So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And specifically think that doing if off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
The article had the feeling of why it felt bad to a certain subset of fans, but failed to explain why it was necessary that Luke/Han had to regress. They didn't. And I think thats because his conclusion, the above quoted text, is never explained to necessitate that our heroes have to be brought down into the mud in order to accomplish it. Obi-Wan stayed a hero his whole life. Luke's rise did not come off the back of a massive mistake by Obi.
The Finn self-sacrifice part. I think I know what it was trying for, but I felt like in this case it was earned more than anything, but it just kind of deflated the entire moment.
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
New thread, new attempt to discuss my favorite universe and the stories within it
So I saw it again on Monday night. I actually enjoyed it the second time. Compared to the first time I saw it, where I concluded it was an alright movie but a bad Star Wars experience, I now feel like it is a really good movie and a serviceable Star Wars experience. It was my daughter's first time seeing the movie and watching her laugh during various scenes made me so happy. She also seemed really engaged, which is impressive for a 2.5 hour movie, but also not surprising because I have successfully (inadvertently) transferred my love of Star Wars to her. Updated thoughts:
Pacing: So, I think this is a brilliant movie in terms of pacing. On first viewing it felt long, drawn out, and almost exhausting. I remember being frustrated at the constant tease of the movie reaching its conclusion only for it to be snatched away and now there is a new problem with a new potential solution, which was only met with it being snatched away again. I think as movie/story consumers we have been conditioned to expect the story to go like this:
TLJ feels like it gets to Turning Point #4 (Major Setback) and then like a broken record keeps resetting back to Turning Point #2. Every time we hit TP#4 it skips back to TP#2. We keep thinking that Act III is right around the corner only to have the rug pulled out and realize we are back the beginning of Act II. This doesn't feel right to the viewer, especially on first watch. By the time the movie is over, we are mentally exhausted. This mirrors perfectly the exhaustion we should feel as empathy for the Resistance.
On second viewing? The movie absolutely flies by. Its almost too fast. Canto Bight was barely a blip and didn't feel like it interrupted anything. Rey wasn't on Ahchto nearly long enough. The Resistance wasn't being chased all that long really. Expecting those failures and understanding where the real Act II ends and the real Act III begins makes the movie flow so much better.
Luke: My daughter's first question about the movie was the following: "Why was Luke so ... angry? I didn't like that."
I still don't like his "failure" and overall characterization. On second viewing I realized my main issue. I think I was ready to see Luke not fail. We already saw him go through that in his trilogy. He supposedly learned and grew and had his happy ending. It was his time to be the master, teach, and hand the reigns to his apprentice. Like Obi-Wan did. Like Yoda did. I think it would have made more sense to focus on Rey's growth and Luke's part in it. Instead we had to retread Luke's character and show him fail in a huge way and then learn from it again, also from Yoda again. It hurt Luke's overall storyline (which is why I think it hurts the OT) and actually took away from Rey. She literally didn't fail in this movie, which feels wrong when everyone else around her (specifically the new generation of leaders/heroes) did. It would have been weird if Leia had to learn the lesson that Poe did in this movie. It is weird that Luke had to learn lessons from failure when it should be Rey's time to do so.
I get that his reaction was both believable and understandable. Its a perfectly normal reaction to screwing up on that level. Its also a perfectly normal reaction (maybe even moreso for a Jedi Master) to step up and handle your problems like a strong capable person. BUT, like Yoda said, "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that was true, then wouldn't that mean that Luke should have already learned this? He failed a bunch and learned in ESB (there was a brilliant post in the previous thread about that). So having learned from failure, being able to respond to Ben falling by doing something other than running away and hiding is what Luke should be capable of doing at this point. Something I think he's earned. So I guess the more important questions to me are:
Was it entertaining to watch a character regress like that to re-learn a lesson? Nope. Did it undercut his happy ending / growth in the OT? Yup. Would it have made more sense for Rey to be the one to stumble and learn (especially considering thats exactly what Finn/Poe/Kylo experienced and was the theme of the movie)? Yes.
Rey/Kylo: Literal chills when the throne scene went down. It was as powerful or more the second time. That they each saw the same vision (them fighting side by side with Snoke dead) and they each came to their own separate conclusions is a genius ending to that plotline. The entire throne room scene is one of the most powerful and beautiful moments in all of Star Wars. Adam Driver is the gem of this trilogy. He is making Kylo an iconic character in a way that no one else could, imo.
Philosophy on "The Past": On first viewing on thought the movie was telling me that I had to destroy the past to move forward. On second viewing, its clear that the movie is telling us that its absolutely the wrong way to move forward. Kylo is the one that wants to destroy the past as a method for progress. He is the villain of the story. Yoda tells us that is incorrect by explaining to Luke that the Jedi are not dead. The tree being destroyed means nothing, since Rey has the texts and is a true Jedi. Rose tells us this is incorrect, when she refocuses Finn's desire from destruction to preservation. Luke tells Kylo this is incorrect when he states "If you strike me down in hate, I will always be with you" which I initially thought meant that Luke would force ghost haunt him, but Luke very specifically added "just like your father" to the end of that. Han isn't force ghost haunting Kylo. What Luke meant by that was that by destroying things, you ensure they stay with you forever. Destroying things makes it impossible to move past them. By destroying something, you make a decision that forever burns it as part of who you are. An un-correctable choice that will forever define you. I love everything about that philosophical lesson taught in this movie. If you celebrate "destroying expectations" that fans had, then I think you are on the wrong side of the fence here.
Finn/Rose: I don't mind this plotline anymore and think I really like it. Everything about Canto Bight went much faster on second viewing. I think the humor and aliens there were a bit too much Fifth Element, but it wasn't enough to detract like the first viewing, not because I thought it fit but because I was ready for it. Learning how the universe is out of balance in terms of have and have nots is incredibly relevant for our time and I hope that all the talk of the force creating balance extends to that in IX. I would love if the end result of this trilogy is that the Force creates balance by bringing down the rich. I especially loved the foreshadowing of the end of Canto Bight, when Finn talks about it being worth it to destroy the town (mirroring what Rose had said earlier about punching a hole in the town) to which Rose stops, takes the saddle off of the horse/dog and then replies "Now its worth it." I think that's where she learned that its more important to save what you love than destroy what you hate. Gorgeous piece of story telling there.
On top of that I think Finn had more character growth than I saw on first viewing. But the second time, his growth really stood out. His time on Canto Bight taught him a lot. I mean we have to remember that he's been with the First order since he was a child, he doesn't know anything about the universe at large. So Rose and the Codebreaker taught him some pretty big life lessons. Failing at a hail mary plan taught him yet another. So when we see him facing Phasma its clear he's doing it to face his own demons. He's not doing it to save Rey this time. He's doing it because he believes and understands what's important to him. This is solidified on Crait when he is clearly willing to sacrifice himself for the Resistance ideals. He's not doing it for Rey anymore. Where he was more of a hero symbol (not an actual hero) from his actions in TFA, he is totally bought in by the end of TLJ and is an actual Hero of the Resistance. I think he's in a great position for IX.
Nitpicks:
- When Luke and Kylo are initially facing off, they are standing on a reflective field of glassed ground from all the laser fire. They talk for a second, then it cuts to the Resistance trying to figure out their escape. When it cuts back to Luke and Kylo, the ground is completely covered in salt. Its jarring and a pretty large continuity mistake.
- We see Holden sacrifice herself to save the resistance and its a heroic, meaningful act. We see Luke sacrifice himself to save the resistance and its a heroic, meaningful act. We see Finn about to sacrifice himself to save the resistance, yet its not allowed, because we are supposed to save what we love. Did Leia not love Holden? Are we not supposed to love Luke? I adore the phrase "We shouldn't focus on destroying what we hate, but instead saving what we love," but it does feel inconsistently applied here.
- The ships were being tracked in hyperspace by a single lead Star Destroyer. Which means they could track a single ship. Why didn't the other support ships jump to different places through hyperspace? The First Order would have been forced to stay with the Cruiser and Frigate/Corvette could have gone to try and get help. Might have even been able to bring back some fuel...
Overall, I feel like my major complaints with the movie
Luke's Characterization and out of place humor
(which are still complaints to me) took me out of the movie and ruined my immersion during first viewing. Being prepared for them allowed the second viewing to breathe a bit better and while I still have major issues with it, I felt like I enjoyed it as a Star Wars movie.
Welcome back to the thread, dude. And yeah, this is a good write up. A lot of this that we talked about has actually made me re-think some of the things about the movie that I initially came down a different way on. I still think I have a pretty solidly difference of opinion on
Luke's place leading up to, and during the movie, as well as the overall humor, but I have a way better understanding of why you feel that way about it, and it completely makes sense.
I'm also coming around to your point of view on some of the deeper philosophical things the movie is trying to say about the past and the future and how we reconcile them.
As for Finn's sacrifice, I thought the same thing as you initially, but I think the point was that Finn wasn't really accomplishing all THAT much even if he killed himself in the process, unlike Holdo and and Luke. At best, Finn was fucking up one gun that probably would have barely slowed down the First Order, and costing the resistance one of their very few remaining pilots/soldiers. It was a bad trade, basically, and wouldn't have had the significance in terms of morale that Luke's sacrifice did, and it wasn't the actual huge gamechanging day saver that was Holdo's.
Regardless, as I said, I'm glad you enjoyed it the second time around more.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Resetting things back to the status quo is a bold new direction now?
Complete and utter failure by the original trio was not the only way to do these movie. And choosing to do it that way shows a lack of imagination. It also shows a historical outlook that I do not agree with.
The struggle we are in now is the same as the civil rights era. Or WWII. And so on. One can see these as chapters in the same fundamental struggle between ideals and parts of human nature. But it is reductive to believe we are simply fighting the same fight over and over again.
The new problem that Luke and Leia and Han cannot solve should not be the same problem they already solved but now they arbitrarily didn't. It should be an out of context problem that doesn’t lend itself to the methods they know. Or they simply don't see it as a problem because they are now the conservative element. Maybe actually deal with the problem of droid rights or something. Or instead of betraying Luke's boundless optimism, make that the problem. There's a point where you need to stop trying to save someone and just take them out.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+2
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
New thread, new attempt to discuss my favorite universe and the stories within it
So I saw it again on Monday night. I actually enjoyed it the second time. Compared to the first time I saw it, where I concluded it was an alright movie but a bad Star Wars experience, I now feel like it is a really good movie and a serviceable Star Wars experience. It was my daughter's first time seeing the movie and watching her laugh during various scenes made me so happy. She also seemed really engaged, which is impressive for a 2.5 hour movie, but also not surprising because I have successfully (inadvertently) transferred my love of Star Wars to her. Updated thoughts:
Pacing: So, I think this is a brilliant movie in terms of pacing. On first viewing it felt long, drawn out, and almost exhausting. I remember being frustrated at the constant tease of the movie reaching its conclusion only for it to be snatched away and now there is a new problem with a new potential solution, which was only met with it being snatched away again. I think as movie/story consumers we have been conditioned to expect the story to go like this:
TLJ feels like it gets to Turning Point #4 (Major Setback) and then like a broken record keeps resetting back to Turning Point #2. Every time we hit TP#4 it skips back to TP#2. We keep thinking that Act III is right around the corner only to have the rug pulled out and realize we are back the beginning of Act II. This doesn't feel right to the viewer, especially on first watch. By the time the movie is over, we are mentally exhausted. This mirrors perfectly the exhaustion we should feel as empathy for the Resistance.
On second viewing? The movie absolutely flies by. Its almost too fast. Canto Bight was barely a blip and didn't feel like it interrupted anything. Rey wasn't on Ahchto nearly long enough. The Resistance wasn't being chased all that long really. Expecting those failures and understanding where the real Act II ends and the real Act III begins makes the movie flow so much better.
Luke: My daughter's first question about the movie was the following: "Why was Luke so ... angry? I didn't like that."
I still don't like his "failure" and overall characterization. On second viewing I realized my main issue. I think I was ready to see Luke not fail. We already saw him go through that in his trilogy. He supposedly learned and grew and had his happy ending. It was his time to be the master, teach, and hand the reigns to his apprentice. Like Obi-Wan did. Like Yoda did. I think it would have made more sense to focus on Rey's growth and Luke's part in it. Instead we had to retread Luke's character and show him fail in a huge way and then learn from it again, also from Yoda again. It hurt Luke's overall storyline (which is why I think it hurts the OT) and actually took away from Rey. She literally didn't fail in this movie, which feels wrong when everyone else around her (specifically the new generation of leaders/heroes) did. It would have been weird if Leia had to learn the lesson that Poe did in this movie. It is weird that Luke had to learn lessons from failure when it should be Rey's time to do so.
I get that his reaction was both believable and understandable. Its a perfectly normal reaction to screwing up on that level. Its also a perfectly normal reaction (maybe even moreso for a Jedi Master) to step up and handle your problems like a strong capable person. BUT, like Yoda said, "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that was true, then wouldn't that mean that Luke should have already learned this? He failed a bunch and learned in ESB (there was a brilliant post in the previous thread about that). So having learned from failure, being able to respond to Ben falling by doing something other than running away and hiding is what Luke should be capable of doing at this point. Something I think he's earned. So I guess the more important questions to me are:
Was it entertaining to watch a character regress like that to re-learn a lesson? Nope. Did it undercut his happy ending / growth in the OT? Yup. Would it have made more sense for Rey to be the one to stumble and learn (especially considering thats exactly what Finn/Poe/Kylo experienced and was the theme of the movie)? Yes.
Rey/Kylo: Literal chills when the throne scene went down. It was as powerful or more the second time. That they each saw the same vision (them fighting side by side with Snoke dead) and they each came to their own separate conclusions is a genius ending to that plotline. The entire throne room scene is one of the most powerful and beautiful moments in all of Star Wars. Adam Driver is the gem of this trilogy. He is making Kylo an iconic character in a way that no one else could, imo.
Philosophy on "The Past": On first viewing on thought the movie was telling me that I had to destroy the past to move forward. On second viewing, its clear that the movie is telling us that its absolutely the wrong way to move forward. Kylo is the one that wants to destroy the past as a method for progress. He is the villain of the story. Yoda tells us that is incorrect by explaining to Luke that the Jedi are not dead. The tree being destroyed means nothing, since Rey has the texts and is a true Jedi. Rose tells us this is incorrect, when she refocuses Finn's desire from destruction to preservation. Luke tells Kylo this is incorrect when he states "If you strike me down in hate, I will always be with you" which I initially thought meant that Luke would force ghost haunt him, but Luke very specifically added "just like your father" to the end of that. Han isn't force ghost haunting Kylo. What Luke meant by that was that by destroying things, you ensure they stay with you forever. Destroying things makes it impossible to move past them. By destroying something, you make a decision that forever burns it as part of who you are. An un-correctable choice that will forever define you. I love everything about that philosophical lesson taught in this movie. If you celebrate "destroying expectations" that fans had, then I think you are on the wrong side of the fence here.
Finn/Rose: I don't mind this plotline anymore and think I really like it. Everything about Canto Bight went much faster on second viewing. I think the humor and aliens there were a bit too much Fifth Element, but it wasn't enough to detract like the first viewing, not because I thought it fit but because I was ready for it. Learning how the universe is out of balance in terms of have and have nots is incredibly relevant for our time and I hope that all the talk of the force creating balance extends to that in IX. I would love if the end result of this trilogy is that the Force creates balance by bringing down the rich. I especially loved the foreshadowing of the end of Canto Bight, when Finn talks about it being worth it to destroy the town (mirroring what Rose had said earlier about punching a hole in the town) to which Rose stops, takes the saddle off of the horse/dog and then replies "Now its worth it." I think that's where she learned that its more important to save what you love than destroy what you hate. Gorgeous piece of story telling there.
On top of that I think Finn had more character growth than I saw on first viewing. But the second time, his growth really stood out. His time on Canto Bight taught him a lot. I mean we have to remember that he's been with the First order since he was a child, he doesn't know anything about the universe at large. So Rose and the Codebreaker taught him some pretty big life lessons. Failing at a hail mary plan taught him yet another. So when we see him facing Phasma its clear he's doing it to face his own demons. He's not doing it to save Rey this time. He's doing it because he believes and understands what's important to him. This is solidified on Crait when he is clearly willing to sacrifice himself for the Resistance ideals. He's not doing it for Rey anymore. Where he was more of a hero symbol (not an actual hero) from his actions in TFA, he is totally bought in by the end of TLJ and is an actual Hero of the Resistance. I think he's in a great position for IX.
Nitpicks:
- When Luke and Kylo are initially facing off, they are standing on a reflective field of glassed ground from all the laser fire. They talk for a second, then it cuts to the Resistance trying to figure out their escape. When it cuts back to Luke and Kylo, the ground is completely covered in salt. Its jarring and a pretty large continuity mistake.
- We see Holden sacrifice herself to save the resistance and its a heroic, meaningful act. We see Luke sacrifice himself to save the resistance and its a heroic, meaningful act. We see Finn about to sacrifice himself to save the resistance, yet its not allowed, because we are supposed to save what we love. Did Leia not love Holden? Are we not supposed to love Luke? I adore the phrase "We shouldn't focus on destroying what we hate, but instead saving what we love," but it does feel inconsistently applied here.
- The ships were being tracked in hyperspace by a single lead Star Destroyer. Which means they could track a single ship. Why didn't the other support ships jump to different places through hyperspace? The First Order would have been forced to stay with the Cruiser and Frigate/Corvette could have gone to try and get help. Might have even been able to bring back some fuel...
Overall, I feel like my major complaints with the movie
Luke's Characterization and out of place humor
(which are still complaints to me) took me out of the movie and ruined my immersion during first viewing. Being prepared for them allowed the second viewing to breathe a bit better and while I still have major issues with it, I felt like I enjoyed it as a Star Wars movie.
Welcome back to the thread, dude. And yeah, this is a good write up. A lot of this that we talked about has actually made me re-think some of the things about the movie that I initially came down a different way on. I still think I have a pretty solidly difference of opinion on
Luke's place leading up to, and during the movie, as well as the overall humor, but I have a way better understanding of why you feel that way about it, and it completely makes sense.
I'm also coming around to your point of view on some of the deeper philosophical things the movie is trying to say about the past and the future and how we reconcile them.
As for Finn's sacrifice, I thought the same thing as you initially, but I think the point was that Finn wasn't really accomplishing all THAT much even if he killed himself in the process, unlike Holdo and and Luke. At best, Finn was fucking up one gun that probably would have barely slowed down the First Order, and costing the resistance one of their very few remaining pilots/soldiers. It was a bad trade, basically, and wouldn't have had the significance in terms of morale that Luke's sacrifice did, and it wasn't the actual huge gamechanging day saver that was Holdo's.
Regardless, as I said, I'm glad you enjoyed it the second time around more.
The bolded is a good point and a great way to reconcile it. That's my new way of looking at it.
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
I do agree that Rey
probably should have experienced a bit more failure to overcome. You know we differ about Luke, but that's cool. Thinking it over, even Rey's failure (trusting Kylo, expecting to turn him) didn't work out to be nearly as big of a failure as Finn and Poe's, in terms of actual consequences. I'm not saying her arc had to mirror theirs, but yeah, I agree that it felt like it might have been missing at least one more misstep along the way.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+1
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Whether it fit the plot or not, whether it's sensible in universe or not, the hyperspace cruiser through the star destroyers was an absolutely beautiful, wondrous shot and I'll remember it for a long, long time.
Yep, it was straight up breathtaking.
Sitting there, in a totally silent theater for what felt like 30 seconds watching that shot was pretty incredible. Not just one of the best shots in a Star Wars film, but one of the most amazing looking shots I've seen in ANY movie.
Ok but
imagine you're in a theatre that is silent EXCEPT for one guy who goes "oh my god..." three seconds in. I mean, it's hilarious, but also come on dude I wanted to revel in the silence.
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
I do agree that Rey
probably should have experienced a bit more failure to overcome. You know we differ about Luke, but that's cool. Thinking it over, even Rey's failure (trusting Kylo, expecting to turn him) didn't work out to be nearly as big of a failure as Finn and Poe's, in terms of actual consequences. I'm not saying her arc had to mirror theirs, but yeah, I agree that it felt like it might have been missing at least one more misstep along the way.
It's not a failure if you end up still basically winning.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
Why would having the experience of failure once make you immune to responding to it poorly again?
Just because they've failed before, and overcame it, doesn't mean they are somehow prepped and readied for all future failures.
+13
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Whether it fit the plot or not, whether it's sensible in universe or not, the hyperspace cruiser through the star destroyers was an absolutely beautiful, wondrous shot and I'll remember it for a long, long time.
As it happened, I couldn't help but hear in my mind:
PLAY OF THE GAME:
VICE ADMIRAL HODO as
Mon Cal Cruiser
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BU DADA DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DOOOOOOOOOO
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DAH!
+12
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
I do agree that Rey
probably should have experienced a bit more failure to overcome. You know we differ about Luke, but that's cool. Thinking it over, even Rey's failure (trusting Kylo, expecting to turn him) didn't work out to be nearly as big of a failure as Finn and Poe's, in terms of actual consequences. I'm not saying her arc had to mirror theirs, but yeah, I agree that it felt like it might have been missing at least one more misstep along the way.
It's not a failure if you end up still basically winning.
It's not quite that cut and dry.
She failed at
what she set out to do (save/turn Kylo).
She just happened to win a totally different victory along the way (killing Snoke).
Like I said, her failure had very, very minor consequences compared to the toll from Finn and Poe's, and that's what I thought cheapened it a little bit.
It's more like
she went out to play in the finals for her high school football team, ended up losing the game, but immediately got drafted by the NFL. Still a failure, but, like, kind of failing up?
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
I do agree that Rey
probably should have experienced a bit more failure to overcome. You know we differ about Luke, but that's cool. Thinking it over, even Rey's failure (trusting Kylo, expecting to turn him) didn't work out to be nearly as big of a failure as Finn and Poe's, in terms of actual consequences. I'm not saying her arc had to mirror theirs, but yeah, I agree that it felt like it might have been missing at least one more misstep along the way.
It's not a failure if you end up still basically winning.
It's not quite that cut and dry.
She failed at
what she set out to do (save/turn Kylo).
She just happened to win a totally different victory along the way (killing Snoke).
Like I said, her failure had very, very minor consequences compared to the toll from Finn and Poe's, and that's what I thought cheapened it a little bit.
You know, success via failure is actually real evidence that Rey is a Mary Sue.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+3
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
Why would having the experience of failure once make you immune to responding to it poorly again?
Just because they've failed before, and overcame it, doesn't mean they are somehow prepped and readied for all future failures.
To me "A powerful teacher, failure is" does mean that through failure we learn how to handle future failures of the same type.
We see Poe learn, from failure, that he should let his ego not overtake the needs of the Resistance and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Finn learn, from failure, that there is more to fight for than just Rey and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Rose learn, from failure, that the true way to win is to save what you love and she puts it into action at the end of the movie.
We already saw Luke learn, from failure in the OT, that his real strength are his friends. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he abandoned his friends prior to this movie. We already saw Luke learn, from failure, that giving into destruction only leads to more destruction. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he almost destroyed Ben.
That doesn't mean Luke should be flawless. But I do think the entire theme of this movie was that failure, and learning from it, makes people heroes. We already saw Luke learn from his failure. What's wrong with letting him be the example of that? That doesn't mean he shouldn't fail again, but I think it does mean (like Poe and Finn and Rose) that we should see them react like a character with growth would do. Its retreading and regressing to make him do it again, when a more appropriate character to experience that (Rey) is like right there
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
I do agree that Rey
probably should have experienced a bit more failure to overcome. You know we differ about Luke, but that's cool. Thinking it over, even Rey's failure (trusting Kylo, expecting to turn him) didn't work out to be nearly as big of a failure as Finn and Poe's, in terms of actual consequences. I'm not saying her arc had to mirror theirs, but yeah, I agree that it felt like it might have been missing at least one more misstep along the way.
It's not a failure if you end up still basically winning.
It's not quite that cut and dry.
She failed at
what she set out to do (save/turn Kylo).
She just happened to win a totally different victory along the way (killing Snoke).
Like I said, her failure had very, very minor consequences compared to the toll from Finn and Poe's, and that's what I thought cheapened it a little bit.
You know, success via failure is actually real evidence that Rey is a Mary Sue.
uh... ok?
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I really have only two complaints about this movie, neither of which ruins it for me.
1. Vegas Planet. Like a lot of other folks have said, this is easily the worst part of the film. For me, this mainly comes down to aesthetics. Luke's Island and the Salt Planet are visually rich, interesting-looking locations. Vegas Planet sounds like they said "I dunno, just make it a casino with aliens" and didn't put any more thought into it. I like the idea of a Decadent Hedonism planet for Rich Douchebags but if you're going to take me to a SPACE CASINO, show me something interesting! Give me something to look at! It looked almost exactly like a casino on Earth except there are some aliens running around. Think about Cloud City or Jabba's Palace- those are memorable locations which feel lived-in and have personality. This felt like something out of a completely different universe. Just... too wacky, and not creative enough in imagining what a decadent resort planet might look like.
I should mention that I had no problem with Benicio Del Toro's character. I like the idea of a genuine nihilist in the Star Wars universe. I also don't mind that Finn fails spectacularly and doesn't accomplish much in this movie. I like that he is essentially just bumbling his way through this series, that's a new type of character for Star Wars. Rey and Poe can be the competent ones (though both of them fuck up in this movie too), Finn is just a regular-ass janitor guy in way over his head.
2. Snoke. I can handwave away a lot of the New Order/Resistance world-building. A lot can happen in 30 years, it's not exactly inconceivable that a new evil leader would emerge from the shadows and re-mobilize the remnants of the Empire (cough cough Germany). I don't need to know the whole story. But, given that we know so little about him, it's hard not to read him as a carbon copy of the Emperor. Again, this comes down to aesthetics. He looks a lot like the Emperor, he sounds and behaves a lot like the Emperor, he has the same exact fucking throne room design as the Emperor, he even has the same goddamn red-armored mooks as the Emperor! Just.... why? Make him different! Give him his own evil lair and his own type of mooks which reflect HIS personality. A lot of people have praised the throne room scene but for me this was one of the weakest parts because it looked like it was lifted directly from ROTJ.
3. A very minor complaint, but I don't think they did Chewie justice. His best friend and lifelong sidekick just died, but Chewie didn't seem particularly distraught. I wanted to see some Wookie grief, a nice character moment, but they mostly treated him like comic relief. Granted, he's often used for comic beats in the OT, but I don't think they treated his character respectfully here.
Overall this movie felt like a clearing of the board, which I really appreciated. The Red Letter Media guys criticized the ending, saying they have no idea where the story can go from here. I don't understand this criticism, because that is exactly what I LOVED. The resistance is down to like 12 people, control of the New Order has been seized by an unstable petty tyrant, Luke and Han are dead and I assume Leia will be written out off-screen, they can go anywhere! Do anything! That's amazing!
JJ if you take us back to Endor or Tattooine to blow up a super-weapon, I swear to God...
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
I do agree that Rey
probably should have experienced a bit more failure to overcome. You know we differ about Luke, but that's cool. Thinking it over, even Rey's failure (trusting Kylo, expecting to turn him) didn't work out to be nearly as big of a failure as Finn and Poe's, in terms of actual consequences. I'm not saying her arc had to mirror theirs, but yeah, I agree that it felt like it might have been missing at least one more misstep along the way.
It's not a failure if you end up still basically winning.
It's not quite that cut and dry.
She failed at
what she set out to do (save/turn Kylo).
She just happened to win a totally different victory along the way (killing Snoke).
Like I said, her failure had very, very minor consequences compared to the toll from Finn and Poe's, and that's what I thought cheapened it a little bit.
You know, success via failure is actually real evidence that Rey is a Mary Sue.
We get it, you don't like new star wars.
Bogart on
+1
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Actually Snoke
Completely works in a sequel context because you have a previous template to gauge a general backstory on. He’s a force user of some power who through corruption and guile gathered the remnants of a leaderless empire back into a fighting force. This isn’t a leap of logic to think would happen given 99% of the Empire’s infrastructure and bureaucracy was left intact following RotJ. To nitpick that we don’t have a detailed origin story for him misses the point because he isn’t in the end an allegory to the Emperor but an allegory to Darth Maul, a stepping stone for greater powers. I have no problem with this
The TIE Bombers literally dropped bombs in ESB to assume they storyboarded the speed of those bombs to make them look ‘shot out’ is kinda hilarious given Star Wars’ propensity for rule of cool over anything else.
Boba Fett and Phasma are pretty much the same level of character someone with a cool look fans obsessed over more than they should have doesn’t mean they get an amazing story arc
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
+10
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Completely works in a sequel context because you have a previous template to gauge a general backstory on. He’s a force user of some power who through corruption and guile gathered the remnants of a leaderless empire back into a fighting force. This isn’t a leap of logic to think would happen given 99% of the Empire’s infrastructure and bureaucracy was left intact following RotJ. To nitpick that we don’t have a detailed origin story for him misses the point because he isn’t in the end an allegory to the Emperor but an allegory to Darth Maul, a stepping stone for greater powers. I have no problem with this
The TIE Bombers literally dropped bombs in ESB to assume they storyboarded the speed of those bombs to make them look ‘shot out’ is kinda hilarious given Star Wars’ propensity for rule of cool over anything else.
Boba Fett and Phasma are pretty much the same level of character someone with a cool look fans obsessed over more than they should have doesn’t mean they get an amazing story arc
Snoke
I would like to know how he fits in the universe. I mean we know where the First Order came from. We know where the Resistance came from. We know how Kylo fits in the story and we even know how Rey fits in the story now. I understand being annoyed at not having absolutely any idea of where Snoke came from. Especially in a universe where powerful Force users are generally known about. Does it ruin the movie for me? Nah, I assume we'll get his backstory at some point. Is it normal and expected for his place in all this to be explained, especially in a sequel in an established universe?Sure.
Boba Fett and Phasma
In TFA, I agreed they were basically the same. But in TLJ they failed Phasma.
At least Boba Fett properly tracked Han and caught him at Cloud City. Phasma has shown zero ability to do anything actually useful.
Whether it fit the plot or not, whether it's sensible in universe or not, the hyperspace cruiser through the star destroyers was an absolutely beautiful, wondrous shot and I'll remember it for a long, long time.
Yep, it was straight up breathtaking.
Sitting there, in a totally silent theater for what felt like 30 seconds watching that shot was pretty incredible. Not just one of the best shots in a Star Wars film, but one of the most amazing looking shots I've seen in ANY movie.
My son, age 6 at his first star wars theater experience, sat their quiet, then loudly exclaimed "O...M....GGGG".
Wait, we may have been in the same showing. A young kid did this in ours, and his timing was perfect.
Failure to provide backstory on the First Order and Snoke is all on The Force Awakens. Blame Abrams.
The First Order doesn't really need all that much explanation. Mainly because of their look. All it takes is one look at their ships, armor, etc and its all like "Oh, ok, so these are the remnants of the Imperial Army."
Completely works in a sequel context because you have a previous template to gauge a general backstory on. He’s a force user of some power who through corruption and guile gathered the remnants of a leaderless empire back into a fighting force. This isn’t a leap of logic to think would happen given 99% of the Empire’s infrastructure and bureaucracy was left intact following RotJ. To nitpick that we don’t have a detailed origin story for him misses the point because he isn’t in the end an allegory to the Emperor but an allegory to Darth Maul, a stepping stone for greater powers. I have no problem with this
The TIE Bombers literally dropped bombs in ESB to assume they storyboarded the speed of those bombs to make them look ‘shot out’ is kinda hilarious given Star Wars’ propensity for rule of cool over anything else.
Boba Fett and Phasma are pretty much the same level of character someone with a cool look fans obsessed over more than they should have doesn’t mean they get an amazing story arc
Snoke
I would like to know how he fits in the universe. I mean we know where the First Order came from. We know where the Resistance came from. We know how Kylo fits in the story and we even know how Rey fits in the story now. I understand being annoyed at not having absolutely any idea of where Snoke came from. Especially in a universe where powerful Force users are generally known about. Does it ruin the movie for me? Nah,
I assume we'll get his backstory at some point. Is it normal and expected for his place in all this to be explained, especially in a sequel in an established universe?Sure.
Boba Fett and Phasma
In TFA, I agreed they were basically the same. But in TLJ they failed Phasma.
At least Boba Fett properly tracked Han and caught him at Cloud City. Phasma has shown zero ability to do anything actually useful.
I've actually always thought it was a little naive to think there are only a handful of powerful force users in the entire galaxy at a given time, and that we know about all of them, which is something I think
the very last scene kind of indicated. They're out there. Maybe in unlikely places (just like Rey. And Anakin, for that matter). Some are good, some are evil, just like anyone else.
That said, I'm 135% certain we'll get a novel/comic series about Snoke and his rise to power to fill in that backstory. I don't think the movies really needed it, and in my mind, benefited a lot from the mystery, just like Vader did in ANH -- he was terrifying because we didn't even know if he was human at first. I think it worked well, basically, but I get wanting to know more. I think as Star Wars fans, we kind of have to be used to the idea of deeper dives into certain things being the realm of those kinds of side stories, though.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
I do agree that Rey
probably should have experienced a bit more failure to overcome. You know we differ about Luke, but that's cool. Thinking it over, even Rey's failure (trusting Kylo, expecting to turn him) didn't work out to be nearly as big of a failure as Finn and Poe's, in terms of actual consequences. I'm not saying her arc had to mirror theirs, but yeah, I agree that it felt like it might have been missing at least one more misstep along the way.
It's not a failure if you end up still basically winning.
It's not quite that cut and dry.
She failed at
what she set out to do (save/turn Kylo).
She just happened to win a totally different victory along the way (killing Snoke).
Like I said, her failure had very, very minor consequences compared to the toll from Finn and Poe's, and that's what I thought cheapened it a little bit.
You know, success via failure is actually real evidence that Rey is a Mary Sue.
uh... ok?
I just think it's funny that while people decry the idea of Rey as a Mary Sue as being just sexism, they kind of keep writing her as a Mary Sue. Poe has actual character flaws. Finn has actual character flaws. Rey has character flaws that end up working in her benefit.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
Why would having the experience of failure once make you immune to responding to it poorly again?
Just because they've failed before, and overcame it, doesn't mean they are somehow prepped and readied for all future failures.
To me "A powerful teacher, failure is" does mean that through failure we learn how to handle future failures of the same type.
We see Poe learn, from failure, that he should let his ego not overtake the needs of the Resistance and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Finn learn, from failure, that there is more to fight for than just Rey and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Rose learn, from failure, that the true way to win is to save what you love and she puts it into action at the end of the movie.
We already saw Luke learn, from failure in the OT, that his real strength are his friends. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he abandoned his friends prior to this movie. We already saw Luke learn, from failure, that giving into destruction only leads to more destruction. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he almost destroyed Ben.
That doesn't mean Luke should be flawless. But I do think the entire theme of this movie was that failure, and learning from it, makes people heroes. We already saw Luke learn from his failure. What's wrong with letting him be the example of that? That doesn't mean he shouldn't fail again, but I think it does mean (like Poe and Finn and Rose) that we should see them react like a character with growth would do. Its retreading and regressing to make him do it again, when a more appropriate character to experience that (Rey) is like right there
because he isn't perfect, and while failure is a powerful teacher, singular failures are not always instantaneously instructive.
Like a lot of the failures of this generation's heroes that we learned from in this film are extensions and continuations of failures on their part in TFA.
Different situations can produce similar failure scenarios that we are completely unprepared for. As well, facing the same failures over and over again is a thing a lot of people face. Even further it is possible to take the wrong lessons from those failures. One incorrect lesson people often take is that they won't ever fail like that again because they have already failed in that manner before.
I don't need anything about snoke, I don't care, he was a nothing villain with nothing of note to remember. Don't make the EU mistake of over explaining every aspect of every side character.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Completely works in a sequel context because you have a previous template to gauge a general backstory on. He’s a force user of some power who through corruption and guile gathered the remnants of a leaderless empire back into a fighting force. This isn’t a leap of logic to think would happen given 99% of the Empire’s infrastructure and bureaucracy was left intact following RotJ. To nitpick that we don’t have a detailed origin story for him misses the point because he isn’t in the end an allegory to the Emperor but an allegory to Darth Maul, a stepping stone for greater powers. I have no problem with this
The TIE Bombers literally dropped bombs in ESB to assume they storyboarded the speed of those bombs to make them look ‘shot out’ is kinda hilarious given Star Wars’ propensity for rule of cool over anything else.
Boba Fett and Phasma are pretty much the same level of character someone with a cool look fans obsessed over more than they should have doesn’t mean they get an amazing story arc
Snoke
I would like to know how he fits in the universe. I mean we know where the First Order came from. We know where the Resistance came from. We know how Kylo fits in the story and we even know how Rey fits in the story now. I understand being annoyed at not having absolutely any idea of where Snoke came from. Especially in a universe where powerful Force users are generally known about. Does it ruin the movie for me? Nah, I assume we'll get his backstory at some point. Is it normal and expected for his place in all this to be explained, especially in a sequel in an established universe?Sure.
Boba Fett and Phasma
In TFA, I agreed they were basically the same. But in TLJ they failed Phasma.
At least Boba Fett properly tracked Han and caught him at Cloud City. Phasma has shown zero ability to do anything actually useful.
Apparently one of TLJ's deleted scenes is Phasma doing a cool thing
after smashing her helmet, Finn is surrounded by six Stormtroopers who are wavering in helping out. Finn tells them Phasma is a coward who lowered the shields on Starkiller, and they decide to defect. Phasma pulls out a blaster and shoots all of them in the space of a second. The floor collapses before she can kill Finn.
Which... sounds pretty hot, and would add that much needed characterisation into the actual text of the film rather than EU stuff, but I can see why they cut it.
Failure to provide backstory on the First Order and Snoke is all on The Force Awakens. Blame Abrams.
The First Order doesn't really need all that much explanation. Mainly because of their look. All it takes is one look at their ships, armor, etc and its all like "Oh, ok, so these are the remnants of the Imperial Army."
You might ask how said remnants with no government support have resources for superweapons vastly larger than what the galactic Empire at the height of its power could produce.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
+2
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Completely works in a sequel context because you have a previous template to gauge a general backstory on. He’s a force user of some power who through corruption and guile gathered the remnants of a leaderless empire back into a fighting force. This isn’t a leap of logic to think would happen given 99% of the Empire’s infrastructure and bureaucracy was left intact following RotJ. To nitpick that we don’t have a detailed origin story for him misses the point because he isn’t in the end an allegory to the Emperor but an allegory to Darth Maul, a stepping stone for greater powers. I have no problem with this
The TIE Bombers literally dropped bombs in ESB to assume they storyboarded the speed of those bombs to make them look ‘shot out’ is kinda hilarious given Star Wars’ propensity for rule of cool over anything else.
Boba Fett and Phasma are pretty much the same level of character someone with a cool look fans obsessed over more than they should have doesn’t mean they get an amazing story arc
Snoke
I would like to know how he fits in the universe. I mean we know where the First Order came from. We know where the Resistance came from. We know how Kylo fits in the story and we even know how Rey fits in the story now. I understand being annoyed at not having absolutely any idea of where Snoke came from. Especially in a universe where powerful Force users are generally known about. Does it ruin the movie for me? Nah,
I assume we'll get his backstory at some point. Is it normal and expected for his place in all this to be explained, especially in a sequel in an established universe?Sure.
Boba Fett and Phasma
In TFA, I agreed they were basically the same. But in TLJ they failed Phasma.
At least Boba Fett properly tracked Han and caught him at Cloud City. Phasma has shown zero ability to do anything actually useful.
I've actually always thought it was a little naive to think there are only a handful of powerful force users in the entire galaxy at a given time, and that we know about all of them, which is something I think
the very last scene kind of indicated. They're out there. Maybe in unlikely places (just like Rey. And Anakin, for that matter). Some are good, some are evil, just like anyone else.
That said, I'm 135% certain we'll get a novel/comic series about Snoke and his rise to power to fill in that backstory. I don't think the movies really needed it, and in my mind, benefited a lot from the mystery, just like Vader did in ANH -- he was terrifying because we didn't even know if he was human at first. I think it worked well, basically, but I get wanting to know more. I think as Star Wars fans, we kind of have to be used to the idea of deeper dives into certain things being the realm of those kinds of side stories, though.
Yeah, its fine there isn't much about him right now. I understand being a bit annoyed, though, about a character as powerful as Snoke existing and being put into the story in a prominent position without an explanation of how he got there.
It is an established universe (something that wasn't true in the OT) AND this is a sequel.
It'd be like if JK Rowling started up a new Harry Potter sequel series and didn't at least give a short explanation of how a new big powerful bad guy came to be. She couldn't just go, "oh yeah, and there's this new Voldemort type character, he's totally bad and super powerful and done lots of bad things, just trust me and don't expect any characters to exposition on him at all"
Failure to provide backstory on the First Order and Snoke is all on The Force Awakens. Blame Abrams.
The First Order doesn't really need all that much explanation. Mainly because of their look. All it takes is one look at their ships, armor, etc and its all like "Oh, ok, so these are the remnants of the Imperial Army."
You might ask how said remnants with no government support have resources for superweapons vastly larger than what the galactic Empire at the height of its power could produce.
Well, you know, 40 years of rebuilding, starting from what was still a pretty large, established, presumably wealthy group, even directly post-ROTJ. Remember, they rebuilt a new Death Start 75% of the way within the span of 4 years after a huge setback.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+2
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Whether it fit the plot or not, whether it's sensible in universe or not, the hyperspace cruiser through the star destroyers was an absolutely beautiful, wondrous shot and I'll remember it for a long, long time.
Yep, it was straight up breathtaking.
Sitting there, in a totally silent theater for what felt like 30 seconds watching that shot was pretty incredible. Not just one of the best shots in a Star Wars film, but one of the most amazing looking shots I've seen in ANY movie.
My son, age 6 at his first star wars theater experience, sat their quiet, then loudly exclaimed "O...M....GGGG".
Wait, we may have been in the same showing. A young kid did this in ours, and his timing was perfect.
This is very important to my old man attitude
Did they say oh my god or actually say OMG
Because oh boy I feel the curmudgeon a calling!
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Failure to provide backstory on the First Order and Snoke is all on The Force Awakens. Blame Abrams.
The First Order doesn't really need all that much explanation. Mainly because of their look. All it takes is one look at their ships, armor, etc and its all like "Oh, ok, so these are the remnants of the Imperial Army."
You might ask how said remnants with no government support have resources for superweapons vastly larger than what the galactic Empire at the height of its power could produce.
Yeah, no Galaxy-wide government support does put a wrench in it, but it also isn't that far of a leap to assume that there could be a subsection of planets still supporting them indirectly that are keeping their resources up.
Completely works in a sequel context because you have a previous template to gauge a general backstory on. He’s a force user of some power who through corruption and guile gathered the remnants of a leaderless empire back into a fighting force. This isn’t a leap of logic to think would happen given 99% of the Empire’s infrastructure and bureaucracy was left intact following RotJ. To nitpick that we don’t have a detailed origin story for him misses the point because he isn’t in the end an allegory to the Emperor but an allegory to Darth Maul, a stepping stone for greater powers. I have no problem with this
The TIE Bombers literally dropped bombs in ESB to assume they storyboarded the speed of those bombs to make them look ‘shot out’ is kinda hilarious given Star Wars’ propensity for rule of cool over anything else.
Boba Fett and Phasma are pretty much the same level of character someone with a cool look fans obsessed over more than they should have doesn’t mean they get an amazing story arc
Snoke
I would like to know how he fits in the universe. I mean we know where the First Order came from. We know where the Resistance came from. We know how Kylo fits in the story and we even know how Rey fits in the story now. I understand being annoyed at not having absolutely any idea of where Snoke came from. Especially in a universe where powerful Force users are generally known about. Does it ruin the movie for me? Nah,
I assume we'll get his backstory at some point. Is it normal and expected for his place in all this to be explained, especially in a sequel in an established universe?Sure.
Boba Fett and Phasma
In TFA, I agreed they were basically the same. But in TLJ they failed Phasma.
At least Boba Fett properly tracked Han and caught him at Cloud City. Phasma has shown zero ability to do anything actually useful.
I've actually always thought it was a little naive to think there are only a handful of powerful force users in the entire galaxy at a given time, and that we know about all of them, which is something I think
the very last scene kind of indicated. They're out there. Maybe in unlikely places (just like Rey. And Anakin, for that matter). Some are good, some are evil, just like anyone else.
That said, I'm 135% certain we'll get a novel/comic series about Snoke and his rise to power to fill in that backstory. I don't think the movies really needed it, and in my mind, benefited a lot from the mystery, just like Vader did in ANH -- he was terrifying because we didn't even know if he was human at first. I think it worked well, basically, but I get wanting to know more. I think as Star Wars fans, we kind of have to be used to the idea of deeper dives into certain things being the realm of those kinds of side stories, though.
Yeah, its fine there isn't much about him right now. I understand being a bit annoyed, though, about a character as powerful as Snoke existing and being put into the story in a prominent position without an explanation of how he got there.
It is an established universe (something that wasn't true in the OT) AND this is a sequel.
It'd be like if JK Rowling started up a new Harry Potter sequel series and didn't at least give a short explanation of how a new big powerful bad guy came to be. She couldn't just go, "oh yeah, and there's this new Voldemort type character, he's totally bad and super powerful and done lots of bad things, just trust me and don't expect any characters to exposition on him at all"
Yeah, I totally get that, and if there's a complaint there, I think that's more fair to levy at TFA.
Still, I think the fact that it's been like 40 years is enough of an explanation to satisfy me for now, even if I would like to eventually fill some of that in.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Failure to provide backstory on the First Order and Snoke is all on The Force Awakens. Blame Abrams.
The First Order doesn't really need all that much explanation. Mainly because of their look. All it takes is one look at their ships, armor, etc and its all like "Oh, ok, so these are the remnants of the Imperial Army."
You might ask how said remnants with no government support have resources for superweapons vastly larger than what the galactic Empire at the height of its power could produce.
Who said
theres no government support? The Empire controlled far larger swaths of territory than the Rebellion could ever hope to take control of most likely these fractured into fiefdoms and such until consolidated. As for the Starkiller Base itself its a quibble but a minor one for me.
Failure to provide backstory on the First Order and Snoke is all on The Force Awakens. Blame Abrams.
The First Order doesn't really need all that much explanation. Mainly because of their look. All it takes is one look at their ships, armor, etc and its all like "Oh, ok, so these are the remnants of the Imperial Army."
You might ask how said remnants with no government support have resources for superweapons vastly larger than what the galactic Empire at the height of its power could produce.
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
The whole point to "A powerful teacher, failure is" in context was that it was a powerful teacher for the master's students. That masters fucking up is good for the people they pass that experience on to.
Calling Rey flawless is kind of ridiculous.
+1
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
So, I thought that this piece was an excellent discussion about what fandom means for each generation.
Thats a great write-up.
The Last Jedi is a direct, not-even-slightly subtle message to hardcore, original trilogy-obsessed fans like myself that Star Wars is more than those three movies (or the three prequels that served as one long, terrible prologue to them). It completely resets the battle between good and evil, putting good in more dire straits than we’ve ever seen in these films. It introduces several brand new Force powers. It expands the universe in ways no one expected (or in ways purists like me wanted). And it removes the old heroes to fully make way for the new.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And I think that doing off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
I dislike the idea that our heroes should be flawless. Singular success doesn't mean you're never gonna fuck up again. In fact the reinforcement that you won't, because you are some kind of singularly successful hero, just leads to even greater destruction when you totally fuck up later.
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Sure, heroes shouldn't be flawless. (Except I guess Rey?) But flawless is not the same as experienced or mature. Again "A powerful teacher, failure is." If that were true, shouldn't Luke be able to make mistakes, but respond appropriately to them? I'm not asking for flawless. Him being the reason for Ben's fall is a great story. His reaction, however, is something that I feel like was out of place. Luke already experienced failure and learned from it, let him react to failure in a way that is heroic.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
Why would having the experience of failure once make you immune to responding to it poorly again?
Just because they've failed before, and overcame it, doesn't mean they are somehow prepped and readied for all future failures.
To me "A powerful teacher, failure is" does mean that through failure we learn how to handle future failures of the same type.
We see Poe learn, from failure, that he should let his ego not overtake the needs of the Resistance and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Finn learn, from failure, that there is more to fight for than just Rey and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Rose learn, from failure, that the true way to win is to save what you love and she puts it into action at the end of the movie.
We already saw Luke learn, from failure in the OT, that his real strength are his friends. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he abandoned his friends prior to this movie. We already saw Luke learn, from failure, that giving into destruction only leads to more destruction. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he almost destroyed Ben.
That doesn't mean Luke should be flawless. But I do think the entire theme of this movie was that failure, and learning from it, makes people heroes. We already saw Luke learn from his failure. What's wrong with letting him be the example of that? That doesn't mean he shouldn't fail again, but I think it does mean (like Poe and Finn and Rose) that we should see them react like a character with growth would do. Its retreading and regressing to make him do it again, when a more appropriate character to experience that (Rey) is like right there
because he isn't perfect, and while failure is a powerful teacher, singular failures are not always instantaneously instructive.
Like a lot of the failures of this generation's heroes that we learned from in this film are extensions and continuations of failures on their part in TFA.
Different situations can produce similar failure scenarios that we are completely unprepared for. As well, facing the same failures over and over again is a thing a lot of people face. Even further it is possible to take the wrong lessons from those failures. One incorrect lesson people often take is that they won't ever fail like that again because they have already failed in that manner before.
There are different, valid ways to tell a story! One can appeal to one person and the other can appeal to a different person.
I answered your earlier question, though, and I feel like I expressed myself in a way you can either choose to understand and accept we are different or continue arguing with me in an attempt to I guess change my mind or make your viewpoint seem more correct?
I am still curious about your answer to my question above: "We already saw Luke learn from his failure. What's wrong with letting him be the example of that?"
This is page 2 of the new thread. I don’t know how many warnings were dropped in the last one to cut the snark and stop acting like dicks when someone’s opinion about a space wizard movie does not tally with your own, but it was more than none.
If you feel tempted to post something unhelpful like this, don’t.
Posts
Thats a great write-up.
I agree that the above was needed. I disagree that it could only be done on the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes. And specifically think that doing if off the back of our previous heroes making horrible mistakes and regressing is the absolute wrong way to do it.
The article had the feeling of why it felt bad to a certain subset of fans, but failed to explain why it was necessary that Luke/Han had to regress. They didn't. And I think thats because his conclusion, the above quoted text, is never explained to necessitate that our heroes have to be brought down into the mud in order to accomplish it. Obi-Wan stayed a hero his whole life. Luke's rise did not come off the back of a massive mistake by Obi.
I kind of agree with you on
I'm okay with my hero's needing to learn more lessons, even after their biggest successes.
Welcome back to the thread, dude. And yeah, this is a good write up. A lot of this that we talked about has actually made me re-think some of the things about the movie that I initially came down a different way on. I still think I have a pretty solidly difference of opinion on
I'm also coming around to your point of view on some of the deeper philosophical things the movie is trying to say about the past and the future and how we reconcile them.
As for Finn's sacrifice, I thought the same thing as you initially, but I think the point was that Finn wasn't really accomplishing all THAT much even if he killed himself in the process, unlike Holdo and and Luke. At best, Finn was fucking up one gun that probably would have barely slowed down the First Order, and costing the resistance one of their very few remaining pilots/soldiers. It was a bad trade, basically, and wouldn't have had the significance in terms of morale that Luke's sacrifice did, and it wasn't the actual huge gamechanging day saver that was Holdo's.
Regardless, as I said, I'm glad you enjoyed it the second time around more.
Complete and utter failure by the original trio was not the only way to do these movie. And choosing to do it that way shows a lack of imagination. It also shows a historical outlook that I do not agree with.
The struggle we are in now is the same as the civil rights era. Or WWII. And so on. One can see these as chapters in the same fundamental struggle between ideals and parts of human nature. But it is reductive to believe we are simply fighting the same fight over and over again.
The new problem that Luke and Leia and Han cannot solve should not be the same problem they already solved but now they arbitrarily didn't. It should be an out of context problem that doesn’t lend itself to the methods they know. Or they simply don't see it as a problem because they are now the conservative element. Maybe actually deal with the problem of droid rights or something. Or instead of betraying Luke's boundless optimism, make that the problem. There's a point where you need to stop trying to save someone and just take them out.
Our old heroes are still flawed. Han couldn't deal with the loss of his son. Luke failed Ben. Leia's leadership has clearly failed the Resistance.
Our new heroes are flawed. Poe let his ego almost get the entire Resistance killed. Finn has consistenly been flawed and he too was responsible for innocent transport ships getting wiped out. Except for Rey. She was literally teaching Luke lessons, believed in the good in Kylo, and saved the Resistance. Her only mistake was I guess trusting Kylo, but even that didn't cause any real issues. Snoke is now dead, Kylo is even more conflicted. She never failed. Its out of place for this movie about the new leaders of the Resistance learning from failure.
Let our new heroes be the ones that experience failure and react poorly to that failure. Let our old heroes be the legends that the new heroes aspire to be.
To be clear, I too dislike the idea that heroes should be flawless. But to state that as the position anyone is taking is not actually understanding the conversation.
The bolded is a good point and a great way to reconcile it. That's my new way of looking at it.
I do agree that Rey
Ok but
Just because they've failed before, and overcame it, doesn't mean they are somehow prepped and readied for all future failures.
As it happened, I couldn't help but hear in my mind:
VICE ADMIRAL HODO
as
Mon Cal Cruiser
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BU DADA DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DOOOOOOOOOO
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DAH!
It's not quite that cut and dry.
She failed at
She just happened to win a totally different victory along the way (killing Snoke).
Like I said, her failure had very, very minor consequences compared to the toll from Finn and Poe's, and that's what I thought cheapened it a little bit.
It's more like
We see Poe learn, from failure, that he should let his ego not overtake the needs of the Resistance and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Finn learn, from failure, that there is more to fight for than just Rey and he puts it into action at the end of the movie. We see Rose learn, from failure, that the true way to win is to save what you love and she puts it into action at the end of the movie.
We already saw Luke learn, from failure in the OT, that his real strength are his friends. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he abandoned his friends prior to this movie. We already saw Luke learn, from failure, that giving into destruction only leads to more destruction. Yet I guess he didn't learn that lesson since he almost destroyed Ben.
That doesn't mean Luke should be flawless. But I do think the entire theme of this movie was that failure, and learning from it, makes people heroes. We already saw Luke learn from his failure. What's wrong with letting him be the example of that? That doesn't mean he shouldn't fail again, but I think it does mean (like Poe and Finn and Rose) that we should see them react like a character with growth would do. Its retreading and regressing to make him do it again, when a more appropriate character to experience that (Rey) is like right there
uh... ok?
1. Vegas Planet. Like a lot of other folks have said, this is easily the worst part of the film. For me, this mainly comes down to aesthetics. Luke's Island and the Salt Planet are visually rich, interesting-looking locations. Vegas Planet sounds like they said "I dunno, just make it a casino with aliens" and didn't put any more thought into it. I like the idea of a Decadent Hedonism planet for Rich Douchebags but if you're going to take me to a SPACE CASINO, show me something interesting! Give me something to look at! It looked almost exactly like a casino on Earth except there are some aliens running around. Think about Cloud City or Jabba's Palace- those are memorable locations which feel lived-in and have personality. This felt like something out of a completely different universe. Just... too wacky, and not creative enough in imagining what a decadent resort planet might look like.
I should mention that I had no problem with Benicio Del Toro's character. I like the idea of a genuine nihilist in the Star Wars universe. I also don't mind that Finn fails spectacularly and doesn't accomplish much in this movie. I like that he is essentially just bumbling his way through this series, that's a new type of character for Star Wars. Rey and Poe can be the competent ones (though both of them fuck up in this movie too), Finn is just a regular-ass janitor guy in way over his head.
2. Snoke. I can handwave away a lot of the New Order/Resistance world-building. A lot can happen in 30 years, it's not exactly inconceivable that a new evil leader would emerge from the shadows and re-mobilize the remnants of the Empire (cough cough Germany). I don't need to know the whole story. But, given that we know so little about him, it's hard not to read him as a carbon copy of the Emperor. Again, this comes down to aesthetics. He looks a lot like the Emperor, he sounds and behaves a lot like the Emperor, he has the same exact fucking throne room design as the Emperor, he even has the same goddamn red-armored mooks as the Emperor! Just.... why? Make him different! Give him his own evil lair and his own type of mooks which reflect HIS personality. A lot of people have praised the throne room scene but for me this was one of the weakest parts because it looked like it was lifted directly from ROTJ.
3. A very minor complaint, but I don't think they did Chewie justice. His best friend and lifelong sidekick just died, but Chewie didn't seem particularly distraught. I wanted to see some Wookie grief, a nice character moment, but they mostly treated him like comic relief. Granted, he's often used for comic beats in the OT, but I don't think they treated his character respectfully here.
Overall this movie felt like a clearing of the board, which I really appreciated. The Red Letter Media guys criticized the ending, saying they have no idea where the story can go from here. I don't understand this criticism, because that is exactly what I LOVED. The resistance is down to like 12 people, control of the New Order has been seized by an unstable petty tyrant, Luke and Han are dead and I assume Leia will be written out off-screen, they can go anywhere! Do anything! That's amazing!
JJ if you take us back to Endor or Tattooine to blow up a super-weapon, I swear to God...
We get it, you don't like new star wars.
The TIE Bombers literally dropped bombs in ESB to assume they storyboarded the speed of those bombs to make them look ‘shot out’ is kinda hilarious given Star Wars’ propensity for rule of cool over anything else.
Boba Fett and Phasma are pretty much the same level of character someone with a cool look fans obsessed over more than they should have doesn’t mean they get an amazing story arc
Boba Fett and Phasma
At least Boba Fett properly tracked Han and caught him at Cloud City. Phasma has shown zero ability to do anything actually useful.
Wait, we may have been in the same showing. A young kid did this in ours, and his timing was perfect.
PSN : Bolthorn
I've actually always thought it was a little naive to think there are only a handful of powerful force users in the entire galaxy at a given time, and that we know about all of them, which is something I think
That said, I'm 135% certain we'll get a novel/comic series about Snoke and his rise to power to fill in that backstory. I don't think the movies really needed it, and in my mind, benefited a lot from the mystery, just like Vader did in ANH -- he was terrifying because we didn't even know if he was human at first. I think it worked well, basically, but I get wanting to know more. I think as Star Wars fans, we kind of have to be used to the idea of deeper dives into certain things being the realm of those kinds of side stories, though.
I just think it's funny that while people decry the idea of Rey as a Mary Sue as being just sexism, they kind of keep writing her as a Mary Sue. Poe has actual character flaws. Finn has actual character flaws. Rey has character flaws that end up working in her benefit.
Like a lot of the failures of this generation's heroes that we learned from in this film are extensions and continuations of failures on their part in TFA.
Different situations can produce similar failure scenarios that we are completely unprepared for. As well, facing the same failures over and over again is a thing a lot of people face. Even further it is possible to take the wrong lessons from those failures. One incorrect lesson people often take is that they won't ever fail like that again because they have already failed in that manner before.
I don't need anything about snoke, I don't care, he was a nothing villain with nothing of note to remember. Don't make the EU mistake of over explaining every aspect of every side character.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Apparently one of TLJ's deleted scenes is Phasma doing a cool thing
Which... sounds pretty hot, and would add that much needed characterisation into the actual text of the film rather than EU stuff, but I can see why they cut it.
It is an established universe (something that wasn't true in the OT) AND this is a sequel.
It'd be like if JK Rowling started up a new Harry Potter sequel series and didn't at least give a short explanation of how a new big powerful bad guy came to be. She couldn't just go, "oh yeah, and there's this new Voldemort type character, he's totally bad and super powerful and done lots of bad things, just trust me and don't expect any characters to exposition on him at all"
Well, you know, 40 years of rebuilding, starting from what was still a pretty large, established, presumably wealthy group, even directly post-ROTJ. Remember, they rebuilt a new Death Start 75% of the way within the span of 4 years after a huge setback.
This is very important to my old man attitude
Did they say oh my god or actually say OMG
Because oh boy I feel the curmudgeon a calling!
Yeah, I totally get that, and if there's a complaint there, I think that's more fair to levy at TFA.
Who said
Calling Rey flawless is kind of ridiculous.
I answered your earlier question, though, and I feel like I expressed myself in a way you can either choose to understand and accept we are different or continue arguing with me in an attempt to I guess change my mind or make your viewpoint seem more correct?
I am still curious about your answer to my question above: "We already saw Luke learn from his failure. What's wrong with letting him be the example of that?"
This is page 2 of the new thread. I don’t know how many warnings were dropped in the last one to cut the snark and stop acting like dicks when someone’s opinion about a space wizard movie does not tally with your own, but it was more than none.
If you feel tempted to post something unhelpful like this, don’t.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3