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

I don't see why there is such an uproar over the possible recasting of the role, it's hardly the first time that an actor has died before starting work on a production that they are integral to. No one seemed to be upset or refusing to watch the Harry Potter films which followed the death of Richard Harris or boycotted The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus after they continued shooting following the death of Heath Ledger. Likewise, when Paul Walker died and they used body doubles and CGI to complete the film no one was offended or insulted by the decision.

It's a bit rich to hear Star Wars fanboys crying "if they CGI Fisher into the film I won't watch it" when you consider that these same people had not a single issue with the use of CGI to bring back Peter Cushing, a man who died 2 decades ago as Grand Moff.

If Leia is integral to the plans for Episode 9 then I hope they recast her, there's a real sense with these films that they are making it up as they go along and as such they can maybe work her out of the film using the same great writing that resulted in the whole "tell the world but not Poe about our plan to evacuate" moment. Based on the past two films I have little faith in them being able to write Fisher out in an interesting manner.

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see why there is such an uproar over the possible recasting of the role, it's hardly the first time that an actor has died before starting work on a production that they are integral to. No one seemed to be upset or refusing to watch the Harry Potter films which followed the death of Richard Harris or boycotted The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus after they continued shooting following the death of Heath Ledger. Likewise, when Paul Walker died and they used body doubles and CGI to complete the film no one was offended or insulted by the decision.

It's a bit rich to hear Star Wars fanboys crying "if they CGI Fisher into the film I won't watch it" when you consider that these same people had not a single issue with the use of CGI to bring back Peter Cushing, a man who died 2 decades ago as Grand Moff.

If Leia is integral to the plans for Episode 9 then I hope they recast her, there's a real sense with these films that they are making it up as they go along and as such they can maybe work her out of the film using the same great writing that resulted in the whole "tell the world but not Poe about our plan to evacuate" moment. Based on the past two films I have little faith in them being able to write Fisher out in an interesting manner.

That's all well and good, and makes logical sense, but the point completely ignores the emotional context that exists with someone like Carrie Fisher, and her role of Princess / General Leia. The fictitious character and the actor that played her are deeply connected; certainly the decades that allowed Fisher to mould her career within the shadow of her most/only famous job only grew that sense of ownership.

All your above examples are ostensibly apt, but absolutely none of the parts came to define the actors, or effectively shaped their careers, to the extent Leia did for Fisher (or how Luke Skywalker informed Mark Hammil's own personal and professional life). Insofar as pop culture can have such things, Fisher & Hamill effectively occupy ambassadorial roles for the Star Wars franchise; no more than other actors found themselves in the same scenario in equally popular franchises - such as the late Leonard Nimoy with Star Trek, Tom Baker for Dr. Who, etc. etc. It's a conundrum unique to acting in that your most famous role can often typecast & constrain a career - but at the same time can also liberate, and turn your career into an aforementioned ambassadorial one. It's a compelling situation to find yourself universally loved or admired, warts n' all.

Recasting Leia, or making a CGI recreation (of Fisher before her death, obviously movie magic was used to recreate a younger version - with mixed results. The recasting choice was taken with Spock of course, though Nimoy's appearance effectively operated as a 'royal approval' of the decision) is perfectly doable and in other franchises has been the appropriate response, but there's simply more to it than it being 'just' a role.

It's the double standard that I have the issue with, for some reason, it is acceptable to Star Wars fans to have Peter Cushing resurrected but when it is suggested for Leia then we have people talking about how it's desecration. Yes, she is mainly known for Leia, which is a shame as she was a damn fine writer and certainly should be celebrated more for that than the Star Wars universe. I really liked Fisher, she was one of those take no crap old school actors and her and Hamill have a lovely relationship but saying you will refuse to watch a film if her role is recast or computer generated is just childish fanboyism of the worst kind.

I think that Paul Walker is quite like Fisher, he will forever be known for the Fast and the Furious films and when he died they used every tip and trick in the book to ensure that he was there in the final film. In fact, I would go so far as to say that his sendoff scene had more emotional heft and thematic resonance than most manage. Sure it was a lil strange watching a CGI version of him being painted over another actor but it worked and is something that if done correctly could work for ensuring that if Fisher is integral to the plot of episode 9 means that we can see her.

I think that if there was a line in the sand and people stuck to it then fine, but no instead we have fanboys demanding that no one be cast in the role and no CGI used and then at the same time celebrate when a character is brought back by movie magic. For many, Cushing is known and loved for his appearance in the Star Wars films and bringing him back through CGI is no different than using it to bring Fisher back.

Remakes of the original films are inevitable, maybe not for another 5 years or so but certainly within the next decade or so. Will there be an outcry then when it occurs or is it okay to bring in another actor then? We are seeing something similar right now with the backlash towards Solo, we have fans stating that they will not go see the film as it's not Harrison Ford, yet Ford has such utter disdain for SW fans that if he would most likely step over them in the street if they were on fire.

There is a sense of ownership of fandom that has exploded over the last decade, you will see it in threads like this where if someone posts a less than glowing review of the film they are swarmed upon and attacked simply because some people see any criticism of something they love as a personal attack. In fact, in this very thread fans were calling critics of the film misogynistic and then attacking anyone who did not think the film was the best thing ever.

You see the same thing whenever a Superhero film comes out, the same tired old DC vs Marvel arguments get trotted out and all it does is ruin discussion. We are now seeing it begin to be adopted by the studios more and more, they are actively retooling films based on feedback on forums and the like. I would hate to see filmmakers not be allowed to tell the stories they want simply because the fans don't want a role recast.

Tony EH

You don't recast iconic roles on a whim. It never works. At least not 100%. Don't bring up Bond, because it's not the same thing and Bond movies are essentially reboots every time a different actor takes on the part. Plus they take on the part for a series of films (except for Lazenby who opted out as it were).

Fisher has been Leia practically all of her life. Fans of the series associate her with the character and she brought so much of herself to that character as well. The same can be said of Hammil and Ford. It's a reason why most fans are uneasy about the recasting of Han Solo for the upcoming film and from what I've seen so far, it'll just never work for me.

On the topic of CGI, the simple fact is we're just not there yet and if the CGI of young Leia in 'Rogue One' is anything to go by, it won't work, because that was pretty poor. Not to mention wholly unnecessary. Plus, a LOT of fans thought that was a terrible idea. For me, I thought CGI Peter Cushing was fairly well done. But, they got too proud of it and overplayed their hand to the point that the obviousness of the computer generated character became far too noticable. I feel that it would have worked better with more medium and long distance shots, in more shadow, or limit his appearance to mainly holographic communications. This "overplaying the hand" will only be more prevalent with a major character with a lot of onscreen time, which Tarkin wasn't in 'Rogue One'.

The only way I can see a CGI old Leia working would be in a brief appearance at the start of the film. One where she gets killed. But, even then I don't think that'll be completely satisfactory as it might be a bigger shudder than an opening crawl saying PRINCESS LEIA HAS DIED AND THE RESISTANCE IS IN MOURNING...

Neither will be totally satisfactory to anybody. But both are infinately more preferable to a recast, which just discards almost everything the previous actor put into role. Personally, I think they should have reshot a few portions of 'The Last Jedi' with her death and not Luke's. After she gets blown out of the bridge, she really doesn't play that big a part afterward.

Conall Cernach

Hopefully they may have enough footage of her in the can already from the 2 previous films that they could do some sort of work around. There are bound to be loads of different shots and takes that weren't used in TFA and TLJ that they could cut and paste her into some scenes for the last film, maybe some dialogue editing too. Just enough so that they can give her a bit of a send off rather than have her be central to the whole movie.

Why can't you? Just because someone has become known for a certain role does not mean that it can't be recast, Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones is the perfect example. Sure he'll forever be known as Indy but if anything the last film proved that there is nothing worse than an actor sleepwalking through a role they are iconic for. There is no reason that Leia cannot be recast, the only reason seemingly stopping it here is that Disney are terrified to upset the fanbase.

You seem to already have made up your mind on Solo simply because it's not Ford in the role. Do you have similar issues with the Avengers films in the way that Banner and Rhodes were recast? Why even go into the film with that in mind, after all while Ford has been good as Solo the utter contempt he has shown towards the fans shows how little he cars. To him, Solo is a paycheck and not much more which is odd when you consider how much the fans are loyal to his portrayal of the film already writing off Solo simply because it's not Ford.

If Leia is an integral part to the story that Abrams wanted to tell then he should be allowed to. Yes it's awful that she died but who said she wanted the character to die with her. Should iconic roles be removed from a franchise if an actor opts out or dies suddenly, what happens if say Robert Downey Jr. dies tomorrow, should they then write him out of any upcoming Avengers films that he was part of?

Also, with Bond it's always been a bit of a wink and a nod that they are not reboots but another 007 agent taking over, Judi Dence overseeing two different Bond's plays into this idea.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Why can't you?

Because 99% of the time, it doesn't work. It's that simple.

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to already have made up your mind on Solo simply because it's not Ford in the role. Do you have similar issues with the Avengers films

I couldn't give a fuck about The Avengers, or Marvel. I think they're a blight on cinema and I certainly don't want to see Star Wars going that way, that's for sure. But as I've said before, that's probably where Disney want to bring it, so they can recast who they want, until those characters become so watered down that they end up meaningless.

The so called "characters" of the MCU (bar RDJ, who plays RDJ) are so insipid as to be mere cyphers. Meaningless nothings that can be interchanged with whoever Disney can get to fill the role.

No thanks.

Deleted User wrote: »

If Leia is an integral part to the story that Abrams wanted to tell then he should be allowed to.

Well, that's just tough shit for Jar Jar, I'm afraid. He'll have to work around it. However, that "work around" SHOULD have been done in 'The Last Jedi'. Abrams has been painted into a corner.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, with Bond it's always been a bit of a wink and a nod that they are not reboots but another 007 agent taking over, Judi Dence overseeing two different Bond's plays into this idea.

That's why I said they're essentially reboots. There's the same names etc, but events, characters and situations are all new. None of them have been really connected, apart from the last series of films and when Craig hangs up his coat, it'll be "rebooted" again with somebody else.

Star Wars is a continuing, linked, saga with well established characters. Characters that are basically growths from the actors portraying them. Recasting such front and centre roles just won't work, either comfortably or at all. It's possible to it with distant secondary or tertiary characters, like Mon Mothma or where there is a significant age difference like Kenobi. But, when you have iconic roles like Princess Leia, who's actress has embodied that role, it's always a bad idea.

If you're fine with Leia walking out as Carrie Fisher in one film and in the next walking in as Meryl Streep, go for it.

But, I'd wager the vast majority of people - fans and non-fans alike - won't be. It'll always stick in the craw.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

I couldn't give a fuck about The Avengers, or Marvel. I think they're a blight on cinema and I certainly don't want to see Star Wars going that way, that's for sure. But as I've said before, that's probably where Disney want to bring it, so they can recast who they want, until those characters become so watered down that they end up meaningless.

At this stage, the only difference between Star Wars and Marvel is that at least the Star Wars films are cinematic. Your argument is, if they replace Fisher it's sacrilege but if they replace an actor known for an iconic role in another franchise and you don't like the series then it's fine. If it's okay for Iron Man to be recast then why not Leia?

I genuinely don't care if they recast or CGI her in as I thought that the Force Awakens was a really poor remake and that The Last Jedi was a mediocre and bland entry so I have zero expectation for Episode 9. My issue is the manner in which people seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to use CGI to bring one actor back but not for another. The sooner that filmmakers are allowed to make the films they want and not be forced to listen to fan feedback the better.

J Mysterio

Tony EH wrote: »

Personally, I think they should have reshot a few portions of 'The Last Jedi' with her death and not Luke's. After she gets blown out of the bridge, she really doesn't play that big a part afterward.

That's a great point and it seems really obvious now you say it.

It should have been Luke to make it to IX and they could have actually put him to some use and been more faithful to his character, allowing him to be the leader he should be, and excusing his weakness and doubt in VIII.

If they just rejigged the story a little, they could have still used the footage for the reunion between Luke and Leia and could then later have had Leia's death by Kylo in space, cutting out the ridiculous floaty space powers of survival.

They would have had to lose the attack on the rebel base scene, but that wasnt all that great anyway. They could have reshot the battle between Kylo and Luke elsewhere.

Basically, Johnson really fuçked this up imo.

Tony EH

J Mysterio wrote: »

That's a great point and it seems really obvious now you say it.

It should have been Luke to make it to IX and they could have actually put him to some use and been more faithful to his character, allowing him to be the leader he should be, and excusing his weakness and doubt in VIII.

If they just rejigged the story a little, they could have still used the footage for the reunion between Luke and Leia and could then later have had Leia's death by Kylo in space, cutting out the ridiculous floaty space powers of survival.

They would have had to lose the attack on the rebel base scene, but that wasnt all that great anyway. They could have reshot the battle between Kylo and Luke elsewhere.

Basically, Johnson really fud this up imo.

I've been saying it since December J.

Seriously though, I think if reshoots on a Star Wars film were ever warranted, it was with 'The Last Jedi'. Some people on here were uncomfortable with the idea of reshooting to include the death of Leia, but I think it would have made more sense to see her go in that film than to carry over the problem into IX. And if recasting her with Meryl Streep is Disney's answer...well, that's just very poor indeed.

As far as I'm concerned, after Leia got shot into space, she should have gone there and then and I thought that's what Johnson was going for...then, well, you what happened.

A slight rewrite and a few reshoots, could have seen things play out pretty much the same way. Holdo takes over, hyperspace's through a load of ships and Dameron carries out Holdo's original plan which she explains to him in detail - thus negeating that stupid mutiny sideplot.

The only real thing that's "lost" is the reunion between Luke and Leia, which was fake anyway, cos he wasn't really there.

Yes, Johnson fucked it up.

Drumpot

Wedwood wrote: »

Counter argument to those who complain they changed Luke's character. I'd argue TLJ was entirely consistent with its portrayal of Luke.

Star Wars - almost killed by Darth Vader at Death Star battle until Solo bails him out.

Empire Strikes Back - almost killed by Vader in Cloud City until Leia's bails himself out. (Not forgetting, he tried to kill himself after Vader's big reveal - he only survived the fall by accident) Also, makes a mess of his Training on Dagobah and causes more damage, despite the pleadings of Yoda and Obi Wan.

Return of the Jedi - almost kills Vader, which would have brought him to the Dark Side. Also, tried to kill the Emperor earlier, which would have brought him to the Dark Side, but blocked by Vader.

The Last Jedi - Luke makes another mess of things with Kylo, but finally redeems himself thanks to Rey.

The majority of people really enjoyed TLJ. What there seems to be here is an echo chamber of people regurgitating how much they hate this over and over again. Angry people are usually the loudest in any group and therefore get convinced they represent most people who keep to themselves or nod just to get away from the mob.

The idea that Luke should be this flawless Jedi who is as wise as we imagined he should be is quite ridiculous. I’ve seen several posters, in different movie threads, show a complete lack of understanding of human psychology/behavior or humans changing with age. “That would never happen, that character wouldn’t do that or nobody is that stupid” is a common complaint when something happens that the viewer cannot believe or comprehend would happen. They use it to explain their disappointment with certain movies. I don’t doubt they didn’t like these movies, it’s just that the reasons given are subjective interpretations of events that can be considered neutral or believable depending on your enjoyment of the movie.

I imagine I’m not alone in mostly avoiding this thread because there are so many angry posters just looking to complain that they didn’t get the movie they wanted. I don’t mind people not enjoying it, just don’t speak matter of fact about something that’s just an opinion.

I’m watching the movie with my kids and they love it and I’m really enjoying it. I refute a lot of the loudest complaints about the movie. I loved the originals but they weren’t without the kind of flaws being highlighted about this movie. The question is really “are you willing to look past the bits you don’t like to enjoy a very entertaining movie”.

Because of the nature of Star Wars It’s actually very similar to supporting a football team. You have fans of the same team interpretIng things differently. Your team might win but some fans are not happy with the manner of the victory. Another is where a manager keeps picking a certain player to start for a specific quality that some fans don’t rate.

TLJ had some of the greatest scenes and moments in the fantasy’s history. It certainly wasn’t easy to predict the story that unfolded. JJ has now an open book to bring the story wherever he wants. For all the “concerns” (excuse to complain) people have with regards to Johnson leaving Leia , I’m sure JJ will find a good way of giving that Character a sendoff.

This suggests to me that some people need to feel like there is a clean , linear story for Star Wars. They can’t enjoy it unless it fits with their expectations. This character should of been like this and done this. The story should of gone like this. No it shouldn’t , maybe you should just do what Obi Wan said to luke in ANH and “let go”. Just go with what we get and take the good out of the movies we are getting instead of turning to the dark side by choosing to focus on everything you dislike.

I think it would of made more sense to kill off Leia but applaud Johnson for trying something quite odd. He wanted the Luke - Leia interaction at the end. For people who didn’t care much for the movie this may not of packed the punch it did for those who enjoyed it. I thought it was lovely and People using it as a complaint are just looking for any reason the can to add to their “evidence”.

J Mysterio

I'm not angry, i'm dissapointed.
Fair play to you for braving the echo chamber.

Drumpot

J Mysterio wrote: »

I'm not angry, i'm dissapointed.
Fair play to you for braving the echo chamber.

It’s possible to be disappointed with aspects of a movie and still enjoy it. I was watching the OT recently and out of curiosity I started to apply the same negative “pick at everything you can” way some people have done with TLJ. I actually had to stop watching them and reboot myself back to just “I want to enjoy these, that’s all” Approach.

Arne_Saknussem

Drumpot wrote: »

It’s possible to be disappointed with aspects of a movie and still enjoy it. I was watching the OT recently and out of curiosity I started to apply the same negative “pick at everything you can” way some people have done with TLJ. I actually had to stop watching them and reboot myself back to just “I want to enjoy these, that’s all” Approach.

It's also possible that Johnson made a very bad film, i don't know anyone who thought it wasn't terrible.

Ronan|Raven

It was a crock of ****e.

johnny_ultimate

J Mysterio wrote: »

If they just rejigged the story a little

A little? You mean: completely and utterly change the structure of the narrative and lead characters' arcs, lose huge swathes of footage, and require long, expensive reshoots in the process? Transplanting the third act into the first or second act isn't 'a little' rejig by any stretch of the imagination.

As I've said before: it's one thing not liking what Johnson did with Leia's character - I disagree, but everybody's free to draw their own opinions on that. But to accuse him of '****ing up' for not radically altering the story he wanted to tell and fundamentally change or aggressively cut the final performance of a friend and widely-beloved actor remains a genuinely bizarre and indeed cynical suggestion to me.

J Mysterio

Drumpot wrote: »

I was watching the OT recently and out of curiosity I started to apply the same negative “pick at everything you can” way some people have done with TLJ. I actually had to stop watching them and reboot myself back to just “I want to enjoy these, that’s all” Approach.

You can frame my criticism like that if it makes you feel better, but I certainly didnt approach the film in the manner you suggest. I was excited to see it. I've seen the film twice now, once in the cinema and once on quality stream to TV.

I was dissapointed immediately after the cinema viewing but refrained from commenting here until after my second viewing. The second viewing confirmed in me the failings of the film, which have been refined through debate here.

You can certainly declare that 'you want to enjoy these films', as can I. That doesn't neccesarily make it so however. I didnt approach this film with a negative mindset, I was completely open to it. I have formed my opinions by engaging my brain while viewing and by comparing the new to the old. If you don't agree, that's fair enough, but it doesnt invalidate my opinion or make it less than yours, just because you are incongruously cheerfull.

J Mysterio

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A little? You mean: completely and utterly change the structure of the narrative and lead characters' arcs, lose huge swathes of footage, and require long, expensive reshoots in the process? Transplanting the third act into the first or second act isn't 'a little' rejig by any stretch of the imagination.

As I've said before: it's one thing not liking what Johnson did with Leia's character - I disagree, but everybody's free to draw their own opinions on that. But to accuse him of '****ing up' for not radically altering the story he wanted to tell and fundamentally change or aggressively cut the final performance of a friend and widely-beloved actor remains a genuinely bizarre and indeed cynical suggestion to me.

Well, i'm sorry we disagree.

I have basically concluded that major editing and some reshooting was the only way to save this film, and possibly the franchise. It's a shame Johnson didnt go with that and - imo - he ****ed up the Last Jedi.

There's a lot that's nice about it, but there's also a lot that's poor or frustrating. Ultimately, it's a dissapointment for me.

johnny_ultimate

J Mysterio wrote: »

Well, i'm sorry we disagree.

Well, I've very much made peace with disagreeing with people on this film - the more I think about it, the more I like it, and think Johnson has given blockbuster filmmaking and this series in general a long overdue kick in the arse with it. I think there's several thousand posts here that show there's a few people who disagree with that

It's in particular any suggestion that Johnson '****ed up' by not reshooting or drastically restructuring the film in the wake of Carrie Fisher's death that I really struggle to get my head around, though. I wrote this earlier in the thread to highlight why I think such a suggestion is immensely impractical:

It would not be remotely easy to deal with as you’d be cutting two-thirds of a beloved actress’s final performance; have to fairly radically reshape / remake the film’s extended third act; compromise the story Johnson had always intended to tell (even if you dislike the film, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he clearly commits to the story he wants to tell); have to reshoot the dozens of scenes that reference or rely on Leia’s condition; get a busy cast back for expensive reshoots; probably have to reshape the Kylo, Luke and Rey arcs in ways both minor and major; and lose one long-awaited reunion between two siblings. Cutting a central character isn’t something that is easily achievable in ‘the edit’ or a few days of reshoots, unless you’re Terence Malick

Drumpot

J Mysterio wrote: »

You can frame my criticism like that if it makes you feel better, but I certainly didnt approach the film in the manner you suggest. I was excited to see it. I've seen the film twice now, once in the cinema and once on quality stream to TV.

I was dissapointed immediately after the cinema viewing but refrained from commenting here until after my second viewing. The second viewing confirmed in me the failings of the film, which have been refined through debate here.

You can certainly declare that 'you want to enjoy these films', as can I. That doesn't neccesarily make it so however. I didnt approach this film with a negative mindset, I was completely open to it. I have formed my opinions by engaging my brain while viewing and by comparing the new to the old. If you don't agree, that's fair enough, but it doesnt invalidate my opinion or make it less than yours, just because you are incongruously cheerfull.

You presumed my comments were directed solely at you, why? I Didn’t quote you and was commenting on the double standard deficiency’s being labeled at TLJ that don’t stand up when you apply the same standards to the originals.

J Mysterio

Drumpot wrote: »

You presumed my comments were directed solely at you, why? I Didn’t quote you and was commenting on the double standard deficiency’s being labeled at TLJ that don’t stand up when you apply the same standards to the originals.

I think you'll find you did quote me, so it's pretty natural for me to respond in turn.

Bowlardo

Woeful woeful woeful film

Hooks Golf Handicap

I pity those who feel the need to defend this film out of faithfulness to the franchise .

It's a lazily written turd from the get go that has stopped the universe in its tracks.

Bombers in outer space.
Poe Dameron costing countless of the Bomber crew their lives and looking chuffed.
The whole key lock picker BDT side plot.
Something to do with kids and horse racing I've actually forgotten.
Snoke . . . .who the f#ck was he.
The utter waste of Luke and the waste of our hero from the OT
Leia left with 6 people and a dog while calling it a resistance

It's over guys. They destroyed it.

Drumpot

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think you'll find you did quote me, so it's pretty natural for me to respond in turn.

I quoted Wedwood and you directly responded to my post. I was stating that my initial post was not directed at you specifically.

Drumpot

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

I pity those who feel the need to defend this film out of faithfulness to the franchise .

It's a lazily written turd from the get go that has stopped the universe in its tracks.

Bombers in outer space.
Poe Dameron costing countless of the Bomber crew their lives and looking chuffed.
The whole key lock picker BDT side plot.
Something to do with kids and horse racing I've actually forgotten.
Snoke . . . .who the f#ck was he.
The utter waste of Luke and the waste of our hero from the OT
Leia left with 6 people and a dog while calling it a resistance

It's over guys. They destroyed it.

Oh I wouldn’t pity people who enjoyed it as most people did and it was a massive success so Disney won’t be losing any sleep. It sounds like a more depressing existence when you are more often then not disappointed with what life or movies serves you. You should reserve your pity for people who can’t enjoy something they love out of a rigid expectation that they choose to maintain.

radonicus

The 'making of' is better than the film.

conorhal

Well I gave TLJ a second viewing after having seen it once in the cinema.
I didn't expect a second viewing to alter my general dissapointment with the film, and it didn't, but I gave it a watch at least thinking that I'd enjoy a few cool space battles and some well coreographed fight scenes.
I also didn't expect to be so thoroughly bored by the film on a second viewing.
I don't remember it feeling it's 2.5 hour run time in the cinema, but wow did it feel every minute of that watching it again, I can honestly say it was a struggle to finish it.
I have my problems with The Force Awakens, but it still retains a certian 're-wachability', but I can't see myself sitting down for another helping of TLJ.

Theboinkmaster

Drumpot wrote: »

The majority of people really enjoyed TLJ.

Strongly disagree there - everyone I know thought it was a piece of sh!t.

On the boards.ie film forum I generally agree with overall feedback on films and I'd say most people here really disliked it.

Defunkd

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Strongly disagree there - everyone I know thought it was a piece of sh!t.

On the boards.ie film forum I generally agree with overall feedback on films and I'd say most people here really disliked it.

Same as. I've read more unfavourable reviews from SW fans who watched it, than favourable. No one i spoke to enjoyed it.
We need a poll though.

Falthyron

When Rian Johnson was announced as the director of Episode VIII people got very excited. His work on Breaking Bad and Looper was lauded as fresh and different. When there were doubts about a relative newbie being given the chance at a massive franchise people cited that episode of Breaking Bad and Looper as examples of why he should be trusted. Now, post TLJ, I can't see the same credit being given to Johnson for future films. I don't think people will say: "Remember The Last Jedi? We have nothing to worry about". I think this film has diminished his record somewhat when you compare it to all the promise and excitement that existed prior to TLJ because of Breaking Bad and Looper. In years to come, TLJ won't be used as a pillar of film-making demonstrating Rian's skills. Should Rian go on to have a highly successful film-making career producing critically acclaimed films, I think TLJ will be to Rian as Crystal Skull is to Spielberg. When we talk about Spielberg we refer to Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Lincoln, etc., nobody mentions Crystal Skull. I think TLJ will be in the same category for Rian.

IMO, that itself says a lot by the overall reception towards TLJ.