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

david75

Did I hear someone say member berries in Blade runner 2049?

Tony?

Mickeroo

Falthyron wrote: »

Really? You didn't notice how Luke looked younger, less grey hair, etc.? I knew there was some sort of a ploy going on, but wasn't too sure what exactly it was. Also, considering the nostalgic nature of this trilogy, I fully expected them to show the scene of him lifting the X-Wing out of the water if that was going to be his way of saving the Resistance.

I noticed he cleaned himself up a bit, didn't think he looked younger. I assumed he had left the island at that point and was pleasantly surprised when I realised he hadn't. The shot of the X-Wing was to make audience suspect he had flown it there, even Poe remarking about a back way in was designed to point that way.

Regards the bolded bit, the fact is that didn't happen which is part of the reason I don't agree that TLJ was a particularly nostalgic film.

johnny_ultimate

Falthyron wrote: »

Also, considering the nostalgic nature of this trilogy, I fully expected them to show the scene of him lifting the X-Wing out of the water if that was going to be his way of saving the Resistance.

So a brief shot (I mean, as far as I recall, it’s an almost throwaway detail) of the ship set off expectations in your mind, but the film ultimately went a different direction entirely? Sounds like a very effective bit of visual / narrative misdirection to me, and a small example of how much of the film is designed to lead us to expect one outcome before delivering another

Falthyron

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

So a brief shot (I mean, as far as I recall, it’s an almost throwaway detail) of the ship set off expectations in your mind, but the film ultimately went a different direction entirely? Sounds like a very effective bit of visual / narrative misdirection to me, and a small example of how much of the film is designed to lead us to expect one outcome before delivering another

Misdirection is fine, but not when its a cheap call to nostalgia. X-Wing under water on Jedi training planet is a clear callback to Dagobah and ESB. Now... if when Rey followed Luke around the island and we saw an object shaped like a ship hidden by a tarpaulin or surrounded by stone in the background, then we can talk about a good misdirection.

Mickeroo

Falthyron wrote: »

Misdirection is fine, but not when its a cheap call to nostalgia. X-Wing under water on Jedi training planet is a clear callback to Dagobah and ESB. Now... if when Rey followed Luke around the island and we saw an object shaped like a ship hidden by a tarpaulin or surrounded by stone in the background, then we can talk about a good misdirection.

Having it under a tarpaulin would imply Luke intended to use it again which would have been sloppy as it would have made no sense from a character point of view. Seeing it cast into the water like a bit of scrap works much better.

pixelburp

Falthyron wrote: »

Misdirection is fine, but not when its a cheap call to nostalgia. X-Wing under water on Jedi training planet is a clear callback to Dagobah and ESB. Now... if when Rey followed Luke around the island and we saw an object shaped like a ship hidden by a tarpaulin or surrounded by stone in the background, then we can talk about a good misdirection.

Surely something being a 'cheap call to nostalgia' would imply it served no other purpose than to excite fans looking for a shallow callback. Yet if you accept that it was there to potentially misdirect the viewer later, why should how the ship was abandoned matter an iota, having no actual relevance unless the viewer had an intimate memory of the original films to begin with and saw some vague linkage with previous films?

Falthyron

Mickeroo wrote: »

Having it under a tarpaulin would imply Luke intended to use it again which would have been sloppy as it would have made no sense from a character point of view. Seeing it cast into the water like a bit of scrap works much better.

In Luke's case we know that a ship underwater is the same as one under tarpaulin, as was demonstrated in ESB. Whether its under water or buried under stone, for a Jedi, its still workable. One particular misdirection has nostalgia attached to it, the other doesn't.

Falthyron

pixelburp wrote: »

Surely something being a 'cheap call to nostalgia' would imply it served no other purpose than to excite fans looking for a shallow callback. Yet if you accept that it was there to potentially misdirect the viewer later, why should how the ship was abandoned matter an iota, having no actual relevance unless the viewer had an intimate memory of the original films to begin with and saw some vague linkage with previous films?

Because it was unnecessary and in a trilogy that has flirted with the term 'soft reboot', there are many opportunities to deliver their story differently. If Rian wanted to tease the audience about Luke being able to escape Ahch-To if he wanted to, there was no need to allude to a similar scene in ESB happening in this film. Fine, you need to pull off a trick, but there were so many other ways of setting it up without having to refer to something that has been done before.

Edit: I should add that I am not being pedantic about one small scene. I am using this as an example of the greater problem of nostalgia overall in this new trilogy. The Throne room, the X-Wing, are just two examples that could have been done very differently (to avoid the nostalgia argument), but still achieve the same outcome.

johnny_ultimate

By your own admission though, you conjured up an entire scene in your head that directly called back to the older film by seeing it underwater - surely that is a far more evocative, specific piece of misdirection than it merely being under a pile of rocks? It’s not ‘necessary’ (although as Mickeroo suggests it seems like the most logical option given Luke’s characterisation), but the way you’re describing it makes it sounds like it was an incredibly effective piece of visual storytelling by Johnson.

It seems like a strange and entirely arbitrary ‘rule’ to me that misdirection cannot call back to something earlier in the series. I mean, this is a direct sequel.

Falthyron

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

By your own admission though, you conjured up a scene in your head that directly called back to the older film by seeing it underwater - surely that is a far more evocative, specific piece of misdirection than it merely being under a pile of rocks?

It seems like a strange and entirely arbitrary ‘rule’ to me that misdirection cannot call back to something earlier in the series. I mean, this is a direct sequel.

Misdirection can hark back to previous entries in a series, but must it be so specific? Must it seek to emulate that previous incident or it won't resonate or will fall flat? No, it doesn't have to. Particularly, when TFA was called a 'soft reboot' and too similar to ANH. When Rian came to make TLJ, he should have done his utmost to address the 'soft reboot' description and avoided any similarities where possible. The X-Wing underwater and the Throne room are two scenes that did not try hard enough to deviate from their predecessors' paths, imo. They are too similar. Which led me to question why the similarity, and I can only suggest the reason is: nostalgia. It will make old fans say: "ooooh yeah! That was a great moment in Empire/Jedi" thus influencing the audience's opinion of the film they are currently watching.

david75

THis is nitpicking on a molecular level. Luke has an x wing. We know this. We get to see it. I’d accept your take if he lifted it out and we see it.
Doesn’t happen. It’s there simply to show you he can get off the island. It’s a visual cue using Rey also looking at it to show well if he got here I can get him to come back. back. It’s not way related to empire at all.

Falthyron

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

By your own admission though, you conjured up an entire scene in your head that directly called back to the older film by seeing it underwater - surely that is a far more evocative, specific piece of misdirection than it merely being under a pile of rocks? It’s not ‘necessary’ (although as Mickeroo suggests it seems like the most logical option given Luke’s characterisation), but the way you’re describing it makes it sounds like it was an incredibly effective piece of visual storytelling by Johnson.

Not in the slightest. I call it cheap and underwhelming. I would have rather be left wondering how did Luke get to Ahch-To. Did he crash his ship there? Was he dropped there by a friend? Minimalist story-telling can be very rewarding to the audience. If you are going to conjure up a connection to the previous films, thereby leading to nostalgia, then make it worth something, give the scene or moment value. If you need it for the purpose of a trick, then make it somewhat new or slightly unique.

david75

Chewie flying the falcon through another perilously tight tunnel chased by ties and using exactly the same music as in Empire asteroid field-thats nostalgia I think and it’s not even pretending otherwise.

Luke’s x wing / Snokes throne Room. That’s not nostalgia.

david75

I can’t find it but there’s an article out there with a full list of all the nods and references to other films Johnson was inspired by and there’s more of them than call backs to the OT apparently. He’s a real geek cinephile

Falthyron

I wasn't a huge fan of Rogue One, Tony, but I know you are. I probably should give it another watch and see what I make of it a second time around. The end of the film annoys me though...! :pac:

david75

Falthyron wrote: »

I wasn't a huge fan of Rogue One, Tony, but I know you are. I probably should give it another watch and see what I make of it a second time around. The end of the film annoys me though...! :pac:

I hated rogue one all the way up til recently. It takes a while and a few spins to reveal itself. Took me five times. Love it now.

Definitely give it another go.

TerrorFirmer

How could anyone possibly consider the X-Wing misdirection....it's little more than a 'shipwreck' and very visually represented as such and in no way comparable to the situation in ESB where in was in a shallow lake for a short time, versus countless years - almost decades - in the sea. It's a hollow wreck, honestly I think it was little more than a cool nod. Not every second, scene and visual aspect of the entire run time of a movie has to have deep significance. Some things just are what they are.

david75

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

How could anyone possibly consider the X-Wing misdirection....it's little more than a 'shipwreck' and very visually represented as such and in no way comparable to the situation in ESB where in was in a shallow lake for a short time, versus countless years - almost decades - in the sea. It's a hollow wreck, honestly I think it was little more than a cool nod. Not every second, scene and visual aspect of the entire run time of a movie has to have deep significance. Some things just are what they are.

Well its sealed for space travel so it’s not like the interior and engines would be flooded. Being submerged It isn’t exposed to air so rust isn’t a factor. Worst wrong with it it has some coral and seaweed growing on it. It would be perfectly capable of flight. But it is there as one of three visual cues to show you how he got there and he can leave. The other two being now he survives, with the fishing and the milking and what he does day to day. Which is not much
But mainly it’s a cool quick nod to show how he got there which is a question that was being asked. People were wondering did lor san tekka drop him off and that’s how he has the map etc.
Just showing the ship quickly answers that.

Sad Professor

Criticising a SW movie for being too nostalgic is kinda bizarre given that the first SW was a spliced together nostalgia-fest of westerns, samurai movies, space adventure serials, fairy tales, dogfighting movies and other things that they didn't seem to make anymore in 1977. This was very apparent to critics and most adult viewers at the time but not to kids (today's fans). This wasn't the pastiche of obscure sources that Tarantino creates, it was a very blatant attempt to inspire nostalgia in adults who grew up with these things and to introduce them to a new generation. As Lucas said at the time, the movie was the for kid in everyone.

Anyone looking for something to complain about with the new films is really barking up the wrong tree with the nostalgia angle. I have issues with TFA too (re-hashing the Death Star had nothing to do with nostalgia, just the usual sequel dilemma of trying to top what went before, which ROTJ also suffered from) but not with its desire to inspire nostalgia, which was pretty much the modus operandi of SW from its inception. See also Lucas's previous film American Graffiti.

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

Criticising a SW movie for being too nostalgic is kinda bizarre given that the first SW was a spliced together nostalgia-fest of westerns, samurai movies, space adventure serials, fairy tales, dogfighting movies and other things

That's a very different type of nostalgia though and it's quite hidden. The nostalgia in "modern" Star Wars is of itself and is blatant. They're callbacks to its own stories and universe, primarily for fan service.

Plus, on the influences of the 1977 'Star Wars'...that would have flown over the heads of most of the audience. My dad, who was brought upon those same serials and war movies didn't recognise anything like that in the original film. He just thought it was a load of rubbish featuring people with monkey heads.

Tony EH

Falthyron wrote: »

I wasn't a huge fan of Rogue One, Tony, but I know you are. I probably should give it another watch and see what I make of it a second time around. The end of the film annoys me though...! :pac:

Give another go if you wish.

I can't understand anyone who likes Star Wars not liking 'Rogue One'. It's a strange old thing to me, I have to say. But, it happens.

As for the ending, I thought it was great. Everyone dies*...what's not to like? :pac:

Go Empire!




*It would have been very disappointing if they somehow got out of that situation.

david75

Yet Luke dies in the last Jedi in the most profound true Jedi way and perfectly fitting for his character and manner and somehow people don’t like it.

Odd that.

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

That's a very different type of nostalgia though and it's quite hidden. The nostalgia in "modern" Star Wars is of itself and is blatant. They're callbacks to its own stories and universe, primarily for fan service.

Plus, on the influences of the 1977 'Star Wars'...that would have flown over the heads of most of the audience. My dad, who was brought upon those same serials and war movies didn't recognise anything like that in the original film. He just thought it was a load of rubbish featuring people with monkey heads.

The old-fashioned nostalgia of ANH wasn't remotely hidden. The way it replicated the past and referenced old movies and serials was noted by almost every review at the time. It was also at the core of most major criticisms of the film. Lucas was accused of infantilising the audience and regressing the whole art form. But the nostalgia was also a major part of why it was so successful - it was very familiar.

david75

I take Tonys point about it referencing itself in nostalgia but it’s almost completely absent in TLJ. To a level that is almost too much. TFA had to be a nostalgia fest to remind us and make us love Star Wars again. TLJ is barren of it apart from a few well crafted subtle moments. Star Wars is about its own history and furthering the story.
Objecting to its referencing its story via props characters or design is to miss the point entirely.

Falthyron

Tony EH wrote: »

Give another go if you wish.

I can't understand anyone who likes Star Wars not liking 'Rogue One'. It's a strange old thing to me, I have to say. But, it happens.

As for the ending, I thought it was great. Everyone dies*...what's not to like? :pac:

Go Empire!




*It would have been very disappointing if they somehow got out of that situation.

No, no. The everyone dying part is fine. It makes sense. My problem is with how the ending ties into the beginning of A New Hope. Leia telling Vader to his face that she has no clue about any transmissions and they were on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan, but Rogue One shows them coming straight out of a Ship that was in a battle above a planet. To me, in a real world comparison, that would be like the Guards coming across a car accident, seeing you getting out of the car in the accident, walking away, and then telling the Guards you weren't in any accident, you were on a lovely evening stroll.

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

The old-fashioned nostalgia of ANH wasn't remotely hidden. The way it replicated the past and referenced old movies and serials was noted by almost every review at the time. It was also at the core of most major criticisms of the film. Lucas was accused of infantilising the audience and regressing the whole art form. But the nostalgia was also a major part of why it was so successful - it was very familiar.

There would have been few people of the day, outside of film buffs, that would have gotten the references.

The samurai movies - 'The Hidden Fortress, etc. A tiny amount of folk would have got that. About 10 people would have seen that film in the west at that time.

The point is, it wasn't overt.

The nostalgia in Star Wars today is directly prodding the audience to "remember that?" with absolutely clear lines to what the talking about, because it's talking about itself.

david75

Falthyron wrote: »

No, no. The everyone dying part is fine. It makes sense. My problem is with how the ending ties into the beginning of A New Hope. Leia telling Vader to his face that she has no clue about any transmissions and they were on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan, but Rogue One shows them coming straight out of a Ship that was in a battle above a planet. To me, in a real world comparison, that would be like the Guards coming across a car accident, seeing you getting out of the car in the accident, walking away, and then telling the Guards you weren't in any accident, you were on a lovely evening stroll.

But that’s the point. She has no fear of the empire or Vader at that point and adds layers to her character by being brazen enough to outright lie. And he of course knows the lie. But diplomats are immune from this sort of arrest and examination as in the real world. She thinks she’s safe from any consequence of her mission and bein caugh red handed. But she’s not. He tortures her.

This adds huge new brilliant layers to the dynamic and her view of Vader especially later when she finds out the truth about who he is.

Tony EH

Falthyron wrote: »

No, no. The everyone dying part is fine. It makes sense. My problem is with how the ending ties into the beginning of A New Hope. Leia telling Vader to his face that she has no clue about any transmissions and they were on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan, but Rogue One shows them coming straight out of a Ship that was in a battle above a planet. To me, in a real world comparison, that would be like the Guards coming across a car accident, seeing you getting out of the car in the accident, walking away, and then telling the Guards you weren't in any accident, you were on a lovely evening stroll.

Well, to me that's just her fabricating a story and sticking to it. Politicians do that all the time, even when they're caught out. I see that as Vader knows the score, Leia knows the score and he knows she's not going to budge on her story and that he has no real way of proving she's lying to the senate, who probably do think she is on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan.

Vader knows what she's saying is BS. He directly accuses her of lying, calls her a traitor and has her hauled off, without wasting any more time. Besides, he plans to bump her off anyway.

Falthyron

Hmmm, okay. I will try and watch it with the mindset that Leia has balls. Really large balls and going for the 'fake it until you make it' strategy. I'll watch it again at the weekend.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, to me that's just her fabricating a story and sticking to it. Politicians do that all the time, even when they're caught out. I see that as Vader knows the score, Leia knows the score and he knows she's not going to budge on her story and that he has no real way of proving she's lying to the senate, who probably do think she is on a diplomatic mission to Alderaan.

Vader knows what she's saying is BS. He directly accuses her of lying, calls her a traitor and has her hauled off, without wasting any more time. Besides, he plans to bump her off anyway.

Even before rogue one ever happened in our lives this was the case in a new hope. She knows she has the plans. He knows too. She has them on her person and has hid them in R2 ffs.

Rogue one just wove a new deeper element to it but made it so that that scene between them in ANH is even better. They could have easily screwed that up but they didn’t. Universally everyone agrees even if you don’t like rogue one, the last half hour is beyond reproach. It’s brilliant Star Wars.