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.

 Easy E wrote:
I propose that you should write the next episode of Star Wars.

It'd be a much easier job if I got to write TLJ, too. As it stands, whatever is interesting in Episode IX is going to have to be invented specifically for Episode IX rather than flowing from TLJ.

The Luke-Rey-Kylo-Snoke spectrum is the best, strongest part of TLJ but it's mostly squandered. The amazing Reylo team up should have been the climax of the movie. And the movie should have visually/emotionally paralleled TFA: TFA ends with a shot of Rey reaching out to Luke and TLJ should have ended with a shot of Kylo Ren reaching out to Rey.

Adding characters like Holdo and Rose was a mistake. The heavy, emotional "A Plot" about Rey and Kylo should have been balanced by a lighter, heroic "B Plot" starring Finn and Poe. In this way, TLJ could have been a tight, fun, but also moving film.

Killing Luke rather than Leia was also a mistake, and not just because Carrie Fisher died. Leia has nothing to do in TLJ except serve as an inspiration. Her death would have actually enhanced this role. It would also, in combination with Han's death, create a super interesting emotional arc for Luke - he's been gone all these years and now his best friends are dead. It's too late for them - but not too late for Rey. Luke should have been portrayed as seeing the error of his ways and agreeing to train Rey as a Jedi.

Why couldn't we have such a film? Basically, because the main goal was to expand the IP - so we got a bloated, meandering, and ambiguous movie.

 LordofHats wrote:
Guy seems really strong to have simply appeared from nowhere.

I'm fine with him appearing from nowhere - as long as there is a reason for him to do so.

The obvious one would be, he was drawn into the affairs of the galaxy when Luke terminated the Sith legacy. Although this was invented after RotJ, reading the prequels back on that movie, we can see that there are two "dynasties" (Sith and Jedi) that each need an heir but there is only one candidate (Luke) and he can't (or rather won't) chose both - that's not how Luke's worldview works. He has been taught that you either choose good or you choose evil - and he has chosen good. So one legacy persists while the other goes extinct and this creates a directional pressure, a vacuum, drawing darkness into the galaxy - hence Snoke arrives.

But the truth about the Force is, as Rian Johnson allows Luke to explain in TLJ, it's not dependent on Jedi and Sith. Light and darkness are characteristics invented by those traditions to distinguish themselves from one another for the sake of galactic politics. The Force itself is no more riven than any other natural phenomenon (day/night, life/death).

Luke should have explained that he withdrew from the galaxy and from the Force itself not just because he was bitter about failing Ben Solo but because he thought this is what was meant by balance - that without the presence of powerful light, there would be no powerful darkness. Thus, exile was a sacrifice Luke made to restrain the power of Snoke and Kylo Ren. But Luke was wrong. Exiting the system did not limit their power; it called forth the power in Rey.

Once Luke realized this, he should have been willing to train Rey. Because it basically is an example of his own lesson: the Force isn't about Jedi in general or him in particular.

KTG17 wrote:
Man is so funny to watch and read all the back and forth on these movies. Obviously they mean a lot to many of us. My home office has a ton of Star Wars stuff (among other interests) including an original A New Hope era movie poster. Everyone who knows me thinks I am a massive fan, but that is only part true.

I recognize the appreciation and influence Star Wars had on me as a kid. Star Wars, GI Joe, and Japanese robots (I spent some time in Asia as a kid). What I love from Star Wars centers around A New Hope. Everything I need to know about the universe, the rebels, and the Empire are explained in that movie. Its a classic underdog vs the champ story, and has a great cast of characters that are still classic to this day. It's just Epic.

Throw in Rogue One, and I have two bookends for what I think is the most interesting time in the Star Wars universe. I love Empire Strikes back and feel Return of the Jedi is ok.

The rest of the movies range from crap to pretty good. I think if I were to read them in print without the movies, I might like them more, but its things like Jar Jar stepping in crap, or a two-headed pod-racer announcer, how disappointing emo-Anakin was, just loses me. Even though I DISLIKE more Star Wars films than LIKE, and I do not follow Rebels or read any novels, I still cherish part of the universe to be a big fan of it.

I guess you can say I take what I need, and dump the rest.

I think we can all agree though, I highly doubt fans are going to care about Rey, Fynn, and Poe in 30 years like most of us cared about Luke, Han, and Leia. Thats just the way that it is.

Speaking of books, has anyone read the old novels? I think they are all labelled Legends now. Like the Heir to the Empire? I never did, but since I do not like Disney's direction, I thought I would pick up a few of those books as they were best sellers in their day.

The Timothy Zahn trilogy still hold up, although they are very dated in their 'canon'. Thrawn is still the second most interesting villain in the entire franchise for me, and I'm surprised Disney hasn't Marvelled such a valuable and beloved part of their IP into the movies. (Although I hear they are backdooring him in through the cartoon.)

I'd suggest a conservative reading list for the old EU. Anything that strikes you as off, annoying or boring can be jettisoned without loss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

How many turbolasers does each Stardestroyer have? How many on the Supremacy? How many shots would it take to destroy all of those transports, and then we are left with how many unentaged turbolasers that could hit the Raddus? Each answer raises more questions. However you rationalize it, the hyperspace ramming scene either breaks the setting or requires deep stupidity on the part of dozens.

I'm not even going to get into the silliness of how poorly acceleration is understood into this film.

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

Probably so the 7 year old who wrote the script and plot can recall what it does - give the kid a break - he had to write the entire screen play in his lunch break in crayon.

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

How many turbolasers does each Stardestroyer have? How many on the Supremacy? How many shots would it take to destroy all of those transports, and then we are left with how many unentaged turbolasers that could hit the Raddus? Each answer raises more questions. However you rationalize it, the hyperspace ramming scene either breaks the setting or requires deep stupidity on the part of dozens.

Apparently none - the only time any Imperial Ships fire that I recall are the Dreadnought and the two big guns on the Super-Giant Ship. I assumed that the ISds were actually cardboard cut outs around a single tie fighter- which is why they were completely useless in the film.

Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

 Manchu wrote:
Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

True - maybe they had "run out of ammo or fuel" or something equally stupid. At least Vaders one had some ammo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

Or an old frieghter with a droid pilot jumps to hyperspace throuhg the planet - that seems to be the most effective waeapon in anyones arsenal now. Another legacy of this turd of a film.

 Manchu wrote:
Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

The turbogunner's Union is just too powerful. "Two shots and then I'm on my break."

At least they remembered to deploy some TIEs. I almost think captaining a Stardestroyer is like being Superman: it makes you forget most of your powers just when they'd be the most useful. "Rebellion fleet? How am I going to defeat them with my mobile garrison, heavy landers and 64 walkers?"

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Just to remind you, the ISDs defending Scarif also had a hard time opening fire on the Rebel fleet. And the Rebels just rammed ships into them.

Not defending TLJ, just pointing out that this is a Disney issue not necessarily a Rian Johnson issue.

The turbogunner's Union is just too powerful. "Two shots and then I'm on my break."

LOL turbogunner's union

Must be why they didn't shoot down r2's escape pod in ANH, they might need the shots for one with life signs

If nothing else, this thread has given us "ForceSkype"!

(It has, of course, given us a lot of good discussion too!)

Force Skype wasn't our doing, unfortunately. That was a meme like the day after the movie came out.

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface. You don’t need to kill everyone or all life forms or blow up the planet that’s a crazy amount of overkill. Send the Imperial fleet to cordon off a rebel planet and bombard it with kinetics until all major cities are rubble and the climate is wrecked. If that doesn’t kill everyone that’s great the survivors can tell everyone else not to feth with the Empire.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface. You don’t need to kill everyone or all life forms or blow up the planet that’s a crazy amount of overkill. Send the Imperial fleet to cordon off a rebel planet and bombard it with kinetics until all major cities are rubble and the climate is wrecked. If that doesn’t kill everyone that’s great the survivors can tell everyone else not to feth with the Empire.

Hi.
I am the Imperial Inquisition.
You are hired.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

No it doesn't. You need a really massive rock to cause an extinction-level event - bigger than a Super Star Destroyer and more dense. And that's assuming the planet is some backwater without a planetary shield, which the Death Star can crack but impacts can't.

You don’t need an extinction level event. ISDs dropping giant rocks or giant tungsten rods or whatever object they want to use into the gravity well of a planet is going to lead to enough impacts to wreck a nation or civilization on the surface. You don’t need to kill everyone or all life forms or blow up the planet that’s a crazy amount of overkill. Send the Imperial fleet to cordon off a rebel planet and bombard it with kinetics until all major cities are rubble and the climate is wrecked. If that doesn’t kill everyone that’s great the survivors can tell everyone else not to feth with the Empire.

Unless they have a shield that can deflect any bombardment. Those seem fairly easy to install.

Also, with the capability to Base Delta Zero a planet, fetching rocks would be a waste of a Star Destroyer's time against an undefended target.

Basically, if a dozen star destroyers or an Executor can't pummel the shields away, it's going to take a bit more than a few score asteroids.. If the rocks can do the job, then a few teraton-range broadsides are faster and cheaper.

 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.

I really didn't want to get in to rehashing all the complaints, because as you said you guys have put your side so many times already, and to be honest I just don't buy it at all. The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now. Things were good, then evil took over is a fantasy standard. Ben Solo's fall was entirely explained - he was being lured by Snoke, Luke went to confront him, panicked and almost moved to strike Ben, Ben saw this and freaked out. There's probably a nitpick that it's a cliche, but complaining that it's unexplained doesn't work.

So Snoke isn't really the issue, it's these underlying things... which aren't actually issues either. It's turtles all the way down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
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.

Interesting analogy. Thing is, when you ask someone why they got divorced and they say its because they didn't do the ironing on time and didn't want to go dancing often enough, then most people know that's not the real reason. That doesn't mean the person is covering up the real reason, it may be complex enough that the person can't really explain it themselves, but whatever it is we know it isn't because of the ironing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Many of us have been extremely clear about this stuff and very few if any have cited any element of gender as a negative

Dude, I said that. "I know there's been some gender stuff saying it's male reaction against this and that... and I don't think that's the reason." I included that line precisely because my point, that there was some underlying issue, might have sounded like I was hinting at that gender reason, when I didn't intend that at all. But I include that line and you still assume that's what I'm getting at. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Why'd Disney greenlight JJ mysteries, then greenlight Rian Johnson dismissing those mysteries, the rehire JJ? (non-rhetorical question)

Because Johnson didn't 'dismiss' those mysteries. That's just a weird assumption many people on the internet made. This trilogy isn't being made up on the fly, with a new director being told to make something starting after the last person's movie, like some kind of $600 million 'post the next sentence' game.

The mystery of Rey's parents was created in TFA with the knowledge that part of Rey's journey in the following movies would involve learning Rey's parents aren't anyone special, that her story isn't one of legacy but of self-creation.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

I really didn't want to get in to rehashing all the complaints, because as you said you guys have put your side so many times already, and to be honest I just don't buy it at all. The Republic's fall was as much explained in this series as it was in the original trilogy, that it was never a complaint then is a clear sign it isn't a genuine complaint now. Things were good, then evil took over is a fantasy standard. Ben Solo's fall was entirely explained - he was being lured by Snoke, Luke went to confront him, panicked and almost moved to strike Ben, Ben saw this and freaked out. There's probably a nitpick that it's a cliche, but complaining that it's unexplained doesn't work.

So Snoke isn't really the issue, it's these underlying things... which aren't actually issues either. It's turtles all the way down.

Here's the thing. There is a different standard that A New Hope must be held to, as opposed to The Last Jedi. A New Hope was a standalone film, so a few vague lines about "The Emperor" or "The Republic" would do for backstory, as they were simply archetypes that could be used to understand the stories context. However, the Last Jedi owes its existence to the fact that people are invested in the Star Wars Saga. An explanation may therefore be expected as to where elements of this movie fit with the previous six films, plus cartoon series, plus a standalone movie and another cartoon series that are being released simultaneously to the current trilogy.

 sebster wrote:

Because Johnson didn't 'dismiss' those mysteries. That's just a weird assumption many people on the internet made. This trilogy isn't being made up on the fly

Somebody should tell him.

 Mr Morden wrote:
None of the command crew save for Leia and Poe have any real attempt at making them characters and certainly don't make you care one way or another if they die - because you know nothing about them.

This complaint, that there are only two bridge characters given significant characterisation, is a complaint that is being made at the same time people are complaining that there was too much focus on secondary characters.

The chase being so very very slow and uneventful means no tension is generated, especially when they are trapped except two people can pop off for an adventure on Casino World - which itself disrupts the (lack of) pace and serves no purpose except possibly to give a new theme to related resorts etc.

The casino element was awkwardly included, but saying it served no purpose is an extraordinarily silly complaint. It was the casino scene that brought in the theme of hope to the downtrodden, that made it clear who the Resistance was fighting for. And it was a means to give Finn time with his new love interest. You can say you don't want those things in a movie, you can say they should have somehow been accomplished more cleanly, but saying they served no purpose is clearly wrong.

Self sacrifice is bad, well its good, no its bad, we are not sure but we should in by love or something

And here again you're ignoring the actual text of the movie to complain about the movie. It's made clear, nail hammered in to the head clear, that sacrifice to protect your loved ones is good, but sacrifice out of hate is bad. There's a nitpick that this explained far too obviously, but then people like yourself missed it completely.

This is what I mean when I say even after reading so many complaints, I am still none the wiser about what it is that set people against this movie. Because all these complaints are things people find (often incorrectly) once they've decided to find things to complain about in a movie they didn't like. They're not the actual reason. What that reason is I would like to know.

 sebster wrote:

And here again you're ignoring the actual text of the movie to complain about the movie. It's made clear, nail hammered in to the head clear, that sacrifice to protect your loved ones is good, but sacrifice out of hate is bad. There's a nitpick that this explained far too obviously, but then people like yourself missed it completely.

But this is cheesy and arbitrary. The sacrifice Finn was going to make was nothing different from what Holdo or Luke did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:


The casino element was awkwardly included, but saying it served no purpose is an extraordinarily silly complaint. It was the casino scene that brought in the theme of hope to the downtrodden, that made it clear who the Resistance was fighting for. And it was a means to give Finn time with his new love interest. You can say you don't want those things in a movie, you can say they should have somehow been accomplished more cleanly, but saying they served no purpose is clearly wrong.

The whole casino was a clear example of " we need to find SOMETHING these people can do". Is a containment plot without rhyme or reason.
Also I find jarring that you name the love interest, because is awfully shoehorned and quite hastily executed. It adds awkwardness to an already clumsy sub-plot.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Poor Characterization: The only backstory we get is one massive out of character moment for Luke, when he walks into Kylo's room contemplating murder.

Luke didn't walk in contemplating murder. He went in to talk with Ben, was shocked at how far his mind had fallen to the dark side, and had one single moment of fear and murder, which he resisted.

This is what I mean. People are complaining about things that are the opposite of what was actually in the film. This is very weird.

Also, can anyone name any sort of character arc that is experienced? Rey goes looking for Luke to teach her to be a Jedi, then decides "Screw it, I'm doing it myself".

Going looking for a mentor and realising that you don't need someone else to make you capable is a character arc.

Poe leads an early attack against the Dreadnaught, makes a decision that would be bad for the resistance if not for unknown factors (Loses bombers, but prevents the Dreadnaught from joining the ship chase). In the end, he leads a suicidal attack, and makes a decision that would be bad for the resistance if not for unknown factors (Door gets kicked in, but there is a back door and Luke turns up).

Poe in the first scene undertakes a delaying operation, which he decides to turn in to an attack on a Dreadnought, he is chewed out for disobeying orders and costing the Resistance valuable assets. He is told he needs to be a leader. He later disobeys his commander's orders, and ends up undermining the plan to escape. In the final attack he leads a desperate attack, realises it is hopeless and makes the command decision to call off the attack and not waste anyone's lives. That's a character arc.

 sebster wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Poor Characterization: The only backstory we get is one massive out of character moment for Luke, when he walks into Kylo's room contemplating murder.

Luke didn't walk in contemplating murder. He went in to talk with Ben, was shocked at how far his mind had fallen to the dark side, and had one single moment of fear and murder, which he resisted.

This is what I mean. People are complaining about things that are the opposite of what was explicitly stated in the film. This is very weird.

Luke was the guy that insisted in saving his mass-murderer father and spent time in captivity of Jabba to give the crime lord a chance.
His true triumph in the OT is the moment in which he throws away a lightsaber to do not harm his parent. In front of the emperor.
And yet in TLJ he draws the saber in front of his sleeping relative because of a perception. This is asinine.
Disregarding the awful, awful scene in which the aforementioned triumph is destroyed by a genuine, undignified parody of the lightsaber throwing in RotJ.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Going looking for a mentor and realising that you don't need someone else to make you capable is a character arc.

A great character arc indeed! And what did she actually learn, compared to say, Luke leavin Yoda without ending his training?

Poe in the first scene undertakes a delaying operation, which he decides to turn in to an attack on a Dreadnought, he is chewed out for disobeying orders and costing the Resistance valuable assets. He is told he needs to be a leader. He later disobeys his commander's orders, and ends up undermining the plan to escape. In the final attack he leads a desperate attack, realises it is hopeless and makes the command decision to call off the attack and not waste anyone's lives. That's a character arc.

You have a surprisingly open definition of character arc. Again, what did Poe learn? How this affected him, if he has been literally treated like a child by Holdo and Leia, considered irresponsive and yet not punishable?
This, disregarding the pure idiocy of the Holdo plot by itself. Compare with what Akbar and Lando do in RotJ, how they improvise and communicate when they discover the new DS is operative.
Just imagine one of the two withdraw informations like Holdo did.

@sebster

I know you will argue in good faith and I hope you trust I will do the same. For example, I think it's fine that Rey's parents are nobodies. That makes her more rather than less interesting, considering that we know Force sensitivity can be hereditary. The implication is that her power is not an inherited trait. Great! But then the issue becomes, where does her power come from?

Snoke says darkness rises and light rises to meet it. Great! But that's actually another question rather than an answer: why does the Force sometimes work one way and sometimes work another way? This could have been answered pretty easily, especially in the context of Rey's training by Luke. But the movie is bizarrely committed to Luke being so bitter and curmudeonly that, even as he remarks on Rey's takent, he seems to have no interest on how this could be, something the audience has been primed to find interesting.

Likewise, the issue could have easily been addressed in the context of Snoke completing Kylo Ren's training. But nope. So much for that whole "awakening" thing, you know that concept that was important enough to be the title of Episode VII. So here we have mystery raised and teased but just sidestepped completely. And for what? TLJ is a LONG movie but can't find the time? Because ... casino races?

On to the issue of Luke Skywalker, nephew murderer: We know Luke and Ben had already fallen out because Ben is not living in the Temple and because Luke explains as much. So why go at night, when Ben might be asleep? Why stand there hovering over him? Why draw his weapon and activate it? This is pretty clearly premeditated. It's also very telling that Luke lies about all of this to begin with, clearly ashamed of himself. Yes, he pulled himself back from murder. But he absolutely was committed to that course of action, before suddenly changing his mind/finding himself unable to do such a horrible deed. Ben probably woke up because he sensed the danger and darkness.

As detailed above, Ben's fall is actually not explained.

 Xenomancers wrote:
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.

Its a setting where shields and defensive weaponry is minimally explained. Perhaps shields and defensive weapons will in most circumstances render a hyperspace attack impossible, but in this circumstance it worked because General Hux didn't realise they were attacking. Hux screwing up and no seeing an attack coming is certainly established, but the rest is fanwank, I'll admit that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
That part makes a lot of sense and explains exactly why I do not like this film. I don't want Irony in my Star Wars, I want folk tales.

That made a lot of sense as an explanation for the negative reaction from so many. Thanks for posting that.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I recall Twin peaks first time round - quite enjoyed it but I found it became very self induglent and rambling - espeically when they had guest director of the week, hence I found it unsatisfying.

TP: The Return is very, very different. Reading the reactions here to a very mildly subversive film like TLJ, I *cannot imagine* the reactions some of you would have to TP:TR. It's ultra-artistic, confounding and aggravating, and breaks just about every rule of television. But there's never been anything like it, and it's probably a genuine masterpiece and a career-defining work for David Lynch.

 Asmodai wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
Part of the reason why I can't get too upset about some of the things in the new movies I don't like. To me, they're one take on what could have happened after Return of the Jedi. The Zahn novels are a different take. I don't treat one as more canonical or authoritative than the other. (My Star Wars RPG games are set in the Imperial era rather than after, so I don't even have to managed shared expectations in that regard.)

I think this is a fantastic attitude.

@Manchu -- To me, it appears that you wanted the film to be much more about the Force than it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
That made a lot of sense as an explanation for the negative reaction from so many. Thanks for posting that.

Never underestimate the power of 'I WANT'. It has a lot to do with why Hollywood looks like it does these days.

 sebster wrote:

Its a setting where shields and defensive weaponry is minimally explained. Perhaps shields and defensive weapons will in most circumstances render a hyperspace attack impossible, but in this circumstance it worked because General Hux didn't realise they were attacking. Hux screwing up and no seeing an attack coming is certainly established, but the rest is fanwank, I'll admit that.

If we have to go in lengths to explain such preposterous scene, the scene is not very good in the first place. Furthermore, one would ask why the absence of shields in a starship during a battle, and why such absence has not been pointed out in a series in which such changes and elements are even plot points. It really does not hold water in any meaningful way. Setting, narration. Nothing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:


Never underestimate the power of 'I WANT'. It has a lot to do with why Hollywood looks like it does these days.

So, the implication is that these movie are not crappy because of the sloppy writing, but because we, the fans, are too demanding and dare to find connection and logic to these story we make the mistake to do not watch at a distance, ironically.
How dare we to have conjectures or doubts about what we are watching! Just turn off your brain, bro!

 gorgon wrote:
@Manchu -- To me, it appears that you wanted the film to be much more about the Force than it was.

In fairness, the first movie in this trilogy is called The Force Awakens and the second is called The Last Jedi.

Moreover, I don't think there's much point talking about the really bad stuff in this movie, i.e., everything that did not involve Rey and Kylo.

@Kaiyanwang: Again, the red flag of shifting the convo away from the film ... criticiizing the audience rather than the film. It's a good tactic, ask Sony.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
But this is cheesy and arbitrary. The sacrifice Finn was going to make was nothing different from what Holdo or Luke did.

He did it while angry and that makes it bad. This would be arbitrary nonsense in any other franchise, but Star Wars is a setting where emotions are literally written in to the magical powers of the universe. I do agree it was cheesy. Note my issue with Mr Morden's complaint is that this was not clearly set up, where as it was actually so clearly set up that it was cheesy, as you said yourself. This make Mr Morden's complaint bad.

Which gets to my primary point in this thread - the criticisms of the TLJ are incredibly bad. Not because TLJ is a perfect movie or a film everyone must love, but because the actual criticisms people are making are generally either nonsense or really minor. This doesn't mean they're wrong for not liking the movie, their dislike is valid, but its interesting how people have struggled to articulate more meaningful reasons. I think Easy E's comment about TLJ deviating from fantasy in many places is the closest I've seen to a satisfying answer.

The whole casino was a clear example of " we need to find SOMETHING these people can do". Is a containment plot without rhyme or reason.

It was the primary plot for delivering the core theme of the movie. It showed who the 'hope' they kept going on about would be delivered to.

Yes, it was awkwardly justified and fit in to the movie, that's a fair complaint. But saying it had no purpose is incredibly wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Here's the thing. There is a different standard that A New Hope must be held to, as opposed to The Last Jedi. A New Hope was a standalone film, so a few vague lines about "The Emperor" or "The Republic" would do for backstory, as they were simply archetypes that could be used to understand the stories context. However, the Last Jedi owes its existence to the fact that people are invested in the Star Wars Saga. An explanation may therefore be expected as to where elements of this movie fit with the previous six films, plus cartoon series, plus a standalone movie and another cartoon series that are being released simultaneously to the current trilogy.

That's a fair point. I will admit in TFA I was annoyed about 'the Resistance', I didn't know what they were resisting or why they weren't part of a regular Republic army. I needed Wookiepedia to sort that out. Once I learned that, though, most everything fell in to place, at least as well as it ever does in Star Wars.

 sebster wrote:

He did it while angry and that makes it bad. This would be arbitrary nonsense in any other franchise, but Star Wars is a setting where emotions are literally written in to the magical powers of the universe. I do agree it was cheesy. Note my issue with Mr Morden's complaint is that this was not clearly set up, where as it was actually so clearly set up that it was cheesy, as you said yourself. This make Mr Morden's complaint bad.

Star Wars is indeed a setting where emotions are literally written in to the magical powers of the universe, but you are confusing the effect of emotions on the force users on the morale and the choices of characters that have nothing to do, at least directly, with the force, Luke excluded. Who knows what Holdo was thinking during the ram. probably "I will save my friends" but "f*** the FO" too, I guess. Who knows. Is really muddy the difference between Rose's sister action and Finn's. Too thin, actually to be a nuance of a well thought script. I explain it way better concluding that the writers are amoral hacks.

Which gets to my primary point in this thread - the criticisms of the TLJ are incredibly bad. Not because TLJ is a perfect movie or a film everyone must love, but because the actual criticisms people are making are generally either nonsense or really minor. This doesn't mean they're wrong for not liking the movie, their dislike is valid, but its interesting how people have struggled to articulate more meaningful reasons. I think Easy E's comment about TLJ deviating from fantasy in many places is the closest I've seen to a satisfying answer.

I strongly suggest to reread the thread, because you either did not read many previous comments, included a very good post about post-modernism. Or if you don't want (you can definitively and understandably decide that your time can be better spent), I kindly ask you to do not jump at such simplistic conclusion. To me, here you are sounding like " the criticisms of the TLJ are incredibly bad, because I don't like TLJ being criticized" (I recognize the irony of jumping to a conclusion myself, but at least we are even I guess. Assuming I am wrong, see how you sound?).

It was the primary plot for delivering the core theme of the movie. It showed who the 'hope' they kept going on about would be delivered to.
Yes, it was awkwardly justified and fit in to the movie, that's a fair complaint. But saying it had no purpose is incredibly wrong.

First and foremost, to make a good (or at least a decent) movie you have to fit a plot or sub plot well in the whole framework, if is really something thought-out to have some kind of message. If you bore to death the audience with the essential core of your movie, you made a truly awful job.
Secondly, the movie has no message. The movie does not know what he want to be because those who wrote it have a point of view that make them see in contempt the morality of the OT. See how, from R1 they bash on your head BUT THE REBELS ARE ACTUALLY QUITE SCUMMY TOO.
See the severe schizophrenia about the concept of sacrifice (regardless of how much in denial you are about that).
Se the utter incapability to understand that a main character has to be challenged to elicit sympathy in the audience.
And so on.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Luke was the guy that insisted in saving his mass-murderer father and spent time in captivity of Jabba to give the crime lord a chance.
His true triumph in the OT is the moment in which he throws away a lightsaber to do not harm his parent. In front of the emperor.
And yet in TLJ he draws the saber in front of his sleeping relative because of a perception. This is asinine.

Luke was also the guy who the Emperor goaded in to murderous rage, to the point where he only finally overwhelmed Vader by giving in to that hate and battering Vader down and striking off his hand, putting his lightsaber to Vader before then, seeing Vader now helpless, he finally relents.

You're arguing it is out of character for the guy who previously had a furious rage tying to murder his Dad to have a furious rage where he almost killed his apprentice/nephew.

A great character arc indeed! And what did she actually learn, compared to say, Luke leavin Yoda without ending his training?

She learned she was already capable.

You have a surprisingly open definition of character arc. Again, what did Poe learn?

I have the actual definition of a character arc, where are character thinks or acts one way, experiences some stuff, and ends up thinking or acting a different way. Poe was impulsive and reckless, and by the end learned to consider the lives of the people he was leading. It wasn't great cinema, but claiming it wasn't there is delusional.

That doesn't work. You can't see an FTL attack coming. You can only see the ships pointing at you before hand. In any fleet engagement, one ship might be a hyperram torpedo waiting to strike. By your very argument, if there are defenses against hyperram attacks, they must be commonly used. Hux should not have needed to personally order the hyperram defenses to activate. That has got to be part of standard procedure. If the FO is so pathetically stupid that they don't take the most common, sensible actions without a direct order from their fieldmarshall then they are too unforgivably stupid to be satisfying opponents.

Either, a) there is a common defense against hyperram, but Hux the Embarrassment and every officer under him are too stupid to remember it, b) there is no defense against hyperram and every other combatant in the franchise is a moron, or c) the writers were lazy and the Story Committee were ignorant.