Star Wars Episode VIII - The Last Jedi *spoilers from Post 2857*

Wibbs

Penn wrote: »

"Darkness rises, and light to meet it" - Rey got more powerful as Kylo got more powerful. Their power is intrinsically linked. It's why she was able to fight Ren in TFA, she let go, let the Force act through her, and was able to beat him

Like I said that's about the biggest problem with these sequels, the force and the skills are unearned, as is good, as is evil. It just magically appears. And it's completely agin the underlying story of the originals and of good storytelling and all the worse for it. It's also really lazy, simplistic writing and non explanation for Mary Sue Rey. No graft, no conflict, no growth and ultimately no drama beyond the surface. We want superheroes, who don't have to struggle or strive and we want them now! But again like I said, maybe that's more appealing on some levels to the generation/demographic its aimed at? With a side order of the nostalgia that gets the bums on seats back.

There's something terribly cynical about it all(TFA was way worse for this). The first Star Wars avoided that mostly because it was a relatively low budget exercise, with little of the studio's future riding on it and certainly no notion of the merchandising commercial behemoth it would produce, so Lucas could be left much to his own devices(and for once this was a good thing. Great world planner, woeful world builder). That's far harder to do today with budgets and expectations on returns through the roof. Audiences have changed somewhat too. They tended to be more patient and more comfortable with storytelling. Their options were far more limited for a start. Books, TV and flics was pretty much it. The landscape was also different. No internet, no widespread fan musings and theories and spoilers(or piracy). All of which informs what we see and expect to see on the big screen. It would be very difficult to make Star Wars today(it was hard enough then).

Tony EH

Saruhashi wrote: »

I thought it was strongly implied at the very start of RotJ that Luke has indeed been training and has become much more powerful with the force.

He is fully trained to the point that his final test is to face Vader?

Yep.

There's about 4 years all told from when Luke hears about the Force first from Ben to the events in ROTJ.

So, he basically has a degree in Jedi and Vader is his final exam.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

There's three years between the events of 'Star Wars' and 'The Empire Strikes Back'.

It's not beyond reason that Luke sought out further information and studied in between.

So, technically, Luke has about three years of study underneath his belt before he even meets Yoda.

And he’s with Yoda training on dagobah for three or four months. It just looks like days in the film.

david75

Interesting idea. Kylo seems to take the hit when Rey shoots him when they first see each other. Then later they physically touch.

Has Luke physically absorbed all the barrage of fire in the face off against the walkers? We see him hold Leias hand and kiss her. Is this what actually damages him beyond healing?

Tony EH

Noopti wrote: »

For me, I am not really disappointed in the lack of Snoke backstory, more disappointed that I now don't get to see his future story!

Agreed. He was one of the better things about these sequels and now he's brown bread, just like that. Which, in a way is good and in another way is rubbish.

I'd rather Finn had died. :pac:

Drumpot

Yeh. I'm not getting the whole "Luke definitely wouldn't of thought of Killing Ben". . I genuinely think people are unaware of human behaviour and human flaws because I have seen similar arguments made in movies when characters make stupid decisions in stressful environments.

Jedis/Sith make stupid calls/decisions and make emotional decisions. The entire Jedi Order allowed its arrogance to destroy itself. Luke redeeming Vader is not the same as his fear that he could create a powerful Sith. Its just not the same and his reaction should not be expected to be the same unless you think Luke is perfect (which he wasn't) . .

He was trying to save his father from TROJ onwards, but that's not the same as feeling responsible for the making of a Sith. That's not the same as taking care of your friends/sisters child, promising to bring them up right and it all going wrong. That's not the same as imaging the destruction that Ren could bring to the Galaxy knowing what damage Vadar had done. There is also the fact that he DIDNT try to kill Ben, he had a momentary instinctual moment where he considered it. If Ben didn't wake up, nothing would of changed and Luke might not be so disillusioned (and harsh on himself), but he feels responsible. The characters only crime was having a momentary lapse in thought but his true character (realising what he was thinking or about to do was wrong) shun through. AS such, it was perfectly fine moment of weakness.

I don't see why his response to Ben going off was against Character either. Jedi get old and their enthusiasm for the cause can fluctuate. I don't see why Luke should be any different.

silverharp

another movie where the critics are fawning over the movie and the public mixed

Saruhashi

david75 wrote: »

And he’s with Yoda training on dagobah for three or four months. It just looks like days in the film.

That's another strange issue with this movie. The timing of everything.

We see the resistance fleeing the First Order, doing the hyperspace jump and then being tracked and attacked.

Kylo Ren shows up with his face not fully fixed yet.

When Rey and Kylo have their first "Force Skype" he is getting his face fully fixed.

This means that Reys story on the island with Luke and the First Order chase sequence and the adventure in Casino Land are all taking place at the same time.

Everything that we see on the island, after Rey blasts a hole in the wall, and on the casino takes place in the time between admiral ackbar being killed and admiral holdo ramming the star destroyer.

It seems like the island stuff is taking place over an extended time and the other 2 plots are taking place in a single day, possibly 2 days?

TerrorFirmer

silverharp wrote: »

another movie where the critics are fawning over the movie and the public mixed

I have to ask at this point why are people so obsessed with RT?

Every other metric website including IMDB/Reddit/CinemaScore has it at around 7.5-8/10 or A grade.

TerrorFirmer

Also, this on Reddit made me burst out laughing:

Imagine if Peter Jackson wrote in Gandalf contemplating the murder of Bilbo once the fellowship get to Rivendell because he thinks the influence of the ring is too strong on him

He even goes to the lengths of sneaking in his room and unsheathes Glamdring

Saruhashi

silverharp wrote: »

another movie where the critics are fawning over the movie and the public mixed

A few interesting takes on this already.


https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/star-wars-the-last-jedi-backlash-negative-fan-reactions-rotten-tomatoes-score

Facebook post reveals how easy it might be for a vocal minority to manipulate a metric such as this and create a false narrative. Yes, there is a ticked-off splinter of the Star Wars fandom angered by The Last Jedi. These MAGA-esque fanboys—the same that called Rey a “Mary Sue” or lost their marbles over the 2016 all-female Ghostbusters reboot before it even hit theaters—have been spreading their over-blown hatred all over social media. As you might imagine, those “fans”—who seem to take their cues from First Order supremacists Hux and Kylo rather than Resistance heroes Rey, Finn, and Poe—aren’t very comfortable with the film’s more progressive messages.


https://screenrant.com/star-wars-8-last-jedi-audience-score-fake/

Accusations of such activity are currently being leveled on social media by culture-commentators like activist Peter Coffin, who compared the proliferation of anonymous reviews name-checking the same set of points repeatedly (references to “forced diversity” and “SJWs” abound) to more explicitly politically-motivated “brigading” attacks from earlier in the year related to elections and social movements. The deeper recesses of Reddit and 4chan are indeed littered with threads in which enraged “ex”-fans organize campaigns in an attempt to control the narrative and create a situation wherein the idea of the new Star Wars Trilogy as “poorly received” can overtake the reality of its reception in the public discourse.

The term “Sad Puppies” has been raised, a reference to a collective of right-wing fiction writers who gained fame by manipulating the Hugo Awards several years back, along with the GamerGate and ComicsGate social-media movements. Some point to the aforementioned politically-tinged reviews as evidence of motive, while others allege that some of the brigading has been conducted by fans of Justice League seeking revenge on the critical press for its negative reviews. Also posited is that this comes from anti-corporate activists who see the recent acquisition of 20th Century Fox by Disney as the rise of a dangerous monopoly.

david75

Saruhashi wrote: »

A few interesting takes on this already.


https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/12/star-wars-the-last-jedi-backlash-negative-fan-reactions-rotten-tomatoes-score

Facebook post reveals how easy it might be for a vocal minority to manipulate a metric such as this and create a false narrative. Yes, there is a ticked-off splinter of the Star Wars fandom angered by The Last Jedi. These MAGA-esque fanboys—the same that called Rey a “Mary Sue” or lost their marbles over the 2016 all-female Ghostbusters reboot before it even hit theaters—have been spreading their over-blown hatred all over social media. As you might imagine, those “fans”—who seem to take their cues from First Order supremacists Hux and Kylo rather than Resistance heroes Rey, Finn, and Poe—aren’t very comfortable with the film’s more progressive messages.


https://screenrant.com/star-wars-8-last-jedi-audience-score-fake/

Accusations of such activity are currently being leveled on social media by culture-commentators like activist Peter Coffin, who compared the proliferation of anonymous reviews name-checking the same set of points repeatedly (references to “forced diversity” and “SJWs” abound) to more explicitly politically-motivated “brigading” attacks from earlier in the year related to elections and social movements. The deeper recesses of Reddit and 4chan are indeed littered with threads in which enraged “ex”-fans organize campaigns in an attempt to control the narrative and create a situation wherein the idea of the new Star Wars Trilogy as “poorly received” can overtake the reality of its reception in the public discourse.

The term “Sad Puppies” has been raised, a reference to a collective of right-wing fiction writers who gained fame by manipulating the Hugo Awards several years back, along with the GamerGate and ComicsGate social-media movements. Some point to the aforementioned politically-tinged reviews as evidence of motive, while others allege that some of the brigading has been conducted by fans of Justice League seeking revenge on the critical press for its negative reviews. Also posited is that this comes from anti-corporate activists who see the recent acquisition of 20th Century Fox by Disney as the rise of a dangerous monopoly.

THis isn’t a theory it’s happeneing.

Same way the outraged DC fans all crowded on rt and bombed the score for Batman v superman.

It’s why you’re seeing such a huge gulf between critic and user reviews.

molloyjh

david75 wrote: »

I think part of problem is for the very first time we’re gettin moral ambiguity in Star Wars and nit just the usual good v evil. We’re just not happy that it’s being portrayed through Luke.

But he sacrifices himself in the end and atones for it all so I’m good with that I think.

Again, I'm totally happy with the moral ambiguity. So much of that aspect of the film was genuinely excellent. But again, it is all rooted in Luke doing something that seems completely and utterly out of character. He did it because the plot needed him to do it, and for no other reason. It sets up a fantastic story, but it's no less difficult to swallow because of that. In fact the whole arc becomes difficult to accept, good and all as it is, because of what it is based on.

In stories characters should have compelling reasons for behaving the way that they do. Panic and fear are reasonable reasons in many situations. It doesn't fit here though. If he didn't panic when faced with the Emperor, Vader and the destruction of the Rebellion then why did he panic standing over his sleeping nephew? And it looks to me like he did that to advance the story. and that's a cop out and pretty insulting to the audience in my view.

david75

molloyjh wrote: »

Again, I'm totally happy with the moral ambiguity. So much of that aspect of the film was genuinely excellent. But again, it is all rooted in Luke doing something that seems completely and utterly out of character. He did it because the plot needed him to do it, and for no other reason. It sets up a fantastic story, but it's no less difficult to swallow because of that. In fact the whole arc becomes difficult to accept, good and all as it is, because of what it is based on.

In stories characters should have compelling reasons for behaving the way that they do. Panic and fear are reasonable reasons in many situations. It doesn't fit here though. If he didn't panic when faced with the Emperor, Vader and the destruction of the Rebellion then why did he panic standing over his sleeping nephew? And it looks to me like he did that to advance the story. and that's a cop out and pretty insulting to the audience in my view.

I think the film and Luke in the film explain his actions and mental state quite clearly. I don’t think it’s a character change at all. It’s what’s happening in the story. We have to unplug our own headcanon going into these things or were only ever going to be disappointed. I struggled with different things about him than yours. Throwing the lightsaber away utterly gutted me. It’s pisses all over TFA and that was the point. I didn’t think that’s something he would do. Took me a while to accept that’s whats in there. Have to just suck it up.

Penn

molloyjh wrote: »

In stories characters should have compelling reasons for behaving the way that they do. Panic and fear are reasonable reasons in many situations. It doesn't fit here though. If he didn't panic when faced with the Emperor, Vader and the destruction of the Rebellion then why did he panic standing over his sleeping nephew? And it looks to me like he did that to advance the story. and that's a cop out and pretty insulting to the audience in my view.

He did panic against Vader. When Vader mentions Leia, Luke completely gives in to his fear and anger and overpowers Vader, cutting off his hand. It's only when the Emperor tries coaxing him onto finishing off Vader that Luke steps back. He also gives in to his fear in Empire by leaving Yoda to go off and face Vader because he feared for his friends lives. It's completely not out of character for Luke to act rashly and impulsively.

Likewise, it's only for a brief moment, after seeing what Kylo would become, that Luke gives in to his instinct and prepares himself to kill Ben, but he stops himself about a second later. Unfortunately that second was all it took.

Saruhashi

david75 wrote: »

THis isn’t a theory it’s happeneing.

Same way the outraged DC fans all crowded on rt and bombed the score for Batman v superman.

It’s why you’re seeing such a huge gulf between critic and user reviews.

But I personally would rate the movie as 5 to 6 out of 10.

So these user scores are right in line with my view on the movie.

There's some great stuff which I am sure would bag the movie a whole bunch of 9 and 10 scores.

There's some absolutely atrocious stuff that would net the movie a whole bunch of 1 and 2 scores.

The thing that's wrecking my head is that people are coming out and saying "this movie is very divisive, some will love it and some will hate it" and then at the same time saying "look at this 56% audience rating it's not real".

56% is a fair rating for this film. In my opinion. I personally think it's fair enough.

You are saying it's not a fair rating because you personally think it should be higher.

Someone who despises it will say it's not a fair rating because they personally think it should be lower.

I'm honestly not comfortable with this passive aggressive attitude towards folks who don't like a Star Wars movie. References to MAGA hats etc, WTF?

david75

Saruhashi wrote: »

But I personally would rate the movie as 5 to 6 out of 10.

So these user scores are right in line with my view on the movie.

There's some great stuff which I am sure would bag the movie a whole bunch of 9 and 10 scores.

There's some absolutely atrocious stuff that would net the movie a whole bunch of 1 and 2 scores.

The thing that's wrecking my head is that people are coming out and saying "this movie is very divisive, some will love it and some will hate it" and then at the same time saying "look at this 56% audience rating it's not real".

56% is a fair rating for this film. In my opinion. I personally think it's fair enough.

You are saying it's not a fair rating because you personally think it should be higher.

Someone who despises it will say it's not a fair rating because they personally think it should be lower.

I'm honestly not comfortable with this passive aggressive attitude towards folks who don't like a Star Wars movie. References to MAGA hats etc, WTF?

You’re not the person the Article is referring to. It’s talking about those out there down rating it cos it has too much diversity (look at the horrific abuse on Kelly Marie trans Instagram page) Rian Johnson getting death threats. John Boyega getting racial abuse.

that is what the article is talking about. This stuffs been happening all weekend since the film was released. It’s nothing to do with the score being in line with your view. Good for you. It’s assholes out there dragging the rating down cos it doesn’t fit their warped worldview and or demands of Star Wars.

Hooks Golf Handicap

david75 wrote: »

Has Luke physically absorbed all the barrage of fire in the face off against the walkers? We see him hold Leias hand and kiss her. Is this what actually damages him beyond healing?

I think the amount of Force required to project himself across space is what killed him.
The AT-T's & all the guns were only firing at an apparition.

Tony EH

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

I think the amount of Force required to project himself across space is what killed him.

Have to say that didn't really work for me.

Kinda think it would have been a better send of if he'd actually gone to Krait to duel with Ren, but lost.

molloyjh

Penn wrote: »

He did panic against Vader. When Vader mentions Leia, Luke completely gives in to his fear and anger and overpowers Vader, cutting off his hand. It's only when the Emperor tries coaxing him onto finishing off Vader that Luke steps back. He also gives in to his fear in Empire by leaving Yoda to go off and face Vader because he feared for his friends lives. It's completely not out of character for Luke to act rashly and impulsively.

Likewise, it's only for a brief moment, after seeing what Kylo would become, that Luke gives in to his instinct and prepares himself to kill Ben, but he stops himself about a second later. Unfortunately that second was all it took.

But that wasn't panic. That was anger. At no point did he panic in ROTJ. And the point of that whole fight was as his final test. Remember Yoda told him that he wasn't a Jedi until he faced Vader. He had to face the darkness and overcome it, which he did. Him looking at the robotic hand and then back at his own symbolised that. So he wasn't doomed to repeating the mistakes of his father and the Jedi. Except now we're told he was actually doomed to doing just that.

Drumpot

molloyjh wrote: »

Again, I'm totally happy with the moral ambiguity. So much of that aspect of the film was genuinely excellent. But again, it is all rooted in Luke doing something that seems completely and utterly out of character. He did it because the plot needed him to do it, and for no other reason. It sets up a fantastic story, but it's no less difficult to swallow because of that. In fact the whole arc becomes difficult to accept, good and all as it is, because of what it is based on.

In stories characters should have compelling reasons for behaving the way that they do. Panic and fear are reasonable reasons in many situations. It doesn't fit here though. If he didn't panic when faced with the Emperor, Vader and the destruction of the Rebellion then why did he panic standing over his sleeping nephew? And it looks to me like he did that to advance the story. and that's a cop out and pretty insulting to the audience in my view.

Luke was composed meeting the emperor but pleaded for his life when he was getting zapped. Then he is right about Vadar, wins the war and gets a bit cocky in his own abilities ... Not a nice progression for a beloved character but since it’s 30 years since we saw Luke on the big screen , it’s not that radical an alteration.

Luke didn’t try to kill Ben, he thought about it, put on his saber instinctually and didn’t do anything. The problem was Ben woke up and thought Luke was going to strike. I don’t think it’s case that the issue is that the character wouldn’t have moments of weakness like that, it’s that people don’t like the character ark or story. That’s fine and a good enough reason IMO.

Saruhashi

david75 wrote: »

You’re not the person the Article is referring to. It’s talking about those out there down rating it cos it has too much diversity (look at the horrific abuse on Kelly Marie trans Instagram page) Rian Johnson getting death threats. John Boyega getting racial abuse.

that is what the article is talking about. This stuffs been happening all weekend since the film was released. It’s nothing to do with the score being in line with your view. Good for you. It’s assholes out there dragging the raging down cos it doesn’t fit their warped worldview and or demands of Star Wars.

The movie is still divisive though. 56% is a fair score.

For every eejit giving the movie a 1 I'm sure there's another eejit giving it a 10.

Abuse that the actors and director are getting has no relevancy to the quality of the film. It's a divisive movie by most peoples admission. 56% seems fine for something that is supposedly a bit of a "marmite" experience.

I know it's hard to see a movie you personally love being panned by other people who just don't "get" it like you do.

We've all been there though. Plenty of movies I like have bad critic scores AND bad audience scores and I am happy to defend those films when it comes down to it.

I'm definitely not on board with implying that people who gave the movie a low rating are racists or anything like that. Just as I'm not on board with calling people who gave it a good review "paid Disney shills".

Imagine you tell me a joke and I laugh and then you tell me a second joke and I don't laugh. You can ask why I didn't laugh at your second joke and I can say "it wasn't funny". We can just leave it there then.

Instead it's like you are trying so hard to convince me that the joke is really funny if I'd just see it differently I'd laugh cos it has all the elements of a joke so I should be laughing. No. The joke isn't funny.

I'd draw the line at the idea that the joke isn't funny to me because I'm actually not being honest. I'd get annoyed if you implied that the joke is objectively funny but because I'm a bad person I refuse to laugh out of spite.

That's effectively what's happening here with these articles. The movie is good dammit and if you think otherwise then you're on the same side as people abusing the cast on Twitter.

Looking back on the thread how would you gauge the like to dislike ratio of this movie? I feel like it's 50-50.

Penn

molloyjh wrote: »

But that wasn't panic. That was anger. At no point did he panic in ROTJ. And the point of that whole fight was as his final test. Remember Yoda told him that he wasn't a Jedi until he faced Vader. He had to face the darkness and overcome it, which he did. Him looking at the robotic hand and then back at his own symbolised that. So he wasn't doomed to repeating the mistakes of his father and the Jedi. Except now we're told he was actually doomed to doing just that.

He made different mistakes, not repeating his fathers.

People really seem to have this reverence for Luke that isn't really all that earned. Luke was always a flawed character. They all are, as they should be, because characters without flaws are boring. Even still, just because someone does something good and learns a valuable lesson 30 years ago doesn't mean they won't still be prone to making a mistake.

Luke is (as much as one can be in a film about aliens etc) human. He may be a Jedi but he's not infallible, and he himself has come to realise that his own belief in the Jedi and their hubris, and how he became a Jedi Master, helped to lead him to make those mistakes. At the start of the film, Luke is different from who he was 30 years ago. While Han and Leia are mostly the same, Luke is damaged by the results of his own actions, and how he failed. So from the very start of the film, from being handed his old lightsaber and tossing it aside, he is directly showing that.

The audience, like Rey herself, want the Luke Skywalker from 30 years ago. But he's not that person any more.

Tony EH

Saruhashi wrote: »

The movie is still divisive though. 56% is a fair score.

Unless people can see actual scores (1/5, 3/5, 5/5), then an RT aggregate is very misleading.

What constitutes a splat anyway? 2 and half stars out of 5? Or is that a fresh tomato?

silverharp

Saruhashi wrote: »

A few interesting takes on this already.

I was just trying to get a feel for whether the average fan's reaction to the movie. I happened to be reading a section of the comments on this thread and it wasn't all glowing, someone said they preferred the prequels, maybe I just read an unrepresentative group of comments?

Saruhashi

Drumpot wrote: »

Luke was composed meeting the emperor but pleaded for his life when he was getting zapped. Then he is right about Vadar, wins the war and gets a bit cocky in his own abilities ... Not a nice progression for a beloved character but since it’s 30 years since we saw Luke on the big screen , it’s not that radical an alteration.

Luke didn’t try to kill Ben, he thought about it, put on his saber instinctually and didn’t do anything. The problem was Ben woke up and thought Luke was going to strike. I don’t think it’s case that the issue is that the character wouldn’t have moments of weakness like that, it’s that people don’t like the character ark or story. That’s fine and a good enough reason IMO.

The reasoning falls apart at the end though.

The ignited lightsaber was enough to send Ben down a path that resulted in the fall of Han and Leias son, the rise of Kylo Ren, Hans murder and who knows what else.

Luke was responsible for all this but on Crait the attitude is just "the boy is gone" when actually we've seen all through the 2 movies that Ben Solo is still in there somewhere despite Snoke's (and Luke's) best efforts.

Luke was one of the architects of Ben's corruption (even if it was accidental) but in his next encounter with the lad he goads him and mocks him. "See you around kid" is totally inappropriate considering Luke is one of the driving forces behind Kylos murder of Han.

In fact, we get more obvious hints in 2 movies that Ben Solo is still in there somewhere than we ever did with Vader.

Even Leia seems to just accept that Luke accidentally helped destroy her son (or maybe she didn't know).

Hey sis, remember that time I went into your kids bedroom with a knife while he slept and he caught me and then went on a downward spiral that resulted in the death of his father? You totally 100% forgive me for that right? He was a lost cause anyway, honest.

It just feels so horribly wrong.

SteM

Saruhashi wrote: »

Looking back on the thread how would you gauge the like to dislike ratio of this movie? I feel like it's 50-50.

From reading the thread it might be 50-50 or 60-40 for the 'likes', the ones that hate it are the more vocal and post more often though.

Osmosis Jones

Luke actually fighting with Kylo would've looked bad to me, I don't like the idea of old Luke in a lightsaber duel as much as I hated watching Yoda fight with one. He's ascended beyond needing to fight with a lightsaber, much like Yoda had, and I think the way he confronted Ben was perfect for that.

Tony EH

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Luke actually fighting with Kylo would've looked bad to me, I don't like the idea of old Luke in a lightsaber duel as much as I hated watching Yoda fight with one. He's ascended beyond needing to fight with a lightsaber, much like Yoda had, and I think the way he confronted Ben was perfect for that.

Sure. But dying because he used "too much force" is a bit laughable.

murpho999

Tony EH wrote: »

Sure. But dying because he used "too much force" is a bit laughable.

Why is it? If it took all his energy.

I got the impression that he gave himself to the force anyway.