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.

Ultimately, I find this installment nihillistic.

Even if as a hero you succeed... it doesn't matter. There will be someone else along who will be just as bad or worse than what you defeated.

Therefore, even if Episode IX has a happy ending, I will just shrug my shoulders. It won't matter. This movie proved that no matter what incredible accomplishments you achieve, they are meaningless. Even if it is achieved by Rey, Finn, Poe, etc.

Benicio Del Toro's character sums up everything wrong with this movie pretty well and articulates the world-view of the film. It doesn't matter. You kill them today, they kill you tomorrow. So does Snoke, light rises to battle darkness and vice versa.

Luke made the only rational response to such an existential world.... the only way to win was to not play the game and cut yourself off from the Force. However, even that failed.

 dogma wrote:

That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

It isn't, actually. It wasn't addressed at all [originally], and isn't the main thrust of the story. That is about Luke, Leia, Vader and Han. The Skywalker family and friends.

The fall of the Empire is left for post film EU to make a hash of, RotJ ends with the victory celebration of the battle and destruction of the Death Star.


For all the issues RotJ has, not showing what happens in the galaxy isn't one of them. While the setting is big, the scope of the film is actually really small and personal.
It's a difference that Johnson really fails to understand- he doesn't take time for personal, and seems to think having characters wave at bigger concepts as they pass by in the background makes for a big story.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) Is so badass he doesn't even need a lightsabre, iirc.

He uses one in RotS, when everyone that isn't Samuel L. Jackson dies to a weird corkscrew attack.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) May value individual strength? His line about "spunk" is kinda indicative of this, but it's delivered weirdly, and he certainly seems to trust his friends (He trusts Kylo so much that he doesn't even suspect hostility when he is "about to strike down his foe!" with the lightsabre).

Palpatine trusted Vader, and then got thrown down a hole.

 dogma wrote:

That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

I think that the birth of an imperial remnant is way more logical and makes way more sense than "empire immediately dismantle" (but would have been anticlimatic for the end of the OT). EDIT: Also, Voss has been way more insightful about the scope and focus of the story.

But in that case, why do not show that the FO is more than the people unde Kylo, Hux and Snoke? It looks like they had this idea, but scrapped it, but still filmed some of its elements.

Voss wrote:

For all the issues RotJ has, not showing what happens in the galaxy isn't one of them. While the setting is big, the scope of the film is actually really small and personal.

The Special Edition has scenes of people partying throughout the galaxy, including one of statues being ripped down on Coruscant.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

But in that case, why do not show that the FO is more than the people unde Kylo, Hux and Snoke? It looks like they had this idea, but scrapped it, but still filmed some of its elements.

They didn't scrap it, they put it in ancillary media.

 Easy E wrote:
Benicio Del Toro's character sums up everything wrong with this movie pretty well and articulates the world-view of the film. It doesn't matter. You kill them today, they kill you tomorrow.

Another thing DelToro's character tries to illustrate is that the "worst people in the galaxy" (arms dealers) make money by selling to the 'bad guys' and the 'good guys', but the good guys were so massively outnumbered I can't see how they would really make anyone rich.

 dogma wrote:
That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

TBF this was another Special Edition blunder.

 Easy E wrote:
This was a pretty good take on the subject....

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-last-jedi-killed-my-childhood-and-thats-exactly-wh-1821429836

A regular part of the makeup of hero stories is that there’s a problem—a monster to defeat, an issue to solve, an institution to topple—that the older generation has either allowed to happen or is actively participating in. It requires a young hero, a new generation, to solve the problem that the older generation can’t, or won’t. Older characters can at best act as mentors to the heroes—but they must fail so that the heroes can succeed.

For a kid, it’s an intrinsic, powerful story. It makes up the bulk of Western mythology, from the stories of Greek heroes like Perseus, Theseus, Achilles, to the tale of Beowulf. It connects to kids fundamentally. That’s why people have been telling stories about heroes, just like this, for thousands of years. But with few—very few exceptions—these heroes don’t get old. We don’t want to see our heroes turn into mentors, because we don’t want them supplanted. There’s something inherently tragic about aging from a hero to a mentor (or even worse, the hero becoming part of the problem). The message is that no one stays a hero forever. It’s why this part of the story is usually left untold.

Well, I appreciate his ability to recognize the role his ego plays, and that he's in a state of arrested development, LOL. I think his older/younger take is a little simplistic and still a bit self-centered. I'm older than he is, and to me TLJ felt more like a natural evolution than a death of childhood or whatever hyperbolic label you want to slap on it.

I'm also not sure how much of a SW O.G. he is when he's too young to have experienced the summer of '77.

But I think he has a point regarding the new generation. My kids aren't nearly as attached to Luke, Han and Leia as they are to Rey, Finn and Poe (and even Kylo). And not because of "Disney shoved Mary Sues down their throats" or any such nonsense. The OT heroes simply aren't their heroes like they were mine at their age.

Although, we have no idea what happened immediately after the various celebrations shown in the Special Edition.

We see scenes like this all the time in the real world.

We then often also see the mass graves resulting afterwards...

 dogma wrote:


They didn't scrap it, they put it in ancillary media.

That should not be a way to fix a movie.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

That's complete bull. There are dozens of techniques to flesh out a backstory, especially one as important as "how did we get here from there?" Any decent director can think of a way to catch up the audience without boring them or ruining the pacing (not that the pacing wasn't already Canto Bighted). Iran Johnson understands visual storytelling far better than JJ ever did, and his little Roshomon scenes demonstrate he is perfectly capable of incorporating important background into a film. RJ just didn't care, and may even have been hostile to the very idea of tying his movie (and JJ's) to the greater series.


Man, remember how boring it was in The Usual Suspects when we learned about Keyser Soze's background and how he formed his reputation. Totally ruined that film it did.

My point is that Snoke's back story doesn't need fleshing out in the film at all.

Similarly, the Resistance clearly is a sub-rosa anti-First Order military movement which was being financed by the Republic because they didn't dare begin open warfare against the FO. Something like the Contras or Hezbollah.

This was obvious from the few lines of exposition in the two films.

 dogma wrote:
That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

No it wasn't. A New Hope spelled it out for you: the Emperor forfeited the legitimacy of the Senate in favour of ruling by fear, and ruling by fear only works as long as you can maintain at least the appearance of strength.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 dogma wrote:


They didn't scrap it, they put it in ancillary media.

That should not be a way to fix a movie.

That assumes the film needs "fixing".

For me, I was happy to see the second Death Star destroyed, the Imperial fleet routed, and the Ewoks celebrating in their little village. (Well, maybe not the last bit.) This showed that Good had won over Evil, and would all live happily ever after.

I didn't need to see a long exposition of how the news was distributed around the galaxy, and people reacted in different solar systems, and so on. It wasn't necessary to the completion of the story.

 gorgon wrote:


But I think he has a point regarding the new generation. My kids aren't nearly as attached to Luke, Han and Leia as they are to Rey, Finn and Poe (and even Kylo). And not because of "Disney shoved Mary Sues down their throats" or any such nonsense. The OT heroes simply aren't their heroes like they were mine at their age.

I think that this is normal and even good. My only question is: are they attached to Poe Finn etc as much as you were to Luke and Leia?
Is this the same level of emotional involvement, for the way the story and characters are build?

Beside that point (that is still the most important!) I have still some issues:
- I have some issues with how the protagonists of a story are represented in their failing, struggles and priorities. I just doubt that Rey can "teach" as much as Luke for the simple low failures ->lessons occurrence compared to Luke.
- This is more far fetched but - one can watch a movie and only unconsciously perceive some of its part. If the movie is build to be watched in an "ironic" way, could it risk to be "absorbed" in a different way from the viewer, kids included? And consequentially "experienced" in a less immersive way?
As killcrazy said before, probably only time will tell.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 dogma wrote:
That The Empire fell when The Emperor and Vader died was a pretty big ROTJ plot hole.

No it wasn't. A New Hope spelled it out for you: the Emperor forfeited the legitimacy of the Senate in favour of ruling by fear, and ruling by fear only works as long as you can maintain at least the appearance of strength.

Regional governments were still in place.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That assumes the film needs "fixing".

I meant TFA. I am ok with with RotJ.

 AlexHolker wrote:
No it wasn't. A New Hope spelled it out for you: the Emperor forfeited the legitimacy of the Senate in favour of ruling by fear, and ruling by fear only works as long as you can maintain at least the appearance of strength.

Yeah, and The Empire, with all it's materiel, would remain strong even in the event of Palpatine's death; someone would take power.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All these points matter to an aficionado of the fictional history of Star Wars, however to put them into the film by expositional scenes would slow down the pace while adding nothing to the enjoyment for people who aren't interested in such detail.

That's complete bull. There are dozens of techniques to flesh out a backstory, especially one as important as "how did we get here from there?" Any decent director can think of a way to catch up the audience without boring them or ruining the pacing (not that the pacing wasn't already Canto Bighted). Iran Johnson understands visual storytelling far better than JJ ever did, and his little Roshomon scenes demonstrate he is perfectly capable of incorporating important background into a film. RJ just didn't care, and may even have been hostile to the very idea of tying his movie (and JJ's) to the greater series.


Man, remember how boring it was in The Usual Suspects when we learned about Keyser Soze's background and how he formed his reputation. Totally ruined that film it did.

My point is that Snoke's back story doesn't need fleshing out in the film at all.

Similarly, the Resistance clearly is a sub-rosa anti-First Order military movement which was being financed by the Republic because they didn't dare begin open warfare against the FO. Something like the Contras or Hezbollah.

This was obvious from the few lines of exposition in the two films.

None of that is 'clear.' The term Resistance implies that they aren't operating with the financing or blessing of the Republic, there is nothing to establish why the Republic wouldn't be in open warfare against a hostile force dedicated to its destruction (it isn't like there are other galactic nation-states to disapprove), and so on and so on. The First Order is well known by everyone presented in the film, and given their only goal (destroy the Republic), there is no reason not to fight them openly.

The fact that the Republic is not in open warfare, and is financing the Resistance to clandestinely oppose the FO, shows that the Republic doesn't want to be in open warfare with the FO, and prefers to operate clandestinely through the Resistance.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact that the Republic is not in open warfare, and is financing the Resistance to clandestinely oppose the FO, shows that the Republic doesn't want to be in open warfare with the FO, and prefers to operate clandestinely through the Resistance.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.

For starters they could have said that the republic funds the resistance. Seems to me they are pretty poorly funded if the entire resistance fits on 3 ships and can't even do combat with a small division of FO ships.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


But I think he has a point regarding the new generation. My kids aren't nearly as attached to Luke, Han and Leia as they are to Rey, Finn and Poe (and even Kylo). And not because of "Disney shoved Mary Sues down their throats" or any such nonsense. The OT heroes simply aren't their heroes like they were mine at their age.

I think that this is normal and even good. My only questio is: are they attached to Poe Finn etc as much as you were to Luke and Leia?

No, but that's because Rey and company have exponentially more competition for my kids' hearts and minds. I don't think it's possible for anything to be the same kind of phenomenon today the way SW was in 1977. It was so bold and different than anything anyone had ever seen, and yet also somehow scratched an itch.

Just imagine a world in which sci-fi blockbusters weren't a thing. Heck, the concept of a summer blockbuster had only been introduced two summers earlier with Jaws. People predominantly watched 3 network channels (4 if you count PBS), and specialty cable channels were barely a thing. Certainly there was no 'geek media,' other than maybe a few magazines. Cartoons were for Saturday mornings. No one even had VCRs or rented movies for them, so you saw SW in a theater or not at all. A common thing you'd say to a new kid on the playground was "how many times have you seen Star Wars?"

Perhaps it's because I was there for the (very dramatic) arrival of SW, and then saw the rise of all the ancillary material, the prequels, and just SO MUCH content in general that I'm more in tune with Johnson's inclination to break eggs. *shrug*

 gorgon wrote:


No, but that's because Rey and company have exponentially more competition for my kids' hearts and minds. I don't think it's possible for anything to be the same kind of phenomenon today the way SW was in 1977. It was so bold and different than anything anyone had ever seen, and yet also somehow scratched an itch.

This is a very valid point, actually.

Yeah wait the Resistance is funded by people?

That's part of the long post I wrote earlier: I have no idea what's going on. Who are the Resistance resisting? The First Order? Isn't the First Order itself a 'resistance' within the New Republic? Or is it a separate galactic nation-state that formed out of old curmudgeonly Imperials?

 sebster wrote:
FWIW I think the error here could have been resolved with the starkiller attack in TFA - it shouldn't have hit some generic planets, it should have wiped the Republic fleet in dock. That would explain why the attack on the star killer base was done by a handful of fighters, and explain why the Republic was quickly overrun.

Just a little point here (possibly several pages late too), but I thought that TFA was pretty obvious that that is exactly what happened. Hux's speech calls out the fleet as a target, (as well as the Senate) and then during the (admittedly quite weird) Starkiller shooting sequence they show some (admittedly not too many) capital ships being caught up in the explosion.

At least if I remember correctly.

The Resistance are resisting the First Order.

The First Order is a new version of the Empire -- Nazis In Spaaace! if you will.

Yeah, the Republic war fleet is destroyed at its dock when Starkiller Base fired. That's explicitly stated, and isn't where my problem lies.

My problem lies with the idea that because its major fleet got destroyed, the Republic just rolls over and dies in a few hours.

Surely they had a fleet at Coruscant, even if it's not the capitol, just because it's a major trade hub and dockyard? Presumably Corellia is guarded by some kind of warships, even if just to deter pirates. There could even be a battleship or two out on patrol, just like modern navies do, to keep an eye on those pesky First Order fellows. (Assuming the FO is another nation-state in the galaxy and not a terrorist/insurgent organization. That bit's not clear to me, but I feel safe assuming they're a whole other nation to the Republic to explain away some of the major issues I have.)

It's not like the American navy collapsed after Pearl Harbor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Resistance are resisting the First Order.

The First Order is a new version of the Empire -- Nazis In Spaaace! if you will.

Right so are they:

1) The Imperial Remnant, as in a whole other nation state that now owns only part (half? A third? An eighth?) of the galaxy due to some unexplained division of powers to end the Galactic Civil War?
2) An insurgency supporting the old, fallen regime (hence the name First Order) against a galaxy-spanning New Republic?
3) An extragalactic threat from somewhere beyond that galaxy that just happens to include a lot of ex-Imperials?
4) Something else??

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact that the Republic is not in open warfare, and is financing the Resistance to clandestinely oppose the FO, shows that the Republic doesn't want to be in open warfare with the FO, and prefers to operate clandestinely through the Resistance.

I'm not sure how that could be any clearer.

Well, it could not be a tautology. 'Not being in open warfare because they aren't in open warfare' is not an explanation at all, let alone a clear one.
It could, instead, present a reason for why the Republic isn't fighting. Not just claiming that it isn't because it isn't.

Dont' forget (5) all of the above.

 Manchu wrote:
Dont' forget (5) all of the above.

No kidding. Each is equally plausible.

It's hard for me to stomach "WE FIGHT DA NAZIS" when it's like, Albania sending four dogs and a wolf to attack 1938 Germany. Like, I almost would roll my eyes at that plot.

Conversely, if they're an insurgent group within the New Republic, then my eyes roll even harder.

"Wow, stocks are up on the planet-killing superlaser market. And I hear Kuat Drive Yards produced another 200 Destroyers and a Dreadnought or two!"
"Yeah man, isn't this era of peace great?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Dont' forget (5) all of the above.

No kidding. Each is equally plausible.

It's hard for me to stomach "WE FIGHT DA NAZIS" when it's like, Albania sending four dogs and a wolf to attack 1938 Germany. Like, I almost would roll my eyes at that plot.

Conversely, if they're an insurgent group within the New Republic, then my eyes roll even harder.

"Wow, stocks are up on the planet-killing superlaser market. And I hear Kuat Drive Yards produced another 200 Destroyers and a Dreadnought or two!"
"Yeah man, isn't this era of peace great?"

When i first saw the movie this is the stuff I was spouting for days. The setting is BS. The FO should not exist and if there was some great battle that raised them above the power of 1000 planets combined...WHY AREN'T WE SEEING THAT? That is much more interesting than this find Luke so he can commit suicide and the entire resistance escapes on the falcon. Come on man...

The resistance is too weak for me to care about.