Sign In

Has Star Wars finally "jumped the shark"? — Page 2

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think it will be important here how the new generation percieves these Star Wars movies. The PT was derided mostly by older fans, but it seems to have been reevaluated recently, and those that grew up with them seem to still have fond memories of them. So, they currently stand as flawed, but entertaining pieces of cinema for many. I’m not sure how these new movies will age. Star Wars is becoming less of an event, and at least in my country only a very small section of toy stores are dedicated to them. I think Disney and Lucasfilm are in a difficult spot. They’ve mostly been retreading old ground, they’ve fractured the fanbase, and as was stated earlier, I’m not sure if a new set of films with new characters, and without John Williams score will ever be percieved as proper Star Wars by either the old fans or the new. These films would have to be pretty great to cross that barrier, and I don’t think the current creators have the vision to pull that off to be honest.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Also, since anecdotal evidence is important here I guess, everyone I’ve talked to has really enjoyed the new films (in fact I still haven’t met anyone who disliked TLJ, only people who know people who disliked TLJ). So, checkmate I guess? Is that how anecdotal-based debates work?

I called it anecdotal when I posted it. I never said I was right or that anyone else was wrong.

No, I realize you did, that wasn’t the issue. It just generally seems like a weird thing to bring up in a debate. Like, where do you go from there?

It’s an attempt to present feedback that doesn’t make it into most hardcore fan discussions because we’re in a bit of a bubble. The extreme negative feedback is part of that bubble; there are plenty of hardcore Star Wars fans who really don’t like TLJ, but I’ve never heard an overwhelmingly negative opinion from a casual fan. Worst I’ve heard is “meh”.

All I’m saying is that I’m getting lots of “meh”, which I heard during the prequel years so it’s not new, but “flying Leia was weird” is new. I’ve never had people tell me Star Wars is weird in a bad way.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

Besides, a bunch of overgrown teddy bears kicking Imperial ass is no more improbable than a bunch of under-equipped colonists beating the British Empire, no? 😉

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Also, since anecdotal evidence is important here I guess, everyone I’ve talked to has really enjoyed the new films (in fact I still haven’t met anyone who disliked TLJ, only people who know people who disliked TLJ). So, checkmate I guess? Is that how anecdotal-based debates work?

I called it anecdotal when I posted it. I never said I was right or that anyone else was wrong.

No, I realize you did, that wasn’t the issue. It just generally seems like a weird thing to bring up in a debate. Like, where do you go from there?

It’s an attempt to present feedback that doesn’t make it into most hardcore fan discussions because we’re in a bit of a bubble. The extreme negative feedback is part of that bubble; there are plenty of hardcore Star Wars fans who really don’t like TLJ, but I’ve never heard an overwhelmingly negative opinion from a casual fan. Worst I’ve heard is “meh”.

All I’m saying is that I’m getting lots of “meh”, which I heard during the prequel years so it’s not new, but “flying Leia was weird” is new. I’ve never had people tell me Star Wars is weird in a bad way.

That’s the thing—I mean if there was any time for SW to jump the shark it should have been in the prequel years. I think the films were awful and they haven’t aged very well, either, but there was still enough good will for the OT to sort of “forgive” the PT for what is was.

Now, I’m also in the position of not having seen SOLO and I don’t have any plans on doing so anytime soon. This is the first SW film that I won’t see theatrically, and I have no interest in seeing the next film theatrically either.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Anyone who thinks that Star Wars has only now in 2018 “jumped the shark” has selective memory loss, and is forgetting the years 1999 and 2002 when Jar Jar Binks and a flippy jumpy Yoda graced out eyeballs, respectively. There’s honestly nothing at all in the new Disney movies that fits the phrase, especially as they hew much closer to the more grounded and believable nature of the original films. Just because you don’t like a scene or a film doesn’t make it a “jump the shark” moment.

I don’t think you’re going back far enough. Death Star II, Luke and Leia being siblings, and the Ewoks could arguably be considered “jump the shark” moments.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time

Mielr said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Also, since anecdotal evidence is important here I guess, everyone I’ve talked to has really enjoyed the new films (in fact I still haven’t met anyone who disliked TLJ, only people who know people who disliked TLJ). So, checkmate I guess? Is that how anecdotal-based debates work?

I called it anecdotal when I posted it. I never said I was right or that anyone else was wrong.

No, I realize you did, that wasn’t the issue. It just generally seems like a weird thing to bring up in a debate. Like, where do you go from there?

It’s an attempt to present feedback that doesn’t make it into most hardcore fan discussions because we’re in a bit of a bubble. The extreme negative feedback is part of that bubble; there are plenty of hardcore Star Wars fans who really don’t like TLJ, but I’ve never heard an overwhelmingly negative opinion from a casual fan. Worst I’ve heard is “meh”.

All I’m saying is that I’m getting lots of “meh”, which I heard during the prequel years so it’s not new, but “flying Leia was weird” is new. I’ve never had people tell me Star Wars is weird in a bad way.

That’s the thing—I mean if there was any time for SW to jump the shark it should have been in the prequel years. I think the films were awful and they haven’t aged very well, either, but there was still enough good will for the OT to sort of “forgive” the PT for what is was.

Now, I’m also in the position of not having seen SOLO and I don’t have any plans on doing so anytime soon. This is the first SW film that I won’t see theatrically, and I have no interest in seeing the next film theatrically either.

Same. If IX doesn’t get great reviews all around, I won’t bother with it until it hits Netflix.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

Besides, a bunch of overgrown teddy bears kicking Imperial ass is no more improbable than a bunch of under-equipped colonists beating the British Empire, no? 😉

Perhaps because it feels more like a scene from a hard Sci-fi film? The only other time someone gets sucked out into space was in Episode III, when General Grevious smashes a window on the bridge of his cruiser to escape and walks outside on the hull to reach the escape pods. With Grevious being a cyborg with a hacking cough, I have a few issues with that sequence. 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room. I would define that as a jumping the shark moment, particulary when it becomes a moment of ridicule. The PT has plenty of issues, but I would characterize most of those as poor dialogue, or bad acting, or an obvious special effect, or something like that. I suppose Anakin destroying the droid control ship could have become a jumping the shark moment, but it was never ridiculed like the Leia in space scene.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room.

I’ve heard this complaint before though. You’re not describing a tonal issue as far as I can tell.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room.

I’ve heard this complaint before though. You’re not describing a tonal issue as far as I can tell.

You could call it a tonal issue, if you don’t know how you’re supposed to feel about the scene. I think it can sort of feel out of place to some.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room.

I’ve heard this complaint before though. You’re not describing a tonal issue as far as I can tell.

You could call it a tonal issue, if you don’t know how you’re supposed to feel about the scene. I think it can sort of feel out of place to some.

But I think how you’re supposed to feel is clear, no? The issue seems to be whether it’s effective in achieving that or not. Which is an issue of execution, not tone.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’m curious as to how people would have reacted to the “flying Leia” scene had something similar been done back in the 80’s. I really think this scene has the most polarized reactions in the entirety of TLJ. Some people love it, and others think it’s complete nonsense. Even my first reaction was “is this brilliant or silly?”. Maybe it’s the obvious CG-look of the moment that puts people off? Or maybe it’s the fact that many anticipated a Leia death scene, then all of a sudden she “flies” back to safety (it’s pretty jarring the first time). Or maybe GotG vol.2 was still to fresh in people’s memory and all they could think of was Yondu’s Mary Poppins scene.

I personally think it’s a really interesting idea, but I can’t help but find the execution of the scene to be a tad off. It’s the wide-shot of her flying (this shot) that weirds me out a bit. But none of this makes it a “bad” scene in my mind. Plus, it’s a scene that to me gets less weird the more I watch it, though I can’t tell if that’s a good or bad sign.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room.

I’ve heard this complaint before though. You’re not describing a tonal issue as far as I can tell.

You could call it a tonal issue, if you don’t know how you’re supposed to feel about the scene. I think it can sort of feel out of place to some.

But I think how you’re supposed to feel is clear, no? The issue seems to be whether it’s effective in achieving that or not. Which is an issue of execution, not tone.

I guess, you’re right.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

Anyone who thinks that Star Wars has only now in 2018 “jumped the shark” has selective memory loss, and is forgetting the years 1999 and 2002 when Jar Jar Binks and a flippy jumpy Yoda graced out eyeballs, respectively. There’s honestly nothing at all in the new Disney movies that fits the phrase, especially as they hew much closer to the more grounded and believable nature of the original films. Just because you don’t like a scene or a film doesn’t make it a “jump the shark” moment.

I don’t think you’re going back far enough. Death Star II, Luke and Leia being siblings, and the Ewoks could arguably be considered “jump the shark” moments.

Yeah, nothing in ROTJ was a “jts” moment for me.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

It just reminded me of this: https://youtu.be/jP8dC8E6Emk?t=26s

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Force ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover in ROTJ; there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes in the OT that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia connection moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force to lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

If there’s something in TLJ that reminds you of ESB, that’s great, but there was nothing in the film that even remotely reminded me of the OT. There was, however, quite a bit that reminded me of the PT, which is why I have no interest in seeing any more of them.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

“Rules”? Why does the OT have to be the rules? The OT showed very little of the galaxy, and is set in a time with only a handful of Force-users. There was always the implication that the Force could do so much more, so why limit it to what little we saw in the OT?

And who makes the “rules” anyway? George Lucas? Seeing how many people dismiss the PT, there really isn’t much of an official baseline for what can or can’t happen in these movies.

Mielr said:

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

Just because something like that never happened within the plot of three movies doesn’t mean it can’t happen within the world.

Plus, what about Palpatine’s Force-lightning. That was a pretty jarring addition to the lore that didn’t resemble anything seem before. At least “flying” Leia is consistent with levitation, telekinesis, etc.

I’m not saying anyone has to like this scene, or the film, or any of the new SW stuff, I just don’t get the point of the argument that these movies aren’t conforming to what we saw in the OT. We saw so little in the OT, it only makes sense for the new films to introduce weird new things, just like the OT did when they were new.

Author
Time

Only Leia isn’t flying. She doesn’t have to deal with gravity at all. Given what real astronauts can do in zero G, Leia wouldn’t have to exert Yoda levels of energy to get back to the ship.

Of course, the Superman films would never just toss out some random power we’ve never seen before out of the blue. 😛

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

“Rules”? Why does the OT have to be the rules? The OT showed very little of the galaxy, and is set in a time with only a handful of Force-users. There was always the implication that the Force could do so much more, so why limit it to what little we saw in the OT?

And who makes the “rules” anyway? George Lucas? Seeing how many people dismiss the PT, there really isn’t much of an official baseline for what can or can’t happen in these movies.

Mielr said:

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

Just because something like that never happened within the plot of three movies doesn’t mean it can’t happen within the world.

Plus, what about Palpatine’s Force-lightning. That was a pretty jarring addition to the lore that didn’t resemble anything seem before. At least “flying” Leia is consistent with levitation, telekinesis, etc.

I’m not saying anyone has to like this scene, or the film, or any of the new SW stuff, I just don’t get the point of the argument that these movies aren’t conforming to what we saw in the OT. We saw so little in the OT, it only makes sense for the new films to introduce weird new things, just like the OT did when they were new.

They could have at least conformed enough to make them good films, like the OT were. It’s not about “weird new things” it’s about quality. With the prequels, George Lucas misinterpreted what made the OT great. It wasn’t FX, it was the story. Which is something sorely lacking in the recent films.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Mielr said:

DominicCobb said:

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!

I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.

There was nothing in the OT that was tonally like that scene at all. It made me wonder if RJ had ever seen any of the OT films.

The “use the Force, Luke” scene in ANH, Ben’s Firce ghost & Luke calling out to Leia with the Force in ESB, Luke making Threepio hover, there were plenty of unexpected Force-scenes that did things we hadn’t seen before. Why would TLJ be any different?

The only thing that I personally find to be “tonally different” is the fact that it’s a CG moment that would have been hard to pull off in the 80’s. That scene overall (Kylo/Leia moment included) actually really reminds me of the end of ESB.

That was a voice in Luke’s head, not someone floating in space, and it was done multiple times in the OT.

I was thinking more the tone of those scenes; the music, the sense of mystery, the unexpectednes of it all (first time watching at least), etc. Pluss, like I mentioned, Luke made Threepio hover in ROTJ. It’s simpler than flying Leia, but hardly a subtle moment.

And why does TLJ have to conform to what the OT films did. They never limited themselves to what the previous film(s) did, and neither did TLJ.

The OT were the establishing films that set all of the rules in a new, unfamiliar world. The world is no longer new and unfamiliar, hence the rules. If the rules aren’t followed, then they might as well just make them as Marvel films, which is the direction they’re headed anyway.

“Rules”? Why does the OT have to be the rules? The OT showed very little of the galaxy, and is set in a time with only a handful of Force-users. There was always the implication that the Force could do so much more, so why limit it to what little we saw in the OT?

And who makes the “rules” anyway? George Lucas? Seeing how many people dismiss the PT, there really isn’t much of an official baseline for what can or can’t happen in these movies.

Mielr said:

Everything you mentioned was was done multiple times in the OT. It was established from the first film that Luke could hear Ben’s voice. It was established from the 2nd film that Jedis could use the force lift objects off the ground and see force ghosts. If they’d wanted to make someone fly in outer space “in the 80s” they could have. They were able to show Christopher Reeve fly as Superman, I don’t see why they couldn’t have done something similar.

Just because something like that never happened within the plot of three movies doesn’t mean it can’t happen within the world.

Plus, what about Palpatine’s Force-lightning. That was a pretty jarring addition to the lore that didn’t resemble anything seem before. At least “flying” Leia is consistent with levitation, telekinesis, etc.

I’m not saying anyone has to like this scene, or the film, or any of the new SW stuff, I just don’t get the point of the argument that these movies aren’t conforming to what we saw in the OT. We saw so little in the OT, it only makes sense for the new films to introduce weird new things, just like the OT did when they were new.

They could have at least conformed enough to make them good films, like the OT were. It’s not about “weird new things” it’s about quality. With the prequels, George Lucas misinterpreted what made the OT great. It wasn’t FX, it was the story. Which is something sorely lacking in the recent films.

Fair enough. But quality of filmmaking has nothing to do with wheather or not something should/could be added the lore; that’s all I’m saying.