On January 05 2019 17:58 Jerubaal wrote: -We've killed the lightspeed kamikaze discussion but why couldn't they have done that with all the smaller craft? Or Just did that to begin with?
According to the movie, it's a last ditch effort that succeeds because the First Order fleet command is distracted.
I mean isnt there was whole team of people at the controls of the ship and monitoring the other ship, I seriously doubt that a distraction of a commander can lead to a huge vulnerability. This isnt a driver of a car being distracted by a spider jumping into his lap.
The main reason why alot of people dislike the idea is that if you can just hyper jump to suicide attack it brings about a huge number of questions of why it wasnt used before and why the start of the movie has slow ass bombers approaching and still managing to do damage through the shields/hulls. Are bombs more powerful than a ship crashing to you at lightspeed?
Even if the commander wasnt distracted what exactly is he meant to do? Move to the side and tried to evade it? Thats means you agree that shields arent able to stop the damage, which brings about another question of in large scale battles where large ships cant move freely without hyperjump why not just have each X-wing suicide into the fleet, you dont even need people to pilot them, just have droids do it.
As much as people like to point out plot holes in movies, any and every movie has faults. It's extremely hard to create a movie with tension and action and galaxy threatening consequences without having some people just be stupid or act out of character to move the plot along. But with the last jedi, the cannon has already had a huge number of backstory and lore established, and re-established. But the core of the lore remains the same, the last jedi kinda ignores alot of that and for an already established universe that hurts fans.
It's always been my understanding that small bits of matter would not collide while in hyperspace. You might have to navigate around planets and stars because of their large masses.
Star Wars is probably the most used IP in the last 30 years for teaching archetypes and the Hero's Journey.
Storytelling is a funny thing because if you do a lot of things right, people won't really notice what you got wrong. If Star Wars had a "thin" plot, I didn't notice it. If I didn't notice a thin plot, it's because I was more interested in the characters. Star Wars is a very character driven saga, and the choices and values of the characters loom large.
J.J. Abrams didn't do a perfect job, but he at least seemed like he cared. Rian Johnson's goal seems to have been to make you feel dumb for caring about the movie.
Rogue One has Jyn Erso make the most important decision in the film completely out of the blue, meaning the entire climax of the film is undermined, and yet the film's incoherent plotting never received the same kind of vitriol that Last Jedi did.
How do you mean? (I've only seen Rogue One once.) Which decision are you referring to? I mean, I have some minor problems with it- I'm annoyed that the Rebel command just chooses to sit on their hands. I'd like to see some competent commanders for a change. But no, Rogue One didn't receive backlash, probably because the film set up its own promises and then paid it off, rather than playing an endless series of 'Gotchas'.
That's the thing though, there's no pay off.
After Jyn's dad dies, Jyn and Cassian are arguing in the ship just before they head back. The movie's telling us that she won't part of the rebels. The next scene we see Jyn again, she's changed her mind and says that they should go steal the schematics. This is fundamentally what the story is about, Jyn coming to terms with who she is, building trust with a group of rag tag scoundrels and believing in something bigger than herself. You know, a good story. Only, we never see her make that decision, so as Jyn and Cassia embrace their fate on the beach, we're left wondering why she's there in the first place.
There's no "gotcha" moment here, there's just an emotionally empty moment because the film fails to follow Jyn's story. You know, the entire reason we're watching the film in the first place.
Of course, whether you value emotional beats or plot beats as a viewer is entirely up to you, but there's definitely a strong case to be made that Rogue One values technical execution over emotional execution, and TLJ is almost the complete opposite.
Another point is character competency in films. Why can't characters make mistakes? TLJ sees characters make mistakes and then punished for those mistakes. I know you're not saying that every character needs to be absolutely competent at all times, but characters making stupid mistakes has to be one of the most relatable things in the world. I do that all the time. I know everyone else around me makes mistakes all the time, too.
I'm just noting that you cannot both argue "Space Wizards for Kids" to dismiss story problems, while at the same time arguing 'the themes in Last Jedi are super deep'- a consistent line of argumentation from defenders. He hasn't, at least not yet. But I'm saying, he won't be able to (consistently) if he takes that position. (I don't think it's particularly deep myself, but then Star Wars never has been, beyond utilizing the monomyth.)
If a movie is Space Wizards for Kids, it doesn't mean it can't have deep themes. Or to put it another way, films made primarily for kids can (and should) have deep themes.
TLJ covers (including, but not limited to)
your actions having consequences
how to deal with mistakes you've done, how to atone for them (if even possible)
can you overcome your parents/upbringing
how we like to think that some problems have supremely easy solutions when they actually don't
how to respond to and deal with impossible expectations, if even possible
are some people just intrinsically evil and beyond saving
Which I think include a lot of stuff to unpack, and are probably things that a lot of people should be able to relate to.
I think one of the fundamental differences between us is that I think that plot and story are (mostly) separate, while you feel that story and plot are much more intertwined together.
On January 05 2019 17:58 Jerubaal wrote: -We've killed the lightspeed kamikaze discussion but why couldn't they have done that with all the smaller craft? Or Just did that to begin with?
According to the movie, it's a last ditch effort that succeeds because the First Order fleet command is distracted.
I mean isnt there was whole team of people at the controls of the ship and monitoring the other ship, I seriously doubt that a distraction of a commander can lead to a huge vulnerability. This isnt a driver of a car being distracted by a spider jumping into his lap.
Hux is notified that the cruiser is preparing to jump to light speed, but he orders everyone to keep firing on the escape vessels. A short while later they realize that the cruiser is turning around, but by then their distraction has cost them too much (hubris! mistakes! -~* omg thematic relevance *~-).
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: The main reason why alot of people dislike the idea is that if you can just hyper jump to suicide attack it brings about a huge number of questions of why it wasnt used before and why the start of the movie has slow ass bombers approaching and still managing to do damage through the shields/hulls. Are bombs more powerful than a ship crashing to you at lightspeed?
"How do people ever come up with new things", is that seriously what you're asking?
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: Even if the commander wasnt distracted what exactly is he meant to do? Move to the side and tried to evade it? Thats means you agree that shields arent able to stop the damage, which brings about another question of in large scale battles where large ships cant move freely without hyperjump why not just have each X-wing suicide into the fleet, you dont even need people to pilot them, just have droids do it.
In the film their reaction is to start firing at the ship, but Hux's reaction seems panicked and hasty, and ultimately it doesn't work. Earlier in the film we've seen that the First Order's fleet has enough weapons to take out Resistance ships, so destroying the cruiser would've been one (possibly the only one) good way to stop the jump.
Could X-Wings be used for kamikaze attacks on capital ships? We've never seen that happen in the films (to my recollection), we've never heard people talk about it, so we just don't know. Caveat, I haven't read the books or the comics.
e: That A-Wing destroys the Super Star Destroyer in ROTJ but it's not light speed.
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: As much as people like to point out plot holes in movies, any and every movie has faults. It's extremely hard to create a movie with tension and action and galaxy threatening consequences without having some people just be stupid or act out of character to move the plot along. But with the last jedi, the cannon has already had a huge number of backstory and lore established, and re-established. But the core of the lore remains the same, the last jedi kinda ignores alot of that and for an already established universe that hurts fans.
Rogue One has Jyn Erso make the most important decision in the film completely out of the blue, meaning the entire climax of the film is undermined, and yet the film's incoherent plotting never received the same kind of vitriol that Last Jedi did.
How do you mean? (I've only seen Rogue One once.) Which decision are you referring to? I mean, I have some minor problems with it- I'm annoyed that the Rebel command just chooses to sit on their hands. I'd like to see some competent commanders for a change. But no, Rogue One didn't receive backlash, probably because the film set up its own promises and then paid it off, rather than playing an endless series of 'Gotchas'.
That's the thing though, there's no pay off.
After Jyn's dad dies, Jyn and Cassian are arguing in the ship just before they head back. The movie's telling us that she won't part of the rebels. The next scene we see Jyn again, she's changed her mind and says that they should go steal the schematics. This is fundamentally what the story is about, Jyn coming to terms with who she is, building trust with a group of rag tag scoundrels and believing in something bigger than herself. You know, a good story. Only, we never see her make that decision, so as Jyn and Cassia embrace their fate on the beach, we're left wondering why she's there in the first place.
There's no "gotcha" moment here, there's just an emotionally empty moment because the film fails to follow Jyn's story. You know, the entire reason we're watching the film in the first place.
Of course, whether you value emotional beats or plot beats as a viewer is entirely up to you, but there's definitely a strong case to be made that Rogue One values technical execution over emotional execution, and TLJ is almost the complete opposite.
Another point is character competency in films. Why can't characters make mistakes? TLJ sees characters make mistakes and then punished for those mistakes. I know you're not saying that every character needs to be absolutely competent at all times, but characters making stupid mistakes has to be one of the most relatable things in the world. I do that all the time. I know everyone else around me makes mistakes all the time, too.
I'm just noting that you cannot both argue "Space Wizards for Kids" to dismiss story problems, while at the same time arguing 'the themes in Last Jedi are super deep'- a consistent line of argumentation from defenders. He hasn't, at least not yet. But I'm saying, he won't be able to (consistently) if he takes that position. (I don't think it's particularly deep myself, but then Star Wars never has been, beyond utilizing the monomyth.)
If a movie is Space Wizards for Kids, it doesn't mean it can't have deep themes. Or to put it another way, films made primarily for kids can (and should) have deep themes.
TLJ covers (including, but not limited to)
your actions having consequences
how to deal with mistakes you've done, how to atone for them (if even possible)
can you overcome your parents/upbringing
how we like to think that some problems have supremely easy solutions when they actually don't
how to respond to and deal with impossible expectations, if even possible
are some people just intrinsically evil and beyond saving
Which I think include a lot of stuff to unpack, and are probably things that a lot of people should be able to relate to.
I think one of the fundamental differences between us is that I think that plot and story are (mostly) separate, while you feel that story and plot are much more intertwined together.
On January 05 2019 17:58 Jerubaal wrote: -We've killed the lightspeed kamikaze discussion but why couldn't they have done that with all the smaller craft? Or Just did that to begin with?
According to the movie, it's a last ditch effort that succeeds because the First Order fleet command is distracted.
I mean isnt there was whole team of people at the controls of the ship and monitoring the other ship, I seriously doubt that a distraction of a commander can lead to a huge vulnerability. This isnt a driver of a car being distracted by a spider jumping into his lap.
Hux is notified that the cruiser is preparing to jump to light speed, but he orders everyone to keep firing on the escape vessels. A short while later they realize that the cruiser is turning around, but by then their distraction has cost them too much (hubris! mistakes! -~* omg thematic relevance *~-).
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: The main reason why alot of people dislike the idea is that if you can just hyper jump to suicide attack it brings about a huge number of questions of why it wasnt used before and why the start of the movie has slow ass bombers approaching and still managing to do damage through the shields/hulls. Are bombs more powerful than a ship crashing to you at lightspeed?
"How do people ever come up with new things", is that seriously what you're asking?
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: Even if the commander wasnt distracted what exactly is he meant to do? Move to the side and tried to evade it? Thats means you agree that shields arent able to stop the damage, which brings about another question of in large scale battles where large ships cant move freely without hyperjump why not just have each X-wing suicide into the fleet, you dont even need people to pilot them, just have droids do it.
In the film their reaction is to start firing at the ship, but Hux's reaction seems panicked and hasty, and ultimately it doesn't work. Earlier in the film we've seen that the First Order's fleet has enough weapons to take out Resistance ships, so destroying the cruiser would've been one (possibly the only one) good way to stop the jump.
Could X-Wings be used for kamikaze attacks on capital ships? We've never seen that happen in the films (to my recollection), we've never heard people talk about it, so we just don't know. Caveat, I haven't read the books or the comics.
e: That A-Wing destroys the Super Star Destroyer in ROTJ but it's not light speed.
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: As much as people like to point out plot holes in movies, any and every movie has faults. It's extremely hard to create a movie with tension and action and galaxy threatening consequences without having some people just be stupid or act out of character to move the plot along. But with the last jedi, the cannon has already had a huge number of backstory and lore established, and re-established. But the core of the lore remains the same, the last jedi kinda ignores alot of that and for an already established universe that hurts fans.
Paddington, by all accounts, is a faultless film.
There a countless scenes where the rebels initiate a lightspeed jump to escape a battle, any one of these points a few ships can easily be sacrificed to allow the rest of the rebels to escape and inflict huge damage on enemy fleet. If shooting down ships can easily be done by the time it takes for a ship to turn around the battles would be over before they started the empire/first order out guns the rebels by miles.
In the TLJ the ship is facing away from the first order while preparing to jump and then turns around to "surprise" them... theres no real time to act to destroy that ship before it plows through.
This tactic can't be something brand new as Huxs upon realising the turning around sees the purpose. So then why hasn't this move been utilised more. How is there no reliable protection to a move that would one of the first considerations for defence. The requirement is only a ship that can jump at lightspeed, you dont even need a big ship to inflict huge amounts of damage thats why i suggested X-wings, you just line up 12 X-wings make them all hyper jump and you have a wave of unstoppable death.
If hyperjump requires the ship to remaining constant or on a still pathway and thus easily targeted down then how do the rebels ever escape from any situation they would be easily shot down, the direction they're facing doesnt make a difference.
tldr: if shooting down a ship was as easy and quick as just pointing at it, the rebels would never escape any battle.
Rogue One has Jyn Erso make the most important decision in the film completely out of the blue, meaning the entire climax of the film is undermined, and yet the film's incoherent plotting never received the same kind of vitriol that Last Jedi did.
How do you mean? (I've only seen Rogue One once.) Which decision are you referring to? I mean, I have some minor problems with it- I'm annoyed that the Rebel command just chooses to sit on their hands. I'd like to see some competent commanders for a change. But no, Rogue One didn't receive backlash, probably because the film set up its own promises and then paid it off, rather than playing an endless series of 'Gotchas'.
That's the thing though, there's no pay off.
After Jyn's dad dies, Jyn and Cassian are arguing in the ship just before they head back. The movie's telling us that she won't part of the rebels. The next scene we see Jyn again, she's changed her mind and says that they should go steal the schematics. This is fundamentally what the story is about, Jyn coming to terms with who she is, building trust with a group of rag tag scoundrels and believing in something bigger than herself. You know, a good story. Only, we never see her make that decision, so as Jyn and Cassia embrace their fate on the beach, we're left wondering why she's there in the first place.
There's no "gotcha" moment here, there's just an emotionally empty moment because the film fails to follow Jyn's story. You know, the entire reason we're watching the film in the first place.
Of course, whether you value emotional beats or plot beats as a viewer is entirely up to you, but there's definitely a strong case to be made that Rogue One values technical execution over emotional execution, and TLJ is almost the complete opposite.
Another point is character competency in films. Why can't characters make mistakes? TLJ sees characters make mistakes and then punished for those mistakes. I know you're not saying that every character needs to be absolutely competent at all times, but characters making stupid mistakes has to be one of the most relatable things in the world. I do that all the time. I know everyone else around me makes mistakes all the time, too.
I'm just noting that you cannot both argue "Space Wizards for Kids" to dismiss story problems, while at the same time arguing 'the themes in Last Jedi are super deep'- a consistent line of argumentation from defenders. He hasn't, at least not yet. But I'm saying, he won't be able to (consistently) if he takes that position. (I don't think it's particularly deep myself, but then Star Wars never has been, beyond utilizing the monomyth.)
If a movie is Space Wizards for Kids, it doesn't mean it can't have deep themes. Or to put it another way, films made primarily for kids can (and should) have deep themes.
TLJ covers (including, but not limited to)
your actions having consequences
how to deal with mistakes you've done, how to atone for them (if even possible)
can you overcome your parents/upbringing
how we like to think that some problems have supremely easy solutions when they actually don't
how to respond to and deal with impossible expectations, if even possible
are some people just intrinsically evil and beyond saving
Which I think include a lot of stuff to unpack, and are probably things that a lot of people should be able to relate to.
I think one of the fundamental differences between us is that I think that plot and story are (mostly) separate, while you feel that story and plot are much more intertwined together.
On January 05 2019 17:58 Jerubaal wrote: -We've killed the lightspeed kamikaze discussion but why couldn't they have done that with all the smaller craft? Or Just did that to begin with?
According to the movie, it's a last ditch effort that succeeds because the First Order fleet command is distracted.
I mean isnt there was whole team of people at the controls of the ship and monitoring the other ship, I seriously doubt that a distraction of a commander can lead to a huge vulnerability. This isnt a driver of a car being distracted by a spider jumping into his lap.
Hux is notified that the cruiser is preparing to jump to light speed, but he orders everyone to keep firing on the escape vessels. A short while later they realize that the cruiser is turning around, but by then their distraction has cost them too much (hubris! mistakes! -~* omg thematic relevance *~-).
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: The main reason why alot of people dislike the idea is that if you can just hyper jump to suicide attack it brings about a huge number of questions of why it wasnt used before and why the start of the movie has slow ass bombers approaching and still managing to do damage through the shields/hulls. Are bombs more powerful than a ship crashing to you at lightspeed?
"How do people ever come up with new things", is that seriously what you're asking?
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: Even if the commander wasnt distracted what exactly is he meant to do? Move to the side and tried to evade it? Thats means you agree that shields arent able to stop the damage, which brings about another question of in large scale battles where large ships cant move freely without hyperjump why not just have each X-wing suicide into the fleet, you dont even need people to pilot them, just have droids do it.
In the film their reaction is to start firing at the ship, but Hux's reaction seems panicked and hasty, and ultimately it doesn't work. Earlier in the film we've seen that the First Order's fleet has enough weapons to take out Resistance ships, so destroying the cruiser would've been one (possibly the only one) good way to stop the jump.
Could X-Wings be used for kamikaze attacks on capital ships? We've never seen that happen in the films (to my recollection), we've never heard people talk about it, so we just don't know. Caveat, I haven't read the books or the comics.
e: That A-Wing destroys the Super Star Destroyer in ROTJ but it's not light speed.
On January 07 2019 11:48 Shock710 wrote: As much as people like to point out plot holes in movies, any and every movie has faults. It's extremely hard to create a movie with tension and action and galaxy threatening consequences without having some people just be stupid or act out of character to move the plot along. But with the last jedi, the cannon has already had a huge number of backstory and lore established, and re-established. But the core of the lore remains the same, the last jedi kinda ignores alot of that and for an already established universe that hurts fans.
Paddington, by all accounts, is a faultless film.
There a countless scenes where the rebels initiate a lightspeed jump to escape a battle, any one of these points a few ships can easily be sacrificed to allow the rest of the rebels to escape and inflict huge damage on enemy fleet. If shooting down ships can easily be done by the time it takes for a ship to turn around the battles would be over before they started the empire/first order out guns the rebels by miles.
In the TLJ the ship is facing away from the first order while preparing to jump and then turns around to "surprise" them... theres no real time to act to destroy that ship before it plows through.
This tactic can't be something brand new as Huxs upon realising the turning around sees the purpose. So then why hasn't this move been utilised more. How is there no reliable protection to a move that would one of the first considerations for defence. The requirement is only a ship that can jump at lightspeed, you dont even need a big ship to inflict huge amounts of damage thats why i suggested X-wings, you just line up 12 X-wings make them all hyper jump and you have a wave of unstoppable death.
If hyperjump requires the ship to remaining constant or on a still pathway and thus easily targeted down then how do the rebels ever escape from any situation they would be easily shot down, the direction they're facing doesnt make a difference.
tldr: if shooting down a ship was as easy and quick as just pointing at it, the rebels would never escape any battle.
i dont know how star wars movies prior to eps 7 and 8 created expectations that 7 and 8 failed to live up to, especially with respect to detailed analysis of logic and canon. it's not hard sci fi, it has never been tightly written, not with respect to plot logic nor character development. anything is possible with the force. anything is possible with technology. maybe you'll get a line of dialogue setting it up or a line of dialogue justifying it after the fact, or maybe you'll get nothing. that is the norm with star wars films.
the themes and character development of 7 and 8, especially in 8, far surpass the earlier episodes. but they were lost on a lot of viewers. and now people who had an initial negative reaction are plagued by so many pet peeves that even after having the good aspects of the movies pointed out to them, they're unable to appreciate anything on a repeat viewing. that's all their minds can do is look for anything to criticize in order to defend their initial belief that these are vapid films
i think ep 4 is a good movie but 5 and 6 trailed off, very similar to the matrix trilogy. not to the point that they can't be enjoyed, but a strong argument can be made to watch just the first. i dont know how you watch 5 and 6 and then 1, 2, and 3, and you're still huge fans of the franchise and yet 7 and 8 are disappointing. this is not a franchise with high standards of storytelling.
if you want to know all the rules and logic of a system and then be entertained by good performances fighting a battle while operating within that system, with natural narratives developing and authentic emotions, then watch sports. but i'd imagine with all that to entertain and inspire you, that's all you'd end up doing is complaining about the refereeing.
@hex I think we have more agreement than you might think. We both have a high view of children's stories. But the context of what I was reacting to was someone that was arguing for a low view of children's stories. It's just for kids. (I disagree that Star Wars was intended solely for kids in any event, but we'll leave that alone for now.) The Space Wizards for Kids is also arguing a low view of storytelling. The implication being, kids are dumb, you can get away with dumb plots and they won't mind. That might be true some or lots of the time, but I don't think that's a good excuse. I think there's a reason that for instance Dr Seuss, Bill Pete or Bill Watterson are masters at what they do- they are not patronizing, they don't take a low view of children's stories.
I also will agree that Jyn's motivation is a weakness of Rogue's story. It's not a complete contradiction so much as we are given insufficient information to understand why she does what she does (I think the Solo girl... whatever her name was... suffers from the same problem. I never really understood her enough for her betrayal to be truly impactful.) Jyn's motivation is a problem, but not one that would cause outrage. More like, the heart of Rogue One's story does not beat as powerfully as any of the Original Trilogy. In a decade, it'll fade away from relevance, whereas the Originals will live on. While I don't think Jyn's motivation is as egregious, I could, for the sake of an argument, stack it up against Luke's Face-Heel turn to cancel to the two out. But that still leaves me with a pants on head stupid plot in TLJ and one that blows up way to many plot threads from Force Awakens. Internally it doesn't make sense and it doesn't make sense as a sequel nor does it make sense as a continuation of trilogy of trilogies.
Another point is character competency in films. Why can't characters make mistakes? TLJ sees characters make mistakes and then punished for those mistakes. I know you're not saying that every character needs to be absolutely competent at all times, but characters making stupid mistakes has to be one of the most relatable things in the world. I do that all the time. I know everyone else around me makes mistakes all the time, too.
Characters can make mistakes, for sure. Luke makes a whole bunch in the Original. However, it's a problem when you need your characters to become idiots again and again to make the story happen. At some point, you have to ask, are they just stupid?
I'll give you a comparable example from an author talking about plots that rely on coincidence and contrivance.
I wanted to write a book about a tough guy who was stuck taking care of a baby. I wanted it to take place in a remote area of the Ozarks, and when the baby gets sick, I wanted the heroine to be the one who could step in and help him take care of the baby. So I needed the hero isolated. Where he couldn’t just drive to a hospital.
So here is what I came up with. He was a secret service agent, charged with protecting a Chinese diplomat’s baby who had been threatened during some sensitive negotiations. I had him and the baby delivered to this remote cabin by helicopter. Then I had him LOSE his satellite phone, his only means of communicating with the outside world. The heroine found him when she trespassed on his property hunting for a medicinal herb, which was fine. But then I had him hike off the mountain with her so he could get to a phone, and then I just have him hanging out in this tiny hill-country community so he and the heroine can be together and fall in love.
How can I begin to list the problems with this story? I just read the rejection letter from my editor (and looking back, she was incredibly kind, she should have blasted me out of the water for this one). Really, it makes no sense. Why would a man who knows nothing about babies be assigned to do this, without any help? Why would he be left in a remote area, with no possible means of back-up should something go wrong? Why wasn’t he just taken to a normal safe house? Why did he incompetently drop his phone down a crevasse? Is he a bad agent or what? Once he hikes to a place where he can make a phone call, why does he stay there? Why doesn’t he return to his cabin or request a different safe house?
See, if you are so stuck on creating a particular scenario (cruiser stuck in a slo-mo chase for 18 hours) but you have to contrive all your characters to act stupid and not consider very obvious alternatives to problem solve, you got yourself an Idiot Plot. A plot that wouldn't exist if the characters were not idiots... that's bad, unless your story is a comedy and it's about the Three Stooges.
This matters because the sensibility of your plot will undermine whatever themes your are trying to develop. I'd be interested to hear how you think TLJ developed those themes because I have a hard time paying attention to themes when little in the story makes sense on its own terms. I acknowledge that they are attempting to develop some of those themes, but I never thought the story really nailed those themes in a meaningful way. Like, there are some themes that I can say characters in the film 'said', but I'm not convinced the story itself was about that in a meaningful way.
@Nony. (Sorry, double posting, but the last one was long.)
Internal consistency isn't the domain of Hard Sci Fi. Hard Sci Fi is really heavy on the technical how something happens and tries to confine itself to projections of current science. So most Arthur C Clarke ships create gravity via rotation, faster than light travel is usually not present.
But fantasy and space operas have to build Secondary Worlds. In these worlds, things can work in ways they do not work in our world (or to use Tolkien's language: the Primary World.) The sky can be green and the seas pink. Castles can float in the sky and ships can enter an alternate reality called hyperspace and jump around. However, the key to maintaining the believability of these Secondary Worlds, is consistency. Once you've introduced a new rule, you better consider the implications and have a very good reason for breaking it later. Hard Sci Fi would be concerned about the mechanics of how a ship makes the jump into the hyperspace. Space Opera doesn't care- it's just away to get to many different planets in short period of time. However, once you introduce something like limited hyperspace fuel, a question immediately follows. Why were all the Rebel ships all equally empty of hyperspace fuel? Why don't the support ships jump to hyperspace anyways when they're about to run out of fuel- jump in multiple directions. Can they track more than one direction? We don't know? And yet Finn's ship can bomb around no problem without getting caught, so why no shuttle out a lot of your crew on multiple trips that way? The entire fleet having exactly one hyperspace jump left, that's a weirdly specific sort of empty, especially since running out of fuel has not been a plot problem for the last eight films.
The Force can't do absolutely anything otherwise there would be no drama. Do you have a problem? Summon a space black hole and a horde of angels and destroy anyone in your way. We don't know the limitations but we have an idea based on what Jedis do and do not attempt what can and cannot be done with the Force. As we learn new things about the Force, we learn there is a wider and wider selection of tools. It's important that we know in advance what the Jedi can do because the Force is used to solve problems.
I like Sanderson's formulation of the issue:
An author's ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.
If a magic (or Force user) can do anything and at anytime, we lose the drama because the Force becomes a Deux Ex Machina.
Implications for the new rules matter- for instance. If after three times sneaking through enemy lines, the viewer discovers the protagonist had an invisible cloak that they use for the fourth stealth job, it's legitimate to ask: "Wait just one minute. Why didn't you use that before?" And then if the protagonist never uses the invisible cloak again even though it would have solved two more problems in two minutes rather than drawing the problem out for half the story. It's a legitimate criticism to say, "hey. What about that invisible cloak?" It's not that we're being all hard sci fi and demanding stats on the invisible cloak. What is the elemental composition of the cloak? Or gamer stats: Is it +10 or +12 to Stealth and how many minutes are the cool down. Rather, we're asking that the storyteller be consistent and at least give us as short, believable reason why they would use this power in one situation and not the other. Otherwise, it looks like the storyteller painted themselves into a corner, then conveniently added the invisible cloak for that one problem, but then conveniently forget about it when it would obviously shorten this epic problem they had designed that invisibility would've easily circumvented.
Force ghost Yoda lightning striking a tree in the physical world suddenly opens up some strange questions. If he can call down lightning, why is he not doing that in a more useful situation? And all the time? Why is he not chasing Kylo and Snokes around, zapping them R2D2 and that Ewok?
Superhero films work in the same way and they are also not hard sci fi. We know they have a certain skill set- Wolverine has claws and crazy healing, ages very slowly etc. We don't really need to know the science and the specific stats behind it- they can hand-wave admantine project and move on. But the interesting part is seeing how he creatively utilizes his known power set to solve a wide range of problems. If he suddenly sprouted wings for one scene and never again, we would call foul.
Prequels have their problems- I wrote at length on another blog what I would do to try and match the Prequels better to what the Originals suggest. I think the themes and character development in 4-6 are great, but I don't know what sort of character development is occuring in 7 and 8. Rey and Kylo are pretty much where we left them in 7 and Finn got benched for most of the story. People like to complain about Ewoks in Return, but the big pay off in that movie is the final confrontation between Luke, Vader, and the Emperor where Luke comes ever so close to joining the Dark Side and becoming his father. The weight of those scenes are so potent. I resented the mimicry of the throne scene in 8. (I was still being pulled through with the Rey-Luke storyline, but that point, I hated every plot line in the movie.) They did not have the build up to warrant aping a much better scene (and I still don't know why people think 8 is such a creative divergence from the rest, when there are so many scenes frankensteined in from Empire or Return.)
if you want to know all the rules and logic of a system
The thing is, with Secondary Worlds, you don't notice the rules and logic until they're broken. Like, I sat down with the intention of being entertained by a Star Wars film with the modern look of Force Awakens, but hopefully a new direction rather than rehashing the old. But then nonsense story element after nonsense story idea kept jumping out at me that the story collapsed somewhere between Kylo getting called back for no reason and establishment of Finn and Roses' cockamamie sidequest scheme (which vascillated between being silly and both characters having script reading powers to immediately know how the experimental Tracker technology worked and how to counter it... a janitor and a mechanic without even looking at the schematics (which he also happened to have in his back pocket but hardly utilized), sure.
In Tolkien's terms, the spell was broken. I came in to be immersed, but I was jolted back into reality with a story that didn't make a lick of sense. But it's true, once a story collapses, you'll find more and more things that are problem, whereas a person who is still immersed will skim over them.
A short blog on Story Collapse/ Trust in the Author by Shamus Young to kinda get sense of what I mean, if you have the time. Plot Holes Part II: Story Collapse
On January 09 2019 16:10 Falling wrote: I also will agree that Jyn's motivation is a weakness of Rogue's story. It's not a complete contradiction so much as we are given insufficient information to understand why she does what she does (I think the Solo girl... whatever her name was... suffers from the same problem. I never really understood her enough for her betrayal to be truly impactful.) Jyn's motivation is a problem, but not one that would cause outrage. More like, the heart of Rogue One's story does not beat as powerfully as any of the Original Trilogy. In a decade, it'll fade away from relevance, whereas the Originals will live on. While I don't think Jyn's motivation is as egregious, I could, for the sake of an argument, stack it up against Luke's Face-Heel turn to cancel to the two out. But that still leaves me with a pants on head stupid plot in TLJ and one that blows up way to many plot threads from Force Awakens. Internally it doesn't make sense and it doesn't make sense as a sequel nor does it make sense as a continuation of trilogy of trilogies.
But why doesn't it cause outrage? Why should story level problems be less important than plot problems?
I think the crux of the issue is that my reading of TLJ is that it's a campy pulp story, and it's stylistically very different from Force Awakens. To me it feels like you're engaging TLJ like it's a logic puzzle, thus the confusion. My reading of the film is that it doesn't try to be a logic puzzle at all, and so I don't really understand why people spend pages and pages trying to pick up apart tiny plot points, because, to me, the movie is not about those at all.
EDIT: reading the second blog post with new comics, I do feel that you're approaching the film from a wholly different perspective than I am. I feel like you're working from what you think the movie should be, rather than engaging the film first and drawing your conclusions from that. I do feel like a lot of the plot points are covered in the film itself, but I don't know how fruitful that discussion would be.
I'm glad you brought up Brandon Sanderson, because I think he's a great example of an author who absolutely revels in creating logic puzzles. He's very vocal about making magic systems and world building that obey certain rules, and everything about the Stormlight books reinforces that reading. On the other hand, I think TLJ is very far removed from that type of storytelling.
Hell, one reading of TLJ is that it's more a commentary on JJ Abrams and other similar modern blockbusters (and for some reason this causes massive backlash). Rian Johnson does use a lot of imagery and scenarios from the other movies, but why wouldn't he? A film that explores the Star Wars mythos (both within the films and within our own pop culture) referencing other films in that same franchise OH MY!
I will die on the hill that there's no cancelling each other out. In TLJ Luke is not the main character, in Rogue One Jyn is the main character, and it's her story.
Another point is character competency in films. Why can't characters make mistakes? TLJ sees characters make mistakes and then punished for those mistakes. I know you're not saying that every character needs to be absolutely competent at all times, but characters making stupid mistakes has to be one of the most relatable things in the world. I do that all the time. I know everyone else around me makes mistakes all the time, too.
Characters can make mistakes, for sure. Luke makes a whole bunch in the Original. However, it's a problem when you need your characters to become idiots again and again to make the story happen. At some point, you have to ask, are they just stupid?
I mean... if you're saying that you should be asking what the movie is trying to convey through the actions of its characters I definitely agree?
On January 09 2019 16:10 Falling wrote: This matters because the sensibility of your plot will undermine whatever themes your are trying to develop. I'd be interested to hear how you think TLJ developed those themes because I have a hard time paying attention to themes when little in the story makes sense on its own terms. I acknowledge that they are attempting to develop some of those themes, but I never thought the story really nailed those themes in a meaningful way. Like, there are some themes that I can say characters in the film 'said', but I'm not convinced the story itself was about that in a meaningful way.
your actions having consequences
Poe decides to ignore orders and attack the dreadnought, and while it's destroyed, his actions get a lot of people killed. -~* omg thematic relevance*~- Rose and Finn have a daring plan to save the Resistance fleet, but they fuck it up, are betrayed, get caught. Poe then tries to stage a mutiny but it kinda makes things worse. Luke tried to kill Kylo Ren and now Kylo is a Villain oh shit. Rey believes she can redeem Kylo, but god damn it doesn't work and it's actually a trap oh hell on a fuckstick.
Rian Johnson makes the most divisive film since the Disney deal and now Youtube is full of cheap click bait film criticism and TL.net sees a litany of posts debating whether films should be allowed to come up with new things or not oh snap!
how to deal with mistakes you've done, how to atone for them (if even possible)
Luke helped take down Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader, the second Death Star, and the entire Empire, and yet... The world wasn't fixed. The First Order is a massive threat. Luke himself tried to kill Kylo despite earlier believing his father could be saved. Luke cuts himselff off from the Force, believing that it's possibly a way to atone for what he did. At the very least he won't make things worse by doing the wrong thing. He rejects Rey when she tries to convince him to join the Resistance, but then in the end him showing up and waving his laser sword around does actually do something.
Finn believes that (pointlessly) sacrificing himself will make things right, because he fucked up and was unable to save his new friends.
Poe makes a rash decision, gets a lot of people killed, puts his friends in even more danger, and then tries to fix things by making more rash decisions.
Kylo spends pretty much the entire movie trying to justify the decisions he's done during the course of his life, and trying to come to terms with what he's done.
can you overcome your parents/upbringing
Is Finn fated to be a stormtrooper for the rest of his life, can he actually be something else? Even though he might not wear the uniform anymore (at least not that often), he's still trying to shed the vestiges of his old life. Rey believes she's destined for great things, that her parents will come back for her, that she wasn't abandoned, and she's been lying to herself for years, until the movie forces her to confront the truth. Kylo's parents are some of the most famous people in the galaxy, mythical legends, and he's trained by the most famous living Jedi and oh shit it goes south and he has to grapple with his identity, which he does all film long.
Even Luke has problems with what he thinks about his legacy. He tried saving the world as a kid, did he succeed, did he fail? Does he even know? And you know, he's Darth Vader's son, but he didn't succumb to the Dark Side. Or did he?
how we like to think that some problems have supremely easy solutions when they actually don't
Poe decides to gamble everything on a bomber run to take out the dreadnought. Then he decides to help Finn and Rose undertake a Quest. Then he tries taking over the ship. If he could just do this one thing (and then this other thing), the Resistance fleet would be saved! But it doesn't really work out.
Finn and Rose think that there's a magic plan that will save them all in the nick of time! Find a codebreaker, infiltrate the First Order fleet, disable the tracker, saved! But it doesn't really work out.
Rey believes that if she can just find Luke, the Resistance (and especially her friends) will be saved. But it doesn't really work out.
how to respond to and deal with impossible expectations, if even possible
Kylo's first expected to study under the last remaining Jedi in the galaxy, and be part of the rebuilding of the Jedi Order, mostly because of his family lineage. His entire spiel about tearing down the old and building something new is him dealing with expectations put upon him by others.
Poe's supposed to be this heroic champion of the Resistance, but that doesn't mean he always makes the right call.
Rey expects to find a savior in Luke, but the encounter doesn't go that well. Rey expects to be able to save Kylo, but again, that encounter doesn't go that well. And Rey ex
Rian Johnson is the first person to both write and direct a Star Wars film since George Lucas. He would essentially have to both continue the mystery boxes of TFA, while solving some of them, while paying homage to the original trilogy, while pleasing legions of fans, while creating a box office hit, while creating something new and exciting (but too new and exciting because holy shit we obviously never want to engage in thinking about what the franchise means to us), while thing essentially stay the same.
are some people just intrinsically evil and beyond saving
Luke discusses this, Leia discusses this, Rey discusses this, but it's (of course) centered around Kylo. It's much of the interaction between Kylo and Rey, and how it relates to Anakin/Vader. Kylo then doesn't think there's anything to save, he wants to join up with Rey and build something that's not of the old world.
"your actions having consequences" as a theme is so broad that it can be apart of every movie where theres a decision.
That aside, some of the theme points have questionable character moments,
Rose and Finn have a daring plan to save the Resistance fleet, but they fuck it up, are betrayed
Thats a fine way to represent the theme, but the execution and what we see the in film is questionable at best. Their whole plan relies on a meeting an exceptional hacker who is one of the few people in the galaxy that can help them (now if they had just met him as through the given instructions and then later he betrayed them that would be fine) but instead we're taken on a roundabout of convenience where not only do they not meet him but are thrown in jail with a random character who also happens to be a hacker and can conveniently solve their problem. But now they're in jail, how to get out? oh no problem this hacker who has just been sitting here can hack his way out no problem he was just sitting the cell for the fun of it.
edit: if he is afraid of the guards outside what gives him the confidence to walk out with Poe and Rose
I mean why tell the story this way.
Poe then tries to stage a mutiny but it kinda makes things worse.
Her concealing the info based on a suspected spy is fair, and i can accept that she might have revealed the plan to most of the people in the control room while excluding the girl who seems to be with Poe (if she suspects he's the spy).
Luke tried to kill Kylo Ren and now Kylo is a Villain
The problem with this bit like you later say, that despite believing in Vader he goes out and attacks Kylo. Theres no explanation really given outside of a personality shift. Luke was the only one to believe in Vader even with Yoda suggesting his death as a necessary deed. Luke knows Vader has done some terrible acts of villainy even without learning his complete fall to the dark side (in ep3) he still believes Vader has good in him. (After all Anakins fall to the dark sides comes with him making decisions that he believes is for the right reason)
Kylo hasn't done anything as evil as Vader, other than show amazing potential he's done nothing. Vader literally falls to the dark by acting out against his visions trying to fight it we dont know if Luke is aware of the specifics at this time but i assume he might have some sort of clue as to what went down. Even if he wholeheartedly believes the vision, why is his approach to instantly cut down and kill his nephew in the dead of night. In comparison when pushed to the brink by the emperor Luke refuses to given into hate and fear and yet he does just that in TLJ.
The ideas of the director to represent the theme is fine, by the execution is marred by neglecting character development of the previous films and creating complexity for the sake of complexity.
Every single one of the themes you listed are so generic you can blind stick them to any movie, hell you can even stick them on to single tv episodes and be done with it. I not saying these themes shouldn't be in the movie but rather none of these themes represent TLJ as a standout or as you put it "the most divisive film since the Disney deal"
Theres a whole myriad of lore breaking sequences that also make fans reel back in confusion. Like Falling says the system of what the force is well appreciated by fans. I wont go into them because as you say theres counting youtube videos on them. But to dismiss them as them all as clickbait and without consideration is mighty arrogant of you.
On January 10 2019 10:49 Shock710 wrote: The problem with this bit like you later say, that despite believing in Vader he goes out and attacks Kylo. Theres no explanation really given outside of a personality shift. Luke was the only one to believe in Vader even with Yoda suggesting his death as a necessary deed. Luke knows Vader has done some terrible acts of villainy even without learning his complete fall to the dark side (in ep3) he still believes Vader has good in him. (After all Anakins fall to the dark sides comes with him making decisions that he believes is for the right reason)
Kylo hasn't done anything as evil as Vader, other than show amazing potential he's done nothing. Vader literally falls to the dark by acting out against his visions trying to fight it we dont know if Luke is aware of the specifics at this time but i assume he might have some sort of clue as to what went down. Even if he wholeheartedly believes the vision, why is his approach to instantly cut down and kill his nephew in the dead of night. In comparison when pushed to the brink by the emperor Luke refuses to given into hate and fear and yet he does just that in TLJ.
There's absolutely an explanation for Luke's actions, in fact we spend pretty much the entire time on Ahch-To going over why it happened.
He fucks up. Luke, who has struggled with the Dark Side in the past (I recall they even made a few films about this), defeated the Emperor, saved his daddy, all good right? Then time passes, 30 years, and, well, you know, things just aren't so simple. There was no magic cure, he was still struggling with these same problems even after Return of the Jedi seemingly wrapped things up. And he fucks up so bad that here we have another three films about how things might be hopefully fixed again.
There's that Arthur Dent quote that would probably fit here.
On January 10 2019 10:49 Shock710 wrote: The ideas of the director to represent the theme is fine, by the execution is marred by neglecting character development of the previous films and creating complexity for the sake of complexity.
Every single one of the themes you listed are so generic you can blind stick them to any movie, hell you can even stick them on to single tv episodes and be done with it. I not saying these themes shouldn't be in the movie but rather none of these themes represent TLJ as a standout or as you put it "the most divisive film since the Disney deal"
Standout film, what? I will argue that it's the most interesting Star Wars film since 2012, it's absolutely the most divisive Star Wars film since 2012 (we can probably all agree on that), but not sure if I'd say it's a standout film within the franchise, or a particularly excellent blockbuster.
But that also makes me curious, can you list examples of films with their themes that are not generic?
On January 10 2019 10:49 Shock710 wrote: Theres a whole myriad of lore breaking sequences that also make fans reel back in confusion. Like Falling says the system of what the force is well appreciated by fans. I wont go into them because as you say theres counting youtube videos on them. But to dismiss them as them all as clickbait and without consideration is mighty arrogant of you.
If dismissing these titles as clickbaity makes me sound arrogant, please do elaborate.
Does Kennedy wish that she could go back in time and hand TLJ to someone else and maybe not have the same person both write and direct? Someone who would've made a stylistically different movie. Undo what she might now view as a mistake. But she can't, even if she wants to. (-~*omg it's a theme from the film*~-)
@hex Sorry for the delay. I'll tackle the first part in one post and the themes in another. Thanks for obliging, by the by. I've been wanting to find someone who would describe why they liked it. I've been rather baffled on how people could find it good, and most of the videos defending rarely explain their perspective, usually relying on declarations.
But why doesn't it cause outrage? Why should story level problems be less important than plot problems?
The contexts are very different. I think there was very little to get upset about Rogue One. It didn't have a lot directions that it could go- we know the ending. We knew it was going to be heist film. So long as it was an interesting heist that made sense and they stuck the landing, there could hardly be much outrage. It had a greater threat of dull disinterest. Also, a lot of us thought that this was the best possible film to kill off the entire cast of protagonists and still have the film feel hopeful (this is Star Wars after all, not Game of Thrones.) We know the protagonists will win, one of the few things the director needed to get right is to make IV's victory have even greater weight by making the cost very great to get the Death Star Plans. And so when they did kill off everyone, we were smiling in theatres: "They did it. They actually did it."
There's something very powerful about fighting a battle that you know you will not survive, but you do it so others will. That's why my favourite scene in Rogue One was the Vader hall scene. Not really because Vader is going to town, although that is nice. Rather, it is this one moment with these nameless Rebel troopers. The Rebels are calling for help, to open the door so they may be saved. And then there is this shift. They realize they can't make it out alive. But they say "Here. Here. Take it. Take it." They cannot save themselves, but someone else perhaps can save the mission. That moment still gives me shivers.
But they could easily have outraged the fans by subverting expectations. Turns out the plans came from Vader, he was a good guy all along! What a Twist! Turns out the Rebels were maniacal suicide bombing terrorists, bent on genocidal destruction! What a Twist! (Rather, they sprinkled some actual grey tones to the Rebel morality, rather than meaningless talk of DJ, which didn't amount to anything.) Turns out the Tag and Binks, the bumbling stooges, found the plans by accident. There never was any Death Star plans at all!
I think, by contrast a bunch of TLJ outrage was also a delayed reaction from Force Awakens. That is, there was a bunch of things that people were not overly excited about, but they were willing to see where Mystery Box Abrams was going to take it. But a bunch of those mystery boxes got opened in TLJ and turned out there was nothing... so then don't include them in the series. Tell your story about something else. Hinting at something (possibly) great, but fulfilling it with nothing, is more likely to cause outrage than not. Or hint at one thing and fulfill it with something even better is fine. Nothing is disappointing.
There's a lot more to the outrage. Having been a part of an anti-fandom in the past, I've thought a bit about why such a thing springs up for some stories and not others. And I think one key is when there seems to be a wide discrepancy between the praise of a story and the quality of the story. That is, lots of people are saying how amazing it is and others (very often amateur writers themselves) ask each other, does no one else see how terrible this is?
re: logic puzzles. I think you have it a bit backwards. I don't approach movies as logic puzzles. I watch them, and when enough things don't make sense I start noticing. And if the a lot of things don't make sense, I'm going to notice even more. But I think a lot of what I'm saying maybe sounds like I approached it as a logic puzzle because I've since had a lot of time to think about it. Some stuff was obvious what was wrong right away.
But a whole bunch I disliked, but it took me awhile to figure out why I didn't like it. I knew it was bad, but it took me awhile to work through and articulate exactly wherein lay the badness. (Rose for instance- I didn't her from the beginning and it got worse after. It took me awhile to figure out what I didn't like about her. And then other stuff crops up on a repeated watch because it just doesn't hold up to repeat viewings. I was trying to figure if there was something I missed that the story explained or I had misunderstood and misheard, and then while watching it carefully to try and understand what the movie was doing or if it was just me... and then I noticed even more problems and the original reactions rarely found answers, but just confirmed the original problems.
Example: First view: Man, that's weird Phasma is back. How did she survive? Followed by: What? She's defeated already? Why even bring her back, if you are going to make the same mistake as the last film. Later view: Wait. What is even going on in this scene? Pre-Holdo blast, Finn and Rose are surrounded by Stormtroopers with Phasma present. Post-blast, Phasma marches in with stormtroopers at her back as though they just arrived. The edit is wonky. It's like the Lancelot run from Monty Python.
I guess I also go into films with the expectation that blocking a scene is competent. I don't sit there waiting for them to mess up. I watch with an expectation of immersing myself in the story. But if they make so many mistakes, I start noticing the film as a film, I'll comment where they've failed in their execution.
What it seems then, is that TLJ relies primarily on shock value "What a Twist!" But can't stand the scrutiny of a repeated viewing once you know all the surprises (does the plan make sense once you know what the real plan is- good stories do. Bad stories don't.)
Ever seen Patrick Rothfuss' The Princess and Mr Whiffles?
I think it's a great example of misdirection, but the real story is right there under your nose the whole time. The story make sense the first time when you are surprised by its twists and turns. But once you know what the surprise is, all the clues are right there and front of you- there was no cheating as it were. No Monty Python, "And now for something completely different" twists, but the informed view/ read is just as wonderful because the story holds up.
Well, as far as what I think a film should be... I think it should make sense within its own story it is telling and within the series it is expanding and within the universe that it is embedded in. TLJ fails on all three accounts, but I think the first is the most egregious. If you can't even make the story make sense on its own terms and on the first viewing, more rewrites are needed. Because my conclusions were drawn from reactions to the film.
Well, the thing is Sanderson't magic is not my favourite. I actually do not prefer magic systems that are super mechanical. I prefer the mystery of Tolkien's magic. But Sanderson's Law isn't that all magic systems must be mechanical. It is the more often magic is used to solve the plot, the more we need to know about it. Magic is usually the problem in Lord of the Rings, not the solution. What magic there is to solve a problem, I guess is authority based "You shall not pass." "Saruman, your staff is broken." But we really don't know much about it. I really like that.
Physics based magic systems is not the same thing as being consistent in your story and not just bending your world to do whatever you want in the moment. When the author is consistent, the viewer has a way of gauging the threat of a situation. Without the consistency, the drama is gone because the viewer knows whatever the problem, the author will just invent three new powers and four new technologies to solve the problem and none of these new creations to extract from the one problem will ever appear in the rest of the story. I exaggerate, but can you at least agree that what I am describing is bad story writing because it kills dramatic tension?
I will die on the hill that there's no cancelling each other out. In TLJ Luke is not the main character, in Rogue One Jyn is the main character, and it's her story.
Oh. Well, then I will continue to go after Luke because I see what they did and did not do with him to be far worse for the series as a whole.
I mean... if you're saying that you should be asking what the movie is trying to convey through the actions of its characters I definitely agree?
So do you agree most characters are making dumb choices in the film? Because so many dumb decisions were made that by the end, I just wanted the Resistance to die and we can start over again with someone else (it didn't help that the rest of the galaxy apparently though the same- that was a big death knell for wanting to cheer for these bumblers).
I'll get to the explanation of the themes later on. (Thank you again for taking the time to write that out.)
On January 09 2019 09:39 NonY wrote: i think ep 4 is a good movie but 5 and 6 trailed off, very similar to the matrix trilogy. not to the point that they can't be enjoyed, but a strong argument can be made to watch just the first. i dont know how you watch 5 and 6 and then 1, 2, and 3, and you're still huge fans of the franchise and yet 7 and 8 are disappointing. this is not a franchise with high standards of storytelling.
Price inflation in that era was much higher than it is now. Once you adjust for inflation, the 1977 movie made a lot more money than the 1980 and 1983 movies. I'd say its universally accepted that the 1977 movie was the best of the series.
the 50 year olds i talk to think the writers of episodes 7 and 8 wrecked Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. Consumers of that era expected their heroes to always win and always be good. The back drop of that era is the Soviet Union// USA "cold war". The lines of "good" and "evil" were very clearly drawn. USA had to win over the Soviet Union or the entire free world would end. "A New Hope" successfully cashed in on the politics of the time. In Star Wars it was the rebels versus the "Empire". In global politics it was The "united states" rebels versus the Soviet Empire.
To give you an idea of how ever present the "Cold War" was ... and how universal the view was that the free world faced certain death in a possible 3rd world war: When the Prez of the USA would talk to the winning Super Bowl and World Series teams. the players and Prez would talk about the SOviet Union. Ronald Reagan likened SUper Bowl MVP Marcus Allen to the new Nuclear Missile the USA recently invented that was stalling peace talks with the soviet union. World Series MVP Rick Dempsey... first thing he said during the President's phone call "fuck the Russians".
"A New Hope" cashed-in on the global politics of its time. These new movies failed to do so. The new movies cashed-in on some nostalgia.
On January 07 2019 14:27 Jerubaal wrote: J.J. Abrams didn't do a perfect job, but he at least seemed like he cared. Rian Johnson's goal seems to have been to make you feel dumb for caring about the movie.
Star Wars got all its cache from its long run on top in the 1980s ... so i'll put it this way....
If Rian Johnson were the head of creative for the WWF then King Kong Bundy would've pinned Hulk Hogan in Wrestlemania 2 in 1986. "Hulkamania" would've ended with a 3 year run. The WWF would end up making 10% of the money it did make in the 1980s with King Kong Bundy as champion.
There is nothing wrong with King Kong Bundy as your heavyweight champion.. or Luke Skywalker brooding like a defeated old man. Problem is, this stuff don't draw money.
Luke Skywalker as the battle-tested triumphant hero ... Hulk Hogan defeating the evil communist foriegn scarey guy.... that sells.
So I don't think generic themes are exactly a problem. A theme can't be a single word like 'love' or 'war'. It needs to say something about the subject. Technically 'actions have consequences' is any movie with a degree of causality because actions can be positive or negative and consequences can be positive or negative. But I think we know what is meant by it. But once you boil something down to a theme, I think it tends to sound generic by nature. What matters is the particular execution of the theme in the story. Anna Karenina and The Hobbit and both (in part) are about forbidden love, but Karenina's execution makes the handling of the subject very interesting, whereas the elf-dwarf romance didn't mean anything in the end because nothing was really done with it. The execution was bad.
Your actions have consequences
I agree this is a theme the film is trying to tackle in some manner, but the film is really bad at showing the consequences. Much of the consequences are told, and what we are shown contradict what is told, so the theme falls flat.
Poe ignoring orders is the perfect example. Leia signed off on the Dreadnought mission at first, but then changes her mind for Reasons when it is successful. But it's not so clear why when Poe succeeds in a superhuman fashion (both films have flying with cheat-codes). So right away, I don't even know what the plan was when he succeeds in a spectacular fashion to blow off all the guns because the Imperials conveniently forget to launch their TIEs for the first and only time.
Leia comes off weak because she gives up and doesn't patch into the bomber command for Reasons. But the real kicker is the Raddus, as far as I can tell, should be dead without Poe. Imperials are stupid again and have bad target priorities, but just before the bomber blows the whole ship up, the Dreadnought was about to open fire. Sure, he got people killed. But everyone except Poe and the support ships were about to be dead. (I don't know where those bombers were hiding because while RJ can frame beautiful shots, seems to have no idea how to block out where people are and how people actually get from A to B without teleporting with a cut. But they magically appeared far closer to the Dreadnought than the Raddus, so those suckers were dead anyways.)
If they wanted to demonstrate that actions have consequences, they needed to have another scene in the movie where it's obvious that bombers would've been super useful, someone can make a 'I told you so' and Poe can either be defensive or sheepish, but the audience can visually see on the screen that he wasted those bombers. But those things were such paper airplanes and all the Rebels ever did was run away until they had enough to crew the Falcon, that I fail to see where the bombers would ever have been useful. They told, but they didn't show. It's a visual medium, so the visual information is far more persuasive which undermines the theme.
GRRM had a far better example of the brash victory that leads to defeat. As I recall some nephew to the King of the North is tasked with holding the line and then retreat when engaged. He instad takes the offensive and successfully repels the enemy and is super excited that he won when he was supposed to only defend/ retreat? The King returns and livid because the enemy was supposed to win so that the army would be drawn into a bad position so that the entire army could be destroyed rather than simply blunting their force. (Something like that. It's been years.) It's a really great reversal where you are with the nephew and his victory and then you're like, oh snap. You dun goofed. Maybe the King could have revealed more of his mind and that was a misjudgement on his part, but it was more understandable due to lack of instantaneous communication and transportation. There is no such moment for Poe and so his dressing down seems odd. Leia is a dead-woman walking, but for the actions of Poe. That's no way to set up this sort of theme.
I think 'actions have consequences' is far more applicable to Holdo than Poe. She's 101 for how to foment a mutiny. She has almost every Heck, if your own bridge crew is against you (Billie Llord), I think a few more people needed to know. But the film tries to pull a 'she's was a self-sacrificing hero all along' at the end. And it's like, no she's incompetent and her plan, like everyone else is in the movie makes no sense. In film shorthand, Holdo is the boss that just gets in the way, Roger Dooley in the clip below. And Poe is Agent Carter. www.youtube.com They try to flip the script (which I am sympathetic too as I'm tired of the maverick always being right) but to do so, the plan needed to actually make sense and her reason for staying quiet even in the face of a mutiny needed to make sense and none of it does. So the script isn't flipped except in a very hackneyed way, but the supports of the film are twisted and bent to force it.
Rose and Finn's 'actions have consequences' rings hollow because everything they post-zap made not a lick of sense. They go all-in on a plan that has zero actual information. Leia just knows it's a hyperspace tracker. And then Rose and Finn just know that it's going to be on only one ship and that there will be a six minute window with no redundancies and they know they can get back in time without everyone being blown up and they are right???? There are so many logical alternatives to what actually be happening, including spies but none of them are considered. So they go off on a mission that any reasonable person would think is stupid given the number of guesswork in their premises. And they are complete fools on the mission and then they fail. Message loud and clear. Don't be dumb. Right, but I thought that back at minute 40. I don't need to watch the Keystone Cops for another 40 minutes to see that. Watching dumb people be dumb and then fail is not much fun unless it's a comedy. But there's nothing interesting thematically to pull from that mess.
I also need to believe the actions would actually happen from a character for 'they have consequences' to have any meaning. If you over write the personality of Luke Skywalker to get him to (analogously) pull a loaded gun and point it at his sleeping nephew's head... well you can't pull that magic trick offscreen and call it a day. That's such a radical change, that I would need to have an entire film devoted to the downfall of Luke for me to believe that and even then, I think making Luke like that is so off the rails that it is essentially not Star Wars.
TL.net sees a litany of posts debating whether films should be allowed to come up with new things
New things are not bad. But the new things needs to consider if this makes nonsense of the former film's stories and whether the implications rolling forward would irrevocably change how stories would work in the future. I assume this is in reference to weaponizing hyperspace? It beggars belief that no one in a thousand years of hyperspace travel had thought to collide a small ship into a bigger ship via hyperspace, considering how successful it was. It'd be like us sailing ships for thousands of years and never once thinking to ram one ship into another. But then, without any discernable technology change, we figure out that a speedboat can ram into an aircraft carrier and blow the whole thing up and it's support ships and can close the distance instantly. That should've been figured out years ago. And even if it hasn't, it fundamentally changes space combat as capital ships are suddenly obsolete. (Also a mistake to have cruisers able to run with exactly one person rather than needing a skeleton crew of a couple hundred.) Because now the only logical choice for space combat is droid-manned freighters that hyperspace into capital ships. It's was visually stunning, but a deadly pandora's box.
how to deal with mistakes you've done, how to atone for them (if even possible)
I don't mind that the world wasn't fixed. I would've been perfectly fine with the New Republic and the Empire remnant locked in a thirty year struggle for control of the galaxy with the rest of the galaxy forming their own alliances to control the left overs. I do mind that the FO seems to have cheat codes to endlessly spawn units and the Republic decided to play sim city rather than make units. That's mostly JJ's fault, but RJ compounded it. But as far as themes, I need to believe the mistake to have any investment in seeing the atonement. I believed Luke's headstrong desire to rescue his friends. I understand why Vader finally got Luke to snap when threatening his sister.
The Kylo assassination attempt made no sense and so I don't much care for the atonement, when you already broke who Luke is. I was interested to see why Luke had given up on the Force, but in execution.... they made him a coward. He made a monster, then he abandoned the field to let people less capable than him to deal with his problem. His fear of the worst case scenario makes no sense, when the scenario has already arrived. There are already Sith busily making super weapons and super ships to wipe entire populations. How could it possibly get worse? Take up your mantle, take out the Sith or die trying and then end the Jedi. Whinging about hypotheticals when you are staring into the face of a new holocaust is nonsensical. And even after all that, he doesn't really atone anything because he tweaks Kylo's cheaks for a few minutes and then peaces out to again let everyone do his dirty work.
I have a hard time feeling much about Finn when they gave him nothing to do and then ended with this aburdist romance scene at the feet of some ATATs while their friends die. It's not so clear to me that it was going to be pointless, well except by authorial fiat.
Most of my above is the same for Poe here. The entire time Poe is told he is doing the wrong thing, but what we are actually shown on screen seems to contradict.
I won't contest Kylo. There are elements of the Rey-Luke-Kylo story line that I liked.
can you overcome your parents/upbringing
Is Finn fated to be a stormtrooper for the rest of his life, can he actually be something else?
Ok, this one confused me. Where is ever struggling about his stormtrooper life in the film? He doesn't have moral dilemmas about shooting his former comrades, he isn't tempted to join the Empire again, and he doesn't wonder if other stormtroopers could also defect like him. He turned into a bumbling janitor in this film and I fail to see where he is trying to shed his old life.
Does Rey think she is destined for great things? I have more problems with the Finn/Rose/Holdo/Poe plots that I have not really rewatched Rey's talking bits very often. But didn't Force Awakens already force her to confront her about the truth that her parents aren't coming back and she needs to forge ahead?
Again, I'll leave Kylo alone again. I don't mind his doubts. I just wished he levelled up in this movie rather than get undercut to the status of a child. He was already beat by Rey in the last film, I was hoping he would become more of a threat in this one, but instead he became more petulant. But his identity doubts are fine.
For Luke, I think his Legacy is he did not bring back the Jedi, he instead he became a monster and created another monster, became a coward, and then did nothing to fix his own mess. So glad they centred Force Awakens around finding failed Luke. gg no re. Can't wait to see how Lando failed at life too.
how we like to think that some problems have supremely easy solutions when they actually don't
What I wrote on Poe and the dreadnought before, applies here as well. You gotta show why it wasn't the right solution, not tell me in contradiction to my lying eyes. Look, it could've played very well in Force Awakens with how perfunctory the planning against the Death Star was. Everyone was all 'Death Star, huh? Well we just put the thing in the thing and it all blows up. Good? Aaaand Break! Go team." That very clearly had 'easy solution' written all over it and so if they had pulled the rug out from under the rebels in a more significant way, I'd understand.
I don't actually think the codebreaker is an easy solutions. It's extremely convoluted thinking and not obviously the straightforward solution given the knowledge they have. And the alternative plan is more or less 'sure hope the Empire doesn't look out their windows, or use that giant telescope thing that Snoke has in his throne room or that no one is hitting the scan button ever' Strong plan. So good.
It's not so clear to me that Rey actually believes
that if she can just find Luke, the Resistance (and especially her friends) will be saved.
Luke says this. But Rey doesn't articulate this at all. RJ has a lot of characters that spout off knowledge of other people's intentions that they could not possibly know. Largely, I think Rian is really bad at understanding Point of View restrictions because the alternative is a lot of the characters come off as mind-readers, or their characters read the script or they are presumptuous asses. Rose comes to mind when she assumes she knows why Finn went hurtling towards the enemy. Leia wanted Luke to return to help. No one was asking that
how to respond to and deal with impossible expectations, if even possible
So probably okay with Kylo. Same deal with Poe. (Besides of which, they need to try though not successfully to give him a new personality from Force Awakens to make this work. TFA, he's Leia's trusted go to person to find Skywalker. But now he's a wreckless hothead in need of a lesson? Ok, I guess.
Rey expects to find a savior in Luke, but the encounter doesn't go that well.
Not so clear that's what she is actually looking for though that doesn't stop characters from projecting their ideas for her motivation. Mostly, I think she wanted someone to train her.
Rey expects to be able to save Kylo, but again,
Still not clear why that wasn't true of Luke all along.
are some people just intrinsically evil and beyond saving
Which we saw actually acted out in the OT. There's a lot of talking, but not of movement on that front. We're still in pretty much the exact same position as we were at the end of Force Awakens on whether Kylo is saveable or not. There's some interesting hints (I'd have been interested in a switch. Especially since Rey is already so powerful and the hero usually needs to train hard to defeat the big bad, if she went dark while Kylo went light and Rey trained under Snoke, I think that really would have been an interesting subversion of expectation. But instead we got a tease and then settled back into the status quo.
@JRaynor I don't really think Lucas cashed in on the global politics of the time. I think that places his story development too late. It's seems to me, he caught the beginning of a new zeitgeist. He was very consciously being counter-cultural with the typical sci-films of the day. Post-Vietnam, sci-films were very depressing and morose (not unlike what the wave of GRRM imitators are aiming for). Logan's Run, Zardoz, The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Silent Running, Clockwork Orange, even Lucas' own THX 1138. But Lucas injected stories of hope and high adventure back into sci fi and audiences discovered that this was something they were craving but they didn't know it until Star Wars launched. It's disappointing then, to see a filmmaker attempt to bring Star Wars back down to the very thing Lucas was rebelling against. Let pessimistic sci fi be pessimistic, but let the optimistic Star Wars remain optimistic. There's plenty of pessimistic films to go around.
I wrote like 3-4 blog posts on the topic of Episode 8, so I've pretty much covered everything I wanted to for now. I just want to say that I approve this message. *American flag waves in background*
Looks like I missed the later ones. Just finished reading them now. Very entertaining. I also have a bunch of DJ comics for a third installment, but I don't know if I'm wearing out my welcome and should maybe switch to a different topic for a bit.
On January 18 2019 16:20 Falling wrote: @JRaynor I don't really think Lucas cashed in on the global politics of the time. I think that places his story development too late. It's seems to me, he caught the beginning of a new zeitgeist. He was very consciously being counter-cultural with the typical sci-films of the day. Post-Vietnam, sci-films were very depressing and morose (not unlike what the wave of GRRM imitators are aiming for). Logan's Run, Zardoz, The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Silent Running, Clockwork Orange, even Lucas' own THX 1138. But Lucas injected stories of hope and high adventure back into sci fi and audiences discovered that this was something they were craving but they didn't know it until Star Wars launched. It's disappointing then, to see a filmmaker attempt to bring Star Wars back down to the very thing Lucas was rebelling against. Let pessimistic sci fi be pessimistic, but let the optimistic Star Wars remain optimistic. There's plenty of pessimistic films to go around.
Phew. That was too long. Sorry
upon further reflection i think you are correct. thanks for the well thought out reply.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/lDBKcYz.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/FzG2EmF.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/zjQIgQm.png)
