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.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"
-

That might have been the case but it really wasn't clear. Especially since she says something along the lines of winning by love not hate rather than you were going to die without saving anyone.

the whole ESB homage scene made absolutely no sense akin to charging a tank battalion on push bikes.

 Galef wrote:
I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"

Those 2 scenes were NOT the same thing. If Rose hadn't saved Finn, he would have been a crispy smear at the foot of that cannon and wouldn't have stopped it at all. His ship was already melting as he approached.
Holdo, otoh, bought the Resistance actual time and destroyed several ships

-

I take exception to that argument.

Finn is the one character that knows the most about the capabilities and vulnerabilities of the actual gun in question. He's the one that informed them the mouth of the cannon was their only shot. Finn is the furthest thing from suicidal. He was being heroic. Rose didn't say there was no chance of stopping the gun. She said killing what we hate isn't how the resistance is going to win.

It's the culmination of their arc in the movie.

Finn starts out intensely loyal to, and protective of, the people immediately in his life, Poe and Rey. Rose teaches him there is a galaxy of hurt out there, and there are bad people doing the hurting, which is why the resistance fights. (She does this while crapping all over him and telling him he's actually motivated by cowardice. Which is not true. He's developed past self-preservation mode as of TFA showing he's willing to tango with a dark side user to protect Rey).

While teaching him, Rose herself realizes freeing what we care about from slavery (or "saving what we love") is more important than destroying (or hurting) the bad people doing the bad thing.

So the suicide run Finn goes out on, he goes out on informed by the (slightly) out of date moral code Rose instilled in him. Remember, Roses' sister died heroically and self sacrificially to destroy the dreadnought. Her saving him was entirely about embracing the new code of conduct she had ascribed to and precisely zero percent about what was 'possible.' (see- how she managed to overtake him from a perpendicular angle after turning around/ how they got out of the battlefield [hint: I have no idea])

Rose's "I saved you dummy" was protagonist logic. She knew she and Finn were important enough characters that both of them would survive her ramming him and escape the First Order soldiers by the end of the movie. I kid you not.

 Galef wrote:
I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt.

Yeah, Finn's sacrifice would have made sense and would have been an emotional point in the movie. Holdo's sacrifice didn't and wasn't.

 Galef wrote:
I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt. There was clearly no way Finn was going to succeed and Rose knew this. That's why she said "I saved you dummy"

Those 2 scenes were NOT the same thing. If Rose hadn't saved Finn, he would have been a crispy smear at the foot of that cannon and wouldn't have stopped it at all. His ship was already melting as he approached.
Holdo, otoh, bought the Resistance actual time and destroyed several ships

-

Really and that's based on what?

He was the only one who knew anything about the stupidly named cannon and may have destroyed it, we will never know.

So its better to crash into them and leave both stranded at the feet of the FO troops - who yet again don't bother to do anything - cos reasons mainly that the writers /director can't be bothered (yet again). Oh but they escape or something off screen - cos again lazy lazy writing.

So Holdo knew she could wipe out the fleet, which again brings it back around to - so why is it possible then, why not earlier, why not with other ships, why does it need her to stay on board (The FO can't even detect the fleeing transports, never mind the fact that only one person is on board)?

Every moment in both of the scenes was just really poor and lazy writing.

Well, at the end of the day, I saw it as X and it made prefect sense to me.
If other people want to see it as Y and hate the movie for it, that isn't any of my business.

-

 Galef wrote:
Well, at the end of the day, I saw it as X and it made prefect sense to me.
If other people want to see it as Y and hate the movie for it, that isn't any of my business.

-

If other people want to make up reasons for nonsense and love the movie for it, that's up to them

TLJ had a message (something about having hope or some sappy nonsense like that), but the message is contradicted numerous times within the film itself, and even presented in such a way as to make "having hope" appear disturbingly fanatical, bordering on suicidal so I don't think it really matters.

Like a lot of more recent block buster films that dared to try and be a bit more thought provoking than a typical action block buster the message became nonsense because the people making the movie either didn't care enough to think it through, or were too lazy to bother being consistent.

 Easy E wrote:
I feel that The Last Jedi will not age that well as it is truely a product of the Twenty-Teens. The messages and themes it draws on are contemporary rather than timeless like the OT/Prequels.

Thoughts?

 Manchu wrote:
I think these films will be about as relevant in the US twenty five years from now as they are in China today.

I've changed my mind since first posting that. I'd give it closer to ten rather than twenty five years.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think we can stop comparing Holdo's sacrifice with Finn's attempt.

Yeah, Finn's sacrifice would have made sense and would have been an emotional point in the movie. Holdo's sacrifice didn't and wasn't.

Holdo's sacrifice wasn't emotional? Are you telling me you could watch all those beautiful Star Destroyers and that 60km Adonis of a command cruiser broken and shattered with dry eyes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I feel that The Last Jedi will not age that well as it is truely a product of the Twenty-Teens. The messages and themes it draws on are contemporary rather than timeless like the OT/Prequels.

Thoughts?

 Manchu wrote:
I think these films will be about as relevant in the US twenty five years from now as they are in China today.

I've changed my mind since first posting that. I'd give it closer to ten rather than twenty five years.

I forgot to compliment you on that line about TLJ being no Transformers5. I think that should be the cinematic equivalent of "one billion Red Chinese don't give a damn".

Seeing how Disney is hiding Solo like some basement mutant, I think it's safe to see they are becoming aware of the potential legacy their new trilogy will have in regards to long term viability of the brand.

How is Kathleen sleeping recently - what with the prospect of asking Chinese people to care about young Han Solo?

 Manchu wrote:
How is Kathleen sleeping recently - what with the prospect of asking Chinese people to care about young Han Solo?

on a big pile of undeserved munnys like always

But she's had to downsize from King to Queen, I reckon.

 Manchu wrote:
But she's had to downsize from King to Queen, I reckon.

its not going to help her batting average which per Wiki appears to function more on luck than judgement for sure

 Galef wrote:
Well, at the end of the day, I saw it as X and it made prefect sense to me.
If other people want to see it as Y and hate the movie for it, that isn't any of my business.

-

You started this line of dialog by suggestion there was no comparison to be had between two examples of (attempted) heroic self sacrifice in a film with multiple self sacrificial moments by the resistance:



1. Roses' sister's self immolation in order to take down a dreadnought (successful, died)
2. Holdo's kamikaze ramming of the FO fleet in order to distract their firepower (successful, died)
3. Finn's kamikaze run at the siege gun in order to buy time for the resistance (unsuccessful, survived)
4. Roses' kamikaze ramming of Finn to save him (successful, survived)
5. Master Luke's illusion projection to buy time for the resistance (successful, died)


Do you not think the film itself invites comparisons between these acts? And even if it doesn't, wouldn't you say that, in and of itself, would then be a weakness of the film if we have contradictory scenes that convey different messages through similar circumstances? I just don't understand how you can say it is somehow wrong to compare Finn and Holdo's actions because one succeeded and the other didn't.

Do you grant at least that Rose's arc starts with her sister's actions and culminates in her own? Do you think she'd have tried to save her sister if given the chance, even if it meant leaving the FO dreadnought intact? Does it matter?

 LordofHats wrote:
TLJ had a message (something about having hope or some sappy nonsense like that), but the message is contradicted numerous times within the film itself, and even presented in such a way as to make "having hope" appear disturbingly fanatical, bordering on suicidal so I don't think it really matters.

Like a lot of more recent block buster films that dared to try and be a bit more thought provoking than a typical action block buster the message became nonsense because the people making the movie either didn't care enough to think it through, or were too lazy to bother being consistent.

I think the "Have Hope" message is an area where the movie badly violates the rule of "Show, don't tell". What the movie shows us is the opposite of hope- every plan failed, Luke dead, Ackbar dead, Kylo deciding "Yup, I'm evil now!", the Resistance with fewer people than Rogue Ones suicide squad, and in general every bright point from the previous trilogy has turned to ash. Then they turn to the camera, and declare "It's okay, we'll inspire people!".

Compare that to Empire- Han is frozen in carbonite, the rebels were chased off of Hoth, Luke lost a hand and found out Vader's his dad. Does Leia give some hammy speech about the night being darkest before the dawn? No. She reveals the first hints of force power, rescues Luke, and then goes on to reveal the largest concentration of Rebels we have seen yet. Lando and Chewie head off on a rescue mission, and Luke gets a new hand.

So, while both are a loss for the protagonists, Empire ends on the note of regrouping, growing from experience, and going forwards, combined with a beautiful shot of the Galaxy. TLJ, however, ends with everything from the previous five movies in flames, and the rebellion down to a dozen people vs the SuperEmpireUltra++. But don't worry, hope! Apparently.

The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

Kind of like how the local kindergarteners playing "zombie" and miming shooting each other in the head proves that apocalyptic thinking resonates in modern society?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

Of course that scene also reminds you that when the resistance operatives met those child slave stable hands they freed the poor cute animals but left the children behind. Anakin was once a child slave too and he was rescued by the Jedi, but there are no more Jedi around to rescue that boy. All the resistance has left are a couple dozen people on the Falcon whose calls for aid, even when they used Leia’s name, went unheeded by the rest of the galaxy. That scene also asks you to believe that the resistance, while fleeing on the Falcon, managed to produce and distribute propaganda about Luke’s sacrifice across the galaxy so those kids on Canto Bight could talk about it in secret which strains credulity more than a little bit.

The resistance is weaker than ever, the FO is still the strongest military force who already destroyed half a dozen planets but somewhere in the galaxy there is an 8 year old boy who’s starting to harness force powers. I guess Episode IX can set up Kyle Ren as the new Vader/Emperor leading the FO as the new Empire and Rey as the new Obi Wan who can find and train the unnamed stable boy with force powers as the next Luke so Episode X can be a remake of Episode IV A New Hope, bringing us around in a complete circle.

One of the most unfortunate implications of TLJ is that the Dark Side/Light Side conflict is an unending cycle, that there can be no victory that isn't fleeting and hollow.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

Kind of like how the local kindergarteners playing "zombie" and miming shooting each other in the head proves that apocalyptic thinking resonates in modern society?

Do you think modern society is a science fantasy film?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

Kind of like how the local kindergarteners playing "zombie" and miming shooting each other in the head proves that apocalyptic thinking resonates in modern society?

Do you think modern society is a science fantasy film?

Dystopian, really.

Really, the kids having hope worked for me, but after so many Star Wars tie in commercials starring kids playing at being Jedi, the impact isn't what it should have been. Seeing child slaves beyond hope of rescue playing with toys representing a dead political movement as a sign of hope is darkly funny.


On a lighter note, this film really cements the Earnest series as part of the SW canon. Earnest also fought a child-imprisoning troll, knew the importance of the high ground, had a dog copilot, levitated and could even cast lightning from his hands. He also learned from his many, many failures.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

Of course that scene also reminds you that when the resistance operatives met those child slave stable hands they freed the poor cute animals but left the children behind. Anakin was once a child slave too and he was rescued by the Jedi, but there are no more Jedi around to rescue that boy. All the resistance has left are a couple dozen people on the Falcon whose calls for aid, even when they used Leia’s name, went unheeded by the rest of the galaxy. That scene also asks you to believe that the resistance, while fleeing on the Falcon, managed to produce and distribute propaganda about Luke’s sacrifice across the galaxy so those kids on Canto Bight could talk about it in secret which strains credulity more than a little bit.

The resistance is weaker than ever, the FO is still the strongest military force who already destroyed half a dozen planets but somewhere in the galaxy there is an 8 year old boy who’s starting to harness force powers. I guess Episode IX can set up Kyle Ren as the new Vader/Emperor leading the FO as the new Empire and Rey as the new Obi Wan who can find and train the unnamed stable boy with force powers as the next Luke so Episode X can be a remake of Episode IV A New Hope, bringing us around in a complete circle.

It also implies that the Resistance was something that children on these worlds were looking to rather than the governemnt of the Republic (or whatever it called itself) as it appears that the First Order took over everywhere in at most a day or two. So is the message that everyone but the Ship of Fools was corrupt and evil or at least complicit?

Again its another example of the sheer laziness and ineptitude of the filmakers - if this had been a few years later then maybe made sense, but all they want to do is copy elements of the first films like the resistance but can;t be bothered to set any kind of scene that makes sense.

Let me be clear: I got misty eyed during that scene each time I saw the film, and saw it as a successful and powerful demonstration of Luke's success and the rebirth of hope. But I also thought it also looked like a Target ad. TLJ seems to work quite well on some levels while completely undercutting itself on other levels. I can't take the film too seriously or it falls apart.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

Anakin was a force-sensitive slave who idolized Jedi. This is going to go well.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The very last scene of the film is the slave kids reenacting Luke's fight, an obvious show not tell implication that hope still exists for the Resistance.

If you want to take it that way, of course.

Anakin was a force-sensitive slave who idolized Jedi. This is going to go well.

Could be where you next dark side leader comes from - slave child grows up in terrible conditions, finds he can use powers, takes vengeance and goes to the dark side.

Maybe have the adult version played by Ian McKellen or Michael Fassbender...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
One of the most unfortunate implications of TLJ is that the Dark Side/Light Side conflict is an unending cycle, that there can be no victory that isn't fleeting and hollow.

you been talking to Kreia ?

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
One of the most unfortunate implications of TLJ is that the Dark Side/Light Side conflict is an unending cycle, that there can be no victory that isn't fleeting and hollow.

you been talking to Kreia ?

The force reflects human nature. Conflict is eternal. Kreia was misguided to think eliminating the force would eliminate suffering.

Novelisation seems to contain additional scenes.

 Compel wrote:
Maybe have the adult version played by Ian McKellen or Michael Fassbender...

Nice

or both - when young and old