The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within

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.

**Compel**

I do sometimes wonder about the purpose of film critics. - Are they like Art Critics, where their purpose is about being in the know enough to judge the technique of the craft?

Or is their job to be a tour-guide to help people pick what films they want to spend their hard earned money on?

Are they both? Are they different? Are people mistaking one for the other, are some masquerading as one, but actually the other?

When I came out of "The Force Awakens" my opinion was: "It was actually really good, I just kinda wish it wasn't made." - That second part was because of what happened to good ol' Han.

But that comment was aware of my own personal hangups, I was still able to accept that in between the sorta-tears-ish that I liked the film.

TLJ is different and it's not because people have suddenly become far happier to complain about things in the last 2 years. Heck, it's been 6 years since the first Hobbit film came out!

**Kaiyanwang**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
@kianwang: our discussion has gotten a bit big, so I'll try to post it like this. If anything doesn't make sense, please PM me.

1) film critics routinely differ from audiences. You mention Ghostbusters. I would point you to The American, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. Most of the time the critical reception for movies is actually lower than the audience reception. They have different eyes and hearts and opinions. Que sera. Don't accuse somebody of selling out or taking money for something if you have no evidence of it. It makes you, not your target look bad.

2) the critics' opinions on whether or not you will like a given film is what I was meaning as purely subjective. If it is a good film or not is a bit more (or at least can be a bit more based on formative criteria) objective. Your subjective experiences with ex girlfriends and sisters should probably be best left outside of the discussion about who/what the arts are unless you want me to chime in with what my biology professor wife says about stuff (you don't).

3) as a science based guy, I know it may shock you, but the arts have peer reviewed journals too. It goes through the same process (often times, strangely, and horribly, through the same people--yeah, I have to edit your poorly written claptrap too) of being sent out to other university professors. It takes a while for them to look it over, evaluate what you wrote, judge what you wrote, and edit.

1) That's true, but in those cases (for the movies you name, or others) I don't see a continuous bashing of the audience that just "did not get the movie", a political angle on WHY they did not get the movie (an explanation that some poster here tried to throw into the discussion in a non-overt way, BTW). I retracted in an edit the "sellout" - you are perfectly right about that - no evidence. But please, at least let's recognise that there is a pattern in these movies that is well beyond the mere disconnect between audience and critics. There is a whole level of online publication attacking the public for not liking the movie for the wrong reason. This cannot help to make me at least suspicious. And happened for two movies charged without reasons with a political meaning AND important for the continuation/reboot of franchises. I cannot help thinking about it.

2) Is not just subjective experience, is a trend in academia. And in my humble opinion is not going to end well. We are educating people that look at everything as is a nail, because they only have an hammer.

3) I have to apologize about that. I meant the online pieces. My musicologist ex-gf did show me very well the peer review process for journal articles in her field. Also, please remember that I added a sentence to show I claim no high ground in this regard.
But I ask: pieces like the one I linked.. are they peer reviewed as well? By whom? And on which basis?

**Xenomancers**

Compel wrote:
I do sometimes wonder about the purpose of film critics. - Are they like Art Critics, where their purpose is about being in the know enough to judge the technique of the craft?

Or is their job to be a tour-guide to help people pick what films they want to spend their hard earned money on?

Are they both? Are they different? Are people mistaking one for the other, are some masquerading as one, but actually the other?

When I came out of "The Force Awakens" my opinion was: "It was actually really good, I just kinda wish it wasn't made." - That second part was because of what happened to good ol' Han.

But that comment was aware of my own personal hangups, I was still able to accept that in between the sorta-tears-ish that I liked the film.

TLJ is different and it's not because people have suddenly become far happier to complain about things in the last 2 years. Heck, it's been 6 years since the first Hobbit film came out!

I was kinda like meh after the force awakens. The movie wasn't great but I felt like EP 8 had a lot of potential. I sure didn't go on any rants about how bad the film was. Except with a few friends of mine who really liked kylo - I said Kylo was great until he took of his mask. I just kind of kept everything else to myself. Hoping that Disney could correct course - and I gave Rouge one a lot of praise (it's really my favorite starwars movie overall.)

TLJ is different - it is a failure as a film in practically every way. Plus it's loaded with stupid political BS.

**Gordon Shumway**

It sort of depends on the critics you read and what you want to get from them. They are sort of art critics in that they look at movies as works of art. That said, they write for popular media whose readership isn't exactly people who are looking for that sort of analysis. So they try to appeal to that too. To be honest, they are a dying breed. They admit it as well. All we are going to have in a few years is IGN and GAwker crap "Analysis" who maybe took an arts course once. The more people keep bitching about how movie critics have gotten paid for their opinion, the faster we get there.

**Mr Morden**

Good ridence

Film Crictics are paid to watch films they often dislike and tell you so. They are seldom objective and I would never make any decision to watch a film based on such biased opions.

They are to me at least merely worthless parasties.

**Kaiyanwang**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
The more people keep bitching about how movie critics have gotten paid for their opinion, the faster we get there.

I take happily this point and bow in light of the anti-vaxxers. In a way, I would be like them.
Since I assume you studied hard for your title, you have been not even enough bitter toward me. Thank you for that.
But my perplexity on the noise-to-signal ratio for these "faux political" movies remains.

**Manchu**

Every time I come back to this thread, there is one point that needs to made again and again:

- people who didn't like the movie talk about the movie

- people who liked the movie talk about people who didn't like the movie

**Kaiyanwang**

Mr Morden wrote:
Good ridence

Film Crictics are paid to watch films they often dislike and tell you so. They are seldom objective and I would never make any decision to watch a film based on such biased opions.

They are to me at least merely worthless parasties.

This is not fair. You know, this remembers me a discussion I had with friends in humanities when I was in Bern for my work.
I talked about applications of my work in animal welfare and human health, and a guy with a thesis on a famous (and absolutely beautiful) comic book expressed his disappointment on the less impactful nature of his work.
I was very pissed at him. My job consists in make your survival more likely (and with the raising economic disparities, this is becoming less and less likely for a given individual, BTW. Cyberpunk, here we come).
But humanities celebrate the human; the culture, the history, what is us.
Arts in specific the beauty (among other things) of being human. And remember us that there is more to mere survival - as long as there is not only survival, we are a civilisation. A full utilitarian approach is dehumanising at the end.
And to maintain this status, we need discussion about it. Only what is discussed remains alive.

**Gordon Shumway**

@kiayanwang: I don't see Hornaday's piece as attacking anybody's take on the movie as "wrong". Does she? The headline supposes it, but her piece is a bit more nuanced, isn't it? She implies that people should go into a movie without preconceived notions. I would want a critic to do that wouldn't you?

2) i am not concerned about my students. They understand perfectly well what a hammers' purpose is and what we use nails for.

3) no, newspaper articles are not peer reviewed in the same way academic articles are. As a scientist, I know you know this.

**Kaiyanwang**

Gordon Shumway wrote:

3) no, newspaper articles are not peer reviewed in the same way academic articles are. As a scientist, I know you know this.

I know you know I know.

But what I wrote above made you understand I meant the peer reviewed articles.

Also, nuanced or not, and in principle correct, the piece falls flat on his face for this specific movie.

**Gordon Shumway**

Manchu wrote:
Every time I come back to this thread, there is one point that needs to made again and again:

- people who didn't like the movie talk about the movie

- people who liked the movie talk about people who didn't like the movie

-people who didn't like the movie accuse those who did of being paid to say so. Or did you forget you said that?

**Kaiyanwang**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Every time I come back to this thread, there is one point that needs to made again and again:

- people who didn't like the movie talk about the movie

- people who liked the movie talk about people who didn't like the movie

-people who didn't like the movie accuse those who did of being paid to say so. Or did you forget you said that?

I retracted that statement and, speaking of nuance, I said that you can get 0 money and be a sellout as well - if you abandon integrity of your analysis for an agenda.
Again, regardless of the basis of my statement, I still have received no satisfactory explanation about a specific pattern observed in many critics. Why No Contry for Old Men is not defended like TLJ, even if both movies have a dissonance between critics and audience, you reported?
You said it depends from the quality of the critic, I will raise my hands and think about that.

**Luciferian**

Gordon, the common thread behind Hornaday and others who are speaking out in defense of the movie is that they start straight from the supposition that there is no valid reason not to like the movie. Then, all of them try to guess at what the "real" reason behind some people's dislike of the movie is; variously producing answers such as "misogyny", "having the wrong expectations" or "watching movies wrong". And, as Manchu said above, most people who try to defend the movie do so by attacking the "hidden motivations" of those who dislike it.

**Gordon Shumway**

Ok, what is the agenda Hornaday was promoting? The only thing she really said in the piece was that one should leave their preconceptions at the door. Hardly a clear liberal or conservative screed there. Or did I miss some dog whistles there?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luciferian wrote:
Gordon, the common thread behind Hornaday and others who are speaking out in defense of the movie is that they start straight from the supposition that there is no valid reason not to like the movie. Then, all of them try to guess at what the "real" reason behind some people's dislike of the movie is; variously producing answers such as "misogyny", "having the wrong expectations" or "watching movies wrong". And, as Manchu said above, most people who try to defend the movie do so by attacking the "hidden motivations" of those who dislike it.

I have no reason to dismiss or question people's motivation (actually, Hornaday didn't really either). Let people dislike something for whatever stupid reason. Let people like it for the same stupid reasons. People should really not get so worked up over other people's likes or dislikes. That is just silly pants.

**Luciferian**

Hornady's piece doesn't present any agenda necessarily, nor did I say she appeared to promote one, though many others clearly have. Still, her premise is that if you don't like the movie, you suck at watching movies.

**Mr Morden**

Manchu wrote:
Every time I come back to this thread, there is one point that needs to made again and again:

- people who didn't like the movie talk about the movie

- people who liked the movie talk about people who didn't like the movie

Agreed - well said.

**Kaiyanwang**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, what is the agenda Hornaday was promoting? The only thing she really said in the piece was that one should leave their preconceptions at the door. Hardly a clear liberal or conservative screed there. Or did I miss some dog whistles there?

An agenda is not necessarily political (albeit SW has been politicised and many bloggers/authors attributed a political reason, conscious or not, to the dislike for TLJ
- and to a lesser extent, TFA).
What I read is an undermining of the fandom and a certain way to tell stories.
Or to demand coherence and logic from what you view. Unless there is some pre-conception that if a movie belongs to a certain genre, characters and motivations can be crap no matter what.
For sure, her previous positive review of the movie. A baffling 3/4.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/star-wars-the-last-jedi-brings-the-band-back-together-with-love/2017/12/12/37d62242-d47a-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.99fa2442e752
How she got to watch the movie? Was it a preview? How people from preview are selected?
What happens if you don't please the Mouse?
http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/disney-los-angeles-times-critics-boycott/
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/7/16617394/la-times-disney-media-ban-blackout
Maybe the article can look innocent by itself but it comes out in the context of many, many other "fixing" this or that plot hole, interviewing the director about a "perceived" problem of the movie, with the inevitable flock of pieces bashing the audience itself. Like with ghostbusters.
Coincidentally, another movie that less stellar chances in China compared to something like Transformers, and that was pushed on the "female" angle as well. Another weird coincidence, BTW. As if betting to a greater female audience is a way to recover from a less stellar china? Speculation, I know.
(she did not pushed this angle but other did).

When one opens the browser, reads and puts it all together, at the cost of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, cannot help to see a pattern in which the viewer is told to shut up and be a good, and devoid of criticisms, consumer because this is a circus that feeds many.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luciferian wrote:
Hornady's piece doesn't present any agenda necessarily, nor did I say she appeared to promote one, though many others clearly have. Still, her premise is that if you don't like the movie, you suck at watching movies.

Also this. This looks like grasping at straws - as if she is desperate to make a point.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Every time I come back to this thread, there is one point that needs to made again and again:

- people who didn't like the movie talk about the movie

- people who liked the movie talk about people who didn't like the movie

-people who didn't like the movie accuse those who did of being paid to say so. Or did you forget you said that?

I retracted that statement and, speaking of nuance, I said that you can get 0 money and be a sellout as well - if you abandon integrity of your analysis for an agenda.
Again, regardless of the basis of my statement, I still have received no satisfactory explanation about a specific pattern observed in many critics. Why No Contry for Old Men is not defended like TLJ, even if both movies have a dissonance between critics and audience, you reported?
You said it depends from the quality of the critic, I will raise my hands and think about that.

Is No country For Old men under attack? Was it ever really this contentious?

In my opinion TLJ does filmy things very well and Star Warsy things poorly. That is why filmy people like it more and Warsies like it less. I suppose it could also be divisive between people who like themes and tone against people who like plot and character. It's the Astronaut vs Caveman of cinematic experiences.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I've never seen the movie, but No Country for Old Men was surprisingly weak for a Cormac McCarthy novel. Perhaps the dichotomy between fans and critics there has to do with expectations.

**Gordon Shumway**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Ok, what is the agenda Hornaday was promoting? The only thing she really said in the piece was that one should leave their preconceptions at the door. Hardly a clear liberal or conservative screed there. Or did I miss some dog whistles there?

An agenda is not necessarily political (albeit SW has been politicised and many bloggers/authors attributed a political reason, conscious or not, to the dislike for TLJ
- and to a lesser extent, TFA).
What I read is an undermining of the fandom and a certain way to tell stories.
Or to demand coherence and logic from what you view. Unless there is some pre-conception that if a movie belongs to a certain genre, characters and motivations can be crap no matter what.
For sure, her previous positive review of the movie. A baffling 3/4.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/star-wars-the-last-jedi-brings-the-band-back-together-with-love/2017/12/12/37d62242-d47a-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.99fa2442e752
How she got to watch the movie? Was it a preview? How people from preview are selected?
What happens if you don't please the Mouse?
http://fortune.com/2017/11/07/disney-los-angeles-times-critics-boycott/
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/7/16617394/la-times-disney-media-ban-blackout
Maybe the article can look innocent by itself but it comes out in the context of many, many other "fixing" this or that plot hole, interviewing the director about a "perceived" problem of the movie, with the inevitable flock of pieces bashing the audience itself. Like with ghostbusters.
Coincidentally, another movie that less stellar chances in China compared to something like Transformers, and that was pushed on the "female" angle as well. Another weird coincidence, BTW. As if betting to a greater female audience is a way to recover from a less stellar china? Speculation, I know.
(she did not pushed this angle but other did).

When one opens the browser, reads and puts it all together, at the cost of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, cannot help to see a pattern in which the viewer is told to shut up and be a good, and devoid of criticisms, consumer because this is a circus that feeds many.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luciferian wrote:
Hornady's piece doesn't present any agenda necessarily, nor did I say she appeared to promote one, though many others clearly have. Still, her premise is that if you don't like the movie, you suck at watching movies.

Also this. This looks like grasping at straws - as if she is desperate to make a point.

Is she the one who is desperate to make a point? What is the point she is desperate to make? I see her making her point about film critics. It doesn't seem all that desperate (her arguments are clearly laid forth and logical-free to agree or disagree). She doesn't seem to have much of a political axe to grind. What precisely are people disagreeing with her on? If anything, I would accuse her of not having a raisin de etra at all, but for some reason people want to dispute something.

**Unit1126PLL**

I disagree with anyone who says the movie made sense, and that if "you didn't make sense of it, you <insert thingy here>"

The thingies I have seen:
1) Care too much
2) Are misogynistic
3) Expect too much (often followed with 'its's Star Wars after all')
4) watch movies wrong (??? I use my eyeballs, idk about you)
5) other spurious things.

**Kaiyanwang**

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Is she the one who is desperate to make a point? What is the point she is desperate to make?

That the movie is not hot garbage and the praise is appropriate. All build on a false premise about expectation.
Expectation of "Specific X" happening vs Expectation of quality in script and characters, in specific.

**Gordon Shumway**

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:

Is she the one who is desperate to make a point? What is the point she is desperate to make?

That the movie is not hot garbage and the praise is appropriate.

Ok, glad she could have that reasonable debate with you. Seriously, if you aren't willing to discuss and perhaps to reflect, what is the point of art criticism in the first place? If that is your perspective, why are you even here if not to just spout off and hope others just agree with you?

**Azreal13**

Because for some it isn't enough to dislike the movie, there seems to be a drive to prove people who think differently wrong.

**Sgt_Smudge**

Azreal13 wrote:
Because for some it isn't enough to dislike the movie, there seems to be a drive to prove people who think differently wrong.

I think that works on both sides of this argument.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Azreal13 wrote:
Because for some it isn't enough to dislike the movie, there seems to be a drive to prove people who think differently wrong.

Erm, I think you missed the part where people who like the movie are telling those they don't like it because misogyny, because they're watching it wrong, because hidden reasons, because fanboyism, because dishonesty and throw in that they lack the mental capacity to understand why they didn't like it.

I think the "don't like" crowd have been relatively good as far as saying "this is why I don't like it, you may still like it but I still think those are flaws"... the other side seems much less friendly with their suggestions of bigotry, dishonesty, hidden reasons and stupidity of those who disliked the film.

**Azreal13**

I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.

My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.

Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.

**Luciferian**

Azreal13 wrote:
I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.

My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.

Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.

There are literally pages worth of posts in this thread in which multiple posters flat out reject that people can dislike this movie without having some kind of ulterior motive, not to mention dozens of opinion pieces and articles from prominent blogs and publications which do the same. Many of the latter ascribe some kind of socially malicious intent to expressing criticism of the movie. You yourself might as well be dismissing those here who have criticized the movie as neck-bearded fanboys.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Azreal13 wrote:
I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.

My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.

In this thread I've read people being unsatisfied with the reasons people have given for disliking the film and talking about motives other than those stated. I've read posts that ascribe some of the hate as misogyny. "Fanboyism" was me paraphrasing but refers to the suggestion for disliking it isn't because it's a bad movie as people are saying, but rather because they can't see the good movie past their passion for Star Wars. I've seen a post that suggested people who don't like the movie don't understand why they don't like the movie (I paraphrased it as ascribing stupidity, because really, that's what it is when you don't actually back it up with good reasoning as to why you think they don't understand... a rose by any other name and all that jazz).

Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.

Oh definitely I think there's more aggressive negativity toward the film.... but it is *toward the film* and those involved in making it, really not all that much to other viewers. EDIT: But maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention, this thread does go by pages at a time without me checking in on it. It might as well be a politics thread with how fast it moves.

**Manchu**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Or did you forget you said that?

Citation please.

Azreal13 wrote:
I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread

And then he posts:

Azreal13 wrote:
My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.

**Azreal13**

Luciferian wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
I'm not sure I've seen anyone do that in the actual thread, that seems to be something that's come from outside sources and people have chosen to jump on in order to be offended by it.

My brain has started assigning the comic book guy voice to certain posters, and I can't say there's many of them on the "like" side of the fence.

Perhaps it's because I don't have particularly strong feelings about the film in either way, but some of the reactions seem a little over the top, and most of them negative.

There are literally pages worth of posts in this thread in which multiple posters flat out reject that people can dislike this movie without having some kind of ulterior motive, not to mention dozens of opinion pieces and articles from prominent blogs and publications which do the same. Many of the latter ascribe some kind of socially malicious intent to expressing criticism of the movie. You yourself might as well be dismissing those here who have criticized the movie as neck-bearded fanboys.

I've just underlined a critical phrase in my comment on an 80+ page thread.