Creox

DrDre said:

Creox said:

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

Large slitted eyes…that’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.

Obviously Asian…

The alien on the right is definitely Asian in facial characteristics but that is not the only trait I’m talking about. At any rate it is not important for my basic premise to be true. Many thought similarly, including the persons in the piece I linked. All my friends felt this way at the first viewing. They also bow a lot, mix up their I’s and R’s. Sound familiar? C’mon guys.

http://media.weirdworm.com/img/misc/the-five-most-racist-star-wars-characters/nute-gunray-neimoi.jpg

DrDre said:

Creox said:

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

Large slitted eyes…that’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw any.

But that’s what they are…perhaps the better word is bulbous? Go take a look and tell me what you think.

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

chyron8472 said:
And Jar Jar’s character was overtly racist

I think this statement has no real basis in reality to be honest, and says more about the US’s historic relationship with racial stereotypes and racial issues in general then what’s actually in the movie. For the character to be overtly racist one must first find sufficient evidence for either racist intentions, or clear evidence of the character being a racial stereotype, neither of which is the case in my view. I personally fail to see how an orange amphibian with floppy ears is supposed to be representative of a person of color outside of the fact that the character was portrayed by a black man.

For what it’s worth, my friends and I all agreed Jar Jar acted, walked and talked with the racial stereotypes of a black man. From the strutting type gait, the “mesa sorry” type language etc. It was painfully obvious to me and many others. It isn’t one of those things that you have to look at “just right” to see it either.

Well, I’m a black man, and I didn’t percieve Jar Jar as reflecting on me as a person, or on my racial background. I just saw a clumpsy floppy eared orange character meant to entertain kids portrayed by a black man who gave the character a somwhat Caribbean inflection in his speech. However, I’m absolutely convinced that the character in no way was intended to ridicule or attack people of color, and so I can only view such a point of view as stemming from a sort of overcompensation in response to racial stereotyping that happened in the past. To quote another user on another forum:

If I’m a black man and another black man says “Hey, that guy is tall, clumsy , stupid and speaks funny, that’s supposed to be us.”, I would say “it may be you sir, but that does not represent me.”

So, in my view if you see a racial stereotype in Jar Jar Binks, it’s because you are conditioned to see a racial stereotype, not because Lucas put it there to ridicule another race of people.

I agree that Lucas did not intend to ridicule anyone…that being said, Jar Jar is a stereotypical African American in many ways. They are exaggerated in the manner Dom mentioned of course but that is what makes it glaringly obvious. The asian and Jewish stereotypes are quite obvious as well.

Interesting bit I found whilst typing this out for you.

https://davechen.net/2012/02/racism-and-ethnic-stereotypes-in-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/

"Bruce Gottlieb over at Slate wrote up a pretty good summary of Lucas’s racial offenses when Phantom Menace was first released:

Crafty Japanese trade villains aren’t the only heavy-handed ethnic stereotype in The Phantom Menace. As the story continues, the heroes slip past the evil Japanese to a nearby planet. There, they attempt to repair their broken spaceship but are stymied by the hook-nosed owner of the local parts shop–Watto–who also happens to have a thick Yiddish accent! (To hear an example, click “Great.”) Psychological manipulations that work on almost everyone fail with Watto–“Mind ticks don’ta work on me … only money! No,” he cries–and the heroes get what they want only through the bravery of a gifted slave boy (Anakin Skywalker). At the end of the desert planet sequence, Anakin is emancipated but separated from his mother, who still belongs to Watto. Even in a galaxy far away, the Jews are apparently behind the slave trade.

And then there’s Jar Jar Binks, the childlike sidekick with the unmistakably West Indian accent and enormous buttocks. Jar Jar is likable, easygoing, and dumb as dirt–always being scolded or saved from death by the Jedi knights. His stupidity and cowardice are running jokes throughout the film. And his people, the Gungan, are a brave but primitive tribe who throw spears and rocks at the oncoming army in the climactic battle sequence. Only Hispanics escape Lucas’ caricature, which is actually something of a mixed blessing since Hispanics often rightly complain that they are ignored in the national race debate."

Well to me these comparisons are like people that see dogs in a cloud. It says more about people claiming there’s a stereotype than what’s actually being conveyed by the movie. The above narrative is not Lucas’ narrative. It is Bruce Gottlieb’s. It’s like those videos that through clever editing make it seem Frodo and Sam in LOTR, or Rocky and Apollo in Rocky 3 are gay lovers. You take a flying blue alien who’s driven by money with a slurf, you claim the slurf is a hook nose, the rough voice is yiddish somehow, and voilá you just invented a Jewish stereotype.

I’m trying to think in the manner you’ve posted but I just cannot in good faith agree with you. I recall clearly my thoughts on these characters the first time I saw them. Some more obvious, some less. The trade federation and Watto stook out like a sore thumb. Jar Jar is, imo, an amalgamation of island and African stereotypes. That makes him less glaring than the first two.

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

chyron8472 said:
And Jar Jar’s character was overtly racist

I think this statement has no real basis in reality to be honest, and says more about the US’s historic relationship with racial stereotypes and racial issues in general then what’s actually in the movie. For the character to be overtly racist one must first find sufficient evidence for either racist intentions, or clear evidence of the character being a racial stereotype, neither of which is the case in my view. I personally fail to see how an orange amphibian with floppy ears is supposed to be representative of a person of color outside of the fact that the character was portrayed by a black man.

For what it’s worth, my friends and I all agreed Jar Jar acted, walked and talked with the racial stereotypes of a black man. From the strutting type gait, the “mesa sorry” type language etc. It was painfully obvious to me and many others. It isn’t one of those things that you have to look at “just right” to see it either.

Well, I’m a black man, and I didn’t percieve Jar Jar as reflecting on me as a person, or on my racial background. I just saw a clumpsy floppy eared orange character meant to entertain kids portrayed by a black man who gave the character a somwhat Caribbean inflection in his speech. However, I’m absolutely convinced that the character in no way was intended to ridicule or attack people of color, and so I can only view such a point of view as stemming from a sort of overcompensation in response to racial stereotyping that happened in the past. To quote another user on another forum:

If I’m a black man and another black man says “Hey, that guy is tall, clumsy , stupid and speaks funny, that’s supposed to be us.”, I would say “it may be you sir, but that does not represent me.”

So, in my view if you see a racial stereotype in Jar Jar Binks, it’s because you are conditioned to see a racial stereotype, not because Lucas put it there to ridicule another race of people.

I agree that Lucas did not intend to ridicule anyone…that being said, Jar Jar is a stereotypical African American in many ways. They are exaggerated in the manner Dom mentioned of course but that is what makes it glaringly obvious. The asian and Jewish stereotypes are quite obvious as well.

Interesting bit I found whilst typing this out for you.

https://davechen.net/2012/02/racism-and-ethnic-stereotypes-in-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/

"Bruce Gottlieb over at Slate wrote up a pretty good summary of Lucas’s racial offenses when Phantom Menace was first released:

Crafty Japanese trade villains aren’t the only heavy-handed ethnic stereotype in The Phantom Menace. As the story continues, the heroes slip past the evil Japanese to a nearby planet. There, they attempt to repair their broken spaceship but are stymied by the hook-nosed owner of the local parts shop–Watto–who also happens to have a thick Yiddish accent! (To hear an example, click “Great.”) Psychological manipulations that work on almost everyone fail with Watto–“Mind ticks don’ta work on me … only money! No,” he cries–and the heroes get what they want only through the bravery of a gifted slave boy (Anakin Skywalker). At the end of the desert planet sequence, Anakin is emancipated but separated from his mother, who still belongs to Watto. Even in a galaxy far away, the Jews are apparently behind the slave trade.

And then there’s Jar Jar Binks, the childlike sidekick with the unmistakably West Indian accent and enormous buttocks. Jar Jar is likable, easygoing, and dumb as dirt–always being scolded or saved from death by the Jedi knights. His stupidity and cowardice are running jokes throughout the film. And his people, the Gungan, are a brave but primitive tribe who throw spears and rocks at the oncoming army in the climactic battle sequence. Only Hispanics escape Lucas’ caricature, which is actually something of a mixed blessing since Hispanics often rightly complain that they are ignored in the national race debate."

DrDre said:

chyron8472 said:
And Jar Jar’s character was overtly racist

I think this statement has no real basis in reality to be honest, and says more about the US’s historic relationship with racial stereotypes and racial issues in general then what’s actually in the movie. For the character to be overtly racist one must first find sufficient evidence for either racist intentions, or clear evidence of the character being a racial stereotype, neither of which is the case in my view. I personally fail to see how an orange amphibian with floppy ears is supposed to be representative of a person of color outside of the fact that the character was portrayed by a black man.

For what it’s worth, my friends and I all agreed Jar Jar acted, walked and talked with the racial stereotypes of a black man. From the strutting type gait, the “mesa sorry” type language etc. It was painfully obvious to me and many others. It isn’t one of those things that you have to look at “just right” to see it either.

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

Again, we know this. Everyone in the galaxy should know this, since they lived it for a thousand generations. Furthermore, the audience knows this. That’s one reason (beyond the execution) that the Leia scene and the Casino planet rankles some people I expect - these are things we already know and are on board with, delivered in so slipshod a way as to actually do harm to the narrative and make the audience question their acceptance of these things.

It might give some that feeling, but that is not what I got out of it. I find the Leia scene to be important and enjoyed the casino planet as something new and different and yet at the same time a call back to the original cantina scene - only this time the scum were well dressed. There really isn’t anything about TLJ that I didn’t enjoy. The flaws of TFA are gone or ignored and the end product is something I can enjoy watching over and over again. Best Saga movie since 1983. I think the story is well written and the film well directed.

I first found the Casino scenes a bit disorienting but on second viewing I warmed up to it. It also broke up the space chase which would have been boring to watch for 30 minutes with cut scenes from TFO and the resistance.

I really liked the Leia scene in that it demonstrated a powerful force user react purely out of survival instinct. Thinking back on it I wouldn’t be surprised in Rian filmed it that way to pay tribute to Fisher.

ROTS is my pick of the PT…no contest. It had some drama, real feels at times and except for the Frankenstein homage and “Nooooo” I was genuinely moved by the ending. It felt like something that would create Vader.

I did not like the lava level with jumping jedi. That was so video game like that i was completely pulled out of the film.

The duel between Palpatine and Yoda was epic imo and worth half of the ticket cost. The former was acted so openly evil that I was cheering for him (just a little bit 😉 )

Jay said:

Creox said:

NeverarGreat said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

No, one of the points of this film is that anyone can use the force. Not everyone is powerful enough, but people who are powerful enough can come from anywhere. This is implicit in the PT Jedi code - attachment is forbidden and by extrapolations, so is procreation. That means that none of the powerful Jedi we see came from a long line of Jedi in the family. So if being powerful only runs in the blood, where did all the PT Jedi come from?

I don’t see what this has to do with my point. I don’t really care about Leia’s Force powers, since they don’t really affect the story, but the movie spends its time showing this impressive feat with sweeping wide shots and powerful music as if it has totally changed the game in terms of Leia’s role in the story, only to drop that and have nobody speak of it again. Cut from the bridge explosion to Leia unconscious and nothing is lost from a story perspective.

The movie does go in many interesting directions, but this is the middle chapter and we did not see a resolution to any of them. This lack of resolution leads to this erroneous conclusion that this movie did not further the story. It furthered the characters and changed them. It tackled grander things than the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict, which it left mostly in limbo.

Are you mistakenly talking about ESB, where the larger war was in limbo? Because in TFA, the First Order was treated as a sort of terrorist fringe organization, whereas in TLJ it all-but rules the galaxy.
Besides, this is again missing the point. The critic is saying that we are first given a very interesting direction which is quickly undermined in favor of a far less interesting direction. It would be like Vader saying ‘I am your father!’ and Yoda later saying ‘Messing with you, Vader was. Your father, he definitely isn’t’ and that being that.

And we know from ROTJ that Leia is strong in the force and like her brother in TESB (who grabbed his light saber with no known training of doing that) she grabbed a ship and in keeping with the laws of physics, she moved not the ship. Rey, Leia, and the boy at the end show us that anyone can use the force, from a Skywalker to a stable boy.

That’s all very nice, but again, what does it have to do with anything? We already assumed that Leia had the capability of doing what Luke could do (even if it was left undeveloped). Why would Rian bother to show us what we already assume unless these powers are called upon later in the movie? Luke and his lightsaber is a set up for the duel with Vader, where he is now able to pull himself up out of the Carbonite pit. It shows the progression of his skills. Leia’s ability is one-and-done.

A movie experience is more than just moving to the next plot point in a straight line.

It’s also more than a series of half-explored concepts and subverted expectations strung together by a hair-thin plot.

NeverarGreat and DrDre have laid out some compelling arguments supporting the main characters’ lack of progression in TLJ. It’s not a terribly interesting film in that regard.

I tend to think of their progression from the beginning of TFA through to the end of TLJ. In that respect I think there is definite progression. AND there will be more to come.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

NeverarGreat said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

No, one of the points of this film is that anyone can use the force. Not everyone is powerful enough, but people who are powerful enough can come from anywhere. This is implicit in the PT Jedi code - attachment is forbidden and by extrapolations, so is procreation. That means that none of the powerful Jedi we see came from a long line of Jedi in the family. So if being powerful only runs in the blood, where did all the PT Jedi come from?

I don’t see what this has to do with my point. I don’t really care about Leia’s Force powers, since they don’t really affect the story, but the movie spends its time showing this impressive feat with sweeping wide shots and powerful music as if it has totally changed the game in terms of Leia’s role in the story, only to drop that and have nobody speak of it again. Cut from the bridge explosion to Leia unconscious and nothing is lost from a story perspective.

The movie does go in many interesting directions, but this is the middle chapter and we did not see a resolution to any of them. This lack of resolution leads to this erroneous conclusion that this movie did not further the story. It furthered the characters and changed them. It tackled grander things than the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict, which it left mostly in limbo.

Are you mistakenly talking about ESB, where the larger war was in limbo? Because in TFA, the First Order was treated as a sort of terrorist fringe organization, whereas in TLJ it all-but rules the galaxy.
Besides, this is again missing the point. The critic is saying that we are first given a very interesting direction which is quickly undermined in favor of a far less interesting direction. It would be like Vader saying ‘I am your father!’ and Yoda later saying ‘Messing with you, Vader was. Your father, he definitely isn’t’ and that being that.

And we know from ROTJ that Leia is strong in the force and like her brother in TESB (who grabbed his light saber with no known training of doing that) she grabbed a ship and in keeping with the laws of physics, she moved not the ship. Rey, Leia, and the boy at the end show us that anyone can use the force, from a Skywalker to a stable boy.

That’s all very nice, but again, what does it have to do with anything? We already assumed that Leia had the capability of doing what Luke could do (even if it was left undeveloped). Why would Rian bother to show us what we already assume unless these powers are called upon later in the movie? Luke and his lightsaber is a set up for the duel with Vader, where he is now able to pull himself up out of the Carbonite pit. It shows the progression of his skills. Leia’s ability is one-and-done.

A movie experience is more than just moving to the next plot point in a straight line.

Good luck explaining that to Star Wars fans.

Yeah, I know…us critics are real dummies. I don’t like them foreign movies either, because them talk funny…

😉

I may disagree with your points at times but I do respect the time you take to make them. I also get that you are passionate about SW. That being said, a lot of criticisms I read about TLJ reflect the kind I responded to initially here.

NeverarGreat said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

No, one of the points of this film is that anyone can use the force. Not everyone is powerful enough, but people who are powerful enough can come from anywhere. This is implicit in the PT Jedi code - attachment is forbidden and by extrapolations, so is procreation. That means that none of the powerful Jedi we see came from a long line of Jedi in the family. So if being powerful only runs in the blood, where did all the PT Jedi come from?

I don’t see what this has to do with my point. I don’t really care about Leia’s Force powers, since they don’t really affect the story, but the movie spends its time showing this impressive feat with sweeping wide shots and powerful music as if it has totally changed the game in terms of Leia’s role in the story, only to drop that and have nobody speak of it again. Cut from the bridge explosion to Leia unconscious and nothing is lost from a story perspective.

The movie does go in many interesting directions, but this is the middle chapter and we did not see a resolution to any of them. This lack of resolution leads to this erroneous conclusion that this movie did not further the story. It furthered the characters and changed them. It tackled grander things than the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict, which it left mostly in limbo.

Are you mistakenly talking about ESB, where the larger war was in limbo? Because in TFA, the First Order was treated as a sort of terrorist fringe organization, whereas in TLJ it all-but rules the galaxy.
Besides, this is again missing the point. The critic is saying that we are first given a very interesting direction which is quickly undermined in favor of a far less interesting direction. It would be like Vader saying ‘I am your father!’ and Yoda later saying ‘Messing with you, Vader was. Your father, he definitely isn’t’ and that being that.

And we know from ROTJ that Leia is strong in the force and like her brother in TESB (who grabbed his light saber with no known training of doing that) she grabbed a ship and in keeping with the laws of physics, she moved not the ship. Rey, Leia, and the boy at the end show us that anyone can use the force, from a Skywalker to a stable boy.

That’s all very nice, but again, what does it have to do with anything? We already assumed that Leia had the capability of doing what Luke could do (even if it was left undeveloped). Why would Rian bother to show us what we already assume unless these powers are called upon later in the movie? Luke and his lightsaber is a set up for the duel with Vader, where he is now able to pull himself up out of the Carbonite pit. It shows the progression of his skills. Leia’s ability is one-and-done.

A movie experience is more than just moving to the next plot point in a straight line.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Creox said:

moviefreakedmind said:

To put it simply I think that Star Wars used to be special and now it isn’t.

“We’ll always have Paris”

Wrong franchise.

Really? 😆

moviefreakedmind said:

To put it simply I think that Star Wars used to be special and now it isn’t.

“We’ll always have Paris”

fmalover said:

That’s what what I miss the most about the old EU. Regardless of the varying degrees of quality in terms of storytelling and writing Lucas gave free reign to write about whatever they wanted to write, wether it was within the OT timeline, the distant past or the distant future, and we could even get stories set during the OT timeline that were taking part far away from the main events of the OT. Now like posted previously, under the Disney the expanded storylines are all about exploring every last minute detail of the adventures of Luke, Leia, Han, Chewie and Vader during the OT, from Leia carefully braiding her hair in her spare time to Luke’s weekend off after the battle of Yavin. Come ON Disney! You have an entire Galaxy’s worth of storylines of thousands upon thousands of generations.

That is coming down the pike as they say. The obvious answer for you is that Disney needed a segway into new episodes of movies without the OT trio.

moviefreakedmind said:

Why?

I also should’ve added the Special Editions to the destruction of the Star Wars legacy.

Just chiming in…The legacy would be the OT? right?

I love the OT but it is not without some glaring problems for me. It has flaws, errors, groan worthy scenes etc. BUT, I still love it.

On the whole the addition of the prequels and sequels has kept the franchise alive beyond most expectations if there were none. I am not a fan of the prequels but I acknowledge their place in the canon. I’ve enjoyed the sequels much more and think they are a better reflection of the OT in terms of the philosophy and tone.

I guess my confusion with your statement is why more SW is a bad thing necessarily? I get why this would not include the term “under any circumstances” but that hasn’t been the case thankfully.

moviefreakedmind said:

dahmage said:

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t remember anyone saying that girls couldn’t relate to Luke.

I do know my daughters identify much more strongly with Rey.

“I think there was an assumption being made for quite a while that girls didn’t care about Star Wars or that girls weren’t identifying with characters like Luke Skywalker or Han Solo; they were only identifying with Princess Leia or characters in other movies along those lines. And you know I think that it is not just Star Wars that is making this change, I think culturally, I want to believe that there is real movement and momentum beginning to happen where those kinds of lines are being blurred and people are recognizing in the creative community that um little girls, and little boys, for that matter are crossing over into identifying with lots of different characters and lots of different stories; And we as filmmakers should not be the ones providing those boundaries we should just tell the stories and they should be open a wide variety of not only gender but ethnicity. and that is another thing we are really working to do is to make the casting reflect society in a much more equal basis.”

• Kathleen Kennedy, President of Lucasfilm (2012 to Present),

Star Wars Celebration 2016

As I interpret Kennedy’s words she’s literally saying, that in the past filmmakers were providing boundaries by not casting women or people of different ethnicity in certain roles making it harder for women and people of different ethnicity to identify with these characters. She seems to thus imply that these past filmmakers (among them Lucas) were delibirately catering to boys, and white people, because they didn’t believe these stories would appeal to anybody else, and that only recently these lines are beginning to be blurred. Filmmakers should facilitate this movement by casting on an equal basis.

While it is true that men and women were not given equal opportunity in the film industry, I think it is faulty and inherently sexist to assume that a character’s gender is in any way important in the way men and women relate to these characters. As such, the fact that Rey and Jyn are female protagonists is important, because it reflects equality in casting, not because their gender makes these characters more relatable to women. If the inherent assumption is, that by casting female protagonists in Star Wars the franchise will become more appealing to women, then I would consider such a notion higly superficial and sexist.

It seems like you are suggesting that casting should go back to being less inclusive.

He obviously isn’t suggesting that. I don’t agree with his interpretation of Kennedy’s words. I actually think Kennedy was saying that girls and boys have more or less always been able to relate to all characters but now we don’t have to think of roles as being limited to one gender. But he obviously isn’t saying that he wants Star Wars to go back to the 70s and be all white again.

I care more that all children grow up seeing themselves represented in all types of roles, then I do about one or two casting decisions that I personally didn’t like. This is why Kelly Marie Tran is in my signature.

As someone who doesn’t care about Star Wars or children, I personally think that more inclusive casting is good, but I also hate how people are implying that it is something to consider when evaluating how relatable a character is. I don’t relate to any living person in real life and only relate to a few characters in film, and those few characters that I relate to are pretty diverse, and almost a 50/50 split in terms of male to female. I simply can’t relate to the notion that not sharing an arbitrary characteristic with a character makes him or her less relatable. I don’t get it, and probably never will. That doesn’t mean that I don’t want films to be inclusive to women and non-white actors. It also doesn’t mean that I don’t want people to go out of their way to make films reflect the diverse society that we live in. All it means is that I think it’s shallow to look at old characters and act like they’re less relatable because of their skin color or gender. One thing that I will admit to is that I actually am selfish enough to care a lot more about casting decisions that I like than I care about children seeing themselves represented, but my preferences in casting don’t have anything to do with race or gender so that shouldn’t conflict with your goal. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you.

Just want to chime in that the glaring part of your post is that you don’t care about SW. Not sure why you’re here then???

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

The idea that Star Wars is “failing” simply because the ST doesn’t have an overarching vision is silly for a million reasons, least of which that 90% of trilogies in existence don’t have that, and most of which that the trilogy isn’t even completed yet.

I didn’t say that’s why it was failing, just that the lack of an overarching vision for the franchise has made a bit of a mess (as evidenced by the vastly different takes on Star Wars provided by the sequel trilogy, in my opinion) and that they might be better served by emulating the Marvel model. And it wasn’t something I suggested they do with the sequel trilogy; obviously they can’t since it’s already two films in.

As for the suggestion that Kennedy is solely going for a random and scattershot approach, that’s not even remotely true. Literally the only new films currently on the roster are two series of movies, both with the exact thing you mention - an overarching creative director.

After two offshoot films by different writers/directors, one of which flopped, and two saga films by different writers/directors, one of which split the fanbase. And the director who split the fanbase was handed this new trilogy.

Sounds like a winning strategy.

I think it is an almost impossible task NOT to split the fan base.

DuracellEnergizer said:

DominicCobb said:

Does anyone actually want an MCU style 20-film intertwined arc for these films?

Since I hate the structure & style of the MCU, no.

I hear ya. When I was mentioning some fatigue around this approach it was this kind of thinking I was talking about. I cannot be bothered to invest the time and money into that many films of that many characters which ALL blend together somehow. Of course I can enjoy them individually but Marvel is hoping the fans will consume it all to get the gold star effect.

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

Jay said:

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Not a problem with the MCU for sure but I think that is starting to erode a bit. How SW is different with respects to how fans respond to more content is a bit of a confusing topic for me. I love that there is more content and movies but many do not. I think it’s due to what I already posted. There is a very vocal percentage of SW super fans who look at the OT as sacred texts that should not be messed with in any way. The release of more and more movies (which appears to me to be the only medium that effects these fans) seems to anger them as it dilutes the religion so to speak? Not sure.

That sounds about right. It’s probably no surprise that a certain segment of fans find RO to be the best film they’ve done - a film that does little to expand the narrative beyond unnecessarily plugging a perceived “plot hole” in the original, and fulfilling the ultimate fan service of seeing Darth Vader commit a massacre (something that had simply been implied before). It’s very much a supplement to the OT.

Marvel’s success seems to be the exception rather than the rule. No one else has replicated it. Honestly the reason is painfully obvious - Marvel is a collection of franchises plural, rather than just one singular franchise. If there was a Guardians of the Galaxy movie out every year, it’s no guarantee whatsoever that they would all be a success.

Your last paragraph is spot on I think. I was rattling similar ideas around my noggin while I was posting before. The post Lucas SW is just getting started and with a new trilogy coming out by Rian it appears they will take a more MCU direction with the franchise.

The thing is, while that approach sounds like it could hypothetically work on paper, there isn’t any evidence yet as to whether or not it’s possible. Marvel took multiple franchises and combined them into a mega franchise. Star Wars is a massive franchise, yes, but the question remains if a massive franchise can be split into parts that are each expected to be equal to the whole. There’s really no precedent for that. The closest I can think of is the X-Men films’ Wolverine spin-offs, but even then there are some obvious key differences. Mostly returning actor vs. new actor, but also release date timing. I think the idea that Star Wars could put out a billion dollar movie every single year if they are all universally loved is an incredibly faulty one. Which is to say nothing of the fact that it is probably beyond impossible for anyone to ever to make a new Star Wars movie that is universally loved.

Fair enough…I’m not saying it will be exactly like the MCU but I definitely see hints of more frequent releases that include spin offs like RO and Solo along with their…premiere?? offerings of trilogy based stories. I guess I think we’ll just be seeing more of everything. That’s kind of a no brainer imo.

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

Jay said:

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Not a problem with the MCU for sure but I think that is starting to erode a bit. How SW is different with respects to how fans respond to more content is a bit of a confusing topic for me. I love that there is more content and movies but many do not. I think it’s due to what I already posted. There is a very vocal percentage of SW super fans who look at the OT as sacred texts that should not be messed with in any way. The release of more and more movies (which appears to me to be the only medium that effects these fans) seems to anger them as it dilutes the religion so to speak? Not sure.

That sounds about right. It’s probably no surprise that a certain segment of fans find RO to be the best film they’ve done - a film that does little to expand the narrative beyond unnecessarily plugging a perceived “plot hole” in the original, and fulfilling the ultimate fan service of seeing Darth Vader commit a massacre (something that had simply been implied before). It’s very much a supplement to the OT.

Marvel’s success seems to be the exception rather than the rule. No one else has replicated it. Honestly the reason is painfully obvious - Marvel is a collection of franchises plural, rather than just one singular franchise. If there was a Guardians of the Galaxy movie out every year, it’s no guarantee whatsoever that they would all be a success.

Nobody is suggesting annual Star Wars films with the same characters and story lines. The universe is rife with possibilities. No reason they couldn’t take a page from Marvel’s playbook and have multiple stories going simultaneously with different characters in the same universe. Each set of characters could have a film every few years with staggered releases so we end up with one film a year, but alternating casts and stories. Every five or six years, have a big event film (“saga”) that ties the different stories together. It doesn’t need to be at the same scale as Marvel.

I think this is where Disney is taking SW. Rian’s future trilogy is not supposed to have much or any characters from any of the movies released so far…or if they do they will be side characters of cameos perhaps…don’t know enough at this time.

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

Jay said:

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Not a problem with the MCU for sure but I think that is starting to erode a bit. How SW is different with respects to how fans respond to more content is a bit of a confusing topic for me. I love that there is more content and movies but many do not. I think it’s due to what I already posted. There is a very vocal percentage of SW super fans who look at the OT as sacred texts that should not be messed with in any way. The release of more and more movies (which appears to me to be the only medium that effects these fans) seems to anger them as it dilutes the religion so to speak? Not sure.

That sounds about right. It’s probably no surprise that a certain segment of fans find RO to be the best film they’ve done - a film that does little to expand the narrative beyond unnecessarily plugging a perceived “plot hole” in the original, and fulfilling the ultimate fan service of seeing Darth Vader commit a massacre (something that had simply been implied before). It’s very much a supplement to the OT.

Marvel’s success seems to be the exception rather than the rule. No one else has replicated it. Honestly the reason is painfully obvious - Marvel is a collection of franchises plural, rather than just one singular franchise. If there was a Guardians of the Galaxy movie out every year, it’s no guarantee whatsoever that they would all be a success.

Your last paragraph is spot on I think. I was rattling similar ideas around my noggin while I was posting before. The post Lucas SW is just getting started and with a new trilogy coming out by Rian it appears they will take a more MCU direction with the franchise.

Jay said:

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Not a problem with the MCU for sure but I think that is starting to erode a bit. How SW is different with respects to how fans respond to more content is a bit of a confusing topic for me. I love that there is more content and movies but many do not. I think it’s due to what I already posted. There is a very vocal percentage of SW super fans who look at the OT as sacred texts that should not be messed with in any way. The release of more and more movies (which appears to me to be the only medium that effects these fans) seems to anger them as it dilutes the religion so to speak? Not sure.

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

yotsuya said:

Movies show us some things and tell us others to paint the picture of the galaxy. The crawl is part of that. You cant take what the movies show and ignore what they tell and you can’t take what they tell and ignore what they show. Both parts go together to give us the setting and setup. The TFA crawl sets up the situation, just like the ANH crawl setup that situation. Both make it clear which side is wide spread and which side is fighting. In ANH, there are but two sides, the Empire and the Rebellion. In TFA there is the new Republic, the First Order, and the Resistance. The FO decapitates the Republic but has taken no action to invade. When are they doing that? Well, that so called throw away line from Rey where she says weeks. The way you guys are describing it, the First Order, just by destroying the Republic capital and fleet has taken over every planet in the Republic and that is very silly.

As for Starkiller base, just how many people were there? We don’t know. It obviously wasn’t the heart of the First Order. Snoke wasn’t there. So yeah, a lot of investment was destroyed, but their fleet wasn’t nor was their home base. And we still don’t know where that is.

How you are reading this nonsense into two movies that very clearly are giving us as much data as the OT ever did and which OT fans have pulled out and poured over for decades is beyond me. I know you have issues with the movie(s), but you are going to extreme lengths to make points that are inaccurate and do not fit what we are shown and told. I was going to extreme lengths to show that there is a much different story from the one you think these movies are telling. You are only pointing out things that fit your point of view rather than taking everything into account. Stop blaming the story telling that is perfectly in line with the previous 6 films (and a lot of it seems to original with GL himself) and just admit you don’t like things about it. You don’t need long detailed reasons. My reasons for hating certain Star Trek movies are very plain, simple, and I don’t try to rip apart every aspect of the films. I know what I don’t like and what ruins it for me. Abrams bad editing and poor science (it is Star Wars, but GL was always pretty good about making things seem reasonable while Abrams just pulled a Bruckheimer as far as I’m concerned) are why I dislike TFA. Though to me honest, it might also have something to do with seeing it in 3D and hating the 3D effect that made it look so fake. I’m waiting until IX to really delve into it in detail. But saying this is a reset and rehash of the OT fails to account for the goal of a finale in the form of IX. You see a reset, I see a setup. I see things moving toward an ending. Frankly the idea that they reset it makes no sense with IX being the saga finale. No sense at all.

I pretty much agree with this overall. There is one more film after all despite TLJ feeling like a finished product (which I thought was a real plus for the flick btw).

Anakin Starkiller said:

I’m pretty sure TLJ has had about as much hate as the Prequels. It’s also worth considering they were the only new Star Wars films for a long time.

But the prequels came out before social media cemented like minded folks to form these bubbles of craziness we see today. Even in that climate the prequels were being torn up.