Sign In

The Last Jedi: Official Review and Opinions Thread ** SPOILERS ** — Page 169

Author
Time

Warbler said:

How can he sit on a log when before he was just kinda floating? All these answers and more in the next exciting chapter of just try and relax it doesn’t make any difference.

somethings need to be explained somethings don’t. When force ghosts can now do something they couldn’t do before, it requires an explanation. If in the next movie Han Solo(in the flesh, not a ghost) suddenly walks into a room, don’t you think that would require an explanation.

So, when things aren’t explained why force ghosts can suddenly do something that they couldn’t do before, like interact with their surroundings, in the OT, then that’s fine because you say it doesn’t need to be explained. But when they do something they didn’t do before and it isn’t explained in The Last Jedi, a film you don’t like, then it is bad because it requires an explanation, even though it doesn’t?

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

How are we supposed to explain it in the film? A brief interlude with a soliloquy by Pablo Hidalgo ecplaining the continuity?

The answer is of course to stop the movie at a suitable moment, insert a bell sound effect and have a brain dead Cinemasins voice over complain about it.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time

Since when did movies have to start explaining everything? I don’t get that. Even books don’t. You explain what you need to get across the main points. Why can’t movies make you think? Leave things out and make you wonder? And just why does one force user doing something in one movie mean that no one has ever been able to do that before. that stagnates things. Lucas gave us new force powers in nearly every film. In Episode I, Qui-gon and Obi-wan run super fast. Why can’t they do that in the OT? Yikes, a mistake. Sorry, this is just a bit ridiculous. Any ongoing franchise is a living thing that grows and changes as each new installment comes out. With luck, the new ones enhance the old ones. But this idea that we’ve seen it before so these new films must follow those rules exactly is very funny to me. If you take that back far enough it means that we should have seen everything the force could do in ANH. Because everything since then had changed things. Oh my.

So here’s a big one that was never explained in the movies. How is Leia a princess?

Author
Time

adywan said:

Warbler said:

How can he sit on a log when before he was just kinda floating? All these answers and more in the next exciting chapter of just try and relax it doesn’t make any difference.

somethings need to be explained somethings don’t. When force ghosts can now do something they couldn’t do before, it requires an explanation. If in the next movie Han Solo(in the flesh, not a ghost) suddenly walks into a room, don’t you think that would require an explanation.

So, when things aren’t explained why force ghosts can suddenly do something that they couldn’t do before, like interact with their surroundings, in the OT, then that’s fine because you say it doesn’t need to be explained. But when they do something they didn’t do before and it isn’t explained in The Last Jedi, a film you don’t like, then it is bad because it requires an explanation, even though it doesn’t?

  1. I agreed that why Obiwan didn’t warn Leia is a good question.

  2. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

  3. I will however agree with you that one tends to focus more on plot holes and continuity errors and whatnot in movies they don’t like as compared to movies they do like.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Mocata said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

How are we supposed to explain it in the film? A brief interlude with a soliloquy by Pablo Hidalgo ecplaining the continuity?

The answer is of course to stop the movie at a suitable moment, insert a bell sound effect and have a brain dead Cinemasins voice over complain about it.

or, maybe that if that is what isrequired to have something you’ve put in the movie make sense, maybe you don’t put that thing in the movie in the first place.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

Since when did movies have to start explaining everything? I don’t get that. Even books don’t. You explain what you need to get across the main points. Why can’t movies make you think? Leave things out and make you wonder?

again, if in the next movie Han (not a ghost) suddenly walked into a room, don’t you think that would require an explanation?

somethings need to be explained.

And just why does one force user doing something in one movie mean that no one has ever been able to do that before.

it doesn’t. But when we discover that forces users can do x, and it would have made sense for a certain force user to do x in previous movie, doesn’t that beg for an explanation? For example lets say we find out in the next movie that force users can make themselves invisible. I am willing to bet there are all kinds situations in the previous movies where it would have made sense for a force user to make himself invisible and yet they did not. It would require an explanation.

Lucas gave us new force powers in nearly every film. In Episode I, Qui-gon and Obi-wan run super fast. Why can’t they do that in the OT? Yikes, a mistake.

yep it is mistake. and some are worse than others.

Any ongoing franchise is a living thing that grows and changes as each new installment comes out. With luck, the new ones enhance the old ones.

but the new ones need to fit in with the old ones.

But this idea that we’ve seen it before so these new films must follow those rules exactly is very funny to me.

it is called consistency. it is called continuity.

If you take that back far enough it means that we should have seen everything the force could do in ANH. Because everything since then had changed things. Oh my.

no, but if we discover the force can now do x it would have made sense to do x in a situation in ANH, it begs the question as to why x wasn’t done in ANH.

So here’s a big one that was never explained in the movies. How is Leia a princess?

don’t know.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

I thought Yoda was just guiding the lightning not creating it.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

adywan said:

Warbler said:

  1. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died. Heck, why didn’t Yoda and Obiwan just kill themselve after the events of ROTS and use this whatever-you-want-to-call-it power on the Emperor and Vader and end the whole thing right then and there? Sure they’d be dead, but surely Yoda and Obiwan would have no problem sacrificing themselves if it would save the galaxy.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

I thought Yoda was just guiding the lightning not creating it.

sure looked like he created it to me.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The problem, warb (and others), is there’s some ambiguity and you’re taking that ambiguity and assuming automatically that it must be an inconsistency, whereas you could just as easily explore all the other possible explanations for it. Just because it’s not explained doesn’t mean it’s unexplainable. Movies, and Star Wars especially, are all about the possible, not the impossible. So to go right to the latter is essentially watching it wrong.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

We don’t need to have everything explained by the film. There are other non-film sources with which to draw on for relevant information to people who would care.

TFA as a film doesn’t explicitly explain how the Starkiller Base weapon works or why the explosion could be seen from outside Maz Kanata’s castle. The novel does. ROTJ doesn’t explain how Leia obtained a costume impersonating Boushh; or why Lando, the droids, Leia and Luke arrived at Jabba’s Palace separately.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

  1. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died.

Please point me to the scene in the Emperors throne room where there were storm clouds over head so we could have had the same lightning and then i’d agree with you.

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time

I don’t think the Death Star II had a planetary atmosphere that lightning could be redirected from the way Yoda’s spirit did in TLJ.

Which is to say, I don’t think he created it out of thin air, I think he pulled existing lightning down out of the clouds above or something similar. Which isn’t exactly possible in a hermetically sealed environment like a space station.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

adywan said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

  1. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died.

Please point me to the scene in the Emperors throne room where there were storm clouds over head so we could ahve had the same lightning and then i’d agree with you.

Ha, Ady beat me to it.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

Since when did movies have to start explaining everything? I don’t get that. Even books don’t. You explain what you need to get across the main points. Why can’t movies make you think? Leave things out and make you wonder? And just why does one force user doing something in one movie mean that no one has ever been able to do that before. that stagnates things. Lucas gave us new force powers in nearly every film. In Episode I, Qui-gon and Obi-wan run super fast. Why can’t they do that in the OT? Yikes, a mistake. Sorry, this is just a bit ridiculous. Any ongoing franchise is a living thing that grows and changes as each new installment comes out. With luck, the new ones enhance the old ones. But this idea that we’ve seen it before so these new films must follow those rules exactly is very funny to me. If you take that back far enough it means that we should have seen everything the force could do in ANH. Because everything since then had changed things. Oh my.

So here’s a big one that was never explained in the movies. How is Leia a princess?

Royal titles in SW seem to differ a bit to what we know on Earth. Bail Organa holds a title and is a member of a royal house on Alderaan, therefore that makes Leia a Princess.
Interesting that even the FO refer to Leia by her title. I presume the good guys do out of respect and honoring her late home world.
Oddly enough, we’ve never seen any kings in SW, not sure about the EU.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

The problem, warb (and others), is there’s some ambiguity and you’re taking that ambiguity and assuming automatically that it must be an inconsistency, whereas you could just as easily explore all the other possible explanations for it. Just because it’s not explained doesn’t mean it’s unexplainable. Movies, and Star Wars especially, are all about the possible, not the impossible. So to go right to the latter is essentially watching it wrong.

But sometimes things do need to be explained. Again if in the next movie Han(not a ghost) suddenly walked into a room, wouldn’t that require an explanation?

What if in a future movie it is found out that sith can appear as force ghosts and kill people, wouldn’t it need to be explained why we haven’t seen that before, why dead Emperor, Maul, and Dooku don’t come back force ghosts can get revenge?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

How is Leia a princess?

When a prince and a woman love each other very much, they get “married” and the woman becomes a princess.

Author
Time

adywan said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

  1. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died.

Please point me to the scene in the Emperors throne room where there were storm clouds over head so we could have had the same lightning and then i’d agree with you.

He needs storm clouds? That is never explained. What if in a future movie a force user does it without storm clouds, then can I ask why force ghost Yoda doesn’t zap the Emperor in ROTJ?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

We don’t need to have everything explained by the film. There are other non-film sources with which to draw on for relevant information to people who would care.

Those other sources aren’t canon.


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL LII CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

I thought Yoda was just guiding the lightning not creating it.

sure looked like he created it to me.

Big difference between manipulating the weather to create lighting and firing it out of your fingertips. It’s been suggested in the past Yoda used the Force to make sure Luke crashed in just the right spot on Dagobah. That was some choppy weather he hit coming into the atmosphere.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

The problem, warb (and others), is there’s some ambiguity and you’re taking that ambiguity and assuming automatically that it must be an inconsistency, whereas you could just as easily explore all the other possible explanations for it. Just because it’s not explained doesn’t mean it’s unexplainable. Movies, and Star Wars especially, are all about the possible, not the impossible. So to go right to the latter is essentially watching it wrong.

But sometimes things do need to be explained. Again if in the next movie Han(not a ghost) suddenly walked into a room, wouldn’t that require an explanation?

What if in a future movie it is found out that sith can appear as force ghosts and kill people, wouldn’t it need to be explained why we haven’t seen that before, why dead Emperor, Maul, and Dooku don’t come back force ghosts can get revenge?

Trying to explain spiritual happenings leads to dumbness. Like Dom says there is a difference between ambiguity and inconsistency. The truth is we know very little about the Star Wars afterlife.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

yotsuya said:

How is Leia a princess?

When a prince and a woman love each other very much, they get “married” and the woman becomes a princess.

Actually, Leia is a princess because her adoptive mother was a queen.

It is not explained in the films. But as has been said, Warb, just because something is left unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable. Before you call out TLJ for not explaining things you wish it had, I suggest you read the novel because it might answer those questions.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

We don’t need to have everything explained by the film. There are other non-film sources with which to draw on for relevant information to people who would care.

Those other sources aren’t canon.

Then why do you care? Why do you want the film itself, by itself without external sources, to explain everything when the film is already over two and a half hours long?

Most viewers don’t need characters to exposit information only relevent to the hardcore fandom. Especially when this is fantasy, not science-fiction.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

adywan said:

Warbler said:

  1. the minor interaction with surroundings we see in ROTJ don’t matter near as much as finding out that force ghost Obiwan and Yoda maybe could have appeared before the Emperor and Vader and zapped them.

But Yoda didn’t just zap the tree out of thin air like the force lighting the Emperor uses. This has already been explained to you.

Whatever you want to call it, it sure would have been nice if had used it on the Emperor in ROTJ after Yoda died.

Please point me to the scene in the Emperors throne room where there were storm clouds over head so we could have had the same lightning and then i’d agree with you.

He needs storm clouds? That is never explained. What if in a future movie a force user does it without storm clouds, then can I ask why force ghost Yoda doesn’t zap the Emperor in ROTJ?

The point is that we can draw these inferences about what we did see. We don’t need to exactly pin it down. Does the idea that Yoda could influence the path of lightning bother you?

The blue elephant in the room.