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.

Prestor John, I think your point recovers part of what I wrote before about the setup. The logic behind Leia Poppins is problematic, but less than a superficial view could suggest.
The problem is that in this kind of story these progressions should be an element for character interaction. For the same reason lightsaber duels should not just be spectacle but a crucial moment, a climax of character interaction (this is way, with all its problems, the duel in TFA is """"""better""""" then the duel in TPM).
There is a fundamental narrative failure in these movies, probably due to the committee/checklist writing, a failure in the understanding of the source, and a cynical, post modernist view of narration in general.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Why do you assume Leia was in space longer than 15 seconds? Do you also regard the airlock scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey as impossible to believe as he was exposed to (accounting for time to pressurize the airlock after the door shuts) a vacuum for over 15 seconds?

because it took longer than 15 seconds of film time to show the sequence. and 15 seconds is the maximum, odds are she'd be out as soon as she was sucked out the window.

never saw space odyssey, but you can live longer than 15 seconds, a minute or two if you're lucky, so if he was in the airlock already he could be fine.

Film time is not real time. Whilst 15 seconds may have passed on screen, that does not mean that the scene where Leia begins to pull herself in to the ship (because conservation of momentum means that once she is moving towards the ship she will continue to do so, even if her pull ceases due to her blacking out) takes place after those 15 seconds.

To be fair to the movie again, I think to say "Leia suffers no ill-effects" is an understatement. She's in a coma for like, 1/3rd of the movie.

As for her being fine after the coma, well, we know Star Wars has super-healing medicine since Luke "got better" from almost freezing to death and being mauled by a Wompa in like, 2 days. So, as I mentioned, the Leia stuff doesn't bother me.

What does bother me is the feeling that the movie is written in an entirely different universe because of all the new gak it introduces without explanation.

I can't wrap my head around the arguments that an inconsistent universe resulting from lack of attention to the rules, timeline, themes, and unspoken patterns of the previous films is somehow okay. It's not important? Disney paid 4 BILLION dollars for this setting. Yes, they also bought Luke, Leia, Han, etc., but the greater value in Star Wars was clearly the setting since Disney have already created more characters than they have reused. Let's be insanely generous and say the characters were worth half of that and the setting is worth $2 Billion. Why would you let Rian Johnson play with your $2B toy and not try to prevent him from bending the joints backwards or pulling parts off? Frankly, at this point in the franchise it is more important for the story to bend to the setting than the setting to bend to the story. By waving away concerns about universe-breaking mistakes inserted into the movie for those few glorious scenes, Disney have ensured that those few glorious scenes will devalue the brand as a whole. If Disney is telling me this is a nonsense setting where anything goes if it makes a great moment on screen, why should I continue to invest emotionally and financially in their $4B property?


I can't believe that the same company so carefully shepherding the Marvel movies into a beloved brand of consistent quality is leaving their $4B franchise in the hands of a story group who don't like nerds and don't understand details or numbers. It boggles my mind.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


How hard is it to grasp the "a good story would indicate this, but this doesn't, so it's bad"?

Reading the thread, harder than self-train as a Jedi.

Oh snap.


The OT Force, based as it was on popular ideas about eastern philosophy/mythology, was surely discovered by ascetics in caves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Why do you assume Leia was in space longer than 15 seconds? Do you also regard the airlock scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey as impossible to believe as he was exposed to (accounting for time to pressurize the airlock after the door shuts) a vacuum for over 15 seconds?

because it took longer than 15 seconds of film time to show the sequence. and 15 seconds is the maximum, odds are she'd be out as soon as she was sucked out the window.

never saw space odyssey, but you can live longer than 15 seconds, a minute or two if you're lucky, so if he was in the airlock already he could be fine.

Film time is not real time. Whilst 15 seconds may have passed on screen, that does not mean that the scene where Leia begins to pull herself in to the ship (because conservation of momentum means that once she is moving towards the ship she will continue to do so, even if her pull ceases due to her blacking out) takes place after those 15 seconds.

The ship was accelerating at full thrust the whole time. If SW ships have hundreds to thousands of gees of acceleration (old canon), then either she was caught in a "bubble" of gravity and possibly some thin atmosphere, or her time in space can be measured in fractions of a second. In the new canon, full thrust is, like, 88 miles per hour but due to the theory of SW relativity, stationary to every other frame of reference, in which case Leia's acceleration into space, her deceleration from vacuum drag, and acceleration towards the ship all make her ellligible for relativistic distortion effects, like we saw on the bomber. In such a distortion field, an object at slow motion will continue in slow motion while a character in space is able to kick ladders at normal speed. It's all very complex in the math.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The ship was accelerating at full thrust the whole time. If SW ships have hundreds to thousands of gees of acceleration (old canon), then either she was caught in a "bubble" of gravity and possibly some thin atmosphere, or her time in space can be measured in fractions of a second. In the new canon, full thrust is, like, 88 miles per hour but due to the theory of SW relativity, stationary to every other frame of reference, in which case Leia's acceleration into space, her deceleration from vacuum drag, and acceleration towards the ship all make her ellligible for relativistic distortion effects, like we saw on the bomber. In such a distortion field, an object at slow motion will continue in slow motion while a character in space is able to kick ladders at normal speed. It's all very complex in the math.

"Sounds like it's all very adequately explained in the narrative then, just like everything else in this movie." he said, before he died of a sarcasm-induced aneurysm.

 Asmodai wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


You can argue that holocrons would be a better symbol of Luke's growth and inherited knowledge...but books are a concept that you don't have to use valuable minutes to explain onscreen.

How many minutes did R2-D2's hologram message in A New Hope take to explain on-screen? That was back in a time when the average member of the public interacted with holograms much less than they do now.

Holocrons are great for a visual medium since you can have Samuel L. Jackson show up and speak what needs to be imparted directly to Rey (with a special effect filter over him in post) rather than doing flashbacks or another contrivance while Rey sits around reading a book.

Or you can give the audience a quick glimpse of *books*, and impart what you need to (i.e. Luke recovered some old Jedi knowledge) without having random characters show up in holographic form and confuse things.

Come on, now. They can't rebuild the entire EU in 7 hours of films, nor should they try. This is a perfect example of complaining about something that they don't have the time or need to get into.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


The ship was accelerating at full thrust the whole time. If SW ships have hundreds to thousands of gees of acceleration (old canon), then either she was caught in a "bubble" of gravity and possibly some thin atmosphere, or her time in space can be measured in fractions of a second. In the new canon, full thrust is, like, 88 miles per hour but due to the theory of SW relativity, stationary to every other frame of reference, in which case Leia's acceleration into space, her deceleration from vacuum drag, and acceleration towards the ship all make her ellligible for relativistic distortion effects, like we saw on the bomber. In such a distortion field, an object at slow motion will continue in slow motion while a character in space is able to kick ladders at normal speed. It's all very complex in the math.

You played to much spelljammer didn't you?

For a show that did flying out of an airlock properly, the new battlestar galactica did it the best with cally.


I'd watch it with the sound off, or jump to 7:30

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On a second viewing, it comes across more like Yoda knows she stole the books and is trolling Luke while covering for her.

But why troll Luke? (Is Yoda played by Rian Johnson?)

Prestor Jon wrote:
I disagree. I don't think Jedi training is required to learn how to use force powers. I think the primary reason for Jedi training is to control what people do with their force powers. Jedi training is designed to keep new Jedi from succumbing to the temptations of the Dark Side of the force and to keep them working as a force for good underneath the umbrella of the Senate and not seek power by creating a Jedi cabal to run the galaxy. Jedi training curbs the abuse of Jedi power. It's not about being able to move rocks, it's about learning precise control over your ability to move rocks thereby mastering control over yourself. Emotions lead to the Dark Side so controlling your emotions and yourself is the primary concern for Jedi and the primary objective of their training.

I agree, but I think this is may be a good example of the OT pointing one direction, and the prequels and ancillary material pointing another. To me, the Force in TFA and TLJ feels much more like it did in the OT...an intuitive ability that flows from you. In the prequels and ancillary material, there's so much built up around the Jedi that it feels like something properly wielded only after years of grinding coursework.

I grew up with the OT and never really engaged much with a lot of the later material, so the flow approach rings true to me, and is probably a reason why I'm baffled by some of the 'Mary Sue' talk surrounding Rey. TO ME, it's established that the Force partially controls your actions, as Obi-Wan explained. Others undoubtedly remember classrooms full of younglings and padawans like in the prequels and see things differently.

At the beginning of ESB, Luke has taught himself some rudimentary telekinesis. I don't think it's impossible to teach oneself little tricks - but what Leia does in TLJ is not a little trick. While I was watching it, I thought "maybe Luke is doing this?" But no, he unplugged himself from the Force (somehow). Maybe it was Kylo?

Prestor Jon wrote:

I find it more bothersome that Leia survived her time in space completely unscathed more so than the amount of time she spent in space. If she suffered ill effects from being space, like in the scene in Event Horizon, I wouldn't mind Leia being in space for what felt like a long time. The fact that she got sucked into space, floated around a bit, then "woke up" and decided to force pull her way back to the air lock,

My problem is more that there isn't an air lock. Just a normal door between a hallway and what had been the bridge. Letting her inside would have killed everyone in that hallway. Notably the film just skips from her hand on the glass outside to her on a stretcher.
Something the film unfortunately does several times with difficult or uncomfortable situations. The camera just hard cuts to something else and the audience has to fill in what the director won't or can't handle.

Voss wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I find it more bothersome that Leia survived her time in space completely unscathed more so than the amount of time she spent in space. If she suffered ill effects from being space, like in the scene in Event Horizon, I wouldn't mind Leia being in space for what felt like a long time. The fact that she got sucked into space, floated around a bit, then "woke up" and decided to force pull her way back to the air lock,

My problem is more that there isn't an air lock. Just a normal door between a hallway and what had been the bridge. Letting her inside would have killed everyone in that hallway. Notably the film just skips from her hand on the glass outside to her on a stretcher.
Something the film unfortunately does several times with difficult or uncomfortable situations. The camera just hard cuts to something else and the audience has to fill in what the director won't or can't handle.

That happens in films all the time, and frankly I am thankful for it. Tediously going through action would be boring. The narrative did what it needed to do with a quick cut.

What is worse in my mind is that this whole sequence played into the "Nothing Matters" ethos of the film. Kylo is conflicted and can not bring himself to fire on the unshielded bridge and kill his own mother. His hesitation shows he may still have something in him worth saving. However, thsi choice to save his mother is negated when his wingman Tie Fighters fire Torpedoes(?) instead and blast the bridge. This death of Leia is symbolic of the end of the old order at the hands of the new.....

.... except it wasn't. No, for some reason Leia has to survive by Dues Ex Machina. So everything that scene was supposed to tell us is then turned around as we are told.... No, it doesn't matter! The whole movie is filled with "Nothing Matters" moments. In a sense, that is why I hate this movie, but it is also what I hate about our Twenty-Teens culture as well and is probably just reflecting what "modern", "young" viewers have grown up to expect from our culture.

That is why I do not like this movie. Perhaps it holds up too uncomfortable of a mirror to our current culture, and I truly wish to reject that culture because I am old and do not get it. I don't know.

This movie goes up there with The Dark Knight for a movie that I love to hate on because the subtext is a rejection of what I value.

It's not vacuum anyway. The interplanetary aether in Star Wars can carry sound (i.e. engines and laser blasts) and seems to have at least some friction based on the way objects move.

I can buy that it's not as deadly as vacuum would be.

sirlynchmob wrote:

The force keeping you alive in space and pulling you back to your ship? ridiculous.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-space-unprotected-possible/

The lack of oxygen to the brain renders you unconscious in less than 15 seconds, eventually killing you. "When the pressure gets very low there is just not enough oxygen. That is really the first and most important concern," Buckey says.

"Water and dissolved gas in the blood forms bubbles in the major veins, which travel throughout the circulatory system and block blood flow. After about one minute circulation effectively stops. The lack of oxygen to the brain renders you unconscious in less than 15 seconds, eventually killing you. "When the pressure gets very low there is just not enough oxygen. That is really the first and most important concern," Buckey says."

I don't think that that is saying that in a vacuum you're unconscious within 15 seconds. I'm pretty sure it's saying that after the circulation effectively stops (after about one minute) you'll be unconscious within 15 seconds. Which would be consistent with the length of time taken to choke some one (restricting blood going to the brain) being under 15 seconds.

That said it was still a terrible scene seemingly written purely so for the twist. Which is what the director did quite a few times in that movie.

 Asmodai wrote:
It's not vacuum anyway. The interplanetary aether in Star Wars can carry sound (i.e. engines and laser blasts) and seems to have at least some friction based on the way objects move.

I can buy that it's not as deadly as vacuum would be.

You can't be serious...A long time ago in a galaxy far far away still implies that it is in this universe. Therefor all laws of physics should apply.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On a second viewing, it comes across more like Yoda knows she stole the books and is trolling Luke while covering for her.

But why troll Luke? (Is Yoda played by Rian Johnson?)

No, but he was written by him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
At the beginning of ESB, Luke has taught himself some rudimentary telekinesis. I don't think it's impossible to teach oneself little tricks - but what Leia does in TLJ is not a little trick. While I was watching it, I thought "maybe Luke is doing this?" But no, he unplugged himself from the Force (somehow). Maybe it was Kylo?

Walrus milk. Green Walrus milk dampens your connection to the Force. It's the only explanation.

I don't have a problem with Leia saving herself or surviving decompression by channeling the Force. I think one of the few assumptions about the Bewteen Times that is actually safe to assume is that Leia would somehow find a way to embrace her Force talent. She's proactive that way. This isn't a critical change in her character arc or personality for me, but a natural expectation for the character. I have far more problems with her unspoken role in the catastrofeth of a New Republic.

I do, however, have serious reservations about the portrayal of her using the Force to save herself. RJ, Bubbe, if you can't use the shot without it looking goofy, then don't use the shot. Sometimes it's better to imply something mysterious than show something...embarrassing? Narmtastic? I don,t have a great word to describe something that is meant to appear serious and majestic but ends up looking silly and cringe-inducing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I find it more bothersome that Leia survived her time in space completely unscathed more so than the amount of time she spent in space. If she suffered ill effects from being space, like in the scene in Event Horizon, I wouldn't mind Leia being in space for what felt like a long time. The fact that she got sucked into space, floated around a bit, then "woke up" and decided to force pull her way back to the air lock,

My problem is more that there isn't an air lock. Just a normal door between a hallway and what had been the bridge. Letting her inside would have killed everyone in that hallway. Notably the film just skips from her hand on the glass outside to her on a stretcher.
Something the film unfortunately does several times with difficult or uncomfortable situations. The camera just hard cuts to something else and the audience has to fill in what the director won't or can't handle.

Remember when Han and Leia went outside the Falcon when it was on an asteroid/in a space slug? They were clearly not decompressing, and also walking under normal gravity. Either Star Wars ships have a lot of inbuilt safety technologies like extendable gravity fields, particle shields, and the like, or ...Star Wars lol space opera whatja expect?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

Voss wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I find it more bothersome that Leia survived her time in space completely unscathed more so than the amount of time she spent in space. If she suffered ill effects from being space, like in the scene in Event Horizon, I wouldn't mind Leia being in space for what felt like a long time. The fact that she got sucked into space, floated around a bit, then "woke up" and decided to force pull her way back to the air lock,

My problem is more that there isn't an air lock. Just a normal door between a hallway and what had been the bridge. Letting her inside would have killed everyone in that hallway. Notably the film just skips from her hand on the glass outside to her on a stretcher.
Something the film unfortunately does several times with difficult or uncomfortable situations. The camera just hard cuts to something else and the audience has to fill in what the director won't or can't handle.

That happens in films all the time, and frankly I am thankful for it. Tediously going through action would be boring. The narrative did what it needed to do with a quick cut.

What is worse in my mind is that this whole sequence played into the "Nothing Matters" ethos of the film. Kylo is conflicted and can not bring himself to fire on the unshielded bridge and kill his own mother. His hesitation shows he may still have something in him worth saving. However, thsi choice to save his mother is negated when his wingman Tie Fighters fire Torpedoes(?) instead and blast the bridge. This death of Leia is symbolic of the end of the old order at the hands of the new.....

.... except it wasn't. No, for some reason Leia has to survive by Dues Ex Machina. So everything that scene was supposed to tell us is then turned around as we are told.... No, it doesn't matter! The whole movie is filled with "Nothing Matters" moments. In a sense, that is why I hate this movie, but it is also what I hate about our Twenty-Teens culture as well and is probably just reflecting what "modern", "young" viewers have grown up to expect from our culture.

That is why I do not like this movie. Perhaps it holds up too uncomfortable of a mirror to our current culture, and I truly wish to reject that culture because I am old and do not get it. I don't know.

This movie goes up there with The Dark Knight for a movie that I love to hate on because the subtext is a rejection of what I value.

You forgot the major Canto Bight revelation that They're Both Bad.

 Easy E wrote:

Voss wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I find it more bothersome that Leia survived her time in space completely unscathed more so than the amount of time she spent in space. If she suffered ill effects from being space, like in the scene in Event Horizon, I wouldn't mind Leia being in space for what felt like a long time. The fact that she got sucked into space, floated around a bit, then "woke up" and decided to force pull her way back to the air lock,

My problem is more that there isn't an air lock. Just a normal door between a hallway and what had been the bridge. Letting her inside would have killed everyone in that hallway. Notably the film just skips from her hand on the glass outside to her on a stretcher.
Something the film unfortunately does several times with difficult or uncomfortable situations. The camera just hard cuts to something else and the audience has to fill in what the director won't or can't handle.

That happens in films all the time, and frankly I am thankful for it. Tediously going through action would be boring. The narrative did what it needed to do with a quick cut.

Problem is, this movie doesn't do it on action. It does tediously follow actions shots, say of animals running and running and bursting through walls and running and climbing cliffs and running. Instead it is used to paper over plot holes or jump away from actual character moments. Luke's reaction to Han's death, how several people escaped dangerous situations and got to completely different places, etc. The film is more than pleased to follow action, but hides an awful lot of story and character moments away as if they're shameful or pointless

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Remember when Han and Leia went outside the Falcon when it was on an asteroid/in a space slug? They were clearly not decompressing, and also walking under normal gravity. Either Star Wars ships have a lot of inbuilt safety technologies like extendable gravity fields, particle shields, and the like, or ...Star Wars lol space opera whatja expect?

I do. They took 30 seconds and established the throat/stomach of the space slug had a low-oxygen atmosphere (hence the masks) and parasites/symbiotic organisms.
They didn't handwave explosive decompression 30 seconds after showing explosive decompression. There is a difference between dubious science for giant space animals in Space Opera and contradicting what was just shown in the same film.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On a second viewing, it comes across more like Yoda knows she stole the books and is trolling Luke while covering for her.

But why troll Luke? (Is Yoda played by Rian Johnson?)

I think Rian Johnson just doesn't understand Star Wars or storytelling, like Yoda showing up as a crazy goofy ghost.  Yoda acted like a crazy donkey-cave when Luke first met him as a test, but Yoda's actual personality is wise and respectful.  Why would he apparate in Crazy Uncle Joe form to Luke who's known him for decades now?

I think Kasdan/Brackett are the only people ever to write Star Wars that understand Yoda.  The whole point to him is that a great Jedi Warrior does not need to be physically impressive, he is so in tune with the Force that it makes him far more powerful than a simple swordsman.  But that was too smart a concept for the Prequels, so they made him do light-saber backflips, and now Rian Johnson has misinterpreted the character just as severely in a completely different way.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On a second viewing, it comes across more like Yoda knows she stole the books and is trolling Luke while covering for her.

But why troll Luke? (Is Yoda played by Rian Johnson?)

Yoda's always enjoyed winding Luke up, right from the beginning when he pretended he wasn't Yoda.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Remember when Han and Leia went outside the Falcon when it was on an asteroid/in a space slug? They were clearly not decompressing, and also walking under normal gravity. Either Star Wars ships have a lot of inbuilt safety technologies like extendable gravity fields, particle shields, and the like, or ...Star Wars lol space opera whatja expect?

There are three things that cause atmospheric loss: heat, radiation pressure (direct sunlight) and solar wind. A sheltered crevice might maintain a thin atmosphere even if the surface could not, and it doesn't need to be anywhere near normal atmospheric pressure to be survivable if you've got a breathing apparatus. Even the breathing gas doesn't need to be at normal atmospheric pressure as long as the partial pressure of oxygen is high enough.

The Yoda bit, yeah, while I'm not over emphatic about any issues with it. - EG, it didn't feature in my 'list of things that vex me about The Last Jedi' - Which was quite a long list in increasing amounts of Comic book guyness.

During the scene, something really felt 'off' with me about the whole way Yoda is acting. This did eventually coalesce into: "This isn't Yoda, this is Snoke somehow mimicking Yoda to try to manipulate Luke into doing something that's a really bad idea."

Now, of course, I was completely wrong but, there was still a sense of wrongness there.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Walrus milk.

"milk"

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think one of the few assumptions about the Bewteen Times that is actually safe to assume is that Leia would somehow find a way to embrace her Force talent.

That's fine. What's not fine is introducing it with a death gag and then forgetting about it. Leia developing her Force powers is pretty significant for Ben and Rey (a.k.a., the main characters). "It just didn't come up before now and we'll never mention it afterward" is not acceptable.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Remember when Han and Leia went outside the Falcon when it was on an asteroid/in a space slug? They were clearly not decompressing, and also walking under normal gravity. Either Star Wars ships have a lot of inbuilt safety technologies like extendable gravity fields, particle shields, and the like, or ...Star Wars lol space opera whatja expect?

There are three things that cause atmospheric loss: heat, radiation pressure (direct sunlight) and solar wind. A sheltered crevice might maintain a thin atmosphere even if the surface could not, and it doesn't need to be anywhere near normal atmospheric pressure to be survivable if you've got a breathing apparatus. Even the breathing gas doesn't need to be at normal atmospheric pressure as long as the partial pressure of oxygen is high enough.

First off, I did not mean for my tangent to defend Space Leia. I am just saying I found the idea that SW ships would have a system or technique for rescuing crew trapped in decompressed areas to be the least objectionable part of that scene.


Second, the slugmosphere must have been the exact same pressure as on the Falcon because we don't see any wind or other effects of pressure normalization. Did their ears even pop? Based on the evidence in the first two SW films*, I find it far easier to believe the Falcon (and likely most other vessels) has some system to enable external activity than to believe they were lucky enough to find a space slug with the right pressure and gravity for EM to explore. Leaving the Falcon in space likely wouldn't have been something Han would do in a cavalier fashion if he didn't know he ship had him covered in some way.

*SW space technology is mature enough for a thousand generations of galactic republic. They have air shields (Death Star hanger), tractor beams, variable gravity and inertial dampeners on the Falcon, and whatever kept Lando and Luke from Bernoulliing out of the top hatch on Bespin. It would be crazier for them not to have time tested contingency plans for hull breach.

 Compel wrote:
This isn't Yoda

On this part, you're correct. What we saw is the "I'm a weird nobody" personality that Yoda put on in ESB to trick Luke. There's no reason for him to act that way in TLJ except, I guess, hey Yoda is cute kids, tell you parents you want Yoda dolls for Xmas!

 Compel wrote:
this is Snoke somehow mimicking Yoda to try to manipulate Luke

Yeah, I thought exactly the same thing until the scene was over. We both got that wrong. But I hardly think it's our fault.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yoda's always enjoyed winding Luke up, right from the beginning when he pretended he wasn't Yoda.

Nope. He wasn't "winding up" Luke initially. He was forming an impression of Luke. Luke doesn't come off well and is shocked when he finds out that Yoda is a Jedi master. Yoda does not go back to acting like a dumbass until TLJ.

Prestor Jon wrote:
I think Rian Johnson just doesn't understand Star Wars

Alternatively, is it possible that he just doesn't like SW (meaning, the OT)?

Prestor Jon wrote:
now Rian Johnson has misinterpreted the character just as severely

I keep wondering how much this is Rian Johnson and how much this is the list of Musts and Can'ts he had to have been handed by the executives before sitting down to pen the script.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Walrus milk.

"milk"

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think one of the few assumptions about the Bewteen Times that is actually safe to assume is that Leia would somehow find a way to embrace her Force talent.

That's fine. What's not fine is introducing it with a death gag and then forgetting about it. Leia developing her Force powers is pretty significant for Ben and Rey (a.k.a., the main characters). "It just didn't come up before now and we'll never mention it afterward" is not acceptable.

Well, yeah, but that went without saying. the issue is not that Leia could save her life with the Force but that she never really did anything else with it or used her personal experience to counsel Rey. it comes down to characters acting not from their Er, character, but from the director's necessity. That's been an issue in TFA and TLJ.

I guess I'm saying the movie didn't save Leia with a stupid ass-pull so much as shackle Leia with film-long dementia, an inability to remember or communicate her experience when it would do any good.

"Dementia" is a great description of both Carrie Fisher's performance and the part written for her by Rian Johnson. For a great leader, she seems mostly listless, confused, and depressed. Was her performance inspired by nursing home inmates?

"We have lots of allies who will come and help us."

"No, grandma, those people passed away years ago."



"Whaa?"

 Manchu wrote:
On this part, you're correct. What we saw is the "I'm a weird nobody" personality that Yoda put on in ESB to trick Luke. There's no reason for him to act that way in TLJ except, I guess, hey Yoda is cute kids, tell you parents you want Yoda dolls for Xmas!

Is more like what they did to Solo. We met Yoda while he was pretending to be a silly creature (because he tested Luke, mainly his patience), so they assumed this is how we remember him. Disregard "luminous beings are we...".
Same with Han. HEY GUYZ REMEMBER HAN THE SMUGGLER? WHAT A SCOUNDREL AMRITE?
Disregard his arc into becoming an hero, mainly for Leia.

You know, the thing I find hilarious the most of all this travesty, is that many consider TLJ bad but are ok with TFA.
TFA is part of the reasons TLJ is bad. And J.J. is so superficial that is the master of these shallow interpretations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

I think Kasdan/Brackett are the only people ever to write Star Wars that understand Yoda.  The whole point to him is that a great Jedi Warrior does not need to be physically impressive, he is so in tune with the Force that it makes him far more powerful than a simple swordsman.  But that was too smart a concept for the Prequels, so they made him do light-saber backflips, and now Rian Johnson has misinterpreted the character just as severely in a completely different way.

Very yes to this.

I am OK with TFA.

Just to use your Han Solo example - you know, things just didn't work out between them. For one thing, their son became a murderous madman. Leia wasn't able to move on from being a Rebel leader; she couldn't make the transition to peace time. Having lost his son to the dark side and his wife to her obsession with the threat posed by the defeated Empire and its remnants, Han just drifted back into the only business he knew, apart from a few short years of guerrilla warfare.

 Manchu wrote:
Alternatively, is it possible that he just doesn't like SW (meaning, the OT)?

That is what I took from the movie.

 Manchu wrote:
I am OK with TFA.

Just to use your Han Solo example - you know, things just didn't work out between them. For one thing, their son became a murderous madman. Leia wasn't able to move on from being a Rebel leader; she couldn't make the transition to peace time. Having lost his son to the dark side and his wife to her obsession with the threat posed by the defeated Empire and its remnants, Han just drifted back into the only business he knew, apart from a few short years of guerrilla warfare.

This is your a posteriori adjustment for the character you have seen on screen. A shallow shadow of the ANH solo, there to elicit nostalgia at the most superficial level. Exactly like Snoke (HEY GUZ REMEMBER THE EMPEROR).
There is no reason the story should have gone in this way and Leia, Luke, and Han not only not being the spotlight (right and necessary for the new generations) but fail to become the mentor Yoda and Kenobi were. And in case of han and Leia, go back to their old version, but bitter.
Leia barely resisted but on a mere superficial level.