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

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

tigger123 wrote: »

How/where did you see that agenda in the movie? Genuine question.

How did you miss the 400 or so pages in this thread discussing it? Genuine question.

david75

Star Wars is political at its core. It’s literally about social justice warriors fighting an evil empire for the freedom of the galaxy.

david75

Saruhashi wrote: »

I think this is an interesting take and I wonder if you would feel differently if the objections to the light-speed attack were contained within a single movie rather than spread across a series of movies set in the same "universe"?

Imagine a generic space film where:

We open with a scene where a massive ship with the potential to kill everyone was attacking the good guys and the good guys can't figure out how to destroy it. They just lose tons of soldiers and ships trying to bring it down before they finally win.

In the middle of the film an even more massive ship threatens to kill everyone but it's taken out by a single pilot using a single ship travelling at light speed.

At the end of the film the good guys are once again faced with a massive ship that can kill them all. How can they possibly defeat it?

I think if all of this was contained within a single film we would say "what the hell, if light-speed is a weapon that costs one solider and one ship then why aren't they just using it in every fight?".

Wouldn't we?

So how does that change if we extend the single movie out into a series of episodes?

I would think the biggest consequence is that something that happens in Episode 8 of 9 makes the previous 7 episodes make no sense.

Here is a universe where every other ship has a light-speed engine and there are a load of droids and clones and various disposable minions in these warring factions. It's possible to disable an entire fleet by ramming their largest ship at light-speed with a single vessel containing a single pilot.

I'm not sure that the stylistic and dramatic benefits outweigh the damage to the integrity of the fictional world that they've been building up.

It's not really even well set up in TLJ anyway, in my opinion. The entire resistance fleet has light-speed capability. Once it's been established that the First Order is chasing them they allow several of their large ships to be taken out, with pilots on board AND they allow several of their small transports carrying their last surviving people to be destroyed and only at this point does someone think "hang on, our big ship could just ram their big ship at light-speed and they'd be all smashed up and broken"?

For me, that's poor writing. Considering the consequences to the larger Star Wars universe I think it was extremely reckless.

I suppose if you don't care then it's fine. Maybe people just shouldn't care. That seems like a bit of a kop out though.

Short answer ‘it’s wrong cos its never happened before’ is a really lazy stupid criticism. There are no ‘consequences’ for the story either before or after this.

johnny_ultimate

Saruhashi wrote: »

I suppose if you don't care then it's fine. Maybe people just shouldn't care. That seems like a bit of a kop out though.

This is my last post on this matter.

Firstly: Destroying your largest ship is an outrageously costly move for a myriad of reasons. I don't need to expand on why, and no wonder it would only be used in the most desperate of situations.

Secondly: On August 6 and August 9 1945 two bombs were dropped which dwarfed the power of any to date. On September 11 2001, several planes were hijacked to cause legitimately world-changing damage. We have - thankfully - seen neither tactic reused since, because the world subsequently adjusted and defended itself against such tactics (although the risk remains). Trump cards (and I mean that in the bridge sense rather that the US president sense) can change the game, but the change isn't just passively accepted by everyone else. There are a plethora of ways this could be reflected in SW itself if needed regarding Holdo's move.

Thirdly: The circumstances are very specific here. An enemy with their guard down, and that has settled into a predictable movement pattern. An unusually wide ship prone to being sliced into pieces. Only one person who knows what's really going on. This was a surprise tactic, something that is explicitly reflected in pretty much everyone's reaction to it. In Episode IX, there is no question this would not be easily replicable.

Fourthly: If you don't accept that this is the first time this has happened, who's to say this has never happened in Star Wars history? We've seen several days of this galaxy's history on screen out of millennia. The lore can adjust, as it often does.

Fifthly, and by far most importantly: Johnson has created a scene that brings a stylistic idea - the use of silence - used throughout to a major, show-stopping climax. It is one of the most beautiful, considered moments of audio-visual spectacle in blockbuster history. For this story, it delivers a much-needed turning point, not just for the basic 'chase' plot, but also for the characters. Pretty much all of our leads are in a desperate situation, and some (Rey and Kylo) are undergoing pivotal turning points. This big, bold, surprise move serves to dramatically underscore and emphasise what is happening in the story at the moment in a highly visual, cinematic way.

That, ultimately, is what matters for me. I care *far more* about the consequences of a filmmaking decision on the filmmaking itself than its lore implications or hypothetical impact on future franchise films. Why I like this film so much is because Johnson writes & directs what is best for this film, which is deeply unusual and extremely satisfying in an era of hyper-franchises.

And that, truly, is all I have to say on The Holdo Maneuver.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Short answer ‘it’s wrong cos its never happened before’ is a really lazy stupid criticism. There are no ‘consequences’ for the story either before or after this.

That's not the crux of the matter.

The problem now is, when the chips are down in a space battle and nobody hyperspace's a droid operated ship into a Star Wars type superweapon, there are going to be questions asked.

It was a stupid and careless, albeit pretty, story device where the writer didn't stop to think about the ramifications on the ongoing story and what came before his chapter.

People can chose to ignore the issue I spose.

It is "bliss", after all.

david75

https://twitter.com/theswu/status/951655174656987136

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This is my last post on this matter.

Firstly: Destroying your largest ship is an outrageously costly move for a myriad of reasons. I don't need to expand on why, and no wonder it would only be used in the most desperate of situations.

Like there were no "desperate situations" in a Star Wars space battle before now...ahem Death Star...twice.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

On September 11 2001, several planes were hijacked to cause legitimately world-changing damage. We have - thankfully - seen neither tactic reused since...

But we DID see them before when the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy used kamikaze attacks on American shipping, when they were facing over whelming odds in a "desperate situation".

The Jihadi's didn't lick it off the stones.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Thirdly: The circumstances are very specific here. An enemy with their guard down, and that has settled into a predictable movement pattern. An unusually wide ship prone to being sliced into pieces. Only one person who knows what's really going on. This was a surprise tactic, something that is explicitly reflected in pretty much everyone's reaction to it. In Episode IX, there is no question this would not be easily replicable.

The problem is that it's a tactic that could have been used a thousand times before and with droids operating the ships. People on the web can stop and ask that question. Why couldn't Johnson?

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Fourthly: If you don't accept that this is the first time this has happened, who's to say this has never happened in Star Wars history? We've seen several days of this galaxy's history on screen out of millennia. The lore can adjust, as it often does.

If it was used once, it would have been used again. We're in a universe where there are huge space battles as a matter of course and droids are an everyday matter of fact. It stretches credulity that nobody ever thought of it before to get out of a "desperate situation".

Bottom line is it was sloppy and careless writing of a wow scene that cared nothing about the consequences of that scene.

You may wish to make excuses for it because you liked the scene and that's fine.

Other people are going to naturally question why it isn't reproduced when such odds are present again in a Star Wars movie and why when such "desperate situations" faced people before that nobody else did it.

buried

Yeah people can just ignore it if they want. I'll be ignoring these new films in my own mindscape that's for sure. Its just a shame and wasted chance to do something really brilliant. To keep the new trilogy within some sort of good structure, to make 3 great films with proper pacing and storytelling. They Missed a big chance with Hamill, he was great in this, I enjoyed all the Skellig scenes, I could have watched a entire movies worth of that alone and like I said earlier, I think that's what Episode 7 should have been, Luke training a new group and some conflict arises from that like the flashback scenes in TLJ which I thought were very good too, it was annoying those only lasted 10 seconds.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not the crux of the matter.

The problem now is, when the chips are down in a space battle and nobody hyperspace's a droid operated ship into a Star Wars type superweapon, there are going to be questions asked.

It was a stupid and careless, albeit pretty, story device where the writer didn't stop to think about the ramifications on the ongoing story and what came before his chapter.

People can chose to ignore the issue I spose.

It is "bliss", after all.

Someone somewhere one day will sit and watch Star Wars chronologically and then pull their hair out cos the Death Star blows up Alderaan and that has no precedence in the story and wrecks what came before it, why didn’t they just build one earlier?? Why don’t the Rebels build a bigger one to blow it up?? Stupid questions. As here.
And just because it’s now been done doesn’t mean we have to see it used all the time from now on. Kamakazie tactics are not effective as an ongoing military tactic and the adversary just adapts to counter it anyways.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Someone somewhere one day will sit and watch Star Wars chronologically and then pull their hair out cos the Death Star blows up Alderaan and that has no precedence in the story and wrecks what came before it, why didn’t they just build one earlier?? Why don’t the Rebels build a bigger one to blow it up?? Stupid questions. As here.
And just because it’s now been done doesn’t mean we have to see it used all the time from now on. Kamakazie tactics are not effective as an ongoing military tactic and the adversary just adapts to counter it anyways.

Again, this doesn't address the issue. The Rebels COULDN'T build a death star, they didn't have the funds.

Slamming a hyperspace'd ship into another COULD have been done by ANYONE and when droids are piloting, like we see all the time in Star Wars, there isn't even a human cost.

We can try and rationalise this all we want and I'm open to doing so, I'll even accept the "murder bear" angle for those wretched Ewoks.

But, I've heard nothing to stem the questions regarding this Holdo thing.

david75

If you can accept ewoks are actually man eating murder bears you can accept anything in Star Wars
Cos they are actually murder bears

david75

If we’re gonna be nit picky it has been done before and to even greater devastating effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKxzI4LuNSU

johnny_ultimate

Tony EH wrote: »

The problem is that it's a tactic that could have been used a thousand times before and with droids operating the ships. People on the web can stop and ask that question. Why couldn't Johnson?

This debate, among others, is precisely why I’m extremely glad Rian Johnson made this film over ‘people on the web’.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

If you can accept ewoks are actually man eating murder bears you can accept anything in Star Wars
Cos they are actually murder bears

I can accept that Chimps are three times as strong as a man and can rip your face off and break every bone in your body, if they are of a mind too.

I'll allow that application to Ewoks.

I still hate them though.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

If we’re gonna be nit picky it has been done before and to even greater devastating effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKxzI4LuNSU

Not the same thing.

Keyzer

tigger123 wrote: »

How/where did you see that agenda in the movie? Genuine question.

The agenda is pushed through the entire movie from start to finish - you didn't notice? You want examples?

Mitch Connor

Tony EH wrote: »

That's not the crux of the matter.

The problem now is, when the chips are down in a space battle and nobody hyperspace's a droid operated ship into a Star Wars type superweapon, there are going to be questions asked.

It was a stupid and careless, albeit pretty, story device where the writer didn't stop to think about the ramifications on the ongoing story and what came before his chapter.

People can chose to ignore the issue I spose.

It is "bliss", after all.

solution - Gravity Wells that impede Hyperspace travel. A technology that is present in in the SW universe.

Mitch Connor

Keyzer wrote: »

The agenda is pushed through the entire movie from start to finish - you didn't notice? You want examples?

I would.

I found Rose to be annoying and could see issues around her. I probably had an issue with every scene she was in - but that's probably more a story issue for me.

Beyond that, what? I get that most of the leads are female (Lieia, Rey, Holdo) but I don't really remember any around them other than being strong characters.

That said, I will pretty much always cringe when I see SJW and Fememinism called out in an argument like this because I fear it will result in an argument that doesn't go far beyond 'That main character is female, being a female, looking female, while talking.'.

david75

Mitch Connor wrote: »

solution - Gravity Wells that impede Hyperspace travel. A technology that is present in in the SW universe.

The interdictor. They used it in Rebels this season. Was deadly to see.

Tony EH

Mitch Connor wrote: »

solution - Gravity Wells that impede Hyperspace travel. A technology that is present in in the SW universe.

Perhaps, and that could be written into some future film. But, the question still remains why nobody weaponised hyperspace before, when this film has made it such an easy thing to do?

The ONLY explanation I can come up with is that the crossing between "normal" space and hyperspace requires "precise calculations" and to weaponise it in a space battle is such a one in a million shot, that it is virtually impossible to make it happen on a regular basis and that Holdo simply had a lot of luck on her side.

But, even that geekout has to ignore a lot of other issues.

david75

Hyperspace was already weaponised. The blast from starkiller base in TFA is travelling through hyperspace believe it or not.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Hyperspace was already weaponised. The blast from starkiller base in TFA is travelling through hyperspace believe it or not.

You're missing the point David.

Saruhashi

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Secondly: On August 6 and August 9 1945 two bombs were dropped which dwarfed the power of any to date. On September 11 2001, several planes were hijacked to cause legitimately world-changing damage. We have - thankfully - seen neither tactic reused since, because the world subsequently adjusted and defended itself against such tactics (although the risk remains). Trump cards (and I mean that in the bridge sense rather that the US president sense) can change the game, but the change isn't just passively accepted by everyone else. There are a plethora of ways this could be reflected in SW itself if needed regarding Holdo's move

Just going to focus on this one because it's tiresome to address every point and I am sure others will have a run at it.

The Manhattan Project was started in 1942. The first ever detonation of a nuclear device took place on 16 July 1945. The Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th 1945.

They were planning another on August 19th and 3 more in September followed by 3 more in October 1945.

Basically, as soon as they had developed a new, more effective, method of warfare they were using it within a month. Within a month. They were planning to use them over and over until their enemy was utterly destroyed.

Fortunately, the Japanese surrendered.

The use of these weapons changed the face of war and the nature of global politics overnight and now that many nations have developed nuclear bombs of their own the weapon acts as more of a deterrent than a legitimate offensive tactic.

In the Star Wars universe they had hyperdrive for a long time and the tactic of firing an object at lightspeed towards a target is tremendously effective.

Clearly the possibility that a single sufficiently large object fired at hyperspeed towards a target can do so much damage would make it a viable offensive tactic that we would see in almost every single space battle.

Especially when the main military power in the galaxy has not once, not twice but three times attempted to build massive spherical lazer cannons of mass destruction.

"We could save some planets by just shooting an object at lightspeed towards their superweapon, might disable it" Nah, let's wait and see how it plays out.

"Emperor, instead of building this giant space station maybe we could fire a few of those ships that look like arrowheads towards the enemy at lightspeed? Hell, why not do both? We lose 4 or 5 of these things in every battle anyway!"

The alternative is that we can't shoot them with a lightspeed object because they would do the same to us and we'd both be destroyed. So we'd have gotten the "Star Cold Wars" movies instead.

It was a stupid decision to put that in the movie. Even more so if it was just to have a pretty shot. Ah, but they used silence so... wow... amazing.

The Holdo Maneuver appearing at this stage in the Star Wars story is like the Spanish developing the first matchlock firearms in the early 16th century and using them exclusively as tools. Then at some point in the 20th century deciding that they can actually use these things to effectively defeat the enemies infantry.

It would be so obviously easy to weaponize hyperspace just like it was so easy to weaponize heavy metals and black exploding powder. So everyone would be doing it because its so obvious.

So introducing this tactic in episode 8 of a 9 episode series seems like pretty poor storytelling and a pretty bad thing for the consistency of previous world-building.

Hilarious that the bad guys, led by the most evil bastards ever, flying around in these pointy triangular craft with lightspeed engines fitted to the back for probably almost a century and nobody is even slightly concerned that they could turn the tide of any given battle by basically pointing and clicking.

It looked pretty though. So there's that.

david75

No it’s the same thing. We’d never seen hyperspace weaponised before TFA yet no hullabaloo about that.

Conall Cernach

It'd be some craic if during Solo we find out that Lando's maneuver at the Battle of Taanab turned out to be a variation of the Holdo maneuver.

buried

Saruhashi wrote: »

Hilarious that the bad guys, led by the most evil bastards ever, flying around in these pointy triangular craft with lightspeed engines fitted to the back for probably almost a century and nobody is even slightly concerned that they could turn the tide of any given battle by basically pointing and clicking.

It looked pretty though. So there's that.

:pac: pmsl

Saruhashi

buried wrote: »

:pac: pmsl

:pac:

Even better that the First Order went to the hassle of developing a miniaturized Death Star siege cannon that can be used in the event that you need to bust down a giant door.

WTF?

These guys are flat out refusing to weaponize hyperspace at this point even though everyone in the galaxy knows it's the best way to cause massive, beautiful, damage.

Episode 9 should open on a First Order factory planet that is mass producing hyperdrive engines, fitting them to asteroids and then firing them at planets who won't bend the knee.

david75

Conall Cernach wrote: »

It'd be some craic if during Solo we find out that Lando's maneuver at the Battle of Taanab turned out to be a variation of the Holdo maneuver.

Oh my god I love this

Tony EH

Conall Cernach wrote: »

It'd be some craic if during Solo we find out that Lando's maneuver at the Battle of Taanab turned out to be a variation of the Holdo maneuver.

Maybe that's why we don't see Lobot in 'Return of the Jedi'.

Lando made him a Hyperspace hero at the Battle of Taanab.

Falthyron

If Episode IX features one of the following:

- A super Star Destroyer ship, similar to Vader's or Snoke's.
- A weapon system similar to the Death Star or Starkiller Base.
- A planet inhabited by The First Order, or featuring a large enemy fortress/base.
- A Resistance capital ship.
- A Resistance weapon system.
- A Resistance base or planet.

And if we don't see either side utilising this new weapon (Hyperspace Kamikaze) or DHW (Divine Hyper Wind), as I prefer to call it, then surely the audience will ask: why don't they fire a ship entering hyperspace at the big thing?

Is that not a fair question to ask from now on?