Sign In

Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * SPOILER THREAD * — Page 164

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

While I think a video like this is long overdue, I do agree with Maul that this creator stoops to their level at times, which I think will struggle to bring over people who might be on that dangerous side of the fandom.

I think there are a lot of YouTubers who do have criticisms of the new movies, but they discuss it pretty maturely. They point out their problems with it and then move on to other topics that they enjoy more. This guy is clearing pointing out some of the more toxic creators who might not have the best motivations, and I think that is good.

While I don’t think it makes his viewpoint any less valid, I think resorting to the occasional insult or name-calling really doesn’t help make his points seem legitimate. The thing is, there are probably a lot of younger people who are Star Wars fans, especially boys, that are being introduced to concepts like social justice and feminism through these people, which, in my opinion, is probably not the best introduction to those ideas.

It literally boils down to these people stirring the pot for as revenue, and suddenly you have millions of people repeating those talking points like gospel.
Another YouTuber he didn’t even mention was Vito, who I think has some pretty clear political opinions, and I know at least one of his TLJ videos has 6 million views. That’s crazy.

Maybe we’re blowing it out of proportion, but I just wonder how it (among other things conjured by the Great Algorithm) could be influencing the beliefs and values of the Gen Z audience watching these videos. Really Star Wars is just a drop in the bucket of a larger issue that has been discussed recently. But it does seem any kind of civil discussion on either side is overshadowed by what basically feels like amateur yellow journalism, but on a global scale.

Also, debating any of those people is a wasted effort. I don’t agree with Ben Shapiro, but he is a master debater, and can make any of his opinions seem right with his skill. It’s just more of the same tactics and strategies for them that they have basically perfected to a T through their ridiculously long videos.

Recently Sam Harris did talks/debates with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. What was really inspiring about this was that, despite very disparate views and beliefs, these guys all managed to keep it civil and even downright friendly. On one occasion Ben misrepresented one of Harris’ views online and, when Harris pointed this out, Ben happily retracted and corrected his statement. This is so much rarer than it should be, and I think the Star Wars conversation is an interesting microcosm of the same thing.

My pet-peeve is the ‘guys can’t handle strong female characters’ meme. Yes, this probably rings true in some dank corners of society, but I think in this instance it’s mostly a convenient distraction from actual criticism. And the question of identity/woke politics and their possible effect on modern movies is a worthy and (IMO) interesting conversation that sadly gets derailed by knee-jerk assumptions of sexism. It’s entirely possible to agree with the principles of so-called identity politics without liking the way these ideals are being presented or expressed. Somehow this nuance gets lost in the melee.

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:
My pet-peeve is the ‘guys can’t handle strong female characters’ meme. Yes, this probably rings true in some dank corners of society, but I think in this instance it’s mostly a convenient distraction from actual criticism.

Far from some dank corners of society. Personally, I know four people who openly dislike the strong female characters, as well as the strong, powerful, intelligent females in the real world. All four are degreed office professionals between the ages of 35 and 45. For them , their dislike of females being equal is the actual criticism.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

“some dank corners of society” haha, very apt!

Yeah, I think this can definitely go both ways, and maybe this is sort of a byproduct of the internet, where conversations are constantly happening online. And suddenly there is this feedback loop that transforms the pleasant sound of reasonable discussion into a screeching war between two sides.

I think it often plays out this way: say someone online wants to have a conversation that is related to race/sex/etc. that they’re genuinely curious about, but then they get called racist/sexist for simply asking the question. It may have just been one insult out of five fair responses, but we know how aggressive comments tend to stand out more. This person may have been open and willing to change his mind, but the personal attack may cause him to fall back into the other camp, and never really understand what the issue was or ever agree with it because of that association.

Especially when it comes to issue of race/sex, it can be tricky having any discussion about it with some people. If you’re trying to talk about inherent bias that exists in literally every person, some people can take just that observation as a personal attack, depending on their own sense of security, but also the attitude/tone of the person they’re talking too.

And the same can play out the other way. The Internet has created this boogieman of the SJW and the femininazi. So people won’t even give ideas regarding feminism, for example, a chance because they feel like they know everything they need to because they followed the algorithm of guys complaining about it on YouTube.

Which kind of ties into the Mary Sue thing. One person might have a fair point about how Rey fits into common traits associated with that trope. But then another person brings up the inherent bias of female characters being called wish fulfillment characters when male characters are rarely ever criticized for the exact same thing, and then the original person feels like they’ve been called a sexist and it devolves into a fight. Or, sometimes a person just calls them a “SEXIST!” and the conversation literally goes nowhere.

It’s weird. I think people get unfairly labeled racist or sexist when literally most people have inherent biases regarding race and sex. They’re not bad people, it might be something they might not be aware of. People who intentionally discriminate based off race or sex deserve that label, but a personal with intentional bias versus unconscious bias or two different types of people. So throwing around those terms devalues the seriousness of the labels, as well as potentially alienating the person who desperately wants/needs to understand their inherent biases to overcome them, which can lead them to become MORE biased. Humans can be a god damned self-fulfilling prophecy, haha.

I’ve seen the opposite also play out, where someone has a really interesting meta or analysis of The Last Jedi and people call point fingers calling “SJW propaganda” or “feminist agenda”. Pop Culture Detective has a really interesting video regarding TLJ and ideas of feminism and masculinity, but you see a lot of those kind of comments there. It’s possible it is partly because they’ve already made their minds up on how they feel about the movie, or they might be insecure regarding their own masculinity and are projecting those complicated feelings online, but regardless, that is why I think it is important to try to approach these topics with respect. If you want people to be open-minded about your opinion, it has to start with respect. So I think a lot of these conversations have to be approached with civility just for the mere desire to counter what apparently is the status quo of online conversation.

I think we just forget how nuanced these conversations can be, and we fit “pro-TLJ” and “anti-TLJ” into boxes. There are pro-TLJ people who think some people take shit on twitter TOO far, and I know anti-TLJ people feel the same way.
Clearly most people who don’t like the film don’t agree with the hate and death threats people like Kellie Marie Tran and Rian Johnson have gotten. There are also people in the pro-ST camp give Reylos A LOT of shit because they think shipping them equates to supporting abusive relationships. What could be an interesting discussion devolves into name calling.

Anyway, people like that guy get themselves into that problem when even agreeing to a debate, so I really don’t have much sympathy. I like TLJ for very personal reasons, so I don’t know why I would feel the need to defend my reasons for liking a movie. Or, if there would even be any logic into that kind of debate format. I don’t like Jurassic World, but I’m not going to pressure people into a debate about why they’re not allowed to like Jurassic World. I remember ranting about JW after its release, a lot like how hardcore anti-TLJ people on YouTube rant about that movie, and in retrospect I feel like the conversations I had with people at that time was some of the most pretentious, self-entitled bullshit I’ve ever wasted breath on. Mostly because I was pretty condescending. In retrospect I thought, why can’t I just let people enjoy a movie they like?
And the answer had more to do with me than it did with them or the movie.

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

“some dank corners of society” haha, very apt!

Yeah, I think this can definitely go both ways, and maybe this is sort of a byproduct of the internet, where conversations are constantly happening online. And suddenly there is this feedback loop that transforms the pleasant sound of reasonable discussion into a screeching war between two sides.

I think it often plays out this way: say someone online wants to have a conversation that is related to race/sex/etc. that they’re genuinely curious about, but then they get called racist/sexist for simply asking the question. It may have just been one insult out of five fair responses, but we know how aggressive comments tend to stand out more. This person may have been open and willing to change his mind, but the personal attack may cause him to fall back into the other camp, and never really understand what the issue was or ever agree with it because of that association.

Especially when it comes to issue of race/sex, it can be tricky having any discussion about it with some people. If you’re trying to talk about inherent bias that exists in literally every person, some people can take just that observation as a personal attack, depending on their own sense of security, but also the attitude/tone of the person they’re talking too.

And the same can play out the other way. The Internet has created this boogieman of the SJW and the femininazi. So people won’t even give ideas regarding feminism, for example, a chance because they feel like they know everything they need to because they followed the algorithm of guys complaining about it on YouTube.

Which kind of ties into the Mary Sue thing. One person might have a fair point about how Rey fits into common traits associated with that trope. But then another person brings up the inherent bias of female characters being called wish fulfillment characters when male characters are rarely ever criticized for the exact same thing, and then the original person feels like they’ve been called a sexist and it devolves into a fight. Or, sometimes a person just calls them a “SEXIST!” and the conversation literally goes nowhere.

It’s weird. I think people get unfairly labeled racist or sexist when literally most people have inherent biases regarding race and sex. They’re not bad people, it might be something they might not be aware of. People who intentionally discriminate based off race or sex deserve that label, but a personal with intentional bias versus unconscious bias or two different types of people. So throwing around those terms devalues the seriousness of the labels, as well as potentially alienating the person who desperately wants/needs to understand their inherent biases to overcome them, which can lead them to become MORE biased. Humans can be a god damned self-fulfilling prophecy, haha.

I’ve seen the opposite also play out, where someone has a really interesting meta or analysis of The Last Jedi and people call point fingers calling “SJW propaganda” or “feminist agenda”. Pop Culture Detective has a really interesting video regarding TLJ and ideas of feminism and masculinity, but you see a lot of those kind of comments there. It’s possible it is partly because they’ve already made their minds up on how they feel about the movie, or they might be insecure regarding their own masculinity and are projecting those complicated feelings online, but regardless, that is why I think it is important to try to approach these topics with respect. If you want people to be open-minded about your opinion, it has to start with respect. So I think a lot of these conversations have to be approached with civility just for the mere desire to counter what apparently is the status quo of online conversation.

I think we just forget how nuanced these conversations can be, and we fit “pro-TLJ” and “anti-TLJ” into boxes. There are pro-TLJ people who think some people take shit on twitter TOO far, and I know anti-TLJ people feel the same way.
Clearly most people who don’t like the film don’t agree with the hate and death threats people like Kellie Marie Tran and Rian Johnson have gotten. There are also people in the pro-ST camp give Reylos A LOT of shit because they think shipping them equates to supporting abusive relationships. What could be an interesting discussion devolves into name calling.

Anyway, people like that guy get themselves into that problem when even agreeing to a debate, so I really don’t have much sympathy. I like TLJ for very personal reasons, so I don’t know why I would feel the need to defend my reasons for liking a movie. Or, if there would even be any logic into that kind of debate format. I don’t like Jurassic World, but I’m not going to pressure people into a debate about why they’re not allowed to like Jurassic World. I remember ranting about JW after its release, a lot like how hardcore anti-TLJ people on YouTube rant about that movie, and in retrospect I feel like the conversations I had with people at that time was some of the most pretentious, self-entitled bullshit I’ve ever wasted breath on. Mostly because I was pretty condescending. In retrospect I thought, why can’t I just let people enjoy a movie they like?
And the answer had more to do with me than it did with them or the movie.

Great post! Keep 'm coming! 😃

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

“some dank corners of society” haha, very apt!

Yeah, I think this can definitely go both ways, and maybe this is sort of a byproduct of the internet, where conversations are constantly happening online. And suddenly there is this feedback loop that transforms the pleasant sound of reasonable discussion into a screeching war between two sides.

I think it often plays out this way: say someone online wants to have a conversation that is related to race/sex/etc. that they’re genuinely curious about, but then they get called racist/sexist for simply asking the question. It may have just been one insult out of five fair responses, but we know how aggressive comments tend to stand out more. This person may have been open and willing to change his mind, but the personal attack may cause him to fall back into the other camp, and never really understand what the issue was or ever agree with it because of that association.

Especially when it comes to issue of race/sex, it can be tricky having any discussion about it with some people. If you’re trying to talk about inherent bias that exists in literally every person, some people can take just that observation as a personal attack, depending on their own sense of security, but also the attitude/tone of the person they’re talking too.

And the same can play out the other way. The Internet has created this boogieman of the SJW and the femininazi. So people won’t even give ideas regarding feminism, for example, a chance because they feel like they know everything they need to because they followed the algorithm of guys complaining about it on YouTube.

Which kind of ties into the Mary Sue thing. One person might have a fair point about how Rey fits into common traits associated with that trope. But then another person brings up the inherent bias of female characters being called wish fulfillment characters when male characters are rarely ever criticized for the exact same thing, and then the original person feels like they’ve been called a sexist and it devolves into a fight. Or, sometimes a person just calls them a “SEXIST!” and the conversation literally goes nowhere.

It’s weird. I think people get unfairly labeled racist or sexist when literally most people have inherent biases regarding race and sex. They’re not bad people, it might be something they might not be aware of. People who intentionally discriminate based off race or sex deserve that label, but a personal with intentional bias versus unconscious bias or two different types of people. So throwing around those terms devalues the seriousness of the labels, as well as potentially alienating the person who desperately wants/needs to understand their inherent biases to overcome them, which can lead them to become MORE biased. Humans can be a god damned self-fulfilling prophecy, haha.

I’ve seen the opposite also play out, where someone has a really interesting meta or analysis of The Last Jedi and people call point fingers calling “SJW propaganda” or “feminist agenda”. Pop Culture Detective has a really interesting video regarding TLJ and ideas of feminism and masculinity, but you see a lot of those kind of comments there. It’s possible it is partly because they’ve already made their minds up on how they feel about the movie, or they might be insecure regarding their own masculinity and are projecting those complicated feelings online, but regardless, that is why I think it is important to try to approach these topics with respect. If you want people to be open-minded about your opinion, it has to start with respect. So I think a lot of these conversations have to be approached with civility just for the mere desire to counter what apparently is the status quo of online conversation.

I think we just forget how nuanced these conversations can be, and we fit “pro-TLJ” and “anti-TLJ” into boxes. There are pro-TLJ people who think some people take shit on twitter TOO far, and I know anti-TLJ people feel the same way.
Clearly most people who don’t like the film don’t agree with the hate and death threats people like Kellie Marie Tran and Rian Johnson have gotten. There are also people in the pro-ST camp give Reylos A LOT of shit because they think shipping them equates to supporting abusive relationships. What could be an interesting discussion devolves into name calling.

Anyway, people like that guy get themselves into that problem when even agreeing to a debate, so I really don’t have much sympathy. I like TLJ for very personal reasons, so I don’t know why I would feel the need to defend my reasons for liking a movie. Or, if there would even be any logic into that kind of debate format. I don’t like Jurassic World, but I’m not going to pressure people into a debate about why they’re not allowed to like Jurassic World. I remember ranting about JW after its release, a lot like how hardcore anti-TLJ people on YouTube rant about that movie, and in retrospect I feel like the conversations I had with people at that time was some of the most pretentious, self-entitled bullshit I’ve ever wasted breath on. Mostly because I was pretty condescending. In retrospect I thought, why can’t I just let people enjoy a movie they like?
And the answer had more to do with me than it did with them or the movie.

I second what Dre said - great post and keep 'em coming! You pretty much said what I’m trying to say - only better!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

Why is this same kind of article still being published?

Because near-on two years of this stuff just isn’t enough?

Oh… clicks, ads and $$$ from sensationalising and misleading titles and headlines with certain keywords to try and attract hits to said articles too.

It doesn’t apply so much to this article - yet there’s money to be made from peddling division, hate, toxicity and negativity online - and enforcing (repeating again and again) those views.

 

At no point are there quotes from Rian Johnson in the article stating he ‘subverted’ anything.

The only quotes from him in the article are…

“I think the instant you start thinking in terms of how do you not step outside of the bounds of what the original movies did, you’re not thinking the way the people who made the original movies did,” he said. “With every movie, they were pushing it forward, with every movie they were stepping outside those bounds and pushing the characters into new, emotionally honest, but surprising places."

“That’s why those movies are great. That’s why they’re alive. If they had been looking at something that came before it and saying, ‘Oh, we better not do this because that is outside of this or that,’ it would’ve been different.”

 

 

Shopping Maul said:

I think the video is every bit as bad as what he’s supposedly railing against (if not worse). Lest I be accused of being ‘toxic’ myself, let me reiterate that I’m left-leaning, drink soy milk, and despise what the internet has become. But this video is exactly the kind of smug clickbait crap that he’s supposedly taking a stance against. Any idiot can pull quotes from the likes of Jeremy from Geeks and Gamers and build an entire case around it. This is ridiculous. We have to get away from this stupid Star Wars tribalism and let each argument be assessed on its merit and intent, rather than these insane ‘us vs them’ rampages on both ‘sides’.

Worse than the videos he’s supposedly ‘railing against’? Seems he pulled a fair few videos, across a range of time, from far far more than just the one channel, and put together a video highlighting some of the toxic, divisive, and negative clickbait around over the past couple of years. Is what was featured in the video mis-representative of the channels featured? No.

‘clickbait crap’? Well, he did title it the ‘Review Of The Fandom Menace’ 😉 Yet I don’t see the usual keywords associated these type of videos. In fact, in the description there is nothing there apart from ‘They were nobody’.

Highlighting the content of these toxic videos isn’t ‘tribalism’ - it is giving an insight, an opinion (seemingly quite a rare one), to just what some of them are actually about and - how they operate without factual info, balance or seemingly much thought or research.

‘Ridiculous’? How is the video ridiculous? I’d say it is pretty informative - in a light & non-serious sense - given the nature of the video. I’m not aware of their being other videos out there akin to this one (if there are, please are let me know - I’d like to see how they compare, for one). Afterall, any ‘idiot’ can put together such a video?

As said before, I don’t agree with all the points made (who does?); many others likely won’t either - and will take different things from it. Though going on your post re this video alone… man, you must be absolutely scathing about the actual countless toxic, negative and divisive videos out there over the past few years… perhaps could you point me to some of your critical posts on them, please?
 

By the way MajorLee debated Mauler and crew on a series called EFAP and couldn’t answer/justify any of the legitimate concerns (ie plot holes, lore, character arcs etc etc) concerning TLJ. His default was along the lines of an exasperated “I don’t care, I just love this movie”. And that’s fine, but to then turn around and push this particular narrative, when he knows full well that there are wide ranging and legitimate views concerning these films, is disingenuous at best. He is literally being just as petulant a fanboy as those he seeks to bring down.

Don’t be fooled by the fact that you might agree with his sentiment.

I don’t know who those guys are, and I’m not sure what that has got to do with the video above - unless it’s something to be used against the creator of it? I don’t know anything about this Major guy (I haven’t even checked out his other videos) - seems he did a decent job highlighting some of the toxicity, negativity and absurd claims going around from a fair few youtube channels & social media, in it.

‘Don’t be fooled by the fact that you might agree with his sentiment?’ - I don’t think anyone is - it’s more about the video he made - than the character behind it (like I say I don’t know anything about him). And in this context does it matter? Probably not.

‘push this particular narrative’ - again, I don’t think he is pushing anything - other than offering an insight into what goes into many of these toxic or repeatedly negative video channels - and also what doesn’t go into them.

It seems you are attempting to somehow discredit the man behind the video - rather than discussing the actual content he highlighted in the video. A shame, that.

By the way, did you attempt a similar stance / criticism to the video creators of the more toxic channels and media which you also have taken issue with? Could you point me to some of them, please? I’d be interested in reading them.

 

 

Anchorhead said:

That video should be required viewing for everyone who comes here to peddle bullshit, hate, and racism. Even if half of the assholes featured actually believe their own misogyny and racism, it’s still too many. Our culture has become toxic and this is an extension of it. The louder voices, like Zero, are just tending to their herd and keeping them angry. I almost feel sorry for their followers. I’m going to have to keep that link handy for when I’m banning trolls.

Likewise for your above response, Jason. You summed up everything that (unfortunately) needs to be repeated from time to time. People need to go outdoors occasionally. I’ve a mind to make that an announcement post. If I thought it could be done, it would be a required read before a new account is able to participate.

We could look into the possibility of doing something akin to this…
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

I find that answer vague and unconvincing. Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time

oojason said:

Mocata said:

Why is this same kind of article still being published?

Because near-on two years of this stuff just isn’t enough?

Oh… clicks, ads and $$$ from sensationalising and misleading titles and headlines with certain keywords to try and attract hits to said articles too.

It doesn’t apply so much to this article - yet there’s money to be made from peddling division, hate, toxicity and negativity online - and enforcing (repeating again and again) those views.

 

At no point are there quotes from Rian Johnson in the article stating he ‘subverted’ anything.

The only quotes from him in the article are…

“I think the instant you start thinking in terms of how do you not step outside of the bounds of what the original movies did, you’re not thinking the way the people who made the original movies did,” he said. “With every movie, they were pushing it forward, with every movie they were stepping outside those bounds and pushing the characters into new, emotionally honest, but surprising places."

“That’s why those movies are great. That’s why they’re alive. If they had been looking at something that came before it and saying, ‘Oh, we better not do this because that is outside of this or that,’ it would’ve been different.”

I really like that quote from Johnson. It’s exactly how innovative film makers should be thinking. If he had stayed inside the lines so to speak I think SW would die a slow death.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think he was too much inside the lines. He’s talking as if he made something completely different and… I don’t think he did. It’s a very good movie, one I enjoy quite a bit - some incredibly well directed sequences and my all time favorite moment in the franchise (Luke vs. FO), but… it’s still a very derivative movie. A lot of the time it felt to me as if I was watching TESB + RotJ + x = TLJ, x being the bit of originality the movie had. To me that was the dynamic between Rey, Kylo and Luke, which is exactly the sort of great expansion from something in the OT (the connection Luke, Vader and Ben had) I was hoping we’d get in the ST. It’s inspired by, but not so much of an almost-copy as some of TFA and some (albeit much less) of TLJ. It’s brilliant. A bit of Canto Bight and the Holdo-Poe dynamic are also original aspects of the movie in my view. So yeah, there is quite a bit of originality, but it’s not enough for him to proudly claim he “step[ped] outside of the bounds of what the original movies did”, or something. Again, it’s a nice movie, and I enjoy it enough, but I don’t think it’s this far out thing a lot of people, including the film’s director, say it is.

Maybe someone could enlighten me? From all of the discussion I’ve seen regarding TLJ, the fact that it’s a very different movie is usually a given, and… I don’t get it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

oojason said:
At no point are there quotes from Rian Johnson in the article stating he ‘subverted’ anything.

Yeah I thought that too, sigh.

Omni said:

Maybe someone could enlighten me? From all of the discussion I’ve seen regarding TLJ, the fact that it’s a very different movie is usually a given, and… I don’t get it.

The things being different are the “unexpected” parts I think, like Rey not having Kenobi parents and Snoke dying instead of being a Palpatine clone etc.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time

Look up people complaining about Rian “subverting expectations” and I’m sure you’ll find plenty examples.

Author
Time

Omni said:

I think he was too much inside the lines. He’s talking as if he made something completely different and… I don’t think he did. It’s a very good movie, one I enjoy quite a bit - some incredibly well directed sequences and my all time favorite moment in the franchise (Luke vs. FO), but… it’s still a very derivative movie. A lot of the time it felt to me as if I was watching TESB + RotJ + x = TLJ, x being the bit of originality the movie had. To me that was the dynamic between Rey, Kylo and Luke, which is exactly the sort of great expansion from something in the OT (the connection Luke, Vader and Ben had) I was hoping we’d get in the ST. It’s inspired by, but not so much of an almost-copy as some of TFA and some (albeit much less) of TLJ. It’s brilliant. A bit of Canto Bight and the Holdo-Poe dynamic are also original aspects of the movie in my view. So yeah, there is quite a bit of originality, but it’s not enough for him to proudly claim he “step[ped] outside of the bounds of what the original movies did”, or something. Again, it’s a nice movie, and I enjoy it enough, but I don’t think it’s this far out thing a lot of people, including the film’s director, say it is.

Maybe someone could enlighten me? From all of the discussion I’ve seen regarding TLJ, the fact that it’s a very different movie is usually a given, and… I don’t get it.

I sort of agree with you in that I think Johnson directed an great SW flic. That being said, some of my thoughts on TLJ with respects to being outside of the lines has to do with the reaction from a loud segment of “fans” who thought it destroyed the franchise, would never watch another move etc etc. My own thoughts are that it wasn’t predictable in many cases and didn’t follow the hero trope the way many fans have come to expect. It made the franchise interesting again imo.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

For those of you that still struggle with the direction of the ST, and TLJ in particular, this article does a balanced analysis on what some of us fans expect, and how it affects our views on modern Star Wars:

http://www.seanpcarlin.com/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash/

I think one of the commentors says it best:

"…whatever you may have imagined for Luke Skywalker — and Han and Leia, for that matter — after the closing credits of Return of the Jedi is equally legitimate as what Abrams and Johnson conceived. Hell, once you recognize that their visions don’t even harmonize — talk about taking this new trilogy in completely incompatible directions! — you have free and full license to elevate your vision to “canonical” status, too. Just because Johnson got Hamill to star in his post–Return of the Jedi fantasy doesn’t somehow lend it more legitimacy than yours or mine.

That is, I think, what George Lucas intended when he closed the curtain on Luke’s saga in 1983: Where the character went from that point forward was entirely up to each of us…"

Author
Time

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Interesting article! That definitely might’ve been George’s perspective at some point after ROTJ, but like he has done before, he must have changed his night that that was the end when he wrote treatments for the Episode VII. But of course, I think fans are welcome to imagine Star Wars in a way they’re satisfied with, if they prefer just the way ROTJ ends. I just hope some will try to give the new films a chance like they did with the prequels.

I think some people wish George could’ve just done the ST himself, but I think in a meta-way, George is a lot like Darth Vader/Anakin. So just like how the ST is about Vader’s legacy, the ST is George’s legacy, filmmakers who were inspired by George are now adding to the tapestry of his story. That’s how I like to see it at least.

Author
Time

That’s a really interesting viewpoint!

Imagine if Ep 3 ended with Anakin and Obi-Wan stopping Dooku and saving the Chancellor. Anakin then learns he will have kids, and (we falsely assume) they all live happily ever after!

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time

OutboundFlight said:

That’s a really interesting viewpoint!

Imagine if Ep 3 ended with Anakin and Obi-Wan stopping Dooku and saving the Chancellor. Anakin then learns he will have kids, and (we falsely assume) they all live happily ever after!

That would have preserved a little mystery for people going into OT for the first time.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I applaud that article writer for acknowledging the obviousness of Abrams & Johnson’s clashing ideas, rather than trying to rationalize it away (like fans sometimes do with both this and the obviousness of Vader not being Luke’s father before 1980).

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ATMachine said:

I applaud that article writer for acknowledging the obviousness of Abrams & Johnson’s clashing ideas, rather than trying to rationalize it away (like fans sometimes do with both this and the obviousness of Vader not being Luke’s father before 1980).

Maybe some fans aren’t trying to “rationalize” and quite truthfully don’t understand how the two films are as clashing as many say.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

ATMachine said:

I applaud that article writer for acknowledging the obviousness of Abrams & Johnson’s clashing ideas, rather than trying to rationalize it away (like fans sometimes do with both this and the obviousness of Vader not being Luke’s father before 1980).

Maybe some fans aren’t trying to “rationalize” and quite truthfully don’t understand how the two films are as clashing as many say.

Indeed, because these films clash on a more fundamental level, which drives the creative choices, and character development in these films. TFA attempts to emulate classic Star Wars, which is an exponent of modernism, whereas TLJ is a clear example of postmodern art.

Star Wars & modernism:

http://starwarsmodern.blogspot.com/2012/06/star-wars-modernism-introduction.html?m=1

TLJ & postmodernism:

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2018/01/star-wars-last-jedi-luke-skywalker-postmodern-achilles-sean-fitzpatrick.html

https://medium.com/@MigInABox/the-last-jedi-is-the-inevitable-deconstruction-of-star-wars-3dbcbedcd859

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well personally I think different does not necessarily equal clashing. For example, in my mind SW and TESB have fundamentally different approaches but that doesn’t mean they’re clashing.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, I would say modernism and postmodernism are opposing philosophies, much like capitalism, and socialism, and so they clash by default. I would also say RJ quite deliberately set out to create a work, that clashes with past perceptions in a great many ways. My interpretation of TLJ is, that it first rejects and deconstructs the concepts of legends, and heroism, as presented in the first 7 parts of the story, and then reframes it in a postmodern context by the end. I think this clashing of opposing views, is at the heart of the fan division, where many fans view the film as refreshing, and a necessary step in the future development of the franchise, whereas others view it as a betrayal of what came before. For this reason, even if I dislike the direction chosen by RJ, I still believe TLJ is one of the most interesting Star Wars films, and blockbusters in general to date.

Author
Time

I don’t quite think so. I think it sounds like postmodernism. Both Luke and Kylo act with postmodernism in mind. Rey, however, is still modernism. And Luke changes his opinion once he meets Yoda, returning to modernism. He claims “I will not be the last jedi”, before sacrificing himself in the most heroic way possible. That’s why the final shot is random kids honoring this legend. By the end of the film, Kylo is the only character supporting postmodernism- and he’s the villain. Basic storytelling tells us almost always the hero is right and the villain is wrong.

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time

“Let the past die… kill it, if you have to.” The quote is often attributed as the theme of The Last Jedi, but that’s not really the case. The actual theme is presented through Luke and Kylo, two of the main characters. At the start of the film, both of them resent the past - Luke is saddened because of his failure, Kylo wants to be more than just “a new Vader.” As the story unfolds however, Luke is reminded by Yoda that, while he shouldn’t be afraid of the past, he should still respect it. Kylo, on the other hand, murders Snoke, and continues to try to kill the past by attempting to destroy the Resistance. And because of this, at the end, Luke saves his friends and moves on to becoming a legend, while Kylo fails.

The Force will be with you, always.