Right, since we know the Yoda species only has a few known members. I believe it's now 3 officially.Originally Posted by striker42
Right, since we know the Yoda species only has a few known members. I believe it's now 3 officially.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Have you watching the making of The Mandalorian episodes? Good stuff. That real time rendering video wall technology they built is a game change
The last thing Kanan says to hera before leaving for Malachor is "I'll see you again"
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I haven't. I don't usually like to get too much into the behind the scenes stuff on shows. It's like seeing how sausage is made to me.
But have you seen how sausage is made? It's truly awesome watching a buffalo chopper do it's thing.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
1. I don't have a problem with Luke being in exile. I have a problem with the story of how he got there. Luke went from a guy who rushes in to save his friends and whose singular goal in life is to become a Jedi to an attempted murderer of a kid who hadn't done anything wrong and who shuts himself off from the Force and his friends. This is a MASSIVE change in who Luke his and how he reacts to situations. Think about Luke in Return of the Jedi. He surrenders himself to the Empire on the off chance he can save his father from the Dark Side. Why wouldn't he be similarly obsessed with trying to save Kylo? It's very, very clear Kylo had an internal struggle between the Light and Dark sides just like Vader. A correct interpretation of Luke would have had him obsessed with either turning Kylo or stopping him. The fact that Luke's inability to train him to the Light Side would have made it even more important.
You can explain Luke's exile without having him cut off from the Force. Luke had a Force vision of a Chosen One that would arise and save Kylo. Luke has to keep hidden from Snoke and Kylo until the time is right so he goes to a place strong in the Light Side that would prevent other Force users from sensing him. When Rey comes Luke throws himself into helping her and later sacrifices himself to save her. That fits much better with who Luke is than the butchery that Johnson committed. You could even tie Rey in as Luke's daughter that he thought was killed but who Kylo secreted away (note, this fits with the Force vision, Johnson ignored Rey's Force vision).
2. In the prequels you have the Jedi and those supporting the Republic (Padme, Organa, etc) who are the good guys. You then have the rising evil of the Sith. The fact that the Sith hide and manipulate their way to power doesn't make them any less evil. It's end is literally a showdown between the paragon of virtue in Obiwan and the newly turned evil Anakin. The prequels are often heavy handed in this (see Anakin slaughtering children minutes after having been a Jedi). The Last Jedi makes a concerted effort to steer away from the clear cut good vs evil. Luke is torn down from his pedestal and made much more gray with his attempt to kill an innocent Kylo and then his refusal to train Rey.
As much as you try to call it a "tempting" of Finn, the war profiteering stuff is classic Rian Johnson. One of his big things is trying to subvert audience expectations. If you think the Rebellion were the good guys, he wants to turn that around and say they were part of a great evil in their waging of war. If you think Luke is a hero, he's going to tear him down and literally mock you for wanting to see Luke pull out his laser sword and go after the First Order. You think Poe is the good guy nobly fighting for the Resistance? Nope, he's an idiot, blinded by self-righteousness. This kind of stuff is classic Rian Johnson which is why he was a TERRIBLE choice for a core Star Wars movie. You can play in the shades of gray in the anthology stuff as you're not having to fit your movies in with existing material.
As for Han Solo, he's a pretty classic trope of the scoundrel with a heart of gold. Someone who was always good but who just needed to remember it. It's a pretty common trope in action movies.
3. Luke's death could have been much more impactful had he died 30 seconds sooner. Show the effects of what he was doing explicitly. Show him trying to hold it together for just another second so Rey can escape. Make it clear he's dying. Instead they just have him floating over a rock. He looks strained but not dying. The conflict ends, Rey escapes, and Luke survives...for 30 seconds. That 30 seconds makes it TERRIBLE story telling. Did his use of the Force kill him? Did he obtain peace and go willingly into the Force and so his death wasn't a sacrifice? Was it just his time?
Instead of Luke's death occurring during the fight and having him die in the culmination of the action, Luke dies just after the climax. When Luke vanished I literally said "Huh?" outloud. It was so anticlimatic and meaningless that I was legitimately confused as to whether he was dead or whether they were doing something with the Force we hadn't seen.
4. Every other core Star Wars film has clear good guys and bad guys. You know whose side you're on. Last Jedi turned that on its head. You want to cheer for Poe only to find out he's completely in the wrong and so you feel stupid for cheering for Poe. You want to cheer for Luke because of what he did in IV-VI but the Luke you get is an unlikable character. You want Finn and Rose to be successful in their plan only to discover they've been duped and a third of the action you just watched is now meaningless.
The Skywalker Saga is not about subverting audience expectations. The critics lap that stuff up as critics have to watch so many good vs bad action movies. They want something different. But when you do something different in a Star Wars movie, start messing around with established characters and/or other entities, you stray from making a Star Wars movie into making a movie that happens to use Star Wars things in it.
A complaint I have about all three of the sequel trilogy movies is that they make the universe smaller. Go watch Clone Wars and see the types of planets shown and the aliens featured. Then think of what you see in VII-IX. The exotic planets tend to be retreads. Jakku is essentially Tatooine. The showdown on Crait was a smaller callback to the Battle of Hoth (except the white stuff is salt instead of ice). And other locations felt like Earth instead of an exotic world.
The lack of new and interesting aliens was also a letdown. Maz Kanata was about the only significant new alien and they really didn't do enough with her (again thanks to Rian Johnson). It was a very human heavy trilogy.
1. Like when Vader sensed Leia and threatened her. Luke was just chill about it, and definitely didn't tap into the darkside and almost kill his father before walking back from the edge.
If luke wasn't cut off from the force, he could have been sensed by Kylo and Snoke. It was smart to cut himself off from the force. Johnson didn't ignore Rey's force vision. I don't really understand what you mean there. Also force visions are notorious for being wrong. Finally, everything you posted in that paragraph is fanboy drivel. Would have required excessive exposition and spits in the face of what was set forward in Ep 7. Which is Luke went into exile because he failed Kylo, Kylo killed everyone or they joined him in the temple. What logic is all that extra stuff you added? And the timeline of Rey doesn't make sense given the film as Rey was a child in the flashback (under 5) and Kylo turned a few years before, which would have meant Kylo was 15 when he took over the temple, would it make sense for a 15 year old to challenge in any way Luke Skywalker?
2. The issue with this is what you're talkign about is not what was told. The CIS was the bad guys of Episode 2 and 3. The Trade Federation of Episode 1. Who were the heroes of Episode 1-3, the Jedi Order, who started the Clone Wars, which lead to the end of the Republic? Padme who's actions let Palpatine become the Emperor?
Johnson didn't say that at all. The fact you took it that way really means you were failing on comprehending the film. Johnson introduced a foil. Someone who's entire motivation was to make money in the middle. He was clearly a "bad" guy. He was Boba Fett, Jabba the Hutt, etc. Again, people are failing to comprehend the ability for a character to grow. Finn was tempted but didn't go about things like DJ did. It's right there in the film.
Here's what you're not getting, character development. Johnson stripped the characters from their symbols and built characters. Poe's symbol was an X-Wing. He was a cocky pilot. He had no other depth. You're confusing a cocky pilot with a noble good guy. Poe was supposed to die in TFA, that's why he was reckless in the beginning of the film. The issue is that he was a flat character. Johnson took him up a notch. COnsider if you will the idea of the OT. Luke who blew up the death star, han who did countless brave things, were they Admirals of the Rebellion? Were they leaders of the whole movement? Nope. Han became a General and Luke became a Squad Leader, but they weren't high leaders, Johnson decided to try and push him so he could become the leader of the resistance. Something he wasn't ready for after TFA. Sorry you didn't like the idea of Poe becoming a leader. He's not blinded by "self-righteousness" he's a cocky fighter pilot who thinks his skill will win the war, whcih it won't when your'e outnumbered a thousand to one. That was the lesson he had to learn. I mean they could have gone another route.
3. Luke's death was perfectly impactful. He died at peace. The exact way you'd want a Jedi to die. Seriously, taking an issue with his death shows a lack of care for Star Wars, symbology, and above all the Jedi. Luke went out like Yoda. Having given all his effort to save Rey, he spent his final moments reflecting on a setting sun, WHICH IS THE FORCE THEME'S NAME, BINARY SUNSET. What more perfect way for Luke to go out then in a Binary Sunset? There isn't one. It's Poetry, it's symmetry, it's everything Star Wars.
4. Yeah, the film was lacking good guys and bad guys. It's clear that Snoke is a mixed bag. Who has complex goals. I couldn't be rolling my eyes harder. You don't understand, that you can have a subplot that doesn't serve the main plot. It can be an important bit of character growth, and future story telling. If Finna dn Rose didn't go to Canto Bight, the entire ending scene of the movie doesn't happen. The show of the future being bright, etc. are all important as well.
Star Wars is not a monolithic structure. Lucas's films are all pretty different. ANH is the prototypical heroes tale, it's straight forward, it's what you're describing. ESB is a bit different, ESB features new enemies but also the idea that Luke perhaps isn't all that, and that the ultimate evil of ANH and honestly to that point of the saga, was Luke's father creates a different tale. And then we learn that Luke was lied to by his mentors, the "good guys" lied to him to train him into someone to kill his father. Prequels I've gone on about, it's hardly cut and dry. The main story it was telling was about the fall of Anakin.
You've talked about Wanting Filoni to run Star Wars but he's been the king of living in the Gray area of star wars. Clone Wars is a giant tale of living life in the gray
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
1. Luke's greatest temptation from the Dark Side was his from his desire to protect the people he loved. He was tempted by the Dark Side and overcame it. His attempt on Kylo's life throws that in the trash. In one flashback Rian Johnson rendered the culmination of the original trilogy meaningless. Suddenly Luke is willing to murder his young nephew. It's an utterly bizarre narrative decision.
Yoda wasn't cut off from the Force but was able to hide from the Emperor. In the expanded universe it's explained by him choosing to live near the Dark Side cave. It makes sense, an area strong in the Force could be cover for a Force user.
What parts of the Force vision did Johnson move along? The Force vision was classic JJ Abrams. Abrams loves his stories to have a mythology that fans guess at. Lost was entirely that. The Force vision gave all kinds of hints that had fans debating the larger implications. What did Johnson do with it? Throws it out. Who was flying away from Rey on Jakku? Nobodies. He took so much of what was set up in VII and just tossed it out. I personally think that was because he fundamentally disagreed with JJ Abrams on many things to do with the movies which is why Kennedy should have stepped in and ensured a cohesive narrative.
How does it spit in the face of Episode VII? He'd be pulling a Yoda. Go into exile until he's needed to train the Jedi who can accomplish what he couldn't. At the very least it could have been explained he went to a place where he could hide as his presence would have led Kylo and Snoke to the Resistance. But if that was the case Luke would have probably jumped at the opportunity to train Rey and strike back at Snoke and Kylo. Luke as the bitter old man who doesn't want to help anymore makes no sense. It's purely a choice Johnson made because he likes to tear down what audiences want.
2. The actions of the Jedi and Padme were always attempts to hold up the Republic and ensure democracy. These actions often had the opposite effect but that was because they were being manipulated by the Sith. They were trying to fight for good, just ineffectually. The CIS were just pawns of the Sith. The prequels are a tale of the fall of the Jedi and the Republic and the rise of the Sith and the Empire. However, the lines of good and evil are clear.
You're basically saying that 1/3 of the movie was there so Finn, a character they clearly were struggling to fit in, could have a minor crisis of conscience? If that's the case then it's a worse use of the movie's time than I thought. It would be like a third of Empire Strikes Back being devoted to a story that makes C3P0 question his loyalty to Luke.
The problem isn't even with developing characters. The problem is how it's done. Poe was the point of view character for the audience. When they pulled the rug out from under Poe, it was pulled out from under the audience too. This leaves the audience feeling foolish for supporting Poe. Poe's development could have been done any of a 1,000 different ways. Johnson chose a way that subverts the audience and makes the audience feel stupid. It's incongruous with the core Star Wars movie.
3. I think the fact we're discussing it shows it was a mistake. Luke is the primary character of the Skywalker Saga and they gave him a death that wasn't sufficiently explained. Did he die from the exertion of projecting himself across the galaxy? Did he gain peace and go into the force willingly? Did the Force take him? Was he actually dying at all? What we got was Luke powerfully using the force, stopping, being tired, looking at the sun, and vanishing. No sense that he'd accomplished his life's goals. No explanation that he sacrificed himself to save Rey. Nothing. There's not even a sufficient explanation as to why he's at peace at that moment. Kylo is still alive and evil.
The pieces where there for a great death scene. The binary sunset and the music were perfect. Johnson is skilled at building his shots. He's a poor storyteller though. If you're going to have Luke go into the Force at peace then they really needed a last scene with him and Rey talking. Where Luke gets a chance to say how he's at peace now and say why. Have both of them standing on the island looking into the sun after that explanation and have Luke vanish. If you're going to have him sacrifice himself, don't have him survive the battle. It was poorly executed for the death of the principle character. Han's death was so much more impactful even if the scene was more poorly shot.
4. The film has bad guys no doubt. The problem is that Rian Johnson takes glee in not giving you someone clear to cheer for. There are heroes, but even the heroes aren't particularly great.
You don't spend a third of the move to just flesh out Finn. Imagine what else could have been accomplished if they didn't have the Finn-Rose storyline.
As for the ending scene and the future being bright, it could be accomplished any number of ways. An impassioned speech by Leia broadcast on a pirate signal achieves the same end in under a minute. Probably with greater effect. Even a lot of the Last Jedi apologists don't care for Canto Bight and admit it was a waste of time.
I have no problem with Star Wars gray area. Rogue One is full of anti-heroes and it was terrific. The Mandalorian is another one with a main character that has shades of gray. But those are different than the Skywalker Saga. The prequels had many flaws (particularly with acting) but they fit the same tone. Force Awakens even fit that tone. Last Jedi, for all its great cinematography and acting, had no idea the tone it was supposed to strike.
1. Luke sensed Kylo bring death and destruction and ruining everything he had fought for. Probably even sensed his potential to kill his friend Han and all his students. How is that that different than rage attacking vader but pulling back? Other than him pulling back faster in TLJ?
The Emperor wasn't specifically hunting down Yoda.He had other things he was working on. Sure he would have loved to snuff out every Jedi but it wasn't the goal of the Emperor or Vader to kill Yoda. So he didn't need to mask himself. Conversely Snoke and Kylo were hunting down Luke. Using all their resources. Did Luke need to cut himself off from the force, probably not. But from a symmetry standpoint it would make sense for Luke to cut himself off from the force around the same time as the force went dormant in the universe. And if he was playing it safe to avoid detection, that would be another layer of protection in a galaxy where the living force isn't active.
2.But are they good? How about Padme actively endulging in Anakin developing Attachment to her, despite the Jedi teaching that it is a path to the Dark Side? He told her that he killed all the Tuskan Raiders including the Women and Children and then later married him, not reporting him to the Jedi Council. Can you imagine if Anakin's fall to the darkside had been monitored more closely? Nah she just enabled his fall to the dark side for her own selfish gains.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your further assessment. First off Poe is not the Audience's View character, it's Finn. Poe is supposed to be a Han Solo character. Which is fine, in a vacuum, but Han without Leia, is not Han as we know him. And that happened in ESB.
Again, the purpose of Finn's journey is character development. All JJ left Rian with was a shallow character who screams for Rey and wants to run from the First Order. That's all that's known about him. He's a shell of a character. Why would he stick around with the Resistance? If all he cares about is Rey and escaping the first order why would he risk his life in this fight? And again, Canto Bight gives something that JJ ignored in RoS that mattered, Rose nad Finn (mainly Rose) affecting change on a planet. If they're not there the stable kids wouldn't be inspired and they would eventually become resistance fighters in some way. Which again could have been handled smoothly but JJ failed. The reason they "pulled the rug" or whatever is because Poe would have no reason to be in the know. In what military would a subordinate be able to demand an explanation from a Superior? Especially in a scenario where the the superior may think that there's a spy on board relaying the information to the First Order. If Poe had talked to her about hyperspace tracking rather than not trusting her, then that whole plot of the movie changes. But he made a conscious character choice to not trust an admiral with a much more decorated career, than himself. It was an important growing point for him as a character. Taught him a handful of lessons because he got plenty of his friends killed and if not for the selfless act of Holdo all of the resistance would have been killed.
3. No we're discussing it because you don't think it's good. Which is fine to have a bad opinion. But you're certainly in the minority. Luke is not the primary character of the Skywalker Saga. The primary character Skywalker BLoodline, not Luke, not Anakin, not Ben, not Leia, but all of them. The answer is clear, he died from excerpting himself, rather than fighting he gave himself to the living force, as Yoda did, at Obi Wan did. it's the way of the light side of the force. Why do you need an explanation that he sacrificed himself to save Rey? He ****ing said what he was doing to Kylo. It's all there. All the information is there, you're just ignoring it. ANd it's not my job to explain something obvious. He said what he was going to do to Leia. He tol Kylo what he was doing. His appearance was done to maximize anger and distract Kylo. Everything he did was distract Kylo Ren long enough for the Resistance to Escape. He stopped fighting Kylo when he sensed Rey was saving the Resistance because he did what he needed to do. He was at peace because he was dying. It's hardly a stretch.
Why did he need a scene talking to Rey? He dealt with it in the film "Luke is gone. I felt it. But it wasn't sadness or pain. It was peace and purpose" meaning that Luke expressed himself to Rey in the force. JJ could have easily had Luke's force Ghost train Rey. That was possible. JJ said nope.
4. Why do you think that? Because the heroes falter? Stumbling blocks exist in films. Consider ESB. Han and Leia spend the whole movie escaping Vader, only for Han's old friend to betray them where they thought things were safe. Wouldn't that be an example fo someone who's a hero who's not particularly great? Lando was doing something that he thought was for the good of his people.
I mean they could have done a number of things, I'm glad they went down that line to give Finn a reason to fight, instead of just running out screaming "REEEEYYYYYYYYY" and complaining about people not wanting to escape the Frist Order
The fact you don't think there's Gray in the prequels mean you're not watching with an critical mind.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
1. Kylo was completely innocent and Luke had made no attempt to save him. Vader had the blood of countless people on his hands, was actively evil, and Luke was trying not to fight him. It makes no sense that he'd have a Force vision and immediately decide that murder was the only option.
I'm pretty sure Vader was hunting Jedi. He definitely would have been trying to sense Yoda. In any event, I understand why they wanted Luke to have cut himself off from the force, it's just something that doesn't fit the character. You run into problems when you start twisting characters to fit the narrative you want. You end up with them making bizarre decisions that confuse the audience.
2. Padme and Anakin was supposed to be a story of forbidden love and how their love could overcome all those obstacles. It was an extremely poorly written story line. The prequels excelled at that. It doesn't make Padme a bad guy or even a gray character. Fighting on the side of freedom and love is trite but not gray. That is backed up even more in the Clone Wars.
There are different point of view characters for the different story lines. Rey is that character for her and Luke on the island, Finn is that character for the Canto Bight nonsense, and it's Poe for the stuff that happens on the ship. As such you want Rey to get trained, you want Finn to succeed on his mission, and you want Poe to thwart Haldo. Johnson likes pulling the rug out from under audiences and showing them the goal they wanted was bad. It works in some types of movies, not in a core Star Wars movie.
I'll admit the realism behind a military not telling Poe what's going on. The problem lies in the fact that strictly adhering to how people actually act often doesn't make a good movie. People don't often stand there and declare what they're thinking and feeling but audiences need exposition to understand what's going on. There are times where leading and audience one way and then reversing things on them works. Things like suspense thrillers or mysteries are full of those. That would work in a Star Wars anthology movie or show. The problem is Johnson needed to fit his film into an existing line. People don't go into Star Wars expecting to be subverted. They want to cheer the good guys on in their fight against the bad guys.
The best explanation I've heard is one I've shared here before. If you go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac but are served a plate of spaghetti, it doesn't matter if the spaghetti is good or not, it's not what you went in there wanting. The same is true of The Last Jedi. People went in expecting a classic Star Wars movie but weren't given that.
3. I don't think I'm in the minority. Last Jedi has a 43% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Some of that is due to the extreme hatred it caused in many hardcore Star Wars fans but even before those online movements started it was 50%. A LOT of people didn't like this movie and the treatment of Luke at every point is one of the main reasons.
Again, that 30 seconds of Luke surviving ruined your effectiveness of your explanation. If he's sacrificing himself, don't have him survive without any apparent issues other than being a little tired. It felt like Johnson got caught trying to do two things at once. He wanted Luke to sacrifice himself (one of the few decisions true to Luke's character that Johnson made) but he also wanted to give Luke that moment of peace staring into the suns. The problem is they don't work together. Those few moments distance Luke's death from his sacrifice and so rob the death of the impact it should have had.
I think part of the problem is that there was nothing visibly wrong with Luke. It wasn't like Vader who had clearly sustained mortal wounds killing the Emperor (I say killing because I'm at the point of writing off the sequel trilogy as a bad fever dream). Vader could have that peaceful death without losing the impact of his sacrifice because it was clear what was happening. Luke's sacrifice was much more implied. I'm still not sure if the exertion killed him or if him finding peace allowed him to willingly go into the Force. It was poorly done in either case.
Personally, I think they needed some kind of physical representation of the toll that use of the force took on Luke. Something really showing he was killing himself to do this. A physical showing of his sacrifice. That would have tied the death more strongly to him sacrificing himself to save Rey and Leia.
And Luke is the primary character of the Saga. The prequels center on Anakin but their purpose is to lay the groundwork for the original trilogy. The sequels are there to wrap up the story (which they did an incredibly poor job of). Luke is the primary character. There are other characters more central to different movies but the story of Luke is the primary story.
4. Lando is the Han of ESB. The scoundrel who gets redemption. The betrayal is the setup for atonement and redemption. Just like Han leaving before the Battle of Yavin only to come back and save the day. It's absolutely a trope in such films but it's a familiar, comfortable trope. Again, they're not gray characters. They're good guys who just haven't realized it yet.
You didn't need a third of the film to develop Finn. You could have done it in a 5 minute scene where he rails about what he was put through and what the First Order took from him. I don't think you needed that. It was pretty clear why Finn would fight the First Order from Force Awakens.
I do watch the prequels with a critical mind. I'm currently rewatching Clone Wars and considering how much better the story of the prequels is with that context. And the characters in the prequels are pretty clearly divided into the good guys and the bad guys.
I've been rewatching the prequels for the first time in a number of years. I remembered Phantom Menace being the worst but it's not. Attack of the Clones is so much worse. The acting in that movie is absolutely dreadful. I don't understand why they thought Hayden Christensen was a good idea.
1. It wasn't just a force vision. It was a combination of a vision but he also sensed as it said in the film, that Snoke had already turned him and he was going to destroy everything he cared about and fought for. Like the explanation is clearly there.
Vader was hunting Jedi, but none specifically. It was more a cast a wide net and reel in. Jedis who successfully hid were able to get away because the galaxy was different. You can disagree, but I mean Luke hiding at the home of an ancient Jedi temple being connected to the force, seems like it's something that Snoke and Ren could have influenced. Again. Come the era of the Empire, Sidious didn't care about wiping out the Jedi further, he felt like he did it. He was focusing on expanding his empire. He was focusing on becoming the most powerful dark side user ever. Snoke, Ren, and the first order spend basically all of the first movie hunting down a way to find Luke Skywalker so they could kill him. Motivations are clearly different. I'd liken it to more like Maul hunting Kenobi, which even though Obi Wan was hidden, Maul wound up finding Kenobi lived and then hunted him down.
2. Padme was not evil. But her actions were selfish, which is a gray motivation. If she rebuffed Anakin and said "You're a Jedi, we cannot fall in love" that attachment that ultimately lead to his turn to the darkside is gone.
Finn was the audience POV. Poe was the resistance POV, and Rey was the Jedi POV. JJ and Kasden did a poor job of painting Finn into the resistance. He did nothing other than try and save Rey (which was asinine because she was clearly more capable than he was) what the audience wants and what the audience is given are 2 different things. Did the audience want Darth Vader to be Luke's father? Did they want Han to be taken out of the story and frozen in Carbonite? Did they want the Empire to win? Nope. But because the choices were made purposefully. What the audience wants to get and what is right for the story are not always the same thing. What the audience wanted was so fractured that you couldn't find more than a few star wars fans who wanted the same thing. I remember everyone bemoaning that TFA was basically a remake of the original, then they bemoaned TLJ for being too different. But what people aren't considering is that Star Wars is not for the people who grew up with it. It's for the next Generations. SAV loves the prequels, because that was his Star Wars. People who are a bit older to a lot older was the originals. Again, I look forward to in 10 years or so when people realize that the Last Jedi is one of the best Star Wars films ever and certainly the best of the Sequel trilogy by a long shot. The gripes about "Classic Star Wars" is that all 6 of the original films were different. The Last Jedi hit beats it needed to hit to be a Star Wars film, while moving the type of film to a more modern style. Which is necessary for Star Wars to survive as new content into the next decade.
3. Rotten Tomatoes scores are buckwild. You also should clarify that it was the Audience Score. Which we know that a DCEU 4chan group review bombed TLJ as well as various right wing group.
Why did him surviving ruin it? Someone gets shot with a bullet in the heart they don't die right away. Someone gets stabbed through the gut they don't die right away. The issue is you don't understand the force I think. Luke had to excerpt immense effort and instead of fighting to stay alive he became one with the force in peace, Which is how a Jedi should die, at one with the force. He shouldn't have struggled to stay alive until Rey and Leia could fly to Ahch To so he can have a deathbed moment. That's cheap.
The physical representation was an elderly man hoving and focusing intently to the point that when he stops he falls horribly and struggles to get back on his rock. The prequels are not to lay the "ground work" of the OT, it's to set up the fall of Anakin Skywalker and his redemption. It's less of laying the groundwork and more of expanding the universe.
was
4. But does Lando get redemption? If Vader doesn't go back on his terms would he have rescued the others? Lando's actions were strictly selfish in protection of his city. Lando isn't good or bad.
You're right,t hey shouldn't have needed that time to develop Finn. That should have been done in the first film. But instead the first film was devoted to rehashing the best moments of Star Wars OT. Because so little time was given to new character development or explanation.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
I don't blame it on the actors. Only people who looked good were people were Obi Wan and Palpatine. The latter being more for his memeness. Natalie Portman looked terrible in those films and went on to win an Oscar later.
But you're not wrong. It was such a poorly done film. It introduced some cool scenes. But if you want to look at a film that doesn't make a ton of sense, it's way up there. Almost everything that was done was not done intelligently.
The biggest mistake with the OT is that the Phantom Menace didn't really do anything for the Story. Sure it set up the earliest stages of Anakin's fall, taking him from his mother and his adoptive father who would be his master. But most of the events in the film are pointless ot the overall arc. You could skip the movie entirely and miss basically nothing. The fact that Anakin on screen met Padme doesn't matter. If you need an example, see in the Clone Wars with Duchess Satine.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Yeah, Phantom Menace was largely pointless. The only other thing it did was world build a little. It set up the Jedi Order, Republic, etc. But the story should have been more geared to tying in with the saga. It was almost a bottle episode.
It really is confusing how there can be some really good actors in that movie give such terrible performances. Though I will say I've never like Hayden Christensen in anything he's done. The fact that he was put opposite Ewan McGregor so much just made him look worse.
The thing that's also frustrating is that the events going on in that trilogy could have been made so much more interesting with better execution. The Clone Wars tv show was extremely well done and really filled out that period of time. The story of the fall of the Republic is so much more interesting with the context of The Clone Wars.
1. I'm aware of all the reasons given. You're still talking about Luke contemplating killing a kid in his sleep. A kid that hadn't done anything yet. Killing him without even attempting to save him. Luke's reaction would have been to try to save Kylo, not kill him. That choice alone shows me that Johnson had no clue about the character.
2. We're trying to compare Padme marrying the guy she loved with Luke attempting to murder a child. Padme may have put her happiness first in giving in to marrying Anakin but that's nowhere near the level of gray that Luke became.
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying when I say audience POV. An audience POV character as I'm talking about it is a character that the action follows. The character where the audience learns things as the character does. Poe was that for the story line unfolding on the ships. Audiences tend to empathize with a point of view character so when you make that character feel like an idiot, you make the audience feel like idiots.
You can have a plot twist without it subverting audiences. If an audience has no expectation and you blindside them, that's a plot twist without subverting expectations. It's what the Vader reveal or freezing Han in carbonite was. If they'd killed Han in the chamber (as Harrison Ford wanted), that would have been more subverting the audiences expectations. You expect a central character to survive there. Killing Han would have subverted that and probably ruined the movie.
I think the sequel trilogies needed to stay true to the themes of Star Wars to keep cohesion running through them. The anthology films or the TV shows have been great opportunities to modernize the content. Rogue One was darker and edgier and was absolutely fantastic. That being said, if doesn't fit into the Skywalker saga. It's a great Star Wars movie but the tone is all wrong for the Skywalker Saga. The same is true of the Mandalorian. It's the best thing I've watched in years. Completely different from the central Saga though. That's fine because it doesn't have to fit.
3. The audience score was bombed as I noted, but even before that really happened it had about a 50% rating. The movie split Star Wars fandom down the middle. There's no clear majority view on any part of the movie.
If someone gets shot sacrificing themselves in a movie and they die after the climactic battle ends, the physical wound clearly connects their death to the sacrifice. Vader was clearly wounded killing the Emperor. He died after the climax of the action in the Throne Room but it was clearly from the damage he took sacrificing himself. It's not clear with Luke and that confusion undermines the impact of his death.
I understand the Force fine and understand exactly what you're saying happen. My comment is that sitting and watching that movie it was very unclear what exactly was going on. You get the reveal that Luke is projecting himself and see it taking enormous effort. But that's it. There's nothing showing that the effort is killing him. It just shows him exhausted at the end of it. Exhausted does not equal mortally injured, especially not for a Jedi. I'm sitting there thinking Luke survived after all. Then he looks at the sun an vanishes. By having Luke apparently unhurt after the showdown with Kylo, you think Luke is going to live. That disconnects his death from his sacrifice. I understand the in universe explanation, I'm talking about this from the storytelling perspective. It was poorly done.
Johnson should have chosen either Luke sacrificing himself or the peaceful death staring into the suns. Trying to do both made it neither.
The prequels are exactly there to lay the groundwork for the OT. The OT is the story of Luke Skywalker. Luke is the central character of the Skywalker Saga. He's not the central character of every movie, but he is the single most important character in the series.
4. I honestly don't know how Finn survived rewrites of TFA screenplay. It's like they had a cool idea for a character in a stormtrooper who defects but the character really didn't fit that well into the final product and just kept him anyway. He ends up being kind of a third wheel to the Kylo-Rey dynamic. What his character does could have easily been accomplished by others like Poe or Han.
TFA doesn't give enough time to character development. Rey should have been much more developed after that movie. However, I think TLJ goes too far the other direction. Not every character needs intense development. I'm not sure Finn needed a ton of development.
1. It's there in the script. Luke has nearly turned to the dark side twice before when his friends were threatened why is it out of character to not do it again? One could even argue that in his duel with Vader in ESB he was channeling the Dark Side to save his friends as he was the one who drew the lightsaber first.
2. Luke didn't become Gray. Though honestly I would love to see him be a Gray Jedi and I wish Rian pushed him further that way, rather than introduce the idea that Rey would be the future of the Jedi, but that's me, I think that would be too far of a departure for fans who already think the Last Jedi is too far of a leap.
Padme wasn't good is my point. Padme wasn't bad either. But hardly everything she did was good or for good. She was key in setting up Palpatine to be Supreme Chancellor, and she was key to Anakin turning to the Dark Side. Similar to Obi Wan. In the Prequels he's mostly good, but he also does bad things. He lets Darth Vader live when he was supposed to defeat him. You could argue that the noble part of him did it, but it would be like if someone could have finished off Hitler in WWI, wouldn't it have been better to just take him out?
The films had to modernize. The prequels were a modernization at the time.
3. No the audience score was tanked from Jump Street. It was something that was started when the film released. It skewed people's opinions. It was a smart move. If I could easily go back in time to show it. I would, but it was being torpedoed with "Disneyification" and "SJW" showing up in almost every single negative review.
Why do you need to see Luke take a battle scar? Vader was this tough baddie who stopped blaster bolts with his hands, but he gets hit with less lightning than Luke and dies? I mean by your logic the evidence isn't there. But I'm willing to accept it. And you're comparing Vader living for a few minutes to Luke living for hours waiting for people to come and see him. Which considering Kylo very well could know where Luke is living and send the whole first order there to kill them.
How was it unclear. I knew what was going on. It was clear. They even hint at it earlier when Kylo says that Rey couldn't connect them because the effort would kill them. Why shouldn't he have done that? It made so much sense.
You're right, the OT is the story of Luke, but the Prequels is the story of Anakin.
4. That's why Rian had to work on his story. Because Finn was supposed to be the second billed hero. Remember the tease was Finn holding the lightsaber.
Finn and Poe needed development to flesh them out. LIke Han and Leia got in Empire. The issue was JJ developed NO ONE. He made a movie that needed a shuttle, and Rian shuttled.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Saw Empire in the theaters. It's such a great experience seeing Star Wars in the theater.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
The original trilogy was re-released in theaters when I was a kid. It set off my love for the franchise.
I'm dropping The Last Jedi argument for the time being. Suffice to say it was a divisive movie. I will say the sequel trilogy as a whole was pretty bad regardless of the quality of individual movies. While the acting and cinematography was miles better than the prequels, the prequels at least were a unified story.
I think changing directors midstream and then changing back was a massive mistake. If you're going to change directors then you need a strong hand controlling the story and the narrative choices made. That wasn't there in the sequels. Abrams sets up the mysteries of Snoke and Reys parents. Johnson kills Snoke and makes Reys parents nobodies. Abrams brings Snoke back and makes Reys grandparents important. There was a tug of war over this series that made the final product disjointed.
I think the sequel trilogy (and Solo) would have been much better had Kennedy tapped someone like Filoni to control the Star Wars creative content. You can let the directors have a free hand in a lot but having a Star Wars savant who has demonstrated the ability to produce exceptional Star Wars content ensure the trilogy stayed on the rails would have really improved things.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote