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.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


maybe, but it's better than keeping her character alive and using her death to try and bring in more money to the next film by using her name.

You do know she died after filming for this film was completed? What would you rather they did, alter her final film, throwing away parts of her final work because she happened to die after it?

Ya, they could have done away with her cameo at the end. all she does is stun flyboy, then say what a nice piece of meat he is. easily lost to give a proper tribute to carrie.

Well, apart from her conversation with Poe on the transport, and her reuniting with Luke, and then talking with Rey about how Luke had died but was at peace. The whole film is a tribute to Carrie and preserving her final work is the best way to honour her.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To some extent everything is pandering to the marketing department. Look at the Lego shelf of your local toy shop.

To go back a page, though, I liked the Leia in Spaaace scene because:

We all know that Carrie Fisher died before finishing the film, and this created some expectation that her character would be killed off during the film.

This expectation was borne out when Kylo Ren attacked Leia's ship and targetted the bridge.

This set the scene for Kylo to destroy his mother, completing his journey to the Dark Side, and this was emphasised by the shots of the two of them "looking" at one another.

But our expectations were confounded when Kylo withheld his attack, only to be confounded again as some other FO fighter launched a missile at the bridge.

So Leia seemingly died, but again our expectation of the narrative was reversed, when she saved herself by Force powers.

To me this was a very exciting sequence of events. I don't mind that Scientific American says you can't survive in space for more than 15 seconds, because Star Wars demands a large amount of suspension of disbelief in lots of areas.

So your Expectations. Were. Subverted. .?

I did enjoy a lot of the toying RJ did with the setup JJ left to him, but I got tired of the forced nature of all the subversions shortly after this scene. I love the idea behind space Leia, but the execution was pretty embarrassing in my view.

I think everyone's expectations were subverted. The problem is that a lot of people didn't like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A tribute to a deceased cast or crew member is normally given by some kind of "in memoriam" notice in the credits.

 Easy E wrote:
Here is another take I found that is interesting....

https://www.avclub.com/this-is-not-going-to-go-the-way-you-think-the-last-jed-1821472840

Didn't buy it - the whole film was really just used to reset the universe to Star Wars.

Luke is Kenobi, dies so that the rebels can escape
The remaining rebels are now a few people fighting a massively powerful empire under a dark lord.
The bad guys are still bad guys
The good guys are good guys

There is nothing new or "subversive" in the entire film, there are plot holes and WTF moments but that's about it.

Leia dies - sadly the actress died so that was a given, not the directors choice. Not sure about her superwoman moment but meh its a Space Opera, nothing more.

Oh apart from:

People get rich dealing guns - wow Mr Director your social commentary is so awesome.... not.

 Easy E wrote:
Here is another take I found that is interesting....

https://www.avclub.com/this-is-not-going-to-go-the-way-you-think-the-last-jed-1821472840

I see, is SUPPOSED to suck... now everything is clear.

I did actually enjoy that element in the film. But I would argue that while it makes for a good film, it makes for bad Star Wars.

I'm sure Dunkirk 2 could be a great comedy, but that probably isn't the right direction for the series.

You know, I read that article, and it kind of bothers me for
two reasons.

1) It misses the point of "stories". In all it's ranting about how "happy endings" are unrealistic and time goes on, it misses the point that stories do end.

2) It seems to imply that 'after' the happy ending, there's nowhere to go but down, for the characters.

Number 2 especially bothers me, because there's plenty of places to go. Here is my idea for the sequels:

Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.

Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!

Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."

Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.

Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.

Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!

Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."

Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.

Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...

Star Wars: Civil War

There would have to be a part where Leia, Ben and Poe plans a counter-attack against the Remanant that is pretty much terrorism, and Han, Rey, Finn, and Luke have to oppose her forcefully, when pacifism fails.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, I read that article, and it kind of bothers me for
two reasons.

1) It misses the point of "stories". In all it's ranting about how "happy endings" are unrealistic and time goes on, it misses the point that stories do end.

2) It seems to imply that 'after' the happy ending, there's nowhere to go but down, for the characters.

Number 2 especially bothers me, because there's plenty of places to go. Here is my idea for the sequels:

Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.

Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!

Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."

Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.

Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...

No dark side? Ehhh...

 Easy E wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Assume the Imperial Remnant is either a rival state or a paramilitary terrorist organization within the Republic. The heroes are all retired, with Luke training the next generation of Jedi and Han and Leia discarding their service uniforms for a life together. They have kids and it all goes well, whatever whatever.

Then the next movie starts with a terrorist attack of some kind. Old Imperial sympathizers have blown up an <insert thingy important here>. Calls throughout the Republic to expel / imprison Imperial sympathizers rise up, and in the Republic Senate, calls for militarization cause raucous debate!

Eventually, a new group forms: The Resistance. They are informal, and named because they resist the Republican pacifist mentality in favor of militarily struggling with the Imperial Remnant. This Resistance includes some of Luke's new Jedi, the more radical ones, obsessed with "protecting the weak from the strong where others will not."

Other Jedi join the Senate in its efforts to negotiate and calm the Resistance and the Remnant.

Eventually, it escalates to an all-out battle between the Remnant, Republic, and Resistance. Each side has proponents within their ranks from the old trilogy, as well as new characters. Luke supports the Republic, determined for wisdom and clarity and peace. Leia supports the Resistance, determined never to see another Alderaan and believing the Republic is too weak to stop it. This causes a rift with Han, who is just trying to stay out of the conflict (as usual) but leans towards the Republic, if he really had to choose sides. Their son, radicalized by propaganda, supports the Remnant, as the only one strong enough to restore order in the galaxy...

Star Wars: Civil War

There would have to be a part where Leia, Ben and Poe plans a counter-attack against the Remanant that is pretty much terrorism, and Han, Rey, Finn, and Luke have to oppose her forcefully, when pacifism fails.

Yeah...I think I've seen that one before...

But what if we narrow the focus to the Luke-Ben dynamic? Ben, a young Jedi with a penchant for wearing black, has grown bitter and sometimes cruel, flirting with the DS after terrible battles against the FO. Jedi Master Luke, still noble and disturbed by Ben's actions, is however responsible for a great tragedy that leaves the Republic suspicious of their protector. Meanwhile, the bald-headed villain Snoke manipulates the two Jedi against one another in order to eliminate Luke, of whom he is jealous and fearful.

Ben v. Luke: Dawn of Jedis

speaking of the 'light saber' 'laser sword' issue. My boy wanted to see order 66 go down so we watched ep 3 tonight. Count dooku asked obi & ani to hand over their "swords" when they went to free palpatine.

so it seems either name is correct.

Funnily enough for all the things I disliked about this movie, Carrie doing a Space Mary Poppins didn't really bother me. We know she has a force affinity from previous films and it's hardly unbelievable that she wouldn't learn to do some stuff.

It might have looked a bit clunky visually speaking but it didn't really bother me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I have just had the First Order vs Republic dichotomy explained to me. I understood it and was fairly entertained.

Now if only the movie wasn't wallowing in its own gak so much so it could tell me itself.

Instead of myself or other users on here having to google/wookiepedia it.

Absolutely agree. The rise of the First Order and the Republic's ineffective response is actually pretty interesting, not only would covering some of that have made the new films more understandable, it also could have been really interesting to see on the screen.

I think what might have happened is that there's been an over-reaction to the faults of the prequels. Those films were rightly criticsed for filling up lots of screen time with fairly dry galactic politics, it stopped the story gaining any kind of momentum. The new films have taken the lesson that all that stuff should be dropped entirely, but I think that's a mistake. The OT did a great job of including enough of the greater picture in scenes that were also advancing the plot or developing characters. For instance, when Tarkin mentions the dissolution of the Senate it is great writing, because it not only raises the stakes by telling us Tarkin can use his super-weapon without any kind of normal constraint, it also tells us part of the bigger story of a galactic Empire in the final stages of usurping total control of the galaxy.

The new films could have done something similar, particularly TFA, which could have included just a few references to the Republic's disarmament, and refusal to respond to the rise of the FO. The film didn't need to stop dead to explain any of this, it could have been included in already existing scenes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought the whole point of the first film was that he had chosen a side - did we really need a half hour and pointless "adventure" crowbarred so badly into the middle of the film, considering how slow the pace already was, to tell us this again.

Then you probably need to watch TFA again. Finn's loyalty was to Rey, he went to the Starkiller just to get Rey back and considered the Resistance operation to stop the base to be not his problem. TLJ picked up where that left off, he was concerned about Rey, and while he worked with the resistance he did it for his own reasons - he was hunted by the FO, and it's where his BFF Rey was. Over TLJ Finn changed.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
We should not need to go for Wookiepedia. The movie must make sense on their own. I really don't care about Wookepedia, books or whatever.

Sure, and the complaint I've agreed with several times, and made myself, is that important setting detail isn't included in the films themselves. However, this is very different to the argument you made, that the events in the films could not have happened. That complaint is false, the background is actually pretty solid. It just should have been in the movies.

You've made some bad assumptions.

1) The Death Star could only be created by a organisation with the resources of the Empire. It is entirely possible that while still an incredible creation, such a thing could have been built by a much smaller organisation, if that organisation had the will and the technology (a tech you'll note was developed before the Empire's formation).
2) There is no concept of process improvement. While Star Wars tends to stick to a fairly static tech base, it is hardly unthinkable that having built a death star then lessons learned from that build might help you develop something much bigger 30 years later. Nimitz class carriers were displace five times as much as Yorktown class carriers, and they were 30 years apart in development.
3) That because only 30 years passed between RotJ and TLJ, it was not possible for the FO to build a large empire in that time. To take single example, Charlemagne expanded from control of Frankia, about 1.2m square kms, to the Holy Roman Empire, an area about 4.4m square kms. That took about 30 years. And that's through conquest and forcing other nations to cede land. Consider an organisation with loyalties to an old order, that might willingly join the new organisation, how much that might help expansion.

None of this is a defence of Starkiller as a concept to include in TFA. It was lame, because on the screen it felt like nothing more than a retread of the Death Star, but bigger. But that wasn't your complaint, your complaint was that that Starkiller should have been impossible for the First Order, because they aren't as big as the Empire was. That's a complaint that only works if we make all your incorrect assumptions.

1) The DS is aknowledges ad incredibly big in ANH. "That's no moon". For sure is not anything anyone could build on a whim

You can acknowledge something as an incredible piece of engineering, while recognising that it would be possible for an organisation smaller than the whole galaxy to create it. The US Nimitz class carriers are stunning to see, and only one country has ships even close to that size. But if they wanted to commit the resources there's quite a few other countries that could build ships that size, or bigger.

2) The "process improvement" could involve the type of beam (that has, it seems, FTL flight because the SK has none), not digging up a whole planet with a volume orders of magnitude bigger

Doing things on a greater scale is a regular part of process improvement.

2b) let's ignore the stupidity of the weapon, that can only shoot once

Sorry, are you saying Starkiller can only shoot once? Didn't you notice how the weapon fired, and was in the process of recharging to shoot again? What are you talking about here?

3) You insist with completely preposterous historical comparison. Franks and swords is not like galactic republic and space nazi with FTL travel and lazors. There is nothing that can be used as an example here. Just stop. Is embarrassing.

If we can't use historical comparisons to decide on the plausibility of rapid expansion... what are we using? What basis are you using to say an empire can't expand rapidly in a 30 year period? Nothing other than you saying "I don't like that".

Also, calling the fleet as target does not make the scene less stupid. The republic just put all the eggs in one basket for plot convenience. In case, it makes everything even more incredible, puts one out of the movie, and makes me do not care for the supposed "good guys" because are just too stupid.

Yeah, how crazy it is to have a movie where the good guys make a big mistake and this leaves them vulnerable to a usurping evil force. What horrible, terrible, core plot of thousands of movies.

Is just an example of the bad writing leitmotif of these movies.

Don't use words you don't understand.

Also, I strongly suggest to state clearly the "hidden motivations", or just let them go.

You need to read the thread. I have said, repeatedly, that the reason I am in this thread is to figure out those motives. But I have given an answer, which I'll repeat for you now, noting I don't think this answer is entirely satisfactory;

"I don't have a particularly good answer. If I did I would have satisfied my curiousity and stopped posting here. The answer I do have is TLJ failed to capture the heroic nature of previous Star Wars films. Even the darker films, particularly ESB, were only dark in the circumstances it put the heroes in, but the actions of the heroes heroic and successful. But with this film our heroes weren't just in dire circumstances, their actions actually failed and in a few instances actually made things worse in permanent ways. That's quite a deviation from normal Star Wars, and it gave this film a very different feel. I can see how for some people that would mean it didn't feel like Star Wars, even on a subconscious level.

I don't think that's a complete answer though, but it's as close to a satisfying answer as I've got so far."

Why do you think there's only one answer?

sirlynchmob wrote:
and there have been a lot of reasons listed to dislike TLJ, I was going with the original with v'ger which is usually considered one of the worst movies ever made.

The original Star Trek is a very flawed movie, but it's far from one of the worst of all time.

That's the point, there is no one unifying theory to dislike either, you either liked it or you didn't. dismissing peoples reasons because you don't approve or believe them, makes you look like you're pushing a reason onto them..

I am not pushing a reason on to anyone. I've said many times my interest in posting in this thread is largely to figure out what the reason could be.

especially when you post stuff like this:

This doesn't mean anyone is lying, afterall that player might genuinely believe he is out there for the game and his club. It's just that what people actually believe is quite complex, and people don't always know their own minds that well.

but you do eh? you know their minds better than they do?

I've explained this several times. It is a basic reality that the reasons people give for their thoughts and actions aren't always what's actually going on. This basic reality is the reason for all kinds of analysis. For psychiatric analysis, and for film and literature analysis. If people immediately knew why they reacted to something in a certain way, there'd never be any reason for any kind of deep analysis.

What I've done here isn't something bizarre. I've just read reasons people have given, made a personal assessment as to whether they're the sorts of things that actually cause people to react against a movie. This isn't strange. Its something everyone does regularly. No-one just blindly takes absolutely everyone at their word all the time, but this isn't about thinking someone else is a liar, its just accepting that people don't always know exactly why they think or act as they do.

There are lots of subconscious reasons people react for or against something. People can sometimes realise those subconscious impulses, but other times they do not. I myself and not completely sure why I bought in TLJ as much as I did, there are flaws in the movie that have I felt took me out of other films, but not here. Part of figuring out why some people reacted against this film is me figuring out why I reacted for it so strongly.

Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?

 sebster wrote:


I've explained this several times. It is a basic reality that the reasons people give for their thoughts and actions aren't always what's actually going on. This basic reality is the reason for all kinds of analysis. For psychiatric analysis, and for film and literature analysis. If people immediately knew why they reacted to something in a certain way, there'd never be any reason for any kind of deep analysis.

What I've done here isn't something bizarre. I've just read reasons people have given, made a personal assessment as to whether they're the sorts of things that actually cause people to react against a movie. This isn't strange. Its something everyone does regularly. No-one just blindly takes absolutely everyone at their word all the time, but this isn't about thinking someone else is a liar, its just accepting that people don't always know exactly why they think or act as they do.

There are lots of subconscious reasons people react for or against something. People can sometimes realise those subconscious impulses, but other times they do not. I myself and not completely sure why I bought in TLJ as much as I did, there are flaws in the movie that have I felt took me out of other films, but not here. Part of figuring out why some people reacted against this film is me figuring out why I reacted for it so strongly.

I've got a theory on that one.

Does this movie require that sort of psycho analysis? no. Do you analyze all movies like that, or just this one?

Why not take people at their word on what they like and don't like. Or do you go this deep when people don't like the same foods as you?

If your partner doesn't like the shirt you're wearing and asks you to throw it out, do you try to figure out why? or just take their word for it and throw it out?

when it comes to any art (especially abstract stuff) you either like it, or you don't. there is no grand unifying theory as to why. If you have to figure out why you like something, then odds are you didn't and you're trying to convince yourself you did.

 Easy E wrote:
Here is another take I found that is interesting....

https://www.avclub.com/this-is-not-going-to-go-the-way-you-think-the-last-jed-1821472840

That did a great job of getting at the core of the reaction against TLJ. Thanks Easy E. Your responses have been very illuminating for me.

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Here is another take I found that is interesting....

https://www.avclub.com/this-is-not-going-to-go-the-way-you-think-the-last-jed-1821472840

That did a great job of getting at the core of the reaction against TLJ. Thanks Easy E. Your responses have been very illuminating for me.

It seemed a bit simplistic. I know people who disliked the movie for those reasons and others who didn't mind that at all, but disliked it for other reasons. There are multiple vectors from which to dislike the film.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Why do you think there's only one answer?

I don't. That's a good pick up. I think my answer implied I was looking for some grand theory that explained all fans. Cheers for noting that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?

That's also a good question. Starting from liking the film and then seeing the reactions against it, I naturally looked what caused people's dislike. What's been good about the process, in amidst a lot of frustration from some weirdly defensive and at times hostile responses is that it has given me some insight in to why I reacted so positively to the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I've got a theory on that one.

Does this movie require that sort of psycho analysis?

It's not the movie that's being analysed, but the reactions.

Do you analyze all movies like that, or just this one?

When discussing films, people will talk about what caused strong reaction, either positive or negative. And that discussion is never as inane as just saying 'people said they liked/disliked it because of z, therefore z'.

Or do you go this deep when people don't like the same foods as you?

Exactly how deep do you think this is? Reading a response, not taking it as face value, but instead taking it in combination with other responses and other pieces of analysis

If your partner doesn't like the shirt you're wearing and asks you to throw it out, do you try to figure out why? or just take their word for it and throw it out?

Depends, if I have three other shirts in similar styles with similar colours that she's previously said she liked, it would pique my curiousity.

when it comes to any art (especially abstract stuff) you either like it, or you don't. there is no grand unifying theory as to why.

There are reasons why people do and don't like things. If we didn't discuss those reasons there wouldn't be Geek Media.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It seemed a bit simplistic. I know people who disliked the movie for those reasons and others who didn't mind that at all, but disliked it for other reasons. There are multiple vectors from which to dislike the film.

That doesn't make it simplistic. It means it isn't a complete reason, isn't a universal reason. Which is true, but I don't think the writer presented it as a complete reason, nor does it have to be in order to be interesting.

We have to be careful in acknowledging that while reactions and the reasons for those reactions are diverse, we shouldn't go too far and deny the existence of any groups of similar responses.

 sebster wrote:


When discussing films, people will talk about what caused strong reaction, either positive or negative. And that discussion is never as inane as just saying 'people said they liked/disliked it because of z, therefore z'.
Exactly how deep do you think this is? Reading a response, not taking it as face value, but instead taking it in combination with other responses and other pieces of analysis

You do realize with those two statements you're calling me a liar right?

I state my opinion about a movie, then you dismiss my opinion and not take it at face value, ie calling me a liar for voicing my opinion.

by all means, let's discuss the reasons for liking and disliking a movie, but let's not dismiss others and assume what they mean.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You do realize with those two statements you're calling me a liar right?

I am not calling you a liar. To go back to the shirt example, if my wife told me she thought a shirt of mine was ugly and I should throw it out, and I noted I have a few other shirts that have similar styles and colours, I wouldn't be calling her a liar.

As I've said a bunch of times now, the human mind is complex and people don't always know why they think or do things. People know this to be true. When a friend is sitting there eating a pizza and tells everyone its okay because vthey're going to start dieting tomorrow, no-one believes them but it isn't because they think the person is lying and is trying to deceive everyone about going on a diet tomorrow.

I state my opinion about a movie, then you dismiss my opinion and not take it at face value, ie calling me a liar for voicing my opinion.

I haven't dismissed your opinion. I've said the reasons you gave for disliking the movie might not be what actually caused you to react against the film.

Sebster, I find it simplistic because it assumes all complains about Luke all stem from the same feeling, the same inability of fans to appreciate the real life lesson that gak sucks then you die. But many, like Manchu earlier, pointed out that for them the problem goes beyond the inevitable Sequel-Undoing-Predecessor issues. It's possible to be okay with the idea that all our heroes will live to taste the ashes of their victories and yet still have problems with how this particular film went about things with these particular characters. Even people who dislike Failure Luke might have reacted to him better with some context or filled in background.


Anyway, for me, I'm a negative person. I tend to be critical to movies unless they actively win me over somehow. TLJ won me over in many ways. Between the score and RJ's use of the camera, the film makes me interested in events that my brain registers as stupid in real time. The emotional scenes affected me even when they were contrived or facile (bomber, Snoke/brosabers, hyperram, Luke's stand), because of how they were 'told'. RJ was able to get better, more convincing performances out of the cast than I expected, or knew what to leave out (sometimes. Maybe), giving noticing stupid arcs a compelling dimension. The humor landed for me because much of it followed my sensibilities or was barbed at things I hated (Hux, JJ). The subversions were mostly fun because they did challenge my expectations and kept me pondering what would happen . Basically, I enjoyed seeing RJ exercise his craft, be it transitions that aided momentum, knowing when to let the film breathe, getting some compelling interplay between characters I suddenly care anything about, beautiful shots or old camera tricks. It was all down to his competence behind the camera (and not with a pen), and the talent of his crew.

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to keep me from noticing that he gak the Star Wars bed.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?

I've seen plenty of people say it's great, was lots of fun, is up there with ESB etc, but these are just conclusions, not reasons.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Sebster, I find it simplistic because it assumes all complains about Luke all stem from the same feeling, the same inability of fans to appreciate the real life lesson that gak sucks then you die.

But that's only a problem if we consider it the problem that every complainant had, or the problem no complainant had. Instead, having read through a lot of surface level complaints about TLJ, at a complete guess I'd say it was maybe part of the negative reaction among, say, somewhere between a third to half. Noting those numbers I've given are somewhere between a guess and completely made up.

It's possible to be okay with the idea that all our heroes will live to taste the ashes of their victories and yet still have problems with how this particular film went about things with these particular characters. Even people who dislike Failure Luke might have reacted to him better with some context or filled in background.

Sure, and I will note that if a person did dislike the new films for turning the OT heroes in to failures and undid their achievements, that isn't an invalid reason for disliking the films. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to see that. That it is a necessary part of sequels and a reality of life doesn't mean it is something people will enjoy being added to Star Wars.

I'm not looking for why people didn't like it so I can claim that reason is invalid, I'm just looking for why.

Anyway, for me, I'm a negative person.

I'm the opposite. I used to be inherently critical of movies, but for a long time now I've tried to go with the movie just because I love being in that moment of loving the story. I'm happy to talk about the weaker bits of a movie afterwards, but in the film I'm looking to enjoy it as best I can. That doesn't mean I'm not critical of films, I hate that feeling of trying to get in to a movie but I can't because its badly mad or I just don't gel with the movie's sensibilities. I didn't have that problem with TLJ, at all.

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to keep me from noticing that he gak the Star Wars bed.

And I've never just never been that fussed about keeping settings sacred. Interesting how different people view this stuff.

 Riquende wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you considered that maybe the question isn't why would someone dislike this great-yet-flawed film, but why do people like this flawed film enough to call it great?

I've seen plenty of people say it's great, was lots of fun, is up there with ESB etc, but these are just conclusions, not reasons.

At the end of the day I think it's a flawed film that is none the less a fun ride. If it were a stand alone film with no heritage and no future a lot of the flaws would be forgotten by the time you walked out of the cinema. As a member of the Star Wars saga the problems linger.

 Easy E wrote:
Here is another take I found that is interesting....

https://www.avclub.com/this-is-not-going-to-go-the-way-you-think-the-last-jed-1821472840

"The necessary disappointment of epilogues."
There's nothing necessary about it. This story is a disappointment because Kennedy and Co decided to make an epilogue so bloated that it smothered the main story and doesn't even fit in its own trilogy. A good storyteller can have compelling stakes in their movie without killing an entire star system of extras; these are not good storytellers.

I think if I were going to pitch the new trilogy, the set up would be something like the galaxy being 150 years on from the originals. The Empire a long forgotten blip in Republic history. Luke was never able to re-found a full order of Jedi as his own training wasn't really geared towards it, but this didn't immediately end in tragedy, just the fulfillment of the 'prophecy' by ending the formal orders of both Jedi and Sith.

You can keep the character of Rey largely intact as a scavenger on a forgotten world who kickstarts... something by finding a holocron, which gives you the capacity to bring in Luke, Yoda or even Ewan McGregor's Obi Wan (to re-legitimise him in readiness for a new film) to bridge the gap of knowledge (holocrons were partially interactive after all).

I'm not sure where the story would go from there, or how you'd bring in Finn & Poe (or similar versions thereof). Maybe you could try to retell the story of a weak Republic struggling to mediate across member worlds (only this time without all the "Palpatine's behind it all" gambits) and Finn could be a soldier in one of the more aggressive factions and Poe a pilot for one of their nearby targets. Or perhaps a pilot in some sort of Space-UN peacekeeping task force.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Here is another take I found that is interesting....

https://www.avclub.com/this-is-not-going-to-go-the-way-you-think-the-last-jed-1821472840

"The necessary disappointment of epilogues."
There's nothing necessary about it. This story is a disappointment because Kennedy and Co decided to make an epilogue so bloated that it smothered the main story and doesn't even fit in its own trilogy. A good storyteller can have compelling stakes in their movie without killing an entire star system of extras; these are not good storytellers.

It would be a mistake to conflate not needing to do something with needing not to do something.

Star Wars has always been a combination of epic galactic scale with personal elements. From that viewpoint, the latest film tells a classic Star Wars story of a few heroes and villains fighting it out against an enormous background.

Right soapparently my (and others) "hidden reasons" are:

You need to read the thread. I have said, repeatedly, that the reason I am in this thread is to figure out those motives. But I have given an answer, which I'll repeat for you now, noting I don't think this answer is entirely satisfactory;

"I don't have a particularly good answer. If I did I would have satisfied my curiousity and stopped posting here. The answer I do have is TLJ failed to capture the heroic nature of previous Star Wars films. Even the darker films, particularly ESB, were only dark in the circumstances it put the heroes in, but the actions of the heroes heroic and successful. But with this film our heroes weren't just in dire circumstances, their actions actually failed and in a few instances actually made things worse in permanent ways. That's quite a deviation from normal Star Wars, and it gave this film a very different feel. I can see how for some people that would mean it didn't feel like Star Wars, even on a subconscious level.

I don't think that's a complete answer though, but it's as close to a satisfying answer as I've got so far."

I question how you can make an assessment of myself or anyone else on this thread via our responses in a forum, you do not know me (us), you do not know what feel, what my life expereinces are or what i felt about this film ther than what I have expressed on this limited format.

And unsurprisngly you are wrong:

The last Jedi is not a dark film because there is vritaully nothing to take seriously - its Space Opera - in this case poor Space Opera but its nothing more. The bad guys are no more or less bad than previous films, the setting is reset to the start of the original Starw Wars trilogy. The characters are mostly cardboard cut outs with no emotional connection so I donlt care if most of the die - they are nobodies, mostly stupid nobodies.

Funny you should bring up the ESB because this film is a cheap badly constructed rip off in many ways - throughout that fim the rebels loose - same as this one, it ends with the new great hope of the resistance not only defeated by Darth Vader and physically crippled but emotionally destroyed. At the end of TLJ there is a newe great hope who is still bright and shiny - Rey may feel a little conflicted by Ben but she is not in the same state as Luke at the end of ESB.

The Rebels - well the Ship of Fools is gone but apparently they have firends all over the place (or not) or maybe, we don't really know as the team that made the film can;t be bothered to actually thinkk through any aspect of their turgid creation - well we know that there are a few slave kids who like badges and maybe one who will be the next Luke/Rey/ etc.

Yes in TLJ the Ship of Fools is destoryed but the ragged remnants escape -as they always do in Star Wars films having destroyed the enemies latests super ship, their leader is killed - they now have an damaged and emotional man-child as a leader with his minions apparently looking to bump him off when they can. The end of TLJ is standard Star Wars - its really not dark. Lots of people do stupid things in a stupid moive full of plot holes but thats not dark thats stupid and plot holes - different thing.

Oh year there is the dark and oh so subversisve - bad people make guns that good and buy people buy and make thise bad people rich = wow this director is someone who can really exmaine the nature of humainty, probe the darkness of the human soul - donl;t worry I am sure Disney will buy him a golden glove or even an oscar.

If you want sci-fi dark - there are many much much better - watch Battlestar Galatica in particular the epsiode "33" and see how dark is done properly (as well as tension, decent characters and plot which almost always this film fails at)