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.

 Azreal13 wrote:


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.

Rey and Luke lightsaber scene - basic mistakes in the editing (check Rey's distance betwen the shot) - also tonal dissonance
Luke and Kylo duel - suddenly matrix-style dodge out of nowhere
Poe and Hux - your mama joke
Overall stupidity of the slow paced chase
Overall tone deaf morality
Overall stupidity of the Holdo subplot

All of this has nothing to do with being a SW fan or not. This is something someone that never heard about SW would pick up. Critics are shown to be way less forgiving with other movies with such basic problems.
Why not TLJ?

Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Is not a matter of my opinion. If you bothered to read my post, you would have discovered that I wrote that similar things are generally criticised by the same critics.
So, regardless of what I think, why these very basic things are not picked up?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Is not a matter of my opinion. If you bothered to read my post, you would have discovered that I wrote that similar things are generally criticised by the same critics.
So, regardless of what I think, why these very basic things are not picked up?

Agreed - they are quick enough with other films to point out these flaws- but strangely not this one - I wonder how much pressure / money was involved.

 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.

That blogpost is pure insanity.
But hey, these are the people Kathleen Kennedy panders to.

EDIT: unless I am mistaken, the author teaches and she is a professional in Education, Casting, Producing, and Script Development.
For one, I have just lost any faith in education and in the future.
On the other hand, I have to conclude that Disney does not need to corrupt anyone. I was wrong all along. Is enough to build a soulless product that panders to these box-checkers and all the advertisement will come by itself.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Is not a matter of my opinion. If you bothered to read my post, you would have discovered that I wrote that similar things are generally criticised by the same critics.
So, regardless of what I think, why these very basic things are not picked up?

My question was for Morden. I missed the quote. But since you what a fight. What movie is error free? Seriously? Hell which Star Wars movie doesn't have a bunch of nonsense like what you've posted?


Actually, don't answer. I forgot who I was talking to.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Is not a matter of my opinion. If you bothered to read my post, you would have discovered that I wrote that similar things are generally criticised by the same critics.
So, regardless of what I think, why these very basic things are not picked up?

My question was for Morden. I missed the quote. But since you what a fight. What movie is error free? Seriously? Hell which Star Wars movie doesn't have a bunch of nonsense like what you've posted?

Your missing the entire point - why is none of this "nonsense" pointed out by the so called independant critics? Why are they are claming its so good?

My pov is no more valid than yours or a critics and I value no critics more highly than yours or mine.

 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.

From what I've seen there are a lot of complaints about the movie which have reached a level of broad consensus amongst its detractors, namely how it seems to squander opportunities that were set up by the previous films.

Also, that article is a pretty good example of someone who liked it because it appears to engage in identity politics, not because it's a good film with good characters. It's the same tired argument I've seen time and time again; you must like this film because of its political messaging, because its political messaging alone makes it a good and enjoyable film in spite of any other flaws it might have, and if you don't the only valid reason for disliking it is because you're some kind of bigot. It's not an argument about the merits of the film as a film, it's a politically-driven false equivalency.

There are so many universally acclaimed and beloved films and franchises with female leads that arguments such as this just don't hold any water. The Alien and Terminator series both jump to mind. In another, more recent example, Mad Max: Fury Road generated controversy because some rando on a PUA blog made a post about how the film was an attack on masculinity, yet the film received excellent reviews from critics and the general public. Because it was a good movie with good characters. The vast majority of people couldn't care less about the gender of the lead character as long as that character is interesting and well written, and the film itself is enjoyable to watch.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Is not a matter of my opinion. If you bothered to read my post, you would have discovered that I wrote that similar things are generally criticised by the same critics.
So, regardless of what I think, why these very basic things are not picked up?

My question was for Morden. I missed the quote. But since you what a fight. What movie is error free? Seriously? Hell which Star Wars movie doesn't have a bunch of nonsense like what you've posted?

The OT has none of the tonal or editing issues I posted above. Maybe stuff like a stormtrooper bashing the head in ANH but that is normal: is like complaining of the choreography of some of the red guard in TLJ. Nonsense, the scene works because a sense of chaos, fight and flow is created.
Only the Rey part above is possibly a true error, the rest is pure amateurish garbage created by a film school reject that landed finally in thanks to his parents' money.
The humor in the OT is nowhere as tonally deaf as the one in this movie. Is very attentive of the situation and more restrained unless needed.
Not going to defend the PT. I find it more "honest" than the ST in a way but those are not good movies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Actually, don't answer. I forgot who I was talking to.

Elaborate this, even in a PM, o just avoid similar comments.

As soon as you read anything defending TLJ on grounds that criticizing the film is ultimately misogynistic and/or sexist ... stop reading it and close the browser window. There's no point in dignifying such schemes. We know for a fact that this is now a standard Hollywood counter-marketing tactic.

Indeed, any discussion about TLJ that focuses on praising or insulting the audience instead of focusing on the stengths and weaknesses of the movie is a big red flag for "paid for by a marketing agency."

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Why is your opinion more valid than theirs?

Because critics are paid for their reviews to be good. This has been shown many times. Also in the case of video games they are total dip-****s at playing actual video games. It's proven when it shows them playing games.

I just hope the han solo movie ends up being good.

@manchu: Reviews done by paid critics are like toilet paper and should be used as such.

 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.

Not this nonsense again.

TLR You didn't like the movie, you must be sexist.

the director was constantly stating he was subverting expectations. I went with the expectation to see a good star wars movie, my expectations were subverted, I saw a bad star wars movie and I doubt ep 9 will raise that any.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:

 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.

From what I've seen there are a lot of complaints about the movie which have reached a level of broad consensus amongst its detractors, namely how it seems to squander opportunities that were set up by the previous films.

Also, that article is a pretty good example of someone who liked it because it appears to engage in identity politics, not because it's a good film with good characters. It's the same tired argument I've seen time and time again; you must like this film because of its political messaging, because its political messaging alone makes it a good and enjoyable film in spite of any other flaws it might have, and if you don't the only valid reason for disliking it is because you're some kind of bigot. It's not an argument about the merits of the film as a film, it's a politically-driven false equivalency.

There are so many universally acclaimed and beloved films and franchises with female leads that arguments such as this just don't hold any water. The Alien and Terminator series both jump to mind. In another, more recent example, Mad Max: Fury Road generated controversy because some rando on a PUA blog made a post about how the film was an attack on masculinity, yet the film received excellent reviews from critics and the general public. Because it was a good movie with good characters. The vast majority of people couldn't care less about the gender of the lead character as long as that character is interesting and well written, and the film itself is enjoyable to watch.

And because others have mentioned doctor who, there's not a whovian alive that doesn't love and adore sarah jane smith (Elisabeth Sladen). Another loss that made a fandom weep. the idea that fan boys are inherently sexist is utter garbage.

Wow you guys are still arguing over this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think Star Wars is "dumb schlock". I think it's a space fantasy action epic.

It's not a detective film or a documentary, so it presents a different kind of content and plot.

Star Wars draws on common legendary archetypes such as the princess needing help, the farmboy become hero, the evil magician, etc.
Also, by the 9th film in the series, it has generated its own set of tropes and themes, for example that the hero will be strong in the Force, and the Force will enable the hero to be effective, but the hero will be opposed by someone strong in the dark side of the Force.

From this angle it's clear that Snoke is an evil magician/king character. To me it simply is unnecessary to document his back story. To do so would slow down the exciting progression of space fights and spectacular alien worlds, which is the true strength of Star Wars films.

OTOH it is necessary to explain Ren and Luke's back story, to show why Luke has become a disillusioned old man hiding on a remote island when people may have expected him to burst out as a hero to save the rebellion.

I don't think most people want the full back story of snoke, just a bit in the opening scrawl about how the empire formed into the first order after the death of the emperor and some "inquisitor"? took up the reigns to hold it together would have been nice. at some point they should have at least reference what happened between 6 & 7 to catch everyone up on what is happening in the universe.

 -Loki- wrote:
Wow you guys are still arguing over this.

Well, it's still in theaters.

 Riquende wrote:
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.

It's also worth noting that being given access to advance screenings is critical to reviewers being able to do their jobs. It would be pretty much impossible to drop reviews on day one if you had to wait on the theatrical release to see the film, and studios aren't going to give you early access if they believe you're going to trash the flick.

There are exceptions, of course, certain critics are so high profile that shutting them out would generate more negative publicity than a single bad review (Roger Ebert, Gene Shalit, Leonard Maltin, etc.). Though I suppose it could be argued that those sorts of critics rose to prominence due to their tendency to go soft on movies.

I thought it was a good movie, better than TFA but not as good as Rogue One.

I think there were definitely weak parts to the story (the whole casino planet Harry Potter-esque animals and orphans stuff) that could honestly just have been cut.

But I liked that they fleshed out Rey and Kylo, they felt more like real people compared with TFA.

 dogma wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
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.

It's also worth noting that being given access to advance screenings is critical to reviewers being able to do their jobs. It would be pretty much impossible to drop reviews on day one if you had to wait on the theatrical release to see the film, and studios aren't going to give you early access if they believe you're going to trash the flick.

But why does a review need to drop day one to be valid? Plenty of non-big name critics are able to write (or record in the YT age) reviews of films for blogs, minor publications etc.

In general I'd agree that the big studio/professional critic relationship is largely symbiotic.

I wasn't going to see it but I picked up a free ticket. I was expecting it to be terrible and it certainly met those expectations.

In terms of storytelling, these new movies are basically the antithesis of the prequels. The prequels went into painstaking detail to explain every event leading up to the fall of the republic and suffered for it. They weren't good movies by any stretch but everything that happened made some degree of sense in and of itself.

These sequels are basically Star Wars completely stripped of any substance to the point where only the aesthetics remain. Granted they nailed that part but the movies are beyond shallow. There isn't a single interesting thing worth discussing with regards to the storyline or characters TFA or TLJ.

The prequels and sequels do have poor dialogue and acting in common (although admittedly the sequels aren't quite as bad as the prequels in that regard).

 Riquende wrote:

But why does a review need to drop day one to be valid? Plenty of non-big name critics are able to write (or record in the YT age) reviews of films for blogs, minor publications etc.

It doesn't, but day one is when most people are looking for reviews. This generates hits, which generates money for the reviewer and any organization they happen to be associated with.

Totalbiscuit, a prominent Youtube personality who reviews video games, has gone on at length regarding the importance of advance copies to his business. Most people don't look for reviews a week after a major film, or game, drops. They look for them on the release date because they want to decide if spending 15+ USD for a theater ticket is worthwhile.

Also, it is release day; that's instant publicity for any article associated with the piece of media.

 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.

Ever heard of the parable of the blind men and the elephant?

It is true that The Last Jedi is too much like the original trilogy - they shouldn't have forced things to go back to the Rebellion vs. Empire.

It is also true that The Last Jedi isn't enough like the original trilogy - Johnson shouldn't have been so murder-happy that the new Rebellion can fit in the Millenium Falcon.

These are both the same criticism, but one focuses on the first half of the problem (New Republic to Resistance) while the other covers the whole thing (New Republic to a Resistance that could hardly field a football team). Similarly, saying the movie needed a different kind of humour naturally involves getting rid of the existing humour, and adding new humour to replace it.

And yes, it is the Hillary Clinton of filmmaking. If one person didn't vote for her because she voted for the PATRIOT Act and another person didn't vote for her because she's a 70 year old who collapsed in public two months before the election, that doesn't make either of those criticisms invalid - it just made her a bad candidate.

 Riquende wrote:
But why does a review need to drop day one to be valid?

Because the target audience of most reviews is people who are interested in the movie, but haven't seen it for themselves. It shouldn't be any surprise that that audience shrinks dramatically on the day of release. If you don't have a review on day one, they'll find someone else who does.

 Luciferian wrote:

 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.

From what I've seen there are a lot of complaints about the movie which have reached a level of broad consensus amongst its detractors, namely how it seems to squander opportunities that were set up by the previous films.

Also, that article is a pretty good example of someone who liked it because it appears to engage in identity politics, not because it's a good film with good characters. It's the same tired argument I've seen time and time again; you must like this film because of its political messaging, because its political messaging alone makes it a good and enjoyable film in spite of any other flaws it might have, and if you don't the only valid reason for disliking it is because you're some kind of bigot. It's not an argument about the merits of the film as a film, it's a politically-driven false equivalency.

There are so many universally acclaimed and beloved films and franchises with female leads that arguments such as this just don't hold any water. The Alien and Terminator series both jump to mind. In another, more recent example, Mad Max: Fury Road generated controversy because some rando on a PUA blog made a post about how the film was an attack on masculinity, yet the film received excellent reviews from critics and the general public. Because it was a good movie with good characters. The vast majority of people couldn't care less about the gender of the lead character as long as that character is interesting and well written, and the film itself is enjoyable to watch.

Exactly!

Mad max was good, furiosa was fecking amazing not because she was a woman, but because she was a bloody interesting character AND badass, Briene of tarth is my favourite game of thrones character not because she is a woman, because she is an interesting character AND badass and doesn't ware boob armour and isn't a 95lb woman knocking 230lb men through walls (super powers like Wonder Woman I accept), briene is BELEIVABLE, Rey, fin etc. Are not even slightly believable, and both are fantasy.....

Personally I am sick of these idiots (yep, they are idiots) always falling back on gender politics or some other crap to cover up that a movie is awful, ghostbusters sucked not because of woman, it sucked because they squandered all that good talent, bad script and terrible acting (they did what they could), Star Wars sucked because of its terrible acting, waste of characters, bad script and worst of all treating its audience like absolute retards, I won't forgive a film that expects me to be thick as two short planks for suspension of disbelief, Star Trek did it with the new movies and now the last jedi has done it.

Story----->characters------>spectacle----------------------------------------------------->politics... or you know, just leave it out.

 dogma wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

But why does a review need to drop day one to be valid? Plenty of non-big name critics are able to write (or record in the YT age) reviews of films for blogs, minor publications etc.

It doesn't, but day one is when most people are looking for reviews. This generates hits, which generates money for the reviewer and any organization they happen to be associated with.

Totalbiscuit, a prominent Youtube personality who reviews video games, has gone on at length regarding the importance of advance copies to his business. Most people don't look for reviews a week after a major film, or game, drops. They look for them on the release date because they want to decide if spending 15+ USD for a theater ticket is worthwhile.

Also, it is release day; that's instant publicity for any article associated with the piece of media.

Right, so professional critics have a vested financial interest in staying onside of studios. Are we disagreeing on that or just discussing aspects of it as I can't properly tell...

Before I saw the film I only saw a couple of reviews, which were positive. People I spoke to who saw it on the first couple of days gave really positive reviews, so I went in expecting a really good movie. And then... I thought it was great. I have nitpicks, but I have nitpicks about almost every movie I've ever seen. I thought the was engaging throughout, I liked the characters and the way they interact, the plot gave plenty of surprises without having twists just for the sake of it, and while the themes were a little heavy handed the message was interesting. Most of all there were so many great visuals throughout the movie. That hyperspace image was one of the great movie moments.

It wasn't until about a week after seeing it that I found out there were people who didn't like it. It really surprised me to find that out, I just assumed people would love this movie, particularly SW fans. And since then I've read a whole lot of complaints, and honestly I don't get the complaints at all. I don't mean I disagree, I mean they're saying things that leave me genuinely perplexed as to how someone could have that opinion. Snoke lacking background is a good example - I have no idea how someone could watch TFA and TLJ and walk away thinking there is something lacking because they didn't give Snoke more background. Snoke is an antagonist, sometimes their backgrounds are given, most times they are not because it doesn't matter, their place in the film is to oppose the hero, what matters is the particular challenge they give to the heroes. Complaining Snoke lacks background is as weird as saying the original series is bad because it doesn't explain how the Emperor came to be the Emperor. Or saying Die Hard is bad because we don't know how Hans Gruber decided to become a psycho hostage taking thief. Or why Ming would want to blow up Earth and marry the Earth girl.

That's just one example, but honestly every complaint I've seen is more or less the same. They read as complaints people have when they're trying to find problems in a movie. This doesn't mean people's reactions aren't valid, people don't enjoy the film that's a genuine and valid reaction.
But it does mean the actual reason why is something people are probably finding a hard time putting their finger on. I know there's been some gender stuff saying it's male reaction against this and that, honestly that stuff reads like it does for every movie, and I don't think that's the reason. Truth this I have no idea why so many people reacted so strongly against this movie, and and after reading a lot of complaints, all I've learned is that most people who reacted against this movie don't actually know either.


Anyhow, on the actual movie and not just the reaction against it...

As explained many times ITT already, terms like "backstory" are red herrings. No one wanted much less expected TLJ to be a Snoke biopic. What folks did expect, rightfully, was some explanation for all the issues TFA offered as tantalizing mysteries/required the audiense to (presumably temporarily) overlook: what happened to the Empire, what is the origin of the First Order, why did Ben Solo fall to the dark side, how is Rey related to all this? etc, etc, etc. And Snoke was presented to us as the crux of all these dangling threads. After all, Snoke is the leader of the First Order, Snoke is responsible for frustrating the efforts of Luke and turning Ben, Snoke is the character who introduces the mysterious concept of the Awakening. Therefore Snoke is the natural mascot for TLJ's failure as a compelling sequel to TFA: rather than extrapolating on issues raised by TFA, TLJ either ignores or glosses over those issues.

You should try asking someone who's been divorced, why they got divorced. There's almost never a reason for it, it's usually an accumulation of all the nitpicks.

Unless it's the one reason everyone agrees with, cheating. Like when we all agree when a given movie just really sucks. ie star trek 1 & 5, farscape, firefly, highlander 2+

the chain of command in TLJ was horrific and unbelievable. being in the navy I know whats involved when you abandon ship. Everyone on the ship knows where leaving, where we're going and we are even given the latest weather conditions and directions towards the nearest friendlies. Holdo was a failure as an admiral for keeping that information from the crew.

My job for evacuating was to go around and destroy all the sensitive information we wouldn't want to fall into enemy hands, again Holdo failed.

 Manchu wrote:
As explained many times ITT already, terms like "backstory" are red herrings. No one wanted much less expected TLJ to be a Snoke biopic. What folks did expect, rightfully, was some explanation for all the issues TFA offered as tantalizing mysteries/required the audiense to (presumably temporarily) overlook: what happened to the Empire, what is the origin of the First Order, why did Ben Solo fall to the dark side, how is Rey related to all this? etc, etc, etc. And Snoke was presented to us as the crux of all these dangling threads. After all, Snoke is the leader of the First Order, Snoke is responsible for frustrating the efforts of Luke and turning Ben, Snoke is the character who introduces the mysterious concept of the Awakening. Therefore Snoke is the natural mascot for TLJ's failure as a compelling sequel to TFA: rather than extrapolating on issues raised by TFA, TLJ either ignores or glosses over those issues.

This short paragraph does rather neatly sum up the biggest issues with TLJ.

Well done!

 sebster wrote:
Before I saw the film I only saw a couple of reviews, which were positive. People I spoke to who saw it on the first couple of days gave really positive reviews, so I went in expecting a really good movie. And then... I thought it was great. I have nitpicks, but I have nitpicks about almost every movie I've ever seen. I thought the was engaging throughout, I liked the characters and the way they interact, the plot gave plenty of surprises without having twists just for the sake of it, and while the themes were a little heavy handed the message was interesting. Most of all there were so many great visuals throughout the movie. That hyperspace image was one of the great movie moments.

It wasn't until about a week after seeing it that I found out there were people who didn't like it. It really surprised me to find that out, I just assumed people would love this movie, particularly SW fans. And since then I've read a whole lot of complaints, and honestly I don't get the complaints at all. I don't mean I disagree, I mean they're saying things that leave me genuinely perplexed as to how someone could have that opinion. Snoke lacking background is a good example - I have no idea how someone could watch TFA and TLJ and walk away thinking there is something lacking because they didn't give Snoke more background. Snoke is an antagonist, sometimes their backgrounds are given, most times they are not because it doesn't matter, their place in the film is to oppose the hero, what matters is the particular challenge they give to the heroes. Complaining Snoke lacks background is as weird as saying the original series is bad because it doesn't explain how the Emperor came to be the Emperor. Or saying Die Hard is bad because we don't know how Hans Gruber decided to become a psycho hostage taking thief. Or why Ming would want to blow up Earth and marry the Earth girl.

That's just one example, but honestly every complaint I've seen is more or less the same. They read as complaints people have when they're trying to find problems in a movie. This doesn't mean people's reactions aren't valid, people don't enjoy the film that's a genuine and valid reaction.
But it does mean the actual reason why is something people are probably finding a hard time putting their finger on. I know there's been some gender stuff saying it's male reaction against this and that, honestly that stuff reads like it does for every movie, and I don't think that's the reason. Truth this I have no idea why so many people reacted so strongly against this movie, and and after reading a lot of complaints, all I've learned is that most people who reacted against this movie don't actually know either.


Anyhow, on the actual movie and not just the reaction against it...

Spoiler:

I especially liked that for once, in probably the first time in any movie I can think of, the a film showed that a military chain of command exist for a reason, and that the heroes going off half-cocked is a bad idea that can have terrible consequences. This was particularly enjoyable because of the nonsense in Rogue One where the Rebellion was turned in to a collection of ineffectual idiots just to provide the heroes with another obstacle to overcome.

I am not sure if you have had time to read all the posts but many of us are statying the definative reasons we did not like enjoy the film - these include but are not limited to:

Poor Pacing
Poor Characterisation
Poor narrative structure
Internal narrative issues
Focuss on peripheral or unimportant elements rather than developing charters and / or story line

Many of us have been extremely clear about this stuff and very few if any have cited any element of gender as a negative - Characters that many have an issue with would have been awful if they had been male or female - eg Phasma was just a joke and her geneder was irrelvant to that.

Its great to have male and female characters - my fav films all have female leads. Jar jar was awful - irrespective of gender.

I'm amazed people still think we don't know why we don't like aspects of it maybe because a lot of what people don't like is weak plot, poor pacing and lack of character development, which is maybe difficult to articulate well, but that said there's also been a lot of specific dislikes that are, well, very specific.

 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.

Wow. That article is DEEPLY insulting. “Now, I’m not saying you’re a mysoginist if you found fault with this movie...but you’re probably a mysoginist if you found fault with this movie.” That’s what I got from that article. Star Wars episodes I-IX were supposed to be about the Skywalker clan. With Ben in, you can still argue that Skywalker blood is still involved. But so far, he’s the bad guy, unless he redeems himself in the last movie (pulling a reverse of Anakin’s journey onscreen). But that’s not what we’re finding flaws in. We’re not whining “oh, there’s a black guy or a woman as the main heroes”; we’re saying Finn needs to be less the comic relief, and we want him to have a stronger role. He’s a goof. He’s this film’s Jar Jar (ok, not that bad, but you get the idea). We want him to be the badass he was in the first half of TFA. Instead he became a goofball. We don’t dislike Rey because she’s a woman, we dislike Rey because this person who we learn has 0 connection and is an absolute nobody has more draw to the Skywalker lightsaber than even its previous masters did. More draw than the descendent does. It calls to her like it never called to Luke or Anakin. Why? I get her fight scenes. I get she’s got training. But this new character overshadowed everyone in the old trilogy. She can fly the Falcon without a copilot. She can use a Jedi’s weapon and have it speak to her when it’s actual two owners couldn’t even do that. I’d expect most fans would be bothered by any character coming out and being able to do that; no matter their skin color, gender or race. And lastly, for me, the original trilogy felt cohesive, even with the side missions. Heck, even 1-3 felt cohesive, even if we didn’t agree with Lucas’ direction for it. This movie felt all over the place. I definitely felt it could have been more.