Sign In

Post #1147686

Author
Mjolnir Mark IV
Parent topic
I didn't like The Force Awakens. Should I see The Last Jedi in theaters? (NO SPOILERS)
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1147686/action/topic#1147686
Date created
23-Dec-2017, 5:53 AM
Last modified
23-Dec-2017, 11:43 PM
Edited by
Mjolnir Mark IV
Reason for edit
Typo.

Thanks everyone for the replies. Keep them coming, and the poll voting too if you want, because I’m still pretty torn about whether to go see it or not.

@RicOlie
Thanks for such a thoughtful reply. I sincerely appreciate your effort to both help me reach a decision and protect me from spoilers. And while normally it would be more than I’d want to hear, I’m so conflicted about seeing the movie that the info you’ve given me is helpful in managing my expectations.

I just want to say a few things to set the record straight about the logic behind what I said about TFA. I realize we’re on the same side about the OT and TFA and that you’re trying to help, so don’t take this as an attack.

RicOlie_2 said:

Mjolnir Mark IV said:

  • New Force abilities break continuity with the way the Force is portrayed in the original trilogy:
    • Paralyzing a person.
    • Freezing a blaster beam in mid-flight.
    • Walking while using the Force.
    • Reading the memories of an inanimate object.

Personally, this didn’t bother me because it has some precedent in the OT (the Emperor used force lightning in ROTJ, and that hadn’t been introduced before;

It’s never explained, but it would make sense if the reason we don’t see Force lightning until ROTJ is because Vader can’t use it, because the mechanical parts of his body would act as a conduit and make the lightning backfire, perhaps even frying the mechanical components of his prosthetic limbs and his breathing apparatus.

But let’s say you’re right. I’m not saying the original trilogy is infallible. But the continuity breaks in the OT are significantly smaller than those in TFA, and even more importantly, the presence of a continuity break in the OT is no excuse to continue creating new continuity breaks in the sequel trilogy.

RicOlie_2 said:
I see no reason why we should have seen every force power used).

I agree. But the problem is not simply adding something new we haven’t seen before. It’s adding something new that contradicts what we have seen.

  • Paralyzing a person. If this is possible, then why wouldn’t Vader paralyze Luke in TESB? Since his goal is to capture Luke alive, paralyzing him at the carbon freeze chamber would have been the perfect opportunity, especially since he’s clearly stronger than Luke in TESB.

  • Freezing a blaster beam in mid-flight. If this is possible, then why wouldn’t Vader do this to the blaster shot that Han fires in the Cloud City dining hall in TESB? There’s no use risking a deflection going willy-nilly in a confined space if you don’t need it to, especially when you want Han Solo alive to use as bait to lure Luke.

  • Walking while using the Force. If this is possible, Vader surely would have done it when hurling wall fixtures and random objects at Luke in TESB.

  • Reading the memories of an inanimate object. If this is the way the Force works, then why isn’t Luke assaulted by a montage of his father’s memories when he receives Anakin’s lightsaber from Obi-Wan in ANH?

Some of these inconsistencies also combine to create continuity breaks. For example, if one’s undivided attention is not required to use telekinesis, and if paralysis is possible, why wouldn’t Luke paralyze the last stormtrooper on the speeder bike in ROTJ, rather than opting for the more risky maneuver of slamming his speeder into the stormtrooper’s?

There are many ways to create an exciting sequel without violating the limitations that have been established in previous films. In fact, limitations can even act as a guide and expedite the creative process by increasing the speed of decision making. Creating a story that breaks the continuity of previous material means one of two things about the flimmakers, neither of which are good:

  1. They’ve taken the easy way out of solving a problem with the story. This means someone is either lazy, careless, or incompetent.
  2. They’re arrogant enough to think they can re-write the rules, which is just plain disrespectful to the filmmakers who worked hard to establish a set of consistent rules in the original trilogy. Anyone who dismantles well-crafted continuity because of an oversized ego is…well, an asshole.

RicOlie_2 said:

Mjolnir Mark IV said:

  • The hologram technology is too advanced.

Look at how much our cellphone technology has advanced in the past 30 years…I see no reason why holograms shouldn’t also be slightly more advanced in the ST.

Demonstrating how the galaxy has flourished in the absence of the Empire is a good concept if that’s the idea, but using the hologram as an example is problematic because the more realistic you make a hologram, the more you run the risk of losing the distinction between characters that are actually present and characters that are projected holograms. I think in this case, what communicates clearly on screen is more important than how far technology would logically advance over time. And since nobody’s going to complain about the hologram technology not advancing, I find the choice that was made somewhat baffling.

What fits the creative vision of the universe is also important to consider. The more polished you make the technology, the more you risk the world not feeling like the Star Wars universe.

RicOlie_2 said:
They aren’t really that much better anyway.

Well, it’s a nitpick. And I’ll admit my memory isn’t particularly clear with this detail anyway (it has been two years), so you could be right. I’d have to go back and check to be sure, but to be honest, I’m afraid that simply scanning through the movie will cause a relapse in the PTSD I’m still battling.