DominicCobb

Hal 9000 said:

From the top, purely the music on its own

What else would you base it on?

Collipso said:

Still talking about Luke, I’ll try to clear things up a little bit. I don’t really have a problem with Luke not living up to be the legend he was made out to be. I just don’t understand, for example, how did the legend originate. Like I said in a previous post, his victories were mostly personal and (should be) unknown to the rest of the galaxy, except for destroying the first Death Star. But I can see how a myth or some mystery feeling would grow around him, given that most people probably thought that the mysterious nature of his activities and his sad devotion to an ancient religion were suspicious and weird. And mysterious and wizardry. Anyway.

I don’t get why the tales of his bravery wouldn’t spread and balloon. And he had more victories than we saw in the films.

What I really have a problem with is how he died and ultimately failed his goal, failed his whole purpose in the original trilogy, which was to rebuild the Jedi Order. That makes him a failure imo. Not only that but the movie also makes him betray his character arc in the scene with Kylo with unconvincing explanation as to why, and also present him as some sort of fool for making the exact same mistake that his mentors did years before, mistakes that he was aware were made. And what pisses me off is that all of this happened just so that Rey could have the exact same journey as Luke, specially now that we have the exact same scenario we had in the original movies.

Luke didn’t fail, though. His goal was to become a Jedi (check) and to pass on what he learned (check). He will not be the last Jedi, and Rey won’t be a Jedi like him.

And I still hold the opinion that Luke’s Jedi order would be completely different from the one seen in the prequel trilogy, because he was trained by a hippie Obi-Wan and an exiled much wiser Yoda - both of them being masters that learned from their mistakes and trained Luke differently. Luke was a Qui-Gon like Jedi, imo. Not a Obi-Wan or a Yoda.

I’m sure Luke’s Jedi order was quite different because the circumstances were of course quite different. Which is probably what lead him to believe even more strongly that the mere concept of the Jedi needed to end.

The primary problem with the revenge angle is that it is not dramatically established in the film. You just sort of have to assume that’s the case, and with a sizable reduction in climactic stakes.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.

I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.

Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”

As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.

Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.

We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.

That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.

But you do think that if Luke hadn’t ignited his saber that night he would have tried to save Ben?

I don’t see why not, I believe I suggested as much.

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.

I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.

Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”

As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.

Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.

We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.

That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.

No, not just in that moment. In TLJ he believes that neither he it Rey can bring him back.

Well first of all there’s no doubt Ben has shifted further to the dark in the years since Luke entered his hut. Second of all I think there’s a difference between “it’s impossible in general for him to come back” and “I don’t think it’s possible for us to bring him back.” Luke is in a state of despair, no doubt about it. I’ve already explained why Luke thinks he won’t be of any use in saving Ben’s soul. As for Rey, I think Luke’s thinking is more like the danger is not worth the risk.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.

I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.

Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”

As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.

Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.

We have seen that Kylo’s commitment to the dark side appears a little shaky. And yet before committing a single act (that we know of), Luke was convinced Ben was - by any reasonable Jedi measure - gone, replaced by Dark Kylo Ren.

That’s the thing though, I think Obi-wan’s assessment that Anakin was replaced by Darth Vader was inaccurate, I don’t think that’s really how that works, and I think Luke agrees considering he thought there was still good in Vader. Luke only considered Ben too far gone in that brief instinctual moment where he ignited his lightsaber.

NeverarGreat said:

When we talk about themes, are we referring to Leitmotifs for characters/things? If so, I don’t know if it even makes sense to have so many different ‘themes’ for Anakin.

Yeah, although I tend to think that themes aren’t strictly for characters/things, they are simply related to those characters/things. Small distinction but I think it’s actually a big difference.

Collipso said:

From the OST:

Anakin’s Dark Deeds

Not a theme.

Battle of the Heroes/Anakin vs Obi-Wan

That’s one.

Padme’s Ruminations

Not a theme.

Anakin’s Dream

Not a theme.

The Immolation Scene

Not a theme.

Anakin’s Betrayal

That’s one (arguably)

Heck, even General Grievous’ theme

And that’s the last one.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.

I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.

Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”

As I said, I can understand Luke igniting his lightsaber on raw instinct when he senses super bad feelings in Ben. To my mind, being “fallen” requires something more. In ROTJ it appeared that killing Vader might do it for Luke. In the prequels, it was Anakin betraying Windu and giving himself over to the dark side for selfish reasons. In my mind, there should be something that seals the deal. If Luke only sensed really super dark feelings, that doesn’t seem like proof that he is already fallen.

Okay, so it really does go back to “what is your definition of fallen?” I definitely disagree with you there, I’ve never really thought that you needed commit an action that seals the deal in ‘turning your heart.’ Although I do think committing an action like the kind you mean can further your devotion to the dark and snuff out some of the light (like killing Han was supposed to do) or it can be the impetus for a turn to the dark. But I don’t think it’s necessary and I think it’s possible to give yourself to the dark side in spirit alone.

Collipso said:

What?? RotS had more original themes than TFA, RotJ, TLJ, AotC and TPM…

You sure? I count 2, maaybe 3.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

As we wind down here, let me agree Luke’s ability (or at least belief in his ability) to save Ben/Kylo is the question.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

This argument works a whole lot better than saying Luke determined that what he sensed in Ben indicated Ben was already fallen and beyond Luke’s ability to save him. That narrative strikes me as untrue. That Luke had a crisis of faith and behaved cowardly is something I can agree with you on. Whether I like that idea or not, it works in this story. And when Luke tells Rey that Ben was already fallen, that is Luke’s cowardice and shame speaking - as opposed to a fact we the audience must accept.

I’m not sure if you’re misconstruing the argument, if you forgot how we got to this point, or if we genuinely have not been on the same page. The idea of whether or not Ben has already fallen is important in regards to Luke igniting the lightsaber, not whether Luke should give up on Ben after he burns his temple.

Luke says Snoke had already turned Ben’s heart and I still don’t see any reason to doubt that. (Unless we’re going back to how do you define “fallen”? in which case I don’t think being “fallen” or having your heart turned means you’re irredeemable, and I think Luke agrees.) Just because Luke says that doesn’t mean he believes Ben is incapable of being saved. Obviously I think in that brief moment where he ignites the lightsaber Luke does thinks that Ben is beyond hope, but of course that moment passes “like a fleeting shadow.”

Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.

Not at all, as my response above should indicate to you.

Cool.

And since I forget to respond to this…

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.

Since I guess today we’re quoting definitions in this thread for some reason:

Hyperbole

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

I don’t deny that hyperbole is typically used for overstatements, but I think the definition can apply to understatements as well.

If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.

I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.

I thought you had lot it drop a couple pages ago before raising it again. It’s only for your own edification if you ever do care to look it up.

I guess I should have, the whole reason I forgot to respond to that part was because it wasn’t important, it’s just my interpretation of the word. And I’m not Frink, I don’t even care about using hyperbole that much to begin with. The semantics of it isn’t the point of what I was criticizing there.

TLJ has more or less three new themes, the most obvious being Rose’s and the second most obvious being a new one for Luke. Both can be found in the track “The Rebellion is Reborn,” which is a concert suite.

TLJ is definitely light on new themes (though no more so than ROTS). This is somewhat disappointing but the quality of a score is not entirely dependent on a simple number of how many new themes there are. TLJ, in this way, is sort of an inverse of TFA. The latter introduced so many new themes, and didn’t do all that much with the old ones. This time, Williams really digs deep into the existing themes (primarily the ones from TFA, of course), and gives them some of their absolute best renditions.

Ultimately I think I prefer TFA (the highlights are better), but TLJ is a lot more consistently fantastic (basically no lows to speak of). Another great effort by Williams, it’s not an accident he was nominated for an Oscar yesterday.

ray_afraid said:

Meh. I think everything in Kong looked better than Apes.

That’s a hard “ya crazy” from me.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

And I see no reason why Luke wouldn’t have done after-the-fact what you think Luke would have done absent the confrontation. As opposed to Luke concluding that night that Ben was already fallen and beyond his ability to help him, as was insisted upon in the movie.

As I’ve said, I don’t think the question in Luke’s mind is whether or not Ben is irredeemable, but whether Luke has the ability to redeem him.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

You’d be surprised how far an apology can go. I’m sure there’s even a Greeting Card line in the Star Wars universe: “Sorry for almost killing you in your sleep with a [blaster/lightsaber/thermal detonator].”

Ben/Kylo wanted nothing more than to kill Luke. Luke knew confronting him from that point on wasn’t going to be any sort of peaceful encounter. Luke had some soul searching to do and ultimately came to the conclusion that trying to confront Kylo again would only make matters worse. So he decided it was time for him, and the Jedi, to end.

Was this the right decision to make? No, of course not. But I totally see his reasoning. Luke has failed Ben and his best friends in the worst way possible. He put his trust in the force and it lead him to almost do an unspeakable thing. He thought he could bring back the glory of the Jedi Order but he only managed to bring about the same sort of tragedy that befell is merely a few decades ago. Of course Luke is going to have a crisis of faith in the force, the Jedi, and himself.

Ultimately what you’re suggesting is a Luke that is near infallible and always makes the best decisions. I like when characters start the story in a different spot than where they end it. When Luke finally does apologize to Ben on Crait, it has so much more weight to it. We know the shame and anguish and doubt that Luke has had to overcome to finally get to this point.

And since I forget to respond to this…

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.

Since I guess today we’re quoting definitions in this thread for some reason:

Hyperbole

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

I don’t deny that hyperbole is typically used for overstatements, but I think the definition can apply to understatements as well.

If you look at all the rest of the information connected to that definition (and any other dictionary), it has to do with overstatement and amplification. Of course exaggeration can be used to express something being better or worse: “this is the best cake ever!” or “this is the worst cake ever!” That’s what the definition you quote is getting at.

I guess I just don’t really care enough about this debate to look at other definitions or continue discussing it.

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

I guess it depends on your definition of fallen? I personally think the “Anakin died and became Vader” strict dichotomy is pretty silly.

It also depends whether we’re talking about before Luke entered the hut or after Luke searched Ben’s feelings.

So how do you define “fallen”? I don’t think having bad thoughts counts as fallen. But maybe that’s just me 😉

Luke doesn’t know Ben’s thoughts, he knows his feelings and his future, which I think are more telling.

Whether feelings or thoughts (the distinction isn’t terribly important as far as I’m concerned), perceiving the future is another matter. As Yoda said, “Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.”

And if Luke perceives that Ben might in the future fall, that is still different from perceiving that he is fallen.

But that’s not what Luke perceives. What he sees is a future where Ben does terrible things which leads his to a momentary lapse of judgement.

There’s no question of “Ben might fall” Luke makes it explicit that Ben had either already fallen or was deep in the process.

What Luke sensed in Ben’s feelings:

“I saw darkness. I sensed it building in him. I’d seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside, and it was beyond what I ever imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart.”

What Luke saw in Ben’s future:

“He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become.”

Saying Luke merely sensed Ben’s “bad thoughts” is dramatically underselling the situation.

When you say “that’s not what Luke perceives,” that’s not true unless you’re saying the future is certain. And we know it isn’t.

I’m saying Luke doesn’t see a future where Ben might fall because he’s already at that point. What he sees in the future is something far more horrifying than just the simple “Ben might fall.”

Your argument is that the vision Luke beheld was horrifying. My rhetoric was more tame (antihyperbole!) but I didn’t deny that it was a terrible thing to behold.

No, saying what Luke felt was simply bad thoughts is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement doesn’t have to be making something out to be bigger than it is, it can go the inverse too.

What a lot of us have trouble accepting is that Luke accepted what he saw, especially after the fact. “Snoke had already turned his heart,” means what? In large part, our appreciation for Luke is perhaps supposed to make it really meaningful. But there’s so much work being done in that line that many don’t buy.

“Snoke had already turned his heart” means exactly what it sounds like. That’s not a vision of the future in motion, that’s Luke’s perception of Ben’s current situation in that moment. I don’t know how you can disregard that. As for accepting the vision of the future? Did he really accept it as gospel or was it just something that briefly sparked a horribly misguided idea in his mind? The film would suggest the latter.

If Snoke turned Ben’s heart, that calls out for answers to why and how. I recall discussions in this forum (before TLJ) on how lacking in credibility it was that Luke could realistically have been convinced to turn to the dark side in the OT. That seems an entirely reasonable argument and I’m fairly convinced by it. There just wasn’t enough established in the movie to explain why Luke would turn.

I’ve made a similar argument, but it’s not that I don’t believe it’s possible that Luke could turn (I think they set it up quite well in ESB), I just think they dropped the ball when it came to exploring the temptation Luke should be facing throughout ROTJ.

In TLJ, we’re not given anything except Luke’s assurance that Ben was lost. We don’t know what Snoke could have possibly done to take Ben beyond the point of no return. I’m not ignoring Luke’s statement, I’m saying it doesn’t really explain anything.

Why should we have anymore than that? We don’t need to know anything more about that for the purposes of this story.

It does matter for the the credibility of this story and the characterizations. It’s strange to me that you would advocate for a movie showing as little as possible. Efficient storytelling has its virtues but if one is to accept that Snoke had an iron grip on Ben (and that Luke, of all people believed it) it calls out for more. If you can see how ROTJ dropped the ball, I don’t know how that isn’t apparent here.

I can accept that Luke saw something so horrible that raw defensive instincts kicked in. Others here have a harder time with that, but it makes sense to me. Note that is different than Luke concluding that Ben was already fallen.

So you refuse to accept a fact that the film presents then?

When it comes to a story, saying that one “refuses to accept a fact” is a strange statement. Stories are not facts that must be believed. A good story makes itself credible. If there are holes or poorly established elements, that’s the story’s problem. I’m not trying to challenge anyone’s enjoyment of the film, but there are gaps that don’t work for many of us.

This is not the story of how Ben was tempted to the dark side. He’s already Kylo Ren at the start of the film. I don’t know why you don’t see the distinction there. Yeah, we’re asked to take Snoke turning Ben to the dark side as a given. Why is that so hard to accept? I really don’t get why you won’t.

What I am addressing is Luke’s actions and thought processes. You’ve not seen me contest Ben’s turn to the dark side. That Ben was being tempted is established and accepted. Glad we cleared that up. An issue we have been discussing is whether Luke could have done something to save Ben. Specifically we are dealing with a scene that was shown from the past that is supposed to inform our understanding of both Luke and Ben. I have no trouble believing that after leaving Luke for dead Ben finally ran into the arms of Snoke. What is in dispute is that Luke concluded from Ben’s feelings alone that Ben was beyond his ability/desire to help him. And that is thin gruel in my view.

Luke had an instinctual reaction to seeing Ben had turned to the dark side. If Luke had managed to sneak back out of Ben’s room without Ben realizing that he had ignited his saber, I have no doubt Luke would have tried to work things up differently.

What doesn’t make sense is that Luke would give up afterward. And this goes again to the idea that Ben is lost and yet having no idea why that is. It begs for an explanation of exactly what Snoke did and of what Ben did to become beyond hope.

No and no. Luke didn’t quite give up, from his perspective going to the island to die and let the Jedi Order die with him was his solution to the problem (however misguided, of course). And I don’t quite think that Luke thinks Ben is “beyond hope,” he just doesn’t think he can help him.

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

The question is why Luke thinks he can’t help Ben.

Because of the way he failed him. I don’t think Ben is quite open to the kind of strategy Luke took with his father.

Back to the real question, again. We can only guess at what influence Luke might have had with Ben. In what way did Luke fail Ben? Simply that he didn’t see Snoke’s influence? Not saying that isn’t bad, but it’s more negligence than anything.

Um, he almost killed him? I don’t think Ben would be so willing to talk after that.

And since I forget to respond to this…

And I like “antihyperbole,” AKA understatement which is not a synonym of “hyperbole” although a similar concept.

It’s still an exaggeration, so in my opinion it fits the definition.

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Understatement and exaggeration are opposites. An exaggeration is by definition an overstatement. We can argue about #rotjpigmen all day, but this is an open-and-shut case. For example, if you say, “Darth Vader was not a nice guy,” that’s not an exaggeration.

Since I guess today we’re quoting definitions in this thread for some reason:

Hyperbole

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Exaggeration

a statement that represents something as better or worse than it really is.

I don’t deny that hyperbole is typically used for overstatements, but I think the definition can apply to understatements as well.

Frank your Majesty said:

TV’s Frink said:

rodneyfaile said:

NeverarGreat said:

According to ‘# of movies they’ve been in’, Palpatine, Obi-wan, Yoda, and Anakin are the main characters in the saga.

I thought it was Chewbacca, R2-D2, and C-3P0.

I’m not sure this is a great summary of the whole thread but I’ll take it.

The top of the page is more than one post.

The whole page is one big post.

No

ray_afraid said:

I hope Kong wins best effects. Won’t be surprised if it doesn’t, but it deserves it.
I dunno if I could care any less about the rest.

I can’t agree when Planet of the Apes is right there.

TV’s Frink said:

yhwx said:

Apparently a woman’s been nominated for cinematography for the first time. What do we think of that?

I wonder if it’s because no one would nominate a woman or if no one would hire a woman, or both.

More so the second one. I don’t think anyone is actively not nominating women, although there are some perennial male nominees that always end up in that category and take up slots.

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

My top ten this year:

1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
2. Dunkirk
3. Phantom Thread
4. The Post
5. Boss Baby Driver
6. Blade Runner 2049
7. Get Out
8. The Disaster Artist
9. War For the Planet of the Apes
10. Lady Bird

Reported due to #5.

But it got nominated!

Collipso said:

In the soundtrack it sounds the same.

The soundtrack is the exact same recording.

LuckyGungan2001 said:

lovelikewinter said:

As bad as Star Wars fans are, they are not Harry Potter fans. Thank god for small favors.

Or emo music fans. Anytime I listen to some My Chemical Romance on YouTube I have to deal with the terrible fan base in the comments

HerekittykittyX said:

LuckyGungan2001 said:

lovelikewinter said:

As bad as Star Wars fans are, they are not Harry Potter fans. Thank god for small favors.

Or emo music fans. Anytime I listen to some My Chemical Romance on YouTube I have to deal with the terrible fan base in the comments

outside of Star Wars Jake Paul has the worst fan base

I think perhaps the idea here is “what’s something that’s good that has bad fans.” There are plenty of terrible things that have far worse fans than Star Wars.

Handman said:

Also, does this remind anyone else of Laura? Notably, a young woman taken under the wing of a high society man who molds her into whatever it is he wants of her, but he can never truly have her. I still haven’t seen Phantom Thread, but from the trailer that’s the impression I got.

Haven’t seen Laura (though I want to). The film that this reminds me of most is Rebecca.

darthrush said:

DominicCobb said:

darthrush said:

DominicCobb said:

Starting back in around 2009 or 2010 I had the goal to one day see all the Best Picture nominees before the awards ceremony. I finally managed this for the 2013 awards in 2014. From there my goal became to see all the Best Picture nominees before the nominations were even announced. I came really close (one off) a couple years ago, and last year I managed it easily.

This year, not only have I easily managed that, but I’ve almost managed to see every single major awards contender before the nominations (missed out on Roman J. Israel and Molly’s Game, wanted to see the former but it past me by, been trying to see the latter the past couple weeks and came very close to last night). I guess this will be my new goal next year.

However what’s pretty funny that I’m just realizing is that I’ve almost already seen every movie in every category. Not counting original song, which is a bullshit category, the only other film I haven’t seen is Victoria and Abdul (and even if you count song there are only two more).

Less impressive is animated, where I’ve only seen one, and my showing in foreign and documentary is pathetic as I’ve seen none (as for shorts it’s essentially impossible to see most beforehand).

Anyway, what’s the verdict, should I watch more movies, or less movies?

I tried to pull off this as well and came relatively close. What were some of your favorites? For me I thought that A Ghost Story went really under the radar.

A Ghost Story was very good, very small film that came and went from theaters in flash but it’s on Amazon Prime now so hopefully more people will see it.

My top ten this year:

1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi
2. Dunkirk
3. Phantom Thread
4. The Post
5. Baby Driver
6. Blade Runner 2049
7. Get Out
8. The Disaster Artist
9. War For the Planet of the Apes
10. Lady Bird

Interesting that Three Billboards and Shape of Water are left out of here? I wasn’t the biggest fan of Shape of Water but overall really enjoyed Three Billboards. The writing felt a bit sloppier than some would say but it was pretty satisfying for me.

I think I put Three Billboards and Shape of Water at 12 and 13, respectively (with Call Me by Your Name at 11). I thought both were really very good but a bit on the overhyped side (for very different reasons).

darthrush said:

DominicCobb said:

yhwx said:

Apparently a woman’s been nominated for cinematography for the first time. What do we think of that?

About time, apparently it was the only category where a woman had never been nominated.

I’m very happy for the nomination as well. I must admit that I am still rooting for Deakins to take home the win. I just feel he finally deserves one and I think the cinematography in 2049 is impeccable.

Yeah I think he’s deserved one for quite a while. His work on BR2049 is impressive as always but I think Hoyte van Hoytema’s Dunkirk is some of the finest cinematography I’ve seen in a long time.