DrDre

RogueLeader said:

Thank you! Yeah, we’re just coming at with different viewpoints, and I’ve found that viewpoints definitely evolve over time. So to me all our conversations are about learning different perspectives and interpretations. So hopefully in the end we can both acknowledge criticisms and find things to appreciate about it.

There are things I appreciate about it, and at times I almost like it, so I hope TROS will tip the scales. 😉 These conversations certainly hel me appreciate it more, seeing it through someone else’s mind.

RogueLeader said:

It is not a cynical message at all in my opinion. I think this story is for everyone, but to me, most of all, it is for those people who feel like they have lost everything. People whose greatest fears came to true (like Luke, Han and Leia).

Not to get too personal, but these last few years of my life have been some of the hardest for me. Personal loss, betrayal, total failure. I recently had to start back at square one, and it almost feels like my life is repeating itself. Maybe that is why I relate to the new movies so much. I’ve experienced what feels like history repeating itself, my greatest fears manifesting, really doubting any hope for the future. So I think I can really relate with the emotions the characters are going through. And since these characters function as role models of a sorts, seeing them at their lowest point after they thought things were good, and being able to persevere and still find that hope is really powerful to me.

So maybe not everyone can immediately relate to that, but I think in some shape or form most if not all people go through that experience of being at their lowest point, and that is who I think this story is for. If our heroes can come back from their greatest fears coming true, then maybe I can too.

I’m happy to hear, that you were able to relate to the story, and that it has inspired you in this way. Despite of how I personally feel about these films, any film that manages to inspire people is a success on some level. 😃

RogueLeader said:

That is totally not what I took from the movie. It seems like you’re taking a super depressing message whereas I see a really hopeful one. Unless I’m misinterpreting you. Our failures and mistakes make us think we aren’t capable of becoming who we want to be, but if we continue to believe in ourselves we can overcome our failures and eventually become who we want to be. Luke doesn’t think he is the legend people believe in, but in the end he once again believes in himself and truly becomes that legend. In TLJ, the legend has both tangible and symbolic value.

The way you describe Lucas’ work is exactly what happens in RJ’s work. Luke overcomes his flaws and reaches a state of enlightenment.

The reason I’m more inclined to go for the depressing message is, that I find much of what I have seen depressing. The heroes of the OT lived to see all that they fought for destroyed. Han and Leia’s relationship dissolved, while their son became a homicidal maniac, who ultimately murdered his father, Luke saw his Jedi academy destroyed, and abandoned his friends, and the galaxy at large, the New Republic was wiped out in an instant, once again forcing the good guys in the role of an even smaller rebellion. To me Luke finding a shred of dignity, and some hope that the next generation may make things right for a while cannot compensate for the depressing notion, that some evil force can just be pulled from behind the curtain to push the reset button without explanation. The real hope for me is that TROS will provide some much needed context to help me believe our heroes can finally break this rather cynical and depressing cycle.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

Well, I’m not the one saying that TLJ is deconstructing things. I’m not the one taking the middle of the film as the definitive take on its meaning. Normally you look at how a film ends to determine that. And thanks to Rogueleader’s comment above, I found a an endless string of articles on Star Wars being postmodern (the older films, not the ST). And really, there are as many interpretations of Star Wars as there are philosophies out there. There is no right answer because philosophy is really about what something means to you. What I see in all these claims of postmodernism is evidently very different. I found the term pre-modern to be most applicable. Lucas built it on a collection of old things set in bygone days. He added on the layers of internal myths and legends to create a layered and textured world that he threw us into. The list of his sources seems varied and endless. It is Casabalanca, Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Damn Busters, Flash Gordon, and so so many others. To know what all went into it would require a time machine to catch all the films and books that influenced him prior to when the film started shooting. As far as I can see, JJ and RJ have followed that eclectic inspiration as they have worked on these films. RJ even posted three films that he was watching for inspiration - Twelve O’clock High, To Catch A Thief, and Three Outlaw Samurai. Very much the type of films that Lucas would have watched (and he actually did watch Twelve O’clock High). I felt he ended up with a film that is closer to the original trilogy in feel than the others. While JJ tried to go back visually, RJ went back to the roots. And if his take is postmodern, then we really need to think about what it was Lucas did because he really created a new mythos for the modern world by basing it in a galaxy far away. If The Santa Clause and TLJ are postmodern, than the entire saga is a postmodern creation.

Like I said, the difference between Lucas and RJ is, that in Lucas’ work the hero works to become the legend, where the hero ultimately overcomes his or her flaws to reach a state of enlightenment, while in TLJ the legend is presented as having symbolic value, but ultimately unattainable in reality, because in the end the best we can hope for is to own our failures, and be at peace with our flawed human nature.

Luke is not the hero in TLJ so I don’t know what you are talking about. Rey is the hero.

That doesn’t really matter, since we’ve been made aware of the fact, that despite becoming a Jedi at the end of the last trilogy, Luke was not able to overcome his flawed human nature, and thus the state of enlightenment has been proven to be unattainable, not only to the hero of the OT, but of any trilogy that follows.

yotsuya said:

Well, I’m not the one saying that TLJ is deconstructing things. I’m not the one taking the middle of the film as the definitive take on its meaning. Normally you look at how a film ends to determine that. And thanks to Rogueleader’s comment above, I found a an endless string of articles on Star Wars being postmodern (the older films, not the ST). And really, there are as many interpretations of Star Wars as there are philosophies out there. There is no right answer because philosophy is really about what something means to you. What I see in all these claims of postmodernism is evidently very different. I found the term pre-modern to be most applicable. Lucas built it on a collection of old things set in bygone days. He added on the layers of internal myths and legends to create a layered and textured world that he threw us into. The list of his sources seems varied and endless. It is Casabalanca, Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Damn Busters, Flash Gordon, and so so many others. To know what all went into it would require a time machine to catch all the films and books that influenced him prior to when the film started shooting. As far as I can see, JJ and RJ have followed that eclectic inspiration as they have worked on these films. RJ even posted three films that he was watching for inspiration - Twelve O’clock High, To Catch A Thief, and Three Outlaw Samurai. Very much the type of films that Lucas would have watched (and he actually did watch Twelve O’clock High). I felt he ended up with a film that is closer to the original trilogy in feel than the others. While JJ tried to go back visually, RJ went back to the roots. And if his take is postmodern, then we really need to think about what it was Lucas did because he really created a new mythos for the modern world by basing it in a galaxy far away. If The Santa Clause and TLJ are postmodern, than the entire saga is a postmodern creation.

Like I said, the difference between Lucas and RJ is, that in Lucas’ work the hero works to become the legend, where the hero ultimately overcomes his or her flaws to reach a state of enlightenment, while in TLJ the legend is presented as having symbolic value, but ultimately unattainable in reality, because in the end the best we can hope for is to own our failures, and be at peace with our flawed human nature.

Broom Kid said:

I think the inability to allow Star Wars to be more than one thing at a time is pretty limiting, and the strictness by which people are outlining limits and borders as to what the definition of “Star Wars” is or can be tends be one of the most stubborn roots in a lot of Last Jedi conversations. It seems to be part of a desire to justify a dislike of what happens in the movie by going the extra step towards invalidating the product as not being “really” Star Wars.

The Last Jedi uses postmodernism to reaffirm the mythology, and - nakedly, earnestly - celebrates not just the mythology, but the power and majesty of it in its ending. Was the Force Awakens postmodern when it made Ben Solo/Kylo Ren an on-the-nose stand-in for toxic Star Wars fans? I’d say so. Is the Last Jedi postmodern by essentially putting about 40 years of composite Star Wars fan in the film via Broom Kid (hence my user-name)? Absolutely. Short of fans managing to climb the fandom ladder and get industry jobs that put them on camera, Temiri Blagg is probably the single best chance for a large segment of Star Wars fandom to see themselves AS themselves in a Star Wars film. But I don’t see that as a negative thing, or even necessarily against the “rules” of Star Wars. Star Wars was considered “post-modern” at the time, as has already been pointed out. For a lot of people (myself included) the grasp on the concept is inherently slippery due to the ever-shifting idea of what “modernity” even is depending on when the claim is being made. Modernity in the '60s isn’t the same as it is in 2020.

This precisely the crux of the matter. Mythology and a meta narrative celebrating the power of mythology is not the same thing. Whether it needs to be the same, is a whole other question.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

Except in this Christmas story Santa Claus is still magic.

I can’t believe I’m making this comparison but does that mean Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause is a post-modernist take on the Santa folktale? In the film old Santa literally dies, and the new Santa is a mortal man who is struggling between his duties as a father-figure, and the duties of being this mythical folk character. He doesn’t think he is Santa, or even can be Santa. But in the end, he accepts the role because of how he can bring hope to children all around the world, even if he is just a man (albeit with actual magical powers).

Aren’t both stories a reaffirmation of the myth? Magic/the Force is real, and not a fabrication in both cases. Yes, Luke’s avatar is a fabrication, but it is also probably one the most powerful uses of the Force we’ve ever seen, the ultimate act of a Jedi. It’s a very real power that also demonstrated the power of his legend, and that in itself is a threat to the First Order’s authority.

I mean, by questioning the nature of the Jedi and Luke Skywalker it definitely plays in the post-modern sandbox, but when Rey gets to that island Luke doesn’t say, “Oh yeah, none of those stories are heard about me are true. I’m actually not a Jedi, and there is no such thing as the Force! It’s only midichlorians!”

Yes, I would say Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause is a postmodern take on Santa Clause, since Santa is aware of the fact, that Santa is a fabrication, an idea, not a real person. Like Luke at the end of TLJ Tim Allen’s character realizes it is important to sustain the legend, and so he accepts the role of Santa Clause.

How is it postmodern when it just takes the Doctor Who approach to Santa (it being an title and role rather than a single person). In the film Santa is a real person, not a fabrication or just an idea. Tim Allen does think that at the start and then is thrust into the role. It adds a new wrinkle to the myth but it perpetuates the Santa myth rather than revealing it to be false. A kid who believes in Santa can watch the film and still believe in Santa. If it was postmodern wouldn’t it have the opposite effect - someone believing in Santa watching it would come to believe that Santa is just a story.

It does not perpetuate the Santa myth, because the movie makes clear that anyone who accepts the “Santa Clause” can become Santa. Santa Clause is not a single person, or entity, but any person willing to literally and figuratively wear the mantle of Santa. The person wearing the suit is completely aware, that their purpose is to perpetuate the myth of Santa Clause, to honour the contract called the “Santa Clause”, until such time when the function of Santa is filled by a different person. This awareness is what separates true mythology from magical realism in postmodern fiction. Becoming Santa in this postmodern context is thus no different from becoming the President.

StarkillerAG said:

Yes, TLJ is postmodern. But does that mean it’s bad? I actually felt like the postmodern attitude of TLJ was a nice change of pace, especially after the boring corporate nostalgia bait that was TFA.

Well, I think it’s a little late in the game to shift gears like that, TLJ being the eighth chapter of an ongoing story and all. However, I would like to steer the discussion away from good, or bad, and focus more on the analysis of the film, and what its creator intended.

RogueLeader said:

Except in this Christmas story Santa Claus is still magic.

I can’t believe I’m making this comparison but does that mean Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause is a post-modernist take on the Santa folktale? In the film old Santa literally dies, and the new Santa is a mortal man who is struggling between his duties as a father-figure, and the duties of being this mythical folk character. He doesn’t think he is Santa, or even can be Santa. But in the end, he accepts the role because of how he can bring hope to children all around the world, even if he is just a man (albeit with actual magical powers).

Aren’t both stories a reaffirmation of the myth? Magic/the Force is real, and not a fabrication in both cases. Yes, Luke’s avatar is a fabrication, but it is also probably one the most powerful uses of the Force we’ve ever seen, the ultimate act of a Jedi. It’s a very real power that also demonstrated the power of his legend, and that in itself is a threat to the First Order’s authority.

I mean, by questioning the nature of the Jedi and Luke Skywalker it definitely plays in the post-modern sandbox, but when Rey gets to that island Luke doesn’t say, “Oh yeah, none of those stories are heard about me are true. I’m actually not a Jedi, and there is no such thing as the Force! It’s only midichlorians!”

Yes, I would say Tim Allen’s The Santa Clause is a postmodern take on Santa Clause, since Santa is aware of the fact, that Santa is a fabrication, an idea, not a real person. Like Luke at the end of TLJ Tim Allen’s character realizes it is important to sustain the legend, and so he accepts the role of Santa Clause.

Postmodernism and magical elements are not mutually exclusive. Magic is not a prerequisite of myth. Conversely its presence cannot be used as the definitive proof of the alleged mythic identity of a story. I would argue Luke’s powers in TLJ fall into the realm of “magical realism”, which is part of the postmodern literary movement. It is a style of fiction that paints a realistic view of the modern world while also adding magical elements. RJ uses the magical properties of the Jedi to maximum effect to sell his postmodern message. The key element here in my view, is as I’ve stated, that the postmodern use of mythic themes are mythmaking self-conscious of itself, aware that it is engaged in a premeditated act of fabrication, which Luke definitely is, and that ancient myth was not aware of itself as myth, which Luke also clearly is. So, unlike classic Star Wars TLJ in my view cannot be classified as myth, even if it uses mythic themes, and magical elements to tell its story. The magical element in the form of Luke’s Force projection is used to reaffirm the deconstruction of the the legend of Luke Skywalker, and to highlight its symbolic nature, not to reaffirm the in-universe reality of the legendary figure himself.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

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

I don’t have the time for a lengthy response right now but I don’t think modernism and postmodernism are exclusively opposing philosophies in general (both ideas can exist within a single work) and certainly not in the context of those two films, nor do I think the two films specifically align with those two movements (I actually don’t think TLJ is a very good example of a postmodern work). Even back to my comparison, I think one could easily make a similar argument about SW and TESB. Point ultimately being, such an analysis is subjective, and the idea that the two films objectively clash with each other is silly, as is the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith.

Who suggested the two films objectively clash with each other, or suggested that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith? You may disagree, but consider this. A great many critics consider RJ’s latest film Knives Out to be a postmodern work:

https://zodiacvideos.com/rian-johnson-trades-in-lightsabers-for-postmodern-whodunnit-knives-out/

It seems RJ takes great interest in postmodernism, and I personally see a pattern. You may feel TLJ is not a good example of a postmodern work, but I would say it is not for lack of trying. I would classify it as being a flawed postmodern work, as RJ struggled to fit his postmodern concepts to the largely modern myth that is Star Wars.

I would say that RJ used postmodernism as a way to frame Luke’s doubts about himself and the Jedi, but ultimately Luke’s doubts and Kylo’s entire philosophy fall in the face of the traditional Star Wars outlook that Leia, Rey, and Poe support and that Luke comes back to after talking to Yoda. I agree that postmodernism is entirely about questioning and doubting myths, but the entire focus of TLJ, at least as it related to that part of the story, is that doubting Luke and Kylo Ren are both wrong. The end of the film very much supports the return to myth and hope. Luke does not just fake the battle, he instantly elevates himself to mythic status. That is what the broom boy clip at the end means. He and his friends are replaying that fake battle without considering that it is fake. That is type of myth and legend and what it means in the Star Wars universe is against the postmodern goal of tearing down such myths. Luke’s part of TLJ is entirely about how far he has fallen and lifting him back up. Contrary to how many see the TLJ depiction of Luke, RJ was taking the Luke that Lucas and Abrams had created and giving him a path back. But not as the hero of the story (for his time as hero has passed), but as the myth and legend that gives hope to the galaxy and a tool and Leia can use to save the New Republic and that Rey can use to rebuild the Jedi. I get the feeling that you take the doubting Luke and Kylo Ren to be the voice of the story without truly considering what the end of the film means for where they were in the middle. Luke is playing the role of the Mentor redeemed. A little more eccentric take on the typical hero’s journey, but found often enough to not be too strange. TLJ takes him from that old fallen hero role and lifts him up to be the mentor that Rey needs to complete her journey. The end of TLJ really contradicts just about everything you keep trying to claim the movie means.

I disagree, and I believe you fundamentally misunderstand the postmodern perspective on and use of mythic themes:

The key lines here are, that:

“They [the postmodern use of mythic themes] are mythmaking self-conscious of itself, aware that it is engaged in a premeditated act of fabrication”.

“A contemporary antropologist has remarked of ancient myth, that…it was not aware of itself as myth”.

Luke and others in TLJ are completely aware or made aware, that he is engaged in a premeditated act of fabrication. Luke the myth, and legend has become a fabrication in-universe. That is the way postmodern fiction uses mythic themes. Showing these kids acting out Luke’s illusion, is like a movie showing kids believing in Santa Clause, whilst the viewer has been made aware, that in the story Santa knows, he’s wearing a fake beard. The ending of TLJ thus in the words of the author is more in the nature of post-mythic strategies than a true expression of myth.

Edit: I’ve addressed the magical elements of TLJ in a later post. Suffice to say, that TLJ’s use of magical elements like the Force doesn’t preclude it from being a postmodern work. In fact it falls under the category “magical realism”, which is part of the postmodern literary movement.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

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

I don’t have the time for a lengthy response right now but I don’t think modernism and postmodernism are exclusively opposing philosophies in general (both ideas can exist within a single work) and certainly not in the context of those two films, nor do I think the two films specifically align with those two movements (I actually don’t think TLJ is a very good example of a postmodern work). Even back to my comparison, I think one could easily make a similar argument about SW and TESB. Point ultimately being, such an analysis is subjective, and the idea that the two films objectively clash with each other is silly, as is the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith.

Who suggested the two films objectively clash with each other, or suggested that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith? You may disagree, but consider this. A great many critics consider RJ’s latest film Knives Out to be a postmodern work:

https://zodiacvideos.com/rian-johnson-trades-in-lightsabers-for-postmodern-whodunnit-knives-out/

It seems RJ takes great interest in postmodernism, and I personally see a pattern. You may feel TLJ is not a good example of a postmodern work, but I would say it is not for lack of trying. I would classify it as being a flawed postmodern work, as RJ struggled to fit his postmodern concepts to the largely modern myth that is Star Wars. I would argue RJ spends too much time deconstructing the mythology, and ultimately does too little to reconstruct it by the end of the film.

OutboundFlight said:

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

Postmodernism does not reject the notion of heroism, it just views it through a different lense, and so Luke in TLJ does not literally end up facing the whole FO with his lasersword, but symbolically. Luke doesn’t again become a legend, he just gives the galaxy at large a symbol to believe in, as the story simultaneously tells us we shouldn’t look for a Chosen One, or someone from a special lineage to deliver us from evil, but to ordinary people saving what they love. In the classic mythology the hero strives to become the ideal, the legend. In postmodernism the legend represents an ideal, that the hero can never attain. Luke the legend, and Luke the person are separate entities. This is made all the more clear in the way TLJ frames Luke near the end. Luke the aging broken, flawed human being through illusion perpetuates the legend of a more youthful invincible Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master, before dying not in a blaze of glory, but of overexertion at peace with his own fallibility. And so, the old ways die as lines between good and evil blur. Postmodernism claims that villains are created by the expectations of society, and are therefore, an essential part of the heroes they work against. By the end of TLJ Rey and Ben have become essential parts of each other, two sides of the same coin, holding a delicate balance.

screams in the void said:

except you left out the part where I clearly stated " I understand that some people genuinely do not like the direction of the new films,or the decisions of those making them , and have some ligitimate criticisms,but this is not the place to heir those concerns , you probably SHOULD start your own topic to express your views and if you are of a mind to take a stand and stick up for the aforementioned people making the movies and the people that like them that ARE being harrassed, then this is the place for it ."

That statement doesn’t change your definition of toxic fandom, though. It in essence just states, that not all those, that express negative views are part of the toxic fandom, but this thread is not about those views. However, the definition of toxic fandom you use, excludes those toxic fans, that insult, berate and harass those that dislike the movies. These people are not addressed in the above statement either. It’s not that you choose to exclude those people from the discussion in this thread, that bothers me. It’s that you exclude them from the definition of toxic fandom in general, that I take issue with.

That is why I applaud the article Anchorhead posted:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/when-fandom-is-the-problem-1835695031

It in my view rightly defines toxic fandom in the way fans engage with creators, and other fans in general, not across the line of like and dislike for a specific work.

screams in the void said:

…UHHHH, where did I ever conflate toxicity and racism with being a white male problem Dre ? And I was not the one who brought that video into the discussion here ,and I am not "laying claim " to anything , I think those who understand the spirit and intention of this thread know perfectly well what I meant

You misunderstand me. I did not say you conflate toxicity and racism with being a white male problem. I drew a parallel between defining toxicity as being strictly the insulting and berating and harassing one specific group of people, and defining racism as the insulting and berating and harassing a specific group of people. I’m not saying you define racism as such. I’m pointing out, that such definitions are faulty, and so rather than state:

“Being a toxic fan is when you’re insulting and berating and harassing the people making the movies or the people that like them.”

It would be more apt to state:

“Being a toxic fan is when you’re insulting and berating creators and other fans either in rejection or support of works of art. However, in this thread I would like to restrict the discussion to the toxic elements in the Star Wars fandom, that insult, berate, and harass the people making the movies or the people that like them.”

According to your definition a person who insults, berates, and harrasses those that dislike a movie are not toxic fans. I reject such a notion, just like I would reject the notion, that a person of color who insults, berates, and harrasses white men for the color of their skin, is not a racist.

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

Anchorhead said:

If these are already posted, I must have missed them. If not, they are both interesting reads.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-washington-posts-analysis-of-star-wars-toxic-fandom-1828856645

https://io9.gizmodo.com/when-fandom-is-the-problem-1835695031

The second article is a breath of fresh air, as it looks at toxicity as a negative exponent of fandom, and the relationship between fans and creators in general, and how a discussion within a fandom can become toxic both in the rejection, and in support of a work of art.

“Being a toxic fan is when you’re insulting and berating and harassing the people making the movies or the people that like them.”

I think it would be sensible to add “in the context of this thread”. There’s more to toxicity than what you’re suggesting, and while it’s your prerogotive to frame the discussion of this thread, I think it is rather odd to lay claim to a term in this manner. Toxic fandom is a term, that describes certain behaviours by fans in general, it isn’t limited to a specific group anymore than racism is limited to white men. Now, it is possible to limit a discussion to the racist expressions of white men, but to then rigourously define racism as insulting or berating non-white people, justly invites criticism, as your definition of toxic fandom does by me.

I also think, that if you are going to limit the scope of the discussion, it should be done in a consistent manner, and so we’re on a slippery slope when we applaud a video that conflates insulting and berating a work of art with harassing the people making the movies or the people that like them. Expressing a strong negative opinion on a work of art, no matter how unreasonable that opinion seems to be, does not automatically equate to toxicity. The fact that the creator of the video not just addresses the toxic elements in the fandom, but also attempts to frame these extremes as evidence, that many of the criticisms leveled at the work in question are invalid, makes the video suspect in my view.

DominicCobb said:

ATMachine said:

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

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

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

Star Wars & modernism:

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

TLJ & postmodernism:

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

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

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

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

I think one of the commentors says it best:

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

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

My point is that opinions of films do not always remain the same and some opinions fade into the background of history.

True, but one should consider that the pendulum can swing both ways. It’s not just negative opinions, that can fade fade into the background of history. It’s the positive as well.

And the 2nd Death Star only makes sense. If you develop a superweapon and your enemies destroy it, you build a bigger one. Not only is that realistic, but very in keeping with Flash Gordon.

Realism does not necessarily equate to a good story. I’m hoping TROS will not go for realism, but bring Star Wars back to its mythic roots.

yotsuya said:

TomArrow said:

OutboundFlight said:

I must ask, why do some claim “The Last Jedi is one the worst films ever”? I’m not attacking this opinion by any measure… but I don’t understand it at all. As someone more negative than positive towards TLJ, I must admit it creates a fun, cohesive narrative with masterful visuals. Are you that angry about Luke? Because you might argue the same has happened to Obi-Wan and Yoda, two legends who were reduced to a life of shit. I think some moments are flat-out “bad” (Luke trying to kill Ben, etc) but are those moments really worse than Jar Jar stepping in poop?

I just don’t think it’s a good movie in any way. It ignores everything that TFA set up, deliberately subverts reasonable expectations without being original while doing so, introduces very unlikable characters (imo) out of nowhere who make terrible decisions but are presented as heroes, has no world building or explanation of TFA’s world building, the main villains are turned into a giant goofy joke, highly illogical and boring main plotline, illogical character behavior, an entire illogical side plot that ultimately adds nothing to the story, no character arcs worth caring for … I could go on and on, but I’m sure it’s all been said before. Add to that the arrogant and condescending way in which the media and the filmmaker reacted to criticisms.

Personally, as someone who likes Star Wars, but isn’t really a fan, I could probably forgive a couple of things, like Luke, but it’s just a terrible movie in every other way too imo, even as a standalone. Except, as you said, the visuals. Disney of course has masters of the visual craft at its disposal, and John Williams’ score is naturally also always on point. It’s sure somewhat enjoyable to watch a single time, but that’s it for me.

Not saying it ruined Star Wars for me or anything dramatic like that, just that I find it hard to care about this sequel storyline after it.

About Jar Jar … well, I was a kid when I was watching the movies, so maybe I’m more forgiving out of nostalgia, but even so, that was just one part of mostly decent movies imo.

And a lot of us don’t agree and still can’t understand where you are coming from.

But this is supposed to be about TROS, not rehashing TLJ. I’d be curious to see how opinions change in the next 10 years (or just after TROS is out). For a long time TESB was considered the weakest movie of that trilogy and now it is considered the best. I’m hoping that TROS has a solid ending that die hard and casual fans love. If it goes how the supposed leaks are leaning I think it has a good chance.

TESB was never considered the weakest of the OT. For a while it was considered weaker than SW in some circles, but ROTJ was immediately seen as inferior to both with its more kid friendly approach, and its rehashing of the Death Star finale. By 1983 Lucas’ reputation was already more a toymaker, than filmmaker/artist.

Having gone through some of the rumours, I think I actually kind of like it. I think it fixes a lot of issues some people have had with the ST thusfar, and it definitely doesn’t look like it’s going to rehash the OT. I also like very much where things seem to be headed with Leia.

DominicCobb said:

Thinking a lot about the similarities amongst the three trilogies, and why some are okay with some and not others. My working theory at this point is that this is mainly because the PT similarities are mostly inconsequential. The similarities in both the PT and the ST are intentional, but I think perhaps more often than not the echoes in the PT aren’t as purposeful (beyond the basic “echoing”).

For instance, there’s a bar scene in each trilogy, but while Obi-wan cuts off someone’s arm in the PT and the OT, this is a rather arbitrary similarity, and in terms of plot it basically has nothing in common with the Mos Eisley Cantina scene (whereas Man’s Castle fits a similar role, despite key differences), so no wonder people aren’t bothered by it.

I think the most illustrative point of comparison is the ground battle in the middle chapter. TESB has the fight on Hoth in the opening third, and both AOTC and TLJ flip it and have it in the final third. But in AOTC, the ground battle is essentially background noise, almost entirely inconsequential to what’s going on (trying to capture Dooku). But in TLJ, the plot motivation behind the battle is very similar - the good guys are facing off to buy some time for those in the base. So the similarity is a lot more keenly felt, which is why I believe some take issue with it. But for me, this just shows the reasoning for the ST’s mirroring all the more clearly. This scene in the PT is an absolute mess, it’s nearly impossible to tell what’s going on and who’s doing what and why. When the walkers drop in and you’re reminded of Hoth, it only shines a light on how much more clearly the stakes and aims of that battle are defined. In TLJ, the comparison to TESB only furthers to reinforce the stakes of the scene at hand - it’s like Hoth, but the way things are different show how much worse matters are (the skimmers are falling apart, the plan is shoestring, and the rebels inside have no way of escaping, they’re literally sitting ducks waiting for help).

Similarly, both AOTC and TLJ mirror the Falcon on the run plot from TESB. AOTC does this in two ways: there’s the asteroid field chase, but the circumstances are completely different, and then of course there’s the subplot where two of their heroes are off in hiding (from bounty hunters amongst other things). But that “hiding” element is really just a catalyst, they’re under seemingly zero danger until they put themselves in it (essentially swapping the rhyme with Luke’s story), so the similarity is vague. Whereas in TLJ, they make the similarity a bit more obvious by having the chase through space be part of the on-the-run plot (as it is in TESB). But like the battle on Crait, invoking the TESB plot is done with purpose, to show how much worse things are for the Resistance. In TESB, it’s just the Falcon that doesn’t have hyperdrive; in TLJ, everyone has hyperdrive, but it doesn’t matter because the First Order can track them, so the entirety of the fleet is on the run.

Of course the “inconsequential” similarities can be a bit too much also. In both TPM and TFA, the aerial battle to take down the spherical battle station plays second fiddle to the more engaging lightsaber duel. And while the goals of the battles are the same - take out the threat (battle droids, super laser) - TFA takes the similarity a step too far by having it be essentially another Death Star. Now, I don’t think my theory here is quite exact, because ROTJ does that too, but I think it must be because there aren’t as many other similarities in ROTJ that it doesn’t bother people as much. Or maybe it did at one point but it’s been so long now no one cares. I don’t know, just thinking out loud.

I think you’re on to something. Good post!

DominicCobb said:

Mocata said:

The broad ideas of what Palpatine was doing are fine but the execution doesn’t really work when we’re supposed to believe that an entire army of clones was hidden, then used by the Jedi, then they killed the Jedi, all without anyone getting anything more than a “sense” something is wrong. Instead of some kind of actual hunt being shown. The Clone War should have been EPI, the purge should have been EpII and then the dark times EpIII. The whole trilogy should really have been re-structured to resemble a historical epic. The set pieces are there (chariot races and gladiator arenas) but the “Fall of the Roman Empire” style plot is complete shambles. And the wheel of time is again an interesting idea with a series about fated bloodlines and destiny etc but the way it mirrors the OT is far too sloppy. I don’t hate the PT… it’s just so boring and bad that it’s not watchable.

I think you’re absolutely right that the structure was way off. In this way I think Lucas would’ve been better served by trying to more closely align the trilogy with the OT. As is, the PT feels pretty disjointed due to the ten year gap. The first film is supposed to be the set up film but we end up with AOTC doing most of the actual set up (and the important set up from TPM, the characters, not really following through because of the ten year disconnect).

As for plot inconsistencies… I mean why are Luke and Leia in the films? Why is Vader’s resurrection? In fact why are characters like Yoda and Palpatine here? It should have been made to preserve all the twists and character reveals for new audiences but the toy line came first I guess. The OT had some much world building by referencing events and characters off screen, but here it’s all reduced down so that everything happens on Coruscant and Tatooine.

I disagree that the twists necessarily needed to be preserved (I mean basically the whole point of the trilogy was to give backstory to the twists), but I do agree that it seems to be a little too married to making sure that every single little piece is in order to tie into the OT. There’s definitely a distinct de-mystification going on in a lot of ways (obviously there’s stuff like midichlorians, but also things like Palpatine’s transformation).

I personally liked the idea of ol’ Palps being corrupted by the dark side more. I think that initially was what Lucas was going for in AOTC.

In ROTS Palpatine looks younger than in the previous installment. Additionally Palpatine allways looks off to me in ROTS, once he goes all out bad, and essentially became a cartoon villain. I thought he was brilliant up until the scene in which he revealed himself to Anakin. There was something sinister about the Emperor in ROTJ, that they never recaptured. He had this sort of arrogance, and self assurance, that made him instantly seem all powerful without lifting a finger.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Mocata said:

Those visuals are awful though. I hate the way Vader’s eyes are like crazy holograms.

I don’t see what’s so awful about those visuals. I can point to many prequel shots, that look bad, or less than convincing. I can point to a number of OT shots that look bad, but awful is reserved for a special kind of bad. This is awful:

In fairness, I think that effect actually resides in a world beyond merely “awful.” That being said, while a lot of the PT CG doesn’t hold up, easily the worst of the saga comes from the special editions (the sarlacc and 97 Jabba are particularly rough).

Hahaha, I guess you’re right. It is in it’s own class. It’s so bad, it’s almost good, or at least entertaining in it’s own horrendous way. That’s one of the things I miss in these CGI ridden days. There was always a sense of wonder in the old days for how they managed to pull off certain effects. Even if it didn’t look quite convincing, there usually was something to admire about it. I never got that same sense with of wonder with CGI. The only exceptions I can think of are dinos in Jurassic Park, and Gollum in LOTR.