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.

anyone who cares about the details more than you do is a fatty nerd. It's lame to care about things you personally don't value.

Remember a decade ago when they ascribed such attention to consistency as a neurological disorder? "SpergLords" they called us. That term isn't much in use these days, but still when someone enjoys things differently they must be broken.


I just really hate the Lol Nerds go-to anti-criticism.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Your comment being relevant is, of course, predicated on me being in the "like" camp. My actual opinion is neutral, bordering on the apathetic, but from what I've seen (just for clarity) the negative opinions by and large seem to be backed with more rabid attitudes.

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.

Precisely this, as we approach a month on general release, I think the only people who are going to keep posting will be the ones with the strongest feelings, and it's perhaps best to let them circle around each other until the inevitable heat death of the thread.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Your comment being relevant is, of course, predicated on me being in the "like" camp. My actual opinion is neutral, bordering on the apathetic, but from what I've seen (just for clarity) the negative opinions by and large seem to be backed with more rabid attitudes.

ya people get a bit testy when they're called liars for pages on end after stating their opinions.

You were never called a liar, you just didn't grasp the point Sebster was trying to make.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You were never called a liar, you just didn't grasp the point Sebster was trying to make.

I paraphrased, but that is the gist of what his point is. He's calling everyone who doesn't like the movie liars, not in that exact word, but the meaning is clearly there.

seb 'You didn't like the movie, it couldn't possible because of the valid reasons you've listed, you made that up to cover for some other nefarious reason.'

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I wish it had more politics, personally. Then it could be about something beyond 'happy love rebels and evil people beat each other up on ships,' where the the wider universe is irrelevant.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Your comment being relevant is, of course, predicated on me being in the "like" camp. My actual opinion is neutral, bordering on the apathetic, but from what I've seen (just for clarity) the negative opinions by and large seem to be backed with more rabid attitudes.

ya people get a bit testy when they're called liars for pages on end after stating their opinions.

Yeah. I liked the film enough to see it three times, but what brought me back into the thread were all the anti-haters in the first forty or so pages going on and on about the haters and belittling all the criticisms. They were being willfully blind and insulting. Some may have gone too far the other way, but that was in reaction to the hostility already present.

Star Wars is a huge franchise in many posters' lives; of course they will be passionate.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

I really liked Rouge One too, Obi Wan Kenobi is great at cabaret.

On a less comedic note I think Rogue One has a clear narrative arc and the actions of characters carry weight because the story has purpose. TLJ starts with the unresolved question of what will happen with Kyle Ren and Rey and the movie ends with the question remaining unresolved. The core conflict for the key characters has been unresolved for 1.5 movies already. In the OT we had ANH that was a self contained story and then we had the Luke and Vader conflict revealed at the end of ESB that was then resolved in RotJ. With the new movies it feels like the movies themselves don’t know what to do with Ren, Rey and Finn which makes it difficult for me as a member of the audience to care about them as they meander through the movies.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You were never called a liar, you just didn't grasp the point Sebster was trying to make.

I paraphrased, but that is the gist of what his point is. He's calling everyone who doesn't like the movie liars, not in that exact word, but the meaning is clearly there.

seb 'You didn't like the movie, it couldn't possible because of the valid reasons you've listed, you made that up to cover for some other nefarious reason.'

No, his point was that the reasons we tell ourselves we do things often aren't the actual reasons we do things, because as a species we're pretty spectacular at fooling ourselves. It's what the whole therapy/psychology industry is based on.

There was no implication of any fabrication or underhanded motivation, except perhaps to oneself. It's not necessarily I view I agree with, but I can absolutely see that there was no intended accusation of dishonesty.

No, but it is still bad form to indulge in amateur psychoanalysis of users based on forum posts rather than talk about the film.

Even if sitting in judgement over other people's unconscious psyche were a desirable thing, it's still ridiculously rude to do it, and ridiculously off topic to boot.

 Azreal13 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You were never called a liar, you just didn't grasp the point Sebster was trying to make.

I paraphrased, but that is the gist of what his point is. He's calling everyone who doesn't like the movie liars, not in that exact word, but the meaning is clearly there.

seb 'You didn't like the movie, it couldn't possible because of the valid reasons you've listed, you made that up to cover for some other nefarious reason.'

No, his point was that the reasons we tell ourselves we do things often aren't the actual reasons we do things, because as a species we're pretty spectacular at fooling ourselves. It's what the whole therapy/psychology industry is based on.

There was no implication of any fabrication or underhanded motivation, except perhaps to oneself. It's not necessarily I view I agree with, but I can absolutely see that there was no intended accusation of dishonesty.

Does this also mean that the people who enjoyed the movie are also fooling themselves? They didn't like it because it was good, but because it stoked some weakness in them or their understand of art?

Perhaps it does mean that in some cases the reasons they think they liked it may be different from the real reasons they liked it.

If you subscribe to that school of thought.

I don't. I also don't subscribe to Sebsters' incredibly condescending posts being what they say they are instead of being motivated by disdain he has but doesn't consciously know he has for people with different opinions.


Am I doing it right?

Depends, are you aiming to get dinged for breaking rule 1?

Edit for clarity : Because being uncomplimentary about other posters outside of direct interactions has gotten me dinged, not because I'm going to report or anything.

Alright, alright. If we want to keep discussing the movie here, we better get to it.

Well, for me, the whole film was rather like Les Dawson playing piano.

To explain the reference for the unfamiliar, Les Dawson was a comedian at his peak in the 1970s. He was actually also a talented pianist, but, for comic effect, he would occasionally, and very deliberately, play the wrong notes. So you'd have several seconds of beautifully rendered classical music, and just at the right/wrong moment, he'd hit a flat or sharp note.

This was the film for me, just as it felt like a Star Wars film, it would hit a bum note and jar me out of the groove I was finding.

Plus I think if you remove Finn and every plot element and character contingent on his existence in the film, you improve the whole immeasurably, and probably bring the running time down to something more appropriate.

Crucially, nobody's arguing the movie is 10/10 good. The real issue is why are some people willing to overlook what they concede are the flaws - and why are other people unwilling to overlook those same flaws?

Note, when I say "flaws" I am NOT referring to issues that can just be handwaived away because "only dorks could care about that." For example, Luke throwing away Anakin's lightsaber. No one has to be obsessed to understand that this is out of character. All that's required is a basic grasp of the story of RotJ. The issue there seems to be, either you think the movie sufficiently explained Luke's character changing between RotJ and TLJ - or you don't.

But let's use an example that doesn't potentially implicate varying generational perspectives. Is Kylo Ren's fall to the Dark Side adequately explained by TLJ? I would argue no, because the ultimate answer is "Snoke did it," which dismisses the importance of how he did it. Folks willing to overlook this omission don't seem to question whether there is an omission; rather, they question if the omission matters in the first place. So I'd say, it matters because Kylo Ren is a main character inasmuch as the A Plot of TLJ pivots on his motivations. A major question our throughline protagonist must confront is, is it possible to empathize with Ben/Kylo?

This isn't a question about Snoke "for the sake of Snoke" so arguing that "Snoke isn't that important" is irrelevant. This is ultimately a question about Kylo, who is unquestionably important, and how Rey feels about him - which is also unquestionably important. At this point, if we're dealing with someone who can concede that the movie failed to explain something of obvious importance, we can get to the issue of why they are willing to overlook that. The answer I have seen is, that will be explained in the next movie. Maybe so, but how does that excuse this movie?

 Azreal13 wrote:
So you'd have several seconds of beautifully rendered classical music, and just at the right/wrong moment, he'd hit a flat or sharp note.

The comparison is a good one - but it raises the question: was this supposed to be a comedy? Is that what we should conclude from so many wrong notes?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Plus I think if you remove Finn and every plot element and character contingent on his existence in the film, you improve the whole immeasurably, and probably bring the running time down to something more appropriate.

I think you're on the right track. The problem is, TLJ is worse without Finn because then you have the completely valid criticism "hey what about Finn?" So it's not that Finn shouldn't have an important role in this movie; it's that this movie failed to do that correctly.

The how Ben fell isn't important to this narrative, what's important is that he fell and what's important to our sympathies is that he be seen to be struggling with it.

Your (and my) curiosity about the detail is natural, but all that's necessary for the story is that it happened.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So you'd have several seconds of beautifully rendered classical music, and just at the right/wrong moment, he'd hit a flat or sharp note.

The comparison is a good one - but it raises the question: was this supposed to be a comedy? Is that what we should conclude from so many wrong notes?

I think I've seen commentary from Johnson about the humor, so yes, evidently it was an intention, but I'm not specifically meaning just jokes in this case, but "not my Star Wars" moments, which are probably going to be personal to everyone. One of mine, for instance, was Luke throwing away the saber, but not because he threw it away, I can understand that, but the fact he threw it over his shoulder, rather than just onto the ground. The gesture just seemed wrong, and too comic given that it was supposed to follow the climax of TFA.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Plus I think if you remove Finn and every plot element and character contingent on his existence in the film, you improve the whole immeasurably, and probably bring the running time down to something more appropriate.

I think you're on the right track. The problem is, TLJ is worse without Finn because then you have the completely valid criticism "hey what about Finn?" So it's not that Finn shouldn't have an important role in this movie; it's that this movie failed to do that correctly.

Can't agree. It's not just that he is, to use the language in the script, a self-confessed monster - WHY is the most important issue in this movie. You can tell because the movie spends its extremely precious running time going over the relevant narrative not once, not twice, but three times. And yet after three times, we still don't have an actual answer. This isn't important on my terms; these are the film's own terms.

So here's the best defense I can come up with so far: if this issue is too clear then there isn't enough dramatic tension in Rey's arc - with all the facts, she could make a totally rational choice and seeing her struggle to make choices at an emotionL level is more interesting. The problem there is, although that approach does create truly engaging tension for Rey, we don't have enough information to understand our secondary protagonist, Kylo/Ben.

Although I like this character, I can see why many people don't like him and specifically why they criticize him for being too pathetic. Without knowing why he's so broody-moody, he comes off as an irritating, angsty teen. And that's pretty underwhelming, for a figure who is also portrayed as terrifying. There's certainly a fascinating irony here but it's stretched too thin now that two thirds of the trilogy are complete without the necessary exposition.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The gesture just seemed wrong, and too comic given that it was supposed to follow the climax of TFA.

I totally agree. It's not just that Luke has some major baggage, which is fine and could be really interesting if we got to dig deep into what and why, but the problem is the film treats this character's baggage with such frivolity. Like in your example - these are wrong notes.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Coulda just left him in Bacta...

I don't think they could, without really moving SW in a different direction. Unlike the Mad Max films, SW doesn't abandon significant characters in one movie when it's time for the next one. But in any case, I think we can agree that TLJ is grievously flawed in what it decided to do with him.

As I understood it, the repeat of the story of the night Luke went to Ben's hut was to illustrate the whole "from a certain point of view" element that's run through the films, rather than anything to do with Ren's back story. Luke and Ben's recollections of the exact same events are very different especially. (Like Luke's eyes appearing to glow much like Palpatine's during Ben's recollections.)

Let's be fair, even Anakin's fall isn't really adequately explained during the prequels either. and that's kind of the whole point of the trilogy, the leap from fear of bereavement to yellow eyed child killer is enormous.

Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.

.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Coulda just left him in Bacta...

I don't think they could, without really moving SW in a different direction. Unlike the Mad Max films, SW doesn't abandon significant characters in one movie when it's time for the next one. But in any case, I think we can agree that TLJ is grievously flawed in what it decided to do with him.

You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.

I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The how Ben fell isn't important to this narrative, what's important is that he fell and what's important to our sympathies is that he be seen to be struggling with it.

Your (and my) curiosity about the detail is natural, but all that's necessary for the story is that it happened.

Disagree. Kylo/Ben (I'll be using his two names interchangeably here) is a fascinating character and we have an assertion from Leia that snoke caused Ben's (Kylo's) fall to the darkside. Is she familiar with the events TLJ spends time on? That Luke drew his lightsaber with intent? That Kylo has personally killed other trainees for not joining him? (Is that even true? Luke says Kylo himself did the deed, but he did not witness it) Was Snoke manipulating Kylo mentally? Was Snoke also manipulating Luke? He has claimed the ability to connect the mind of his apprentice with a lifeform Snoke had never physically interacted with. Maybe Snoke created a bond between himself and Kylo, and the darkness Luke saw in Ben was Snoke himself.

Remember, Ben (Kylo) struggles with a pull to the light. Why? Why did Ben succumb to the dark side?


I had a fun head canon idea about where this is all going/ way to redeem the story:

Leia is good at sense applications of the force and in reaching out with her emotions. We see her spontaneous ability with this in the original trilogy. In TLJ Kylo refrains from taking the shot on the command deck that would have hit his mother. I believe she was reaching out to him specifically and he sensed that. Now, what if Ben was actually really bad at sensing others in the force? Like, had to be within 100 yards of them? If he thought his mother had died because she was in a coma and unable to reach out to him during the space chase (Ben would have assumed she would continue reaching out to him to turn him if she had survived the blast) his willingness to continue the destruction of the resistance afterwards would make sense, as there's nothing there but reminders of his dead mother.

Kylo rejected the world of Luke Skywalker and understandably hates the man. He also rejected living under Snoke, for perhaps obvious reasons. He wants to escape his past and hopes to have found someone to journey through the future with in Rey. Someone else who's had great power foisted upon them and been tragically failed by their parental figures. Is there more to this past? What did Snoke do? Did Ben have an objective greater than killing Snoke? He tells Han he knows what he has to do, and then kills him. Was that part of going deep cover to kill Snoke the only way he could?

What if Snoke swooped down on the new training temple the moment Luke was out of commission and Kylo's options were bend the knee or die? (Luke surviving this event is tough, but maybe even puts Ben in a good light, that he was somehow able to lie to Snoke and hide it, just as he hid his murderous intent behind another action?) What if this is/was a professor Snape vs Lord Voldemort dynamic?



I keep going back to TFA and how Kylo draws on his grandfather's mask for strength as he is in service to the supreme leader. The prophecy said that One would be born who would bring balance to the force. If you ascribe to the school of thought "the dark side is always an imbalance" and Snoke (who is definitely a dark side user) survived the events of ROTJ, then the prophecy would not be fulfilled. Ben knows the story of Vader, Luke and the emperor. He knows the prophecy.

Idle speculation, but what if Kylo is naturally gifted at dark side applications of the force and weak at light side applications? What if he is an unbalancing agent through no agency of his own? "The light will always rise to meet the darkness" Rey would be his opposite, naturally gifted at the natural, light side flow of the force, but susceptible to dark side temptations like anyone else, and being uniquely strong in the light and weak in the dark aside from her own choices?

Perhaps Kylo's motivations changed when (in his mind) his mother died and he decided to just take what he could out of his miserable life? What if he had originally intended to be the left hand of the force itself and kill the actual last remaining Darksider in the galaxy? That would be cool. It almost fits into the movies as given.

But yeah, why Ben Solo had this darkness inside him, and why Luke went to his quarters armed in the middle of the night are questions I believe left unanswered.

 Manchu wrote:
You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.

I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.

Given Rey's apparent affinity with the dark side, maybe we still can?

 Azreal13 wrote:


Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.

But where was Luke? How did he not notice the gradual corruption of his top student? How did Snoke do it? Was he a trusted teacher on sight? Did he do mental projections exclusively? What is Kylo's motivation now?

Kylo Ren is basically the protagonist of the new trilogy.

 Manchu wrote:
You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.

I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.

Why not? Luke did say she went straight to the dark side without even attempting to resist.

 Scrabb wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.

But where was Luke? How did he not notice the gradual corruption of his top student? How did Snoke do it? Was he a trusted teacher on sight? Did he do mental projections exclusively? What is Kylo's motivation now?

Kylo Ren is basically the protagonist of the new trilogy.

That's one hell of a stretch. Besides, we know Obi Wan was right there and Sidious still managed to turn Anakin, or at least lay the massive majority of the ground work. Jedi have real trouble seeing the dark side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.

I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.

Why not? Luke did say she went straight to the dark side without even attempting to resist.

There's also something as obvious as the semiotics of their wardrobes. Luke in ROTJ notwithstanding, light side Jedi wear earth tones. By the end of TLJ, Rey is in decidedly grey looking clothing, compared to the pale creams and beiges she started in.

 Scrabb wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Ren is clearly massively insecure, feels the Skywalker name is a huge burden and that he's inadequate to live up to his legacy. That alone is likely sufficient to explain how Snoke turned him, the fear of inadequacy may well have been at his inception. But I can understand the desire to see that in screen more clearly, and not have to guess or infer it.

But where was Luke? How did he not notice the gradual corruption of his top student? How did Snoke do it? Was he a trusted teacher on sight? Did he do mental projections exclusively? What is Kylo's motivation now?

Kylo Ren is basically the protagonist of the new trilogy.

To be honest that sounds like a more interesting movie than the one we got - and a good one to make at this point in time while Mark Hamill is the right age to be playing the role of Luke.

 Azreal13 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You're absolutely right that the Prequels fail to convincingly explain hiw Anakin became Darth Vader, which was essentially the main point of that trilogy.

I also agree with your speculation - I believe it could have been beautifully explained by harkening back to Yoda's comment that the Dark Side is not more powerful but it is quicker. Undortunately, TFA's and TLJ's presentation of Rey means we can't connect fast power to darkness in the new movies.

Why not? Luke did say she went straight to the dark side without even attempting to resist.

There's also something as obvious as the semiotics of their wardrobes. Luke in ROTJ notwithstanding, light side Jedi wear earth tones. By the end of TLJ, Rey is in decidedly grey looking clothing, compared to the pale creams and beiges she started in.

so she's 1/2 way to the dark side then. from white to grey to black, unless she stays grey and goes and finds that bindu thing from rebels. assuming it's still alive, I haven't caught the last season yet.

I suspect that where we're heading, the ostensibly "good" force user will use dark side power without falling, and the ostensibly "bad" force user will return partially to the light (but still be a bit of a dick.) Boom, Anakin brought balance to the force, it just took a couple of generations and a whole yin-yang thing.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I suspect that where we're heading, the ostensibly "good" force user will use dark side power without falling, and the ostensibly "bad" force user will return partially to the light (but still be a bit of a dick.) Boom, Anakin brought balance to the force, it just took a couple of generations and a whole yin-yang thing.

So the light Sode and the dark side are gone, now we have the 50 shades of grey side.


Also, I preferred Darth Vader back when he was a fallen Jedi, a relic from the old order, made fun of by members of the general staff (before he chokes them) and having his religion made fun of too.

I didn't like the fact that Lucas turned him into space Jesus.

The prequels didn't have to be written about Vader, because we already knew everything we needed too about his fall. He was Luke's father, Obi Wans friend and was seduced by the power of the dark side.


As for Kylo, we've had 2 films and they still haven't adequately explained his fall the same way that ANH managed it in about 5 minutes in Obi-Wan's hut.