Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?

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.

**Formosa**

Earth127 wrote:
Poe is no longer a senior officer after Leia demotes him.

Yes he is, he is a captain (I thought LT, I was corrected), he is also still in charge of his staff, he also still has the experience and training of a senior officer, therefore in a time of need, he would be used, he wasnt.

This is me is less of a plot hole and more of a "you have broken part of my suspension of disbelief"

**topaxygouroun i**

Peregrine wrote:
Adeptus Doritos wrote:
More straw man arguments and lying.

STOP LYING.

Of course people can have legitimate reasons to prefer the older movies. FFS I prefer the older movies, and have posted plenty of criticism of the newer ones here. But if you make that particular argument you are doing so either out of personal bias favoring the movies you grew up with or sexism. The fact that you choose to interpret "biased towards the movies you grew up with" as "mental inferior" is your problem, not mine.

To be honest you did force him to be either A or B, and then period. I answered your question why Luke is not as Mary Sue as Rey is, without using nostalgia bias or sexism. Are you going to respond on that or just keep shouting?

**Earth127**

Luke and Rey are nearly identical characters, mary sue like flaws inclluded.

I'm afraid Formosa we're gna have to agree to disagree.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Formosa wrote:
STOP LYING.

Dude, he is known for it, just dont engage with him.

Like I said, dont engage with him.

[citation needed]

Sorry, man- I've never explicitly lied, or even tried to mislead anyone in my time here. I don't know why you're branding me with that, and it's a pretty scummy thing to do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
To be honest you did force him to be either A or B, and then period. I answered your question why Luke is not as Mary Sue as Rey is, without using nostalgia bias or sexism. Are you going to respond on that or just keep shouting?

Yep. If he would have said, "A lot of people I've encountered with this argument are either A or B period", I would have accepted that. Anecdotal personal experience isn't universal, but at least it's a point to make and a position to take.

**sirlynchmob**

topaxygouroun i wrote:

I've said it many times before, a good commander does explain the reasons, especially when they're expected to abandon ship. If you don't tell your crew the plan, when it needs their participation for it to work, it's doomed to fail. to abandon a ship that size would have needed everyone on board to help out, the pilots should have all been stocking the transports, and needed to know where to fly the ships to. Why weren't the pilots and poe ordered to do pre flight checks on the transports? checking supplies? helping load equipment? because holdo is a horrible leader, who did not seem to have a plan to get the crew off the ship.
I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume you were not in the military. A good commander NEVER explains his reasoning. He gives orders, he builds routines so that his officers know what to do in every given situation, but the question WHY he decides as he does is for him and him alone. Otherwise discipline goes to the dustbin and every single soldier thinks they can be a commander. If there is a need to abandon ship, a routine with actions on how to abandon the ship is already rolled out and rehearsed a hundrend times before. But the reason why do we need to abandon ship, the soldiers/lieutenants/captains have no reason or right to know.

Holdo did this part correctly. Poe was all about "what the heck lady, whyyyyyy" and she was like "because I'm the commander and that's my order". Perfect response there.

Holdo failed many other parts of being a commander, though. Even if the first Order ambushed her, her plan was to stay put and wait for a miracle. She was a priestess, not a war commander.

**Formosa**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Formosa wrote:
STOP LYING.

Dude, he is known for it, just dont engage with him.

Like I said, dont engage with him.

[citation needed]

Sorry, man- I've never explicitly lied, or even tried to mislead anyone in my time here. I don't know why you're branding me with that, and it's a pretty scummy thing to do.

You’ve lied to me directly in several threads, anyone can go check them, and when you were called out you just reverted to your “nu uh you are” defence, I’ve even had people PM me to not engage with you for that very reason, so it’s not “a scummy thing to do” it’s a matter of record.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Peregrine wrote:
Again, Vader is a master swordsman, veteran jedi hunter, and the most powerful force user in known history. Kylo Ren is a Vader fanboy who his own troops openly treat as a joke, with the added bonus of a wound that would have been instantly fatal to anyone but a major character. The two are not even close to comparable.

Yep. And Vader was still fighting a trained individual, albeit one with very little training.

Ren had many years of training. He had a flesh wound, or so it appeared to be (and that I blame the writers on, that bowcaster's potency was about as consistent as Ren's personality). Plot armor aside, Rey was throwing around an unfamiliar weapon against a trained adversary. I won't even say it's shocking she won, I'll buy that- I'd just think it would make more sense if she were at least wounded or scarred from the battle.

**Formosa**

Earth127 wrote:
Luke and Rey are nearly identical characters, mary sue like flaws inclluded.

I'm afraid Formosa we're gna have to agree to disagree.

Im sorry if there has been a misunderstanding, I am not talking about rey being a mary sue, just the lack of realism when it comes to how TLJ was handled in its military application, I am simply working off my own military experience on the matter, other militaries may differ of course and I can only go on how the British military works.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Formosa wrote:
[You’ve lied to me directly in several threads, anyone can go check them, and when you were called out you just reverted to your “nu uh you are” defence, I’ve even had people PM me to not engage with you for that very reason, so it’s not “a scummy thing to do” it’s a matter of record.

You wanna PM me with that? Because I'm not recalling any of this, ever. In fact, I've always been quite civil with you. [REDACTED BECAUSE ERRORS]

**Formosa**

Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Formosa wrote:
[You’ve lied to me directly in several threads, anyone can go check them, and when you were called out you just reverted to your “nu uh you are” defence, I’ve even had people PM me to not engage with you for that very reason, so it’s not “a scummy thing to do” it’s a matter of record.

You wanna PM me with that? Because I'm not recalling any of this, ever. In fact, I've always been quite civil with you. It is a scummy thing to do, and I do enjoy the fact that people PM you about it and don't have the sack to stand up and say something. (But it's Dakka, it's kind of expected).

Adeptus I am really really really sorry, Its Delvarus Centurion, not you, I feel like an absolute bloody idiot right now.... I apologise for getting you confused with him.

**Adeptus Doritos**

Formosa wrote:
Adeptus I am really really really sorry, Its Delvarus Centurion, not you, I feel like an absolute bloody idiot right now.... I apologise for getting you confused with him.

It's all good in the hood, baby! I recently changed my avatar, maybe that threw you off. Things happen. Especially if you use your phone to check forums, then there's no avatars and I get people mixed up.

**sirlynchmob**

Peregrine wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
see this is why we can't have nice things complaining about the messages and horrible roles, does not equate to complaining about non white men.

If you complain about "liberal politics" involving characters who had nothing to do with liberal politics, other than not being white men, yeah, it really does equate. That doesn't make other complaints (like Rose having way too much knowledge of secret hyperspace tracking technology) invalid, but if that's the complaint you choose to make then it's obvious what the motivation is.

chewie doesn't eat the porg, which is a waste of good meat especially since it's already dead and cooked.

You realize that's a comedy moment, right? Having him eat the porg isn't funny. Having it make sad eyes at him and watching him throw away his dinner is funny. Therefore that's what happens. It has nothing to do with anti-meat politics or anything.

Rose was only in the film as a token character to appeal to the Chinese market, that's the sexism, not from the fans, but by lucasarts. That's why her character is so bland and lifeless, she was added as an afterthought.

And this is why you are getting an accusation of racism/sexism. You assume that because a character is not a white man it must be a token to appeal to the Chinese market. It can't be that they just liked her audition better than the competition, it can't be that the character was poorly written regardless of race/gender, it must be tokenism. And you assume that because you don't like the character she must have been an afterthought, despite her being a focus of large parts of the movie.

You mean that large segment that seemed shoehorned in? ya it didn't fit with the rest of the film, and the character was poorly written. Disney is know for pandering to the Chinese market. And again, seeing her as such does not equate to sexism, that's your own biases at work.

there was liberal politics in the movie. it's indisputable.

People don't like rose, because he character is poorly written because she was put in as an after thought, because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.

You're assuming motives that aren't there and unjustified, because while you can assume that about me, how to you apply that logic to all the women who also hate rose? are they sexists to and would rather she be a white male?

**Adeptus Doritos**

sirlynchmob wrote:

People don't like rose, because he character is poorly written because she was put in as an after thought, because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.

Finn and Poe had a great dynamic and a 'buddy adventure' would have been much more fun.

**Earth127**

Sorry Formosa, I meant on the military thing.

Bit OT but what did you make of Crimson Tide?

Also be carefull when you mention Nazi's in a military discussion. The german military in WW2 was impressive to say the least.

**Peregrine**

sirlynchmob wrote:
You mean that large segment that seemed shoehorned in? ya it didn't fit with the rest of the film, and the character was poorly written. Disney is know for pandering to the Chinese market. And again, seeing her as such does not equate to sexism, that's your own biases at work.

Key point: large segment. It can't be an afterthought when it's a large part of the movie. Like that part of the movie or not (and I don't like it) it was a significant plot element requiring a lot of time and money to film it. They didn't just throw her in at the last second for a brief scene.

And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?

there was liberal politics in the movie. it's indisputable.

It's entirely disputable. Nothing in the movie is more than vaguely related to liberal politics. No part of the movie has any relevance to any real-world political debate, aside from some

s being upset that every character isn't a white man.

because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.

Ok, fine, that was the original idea. But it clearly didn't last very long, and departing from an original idea is just part of something that happens in creating a movie. It doesn't mean that the character is an afterthought. Whatever the original idea, early in development, might have been Poe was given a very different place in the story long before the term "afterthought" would be appropriate.

You're assuming motives that aren't there and unjustified, because while you can assume that about me, how to you apply that logic to all the women who also hate rose? are they sexists to and would rather she be a white male?

You're not paying attention, at all. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the character and the casino plot. But if your reasons for disliking the character come down to "she wasn't a white man" then yes, you are a sexist.

**Formosa**

Earth127 wrote:
Sorry Formosa, I meant on the military thing. I think Poe has more responsibility for his oown than Holdo does (tough obviously she's also at least partially at fault, I don't want you think I'm denying that).

Bit OT but what did you make of Crimson Tide?

Also be carefull when you mention Nazi's in a military discussion. The german military in WW2 was impressive to say the least.

Crikey, havent seen that in at least 10 years... tell you what i will see if i can find a copy of it tonight and get back to you on that

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
You mean that large segment that seemed shoehorned in? ya it didn't fit with the rest of the film, and the character was poorly written. Disney is know for pandering to the Chinese market. And again, seeing her as such does not equate to sexism, that's your own biases at work.

Key point: large segment. It can't be an afterthought when it's a large part of the movie. Like that part of the movie or not (and I don't like it) it was a significant plot element requiring a lot of time and money to film it. They didn't just throw her in at the last second for a brief scene.

And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?

there was liberal politics in the movie. it's indisputable.

It's entirely disputable. Nothing in the movie is more than vaguely related to liberal politics. No part of the movie has any relevance to any real-world political debate, aside from some s being upset that every character isn't a white man.

because we were told from lucasarts the original idea for the casino scene was poe & finn.

Ok, fine, that was the original idea. But it clearly didn't last very long, and departing from an original idea is just part of something that happens in creating a movie. It doesn't mean that the character is an afterthought. Whatever the original idea, early in development, might have been Poe was given a very different place in the story long before the term "afterthought" would be appropriate.

You're assuming motives that aren't there and unjustified, because while you can assume that about me, how to you apply that logic to all the women who also hate rose? are they sexists to and would rather she be a white male?

You're not paying attention, at all. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the character and the casino plot. But if your reasons for disliking the character come down to "she wasn't a white man" then yes, you are a sexist.

Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.

**Kilkrazy**

In my view it's easy to explain Rey's piloting ability.

1. She's got a powerful speeder jet bike.
2. Vehicles in Star Wars clearly have basic commonalities of how they are driven or piloted. E.g. in RotJ, everyone hops on to speeder bikes or into Chicken Walkers and cons them like a boss without any evidence of training.
3. Rey's knocked around advanced military ships all her life and is familiar with their systems and how to cannibalise parts for repairs and new purposes.
4. She's got an old Rebel helmet which could have contained training programs and stuff. If nothing else it inspired her.

I am happy to infer backwards from the fact that Rey herself is confident about piloting the ships, and turns out actually to be pretty competent, and therefore acquired it somehow in the past.

**Peregrine**

Formosa wrote:
Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.

What exactly was progressive about it? I don't recall TLJ commenting on economic policy and equality, race/gender/etc issues, ending war, universal health care, immigration policy, or any other real-world progressive issues. About the only discussion of TLJ's politics seems to be coming from people who think that "not every character is a white man" makes it a progressive film.

**sirlynchmob**

Peregrine wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.

What exactly was progressive about it? I don't recall TLJ commenting on economic policy and equality, race/gender/etc issues, ending war, universal health care, immigration policy, or any other real-world progressive issues. About the only discussion of TLJ's politics seems to be coming from people who think that "not every character is a white man" makes it a progressive film.

LOL

see, this is why we can't have nice things.

You assume to much

**Formosa**

Peregrine wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Really Peregrine? I mean I dont disagree with some of your points, but the Last Jedi hits us over the head with its "progressive" polotics in such a heavy handed and poorly handled manner, even if I agreed with the idea they tried so poorly to get across, it shouldnt even be in the movie, thats Star Trek territory, not star wars.

What exactly was progressive about it? I don't recall TLJ commenting on economic policy and equality, race/gender/etc issues, ending war, universal health care, immigration policy, or any other real-world progressive issues. About the only discussion of TLJ's politics seems to be coming from people who think that "not every character is a white man" makes it a progressive film.

Canto blight was their rather poor attempt to do a social commentary, the “equality” part can be seen by just looking at the cast, every bad guy has to be a white male, they literally had a purple haired feminist front and centre, or do you think the cast choice and costume design was an accident, the whole movie is rather badly trying to tell the story that war is bad mmmmkay, it also tried badly to show that using animals for the entertainment of the elite is bad... crikey I can go on, did you not notice any of that? Or just not think about it?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.

**Peregrine**

Formosa wrote:
Canto blight was their rather poor attempt to do a social commentary

But not from any real left-wing point of view. "Child slavery and getting rich selling guns to the Nazis" is hardly a message that is unique to the left, and the "guns are bad, both sides are the same" message that comes closest to anything unique to the left is presented as a self-serving rationalization by a villain trying to justify his betrayal.

the “equality” part can be seen by just looking at the cast, every bad guy has to be a white male

Well yes, that's usually what happens when your bad guys are Nazis in space.

they literally had a purple haired feminist front and centre

They didn't. Holdo has nothing to do with feminism.

or do you think the cast choice and costume design was an accident

And there you go, making my point. You assume that it must be heavy-handed progressive politics because the characters aren't all white men with their natural hair color.

the whole movie is rather badly trying to tell the story that war is bad mmmmkay

Did you miss the part where all of the heroes of the story are soldiers and fighting against the space-Nazis is presented as an unquestioned good thing? The only time anyone ever disputes the idea of fighting against the space-Nazis is in the form of "jumping in an x-wing and shooting stuff is not the full extent of military strategy".

it also tried badly to show that using animals for the entertainment of the elite is bad...

This is heavy-handed progressive politics? I mean, on the list of progressive causes "using animals is bad" is down at the irrelevant bottom, if it exists at all. Nobody in the left gives a

about what PETA thinks.

**Future War Cultist**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.

I noticed that too. It's...yeah.

**Voss**

I get the animals and war profiteering (though I think both were handled poorly). But whats the connection between purple hair and feminism? Admiral what's-her-name was appallingly ineffective if she's supposed to be a feminist symbol, and after a tour of japan, I associate purple hair with grandmothers and anime more than feminist politics. Seems to me most feminists intentionally go for a fairly drab look so their looks aren't the major feature of their image.

**Ian Sturrock**

Formosa wrote:

Are they exactly the same? Or was the issue further compounded by their obvious choice to place a woman in the role to seem “inclusive”, yes the character would have still sucked arse if it was a man, but why did they

A: choose to make it a woman with clear feminist overtones
B: choose to make her “purple haired” to fit that stereotype

During the costume, script and casting stages they clearly wanted to express this path they have chosen, why?
The simple answer is they wanted to seem progressive, the complicated answer sadly we will never know for sure.

This is a pretty good analysis of the effects of Holdo's general look. "Purple-haired" is probably less relevant than the fact that she's in nice frocks rather than Leia's practical combat clothing.

https://www.tor.com/2017/12/21/star-wars-vice-admiral-holdo-and-our-expectations-for-female-military-power/

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Poe failed to Listen and Believe.

**Formosa**

Peregrine wrote:
Formosa wrote:
Canto blight was their rather poor attempt to do a social commentary

But not from any real left-wing point of view. "Child slavery and getting rich selling guns to the Nazis" is hardly a message that is unique to the left, and the "guns are bad, both sides are the same" message that comes closest to anything unique to the left is presented as a self-serving rationalization by a villain trying to justify his betrayal.

the “equality” part can be seen by just looking at the cast, every bad guy has to be a white male

Well yes, that's usually what happens when your bad guys are Nazis in space.

they literally had a purple haired feminist front and centre

They didn't. Holdo has nothing to do with feminism.

or do you think the cast choice and costume design was an accident

And there you go, making my point. You assume that it must be heavy-handed progressive politics because the characters aren't all white men with their natural hair color.

the whole movie is rather badly trying to tell the story that war is bad mmmmkay

Did you miss the part where all of the heroes of the story are soldiers and fighting against the space-Nazis is presented as an unquestioned good thing? The only time anyone ever disputes the idea of fighting against the space-Nazis is in the form of "jumping in an x-wing and shooting stuff is not the full extent of military strategy".

it also tried badly to show that using animals for the entertainment of the elite is bad...

This is heavy-handed progressive politics? I mean, on the list of progressive causes "using animals is bad" is down at the irrelevant bottom, if it exists at all. Nobody in the left gives a about what PETA thinks.

Ahhh I get you now, you chose not to see these things, thats cool, no problem, it doesnt make you right though you know that? it also doesnt make you wrong, its just your opinion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ian Sturrock wrote:
Formosa wrote:

Are they exactly the same? Or was the issue further compounded by their obvious choice to place a woman in the role to seem “inclusive”, yes the character would have still sucked arse if it was a man, but why did they

A: choose to make it a woman with clear feminist overtones
B: choose to make her “purple haired” to fit that stereotype

During the costume, script and casting stages they clearly wanted to express this path they have chosen, why?
The simple answer is they wanted to seem progressive, the complicated answer sadly we will never know for sure.

This is a pretty good analysis of the effects of Holdo's general look. "Purple-haired" is probably less relevant than the fact that she's in nice frocks rather than Leia's practical combat clothing.

https://www.tor.com/2017/12/21/star-wars-vice-admiral-holdo-and-our-expectations-for-female-military-power/

I simply mentioned the purple hair as its the most noticable stereotype with that line of politics, you make a good point on the military uniform, or lack there off, she should also have her hair in a bun dammit! hahaha

**timetowaste85**

Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.

**Peregrine**

Formosa wrote:
Ahhh I get you now, you chose not to see these things, thats cool, no problem, it doesnt make you right though you know that? it also doesnt make you wrong, its just your opinion.

And you choose to put the film under a microscope looking for even the slightest hint of something that could be interpreted as "progressive", whether or not it actually aligns with any real-world political issue. I mean FFS, you're honestly trying to claim that a movie where all of the heroes are soldiers fighting a morally justified war, complete with scene after scene of glory and heroism in combat, is "telling the story that war is bad".

**Formosa**

Voss wrote:
I get the animals and war profiteering (though I think both were handled poorly). But whats the connection between purple hair and feminism? Admiral what's-her-name was appallingly ineffective if she's supposed to be a feminist symbol, and after a tour of japan, I associate purple hair with grandmothers and anime more than feminist politics. Seems to me most feminists intentionally go for a fairly drab look so their looks aren't the major feature of their image.

its a bad stereotype that connects SJW types and certain hair dyes, when you dig its a load of crap, most people dont dig though, thats why its a stereotype, given the quality of the writing of this movie, i think they just chose to play to the stereotype without actually thinking about how it would come across.