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

nix

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 my impression is, the time frame between rogue one and ANH is a few days/weeks, because Leia's ship escapes to safety. So Vader capturing her at the start of ANH is the empire finally catching up to them / finding them and then Leia's acting all dumb, which is what most people who got caught in that situation would do

I think it ties together nice, i loved rogue one, its probably my favourite star wars movie, the action and humor is just spot on.. The only thing i hated about rogue one was the very last scene with CGI Leia, it was just far too cheesy :pac:

Andrew Beef

It makes perfect sense. Jyn Erso transmits the signal to a ship, the lads download it on to a disc, and then they play pass the parcel with it while Vader hacks them to bits.

When Vader confronts her she denies it (as you would). But she doesn’t know that Vader knows exactly what’s happened. And he calls her out for spoofing.

Entirely reasonable.

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

It was overt, Tony. I don't know what else to say to you other than you should watch more movies and read some books about SW and Hollywood in the '70s. SW was part of a wave of nostalgia-based movies at the time. Like I said, kids wouldn't have noticed it, but adults would have grown with those kinds movies. Westerns, serials, screwball comedies, etc. It wasn't about references, it's about a longing for a different, simpler era and earlier type of film. That's what nostalgia is.

There's a difference between a film being nostalgic, being self-referential, and being a re-hash. Sequels by their very nature tend to be the latter. ROTJ was frequently accused of being a re-hash of ANH. Was it evoking nostalgia for a film that only came out 5 years earlier? No, Lucas just decided to play it safe with parts of the film. It was nostalgic as well but no more so than ANH was.

TFA is overly self-referential and re-hashes too much of previous films in way that's too predictable and safe. It's nostalgic too but in a franchise that was always about nostalgia that's not a problem as long as you bring something new to the table. TLJ doesn't have either of those problems. It certainly draws on the topes and iconography of SW but it's a SW movie so it should.

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

It was overt, Tony. I don't know what else to say to you other than you should watch more movies and read some books about SW and Hollywood in the '70s.

I've been doing that for decades. Most of the audience for Star Wars in 1977 wouldn't.

That's the point.

Sad Professor wrote: »

SW was part of a wave of nostalgia-based movies at the time. Like I said, kids wouldn't have noticed it, but adults would have grown with those kinds movies. Westerns, serials, screwball comedies, etc.

As the son of adults who grew up with that stuff, I can tell you it flew over their heads.

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

I've been doing that for decades. Most of the audience for Star Wars in 1977 wouldn't.

That's the point.

People in 1977 didn't watch other movies? Didn't grow up watching westerns? Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comics and serials? WWII movies? Fantasy and fairy tale stories? They thought SW was totally new and original?

david75

My first time experiencing Star Wars was a double bill of Star Wars and empire, in the ambassador. I would have been 6. My da, about 22 at that point explaining to me it was like Flash Gordon which was somewhere in the ether at that point. Maybe bbc.
We knew nothing about Japanese cinema or influence. But I knew Flash Gordon.

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

People in 1977 didn't watch other movies? Didn't grow up watching westerns ?Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers comics and serials? WWII movies? Fantasy and fairy tale stories? They thought SW was totally new and original?

I don't think much of the audience of the 70's would have been that au fait with cinema in general, no. Sure, there would have been some. But not in the same way as we see today. With the advent of the internet and the saturation of various media, everyone's a "knowledgeable" film buff and they can study films endlessly.

In 1977, that didn't exist. You got to see a film in the pictures, more than likely once and that was it til it turned up on TV years later.

Of course, there would have been a few people that "got" the references to 'Flash Gordon', Kurosawa and WWII movies. But, the vast majority of folk wouldn't. Nor would they have cared all that much.

However, with modern Star Wars (and I include the prequels), it's directly referencing it's own history. It's directly using its own nostalgia.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as it were. But, I would like to see less of it as sometimes it's been detrimental.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think much of the audience of the 70's would have been that au fait with cinema in general, no. Sure, there would have been some. But not in the same way as we see today. With the advent of the internet and the saturation of various media, everyone's a "knowledgeable" film buff and they can study films endlessly.

In 1977, that didn't exist. You got to see a film in the pictures, more than likely once and that was it til it turned up on TV years later.

Of course, there would have been a few people that "got" the references to 'Flash Gordon', Kurosawa and WWII movies. But, the vast majority of folk wouldn't. Nor would they have cared all that much.

However, with modern Star Wars (and I include the prequels), it's directly referencing it's own history. It's directly using its own nostalgia.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as it were. But, I would like to see less of it as sometimes it's been detrimental.

It’s telling an ongoing story based it in its own history and narrative. It can only depend on its inbuilt history.

This is something anyone waving the nostalgia flag misses completely. Just because there’s an x wing or stormtrooper in it, it’s accused of nostalgia?? No. It’s working within its own universe to continue the story.

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think much of the audience of the 70's would have been that au fait with cinema in general, no. Sure, there would have been some. But not in the same way as we see today. With the advent of the internet and the saturation of various media, everyone's a "knowledgeable" film buff and they can study films endlessly.

In 1977, that didn't exist. You got to see a film in the pictures, more than likely once and that was it til it turned up on TV years later.

Of course, there would have been a few people that "got" the references to 'Flash Gordon', Kurosawa and WWII movies. But, the vast majority of folk wouldn't. Nor would they have cared all that much.

However, with modern Star Wars (and I include the prequels), it's directly referencing it's own history. It's directly using its own nostalgia.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as it were. But, I would like to see less of it as sometimes it's been detrimental.

It's not about references. References are different from nostalgia. A reference is an allusion to another film. Nostalgia is a feeling. You didn't need to be a cinephile or a film critic in 1977 to "get" the nostalgia. You only needed to be a filmgoer, which most people were, far more so than today.

The funny thing is that nostalgia is probably the very thing missing from some of the new SW films for many fans such as yourself. Probably why you like Rogue One so much. It captures the feeling and texture of ANH far better than TFA. The tone is more serious but probably captures how a lot of fans remember ANH.

Falthyron

david75 wrote: »

It’s telling an ongoing story based it in its own history and narrative. It can only depend on its inbuilt history.

This is something anyone waving the nostalgia flag misses completely. Just because there’s an x wing or stormtrooper in it, it’s accused of nostalgia?? No. It’s working within its own universe to continue the story.

That's ridiculous, David. Of course we can expect X-Wings and Stormtroopers. All I am saying is: when there is a completely viable alternative to recreating a scene that echoes, is an homage, or quite simply, a rehash, then why not go for it? Why must the scene be so similar to what came before? Its unnecessary. Be imaginative, be creative, be bold. As I said earlier, and you completely ignored my point: did Rey have to be shown the Resistance Fleet being destroyed in a fashion similar to Luke on the Death Star in Jedi? Was there no other way Rian and Co. could think of to get a flashpoint response from Rey?

Tony EH

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's not about references. References are different from nostalgia. A reference is an allusion to another film. Nostalgia is a feeling. You didn't need to be a cinephile or a film critic in 1977 to "get" the nostalgia. You only needed to be a filmgoer, which most people were, far more so than today.

The funny thing is that nostalgia is probably the very thing missing from some of the new SW films for many fans such as yourself. Probably why you like Rogue One so much. It captures the feeling and texture of ANH far better than TFA. The tone is more serious but probably captures how a lot of fans remember ANH.

Look, when a film maker puts AT-ATs into a film that's made decades after you first saw them, that's him directly prodding your nostalgia button.

"Remember the AT-ATs in that Star Wars film you saw as a kid? Well, here they are again!!! Member?"

When he makes a reference or homage to some - at the time - obscure Japanese film, who's director few of the audience would have known. That's not really the same thing. A few people might get it. Most won't, nor would they care.

When you see Walrus Man and Dr. Ulgy walk by in 'Rogue One', they're there for one thing only and that's to invoke a memory in the vast majority of your audience, purely for nostalgic reasons.

Falthyron

Tony EH wrote: »

Look, when a film maker puts AT-ATs into a film that's made decades after you first saw them, that's him directly prodding your nostalgia button.

"Remember the AT-ATs in that Star Wars film you saw as a kid? Well, here they are again!!! Member?"

When he makes a reference or homage to some - at the time - obscure Japanese film, who's director few of the audience would have known. That's not really the same thing. A few people might get it. Most won't, nor would they care.

When you see Walrus Man and Dr. Ulgy walk by in 'Rogue One', they're there for one thing only and that's to invoke a memory in the vast majority of your audience, purely for nostalgic reasons.

Personally, the most ridiculous thing about the AT-AT 2.0s is the fact that they don't appear to have had their primary weakness addressed. To think that the Empire/First Order continued using these flawed vehicles thirty years after they were shown to be highly vulnerable is a little odd. If Rian and Co. wanted to be on point they would have created new vehicles for The First Order. Ones that reflected years of hardened battle experience and hard fought victories where lessons had been learned.

david75

Falthyron wrote: »

That's ridiculous, David. Of course we can expect X-Wings and Stormtroopers. All I am saying is: when there is a completely viable alternative to recreating a scene that echoes, is an homage, or quite simply, a rehash, then why not go for it? Why must the scene be so similar to what came before? Its unnecessary. Be imaginative, be creative, be bold. As I said earlier, and you completely ignored my point: did Rey have to be shown the Resistance Fleet being destroyed in a fashion similar to Luke on the Death Star in Jedi? Was there no other way Rian and Co. could think of to get a flashpoint response from Rey?

Write it. Give us your how it should have gone down. I’ll get the popcorn ready.

johnny_ultimate

Tony EH wrote: »

When he makes a reference or homage to some - at the time - obscure Japanese film, who's director few of the audience would have known. That's not really the same thing. A few people might get it. Most won't, nor would they care.

Like this, you mean?

Tony EH

Falthyron wrote: »

Personally, the most ridiculous thing about the AT-AT 2.0s is the fact that they don't appear to have had their primary weakness addressed. To think that the Empire/First Order continued using these flawed vehicles thirty years after they were shown to be highly vulnerable is a little odd. If Rian and Co. wanted to be on point they would have created new vehicles for The First Order. Ones that reflected years of hardened battle experience and hard fought victories where lessons had been learned.

TBH, everything about the First Order is ridiculous.

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Like this, you mean?

/\

How many Star Wars fans would get that?

You can bet your ass they'd get this though

\/

Falthyron

david75 wrote: »

Write it. Give us your how it should have gone down. I’ll get the popcorn ready.

I don't have to. There are hundreds of ways Snoke could have elicited a reactionary, violent response from Rey.

I'll humour you with a few:

Taunted her about her parents.
Told her he will personally hunt down and kill her friends after he is finished with her.
Told her what he will do to Luke now that she has revealed his location.
Told her that he has captured Finn and the First Order are currently torturing him.
Told her that Leia has been killed.
Told her how Kylo took pleasure in killing Han.
Told her how he will break her spirit and join him as an apprentice.
Told her how he will make her kill Luke.

Do you accept that there are many, many different ways Snoke could have provoked Rey? Do you accept that there was no reason whatsoever to copy Jedi in this regard?

And if you accept that, then can you offer a reason as to why Rian chose to copy Jedi? For what reason was this decision made?

david75

Something I don’t get.

If these films are angering you to this point why keep talking about them?
That is a genuine enquiry. I have countless films I hate. I don’t spend any time ranting about them trying to prove why they’re crap. I don’t give them my time.

I don’t get being addicted to hating something and ranting about it at all.

Falthyron

david75 wrote: »

Something I don’t get.

If these films are angering you to this point why keep talking about them?
That is a genuine enquiry. I have countless films I hate. I don’t spend any time ranting about them trying to prove why they’re crap. I don’t give them my time.

I don’t get being addicted to hating something and ranting about it at all.

I don't hate TFA and TLJ. As I have said numerous times, they are for the most part, very competent and enjoyable films. However, as there are moments of joy, there are also moments that bring down the overall quality. There are also moments where I can't help but question the logic behind their execution. As a long time fan (there was a point - many years ago - where I defended the prequels!), I can't help but want to see the franchise being developed as best as possible, and the recent films aren't (imo) the best demonstration of that desire.

Sad Professor

Falthyron wrote: »

I don't have to. There are hundreds of ways Snoke could have elicited a reactionary, violent response from Rey.

I'll humour you with a few:

Taunted her about her parents.
Told her he will personally hunt down and kill her friends after he is finished with her.
Told her what he will do to Luke now that she has revealed his location.
Told her that he has captured Finn and the First Order are currently torturing him.
Told her that Leia has been killed.
Told her how Kylo took pleasure in killing Han.
Told her how he will break her spirit and join him as an apprentice.
Told her how he will make her kill Luke.

Do you accept that there are many, many different ways Snoke could have provoked Rey? Do you accept that there was no reason whatsoever to copy Jedi in this regard?

And if you accept that, then can you offer a reason as to why Rian chose to copy Jedi? For what reason was this decision made?

These are very bad examples.

Showing her her friends dying is much more effective than telling her stuff that she might not believe. Also, Snoke taunting her about anything would just remind the audience of Vader doing the same to Luke in ROTJ.

Falthyron

Sad Professor wrote: »

These are very bad examples.

Showing her her friends dying is much more effective than telling her stuff that she might not believe. Also, Snoke taunting her about anything would just remind the audience of Vader doing the same to Luke in ROTJ.

I'm not saying my examples are the cream of the crop and should be used. I am highlighting that there are so many other ways of provoking Rey into attacking Snoke than copying what the Emperor did in ROTJ. Or was there absolutely no other way for Rian to achieve this outcome? It had to be the same scene as Jedi?

Sad Professor

Falthyron wrote: »

I'm not saying my examples are the cream of the crop and should be used. I am highlighting that there are so many other ways of provoking Rey into attacking Snoke than copying what the Emperor did in ROTJ. Or was there absolutely no other way for Rian to achieve this outcome? It had to be the same scene as Jedi?

Sequels re-hash moments from previous movies. There has probably never been a sequel that doesn't. Lucas established this "rhyming" scheme, not Johnson, who employs it far more effectively than Lucas ever did.

Also you are talking about a director who is being raked over the hot coals for the ways in which he subverts and departs from the previous movies and you complaining about one of the instances in which he doesn't?

Cookie_Monster

Falthyron wrote: »

What did seeing Luke's X-Wing do for the overall plot and development of the storyline on Ahch-To and the film in its entirety?

just leaves more pointless questions, like why did he crash it into the sea instead of just landing like a normal person.

Sad Professor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

just leaves more pointless questions, like why did he crash it into the sea instead of just landing like a normal person.

Like the way he landed on Dagobah?

david75

Falthyron wrote: »

I don't have to. There are hundreds of ways Snoke could have elicited a reactionary, violent response from Rey.

I'll humour you with a few:

Taunted her about her parents.
Told her he will personally hunt down and kill her friends after he is finished with her.
Told her what he will do to Luke now that she has revealed his location.
Told her that he has captured Finn and the First Order are currently torturing him.
Told her that Leia has been killed.
Told her how Kylo took pleasure in killing Han.
Told her how he will break her spirit and join him as an apprentice.
Told her how he will make her kill Luke.

Do you accept that there are many, many different ways Snoke could have provoked Rey? Do you accept that there was no reason whatsoever to copy Jedi in this regard?

And if you accept that, then can you offer a reason as to why Rian chose to copy Jedi? For what reason was this decision made?

All of that was the worst kind of fan fiction imaginable.

And this is why Rian Johnson got the job and you will never be hired to steer a multi billion dollar cultural icon onto the screen.

Falthyron

Sad Professor wrote: »

Sequels re-hash moments from previous movies. There has probably never been a sequel that doesn't. Lucas established this "rhyming" scheme, not Johnson, who employs it far more effectively than Lucas ever did.

Also you are talking about a director who is being raked over the hot coals for the ways in which he subverts and departs from the previous movies and you complaining about one of the instances in which he doesn't?

I'm not sure if you have been following my argument from the beginning. Originally, I argued the point that there are multiple instances in TLJ where similarities appear between TLJ and previous films in the franchise, specifically ESB and ROTJ. In a more broader context I contend that Rian was tapping into the nostalgic moments of previous films and developing his own versions of those scenes in his own film. Ultimately, I am saying: why did Rian feel the need to copy previous scenes and place them in his own film? Surely he could come up with his own ways of achieving the desired outcome without rehashing older moments.

For example: did we need to have AT-ATs on Crait? Could he not have designed new vehicles, perhaps more appropriate ones for wiping out less than 50 Resistance soldiers? did he need to recreate the scene from ROTJ where Luke is brought before the Emperor? Specifically, Rey being forced to watch the Resistance ships getting destroyed, much like how Luke watched the Rebel fleet being ambushed? Was there no other way for Rian to achieve the desired outcome (Resistance base being overrun and Rey being provoked, respectively) without nostalgic throwbacks and rehashing of previous scenes?

Falthyron

david75 wrote: »

All of that was the worst kind of fan fiction imaginable.

And this is why Rian Johnson got the job and you will never be hired to steer a multi billion dollar cultural icon onto the screen.

Can you at least try to answer my multi-pronged question? I have answered all of your's.

'Do you accept that there are many, many different ways Snoke could have provoked Rey? Do you accept that there was no reason whatsoever to copy Jedi in this regard?

And if you accept that, then can you offer a reason as to why Rian chose to copy Jedi? For what reason was this decision made?'

david75

Falthyron wrote: »

Can you at least try to answer my multi-pronged question? I have answered all of your's.

'Do you accept that there are many, many different ways Snoke could have provoked Rey? Do you accept that there was no reason whatsoever to copy Jedi in this regard?

And if you accept that, then can you offer a reason as to why Rian chose to copy Jedi? For what reason was this decision made?'

Read your post back. And how you wrote it.
I don’t have to accept anything from your post nor does anyone.
I actually don’t want to because something has become apparent. You’re in a whole other level of ownership of this and if it doesn’t fit your frame of reference and demands it’s **** and you know better.

I’ll talk about the films all day. I won’t talk with a mini dictator assuming it’s his place to be correcting it and anyone who likes it is he doesn’t. Good luck.

Sad Professor

Falthyron wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have been following my argument from the beginning. Originally, I argued the point that there are multiple instances in TLJ where similarities appear between TLJ and previous films in the franchise, specifically ESB and ROTJ. In a more broader context I contend that Rian was tapping into the nostalgic moments of previous films and developing his own versions of those scenes in his own film. Ultimately, I am saying: why did Rian feel the need to copy previous scenes and place them in his own film? Surely he could come up with his own ways of achieving the desired outcome without rehashing older moments.

For example: did we need to have AT-ATs on Crait? Could he not have designed new vehicles, perhaps more appropriate ones for wiping out less than 50 Resistance soldiers? did he need to recreate the scene from ROTJ where Luke is brought before the Emperor? Specifically, Rey being forced to watch the Resistance ships getting destroyed, much like how Luke watched the Rebel fleet being ambushed? Was there no other way for Rian to achieve the desired outcome (Resistance base being overrun and Rey being provoked, respectively) without nostalgic throwbacks and rehashing of previous scenes?

Like I said, sequels rehash moments from previous films. You'd be hard pressed to find a sequel that doesn't. Is T2 being nostalgic when it rehashes chase scenes and whole scenarios from the first film? No, it's a sequel. That's what sequels do. Provide more of the same only bigger.

You're acting like he re-did the scene shot-for-shot. He didn't. There was a throne room scene in ROTS as well. Similar lines are spoken, hands get chopped off, etc. Lucas established the idea that the trilogies would rhyme. JJ continued it. But you are complaining that Johnson (who is already in trouble for killing Snoke off an movie early and for not repeating the "I am your father" twist) shouldn't have had Rey looking out the window like Luke in ROTJ? I'm sorry, I don't get it.

Also the AT-ATs are not the same as the ones in TESB. They redesigned them, but yeah they are similar. JJ established this broadly similar design trend in TFA (X-Wings, Tie fighters, Star-destroyers, etc), so Johnson didn't have much choice but to follow it. They serve a function in the story, so I don't really care. The prequels were over-designed anyway.

Falthyron

david75 wrote: »

Read your post back. And how you wrote it.
I don’t have to accept anything from your post nor does anyone.
I actually don’t want to because something has become apparent. You’re in a whole other level of ownership of this and if it doesn’t fit your frame of reference and demands it’s **** and you know better.

I’ll talk about the films all day. I won’t talk with a mini dictator assuming it’s his place to be correcting it and anyone who likes it is he doesn’t. Good luck.

I appear to have touched a nerve. I didn't demand anything or expect you to accept anything. I simply argued my case, presented my evidence and (in the spirit of debate as is always the case on a forum) asked you as to whether or not you accept my point about why Rian could have chosen many other routes with Rey in Snoke's throne room. My entire post is interrogative, I didn't tell you to accept anything.

If you didn't accept my point then I hoped you would offer some reasons why there was absolutely no other way for Rian to do this scene except by forcing Rey to see the Resistance ships being destroyed.

My hypothetical scenes and questions are not offensive, nor do they come across dictating 'how it should be', from how I see it, anyway. But, if you are offended by me posing, what I believe to be, a fair question (particularly as I answered yours), then I apologise for how I asked it or the content therein.