage in the corporation's other IPs.
I think this, on an admittedly much smaller scale, is what George Lucas realized in the mid 1990s when he decided to make the Prequels Trilogy. Some of you may remember Shadows of the Empire. This was a neat experiment where Lucasfilm generated all the licensed products (novel, video game, action figures, comic books, even a soundtrack) that traditionally go along with a Star Wars movie - except there was no movie. I think Lucas concluded from this experiment that not only was there extensive market appetite for more Star Wars but also that it didn't depend on a film. In effect, Star Wars was no longer a series of movies. It was what we now call an IP.
Armed with that knowledge, Lucas proceeded to make the hugely profitable but critically panned Prequel Trilogy. Far from being a failure, the Prequels demonstrated the point of the Shadows of the Empire experiment on a much larger scale. In the 1980s or 1990s, making a widely loathed movie like the Phantom Menace (much less two further, also hated sequels to the Phantom Menace) would have sunk any franchise. What happened instead was Star Wars increased in value such that Disney bought it for $4 billion.
The unspoken promise was that Disney would make good Star Wars movies. But why would we have ever fallen for that? Lucas not only sold Disney the Star Wars IP; he sold it to them by demonstrating how it could make them tremendous amounts of money regardless of quality.
Judging from anecdotal evidence, there is a limit to the effectiveness of this strategy. I suspect there will be a backlash to the disappointment and the volume of Star Wars; I expect the third movie to have a smaller opening weekend and equal multiplier unless it is actually good (not likely). Star Wars films will be less and less event films until they hit equilibrium, perhaps around Marvel levels of success, with crappier films pulling in Thor 1 and 2 numbers. Meanwhile, the conscious disregard for the "rules" of Star Wars will have an effect on the lifestyle-ability of the franchise. We're at Season 12 Simpsons level of indifference to the source material in Star Wars now. Why should consumers buy the latest Star Wars Star Charts when they know it will all be garbage next film? Incredible Cross Sections? LOL, not so incredible any more. Novels? They'll be contradicted the next time a writer or director decides he doesn't care about the integrity of the whole as much as he cares about finishing this script right now.
Personally, I stopped buying Star Wars product regularly when the prequels killed my enthusiasm. TFA cemented Star Wars as a done setting where anything goes if it gets us a shiny trailer. These movies have drastically reduced my spending on the IP. I know others who feel the same way. There are only so many crappy movies an IP can survive.
LunarSol wrote: That's a lot of text built on the assumption that the movie IS in fact bad...
The points remain valid even for those who only think TLJ was "not good."
IMO this conversation, and other conversations like it I am reading elsewhere, are very familiar - they remind me of how conflicted and defensive people were when the prequels came out.
LunarSol wrote: FWIW though, the idea that the film itself doesn't need to be profitable was built into the the very first Star Wars movie.
This reveals that you missed my point. I didn't say the films didn't need to be profitable. I said they no longer are the main product (so don't need to be good movies). Also, ANH needed to be profitable. That's exactly why Lucas was willing to trade out his earnings to make it possible to fund.
LunarSol wrote: Just before Episode I was probably the peak value of the IP.
That's definitely not true. The prequels dramatically increased the value of the IP.
And I'm not just saying that because he's a Mod and he made me say this.
I do have a minor disagreement though. Nolan has shown us that it's possible to make good films and a gak load of cash at the same time. Dunkirk was awesome and that made $500 million from a $100 million production budget. Yeah, not in the same league as Star Wars, but a healthy profit none the less.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
If Nolan can do it, why can't Star Wars?
I've said before that because the Star Wars brand is so strong, Disney can afford to take a risk and roll the dice.
Were they though? Or is that nostalgia? Some of them certainly were, but I dont think the lot of them were.
There were a few great ones and a lot of "I find these locations and characters comforting" novels. Keep in mind the second trilogy was the one where KJA introduced Kip Durron and the Starcrusher, so we knew right away what we were in for.
Were they though? Or is that nostalgia? Some of them certainly were, but I dont think the lot of them were.
Enough of them were solid that the whole thing was largely worthwhile at least. There were definite duds, but Rogue Squadron and Teras Kasi were released a year apart so there's probably never been a moment of perfection in the brand.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I yearn for the days of the Trade Federation - at least you got a explanation.
They also made sense - a group of planets unhappy about Republican taxes or trade routes etc etc
Trade Federation was very poorly explained. By looks it seemed like they were some sort of invading alien Empire who used robots to do the dirty work like fighting. But instead they were apparently some sort of federation within the Republic? How come they had huge fleets and armies in a Republic which otherwise was very peaceful and had little in way of military resources? Also it was never explained why they were in cahoots with Sidious.
If Disney just left the OT events and characters alone, they could pump out a bunch of passable Star Wars stories. Not great, but not franchise killers, either. Ewok adventures as imagined by Kevin Feige. The setting is where the value is and they haven't done much to even explore it and they've already killed the appeal for many by tinkering with the least expandable parts of the IP.
This is a setting that could tell heist stories, war dramas, fairy tales, wuxia adventures, crime stories and so on. screw something up? Well, a thousand years later...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I yearn for the days of the Trade Federation - at least you got a explanation.
They also made sense - a group of planets unhappy about Republican taxes or trade routes etc etc
Trade Federation was very poorly explained. By looks it seemed like they were some sort of invading alien Empire who used robots to do the dirty work like fighting. But instead they were apparently some sort of federation within the Republic? How come they had huge fleets and armies in a Republic which otherwise was very peaceful and had little in way of military resources? Also it was never explained why they were in cahoots with Sidious.
I can't answer those questions, but the Trade Federation makes more sense than the First Order.
Yes, that's very true. But if it were easy, or even easy to see how it was done, everyone would do it always.
It's highly unlikely to ever happen, but Disney are rich. Very rich. They could offer Nolan a sack load of cash to make at least 1 Star Wars film.
Nolan + Star Wars + mega mega hype = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He'd probably insist on complete creative control, but he did Batman, why not Star Wars?
Money talks.
Hell, even Nolan on autopilot is better than most directors on a good day.
Personally I think that Ridley Scott would be a better choice - He's more of an original type though - making a star-wars trilogy would probably bore him. No question Disney can afford whoever they'd like.
I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.
I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.
It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If Disney just left the OT events and characters alone, they could pump out a bunch of passable Star Wars stories. Not great, but not franchise killers, either. Ewok adventures as imagined by Kevin Feige. The setting is where the value is and they haven't done much to even explore it and they've already killed the appeal for many by tinkering with the least expandable parts of the IP.
This is a setting that could tell heist stories, war dramas, fairy tales, wuxia adventures, crime stories and so on. screw something up? Well, a thousand years later...
Exactly - if they wanted to create their own star-wars universe they could have just done it without tying into the 7-8-9. It would have been fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galef wrote: I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.
I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.
It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.
-
Come on - if you studied film in college you must agree...Plot - is a very important element (if not the most important element to a story or a film). The plot in TLJ is so bad a preschooler could easily see the holes.
You are all smart enough to know that if Disney didn't start with Skywalker saga films, half of the internet would explode with nerd rage. So while creating new stories is surely on the horizon, Disney was smart to start with something familiar.
Unfortunately, I feel we live in a time that there is no possible outcome that would appease the vast majority of fans. Opinions will always be divided and the vocal minority will always be the loudest.
Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.
Did you know that Boeing is selling F/A-18s to Australia? There may have been a lot of questions involved in the approval of the sale, but I'll bet you didn't hear about them; or the construction of the fighters.
I did, actually. I didn't have any questions about it, since it was a deal authorized by the government and and the equipment is going to a close ally. There was no point where the government wasn't involved in that deal.
The B-52 comparison doesn't work, because they stopped getting built in '62.
Yes. B-52s, clearly. Those were the last bombers ever produced.
Once KDY started building Star Destroyer analogs it never stopped.
According to... what? Certainly not the films, which I'm 99% certain never even mention KDY.
Regardless, someone should be asking who they're selling all these ships to. Buying battleships is even more glaringly obvious than buying fighters and bombers.
Manchu wrote:First, let's acknowledge that we're assuming that Disney can actually make a good Star Wars movie.
Eh. Disney can make good movies. There have been good Star Wars movies.
Most of the problems of this one seem to revolve around Johnson, who is billed as writer/director. As both, he's very fixated on pointless B plots, not delivering on plot points and desperately needs an editor willing to take stuff out. With a lot of work, even this film could have been turned into a decent to fair one. With someone else at the helm, I could easily see a good movie happen. Though sadly for part 9 (whatever the feth that is going to be about), I don't see JJ as that person either. They desperately need someone good at developing characters and making the audience care about them.
Galef wrote: I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.
I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.
It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.
-
As someone who enjoyed TLJ and plans to see it again,
I don't see how you can be blind to the criticism. It's not like these complaints are nit picks based on obscure trivia (although there are a ton of those, too, like the stings of a swarm of bees).
You say you saw it through the lens of a film student? Perhaps that is the problem. The filmmakers who made the last three movies grew up adoring filmmakers who grew up adoring filmmakers who gave a crap about aspects to the film other than Er, film making. TLJ has a lot going for it, but it also Godzillas through the established canon and audience expectations (sometimes on purpose). The storytelling may be technically beautiful, but at the expense of every other valid concern. For example, we don't need to know Snoke for his part of the movie to work, so we cut it out of our sleek beast. Great! Simplify! Stick to the essentials! But, anyone who gave a gak about Star Wars could have told him it was a mistake not to at least include some off hand exposition from Kylo or Luke about Snoke. Luke's character is here now, and it's thematically appropriate! But now people are cancelling their Luke plushie orders because feth you too, RJ. The movie really kept you on the edge by subverting expectations and not playing it safe! Well, failure is the best teacher, I guess.
Galef wrote: You are all smart enough to know that if Disney didn't start with Skywalker saga films, half of the internet would explode with nerd rage. So while creating new stories is surely on the horizon, Disney was smart to start with something familiar.
Unfortunately, I feel we live in a time that there is no possible outcome that would appease the vast majority of fans. Opinions will always be divided and the vocal minority will always be the loudest.
I feel like this is a little different than fans being upset about the way the story played out. They could have killed off all the characters in a different way (that involved lightsabre duels and interesting plot twists) it would have been much better received. Some might not have liked it but most would have.
Yes, that's very true. But if it were easy, or even easy to see how it was done, everyone would do it always.
It's highly unlikely to ever happen, but Disney are rich. Very rich. They could offer Nolan a sack load of cash to make at least 1 Star Wars film.
Nolan + Star Wars + mega mega hype = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He'd probably insist on complete creative control, but he did Batman, why not Star Wars?
Money talks.
Hell, even Nolan on autopilot is better than most directors on a good day.
Personally I think that Ridley Scott would be a better choice - He's more of an original type though - making a star-wars trilogy would probably bore him. No question Disney can afford whoever they'd like.
Sadly, I think Scott's best days are behind him...
Galef wrote: You are all smart enough to know that if Disney didn't start with Skywalker saga films, half of the internet would explode with nerd rage. So while creating new stories is surely on the horizon, Disney was smart to start with something familiar.
Unfortunately, I feel we live in a time that there is no possible outcome that would appease the vast majority of fans. Opinions will always be divided and the vocal minority will always be the loudest.
Galef wrote: I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
Likewise. All this talk about the reasons these movies are on a spectrum between 'bad' and 'not good' and I'm sitting here thinking that they're 3 for 3 on 'bloody amazing'. And that's not me trying to contrarian, or liking them because other people don't, but because with each one, I walked out of the cinema feeling unparalleled elation at the spectacular film I'd just watched. And in the case of TFA and R1, I've watched them many times since and loved the each time.
I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.
It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.
-
To take a guess, I'd say it's a combination of a few things.
- With regards to things 'not being explained', 30+ years of comics, books, companion works and TV series ect have created the expectation that EVERYTHING in Star Wars has to have a 400-page history, whether that's an alien in the back of a cantina shot to a lightsaber to a ship to a planet. The new films don't have that (yet), and therefore can't possibly be as coherent (ignoring the fact we know as much about Snoke as we did about Sidious, and as much about Luke's childhood as we do Rey's).
- Pure contrarianism on the part of some people. There are people (not necessarily in this discussion, but elsewhere) who will set out to pick holes in what things aren't rather than appreciate them for what they are. Likewise, there are people who, because the new films didn't pan out the exact way they'd 'predicted', consider them a failure of storytelling (again, even when that expectation is based more on fan-theories and clickbait headlines rather than anything in the actual films).
- There will be people who are genuinely disappointed, of course. Star Wars is a lot of things to a lot of people, so there are any number of reasons people might not like the new ones. But there's definitely a difference between those people, and the people wilfully ignoring elements of the script/storytelling/acting to try and claim these are somehow poorly made movies.
- There's also the fact that people (especially online) that will be very loud and relentless in not liking something, while those that did enjoy it tend to pop into a thread or conversation, mention they liked it then go. So there's a disproportionate level of representation of the negative voices. I imagine if you stood outside a cinema and asked people what they thought as they came out, 10% would be negative, 80% would be positive and 10% would be beaming ear to ear like I was.
Galef wrote: I just don't get it. I completely understand TLJ (in that everything in the movie made sense) and enjoy all 3 of the Disney era SW films so far.
I studied film in college and while that by no means makes me an expert, I'd like to think I have more than a casual grasp of what makes a film good.
I just do not get why SOOOOO many people are so vocal in their pure unadulterated hated for any of these movies. They are enjoyable and thought provoking, which are the 2 best qualities for a cinema to have.
It's like these movies are sand and you're all a bunch of Anakins.
-
I'm happy to point out flaws in movies I like. It's just discussion.
I don't think I've been overly critical of the movie in this thread. At the end of the day, I like it. BUT, I am disappointed with a number of decisions that the director made.
When the prequels came out, people said the same stuff - SW fans will never be happy, you can't make something everyone will like, people will pick apart anything, there is no movie that could live up to SW.
The funny thing is, literally EVERYONE I have talked to in person loved the film. Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.
I will say, if this was supposed to be the finale in the trilogy, I'd be on board with most of the complaints. But this is the middle part, so any plot holes are either: A) going to be filled in by IX B) easy to explain away with logic and/or suspension of disbelief or C) if not A or B going to make me agree with most complaints
With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)
I do have a minor disagreement though. Nolan has shown us that it's possible to make good films and a gak load of cash at the same time. Dunkirk was awesome and that made $500 million from a $100 million production budget. Yeah, not in the same league as Star Wars, but a healthy profit none the less.
IMO, Dunkirk wasn't that great. It felt unrealistic and too clean for a war movie and tried too hard to be "emotional". Much like Interstellar - great visual and sound world, but overwrought directing and writing.
I've said before that because the Star Wars brand is so strong, Disney can afford to take a risk and roll the dice.
I think Manchu is right in that SW movie (or in deed, any movie of a strong franchise) doesn't have to be 'good'. It is enough that it is acceptable quality and provides the bulk of the fans what they want. TFA was just like that, tons of fan service and very little risk. Almost everything was recycled from earlier movies. With TLJ they actually dared to take bit more risk but still in conservative side.
Note how long Disney is taking producing a sequel to their primary brand, Frozen. They are taking years to write the movie to make sure it doesn't suck, because if it's a success, they can milk it for decades, just like SW.
New Star Trek movies are variation of this same theme. They are enormously recycled, but directing and writing is brought to modern tastes. Personally I think they blow and don't feel like Trek at all (well, the last one did, somewhat) but you can't argue with Box Office.
It's nothing to do with denial. I'm not praising these films because I can't tolerate the notion that Star Wars can be bad (I accept that there's maybe 2 hours tops of actually decent stuff across the Prequels), I'm praising them because so far all three have managed to excite, enthral, move and thrill me and make me feel like I was 8 years old again, which is what I ask from a Star Wars movie. I'd say TLJ and R1 are better than Empire and only slightly behind ANH in my personal rankings, with TFA equal to Empire, and are all immensely satisfying pieces of cinema.
Is it so hard to grasp that people might genuinely love these new movies, be 100% satisfied with them and be perfectly happy with then continuing on the current course once a year for the next decade?
I do tend to greatly enjoy a lot of movies that are often very heavily bashed (BvS, X-men 3, Wolverine Origins, among others) but I don't think that's anything to do with denial, I'm just perfectly happy to appreciate a film on its own merits and not rail against directors/producers/companies for not making the exact thing I wanted.
Hell, even Nolan on autopilot is better than most directors on a good day.
Personally I think that Ridley Scott would be a better choice - He's more of an original type though - making a star-wars trilogy would probably bore him. No question Disney can afford whoever they'd like.
A world of no. Scott is way past his "use by"-date.
Galef wrote: With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)
-
I'm not particularly convinced the need is fan-driven. I'd argue more it's a studio driven need to create a market for....stuff.
I'm not particularly convinced that there was a fan drive for a SW film every single year, let alone all the associated stuff.
Galef wrote: Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.
WTF you can't be serious. People who don't agree with you and your circle of acquaintances are "an internet phenomenon"? This is the definition of living in a bubble.
Paradigm wrote: Is it so hard to grasp that people might genuinely love these new movies, be 100% satisfied with them and be perfectly happy with then continuing on the current course once a year for the next decade?
Not for me. But I am not struggling to understand the fact that people have a different opinion from mine. That would be you and Galef.
Most of the people I've talked to in person are. "Yeah, what you have described are issues but they're not a big complaint for me to negatively impact my enjoyment of the film."
Paradigm wrote: Is it so hard to grasp that people might genuinely love these new movies, be 100% satisfied with them and be perfectly happy with then continuing on the current course once a year for the next decade?
Not for me. But I am not struggling to understand the fact that people have a different opinion from mine. That would be you and Galef.
To clarify, as I mentioned before, I appreciate there are plenty of reasons why people might not like the film. But you are talking as if TLJ is an empirically bad movie which has a fundamental need to be 'fixed', which is ignoring the fact that (going by the exceptional critical response, generally positive reaction among casual moviegoers, a very strong opening weekend and opinions presented by several people elsewhere in the thread) a significant/large portion of the viewers are perfectly happy with it, consider it a genuinely good movie and has no need of fixing, course-correction or alteration.
You are essentially attempting to find ways to solve a problem that doesn't exist, according to a large portion of the film's audience.
Galef wrote: The funny thing is, literally EVERYONE I have talked to in person loved the film.
Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.
I will say, if this was supposed to be the finale in the trilogy, I'd be on board with most of the complaints. But this is the middle part, so any plot holes are either:
A) going to be filled in by IX
B) easy to explain away with logic and/or suspension of disbelief or
C) if not A or B going to make me agree with most complaints
With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)
-
Counter anecdote: Everyone I've talked to in real life varies from "Dislike" to "Hate".
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
b) Logic seems to be where the issues arise. All I've heard is cries to suspend disbelief. Given that this movie decided to suddenly apply real-word physics to the hyperdrive, I'd say that is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Here's the thing. If the movies are going to become nothing but plot hooks for other media, I don't see a need to pay for the movies.
Were they though? Or is that nostalgia? Some of them certainly were, but I dont think the lot of them were.
'Splinter of the Mind's Eye' was fairly good. So was Thrawn Trilogy, which also introduced a very popular new character, who is of course now wiped out along with rest of the EU.
Continuing along the "why it is hard to make good SW movie" thread, one word: Character bloat.
Well, that was two words. But think about it: when you start everything fresh, you can concentrate on few key characters, let them do and say stuff which defines why the character is "character" and you can keep the movie reasonably paced and it doesn't become 84 hours long. Also the viewers don't have preconceptions about "what should this character do", it's all fresh and new to them.
But then you start a new series and have legacy characters. You have to include them because the fans demand them, and also because they can provide background/link to earlier lore, making it all seem more grounded. But this creates huge problems. You can't have the old characters to be simple exposition devices, or victims to villains to provide motivation for the protagonists. On the other hand, you don't want the old characters too heroic, because that will make new characters look weak. New generation MUST be in the limelight, since the torch has to be passed. If nothing else, because the old generation actors age and no longer can perform the (very profitable) role. This also creates runtime and pacing problems since you now have two generations of characters to suck up screen time.
And finally, old fans who have imagined in their heads how their favourite characters return would look like, might be unsatisfied about the treatment their heroes are given. Assume for example that Episodes 1-3 really had been filmed first, and then rolls "A New Hope", with old Ewan McGregor returning to role of Obi-Wan. You think most Obi-Wan fans would be happy about the way he dies in Episode 4?
And this is all known and above the board- unlike what is alleged for the First Order.
Krupp's activities are known, and were then above board too; the corporation still made lots of things for the NSDAP.
By the same token it isn't beyond the pale that KDY could build Star Destroyers for the FO. They are a Space Nazi corporation affiliated with Space Nazis who have access to a large chunk of the Star Wars Galaxy.
Galef wrote: The funny thing is, literally EVERYONE I have talked to in person loved the film.
Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.
I will say, if this was supposed to be the finale in the trilogy, I'd be on board with most of the complaints. But this is the middle part, so any plot holes are either:
A) going to be filled in by IX
B) easy to explain away with logic and/or suspension of disbelief or
C) if not A or B going to make me agree with most complaints
With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)
-
Counter anecdote: Everyone I've talked to in real life varies from "Dislike" to "Hate".
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
b) Logic seems to be where the issues arise. All I've heard is cries to suspend disbelief. Given that this movie decided to suddenly apply real-word physics to the hyperdrive, I'd say that is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Here's the thing. If the movies are going to become nothing but plot hooks for other media, I don't see a need to pay for the movies.
Ha! And people in my group are split. I'm probably middle of the road. Enjoyed it, but there are flaws. I have one person who absolutely loves EVERYTHING star wars. You could slap a star wars sticker on a McDonald's burger and it's the most awesome burger ever. We also have a huge Star Wars fan who is Angry about it. Capital A intentional. Specifically them turning Luke into a pussy. It's worse than all of the prequels to him.
Like Manchu, I think that Galef calling the hate an internet phenomenon just because his group loved it is absolutely laughable. That's not how things work, but feel free to hand-wave it away.
Paradigm wrote: You are essentially attempting to find ways to solve a problem that doesn't exist, according to a large portion of the film's audience.
First and foremost, I am sincerely happy for people who like the film - I genuinely wished I liked it more, as I liked TFA and I love the new characters (i.e., Kylo, Rey, Finn, and Poe). I thought the trailer looked really good.
But imagine if the trailer started with Poe crank calling Hux. Then we see Luke throwing his father's lightsaber over his shoulder like it's garbage. Next up, Luke is tugging on the testicle-like teats of an alien as Rey grimmaces in shock and disgust. Then Kylo Ren's naked chest and Rey drooling. A close up shot of Snoke's corpse. Some voiceovers from Holdo and Rose, characters we don't know or care about, giving their supposedly inspiring speeches. Weird horse things smashing through the casino walls. And for the big finale, Yoda giggling like a maniac in front of a burning Jedi shrine. This would have been pretty accurate to the film's actual content and cohesion.
I have no beef with anyone who likes this stuff. People are free to like whatever the want. But I just want you to try and imagine people's reactions if this was how the trailer went.
The Star Wars film that really needs to be made is Rian Johnson Strikes Back. Think "The Late Show" docudrama, but about Johnson, Abrams, Kennedy, et al..
JJ is the director who likes to fill his movies with mystery boxes. He doesn't care what's inside them.
RJ is the guy who remembers Lost and would rather burn the boxes to the ground than open them like some butt monkey. JJ Leno's casual shallowness disgusts him, but RJ Letterman prefers to poke at the audience rather than satiate them.
Galef wrote: You are all smart enough to know that if Disney didn't start with Skywalker saga films, half of the internet would explode with nerd rage. So while creating new stories is surely on the horizon, Disney was smart to start with something familiar.
Unfortunately, I feel we live in a time that there is no possible outcome that would appease the vast majority of fans. Opinions will always be divided and the vocal minority will always be the loudest.
Citation needed.
And citation needed.
Just to touch back on this again, but didn't LFL release some media set during the Old Republic that had nothing to do with the Skywalkers? How was that received? Hated more than the prequels, was it?
Get Larry Miller in a wig and beard to be George Lucas. Imagine him doing lines about "white slavers." Eugene Levy could play an increasingly confused and oppressed Mark Hamill getting bullied by Parker Posey's Kennedy. Michael McKean could have a cameo as Rick McCallum.
Galef wrote: The funny thing is, literally EVERYONE I have talked to in person loved the film. Everyone they have talked to in person also liked it, so all the "hate" is an internet phenomenon.
I will say, if this was supposed to be the finale in the trilogy, I'd be on board with most of the complaints. But this is the middle part, so any plot holes are either: A) going to be filled in by IX B) easy to explain away with logic and/or suspension of disbelief or C) if not A or B going to make me agree with most complaints
With SW movies coming out so fast and SW content being covered by books, shows, movies and other media, the need to make concise, stand-alone movies is not as necessary as it was 20+ years ago. It would be nice, but there seems to be a fan-driven need to keep pumping out content (whether this is a truth or just a perception is another issue). Disney does not have to give up all the answers in a single film (but hopefully will by the finale)
-
Counter anecdote: Everyone I've talked to in real life varies from "Dislike" to "Hate".
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9. b) Logic seems to be where the issues arise. All I've heard is cries to suspend disbelief. Given that this movie decided to suddenly apply real-word physics to the hyperdrive, I'd say that is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
Here's the thing. If the movies are going to become nothing but plot hooks for other media, I don't see a need to pay for the movies.
Ha! And people in my group are split. I'm probably middle of the road. Enjoyed it, but there are flaws. I have one person who absolutely loves EVERYTHING star wars. You could slap a star wars sticker on a McDonald's burger and it's the most awesome burger ever. We also have a huge Star Wars fan who is Angry about it. Capital A intentional. Specifically them turning Luke into a pussy. It's worse than all of the prequels to him.
Like Manchu, I think that Galef calling the hate an internet phenomenon just because his group loved it is absolutely laughable. That's not how things work, but feel free to hand-wave it away.
Like wise a split group. Though we tend to be "loved it", "We liked it, but have reservations." and "What the hell did I just watch?"
I was the latter, but I think some of that comes down to having to deal with the cheering and laughing the whole movie at stuff I thought was out right stupid. It just left me asking if I was watching a different movie. From there I thought about it, and thought that maybe despite the things I liked, I liked alot of it way less. Then I got to thinking it was alright, but a jumbled mess of pointless plots and stupid humor. I saw it again to wrap my head around it, turns out it was a mix.
I liked it enough, mostly Reylo, some of the acting and the visuals. But it was a jumbled mess of pointless character, pointless plot points and stupid humor. Visuals and some of the acting/characters being good isnt enough. But it will do for me in the long run. I am how ever not overly excited for IX or RJ's Trilogy.
I guess I liked that it opened up them to try more, but who knows.
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
OTOH there was no coherent plan for the original trilogy either. Emperor wasn't originally envisioned as big bad Force user, and it sure wasn't the plan to have Leia, Luke and Darth Vader all related. According to Wikipedia they even planned Luke becoming Darth Vader almost to the end!
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
OTOH there was no coherent plan for the original trilogy either. Emperor wasn't originally envisioned as big bad Force user, and it sure wasn't the plan to have Leia, Luke and Darth Vader all related.
According to Wikipedia they even planned Luke becoming Darth Vader almost to the end!
That's because there weren't plans to release more films from the off. Star Wars didn't become a new hope until a year or 2 after it was released.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Personally, I stopped buying Star Wars product regularly when the prequels killed my enthusiasm. TFA cemented Star Wars as a done setting where anything goes if it gets us a shiny trailer. These movies have drastically reduced my spending on the IP. I know others who feel the same way. There are only so many crappy movies an IP can survive.
Well...Transformers have proven that IF the IP is strong enough it can survive 5 awful movies by Michael Bay and still thrive. Now, I don't want Disney to test that one with Star Wars though.
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
OTOH there was no coherent plan for the original trilogy either.
Well, yeah. George had people (particularly Hollywood studio types) insisting the original film was a terrible idea that was simply going to fail. It was a risk, so obviously wasn't planned as a trilogy. And time and money constraints meant he was just finishing the screenplay when filming started, and then sections had to be redone to get the studio to sign off on it.
By contrast, these were intentionally packaged as a trilogy. While it turns out the two directors are doing their own thing, everyone and their dog knew these would be three connected films..
I mostly enjoyed the movie probably because after TFA my expectations were really low. But the thing that really got me was the fleet actions. I get that SW is space opera where the battles will always fail to reach my naval battle fanboy dreams but when even my wife goes WTH at the stupidity of the tactics of the movie.
Ofc that might be the reason why Thrawn was such a genius, everybody else in the galaxy barely knows how to command a fleet further than "close with the bad guys and shoot" school of tactics, except probably Ackbar that learned something about crossing the T in naval school.
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
OTOH there was no coherent plan for the original trilogy either.
Well, yeah. George had people (particularly Hollywood studio types) insisting the original film was a terrible idea that was simply going to fail. It was a risk, so obviously wasn't planned as a trilogy. And time and money constraints meant he was just finishing the screenplay when filming started, and then sections had to be redone to get the studio to sign off on it.
By contrast, these were intentionally packaged as a trilogy. While it turns out the two directors are doing their own thing, everyone and their dog knew these would be three connected films..
People come up with a nice false equivalence and you ruin it. Happy?
According to... what? Certainly not the films, which I'm 99% certain never even mention KDY.
It doesn't really matter if KDY is specifically named, what matters is that the construction of Star Destroyers had been normalized over the course of ~30 years.
Regardless, someone should be asking who they're selling all these ships to. Buying battleships is even more glaringly obvious than buying fighters and bombers.
They should, but The Empire wasn't noted for it's bookkeeping.
Yoda Force feths him, then blows up the Jedi Temple.
Canonically speaking...
Spoiler:
He had his way with the temple upkeepers, the porgs, and alien walruses. He also used the force projection rock to visit the wives and daughters of First Order officers across the whole of space. Life as an exile changed the man but he was right... Luke Skywalker is a legend.
Guys, I actually liked The Last Jedi. I really did. But as my friend pointed out, I'm afraid that we're just going to have to accept the fact that...Simpsons did it.
The Bacta suit, Ray, Snoke, the tree? Simpsons did it.
According to... what? Certainly not the films, which I'm 99% certain never even mention KDY.
It doesn't really matter if KDY is specifically named, what matters is that the construction of Star Destroyers had been normalized over the course of ~30 years.
According to... what? KDY specifically isn't the point. Whoever's making them, there still hasn't been a buyer for the last 20, unless that one Republic capital system that got blowed up was also absolutely packed with SDs, that were also pinpoint targeted like the planets were from however many light years away.
Regardless, someone should be asking who they're selling all these ships to. Buying battleships is even more glaringly obvious than buying fighters and bombers.
They should, but The Empire wasn't noted for it's bookkeeping.
What's the Empire got to do with it? Its been gone for 20 odd years, and the FO doesn't arise until after its gone. Not sure why you think the Republic wouldn't ask questions about who those Star Destroyers were going to, since they weren't buying them, as evidenced by the lack of a Republic fleet. [Or, they were buying them and they got blown up]. Either way, manufacturing a 'limitless' fleet for somebody else doesn't work with the TFA narrative that the Republic doesn't believe someone threatening is out there. Because anyone massing Star Destroyers is a threat, especially to a Galactic Republic with one single tiny defense fleet.
a) People said that about The Force Awakens (Wait for the next one, that will explain how Rey isn't a Marry Sue...). I see no evidence that there is any coherent plan to give me confidence in Episode 9.
OTOH there was no coherent plan for the original trilogy either.
Well, yeah. George had people (particularly Hollywood studio types) insisting the original film was a terrible idea that was simply going to fail. It was a risk, so obviously wasn't planned as a trilogy. And time and money constraints meant he was just finishing the screenplay when filming started, and then sections had to be redone to get the studio to sign off on it.
By contrast, these were intentionally packaged as a trilogy. While it turns out the two directors are doing their own thing, everyone and their dog knew these would be three connected films..
The point is rather that having a coherent master plan for the whole trilogy is not a requirement for good end result (first trilogy), nor it is a guarantee for it (prequel trilogy).
According to... what? KDY specifically isn't the point. Whoever's making them, there still hasn't been a buyer for the last 20, unless that one Republic capital system that got blowed up was also absolutely packed with SDs, that were also pinpoint targeted like the planets were from however many light years away.
There doesn't need to be buyer, they're Space Nazis that are loyal to the cause; they'll build what needs to be built. TFA lays that out very clearly.
There doesn't need to be buyer, they're Space Nazis that are loyal to the cause; they'll build what needs to be built. TFA lays that out very clearly.
When? Who? What loyal Space Nazi starship construction crews? The kidnapped and brainwashed children? Did they build the dockyards too? Program the systems and work rare minerals and energy reactors?
At what point is this laid out 'clearly' or at all?
Also... what happened to KYD or other unspecified manufacturers making the ships? Why the sudden shift to magic crews of loyal space nazi child engineers?
When? Who? What loyal Space Nazi starship construction crews? The kidnapped and brainwashed children? Did they build the dockyards too? Program the systems and work rare minerals and energy reactors?
At what point is this laid out 'clearly' or at all?
It never is, but who cares about the difference between an Imperial II and Imperial I? Victory II and Victory I? The Resurgent and an Imperial II?
Also... what happened to KYD or other unspecified manufacturers making the ships? Why the sudden shift to magic crews of loyal space nazi child engineers?
There was no sudden shift. I explicitly stated how Star Destroyer manufacturers are Nazis.
I'm sure this is a fine movie is you suspend disbelief, don't ask any questions, blindly accept things are perfectly likely and reasonable to happen because they did happen and don't challenge those ascertations, and enjoy excellent cinematography and graphics.
For me, personally, the glaring stupidity demonstrated by many of the characters particularly General Hux and friends, but to a lesser degree the rebels, and even Luke Skywalker, really ruined what could have been a good film.
I don't like my cinema stories to hang on the premise that everyone is a moron, and the plot to only continue to work as long as everyone continues to be a moron, and or, massive co-incidences hang everything together.
There wasn't anything not Starwarsy about it, it was just very badly written and thought out, and given the budget, that's a huge same. So many of the things that are wrong with this film could have been fixed by having one person go through the script asking sensible questions like,
'Well what are the Star Destroyers doing here?'
'Why doesn't anyone do X?'
'Does this part really make sense?'
'What's this characters actual moviation to do this?'
'I can see what kind of scene you want to shoot here, but couldn't we have a better reason for this to happen?'
The movie was mediocre just like EP I, II, III, VII and Rogue One but I actually liked the new Luke. IMHO the only interesting part in the movie, Kylo Ren is the silliest villain even seen and the good guys are all decent characters but none of them has the "shining".
I'm really thinking that a large part of the perceived problem is that none of us are kids anymore.
I mean, if you showed Star Wars to someone the same age as us who've never seen it before, will they give much the same feedback?
For me, Han and Chewie were childhood heroes. But in terms of great cinematic characters? Probably on there, but not terribly high up.
The OT comprised our childhood. The new stuff doesn't. We're seeing it through tired eyes - eyes that've watched a great many films since we were kids.
I did not like it. Too many plot holes and unanswered questions.
If luke hides because of shame and hopelessness, why did he leave a map inside r2d2 with a puzzle mystery to solve it? Seems so elborate for no reason...
Who is snoke and what was his purpose?
The premise lf the story, that the fleet of star destroyers can't reach the rebel mothership was questionable. They can't cover their tie fighter? What does that even mean? Surely tie fighters are expendable, and only three of them was currently wrecking the rebels with no issue. Could the star destroers not spread out and surround the rebels?
What is the first order and how do they rule? How do they get any resources and no resistance? Why is the rebel alliance so small?
The casino planet was pointless.
To me ep 4-6 was excellent because the setting, story and characters. Prequels was good because how they built on those. A force awakens was promising but the last jedi is unsatisfying in all the aspects i wanted it to perform. It just gaks on the classics and even it's modern predecessor. Kill of all giod characters for no reason. General Ackbar died of screen. Why?!
Yeah I must say the premise of the space battle made no sense.
* Why can't the First Order just hyperspace more ships in to block their escape since they evidently have the fuel?
* Why don't they deploy the thousands of tie fighters that must be on those Star Destroyers? The Rebels had all their fighter escorts and if the rebels had point defense weapons they couldn't stop three of them.
* We already saw that bombers can destroy even the largest capital ships earlier in the movie. Why can't the Empire deploy its own bombers?
* Why does the Dreadnought fire at the base which isn't going anywhere first and then shoot the Cruiser which is able to move?
* Why does the Dreadnought only have a handful of turbo lasers and why are they so exposed when every other Star Destroyer has them within the ship in armored batteries?
* Why did the other Star Destroyers not move in to protect the Dreadnought?
* If you saw Rogue One, why has the Resistance stopped using super fast Y Wings with Ion bombs that can be quickly deployed and instead uses incredibly slow and vulnerable bombers.
* Why do bombs drop in space? Why are they dropping bombs instead of using guided missiles they have had since the OT?
* Why didn't the shields stop the Tie fighters destroying the bridge? They were clearly further back than the turbolaser bolts were hitting. I mean why have the bridge so exposed if all you have to do is have 2 tie fighters fly up and shoot it? In Return of Jedi they say that the Super Star Destroyer has lost its defensive shields before the A Wing slams into its bridge. So clearly they would have to have disabled the shields.
* It has never been established that star wars ships only have enough fuel for one hyperspace jump. Indeed the opposite insinuation is made. Given that they were being tracked I am not sure why a Battlestar Galactica situation wouldn't have worked and had the same result.
* Why didn't the Tie fighters use Ion weapons, like we saw in Rogue One, to disable the Resistance ships?
* Why is the Resistance considered and built up as a major galactic faction when it only has three ships? Why does the FO even consider this a big threat? I mean in Rebels, just the rebel cell at Lothal has a much bigger fleet by the later series.
* Since every X Wing has a hyperdrive why doesn't the Resistance fleet split up in every direction?
So it actually contradicts how ship combat has been depicted even in Disney canon material like Rogue One and Rebels.
Why do bombs drop in space? Well, sure they shouldn't. But without having seen a 'technical readout' of the Bomber itself, we don't actually know if it has some kind of grav motor or something to propel the bombs downward.
Everything else? Because Plot. There's lots of stuff in lots of films that happen Because Plot.
Resistance itself was never built up as a major galactic faction though. The Republic was. But the Resistance was pretty much a Black Ops affair, covertly supported by some in the senate.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why do bombs drop in space? Well, sure they shouldn't. But without having seen a 'technical readout' of the Bomber itself, we don't actually know if it has some kind of grav motor or something to propel the bombs downward.
Everything else? Because Plot. There's lots of stuff in lots of films that happen Because Plot.
Resistance itself was never built up as a major galactic faction though. The Republic was. But the Resistance was pretty much a Black Ops affair, covertly supported by some in the senate.
If the bombs were being guided like missiles then they wouldn't need to fly directly over the target and release them. If it looks like a WW2 bomber then it probably is one. When you just saw how Y Wings work in the last film that is extremely jarring.
Yes, the plot requires a message to get from our surrounded heroes to the wall, to send a raven to Daenerys, so that she can fly with her dragons all the way up across thousands of miles in a few days to rescue our surrounded heroes. Are you saying thats also defensible on the grounds that the plot needed it to happen to enable a big set piece? A lot of people would maintain that is bad writing and the result of people not thinking things through. That can ruin suspension of disbelief.
In TFA Rey is constantly like "oh you're with the Resistance" as if even an uneducated scavenger on a backwater world knows who these people are. Hux and Snoke talk about them as if they are the primary and biggest threat to the First Order. The Republic itself is barely mentioned. If you had missed the blurb you would think the Rebels never won the Galactic Civil War. Indeed in the Last Jedi Holdo talks as if the Republic was never restored. They are depicted as those dudes with the fleet on those worlds and never get brought up again. So I think the focus has very much been on the Resistance as this nemesis to the FO and this credible rebellion.
I mean what gets me is if they really did not want to do anything with the New Republic and wanted essentially a continuation of the Galactic Civil War then why not just do that? Just say Endor wasn't a decisive battle and the Empire retained most of its territory? The war just simply carried on with the Rebel Alliance and a new caste of Imperial leader? This actually wouldn't change any aspect of the plot or themes explored in either film and would have made a lot more sense. They created a ton of plot problems for themselves in stating that the Imperial Fleet was destroyed at Jakku and the New Republic was able to dictate whatever terms it wanted; because it then requires you to explain how the FO came back. Saying the Rebels never won is a lot easier than saying they won and then giving a half-arsed explanation for the current setting.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I'm really thinking that a large part of the perceived problem is that none of us are kids anymore.
No, it's the opposite problem. There are many people who are children despite being grown adults- "manchild" is the unofficial term -and part of being a manchild is a massive emotional investment as an adult in franchises that one enjoyed as a physical child. An emotional investment so massive that cognitive dissonance utterly prevents them from being able to objectively critique a product on its own merits rather then the nostalgia that's tied within it.
There are a billion and one plotholes, contrivances and character feth-ups in the film. That doesn't mean that an individual can't ENJOY the film (I certainly did, to an extent). But to pretend that the poor writing just isn't there speaks to a pretty huge handwavium bias for a cherished franchise.
It's more people aren't keeping the same standard for the Original Trilogy.
OT? Why not use a Tractor Beam on the Falcon when it's fleeing Tatooine? The Empire had already been tipped off that the Droids they wanted were heading to that Docking Bay, and the Falcon fought it's way out. Would've knacked the whole trilogy, that.
How come The Death Star didn't detect the Falcon approaching and send some Fighters against it?
ESB? Shield Generator is down. Why begin a ground assault when the base is now vulnerable to a serious orbital bombardment? Hit the landing field and you cripple the Rebellion right there, and likely kill or capture it's entire high command.
Where was the ground support for the AT-ATs? That's a tactical blunder right there. We see a single AT-ST, but that's making no effort to engage the Snow Speeders at all.
Tow Cables? Well, isn't that convenient. Combat Airspeeders with a useful tow cable....that's incredibly long.
Luke does a Force Attract on his Lightsaber, but has never seen anyone do that trick before. Indeed, beyond the Jedi Mind trick, I don't recall Obi-Wan or Darth doing much force usage at all?
Cloud City. Soon as it's known the Carbon Freezing is feasible, why not have Leia and the others killed there and then? They were utterly defenceless. Why drag the deadweight along with you?
The Falcon escapes Bespin. How? Where was Vader's Star Destroyer? Why send only two fighters after it?
Why not track the Falcon as they did in A New Hope? It'd lead them this time to Rebel Fleet. Perfect time to give it a good shoeing.
All because plot. You can knock holes in most films if you're hypercritical and looking for flaws.
I agree the space battles (or the ground battle) made little sense, but this is something which is common in nearly all Star Wars movies. Battles of Return of the Jedi (both the space battle, and the Ewok scene) are particularly offensive.
Battles in Star Wars movies are just dressing, and details are designed as required to create tension. This is how it always has been.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It's more people aren't keeping the same standard for the Original Trilogy.
OT? Why not use a Tractor Beam on the Falcon when it's fleeing Tatooine? The Empire had already been tipped off that the Droids they wanted were heading to that Docking Bay, and the Falcon fought it's way out. Would've knacked the whole trilogy, that.
How come The Death Star didn't detect the Falcon approaching and send some Fighters against it?
ESB? Shield Generator is down. Why begin a ground assault when the base is now vulnerable to a serious orbital bombardment? Hit the landing field and you cripple the Rebellion right there, and likely kill or capture it's entire high command.
Where was the ground support for the AT-ATs? That's a tactical blunder right there. We see a single AT-ST, but that's making no effort to engage the Snow Speeders at all.
Tow Cables? Well, isn't that convenient. Combat Airspeeders with a useful tow cable....that's incredibly long.
Luke does a Force Attract on his Lightsaber, but has never seen anyone do that trick before. Indeed, beyond the Jedi Mind trick, I don't recall Obi-Wan or Darth doing much force usage at all?
Cloud City. Soon as it's known the Carbon Freezing is feasible, why not have Leia and the others killed there and then? They were utterly defenceless. Why drag the deadweight along with you?
The Falcon escapes Bespin. How? Where was Vader's Star Destroyer? Why send only two fighters after it?
Why not track the Falcon as they did in A New Hope? It'd lead them this time to Rebel Fleet. Perfect time to give it a good shoeing.
All because plot. You can knock holes in most films if you're hypercritical and looking for flaws.
In the films they don't establish Star Destroyers have tractor beams like they did in EU. Specific to Death Star.
Because they tractor it, assumed it wasn't a threat and wanted to know who knew about their location for information.
Most ships had already escaped by that point. You don't know that they didn't bombard the base; the cave system did seem to be shaking a lot.
They assumed they didn't need it because of Imperial Hubris. Stormtroopers wouldn't have helped with aircraft.
You use a tow cable for towing things. Perhaps they also use the speeders for towing things. Does what it says on the tin.
Because the force guides him to do it and it is more a question of willpower. Namely his determination not to give up and die in this cave. Plus ESB has a time jump so we are given room to infer Luke has done a bit of practice. Unlike Rey we see Luke practice and train in the first two films. Because there was no timeskip in LJ I can't infer "oh I guess Rey practiced swinging that thing around or found the helmet Luke used in Ep4". Its been like a few days since she left Jakku and she kills Snokes Praetorian Guard? Literally, all of the criticism of Rey could be avoided if they simply establish that she does practice and isn't winging it all the time. Little more than a basic formality, lip service, so we can all mentally tick that box in the back of our minds and get on with the business of her being awesome. But apparently it would belittle Rey as a character if she actually had to spend any time training. That's the issue. Its got nothing to do with "oh no powerful woman on screen. Hiss".
Interrogation for information. Trophies for the Emperor. Bait for Skywalker.
They weren't expecting the Falcon to escape and I think you see them pass Vaders Star Destroyer.
I was meaning the Falcon during the Death Star attack - I should've been clearer.
But do you see what I'm getting at here?
I've no problem with people being hypercrticial if they want to be - but your response above pretty much match my own when it comes to TLJ. It's off-screen knowledge. It's stuff not expressly shown on-screen in any of the films.
Not tracking the Falcon in ESB is the biggest blunder. We already know they can, and in a way that the crew of the ship can't detect (not this Ship, Sister). And we know they had plenty of time tinkering with the Falcon on Bespin.
Not tracking the Falcon in ESB is the biggest blunder.
So you wanted them to disable the hyperdrive and install a tracking device?
In general I do get what you're saying. But what can be done about it? I wasn't born when ANH or ESB came out and I don't remember a time in my life when I hadn't seen them. There's no amount of critical analysis that will be able to override my childhood love of the films (even Jedi as it was the only one I had recorded off the telly so could watch whenever I liked).
Yes, it's unfair on the new Disney films that they don't have that same advantage. It was unfair on the prequels too. But what am I supposed to do about it? I can't just pretend (to myself) that I think they're brilliant and leave it at that. I don't know how to watch a film like I'm 5 years old again so that the more recent films get an even playing field.
Why not have a back up plan? Indeed, disabling the hyperdrive makes absolutely no sense.
Everyone that arrived upon the Falcon was in Imperial hands.
All I'm saying is that those who spend their time being hypercritical need to do the same across the entire saga. It's pointless to rag on the new film whilst ignoring similar oddities in the OT that they're lauding.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Snoke, Luke, Rey, Captain Chrome, and the Solo/Leia divorce questions were not answered.
While annoying as that may be, good story telling keeps that audience in suspense until the end of the tale. TLJ is the middle part of this particular tale, not the end and thus it has zero obligation to give any of those answers. I, too, would have liked some clarification of some of the issues left open by TFA, but I cannot fault TLJ for not delivering them as it was not its job to do so. Its job was to build the suspense to a crescendo and leave the audience wanting more. Clearly it achieved this goal as the movie was not only an edge of your seat entertaining watch, but by not answering those questions as well as raising more clearly leaves the audience wanting more
I mean the thing with Snoke is that they did make a big deal out of him:
* You had his presentation in TFA as the leader of the FO. This is clearly a powerful figure driving events. People will probably be curious about where the FO came from since they are the principal antagonists. Kylo did not found the FO.
* His deformed appearance tells a story and invites questions.
* The Visual Dictionary for the Last Jedi says that Snoke is "the mysterious figure behind the FO rise to power". In fact the word mysterious comes up again and again in descriptions of him made by Disney. You don't say he is mysterious unless you want people to be curious.
* JJ made a whole fuss over how "No Snoke isn't a Sith. Hes pulling Ren deeper into the darkness." Stuff like that will encourage people to look through the lore. That's where the "Oh hes one of the wills" comes from. So this is a question Disney itself posed.
* Andy Serkis and others kept stressing that Snoke was more powerful than Palpatine.
* RJ, I am pretty sure said before the film released that we would learn more about Snoke during the Last Jedi.
So I don't buy the excuse that "Disney never made a big deal out of Snoke.", "He was only ever a superficial character, the fans got worked up over nothing". They were clearly very fully aware that people were genuinely curious about the character and played up to that over the course of two years. At no point did they ever say "oh hes just a cookie cutter dark lord. This is Rens story first and foremost.". Snoke was really prominent in the trailers for the film. The implication being that we would see a lot more of him in this movie. That this would be where he stepped out of the shadows and revealed who he was. Disney and RJ are twisting events to suggest that they did not encourage fans to hype up Snoke.
Plus, think about it. If you know that this villain isn't important. That his backstory is not relevant to the plot and as RJ insists "we didn't have the time". But you do know that fans are very keenly interested. Then why not just write up a bio in TFA or LJ visual dictionary or some other external source before the films release? They were extremely cryptic in all the material released concerning this character. Somebody in the PR department at Disney screwed up. They had plenty of opportunity to just put that information out there and be done with it.
If it really is so irrelevant to the film then why not? So I think RJ and Disney didn't think this was going to really tick people off. They probably assumed this would simply add to speculation that they could maybe exploit with a comic at a later date and that it served getting people into theaters to retain that mystery about Snoke. The fans were basically hyping up the Last Jedi. So they chose to not write up any info about Snoke and that plan seriously backfired.
How do we know they were married? Maybe they lived in sin for a few years! Maybe they eloped at Space Vegas! WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT BACKSTORY!
Nor do we need it. Form the context of the story, we saw the love story of Han & Leia in the OT, we know that produced Ben Solo and that Han and Leia are no longer together, but still amicable.
We really do not need anymore. The only "clue" that they may have been married is Ben having the surname "Solo", which we cannot confirm in the SW continuity if they have the same traditions as us in which the wife takes the husbands last name. At best, all we know that sons take the last name of their fathers in SW
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Snoke, Luke, Rey, Captain Chrome, and the Solo/Leia divorce questions were not answered.
While annoying as that may be, good story telling keeps that audience in suspense until the end of the tale. TLJ is the middle part of this particular tale, not the end and thus it has zero obligation to give any of those answers.
I, too, would have liked some clarification of some of the issues left open by TFA, but I cannot fault TLJ for not delivering them as it was not its job to do so.
Its job was to build the suspense to a crescendo and leave the audience wanting more. Clearly it achieved this goal as the movie was not only an edge of your seat entertaining watch, but by not answering those questions as well as raising more clearly leaves the audience wanting more
-
I think it's past the point of no return. I don't think those answers can be answered in IX.
If they turn round and say Rey's parents aren't really no good hustlers, that leaves the audience feeling cheated, because they were expressly told something else.
Rey's Mary Sue persona in TFA and her mastery of The Force, could only have 3 logical outcomes: mind wipe, Luke's daughter, or created by The Force itself.
She had none of those, because the director didn't give a damn
Did Luke, being the only living clergyman in the church of Jedi, perform the service? And how did he not predict that they would divorce? Did he "have a bad feeling about this" and still do the service anyway.
Also, awkward as it is, did he also perform the annulment? If not, who else would have authority?
Did they throw space rice as the newly weds raced to the Aluminum Falcon to start their honeymoon at Space Bahamas?
They were thrown together by War, and in peace time their personalities clashed too much to be together.
Line is something akin to 'we both went back to what we were good at'
Total cop out in my book. Two of Star Wars' biggest and most iconic characters, and virtually no explanation on why their happy ending went sour? And having to buy a book or video game doesn't count.
It's script-writing 101, and both directors failed.
Did Luke, being the only living clergyman in the church of Jedi, perform the service? And how did he not predict that they would divorce? Did he "have a bad feeling about this" and still do the service anyway.
Also, awkward as it is, did he also perform the annulment? If not, who else would have authority?
Did they throw space rice as the newly weds raced to the Aluminum Falcon to start their honeymoon at Space Bahamas?
Details, damn it!
That's why last jedi had that Vegas style planet. It was a Vegas wedding
They were thrown together by War, and in peace time their personalities clashed too much to be together.
Line is something akin to 'we both went back to what we were good at'
Total cop out in my book. Two of Star Wars' biggest and most iconic characters, and virtually no explanation on why their happy ending went sour? And having to buy a book or video game doesn't count.
It's script-writing 101, and both directors failed.
Having your only son commit multiple homicides will put a strain on your marriage.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Snoke, Luke, Rey, Captain Chrome, and the Solo/Leia divorce questions were not answered.
While annoying as that may be, good story telling keeps that audience in suspense until the end of the tale. TLJ is the middle part of this particular tale, not the end and thus it has zero obligation to give any of those answers.
I, too, would have liked some clarification of some of the issues left open by TFA, but I cannot fault TLJ for not delivering them as it was not its job to do so.
Its job was to build the suspense to a crescendo and leave the audience wanting more. Clearly it achieved this goal as the movie was not only an edge of your seat entertaining watch, but by not answering those questions as well as raising more clearly leaves the audience wanting more
-
I think it's past the point of no return. I don't think those answers can be answered in IX.
If they turn round and say Rey's parents aren't really no good hustlers, that leaves the audience feeling cheated, because they were expressly told something else.
Rey's Mary Sue persona in TFA and her mastery of The Force, could only have 3 logical outcomes: mind wipe, Luke's daughter, or created by The Force itself.
She had none of those, because the director didn't give a damn
Nonsense. Those are all constraints that you're placing upon the background.
It's shown, multiple times, that a Force user can (and usually is) born to non-sensitive parents. Because without that, the monastic and supposedly celibate Jedi order would've died out centuries ago.
Indeed, so far as I can tell, Luke and Leia are the exception for having an explicitly force sensitive parent.
So why shouldn't Rey be a nobody? Fan theories abounding don't count here, because they're based on wishful thinking rather than actual evidence.
Whether you love hate with The Last Jedi, you all have to admit, it is intriguing. Personally I hate it but several of my long time friends loved it. We were all fans of Star Wars and spent years collection action figures, t-shirts, and developing our own stories with the RPG by West End Games. One of my friends used to be the GM for a lot of our gaming sessions and looking back I can remember that their was a lot of goofing off in his games Silly things would happen a lot, but it didn't matter because we were having fun. Now when I was running the game I would take a more serious approach to the game. A lot of times my friends would do stupid things in the game and I admit sometimes it got me mad. Could this be why we have different opinions about TLJ? The new movie feels like the games one of my friends would run.
I admit after thinking about it, this reasoning makes sense to me. Now for everyone else I have no idea. Of course the sillyness isn't my only reason and anyone who agrees with me knows all of the reasons why (I think angry joe covers them really well).
Anyways I am not giving Disney anymore money but I do enjoy the people who hate the movie that make youtube videos about it. I feel like every video I watch is a little bit of money given to them instead of disney.
Galef wrote: I, too, would have liked some clarification of some of the issues left open by TFA, but I cannot fault TLJ for not delivering them as it was not its job to do so.
Yes, it absolutely was - if for no other reason than because at least some of those issues were crucial to the story that comprised the movie. (Not to mention it is the sequel to TFA!)
No, by Prequel apologist, I mean someone who argues that the Prequels are fine movies because, among other reasons, they are held to unfair standards. In other words, an argument that shifts criticism of the movies to criticism of the audience.
There was something I forgot to mention in my previous post. I wonder, is it possible to edit the movie to where it is more acceptable? Something like The Phantom Edit of the Prequels, or The Tolkien Edit of the Hobbit Trilogy. Both of those were surprisingly very good. They trimmed both trilogies into a 90 minute Film that was very acceptable.
You could trim out Finn and Rose Completely. Basically never have Finn wake up. You could edit the Poe/Purple Hair scenes to where there is no mutiny and remove purple's hairs snarky comments. Basically you could make the slow death of the resistance look hopeless until Purple Hair sacrifices herself. Maybe even photoshop Ackbar's head on her. Because regardless of the plan or lack of plan the resistance did have a slow agonizing death. Leia would be tricky, perhaps you could cut out her space scene and just show that she survived and was in the medical room.
No, by Prequel apologist, I mean someone who argues that the Prequels are fine movies because, among other reasons, they are held to unfair standards. In other words, an argument that shifts criticism of the movies to criticism of the audience.
We didn't know everything about everything by the end of ESB, did we?
Yeah, is not that something crucial about the father of one of the characters was revealed in ESB, or something. Compare to TLJ. NOTHING. Just stuff pushed under the rug.
Lord Scythican wrote: There was something I forgot to mention in my previous post. I wonder, is it possible to edit the movie to where it is more acceptable? Something like The Phantom Edit of the Prequels, or The Tolkien Edit of the Hobbit Trilogy. Both of those were surprisingly very good. They trimmed both trilogies into a 90 minute Film that was very acceptable.
You could trim out Finn and Rose Completely. Basically never have Finn wake up. You could edit the Poe/Purple Hair scenes to where there is no mutiny and remove purple's hairs snarky comments. Basically you could make the slow death of the resistance look hopeless until Purple Hair sacrifices herself. Maybe even photoshop Ackbar's head on her. Because regardless of the plan or lack of plan the resistance did have a slow agonizing death. Leia would be tricky, perhaps you could cut out her space scene and just show that she survived and was in the medical room.
See I thought Po was being an idiot from the get go. Maybe because I was in love after the whole restore the Republic speech, but that did feel like a filler plot to give Po something to do.
I think they didn't do anything with Ackbar because the actor died. Granted, he could have simply been wounded like Leia and show up later; especially since the Resistance no longer has a military figurehead with Carry Fisher gone. I cannot see them making a star fighter pilot leader of the Resistance. Plus I think a big reason why Holdo gets challenged by Po is because she has assumed the mantle of command unexpectedly so everything is disjointed; Po probably would have just gone with Ackbar or Leia. I know some websites insisted that he couldn't have done the same scene as Holdo but he was in RoTJ quite a lot and had a fair few speaking lines. More than Mon Mothma for example and crashing a cruiser into a Star Destroyer isn't a speaking part. Plus they had CGI Mon Calamari before to get more facial expression.
I don't think the film is pushing some sort of politically correct narrative. You see lots of female officers in the FO and people of other race. I mean Finn was a Stormtrooper. I think Holdo is a girl because it instantly conveys that she is Leia's protégé and is consciously echoing Mon Mothma in the OT. I mean that speech to the Resistance is a very similar set up to that scene. So that is why she is a girl. The other officer is barely a character and seems to have been picked for looking like one of those well meaning people who tries to run a soup kitchen but everything is a disaster.
I mean Luke has a huge role in this film and he is an old white guy. You've got Po Dameron as another dude. Rose is primarily a supporting character in Finns story. Which really just leaves Rey as a legit main female character and even then I would say she is more used to push Kylo story along. So I don't think the film is feminist. I think RJ is just trying to make a SW movie. You should view Disney patting themselves on the back over being inclusive with skepticism.
Plus in the EU the Empire was very opposed to the notion of any women in its ranks and presumably this would extend to humans of different ethnicity. It certainly extended to non-humans. Its isn't really being politically correct to visually suggest that the First Order are Nazis and the good guys are bit more representative.
We didn't know everything about everything by the end of ESB, did we?
Yeah, is not that something crucial about the father of one of the characters was revealed in ESB, or something.
Compare to TLJ. NOTHING. Just stuff pushed under the rug.
No. Something about Vader and Luke was alleged, but not resolved until ROTJ.
Again, you not liking an answer to a question is not the same as no answer being given, or something being swept under the rug.
Indeed, when asked who she is in TFA, Rey explains 'I'm a nobody'. This is confirmed now. She is literally a nobody.
Manchu wrote: It was your comparison - why tell me "apples and oranges"?
I mentioned ESB, not ANH. ESB left dangling plot threads to be resolved.
That would also be "apples and oranges" - the complaint about TLJ is not that it raised questions to be resolved in Episode IX but that it brushes aside questions raised by TFA.
Lord Scythican wrote: There was something I forgot to mention in my previous post. I wonder, is it possible to edit the movie to where it is more acceptable? Something like The Phantom Edit of the Prequels, or The Tolkien Edit of the Hobbit Trilogy. Both of those were surprisingly very good. They trimmed both trilogies into a 90 minute Film that was very acceptable.
You could trim out Finn and Rose Completely. Basically never have Finn wake up. You could edit the Poe/Purple Hair scenes to where there is no mutiny and remove purple's hairs snarky comments. Basically you could make the slow death of the resistance look hopeless until Purple Hair sacrifices herself. Maybe even photoshop Ackbar's head on her. Because regardless of the plan or lack of plan the resistance did have a slow agonizing death. Leia would be tricky, perhaps you could cut out her space scene and just show that she survived and was in the medical room.
See I thought Po was being an idiot from the get go. Maybe because I was in love after the whole restore the Republic speech, but that did feel like a filler plot to give Po something to do.
I think they didn't do anything with Ackbar because the actor died. Granted, he could have simply been wounded like Leia and show up later; especially since the Resistance no longer has a military figurehead with Carry Fisher gone. I cannot see them making a star fighter pilot leader of the Resistance. Plus I think a big reason why Holdo gets challenged by Po is because she has assumed the mantle of command unexpectedly so everything is disjointed; Po probably would have just gone with Ackbar or Leia. I know some websites insisted that he couldn't have done the same scene as Holdo but he was in RoTJ quite a lot and had a fair few speaking lines. More than Mon Mothma for example and crashing a cruiser into a Star Destroyer isn't a speaking part. Plus they had CGI Mon Calamari before to get more facial expression.
I don't think the film is pushing some sort of politically correct narrative. You see lots of female officers in the FO and people of other race. I mean Finn was a Stormtrooper. I think Holdo is a girl because it instantly conveys that she is Leia's protégé and is consciously echoing Mon Mothma in the OT. I mean that speech to the Resistance is a very similar set up to that scene. So that is why she is a girl. The other officer is barely a character and seems to have been picked for looking like one of those well meaning people who tries to run a soup kitchen but everything is a disaster.
I mean Luke has a huge role in this film and he is an old white guy. You've got Po Dameron as another dude. Rose is primarily a supporting character in Finns story. Which really just leaves Rey as a legit main female character and even then I would say she is more used to push Kylo story along. So I don't think the film is feminist. I think RJ is just trying to make a SW movie. You should view Disney patting themselves on the back over being inclusive with skepticism.
Plus in the EU the Empire was very opposed to the notion of any women in its ranks and presumably this would extend to humans of different ethnicity. It certainly extended to non-humans. Its isn't really being politically correct to visually suggest that the First Order are Nazis and the good guys are bit more representative.
Did you you reply to the wrong person? I was talking about editing the film and nothing about a politically correct narrative...
We didn't know everything about everything by the end of ESB, did we?
Yeah, is not that something crucial about the father of one of the characters was revealed in ESB, or something.
Compare to TLJ. NOTHING. Just stuff pushed under the rug.
No. Something about Vader and Luke was alleged, but not resolved until ROTJ.
Again, you not liking an answer to a question is not the same as no answer being given, or something being swept under the rug.
Indeed, when asked who she is in TFA, Rey explains 'I'm a nobody'. This is confirmed now. She is literally a nobody.
Because her being nobody isn't interesting or even depicted as interesting.
Lets compare this to Bastila from KoToR. Shes also from humble origins, but her parents are actually relevant to her character and story. She assumes her mother was a horrible person who sold her to the Jedi to get rid of her and drove her father to death. However, you find out that she is a dying woman and that they sent her to the Jedi hoping that she would be a great Jedi and escape a life of misery. This means Bastilla can realize that her mother wasn't an evil crone and make peace with her. We also learn nice little lore tidbits like how she used to enjoy going on treasure hunts with her father on Tatooine. More broadly its part of a hint that there is a darkness to this otherwise seemingly perfect holier than thou Jedi which pays off when Malak turns her.
What we get from Rey is a blunt "Yeah your parents are dead. Drunks. Sold you for money. They didn't love you BUT I DO REY. " So its basically just a crude set up for Kylo Ren to try to corrupt Rey. We don't actually learn anything meaningful about Rey's backstory from this revelation. It isn't actually relevant to her personal arc, she had already decided not to wait for her parents on Jakku. Her abandoning hope of them being alive changes nothing. I certainly don't see how this can be relevant to her future arc.
Whereas with Bastilla this whole side quest helps to give an insight into the characters past and personality the revelations about Rey are non-existent. Our perception of Rey does not change as a result of this knowledge, we continue to know next to nothing about her except as this quite superficial character.
Indeed, when asked who she is in TFA, Rey explains 'I'm a nobody'. This is confirmed now. She is literally a nobody.
Again. Rey bing a nobody is not an issue per se, quite the opposite. People just suggested she was a memory-wiped student or at least the daughter of Obi Wan or Luke because all the preposterous stuff she pulls, included improvise a mind trick or beat the student of Luke Skywalker the same day she picks up a lightsaber. It was desperation from people part, in a way, in an attempt to make sense of something written by J.J. Abrams. Futile.
For the rest, you are essentially answering me in the same way people answered me after TFA - the next movie will answer it. Except that for answer this and other things, they have to invert a lot of things introduced in this movie. They will have to introduce absolute incredible stuff like that Rey is actually the reincarnation of Vader or something. The viewer has to slug across 2 movies of nonsense to reach such still cheesy consclusion. Or, they just would not give a crap and move on. At this point you would suggest to read the books I guess.
Compare the above with the OT. Nothing is revealed at once, but important points are conceded with good timing and there is a logical buildup. Can you tell the difference? I hope yes.
EDIT: also, what Totalwar said. Let's assume that they move on and ignore this inconsistency. There is no point in all of this. We see no struggle in Rey development from nobody. She just.. does stuff. Succeeds. No mistakes, no struggle, no big obstacles, no support from her friend. She is a badly written power fantasy.
How can you people defend this load of crap, is beyond me. Children movie? It has no epic, no struggle, no true adventure. Stuff explode and moves on the screen but we don't feel the characters. They are either a huge OOC (Finn, Poe), hamfisted (the asian girl, I really don't care enough to remember rhe name) or a sort of miss Perfect like Rey. I don't care abut these people.
Indeed, when asked who she is in TFA, Rey explains 'I'm a nobody'. This is confirmed now. She is literally a nobody.
Again. Rey bing a nobody is not an issue per se, quite the opposite. People just suggested she was a memory-wiped student or at least the daughter of Obi Wan or Luke because all the preposterous stuff she pulls, included improvise a mind trick or beat the student of Luke Skywalker the same day she picks up a lightsaber.
It was desperation from people part, in a way, in an attempt to make sense of something written by J.J. Abrams.
Futile.
For the rest, you are essentially answering me in the same way people answered me after TFA - the next movie will answer it. Except that for answer this and other things, they have to invert a lot of things introduced in this movie.
They will have to introduce absolute incredible stuff like that Rey is actually the reincarnation of Vader or something.
The viewer has to slug across 2 movies of nonsense to reach such still cheesy consclusion.
Or, they just would not give a crap and move on. At this point you would suggest to read the books I guess.
Compare the above with the OT. Nothing is revealed at once, but important points are conceded with good timing and there is a logical buildup. Can you tell the difference? I hope yes.
I don't think JJ is going to go against what RJ did. Wasn't he on the production anyway?
I fell all of the mysteries of TFA have been settled. We only need to ask how Rey and Co will destroy the FO. Killing Kyo and Hux seems to be the way to go. Everything else is mostly window dressing.
I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny. But I would like to know why she has this special destiny, which is a thing both TFA and TLJ tease but ultimately leave unanswered.
I fell all of the mysteries of TFA have been settled. We only need to ask how Rey and Co will destroy the FO. Killing Kyo and Hux seems to be the way to go. Everything else is mostly window dressing.
But I don't care about the first order. Nothing about it or the resistance or the republic makes sense. There is no scope. The movie fails on a fundamental level in transmitting the size of the galaxy and two movies are happening in a ridiculously short amount of time. This is something often ignored. In both OT and PT, time passes between movies. This is a huge rush that does not allow to the story, the characters and the universe to breathe and adjust.
I don't care about seeing what happens because there is even lesser care from the authors, and this movie shows it.
Manchu wrote: I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny. But I would like to know why she has this special destiny, which is a thing both TFA and TLJ tease but ultimately leave unanswered.
Does she have a special destiny though? She might think she does (as we all like to do), but I think part of the point is that our destiny is what we make of it, hence Luke repeating his question of "who are you?" and her whole hall of mirrors escapade. She has to find out who she I saw on her own and not rely on some destiny? Just my take.
JJ is the director who likes to fill his movies with mystery boxes. He doesn't care what's inside them.
RJ is the guy who remembers Lost and would rather burn the boxes to the ground than open them like some butt monkey.
This is my new favorite thing.
So you guys are ok with the fact that these people literally did not plan or think through a whole new trilogy, and are making stuff up on the fly like a cheap tv-series?
Manchu wrote: I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny. But I would like to know why she has this special destiny, which is a thing both TFA and TLJ tease but ultimately leave unanswered.
I can agree with this. The easy answer to her having a "special destiny" is by having a "DNA" connection with someone powerful in the force. It's ok not to get the easy answer, but we need AN answer
Ep VIII doesn't have to give us this answer in full, nor do I think we got the right answer yet. Ep IX does have to give us the full answer
Although Ep VIII does hint that she is the result of the force balancing for Kylo Ren
Manchu wrote: I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny. But I would like to know why she has this special destiny, which is a thing both TFA and TLJ tease but ultimately leave unanswered.
Because someone has to. Why not Rey? The Force is capricious.
I actually quite liked RJ's response that Rey being nobody is more in line with why the Empire reveal is so important than revealing that she's somebody. She wants her family to be important, so any important answer is more wish fulfillment than anything. Vader's reveal in Empire is similarly definitely not what Luke wanted to hear.
And as much as Lucas likes to pretend there was a plan; the original movies flew by the seat of their pants as well. People argued that Vader couldn't be trusted after Empire and we needed an awkward ghost chat to settle the debate. Similarly, I think we can all agree that Luke and Leia being twins wasn't really in the cards when the first movie was made...
Manchu wrote: I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny. But I would like to know why she has this special destiny, which is a thing both TFA and TLJ tease but ultimately leave unanswered.
I can agree with this. The easy answer to her having a "special destiny" is by having a "DNA" connection with someone powerful in the force. It's ok not to get the easy answer, but we need AN answer
Ep VIII doesn't have to give us this answer in full, nor do I think we got the right answer yet. Ep IX does have to give us the full answer
Although Ep VIII does hint that she is the result of the force balancing for Kylo Ren
-
See I think this forgets how family is used in Star Wars. Luke being Vaders son was not used as an excuse for why he was powerful. Yes, it can be construed that way and a lot of EU stuff states this outright. But, the primary purpose of all family bonds in Star Wars is to add that family strife and conflict into the series. Having Vader be Lukes lost father is a cool twist. Its not an explanation for his powers.
This is why making Rey an ordinary person is a problem. She does not have those family links. Kylo Ren does and as a consequence has meant he has had more of those dramatic moments because Star Wars belabors these. But Rey doesn't have that family link, so she has always felt like an outsider awkwardly squatting in this Skywalker saga. They try in the LJ to push some sort of weird, half baked romantic angle where apparently Rey cares about him all of a sudden despite him murdering his father. All very false and has none of the intimacy of a direct family link. Obviously in KoToR they had A LOT more time to build up to that with Revan and Bastila; so you can do that. But it is not well executed in TFA or the LJ because Kylo is too evil so Rey should want nothing to do with him. She can't develop any sort of feelings that wouldn't come across as insincere or forced.
Making her ordinary still leaves as this outsider who is clearly the hooded executioner of the Skywalker clan. That's pretty clearly her destiny if Kylo is the last one.
Manchu wrote: I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny. But I would like to know why she has this special destiny, which is a thing both TFA and TLJ tease but ultimately leave unanswered.
Because someone has to. Why not Rey? The Force is capricious.
Or to go one further, maybe she's just in the right place at the right time. Who's to say the 'Awakening' Snoke mentioned in TFA is a rise of a whole new generation of powerful Force users and Rey just happened to be the one that got caught up in events? Without the Jedi to monitor and collect Force-sensitive children from across the galaxy, there are probably thousands of people out there that have the same potential as Rey but never realise it.
I'd not be surprised if IX jumps forward 5 years or so and Rey have gathered a new generation of recruits to stand against Kylo and the Knights of Ren. Which would surely lead to some absolutely epic battles if nothing else, and continue the idea that as Darkness rises to ascendancy, so does the light to challenge it.
Manchu wrote: I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny. But I would like to know why she has this special destiny, which is a thing both TFA and TLJ tease but ultimately leave unanswered.
Because someone has to. Why not Rey? The Force is capricious.
Because this trilogy is the story of the Skywalker clan and the OT characters passing the torch. In a film series that has always focused on family and inter family conflict. Rey is an outsider and her role in the story is very bizarre. A Chosen One who has no links to any of the main cast. Who is central to the plot, but none of the drama.
Okay, so I'm writing this a few hours after seeing for the first time, and having no spoilers before watching.
Wall of China-level text here, be warned.
Spoiler:
As soon as the lights came back on after the film, I kinda just sat for a bit. I wasn;t sure if I enjoyed it or not, and I think if that's my reaction, it wasn't enjoyable. Were there enjoyable moments? Yeah, 100%. But there were also moments where I'm sure I was going to get a foot through the back of the head for groaning.
Like any film I see, I try to base it on it's own merits, especially if it's a sequel. A story should be able to hold together on it's own two legs, and to it's credit, TLJ does. It's STORY and PLOT are largely fine. It's the writing and certain elements which ruin the whole thing. However, as much as I tried to see it as it's own film, watching something that's a four-parts-removed sequel is hard to not compare to the others. It simply didn't hold up to TFA at all. If someone wanted this to be retconned or rewritten, I'd probably disagree. It's not terrible, it's not the worst SW film.
In my opinion though, it's far from the best, probably on the low tier.
So, as best I can remember, I'll go through good and bad points as chronologically as I can.
The opening crawl and setting up the situation - this already gave me a sinking feeling. "The First Order is dominant" (or words to that effect). HOW? Yes, the FO destroyed what I presume to be the main "good guys" planets, but surely the government had contingencies on other worlds? Aka, in the prequels, if Coruscant was destroyed worlds like Naboo would pick up the slack? Are we saying that the ENTIRE balance of power shifted after the First Order wipe out some worlds we've never seen or cared about in a less-than-a-minute scene? AND they retain this power despite the Resistance DESTROYING Starkiller Base and what must have been a massive chunk of the First Order's power?
Again, I know people might say "this is the same as the Death Star in ANH/ESB" - I disagree. In the OT, the Empire IS the dominant force of the galaxy. We know that it commands on a galactic scale, we see this. We can see that the rebels are an underequipped REBEL militia. It stands to reason that the Empire has backups, because they're a galaxy-spanning EMPIRE. Even if their superweapon is destroyed, and this gives new Hope (heh), they can still Strike Back (heh heh). With the First Order, we don't have this. We don't know their estimated size or strength, and can't infer it, because they're not in control of anything, They become the Rebels against the government the Rebel Alliance sets up, and so even if they can pillage and develop old Empire tech,
they don't have the same influence as the Empire. Yet by calling the "good guys" the Resistance, it implies that THEY'RE the weaker ones, despite being the MAIN MILITARY FORCE IN THE GOVERNMENT. Why are THEY the underdogs? It makes no sense, and only because Disney wants the good guys to be the plucky underdogs again.
Again, that's an issue caused by TFA, and that shouldn't matter, but it really does when it creates illogical things like this.
A solution probably should have been a fix to TFA, with Poe holding plans of Starkiller Base, and telling the government worlds to evacuate, as SKB is on it's way to them. Leia mounts an outspoken urge to evacuate and we see that the government doesn't care about this - they get destroyed, and we see that Leia is only left with a few measly scraps of the military loyal to her -
a RESISTANCE against the First Order who is moving into the power vacuum. That sould VASTLY improve the setting of which TLJ takes place in.
However, that's mostly an issue with TFA, not TLJ, but still affects it.
Moving on.
The first space battle. Oh no. Again, having the rebels evacuating is a nice tension builder, and seeing the Star Destroyers jump into space around them is nice and imposing. The Dreadnaught looked awesome, and you see that the Resistance is going to have a hard fight on their hands. And then... one fighter essentially cripples the Dreadnaught. Yes, Poe's a crack pilot, and I wouldn't doubt that, but ONE fighter taking out every gun on the Dreadnought? That's frankly embarrassing to watch. Poe's making these little quips to Hux, their little "can you hear me?
I can hear you" gag made me want to myself. I have no idea why Hux didn't blow Poe out of the sky, or why fighters weren't scrambled as soon as he came into range or ANYTHING? Why does the Dreadnought have point-defence weaponry capable of taking out fighters? Why don't the Star Destroyers actually do something instead of looking like melons as the Dreadnought gets torn to pieces? The bombers are cool, and I can get around the whole "how did the bombs drop" question, it's not too illogical to assume there's a gravity generator inside the ship. The thing that took me out was the bomb doors opening, and there being nothing stopping the asian bomber woman being sucked into the void. Like, you could have just shown us a void shield on the bottom? Something other than an open, empty hole into space?
And then ONE bomber takes out the whole Dreadnought. What?! SERIOUSLY? I hated that. Like, that's all it takes? One single bomber to take out the Dreadnaught, and then some? And the First Order is supposed to be the powerhouse of the galaxy? Again, Star Destroyers do nothing throughout the scene. They're useless.
Yes, I understand the scene is there to show Poe's glory-hunting nature, but it could have been written far better.
Solution: As per film up until Poe's ship appears. Replace Dreadnaught with Snoke's ship (purely so we can be introduced to Snoke earlier, and we have less names and things to throw around -
condensing the film. Poe isn't alone, and in piloting stolen TIE's (or not). Have them be broadcasting FO codes, and making out like they're FO prisoners of the Resistance fleeing back. Maybe have the Rebels firing at them (fake). They get close enough before either the FO realises the codes are fake (which can then set up the need for a codebreaker later, as we know the codes aren't valid now), or they don't care about their prisoners (cementing their evilness). Poe and co get close enough where they can then disable the Dreadnaught's weapon batteries (need to have multiple fighters here!), and then have the bombers. Instead of having a bomber succeed in dropping it's payload, we have multiple actually succeed, with the one we follow being the one to cripple the guns which were about to destroy the fleet. Meanwhile, the Star Destroyers should be engaging the fleeing fleet, destroying vessels, and giving further reason why Poe's attack wasn't good. Snoke's ship/Dreadnaught ISN'T destroyed, but can't shoot, and is instead following behind in the space chase.
Next thing - Rey's training. I actually really liked Luke throughout. Hamill gave a real energy and spirit to Luke, and I really enjoyed his arc. Rey too, although I'd maybe have liked a bit more training montages between her and Luke, so we get to see her grow as a force user and combatant in time for her to face off against the royal red guards. It felt a little too quick how she mastered things, but it wasn't as bad as it felt in TFA.
Luke wanting to die but having a map lead to him... eh. Not quite fitting - perhaps he never made the map. Maybe it was R2 who made the map, and wanted to find Luke, but couldn't access a complete map to do it - trying to find Luke against Luke's will or knowledge.
Porgs... I actually really liked them. I thought I'd hate them, but seeing them nesting and living natively was really nice to see, giving a REAL feel for the place. Chewie eating one and their reaction was one of the only funny comic reliefs for me. Kinda wished Luke and Chewie had more time together, seeing as they WERE friends and mutual friends of Han. R2 as well being the one to call Luke into action with a callout to the original was cheap, yes, but I thought it was good. Really, the whole of Luke's arc was great, and I also liked the Rey/Kylo arcs too (but not without flaw, I'll come to them later).
Kylo seeing Snoke was pretty good. I liked the guards, they looked pretty swell (probably should have had eye-lenses though). Snoke was well acted, and his treatment of Kylo was pretty entertaining. Calling him out as a kid in a mask, and how he mocks Kylo for being Darth Vader in all the wrong ways was fun, considering it was a real issue people had with Kylo from a meta level. It was good to see that addressed, and Kylo really not being able to stand up to Snoke. I just wish they'd given us more to Snoke. HOW he came into this position, WHY people listen to him, something like that. The Emperor works because his name (Emperor) told us that he was just that - the leader of the Empire. We'd been introduced to the Empire for two films now, we knew their control over the galaxy, so their leader would have to be a real evil bastard. The Emperor also shows his power without even doing anything - because of the reaction other people have to him. Vader, who we learn to fear and see as ultimate evil for two films, KNEELS to him. That's enough to show his power before he even says anything.
Snoke just sort of IS. Just some minor backstory, as to how he came into power, what the First Order see him as - and it would be fine to see Snoke as this arrogant, self-assured figure who does really know nothing of the force the way the Emperor or Luke does. Pretending just as much as Kylo is. Unfortunately, we get none of that.
The second space battle was better, I thought. I think they should have had a better way to explain the tracking through hyperspace, seeing as we've seen it all before. There shouldn't be need for surprise from Leia. Solution: perhaps DJ was a merc the Resistance had hired, and he was aboard their ship and feeding co-ordinates to the FO. Maybe Leia's beacon was the issue, and there's a conflict whether to shut it off and escape, leaving Rey behind (leading Finn/Rose to suggest tampering with their tracking tech). Again, the predicament the Resistance was in was fine, being forced to flee, bleeding fuel as they kept jumping ship to ship. Also, Kylo showing his true colours not firing at the bridge was good.
Leia's little spacewalk was very bad. Like, I thought that it would have been fine to end her character there. It made sense, and could even be the catalyst for Kylo betraying Snoke and Luke joining the fight. In fact, I would have been fine with Leia SURVIVING, say, her force precog tells her to get out of the bridge just in time. But flying back in through space was stupid. Come on Disney. You're better than that.
Vice-Admiral Holdo was okay. We're prediposed against her through Poe (who really should have known who she was beforehand anyway - no need to his "so that's Vice-Admiral Holdo etc etc"), and all along she's been doing Leia's plan. However, my issues with her, and most of the Resistance arc - complete lack of logic and manufactured conflict.
"So, what's the plan?"
"You're a flyboy. You like breaking the rules. We'll have fun."
"What? Okay, what's the plan?"
"*not telling the plan, or not saying that she's just doing Leia's plan*"
"You've got no plan? What the feth?"
"Get off my bridge."
"Sure, I'll get off your bridge, and sanction a mission that will eventually cause massive losses amongst the fleeing ships!" Why does Holdo not tell Poe? They have people guarding the ships out of the vessel, so they'd know if he betrayed them. He's one of Leia's trusted commanders (even if demoted), and is less likely to do something rash if they're just following Leia's plan. Artificially manufactured conflict, and that's not good.
The Finn/Rose relationship. It wasn't THAT bad. We already see her admiration of him, and her crisis of faith when he attempts to flee (which is in character for him. Although stupid - where does Finn plan on going in an escape pod? The FO? Nope - he'd be slaughtered. There's only one planet below, and if he could have escaped there now, why wouldn't the rest of the Resistance have enacted the plan of fleeing there?). They could have had their relationship arc grown a bit better, with some better writing, but I don't think it was THAT bad. However, the technobabble I really struggled to understand. They spoke so fast, seeming to have an omniscient knowledge of hyperspace tracking, even when everyone else was super surprised, cutting eachother off, and stuff like that. Again, they knew too much compared to what we'd seen everyone else know, and they didn't really explain it well at all. Again, I think that having a different conflict could have worked instead of the Kanto Bight bit.
Speaking of that - if Finn/Rose can reach Kanto Bight, and can probably hold, what four/five people on board, why don't they just ferry people out from the fleeing fleet, in a race against time to get as many people off before they run out of fuel? Or, they need to find willing pilots or reach the other Resistance bases so they can get people to come and evacuate people from the cruiser. This would have been a fun way to introduce DJ alternatively as a smuggler (a la Han) who needed persuading to evacuate the Resistance.
Of course, none of this would have been needed if Holdo had said what her plan was.
Rey and Kylo's bonding was quite good, actually. I didn't mind the Kylo being shirtless - he's got to be shirtless at some time, and it probably humanises him some more to Rey, who gets to see him under the robes and see that he's a damaged scarred boy at heart, scars that he's added to. Her respect/sympathy for him needs to grow more too. Her first two reactions are completely believable, blind hatred for someone who's murdered your father figure. However, her sympathy needs to have grown more, and we don't see that. Adam Driver was really good - I enjoyed seeing his portrayal of Kylo, and his own conflict. I felt that Luke's confession and failure of Kylo was completely in character for him - he was so afraid of creating the darkness he fought to destroy that he gave in to a moment's weakness, which was the crack that opened Kylo up to the darkness itself. If Kylo hadn't actually had ANY darkness in him that Luke could see, and it was all an illusion by Snoke, that would have been even better, IMO.
Kanto Bight - ugh. Not good. Manufactured conflict (why did Finn/Rose not listen when the patron told them not to park on the beach? Stupidity that they really should have known about what with Rose knowing how brutal the place really is). I felt the jabs at war profiteering and casinos seemed like a bit of a jab towards the current American administration, but that may be me just jumping at shadows; that's not a complaint, I may add - just an observation.
The breakout was lazy, to be honest. Not closing the grates, manipulating a slave into being an accessory to their escape, especially when they'll probably be brutally beaten or punished afterward for doing it, little real character building between Rose/Finn. All a bit of a dead-end, and whilst having characters fail can be good, it only is when it adds to the story. I don't feel like this did.
I liked DJ and his character. I felt he turned a bit "evil bc lolz" at the end - but his outlook ("be free. don't follow") was something that I hoped would have more impact on Finn, a nearly triple deserter, and the fact that the X-Wing and TIE were created by the same person was convenient, but that was fine by me.
Yoda was fun to see again, I think I would have preferred if Luke had gone and burned the tree himself, without Yoda needing to do it, and he explains to Yoda why, with Yoda agreeing. Give Luke a little more agency and control, but ultimately minor.
Rey going back and getting captured by the FO was a bit confusing, and if someone wants to explain it, I'd be fine with that: was she expecting to meet Kylo peacefully, and he betrayed her and shackled her? Was she planning on sneaking aboard the flagship? Just want some explanation. Again, Falcon flies off and is never seen until needed for the plot.
The sneaking aboard wasn't too bad, the evil BB-8 was good to see - I might have liked a droid battle between evil BB-8 and actual BB-8. Again, Phasma was wasted. Not explanation of how she's back - we're just kinda supposed to be invested in her, but we don't really have a reason to. She does pretty much nothing. Dies without really doing anything. I also fail to see how the laser guillotine things were supposed to be more painful than a blaster execution, but Phasma chooses them anyway.
Again, similar complaint with DJ knowing that the rebels are evacuating to the planet - they couldn't see the ships fleeing anyway? They never bothered to look? How did DJ know in the first place? How did Finn/Rey know - I don't remember them knowing.
The mutiny on the rebellion cruiser wasn't massively wrong, ignoring that Holdo again never mentioned it being Leia's plan. Leia waking and stunning Poe was pretty good, showing that he is wrong, and proving his arc needs finishing. To keep this, I'd have had Holdo saying throughout that it was Leia's plan, but Poe disbelieving, and doing his mutiny, only to have Leia prove him wrong. Using the cruiser a a lightspeed weapon though? Not really okay. The shot was AWESOME - it looked brilliant, the lack of sound really hammered it in, but the issue is the implications of it - people can weaponise lightspeed, why has no-one thought to weaponise X-Wings in such a way? Why not those bombers earlier? Hell, fit a lightspeed engine to a rock and hurl it at the Starkiller Base/Death Star/Resistance planet. They can't be lacking lightspeed engines, because fighters like X-Wings and Y-Wings have them.
Could have been fixed by the cruiser moving to block the refugees with it's own body, and ramming conventionally - wouldn't be the first time (see Star Wars Rebels).
Again, could have been a good send-off for Leia here, with her perhaps being critically wounded from the bridge assault, and stunning Holdo and putting her on the shuttle outbound. However, seeing as I don't know how much of this was done with Carrie before her untimely departure (rest in peace), I don't know how feasible it would have been.
The Snoke/Rey/Kylo scene was great, like most scenes with Kylo. Kylo's killing of Snoke was inventive, even with Snoke showing his massive arrogance and self-assuredness. The ease of Snoke's force powers was good to see, casually manipulating everyone to his whim. Certain issues I had were the little magnifying glass thing, which just happened to be facing the fleeing transport ships and Snoke dying too early (wasted potential), but it was a good scene. The fight with the guards was good, really embracing the brutality of lightsaber combat. I liked seeing that.
Rey's parents being nobodies was perfect. I didn't want her to be related to anyone powerful, just her own innate force abilities made her good - not lineage. Seeing that was great. I liked how Kylo almost had to beg her to join him, and Rey was the one who reached for the lightsaber first. Of course, the breaking of the lightsaber probably should have caused Kylo to pause when he sees Luke wielding it, but hey. Small things.
The battle on Crait wasn't quite okay. The speeders shouldn't have gotten anywhere NEAR the Battering Ram Cannon (come on, think of a better name?! Also, whilst I have no issues with the miniaturised Death Star tech, why isn't it mounted on a ship at all?), and Rose saving Finn was stupid. There should have been a malfunction of the speeder, or they were just scattered by AT-AT fire. Plus, no-one shot at them after Rose crashes into Finn - kinda like they were just forgotten, and somehow got back in to the base. I'm not really sure what the crystal cats served either, beyond a Deus-Ex at the end. It would have been better if there was a race against time with them finding the blocked exit, but struggling to move it - Rey then opens it with the force (she could even have been with the main group, I don't know).
Luke showing up and being blasted to hell was good. Seeing badass Luke was good. The fight between Kylo and Luke (minus the slo-mo) was very entertaining, and Luke's taunt to Kylo was glorious. No complaints really. Luke's death too - a good culmination to his character.
The ending seemed a little bit too hopeful, and pandering to the audience, but that's just me - it was quite nice to see the kids playing with makeshift toys of the characters though.
In general, the themes were fine, the plot and general direction were good - just the writing ruined it. Comic relief when it wasn't needed (General Hux vs Poe, some of the one-liners etc etc), certain manufactured conflicts (Holdo) and certain simply stupid things (flying through space and the bomber taking out the Dreadnaught alone and the lightspeed weaponisation) all made it unenjoying for me. If you did enjoy it, that's great! I just wasn't for me. I personally do rate it lower than average, higher than Episodes 1+2, but worse than 3.
I disagree with people complaining about pandering to SJWs - it didn't really leap out at me at all. Rey wasn't quite as Mary Sue as I saw her in TFA, but still could have been a little more subdued, or had more training.
Overall, I'll probably see it again, but more out of coincidence than desire to. I'll still see the 3rd film in this trilogy, and hopefully they manage to get it right. If I HAD to rate it out of 10, I'd give it a 4 (which isn't THAT bad.)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, so I'm writing this a few hours after seeing for the first time, and having no spoilers before watching.
Wall of China-level text here, be warned.
That was longer than I expected.
Its really bizarre given how much flak they got for Rey having all these abilities without any training to then have Yoda say that her training is complete after Luke refused to train her. I mean its going to look extremely bizarre if in episode 9 we have Rey training Jedi how to use Lightsabers when she just picked one up and hit Jedi Master level.
Which completely runs counter to the martial arts/Samurai film genre. I mean it is very hard to take seriously when even Rebels, a kids TV show gets that people need to be taught by somebody who knows what they are doing. I mean why does our role models philosophy have to be "I don't try. I don't practice. I don't train. But I win all the time." In any other film this would be blasted as overconfidence and ignorance of youth that would lead to failure.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: I'm sure this is a fine movie is you suspend disbelief, don't ask any questions, blindly accept things are perfectly likely and reasonable to happen because they did happen and don't challenge those ascertations, and enjoy excellent cinematography and graphics.
For me, personally, the glaring stupidity demonstrated by many of the characters particularly General Hux and friends, but to a lesser degree the rebels, and even Luke Skywalker, really ruined what could have been a good film.
I don't like my cinema stories to hang on the premise that everyone is a moron, and the plot to only continue to work as long as everyone continues to be a moron, and or, massive co-incidences hang everything together.
There wasn't anything not Starwarsy about it, it was just very badly written and thought out, and given the budget, that's a huge same. So many of the things that are wrong with this film could have been fixed by having one person go through the script asking sensible questions like,
'Well what are the Star Destroyers doing here?'
'Why doesn't anyone do X?'
'Does this part really make sense?'
'What's this characters actual moviation to do this?'
'I can see what kind of scene you want to shoot here, but couldn't we have a better reason for this to happen?'
Sure there were things that weren't Star Warsy. A technobabble problem with a technobabble solution is a Star Trek thing. A desperate chase with casino planet side quest is from oBSG. The good guys are also bad guys is out of nBSG and every other crappy drama since 2000. "This mystery box is crucial to understanding the characters' growth. Forget the mystery box because it isn't important." Lost.
The way the fleets were deployed, the technology worked, the people acted, the context, many particulars of the setting--not in line with the OT.
Its really bizarre given how much flak they got for Rey having all these abilities without any training to then have Yoda say that her training is complete after Luke refused to train her. I mean its going to look extremely bizarre if in episode 9 we have Rey training Jedi how to use Lightsabers when she just picked one up and hit Jedi Master level.
Which completely runs counter to the martial arts/Samurai film genre. I mean it is very hard to take seriously when even Rebels, a kids TV show gets that people need to be taught by somebody who knows what they are doing. I mean why does our role models philosophy have to be "I don't try. I don't practice. I don't train. But I win all the time." In any other film this would be blasted as overconfidence and ignorance of youth that would lead to failure.
Because both Yoda and Luke realise that ultimately, a connection to the Force (which Luke helps her with), some personal wisdom and a heart that's in the right place (which Rey has already demonstrated) is more important that a few thousand years of convoluted and outdated dogma and rules that comes packaged with traditional Jedi teachings.
They are trusting Rey, and just as crucially trusting The Force, which as Luke acknowledges does not, and never did, belong to the Jedi.
Getting a bit away from the Rey discussion, I haven't seen to anyone else mention this, but did anyone catch at the ending, that slave boy who used the Force to pull the broom to him?
I'd need to see it again to be sure, but I think that may have been just the angle. Certainly it's implied, as is the fact the final shot of the broom resembles a lightsaber hilt, but I think the message there is more 'there are still people out there who dream of being a Jedi' than 'this particular boy can use the Force and is a potential Jedi'.
Paradigm wrote: I'd need to see it again to be sure, but I think that may have been just the angle. Certainly it's implied, as is the fact the final shot of the broom resembles a lightsaber hilt, but I think the message there is more 'there are still people out there who dream of being a Jedi' than 'this particular boy can use the Force and is a potential Jedi'.
I'll keep an eye out in the next viewing though.
It was very quick, and I wasn't 100% sure of it myself, but I think it seemed to fit with the whole hope thing that was going on at the time
JJ is the director who likes to fill his movies with mystery boxes. He doesn't care what's inside them.
RJ is the guy who remembers Lost and would rather burn the boxes to the ground than open them like some butt monkey.
This is my new favorite thing.
So you guys are ok with the fact that these people literally did not plan or think through a whole new trilogy, and are making stuff up on the fly like a cheap tv-series?
What makes you think we're okay with it? Pretty sure the quoted text implies the opposite.
Its really bizarre given how much flak they got for Rey having all these abilities without any training to then have Yoda say that her training is complete after Luke refused to train her. I mean its going to look extremely bizarre if in episode 9 we have Rey training Jedi how to use Lightsabers when she just picked one up and hit Jedi Master level.
Which completely runs counter to the martial arts/Samurai film genre. I mean it is very hard to take seriously when even Rebels, a kids TV show gets that people need to be taught by somebody who knows what they are doing. I mean why does our role models philosophy have to be "I don't try. I don't practice. I don't train. But I win all the time." In any other film this would be blasted as overconfidence and ignorance of youth that would lead to failure.
Because both Yoda and Luke realise that ultimately, a connection to the Force (which Luke helps her with), some personal wisdom and a heart that's in the right place (which Rey has already demonstrated) is more important that a few thousand years of convoluted and outdated dogma and rules that comes packaged with traditional Jedi teachings.
They are trusting Rey, and just as crucially trusting The Force, which as Luke acknowledges does not, and never did, belong to the Jedi.
Rey takes the books implying she is going to redound the Jedi Order. Yoda says they should learn from there mistakes but not give up as Luke has done. Disney is not going to do away with the Jedi. It is a marketable brand. In practice I don't expect the Jedi to be radically different. I mean the Jedi never claimed to own the force this is RJ making stuff up because it sounds neat. Jedi have always been about letting the force flow through them. Sith dominate the force.
Well if they want it to be where learning all of a jedis skills takes no practice and training then they will have to be consistent with that going forward and Iam not convinced they will be consistent with it. Why would the Hedi even have Master Apprentice and Academies if learning the ways of the Force takes no training? How can Rey have an apprentice or train other Jedi?
There's no excuse for it. Rey should have had to practice with that Lightsaber. She cannot be a master duellist automatically and if all force users are on that level it wouldn't even make her unique.
The only thing worse than the movie is the fact people can't stop talking about the movie. It's like a social disease.
And I mean that. It's very hard talking to people about it because either they a) are reacting to the weak and shallow plot or b) recounting the special effects (for good or for bad), or c) responding to the diversity of the film.
The movie was designed to have this effect. And now the negative reactions are being blamed on the alt-right. The best thing anyone can do is not talk about it anymore.
Yes of course Rey has a special destiny. She is the main protagonist of a movie called The Force Awakens. If you (somehow) didn't get that the title was a reference to her before The Last Jedi (which title could also be and probably is a reference to her) then you are now on notice as she literally has a line about how the Force awakened inside of her. Additionally, Snoke says Rey is the light that has risen up to meet Kylo's darkness. Luke says that Rey has the same incredible power level as Kylo. Yoda says that, after no real training, Rey already knows everything contained in the Jedi holy scriptures.
So yes, while it is OK for the source of this great destiny NOT to be the identity of her parents, it still requires some explanation other than "we are making new Star Wars movies and need a super powered protagonist."
techsoldaten wrote: The only thing worse than the movie is the fact people can't stop talking about the movie.
For me, it's therapy.
djones520 wrote: Getting a bit away from the Rey discussion, I haven't seen to anyone else mention this, but did anyone catch at the ending, that slave boy who used the Force to pull the broom to him?
The thing with the idea of destiny in Star Wars is that it's a two-way street. Some people are singled out by prophecies to be 'Chosen Ones' but just as often it's people's actions create the futures they are tied to. In trying to save Padme, Anakin kills her. In trying to stop Ben falling, Luke creates Kylo Ren. It's possible (hypothetically) that Rey, in being the one to oppose the potentially exceptionally powerful (as a 3rd generation Skywalker) Kylo Ren, is essentially being given a nudge by The Force to allow her to eventually overcome him (hence why the latent connection to the Force she's always felt only awakening on coming into conflict with Ren, and what Snoke says about Light rising to meet the Darkness).
I'm not saying this is absolutely the case. I'm just saying that Rey's apparent level of power may be a product of destiny (or the will of the Force) but only because she found herself in the place to be caught up in whatever this destiny is. In theory, this could be a Harry Potter/Neville Longbottom situation, where the prophecy and destiny could apply to multiple people, and it's the course of events and the actions of individuals that lead to one character becoming the focus of events over another. If' Poe and Finn had crashed on Canto Bight rather than Jakku, who's to say Rey's destiny wouldn't have fallen to the kid we see possibly using The Force at the end of TLJ?
Alternatively, If you take the view that the Light and Dark sides of The Force have a will of their own and acts through individuals rather than being an inert source of power that both Jedi and Sith tap into, I think it's reasonable to suggest that Rey's power is essentially the Light Side giving her a boost (over her latent sensitivity) to level the playing field against Kylo Ren. She is the new Chosen One because The Light Side has chosen her, but it chose her because she is the one person in a position to achieve that end most effectively. Her own actions create her destiny.
In either case, the fact Rey is the character at the centre of events is also the explanation for why she appears to be much more attuned and powerful that other characters with a similar level of training. Whether or not that's a weak explanation or lazy plotting is down to personal opinion, of course, but I imagine this will be explained more thoroughly in episode IX (and I have faith it'll do it in a way that is satisfying and logical, others may not).
Paradigm, your speculation is fine. The problem is not that the there is no possible reason for Rey's destiny. The problem is, again, that this is something the movie (now movies) needs to explain but doesn't. This isn't a matter of personal opinion. Neither TFA nor TLJ explain why she is the protagonist. The fact that she is the protagonist is not an explanation for why she is the protagonist.
She's the protagonist because she's at the centre of these events, and if you take her away they don't happen. Set a film a year before chance causes Kylo, Finn, Rey and a map to Luke Skywalker to come together and you've just got the story of the Resistance trying to survive against the First Order. But that's not a story worth telling, whereas the story of a hero who, through a twist of fate or the will of the Force (or the machinations of a wizard, or a quirk of prophecy, or a freak lab accident that gives them powers ect), comes from nothing to challenge a mighty power and defeat a villain is.
There is nothing special about Frodo Baggins, but the start of LotR centres on him because he's the one who happens to have the One Ring. He then makes himself extraordinary by volunteering to take the Ring to Mordor, but until that point there's no 'justification' for the narrative to focus on him beyond the fact that the world's events revolve around him and the trinket he carries. There is nothing special about Tony Stark until he builds a suit of armour in a cave and sets himself a mission. There is nothing special about MacBeth until his wife and the words of some Witches convince him to murder a king.
I'd say a protagonist is defined not by who they are, but the actions they take and the events they trigger. And so far, the actions Rey has taken and the events she's been involved in make her a valid character for the films to focus on.
Why does there have to be a reason for her destiny?
Palpatine wasn’t from some Legacy geneline. Nor Yoda. Not Obi-Wan. Nor Darth Maul. Nor Darth Tyranus.
The only two who are meant to be part of some prophecy are Anakin, Luke and Leia.
Han didn’t. Chewie doesn’t. Artoo doesn’t. Threepio doesn’t.
So why this focus when the only inference of a great destiny because bloodline is a bunch of half baked fan theories?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: She's the protagonist because she's at the centre of these events, and if you take her away they don't happen. Set a film a year before chance causes Kylo, Finn, Rey and a map to Luke Skywalker to come together and you've just got the story of the Resistance trying to survive against the First Order. But that's not a story worth telling, whereas the story of a hero who, through a twist of fate or the will of the Force (or the machinations of a wizard, or a quirk of prophecy, or a freak lab accident that gives them powers ect), comes from nothing to challenge a mighty power and defeat a villain is.
There is nothing special about Frodo Baggins, but the start of LotR centres on him because he's the one who happens to have the One Ring. He then makes himself extraordinary by volunteering to take the Ring to Mordor, but until that point there's no 'justification' for the narrative to focus on him beyond the fact that the world's events revolve around him and the trinket he carries. There is nothing special about Tony Stark until he builds a suit of armour in a cave and sets himself a mission. There is nothing special about MacBeth until his wife and the words of some Witches convince him to murder a king.
I'd say a protagonist is defined not by who they are, but the actions they take and the events they trigger. And so far, the actions Rey has taken and the events she's been involved in make her a valid character for the films to focus on.
Bloody good points all.
It’s like the true definition of bravery.
A person who feels no fear can not be brave. Ever.
Bravery is doing The Right Thing despite your fear. It’s about pushing your fear to one side and Doing What Needs Done.
Superman is heroic not because of his powers, but because he exercises such restraint. He could easily take over the world, but doesn’t. His heroism is in limiting his role to that of a defender. He doesn’t pick the fight. He stands up to those who would pick on those weaker.
Paradigm and MDG, you both keep dodging the actual issue.
Frodo doesn't need to have his magical powers explained because he doesn't have any. Rey does. If you want to use Frodo as an example, you have to imagine a LotR movie where there is no explanation as to how Frodo got the Ring.
But we don't even have to go down that (bizarre, intentionally misleading) analogy, or any other similar one (Macbeth, really?). I am not the one demanding that Rey have a special destiny. The fething movies constantly go on and on about how she does, up to and including both of the film's titles being a reference to her.
This is why the movies need to explain it. How they do it is a separate issue. For the third time, it's fine that she isn't [established character's] family member.
You’re also missing the reasons why she was able to take Kylo in TFA. Snoke covers it.
You’re also making the assumption she has absolutely no combat experience - as if we know the entirety of her history prior to TFA to rule that out. Which we don’t. At all.
You’re also assuming Kylo Ren is actually a competent Lightsabre wielder. He doesn’t seem to be....
Automatically Appended Next Post: You don’t need to be born into a Great Family to have a special destiny. Until you explain why that’s a necessity, the onus remains on you here.
Alternatively, If you take the view that the Light and Dark sides of The Force have a will of their own and acts through individuals rather than being an inert source of power that both Jedi and Sith tap into, I think it's reasonable to suggest that Rey's power is essentially the Light Side giving her a boost (over her latent sensitivity) to level the playing field against Kylo Ren. She is the new Chosen One because The Light Side has chosen her, but it chose her because she is the one person in a position to achieve that end most effectively. Her own actions create her destiny.
Nope. Her actions were: try to run away and go back home. Then she was kidnapped, and only then did she get her power up and instant force skills [that she had never seen or interacted with in any way at all (mind trick and etc)]. Her actions had zero to do with anything, Emo Ren just kept chasing her (instead of the droid carrying the actual goal). It was nice to see her escape on her own rather than be rescued like a passive prop, but that was the only time she 'took action' rather than reacting.
But frankly she could have run away and left Finn literally holding the lightsaber, and he could have been the new force user after he failed to... run away. Very little would change, except TLJ wouldn't have an excess character to stuff in a pointless B plot.
As an aside, It seems weird that the two major characters in TFA on the good side wanted to nope on out of the conflict (and the story), and pretty much got stuck in it against their will.
In either case, the fact Rey is the character at the centre of events is also the explanation for why she appears to be much more attuned and powerful that other characters with a similar level of training.
No, it is not. She is more attuned and powerful (well, that is to say, she's the last non-dark force user standing, and nothing explains her post kidnapping abilities), and she's... present for the center of events (the change in the first order's leadership, Luke actually doing something). Neither fact is an explanation for anything, let alone each other.
@Grotsnik- because it is a DESTINY. It's built up as some grand important thing- the lightsaber calls to her and shows her visions, the bad guys magically know about her and want to kidnap her. She's vetted as already inherently/magically knowing everything worth knowing in jedi lore. The films very firmly establish her as not just an average person pulled into the plot. Then contrary to everything shown so far, TLJ pulls a total reversal and tells, not shows that she's nothing special after all, despite other elements of the same film that actually do show that she is.
It doesn't have to be a bloodline thing, it comes with the crappy writing clearly giving her a Chosen One tag. Though frankly any number of 'half-baked' bloodline fan theories would have been better than the mess of contradictions and storytelling gaffs that Johnson presents as a film.
Again, Luke used the force in ways he’d never been shown.
The totality of his training with Obi-Wan was a short trip through Hyperspace with Obi-Wan.
Yet in ESB (shortly before he sees Obi-Wans spirit for the first time, and is incredulous) he can force summon the lightsabre. Over the Death Star, he follows an incredibly vague ‘use the force’ suggestion.
Here’s an example, to do my job, I use Discovery. You want to do what I do? Use Discovery.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for Rey?
As the darkness rises, so the light to meet it.
That’s why Snoke wanted her. To corrupt her. To turn her. To remove a potential and potent enemy.
Why it’s her doesn’t matter. Not one jot. It has to be someone. And it’s Rey. No explanation needed.
Was this post supposed to be a response to me or someone else? I have to assume, someone else. Because you certainly didn't address anything that I posted nor does your response reflect you even read what I posted.
As Voss also explained, The structure, imagery, and even the dialog of TFA (and TLJ!) all indicate that Rey is special. But neither TFA nor TLJ address why. This is a problem because her being special is constantly important to the story/ies.
techsoldaten wrote: The only thing worse than the movie is the fact people can't stop talking about the movie. It's like a social disease.
And I mean that. It's very hard talking to people about it because either they a) are reacting to the weak and shallow plot or b) recounting the special effects (for good or for bad), or c) responding to the diversity of the film.
The movie was designed to have this effect. And now the negative reactions are being blamed on the alt-right. The best thing anyone can do is not talk about it anymore.
Where is anyone trying to tie negative reactions to the Alt Right? That's ridiculous and they should be ridiculed once then ignored forever.
I agree with Mark Hamill that Rian Johnson screwed up Luke Skywalker. It just seems to me that Rian had a plot idea, and used Luke as a prop to move that plot along, and not really having an understanding of the character.
And as much as it pisses me off, I also have to agree with Mark that this isn't about his Luke anymore, and its a Luke for a different generation. Star Wars has disappointed me a lot more than it has impressed me since the original Trilogy came out, and I just have to accept Stars Wars is basically Hunger Games and Divergent or whatever that crap is. There really is nothing revolutionary coming out of TFA and TLJ, and aside from the nostalgia, aren't that exciting. They are ok movies when averaged out.
To be honest Marvel Studios is doing far better with their movie universe than the guys doing Star Wars. And with Marvel, they are creating movies about the characters THEY KNOW. Which is why the imitation Fox films haven't felt like the real thing. Neither do these Star Wars films.
So in my Star Wars universe, the story begins with Rogue One and ends with A New Hope. I love Empire Strikes back, but don't even need it.
Why it’s her doesn’t matter. Not one jot. It has to be someone. And it’s Rey. No explanation needed.
For a competent and well told story, yes, it does. Especially when it's going out of its way to tell you there is an explanation.
The totality of his training with Obi-Wan was a short trip through Hyperspace with Obi-Wan.
Over the Death Star, he follows an incredibly vague ‘use the force’ suggestion.
In case you missed it, his real, actual training with Obi-Wan on the Falcon was learning specifically how to let the force guide his actions. Despite Luke's earlier boast that the shot 'wasn't impossible, because wamp rats,' Wedge was totally right. So he had to listen to Obi-Wan and rely on the force to guide him, exactly as he did to block the shots from the drone. Exactly as he was trained to do, and with the (ghostly) support of his teacher, who deliberately let himself get killed for a reason that involved Luke. (Hence deliberately dropping his guard while staring at Luke)
Did someone explicitly show him how to move a stick a foot and a half? No. Is it a big deal? Not really. Had he burned it down with Force Lightning or Mind Raped the wampa, I'd have questions.
Here’s an example, to do my job, I use Discovery. You want to do what I do? Use Discovery.
I have no idea what this is supposed to be an example of. Presumably you had training, took a course, or otherwise learned how to 'use Discovery.' You didn't just wander out of the desert knowing Discovery.
Was this post supposed to be a response to me or someone else? I have to assume, someone else. Because you certainly didn't address anything that I posted nor does your response reflect you even read what I posted.
As Voss also explained, The structure, imagery, and even the dialog of TFA (and TLJ!) all indicate that Rey is special. But neither TFA nor TLJ address why. This is a problem because her being special is constantly important to the story/ies.
Because the why doesn’t matter. At all.
I really don’t know why you can’t grasp this in your cerebral tentacle.
As Snoke says, as the darkness rises, so the light to meet it.
Why Rey? Well, why not? You’re the one insisting there must be a bloodline for someone to be important, despite only three people in the entire saga being examples of that - and they’re not even the most powerful of the players (they’re up there sure, but Palpatine and Yoda wee all over them in terms of raw power and political nous etc)
So come on. Why does Rey need to be from a great family type thing to be who she is?
Why does someone’s destiny depend solely upon who their ancestors were? Until you can state that case clearly, and with supporting evidence, your assertion holds no water.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why it’s her doesn’t matter. Not one jot. It has to be someone. And it’s Rey. No explanation needed.
Wrong. Explanation very much needed. For the simple reason that characters consist of characterization. Take a moment to consider what you are arguing. "It has to be someone." So the only reason this character exists is because Disney wants to make money on Star Wars. If it's not Rey/Disney Ridley then it's some other actress playing some other part. THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. There is no reason to care about someone who is literally interchangeable with any other person.
Why it’s her doesn’t matter. Not one jot. It has to be someone. And it’s Rey. No explanation needed.
For a competent and well told story, yes, it does. Especially when it's going out of its way to tell you there is an explanation.
The totality of his training with Obi-Wan was a short trip through Hyperspace with Obi-Wan.
Over the Death Star, he follows an incredibly vague ‘use the force’ suggestion.
In case you missed it, his real, actual training with Obi-Wan on the Falcon was learning specifically how to let the force guide his actions. Despite his earlier boast that the shot 'wasn't impossible, because wamp rats,' Wedge was totally right. So he had to listen to Obi-Wan and rely on the force to guide him, exactly as he did to block the shots from the drone. Exactly as he was trained to do, and with the (ghostly) support of his teacher, who deliberately let himself get killed for a reason that involved Luke. (Hence deliberately dropping his guard while staring at Luke)
Did someone explicitly show him how to move a stick a foot and a half? No. Is it a big deal? Not really. Had he burned it down with Force Lightning or Mind Raped the wampa, I'd have questions.
Here’s an example, to do my job, I use Discovery. You want to do what I do? Use Discovery.
I have no idea what this is supposed to be an example of. Presumably you had training, took a course, or otherwise learned how to 'use Discovery.' You didn't just wander out of the desert knowing Discovery.
Yes. have had training in how to best use Discovery. But I’m not telling you what that entails, or even what Discovery actually is. But just like Obi-Wan, I’ll give you a vague idea. It’s a database of information. Now. [I]Use Discovery.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You’re the one insisting there must be a bloodline for someone to be important
Or actually ...
Manchu wrote: I don't mind that Rey's parents are just failures who sold her. It's fine with me that her DNA is not the cause of her destiny.
Manchu wrote: it is OK for the source of this great destiny NOT to be the identity of her parents
Manchu wrote: For the third time, it's fine that she isn't [established character's] family member.
You are bending over so far backward to defend this basic failure of these movies to explain an element that they constantly call out as important that you are losing the ability to understand simple points ITT.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Why it’s her doesn’t matter. Not one jot. It has to be someone. And it’s Rey. No explanation needed.
Wrong. Explanation very much needed. For the simple reason that characters consist of characterization. Take a moment to consider what you are arguing. "It has to be someone." So the only reason this character exists is because Disney wants to make money on Star Wars. If it's not Rey/Disney Ridley then it's some other actress playing some other part. THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. There is no reason to care about someone who is literally interchangeable with any other person.
Bollocks. And massive hairy donkey bollocks at that.
The explanation comes from Snoke - as the darkness rises, so the light to meet it.
The light side will always choose it’s champion. Why it chooses a specific champion is impossible to say, because the force itself can’t really be defined. Even it’s name is vague.
There’s a lot of info in TLJ that you’re just ignoring. Luke’s lesson about balance, and Rey’s explanation thereon. That much of Rey and Kylo’s motivations are based on a certain point of view
Go back and watch it again. The answers are there. You’ve either missed them (and there is a lot to take in to be sure), or you’ve decided they’re not proper answers because they don’t fit your own pre-conceived notion.
In case you missed it, his real, actual training with Obi-Wan on the Falcon was learning specifically how to let the force guide his actions. Despite his earlier boast that the shot 'wasn't impossible, because wamp rats,' Wedge was totally right. So he had to listen to Obi-Wan and rely on the force to guide him, exactly as he did to block the shots from the drone. Exactly as he was trained to do, and with the (ghostly) support of his teacher, who deliberately let himself get killed for a reason that involved Luke. (Hence deliberately dropping his guard while staring at Luke)
Yes. have had training in how to best use Discovery. But I’m not telling you what that entails, or even what Discovery actually is. But just like Obi-Wan, I’ll give you a vague idea. It’s a database of information. Now. [I]Use Discovery.
No. You're ignoring what is actually being presented to you.
Luke is using the force as Obi-Wan trained him to use the force. Rey is using the force because magic.
You’ve either missed them (and there is a lot to take in to be sure), or you’ve decided they’re not proper answers because they don’t fit your own pre-conceived notion
You can’t say her backstory doesn’t matter, then demand an explanation as to why she’s this generations Light Side Champion.
She just is. The why isn’t important. At all.
Her destiny is to be the light sides champion. That’s it. She’s been picked. There’s no explanation needed other than ‘as the darkness rises, so the light to meet it’. The dark side has its champion. And now does the light side.
KTG17 wrote: I just have to accept Stars Wars is basically Hunger Games and Divergent or whatever that crap is.
This is what I'm beginning to realize, too. There's nothing special about Star Wars anymore. It's just another disposable product. I don't know why I expected any different after the Prequels.
He told him his take on The Force. And put him up against a remote. And. That’s. It. that’s the sum total of his tutelage under Obi-Wan. There’s no time for anything else. He gives him a lightsabre, but doesn’t show him how to fight with it. At all. There’s no time. No opportunity. Not between ANH and Bespin. At all.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You can’t say her backstory doesn’t matter, then demand an explanation as to why she’s this generations Light Side Champion.
WTF. I have been arguing all along that her backstory DOES matter. I just don't think her backstory must be, oh her dad is Obi Wan or Luke or some other SW VIP. It would be fine if the movies explained what this Awakening thing is about, without reference to parent/child or otherwise familial relationships. That's what's missing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The explanation comes from Snoke - as the darkness rises, so the light to meet it.
He says a line that explains nothing. Why is darkness rising? Kylo Ren is the rising darkness? I thought his whole deal was that he wasn't sufficiently dark. If Rey is powerful because Kylo Ren is powerful why isn't she powerful until she meets him? Snoke's line is not a solution; it's part of the problem. It's another confirmation that Rey is important without explaining why.
You say I'm ignoring Luke and Rey talking about the balance of the Force. Can you please explain how their talk explains why Rey is important? And could you also explain why Luke, unlike you, does not come to the conclusion that Rey is the Light Side Champion?
You can’t say her backstory doesn’t matter, then demand an explanation as to why she’s this generations Light Side Champion.
Yes, I can. The lack of explanation is part of why her backstory doesn't matter.
At this stage the new generation of characters are Interchangeable Emmas. They have no depth and no point and no ability to accomplish anything narratively satisfying.
She just is. The why isn’t important. At all.
Her destiny is to be the light sides champion. That’s it. She’s been picked. There’s no explanation needed other than ‘as the darkness rises, so the light to meet it’. The dark side has its champion. And now does the light side.
I'm going to laugh and laugh and laugh if Rey turns out to be a complete red herring and it turns out that Finn fighting with the lightsaber in TFA is what really mattered, and Episode 9 disposes of Rey as easily as 8 did with Snoke.
'Why isn't important' is probably the most offensive thing anyone could possibly tell me in regards to storytelling. Even if it isn't a major point or dealt with for a significant amount of time, it needs to be there and understood by the storyteller at the bare minimum. Otherwise the storyteller becomes a simple demagogue yelling at his mindless followers to obey.
He told him his take on The Force. And put him up against a remote. And. That’s. It. that’s the sum total of his tutelage under Obi-Wan. There’s no time for anything else. He gives him a lightsabre, but doesn’t show him how to fight with it. At all. There’s no time. No opportunity. Not between ANH and Bespin. At all.
Ugh. You're as bad as Abrams. Time and Distance are things that exist- Tatooine and Alderaan are not next door. Han (and the audience) are brought in at the end of the lesson, skipping the boring parts (of both the lesson and the journey) for the material that is actually relevant.
So Obi Wan is actually teaching him to stretch out with his feelings and let the force guide him, which Luke does, agrees he does ("I could almost see the remote"), and we witness tangible results that he does (blocking all the shots of the remote while blinded). That you want to believe this doesn't happen is not my problem.
Voss wrote: Otherwise the storyteller becomes a simple demagogue yelling at his mindless followers to obey.
This also characterizes MDS's arguments. He flat out admits that Rey is liquid with any other potential character but demands that we care about her anyway. Because a corporation chose to (not) tell the story like that.
He told him his take on The Force. And put him up against a remote. And. That’s. It. that’s the sum total of his tutelage under Obi-Wan. There’s no time for anything else. He gives him a lightsabre, but doesn’t show him how to fight with it. At all. There’s no time. No opportunity. Not between ANH and Bespin. At all.
He taught him how to block shots behind a blast visor.
Besides I think your taking it the wrong way, Old Ben and Yoda didn't need to teach Luke how to fight. They taught him how to feel the force, then the force does all the fighting for him and he becomes a conduit for it.
Then he gets his butt pummelled by Vader because that's not enough. Op when he kicks Vaders butt back, he's an angry force conduit. So he's actually using the force for his own gains.
" So its basically just a crude set up for Kylo Ren to try to corrupt Rey. We don't actually learn anything meaningful about Rey's backstory from this revelation. It isn't actually relevant to her personal arc, she had already decided not to wait for her parents on Jakku. Her abandoning hope of them being alive changes nothing. I certainly don't see how this can be relevant to her future arc.
