frightnight wrote: The Last Jedi is, if not my favorite, definitely in my top three Star Wars films.
I felt it was a mature take on the series that gave us back the jedi after the terrible damage wrought on them by Lucas in the prequels.
It subverted so many tropes, from the Million To One Shot to the Plucky Young Hero Saving The Day By Bucking Authority. It wiped out the unnecessary mystery boxes JJ Abrams loves to set up but not resolve in favor of moving the narrative forward rather than looking back.
It is a movie that lovingly sent off the main players of the trilogy of my youth while focusing on the players of the new generation of Star Wars fans, and I loved every minute of it.
Sadly, the plot was driven by every character thinking "What is the worst thing I could do at the moment", then doing it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If people are rating ROTS 1/10 and lower than TPM and ROTC, they’re clearly talking utter bollocks.
It was the fight scene. It was probably the one thing in the movie everyone wanted since RotJ and was better than previous ones. It also was between actors and not CGI creations like cracked out Yoda or Grievous. I probably rank it higher for that alone. Also I've forgiven Lucas at this point. He's a special effects guy, not a writer or director, and CGI was the big new thing. As someone who did a lot of pioneering in FX, it's not that surprising he went down that rabbit hole. Also look up his daughter in her part in TPM. It's pretty obvs who he was making the movies for.
Manchu wrote:One of the biggest TLJ fans on DakkaDakka is speculating ITT as to which main cast member Rey is related. Just like back when TFA came out. He loved TLJ but is looking forward to JJ returning to fix Rian's mishandling of Rey. Regardless of whether you agree with that POV, it's a great example of how TLJ did not "wipe out" the mystery boxes - even for people who loved the movie. It sure as hell did not move the narrative forward. If Snoke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Snoke doesn't matter. If Luke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Luke doesn't matter. If Rey's background is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then revealing that Rey has no background doesn't matter.
Good for them? I think you have a skewed idea of what is relevant and irrelevant. Snoke is not irrelevant: he was the driver of Ben Solo's turn to the Dark Side, his mentor, and the architect of the First Order. His backstory, however, is. Where he came from or how he came to power does not matter, he is just a stepping stone for the development of Kylo Ren into the prime antagonist of the series.
Remember that in RotJ, the only things we knew about the Emperor was that he was a powerful user of the Dark Side, the ruler of the Empire, and Darth Vader's master. We have been spoiled by 30 years of backstory being fleshed out for characters, at the time "Dark Lord of the Sith" was just some title bestowed on Vader, and the Emperor didn't have it. "Palpatine" wasn't used anywhere in the movie. He was just the ultimate evil, which we knew because the Empire was evil and he ran it. Knowing anything more than we knew at the time wasn't needed to fully appreciate Vader's turn to the Light against his master, and Snoke is no different.
Rey being from nobodies is entirely relevant: you don't have to be from some high-falutin' bloodline to be the hero of Star Wars. I like this far more than her being someone's relative (for the record, if she was going to be I was in Camp Kenobi) because she has no family destiny, just a hero who came from nothing to do great things. It is also relevant for what I mentioned before: the return of the Force to all of us.
I think that Lucas did real damage in the prequels, first by making Force use into a quantifiable item (then softly retconning that) and then by having the nonsensical rule that while midichlorians were passed down by bloodline, Jedi were forbidden to have families. When I was young, and Star Wars was in the first stages of developing its universe (mostly through the West End Games RPGs), becoming a Jedi was something anyone could do with enough dedication and training. Sure, the Force was strong with some families, but just like being a monk or a priest, if you lived by the code and trained your senses, you could become a Jedi no matter who you were. TLJ sent us back to that, both with Rey being nobody other than the person the Force chose to empower to fight the rising Kylo Ren, and with the ending scene of the stableboy summoning his broom, holding it like a lightsaber, and looking to the stars. The Jedi Order is no more, in its place will be a new Jedi, full of hope and wonder.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by Luke being irrelevant, he is the symbol of hope that the galaxy needed to defy the First Order. He is so depressed and despondent at the beginning that he sarcastically quips, "You think what? I’m gonna walk out with a laser sword and face down the whole First Order?” and yet that is exactly what he does at the end, and the symbol of doing so cements him into legend as shown by the children recounting that to each other with their action figures.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Sadly, the plot was driven by every character thinking "What is the worst thing I could do at the moment", then doing it.
Yes, Poe made a lot of mistakes, but he learned and is better for them.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:Sadly, the plot was driven by every character thinking "What is the worst thing I could do at the moment", then doing it.
Yes, Poe made a lot of mistakes, but he learned and is better for them.
Well, at least one character did.
It's true. Kylo Ren, for all his talk about letting go of the past, is still utterly dominated by it. There's really no hope for Hux, though, I think he's forever going to be a smug goon.
Manchu wrote: If Rey's background is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then revealing that Rey has no background doesn't matter.
Disagree strongly. Revealing that Rey has no Important Main Character parents (not the same at all as no background) is relevant and important because of how she was defined when we were first introduced to her. Her driving force in life is to find her parents, her desperate hope that she was abandoned because of Heroic Main Characters making Heroic Sacrifices to do Important Hero Things. That leaving her was the last resort, that of course they would return as soon as they possibly could. That her parents were more than worthless drug addicts who would dump their kid by the side of the road to go get high and then forget to ever come back. She builds up this whole fantasy world about how someday things are going to be ok, someday her parents will come back and fix everything.
TLJ demolishes the lie. Rey now has to accept the fact, which was pretty obvious from the beginning, that her parents were just bad parents who dumped their daughter in the middle of nowhere and disappeared into irrelevance. They aren't coming back to hand Rey her destiny and magically fix everything. If she wants to be somebody it has to be because she becomes somebody, not because she finally learns what her last name is and what her designated role in the story becomes. The message to Rey is "you are the hero because of what you do, not because of your last name".
One of the few things TLJ does right is making Rey's parents random people of no galactic significance. I wasn't hopefully speculating about which characters would be her parents, I was afraid that Disney would do something that utterly stupid as a clumsy attempt at milking the nostalgia cash cow. That the explanation would turn out to be every fan's awful self-insert fanfiction about how Luke is their real father and how they get to go off and become a jedi. And thank god it wasn't.
It's often hard to forget how little backstory there is in the original films given how much has been added since its release.
My favorite is probably remembering that the Noghri were originally intended to be the Sith that Vader was the Dark Lord of before Lucas stepped in since that wasn't really defined until TPM.
Rey being from nobodies is entirely relevant: you don't have to be from some high-falutin' bloodline to be the hero of Star Wars. I like this far more than her being someone's relative (for the record, if she was going to be I was in Camp Kenobi) because she has no family destiny, just a hero who came from nothing to do great things. It is also relevant for what I mentioned before: the return of the Force to all of us.
Rey being from nobodies is just Disney 101, real heros can only be orphans. I'm surprised Disney let reys parents live and we didn't see the shuttle explode. I wouldn't say that makes it relevant, just repetitive, derivative and Disney's go to trope. I think its why the wanted the star wars franchise to begin with, everyone is either a princess or an orphan.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If people are rating ROTS 1/10 and lower than TPM and ROTC, they’re clearly talking utter bollocks.
It was the fight scene. It was probably the one thing in the movie everyone wanted since RotJ and was better than previous ones. It also was between actors and not CGI creations like cracked out Yoda or Grievous. I probably rank it higher for that alone. Also I've forgiven Lucas at this point. He's a special effects guy, not a writer or director, and CGI was the big new thing. As someone who did a lot of pioneering in FX, it's not that surprising he went down that rabbit hole. Also look up his daughter in her part in TPM. It's pretty obvs who he was making the movies for.
More fat checks from toy companies?
If you're suggesting Lucas' nonsense (provoked by bad reviews) about how a convoluted corporate takeover plot with endless yammering about galactic politicking was aimed at children, I'm just going to snicker.
"But the Emperor didn't have a backstory!" That has come up about a million times. And it has never mattered. People make this irrelevant point because they see Snoke as an analog to Palpatine in the OT. Wrong. Snoke is an analog to Palpatine in the PT.
This is because Ben Solo is a protagonist, like Anakin in the PT and unlike Vader in the OT. Now the Prequels are pretty rotten but even George Lucas understood that establishing and developing the relationship between Anakin and Palpatine was an essential part of telling Anakin's story. So on this score, Lucas is a better writer than Rian Johnson.
That said, I entirely agree with your comments decrying midi-chlorians and the forbidden love rule.
As to Luke, keep in mind the words from TFA's opening crawl: "She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy." For some reason, Leia believes Luke is the key to the fight against the FO. Now it's JJ's fault that he didn't explain why she thinks this or what it could mean. But Rian Johnson doesn't get a pass for ignoring it, either. Rian wanted to tell a story about Luke reluctantly accepting his place in legend but the problem is, he was already a legend. Rey and Finn's eyes light up in TFA when they hear about him. Rey approaches him with complete reverence when she finds him on Ach-To at the end of TFA. Again, Leia thinks he is vital to achieving peace in the galaxy. Luke did not need to distract Kylo Ren at the end of TLJ to be a symbol of hope in the galaxy.
And therefore there was no need to present this beloved character as a depressive curmudgeon. I think this is the point Mark Hamill probably tried to make to Rian, which was ignored.
@Peregrine
I completely agree that TLJ got it right on Rey realizing her parents were nobodies. My favorite part of the whole movie, and I think the best part of the movie, is that conversation between her and Ben.
Rey's backstory doesn't have to be X, as in one certain thing. It just needs to be something. Having deadbeat parents that abandoned her is a fine way to dispense with the silly notion that every important character should be related to some other important character. I'm glad she is not the Chosen One because of her parentage but I would still like to know why she's the Chosen One.
Have you seen "The Alamo" (2004)? Through out the film David Crockett has to contend with the mantle of "Davy" complicating his life. He shrugs and laughs it off, but you can tell it bothers him. Not until the end after he is captured (I know! I know!) does he come to terms with it. And he accepts his death and his fate as Davy. I think that was the same journey Luke was on. He views the Legend and himself as two different people. And he actively scorns the legend. It isn't until the end he accepts they are the same person.
"But the Emperor didn't have a backstory!" That has come up about a million times. And it has never mattered. People make this irrelevant point because they see Snoke as an analog to Palpatine in the OT. Wrong. Snoke is an analog to Palpatine in the PT.
This is because Ben Solo is a protagonist, like Anakin in the PT and unlike Vader in the OT. Now the Prequels are pretty rotten but even George Lucas understood that establishing and developing the relationship between Anakin and Palpatine was an essential part of telling Anakin's story. So on this score, Lucas is a better writer than Rian Johnson.
That said, I entirely agree with your comments decrying midi-chlorians and the forbidden love rule.
As to Luke, keep in mind the words from TFA's opening crawl: "She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy." For some reason, Leia believes Luke is the key to the fight against the FO. Now it's JJ's fault that he didn't explain why she thinks this or what it could mean. But Rian Johnson doesn't get a pass for ignoring it, either. Rian wanted to tell a story about Luke reluctantly accepting his place in legend but the problem is, he was already a legend. Rey and Finn's eyes light up in TFA when they hear about him. Rey approaches him with complete reverence when she finds him on Ach-To at the end of TFA. Again, Leia thinks he is vital to achieving peace in the galaxy. Luke did not need to distract Kylo Ren at the end of TLJ to be a symbol of hope in the galaxy.
And therefore there was no need to present this beloved character as a depressive curmudgeon. I think this is the point Mark Hamill probably tried to make to Rian, which was ignored.
Ben Solo is in no way a protagonist, other than the very literal "main character" definition. He murdered his father in cold blood, slaughtered a village of innocents, slaughtered his young classmates, and that's just what he's done on screen. He's at best a tragic villain, whereas Anakin was a tragic hero. Anakin was the hero until his downfall, much like the protagonist in the novel "The Natural" (not the movie). Kylo could be like Vader if he is redeemed, but I kind of hope not because I don't want to see those story beats repeated. I fear that because Abrams is writing 9, however, that I will be disappointed.
Luke has been missing for some time. Yes, he is obviously a legend, but for things he did in the OT. Right now, as the First Order rises, Leia knows that having him by her side will inspire the galaxy to rise up. Doubly so when the FO wipes out the Galactic Senate and the New Republic fleet in one hammer blow. The galaxy needed hope, and the return of the legendary Jedi Master Luke Skywalker would provide that. And, as shown in the last scene, did. The Rebellion will be reborn, and the legend of Luke Skywalker's victorious stand against the might of the First Order will be retold again and again.
On a side note: I really didn't like TFA's crawl. It didn't do anything to set the stage for what happened between the trilogies, which would have been easy to do and answered a ton of audience questions:
"It has been X years since the fall of the EMPIRE. In its place, a NEW REPUBLIC has emerged, where the GALACTIC SENATE struggles to rebuild a war-torn galaxy. Rumors of a new threat, a FIRST ORDER made of the remnants of the Empire's fleet, are whispered, but only a small few believe it exists. A RESISTANCE exists, led by GENERAL LEIA ORGANA, to fight this rising evil."
NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, JJ. STOP GIVING US POLAR BEARS.
I get the idea of Luke feeling alienated from his past thanks to his failure vis-a-vis Ben. That doesn't change the fact that Luke's actions at the end of TLJ did not make him a symbol of hope; he already was. His acceptance of what was already the case was a personal issue, not relevant to the wider galaxy.
@frightnight
Dude, Ben Solo is obviously a protagonist of this trilogy. This is such a basic point, it would be like trying to convince you that Rey is a protagonist.
You say you don't want to see story beats repeated but you like a film where the jedi knight wants to redeem the dark lord, who in turn offers joining up to rule the galaxy? Where a young jedi goes to a secluded planet to learn from a master who is not what one would expect? Where an overwhelmed group of Rebels desperately try to escape their base when cornered by Imperial walkers?
????
Yes, TFA inadequately explains the intervening years. The trilogy is really a mess and instead of clearing things up it just got messier.
I get the idea of Luke feeling alienated from his past thanks to his failure vis-a-vis Ben. That doesn't change the fact that Luke's actions at the end of TLJ did not make him a symbol of hope; he already was. His acceptance of what was already the case was a personal issue, not relevant to the wider galaxy.
Yes, it was a personal issue, but as I said, he was a legend for his actions previously. He hasn't been seen in a long while. Keep in mind that TLJ happens mere hours or at most a day or two after TFA. The New Republic and its fleet was just blasted out of existence, the First Order has begun deploying enormous Star Destroyers to pacify newly defenseless and reeling systems, and the only people saying to fight back are this tiny paramilitary force led by Leia Organa. Sure, she's a hero of the Rebellion, but you've got no army and she's not coming to help anytime soon.
No one is going to say, "Man, remember Luke Skywalker? He'd fight them and so should we!" Or if some do, it's not a rallying cry. Luke reemerging to do battle against overwhelming odds at the darkest hour is exactly the symbol of hope the galaxy needs to reignite the spark of Resistance.
@frightnight
Dude, Ben Solo is obviously a protagonist of this trilogy. This is such a basic point, it would be like trying to convince you that Rey is a protagonist.
You say you don't want to see story beats repeated but you like a film where the jedi knight wants to redeem the dark lord, who in turn offers joining up to rule the galaxy? Where a young jedi goes to a secluded planet to learn from a master who is not what one would expect? Where an overwhelmed group of Rebels desperately try to escape their base when cornered by Imperial walkers?
????
Yes, TFA inadequately explains the intervening years. The trilogy is really a mess and instead of clearing things up it just got messier.
I'm sorry, I was assuming you meant "protagonist" in the common meaning of "hero" and not "character whose choices drive the story". Kylo certainly is the latter there.
However, to further refute your earlier points, while you are correct that the Anakin/Palpatine relationship is necessary in the trilogy, that is because the story there is one of Anakin's corruption and seduction, culminating in his transformation into Vader and murdering his wife. This is not the story of Kylo and Snoke; Kylo is already corrupted, and their relationship is that of Emperor and Vader. If anything we're tuning in to Kylo's story at the point where Anakin wipes out the Separatists and then kills Padme. Snoke's backstory is completely irrelevant to Kylo's arc, he is the master that Kylo has grown beyond.
For your most recent point, yes, because the resolution of those beats is entirely different. Remember in my initial post I talked about subverting tropes? Yes, in the most broad sense it shares story beats with Empire and Return, but in this one the Dark Lord is not redeemed, and the only good in his heart is what Rey fools herself into thinking is there. (I will grant some leeway towards his love of his mother, but when it comes down to it Kylo always goes dark side with anything else) The young jedit-to-be goes to a secluded planet to train, but instead of finding a master she finds an angry old man out to end the Order. Thank the Force she already knew how to fight! And yes, superficially the walkers on the "snow" was similar to Hoth, but that's intentional again; this is not an airspeeder vs walker duel delaying battle while they evacuate, they are cornered, using (to quote the designers) "pieces of crap" to try to stop the cannon, they fail, and then they are going to die.
TLJ completely upends the expectations of those story beats, which is a part of why I love it.
As you say, TFA ended mere hours before the beginning of TLJ. We see that Luke is an inspiring hero in TFA. This isn't going to change in a few hours time, in TLJ. How do Luke's actions on Crait amount to a propaganda coup for the Resistance? There is no difference between what they could say about Luke before and after, at least as far as it would matter to neutral third parties (i.e., prospective recruits and supporters). Well, that's not entirely true. Things are actually worse afterward because now there can't be some promise that Luke Skywalker will come back to help them. It already happened; he died as a result. The very best effort of this legend saved the dozen or so Resistance survivors. Not exactly as impressive as blowing up Starkiller Base, is it? If anything will convince people the FO can be resisted it's destroying their super weapon immediately after it was used. So we see how Luke was irrelevant to the wider action of TLJ. His main contribution was persuading Rey that ... wait no he didn't persuade Rey of anything. Well, how about the fact that he convinced Kylo Ren that ... nope, nothing there either. It's almost like Mark Hamill was right about this movie ...
Yes, Anakin's arc was falling to the dark side. Just like Kylo Ren's (potential) arc is "falling" to the light side. In both cases, we need to know things about the characters that stand in for light and darkness, and our protagonists' relationships to those characters. For Anakin, it is Palpatine on one hand and Yoda and Obi-Wan on the other. For Ben Solo, it is Snoke on one hand and Han, Luke, and ultimately Rey on the other.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If people are rating ROTS 1/10 and lower than TPM and ROTC, they’re clearly talking utter bollocks.
It was the fight scene. It was probably the one thing in the movie everyone wanted since RotJ and was better than previous ones. It also was between actors and not CGI creations like cracked out Yoda or Grievous. I probably rank it higher for that alone. Also I've forgiven Lucas at this point. He's a special effects guy, not a writer or director, and CGI was the big new thing. As someone who did a lot of pioneering in FX, it's not that surprising he went down that rabbit hole. Also look up his daughter in her part in TPM. It's pretty obvs who he was making the movies for.
More fat checks from toy companies?
If you're suggesting Lucas' nonsense (provoked by bad reviews) about how a convoluted corporate takeover plot with endless yammering about galactic politicking was aimed at children, I'm just going to snicker.
Or, GASP, he might have been making movies for his two youngest kids. His daughter, who was one of the many kids surround young Anakin in his pod before the race, was about 11 at the time of TPM's release. His son, who wasn't in it, was 6. Is it honestly so hard to believe that George Lucas maybe, just maybe, made the prequels for his young kids and not for money or to ruin your specific childhood.
@Lance, if you don't remember where you started on the Han line and we're in agreement there I think we're cool.
Agree to disagree on the rest I guess and fair play to you *thumbs up*
Automatically Appended Next Post: To address the current line of discussion I find most interesting (Luke) I was supremely disappointed in his ending.
His last act of inspiration was an illusion. He didn't survive a laser barrage from the FO and he isn't even alive anymore.
If the galaxy was inspired by that then either knowing the truth will disappoint them, more than crushing whatever morale gains were made OR they would have rallied to the cause anyway.
The way I see it the FO is more completely in control of the galaxy at the end of the movie than the beginning, slave kid doll reenactments of illusions notwithstanding.
Pretty much every problem from the prequels stems from Lucas' relative inexperience/ out of practice. He handn't made a movie since RotJ. Leading him to make errors in directing and writing. If you look into the OT, it took his wife and another editor changing a lot to make the movies work properly.
There are good ideas in there, they are just buried in badly written dialogue and tedious storytelling.
sirlynchmob wrote: Probably Holdo, ordering a frontal assault against a fleet of star destroyers, that's just stupidity of the highest order.
Actually it's a brilliant strategy. You trade a few expendable bombers for a massive capital ship, that's a massive victory for the resistance. Who cares if they all die, you still killed way more than the bombers cost. Send in the next wave of bombers against the next capital ship, and repeat until the First Order's fleet is wiped out. The stupidity is people weeping about the fact that people die in war and fighter pilots are expendable munitions (something Poe seems to understand very clearly) instead of building up a lot more bombers and winning the war.
Usually yes - if you have any kind of support and logistics, any kind of functioning military structure...
Remember that the entire Republic military were overwhelmed in a day and they apparently have no prospect or resupply or reinforcements - that's the main issue - there is no resistance to speak off, just a bunch of idiots in some clapped out ships.
If that's all the Resistance has and all it's ever GOING to have, then the Resistance is doomed and might as well make a stand and go down fighting here, to weaken the New Order and inspire someone else - maybe the Corporate Sector, maybe the Hapan Cluster, who knows who else might be out there - to finish the job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: As was said, who knew if they'd get another crack at the Dreadnought?
It was there, and they were in a position to take it out.
More to the point, if they HADN'T killed the Dreadnaught, it would have killed them in very short order.
One way to look at the prequels is to ask yourself what problem with the Star Wars story they are intended to solve.
Clearly the original trilogy works wonderfully well without the prequels, so there was no problem.
Lucas made them as an indulgence to himself because he had come to conceive of Star Wars as a mighty saga spanning generations. It wasn't in the beginning, and it didn't need to be. Maybe he was trying to rival Coppola's The Godfather series.
Kilkrazy wrote: OK< so it's worse than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
Even Plan 9 From Outer Space has it's fans. That doesn't make it a good movie; indeed it's widely regarded as one of the worst movies of all times and not just by critics.
Manchu wrote: One of the biggest TLJ fans on DakkaDakka is speculating ITT as to which main cast member Rey is related. Just like back when TFA came out. He loved TLJ but is looking forward to JJ returning to fix Rian's mishandling of Rey. Regardless of whether you agree with that POV, it's a great example of how TLJ did not "wipe out" the mystery boxes - even for people who loved the movie. It sure as hell did not move the narrative forward. If Snoke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Snoke doesn't matter. If Luke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Luke doesn't matter. If Rey's background is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then revealing that Rey has no background doesn't matter.
And if nothing about the movie matters, why even bother making it and why make me pay to watch it?
I guess that's the ultimate reason I don't like it. Nothing matters. It makes me NOT care about what comes next because nothing matters.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by Luke being irrelevant, he is the symbol of hope that the galaxy needed to defy the First Order. He is so depressed and despondent at the beginning that he sarcastically quips, "You think what? I’m gonna walk out with a laser sword and face down the whole First Order?” and yet that is exactly what he does at the end, and the symbol of doing so cements him into legend as shown by the children recounting that to each other with their action figures.
Is that the slave children that they left in favour of releasing some toy friendly space horses - go Resistance.
Is that the galaxy that did nt even bother to stick one finger up to the rebels cos no one cared enough to even reply to their last ditch message of hope.
I did wonder that given the sheer incompetence of the rebels that everyone was quite happy to see them go - they all managed to do everything wrong for no reason and only lasted as long as they did in the Chase of Tedium due to the Directors conceit and the near equal stupidity of the First Order command.
Idiots fighting Idiots - I bet everyone hoped they would exterminate each other and let them get on with life.
Manchu wrote: One of the biggest TLJ fans on DakkaDakka is speculating ITT as to which main cast member Rey is related. Just like back when TFA came out. He loved TLJ but is looking forward to JJ returning to fix Rian's mishandling of Rey. Regardless of whether you agree with that POV, it's a great example of how TLJ did not "wipe out" the mystery boxes - even for people who loved the movie. It sure as hell did not move the narrative forward. If Snoke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Snoke doesn't matter. If Luke is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then killing Luke doesn't matter. If Rey's background is irrelevant, as TLJ insists, then revealing that Rey has no background doesn't matter.
And if nothing about the movie matters, why even bother making it and why make me pay to watch it?
I guess that's the ultimate reason I don't like it. Nothing matters. It makes me NOT care about what comes next because nothing matters.
I have DM'd for pen&paper rpg's for many years. I always start a campaign by asking my players to write a backstory for their character. About 80% of them are orphans born to unimportant parents. There is a reason for it. It's easy. It's really the easiest backstory to write. It's a blank slate. Zero past, zero need to think and create an actual story, plus it gives you the green light to do anything and follow any alignment.
Just because it is easy, it does not mean it's good writing. Making Rey an orphan from unimportant parents does not somehow "break the mold" of SW lore and is not a brave new move in a different direction. It's easy and sloppy writing where the writer looks to get a free pass having spent as little effort as possible.
The four main reasons I'm not keen on the sequels are
1. The plots are so similar to episodes 4 and 5
2. They made Han and Luke look bad, and killed them off pretty quickly.
3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman
4. I don't care at all about Finn, can't stand Poe or Rose Tico, and am largely indifferent to Rey. I quite like Kylo Ren. Who do I want to win if Han, Luke and Leia are gone (who should have been the main characters) and I don't like the protagonists?
2. They made Han and Luke look bad, and killed them off pretty quickly.
3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman
4. I don't care at all about Finn, can't stand Poe or Rose Tico, and am largely indifferent to Rey. I quite like Kylo Ren. Who do I want to win if Han, Luke and Leia are gone (who should have been the main characters) and I don't like the protagonists?
I am 50% sold on the purple haired woman. A commander does not need to explain the reasoning of his/her commands to a captain or a lieutenant. they just give the order. The reasoning stays with the commander, otherwise they will be second-guessed by everyone. A very appropriate answer to Poe's stubborness would be "This is a direct order". Either he obeys or he disobeys and goes to the brig (or gets shot because he disobeys a direct order at a time of war). What the woman does not sell to me at all is the fact that she did not actually have a plan at all. If your plan is "let's keep getting chased until a miracle happens" then you are a gakky commander and you would never be qualified to hold the helm. The second most qualified person in the resistance did not even have a plan? And these people survive still?
Also, once Poe becomes a mutineer and gets caught he should be 100% executed for mutiny at a time of war. The fact that he lives, and most importantly, the condescending moment of the two women "awww isn't he cute? I like him", as if your captain -and most decorated soldier- is a flipping lab puppy completely kills the purple haired woman for me.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes but Star Wars is a "rollicking space yarn" not The Caine Mutiny.
If BSG could do it in space, then Star Wars should be able to do it in space. I don't want a full blown and developed military system, just make it so it feels like these people are aware that they are actually under enemy fire the very moment we are speaking about. Instead they behave like they are on a field trip.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why should Star Wars copy BSG? BSG has done BSG (and fans ended up disliking it.)
There were 7 Star Wars films without a half-blown, under-developed military system. Suddenly it's a problem there isn't one in no.8.
I disagree. Prequels did not have it because there was no war. A republic with peacekeepers and no tangible enemy gives no reason to hold a strong military -or if there is one, there is no reason to show it. So those are out. Even then, you can see the army of the clones operating like, you know, an army. 4,5,6 have perfectly nicely formed military factions, with ranking and actual planning. Nobody goes around doing stupid things because they feel like it, except perhaps Luke. however Luke is not part of the resistance army (ie he is not enlisted), he is basically a free agent so he does not count. Rogue one belongs in the same category as TLJ - Jyn Erso is the daughter of a person of significance to the enemy and somehow she's allowed to speak to the table instead of being in the brig and being interrogated. Then she commandeers a ship and leaves with volunteers and nobody stops her. But Rogue one was a spinoff so it doesn't bother me this much. In TFA the rebel army actually works like an army, actually coming to save the day in Maz Kanata's planet based on valid information, and the commander knows wtf to do.
Snake Tortoise wrote: 3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman.
Again with this nonsense. The movies (and their flaws) are exactly the same if those characters are white men. Complaining about "liberal politics" just because there are characters who aren't white men is why people comment on how criticism is motivated by sexism/racism/etc.
As far as I can see, in TLJ the Rebel army/space force defends itself against the New Order attack using tactics to cover their retreat, then is surprised by the hyperspace tracking, loses a lot of its leadership, and manages to formulate a new plan to cope with the changed situation.
It's not The Battle of the River Plate, but it's hardly a complete absence of organisation.
Snake Tortoise wrote: 3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman.
Again with this nonsense. The movies (and their flaws) are exactly the same if those characters are white men. Complaining about "liberal politics" just because there are characters who aren't white men is why people comment on how criticism is motivated by sexism/racism/etc.
Are they exactly the same? Or was the issue further compounded by their obvious choice to place a woman in the role to seem “inclusive”, yes the character would have still sucked arse if it was a man, but why did they
A: choose to make it a woman with clear feminist overtones
B: choose to make her “purple haired” to fit that stereotype
During the costume, script and casting stages they clearly wanted to express this path they have chosen, why?
The simple answer is they wanted to seem progressive, the complicated answer sadly we will never know for sure.
Kilkrazy wrote: As far as I can see, in TLJ the Rebel army/space force defends itself against the New Order attack using tactics to cover their retreat, then is surprised by the hyperspace tracking, loses a lot of its leadership, and manages to formulate a new plan to cope with the changed situation.
It's not The Battle of the River Plate, but it's hardly a complete absence of organisation.
Having served with the military and continuing to work with them to this day, it’s a clear lack of organisation to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: What's wrong with a progressive female character?
Implementation, look at Wonder Woman, good implementation, I wanted beaten over the head with “progressive politics” that was so thinly veiled it hurt, Wonder Woman was a strong female character, good actress, and good ish story, when done right the story takes the for so you either don’t notice as much or it doesn’t matter, because you were entertained, Star Wars isn’t that.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Rogue one belongs in the same category as TLJ - Jyn Erso is the daughter of a person of significance to the enemy and somehow she's allowed to speak to the table instead of being in the brig and being interrogated. Then she commandeers a ship and leaves with volunteers and nobody stops her.
Why would she be in the brig being interrogated? She didn't commit any crimes against the rebellion, she wasn't working for the enemy, and she was perfectly happy to fight as an ally (even if she disagreed with their strategy). And of course nobody stops her when she steals the ship, did you miss the fact that half the rebellion wants to fight? The "yes, all as I have planned" smile from Mon Mothma when she hears that Raddus has told the peace faction to go themselves and taken his fleet to Scarif?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: A: choose to make it a woman with clear feminist overtones
What clear feminist overtones? Other than "not being a white man" nothing she says or does is even vaguely related to feminism.
B: choose to make her “purple haired” to fit that stereotype
Because this is Star Wars, a setting full of aliens and weird fashion choices and such? If "people dye their hair weird colors" is the extent of the supposed feminist invasion of Star Wars, well, I think the weakness of that argument speaks for itself.
Kilkrazy wrote: As far as I can see, in TLJ the Rebel army/space force defends itself against the New Order attack using tactics to cover their retreat, then is surprised by the hyperspace tracking, loses a lot of its leadership, and manages to formulate a new plan to cope with the changed situation.
It's not The Battle of the River Plate, but it's hardly a complete absence of organisation.
Damn that's a good reference, they should do a SW film on that. What prize snowballs now!
2. They made Han and Luke look bad, and killed them off pretty quickly.
3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman
4. I don't care at all about Finn, can't stand Poe or Rose Tico, and am largely indifferent to Rey. I quite like Kylo Ren. Who do I want to win if Han, Luke and Leia are gone (who should have been the main characters) and I don't like the protagonists?
I am 50% sold on the purple haired woman. A commander does not need to explain the reasoning of his/her commands to a captain or a lieutenant. they just give the order. The reasoning stays with the commander, otherwise they will be second-guessed by everyone. A very appropriate answer to Poe's stubborness would be "This is a direct order". Either he obeys or he disobeys and goes to the brig (or gets shot because he disobeys a direct order at a time of war). What the woman does not sell to me at all is the fact that she did not actually have a plan at all. If your plan is "let's keep getting chased until a miracle happens" then you are a gakky commander and you would never be qualified to hold the helm. The second most qualified person in the resistance did not even have a plan? And these people survive still?
Also, once Poe becomes a mutineer and gets caught he should be 100% executed for mutiny at a time of war. The fact that he lives, and most importantly, the condescending moment of the two women "awww isn't he cute? I like him", as if your captain -and most decorated soldier- is a flipping lab puppy completely kills the purple haired woman for me.
Kilkrazy wrote: As far as I can see, in TLJ the Rebel army/space force defends itself against the New Order attack using tactics to cover their retreat, then is surprised by the hyperspace tracking, loses a lot of its leadership, and manages to formulate a new plan to cope with the changed situation.
It's not The Battle of the River Plate, but it's hardly a complete absence of organisation.
Damn that's a good reference, they should do a SW film on that. What prize snowballs now!
633 Squadron was on TV last Saturday (UK south-east area.) It's a long time since I've sen the film, so it was nearly like watching it with fresh eyes. In the final battle the Mosquitoes have to fly along a narrow fjord through a storm of flak and enemy fighters to hit a precise point on the cliff to create a rock avalanche to destroy the German's rocket fuel plant.
It struck me that the Death Star trench scene in ANH is pretty much modelled on it.
Holdo is designed as a foilfor Poe. Rian Johnson clearly follows old fashioned protagonist/antagonist centered writing.
Poe is brash jump in the field blow-em-up aggresive character. Wich contrasts sharply with Holdo's more demure, almost too calm, slow and steady wins the race.
Poe is admonished for jumping the gun and ignoring Leia's order to pull back. Not Holdo's orders, Leia's. Yes he took out the dreadnought at the cost of his entire squadron of bombers. If Holdo's design and mannerisms were more traditionally macho. Poe would probably have simply trusted her. So her character design is meant to fool the audience as well as Poe into thinking he has to act. We're ,at least early on, supposed to sympathise with Poe not Holdo. Even tough Holdo in the end turns out to be in the right more than Poe.
And anyone trying to tell me not sharing enough of your plan that depends on absolute secrecy is a sin equal to mutiny. I am going to politely entirely, disagree with you.
Interesting realityis unrealistic tidbit: In the heyday of the britsch royal navy they trained every crewmember (from captians to sailors) to remain excessively calm in all situations. Including chases that dragged out over days.
2. They made Han and Luke look bad, and killed them off pretty quickly.
3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman
4. I don't care at all about Finn, can't stand Poe or Rose Tico, and am largely indifferent to Rey. I quite like Kylo Ren. Who do I want to win if Han, Luke and Leia are gone (who should have been the main characters) and I don't like the protagonists?
I am 50% sold on the purple haired woman. A commander does not need to explain the reasoning of his/her commands to a captain or a lieutenant. they just give the order. The reasoning stays with the commander, otherwise they will be second-guessed by everyone. A very appropriate answer to Poe's stubborness would be "This is a direct order". Either he obeys or he disobeys and goes to the brig (or gets shot because he disobeys a direct order at a time of war). What the woman does not sell to me at all is the fact that she did not actually have a plan at all. If your plan is "let's keep getting chased until a miracle happens" then you are a gakky commander and you would never be qualified to hold the helm. The second most qualified person in the resistance did not even have a plan? And these people survive still?
Also, once Poe becomes a mutineer and gets caught he should be 100% executed for mutiny at a time of war. The fact that he lives, and most importantly, the condescending moment of the two women "awww isn't he cute? I like him", as if your captain -and most decorated soldier- is a flipping lab puppy completely kills the purple haired woman for me.
Command staff are killed, first thing a competent commander does is gather their highest ranking surviving members and forms a new command staff, second is a debrief/brief to work out what needs to be done and then with ALL available information they make a decision, the command staff is aware of what needs to be done as they have helped formulate the plan.
I use this film as a good example in my lessons of how “not” to do it when it comes to command decisions.
Command staff are killed, first thing a competent commander does is gather their highest ranking surviving members and forms a new command staff, second is a debrief/brief to work out what needs to be done and then with ALL available information they make a decision, the command staff is aware of what needs to be done as they have helped formulate the plan.
I use this film as a good example in my lessons of how “not” to do it when it comes to command decisions.
Which Holdo did. Poe was no longer part of the command staff due to his demotion for disobeying a direct order. He just continues to act as if he is.
Earth127 wrote: Holdo is designed as a foilfor Poe. Rian Johnson clearly follows old fashioned protagonist/antagonist centered writing.
Poe is brash jump in the field blow-em-up aggresive character. Wich contrasts sharply with Holdo's more demure, almost too calm, slow and steady wins the race.
Poe is admonished for jumping the gun and ignoring Leia's order to pull back. Not Holdo's orders, Leia's. Yes he took out the dreadnought at the cost of his entire squadron of bombers. If Holdo's design and mannerisms were more traditionally macho. Poe would probably have simply trusted her. So her character design is meant to fool the audience as well as Poe into thinking he has to act. We're ,at least early on, supposed to sympathise with Poe not Holdo. Even tough Holdo in the end turns out to be in the right more than Poe.
And anyone trying to tell me not sharing enough of your plan that depends on absolute secrecy is a sin equal to mutiny. I am going to politely entirely, disagree with you.
Interesting realityis unrealistic tidbit: In the heyday of the britsch royal navy they trained every crewmember (from captians to sailors) to remain excessively calm in all situations. Including chases that dragged out over days.
You can politely disagree but you are wrong, both are dealt with based upon context of the crime in question, light mutiny will get you time in military prison where as withholding vital information in a time of war, dependent on the information and the impact it has had, let’s say the destruction of the entire military infrastructure, would get you put away for life if you are lucky, and if the military organisation has the death penalty ... your up for a firing squad.
Command staff are killed, first thing a competent commander does is gather their highest ranking surviving members and forms a new command staff, second is a debrief/brief to work out what needs to be done and then with ALL available information they make a decision, the command staff is aware of what needs to be done as they have helped formulate the plan.
I use this film as a good example in my lessons of how “not” to do it when it comes to command decisions.
Which Holdo did. Poe was no longer part of the command staff due to his demotion for disobeying a direct order. He just continues to act as if he is.
That’s not how it works, so yet another glaring error from that film, also he was busted down to LT, so yes, still part of command structure as still a commissioned officer.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's hard to understand why the Department of Defense accepted TLJ for the West Point advanced staff training program.
M.O.D, and showing a bit of Star Wars in a lesson is a really good way of waking everyone up from death by PowerPoint, you play the clips and ask the students what they saw that was wrong and what they saw that was correct, for example when doing cover and concealment they used to show us monty pythons “how not to hide” which gets everyone laughing and wakes them up a bit, injects a bit of morale into what would otherwise be pretty dull (just the power point stuff)
2. They made Han and Luke look bad, and killed them off pretty quickly.
3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman
4. I don't care at all about Finn, can't stand Poe or Rose Tico, and am largely indifferent to Rey. I quite like Kylo Ren. Who do I want to win if Han, Luke and Leia are gone (who should have been the main characters) and I don't like the protagonists?
I am 50% sold on the purple haired woman. A commander does not need to explain the reasoning of his/her commands to a captain or a lieutenant. they just give the order. The reasoning stays with the commander, otherwise they will be second-guessed by everyone. A very appropriate answer to Poe's stubborness would be "This is a direct order". Either he obeys or he disobeys and goes to the brig (or gets shot because he disobeys a direct order at a time of war). What the woman does not sell to me at all is the fact that she did not actually have a plan at all. If your plan is "let's keep getting chased until a miracle happens" then you are a gakky commander and you would never be qualified to hold the helm. The second most qualified person in the resistance did not even have a plan? And these people survive still?
Also, once Poe becomes a mutineer and gets caught he should be 100% executed for mutiny at a time of war. The fact that he lives, and most importantly, the condescending moment of the two women "awww isn't he cute? I like him", as if your captain -and most decorated soldier- is a flipping lab puppy completely kills the purple haired woman for me.
I've said it many times before, a good commander does explain the reasons, especially when they're expected to abandon ship. If you don't tell your crew the plan, when it needs their participation for it to work, it's doomed to fail. to abandon a ship that size would have needed everyone on board to help out, the pilots should have all been stocking the transports, and needed to know where to fly the ships to. Why weren't the pilots and poe ordered to do pre flight checks on the transports? checking supplies? helping load equipment? because holdo is a horrible leader, who did not seem to have a plan to get the crew off the ship.
Also her plan didn't account for the first order to show up as soon as it did, another failure in her planning.
I also agree with the list, but for #4, I liked finn in TFA, it's a shame he went from having an interesting story arc to comedy relief and sidekick.
Snake Tortoise wrote: 3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman.
Again with this nonsense. The movies (and their flaws) are exactly the same if those characters are white men. Complaining about "liberal politics" just because there are characters who aren't white men is why people comment on how criticism is motivated by sexism/racism/etc.
see this is why we can't have nice things complaining about the messages and horrible roles, does not equate to complaining about non white men. I suppose those who hated jarjar were xenophobes? those who hated anikin (christensen) are sexists? No, some roles just draw hatred, not because of who played them, but because of how the character acted. Hating rose, is no different than hating on anikin, or hating on cersei. She deserves to die, or does not liking her inherently sexists? her character is there to be hated she's playing the role of "bad person". his criticisms were not motivated by sexism, your defense of them is.
The whole story seemed to be backed by peta. free the poor race track animals, even though it's star wars so they're all chipped and captured the next day. chewie doesn't eat the porg, which is a waste of good meat especially since it's already dead and cooked. the military industrial complex profits off from wars. Holdo was a wretched character and there's not a man, woman or child that could have made that character likeable to me. Rose was only in the film as a token character to appeal to the Chinese market, that's the sexism, not from the fans, but by lucasarts. That's why her character is so bland and lifeless, she was added as an afterthought.
and who let the hippies in? nothing matters? Our pasts don't matter, just forget it and let it die?
Nothing whatsoever, but they need to have a development arc. Granted, Holdo's screen time was too little to justify a character arc or background story. but she came into the universe out of nowhere and then she became second in command in an instant, forcing the screenwriters to give us mandatory exposition to find out how badass she was.
Solution: Use this one, only older:
First of all, they did use her in Rogue One and nobody complained, and two, she would not need any sort of exposition or backstory or forced renown to step up and claim the command, even if I don't personally know her name.
Holdo falls into the same trap that Rey does in a sense: She comes out of nowhere and she's just good because she is. Well I'm sorry, that's not good enough.
topaxygouroun i wrote:
Snake Tortoise wrote:
The four main reasons I'm not keen on the sequels are
1. The plots are so similar to episodes 4 and 5
2. They made Han and Luke look bad, and killed them off pretty quickly.
3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman
4. I don't care at all about Finn, can't stand Poe or Rose Tico, and am largely indifferent to Rey. I quite like Kylo Ren. Who do I want to win if Han, Luke and Leia are gone (who should have been the main characters) and I don't like the protagonists?
I am 50% sold on the purple haired woman. A commander does not need to explain the reasoning of his/her commands to a captain or a lieutenant. they just give the order. The reasoning stays with the commander, otherwise they will be second-guessed by everyone. A very appropriate answer to Poe's stubborness would be "This is a direct order". Either he obeys or he disobeys and goes to the brig (or gets shot because he disobeys a direct order at a time of war). What the woman does not sell to me at all is the fact that she did not actually have a plan at all. If your plan is "let's keep getting chased until a miracle happens" then you are a gakky commander and you would never be qualified to hold the helm. The second most qualified person in the resistance did not even have a plan? And these people survive still?
Also, once Poe becomes a mutineer and gets caught he should be 100% executed for mutiny at a time of war. The fact that he lives, and most importantly, the condescending moment of the two women "awww isn't he cute? I like him", as if your captain -and most decorated soldier- is a flipping lab puppy completely kills the purple haired woman for me.
I've said it many times before, a good commander does explain the reasons, especially when they're expected to abandon ship. If you don't tell your crew the plan, when it needs their participation for it to work, it's doomed to fail. to abandon a ship that size would have needed everyone on board to help out, the pilots should have all been stocking the transports, and needed to know where to fly the ships to. Why weren't the pilots and poe ordered to do pre flight checks on the transports? checking supplies? helping load equipment? because holdo is a horrible leader, who did not seem to have a plan to get the crew off the ship.
I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you were not in the military. A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone. Otherwise discipline goes to the dustbin and every single soldier thinks they can be a commander. If there is a need to abandon ship, a routine with actions on how to abandon the ship is already rolled out and rehearsed a hundrend times before. But the reason why do we need to abandon ship, the soldiers/lieutenants/captains have no reason or right to know.
Holdo did this part correctly. Poe was all about "what the heck lady, whyyyyyy" and she was like "because I'm the commander and that's my order". Perfect response there.
Holdo failed many other parts of being a commander, though. Even if the first Order ambushed her, her plan was to stay put and wait for a miracle. She was a priestess, not a war commander.
So are the Volkswagen up! and the Bugatti Veyron, but I don't think someone who commutes to work regularly in an up! is going to fling the Veyronround the Nürburgring in under eight minutes.
That's not really a fair analogy. Someone who commutes in an Up! isn't flying through beggars canyon; bulls-eyeing womp rats. A better analogy would be a tuner who regularly takes his low-end, but still impressive, ride out to the track graduating to Veyron. Yeah, he'll have to adapt to paddle shifting, and get a feel for the car as a whole, but he isn't starting at 0.
OK, so the controls are similar - except, one assumes, those for the deflectors, astromech interface and weapon targeting systems. The handling will be massively different (the centre of mass, moments of inertia and the layout of the engines is different) and of course, he's flying the X-Wing IN SPACE! Basically, that line is to distract us from watching Luke use magic powers to somehow become the best pilot in Red Squadron.
The Astromech interface is Luke verbally telling R2 to do something, the adaptation to the targeting system is probably not that different from the adaptation to paddle shifting, and Star Wars space is not distinct from Star Wars atmospheres.
Also, Luke isn't the best pilot in Red Squadron, just the luckiest. Vader has him dead to rights until Han shows up and saves his ass.
dogma wrote: A better analogy would be a tuner who regularly takes his low-end, but still impressive, ride out to the track graduating to Veyron.
No, a better analogy would be a real-world pilot with experience in civilian aircraft trying to fly a high-performance fighter jet with little/no training. And there's a nice list of accident reports demonstrating why the FAA no longer allows this to happen. In one case the pilot couldn't even get the jet off the ground, ran off the end of the runway, and killed a bunch of people. The idea that Luke could survive basic flying in an x-wing with no prior training is questionable. The idea that he could fly in combat against trained Imperial pilots, including Vader, and do anything but die immediately is insane. Luke does it because he's the protagonist, not because it is realistic.
Vader has him dead to rights until Han shows up and saves his ass.
Only after he was able to evade and survive much longer than anyone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: Even if the first Order ambushed her, her plan was to stay put and wait for a miracle.
No, the plan was to break the pursuit, take a defensive position, and hold out until their allies can get into the fight. That's not a miracle, it's a reasonable outcome to expect. The plan only fails because the plot requires it to fail.
(Now, refusing to communicate it is pretty stupid, but the plan itself was fine.)
A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone.
That sounds like a great idea to have the kind of battle that makes the list of top military failures. A commander who insists on unquestioning authority and never involves their subordinates in planning is just begging to have a plan with flaws that a second opinion might have caught.
sirlynchmob wrote: see this is why we can't have nice things complaining about the messages and horrible roles, does not equate to complaining about non white men.
If you complain about "liberal politics" involving characters who had nothing to do with liberal politics, other than not being white men, yeah, it really does equate. That doesn't make other complaints (like Rose having way too much knowledge of secret hyperspace tracking technology) invalid, but if that's the complaint you choose to make then it's obvious what the motivation is.
chewie doesn't eat the porg, which is a waste of good meat especially since it's already dead and cooked.
You realize that's a comedy moment, right? Having him eat the porg isn't funny. Having it make sad eyes at him and watching him throw away his dinner is funny. Therefore that's what happens. It has nothing to do with anti-meat politics or anything.
Rose was only in the film as a token character to appeal to the Chinese market, that's the sexism, not from the fans, but by lucasarts. That's why her character is so bland and lifeless, she was added as an afterthought.
And this is why you are getting an accusation of racism/sexism. You assume that because a character is not a white man it must be a token to appeal to the Chinese market. It can't be that they just liked her audition better than the competition, it can't be that the character was poorly written regardless of race/gender, it must be tokenism. And you assume that because you don't like the character she must have been an afterthought, despite her being a focus of large parts of the movie.
A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone.
That sounds like a great idea to have the kind of battle that makes the list of top military failures. A commander who insists on unquestioning authority and never involves their subordinates in planning is just begging to have a plan with flaws that a second opinion might have caught.
Poe is a captain? (or a lieutenant? Can't remember). Regardless. He is not a general. He is not a Colonel. He's not a Major. In business terms, he's a line manager for his soldiers, or even worse than that, a very badass engineer. He is not a member of the board of directors. He has no reason whatsoever to know or question the decisions of his command.
No, a better analogy would be a real-world pilot with experience in civilian aircraft trying to fly a high-performance fighter jet with little/no training. And there's a nice list of accident reports demonstrating why the FAA no longer allows this to happen. In one case the pilot couldn't even get the jet off the ground, ran off the end of the runway, and killed a bunch of people. The idea that Luke could survive basic flying in an x-wing with no prior training is questionable. The idea that he could fly in combat against trained Imperial pilots, including Vader, and do anything but die immediately is insane. Luke does it because he's the protagonist, not because it is realistic.
Of course it isn't realistic, it's Star Wars; nothing is realistic. What needs to established is plausibility, not realism. And yes, it is plausible that Luke could do what he did. This isn't the real world, this a world in which people can own and self-maintain heavily armed spaceships. Hell, Luke's civilian
T-16 obviously had a gun of some type.
Kilkrazy wrote: It doesn't matter what training or experience Luke may have had in a crop-duster aircraft (SW equivalent of.)
He's the hero and therefore will save the day, by some combination of skill and luck.
This is because Star Wars is a rollicking space yarn, not a guide manual for how to train in air-to-ground rocket attacks.
It matters if you're going to accuse Rey of being a Mary Sue. Luke does the same thing with pulling unrealistic skills out of nowhere because his status as the protagonist requires it, so either both characters are Mary Sue or neither is. If you hold them to different standards you're guilty of either having a biased view of the movies you're nostalgic for or sexism in judging a female character more harshly than male equivalents.
And your constant insistence that nothing matters because Star Wars is mindless fiction is getting really annoying. I get it, your ideal movie is a CGI artist's demo reel, but for most people a movie has to be plausible for it to be worth watching. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far, if a movie is full of unrealistic nonsense after bad writing after blatant Mary Sue-ism then it isn't enjoyable, no matter how much of a CGI budget it had.
It matters if you're going to accuse Rey of being a Mary Sue. Luke does the same thing with pulling unrealistic skills out of nowhere because his status as the protagonist requires it, so either both characters are Mary Sue or neither is. If you hold them to different standards you're guilty of either having a biased view of the movies you're nostalgic for or sexism in judging a female character more harshly than male equivalents.
Here we go, "You're a sexist if you don't like Rey!"
Weren't you asking specifically who'd done it? And yet, here you are, doing that exact thing.
Command staff are killed, first thing a competent commander does is gather their highest ranking surviving members and forms a new command staff, second is a debrief/brief to work out what needs to be done and then with ALL available information they make a decision, the command staff is aware of what needs to be done as they have helped formulate the plan.
I use this film as a good example in my lessons of how “not” to do it when it comes to command decisions.
she did gather all the highest ranking surving members, she did form a new staff, she did do a debrief where the most usefull suggestion Poe had boiled down too: we need to attack with our non-existing firepower. He didn't tell Holdo about Maz when he formed the plan with Finn. He even neglects to inform her Finn figured out how the tracking worked. So by your logic in a later post Poe would face the firing squad, not Holdo.
But this movie is in many ways a lessons in how not to command a ship, or designing your bombers, or performing a stalling attack, or dodging a suicide attack, ...
dogma wrote: Of course it isn't realistic, it's Star Wars; nothing is realistic. What needs to established is plausibility, not realism. And yes, it is plausible that Luke could do what he did. This isn't the real world, this a world in which people can own and self-maintain heavily armed spaceships. Hell, Luke's civilian
T-16 obviously had a gun of some type.
If it isn't realistic then it isn't plausible either. I accept that you're willing to allow a lack of realism because it's fiction, but you can't simultaneously accept the lack of realism in this case and insist on realism when it comes to Rey and the sequel-era movies.
He's not even in the action until the trench run.
First of all, not true. He's strafing the surface and dogfighting with TIEs before the trench run. Second, I mean in the trench run itself. Vader pretty much drops in and kills everyone else as fast as his guns can fire, Luke manages to evade and survive much longer than anyone else.
Weren't you asking specifically who'd done it? And yet, here you are, doing that exact thing.
JFC, stop making straw man arguments. My words are right there, quoted in your post, and I clearly did not say "you're a sexist if you don't like Rey".
I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you were not in the military. A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone. Otherwise discipline goes to the dustbin and every single soldier thinks they can be a commander. If there is a need to abandon ship, a routine with actions on how to abandon the ship is already rolled out and rehearsed a hundrend times before. But the reason why do we need to abandon ship, the soldiers/lieutenants/captains have no reason or right to know.
Holdo did this part correctly. Poe was all about "what the heck lady, whyyyyyy" and she was like "because I'm the commander and that's my order". Perfect response there.
Holdo failed many other parts of being a commander, though. Even if the first Order ambushed her, her plan was to stay put and wait for a miracle. She was a priestess, not a war commander.
I am going to take a leap and say neither have you, or at least you have never had a competent leader.
If the chain of command breaks down or is killed (which it was) it is SOP to reform a new one on the fly, part of this is to have a quick brief/de brief to sort out the new chain of command (that did not happen), part of this brief is to update the new COC with any and all VITAL imformation (which did not happen), Vital imformation would include any plan to remove yourself from the combat zone, this is done to ensure that everyone is accounted for and knows what is required of them to complete the task at hand (which did not happen), had this happened Poe would have told the Vice admiral that the empire had tech that tracks in HS, to which the VA would inform Poe that she already knew and she had a plan to escape the ship with cloaked shuttles, this then would mean no mutiny, no trip to canto, which would in turn mean the party aboard the empire ship would have not been captured, so the hacker could not give up Vital imformation about the shuttles which directly led to the deaths of hundreds of Rebel fighters and loss of the entire infrastructure, these facts would come out in a military tribunal and she would be imprisoned or worse.
Peregrine wrote: JFC, stop making straw man arguments. My words are right there, quoted in your post, and I clearly did not say "you're a sexist if you don't like Rey".
Uh, yeah. You kinda straight up said that if you think Rey is a Mary Sue and don't think Luke is (and Luke's close, but nowhere near as bad as Rey), you're 'sexist'.
So, yeah. That's why I'm 100% convinced that people who are too attached and hyper-defensive of these movies to the point of irrational and inconsistent comparisons are the intellectual and ideological sewer of a fandom. People can't just 'not like' something, they can't just think she's poorly written, they've got to be woman-hating man-pig Alt-Right bigots.
There's no straw man argument, just you and your pathetic attempts to frame people who disagree with you in a negative light. And you wonder why your entrance into any discussion on this site is a herald to a shut-down.
Only the things you say did not happen Formosa, did happen. Simply mostly offscreen and Poe wasn't included , probably due a recent demotion.
And I hope you never run a tibunal were Holdo is blamed more than Poe who is blamed more than DJ. DJ should have never had the information, hence the need for quiet. Lovely how that works out.
topaxygouroun i wrote: I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you were not in the military. A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone. Otherwise discipline goes to the dustbin and every single soldier thinks they can be a commander. If there is a need to abandon ship, a routine with actions on how to abandon the ship is already rolled out and rehearsed a hundrend times before. But the reason why do we need to abandon ship, the soldiers/lieutenants/captains have no reason or right to know.
Uh, sure. If you're a North Korean or Iraqi general, this is a great leadership style. Otherwise, military leaders tend to explain the hell out of their reasons and their intent and desired end state, because....
... those reasons 'why' for 'him and him alone'? Cool. What happens when he dies? Chaos happens. Even the lowliest Mafioso or gang leader makes sure his lieutenants and his guys know what's going on in case something happens.
she did gather all the highest ranking surving members
When?
she did form a new staff
No she didnt, at least not that we were shown
she did do a debrief
No she didnt, she dressed him down infront of junior soldiers and degraded him, thats not a debrief
where the most usefull suggestion Poe had boiled down too: we need to attack with our non-existing firepower.
Well shucks, he was suffering from a traumatic incident, a competent commander would see this and work around it, thanks for pointing out another problem with her.
He didn't tell Holdo about Maz when he formed the plan with Finn. He even neglects to inform her Finn figured out how the tracking worked
Yep and thats his failing, directly caused by her, they are both equally to blame here.
So by your logic in a later post Poe would face the firing squad, not Holdo.
He would be court marshalled and imprisoned, his actions are as a direct result of a senior officer not following the Rules and Regulations.
But this movie is in many ways a lessons in how not to command a ship, or designing your bombers, or performing a stalling attack, or dodging a suicide attack
Yep, I am just pointing out just how badly that character was portrayed and implemented
Good god , how did Thrawn not go crazy?
Because he knew what he was doing, shame the writers didnt know what they were talking about in both cases.
Kilkrazy wrote: It doesn't matter what training or experience Luke may have had in a crop-duster aircraft (SW equivalent of.)
He's the hero and therefore will save the day, by some combination of skill and luck.
This is because Star Wars is a rollicking space yarn, not a guide manual for how to train in air-to-ground rocket attacks.
It matters if you're going to accuse Rey of being a Mary Sue. Luke does the same thing with pulling unrealistic skills out of nowhere because his status as the protagonist requires it, so either both characters are Mary Sue or neither is. If you hold them to different standards you're guilty of either having a biased view of the movies you're nostalgic for or sexism in judging a female character more harshly than male equivalents.
And your constant insistence that nothing matters because Star Wars is mindless fiction is getting really annoying. I get it, your ideal movie is a CGI artist's demo reel, but for most people a movie has to be plausible for it to be worth watching. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far, if a movie is full of unrealistic nonsense after bad writing after blatant Mary Sue-ism then it isn't enjoyable, no matter how much of a CGI budget it had.
Only Luke grew to be badass. We saw him weak, we saw him just a boy, whining he has to do work and not go with his friends to play. We saw him training and failing, time and time again under Obi Wan (while in the Falcon) and under Yoda. We saw him fight his inner daemons in a mental fight and losing said fight badly. We saw him scarred by his loved ones dying and we saw him split between duty to his fate and duty to his friends. We saw him make wrong decisions (leaving training early to go save Han) and we saw him getting punished and learn from this. And then, yes, we saw him being a badass hero, becoming one after trial and error, after a personal quest to grow, not only because his daddy was space jesus.
Let's take a look at Rey. She's a nobody, born from nobodies. She lived in a desert planet, like Luke did. Only when Luke left with Obi wan, he didn't even know how to handle himself in the cantina. Whereas Rey knows how to dissassemble valuable parts from imperial destroyers, how to speak binary (even though she did not own any droids ever before), how to fight, how to pilot, how to instantly recognize garbage ships from good ships, knows half the galaxy geography even if she never left her planet or went to any kind of school before. heck if I'm not mistaken she can even speak with Chewie? (not sure about this one). She learns how to use the Force in like 2 minutes, without even knowing there was a thing called Force before and she can immediately use it to perform mind control. Not like pull a rock or something, perform actual Jedi Mind Tricks. Then she learns how to beat a trained Sith in a lightsaber fight, even if she hasn't even touched a lightsaber before in her life. Luke's lightsaber talks to her with no explanation except because she's Rey.
Comparing Luke with Rey in terms of Mary Sueness is ridiculous, sorry.
]Only the things you say did not happen Formosa, did happen. Simply mostly offscreen and Poe wasn't included , probably due a recent demotion.
So it didnt happen, because at no point are we shown it happened and at no point is it even indicated as to have happened, I believe the saying absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, and I understand thats the stance your taking, however we dont even get a sniff of any evidence that it could have happened and as i say "lack of evidence isnt evidence"
And I hope you never run a tibunal were Holdo is blamed more than Poe who is blamed more than DJ. DJ should have never had the information, hence the need for quiet. Lovely how that works out.
chain of circumstances started with the OIC, so yes, the buck would end up on her, sad but thats the way it works.
topaxygouroun i wrote: Only Luke grew to be badass. We saw him weak, we saw him just a boy, whining he has to do work and not go with his friends to play. We saw him training and failing, time and time again under Obi Wan (while in the Falcon) and under Yoda. We saw him fight his inner daemons in a mental fight and losing said fight badly. We saw him scared by his loved ones dying and we saw him split between duty to his fate and duty to his friends. We saw him make wrong decisions (leaving training early to go save Han) and we saw him learn from this. And then, yes, we saw him being a badass hero, becoming one after trial and error, after a personal quest to grow, not only because his daddy was space jesus.
Let's take a look at Rey. She's a nobody, born from nobodies. She lived in a desert planet, like Luke did. Only when Luke left with Obi wan, he didn't even know how to handle himself in the cantina. Whereas Rey knows how to dissassemble valuable parts from imperial destroyers, how to speak binary (even though she did not own any droids ever before), how to fight, how to pilot, how to instantly recognize garbage ships from good ships, knows half the galaxy geography even if she never left her planet or went to any kind of school before. heck if I'm not mistaken she can even speak with Chewie? (not sure about this one). She learns how to use the Force in like 2 minutes, without even knowing there was a thing called Force before and she can immediately use it to perform mind control. Not like pull a rock or something, perform actual Jedi Mind Tricks. Then she learns how to beat a trained Sith in a lightsaber fight, even if she hasn't even touched a lightsaber before in her life. Luke's lightsaber talks to her with no explanation except because she's Rey.
Comparing Luke with Rey in terms of Mary Sueness is ridiculous, sorry.
Just to chip in as well; after his first Light Sabre fight, Luke was destroyed emotionally, had his hand sliced off and, in my opinion, decided to jump to his death rather than surrender. He...lost. No ifs, ands or buts. But in her first fight, Ray beats the guy without much difficulty, and left him with the scars. Had they not been separated by the opening chasm she could have finished him off.
I'm not accusing either Rey or Luke of being a Mary Sue. I think they're both great characters, and obviously they are both heroes.
I find Star Wars plausible as a rollicking space yarn. That's not the same as mindless fiction, but it does require a greater level of suspension of disbelief from the audience than a more realistic film would.
Just to chip in as well; after his first Light Sabre fight, Luke was destroyed emotionally, had his hand sliced off and, in my opinion, decided to jump to his death rather than surrender. He...lost. No ifs, ands or buts. But in her first fight, Ray beats the guy without much difficulty, and left him with the scars. Had they not been separated by the opening chasm she could have finished him off.
There's no competition.
Piloting the Falcon like an expert still baffles me.
Just because you've been scratching around junkyards and know how an engine works and which parts are worth a buck, doesn't mean you know how to hop into a manual-transmission rally car and start drifting like a pro.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not accusing either Rey or Luke of being a Mary Sue. I think they're both great characters, and obviously they are both heroes.
I find Star Wars plausible as a rollicking space yarn. That's not the same as mindless fiction, but it does require a greater level of suspension of disbelief from the audience than a more realistic film would.
Rey is textbook Mary Sue. Might be even more than Caldor Draigo.
Piloting the Falcon like an expert still baffles me.
Just because you've been scratching around junkyards and know how an engine works and which parts are worth a buck, doesn't mean you know how to hop into a manual-transmission rally car and start drifting like a pro.
We know from ANH when Han makes fun of him "I'm not a bad pilot myself."
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Uh, yeah. You kinda straight up said that if you think Rey is a Mary Sue and don't think Luke is (and Luke's close, but nowhere near as bad as Rey), you're 'sexist'.
STOP LYING.
My words are right there for anyone to see. In the post you quoted I even explicitly stated an alternative to sexism for doing the thing I'm objecting to: a biased view favoring the movies you have nostalgia for over the modern ones you have less attachment to. There is no excuse for you lying and trying to misrepresent what I said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm not accusing either Rey or Luke of being a Mary Sue. I think they're both great characters, and obviously they are both heroes.
Then the realism argument isn't directed at you. I'm not sure why you're trying to answer it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Just to chip in as well; after his first Light Sabre fight, Luke was destroyed emotionally, had his hand sliced off and, in my opinion, decided to jump to his death rather than surrender. He...lost. No ifs, ands or buts. But in her first fight, Ray beats the guy without much difficulty, and left him with the scars. Had they not been separated by the opening chasm she could have finished him off.
There's no competition.
There's also one minor difference: Luke fights the last of the original jedi, a master duelist with decades of experience in hunting down and killing jedi and a symbol of terror for his allies and enemies alike. Rey fights a fanboy who thinks space-Hitler was pretty cool and is openly mocked by the First Order's military and even his own master. So yes, Rey wins, but she wins against far inferior competition.
]Only the things you say did not happen Formosa, did happen. Simply mostly offscreen and Poe wasn't included , probably due a recent demotion.
So it didnt happen, because at no point are we shown it happened and at no point is it even indicated as to have happened, I believe the saying absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, and I understand thats the stance your taking, however we dont even get a sniff of any evidence that it could have happened and as i say "lack of evidence isnt evidence"
So, you're arguing that the people that Poe took prisoner during his mutiny were not the command staff who had planned and were executing the shuttle escape plan?
Poe was demoted from Commander to Captain. He was no longer in command of the fighter wing (indeed, there was basically no fighter wing left). As such there was no need for him to be part of any briefings as the plan did not require him.
Kilkrazy wrote: As far as I can see, in TLJ the Rebel army/space force defends itself against the New Order attack using tactics to cover their retreat, then is surprised by the hyperspace tracking, loses a lot of its leadership, and manages to formulate a new plan to cope with the changed situation.
It's not The Battle of the River Plate, but it's hardly a complete absence of organisation.
Not what happened.
The rebel "fleet" is evacuating the planet,
The First Order Fleet shows up, bumbles around for a bit
The rebels send in painfully slow bombers they dredged up from somewhere and blow up one high priority ship
The rebels retreat via hyperspace in the disorder that follows.
All good, then the real stupidity starts
The rebels are followed - which is up till them apparently impossible
Three fighters wipe out the Command bridge (and apparently anyone with any intelligence left on the ship) and every fighter on the ship
The First Order then do nothing and the rebels likewise bumble along - they don't send their multiple hyperspace ships in different directions, they do nothing.
They decide to limp along towards one specific planet that is obvious and secretly they will abandon ship at the last moment - no is told to make any preparations for such, nope just bumble along as it seems the FO has no more idea of what to do either.
They abandon ship in their super stealth (but not hyperspace capable) ships and bumble along towards the planet
There is no plan for the last remaining ship to jump away to distract the fleet - nope - that's too clever.
Someone nudges the FO to "Turn on their scanners" ( and they are detected.
They then bumble along in a straight line for the planet - no evasive action, nope
Suddenly the last person on the ship decides that "oh yeah you can just ram people" - no idea why the other two ships could not have done this.
There's also one minor difference: Luke fights the last of the original jedi, a master duelist with decades of experience in hunting down and killing jedi and a symbol of terror for his allies and enemies alike. Rey fights a fanboy who thinks space-Hitler was pretty cool and is openly mocked by the First Order's military and even his own master. So yes, Rey wins, but she wins against far inferior competition.
I guess I also missed the bit where Vader was blasted in the gut by a bowcaster prior to fighting Luke as well.
Future War Cultist wrote: Just to chip in as well; after his first Light Sabre fight, Luke was destroyed emotionally, had his hand sliced off and, in my opinion, decided to jump to his death rather than surrender. He...lost. No ifs, ands or buts. But in her first fight, Ray beats the guy without much difficulty, and left him with the scars. Had they not been separated by the opening chasm she could have finished him off.
There's no competition.
There's also one minor difference: Luke fights the last of the original jedi, a master duelist with decades of experience in hunting down and killing jedi and a symbol of terror for his allies and enemies alike. Rey fights a fanboy who thinks space-Hitler was pretty cool and is openly mocked by the First Order's military and even his own master. So yes, Rey wins, but she wins against far inferior competition.
Even so, we saw Luke grow into his character. Rey was just born perfect. In fact Rey in many aspects was just born being better than Anakin ever was. Wouldn't even be surprised if Rey beat The Emperor in a mental duel. And it's not only that she's a badass. She's also cute, selfless, charitable, kind, self sacrificing, heroic, incorruptible. Like, come on.
My words are right there for anyone to see. In the post you quoted I even explicitly stated an alternative to sexism for doing the thing I'm objecting to: a biased view favoring the movies you have nostalgia for over the modern ones you have less attachment to. There is no excuse for you lying and trying to misrepresent what I said.
"You're either a bigot or you have a preference to the older movies, or nostalgia clouds your taste." What a fine series of options there. Why not a third one, something like "people who smoke crack"? I'm sure you can find a plethora of ways to throw gak at people who disagree with you, without accepting that they see things differently and have perfectly valid reasons for doing so.
Nah, man- Dump a gallon of poison into that well. No one can have a clear and rational reason for preferring the writing of the older movies to that of the new ones. Because you're incapable of understanding matters of preference and the reasons, they have to be some kind of mental inferior or hate women.
The only sorts of people who think like this are people who are blindly obsessed with something for ideological reasons, or people who eat their own excrement. (Did you see what I did there? That's an example of your statement, flipped around.)
They abandon ship in their super stealth (but not hyperspace capable) ships and bumble along towards the planet
There is no plan for the last remaining ship to jump away to distract the fleet - nope - that's too clever.
Someone nudges the FO to "Turn on their scanners" ( and they are detected.
They then bumble along in a straight line for the planet - no evasive action, nope.
DJ didn't tell them to turn on their scanners, he told them specifically what kind of scan to run, potentially with what specific frequencies to look for etc.
As for attempting to perform evasive action. At that range it would be impossible as the ships cannot move fast enough to outmanoeuvre the tracking of the guns.
Just because you've been scratching around junkyards and know how an engine works and which parts are worth a buck, doesn't mean you know how to hop into a manual-transmission rally car and start drifting like a pro.
You are so right. Do you drive? If so, you'll know that cars, especially older ones and ones that have been tampered with (remember that the falcon is heavily customized) have...quirks that can throw people who've never driven them before off. And since Lucas is a car nut and racing fan and put all that into his stories, I imagine it's the same for the ships of Star Wars.
Case in point, my first car was a '98 Renault Megane with a very tricky gear box. To get it into second gear required the stick to be shifted in a very particular way. It was so bad that if not done right it wouldn't change gear, would make a lot of whining and grinding sounds, and the car would go nowhere. Anyone else would think that it was broken. Hell I thought it was broken. Only practice got it right, and I can't stress this enough, I was the only one who could drive it. Not just legally, but in actuality.
Point is, the Falcon strikes me as that kind of vehicle, so to have a kid who's apparently never flown or even been in a working ship before jump in it and fly away seems wrong. Han and Chewie should be the only ones in the pilot seats until the next ones have been throughly trained on how to fly it. Even Luke flying an X Wing can be somewhat explained.
A Town Called Malus wrote: I guess I also missed the bit where Vader was blasted in the gut by a bowcaster prior to fighting Luke as well.
Then maybe you missed the part where Vader was slapping Luke around like he was nothing the first time they met, after repeated instances of Luke kinda getting a run for his money- Luke only 'won' when he let himself go too close to the dark side. Or you might have missed the fact where, despite being wounded- Ren was actually trained. Watch also how Rey fights- that's not someone who has never picked up a lightsaber before. She's fighting on par with Ren every step of the way.
Someone with a flesh wound and years upon years of training is still going to mop the floor with someone who's never handled the weapon in their life.
]Only the things you say did not happen Formosa, did happen. Simply mostly offscreen and Poe wasn't included , probably due a recent demotion.
So it didnt happen, because at no point are we shown it happened and at no point is it even indicated as to have happened, I believe the saying absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, and I understand thats the stance your taking, however we dont even get a sniff of any evidence that it could have happened and as i say "lack of evidence isnt evidence"
So, you're arguing that the people that Poe took prisoner during his mutiny were not the command staff who had planned and were executing the shuttle escape plan?
Poe was demoted from Commander to Captain. He was no longer in command of the fighter wing (indeed, there was basically no fighter wing left). As such there was no need for him to be part of any briefings as the plan did not require him.
Again thats not how it works, he is a senior commisioned officer, any briefing would need his input, especially as it involved his staff, and the Vice Admiral was taken prisoner, and some other people, who are these other people? were we ever told, are they even military?
Not at all. Another way of thinking of it- imagine knowing how a rifle works, knowing how to identify one, which parts belong where... that doesn't mean you're going to pick it up and be a lethal sniper if you've never shot one before.
They abandon ship in their super stealth (but not hyperspace capable) ships and bumble along towards the planet
There is no plan for the last remaining ship to jump away to distract the fleet - nope - that's too clever.
Someone nudges the FO to "Turn on their scanners" ( and they are detected.
They then bumble along in a straight line for the planet - no evasive action, nope.
As for attempting to perform evasive action. At that range it would be impossible as the ships cannot move fast enough to outmanoeuvre the tracking of the guns.
Its Star Wars - Ships dodge guns all the time - the big guns on the giant ship only fired occasionally and probably more like 16" battleship guns - designed to kill other capital ships - firing at a evading small ship would not be easy. One bumbling along in a predictable straight line - easier.
Of course people can have legitimate reasons to prefer the older movies. FFS I prefer the older movies, and have posted plenty of criticism of the newer ones here. But if you make that particular argument you are doing so either out of personal bias favoring the movies you grew up with or sexism. The fact that you choose to interpret "biased towards the movies you grew up with" as "mental inferior" is your problem, not mine.
Of course people can have legitimate reasons to prefer the older movies. FFS I prefer the older movies, and have posted plenty of criticism of the newer ones here. But if you make that particular argument you are doing so either out of personal bias favoring the movies you grew up with or sexism. The fact that you choose to interpret "biased towards the movies you grew up with" as "mental inferior" is your problem, not mine.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: Then maybe you missed the part where Vader was slapping Luke around like he was nothing the first time they met, after repeated instances of Luke kinda getting a run for his money- Luke only 'won' when he let himself go too close to the dark side. Or you might have missed the fact where, despite being wounded- Ren was actually trained. Watch also how Rey fights- that's not someone who has never picked up a lightsaber before. She's fighting on par with Ren every step of the way.
Someone with a flesh wound and years upon years of training is still going to mop the floor with someone who's never handled the weapon in their life.
Again, Vader is a master swordsman, veteran jedi hunter, and the most powerful force user in known history. Kylo Ren is a Vader fanboy who his own troops openly treat as a joke, with the added bonus of a wound that would have been instantly fatal to anyone but a major character. The two are not even close to comparable.
Earth127 wrote: Poe is no longer a senior officer after Leia demotes him.
Yes he is, he is a captain (I thought LT, I was corrected), he is also still in charge of his staff, he also still has the experience and training of a senior officer, therefore in a time of need, he would be used, he wasnt.
This is me is less of a plot hole and more of a "you have broken part of my suspension of disbelief"
Of course people can have legitimate reasons to prefer the older movies. FFS I prefer the older movies, and have posted plenty of criticism of the newer ones here. But if you make that particular argument you are doing so either out of personal bias favoring the movies you grew up with or sexism. The fact that you choose to interpret "biased towards the movies you grew up with" as "mental inferior" is your problem, not mine.
To be honest you did force him to be either A or B, and then period. I answered your question why Luke is not as Mary Sue as Rey is, without using nostalgia bias or sexism. Are you going to respond on that or just keep shouting?
Dude, he is known for it, just dont engage with him.
Like I said, dont engage with him.
[citation needed]
Sorry, man- I've never explicitly lied, or even tried to mislead anyone in my time here. I don't know why you're branding me with that, and it's a pretty scummy thing to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: To be honest you did force him to be either A or B, and then period. I answered your question why Luke is not as Mary Sue as Rey is, without using nostalgia bias or sexism. Are you going to respond on that or just keep shouting?
Yep. If he would have said, "A lot of people I've encountered with this argument are either A or B period", I would have accepted that. Anecdotal personal experience isn't universal, but at least it's a point to make and a position to take.
I've said it many times before, a good commander does explain the reasons, especially when they're expected to abandon ship. If you don't tell your crew the plan, when it needs their participation for it to work, it's doomed to fail. to abandon a ship that size would have needed everyone on board to help out, the pilots should have all been stocking the transports, and needed to know where to fly the ships to. Why weren't the pilots and poe ordered to do pre flight checks on the transports? checking supplies? helping load equipment? because holdo is a horrible leader, who did not seem to have a plan to get the crew off the ship.
I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you were not in the military. A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone. Otherwise discipline goes to the dustbin and every single soldier thinks they can be a commander. If there is a need to abandon ship, a routine with actions on how to abandon the ship is already rolled out and rehearsed a hundrend times before. But the reason why do we need to abandon ship, the soldiers/lieutenants/captains have no reason or right to know.
Holdo did this part correctly. Poe was all about "what the heck lady, whyyyyyy" and she was like "because I'm the commander and that's my order". Perfect response there.
Holdo failed many other parts of being a commander, though. Even if the first Order ambushed her, her plan was to stay put and wait for a miracle. She was a priestess, not a war commander.
This is where you're wrong, I was in the navy for 20 years, I know ship routines, and I've been through many abandon ship drills. Holdo fails as an admiral and deserves no respect. I was trained to always question orders, and if the order violated the code of conduct or ROE, then I was to not follow them. there is a litany of soldiers who blindly followed orders and received court martials for it. Those who demand unquestioning loyalty and refuse to brief the crews and entertain questions, and blindly follow orders are Nazi's.
one of my jobs was to brief the captain before we entered any port, so he knew what was going on. If the order to abondon ship was given, everyone on board would be told, and also told, nearest land, who occupies the land, nearest friendly forces, and even the weather and in the case of star wars, what local life will be trying to eat them. My job once the order was give was to destroy all crypto and sensitive equipment to make sure it doesn't fall into enemy hands. Everyone on that ship has a right to know what's going on, holdo obviously never ordered an abandon ship, and not telling poe they're doing one indicates she was going to leave him there to die. not telling the other pilots is her failing as an officer and she'd never be in charge of another ship again if she had lived. An airlock would be an appropiate spot for holdo. How can her officers do their routine if she never tells them what routine they're supposed to be doing?
Dude, he is known for it, just dont engage with him.
Like I said, dont engage with him.
[citation needed]
Sorry, man- I've never explicitly lied, or even tried to mislead anyone in my time here. I don't know why you're branding me with that, and it's a pretty scummy thing to do.
You’ve lied to me directly in several threads, anyone can go check them, and when you were called out you just reverted to your “nu uh you are” defence, I’ve even had people PM me to not engage with you for that very reason, so it’s not “a scummy thing to do” it’s a matter of record.
Peregrine wrote: Again, Vader is a master swordsman, veteran jedi hunter, and the most powerful force user in known history. Kylo Ren is a Vader fanboy who his own troops openly treat as a joke, with the added bonus of a wound that would have been instantly fatal to anyone but a major character. The two are not even close to comparable.
Yep. And Vader was still fighting a trained individual, albeit one with very little training.
Ren had many years of training. He had a flesh wound, or so it appeared to be (and that I blame the writers on, that bowcaster's potency was about as consistent as Ren's personality). Plot armor aside, Rey was throwing around an unfamiliar weapon against a trained adversary. I won't even say it's shocking she won, I'll buy that- I'd just think it would make more sense if she were at least wounded or scarred from the battle.
Earth127 wrote: Luke and Rey are nearly identical characters, mary sue like flaws inclluded.
I'm afraid Formosa we're gna have to agree to disagree.
Im sorry if there has been a misunderstanding, I am not talking about rey being a mary sue, just the lack of realism when it comes to how TLJ was handled in its military application, I am simply working off my own military experience on the matter, other militaries may differ of course and I can only go on how the British military works.
Formosa wrote: [You’ve lied to me directly in several threads, anyone can go check them, and when you were called out you just reverted to your “nu uh you are” defence, I’ve even had people PM me to not engage with you for that very reason, so it’s not “a scummy thing to do” it’s a matter of record.
You wanna PM me with that? Because I'm not recalling any of this, ever. In fact, I've always been quite civil with you. [REDACTED BECAUSE ERRORS]
Formosa wrote: [You’ve lied to me directly in several threads, anyone can go check them, and when you were called out you just reverted to your “nu uh you are” defence, I’ve even had people PM me to not engage with you for that very reason, so it’s not “a scummy thing to do” it’s a matter of record.
You wanna PM me with that? Because I'm not recalling any of this, ever. In fact, I've always been quite civil with you. It is a scummy thing to do, and I do enjoy the fact that people PM you about it and don't have the sack to stand up and say something. (But it's Dakka, it's kind of expected).
Adeptus I am really really really sorry, Its Delvarus Centurion, not you, I feel like an absolute bloody idiot right now.... I apologise for getting you confused with him.
Formosa wrote: Adeptus I am really really really sorry, Its Delvarus Centurion, not you, I feel like an absolute bloody idiot right now.... I apologise for getting you confused with him.
It's all good in the hood, baby! I recently changed my avatar, maybe that threw you off. Things happen. Especially if you use your phone to check forums, then there's no avatars and I get people mixed up.
sirlynchmob wrote: see this is why we can't have nice things complaining about the messages and horrible roles, does not equate to complaining about non white men.
If you complain about "liberal politics" involving characters who had nothing to do with liberal politics, other than not being white men, yeah, it really does equate. That doesn't make other complaints (like Rose having way too much knowledge of secret hyperspace tracking technology) invalid, but if that's the complaint you choose to make then it's obvious what the motivation is.
chewie doesn't eat the porg, which is a waste of good meat especially since it's already dead and cooked.
You realize that's a comedy moment, right? Having him eat the porg isn't funny. Having it make sad eyes at him and watching him throw away his dinner is funny. Therefore that's what happens. It has nothing to do with anti-meat politics or anything.
Rose was only in the film as a token character to appeal to the Chinese market, that's the sexism, not from the fans, but by lucasarts. That's why her character is so bland and lifeless, she was added as an afterthought.
And this is why you are getting an accusation of racism/sexism. You assume that because a character is not a white man it must be a token to appeal to the Chinese market. It can't be that they just liked her audition better than the competition, it can't be that the character was poorly written regardless of race/gender, it must be tokenism. And you assume that because you don't like the character she must have been an afterthought, despite her being a focus of large parts of the movie.
You mean that large segment that seemed shoehorned in? ya it didn't fit with the rest of the film, and the character was poorly written. Disney is know for pandering to the Chinese market. And again, seeing her as such does not equate to sexism, that's your own biases at work.
there was liberal politics in the movie. it's indisputable.
People don't like rose, because he character is poorly written because she was put in as an after thought, because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.
You're assuming motives that aren't there and unjustified, because while you can assume that about me, how to you apply that logic to all the women who also hate rose? are they sexists to and would rather she be a white male?
People don't like rose, because he character is poorly written because she was put in as an after thought, because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.
Finn and Poe had a great dynamic and a 'buddy adventure' would have been much more fun.
sirlynchmob wrote: You mean that large segment that seemed shoehorned in? ya it didn't fit with the rest of the film, and the character was poorly written. Disney is know for pandering to the Chinese market. And again, seeing her as such does not equate to sexism, that's your own biases at work.
Key point: large segment. It can't be an afterthought when it's a large part of the movie. Like that part of the movie or not (and I don't like it) it was a significant plot element requiring a lot of time and money to film it. They didn't just throw her in at the last second for a brief scene.
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
there was liberal politics in the movie. it's indisputable.
It's entirely disputable. Nothing in the movie is more than vaguely related to liberal politics. No part of the movie has any relevance to any real-world political debate, aside from some s being upset that every character isn't a white man.
because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.
Ok, fine, that was the original idea. But it clearly didn't last very long, and departing from an original idea is just part of something that happens in creating a movie. It doesn't mean that the character is an afterthought. Whatever the original idea, early in development, might have been Poe was given a very different place in the story long before the term "afterthought" would be appropriate.
You're assuming motives that aren't there and unjustified, because while you can assume that about me, how to you apply that logic to all the women who also hate rose? are they sexists to and would rather she be a white male?
You're not paying attention, at all. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the character and the casino plot. But if your reasons for disliking the character come down to "she wasn't a white man" then yes, you are a sexist.
Earth127 wrote: Sorry Formosa, I meant on the military thing. I think Poe has more responsibility for his oown than Holdo does (tough obviously she's also at least partially at fault, I don't want you think I'm denying that).
Bit OT but what did you make of Crimson Tide?
Also be carefull when you mention Nazi's in a military discussion. The german military in WW2 was impressive to say the least.
Crikey, havent seen that in at least 10 years... tell you what i will see if i can find a copy of it tonight and get back to you on that
sirlynchmob wrote: You mean that large segment that seemed shoehorned in? ya it didn't fit with the rest of the film, and the character was poorly written. Disney is know for pandering to the Chinese market. And again, seeing her as such does not equate to sexism, that's your own biases at work.
Key point: large segment. It can't be an afterthought when it's a large part of the movie. Like that part of the movie or not (and I don't like it) it was a significant plot element requiring a lot of time and money to film it. They didn't just throw her in at the last second for a brief scene.
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
there was liberal politics in the movie. it's indisputable.
It's entirely disputable. Nothing in the movie is more than vaguely related to liberal politics. No part of the movie has any relevance to any real-world political debate, aside from some s being upset that every character isn't a white man.
because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.
Ok, fine, that was the original idea. But it clearly didn't last very long, and departing from an original idea is just part of something that happens in creating a movie. It doesn't mean that the character is an afterthought. Whatever the original idea, early in development, might have been Poe was given a very different place in the story long before the term "afterthought" would be appropriate.
You're assuming motives that aren't there and unjustified, because while you can assume that about me, how to you apply that logic to all the women who also hate rose? are they sexists to and would rather she be a white male?
You're not paying attention, at all. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the character and the casino plot. But if your reasons for disliking the character come down to "she wasn't a white man" then yes, you are a sexist.
Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.
In my view it's easy to explain Rey's piloting ability.
1. She's got a powerful speeder jet bike.
2. Vehicles in Star Wars clearly have basic commonalities of how they are driven or piloted. E.g. in RotJ, everyone hops on to speeder bikes or into Chicken Walkers and cons them like a boss without any evidence of training.
3. Rey's knocked around advanced military ships all her life and is familiar with their systems and how to cannibalise parts for repairs and new purposes.
4. She's got an old Rebel helmet which could have contained training programs and stuff. If nothing else it inspired her.
I am happy to infer backwards from the fact that Rey herself is confident about piloting the ships, and turns out actually to be pretty competent, and therefore acquired it somehow in the past.
Formosa wrote: Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.
What exactly was progressive about it? I don't recall TLJ commenting on economic policy and equality, race/gender/etc issues, ending war, universal health care, immigration policy, or any other real-world progressive issues. About the only discussion of TLJ's politics seems to be coming from people who think that "not every character is a white man" makes it a progressive film.
Formosa wrote: Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.
What exactly was progressive about it? I don't recall TLJ commenting on economic policy and equality, race/gender/etc issues, ending war, universal health care, immigration policy, or any other real-world progressive issues. About the only discussion of TLJ's politics seems to be coming from people who think that "not every character is a white man" makes it a progressive film.
Formosa wrote: Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.
What exactly was progressive about it? I don't recall TLJ commenting on economic policy and equality, race/gender/etc issues, ending war, universal health care, immigration policy, or any other real-world progressive issues. About the only discussion of TLJ's politics seems to be coming from people who think that "not every character is a white man" makes it a progressive film.
Canto blight was their rather poor attempt to do a social commentary, the “equality” part can be seen by just looking at the cast, every bad guy has to be a white male, they literally had a purple haired feminist front and centre, or do you think the cast choice and costume design was an accident, the whole movie is rather badly trying to tell the story that war is bad mmmmkay, it also tried badly to show that using animals for the entertainment of the elite is bad... crikey I can go on, did you not notice any of that? Or just not think about it?
Formosa wrote: Canto blight was their rather poor attempt to do a social commentary
But not from any real left-wing point of view. "Child slavery and getting rich selling guns to the Nazis" is hardly a message that is unique to the left, and the "guns are bad, both sides are the same" message that comes closest to anything unique to the left is presented as a self-serving rationalization by a villain trying to justify his betrayal.
the “equality” part can be seen by just looking at the cast, every bad guy has to be a white male
Well yes, that's usually what happens when your bad guys are Nazis in space.
they literally had a purple haired feminist front and centre
They didn't. Holdo has nothing to do with feminism.
or do you think the cast choice and costume design was an accident
And there you go, making my point. You assume that it must be heavy-handed progressive politics because the characters aren't all white men with their natural hair color.
the whole movie is rather badly trying to tell the story that war is bad mmmmkay
Did you miss the part where all of the heroes of the story are soldiers and fighting against the space-Nazis is presented as an unquestioned good thing? The only time anyone ever disputes the idea of fighting against the space-Nazis is in the form of "jumping in an x-wing and shooting stuff is not the full extent of military strategy".
it also tried badly to show that using animals for the entertainment of the elite is bad...
This is heavy-handed progressive politics? I mean, on the list of progressive causes "using animals is bad" is down at the irrelevant bottom, if it exists at all. Nobody in the left gives a about what PETA thinks.
I get the animals and war profiteering (though I think both were handled poorly). But whats the connection between purple hair and feminism? Admiral what's-her-name was appallingly ineffective if she's supposed to be a feminist symbol, and after a tour of japan, I associate purple hair with grandmothers and anime more than feminist politics. Seems to me most feminists intentionally go for a fairly drab look so their looks aren't the major feature of their image.
Are they exactly the same? Or was the issue further compounded by their obvious choice to place a woman in the role to seem “inclusive”, yes the character would have still sucked arse if it was a man, but why did they
A: choose to make it a woman with clear feminist overtones
B: choose to make her “purple haired” to fit that stereotype
During the costume, script and casting stages they clearly wanted to express this path they have chosen, why?
The simple answer is they wanted to seem progressive, the complicated answer sadly we will never know for sure.
This is a pretty good analysis of the effects of Holdo's general look. "Purple-haired" is probably less relevant than the fact that she's in nice frocks rather than Leia's practical combat clothing.
Formosa wrote: Canto blight was their rather poor attempt to do a social commentary
But not from any real left-wing point of view. "Child slavery and getting rich selling guns to the Nazis" is hardly a message that is unique to the left, and the "guns are bad, both sides are the same" message that comes closest to anything unique to the left is presented as a self-serving rationalization by a villain trying to justify his betrayal.
the “equality” part can be seen by just looking at the cast, every bad guy has to be a white male
Well yes, that's usually what happens when your bad guys are Nazis in space.
they literally had a purple haired feminist front and centre
They didn't. Holdo has nothing to do with feminism.
or do you think the cast choice and costume design was an accident
And there you go, making my point. You assume that it must be heavy-handed progressive politics because the characters aren't all white men with their natural hair color.
the whole movie is rather badly trying to tell the story that war is bad mmmmkay
Did you miss the part where all of the heroes of the story are soldiers and fighting against the space-Nazis is presented as an unquestioned good thing? The only time anyone ever disputes the idea of fighting against the space-Nazis is in the form of "jumping in an x-wing and shooting stuff is not the full extent of military strategy".
it also tried badly to show that using animals for the entertainment of the elite is bad...
This is heavy-handed progressive politics? I mean, on the list of progressive causes "using animals is bad" is down at the irrelevant bottom, if it exists at all. Nobody in the left gives a about what PETA thinks.
Ahhh I get you now, you chose not to see these things, thats cool, no problem, it doesnt make you right though you know that? it also doesnt make you wrong, its just your opinion.
Are they exactly the same? Or was the issue further compounded by their obvious choice to place a woman in the role to seem “inclusive”, yes the character would have still sucked arse if it was a man, but why did they
A: choose to make it a woman with clear feminist overtones
B: choose to make her “purple haired” to fit that stereotype
During the costume, script and casting stages they clearly wanted to express this path they have chosen, why?
The simple answer is they wanted to seem progressive, the complicated answer sadly we will never know for sure.
This is a pretty good analysis of the effects of Holdo's general look. "Purple-haired" is probably less relevant than the fact that she's in nice frocks rather than Leia's practical combat clothing.
I simply mentioned the purple hair as its the most noticable stereotype with that line of politics, you make a good point on the military uniform, or lack there off, she should also have her hair in a bun dammit! hahaha
Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.
Formosa wrote: Ahhh I get you now, you chose not to see these things, thats cool, no problem, it doesnt make you right though you know that? it also doesnt make you wrong, its just your opinion.
And you choose to put the film under a microscope looking for even the slightest hint of something that could be interpreted as "progressive", whether or not it actually aligns with any real-world political issue. I mean FFS, you're honestly trying to claim that a movie where all of the heroes are soldiers fighting a morally justified war, complete with scene after scene of glory and heroism in combat, is "telling the story that war is bad".
Voss wrote: I get the animals and war profiteering (though I think both were handled poorly). But whats the connection between purple hair and feminism? Admiral what's-her-name was appallingly ineffective if she's supposed to be a feminist symbol, and after a tour of japan, I associate purple hair with grandmothers and anime more than feminist politics. Seems to me most feminists intentionally go for a fairly drab look so their looks aren't the major feature of their image.
its a bad stereotype that connects SJW types and certain hair dyes, when you dig its a load of crap, most people dont dig though, thats why its a stereotype, given the quality of the writing of this movie, i think they just chose to play to the stereotype without actually thinking about how it would come across.
Formosa wrote: Ahhh I get you now, you chose not to see these things, thats cool, no problem, it doesnt make you right though you know that? it also doesnt make you wrong, its just your opinion.
And you choose to put the film under a microscope looking for even the slightest hint of something that could be interpreted as "progressive", whether or not it actually aligns with any real-world political issue. I mean FFS, you're honestly trying to claim that a movie where all of the heroes are soldiers fighting a morally justified war, complete with scene after scene of glory and heroism in combat, is "telling the story that war is bad".
I dont need to put the film under a microscope, I just noticed something you havent, and thats ok, if you wish to be insulted over that, thats your hang up, not mine.
and Yep its saying war is bad, because that was one of the reason for the canto blight scene, also that essentially war is futile, because even though the rebellion won the last war, none of it mattered and the empire... ahem... first order still came back and are winning again... bad storytelling that.
Perhaps you should watch the film again with a different mind set and see if you agree, I have done and I found certain parts more acceptable because of it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.
I noticed that too. It's...yeah.
They aren't there to free slaves, they are there to get away with the maguffin that is supposed to save the rebel fleet.
Giant alien horse thingies are a lot better for escaping pursuit.
Thats not entirely true. That sequence also had a moral message about slavery. Sure, freeing the animals wasn't their primary objective, but Rose took the time to moralise about the evils of slavery, the mistreatment of the animals and how she wanted to set them free.
...whilst leaving the human(oid?) slaves behind in slavery.
Do you not see how the film undermined itself there?
Formosa wrote: its a bad stereotype that connects SJW types and certain hair dyes, when you dig its a load of crap, most people dont dig though, thats why its a stereotype, given the quality of the writing of this movie, i think they just chose to play to the stereotype without actually thinking about how it would come across.
It's a bad stereotype, and not one that is all that well known (outside of anti-SJWs). And it's a superficial one, even if you grant that the stereotype is true nothing else about Holdo has anything to do with feminism. You don't see a purple-haired feminist icon doing feminist things, or relating to any real-world feminist issues. They don't play the stereotype at all outside of the hair dye. It's debatable that this is a feminist statement at all, and it's certainly not a heavy-handed one when you have to explain how this one minor attribute is so symbolic.
The much more likely truth of the situation is that purple hair is just one more thing in a long list of Star Wars having fashion choices that would be weird in the real world. Having her hair and clothes be different makes her stand out visually from the crowd of officers in basic uniforms or dull work clothes. Any relation to a particular stereotype about feminists is almost certainly coincidence.
Formosa wrote: its a bad stereotype that connects SJW types and certain hair dyes, when you dig its a load of crap, most people dont dig though, thats why its a stereotype, given the quality of the writing of this movie, i think they just chose to play to the stereotype without actually thinking about how it would come across.
It's a bad stereotype, and not one that is all that well known (outside of anti-SJWs). And it's a superficial one, even if you grant that the stereotype is true nothing else about Holdo has anything to do with feminism. You don't see a purple-haired feminist icon doing feminist things, or relating to any real-world feminist issues. They don't play the stereotype at all outside of the hair dye. It's debatable that this is a feminist statement at all, and it's certainly not a heavy-handed one when you have to explain how this one minor attribute is so symbolic.
The much more likely truth of the situation is that purple hair is just one more thing in a long list of Star Wars having fashion choices that would be weird in the real world. Having her hair and clothes be different makes her stand out visually from the crowd of officers in basic uniforms or dull work clothes. Any relation to a particular stereotype about feminists is almost certainly coincidence.
Oh come on peregrine, you damn well know its a very well known stereotype... jesus mate
If thats the case it shows how out of touch they are with the current times, and would explain somewhat how bad the movie turned out to be.
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
It is tokenism. China is a huge audience and brings in huge revenues, but they only do it if they are interested. Putting in a Chinese protagonist gives China another incentive to pay the ticket and watch the movie, because people can identify better with people of their race, because that's how people are. If you put a russian protagonist in a hollywood movie, it will sell more in Russia than the same movie without the Russian protagonist. a lot more.
So no, it is not sexism and it is not racism. Rose is there to sell cinema tickets to China. This is not a bad thing. Many movies did this the last years (the Martian, the Great Wall, X-Men: Days of future past, Looper changed the scenes from Paris to China, Doctor Strange changed the Mystic from a Thibetan monk to something generic, in IronMan 3 Mandarin is no longer a chinese villain as in the comics, World War Z changed from china zombies (book) to Jerusalem zombies (movie), Warcraft movie was saved solely because of getting a Chinese director - WoW was even banned in China for many years because of Daemons and Undead NPC's, the embargo was only lifted in Mists of Pandaria (an expansion that smelled 100% china) so there were no diehard fans, or at least no more diehard than USA where the movie flopped terribly etc).
Hollywood wants to attract China and they do it by showing more and more Chinese actors and scenes. And this is not bad. So it is not bad at all that Rose is Chinese. But also it is not sexist to denote this point. It is just what it is. If they put a "white male" in place of Rose, the role would be equally irrelevant, only it wouldn't sell to China as much. Rose's character is 100% a filler. She achieved nothing, she contributed nothing to the film, save for denying Finn a moment of self sacrifice. Oh and she saved the animals. And it is not a bad thing to say this.
Don't throw the sexism/racism bomb on the very first second of an argument, otherwise it loses its power when it is really needed.
Formosa wrote: I dont need to put the film under a microscope, I just noticed something you havent, and thats ok, if you wish to be insulted over that, thats your hang up, not mine.
You noticed something that doesn't exist. You don't have superior powers of observation compared to me, you just make too many assumptions that aren't correct.
and Yep its saying war is bad, because that was one of the reason for the canto blight scene
Then you didn't watch the same movie as the rest of us. The message presented is that selling guns to Nazis is bad, not that war in general is bad. The character who says "both sides are equally bad" does so as a self-serving rationalization for being willing to betray anyone for the right price, and the protagonists go right back to their jobs as soldiers fighting for the noble cause without any hesitation or signs of doubt. And the movie goes right back to presenting the resistance soldiers as noble heroes fighting against the obvious evil of the space Nazis.
also that essentially war is futile, because even though the rebellion won the last war, none of it mattered and the empire... ahem... first order still came back and are winning again... bad storytelling that.
That isn't an anti-war message, it's just milking the nostalgia cash cow and a lack of imagination in creating the villains for the new movies. Nobody in the resistance says "none of this matters", the war against the space Nazis is always presented as the heroic thing to do, and the movie ends on a note of "we lost the battle, but we will win the war".
Formosa wrote: I dont need to put the film under a microscope, I just noticed something you havent, and thats ok, if you wish to be insulted over that, thats your hang up, not mine.
1. You noticed something that doesn't exist. You don't have superior powers of observation compared to me, you just make too many assumptions that aren't correct.
and Yep its saying war is bad, because that was one of the reason for the canto blight scene
2. Then you didn't watch the same movie as the rest of us. The message presented is that selling guns to Nazis is bad, not that war in general is bad. The character who says "both sides are equally bad" does so as a self-serving rationalization for being willing to betray anyone for the right price, and the protagonists go right back to their jobs as soldiers fighting for the noble cause without any hesitation or signs of doubt. And the movie goes right back to presenting the resistance soldiers as noble heroes fighting against the obvious evil of the space Nazis.
also that essentially war is futile, because even though the rebellion won the last war, none of it mattered and the empire... ahem... first order still came back and are winning again... bad storytelling that.
That isn't an anti-war message, it's just milking the nostalgia cash cow and a lack of imagination in creating the villains for the new movies. Nobody in the resistance says "none of this matters", the war against the space Nazis is always presented as the heroic thing to do, and the movie ends on a note of "we lost the battle, but we will win the war".
1. LOL
2. you need to watch the movie again, because that wasn't the hackers ship, they stole it from a merchant who was dealing to both sides. It's a metaphore for the current situation in the middle east, the soldiers do the dying so the military complex and arms dealers get rich.
You noticed something that doesn't exist. You don't have superior powers of observation compared to me, you just make too many assumptions that aren't correct
Yes I did, and Yes I have, thanks for noticing, and its an assumption in your opinion, thats all
Then you didn't watch the same movie as the rest of us. The message presented is that selling guns to Nazis is bad, not that war in general is bad. The character who says "both sides are equally bad" does so as a self-serving rationalization for being willing to betray anyone for the right price, and the protagonists go right back to their jobs as soldiers fighting for the noble cause without any hesitation or signs of doubt. And the movie goes right back to presenting the resistance soldiers as noble heroes fighting against the obvious evil of the space Nazis.
Thats your opinion, not a fact, thanks for sharing it
That isn't an anti-war message, it's just milking the nostalgia cash cow and a lack of imagination in creating the villains for the new movies. Nobody in the resistance says "none of this matters", the war against the space Nazis is always presented as the heroic thing to do, and the movie ends on a note of "we lost the battle, but we will win the war".
Again trying to pass off your opinion as fact, you do know the difference dont you Peregrine?
No, you're missing the idea of what tokenism is. Tokenism is having a character that exists solely to fill a race/gender/whatever quota. Like, giving the white main character a token black friend who appears in a couple of scenes and contributes nothing to the story. Or having a one-dimensional character who does little more than yell "LOOK HOW BLACK/GAY/ETC I AM" and then get talked about a bunch in PR material. And it's usually in the context of the other characters having little or no diversity (or even a message opposed to the token's identity) and the token being used as a way to deflect criticism from the rest of the characters.
Whether or not you like Rose and her part of the story she doesn't match that at all. She is the primary driving force in a major story element, and nothing about her character or story says "my race is important, pay attention to it". The person playing the character just happens to be Vietnamese-American. You can speculate about profit-focused reasons for choosing that particular person, but that's not the same as tokenism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: Thats your opinion, not a fact, thanks for sharing it
Sigh. This is really what you're going to resort to? "WELL THATS JUST YOUR OPINION MAN"? After you presented your interpretation of the movie as objective truth, that I'm just too oblivious to notice?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: 2. you need to watch the movie again, because that wasn't the hackers ship, they stole it from a merchant who was dealing to both sides.
I never said it was the hacker's ship, I said it was the hacker making the argument that both sides are bad.
It's a metaphore for the current situation in the middle east, the soldiers do the dying so the military complex and arms dealers get rich.
It's a pretty clumsy metaphor then, given the fact that the issue with the wars in the middle east is that they're pointless wars. The objection to them is not that arms dealers make money, it's that we're throwing away lives and money trying to pick sides in a region where everyone is a bunch of s with grudges going back centuries, even our supposed allies are pretty awful, and there's no apparent plan for actually winning the war. The war in TLJ, on the other hand, is presented as a virtuous struggle against the space Nazis, much more like WWII than modern wars.
And, again, remember that the person presenting the metaphor is a villain using it as a self-serving rationalization. That's kind of the exact opposite of the movie endorsing the message.
If it isn't realistic then it isn't plausible either. I accept that you're willing to allow a lack of realism because it's fiction, but you can't simultaneously accept the lack of realism in this case and insist on realism when it comes to Rey and the sequel-era movies.
Realism and plausibility are two entirely different things. Realism hinges on adherence to the way things are in the real world, while plausibility hinges on the way things are within a presented universe. The Star Wars universe is not, nor has it ever been, presented as realistic. However, the things that transpire in the OT are plausible.
I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth regarding Rey (please stop), but she is an implausible character; much like Anakin in TPM.
No, you're missing the idea of what tokenism is. Tokenism is having a character that exists solely to fill a race/gender/whatever quota. Like, giving the white main character a token black friend who appears in a couple of scenes and contributes nothing to the story. Or having a one-dimensional character who does little more than yell "LOOK HOW BLACK/GAY/ETC I AM" and then get talked about a bunch in PR material. And it's usually in the context of the other characters having little or no diversity (or even a message opposed to the token's identity) and the token being used as a way to deflect criticism from the rest of the characters.
Whether or not you like Rose and her part of the story she doesn't match that at all. She is the primary driving force in a major story element, and nothing about her character or story says "my race is important, pay attention to it". The person playing the character just happens to be Vietnamese-American. You can speculate about profit-focused reasons for choosing that particular person, but that's not the same as tokenism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: Thats your opinion, not a fact, thanks for sharing it
Sigh. This is really what you're going to resort to? "WELL THATS JUST YOUR OPINION MAN"? After you presented your interpretation of the movie as objective truth, that I'm just too oblivious to notice?
Yep, Especilaly when I said as much a few pages back, you have interpreted it in one way, I have interpreted it in another way, while I may agree and disagree with some of what you said, I am not trying to convince you to see it My way, just expressing my opinion, it’s ok that you didn’t notice any of the things that I’ve brought up, not everyone is the same and you can’t expect everyone to see things the same way.
Like I said before if you find that an insult, that’s your own hang up, not anyone else’s.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.
I noticed that too. It's...yeah.
They aren't there to free slaves, they are there to get away with the maguffin that is supposed to save the rebel fleet.
Giant alien horse thingies are a lot better for escaping pursuit.
Thats not entirely true. That sequence also had a moral message about slavery. Sure, freeing the animals wasn't their primary objective, but Rose took the time to moralise about the evils of slavery, the mistreatment of the animals and how she wanted to set them free.
...whilst leaving the human(oid?) slaves behind in slavery.
Do you not see how the film undermined itself there?
Again lazy writing - "oh looks we are deep and meaningful" - "but it doesn't make sense" "Yeah but its so subversive, just don't undermine the message man"
A more ambitious or comptetant director might have done something with this but not this one.
I know this is EU territory, but has anyone actually seen the description behind Holdo's planet?
Spoiler:
Gatalenta was a warm, uncommonly tranquil planet famed for its tea, lengthy, erudite poetry and meditative retreats. Natives of Gatalenta were renowned for their calmness and serenity, and rose each day to thank the planet's multiple suns for rising. Love and compassion were taught and practiced fondly by the people of Gatalenta, and crying openly was considered a virtue and proof of a caring heart. The Gatalentan people were also known for living austerely, with the only colorful parts of their attire being traditional red cloaks. They were ruled by the Council of Mothers. Slavery was illegal on the planet, and slaves were not allowed to be brought to the planet. If a slave was brought there, and their master was caught, the slave was set free.[
I have come to suspect that the major impetus for the prequels was toy licensing.
In 1976, none of the major companies wanted to make SW toys. Lucas got stuck with Kenner and ended up splitting a nickel with Fox for every dollar of toy profits. Kenner could keep the license indefinitely as long as it paid a $5,000 residual to LucasFilm annually. In 1987, Tonka acquired Kenner and, in 1991, both were acquired by Hasbro. Hasbro overlooked paying the $5,000 to LucasFilm such that the license reverted. At that point, Lucas started mentioning re-releasing the OT and possibly making new movies. The toy industry fell all over itself bidding for the license, which Hasbro eventually resecured under undisclosed terms.
This is a pretty good analysis of the effects of Holdo's general look. "Purple-haired" is probably less relevant than the fact that she's in nice frocks rather than Leia's practical combat clothing.
I simply mentioned the purple hair as its the most noticable stereotype with that line of politics, you make a good point on the military uniform, or lack there off, she should also have her hair in a bun dammit! hahaha
Did you read the article? I think it made some good discussion points, even if you might disagree with them (it would at least give you somethings solid to argue with, rather than just having a vague dislike of "feminism").
I think in a rebellion she shouldn't necessarily have her hair in a bun or be wearing a uniform. One of the points of the interaction between Holdo, Leia, and Poe is the recognition that the Resistance is for everyone; it has room for wild maverick flyboys and a careful, considered approach, for strokes of genius and long-term campaigns, for sacrifice and for careful management of resources. It certainly has room for funny hair.
timetowaste85 wrote: Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.
I don't feel like JJ does "get" Star Wars. Or scale. Or storytelling. Or directing. Or much of anything. He has to be one of the worst directors making big budget films today, and I have absolutely no hope for Episode 9. It would take a Herculean effort to convince me that JJ has the writing chops to put this shattered mess of a trilogy back together.
timetowaste85 wrote: Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.
I don't feel like JJ does "get" Star Wars. Or scale. Or storytelling. Or directing. Or much of anything. He has to be one of the worst directors making big budget films today, and I have absolutely no hope for Episode 9. It would take a Herculean effort to convince me that JJ has the writing chops to put this shattered mess of a trilogy back together.
Episode 7 was quite fun but nothing special
Episode 8 was a horrible train wreck
Episode 9 will probably just be Ok but won't see me wasting hours at the cinema again for a SW film.
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
It is tokenism. China is a huge audience and brings in huge revenues, but they only do it if they are interested. Putting in a Chinese protagonist gives China another incentive to pay the ticket and watch the movie, because people can identify better with people of their race, because that's how people are. If you put a russian protagonist in a hollywood movie, it will sell more in Russia than the same movie without the Russian protagonist. a lot more.
So no, it is not sexism and it is not racism. Rose is there to sell cinema tickets to China. This is not a bad thing. Many movies did this the last years (the Martian, the Great Wall, X-Men: Days of future past, Looper changed the scenes from Paris to China, Doctor Strange changed the Mystic from a Thibetan monk to something generic, in IronMan 3 Mandarin is no longer a chinese villain as in the comics, World War Z changed from china zombies (book) to Jerusalem zombies (movie), Warcraft movie was saved solely because of getting a Chinese director - WoW was even banned in China for many years because of Daemons and Undead NPC's, the embargo was only lifted in Mists of Pandaria (an expansion that smelled 100% china) so there were no diehard fans, or at least no more diehard than USA where the movie flopped terribly etc).
Hollywood wants to attract China and they do it by showing more and more Chinese actors and scenes. And this is not bad. So it is not bad at all that Rose is Chinese. But also it is not sexist to denote this point. It is just what it is. If they put a "white male" in place of Rose, the role would be equally irrelevant, only it wouldn't sell to China as much. Rose's character is 100% a filler. She achieved nothing, she contributed nothing to the film, save for denying Finn a moment of self sacrifice. Oh and she saved the animals. And it is not a bad thing to say this.
Don't throw the sexism/racism bomb on the very first second of an argument, otherwise it loses its power when it is really needed.
I thought the actress who played Rose was Vietnamese actress who was unknown in China. That is not the same thing as hiring a Chinese actress pandering purposes. I hope the actress was not chosen for her ethnicity at all, and her not being white is just a matter of demographics in whatever large city the film was cast in. The U.S. has a lot more diversity in its population than you ever see in Star Wars films, and it would be weird not to see more diversity on film.
(Although to be fair I believe her sister was played by a higher profile actress known in Chinese cinema, so I suppose that could be described as pandering.)
timetowaste85 wrote: Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.
I don't feel like JJ does "get" Star Wars. Or scale. Or storytelling. Or directing. Or much of anything. He has to be one of the worst directors making big budget films today, and I have absolutely no hope for Episode 9. It would take a Herculean effort to convince me that JJ has the writing chops to put this shattered mess of a trilogy back together.
Episode 7 was quite fun but nothing special
Episode 8 was a horrible train wreck
Episode 9 will probably just be Ok but won't see me wasting hours at the cinema again for a SW film.
I found TFA to be worse than TLJ. It was dumb, dumb, dumb fun up until the Falcon left Jakku, but from that point on the film just gakked the bed again and again, except for some of the Kylo Ren scenes. A lot of the criticism for TLJ is how it treated established OT characters and the setting, but for me TFA was far worse in both regards. Also, JJ's mystery boxes really piss me off to no end, and RJ burning them actually bumped up my estimation of him quite a bit even if that was a poor choice for a trilogy film.
Has JJ ever stuck a landing in anything he's made? The best film of his I can think of is Super 8, and the ending of that film is all kinds of terribad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I know this is EU territory, but has anyone actually seen the description behind Holdo's planet?
Spoiler:
Gatalenta was a warm, uncommonly tranquil planet famed for its tea, lengthy, erudite poetry and meditative retreats. Natives of Gatalenta were renowned for their calmness and serenity, and rose each day to thank the planet's multiple suns for rising. Love and compassion were taught and practiced fondly by the people of Gatalenta, and crying openly was considered a virtue and proof of a caring heart. The Gatalentan people were also known for living austerely, with the only colorful parts of their attire being traditional red cloaks. They were ruled by the Council of Mothers. Slavery was illegal on the planet, and slaves were not allowed to be brought to the planet. If a slave was brought there, and their master was caught, the slave was set free.[
That's pretty funny. It reminds me of the old EU, where every character we see on screen comes from a species whose entire culture is focused around the profession of that character. It is the laziest writing, although I have to wonder if the Holdo planet description isn't a knowing self-parody with a sharp jab at the film's Canto Bight subplot.
No, you're missing the idea of what tokenism is. Tokenism is having a character that exists solely to fill a race/gender/whatever quota. Like, giving the white main character a token black friend who appears in a couple of scenes and contributes nothing to the story. Or having a one-dimensional character who does little more than yell "LOOK HOW BLACK/GAY/ETC I AM" and then get talked about a bunch in PR material. And it's usually in the context of the other characters having little or no diversity (or even a message opposed to the token's identity) and the token being used as a way to deflect criticism from the rest of the characters.
Whether or not you like Rose and her part of the story she doesn't match that at all. She is the primary driving force in a major story element, and nothing about her character or story says "my race is important, pay attention to it". The person playing the character just happens to be Vietnamese-American. You can speculate about profit-focused reasons for choosing that particular person, but that's not the same as tokenism.
to start with:
tokenism: The practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from under-represented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.
lucasarts has been tooting the diversity horn since the relaunch. The PR was all about how diverse the cast is, and look, here you are deflecting criticism away from the characters like lucas arts has been doing. If you hate rose, you're a sexists, it's like JJ tweeting those who hate the movie just hate strong women.
so in essence you're agreeing with it being tokenism, you just refuse to see it that way.
Star Wars: TFA - nothing special but good fun
Star Trek - Really enjoyed all of his ST films
Mission Impossibe is now a much better Bond series than Bond
First 2 seasons of Alias were great
Isn't it interesting that Ghost in the Shell is accused of being whitewashed because they put a blonde European into the role of a Japanese woman, and it's also apparently wrong to put an oriental actress into a role in Star Wars which doesn't any previous racial definition?
Perhaps it would be less tokenistic if all of the roles were played by white men.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.
I noticed that too. It's...yeah.
They aren't there to free slaves, they are there to get away with the maguffin that is supposed to save the rebel fleet.
Giant alien horse thingies are a lot better for escaping pursuit.
Thats not entirely true. That sequence also had a moral message about slavery. Sure, freeing the animals wasn't their primary objective, but Rose took the time to moralise about the evils of slavery, the mistreatment of the animals and how she wanted to set them free.
...whilst leaving the human(oid?) slaves behind in slavery.
Do you not see how the film undermined itself there?
No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.
Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
It is tokenism. China is a huge audience and brings in huge revenues, but they only do it if they are interested. Putting in a Chinese protagonist gives China another incentive to pay the ticket and watch the movie, because people can identify better with people of their race, because that's how people are. If you put a russian protagonist in a hollywood movie, it will sell more in Russia than the same movie without the Russian protagonist. a lot more.
So no, it is not sexism and it is not racism. Rose is there to sell cinema tickets to China. This is not a bad thing. Many movies did this the last years (the Martian, the Great Wall, X-Men: Days of future past, Looper changed the scenes from Paris to China, Doctor Strange changed the Mystic from a Thibetan monk to something generic, in IronMan 3 Mandarin is no longer a chinese villain as in the comics, World War Z changed from china zombies (book) to Jerusalem zombies (movie), Warcraft movie was saved solely because of getting a Chinese director - WoW was even banned in China for many years because of Daemons and Undead NPC's, the embargo was only lifted in Mists of Pandaria (an expansion that smelled 100% china) so there were no diehard fans, or at least no more diehard than USA where the movie flopped terribly etc).
Hollywood wants to attract China and they do it by showing more and more Chinese actors and scenes. And this is not bad. So it is not bad at all that Rose is Chinese. But also it is not sexist to denote this point. It is just what it is. If they put a "white male" in place of Rose, the role would be equally irrelevant, only it wouldn't sell to China as much. Rose's character is 100% a filler. She achieved nothing, she contributed nothing to the film, save for denying Finn a moment of self sacrifice. Oh and she saved the animals. And it is not a bad thing to say this.
Don't throw the sexism/racism bomb on the very first second of an argument, otherwise it loses its power when it is really needed.
I thought the actress who played Rose was Vietnamese actress who was unknown in China. That is not the same thing as hiring a Chinese actress pandering purposes. I hope the actress was not chosen for her ethnicity at all, and her not being white is just a matter of demographics in whatever large city the film was cast in. The U.S. has a lot more diversity in its population than you ever see in Star Wars films, and it would be weird not to see more diversity on film.
(Although to be fair I believe her sister was played by a higher profile actress known in Chinese cinema, so I suppose that could be described as pandering.)
She actually is American from Vietnamese parents:
Tran was born on January 17, 1989 in San Diego, California. Her parents are refugee migrants from Vietnam who fled the country following the Vietnam War.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Also, JJ's mystery boxes really piss me off to no end, and RJ burning them actually bumped up my estimation of him quite a bit even if that was a poor choice for a trilogy film.
I don't dislike Abrams as much as you, but I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. I know some people have characterized TLJ as a big 'FU' to Abrams, but really there was a fair amount of 'FU' in what Abrams did with TFA.
Loading a SW movie up with mystery boxes and a cliffhanger ending are questionable moves on their own, but real jackhole moves when another director is being given the next installment. It's no wonder they gave it back to Abrams...clearly he didn't want to give the other directors the room to tell their own stories.
While I enjoyed TFA overall, from a creative standpoint it was quite a turd sandwich that RJ was forced to take a big bite from. I hazard to guess that TLJ wouldn't have been such a subversive response piece had RJ not been boxed in on so many fronts. TFA wasn't how you start a trilogy that's going to be a group effort. Of course, RJ's installment probably torpedoed Abrams' ideas, and as a result we'll probably get a fairly straightforward action flick with ep. 9.
So we're back to this nonsense about how Rian Johnson had no room for creative freedom and therefore had to lash out against everything TFA set up?
Again: No. Johnson was hired to direct the second episode in a series, where the first episode was a huge success. His job was to develop and deepen the points set up in TFA, not contain or retract them. Now we have no set up for a third film. Episode IX will basically be a soft reboot, a la Revenge of the Sith.
I don't think TFA is as subversive as some people are claiming. It's a matter of perspective and the future audience.
For one thing, we've had 6 films about the Skywalker family and it's time to let someone else have a go at being the main interest.
For a second, all the actors from the original films are too old (and dead in Carrie Fisher's case) to be convincing action heroes for a young audience. Otherwise you turn SW into Red in Spaaace, with a bunch of retirees subverting convention in a comic way by being over the hill but still badaaaas. Does anyone want to see an 80-year-old Harrison Ford as Han Solo with a Zimmer frame?
From both these points, the flame has to pass to a new generation.
The third point is that the modern audience includes the Millenial generation and their children.These people actually are a lot more in favour of social justice than the average of several decades ago. They like having non-white actors in major roles. If there was any sex n Star Wars, it probably would have a bit of non-hetero flavour, but Disney are aiming for a 12 certificate.
For a fourth point, the Millenials also are a lot more media savvy than us older folks. They are far more comfortable with convoluted plots and story arcs, and "hidden" information. Their ability to read a visual "text" has been developed due to the many improvements (or at least, changes) in the way films and TV are written now compared to 40 years ago.
Re-considering TLJ, I think the writers put a lot of thought into addressing these factors.
You may not think it was done right. However, we should be honest with ourselves and recognise that, while a lot of people hated the film, a lot more people like it, hence the overall rating of just under 68%..
gorgon wrote: Loading a SW movie up with mystery boxes and a cliffhanger ending are questionable moves on their own, but real jackhole moves when another director is being given the next installment. It's no wonder they gave it back to Abrams...clearly he didn't want to give the other directors the room to tell their own stories.
A Star Wars trilogy is not an appropriate place for directors to tell their own story. That might work in the likes of Indiana Jones, where each movie is it's own separate self contained stand alone story. But Star Wars has always been a Saga. It tells a continuous story across a trilogy of movies.
Rian Johnson quite frankly was a poor choice for the middle act of a trilogy film. He should have been relegated to a stand alone Star Wars Story movie like Rogue One or Solo. Or at the very least, given the opening Part of a 3 Part trilogy, so his successor could work with and build on whatever he does, instead of having get the train back on rails after he deliberately and gleefully derailed it.
Instead he was given free reign to do whatever the feth he pleased with the middle act of a multi billion Franchise's sequel trilogy, and he made a bonfire out of everything that the previous director set up for him because Rian knows best and his Vision is paramount to the detriment of the overall trilogy.
Kilkrazy, you make it sound like TLJ was inevitable. But it was a reaction against an even more successful movie, TFA. TFA was not only more successful but a lot less polarizing. TLJ did not have to be the way that it was at all. That is the point of people who say Rian Johnson bravely and boldly turned away from JJ Abrams's lead.
Perhaps Disney will learn that a trilogy needs a unified vision. You can't have part 2 be a backlash against part 1, especially when part 1 was really well-received.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think TFA is as subversive as some people are claiming. It's a matter of perspective and the future audience.
For one thing, we've had 6 films about the Skywalker family and it's time to let someone else have a go at being the main interest.
In a series of 9. Finish the Skywalker story, then move on. Don't just nuke it in the middle of the final arc. That's asinine and poor writing, no matter how you spin it.
I thought TFA was a shallow and unoriginal remixing of A New Hope, but JJ Abram's "Mystery Box" was interesting enough to give me the impression that it was setting up for a deeper and more compelling story to come in TLJ.
I mean hell, I thought Snoke was going to be Disney's adaptation of Darth Vitiate/Emperor Valkorian, an ancient Sith spirit who sustained his life by possessing new hosts and consuming the Force itself, slaying entire planetary populations in the process. I thought Snoke's obsession with finding an apprentice with the right balance of Light and Dark was about him finding the ideal host for his spirit to posses. Thats's why he keeps Kylo Ren close whilst not teaching him too much, and why he suddenly becomes interested when a new and potentially more powerful candidate (Rey) materializes.
But nope, none of that foreshadowing (as I perceived it to be) matters because Rian fething Johnson knows best and he's subverting our expectations y'all.
I mean, subverting expectations isn't always a bad thing, but I would prefer that a move did not subvert my expectations by being...gak.
Rey falling to the Dark Side and Joining Kylo Ren, or swapping sides with him entirely with Kylo Ren being redeemed by his mother Leia would have subverted my expectations in a much better way. I would love to see Rey fall to the Dark Side.
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't it interesting that Ghost in the Shell is accused of being whitewashed because they put a blonde European into the role of a Japanese woman, and it's also apparently wrong to put an oriental actress into a role in Star Wars which doesn't any previous racial definition?
Perhaps it would be less tokenistic if all of the roles were played by white men.
it would be less tokenistic if they made her a well developed character and not some crazed stalker who fall for the first guy she sees. Who then sexually assaults, after declaring her love for him. she comes off as a crazed stalker, and in no way a role model of any kind nor flattering towards asains.
isn't hiring people just because their white, discriminatory? so it's also as discriminatory to hire someone just because their asian? Yes to both.
Shouldn't they hire the best people for the jobs in front of and behind the camera? hiring for "diversity" is the modern form of discrimination. Where the races of the people working for you matter more than the qualifications. equallity is about hiring the best person for the job, irreguardless of gender or race, hiring them to check diversity boxes is highly discriminatory and racist.
Why couldn't they leave rey as finns love interest? what's wrong with a black & white interracial couple that lucasarts put a quick halt to that? There is some racism going on with the new star wars movies, but it has nothing to do with the audience.
Manchu wrote: Kilkrazy, you make it sound like TLJ was inevitable. But it was a reaction against an even more successful movie, TFA. TFA was not only more successful but a lot less polarizing. TLJ did not have to be the way that it was at all. That is the point of people who say Rian Johnson bravely and boldly turned away from JJ Abrams's lead.
Perhaps Disney will learn that a trilogy needs a unified vision. You can't have part 2 be a backlash against part 1, especially when part 1 was really well-received.
I'm not sure that TFA was really that much less polarizing. I know a lot of people who felt as I did when it came out, and none of us came right out with our feelings in a blunt manner. We soft balled our opinions and danced around the criticisms because the movie was such a juggernaut and the fans were just as hostile to criticism them. Suggesting TFA wasn't the greatest thing, on par with ROTJ or better, was tantamount to heresy, and I got a lot of flack for even stating that much. Plus, having seen the reaction to ST Into Darkness, we knew we could just wait a year or two for the high to wear off and popular opinion of TFA would be very different. By the time TLJ came out, the "haters" were tired of holding their tongues.
Also, the critical response to TFA wasn't the absolute bait that the critical response to TLJ was. Paid shills would have been more subtle.
And for the record, I agree that Rian Johnson had one job on TLJ and he didn't do it. Still, I got to respect him for taking a look at what he was given, tapping his inner Yu Law, and going out with his head and his middle fingers held high.
Kilkrazy wrote: Isn't it interesting that Ghost in the Shell is accused of being whitewashed because they put a blonde European into the role of a Japanese woman, and it's also apparently wrong to put an oriental actress into a role in Star Wars which doesn't any previous racial definition?
Perhaps it would be less tokenistic if all of the roles were played by white men.
it would be less tokenistic if they made her a well developed character and not some crazed stalker who fall for the first guy she sees. Who then sexually assaults, after declaring her love for him. she comes off as a crazed stalker, and in no way a role model of any kind nor flattering towards asains.
isn't hiring people just because their white, discriminatory? so it's also as discriminatory to hire someone just because their asian? Yes to both.
Shouldn't they hire the best people for the jobs in front of and behind the camera? hiring for "diversity" is the modern form of discrimination. Where the races of the people working for you matter more than the qualifications. equallity is about hiring the best person for the job, irreguardless of gender or race, hiring them to check diversity boxes is highly discriminatory and racist.
Why couldn't they leave rey as finns love interest? what's wrong with a black & white interracial couple that lucasarts put a quick halt to that? There is some racism going on with the new star wars movies, but it has nothing to do with the audience.
Why do you keep claiming she was hired just because she was Asian? Do you have any proof of that?
Wow, there's a lot to get to. You guys are prolific in my off hours!
Manchu: I think you and I have very different ideas of what an inspiring hero is. Luke in TFA isn't an inspiration, he's just famous, one could say legendary, for his actions in the Civil War. But just invoking a famous person is not going to get anyone to fight the First Order. It's the difference between someone saying they knew Captain America in WWII and Cap suddenly, miraculously appearing in NY to fight aliens.
And as far as PR goes, how do you know Luke is dead? He tricked Kylo and the Order, then he vanished, like Star Wars' version of Coyote. The only ones who know definitively he died from it are Leia and Rey, possibly Kylo. We see that his stand becomes legend, though, and is exciting a new generation in a way that just being a famous person wouldn't. Even now, Luke may be walking among us, tricking and fighting the First Order...
Other stuff:
Neither Luke nor Rey are Mary Sues, because a Mary Sue is an author insert character who never fails.
Holdo did tell her command crew the plan, which she had from the beginning. Watch her, she's giving orders to her staff, requesting information, looking at charts. Poe keeps busting in and interrupting her. We know she told her staff because the older woman who introduced her is the one to fill Poe in on the transport.
Holdo's design is brilliant. She does not look military, yet she is renowned for winning a major battle. Poe himself remarks on this. This is on purpose, to make you align yourself with Poe not just because she looks out of place, but because a) you're conditioned to believe in the Plucky Hero Who Saves The Day By Bucking Hidebound Authority, and b) Poe is dressed in an identical color scheme and similar style to Han's Empire outfit, subconsciously reinforcing your trust in him as the cocky rogue.
Rey knows how to pilot the Falcon because one of her only forms of entertainment on Jakku was a flight simulator she had inside the AT-AT that she used obsessively. This is in a book, and like the crawl is something I wish was alluded to, however it is not strictly necessary to the plot. Luke also piloted an X-Wing simulator in an early version (that appears in the radio drama) to show he can do it, btw.
Rey's ability in the Force is explained in TLJ by Snoke: she is the chosen champion of the Light Side to balance Kylo Ren in the Dark Side.
Rey defeats Kylo not just because she lets go and trusts her feelings coupled with her knowledge of staff fighting, but in addition to Kylo being shot with a bowcaster which is shown to basically obliterate anything else. (Fun tidbit: apparently an idea was that Rey also tapped into the Dark Side to defeat him, watch her movements in the scene: she's very angry and stalks about like Maul. However the music cues do not support this, so it was obviously dropped post-filming)
The Resistance bombers were awesome, not because of their utility or being effective, but because they're space B-2 flying fortresses and Star Wars space combat has always been based in a WWII aesthetic. So I respect it.
And Snoke's backstory is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he's a tauntaun farmer who found a Sith holocron or the reincarnation of the Emperor from SWTOR, he's just there for Kylo Ren to usurp to prove how powerful he is, that he's grown beyond his master. Kylo Ren is the main villain for the trilogy, and this was part of his arc. Snoke's origins are what the books are for.
And I really hope they don't redeem Kylo Ren in 9, he had his shot at that, twice now, and each time he's chosen the Dark Side. He might have a moment of realization that he was wrong as everything crumbles around him, but any last minute heroic act to return him to the Light is cheap at this point, at least to me.
I'm sure there's a bunch of other stuff I missed on the last 5 pages in there.
Manchu wrote: Again: No. Johnson was hired to direct the second episode in a series, where the first episode was a huge success. His job was to develop and deepen the points set up in TFA, not contain or retract them. Now we have no set up for a third film. Episode IX will basically be a soft reboot, a la Revenge of the Sith.
I think you're missing that RJ was given a large amount of creative control over his installment. He WROTE the screenplay...he wasn't some journeyman director being handed a script to shoot by the studio. I highly doubt RJ would have come on board to effectively be the replacement, 'sequel director'. He probably expected to be set up more like ANH did for the original trilogy.
Based on what we got in TLJ and what happened with Edwards, Lord & Miller and Trevorrow, it seems clear enough that Lucasfilm and Disney wanted directors' visions at first for the SW franchise...before they started getting second thoughts about that approach.
You're right that for a linked series of movies in a massive franchise, it probably makes more business sense to make the thing a studio-driven affair with films shot by competent, non-auteur directors. See Howard on Solo, the Russos and others on many of the Marvel films, etc. But all signs point to the studio thinking very differently at the time when RJ was brought on board, and in that environment Abrams did RJ (and Trevorrow at the time) very few favors.
I don't know that I would call TLJ "inevitable" but it depends what "inevitable" means. Certain bits were inevitable. Han Solo was killed off in the earlier film. Carrie Fisher died part-way through filming, I believe.
Those two events remove three of the original trilogy heroes from the saga whatever the director of TLJ decides to do.
(The scene in which Princess Leia is sucked out the cruiser's bridge looks as if it is the scene in which she dies, acknowledging the real life death of her actress. It was quite a neat reversal of expectations to have her come back to life.)
Likewise, the casting of Poe, Finn and Rey were done before TLJ.
Despite the above, it's clear that TFA was still in some sense a revised version of ANH with the amp turned to 11.
Could TLJ have been a revised version of ESB with the amp turned to 11? How would audiences have taken that? Will 9 be a new version of RotJ? Will Disney then start to revise the Prequel trilogy?
I would like to think they have a bit more long term vision.
If we accept that there is going to be change, and for good reasons, not "just because", the difficulty is how to manage audience expectations and reactions.
Perhaps Disney will learn that a trilogy needs a unified vision. You can't have part 2 be a backlash against part 1, especially when part 1 was really well-received.
Disney doesn't see TLJ as part of a trilogy, it sees TLJ as part of a franchise. What Disney cares about is keeping eyes on Star Wars so it can sell associated merch, and controversy keeps eyes on a brand.
Could TLJ have been a revised version of ESB with the amp turned to 11? How would audiences have taken that? Will 9 be a new version of RotJ? Will Disney then start to revise the Prequel trilogy?
TLJ is a bad scif channel version of ESB with a vast budget and poor direction. They chnaged the order of some events, removed any decent characters and made it as illogical as possible.
I guess the director watched ESB, made a list of what scenes to plagerise (badly) and then added in rubbish like Casino World and the Chase of Tedium, job done.
Kilkrazy wrote: (The scene in which Princess Leia is sucked out the cruiser's bridge looks as if it is the scene in which she dies, acknowledging the real life death of her actress. It was quite a neat reversal of expectations to have her come back to life.)
This was probably the scene I found most interesting on rewatching. Seeing her pre-react to the explosion and prepare herself before being sucked out is a nice touch I kind of caught but didn't appreciate the second time. Her frozen face is also one that's more concentration than unconsciousness on review, which removes some of that initial "I just woke up in space" feel you get when you first see the scene and assume she's dead.
Could TLJ have been a revised version of ESB with the amp turned to 11? How would audiences have taken that?
TLJ did recreate the Walker v. Speeder scene, turned up to 11 with the AT-M6 being attacked by ski-speeders. The walker is bigger, and the speeders are smaller.
Ray Park is amazing, and a really nice guy to boot.
I was working at a convention he was a guest at, and at the photo booth he only had a few people come in but he was slated to be there for 15 minutes. Since it was the last slot of the day and no one else was obviously coming, all the staff there just hung out with him, chatting about stuff, taking pictures with him, etc.
At one point he started doing jumping spin kicks, and during one there was a ripping noise. He landed, looked down and said, "I really need to stop buying $200 pants."
I disagree that TPM was the best lightsaber battle, though. While it had flips and cool moves, it lacked the personal stakes and heart of other fights. It did contain the one moment in TPM I unequivocally enjoyed, though, when they were separated by the force fields.
Their characters were perfectly defined in those moments: Maul paces back and forth like a caged tiger, Jinn kneels to meditate and center himself, Kenobi bounces on the balls of his feet, anxious and impatient to get back in the fight. No other moment in that film had as much character as those few seconds.
Could TLJ have been a revised version of ESB with the amp turned to 11? How would audiences have taken that?
TLJ did recreate the Walker v. Speeder scene, turned up to 11 with the AT-M6 being attacked by ski-speeders. The walker is bigger, and the speeders are smaller.
There are similarities in structure and pacing, considering both films as a whole. There is an opening battle sequence, then a chase and a slow "movement" to borrow a term from symphonic structure. Then at the end there is another battle and the rebels are on the run again. It's not the whole story, of course.
But reconsider that particular scene on the white planet...
It happens at the end, not the beginning. It starts with the Rebels definitely on the back foot, already fleeing their enemies, rather than being caught by surprise.
The speeder counter-attack is a failure, but they are saved anyway by the actions of Luke.
Yet finally, rather than a more or less orderly evacuation of the whole fleet, only a handful get away, thanks to the intervention of Rey, who acts from her faith and hope.
I think it is plain that TLJ rather than revise ESB, shakes up and recasts elements into a new form with a new purpose.
By the same token, as far as PR goes, how do you know he was there? The point stands: Luke's actions at Crait don't move the propaganda needle for the Resistance.
gorgon wrote: I think you're missing that RJ was given a large amount of creative control over his installment.
So are you arguing that LucasFilm gave Rian Johnson free reign to castigate TFA? Based on what? TFA's poor performance. Can't be. Based on it's critical panning. Can't be. Based on major fan backlash. Can't be. Rian Johnson was entrusted to continue the work of JJ Abrams and blew it. That's why we don't have anything to look forward to with Episode IX barring a soft reboot set many years after the events of TLJ a la Revenge of the Sith.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't know that I would call TLJ "inevitable" but it depends what "inevitable" means.
I meant it in the sense of your post: TLJ must be the way it is because kids are SJWs (really?) who want visually muddled texts (really?), and the Skywalkers are played out (probably half true), and the original cast is too old (completely true). Even taking all of these points as true, none of it adds up to TLJ having to attack all the beats established in the very successful movie TFA. We can't pretend that TFA put RJ in a corner so that he had to make TLJ the way that it is. But another camp who also defends TLJ says that RJ is a genius because he deliberately chose not to follow JJ's lead and subverted TFA instead.
I'm sure TFA was less polarizing than TLJ. TFA had its detractors when it came out, especially focused on whether Rey is implausibly powerful and whether Kylo Ren was too pathetic. But this wasn't "SW is ruined now" type stuff. Lots of people, like me, were content to say, yes it sucks that JJ Abrams pulled this again, setting up a huge mystery, but after all it is the first episode of the trilogy. Let's see what happens guys! And then TLJ came out and the air went out of the balloon completely.
dogma wrote: Disney doesn't see TLJ as part of a trilogy, it sees TLJ as part of a franchise.
I get what you mean but that is contrary to their own statements and marketing. It seems to me that they see this trilogy as the central framework of the franchise.
frightnight wrote: I disagree that TPM was the best lightsaber battle, though. While it had flips and cool moves, it lacked the personal stakes and heart of other fights.
Absolutely agree. Just contrast to the wonderful duel at the end of TFA. Fights are about feelings first and foremost. The moves are secondary, at best.
It's obvious that the big budget, main sequence films, to borrow a term from stellar evolution, are the rocky core or perhaps the skeleton or the chassis of the franchise, on which the spin offs depend.
I think it is plain that TLJ rather than revise ESB, shakes up and recasts elements into a new form with a new purpose.
While TFA wears its inspirations more openly, both actually do really interesting things by taking familiar scenes and placing them in different parts of the narrative structure to alter their meaning and purpose.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: If people are rating ROTS 1/10 and lower than TPM and ROTC, they’re clearly talking utter bollocks.
I can see why. It's overlong, and given that it mostly 'pays off' a lot of setups that have been pretty meh to begin with I can see why people would rate it the worst.
Personally I ignore them all and just go with Clone Wars as the best stories and representations of Anakin, Kenobi et al. But the whole era barely interests me. The absolute best it got was that last season arc where Barris Offee figured out the whole plot of the prequels and was denounced by the Jedi as a traitor.
looking into rose some more I came across some much more interesting information. As of right now she's not in ep 9. I wonder how the fans who rallied behind and defended rose & holdo over the last 5 months are going to feel about the next movie without either of them.
holdo was a great admiral: she's dead jim.
Rose was awesome: She's a no show.
apparently the cast of solo get's 3 movie deals, but not her. she was just a 1 and done.
By the same token, as far as PR goes, how do you know he was there? The point stands: Luke's actions at Crait don't move the propaganda needle for the Resistance.
Because it's explicitly shown to have done in the film? The children at the end are retelling the story of Jedi Master Luke Skywalker's stand against the First Order, and excitedly acting it out with their "action figures". Then we see the young stableboy brandish the Rebellion ring, and look to the stars, inspired. That is literally the point of that scene.
By the same token, as far as PR goes, how do you know he was there? The point stands: Luke's actions at Crait don't move the propaganda needle for the Resistance.
Because it's explicitly shown to have done in the film? The children at the end are retelling the story of Jedi Master Luke Skywalker's stand against the First Order, and excitedly acting it out with their "action figures". Then we see the young stableboy brandish the Rebellion ring, and look to the stars, inspired. That is literally the point of that scene.
I haven't read the novelization. But my impression, as I have mentioned earlier ITT, was that those kids were talking about the adventures of Luke as depicted in the OT. We know from TFA that such stories are widely known in the galaxy. By contrast, there is no reason to believe that those kids heard about what happened on Crait a few minutes or hours or days before hand. Being kids, they would have grown some if it was a long time after. But the kid is the same age as when Rose showed, and I guess gave, him the ring.
sirlynchmob wrote: looking into rose some more I came across some much more interesting information. As of right now she's not in ep 9. I wonder how the fans who rallied behind and defended rose & holdo over the last 5 months are going to feel about the next movie without either of them.
holdo was a great admiral: she's dead jim.
Rose was awesome: She's a no show.
apparently the cast of solo get's 3 movie deals, but not her. she was just a 1 and done.
Two worst characters in the film - good riddence to bad rubbish. Finn was not much better, - kill him off screen and move on.
Lets have some actual female and black characters (shock maybe even a black female character) - not pointless idiots and mere comic relief
Finn is a great character. One of my favorite SW moments comes from TFA when he finds the bravery to stand up to Kylo Ren to protect his one friend in the world, Rey. It sucks that TLJ undermined him and relegated him to comedy relief with no character development.
Manchu wrote: I haven't read the novelization. But my impression, as I have mentioned earlier ITT, was that those kids were talking about the adventures of Luke as depicted in the OT. We know from TFA that such stories are widely known in the galaxy. By contrast, there is no reason to believe that those kids heard about what happened on Crait a few minutes or hours or days before hand. Being kids, they would have grown some if it was a long time after. But the kid is the same age as when Rose showed, and I guess gave, him the ring.
You don't have to read the novelization, it's right there in the film. The Luke toy is facing down a scrub brush with a giant cannon-shaped attachment on it, and there is a backstop behind the toy representing the cliff wall and door. But don't take my word for it, here's Rian Johnson to make it definitive:
'Clearly, this final shot is meant to show that the Force is strong in people who have no connection to the Skywalker bloodline. But there’s also a deeper meaning, according to director Rian Johnson – and this one does involve Luke.
“It’s mostly about Luke,” he said. “To me, it shows that the act Luke Skywalker did, of deciding to take on this mantle of ‘the legend,’ after he had decided the galaxy was better off without him, had farther reaching consequences than saving 20 people in a cave.”'
So, is that Word Of God that the Resistance is down to twenty people plus Rey and Chewy? Does Rose count in that number? If so, the Resistance is down 5% in Ep 9 before the opening crawl.
Did you forget to post a quotation of RJ saying "the kids at the end are reenacting the previous scene"? Because what you posted does not support that claim. You and I aren't arguing about whether RJ wanted to tell a story about Luke accepting his place in legend. We agree that is the case. Our disagreement is whether that has any bearing on anything else that happens in the film.
Again, it makes no sense that the kids would have heard about what happened on Crait so soon after it happened. It's just not supported by anything shown in the film.
Manchu wrote: Finn is a great character. One of my favorite SW moments comes from TFA when he finds the bravery to stand up to Kylo Ren to protect his one friend in the world, Rey. It sucks that TLJ undermined him and relegated him to comedy relief with no character development.
Finn was underutilized in TFA.
They should have done something really interesting with his past as a brainwashed, indoctrinated child soldier Stormtrooper. They could have introduced elements of PTSD, damaged emotional development, a tendency to cruelty and desensitisation to violence and suffering of others. And its only though his interactions with the Rebels that he redeems himself, recovers emotionally from his warped upbringing in the First Order and. Basically make him a rehabilitated and reformed Waffen-SS Nazi.
To achieve that, I would have made him a spy who "defects" to the Resistance as a ruse to implant a spy in their midst, but slowly goes native and has a change of heart over the course of TFA until finally culminating in him rejecting the First Order outright in TLJ in his showdown with Captain Phasma.
Instead, his time in the First Order seems to have left no lasting impression on his mental health and personality. If the movie didn't keep reminding us that he used to be in the First Order, he'd be indistinguishable from any other Rebel soldier.
Finn in TLJ felt to me like he was stereotyped and relegated to being a funny black man. Complete waste of potential.
Manchu wrote: Did you forget to post a quotation of RJ saying "the kids at the end are reenacting the previous scene"? Because what you posted does not support that claim. You and I aren't arguing about whether RJ wanted to tell a story about Luke accepting his place in legend. We agree that is the case. Our disagreement is whether that has any bearing on anything else that happens in the film.
Again, it makes no sense that the kids would have heard about what happened on Crait so soon after it happened. It's just not supported by anything shown in the film.
I'm pretty sure the kid telling the story says the words First Order. Which indicates one of two things is true:
1. He knows about Crait. Also, his language either lacks the words or even concepts for "order" and "first", or has incorporated Basic buzzwords and names The way Japanese pop stars incorporate English phrases.
2. His language has a phrase that sounds suspiciously like First Order, but means something totally different.
If there are any action scenes showing Rebels fighting Imperials in Episode IX then it will have to be set some years after the events of TLJ. That will also allow for Leia to have died and been mourned off-screen. Very convenient.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm pretty sure the kid telling the story says the words First Order. Which indicates one of two things is true:
Or more than those two things. It could be that the kid is telling about how Luke Skywalker, who everyone has heard of (including orphaned scavengers on Jakku) will someday return and fight the First Order. Because he doesn't know that Luke did appear on Crait, where he died. Or where he projected his avatar, with such great exertion that he died on Ahch-To.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Rey falling to the Dark Side and Joining Kylo Ren, or swapping sides with him entirely with Kylo Ren being redeemed by his mother Leia would have subverted my expectations in a much better way.
This is such an excellent point. Rian Johnson is praised to high heaven for subverting Star Wars but actually the film ends with a big battle between good guys who are Rebels and bad guys who are Imperials. Our main good character has resisted the Dark Side. Our main bad character is committed to villainy. Subversion?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Finn in TLJ felt to me like he was stereotyped and relegated to being a funny black man. Complete waste of potential.
Manchu wrote: Finn is a great character. One of my favorite SW moments comes from TFA when he finds the bravery to stand up to Kylo Ren to protect his one friend in the world, Rey. It sucks that TLJ undermined him and relegated him to comedy relief with no character development.
Finn was underutilized in TFA.
They should have done something really interesting with his past as a brainwashed, indoctrinated child soldier Stormtrooper. They could have introduced elements of PTSD, damaged emotional development, a tendency to cruelty and desensitisation to violence and suffering of others. And its only though his interactions with the Rebels that he redeems himself, recovers emotionally from his warped upbringing in the First Order and. Basically make him a rehabilitated and reformed Waffen-SS Nazi.
To achieve that, I would have made him a spy who "defects" to the Resistance as a ruse to implant a spy in their midst, but slowly goes native and has a change of heart over the course of TFA until finally culminating in him rejecting the First Order outright in TLJ in his showdown with Captain Phasma.
Instead, his time in the First Order seems to have left no lasting impression on his mental health and personality. If the movie didn't keep reminding us that he used to be in the First Order, he'd be indistinguishable from any other Rebel soldier.
Finn in TLJ felt to me like he was stereotyped and relegated to being a funny black man. Complete waste of potential.
Now, whilst some might just dismiss this as Avatar set in A Galaxy Far Far Away, which in turn is just Dances With Wolves in space, I think this was the way to go with Finn. Now that would have been interesting. What wasted potential.
Manchu wrote: Did you forget to post a quotation of RJ saying "the kids at the end are reenacting the previous scene"? Because what you posted does not support that claim. You and I aren't arguing about whether RJ wanted to tell a story about Luke accepting his place in legend. We agree that is the case. Our disagreement is whether that has any bearing on anything else that happens in the film.
Again, it makes no sense that the kids would have heard about what happened on Crait so soon after it happened. It's just not supported by anything shown in the film.
Elsewhere in the article it describes the scene as re-enacting Crait. We'll just have to disagree since:
A) The play scene set up is clearly Crait; again, it has a backstop to represent the cliff face, and a big, blocky cannon as the battering ram cannon, and Luke stands between them. This is clearly Crait, as there is no other scene shown in a Star Wars movie where "Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master" is in a situation anything like that. But since they don't say "Crait" or have time to finish the scene they're playing out, I guess the clear symbolism isn't enough for you.
and
B) Your other claim was that Luke's action didn't "move the needle", and Rian Johnson has now explicitly said that you are incorrect.
The symbolism is not clear to me because the movie does not lay out how it is possible that those kids would know about something that happened so soon after it happened. But again, that's my fault since Rian Johnson explicitly said I am incorrect and we know he is right and TLJ is above criticism because he said so.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Or First Order commanders deploy their troops exactly as uneducated ten year olds would deploy their toys.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The set up looked a lot like the final battle on Crait. I'm sticking to my guns on this one. That kid somehow knows what happened on Crait.
...
Or First Order commanders deploy their troops exactly as uneducated ten year olds would deploy their toys.
frightnight wrote: Rian Johnson has now explicitly said that you are incorrect.
Rian Johnson also says he made a great movie and the criticisms are not valid.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Or First Order commanders deploy their troops exactly as uneducated ten year olds would deploy their toys.
Now you're getting it.
Lol, okay, So the guy who made the movie tells you the point of the scene, but he's wrong about that because you didn't like his movie. Gotcha.
We have two competing explanations for the final scene:
It is Crait, because a theme of the film is Luke accepting his place as an inspiration and legend, even though he failed with Ben Solo, and the scene is demonstrating that by showing the kids being excited and inspired by retelling his final showdown.
It is something else, because obviously when making a movie you should refer to something else entirely when making a point about Luke becoming legend, instead of the scene that just happened and is the climax of his story arc.
I'm comfortable with saying you're both wrong and grasping at straws to keep from admitting it. But you do you.
Doesn't matter what Rian Johnson claims was the intention of the scene. Its still a gak movie. If audiences are misinterpreting specific scenes, that probably has more to do with it being a poorly written and directed movie that failed to convey the intent of the Director.
Manchu wrote: Finn is a great character. One of my favorite SW moments comes from TFA when he finds the bravery to stand up to Kylo Ren to protect his one friend in the world, Rey. It sucks that TLJ undermined him and relegated him to comedy relief with no character development.
Finn is a wasted character. You mean to tell me the Resistance has a defected Stormtrooper that's been indoctrinated from birth to be an elite soldier... and that he's a gibbering nerd?
Listen, I'm just saying- put John Boyega in the gym and give him a protein diet. Muscle him up, and in the next movie send him after the enemy with a big blaster machine gun. You cannot go wrong with this.
frightnight wrote: Rian Johnson has now explicitly said that you are incorrect.
Rian Johnson also says he made a great movie and the criticisms are not valid.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Or First Order commanders deploy their troops exactly as uneducated ten year olds would deploy their toys.
Now you're getting it.
Lol, okay, So the guy who made the movie tells you the point of the scene...
When did reading up on interviews/following twitter accounts/etc become part of the moviegoing experience?
Besides, I'd rather sit down with the entirety of the New Jedi Order than read a single sentence about Rian Johnson's opinions on anything relating to Star Wars.
Okay. It may not have been clear to either of you, but it was to me and a bunch of other folks on other boards what it meant.
You can not like the movie. You can think it's terrible. That doesn't make it so.
The scene makes perfect narrative sense, as I laid out in my previous post: Luke decides he has value, returns for final stand, becomes legend to inspire new generation of rebels. Your disagreement on the scene, besides being a stretch for thematic, narrative, and metaphorical reasons, is over bolt-counting on a thing that's never actually been defined: how long hyperspace travel takes, and how quickly information could be spread.
You can have it break your suspension of belief, lord knows I've had some weird things stick in my cinematic craw over the years. When I do, I say, "Yeah it's weird, but X just didn't work for me". Like how I like lasagna and pizza, but can't stand spaghetti.
Just understand that your objection to the scene does not break any established rules of the franchise, only your own.
The reason I did not interpret the scene as them talking about Crait is because there was no time for them to have heard about what happened on Crait. The movie simply did not establish that the kids could be talking about those events. You say this makes perfect sense?
This isn't bolt counting. According to you, this is supposed to be the main statement of the theme of the movie. But it's so botched that it doesn't come across clearly to at least some audience members.
You're literally the only person with that critique that I've encountered, and I've talked about TLJ on a lot of boards.
I guess you can't assume that some amount of time has passed, perhaps months, and the story of that battle has spread like wildfire across the galaxy, which, by the way, is part of the thematic point: Luke was a spark that lit a fire of resistance. That it spread so far and so wide is proof of how important he is/was.
It is a love letter, and I'm honestly sorry you didn't see it that way.
OK let's assume months have passed. The twenty odd people on the Millennium Falcon who could not get anyone to come help them on Crait have someone managed to spread the message that ... what? Luke Skywalker forestalled the complete destruction of the Resistance? What is inspiring about this again?
I think your previous argument was, the notion that Luke returned is the big news. But he died. So that sort of cancels out the returned part. But then you also said that they could just lie about or omit that part, right? Which cuts out the hope part, because it's a false hope. The FO is exactly as powerful as it is whether or not Luke did anything on Crait.
Maybe the point of the scene is that only a naive child could understand the preceding sequence as the prologue to the rebirth and rise of the Resistance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: that is what it felt like to me as the kid ending was executed so poorly
I agree. The scene with the kids looked and felt like a Target commercial. Leaving the impact of Luke's actions an open-ended question would suit the alleged themes of this subversion-obsessed movie much better. But ending on a down beat is risky, unless you are really confident in your work (i.e., Infinity War).
frightnight wrote: Okay. It may not have been clear to either of you, but it was to me and a bunch of other folks on other boards what it meant.
Oh no, it was clear to me. But by the time that scene was on the movie and I held each other in such contempt that there was no saving it.
I can even recall the precise moment I realised I was watching steaming garbage being poured into the audience's every sensory organ - it was soon after the Leia/space scene, and the TIE fighter action had cut away (probably to Luke/Rey). It cut back to the Raddus to a series of glum looking Rebels, talking mutedly about their hopeless situation. Suddenly I realised... hang on, this was a battle scene last time we were here, what's happening? Had to check with the guy next to me.... yep, they're apparently mid battle and just sitting around moping.
Fuel, something something something. Tracking, something something something. What happened to you Star Wars, you used to be cool.
And then Canto Bight happened. Yeah, you're never coming back from that.
It really doesn't matter if they said that Luke died or not. My point earlier was that as of the conclusion of the battle, maybe 3 people knew, and they might not tell.
Regardless, in a galaxy that was too afraid to stand up to the First Order, a galactic bully, one person did, and they won. Luke's last stand was apparently engaging and exciting enough that it spread across the galaxy in short order. Luke could be still out there, helping those in need, so the tales say, or he passed on from the battle, in which case our own history is rife with inspirational last stands that really didn't accomplish much in the grand scale of things (Alamo, Thermopylae). It's very plausible, IMO.
And I'm out for the day! I look forward to the next 5 pages you all post while I'm gone!
Manchu wrote: Finn is a great character. One of my favorite SW moments comes from TFA when he finds the bravery to stand up to Kylo Ren to protect his one friend in the world, Rey. It sucks that TLJ undermined him and relegated him to comedy relief with no character development.
Finn is a wasted character. You mean to tell me the Resistance has a defected Stormtrooper that's been indoctrinated from birth to be an elite soldier... and that he's a gibbering nerd?
Listen, I'm just saying- put John Boyega in the gym and give him a protein diet. Muscle him up, and in the next movie send him after the enemy with a big blaster machine gun. You cannot go wrong with this.
Boyega really doesn't need the whole Chris Hemsworth treatment. In Pacific Rim 2, he had the charisma to make a scene wherein he makes and eats a chocolate sundae compelling. What he needs is Jeff Goldblum as a partner.
It's pretty telling that an actor with so much screen presence was made so bland and passive. He was Sam Jacksoned by Star Wars.
Automatically Appended Next Post: About the kids--they clearly learned about Crait through the power of Christmas The Force filling their pure hearts with the gift of hope.
Besides, I'd rather sit down with the entirety of the New Jedi Order than read a single sentence about Rian Johnson's opinions on anything relating to Star Wars.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! That is a mighty strong statement there. Have you really thought about this? The whole NJO? Against a single sentence? In terms of tempting fate, this is beyond "Goblin King, Goblin King, take this baby away from me."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: The reason I did not interpret the scene as them talking about Crait is because there was no time for them to have heard about what happened on Crait. The movie simply did not establish that the kids could be talking about those events. You say this makes perfect sense?
This isn't bolt counting. According to you, this is supposed to be the main statement of the theme of the movie. But it's so botched that it doesn't come across clearly to at least some audience members.
In the sequelverse, all concept of time and space is senseless. Literally senseless. As in, the timeline makes no sense at any point. The setting makes no sense. The closer you look into any question, the farther you are from understanding. If the entire Republic can fall and the FO can bust out a huge fleet and scour the galaxy of Resistance in about a day, there's no reason to believe word could not have reached those kids before their next growth spurts.
Snake Tortoise wrote: 3. The liberal politics forced into the films turns my stomach. I hate Rose Tico and that awful purple haired woman.
Again with this nonsense. The movies (and their flaws) are exactly the same if those characters are white men. Complaining about "liberal politics" just because there are characters who aren't white men is why people comment on how criticism is motivated by sexism/racism/etc.
If Rose was a white man there would be complaining about him kissing Finn.
Isn't the NJO the Yuuzhan Vong series? I'd say it's best parts are better than TLJ's best and it's worst parts are still not as bad. Seriously, the best things about TLJ (outside of the great cinematography which I can't complain about whatsoever) are Kylo and Rey's interactions in general, particularly the throne fight scene. Luke is passable, I dislike it more and more as I think about it, but I have to admit that his arc DOES make sense even if it is disappointing.
How to fix TLJ with just redubbing and tactful editing
Spoiler:
After Hux gets roasted by Poe, Snoke says eff dis gak and just offs him. Hux clone #7 is activated.
Poe gets thrown in the brig.
The whole casino line takes place not to deactivate the hyperspace tracker, but because the contact device for Rey failed and no one can repair it.
Rey and Finn get in touch and Finn goes to the flagship to try and rescue her, but fails miserably.
The Resistance can't jump for another reason. Insert anything.
The mutiny happens in order to break Poe from the brig.
Same plan for Resistance escape, but the First Order is competent enough to track them.
Holdo rams the flagship out of spite.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's wrong with a progressive female character?
Nothing. That's why the Wonder Woman movie did so well. This is where the 'angry sexist pig' rhetoric fails, as many of the same people who hate TLJ loved Wonder Woman.
It doesn't matter what kind of character it is, if they're POORLY WRITTEN, they will not be well received. Case in point: Boba Fett. Built up heavily, then a poorly-written ending makes him look like a chump. Very much like Supreme Leader Snoke.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: Poe is admonished for jumping the gun and ignoring Leia's order to pull back. Not Holdo's orders, Leia's.
Leia is then either unwilling to order the bombers not to follow Poe - which means she must accept some of the blame for the ensuing casualties - or the bomber crews told her nope, if we don't go the Dreadnaught is going to wipe everyone out - at which point THEY must accept some of the blame for the ensuing casualties.
And if all else failed, she could have just left Poe on his own and jumped out if she thought he was THAT wrong, sparing the casualties. It's not like his ship doesn't have a hyperdrive. That she doesn't again places some of the blame on her.
If the fleet COULDN'T jump out yet, then Poe is right and the Dreadnaught NEEDS to die now before it gets into range. Which makes her subsequent reaction to Poe's actions irrational.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's hard to understand why the Department of Defense accepted TLJ for the West Point advanced staff training program.
As Formosa just said; it's a great example of what not to do as a commander.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
topaxygouroun i wrote: I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you were not in the military. A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone. Otherwise discipline goes to the dustbin and every single soldier thinks they can be a commander. If there is a need to abandon ship, a routine with actions on how to abandon the ship is already rolled out and rehearsed a hundrend times before.
Except that's not what she did. She did not give orders to abandon ship. She gave NO orders, just 'run that-a-way until we run out of fuel and DIE'. I may not have been in the military, but I know enough people how have to know that's not going to fly. They'll accept that they might die for a reason, but dying because the CO doesn't seem to have a plan? Nope.
A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone.
That sounds like a great idea to have the kind of battle that makes the list of top military failures. A commander who insists on unquestioning authority and never involves their subordinates in planning is just begging to have a plan with flaws that a second opinion might have caught.
Poe is a captain? (or a lieutenant? Can't remember). Regardless. He is not a general. He is not a Colonel. He's not a Major. In business terms, he's a line manager for his soldiers, or even worse than that, a very badass engineer. He is not a member of the board of directors. He has no reason whatsoever to know or question the decisions of his command.
Of course, one must remember the Resistance is not a government-run military but a private mercenary group. Leia has no official position in the Republic. The rules are wee bit different for mercenaries, even idealistic ones. The commander of a Carrier Air Wing is not an insignificant peon you can brush off even in a professional military; in a mercenary organization he NEEDS to be consulted when using any sort of air assets.
He would have had Hux executed on the spot for being an idiot. And then captured the rebels in their slow, unarmed transports when he saw right through Holdo's deception.
'Hmmm. They have jumped to the outer edge of this system, and are allowing us to chase them at sublight speed across it. But they are not heading toward the planet directly. Why come here? Their actions since we recalled the fighters demonstrates that Ackbar and Leia must be incapacitated. Probably Vice Admiral Holdo in charge. Which means....'
"Have half the fighters and assault shuttles go establish a blockade around that inhabitable planet. All ships maintain a continuous scan for cloaked ships and relay intercept courses to the blockade. Unarmed ships should be captured, not destroyed wherever possible. In the meantime, send three star destroyers through hyperspace to the other side of this system so we can catch them in a trap. Everyone else, break up into your normal three-ship divisions and spread out in case she tries something insane like a hyperspace ram."
For one thing, we've had 6 films about the Skywalker family and it's time to let someone else have a go at being the main interest.
For a second, all the actors from the original films are too old (and dead in Carrie Fisher's case) to be convincing action heroes for a young audience. Otherwise you turn SW into Red in Spaaace, with a bunch of retirees subverting convention in a comic way by being over the hill but still badaaaas. Does anyone want to see an 80-year-old Harrison Ford as Han Solo with a Zimmer frame?
From both these points, the flame has to pass to a new generation.
I would have liked that. An older cast (of characters we know and love) managing situations with experience, wisdom and tricks would be cool to watch; I really liked old Obi Wan sneaking about the Death Star using the force subtly to avoid confrontation and get his job done without breaking a sweat. Young Obi Wan and Anakin battling through squads of droids is fine but we've seen plenty of that. The main good guys could have been Luke, Leia, Han and Rey with the droids and Chewie supporting. Rey and, to a much lesser extent, Luke could have had the action bits.
Peregrine wrote: Again, Vader is a master swordsman, veteran jedi hunter, and the most powerful force user in known history. Kylo Ren is a Vader fanboy who his own troops openly treat as a joke, with the added bonus of a wound that would have been instantly fatal to anyone but a major character. The two are not even close to comparable.
Yep. And Vader was still fighting a trained individual, albeit one with very little training.
Ren had many years of training. He had a flesh wound, or so it appeared to be (and that I blame the writers on, that bowcaster's potency was about as consistent as Ren's personality). Plot armor aside, Rey was throwing around an unfamiliar weapon against a trained adversary. I won't even say it's shocking she won, I'll buy that- I'd just think it would make more sense if she were at least wounded or scarred from the battle.
Not just an unfamiliar weapon, but a very awkward weapon to boot if you are trained in using normal energy weapons.
Here's a good simulation. Take a meter-long stick, hold it like a lightsaber, and swing it around a bit. Lots of weight forward, pulling you into the swing. Try a two-meter long staff like Rey uses in her early fight. Very different balance. And the more trained you are fighting with such weapons, the more automatic your compensation for that balance is.
Now take one of the big 18" maglight flashlights into a dark room. Turn it on and hold it like a lightsaber. Swing it around a bit. It's a VASTLY different feel... and if the light illuminates any part of your body you just 'cut it off'.
A lightsaber is no weapon for those untrained in it's techniques. And it's even worse if you're trained in OTHER weapon techniques.
frightnight wrote: Regardless, in a galaxy that was too afraid to stand up to the First Order, a galactic bully, one person did, and they won.
This didn't happen in TLJ. The Resistance did not win anything. A handful of survivors fled. What you're talking about actually happened in TFA, although it was a band of plucky guerrilla fighters rather than one person who stood up to the FO and won.
Peregrine wrote: Did you miss the part where all of the heroes of the story are soldiers and fighting against the space-Nazis is presented as an unquestioned good thing? The only time anyone ever disputes the idea of fighting against the space-Nazis is in the form of "jumping in an x-wing and shooting stuff is not the full extent of military strategy".
Except that the ONLY time anyone fights the space-Nazis at all in the film is under Poe's direct command. Everyone else runs screaming from the conflict lest they suffer any casualties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I don't feel like JJ does "get" Star Wars. Or scale. Or storytelling. Or directing. Or much of anything. He has to be one of the worst directors making big budget films today, and I have absolutely no hope for Episode 9. It would take a Herculean effort to convince me that JJ has the writing chops to put this shattered mess of a trilogy back together.
About the only way I'd watch the next main sequence movie is if it's marketed as "TLJ was a mistake, here's the real Episode VIII..."
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It's pretty telling that an actor with so much screen presence was made so bland and passive.
But only in TLJ. In TFA, he was very winning and as I mentioned his arc from traumatized FO defector to a guy willing to be brave for the sake of friendship was compelling.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: About the kids--they clearly learned about Crait through the power of Christmas The Force filling their pure hearts with the gift of hope.
I have been patiently waiting for frightknight to tell me the kids had a Force vision about Luke on Crait.
As for time and space in these Disney movies ... I have no sense of how powerful the FO is. They have a planet-sized super weapon that gets blown up. They have a giant dreadnought that gets blown up. They have an even bigger command ship that gets blown up. And yet they aren't already the preeminent power in the galaxy? Is it perhaps because everything they have gets blown up?
Then again, the Resistance is also very confusing. They had a whole wing of bombers that did not participate in the bombing run on Starkiller Base. It's like the guy who wrote TLJ didn't like TFA and felt free to disregard it.
But as far as I can tell, space and time are very important in TLJ. The whole A plot of TLJ revolves around the relative space of the FO and Resistance ships as time passes. Time and space are taken very seriously in this respect. Also, it's very important that almost no time has passed since the destruction of Starkiller Base and the beginning of TLJ. I mean, no one responds to the Resistance call for help despite the Resistance winning a major battle against the FO. Probably because not enough time has passed for word to get out.
So it seems like the conclusion is that time and space matter when Rian Johnson needs them to but they don't matter when he needs to tack on a sappy scene to prevent his movie ending on a commercially risky emotional downbeat.
Kilkrazy wrote: What's wrong with a progressive female character?
"Progressive"
You mean 'blank slate Mary Sue' in Rey's case, but to answer your question- nothing, really. Unless you cast 'conservative male character' as the absolute moral evil opposite, then we get to make fun of the writers. Usually because it tells me that their ideas only work in a fiction.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.
Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.
Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....
Manchu wrote: ... ..., it makes no sense that the kids would have heard about what happened on Crait so soon after it happened. It's just not supported by anything shown in the film.
I needn't tell you that time can be distorted in films, e.g flashback sequences. It's a crucial technique in film making.
There's no reason to suppose the final play fight scene happened seconds after the Falcon took off from Crait. It could have been several months later and the children wouldn't have grown enough to show it. Hell, it could even have been happening at the same time as Luke's final fight showing that the child is a powerful clairvoyant.
That's not important, though. The point of the scene is that it symbolises the fact that the hope of the rebellion goes on.
Emotional symbols don't have to be logical, in fact probably they can't be.
The Old Republic couldn't do anything about slavery on Tatooine, considering it was not a member planet. I guess the same is true of Cantonica. Based on sources beyond the movies, because the movies don't bother to explain anything, the New Republic isn't even as extensive as the Old Republic. Some of the Empire, including Coruscant, is still well, the Empire (i.e., not the First Order). The way I understand it, the Resistance is about people like Leia who cannot let go of the past, just like how the FO is about Imperials who cannot let go of the Empire as envisioned by Palpatine - and these types on either side are fulfilling each others' prophecies. So as usual some kids being enslaved on the edge of the galaxy, no lne really cares. The funny thing is, Rose takes a moment to lament for the alien horses but eh, the kids, well ... eh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Hell, it could even have been happening at the same time as Luke's final fight showing that the child is a powerful clairvoyant.
There it is! I knew someone would eventually bend over this far backward.
Kilkrazy wrote: Emotional symbols don't have to be logical, in fact probably they can't be.
Sure they can be. Like a big ceremony to give medals to the heroes. Or a scene where two people look out at the stars. these scenes don't rely on unexplained time distortion or irrationality
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It's pretty telling that an actor with so much screen presence was made so bland and passive.
But only in TLJ. In TFA, he was very winning and as I mentioned his arc from traumatized FO defector to a guy willing to be brave for the sake of friendship was compelling.
I agree. I have argued that the cast really saved JJ's bacon by covering for the poor characterization and pacing in TFA. I'll have to give some credit to JJ, I guess, for not getting in the actors' way. However, RJ got good to great performances out of Driver, Hamil, Ridley, Isaac, and even Laura Dern (for what she was given), so maybe Boyega just wasn't feeling it the way Ford wasn't feeling TFA.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: About the kids--they clearly learned about Crait through the power of Christmas The Force filling their pure hearts with the gift of hope.
I have been patiently waiting for frightknight to tell me the kids had a Force vision about Luke on Crait.
As for time and space in these Disney movies ... I have no sense of how powerful the FO is. They have a planet-sized super weapon that gets blown up. They have a giant dreadnought that gets blown up. They have an even bigger command ship that gets blown up. And yet they aren't already the preeminent power in the galaxy? Is it perhaps because everything they have gets blown up?
Then again, the Resistance is also very confusing. They had a whole wing of bombers that did not participate in the bombing run on Starkiller Base. It's like the guy who wrote TLJ didn't like TFA and felt free to disregard it.
But as far as I can tell, space and time are very important in TLJ. The whole A plot of TLJ revolves around the relative space of the FO and Resistance ships as time passes. Time and space are taken very seriously in this respect. Also, it's very important that almost no time has passed since the destruction of Starkiller Base and the beginning of TLJ. I mean, no one responds to the Resistance call for help despite the Resistance winning a major battle against the FO. Probably because not enough time has passed for word to get out.
So it seems like the conclusion is that time and space matter when Rian Johnson needs them to but they don't matter when he needs to tack on a sappy scene to prevent his movie ending on a commercially risky emotional downbeat.
To paraphrase you, now you're getting it.
I believe RJ's attitude towards everything that he, personally, isn't invested in is "that doesn't matter." You see it in Snoke, Ben's turning, all the other bits of film defended with "but that doesn't matter". He might think he is trimming narrative fat or tightening up the script, but for him minding most of the details, backstory and connective tissue with the franchise as a whole: that doesn't matter.
It's been a while since I saw TLJ but my memory is, the characters are all petulant, bitter, and/or miserable. How much of these performances were motivated by directing as opposed to just being caught up in a tornado of disappointment with their roles? I mean, compare Ridley, Boyega, and Isaacs in TLJ to the breathless enthusiasm of the their performances in TFA. I think Driver was the rock of TLJ, acting wise, but he got his beats down in TFA and they did not really change in TLJ. Mark Hamill, I think, just channeled his actual feelings toward Rian and Rian's script into his performance as Luke, which ranges from cynical to outright anger.
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe the bombers didn't appear in TFA because it's nice to put some new stuff into each film.
Which is fine - not exactly the most subversive decision for part of the narrative - "cos we want to sell some new toys" - but then see the hamster creatures, speace horses etc etc.
But of course the Director is such a vsionary genius it deosn't matter
frightnight wrote: Regardless, in a galaxy that was too afraid to stand up to the First Order, a galactic bully, one person did, and they won.
This didn't happen in TLJ. The Resistance did not win anything. A handful of survivors fled. What you're talking about actually happened in TFA, although it was a band of plucky guerrilla fighters rather than one person who stood up to the FO and won.
When your opponent is seeking the complete destruction of you and your ideals, survival is a victory in itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Maybe the bombers didn't appear in TFA because it's nice to put some new stuff into each film.
Or because they would have been useless on Starkiller Base where the target they had to hit was only accessible from a horizontal plane of attack.
No, victory is blowing up their super weapon. Barely escaping with any survivors doesn't qualify as a victory except if you are the propaganda commissar trying to inspire your twelve remaining comrades.
The target on Starkiller Base was a giant hexagon on the planet's surface completely accessible to attack from above. The armament of the X-Wings was insufficient to penetrate the armor, making that attack exactly the sort of mission suited to the bombers introduced in TLJ.
I think it is plain that TLJ rather than revise ESB, shakes up and recasts elements into a new form with a new purpose.
I agree with you. I simply would have preferred a bit more obfuscation when it came to that particular scene.
And I understand the decision to make Crait a salt planet*. The only other option is "water planet" and simulating fights in/on water is expensive. But imagine, instead of more At/AT riffs you've got First Order battleships being space-dropped into the water so they can disgorge FO troops onto the sole island occupied by The Resistance.
*I refuse to believe Rian Johnson didn't know what he was doing there.
People, there are way too many meta readings on preformances here.
Carrie fisher was done filming when she died. And Rian Johnson said out of respect he would not change TLJ in any way. So Carrie's passing will only affect episode IX.
There were no rumours of TLJ being a difficult set, contrary to Solo. The characters are bitter and cynical because they are in a bitter and cynical situation. There are jokes aplenty in the last jedi , they are just mostly gallows humour in keeping with the movies tone.
Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.
So I started watching Sense8 again, and it made me think of the heavy handed way they tried to introduce similar themes into the star wars universe, Sense8 does it right, characters and story first, with current politics a distant 2nd, they dont beat you over the head with it in a ham fisted way and make some really good thought out points.....
If SW must go down the "progressive" route, then they should do it in the same manner as Sense8, so you barely even notice its there while being taught a valuable lesson... or you know... just leave it out.
Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?
I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?
Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.
I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.
Earth127 wrote: People, there are way too many meta readings on preformances here.
Carrie fisher was done filming when she died. And Rian Johnson said out of respect he would not change TLJ in any way. So Carrie's passing will only affect episode IX.
There were no rumours of TLJ being a difficult set, contrary to Solo. The characters are bitter and cynical because they are in a bitter and cynical situation. There are jokes aplenty in the last jedi , they are just mostly gallows humour in keeping with the movies tone.
Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.
Of course Hammil backpedalled that statement, he'd like another job after this movie.
there were statements though, not rumors of RJ just being a "donkey-cave", Carrie stated it directly. Then we have RJ calling Hammil a "son of a bitch" in a public appearance. so I'd imagine the rumors about TLJ being a difficult set was due to RJ.
Earth127 wrote: Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.
I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.
I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.
Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.
Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....
Has the rebellion been ruling the galaxy? where did that information come from? As far as I can tell after jedi, the empire kept control.
Manchu wrote: So we're back to this nonsense about how Rian Johnson had no room for creative freedom and therefore had to lash out against everything TFA set up?
Again: No. Johnson was hired to direct the second episode in a series, where the first episode was a huge success. His job was to develop and deepen the points set up in TFA, not contain or retract them. Now we have no set up for a third film. Episode IX will basically be a soft reboot, a la Revenge of the Sith.
TBF to Johnson, the second episode was also a huge success. I certainly found it much stronger than TFA. I think the ESB parallels mentioned elsewhere in this thread are pertinent.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?
I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?
Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.
I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.
Yes and no, you can refuse and illegal order (shoot those civvies), removing a senior officer is very difficult and movies never ever have they EVER got it close to being correct, you cant just demote someone in the field, it would cause all kinds of issues in the COC, same goes for removing a Commanding officer, while you can do it if you have to, just be aware that it could have some serious ramifications.
I was working at a convention he was a guest at, and at the photo booth he only had a few people come in but he was slated to be there for 15 minutes. Since it was the last slot of the day and no one else was obviously coming, all the staff there just hung out with him, chatting about stuff, taking pictures with him, etc.
At one point he started doing jumping spin kicks, and during one there was a ripping noise. He landed, looked down and said, "I really need to stop buying $200 pants."
I disagree that TPM was the best lightsaber battle, though. While it had flips and cool moves, it lacked the personal stakes and heart of other fights. It did contain the one moment in TPM I unequivocally enjoyed, though, when they were separated by the force fields.
Their characters were perfectly defined in those moments: Maul paces back and forth like a caged tiger, Jinn kneels to meditate and center himself, Kenobi bounces on the balls of his feet, anxious and impatient to get back in the fight. No other moment in that film had as much character as those few seconds.
Well this is all rather subjective. I find the Duel of Fates to have everything you say it lacks. The only thing it was truly missing was dialog but I just got the sense that Maul doesn't talk much. I think that added the necessary tension to the battle - in combination with the killer musical score - it gives me the sense that this battle has the stakes of the galaxy in its hands. It is personally my favorite and I the scene where they are separated by the force fields I absolutely agree with your take on it. When it comes to other prequel fights which also have fancy moves and lightsabre porn - they don't even come close to this one. Anakin vs Obiwon could have been grat but Haydens terrible acting literally kills it.
I found the lightsabre battles in the original trilogy to be quite clunky - which at the time was the way Lucas wanted it to be. He changed his mind on what an light sabre actaully was based on what he wanted to do on screen. In the originals he consider a light sabre to he heavy (like a bastard sword) so the battle are more like battling with 2 handed swords. Lucas himself had these same complaints about the battles. He wanted them to be more exciting - so he made a lightsabre more of a fusion of 1 handed sword styles. I can still love Vader vs Luke in ESB and RoTJ but for me the video in those scene doesn't add anything - I could listen to the audio without watching it and get the exact same feelings.
Earth127 wrote: Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.
I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.
I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.
Yeah - I am sure. Probably much sooner than that. Hammle loves luke. Luke turned him into one of the most beloved characters in the one of the largest sagas in human history. For johnson not to tap into that love shows a serious lack of directing/writing skill.
Earth127 wrote: Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.
I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.
I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.
It will be interesting to see that story in the future.
At any rate, whether Hamill liked the plot or not, he gave a great performance and Luke went out with a bang.
Earth127 wrote: Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.
I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.
I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.
It will be interesting to see that story in the future.
At any rate, whether Hamill liked the plot or not, he gave a great performance and Luke went out with a bang.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.
Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.
Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....
Has the rebellion been ruling the galaxy? where did that information come from? As far as I can tell after jedi, the empire kept control.
Episode VII
THE FORCE AWAKENS
Luke Skywalker has vanished. In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed.
With the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE. She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy.
Leia has sent her most daring pilot on a secret mission to Jakku, where an old ally has discovered a clue to Luke’s whereabouts….
From the Ashes of the Empire is pretty clear. The redone end of ROTJ has the Empire overthrown across the galazy IIRC.
The Republic has been in control for twenty years and apparently slavery flourishes and the First ORder if not actualy weclomed then finds plenty of support to rebuild and retake the galaxy
Damining indictment of whatever the Republic stood for..
Manchu wrote: Finn is a great character. One of my favorite SW moments comes from TFA when he finds the bravery to stand up to Kylo Ren to protect his one friend in the world, Rey. It sucks that TLJ undermined him and relegated him to comedy relief with no character development.
Finn is a wasted character. You mean to tell me the Resistance has a defected Stormtrooper that's been indoctrinated from birth to be an elite soldier... and that he's a gibbering nerd?
Listen, I'm just saying- put John Boyega in the gym and give him a protein diet. Muscle him up, and in the next movie send him after the enemy with a big blaster machine gun. You cannot go wrong with this.
Duh! Space Rambo is best Rambo! I agree. Disney misses the mark on him a lot. They are to focused on comedy in these movies.
Earth127 wrote: Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.
I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.
I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.
It will be interesting to see that story in the future.
At any rate, whether Hamill liked the plot or not, he gave a great performance and Luke went out with a bang.
I think he did well playing the disgruntled Luke but he did not go out with a bang. He went out in the most pathetic and stupid way possible. Without a battle and his trick was too late to make a difference. Practically everyone is dead and lets not forget there is still a first order fleet in orbit around the planet. Luke could not have gone out in any worse a way - doing nothing and dying simultaneously.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.
Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.
Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....
Has the rebellion been ruling the galaxy? where did that information come from? As far as I can tell after jedi, the empire kept control.
Episode VII
THE FORCE AWAKENS
Luke Skywalker has vanished. In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed.
With the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE. She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy.
Leia has sent her most daring pilot on a secret mission to Jakku, where an old ally has discovered a clue to Luke’s whereabouts….
From the Ashes of the Empire is pretty clear. The redone end of ROTJ has the Empire overthrown across the galazy IIRC.
The Republic has been in control for twenty years and apparently slavery flourishes and the First ORder if not actualy weclomed then finds plenty of support to rebuild and retake the galaxy
Damining indictment of whatever the Republic stood for..
but if the republic is in control of the galaxy, leia would be in the army, not the resistance. Same thing if it was 2 factions who split the galaxy, they'd be fighting with their armies. you resist who's in control, so that seems to me that shortly after the events from jedi, that celebration was short lived and the first order took over shortly afterwards.
restoring peace to the galaxy was the mission statement for the last 40 years when palpatine came up with it. I've always wondered what would have happened if the resistance never formed, and the emperor had peace in his galaxy.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?
I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?
Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.
I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.
Yes and no, you can refuse and illegal order (shoot those civvies), removing a senior officer is very difficult and movies never ever have they EVER got it close to being correct, you cant just demote someone in the field, it would cause all kinds of issues in the COC, same goes for removing a Commanding officer, while you can do it if you have to, just be aware that it could have some serious ramifications.
I was on a ship that had its captain removed, that happened fairly quickly. the Junior officers reported him, the admiral flew out and picked him up, the XO took over and there was much rejoicing there were no ramifications really, the former captain got to work at a desk til his retirement. The ship continued on it's mission as normal. Captains get removed for all sorts of things, with no real issues to speak of, as the recent string of collisions have shown.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.
Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.
Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....
Has the rebellion been ruling the galaxy? where did that information come from? As far as I can tell after jedi, the empire kept control.
Episode VII
THE FORCE AWAKENS
Luke Skywalker has vanished. In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed.
With the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE. She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy.
Leia has sent her most daring pilot on a secret mission to Jakku, where an old ally has discovered a clue to Luke’s whereabouts….
From the Ashes of the Empire is pretty clear. The redone end of ROTJ has the Empire overthrown across the galazy IIRC.
The Republic has been in control for twenty years and apparently slavery flourishes and the First ORder if not actualy weclomed then finds plenty of support to rebuild and retake the galaxy
Damining indictment of whatever the Republic stood for..
but if the republic is in control of the galaxy, leia would be in the army, not the resistance. Same thing if it was 2 factions who split the galaxy, they'd be fighting with their armies. you resist who's in control, so that seems to me that shortly after the events from jedi, that celebration was short lived and the first order took over shortly afterwards.
restoring peace to the galaxy was the mission statement for the last 40 years when palpatine came up with it. I've always wondered what would have happened if the resistance never formed, and the emperor had peace in his galaxy.
As far as I could understand from the films:
The Republic took over and was ruling, Leia found out about the FO that was rising but could not convince anyone in the Republic to deal with it so formed the "Resistance" to do so. basically both the directors want to recreate the successful trilogy so they just make up stuff so that they reset it to Plucky Rebels vs Evil Empire.
Probably the same peace that Rome created "They make a desert and call it peace" - likely most people won't care as their lives will (at least to begin with) carry on normally - as seen on Casino World - slaves stay slaves, rich mostly stay rich., Everyone else just gets on with life as best they can.
its actually difficult to say as neither director could be bothered to make anything up about what if anything the FO stood for. They are just the "Evil Empire"
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?
I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?
Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.
I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.
Yes and no, you can refuse and illegal order (shoot those civvies), removing a senior officer is very difficult and movies never ever have they EVER got it close to being correct, you cant just demote someone in the field, it would cause all kinds of issues in the COC, same goes for removing a Commanding officer, while you can do it if you have to, just be aware that it could have some serious ramifications.
I was on a ship that had its captain removed, that happened fairly quickly. the Junior officers reported him, the admiral flew out and picked him up, the XO took over and there was much rejoicing there were no ramifications really, the former captain got to work at a desk til his retirement. The ship continued on it's mission as normal. Captains get removed for all sorts of things, with no real issues to speak of, as the recent string of collisions have shown.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?
Yes. There are. It's all done through paperwork, but in dangerous 'right now' situations you do what must be done.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?
Yep, and what happens when the leader with the 'secret plan' dies? Now what does everyone do?
Earth127 wrote: Also you don't get to pick wich parts of the movie you acknowledge.
The final scene says: Luke's sacrifice was effective , he inspired hope. And the rebellion lives on, the flame is preserved.
You can think it's unrealistic. But you can't ignore it.
I can ignore it when it break my suspension of disbelief, I am somehow supposed to believe that 12 (IIRC?) people can overthrow the first order when it took decades and tens of thousands to overthrow the Empire? nah, ignite that flame all you like, unless the next trilogy is set over a long period of time they can screw off lol
I would hate it if they just offed the Empire in the next movie at the snap of a finger.... Thanos style bitches
Given that the third part of the trilogy has to involve a final showdown in which the Rebellion wins against the New Order, it will indeed be a reshuffle of RotJ in some sense.
However perhaps we are all a bit unrealistic to expect Star Wars to provide a radically different kind of plot. It just isn't a complex kind of genre.
I actively want the First Order to win. The characters on all sides now are so unlikeable and the New Republic has been exposed to be so corrupt and hypocritical that I'm inclined to agree with Kylo Ren. Forget the past - kill it if you have to.
I hope since we know there are more SW movies planned. They don't end with a total defeat of everything darkside. Otherwise they're just gna have to undo it again. A la RoTJ to TFA.
Yeah, can you imagine a plot in which the "bad guys" die, but it is the First Order as a whole that retains control over the galaxy.
The Stormtroopers could then be viewed more like the "valiant" Clone Troopers of the Clone wars era
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?
I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?
Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.
I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.
Yes and no, you can refuse and illegal order (shoot those civvies), removing a senior officer is very difficult and movies never ever have they EVER got it close to being correct, you cant just demote someone in the field, it would cause all kinds of issues in the COC, same goes for removing a Commanding officer, while you can do it if you have to, just be aware that it could have some serious ramifications.
I was on a ship that had its captain removed, that happened fairly quickly. the Junior officers reported him, the admiral flew out and picked him up, the XO took over and there was much rejoicing there were no ramifications really, the former captain got to work at a desk til his retirement. The ship continued on it's mission as normal. Captains get removed for all sorts of things, with no real issues to speak of, as the recent string of collisions have shown.
Ship or Military ship?
And you were not in a warzone clearly lol
military ship, while in a warzone, ddg54, he was relieved while we were deployed in the gulf. I got the Kuwait liberation medal during that trip, not the good one though. My mind is starting to go and I forget the exact name for the operation at the time, or just names in general. I think we were still in desert storm period. We ended up having 4 captains on our first 6 month deployment, which sounds chaotic but it really wasn't, except for the brief period the second one was running it, but he only lasted a few weeks.
I can't find any articles about it to link, but did find out that another captian was relieved of command and the last XO I had on the ship got nicknamed 'holy the hun' and later removed from command.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?
I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?
Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.
I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.
Yes and no, you can refuse and illegal order (shoot those civvies), removing a senior officer is very difficult and movies never ever have they EVER got it close to being correct, you cant just demote someone in the field, it would cause all kinds of issues in the COC, same goes for removing a Commanding officer, while you can do it if you have to, just be aware that it could have some serious ramifications.
I was on a ship that had its captain removed, that happened fairly quickly. the Junior officers reported him, the admiral flew out and picked him up, the XO took over and there was much rejoicing there were no ramifications really, the former captain got to work at a desk til his retirement. The ship continued on it's mission as normal. Captains get removed for all sorts of things, with no real issues to speak of, as the recent string of collisions have shown.
Ship or Military ship?
And you were not in a warzone clearly lol
military ship, while in a warzone, ddg54, he was relieved while we were deployed in the gulf. I got the Kuwait liberation medal during that trip, not the good one though. My mind is starting to go and I forget the exact name for the operation at the time, or just names in general. I think we were still in desert storm period. We ended up having 4 captains on our first 6 month deployment, which sounds chaotic but it really wasn't, except for the brief period the second one was running it, but he only lasted a few weeks.
I can't find any articles about it to link, but did find out that another captian was relieved of command and the last XO I had on the ship got nicknamed 'holy the hun' and later removed from command.
We’d call that a systemic breakdown to have that many officers removed in such a short period, the ramifications would be felt right down to the training regime...
Out of interest what was the fallout resulting in such a clear cock up in leadership ?
there was no fall out, the first one left because he had done his time, the second one got removed, the xo became the 3rd, then we got the new captain who became the 4th. It was really just business as normal except for those 6 weeks. the other 2 got removed years later.
Which is why when I say holdo is the worst admiral ever, in any game, movie, book, or tv series, I know what I'm talking about and a airlock would have been to good for her.
The Republic took over and was ruling, Leia found out about the FO that was rising but could not convince anyone in the Republic to deal with it so formed the "Resistance" to do so. basically both the directors want to recreate the successful trilogy so they just make up stuff so that they reset it to Plucky Rebels vs Evil Empire.
Probably the same peace that Rome created "They make a desert and call it peace" - likely most people won't care as their lives will (at least to begin with) carry on normally - as seen on Casino World - slaves stay slaves, rich mostly stay rich., Everyone else just gets on with life as best they can.
its actually difficult to say as neither director could be bothered to make anything up about what if anything the FO stood for. They are just the "Evil Empire"
Yea I was really interested to see what had happened after the Ewok's victory on Endor, but TFA didn't give me any sense of what had happened in the galaxy.
From the previews, I thought it was the New Republic who had built the Starkiller and were debating using it against the Imperial remnents or something. That would have been really interesting!
Earth127 wrote: You know she's in the same movie as Hux right?
Hux is actually a tactical genius. He took down the resistance with a move they never saw coming. Holdo is dumber than dirt - she could have just used the other ship that ran out of fuel in the chase for hyper-drive suicide and maybe....just maybe - had a droid pilot the ship...It's actually not difficult to aim right at a ship and press a button. A droid could have done this more precisely I think.
The Republic took over and was ruling, Leia found out about the FO that was rising but could not convince anyone in the Republic to deal with it so formed the "Resistance" to do so. basically both the directors want to recreate the successful trilogy so they just make up stuff so that they reset it to Plucky Rebels vs Evil Empire.
Probably the same peace that Rome created "They make a desert and call it peace" - likely most people won't care as their lives will (at least to begin with) carry on normally - as seen on Casino World - slaves stay slaves, rich mostly stay rich., Everyone else just gets on with life as best they can.
its actually difficult to say as neither director could be bothered to make anything up about what if anything the FO stood for. They are just the "Evil Empire"
Yea I was really interested to see what had happened after the Ewok's victory on Endor, but TFA didn't give me any sense of what had happened in the galaxy.
From the previews, I thought it was the New Republic who had built the Starkiller and were debating using it against the Imperial remnents or something. That would have been really interesting!
Ofc that is the biggest let down of all. 0 explanation of what happened after ROTJ...You know...right after they declared all of the Novels after RoTJ non canon. Hey - at least they can write a gak ton of books I'll never read so we can find out.
You guys do know that space opera films tend to exaggerate character traits and stuff a bit, so as to tell a story in 90 minutes, right? I am not sure I would go to Star Wars to learn about 21st century US Navy human resources policies.
Anyway... I loved Holdo. She had a plan, all the time. She was quite kind to Poe even after he disobeyed orders and made a significant error that cost lives and resources. She had charisma. And she had piloting chops and a willingness to think the unthinkable. A+++. Would watch "Holdo: A Star Wars Story."
Ian Sturrock wrote: You guys do know that space opera films tend to exaggerate character traits and stuff a bit, so as to tell a story in 90 minutes, right? I am not sure I would go to Star Wars to learn about 21st century US Navy human resources policies.
Anyway... I loved Holdo. She had a plan, all the time. She was quite kind to Poe even after he disobeyed orders and made a significant error that cost lives and resources. She had charisma. And she had piloting chops and a willingness to think the unthinkable. A+++. Would watch "Holdo: A Star Wars Story."
It's not just you specifically, there is an argument that JJ and RJ didn't have time to tell all the relevant details in their movies. I think it's important to keep in mind that these are actually indulgently long movies and the directors just need to reevaluate their priorities.
Earth127 wrote: Xeno you don't get to post that giff. You said was a tactical genius.
He may be a logistical genius, but tactical???????????
Forgot the rules - though it seemed really appropriate fixed with " ". I would say using a new tech in combat for the first time to crush your enemies qualifies as a tactic.
He left his big ship exposed to attack because he wanted to get a good propaganda bit, lost it at general hugs and then proceeded to lose his big new toy.
Ian Sturrock wrote: You guys do know that space opera films tend to exaggerate character traits and stuff a bit, so as to tell a story in 90 minutes, right? I am not sure I would go to Star Wars to learn about 21st century US Navy human resources policies.
Anyway... I loved Holdo. She had a plan, all the time. She was quite kind to Poe even after he disobeyed orders and made a significant error that cost lives and resources. She had charisma. And she had piloting chops and a willingness to think the unthinkable. A+++. Would watch "Holdo: A Star Wars Story."
Custer also had a plan, and hers was worse than his. Having a plan is meaningless if only you know it and your troops have no idea what to do.
no you don't go to movies to learn about real world things, but you'll find that doctors don't like doctor shows, lawyers don't like lawyer shows, and I don't like navy shows. Because I know everything they're doing wrong, where even dumb comedies like battleship I just can't enjoy. and I like dumb comedies.
My assumption at the time of the film was that plotting a hyperspace jump to reliably collide your ship with a moving enemy ship was next to impossible, and that one would need to be an unusually skilled pilot to pull it off, especially with anything big enough to do significant damage (one presumes that a capital ship usually has more than one crew member).
Droids in SW, like every other bit of tech in SW, don't really function like computers or robots do IRL; they have functions that are mostly plot-based, or indeed plot-hole-based, and don't really make a lot of sense if you analyse them or their roles in any depth. Although there's lots of talk about astromech droids, they are supplements to human pilots, in practice, not replacements for them. Plus of course they exist to wander about on the hull and do a bit of emergency welding like that would fix a missile hit or something.
no you don't go to movies to learn about real world things, but you'll find that doctors don't like doctor shows, lawyers don't like lawyer shows, and I don't like navy shows. Because I know everything they're doing wrong, where even dumb comedies like battleship I just can't enjoy. and I like dumb comedies.
I mean I do get that, but if I can ignore all the physics holes in Star Wars, which is at least vaguely an SF setting, surely you can ignore all the navy holes, given that it's only even more vaguely a navy setting? Like obviously it borrows some tropes from war movies, but it's pretty far removed from war, surely. Although the Dambusters/ANH crossover videos are awesome.
It isn't, other than from context -- the context being every other SW movie in which this does not happen. I assumed there was a reason it didn't happen.
Apart from the obvious "it's space opera not physics" reason. You know, the same reason that Star Trek doesn't involve weaponised teleportation to put nukes into the warp drive of the enemy ship. Because its tropes, like those of SW, are derived from the war movies that the creators grew up on, not from science. And that's OK.
Ian Sturrock wrote: It isn't, other than from context -- the context being every other SW movie in which this does not happen. I assumed there was a reason it didn't happen.
Apart from the obvious "it's space opera not physics" reason. You know, the same reason that Star Trek doesn't involve weaponised teleportation to put nukes into the warp drive of the enemy ship. Because its tropes, like those of SW, are derived from the war movies that the creators grew up on, not from science. And that's OK.
"sir they have built a moon sized planet killing star ship"
"its ok, we can just take 1 or 2 of our ships and Hyperspace ram it, thats all it will take"
Ian Sturrock wrote: My assumption at the time of the film was that plotting a hyperspace jump to reliably collide your ship with a moving enemy ship was next to impossible, and that one would need to be an unusually skilled pilot to pull it off, especially with anything big enough to do significant damage (one presumes that a capital ship usually has more than one crew member).
Droids in SW, like every other bit of tech in SW, don't really function like computers or robots do IRL; they have functions that are mostly plot-based, or indeed plot-hole-based, and don't really make a lot of sense if you analyse them or their roles in any depth. Although there's lots of talk about astromech droids, they are supplements to human pilots, in practice, not replacements for them. Plus of course they exist to wander about on the hull and do a bit of emergency welding like that would fix a missile hit or something.
no you don't go to movies to learn about real world things, but you'll find that doctors don't like doctor shows, lawyers don't like lawyer shows, and I don't like navy shows. Because I know everything they're doing wrong, where even dumb comedies like battleship I just can't enjoy. and I like dumb comedies.
I mean I do get that, but if I can ignore all the physics holes in Star Wars, which is at least vaguely an SF setting, surely you can ignore all the navy holes, given that it's only even more vaguely a navy setting? Like obviously it borrows some tropes from war movies, but it's pretty far removed from war, surely. Although the Dambusters/ANH crossover videos are awesome.
suspencion of disbelief only goes so far, and TLJ went well past that point. I can ignore star wars continuously putting generals in charge of ships, but each thing they do that i know is wrong takes away the imersion.
Ian Sturrock wrote: It isn't, other than from context -- the context being every other SW movie in which this does not happen. I assumed there was a reason it didn't happen.
Apart from the obvious "it's space opera not physics" reason. You know, the same reason that Star Trek doesn't involve weaponised teleportation to put nukes into the warp drive of the enemy ship. Because its tropes, like those of SW, are derived from the war movies that the creators grew up on, not from science. And that's OK.
You are right - it is puzzling how this hyperspace ram happens now and never happened in the past. I think most of us have just come to the conclusion that...You should really ignore this. As it does nothing to the story any ways. The First order still follows them to the planet and so on and so on. It's almost like it didn't happen anyways.
Also - Startrek does use teleporters as weapons. It is considered unreliable as teleporters don't go through shields and once shields are down ships are easily dispatched.
Big disadvantage from the novelization: you have to be practically on top of your enemy. "Hyperspace" creates a tunnel. If hux had ordered all guns on the Raddus, it would have been destroyed before it hit anything.
frightnight wrote:Okay. It may not have been clear to either of you, but it was to me and a bunch of other folks on other boards what it meant.
IOW "I'm right and you're wrong".
You can not like the movie. You can think it's terrible. That doesn't make it so.
You can also like the movie. You can think it's brilliant. That doesn't make it so either.
The scene makes perfect narrative sense, as I laid out in my previous post: Luke decides he has value, returns for final stand, becomes legend to inspire new generation of rebels. Your disagreement on the scene, besides being a stretch for thematic, narrative, and metaphorical reasons, is over bolt-counting on a thing that's never actually been defined: how long hyperspace travel takes, and how quickly information could be spread.
So expecting a logical and coherent explanation for the "why" behind a character is "bolt-counting"?
Jesus, if that's the kind of standards we're looking at here...
We are given no idea how long it's been. We have a logical reason to suspect that these kids should know nothing - one, the Rebellion is pretty much defeated, and unable to broadcast their own propaganda (seeing as no-one is even communicating with them now) and two, these are slaves, on a world that has very little care for the wider galaxy ("just business").
You can have it break your suspension of belief, lord knows I've had some weird things stick in my cinematic craw over the years. When I do, I say, "Yeah it's weird, but X just didn't work for me". Like how I like lasagna and pizza, but can't stand spaghetti.
So why are you belittling people for supposed "bolt-counting" if you yourself admit that suspension of disbelief isn't a universal thing?
Just understand that your objection to the scene does not break any established rules of the franchise, only your own.
Those rules are formed by the franchise itself. Unless you're saying that lightsabers being a part of Star Wars, and it taking place a Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away is just a personal headcanon?
Ian Sturrock wrote:It isn't, other than from context -- the context being every other SW movie in which this does not happen. I assumed there was a reason it didn't happen.
Or, more logically, the context that RJ wrote his characters into a hole, and decided to do something that retroactively makes every Star Wars film worse.
Earth127 wrote: He left his big ship exposed to attack because he wanted to get a good propaganda bit, lost it at general hugs and then proceeded to lose his big new toy.
Is that really his fault though? It's a giant Dreadnought - it's there to blow up bases and propaganda is how the First Order functions. Wanting to use it makes sense. Not having fighters in the area makes no sense though. Seems like it would be some subordinate commander that would be responsible for calling for fighters to scramble. I do believe it was Hux who was like..."why the heck don't we have fighters over there?".
its actually difficult to say as neither director could be bothered to make anything up about what if anything the FO stood for. They are just the "Evil Empire"
That's a standard trope. The audience doesn't need an explanation. Most of the audience don't care about the backstory. Lucas was equally slack about developing the backstory of the Empire in A New Hope. No-one cared.
The ironic thing is that lots of modern people know so little about the history of the real Nazis until it gets to WW2.
Xenomancers wrote: Is that really his fault though? It's a giant Dreadnought - it's there to blow up bases and propaganda is how the First Order functions. Wanting to use it makes sense. Not having fighters in the area makes no sense though. Seems like it would be some subordinate commander that would be responsible for calling for fighters to scramble. I do believe it was Hux who was like..."why the heck don't we have fighters over there?".
Not Hux, the dreadnought's captain. Whose role in the movie seems to be "veteran of the Imperial navy who can't believe how dumb the kids are these days".
Xenomancers wrote: Is that really his fault though? It's a giant Dreadnought - it's there to blow up bases and propaganda is how the First Order functions. Wanting to use it makes sense. Not having fighters in the area makes no sense though. Seems like it would be some subordinate commander that would be responsible for calling for fighters to scramble. I do believe it was Hux who was like..."why the heck don't we have fighters over there?".
Not Hux, the dreadnought's captain. Whose role in the movie seems to be "veteran of the Imperial navy who can't believe how dumb the kids are these days".
Ian Sturrock wrote: It isn't, other than from context -- the context being every other SW movie in which this does not happen. I assumed there was a reason it didn't happen.
Apart from the obvious "it's space opera not physics" reason. You know, the same reason that Star Trek doesn't involve weaponised teleportation to put nukes into the warp drive of the enemy ship. Because its tropes, like those of SW, are derived from the war movies that the creators grew up on, not from science. And that's OK.
"sir they have built a moon sized planet killing star ship"
"its ok, we can just take 1 or 2 of our ships and Hyperspace ram it, thats all it will take"
"oh ok sir, glad we have you around!"
MY understanding of the situation is proximity.
You, in general, could not get a ship of significant enough size close enough to an enemy ship to do the hyperspace jump and have them collide before the ship fully enters hyperspace and can no longer interact with objects in real space.
This situation was unique in that they were flying strait towards her without firing any shots while she was aiming strait towards them. Because they were distracted she got into the sweet spot to do what she did.
In your deathstar scenario, any ship of significant size that got anywhere near the deathstar would be vaporized by it's many and massive arrays of weapons/other ships around it. They would never start to make the jump. And from farther out they wouldn't be hitting the deathstar, they would just be in hyperspace.
Snubfighters got plenty close to the Death Star. So did a freighter. We also know it doesn't take much damage to destroy the Death Star if you hit the thermal exhaust port. It's not exactly temporal mechanics.
Ian Sturrock wrote: It isn't, other than from context -- the context being every other SW movie in which this does not happen. I assumed there was a reason it didn't happen.
Apart from the obvious "it's space opera not physics" reason. You know, the same reason that Star Trek doesn't involve weaponised teleportation to put nukes into the warp drive of the enemy ship. Because its tropes, like those of SW, are derived from the war movies that the creators grew up on, not from science. And that's OK.
"sir they have built a moon sized planet killing star ship"
"its ok, we can just take 1 or 2 of our ships and Hyperspace ram it, thats all it will take"
"oh ok sir, glad we have you around!"
MY understanding of the situation is proximity.
You, in general, could not get a ship of significant enough size close enough to an enemy ship to do the hyperspace jump and have them collide before the ship fully enters hyperspace and can no longer interact with objects in real space.
This situation was unique in that they were flying strait towards her without firing any shots while she was aiming strait towards them. Because they were distracted she got into the sweet spot to do what she did.
In your deathstar scenario, any ship of significant size that got anywhere near the deathstar would be vaporized by it's many and massive arrays of weapons/other ships around it. They would never start to make the jump. And from farther out they wouldn't be hitting the deathstar, they would just be in hyperspace.
While your explanation is very plausable, all we are shown is she turns the ship around and hits the hyperdrive..... plus take an Xwing, hyperdrive that at the star destroyer, the damage would cripple it... its a stupid idea that they introduced to star wars and hopefully it will be forgotten about.
Earth127 wrote: Hux ordered Canady not to launch fighters. Or fire on Poe.
Humm I didn't recall that. It is very stupid I will grant you that. The whole scene was basically designed to make Hux look like an idiot though. Talking over the radio to Poe and acting like a fool while everyone is laughing at him.
To move away from how desperately bad TLJ is for a moment, one thing I notice about the scores for both TFA and TLJ is that they studiously avoid the Imperial March. I think this contributes to the suspicion that the FO is a counterfeit Empire. Do you reckon we will see the actual post-RotJ Empire at some point, and maybe they will for example help the Resistance get back on their feet because they sense how dangerous the FO is to the galaxy at large, especially absent the New Republic, and maybe then we will hear a sort of heroic version of the Imperial March?
Manchu wrote: To move away from how desperately bad TLJ is for a moment, one thing I notice about the scores for both TFA and TLJ is that they studiously avoid the Imperial March. I think this contributes to the suspicion that the FO is a counterfeit Empire. Do you reckon we will see the actual post-RotJ Empire at some point, and maybe they will for example help the Resistance get back on their feet because they sense how dangerous the FO is to the galaxy at large, especially absent the New Republic, and maybe then we will hear a sort of heroic version of the Imperial March?
No.
I think Episode 9 is going to see the end of anything like the modern era of Starwars outside of side movies about specific established characters. I think we are looking towards a time jump forward that will see everyone currently involved long dead and the galaxy in a whole new place. Daisy Ridley and everyone were only contracted for these 3 movies. For a company thats now planning some 10 years down the line in churning out movies I think thats telling.
I kind of hope we end up in a place with no centralized galactic government at all. Instead just a bunch of smaller galactic nations that rule entirely independent of each other.
Lance845 wrote: I kind of hope we end up in a place with no centralized galactic government at all. Instead just a bunch of smaller galactic nations that rule entirely independent of each other.
Manchu wrote: To move away from how desperately bad TLJ is for a moment, one thing I notice about the scores for both TFA and TLJ is that they studiously avoid the Imperial March. I think this contributes to the suspicion that the FO is a counterfeit Empire. Do you reckon we will see the actual post-RotJ Empire at some point, and maybe they will for example help the Resistance get back on their feet because they sense how dangerous the FO is to the galaxy at large, especially absent the New Republic, and maybe then we will hear a sort of heroic version of the Imperial March?
Yeah, the Empire still controls, and is confined to, most of the Core Worlds and Inner Rim. The treaty just prevents them from recruiting and mobilizing Stormtroopers, and they had to disband the Imperial Academies. Oh and Coruscant was ceded to the Republic.
its actually difficult to say as neither director could be bothered to make anything up about what if anything the FO stood for. They are just the "Evil Empire"
That's a standard trope. The audience doesn't need an explanation. Most of the audience don't care about the backstory. Lucas was equally slack about developing the backstory of the Empire in A New Hope. No-one cared.
The ironic thing is that lots of modern people know so little about the history of the real Nazis until it gets to WW2.
but isn't this the super intetelectual vision of how film making should be done (as per the critics) shouldn't this apparently god like subversion of the narrative at least say something about the FO?
Yeah, the Empire still controls, and is confined to, most of the Core Worlds and Inner Rim. The treaty just prevents them from recruiting and mobilizing Stormtroopers, and they had to disband the Imperial Academies. Oh and Coruscant was ceded to the Republic.
I had no idea about that from the films - I just assumed the Repblic won and the empire died and "from its ashes arose the FO?"
themselves and taken his fleet to Scarif?
