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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's wrong with a progressive female character?

"Progressive"

You mean 'blank slate Mary Sue' in Rey's case, but to answer your question- nothing, really. Unless you cast 'conservative male character' as the absolute moral evil opposite, then we get to make fun of the writers. Usually because it tells me that their ideas only work in a fiction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.

Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.

Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....

 Vulcan wrote:
Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....

Not like they were much use before, if we're being honest.

 Manchu wrote:
... ..., it makes no sense that the kids would have heard about what happened on Crait so soon after it happened. It's just not supported by anything shown in the film.

I needn't tell you that time can be distorted in films, e.g flashback sequences. It's a crucial technique in film making.

There's no reason to suppose the final play fight scene happened seconds after the Falcon took off from Crait. It could have been several months later and the children wouldn't have grown enough to show it. Hell, it could even have been happening at the same time as Luke's final fight showing that the child is a powerful clairvoyant.

That's not important, though. The point of the scene is that it symbolises the fact that the hope of the rebellion goes on.

Emotional symbols don't have to be logical, in fact probably they can't be.

The Old Republic couldn't do anything about slavery on Tatooine, considering it was not a member planet. I guess the same is true of Cantonica. Based on sources beyond the movies, because the movies don't bother to explain anything, the New Republic isn't even as extensive as the Old Republic. Some of the Empire, including Coruscant, is still well, the Empire (i.e., not the First Order). The way I understand it, the Resistance is about people like Leia who cannot let go of the past, just like how the FO is about Imperials who cannot let go of the Empire as envisioned by Palpatine - and these types on either side are fulfilling each others' prophecies. So as usual some kids being enslaved on the edge of the galaxy, no lne really cares. The funny thing is, Rose takes a moment to lament for the alien horses but eh, the kids, well ... eh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Hell, it could even have been happening at the same time as Luke's final fight showing that the child is a powerful clairvoyant.

There it is! I knew someone would eventually bend over this far backward.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Emotional symbols don't have to be logical, in fact probably they can't be.

Sure they can be. Like a big ceremony to give medals to the heroes. Or a scene where two people look out at the stars. these scenes don't rely on unexplained time distortion or irrationality

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It's pretty telling that an actor with so much screen presence was made so bland and passive.

But only in TLJ. In TFA, he was very winning and as I mentioned his arc from traumatized FO defector to a guy willing to be brave for the sake of friendship was compelling.

I agree. I have argued that the cast really saved JJ's bacon by covering for the poor characterization and pacing in TFA. I'll have to give some credit to JJ, I guess, for not getting in the actors' way. However, RJ got good to great performances out of Driver, Hamil, Ridley, Isaac, and even Laura Dern (for what she was given), so maybe Boyega just wasn't feeling it the way Ford wasn't feeling TFA.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
About the kids--they clearly learned about Crait through the power of Christmas The Force filling their pure hearts with the gift of hope.

I have been patiently waiting for frightknight to tell me the kids had a Force vision about Luke on Crait.

As for time and space in these Disney movies ... I have no sense of how powerful the FO is. They have a planet-sized super weapon that gets blown up. They have a giant dreadnought that gets blown up. They have an even bigger command ship that gets blown up. And yet they aren't already the preeminent power in the galaxy? Is it perhaps because everything they have gets blown up?

Then again, the Resistance is also very confusing. They had a whole wing of bombers that did not participate in the bombing run on Starkiller Base. It's like the guy who wrote TLJ didn't like TFA and felt free to disregard it.

But as far as I can tell, space and time are very important in TLJ. The whole A plot of TLJ revolves around the relative space of the FO and Resistance ships as time passes. Time and space are taken very seriously in this respect. Also, it's very important that almost no time has passed since the destruction of Starkiller Base and the beginning of TLJ. I mean, no one responds to the Resistance call for help despite the Resistance winning a major battle against the FO. Probably because not enough time has passed for word to get out.

So it seems like the conclusion is that time and space matter when Rian Johnson needs them to but they don't matter when he needs to tack on a sappy scene to prevent his movie ending on a commercially risky emotional downbeat.

To paraphrase you, now you're getting it.

I believe RJ's attitude towards everything that he, personally, isn't invested in is "that doesn't matter." You see it in Snoke, Ben's turning, all the other bits of film defended with "but that doesn't matter". He might think he is trimming narrative fat or tightening up the script, but for him minding most of the details, backstory and connective tissue with the franchise as a whole: that doesn't matter.

It's been a while since I saw TLJ but my memory is, the characters are all petulant, bitter, and/or miserable. How much of these performances were motivated by directing as opposed to just being caught up in a tornado of disappointment with their roles? I mean, compare Ridley, Boyega, and Isaacs in TLJ to the breathless enthusiasm of the their performances in TFA. I think Driver was the rock of TLJ, acting wise, but he got his beats down in TFA and they did not really change in TLJ. Mark Hamill, I think, just channeled his actual feelings toward Rian and Rian's script into his performance as Luke, which ranges from cynical to outright anger.

Maybe the bombers didn't appear in TFA because it's nice to put some new stuff into each film.

Then maybe have some time pass between the films.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the bombers didn't appear in TFA because it's nice to put some new stuff into each film.

Which is fine - not exactly the most subversive decision for part of the narrative - "cos we want to sell some new toys" - but then see the hamster creatures, speace horses etc etc.

But of course the Director is such a vsionary genius it deosn't matter

 Manchu wrote:

 frightnight wrote:
Regardless, in a galaxy that was too afraid to stand up to the First Order, a galactic bully, one person did, and they won.

This didn't happen in TLJ. The Resistance did not win anything. A handful of survivors fled. What you're talking about actually happened in TFA, although it was a band of plucky guerrilla fighters rather than one person who stood up to the FO and won.

When your opponent is seeking the complete destruction of you and your ideals, survival is a victory in itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the bombers didn't appear in TFA because it's nice to put some new stuff into each film.

Or because they would have been useless on Starkiller Base where the target they had to hit was only accessible from a horizontal plane of attack.

No, victory is blowing up their super weapon. Barely escaping with any survivors doesn't qualify as a victory except if you are the propaganda commissar trying to inspire your twelve remaining comrades.

The target on Starkiller Base was a giant hexagon on the planet's surface completely accessible to attack from above. The armament of the X-Wings was insufficient to penetrate the armor, making that attack exactly the sort of mission suited to the bombers introduced in TLJ.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I think it is plain that TLJ rather than revise ESB, shakes up and recasts elements into a new form with a new purpose.

I agree with you. I simply would have preferred a bit more obfuscation when it came to that particular scene.

And I understand the decision to make Crait a salt planet*. The only other option is "water planet" and simulating fights in/on water is expensive. But imagine, instead of more At/AT riffs you've got First Order battleships being space-dropped into the water so they can disgorge FO troops onto the sole island occupied by The Resistance.





*I refuse to believe Rian Johnson didn't know what he was doing there.

People, there are way too many meta readings on preformances here.

Carrie fisher was done filming when she died. And Rian Johnson said out of respect he would not change TLJ in any way. So Carrie's passing will only affect episode IX.

There were no rumours of TLJ being a difficult set, contrary to Solo. The characters are bitter and cynical because they are in a bitter and cynical situation. There are jokes aplenty in the last jedi , they are just mostly gallows humour in keeping with the movies tone.

Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.

So I started watching Sense8 again, and it made me think of the heavy handed way they tried to introduce similar themes into the star wars universe, Sense8 does it right, characters and story first, with current politics a distant 2nd, they dont beat you over the head with it in a ham fisted way and make some really good thought out points.....

If SW must go down the "progressive" route, then they should do it in the same manner as Sense8, so you barely even notice its there while being taught a valuable lesson... or you know... just leave it out.

Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?

I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?

Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.

I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.

There is nothing "progressive" in TLJ.

 Earth127 wrote:
People, there are way too many meta readings on preformances here.

Carrie fisher was done filming when she died. And Rian Johnson said out of respect he would not change TLJ in any way. So Carrie's passing will only affect episode IX.

There were no rumours of TLJ being a difficult set, contrary to Solo. The characters are bitter and cynical because they are in a bitter and cynical situation. There are jokes aplenty in the last jedi , they are just mostly gallows humour in keeping with the movies tone.

Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.

Of course Hammil backpedalled that statement, he'd like another job after this movie.

there were statements though, not rumors of RJ just being a "donkey-cave", Carrie stated it directly. Then we have RJ calling Hammil a "son of a bitch" in a public appearance. so I'd imagine the rumors about TLJ being a difficult set was due to RJ.

 Earth127 wrote:
Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.

I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.

I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.

Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.

Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....

Has the rebellion been ruling the galaxy? where did that information come from? As far as I can tell after jedi, the empire kept control.

 Manchu wrote:
So we're back to this nonsense about how Rian Johnson had no room for creative freedom and therefore had to lash out against everything TFA set up?

Again: No. Johnson was hired to direct the second episode in a series, where the first episode was a huge success. His job was to develop and deepen the points set up in TFA, not contain or retract them. Now we have no set up for a third film. Episode IX will basically be a soft reboot, a la Revenge of the Sith.

TBF to Johnson, the second episode was also a huge success. I certainly found it much stronger than TFA. I think the ESB parallels mentioned elsewhere in this thread are pertinent.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Do Military personnel not have a duty to intervene and remove a superior Officer from command when that Officer proves (or appears) to be dangerously incompetent? Isn't there some sort of clause in Military codes and regulations permitting the forced relieving of a superior Officer?

I'm no military veteran, but I'm not sure "Listen and Believe!" flies in the military. Soldiers need to have confidence in their commanders, do they not?

Poe and the other mutineers had every reason not to trust Holdo's leadership. Holdo's open contempt for Poe clearly didn't help matters. From Poe's point of view he did everything correctly, he took action to remove what appeared to a lot of people to be a dangerously incompetent commanding officer who was leading the Resistance to its demise. He was deliberately left out of the loop and key information was withheld from him, information that would have informed and influenced his decision making.

I think the lesson here is that its bad leadership to withhold crucial information from senior and highly influential Officers, even one who was recently demoted (but retains his influence) at a time of crisis when you need everyone on the same page working towards the same goal.

Yes and no, you can refuse and illegal order (shoot those civvies), removing a senior officer is very difficult and movies never ever have they EVER got it close to being correct, you cant just demote someone in the field, it would cause all kinds of issues in the COC, same goes for removing a Commanding officer, while you can do it if you have to, just be aware that it could have some serious ramifications.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
There is nothing "progressive" in TLJ.

Depends what you mean by "progressive" lol

 frightnight wrote:
Ray Park is amazing, and a really nice guy to boot.

I was working at a convention he was a guest at, and at the photo booth he only had a few people come in but he was slated to be there for 15 minutes. Since it was the last slot of the day and no one else was obviously coming, all the staff there just hung out with him, chatting about stuff, taking pictures with him, etc.

At one point he started doing jumping spin kicks, and during one there was a ripping noise. He landed, looked down and said, "I really need to stop buying $200 pants."

I disagree that TPM was the best lightsaber battle, though. While it had flips and cool moves, it lacked the personal stakes and heart of other fights. It did contain the one moment in TPM I unequivocally enjoyed, though, when they were separated by the force fields.

Their characters were perfectly defined in those moments: Maul paces back and forth like a caged tiger, Jinn kneels to meditate and center himself, Kenobi bounces on the balls of his feet, anxious and impatient to get back in the fight. No other moment in that film had as much character as those few seconds.

Well this is all rather subjective. I find the Duel of Fates to have everything you say it lacks. The only thing it was truly missing was dialog but I just got the sense that Maul doesn't talk much. I think that added the necessary tension to the battle - in combination with the killer musical score - it gives me the sense that this battle has the stakes of the galaxy in its hands. It is personally my favorite and I the scene where they are separated by the force fields I absolutely agree with your take on it. When it comes to other prequel fights which also have fancy moves and lightsabre porn - they don't even come close to this one. Anakin vs Obiwon could have been grat but Haydens terrible acting literally kills it.

I found the lightsabre battles in the original trilogy to be quite clunky - which at the time was the way Lucas wanted it to be. He changed his mind on what an light sabre actaully was based on what he wanted to do on screen. In the originals he consider a light sabre to he heavy (like a bastard sword) so the battle are more like battling with 2 handed swords. Lucas himself had these same complaints about the battles. He wanted them to be more exciting - so he made a lightsabre more of a fusion of 1 handed sword styles. I can still love Vader vs Luke in ESB and RoTJ but for me the video in those scene doesn't add anything - I could listen to the audio without watching it and get the exact same feelings.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.

I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.

I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.

Yeah - I am sure. Probably much sooner than that. Hammle loves luke. Luke turned him into one of the most beloved characters in the one of the largest sagas in human history. For johnson not to tap into that love shows a serious lack of directing/writing skill.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.

I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.

I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.

It will be interesting to see that story in the future.

At any rate, whether Hamill liked the plot or not, he gave a great performance and Luke went out with a bang.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.

I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.

I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.

It will be interesting to see that story in the future.

At any rate, whether Hamill liked the plot or not, he gave a great performance and Luke went out with a bang.

That he did, he just deserved better IMO.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.

Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.

Except... for the past twenty years, the Rebellion has ruled the galaxy as the New Republic. But kids are still being enslaved....

Has the rebellion been ruling the galaxy? where did that information come from? As far as I can tell after jedi, the empire kept control.

Episode VII
THE FORCE AWAKENS

Luke Skywalker has vanished. In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed.

With the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE. She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy.

Leia has sent her most daring pilot on a secret mission to Jakku, where an old ally has discovered a clue to Luke’s whereabouts….

From the Ashes of the Empire is pretty clear. The redone end of ROTJ has the Empire overthrown across the galazy IIRC.

The Republic has been in control for twenty years and apparently slavery flourishes and the First ORder if not actualy weclomed then finds plenty of support to rebuild and retake the galaxy

Damining indictment of whatever the Republic stood for..

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Finn is a great character. One of my favorite SW moments comes from TFA when he finds the bravery to stand up to Kylo Ren to protect his one friend in the world, Rey. It sucks that TLJ undermined him and relegated him to comedy relief with no character development.

Finn is a wasted character. You mean to tell me the Resistance has a defected Stormtrooper that's been indoctrinated from birth to be an elite soldier... and that he's a gibbering nerd?

Listen, I'm just saying- put John Boyega in the gym and give him a protein diet. Muscle him up, and in the next movie send him after the enemy with a big blaster machine gun. You cannot go wrong with this.

Duh! Space Rambo is best Rambo! I agree. Disney misses the mark on him a lot. They are to focused on comedy in these movies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Mark Hammil said in one interview. He told Rian Johson: "I fundamentallly disagree with every decision you've made for the character, there had to get that of chest." He wanted a heroic Luke, not a sad one. He later backpedalled saying people took that quote way too serious. And always said he liked the general tone of TLJ.

I think the most likely explanation is that he genuinely thought and still does hold those negative sentiments, but he was still under contract and Disney leaned on him to shut up and toe the official Disney line at least until the end of the marking campaign for The Last Jedi. Him back pedalling is damage control at Disney's behest. You can't hand waive away all the discomfort and discontent that he displayed in the run up to The Last Jedi - there are entire compilations of it on YouTube.

I think in many years time (10+ years?) long after the current wave of Disney Star Wars releases become old news and the general hype and buzz around Star Wars has died down, we'll get the full story from Mark Hamill about the disagreements he had with Johnson and how he truly felt about the movie. The Truth will come out. Eventually.

It will be interesting to see that story in the future.

At any rate, whether Hamill liked the plot or not, he gave a great performance and Luke went out with a bang.

I think he did well playing the disgruntled Luke but he did not go out with a bang. He went out in the most pathetic and stupid way possible. Without a battle and his trick was too late to make a difference. Practically everyone is dead and lets not forget there is still a first order fleet in orbit around the planet. Luke could not have gone out in any worse a way - doing nothing and dying simultaneously.

Wold Luke's last stand have been as effective if it has happened 5 minutes later?

you mean aftermath caus I can't find Ashes on wookiepedia?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wold Luke's last stand have been as effective if it has happened 5 minutes later?

Debatable - it would have been a lot more effective if he had acted sooner.