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

Wibbs

deise08 wrote: »

I know I'm going to be slated for this..but there was a noticeable rise in the amount of female characters!

Not that I noticed TBH. Certainly a step up from the originals which had one pretty much. Women tend to be less flawed as characters though and the men tend to be meatheads, for comic effect, weak, or very flawed, or a mix of the above(Hux covers the lot). Which I wouldn't mind as I dislike Mary Sues of either gender, but some balance would be nice(the Dern character was flawed, if heroically and sacrifices herself in recompense). That's bit of current reflection of wider culture mind you. Encapsulated in Rey the lead. Play the Lego Movie's "everything is awesome" every time she appears and it fits. She's awesome at everything she does. Instantly. And all the good characters love and trust her. Instantly.

Finn, a badly underused character, tries to save everyone in a similar self sacrifice run like Dern at the giant death ray gun, only for the daft bint Rose to stop him because "love" or some such ballsology. Oh never mind all your comrades and friends his sacrifice would save. Oh no, just go with the selfish. Never mind how the fuq did they magically both get back to the rebel base when they crashed right in front of the enemy army who was throwing everything they had at him seconds previously? And they were injured. Never mind how was he able to fly up the same death ray 3000 that was disintegrating a door the size of the cliffs of Moher? That scene was another example of really piss poor writing in this film.

silverharp

at least in star trek they go "shields are down to 30%, more blasts like and she'll can ne take it"

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

deise08 wrote: »

Hey guys... I know I'm a little late to the party, and it's all after being mostly discussed..

Thought there were a load of 'cheap laughs ' which were totally unnecessary..

I know I'm going to be slated for this..but there was a noticeable rise in the amount of female characters!

At first I was thinking it was to reflect the sign of the times.
Then, however, I thought.... The rebellion has has taken a lot of lives... Mostly the men would have been the first to answer the call to arms. (just like with the world wars) and now what's left of the rebels is a high female ??
Or am I giving them too much credit for maybe thinking this 😄😄😄
Loving kylo though.. Still can't take to Rey.

You're not the first to address this. The white males are getting a raw deal in all the new movies.

david75

Find it hard to believe ‘white males’ are the only humans in space. I wouldn’t let it bother you. It’s a big galaxy.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

david75 wrote: »

Find it hard to believe ‘white males’ are the only humans in space. I wouldn’t let it bother you. It’s a big galaxy.

I meant actors, I'm not an alien racist. There's clear bias when the casting was done.

Wibbs

Hunky Monster wrote: »

You're not the first to address this. The white males are getting a raw deal in all the new movies.

Ahh HM I dunno. I think that's really overblown at times. Yes it's all bit UCLA "liberal" because that's the background of most behind the camera and of Hollywood in general at the moment. The original one was from a similar background if a different time and was very much a cross between the 1950's and 1960's hippie stuff. The original one for all that looked like it was cast by a KKK casting director.

Plus don't forget the most important politic of Hollywood; money. Diversity is largely a front, even if many behind the cameras believe it isn't(just like sexual equality, but Harvey Miramax was not and is not unusual. But he made bank). Diversity literally means more diversity of bums on seats. So you get the women and girls in with Princess Rey and Leia, The biggest wealth transfer in history is happening in the US where it's going from men to women. It's all about the marketing, be all things to all people.

Don't forget the international markets who want to see "their own" on screen. Hollywood has added characters, even extra "ethnic" specific scenes to the blockbusters. One of the Iron Man flics was one example(Chinese folks for that market). You could get away with all White Star Wars back in 77, as audiences were so used to not seeing other types of faces so generally went along with it(didn't stop the same Hollywood firing out Blaxploitation flics). Nowadays you can't. Which is a good thing.

PLus now with a century of practice, focus groups and marketing depts Hollywood's blockbusters are very good with the Formula™ for making films that push all the right buttons. "Story porn" for the common man and often storytelling gets left behind, because so many in the audience, just want to see the money shots, don't notice nor care, not enough to damage the bottom line. At least in the opening weeks so they get a return on investment. Throw in flash bangs on the regular, lots of camera choreography in lieu of pointing the camera in the right direction and mass copying of previous blockbuster stuff that works, with extra whizz bangs on top and if you have a vein of nostalgia to mine...

The Farce Awakens was a perfect example of this.

A near scene for scene copy of the original Star Wars with 40 years of marketing behind it, pushing all the right buttons with extra energy and hitting all the right demographics, with trowelled on nostalgia. But in the end it was like listening to Brittney Spears singing Strawberry Fields Forever with a Las Vegas orchestra behind her.

The Last Jedi? It continues the flash bang trend and the story be hanged. Add in an advertised "edgy" director(whose every single scene would have been OK'd or not by the producers) and throw in a few "burn the past" wobblers for effect - the teen market of all ages love that - and to get people talking and watching and to try to keep the tills ringing for when the old guard are gone and nostalgia isn't what it used to be. For the first few weeks at least. And it worked. A billion quid in the tills. And here we are talking. It could die on its arse tomorrow and they have their money back and way more on top.

It doesn't have longevity though, because it doesn't have heart. People will flock to see any new Star Wars release and that's why they paid George so much for the franchise and franchise they see it as. At first, but mark me, it will dwindle with each outing and the secondary flics like Solo will make their money back but will be empty, because there's only so much cynicism people can take and flash bangs won't stave that off, or cover for the lack of depth or originality in the stories.

What really grinds my gears is how Hollywood seems to see their audiences as a bit thick. It's easy to forget that Shakespeare's plays with all their incredible complexity and nuance and farce and rude bits were squarely aimed at the cheap seats.

I see Hollywood blockbusters as the Tin Pan Alley Simon Cowell songsters. They know how to write hooks and dress up the music with extra cash and sexy and it sells. It apes Motown, the Beatles, ABBA etc, but it doesn't have their heart and it mistakes clever technique for craft and sentiment for soul, but it is ultimately unoriginal and throwaway.

You could tell the tale of Luke Skywalker and his friends and enemies and their story around a campfire under starlight in the Gobi desert*, try doing that with The Last Jedi.





*C-3PO kinda illustrating my point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9nN4kvuw98

david75

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I meant actors, I'm not an alien racist. There's clear bias when the casting was done.

There’s only one other inference there and you’re making it.

Andrew Beef

silverharp wrote: »

at least in star trek they go "shields are down to 30%, more blasts like and she'll can ne take it"

I’ve always thought it strange that the technology in Star Wars is surprisingly “basic” relative to (say) the technology in Star Trek; having said that, the former takes place “a long time ago” whereas the latter takes place in the future.

Nonetheless, they’re building killer space stations that can travel at the speed of light but using trash compacters which is decidely odd.

david75

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I’ve always thought it strange that the technology in Star Wars is surprisingly “basic” relative to (say) the technology in Star Trek; having said that, the former takes place “a long time ago” whereas the latter takes place in the future.

Nonetheless, they’re building killer space stations that can travel at the speed of light but using trash compacters which is decidely odd.

They’re not really comparable.
In most ways the producers of both franchises have historically avoided stepping on each other’s toes. One is space fantasty. The other is space soap opera loosely based in science fiction.

Bacchus

I'm gonna need to process it for a bit but having just come out it it, the overriding thought in my head is... maybe it's better on second viewing. Possibly the least fun I've had watching a Star Wars movie. There was no heart to it, the humour was misplaced, and the action peaked about 10 minutes in. I did not enjoy the Force Bridge stuff (though the twist with Like at the end was nicely played). Also, the entire premise of the rescue mission Poe, Finn and Rose carry out is what causes half the transport vessels to be destroyed. Why didn't the admiral just tell Poe the plan!? He liked it when he was finally let in on it! Poor poor script.

One last thing. Leah surviving in space and flying back to the ship.... What's the expression.... jumping the shark?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

david75 wrote: »

There’s only one other inference there and you’re making it.

Dave Cullen can explain this far better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-GxIoQPXPg

david75

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Dave Cullen can explain this far better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-GxIoQPXPg

Who is he?

There’s endless amounts of YouTube people who suddenly proclaim themselves experts in everything and you can find a video saying anything to make a point.
I avoid it Personally.

david75

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Dave Cullen can explain this far better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-GxIoQPXPg

One line in and he’s talking about multiculturalism ‘vandalising’ Star Trek.

Star Trek...has been multicultural since day one.

So yeah I’ll pass. Thanks tho.

Ugh that's the guy who lost his **** over the main female lead in the new star trek being named Michael, claiming we were getting SJW conspiracy's shoved down our throat. It's even addressed in the show as being an odd name for a woman. Some people are just looking for any attempt to shoe horn this bull**** gender politics into anything they can find.

uncleoswald

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Dave Cullen can explain this far better than I can.

Yeah, he's pretty awful. He exemplifies the "I have no problem with female/gay/minority leads but let me now complain about the fact this movie has minorities and women in lead roles." type. There is plenty to find wrong with the The Last Jedi beyond the fact it has more roles for women then the usual blockbuster. And if you find yourself preoccupied with this, when you wouldn't think twice if the same roles were given to men, you may have a problem.

Grayditch

Can't deal with that Irish / America crossover accent in that video.

Moist Bread

That guy is just the worst. He talks in terms of politics like the Americans do. "The Left" is pushing it's anti-family agenda again, this time in Star Wars, oh no.

I bet he doesn't really give that much of a ****. It's just a really easy way to turn a buck on YouTube for him.

johnny_ultimate

The reactionary, angry men of YouTube really are something else.

Cookie_Monster

Andrew Beef wrote: »

It is sensationalism in the extreme to put Last Jedi below Phantom Menace; like it or loathe it, one cannot in all seriousness place the latest movie at the bottom of the list.

why not, it is easily the most flawed of the lot. Slick visuals can only cover so much. While TFM is poor in many ways there are no Death Star sized plot hole in every second scene and characters you can actually care about in the slighest

pixelburp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The reactionary, angry men of YouTube really are something else.

I dunno, hard to get too steamed about yet another 'grr, those SJW libruls rar!' style videos - at this stage they just mostly make me feel a style of pity: how sheltered a life must someone be leading, that the only outlet for expression, or the only perspective developed, is through a YouTube rant about a distinctly American social concept, over a Disney franchise?

In any case, raving about progressive viewpoints in SciFi fiction feels like the most inane and redundant argument over any kind of genre - SciFI IS progressive by & large - that's ... kinda its thing - and that outlook is arguably an inescapable facet that defines the very genre from its core. You can't really approach Sci-Fi without expanding on what it means to be a human being & a person: to hold a lens to humanity and look out at the possibilities for us & civilisation - be it from the grand scale of a Space Opera, or the more intimate detail of a single person living within whatever world is constructed to tell the tale. Even when the story is distinctly dystopian, the story is about the limiting of progression or the reduction in humanity / personal & emotional freedoms.A generalisation sure, but one that's often more true than not.

Of the various worlds in TV & Film, Star Trek is the standard bearer for that key outlook in Sci-Fi, but Star Wars had it too: it shouldn't need pointing out how the Empire / First Order are obvious Nazi analogues (that they're nearly always English accented says something else again haha), nearly always a human-only operation, compared with the - here comes that word again - progressive Rebels that are openly multi-species and fighting for a more open, democratic galaxy.

Though mostly I just wish Europeans would stop importing American social angst like brainless sheep; we have our own plethora of problems be they social, political or environmental without coopting the rantings of American conservatives :rolleyes:

Bacchus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why not, it is easily the most flawed of the lot. Slick visuals can only cover so much. While TFM is poor in many ways there are no Death Star sized plot hole in every second scene and characters you can actually care about in the slighest

Having slept on it, I agree. I think this might actually be the worst Star Wars movie for me. It looked fantastic, I mean the salt planet alone was gorgeous, and Snoke's ship blowing up was quite spectacular. My problem is that it had soooo much potential but fumbled almost the entire way and appeared to want to just play with audience expectations as opposed to telling an interesting story.

There was so many ideas and moments in TLJ that were great but were just ruined by a poor script. I love the idea of the last rag tag group of resistance fighters going against the odds against the might of the rebellion but it was just executed terribly. As I mentioned in my first post, it is possibility the single stupidest thing I've seen in a Star Wars movie that Poe was kept in the dark about the admirals plan. It was done solely so that Finn and Rose could go on an adventure that not only achieved NOTHING but resulted in the deaths of half the remaining rebels. Luke's journey back to the force is another example. Great arc for him to go through but too much misplaced humour, the scene with Yoda felt wrong, and then he just "ghosts" at the end. WTF! Ok, he has recreated his legend to spark the rebellion again but... WTF! Why go ghosty? I also agree with some previous posts that the stuff between him and Rey (and the whole of TLJ) should have been set further away from TFA. The timing of this just doesn't sit right. It feels like a lot has happened but it literally picks up from TFA.

johnny_ultimate

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, hard to get too steamed about yet another 'grr, those SJW libruls rar!' style videos - at this stage they just mostly make me feel a style of pity...

Though mostly I just wish Europeans would stop importing American social angst like brainless sheep; we have our own plethora of problems be they social, political or environmental without coopting the rantings of American conservatives :rolleyes:

Yep, have learned the best approach on the thankfully infrequent occasions when one does encounter such rants is a mix of pity and laughter, helps the old sanity to not give them any more thought than that

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

Though mostly I just wish Europeans would stop importing American social angst like brainless sheep; we have our own plethora of problems be they social, political or environmental without coopting the rantings of American conservatives :rolleyes:

but the feminist and lefty press were having orgasms over the movie because of its progressive points. you get the feeling they couldn't care less about plot once it shows women kicking ass and being in the leadership positions or having a glee that there are no straight white men of any note in it. Of course you are going to get a reaction

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

but the feminist and lefty press were having orgasms over the movie because of its progressive points. you get the feeling they couldn't care less about plot once it shows women kicking ass and being in the leadership positions or having a glee that there are no straight white men of any note in it. Of course you are going to get a reaction

I'd similarly ignore. Have you got any links to such stuff? I've come across mostly people arguing against it

david75

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why not, it is easily the most flawed of the lot. Slick visuals can only cover so much. While TFM is poor in many ways there are no Death Star sized plot hole in every second scene and characters you can actually care about in the slighest

A pal pointed out last night that what we think are plot holes in the new star wars are often very intentionally left there to fill later in supplemental material like books. Phasma for example has her own book that came out explaining her backstory and a short comic run supplementing that to show how she got off star killer base (she’s an utterly ruthless cow btw).
There aren’t as many plot holes in TLJ as there are unanswered questions. I took a plot hole to mean an event of fact that contradicts another event or fact. There isn’t much of that (apart from Rey seemingly meetin Poe for the first time. Yet they were feet away from each other in the end of TFA when bb8 and R2 combine maps).
but again, a lot of this is done to leave room for the various books and comics that will come to elaborate. Like Lor San Tekkas story in the comics and Luke’s adventures post ROTJ/pre TFA in his book.

Acosta

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why not, it is easily the most flawed of the lot. Slick visuals can only cover so much. While TFM is poor in many ways there are no Death Star sized plot hole in every second scene and characters you can actually care about in the slighest

And at least TPM has Liam Neeson playing a Jedi.

Gbear

I'm planning to go see it again tonight so in prep I've rewatched the OT and half of TFA, until I got bored and stopped.

In some ways it was a bad idea because I've gone into the process in analytical mode and it doesn't do the films any favours.
It's harder and harder to see the OT in the context they were made so the things that captivated me as a child such as the space battles, look second rate next to todays showings, a lot of the drama is very dated (even Luke and Vader in Cloud City), dialogue feels less natural at times, but more so in others.
Shorn of context, they're a mixed bag.

Still, on the whole, Empire is still fantastic. It's the other two that lose the most.
IV has a certain amateurish quality to it in how it was cut together and filmed, but it clips along at a steady pace and the characters make it.
VI begins to show the brain rot that inflicted the prequels so heavily - Jabba's Palace and Endor are idiotic in their conception, although flipping it from the start of the series, the effects and choregraphy are noticeably improved.
The throne room duel and the space battle above Endor are still brilliant.

I watched the despecialised versions so I got something fairly close to the original theatrical cut and there's a lot of things that are improved in doing so. 1 or 2 bits of CGI or extra scenes felt like they were missed in comparison to the version that was released in 1997, that I grew up with but there's so much garbage cut out that it's without any doubt the definitive edition as things stand.

Watching TFA again, or at least the start of it, reinforced my belief that the issues with the new trilogy first and foremost stem from the lack of direction and world building from TFA.

If you cut a big chunk of irrelevant stuff - Han's ship with the octopus creatures, everything involving Maz Kanata, ****ed Star Killer base and all that into the bin and reworked most of the action from TLJ into TFA as well as the training on Ach'To you might have 1 great Star Wars film between them, but it's awfully thin to be 2/3rds of a trilogy.

It could've been something like, they meet Han on Jakku, while he's looking for the Falcon, they go straight to Ach'To with the map BB8 was carrying, Rey's dropped off, the rest go to Republic home, which is under attack, Han and co infiltrate a big bad ship blockading escape, Kylo Ren kills Han, the ship blows up, the rebels leg it, Rey sees all this happen and is having her chats with KR and leaves at the end because she refuses to do nothing or to leave KR to the Dark Side.

I'm not sure what a time jump between VII and VIII does for these films. I don't know what Rey needs from 5 years of training, when 2 weeks or whatever was enough for Luke to feel he could face Vader.
In the end, between Ach'To and facing Snoke and KR, Rey gets what she needs as a character.

I don't know how you smoothly set the scene in the galaxy when you've failed to establish what the First Order actually is in VII or how you can understand the conflict as anything other than Nazi baddies vs plucky underdogs when you don't really see what the characters are fighting for in-universe.
There were attempts to address this in VIII, albeit with mixed results, but it should've been done in VII.

david75

Yeah VII was all Reys setup and a bare glimpse of the resistance whereas VIII felt like the resistance’s setup and could have done with more Rey and Luke imo.

Gbear

conorhal wrote: »

It's the postmodernist cynicism of TLJ that bothers me the most TBH and the fact that this postmodern cynicism is aimed at kids.
Starwars was the antidote to the 70's postmodern cynicism that had begun to pervade the culture in the wake of Watergate, Vietnam and the dark demise of the hippy movement.
Starwars was a new HOPE. It was hopeful, built philosophically (as Lucas has stated) on Joseph Campbell's 'The Hero's Journey', a collection of tropes and themes that are cross-cultural all around the world, it is built on a respect for hero's and the arc necessary for them to become such, it's built on the myths of the past.

TLJ is built and tearing down that past and tearing down hero's and that is a horrible message to offer, A New Hopelessness, given that times are as bleak now, and hope in as short supply as it was at the end of the 70's, TLJ is an antidote to nothing and it's philosophy is in direct opposition to that of the original trilogy and seems as willful, childish and destructive and without motive as Kylo Ren himself.

That really wasn't my read at all.

One of the themes of the film was an exploration of the nature of heroism.

I don't think the concept of heroism was torn down but rather a particular version of it, that the film argues is hollow and self-serving.

Poe's gambit to destroy the dreadnaught comes across as heroic if you present it in a certain way, but in the film we see the consequences of such heroism.

That is contrasted with the heroism of not having a last charge of the light brigade moment and instead saving everyone's lives. Rose comes right out and says it.

It's a defensive heroism of protecting what you love rather than aggressive heroism of destruction.

Finn's heroism is more in keeping with the other sort, except in his case it's selfless - he's gone from wanting to run away, to wanting to save Rey, to being willing to get himself killed to save everyone else.

Rey doesn't really have her moment here but she understands what heroism she needs in how she realises that she doesn't need to be a 1-woman army to save her friends but rather has to lift some rocks to let them out.

It's a heroism that concerns itself with protecting people and allowing for all good things to stem from that, instead of destroying the enemy.
It'll be interesting to see how that's played out in episode 9.

JJ Abrams makes pretty films but he doesn't care if the film itself is entirely vapid, so it wouldn't surprise me if the heavy character lifting done in this film is ****ed in the bin in favour of more sweet explosions, nostalgic easter-eggs and lightsaber duels.

Rian Johnson's film wasn't some work of a genius. The "clever" stuff he does is all fairly surface level and on the nose, but Abrams can't even manage that.

Saruhashi

uncleoswald wrote: »

Yeah, he's pretty awful. He exemplifies the "I have no problem with female/gay/minority leads but let me now complain about the fact this movie has minorities and women in lead roles." type. There is plenty to find wrong with the The Last Jedi beyond the fact it has more roles for women then the usual blockbuster. And if you find yourself preoccupied with this, when you wouldn't think twice if the same roles were given to men, you may have a problem.

Agreed. There are far more interesting conversations around the new Star Wars films than the races and/or genders of the actors involved.

He lost me when he's complaining about Jyn Erso in Rogue One. She's not a particularly interesting character but I don't know how this would have been any different if the actor was a man. The complaint seems to be that she's a woman but she's not conforming to his definition of "a woman" so it's bad.

I think in Rogue One none of the protagonists are white guys, right? I don't see how it really matters though. They can cast whoever they want and I don't think anyone should read TOO deeply into casting choices.

I see no reason at all why anyone would think a male actor would do a better job in the role or bring anything additional to the character. So it's a daft one to complain about.

It's the same with Rey, really. Actually I don't know if anyone could do a better job than Daisy Ridley but for sure I don't see how swapping her out for a man would make any difference at all.

I think the "Mary Sue" nature of Rey's character is not really to do with the characters gender and more to do with what the current generation of movie audiences wants to see in these family friendly action adventures.

If the movies contained obvious "Modern Gender Studies 101" content then sure I would raise an eyebrow. If the good guys were having monologues about "intersectionality" and Feminist Theory then sure I would be less likely to buy tickets for future movies and would probably never buy merchandise again.

So I don't understand why people don't just vote with their wallets if they feel this way. You think the main lead should be male? Don't buy tickets when the trailer obviously shows you who the cast will be.

The only thing that didn't sit right with me in TLJ was the "casino" stuff. It was not very subtle. Rose was breaking the fourth wall like the kool aid man telling us how bad the rich are. I get it!

Obviously in the aftermath of the film there have been a lot of unfortunate articles that you could maybe boil down to "Star Wars is Feminist now!" or "Racists hate Star Wars and that's awesome" and I personally find those articles to be annoying. They also have their counter balance in the youtube community where Star Wars is being accused of being an "SJW" movie.

Then you have articles from Feminist outlets like this: “The Case Against the Jedi” Takes on Toxic Masculinity in Star Wars"https://www.themarysue.com/the-case-against-the-jedi/

It's easy to see why people think there is some kind of culture war going on and different factions are trying to claim pop culture icons such as Star Wars as their own.

It's sad that this is the current situation surrounding Star Wars.

Disney can't win. If they do a diverse cast like Rogue One they get accused of being anti-white. If they go the other way and do a majority white cast then they will be accused of being a bunch of sexist racists and Star Wars was always Fascist and full of toxic masculinity anyway.

Clearly they will go the way that market research tells them to go. They will do whatever makes the most money.

People honestly need to just not pay to go and see the movie if they care so much about this stuff.