Hey, remember Star Wars? It's a film series about film wizards who fight each other with swords made of energy in space. They don't literally fight in space. The main villain, Darth Vader, was supposed to be able to jump from spaceship to spaceship in the original concept, but then that never made it to the production cut of Star Wars, which mysteriously started on Episode 4.
The Episode 8 mixtape dropped last week, and I'm going to give some raw, unstable thoughts on the matter. To start with, I am a huge Star Wars fan. I think I was born with a toy lightsaber in my hand. What makes that even weirder is that my mother was a wolf, but I somehow came out as a human. But that's a different story for a different time. I want to tell you about something that is bugging me. It... it's Disney. I think Kathleen Kennedy is riding a bull that she can't control, and it's called Star Wars, and why the fuck did they give the series to Rian Johnson?
I guess I'm going to spoil some stuff. So just go away if you don't want to be spoilered.
I kind of liked The Force Awakens. I was one of the people who didn't bitch about it that much. I have one issue with it, which is that it introduces the Star Killer Base, and then destroys it like 10 minutes later. A New Hope also had a super weapon, but the whole movie revolved around it, and the climax of the movie was built-up to throughout the story. I almost felt like JJ Abrams wrote the script and then someone said "It needs a Death Star. Episode 4 had a Death Star." and he was like "Oh, hold on." and penned in a few edits and said "There, now the script has a Death Star in it. It gets blowed up at the end."
As far as the other shit goes, I'm fine with Rey being overpowered, except for that one scene where she goes "I bypassed the thing!" and holds up a ship part. I'm like "Get out of here with that shit." But it's established that she knows how to fix spaceships and how to fight early in the film. So when people cry about her beating Kylo Ren's ass on not-Hoth, keep in mind that he got fucking shot by Chewbacca, and is barely trained in how to actually fight another person with a lightsaber. The point is: while the film had weaknesses, I have excuses for explaining that away so I can live in my fantasy land where Star Wars is still lit af.
Until now. I think the decision to hand the story from one person to the next is a terrible way to create a larger narrative. I feel like JJ Abrams was going in a certain direction with the series, but then they gave it to Rian Johnson, who had different ideas. Why on Earth would they do this? Episode 8 doesn't seem like the logical follow-up to Episode 7 at all. I'm not saying Episode 8 is bad, but when Episode 7 ended, I wanted to see another Star Wars. I was like "Well, done. You did it, Disney. You made a film that didn't suck." and was excited to see what would happen next. Now I'm just kind of like "Meh. I don't care."
I thought a good arc would've been for Rey to be seduced by the dark side and then redeemed in part 3. Or something like that. The ultimate villain is not supposed to die in the middle of a story. Part 2 is supposed to set something up for Part 3. Instead, Part 2 just took all the stuff in Part 1 and threw it in the garbage. Like, Luke Skywalker could reject the force and the jedi, but then in Part 3, he could have an 'arc'. That's a thing characters have. Jesus Christ. It's just a giant pile of shit now designed to sell toys and have a bag of marshmallows with Finn on the package.
WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO US, DISNEY!? DO YOU JUST NOT CARE!?
On December 23 2017 12:31 Cricketer12 wrote: Yea it's a weird movie. Not horrible, but man is it weird for JJ to fix this
I don't think it's fixable. JJ Abrams just did a bunch of re-hashing of older films in the Star Trek films, and then with TFA. How is he going to rehash RotJ if there's no Empire Strikes Back?
Well with the new movie they are literal space wizards that don't have to care about the vacuum of space and can just move around at will. They also don't have to worry about stretches of time or space as ships can travel around instantly and you can learn complex sword fighting and high level force techniques in less then a week. Prequels were so bad they had to spend decades teaching kids to turn them into warrior monks when the new trilogy can churn out world beaters in a long weekend.
It's fascinating how differently people perceive this film. I would write a paper about it if only I understood it well enough to say something credible. I legitimately have no clue what it is exactly that makes people LOVE this movie. It's easy enough to poke holes in the logic and continuity of the story but somehow a significant portion of viewers is not bothered by that. Is it really the disparity between people that like to be surprised and the people that don't that make up the divide in this movie?
On December 23 2017 18:38 Saechiis wrote: It's fascinating how differently people perceive this film. I would write a paper about it if only I understood it well enough to say something credible. I legitimately have no clue what it is exactly that makes people LOVE this movie. It's easy enough to poke holes in the logic and continuity of the story but somehow a significant portion of viewers is not bothered by that. Is it really the disparity between people that like to be surprised and the people that don't that make up the divide in this movie?
Here's the weird thing -- I wanted to like this movie. But even before it came out, I was wondering how it would work out having different writer/directors work on each movie of a continuous story. I wish I knew the thought process behind all of this. And I know it's possible for people to write stories that are Star Wars, and that the fans love. While I personally have mixed feelings about the Expanded Universe series (I think some of it is shite) a lot of people really love those. Therefore, it is possible to write new Star Wars stories that are good, but this is not a good example, and I don't even want to see the damn Han Solo movie.
The ultimate villain is not supposed to die in the middle of a story.
It's almost like the guy who has all the characterisation and development's the actual ultimate villain, not some conjoined-twin fetus head in a bathrobe.
I do agree that having two vastly different creative forces at work here has created problems, they'd have done much better having just one screenplay/director/editing team and keeping with it throughout the years. Unfortunately nobody was around to explain this to Disney, I guess they figured it would function liked the Marvel stuff does but that's a different sort of beast.
For what it's worth I rather liked The Last Jedi and do look forward to seeing Rian Johnson doing more Star Wars films (though I would appreciate it if he would allow someone to help him with the script. He's good with character work but struggles with internal logic and verisimilitude. I'm pretty good with those things generally but goddammit man you're pushing me here)
I rather like that movie personally, probably my favourite movie since Empire and A New Hope, it's way to long, but if you cut the casino part, a good part of Fin-Purple hair and the toys characters, I fell you have a very solid movie.
And I don't really care about Snoke dying, he probably should never have been in the movie to begin with, like the Emperor in the original trilogy, they are just useless super villain who look like they eat baby for breakfast and have no background (well they gave the Emperor a background but after the fact). I am more exited now to see the follow up then I was after TFA, since the story is not just a copy of the OT, but an actual new story with an interesting duo of main characters.
As for the Han Solo movie, I was never exited about it to begin with, I never found him particularly interesting.
If you still fell angry at the movie, go watch one of the Hobbit movie and tell yourself it could have been much much worst
I think Luke had his arc within this movie. And I actually liked it. But yeah, the tone was very different to the direct predecessor and it has it's share of problems. I still liked the movie and will probably see it again, but it's definitely a different beast than pretty much all the other star wars. Although I kinda like the generally darker atmosphere.
I also think a lot about it boils down to how much you like character driven vs goal driven storywriting. I thought the plot was fine as a character driven story and I don't mind that + Show Spoiler +
the Rival kills off the BBE to advance his character development
, I found most actions of characters within the movie coherent (disregarding the entire "Luke is too different to RotJ"/"Luke is okay" discussion) and I don't mind too much that there are some asspull power ups, most of the powers were abbreviations of formerly known powers and nothing was more wtf to me than mind trick of an untrained.
Not saying there aren't glaring issues here, the pacing and joke timing was messy at best and J.J.A. has to start pretty much at zero again.
Disney is even more evil than neo-Blizzard. No franchise is safe from their rape. In fact they will probably team up for Starcraft: The Movie, featuring the cast: Shia Labouf as Raynor, Scarlett Johansen as Kerrigan, and Kevin Hart as Zeratul. At the end they will put in shout out to Korean e-sports, starring Ken Jeong as Boxer.
On December 23 2017 18:38 Saechiis wrote: It's fascinating how differently people perceive this film. I would write a paper about it if only I understood it well enough to say something credible. I legitimately have no clue what it is exactly that makes people LOVE this movie. It's easy enough to poke holes in the logic and continuity of the story but somehow a significant portion of viewers is not bothered by that. Is it really the disparity between people that like to be surprised and the people that don't that make up the divide in this movie?
I'm just not that interested in figuring out fleet logistics. The film is ambitious and is chock-full of subtext, and Rian Johnson has a lot to say with the different characters. Delving into that is interesting. Seeing how he handles the tonal swaps is inherently more interesting for me than trying to track down alleged plot holes. I reckon I'm not the only one.
It's just a different way to approach cinema, one of several, and none of them is inherently better than another.
e: Obviously this feels like a misstep for certain viewers, and I'm wondering if Kennedy will opt for more traditional storytelling methods in the next film.
i think the last jedi might be the worst movie that i have ever seen without being hyperbolic at all. the plot holes in the movie can't even be called plot holes because they throw the entire lore and rationale of the universe out the window from the word go. even outside of the literally laughably bad scenes like the leia superman scene and the hyperdrive attack, you still have absurd questions like why didn't the empire move to intercept the fleet instead of sitting behind them for an entire day? how did finn and rose live even after they crashed in front of the ATATs? why didn't snape notice the lightsaber turning next to him? it's not even a question of suspension of disbelief, the movie and writing was just utter trash through and through, all the way from respecting the established lore to character development to "comedy" to love interests.
the casino planet's "moral stories" (if you want to call them that) were so absurdly heavy handed that i don't think a writer could make it more obvious if she tried. THEN, they had the code breaker just be like "you might hate these guys, but they have helped the rebellion too.." at which point the narrative is like WHOOPS, can't have anything morally grey, make that guy evil immediately! it's like there were 20 different writers... like why even include that part at all if you're not going to actually go into the subject matter?
I liked the Rey/Kylo/Luke (I don't care he isn't a perfect Jedi in the movie tbh) enough that I enjoyed the movie, BUT: I think Star Wars is now in full Marvel mode as in, sure, the movies can be fun in their own way, but their goal is to now be a giant cash cow and for that you need something passable, not great. Obviously Lucasfilm has been milking the franchse for decades, but with Disney we are honestly at a whole other level.
On December 23 2017 18:38 Saechiis wrote: It's fascinating how differently people perceive this film. I would write a paper about it if only I understood it well enough to say something credible. I legitimately have no clue what it is exactly that makes people LOVE this movie. It's easy enough to poke holes in the logic and continuity of the story but somehow a significant portion of viewers is not bothered by that. Is it really the disparity between people that like to be surprised and the people that don't that make up the divide in this movie?
I'm just not that interested in figuring out fleet logistics. The film is ambitious and is chock-full of subtext, and Rian Johnson has a lot to say with the different characters. Delving into that is interesting. Seeing how he handles the tonal swaps is inherently more interesting for me than trying to track down alleged plot holes. I reckon I'm not the only one.
It's just a different way to approach cinema, one of several, and none of them is inherently better than another.
e: Obviously this feels like a misstep for certain viewers, and I'm wondering if Kennedy will opt for more traditional storytelling methods in the next film.
double edit: case in point \/\/\/\/\/\/
Drinking the ocean is also ambitious. The question is whether the audience really needed Star Wars 8 to subvert Star Wars.
On December 23 2017 18:38 Saechiis wrote: It's fascinating how differently people perceive this film. I would write a paper about it if only I understood it well enough to say something credible. I legitimately have no clue what it is exactly that makes people LOVE this movie. It's easy enough to poke holes in the logic and continuity of the story but somehow a significant portion of viewers is not bothered by that. Is it really the disparity between people that like to be surprised and the people that don't that make up the divide in this movie?
I'm just not that interested in figuring out fleet logistics. The film is ambitious and is chock-full of subtext, and Rian Johnson has a lot to say with the different characters. Delving into that is interesting. Seeing how he handles the tonal swaps is inherently more interesting for me than trying to track down alleged plot holes. I reckon I'm not the only one.
It's just a different way to approach cinema, one of several, and none of them is inherently better than another.
e: Obviously this feels like a misstep for certain viewers, and I'm wondering if Kennedy will opt for more traditional storytelling methods in the next film.
double edit: case in point \/\/\/\/\/\/
Drinking the ocean is also ambitious.
You're thinking of Thor, not Star Wars
Thor then challenged anyone in the castle to a drinking contest, something at which he had no little skill. Utgarda-Loki had one of his servants fetch the kind of drinking horn from which Utgarda-Loki’s men were said to drink. When it was placed before Thor, Utgarda-Loki informed him that whoever could finish the horn in one drink was considered a great drinker, whoever could do it in two was considered fair, but no one in his retinue was such a poor drinker as to be unable to finish it in three.
Thor drank mightily, but by the time he had to pause for a breath, the level of liquor in the horn had barely lowered. So he gave it a second try, straining to gulp and gulp until his breath failed him. This time, the level had gone down appreciably, but the better part of the horn still remained. His third drink was even more formidable than the previous two, but in the end, much was still left. By that point, however, Thor could drink could no more, and gave up.
"The far end of the horn from which you drank was connected to the sea, and we were actually greatly afraid that you were going to drink it all. When you cross over the sea again, you will see how much you have lowered its level."
We've also had 8 movies, not a bad time for subversion.
I think the two movies have opposite problems. In TF, the plot was ok, but the acting direction and writing were terrible. Too many lame jokes and poor reactions. In TLJ, the acting and writing was much better but the plot was all over the place. It is just terribly disjointed.
I feel the overall character development fell flat, though. Kylo is no longer that interesting now that he's not turning good. Rey is no longer interesting now that she never really was ever slightly tempted to turn evil. Finn started to do repeat the same character arc he had in the first movie, but then he does a complete 180 immediately. Are we supposed to care about Poe Dameron now? At least he had a reasonable albeit short character arc. The stuff about the "balance" in the force being something other than the Jedi winning just fell by the wayside.
On December 24 2017 08:23 hexhaven wrote: I'm just not that interested in figuring out fleet logistics. The film is ambitious and is chock-full of subtext, and Rian Johnson has a lot to say with the different characters. Delving into that is interesting. Seeing how he handles the tonal swaps is inherently more interesting for me than trying to track down alleged plot holes. I reckon I'm not the only one.
The problem is Star Wars is a franchise film, not an independent movie, and Rian Johnson isn't Tarkovsky or Bunuel. Deconstruction and subversion are neutral as approaches to crafting a film, and a director doesn't deserve inherent credit for embracing them. Furthermore TLJ is a movie ultimately about Star Wars and its legacy, not a movie about the supposed story shown on screen. This results in multiple point holes, egregious misunderstandings of individual and group dynamics, and plain impossible stuff that nevertheless occurs for the sake of drama.
As much as your interests skew towards the meta-aspects of TLJ, basic storytelling 101 demands internal consistency within the world being portrayed. This is especially important for sci-fi, which demands a hefty suspension of belief when it alters the basic limitations of physics. The new limitations, and how the people in the story address them, form the parameters of what types of drama can be taken seriously. Star Wars isn't a hard sci-fi movie by any stretch of the imagination (it's a pastiche of Eastern mysticism + Western fetishization of technology mixed with 40's-50's pulp stories), but its dramatic possibilities are still dictated by the physics of the universe. In short, the entire main plot of TLJ is dependent on the First Order being morons (on a bureaucratic + technical level but leadership is also denigrated from a moral perspective, which sucks the tension out of the FO being a dramatic threat) and the Resistance also being morons (but shielded from criticism because of their symbolic importance).
The tonal swaps are terrible. Bob Ducsay failed in his editing on a fundamental level (although to his credit, TLJ had too many subplots that required too much contrivance to pack into one movie). This even extends to the cinematography, which is often at odds with the tone Johnson is trying to portray at any particular point.
On December 24 2017 16:41 Endymion wrote: i think the last jedi might be the worst movie that i have ever seen without being hyperbolic at all.
As much as your interests skew towards the meta-aspects of TLJ, basic storytelling 101 demands internal consistency within the world being portrayed.
Yeah, I got kicked out of the Secondary World in a mega way. There certainly worse films that I have watched, but because I'm pretty picky with which films I see in theatre, this is the only film where I was actively hating what I was seeing and getting really antsy because I didn't want to hate it, but I was.
Not only does the story rely upon the First Order being dumb, but it relied upon the Republic being Lawful Stupid. How is it that they completely collapse after the Capital is destroyed? Sure they lost their fleet because they were dumb about disarming (not even movie knowledge because these film makers are terrible at world building), but that sort of massacre would normally rally the people, not cow them... because the base was destroyed. That's what sky rocketed the Rebel Alliance in the first film- Alderaan was destroyed, but they blew up the Death Star and people were like, oh hey there's some hope that we can fight back... a new hope.
Or maybe what's going on behind the scenes is a giant propaganda war and the Republic/ Resistance is freaking sucks at PR. So they didn't even bother to tell anyone they killed the StarKiller Base and in the meantime the First Order is faking footage that the StarKiller Base still a thing. Or maybe the Republic leaders suck as much as the Resistance commanders and so the galaxy let out a collective cheer when they died. I'm almost Team Evil at this point Just need Rey join the Dark Side, kill Hux and we're good.
One of the anti-criticisms is that the naysayers were just wanting a repeat of the OG Trilogy. Um, no. That's the very thing that's frustrating me... that these film makers are so desperate to recreate the Empire/ Rebel scenario that they break the internal consistency of the world building to get there. It's a forced fit that does not work at just a cursory glance without undermining the gains made by the Return of the Jedi.
i think Poe is the most interesting character in the new movies because he's the only character that actually fails and has to make decisions. for example, continuing the bomber assault on the mega SSD or whatever it was called while getting a lot of other pilots killed, committing mutiny against the (perceived) incompetent rebellion admirality to save lives, standing up to the vice admiral, etc. the more i think about it, the more Poe feels like the center piece of the movie despite not having an important role in the grand scheme of things. Finn is the same character, Rey didn't feel like she developed at all, and Kylo didn't really develop at all either.
with regard to your points Falling, I think that they left the politics of the galaxy purposely vague because some people complained about all of the senate discussion/economic negotiations in the prequels. i personally don't agree with the choice though because when you leave out political exposition you get the exact situation that we're in now, where people defending the movie are saying "well we don't knoww exactly what happened" or "go read the new expanded universe." i thought that one of the great strengths of the prequels was the exposition that set up such a colorful universe, allowing stories like the clone wars tv series to thrive.
even from episode 2 to episode 3 when there was a massive exposition gap between the movies as far as the disposition of forces and political influences, the title crawl of episode 3 somewhat filled the audience in on what was going down and why there was a large naval battle over coruscant . in episode 7 and 8, the title crawl hand waves the exposition
Can I just point out how simple and better it would have been for them to simply portray the enemy as Empire holdouts rather than a whole new thing (that just happens to use all the same equipment/ships). There's also no depiction of the scope of the First Order? Is this their whole army fleet? Is this their whole army?
EPT
No franchise is safe from their rape. In fact they will probably team up for Starcraft: The Movie, featuring the cast: Shia Labouf as Raynor, Scarlett Johansen as Kerrigan, and Kevin Hart as Zeratul. At the end they will put in shout out to Korean e-sports, starring Ken Jeong as Boxer.
