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.

Any others you recommend?

Kilkrazy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Real quick for another question that just occured to me:

Why didn't the First Order send half or a third of their star destroyers into hyperspace to jump in front of the rebel ships? Presumably you could cover 100 kilometers, 100,000 kilometers, or 500,000 kilometers in the blink of an eye, so the idea that FTL ships are too slow to keep up with other ships not-FTLing makes me wonder...

Because it would have been boring if the First Order was able to use its massive numerical superiority easily to englobe and destroy the Rebel fleet.

Therefore you have to accept that there is a technical reason why such a manoeuvre was not attempted. E.g. there was only one ship with a hyperspace tracker, so splitting the fleet in half might just lose half of them out of communication range, and achieve nothing.

Or, it may be because the First Order thought they had a guaranteed win anyway, and didn't see any need to try different tactics.

Perhaps it's simply that Snoke enjoyed watching the Rebellion slowly running out of fuel and hope before their inevitable destruction.

Or perhaps that sort of gak should be explained in the narrative so that I'm not forced to ask some random dude on the internet forum for a list of "possibilities" with no evidence whatsoever that any of them are more true than these following suggestions:

Perhaps the navigator droids were all hungover from a rad droid batchelor party and they couldn't jump.
Perhaps the hyperdrives catch fire unless you spray them with urine but there wasn't enough coffee to go around.
Perhaps the "hyperspace jump" button had an out of order sticker put on it as a prank that no one thought to remove.

Your ideas are very funny, but I think mine make more sense.

And both are equally supported by the narrative, which simply throws up its hands and says "feth it" when the plot hole is pointed out, allowing the viewer to assume whatever they choose because who gives a feth, right? I mean they got their money from me.

I personally choose to assume that the QT-3.14 hyperdrive has a known issue where it malfunctions when a swift, simple, and easy victory would be assured by its use. Oh, and it's a feature, not a bug.

dogma wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Also, another minor nitpick, but in the next movie I really want to see a "trebuchet starship" and "ballista cheese-cutter" to go with the "battering ram cannon". Because whomever came up with the name "battering ram cannon" should be thrown out a window like one of those bad comics.

It is obviously shorthand used by soldiers who cannot easily understand the physics of the weapon, probably don't care, and are primarily concerned with a "battering ram cannon" at the door.

Yes, obviously shorthand. Which is why, after using it, the soldier, Fin, who doesn't care, mentions that it uses miniaturized Death Star tech and goes into some detail about how they couldn't kill it except by shooting it straight down the barrel.

Because the details of its construction are irrelevant and the soldiers don't care. Right.

Also remember Fynn was on the custodian staff, and was prob well versed in the technical data in all the weapons the First Order had. He was, after all, a grunt.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

KTG17 wrote:
Any others you recommend?

Rebel Dream and Rebel Stand were fun. It and The Last Jedi share some similarities, but the novels handle things much better.

 Eldarain wrote:
A saber staff with a blade only at one end would be a nice weapon for her. Lightspear/halberd.

Krull Glaive lightsaber or get out.


Really, though, polearms? Then the lightlongbow? The lightsaber crossbow? Lightbullets?

Yes, obviously shorthand. Which is why, after using it, the soldier, Fin, who doesn't care, mentions that it uses miniaturized Death Star tech and goes into some detail about how they couldn't kill it except by shooting it straight down the barrel.

Because the details of its construction are irrelevant and the soldiers don't care. Right.

A soldier can refer to something using shorthand or slang and still understand it. If someone says a type of breaching charge is "like a torpedo" it doesn't mean it literally has a propeller and goes in the water. It also doesn't mean they don't understand the limitations and weaknesses of what they're working with.

But I'm sure deliberate obtuseness and condescension makes a way better point than actually reading a post. Obviously, right?

I just don't get why, "Siege Cannon" wasn't the immediate go-to than, "Battering ram cannon."

 dogma wrote:
Didn't Palapatine mock Leia by saying her kid was his new body?

IIRC that was DEII. Palpatine's immortality plan faced two obstacles: (1) he was running out of clones (thanks to Dark Side Luke and others killing them) and (2) he was "wearing out" his remaining ones more quickly. I believe he planned to use Anakin Solo as his new body, figuring it would last longer. But yeah I am sure he also meant to mock Leia.

 ScarletRose wrote:

Yes, obviously shorthand. Which is why, after using it, the soldier, Fin, who doesn't care, mentions that it uses miniaturized Death Star tech and goes into some detail about how they couldn't kill it except by shooting it straight down the barrel.

Because the details of its construction are irrelevant and the soldiers don't care. Right.

A soldier can refer to something using shorthand or slang and still understand it. If someone says a type of breaching charge is "like a torpedo" it doesn't mean it literally has a propeller and goes in the water. It also doesn't mean they don't understand the limitations and weaknesses of what they're working with.

But I'm sure deliberate obtuseness and condescension makes a way better point than actually reading a post. Obviously, right?

I'm also certain that referencing medieval siege engines in a galaxy where they have been at the tech-level of Star Wars for 25,000 years is very informative and people are acutely aware of its limitations and capabilities.

Seriously. It may not bother you, but it's a siege cannon, certainly. It kinda resembles a battering ram, maybe, if you're one of the people that understands the difference between a medieval siege ram and a modern police-style ram... sort of. The name "battering ram cannon" barely makes any sense, unless there's such a plethora of gated fortifications that it was specifically designed to be a battering ram... that fired lasers..

fethin' hell I'd've been more acceptable of a literal laser-capped battering ram (like some sort of lightsabre ram) than whatever this machine is actually called.

Some people like starwars for the cool sci-fi machines, and "battering ram cannon" doesn't really scratch that itch as well as AT-AT or even just the phrase "Imperial walkers" does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I just don't get why, "Siege Cannon" wasn't the immediate go-to than, "Battering ram cannon."

This, exactly. Was there ever even a medieval period in Star Wars with analogous siege engines to the 'battering ram'?

I'm also certain that referencing medieval siege engines in a galaxy where they have been at the tech-level of Star Wars for 25,000 years is very informative and people are acutely aware of its limitations and capabilities.

How many medieval battering rams have the average person on the street seen (or built)? It's something people know about from fiction or heavily fictionalized books/films or that they know from context.

And yeah, it doesn't bother me because I'm not going over the dialog of every film with a fine tooth comb looking for problems. I'm sure there were bad lines in the OT too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
I just don't get why, "Siege Cannon" wasn't the immediate go-to than, "Battering ram cannon."

This, exactly. Was there ever even a medieval period in Star Wars with analogous siege engines to the 'battering ram'?

Modern police use battering rams to knock in doors. I don't recall Stormtroopers using them in the movies, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have access to them either. Sometimes you need to bash your way through a door.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Spoiler:

Honestly I think the biggest flaw with it was "why didn't you just kamikaze one of your smaller ships that was going to have to be left behind for lack of fuel anyway?" They abandoned two ships that could have pulled that stunt and crippled their pursuers.

Absolutely. It's been stated a few times in this thread but everyone kind of figures this out after they look back at the film. How did this make it past screen writing phase?

Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Spoiler:

Honestly I think the biggest flaw with it was "why didn't you just kamikaze one of your smaller ships that was going to have to be left behind for lack of fuel anyway?" They abandoned two ships that could have pulled that stunt and crippled their pursuers.

Absolutely. It's been stated a few times in this thread but everyone kind of figures this out after they look back at the film. How did this make it past screen writing phase?

This flaw has always been in Star Wars. Instead of building a Deathstar, twice, and then Star Killer Base, the Empire and then the First Order could have destroyed planets by just having their numerous Star Destroyers drop kinetic weapons on planets to destroy them. A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels. SW bad guys have always had cool wardrobes and terrible resource management.

And the good guys, apparently, too.

Maybe the reason I just don't like this movie is it took me till now to realize it.

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

Well - they could have done it before they ran out of fuel. Maybe they could have sacked 1 ship and transferred fuel to the other. In any case though. It makes no sense that the Raddus would be in effective weapons range after just turning a 180 and hitting hyper drive. You don't have to slow down to turn around in space.

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

They could have transferred fuel to them, or simply come up with that ballsy course of action on the realization they'd lose the ships anyway from the get go. I can on a level understand why it might not be the first thought. After all ramming your own ship into the enemy isn't usually any captain's first course of action, but I find it kind of inconceivable that they didn't do it the first place if it's that effective. Even with a smaller ship they still could have conceivably disabled Snokes ship which would have made it impossible to keep tracking them.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

This is fair, but I still think it's a glaring hole in a chase scenario full of holes. Why didn't the First Order send some ships off to the side and hyperspace them in front of the Resistance fleet to cut them off? Because the plot demanded it I suppose. Who doesn't prefer an 18 hour chase where anything can happen to quickly dealing with your enemy... Why didn't the massive First Order fleet just deploy hordes of Tie Fighters to blow the enemy ships apart? Has the not-Empire seriously not learned yet that swarms of fighter craft are really really good for taking down capital ships? The Resistance just fething did it like 20 minutes ago with a bunch of ships that looked like they came from a scrap heap don't give me that "you're out of range we can't support you" nonsense. The Resistance is down to 3 ships, one of which is a medical frigate, and you guys have how many Star Destroyers loaded with Ties? Even if Kylo hadn't gotten the "budget demanded" shot of the century and blown up every resistance fighter the First Order still could have swarmed the Resistance to death in ties.

As much as I even enjoyed the film a lot of it ran on really questionable internal logic.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

Well - they could have done it before they ran out of fuel. Maybe they could have sacked 1 ship and transferred fuel to the other. In any case though. It makes no sense that the Raddus would be in effective weapons range after just turning a 180 and hitting hyper drive. You don't have to slow down to turn around in space.

You do in SW, that's always been the rules. It might not make physical sense, but ships in SW have always acted like aircraft in an atmosphere, they can't just flip over while maintaining momentum like a BSG Viper...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I kind of agree, Hulksmash, and avoid it in my post just above yours, but the hyperspace missile thing realllllly bothers me. It shouldn't and I know it's nitpicking, but here's my $0.02 on the hyperspace missile thing:

Why? Why haven't we seen this before? I had always assumed it was because hyperspace stuff couldn't hit not-hyperspace stuff, like it was somehow nonphysical or in another dimension or whatever.

Now, I just don't know. In a universe where droid brains exist and therefore hyperspace-capable missiles exist, why wouldn't you use them? Why would capital ships be a thing at all? The military logic of the setting is ruined for me.

Anyways, that's all I'm going to say. I'm a bit upset that the whole military coherency of the setting is completely undone in one scene, but that's just me. I know it's nitpicky. Sorry.

100% agree. I understand that this is sci-fantasy but seriously...If hyperspace can be used as a weapon so easily - the entire concept of starwars is flawed. A death-star would be meaningless and easily destroyed by hyperspace kenetic weapons.

Spoiler:

Honestly I think the biggest flaw with it was "why didn't you just kamikaze one of your smaller ships that was going to have to be left behind for lack of fuel anyway?" They abandoned two ships that could have pulled that stunt and crippled their pursuers.

Absolutely. It's been stated a few times in this thread but everyone kind of figures this out after they look back at the film. How did this make it past screen writing phase?

This flaw has always been in Star Wars. Instead of building a Deathstar, twice, and then Star Killer Base, the Empire and then the First Order could have destroyed planets by just having their numerous Star Destroyers drop kinetic weapons on planets to destroy them. A few giant rocks launched from Star Destroyers accomplishes everything the Deathstar does and does it cheaper and in a manner easier to defend against rebels. SW bad guys have always had cool wardrobes and terrible resource management.

Well we actually have source on this from ANH. Han says something to the effect of "it would take "more than" all the firepower in the entire imperial fleet to destroy a planet" Han might not be qualified to knows this but it is something. You are correct though that a star destroyer has everything it needs to destroy a planet already - just by using impulse engines and crashing into the planet given it's mass - would probably kill everything alive on the planet just like an asteroid would. Or like you mention with tractoring huge rocks at a planet. It would be a little easier to stop those plans though as all you'd have to do is destroy a star destroyer to stop it. You'd never have a chance to stop a hyperspace missile.

 Easy E wrote:
So, Star Wars was always fundamentally a morality play about Good vs. Evil, right and wrong. What does this movie tell us about those things?

Fundamentally nothing.

WHICH IS A HUGE SHAME.

The key question is, Why did Ben Solo turn to the dark side? Rian Johnson even knew this was the key question because he had characters attempt to explain it three times. But none of those three instances addresses the question. Yes, we finally understand that Luke intended to murder Ben, changed his mind right before doing it, but tragically not before Ben woke up to his estranged Uncle Luke hovering over his bed with a drawn and ignited lightsaber like a mega creeper horror movie killer. But keep in mind, the whole reason Luke intended to murder him, almost did so, then at the last minute backed down, is because he believed Ben Solo was already too far gone down the path of darkness. How/why this happened IS NOT EXPLAINED except "Snoke did it."

Now this could have been really good. It's not hard to imagine a very compelling story here. Ben is not only the heir of a generation of galactic heroes he's also the heir apparent of the whole Jedi legacy. That's enormous pressure. What if he was having trouble living up to those expectations? So he used the age-old short cut: the Dark Side. Meanwhile, out beyond known space, an ancient dark side power is stirring and becomes aware of Ben Solo's raw power when he starts to use the dark side. This is Snoke, and he uses Force Skype to remotely instruct Ben in dark techniques. Luke becomes aware of this and warns Ben not to indulge in anger, fear, aggression.

And here is where the new movies could have made a huge difference and told a compelling moral story: What if the dark side is addictive? What if Ben agreed with Luke that he shouldn't be using dark side powers - i.e., that he should "stay clean" - but he just couldn't?

This would have made so much sense. Yoda told Luke, once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Vader told Luke, it is too late for me my son/you don't know the power of the dark side. Hell, the idea that the dark side is not a moral choice but rather an addiction even helps the Prequels make more sense.

This would make Rey's compassion for Kylo Ren much more believable. If she figured out that he's an addict, that he's not just an donkey-cave, it would make more sense for her to believe she could help him/that he deserved help.

Finally, this would also make sense of why Luke failed Ben. Luke did not have to deal with his dad trying to "get sober" because Vader died immediately after saving Luke from Palpatine. Therefore, in Luke's mind, the light and the darkness are moral choices. His dad ultimately chose him over the dark side. But with addiction, we're talking about compulsory behavior. If Vader had survived that encounter, do you think he would have been good from then on out? Pretty doubtful.

 Manchu wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So, Star Wars was always fundamentally a morality play about Good vs. Evil, right and wrong. What does this movie tell us about those things?

Fundamentally nothing.

WHICH IS A HUGE SHAME.

The key question is, Why did Ben Solo turn to the dark side? Rian Johnson even knew this was the key question because he had characters attempt to explain it three times. But none of those three instances addresses the question. Yes, we finally understand that Luke intended to murder Ben, changed his mind right before doing it, but tragically not before Ben woke up to his estranged Uncle Luke hovering over his bed with a drawn and ignited lightsaber like a mega creeper horror movie killer. But keep in mind, the whole reason Luke intended to murder him, almost did so, then at the last minute backed down, is because he believed Ben Solo was already too far gone down the path of darkness. How/why this happened IS NOT EXPLAINED except "Snoke did it."

Now this could have been really good. It's not hard to imagine a very compelling story here. Ben is not only the heir of a generation of galactic heroes he's also the heir apparent of the whole Jedi legacy. That's enormous pressure. What if he was having trouble living up to those expectations? So he used the age-old short cut: the Dark Side. Meanwhile, out beyond known space, an ancient dark side power is stirring and becomes aware of Ben Solo's raw power when he starts to use the dark side. This is Snoke, and he uses Force Skype to remotely instruct Ben in dark techniques. Luke becomes aware of this and warns Ben not to indulge in anger, fear, aggression.

And here is where the new movies could have made a huge difference and told a compelling moral story: What if the dark side is addictive? What if Ben agreed with Luke that he shouldn't be using dark side powers - i.e., that he should "stay clean" - but he just couldn't?

This would have made so much sense. Yoda told Luke, once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Vader told Luke, it is too late for me my son/you don't know the power of the dark side. Hell, the idea that the dark side is not a moral choice but rather an addiction even helps the Prequels make more sense.

This would make Rey's compassion for Kylo Ren much more believable. If she figured out that he's an addict, that he's not just an donkey-cave, it would make more sense for her to believe she could help him/that he deserved help.

Finally, this would also make sense of why Luke failed Ben. Luke did not have to deal with his dad trying to "get sober" because Vader died immediately after saving Luke from Palpatine. Therefore, in Luke's mind, the light and the darkness are moral choices. His dad ultimately chose him over the dark side. But with addiction, we're talking about compulsory behavior. If Vader had survived that encounter, do you think he would have been good from then on out? Pretty doubtful.

Manchu, you and I have disagreed mightily on TFA and R1 in other threads.

Every. Thing. You. Have. Said. About. TLJ. In . This. Thread. Is. Right.

I propose that you should write the next episode of Star Wars.

I just assumed that as Snoke linked Rey and Kylo, he was able to link to Ben and manipulate him from who knows where. While not really explained, it's a sufficient inference to explain what happened. I still think this was a missed opportunity though simply because I think we all were hungering for a lot more than an inference we have to draw on our own. For such a long movie they really didn't cover a whole lot. Too much time spent juggling four different sub-plots.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Keep in mind:
a) the first two ships ran out of fuel as they were evacuated, they couldn't make the jump of they wanted to. The Raddus meanwhile clearly had fuel left to initiate the jump.

b) those ships were also blown apart as soon as they were in range. Arguably, Holdo was only able to pull that trick because the FO fleet was too busy trying to shoot down the transports they'd just become aware of. Hux even orders them to switch their fire back to the Raddus but it's too late at that point.

Well - they could have done it before they ran out of fuel. Maybe they could have sacked 1 ship and transferred fuel to the other. In any case though. It makes no sense that the Raddus would be in effective weapons range after just turning a 180 and hitting hyper drive. You don't have to slow down to turn around in space.

You do in SW, that's always been the rules. It might not make physical sense, but ships in SW have always acted like aircraft in an atmosphere, they can't just flip over while maintaining momentum like a BSG Viper...

Can't recall any time that a situation really called for an about face in starwars to really test that theory. OFC one of the dumbest things in ANH was when they had to fly down the trench under gun fire over the deathstar when they could have just flown directly at the target and avoided all of it...it even would have fixed the issue with the angling. You expect more out of writers today though.

In the 70's average people knew practically nothing about space. Carl Sagan Cosmos didn't come out until after ANH (starwars probably started to get people interested in space (and alien)) You'd think landing on the moon might have done it...nope Starwars did it. Today - the average person knows a lot more. You have to make your film believable to the viewer or it's going to get ragged on.

 LordofHats wrote:
I just assumed that as Snoke linked Rey and Kylo, he was able to link to Ben and manipulate him from who knows where. While not really explained, it's a sufficient inference to explain what happened. I still think this was a missed opportunity though simply because I think we all were hungering for a lot more than an inference we have to draw on our own. For such a long movie they really didn't cover a whole lot. Too much time spent juggling four different sub-plots.

While that works as an explanation, Luke even tells Rey that when Luke went to check on Ben that fateful night he could sense that Snoke has already connected to Ben. Of course that just raises more questions like, did Luke know Snoke existed? Did Luke fail Ben by not preparing him to deal with Snoke or did Luke fail Ben because he didn't know Snoke was even a threat until it was too late?

I know I'd like to know. How Snoke fits into the Star Wars universe in a more grand sense might be irrelevant for the plot of the films themselves but I still want to know. Guy seems really strong to have simply appeared from nowhere. Certainly in the new films he's treated as something the heroes have known about for sometime but I'd like to see the background there.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I just assumed that as Snoke linked Rey and Kylo, he was able to link to Ben and manipulate him from who knows where. While not really explained, it's a sufficient inference to explain what happened. I still think this was a missed opportunity though simply because I think we all were hungering for a lot more than an inference we have to draw on our own. For such a long movie they really didn't cover a whole lot. Too much time spent juggling four different sub-plots.

While that works as an explanation, Luke even tells Rey that when Luke went to check on Ben that fateful night he could sense that Snoke has already connected to Ben. Of course that just raises more questions like, did Luke know Snoke existed? Did Luke fail Ben by not preparing him to deal with Snoke or did Luke fail Ben because he didn't know Snoke was even a threat until it was too late?

Luke knew Snoke existed. When he confessed to Rey - he said he knew Snoke had already had turned Kylo. I'm pretty certain of that - anyone remember exactly what Luke said?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Luke knew Snoke existed. When he confessed to Rey - he said he knew Snoke had already had turned Kylo. I'm pretty certain of that - anyone remember exactly what Luke said?

Luke could have found out about Snoke long after that flashback occurred. Hind sight and all that can change how someone recounts events, so it wouldn't matter what Luke specifically said.
Until we find out otherwise, my headcanon for Snoke is that he influenced Ben's darkside AND Luke's doubts long before revealing himself. It makes Luke's doubts less ....disappointing... if they were not truly his own, but the manipulations of a darkside entity Luke was unaware of.

It could also add to Luke's reason for exiling himself. Not only did he fail to see Ben turn, but he failed to realize that he could be manipulated by Snoke. This would also reinforce his comment that the Jedi are arrogant and need to end. He too let his arrogance blind him.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Luke knew Snoke existed. When he confessed to Rey - he said he knew Snoke had already had turned Kylo. I'm pretty certain of that - anyone remember exactly what Luke said?

Luke could have found out about Snoke long after that flashback occurred. Hind sight and all that can change how someone recounts events, so it wouldn't matter what Luke specifically said.
Until we find out otherwise, my headcanon for Snoke is that he influenced Ben's darkside AND Luke's doubts long before revealing himself. It makes Luke's doubts less ....disappointing... if they were not truly his own, but the manipulations of a darkside entity Luke was unaware of.

It could also add to Luke's reason for exiling himself. Not only did he fail to see Ben turn, but he failed to realize that he could be manipulated by Snoke. This would also reinforce his comment that the Jedi are arrogant and need to end. He too let his arrogance blind him.

-

Entirely possible. I just thought I specifically remember him saying to Rey "I knew snoke had turned him" to me that would mean that he (in that moment) knew who snoke was.

Also - Jedi need to chill on this feeling bad when they can't sense the dark side. Palpatine rose up in front of the entire Jedi Council of masters. "Hard to see the dark side is." Don't feel bad luke! Also - all these force ghosts flying around...someone could have given him a tip.

Does RT usually count 2.5/4 reviews as rotten?