Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Compel wrote:
There's an Imperial Assault dude who does exactly that.

See, thats what Finn should look like! That dude is even black too.

 Luciferian wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd say they ARE stereo types. Aren't black people commonly used as comic relief? And Rey is your typical perfect white Disney princess.

I guess that's kind of what I meant. When you try to write characters as a reaction to stereotypes, they are still ultimately based on those stereotypes. They aren't multi-dimensional and interesting characters, they're just the black guy and the strong woman. But yes, Finn especially is pretty much a one-man minstrel show. It's possible that I'm off base and they wrote a comic relief character and then just happened to cast a black guy in the part, but it really would have been nice if there were more to the character either way.

There could have been: it was almost half-way through TFA before it was certain that he wasn't the force wielding focal point of the new trilogy.
Even after that he could have been the tactics guy, leading the Resisty forces to victory.

But instead he gets improbable knowledge of top secret equipment locations and specifications through the power of mopping.

True, I have no idea how they made their decisions during TFA and JJ certainly seems to make a lot of stuff up as he goes along. But that idea only adds to the aura of missed potential around the new movies. I mean who sets up a character to be a bad ass and then just decides to make him a plucky custodian, like that's going to add something of value? Madness.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'd say they ARE stereo types. Aren't black people commonly used as comic relief? And Rey is your typical perfect white Disney princess.

The closest fit to a Disney Princess narrative is Cinderella, but with the Skywalker lightsaber as the glass slipper, Luke as Cinderella, and Rey as Prince Charming.

 Riquende wrote:
He could have offered some sort of insight into Snoke & Kylo.

We got that from Hux, not Snoke, addressing the FO at Starkiller when it is fired. That makes it very clear that most people in the FO have no idea Snoke exists; at best they know him as Supreme Leader.

 Riquende wrote:

And hell, maybe a concientous objector character would have been a novel twist. Someone who sees the eternal war between light and dark (Jedi vs Sith, various shades of Republic vs various shades of Empire etc) going back thousands of years for what it is and tries a new approach.

The thrid way is pretty much why Snoke valued Kylo.

I finally saw this so I can venture into the these parts with something to say.

It is pretty simple really. TLJ and TFA have sucked because the creators literally have nothing to say.

I will take the Prequels over what Disney has given gen us so far because at least those had some flawed, obvious, and blunt messages to talk about. These are just lifeless, thoughtless shells of movies obviously made as cash-ins.

Too bad.

You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

 dogma wrote:


We got that from Hux, not Snoke, addressing the FO at Starkiller when it is fired. That makes it very clear that most people in the FO have no idea Snoke exists; at best they know him as Supreme Leader.

Yeah, but in my head I'm rewriting the entirety of both films so that scene wouldn't necessarily exist (nor too would the Starkiller base).

 Easy E wrote:
I finally saw this so I can venture into the these parts with something to say.

It is pretty simple really. TLJ and TFA have sucked because the creators literally have nothing to say.

I will take the Prequels over what Disney has given gen us so far because at least those had some flawed, obvious, and blunt messages to talk about. These are just lifeless, thoughtless shells of movies obviously made as cash-ins.

Too bad.

I was just thinking the same thing myself.

Cut Jar-Jar out of the prequels so I can cope with them and I'd find them more palatable than these two films. Heck, leave Jar-Jar in, I'll still take the Prequels.

There! Are you happy now, Disney? Pleased with yourself? You've got me preferring the Prequels to your movies!

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

I don't think you can articulate the messages in the film, or else you would have done it by now and actually engaged in conversation. There are people here arguing against aspects of the film far more effectively than you with your empty, angry proclamations. It's this kind of hyperbolic, opinion-as-fact posting that kills intelligent conversation.

 gorgon wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

I don't think you can articulate the messages in the film, or else you would have done it by now and actually engaged in conversation. There are people here arguing against aspects of the film far more effectively than you with your empty, angry proclamations. It's this kind of hyperbolic, opinion-as-fact posting that kills intelligent conversation.

I argued some page ago, I cannot repeat myself for those that do not bother to read.
If you consider consistent writing the writing of a movie that shows a character interrupting an heroic sacrifice because "we have to save what we love" 10 minutes after Holdo is shown as heroic and 10 minutes before Luke dies for an heroic effort to save the crew, I just lose my will to argue to be honest. You are all putting a considerable effort to justify something that is just unprincipled and shallow.
Is not circumscribed to that, of course. See freeing space ponies for 10 minutes and ignore the child slaves.
The movie seems written by and for those that spend time on twitter virtue-signalling and then doing nothing in their life to change 1 inch of the reality they live in.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but personally I think it's insane to suggest that Johnson had nothing to say. I think his voice is all over the film...the issue is more that some people don't like what he's saying.

The movie has been written by people with no moral compass and a shallow concept of what is right and what wrong.
Is even contradictory with its own messages.

I don't think you can articulate the messages in the film, or else you would have done it by now and actually engaged in conversation. There are people here arguing against aspects of the film far more effectively than you with your empty, angry proclamations. It's this kind of hyperbolic, opinion-as-fact posting that kills intelligent conversation.

I argued some page ago, I cannot repeat myself for those that do not bother to read.
If you consider consistent writing the writing of a movie that shows a character interrupting an heroic sacrifice because "we have to save what we love" 10 minutes after Holdo is shown as heroic and 10 minutes before Luke dies for an heroic effort to save the crew, I just lose my will to argue to be honest. You are all putting a considerable effort to justify something that is just unprincipled and shallow.
Is not circumscribed to that, of course. See freeing space ponies for 10 minutes and ignore the child slaves.

Agreed - the films fails to engage on any level - for me it fails as an action movie and certainly has no deeper meaning alongisde the fact that its lazy and badly paced with massive internal inconsistancies and terrible characterisations.

It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

 Mr Morden wrote:

It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

I did read reviews written by people I used to respect completely missing whole scenes and praising the movie.
I cannot take seriously most critics anymore after this movie.
Also, all the blogposts all over the internet exercising damage control. Bunch of sellouts.

 Mr Morden wrote:


It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

No, what beggars belief is that you can apparently straight facedly advance this argument over the possibility that somebody liked something simply because you didn't.

I mean, the movie is (perhaps deeply) flawed, but let's reign in the hyperbole a tad?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

No, what beggars belief is that you can apparently straight facedly advance this argument over the possibility that somebody liked something simply because you didn't.

I mean, the movie is (perhaps deeply) flawed, but let's reign in the hyperbole a tad?

If its deeply flawed then why are the "Critical" reviews so good - the answer is obvious, if there were some who liked it then fair enough - but I thought these so called critics were supposed to be somewhat independant and look at the good and bad of films in thar way.

Flawed =\= bad.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


It beggars belief that so called independant critics can give this dross good scores - except of course its likely they were either bribed or strongarmed - the sex abuse scandals have shown how Hollywood worksa after all.

No, what beggars belief is that you can apparently straight facedly advance this argument over the possibility that somebody liked something simply because you didn't.

I mean, the movie is (perhaps deeply) flawed, but let's reign in the hyperbole a tad?

The movie has fundamental editing, pacing and tone problems that go well beyond "b-but hyperspace weapons".
I don't expect a critic to pickup force powerlevel inconsistencies, but to point out such things.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Flawed =\= bad.

So they should have pointed out its flaws....they don't

Believe what you like - to me this is the only logical explanation.

I've seen the Last Jedi three times now and I can say honestly I really like it. In my case it is because I'm judging it based solely on itself. The prequels so thoroughly killed my star wars fandom I gave away all my copies of all the movies. And really didn't care about the new trilogy. The only reason I saw the Force Awakens was because a friend gave me a free ticket. It was enjoyable, but unremarkable. All it did was prove to me was Disney was capable of making a Star Wars movie. Something I feel Lucas lost.

I think as time goes on the Last Jedi will be considered the best of this trilogy. Only in retrospect will it be judged fairly. Empire wasn't universally loved when it came out. Only after Return of the Jedi was it viewed as the best. I think this will be a similar situation.

I don't think explicit outright bribery happens. I do think that high profile critics enjoy getting invited to early screenings and having opportunities to rub shoulders with Hollywood stars, and are well aware that being too harsh on certain releases will be detrimental to that.

To kinda add fuel to the fire... This article has been shared a lot on my twitter feed over the last few days.

https://bittergertrude.com/2018/01/04/why-so-many-men-hate-the-last-jedi-but-cant-agree-on-why/

I've been reviewing my feelings on the film and I think that, while the premise may be true for some people, ultimately it's a flawed concept overall.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Flawed =\= bad.

So they should have pointed out its flaws....they don't

Believe what you like - to me this is the only logical explanation.

I think it's flawed as a SW fan. I'm not saying that a critic who isn't necessarily as invested in the IP as me would have the same feelings, nor would they necessarily feel any issues were significant in the context of a popcorn blockbuster that may be more detrimental to a more "worthy" title.

Ultimately you'll have to accept that people who aren't as big a fans are going to have a different perspetive, and if they came away having largely enjoyed the 2 hours they spent watching the film, it's going to largely generate positive reviews.

It's the whole Dr Who thing writ large, people are revisiting things from their childhood that are still fundamentally being made for children, and trying to impose adult sensibilities on it. There's room for a bit of a nod here or there, but ultimately you're going to have to decide if you can still get joy from the property, or accept that it's not being made for you any more and move on.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

I think as time goes on the Last Jedi will be considered the best of this trilogy. Only in retrospect will it be judged fairly.

I agree with the bolded part, but disagree with the rest. Time won't be kind to this film. I think in 15-20 years most people will comfortably place every prequel ahead of it in any sort of ranking order.

I don't want to get all conspiratorial either but I can imagine that there is a huge amount of pressure on film critics and the publications they write for to stay in the graces of major production and distribution companies, many of which spend millions of dollars in advertising.

Yeah, but there'd be a backlash at the blog level, the people wi nothing invested except a ticket and nothing to gain apart from enjoying writing their thoughts for others to read.

 Riquende wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

I think as time goes on the Last Jedi will be considered the best of this trilogy. Only in retrospect will it be judged fairly.

I agree with the bolded part, but disagree with the rest. Time won't be kind to this film. I think in 15-20 years most people will comfortably place every prequel ahead of it in any sort of ranking order.

No amount of time will suddenly make the acting or directing for the prequels good.

 Compel wrote:
To kinda add fuel to the fire... This article has been shared a lot on my twitter feed over the last few days.

https://bittergertrude.com/2018/01/04/why-so-many-men-hate-the-last-jedi-but-cant-agree-on-why/

I've been reviewing my feelings on the film and I think that, while the premise may be true for some people, ultimately it's a flawed concept overall.

I agree that if the movie were truly bad there'd be a broader consensus as to why, but the rest smells of bovine excrement.

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't want to get all conspiratorial either but I can imagine that there is a huge amount of pressure on film critics and the publications they write for to stay in the graces of major production and distribution companies, many of which spend millions of dollars in advertising.

So I guess Warner Bros isn't spending enough to get good reviews of it's DC movies.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
I don't want to get all conspiratorial either but I can imagine that there is a huge amount of pressure on film critics and the publications they write for to stay in the graces of major production and distribution companies, many of which spend millions of dollars in advertising.

So I guess Warner Bros isn't spending enough to get good reviews of it's DC movies.

Disney is not nice in particular with the "naysayers".

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Flawed =\= bad.

So they should have pointed out its flaws....they don't

Believe what you like - to me this is the only logical explanation.

I think it's flawed as a SW fan. I'm not saying that a critic who isn't necessarily as invested in the IP as me would have the same feelings, nor would they necessarily feel any issues were significant in the context of a popcorn blockbuster that may be more detrimental to a more "worthy" title.

Ultimately you'll have to accept that people who aren't as big a fans are going to have a different perspetive, and if they came away having largely enjoyed the 2 hours they spent watching the film, it's going to largely generate positive reviews.

It's the whole Dr Who thing writ large, people are revisiting things from their childhood that are still fundamentally being made for children, and trying to impose adult sensibilities on it. There's room for a bit of a nod here or there, but ultimately you're going to have to decide if you can still get joy from the property, or accept that it's not being made for you any more and move on.

As I have said several times - i am not a massive Star Wars fan - I don';t really give a damn about the EU - I went hoping to have a an entertaining time watching an action film - like all Star Wars films - I consider none of them to be more than that and quite enjoyed the last film - it was not great but it was fun.

TLJ was not enjoyable to me, the two friends i went with, a friend or even his teenage sons, two other friends - we ALL thought it was a very poor flim in all respects - plot, story, characters, direction, imagery, pacing. The latter are what a Critic should be looking no?

You need to get over this idea that "only super fans hated it" and really look at these so called critics and ask why exactly they wrote what they wrote - what was in it for them.