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

Penn

conorhal wrote: »

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.

Luke did resist the dark side... but barely. He left Dagobah to chase after Leia and Han because he gave into his fear. He gave into his anger and hate both when he tried to strike down the Emperor, and also when Vader mentioned his sister. He only managed to pull himself back from the edge at the last minute. But Luke always was a flawed hero. He was brash, arrogant and oftentimes naive. I really think a lot of people look back at Luke from the original trilogy with rose-tinted glasses, and the complete unwillingness to accept that circumstances can change a person's outlook and demeanour over the course of 30 years is insane.

As for there being no scenes, dialogue etc that people will remember in 30 years; Luke facing down the First Order and tricking Kylo Ren is quite possibly my favourite sequence in all the Star Wars films. I genuinely thought it was fantastic, and in my opinion was a completely perfect ending for Luke, as well as setting things up for the future. I'd also throw the lightspeed smash in there as well. That was an absolutely breathtaking scene.

I accept why it's a polarising movie, but likewise I would think you have to accept that many people liked the movie, and liked the characterisations. I most certainly did. I have my issues with the film, but not enough to start trying to claim the franchise is ruined.

Tony EH

No matter how differently people look at Luke Skywalker's character in the original trilogy...at least he had a character.

Relikk

The thing is with Luke in TLJ, people who have a problem with others not liking Luke in the film constantly bring up his final scenes with Kylo Ren as a reference for their "hate". I seriously doubt anyone really has a problem with those scenes, but rather the saber throwing, nepoticidal Luke that we see from the beginning is what most people have a problem with.

Wedwood

Lucas originally wanted to finish Return of the Jedi with Luke succumbing to the Darkside and the following three movies would have been about 'the other' eventually saving the day. You can see elements of this old storyline in Last Jedi, with Rey now being 'the other'.

When Lucas decided to wrap the films at ROTJ, 'the other' became Leia to tie up that particular loose end from Empire Strikes Back.

'Bad Luke' was always part of the sequel trilogy. Anyway, it made for a more interesting movie rather than Luke returning ala Gandalf the White.

Tony EH

Relikk wrote: »

The thing is with Luke in TLJ, people who have a problem with others not liking Luke in the film constantly bring up his final scenes with Kylo Ren as a reference for their "hate". I seriously doubt anyone really has a problem with those scenes, but rather the saber throwing, nepoticidal Luke that we see from the beginning is what most people have a problem with.

Well, I have a problem with those scenes, in as much as it was one of the dumbest ways to kill off a character that pretty much defined Star Wars for an entire generation. Too much Force killed Luke Skywalker. Just let the stupidity of that sink in.

I would have much preferred if he'd actually accompanied Rey back and, ya know, helped his fucking sister in the real world, with, perhaps, Kylo killing him as he held the fort, while what was left of the Resistance escaped...thus mirroring Kenobi's sacrifice in 'Star Wars'.

That was the way to bring Luke's journey to an end. Not have him disappear, because of Force overload. :rolleyes:

Relikk

Tony EH wrote: »

I would have much preferred if he'd actually accompanied Rey back and, ya know, helped his fucking sister in the real world, with, perhaps, Kylo killing him as he held the fort, while what was left of the Resistance escaped...thus mirroring Kenobi's sacrifice in 'Star Wars'.

Agreed. Definitely would have preferred that as well, but it's not so fantastical for me to believe that the strain of projecting yourself across a galaxy could be damaging or even fatal, and there's the satisfaction of not giving Kylo Ren the killing blow, so to speak.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, I have a problem with those scenes, in as much as it was one of the dumbest ways to kill off a character that pretty much defined Star Wars for an entire generation. Too much Force killed Luke Skywalker. Just let the stupidity of that sink in.

Honestly, it's kinda more logistically believable than when Ben Kenobi just... willed himself into a ghost as Vader made an easily-blocked swing. His sacrifice, while narratively apt and part of the whole arc, just felt so contrived and lacked any tension - Kenobi wasn't even losing the fight! This whole idea of Jedis dissolving into ghosts when they died always came off too spiritually on the nose for my tastes; Luke's final battle however felt like a more apt, tonally useful approach to this hoary Star Wars cliché.

There was never any proper sense of what the light side could do; the Dark seemed to have all the cool stuff. Yes, he could have actually traveled to the planet, but that opened up the possibility of the 'big epic fight', Luke perhaps succumbing to his flaws and unsure if he might still possess the strength to resist, as he did on the Death Star. Instead he finally... I dunno, found that zen place where he used the Force for a defensive, empathic action. He found peace in his powers, and saved the day - without resorting to the physical, destructive act.

Penn

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly, it's kinda more logistically believable than when Ben Kenobi just... willed himself into a ghost as Vader made an easily-blocked swing. His sacrifice, while narratively apt and part of the whole arc, just felt so contrived and lacked any tension - Kenobi wasn't even losing the fight! This whole idea of Jedis dissolving into ghosts when they died always came off too spiritually on the nose for my tastes; Luke's final battle however felt like a more apt, tonally useful approach to this hoary Star Wars cliché.

There was never any proper sense of what the light side could do; the Dark seemed to have all the cool stuff. Yes, he could have actually traveled to the planet, but that opened up the possibility of the 'big epic fight', Luke perhaps succumbing to his flaws and unsure if he might still possess the strength to resist, as he did on the Death Star. Instead he finally... I dunno, found that zen place where he used the Force for a defensive, empathic action. He found peace in his powers, and saved the day - without resorting to the physical, destructive act.

All of which speaks to Yoda's words and training in Empire Strikes Back.

“A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack,”
“Luminous beings are we…not this crude matter.”
“Wars not make one great.”
"A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. This one, a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away to the future, the horizon. Never his mind on where he was [pokes Luke]. Hmm? What he was doing. [paces around] Adventure. Heh! Excitement. A Jedi craves not these things. [turns to Luke and points with his walking stick] You are reckless!"

Arne_Saknussem

Why was Yoda acting like 'Fake Yoda' in TLJ?

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly, it's kinda more logistically believable than when Ben Kenobi just... willed himself into a ghost as Vader made an easily-blocked swing. His sacrifice, while narratively apt and part of the whole arc, just felt so contrived and lacked any tension - Kenobi wasn't even losing the fight! This whole idea of Jedis dissolving into ghosts when they died always came off too spiritually on the nose for my tastes; Luke's final battle however felt like a more apt, tonally useful approach to this hoary Star Wars clich

I've never liked all that force ghost malarkey myself. It's all a bit too silly for me and in the world of Star Wars, that's saying something.

However, I just don't like how Rian Johnson wrote that scene. I don't like how he wrote much of the film, TBH. i feel his concentration was almost entirely put into the Rey/Luke scenes on Ach-to and everything else was a distant second. It all could have been done so much better and more satisfying.

It just makes Luke look so weak, whereas Kenobi still looks like he's in control. I suppose it was just a very poor way for the character to go out. And sure, most real life deaths are crappy affairs. But, this is Star Wars were talking about. Escapist nonsense. And Luke Skywalker was its primary hero. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, he needed a more respectful departure.

pixelburp wrote: »

There was never any proper sense of what the light side could do; the Dark seemed to have all the cool stuff.

Not even George Lucas knows what either side can do. It's all made up as writers go along. Thing is, I think George never meant for all the forcey stuff to be the ex machina hook that it's become. In the original films, Jedi's could do some fancy stuff, but it was all still fairly low key. With the arrival of the prequels, they were turned into supermen and the EU just made things worse, from what I've read of it.

PhiloCypher

Tony EH wrote: »

Relikk wrote: »

The thing is with Luke in TLJ, people who have a problem with others not liking Luke in the film constantly bring up his final scenes with Kylo Ren as a reference for their "hate". I seriously doubt anyone really has a problem with those scenes, but rather the saber throwing, nepoticidal Luke that we see from the beginning is what most people have a problem with.

Well, I have a problem with those scenes, in as much as it was one of the dumbest ways to kill off a character that pretty much defined Star Wars for an entire generation. Too much Force killed Luke Skywalker. Just let the stupidity of that sink in.

I would have much preferred if he'd actually accompanied Rey back and, ya know, helped his fucking sister in the real world, with, perhaps, Kylo killing him as he held the fort, while what was left of the Resistance escaped...thus mirroring Kenobi's sacrifice in 'Star Wars'.

That was the way to bring Luke's journey to an end. Not have him disappear, because of Force overload. :rolleyes:

That was never going to happen. This is the second film in a trilogy, as such Lukes journey was always going to mirror Yoda's arc in ESB because they are
obsessed, to a fault , with mirroring the previous films.

Jedi master hides on backwater planet while the Galaxy goes to hell *check* , Hero seeks out Jedi master on backwater planet *check* , Jedi Master acts out of character and does wacky **** to test Our hero's patience/temperament *check* , Hero confronts herself in a dark force cave *check* , Jedi Master has chat with force ghost of another Jedi Master *check* , Jedi master ultimately never leaves planet and dies there *check*

Look I'm not against a little narrative rhyming , history repeating itself etc but with these films it's not so much echoing the previous films as completely xeroxing them character arc for character arc, plot point for plot point. It's why it annoys me when everyone lauds Rian for his bold choices, when it comes down to it the only brave choice was not going down the predictable route of making Rey a Skywalker.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

I've never liked all that force ghost malarkey myself. It's all a bit too silly for me and in the world of Star Wars, that's saying something.

However, I just don't like how Rian Johnson wrote that scene. I don't like how he wrote much of the film, TBH. i feel his concentration was almost entirely put into the Rey/Luke scenes on Ach-to and everything else was a distant second. It all could have been done so much better and more satisfying.

It just makes Luke look so weak, whereas Kenobi still looks like he's in control. I suppose it was just a very poor way for the character to go out. And sure, most real life deaths are crappy affairs. But, this is Star Wars were talking about. Escapist nonsense. And Luke Skywalker was its primary hero. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, he needed a more respectful departure.

I think there's a host of interpretations of Luke's behaviour, which is probably why the film will ultimately endure TBH. A simple, physical showdown might have been more visceral, immediate, and clichéd climax, but I don't believe it would have served the journey Luke was given.

To me, both Kenobi and Luke were in control at the end, just that the latter's death felt more thematically - and logistically - consistent with the themes of the film to that point. Luke finally achieved the kind of balance that had eluded him all these years, a balance he never truly had the first time around anyway. While it was arguable that he birthed the version Kylo Ren confronted on Ach-To, Luke still stepped forward and demonstrated that for all his rage and power, Kylo had nothing to match a real master of the Force.

As for being the hero, I dunno, Luke seemed more like the manifest destiny kind of hero; there as the Campbellian form of hero, but by the end of RotJ, was he the true hero? He didn't really grow, beyond the belated realisation he was weak, and prone to anger; that his training as warrior-monk was too imbalanced. As much as he was the Rogue, Han Solo demonstrated the real, relatable growth that marked him the hero.

Penn

Luke did go out a hero imo. It's the story of him saving the last remnants of the Rebellion, facing down the First Order, making Kylo Ren look like a fool and disappearing again (the people likely don't know he's dead). He restored hope to the entire galaxy, and helped the Rebellion to survive when all hope was lost. He has inspired people to believe in the Force again.

He didn't need to go out or die in an epic lightsaber duel. Even in TFA, people like Rey didn't even know Luke was real, she thought he was a myth. Now Luke has returned, and it's the hope that he's given people by doing so (and in their eyes, surviving his battle with Ren as they don't know he died after) that will ultimately lead to the Rebellion's victory.

And as to his actual character and journey, he got to go out on his own terms, at peace with himself and the future, and has regained the hope he once held but had lost. I thought his ending was entirely respectful and a fantastic culmination of the character.

Sal Butamol

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

Why was Yoda acting like 'Fake Yoda' in TLJ?

Because Rian Johnson hasn't a ****ing clue what he is doing

Sad Professor

You guys are confusing OT Yoda with prequel Yoda. In the prequels Yoda is a humourless bore, like all the Jedi. But in the OT, Yoda continued to exhibit characteristics of his "fake", slightly nutty persona long after he revealed who he was to Luke. Personally I was delighted to see the old Yoda back.

Tony EH

Yoda was never "nutty". He acted the maggot to test Luke's patience. Once he revealed himself, after Luke lost it, he was completely serious. He might have offered the odd slightly humorous line, "When 900 years old you reach...yadda, yadda, yadda...", but he was never a goofball.

Johnson, fundamentally, got that character wrong.

pixelburp

Agree to disagree here because yeah, to me Yoda was always meant to be a bit eccentric, a touch of the rebel with his lack of f*cks given re. deference to traditions, or the mythology of the Jedi. Pretending to be someone else in Empire was a cheeky ruse, but totally in keeping with the 'nutty' angle. The prequels suffocated the Jedi into eunuchs, Yoda included

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

Yoda was never "nutty". He acted the maggot to test Luke's patience. Once he revealed himself, after Luke lost it, he was completely serious. He might have offered the odd slightly humorous line, "When 900 years old you reach...yadda, yadda, yadda...", but he was never a goofball.

Johnson, fundamentally, got that character wrong.

No, the prequels got the character fundamentally wrong. Johnson nailed it.

Tony EH

After Yoda utters the line, "I cannot teach him. The boy has no patience", Yoda is, never again, the nutty fake that we are introduced to him as.

But, I guess first impressions last.

Sad Professor

Tony EH wrote: »

After Yoda utters the line, "I cannot teach him. The boy has no patience", Yoda is, never again, the nutty fake that we are introduced to him as.

But, I guess first impressions last.

As your posts here are a testament, impressions formed in childhood certainly do last.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

After Yoda utters the line, "I cannot teach him. The boy has no patience", Yoda is, never again, the nutty fake that we are introduced to him as.

But, I guess first impressions last.

But then later piggybacks on Lukes shoulders while bopping him on the head for being a lummox. Frank Oz never really stopped the 'nutty granny' styling. Unless I'm getting the order of events wrong. Yoda had the wise monk routine when needed no doubt, but 'impish' was both a physical and personality trait too. He skewered the cliché of the wise but powerful master, his size and devilment a deliberate choice.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

But then later piggybacks on Lukes shoulders while bopping him on the head for being a lummox. Frank Oz never really stopped the 'nutty granny' styling. Unless I'm getting the order of events wrong. Yoda had the wise monk routine when needed no doubt, but 'impish' was both a physical and personality trait too. He skewered the clichf the wise but powerful master, his size and devilment a deliberate choice.

Yoda pretends to be some crazy fool to test Luke. He says he'll take Luke to meet Yoda soon etc.

Luke fails because he's impetuous, as youth is in all of us.

But, once Luke figures out that it's actually Yoda he's talking to, Yoda drops the facade. In fact, he's downright threatening at one point.

In 'Return of the Jedi' he's dying and regretfully admits to knowing that Vader is his father. There's no goofy antics at all going in there. Yoda's scenes are quite sad in that film.

It's only when we first meet Yoda that he puts on the crazy old fool act, to trick both Luke and the audience.

Sal Butamol

It was jarring because, like most of the movie, it was executed poorly. Yoda might have had some brief flashes of humour fhroughout the saga but in the last Jedi he was closer to goofball "fake" Yoda not the serious Jedi master that he predominantly is portrayed as.

It was a poor choice executed badly and very easy to lead fans to conclude that Johnson plain got it wrong

Smertrius

solo movie, darth maul died before han solo was born , count Dooku should new sith lord in solo movie not darth maul , how could darth maul survive after chop in half by lightsabers and his body destroyed in ship engines in phantom menace

tigger123

Smertrius wrote: »

solo movie, darth maul died before han solo was born , count Dooku should new sith lord in solo movie not darth maul , how could darth maul survive after chop in half by lightsabers and his body destroyed in ship engines in phantom menace

Didn't he resurface in The Clone Wars with a half robotic lower body?

Relikk

Smertrius wrote: »

solo movie, darth maul died before han solo was born , count Dooku should new sith lord in solo movie not darth maul , how could darth maul survive after chop in half by lightsabers and his body destroyed in ship engines in phantom menace

As said above, Maul survived. And the original duel between them took place on Naboo and not on a ship.

DrWu

I've been watching Mike Zero's vids on Yoochoobe. He has pretty good inside info on shoots, storyboards etc. It looks like Ep 9 is going to be a fan-boy appeasing box-ticking exercise. Ugh

Bowlardo

Watched it again today. It really is dreadful not as bad as the first time but still really poor.

nix

Bowlardo wrote: »

Watched it again today. It really is dreadful not as bad as the first time but still really poor.

WE ARE THE SPARK THAT WILL LIGHT THE FIRE THAT WILL BURN THE FIRST ORDER DOWN!

Pete Moss

Bowlardo wrote:

Watched it again today. It really is dreadful not as bad as the first time but still really poor.

Same here. My first time rewatching it since I saw it in the cinema.

My opinion hasn't changed much. When it's good it's enjoyable, but when it's bad it's woeful. Overall, the good does not outweigh the bad.

I'd forgotten about the bad humour, how annoying Oscar Isaac's character is throughout the movie and the pointless Finn and Rose subplot.

I still enjoyed parts, the fight in Snoke's room, the final battle and Luke sequence, as well as the lightspeed jump through Snoke's ship.

That Leia/Mary Poppins scene though, Christ on a bike what were they thinking!