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

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

DrWu wrote: »

My issue with Johnson and TLJ is that he didn't go far enough. I'd put money on it that his original script had no canto bight but was more of a fury road/dredd story that followed the pursuit of the rebel fleet across the galaxy. Kennedy probably talked him out of this. Shame. I think that would have been fantastic (and really not a huge departure from A New Hope, a lot of which was set on a space station). Still, TLJ gets a broad thumbs up from me, bar a few quibbles.

I don't know. Even if you take the canto-bite stuff out it's still too much of a mess to make a good story out of. The humour, the plot and how it treats its classic characters and the fans...it's all terrible. I'm just not sure there was ever a good screenplay.

I liked what JJ did, I had very high hopes for what was next in the story, they HAD to be a bit riskier considering how safe TLJ was but Rian made a pigs ear out of it.

Didn't even watch Solo, first SW movies I didn't see in the Cinema. I've just lost interest, I'm not buoycotting it or anything, I just hate the direction of these movies now, it's got lightsabers but it's not Star Wars.

DrWu

Hunky Monster wrote: »

I don't know. Even if you take the canto-bite stuff out it's still too much of a mess to make a good story out of. The humour, the plot and how it treats its classic characters and the fans...it's all terrible. I'm just not sure there was ever a good screenplay.

I liked what JJ did, I had very high hopes for what was next in the story, they HAD to be a bit riskier considering how safe TLJ was but Rian made a pigs ear out of it.

Didn't even watch Solo, first SW movies I didn't see in the Cinema. I've just lost interest, I'm not buoycotting it or anything, I just hate the direction of these movies now, it's got lightsabers but it's not Star Wars.

I hear ya. I do like TLJ (a lot in places, not so much in others) butI understand some fans were really disappointed. And I agree, I think the whole franchise re-launch has been a mess.

I have zero interest in these spin-offs and even the re-use of all the old ships and costumes etc in the sequels kinda peed me off. I just wish they came at it completely fresh in a post empire setting and used some imagination.

Wedwood

There's an argument that TLJ is Luke Skywalker's finest moment after years of failing:

Star Wars - Does nothing till the Death star battle, would have been killed by Vader only for Han Solo to bail him out at the last moment.

Empire Strikes Back - Refuses to listen to Yoda, races off to Cloud City, almost killed, then delays Leia from rescuing Solo by having to swing back to save Luke.

Return of the Jedi - Easily defeated by the Emperor and saved from certain death by a last minute change of heart by Vader (Also almost killed earlier by Boba Fett only for Solo to 'fluke one' and send Fett into the Sarlacc pit)

Post ROTJ - Sets up a failed Jedi academy and helps create Kylo Ren

Last Jedi - Finally lives up to the hype by singlehandedly saving the Resistance by using his force powers.


To say they changed Luke's character is nonsense, he had 40 years of failure under his belt before TLJ allowed him to achieve something without being bailed out this time !

Tony EH

The point is not that he had failings. Unlike Rey, he has many (human) failings. That's what made Luke a believable character and someone worth rooting for.

The point is that he never gave up, until 'The Last Jedi' showed him as a runaway hermit, who thought about killing his sister's only son and then later died from a Force overload.

pixelburp

Conversely, the fact he had given up and nearly murdered his nephew made him more human, not less; emphasising that the rash, flawed man that failed the test in the cave on Degobah never truly left. The one that abandoned his training and nearly got himself and his friends killed in Cloud City.

After all, Luke never finished that training, regardless of what Yoda said, and never possessed a true master beyond those scant days with Frank Oz. The idea he could restart the jedi order with him as lodestone was laughably arrogant. Of course he'd fail, it was his operatic destiny.

BigDaveTheRed

pixelburp wrote: »

Conversely, the fact he had given up and nearly murdered his nephew made him more human, not less; emphasising that the rash, flawed man that failed the test in the cave on Degobah never truly left. The one that abandoned his training and nearly got himself and his friends killed in Cloud City.

After all, Luke never finished that training, regardless of what Yoda said, and never possessed a true master beyond those scant days with Frank Oz. The idea he could restart the jedi order with him as lodestone was laughably arrogant. Of course he'd fail, it was his operatic destiny.

ah yea trin to kill yer newphew is grand bleedin waffler

fxotoole

This video articulates my feelings on how the last Jedi was ruined by incorrect use of humour:

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

uncleoswald

Wedwood wrote: »

There's an argument that TLJ is Luke Skywalker's finest moment after years of failing:

It's not a great argument though is it? It relies on a profound misreading of each film's stories and character motivations. Seriously, you could do this to pretty much any film. Sure Indiana Jones is an idiot as the only effect he had in Raiders was helping the Nazis find the ark.

pixelburp wrote: »

Conversely, the fact he had given up and nearly murdered his nephew made him more human, not less; emphasising that the rash, flawed man that failed the test in the cave on Degobah never truly left. The one that abandoned his training and nearly got himself and his friends killed in Cloud City.

After all, Luke never finished that training, regardless of what Yoda said, and never possessed a true master beyond those scant days with Frank Oz. The idea he could restart the jedi order with him as lodestone was laughably arrogant. Of course he'd fail, it was his operatic destiny.

But it should be consistent with his character. In ROTJ Luke was willing to lay down his life in the belief that his father could be good. Pretty much the only thing he really does in every film is put his life on the line against insurmountable odds (even if he does need help to win in the end...) Does Kylo seem so much worse than Darth Vadar that Luke would abandoned his defining character trait and contemplate killing a child?

Sad Professor wrote: »

What you describing wasn't a problem of planning, it was a creative choice made by Abrams in TFA. Had they made it all about the OT character then I guess they could have made Luke the main protagonist and built up to his death in the final film, but this trilogy is about the next generation. Rey, Finn and Kylo (who is a Skywalker). That means the mentor figures and baton-passers had to get out of the way, preferably sooner rather than later. What if Obi-wan had survived until ROTJ? Or if Yoda had been the all powerful lightsaber-wielding Jedi master from the prequels? In addition to creating all sort of story problems (why didn't they go kill Vader and the Emperor themselves), it would have really messed up Luke's journey in the OT. Those characters needed to die so he would be forced to face Vader and the Emperor alone.

Bad planning leads to poor creative choices. My own personal feeling is I have little real interest in the last film in the trilogy because nothing has been set up for me to care about. I like Rey and Kylo but I'm not sure what is left to be said in their relationship after the great throne room scene beyond one killing the other. And the rest? Pfft.

Also who is to say that they HAD to do anything like kill the mentor just because they did it before? Isn't that the sort of unoriginal thinking they should be striving against?

pixelburp

uncleoswald wrote: »

But it should be consistent with his character. In ROTJ Luke was willing to lay down his life in the belief that his father could be good. Pretty much the only thing he really does in every film is put his life on the line against insurmountable odds (even if he does need help to win in the end...) Does Kylo seem so much worse than Darth Vadar that Luke would abandoned his defining character trait and contemplate killing a child?

In fairness, to my mind both your & my interpretations are valid, but neither necessarily contradict each other either IMO. In Episode IV Luke may have been the hero of the Joseph Campbell variety, but across the whole trilogy he was brash, dangerously naive, impulsive, and many of his decisions almost lead to disaster for him and his friends - be it in RoTJ where his arrogance nearly resulting in Death by Rancor, or nearly getting zapped by the Emperor. During that very scene, Vader's simple goading over Leia caused Luke to lash out and lose his cool. Oh absolutely you're right that he tries to do the right & heroic thing, but more often than not was simply out of his depth. He's the Barry Allen of the Star Wars world.

Where else would that kind of hubris lead except down the path of overestimation & presumption that Luke was wise and restrained enough to not only start a new Jedi Order, but basically rule judgement on all its disciples? IIRC he even acknowledged that in Last Jedi - though honestly I haven't watched it since the cinema. And if Star Wars is a space opera in all sense of the world, it felt appropriately operatic that Luke's fall was so melodramatic, so extreme & grandiose.

Is Kylo worse than Vader? I actually think yes, he is: Vader fell from grace, being a good man whose intentions and mistakes ultimately left him trapped - literally and figuratively - by the Emperor's side. The desperation to save his wife from death (albeit via wishy-washy visions) lead him down a tragic path. As for Kylo? He has no tragic backstory, no creeds or beliefs, nothing really: OK, Han seemed like an absent father but what fathers in fiction aren't? Kylo's a bit of a full-on psychopath really, with the fun addition of Jedi powers. I certainly don't think he gives 2 hoots about the First Order, and seems to just want to burn the universe down and attack every facet of his parents' world.

Smertrius

i know George Lucas sold star wars to disney but disney still let George Lucas as the director of new star wars films, new star wars movies would have turn out a lot better

johnny_ultimate

Smertrius wrote: »

i know George Lucas sold star wars to disney but disney still let George Lucas as the director of new star wars films, new star wars movies would have turn out a lot better

No.

pixelburp

Well I dunno, maybe there's a resting bedrock of fandom that just can't get enough 'shot, reverse-shot' dialogue scenes, or slow walks down a corridor. Nevermind your fancy, hoity-toity compositions or blocking.

Tony EH

The prequels would suggest a no.


However, I think I would prefer his ideas, so long as they were tempered by other people.


Unrestricted George Lucas is bad George Lucas.

pixelburp

I dunno, would he have any ideas worth exploring? I don't mean to retroactively diss the guy's output, or being all 'hot take', but when you look objectively at his most famous works - Star Wars and Indiana Jones - it's kinda funny how they were borne from his generation's nostalgic yearnings (the 30s-50s adventure serials he would have grown up with and what clearly influenced both franchises). We lament our own obsession with 80s culture, yet Lucas did the same.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

I dunno, would he have any ideas worth exploring? I don't mean to retroactively diss the guy's output, or being all 'hot take', but when you look objectively at his most famous works - Star Wars and Indiana Jones - it's kinda funny how they were borne from his generation's nostalgic yearnings (the 30s-50s adventure serials he would have grown up with and what clearly influenced both franchises). We lament our own obsession with 80s culture, yet Lucas did the same.

Maybe, I'm not sure. I have always liked his imagination though. But feel he needs a "no" man to marginalise the more crazy ones.

Sure, he poached from the serials of his youth and I've no problem with that, because he used them to create "new" stuff. It's still his own polish, even if the inspiration was creaky old B+W Saturday morning serials.

I think the difference, though, is that while Lucas drew from a well spring of old serials, he was pretty much on his own doing it at that time. These days, nearly everyone is mining the 80's for their ideas. Some aren't even bothering to mix ideas of their own in.

I think the problem with Lucas is that he got too big and people/circumstance stopped challenging him.

pixelburp

Oh there's no question Lucas' biggest creative failing is the absence of a good counter-balance to his own predilections; I have wondered in the past if the guy just let his ego overpower his common sense, or if overenthusiastic naivety allowed Lucas be surrounded by Yes Men at Lucasarts.

Maybe I've missed it, but have seen no major tell-alls about any raging, Steve-Jobs'ian level of ego or management (though that could be the power of the NDA), so maybe Lucas has always just been an optimistic, imaginative nerd who struck gold, but never really had the writing or creative chops to keep the flame going without help - but accidentally created a powerhouse corporation at the same time. The modern equivalent might be if Ernest Cline or EL James created a whole new pop-culture kingdom.

IIRC, Disney did give Lucas an executive producer role, but had struck as the most nominal status with no actual creative power.

Smertrius

the last jedi doesn't feel like the future of the previous star movies

star wars is george lucas creation not disney creation

pixelburp

Smertrius wrote: »

the last jedi doesn't feel like the future of the previous star movies

star wars is george lucas creation not disney creation

Right, but you said Lucas should direct, and would make a better movie. The contention is - no, he wouldn't 'cos he's a poor director.

And he might have created Star Wars, but seemed happy enough to sell it for $4+ billion; his status here is kinda moot.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Oh there's no question Lucas' biggest creative failing is the absence of a good counter-balance to his own predilections; I have wondered in the past if the guy just let his ego overpower his common sense, or if overenthusiastic naivety allowed Lucas be surrounded by Yes Men at Lucasarts.

Maybe I've missed it, but have seen no major tell-alls about any raging, Steve-Jobs'ian level of ego or management (though that could be the power of the NDA), so maybe Lucas has always just been an optimistic, imaginative nerd who struck gold, but never really had the writing or creative chops to keep the flame going without help - but accidentally created a powerhouse corporation at the same time. The modern equivalent might be if Ernest Cline or EL James created a whole new pop-culture kingdom.

IIRC, Disney did give Lucas an executive producer role, but had struck as the most nominal status with no actual creative power.

Yeh. "Producer", executive or otherwise, is a real nebulous term. It can mean everything and nothing.

I'd like to give Lucas the benefit of the doubt, though, and think he was just an innocent abroad and got lucky. I don't believe he had any real master plan or anything and things just sort of fell into place...before they fell apart. He never struck me as some sort of mogul or anything...or money/fame obsessed Hollywood type. He just seemed like someone who made films, cos he liked films and things just worked out for him.

I feel sorry for him in a way. I can imagine him being his happiest when making stuff like 'American Graffiti' and 'THX-1138'. Then after 'Star Wars' went stupid, I think much of the pleasure went as well. Maybe I'm wrong.

Either way, I'm sure his billions will keep him from being too unhappy.

Smertrius

According original canon Kylo Ren is lukes and Mara son. Disney made misstakes and Canon also says children of Han and Leia are Jacen and Jania. Rey kenobi is decent of Ben kenobi

fxotoole

Smertrius wrote: »

According original canon Kylo Ren is lukes and Mara son. Disney made misstakes and Canon also says children of Han and Leia are Jacen and Jania. Rey kenobi is decent of Ben kenobi

This is not canon anymore though

Here we go

Smertrius wrote: »

According original canon Kylo Ren is lukes and Mara son. Disney made misstakes and Canon also says children of Han and Leia are Jacen and Jania. Rey kenobi is decent of Ben kenobi

Is this EU cannon form my understanding when Disney bought the franchise they made a choice to erase all cannon other then original 2 trilogy's which is a shame I would of liked ray and ren to have been the solo twins

Varik

Here we go wrote: »

Is this EU cannon form my understanding when Disney bought the franchise they made a choice to erase all cannon other then original 2 trilogy's which is a shame I would of liked ray and ren to have been the solo twins

The cartoon series and the movie are cannon too, everything after that unless noted as "Legends" is cannon.

Getting rid of the EU also got rid of abeloth so all is well.

pixelburp

Honestly, Disney scuttling the EU was a good idea on balance; there was an awful amount of rubbish created, with an incredible variation of quality levels; ultimately the bloated non-movie universe was uncharted territory for the bulk of the audience, not least the well-wishing fans who could care less about professional fan-fiction.

conorhal

Wedwood wrote: »

There's an argument that TLJ is Luke Skywalker's finest moment after years of failing:

Star Wars - Does nothing till the Death star battle, would have been killed by Vader only for Han Solo to bail him out at the last moment.

Empire Strikes Back - Refuses to listen to Yoda, races off to Cloud City, almost killed, then delays Leia from rescuing Solo by having to swing back to save Luke.

Return of the Jedi - Easily defeated by the Emperor and saved from certain death by a last minute change of heart by Vader (Also almost killed earlier by Boba Fett only for Solo to 'fluke one' and send Fett into the Sarlacc pit)

Post ROTJ - Sets up a failed Jedi academy and helps create Kylo Ren

Last Jedi - Finally lives up to the hype by singlehandedly saving the Resistance by using his force powers.


To say they changed Luke's character is nonsense, he had 40 years of failure under his belt before TLJ allowed him to achieve something without being bailed out this time !

Why does he have 40yrs of failure under his belt? Because Rian Johnson, that's why. No other reason, and thus not an ounce of inevitablity to that character arc existing in the first place.


PS. Might have been a bit more heroic if he'd 'saved the rebellion' before it was friendless, composed of enough people to fit on the Falcon and it's master plan is errr... yeah...


PPS. Luke's greatest achievement BTW was resisting the dark side and rescuing his father through his compassion and faith. Your superficial analysis of the core successes and failures of the character mirror Johnson's though, in that all I could think reading that was... wrong...
Perhaps the most annoying element of TLJ fanbase is their need to go back and retroactively $h1t all over the OT and it's characters to justify decisions that didn't need to be made.
The reality is that there is not one scene, one line or dialogue and not one new character that anybody will remember, much less geek out about in 30yrs time, not one, and that fact alone should tell people all they need to know about the quality of the new films.

Sad Professor

A twitter thread I thought was interesting. I've copy and pasted it for easier readability:

A handful of The Last Jedi haters in my mentions are offering up a fascinating misreading of the final showdown between Luke and Vader in RotJ. I think it's worth taking a moment to discuss because it may help explain why these guys hate Luke’s character so much in Episode VIII.

The misreading: Luke Skywalker uses his great warrior skills to defeat Darth Vader. Once he’s proven himself in combat and stands victorious, Luke does the honorable thing by showing mercy and sparing his enemy. Thereby saving himself from corruption and redeeming his father.

What really happened: Luke tries to avoid fighting but gives into anger. As he bests Vader in combat, Luke realizes his great mistake, winning this fight means losing his soul to the Dark Side. The battle itself is corrupting him, understanding this Luke throws away his weapon.

Notice that the misreading (above) reframes Luke as a badass warrior and reframes his refusal to kill Vader as an act of mercy stemming from a position of power. This is significant because Luke beating Vader in combat is explicitly depicted as a moment of weakness NOT strength.

The desire of some fans to re-imagine Luke as a powerful warrior who spares the bad guy out of benevolence is consistent with the way male heroes are often represented. It’s the way Batman is framed when he doesn't kill The Joker. But Luke Skywalker isn’t the typical action hero.

Luke’s arc in the original trilogy ends with him not only refusing to kill the bad guy, but refusing to even fight a worse villain. This is why Luke’s force projection standoff with Kylo in The Last Jedi is so perfect. It's the ultimate expression of everything Luke has learned.

The fact that an iconic figure like Luke Skywalker was explicitly framed as *weak* for fighting a murderous villain like Darth Vader is a pretty subversive message, especially for a male hero in Hollywood. And it’s something that, 35 years later, some fans still refuse to accept.

hxxps://twitter.com/radicalbytes/status/1016778646655123456

So in other words, Luke throwing down his weapon wasn't an act of faith rather an acceptance that he couldn't win without becoming the thing he was trying to destroy and that it was better to die a Jedi than become a Sith. This is always how I interpreted that moment in ROTJ and it was one of the reasons (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) why I liked Luke's face-off with Kylo in TLJ so much, so I assume that's how Johnson interpreted it too.

I'm not sure the cited "misreading" is actually how most #notmyluke people interpret Luke's character arc in ROTJ, but even pre-prequels I remember many people (who did read it the same as me) taking issue with Luke showing weakness in that duel. Terry Rossio (writer of POTC), who had a screenwriting blog in the late 90s, argued that it was unheroic and really undermined Luke's character.

Theboinkmaster

Sad Professor wrote: »

A twitter thread I thought was interesting. I've copy and pasted it for easier readability:



So in other words, Luke throwing down his weapon wasn't an act of faith rather an acceptance that he couldn't win without becoming the thing he was trying to destroy and that it was better to die a Jedi than become a Sith. This is always how I interpreted that moment in ROTJ and it was one of the reasons (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) why I liked Luke's face-off with Kylo in TLJ so much, so I assume that's how Johnson interpreted it too.

I'm not sure the cited "misreading" is actually how most #notmyluke people interpret Luke's character arc in ROTJ, but even pre-prequels I remember many people (who did read it the same as me) taking issue with Luke showing weakness in that duel. Terry Rossio (writer of POTC), who had a screenwriting blog in the late 90s, argued that it was unheroic and really undermined Luke's character.

It's still a sh!te film

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Sad Professor wrote: »

A twitter thread I thought was interesting. I've copy and pasted it for easier readability:



So in other words, Luke throwing down his weapon wasn't an act of faith rather an acceptance that he couldn't win without becoming the thing he was trying to destroy and that it was better to die a Jedi than become a Sith. This is always how I interpreted that moment in ROTJ and it was one of the reasons (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) why I liked Luke's face-off with Kylo in TLJ so much, so I assume that's how Johnson interpreted it too.

I'm not sure the cited "misreading" is actually how most #notmyluke people interpret Luke's character arc in ROTJ, but even pre-prequels I remember many people (who did read it the same as me) taking issue with Luke showing weakness in that duel. Terry Rossio (writer of POTC), who had a screenwriting blog in the late 90s, argued that it was unheroic and really undermined Luke's character.

Wow that's really clutching at straws. It's a complete car crash of a movie. It's single handedly ruined the whole franchise. It's absolutely terrible and some of the things I read to justify the movie being good are completely laughable. It's even condescending, it's like saying that the people that hated this movie "just don't get it". We do - it's sh1te.

pixelburp

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Wow that's really clutching at straws. It's a complete car crash of a movie. It's single handedly ruined the whole franchise. It's absolutely terrible and some of the things I read to justify the movie being good are completely laughable. It's even condescending, it's like saying that the people that hated this movie "just don't get it". We do - it's sh1te.

It's no more or less condescending than the inevitable dog-piling that happens when anyone raises their head above the parapet to suggest another perspective, or debate the merits of the film & any debateable thematic connections with the previous era.

What possible harm does it do, if some folks found different levels to the film that others didn't? Honestly, I didn't even like the film that much myself (those throwaway gags...), but god, the continued insistence that no - it's like you're not allowed enjoy the film despite the flaws - the only proper answer is that this was the worst thing ever. And probably gave people cancer, or something. It's like there's a visceral hate for this film that'd make the Emperor step back and go "whoah, steady on folks, it's only a movie"

And, single-handedly ruined the franchise? I'm sure 'Solo' wouldn't mind a word there

Mark Hamill

Sad Professor wrote: »

So in other words, Luke throwing down his weapon wasn't an act of faith rather an acceptance that he couldn't win without becoming the thing he was trying to destroy and that it was better to die a Jedi than become a Sith. This is always how I interpreted that moment in ROTJ and it was one of the reasons (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) why I liked Luke's face-off with Kylo in TLJ so much, so I assume that's how Johnson interpreted it too.

I don't know how anyone could interpret it any other way, he only calms down when he compares Vaders robot hand to his own and literally says "Never, I'll never turn to the dark side" when he throws down the saber. It wasn't in terms of him pitying or believing in Vaders good, it was all in terms of him fighting his own dark side.