DrDre

rodneyfaile said:

DrDre said:

rodneyfaile said:

DrDre said:

rodneyfaile said:

DrDre said:

Ocrop27 said:

I see many people saying that TLJ deconstructs the myth of Star Wars. I think this is a valid interpretation, but not entirely true. In my view this movie tests the myth, yes, it creates terrible (and incredible) obstacles for the heroes, making them question what was once unquestionable. “dead heroes”, as Leia told Poe, reminding us that in fact not everything serves a divine purpose as we usually believe for these films.

But after the dark journey that was the TLJ, we have a much more powerful myth, in my opinion. One that goes beyond the old norm, because it does not abandon what has already been, it just puts to the test and adds the new concepts. Luke in Crait was real, he inspired the Galaxy, saved the resistance and faced his biggest mistake, Ben. He was a great hero, but still only a man capable of making mistakes.

All the characters in this movie have their truths tested and evolve from that. Just as the film itself tests the truths of the saga (as TESB and TPM did before). I agree that this film has a postmodern side, consequent of the time in which we live, but I do not think that it left the myth, only magnified.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. TLJ deconstructs the legend of Luke Skywalker, and turns him into the deeply flawed man Luke Skywalker. Luke then creates a new in-universe legend or myth of himself within the story. This is not the same as creating a myth for the benefit of the viewer. TLJ is a film about myth and legend, not a myth onto itself. If the OT is the story of how on the North Pole, there’s a mythical person called Santa Clause, who makes toys and then delivers them to children all around the world on Christmas Day, then TLJ is a story about a disillusioned fat old drunk, who tells a young girl, who’s come looking for the legend of Santa Clause, that he hates Christmas, and that Santa Clause doesn’t exist. After refusing to put on his red suit for the entire story, the old drunk redeems himself by donning the red suit one more time, and giving his greatest performance in the holiday parade, convincing children in the story one last time that Santa is real, before shuffling off the mortal coil. To summarize, a story about Santa Clause is not the same as a story about a guy playing Santa Clause.

I’d say that the legend of Santa is still intact.

Once you take off the beard and the suit, it becomes very hard to sell the reality of Santa Clause.

Santa just stopped believing in himself and even the concept of Christmas because he couldn’t decide if Ben was naughty or nice.

Eventually he forgives himself, learns from his mistakes, not only saves the day, but reaffirms the legend of Santa and the values of Christmas for a new generation.

No, Santa reaffirms the legend of Santa and the values of Christmas to the children in the story. However, us critics have already seen Santa without his beard and suit, so we won’t be fooled again.

The legend is perfectly intact. Your delusion of perfection is gone. That is the lesson Luke had to learn too.

Becoming a Jedi is a metaphore for reaching a state of enlightenment, an ideal. When Luke says I’m a Jedi, like my father before me, he has grown beyond himself, and beyond his father. That was Luke’s arc. The ST then destroys that arc, by having Luke forsake everything he once believed in, only to pass on the baton to the next new hope, who again has to fight another Empire, and another fallen Jedi student. In effect the ST has Luke take off his beard and red suit, and then pass it on to Rey, and then expects us to believe Rey’s the real Santa Clause.

Just because he lost his way for a while doesn’t invalidate everything he did before or after.

It does, if the after is mostly a reprise of what came before. The legend of Luke was deconstructed, such that we can have the legend of Rey, who we now should believe will properly end the nine part saga. Why should we believe in the finality of this victory, or the legend of Rey for that matter? The circumstances of the ST are too similar to the OT for me to believe the outcome will be any less fleeting than the OT’s victory has turned out to be.

chyron8472 said:

Luke Skywalker is not Santa Claus.

He doesn’t have to be the larger-than-life legend that we’d made him out to be, and it would make sense that he still fights some element of the same personal struggles he had when he was younger.

Luke doesn’t just fight some element of the same personal struggles he had when he was younger. He has forsaken everyone and everything he once held dear, and for what? To have us go through Empire versus rebels again with Luke 2.0, who’s now going to really give us the final final victory.

rodneyfaile said:

DrDre said:

rodneyfaile said:

DrDre said:

Ocrop27 said:

I see many people saying that TLJ deconstructs the myth of Star Wars. I think this is a valid interpretation, but not entirely true. In my view this movie tests the myth, yes, it creates terrible (and incredible) obstacles for the heroes, making them question what was once unquestionable. “dead heroes”, as Leia told Poe, reminding us that in fact not everything serves a divine purpose as we usually believe for these films.

But after the dark journey that was the TLJ, we have a much more powerful myth, in my opinion. One that goes beyond the old norm, because it does not abandon what has already been, it just puts to the test and adds the new concepts. Luke in Crait was real, he inspired the Galaxy, saved the resistance and faced his biggest mistake, Ben. He was a great hero, but still only a man capable of making mistakes.

All the characters in this movie have their truths tested and evolve from that. Just as the film itself tests the truths of the saga (as TESB and TPM did before). I agree that this film has a postmodern side, consequent of the time in which we live, but I do not think that it left the myth, only magnified.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. TLJ deconstructs the legend of Luke Skywalker, and turns him into the deeply flawed man Luke Skywalker. Luke then creates a new in-universe legend or myth of himself within the story. This is not the same as creating a myth for the benefit of the viewer. TLJ is a film about myth and legend, not a myth onto itself. If the OT is the story of how on the North Pole, there’s a mythical person called Santa Clause, who makes toys and then delivers them to children all around the world on Christmas Day, then TLJ is a story about a disillusioned fat old drunk, who tells a young girl, who’s come looking for the legend of Santa Clause, that he hates Christmas, and that Santa Clause doesn’t exist. After refusing to put on his red suit for the entire story, the old drunk redeems himself by donning the red suit one more time, and giving his greatest performance in the holiday parade, convincing children in the story one last time that Santa is real, before shuffling off the mortal coil. To summarize, a story about Santa Clause is not the same as a story about a guy playing Santa Clause.

I’d say that the legend of Santa is still intact.

Once you take off the beard and the suit, it becomes very hard to sell the reality of Santa Clause.

Santa just stopped believing in himself and even the concept of Christmas because he couldn’t decide if Ben was naughty or nice.

Eventually he forgives himself, learns from his mistakes, not only saves the day, but reaffirms the legend of Santa and the values of Christmas for a new generation.

No, Santa reaffirms the legend of Santa and the values of Christmas to the children in the story. However, us critics have already seen Santa without his beard and suit, so we won’t be fooled again.

The legend is perfectly intact. Your delusion of perfection is gone. That is the lesson Luke had to learn too.

Becoming a Jedi is a metaphore for reaching a state of enlightenment, an ideal. When Luke says I’m a Jedi, like my father before me, he has grown beyond himself, and beyond his father. That was Luke’s arc. The ST then destroys that arc, by having Luke forsake everything he once believed in, including the sister and friends he once would have protected at an cost. TLJ then has him pass on the baton to the next new hope, who again has to fight another Empire, and another fallen Jedi student with the aid of another group of rebels. In effect the ST has Luke take off his beard and red suit, then has him pass it on to Rey, and then expects us to believe Rey’s the real Santa Clause.

rodneyfaile said:

DrDre said:

Ocrop27 said:

I see many people saying that TLJ deconstructs the myth of Star Wars. I think this is a valid interpretation, but not entirely true. In my view this movie tests the myth, yes, it creates terrible (and incredible) obstacles for the heroes, making them question what was once unquestionable. “dead heroes”, as Leia told Poe, reminding us that in fact not everything serves a divine purpose as we usually believe for these films.

But after the dark journey that was the TLJ, we have a much more powerful myth, in my opinion. One that goes beyond the old norm, because it does not abandon what has already been, it just puts to the test and adds the new concepts. Luke in Crait was real, he inspired the Galaxy, saved the resistance and faced his biggest mistake, Ben. He was a great hero, but still only a man capable of making mistakes.

All the characters in this movie have their truths tested and evolve from that. Just as the film itself tests the truths of the saga (as TESB and TPM did before). I agree that this film has a postmodern side, consequent of the time in which we live, but I do not think that it left the myth, only magnified.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. TLJ deconstructs the legend of Luke Skywalker, and turns him into the deeply flawed man Luke Skywalker. Luke then creates a new in-universe legend or myth of himself within the story. This is not the same as creating a myth for the benefit of the viewer. TLJ is a film about myth and legend, not a myth onto itself. If the OT is the story of how on the North Pole, there’s a mythical person called Santa Clause, who makes toys and then delivers them to children all around the world on Christmas Day, then TLJ is a story about a disillusioned fat old drunk, who tells a young girl, who’s come looking for the legend of Santa Clause, that he hates Christmas, and that Santa Clause doesn’t exist. After refusing to put on his red suit for the entire story, the old drunk redeems himself by donning the red suit one more time, and giving his greatest performance in the holiday parade, convincing children in the story one last time that Santa is real, before shuffling off the mortal coil. To summarize, a story about Santa Clause is not the same as a story about a guy playing Santa Clause.

I’d say that the legend of Santa is still intact.

Once you take off the beard and the suit, it becomes very hard to sell the reality of Santa Clause.

Santa just stopped believing in himself and even the concept of Christmas because he couldn’t decide if Ben was naughty or nice.

No, Santa decided Ben was naughty before Ben did anything bad, because Santa thought he could see the future. Santa then instinctively refused to give Ben his present, causing Ben to stop believing in Santa Clause, and to devote himself to the Grinch.

Eventually he forgives himself, learns from his mistakes, not only saves the day, but reaffirms the legend of Santa and the values of Christmas for a new generation.

No, Santa reaffirms the legend of Santa and the values of Christmas to the children in the story. However, us critics have already seen Santa without his beard and suit, so we won’t be fooled again.

dahmage said:

DrDre said:

However, like many of us viewers she doesn’t find the legendary last Jedi on Ach-To, but a fat old drunk, who now hates Christmas.

Hyperbole lives on!

Luke shut himself off from the Force, and wants to die on a forsaken island. It doesn’t seem that much of a hyperbole to me. At least my drunk still wants to live, if only for the bottle.

NeverarGreat said:

DrDre said:

Ocrop27 said:

I see many people saying that TLJ deconstructs the myth of Star Wars. I think this is a valid interpretation, but not entirely true. In my view this movie tests the myth, yes, it creates terrible (and incredible) obstacles for the heroes, making them question what was once unquestionable. “dead heroes”, as Leia told Poe, reminding us that in fact not everything serves a divine purpose as we usually believe for these films.

But after the dark journey that was the TLJ, we have a much more powerful myth, in my opinion. One that goes beyond the old norm, because it does not abandon what has already been, it just puts to the test and adds the new concepts. Luke in Crait was real, he inspired the Galaxy, saved the resistance and faced his biggest mistake, Ben. He was a great hero, but still only a man capable of making mistakes.

All the characters in this movie have their truths tested and evolve from that. Just as the film itself tests the truths of the saga (as TESB and TPM did before). I agree that this film has a postmodern side, consequent of the time in which we live, but I do not think that it left the myth, only magnified.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. TLJ deconstructs the legend of Luke Skywalker, and turns him into the deeply flawed man Luke Skywalker. Luke then creates a new in-universe legend or myth of himself within the story. This is not the same as creating a myth for the benefit of the viewer. TLJ is a film about myth and legend, not a myth onto itself. If the OT is the story of how on the North Pole, there’s a mythical person called Santa Clause, who makes toys and then delivers them to children all around the world on Christmas Day, then TLJ is a story about a disillusioned fat old drunk, who tells a young girl who’s come looking for the legend of Santa Clause, that Santa Clause doesn’t exist. After refusing to put on his red suit for the entire story, the fat guy redeems himself by donning the red suit one more time, and giving his greatest performance in the holiday parade, convincing children in the story one last time that Santa is real, before shuffling off the mortal coil.

Except that Luke was indeed a magical Jedi, and has only recently cut himself off from the Force. When he returns, it’s not at all like Santa being in a parade - he’s doing Force magic that is so difficult that the effort ultimately kills him.

Now I imagine Tim Allen finding Luke’s robot hand on the island with a card instructing him on being the new Last Jedi.

There are different levels of fiction in the Star Wars universe. The legend of the heroic Luke Skywalker who fought the Empire, redeemed his father, and then went on to become a wise Jedi Master is one of those levels of fiction. The legend of the wise Jedi of old, who were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic is another. Both of these legends are deflated and deconstructed by TLJ.

Rey in TFA is like the viewer. She believes in the legend of Luke Skywalker and the wisdom and power of the Jedi. She believes in the myth, that a true Jedi would never give up, even when facing the most terrible odds. However, like many of us viewers she doesn’t find the legendary last Jedi on Ach-To, but a fat old drunk, who now hates Christmas. Rey, a character supposedly part of a modern myth, learns that myths and legends aren’t real.

Ocrop27 said:

I see many people saying that TLJ deconstructs the myth of Star Wars. I think this is a valid interpretation, but not entirely true. In my view this movie tests the myth, yes, it creates terrible (and incredible) obstacles for the heroes, making them question what was once unquestionable. “dead heroes”, as Leia told Poe, reminding us that in fact not everything serves a divine purpose as we usually believe for these films.

But after the dark journey that was the TLJ, we have a much more powerful myth, in my opinion. One that goes beyond the old norm, because it does not abandon what has already been, it just puts to the test and adds the new concepts. Luke in Crait was real, he inspired the Galaxy, saved the resistance and faced his biggest mistake, Ben. He was a great hero, but still only a man capable of making mistakes.

All the characters in this movie have their truths tested and evolve from that. Just as the film itself tests the truths of the saga (as TESB and TPM did before). I agree that this film has a postmodern side, consequent of the time in which we live, but I do not think that it left the myth, only magnified.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. TLJ deconstructs the legend of Luke Skywalker, and turns him into the deeply flawed man Luke Skywalker. Luke then creates a new in-universe legend or myth of himself within the story. This is not the same as creating a myth for the benefit of the viewer. TLJ is a film about myth and legend, not a myth onto itself. If the OT is the story of how on the North Pole, there’s a mythical person called Santa Clause, who makes toys and then delivers them to children all around the world on Christmas Day, then TLJ is a story about a disillusioned fat old drunk, who tells a young girl, who’s come looking for the legend of Santa Clause, that he hates Christmas, and that Santa Clause doesn’t exist. After refusing to put on his red suit for the entire story, the old drunk redeems himself by donning the red suit one more time, and giving his greatest performance in the holiday parade, convincing children in the story one last time that Santa is real, before shuffling off the mortal coil. To summarize, a story about Santa Clause is not the same as a story about a guy playing Santa Clause.

Mrebo said:

A pretty good critical look at Luke’s characterization from someone who really enjoyed the movie. Some good comparisons to the movie “Logan.”

Yeah, that sums my feelings up very well.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

Collipso said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

But at the end of TESB we are left with Han frozen and the rebellion baseless. In TLJ we are left with the characters intact but the Resistance in shambles, but with hope. But in TESB, we have a galaxy wide Empire that is strong and unwavering. In TLJ, we have a First Order just beginning its conquest, not yet cemented or truly in power yet. The crawl uses the word reigns, but I take that to mean there is no force to oppose them rather than they have actually taken over anything and the rest of the text of the crawl agrees with that as does the movie dialog. It also provides a reason why Leia’s call was not answered. But the final scene in the stable shows that Luke had again brought hope and if word has reached Canto Bight, it will spread across the galaxy and give courage to those who want to resist the First Order’s conquest.

Yes, but that’s where our interpretations differ. TLJ makes a strong case, that the FO is a pretty much unstoppable force. Apart from the crawl, there’s the statement in the film, that the FO will control all major systems in weeks. This might not be very credible, but this is the message the film tries to get across. Then there’s the fact, that the Resistance/rebellion is decimated. People might be inspired, but it is hope without substance, wishful thinking at best. It is a spark that has to evaporate an ocean of bad. It may turn into a great big fire, but it may also be extinguished. If the latter is not the case, there’s no more tension in the film, as the heroes will prevail no matter what. The situation at the end of TESB is quite different. The Rebel Alliance may be without a base, but it has a fleet and personel. It has a real hope of defeating the Empire, more than just inspiration. There are unresolved story threads, like what will become of Han Solo? Is Darth Vader really Luke’s father? Is the Emperor really so powerful, that he can boss around Darth Vader? What is left to resolve after TLJ? I would say very little, other than the rebellion has to somehow reform, and beat the FO.

I tend to agree with this. “So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause” we had to wait 20 years for any sort of resistance or rebellion to rise again the Empire. Rebels has established that it happened more or less at the same time, with several cells rebelling in several places. But that was 15 years after RotS. Unless we have a huge time jump now, it’s going to be hard to have a huge showdown RotJ-style in IX and make it believable. But I hope they pull it off if they decide to go for it.

I wonder if they’re going to do something different for IX that not the final Rebels vs Empire and Rey vs Kylo confrontation. I really hope so.

The big difference. At the end of ROTS, you have the long established Galactic Republic turn into the first Galactic Empire. That means all the institutions, all the structure, everything remains in place and there is just a change at the top. In the ST, we have the capitol of the new Republic destroyed along with the fleet. The First Order is moving in (present action, not yet completed) so they will have to come in and establish a new structure and build it from scratch. On some world they may just be able to step into the Republic’s shoes, other they will have to fight to gain control. They cannot just walk into the role of the Republic like the Emperor did in ROTS. So the situation is entirely different. If Leia can raise a fleet in time, they could still stop the First Order from gaining any real power in the remains of the Republic and many of the Republic world will likely form a new govenment on another world. There is no easy path here like the Emperor spent so many years arranging for himself. The First Order was always about conquest of the new Republic while the Empire was about subjugation of the extant old Republic.

It will not take 20 years to gather allies to fight back. It could happen in weeks or months and be realistic.

How? It took the Allies three years to mount an attack against the Axis powers in WWII, who like the FO conquered continental Europe in a matter of weeks. The allies were mostly sovereign nations with their military power intact. The Resistance is in ruins. Even if they still have allies, it takes years to form and build an organisation with a unified agenda. The weeks or months prognosis is completely unrealistic even in the GFFA.

Um… that is one front of one war. It took 4 months for the US to mount the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo. The battle of Midway was 7 months to the day from Pearl Harbor. By the time D-day happened half the battles in the Pacific had been fought. And you are talking about a major invasion of occupied territory. That is not the case as we leave the story in TLJ. The Republic had a fleet, but unless they were absolutely crazy, so did many of the worlds of the Republic. Where is the Mon Calamari fleet? And there are bound to be others. And if you think they aren’t out there, then why did Leia send that message? When you consider all the pieces given to us in TLJ, the First Order invasion is not going to be met without a fight. And an invasion force is only good until it is spread too thin.

Also, the other theaters of WWII were North Africa, Mediterranean, and the Eastern Front, all of which saw major activity prior to D-day. Also, the war was going for 2 years with plenty of activity on all fronts before Pearl Harbor. So your analogy is way way off.

Actually it is not, as many of the allied countries that mounted those attacks you mention were not invaded. As I stated these were sovereign nations with fully intact military capabilities. As TLJ states, the FO will control all the major systems in weeks. You continue to ignore what is stated jn the film. This clearly implies these systems do not have the military capabilities to stop them. So, a rebellion would have to be mounted from occupied territory. As such the comparisson to the battle of Midway is way off. If anything it would take much longer to organize a rebellion, because unlike the resistance organisations in many occupied countries during WWII, the rebellion in the GFFA is not supported by sovereign military powers.

yotsuya said:

Collipso said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

But at the end of TESB we are left with Han frozen and the rebellion baseless. In TLJ we are left with the characters intact but the Resistance in shambles, but with hope. But in TESB, we have a galaxy wide Empire that is strong and unwavering. In TLJ, we have a First Order just beginning its conquest, not yet cemented or truly in power yet. The crawl uses the word reigns, but I take that to mean there is no force to oppose them rather than they have actually taken over anything and the rest of the text of the crawl agrees with that as does the movie dialog. It also provides a reason why Leia’s call was not answered. But the final scene in the stable shows that Luke had again brought hope and if word has reached Canto Bight, it will spread across the galaxy and give courage to those who want to resist the First Order’s conquest.

Yes, but that’s where our interpretations differ. TLJ makes a strong case, that the FO is a pretty much unstoppable force. Apart from the crawl, there’s the statement in the film, that the FO will control all major systems in weeks. This might not be very credible, but this is the message the film tries to get across. Then there’s the fact, that the Resistance/rebellion is decimated. People might be inspired, but it is hope without substance, wishful thinking at best. It is a spark that has to evaporate an ocean of bad. It may turn into a great big fire, but it may also be extinguished. If the latter is not the case, there’s no more tension in the film, as the heroes will prevail no matter what. The situation at the end of TESB is quite different. The Rebel Alliance may be without a base, but it has a fleet and personel. It has a real hope of defeating the Empire, more than just inspiration. There are unresolved story threads, like what will become of Han Solo? Is Darth Vader really Luke’s father? Is the Emperor really so powerful, that he can boss around Darth Vader? What is left to resolve after TLJ? I would say very little, other than the rebellion has to somehow reform, and beat the FO.

I tend to agree with this. “So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause” we had to wait 20 years for any sort of resistance or rebellion to rise again the Empire. Rebels has established that it happened more or less at the same time, with several cells rebelling in several places. But that was 15 years after RotS. Unless we have a huge time jump now, it’s going to be hard to have a huge showdown RotJ-style in IX and make it believable. But I hope they pull it off if they decide to go for it.

I wonder if they’re going to do something different for IX that not the final Rebels vs Empire and Rey vs Kylo confrontation. I really hope so.

The big difference. At the end of ROTS, you have the long established Galactic Republic turn into the first Galactic Empire. That means all the institutions, all the structure, everything remains in place and there is just a change at the top. In the ST, we have the capitol of the new Republic destroyed along with the fleet. The First Order is moving in (present action, not yet completed) so they will have to come in and establish a new structure and build it from scratch. On some world they may just be able to step into the Republic’s shoes, other they will have to fight to gain control. They cannot just walk into the role of the Republic like the Emperor did in ROTS. So the situation is entirely different. If Leia can raise a fleet in time, they could still stop the First Order from gaining any real power in the remains of the Republic and many of the Republic world will likely form a new govenment on another world. There is no easy path here like the Emperor spent so many years arranging for himself. The First Order was always about conquest of the new Republic while the Empire was about subjugation of the extant old Republic.

It will not take 20 years to gather allies to fight back. It could happen in weeks or months and be realistic.

How? It took the Allies three years to mount an attack against the Axis powers in WWII, who like the FO conquered continental Europe in a matter of weeks. The allies were mostly sovereign nations with their military power intact. The Resistance is in ruins. Even if they still have allies, it takes years to form and build an organisation with a unified agenda. The weeks or months prognosis is completely unrealistic even in the GFFA.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

Collipso said:
Like Mithrandir said several pages ago, what RJ did with Luke was possibly the best way to go given what was setup in VII. The only thing I still disagree with RJ is that I don’t think Luke would ever even consider murdering Ben in his sleep, nor that it’d be something or some kind of instinct that would pass like a fleeting shadow.

I don’t completely agree. Han said in TFA, that Luke went looking for the First Jedi Temple. This in my view implies two things:

1. The location of the First Jedi Temple was unknown, and it may have taken Luke quite a while to find it.
2. Luke went there for a reason.

Then theres are these lines in the TFA screenplay, which describe my sense of the final scenes of TFA pretty well:

“Older now, white hair, bearded. He looks at Rey. A kindness in his eyes, but there’s something tortured, too. He doesn’t need to ask her who she is, or what she is doing here. His look says it all.”

So, I always assumed Luke went looking for the First Jedi Temple to find some answers for how to deal with his failed attempt to rebuild the Jedi Order. While there he discovers Rey may have an important role to play in the future of the Jedi amongst other things, and knows she will come to find him, when the time is right. This is why Luke stands there in ceremonial Jedi robes. The master is waiting for the student.

I’m convinced JJ had a very different idea in mind, when he filmed that final scene.

One reason I hate the scene in TFA. Other than showing Luke, it serves no purpose to the story. Finding the map was a good ending. They find the map and Rey leaves to find him. Sticking that scene in there without any resolution was a dumb move. Unless Abrams was doing the next one, the purpose of that scene cannot be determined from any TFA source. It has no ending so what Abrams intended is of no importance. We’ve spent two years trying to dissect it for meaning and RJ had a different vision and there is nothing in the scene as filmed that contradicts the direction RJ took it. You can look to the screenplay for Abrams intentions, but those intentions did not end up on screen. Neither did the floating rocks.

I don’t agree. Many people interpreted the final scene the way it was written in the script. I know, I did. If anything it made no sense for Luke to be standing there in full Jedi robes, if all he did was to sulk on a rock and drink alien milk. The first thing Luke did was take off the robes, and slip into something more unceremonious. The Jedi robes in a sense are representative of JJ’s vision, while Luke’s plain clothes are representative of RJ’s.

yotsuya said:

But at the end of TESB we are left with Han frozen and the rebellion baseless. In TLJ we are left with the characters intact but the Resistance in shambles, but with hope. But in TESB, we have a galaxy wide Empire that is strong and unwavering. In TLJ, we have a First Order just beginning its conquest, not yet cemented or truly in power yet. The crawl uses the word reigns, but I take that to mean there is no force to oppose them rather than they have actually taken over anything and the rest of the text of the crawl agrees with that as does the movie dialog. It also provides a reason why Leia’s call was not answered. But the final scene in the stable shows that Luke had again brought hope and if word has reached Canto Bight, it will spread across the galaxy and give courage to those who want to resist the First Order’s conquest.

Yes, but that’s where our interpretations differ. TLJ makes a strong case, that the FO is a pretty much unstoppable force. Apart from the crawl, there’s the statement in the film, that the FO will control all major systems in weeks. This might not be very credible, but this is the message the film tries to get across. Then there’s the fact, that the Resistance/rebellion is decimated. People might be inspired, but it is hope without substance, wishful thinking at best. It is a spark that has to evaporate an ocean of bad. It may turn into a great big fire, but it may also be extinguished. If the latter is not the case, there’s no more tension in the film, as the heroes will prevail no matter what. The situation at the end of TESB is quite different. The Rebel Alliance may be without a base, but it has a fleet and personel. It has a real hope of defeating the Empire, more than just inspiration. There are unresolved story threads, like what will become of Han Solo? Is Darth Vader really Luke’s father? Is the Emperor really so powerful, that he can boss around Darth Vader? What is left to resolve after TLJ? I would say very little, other than the rebellion has to somehow reform, and beat the FO.

Collipso said:
Like Mithrandir said several pages ago, what RJ did with Luke was possibly the best way to go given what was setup in VII. The only thing I still disagree with RJ is that I don’t think Luke would ever even consider murdering Ben in his sleep, nor that it’d be something or some kind of instinct that would pass like a fleeting shadow.

I don’t completely agree. Han said in TFA, that Luke went looking for the First Jedi Temple. This in my view implies two things:

1. The location of the First Jedi Temple was unknown, and it may have taken Luke quite a while to find it.
2. Luke went there for a reason.

Then theres are these lines in the TFA screenplay, which describe my sense of the final scenes of TFA pretty well:

“Older now, white hair, bearded. He looks at Rey. A kindness in his eyes, but there’s something tortured, too. He doesn’t need to ask her who she is, or what she is doing here. His look says it all.”

So, I always assumed Luke went looking for the First Jedi Temple to find some answers for how to deal with his failed attempt to rebuild the Jedi Order. While there he discovers Rey may have an important role to play in the future of the Jedi amongst other things, and knows she will come to find him, when the time is right. This is why Luke stands there in ceremonial Jedi robes. The master is waiting for the student.

I’m convinced JJ had a very different idea in mind, when he filmed that final scene.

dahmage said:

DrDre said:

dahmage said:

I think the suggestion to listen to the Empire podcast and hear from Rian himself is a good suggestion though. You will only re-inforce your own feelings if you read an article like that Dre. Where-as you could actually get real information directly fromt he Horses mouth if you listen to Rian explain some of the decisions he made.

time to come clean - i haven’t listened to that podcast myself yet.

I might give it a listen, although I did read the article. It’s always interesting to hear about a creator’s intentions. However, I also think a film should be analyzed on it’s own terms. The PT is based on some good concepts and ideas, but in the end it was the execution of those ideas that made it less than successful for me personally.

You are right, that external analysis is good, especially for judging how well the creator did what they intended to do. But if you give Rian a chance to help form your thinking, before giving random upset joe-schmoe that same chance, the odds are you will come out with a slightly higher appreciation for the film, than if you go the other way.

And at the end of the day, i just want all Star Wars fans to be the happiest fans they can be 😃

I agree. In the end I appreciate Lucas’ prequels more for what he tried to do with it, rather than what’s actually on the screen, and to be fair I appreciate Luke’s last stand in TLJ a lot more, since RJ explained his reasons for choosing to have Luke not be physically present at the end of the film. It’s actually my favourite part of TLJ.

dahmage said:

I think the suggestion to listen to the Empire podcast and hear from Rian himself is a good suggestion though. You will only re-inforce your own feelings if you read an article like that Dre. Where-as you could actually get real information directly fromt he Horses mouth if you listen to Rian explain some of the decisions he made.

time to come clean - i haven’t listened to that podcast myself yet.

I might give it a listen, although I did read the article. It’s always interesting to hear about a creator’s intentions. However, I also think a film should be analyzed on it’s own terms. The PT is based on some good concepts and ideas, but in the end it was the execution of those ideas that made it less than successful for me personally.

Matt.F said:

[DrDre said:](It’s certainly more articulate and respectful than your reponse to my post.

Okay, back to your usual ‘passive aggressive’ self.

Only in response to a passive aggressive post by you. You reap what you sow, my friend.

I’m absolutely fine with you (or anyone else) disagreeing with the article and my post, but starting a post with “what awful clickbait crap!” does not invite friendly discourse, as you probably well know.

Matt.F said:

Dre, oh dear. What an awful ad filled bit of clickbait crap!

“Understanding how the new movie went off the rails” Really?!

And then the guy spends the whole article comparing it to Tolkien.

If you really want an insightful deconstruction then listen to the Empire podcast, with Rian Johnson getting much deeper into the decisions, the story and the characters.

There’s nothing clickbait about it. The writer feels the movie went off the rails, and explains why he feels this way, and I agree with him. You probably don’t, and that’s fine, but crap? No siree! It’s certainly more articulate and respectful than your reponse to my post.

I’m still struggling with my antipathy for the Last Jedi. I enjoyed it on the surface. I enjoyed it’s set pieces. I enjoyed some of the twists. Yet, I can’t shake my deeper sense, that TLJ has severely undermined the mythology, by deconstructing Star Wars.

Then I read this article:

“Deconstructing Star Wars and 'The Last Jedi: Understanding how the new movie went off the rails.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/deconstructing-star-wars-and-the-last-jedi/article/2011020

I think this article describes many of my own feelings with regards to TLJ. In order to understand the film, I asked myself three simple questions: what? how? and why?

What does TLJ do exactly in my view? My answer is, that it attempts to deconstruct Star Wars, it’s myth, and legends, and replace it with a postmodernist point of view. The film to an extend recognizes myth and legend have a function, but at the same time makes it clear that they are not real. This view point is examplified in the final minutes of the film, where Luke faces off against the FO alone. The event is presented as a source of inspiration to the galaxy, and children in particular, but ultimately it’s all an illusion. The Star Wars mythology has become self-aware. In doing so Star Wars stops being a modern myth.

How does it do this? It does this by recycling many of the OT story threads, and set pieces, and placing them in a postmodern context. In broad strokes it tells the same story as TESB with some ROTJ thrown in the mix. As a Star Wars film it’s highly self-referential, characteristic of ‘postmodern’ writing. It’s the OT, but without what it considers to be mythological constraints. It replaces the heroes journey with anybody can be a hero. While on the surface this idea might seem appealing, it’s the implementation of this idea, that’s problematic in my view. Rey doesn’t choose to become a hero. The responsibility is thrust upon her by the Force. Darkness rises and light to meet it, says Snoke. Rey’s character doesn’t need to learn, progress, and struggle with temptation, because she apparently is the chosen representative of the light side of the Force.

Why does it do this? Here’s where the real crux is in my view. It does this without real purpose, meaning it doesn’t do this to tell an original story. TLJ sets the Star Wars universe back three decades. Luke’s act of defiance at the end of the film, while more symbolic, mirrors his heroic act at the end of ANH. The destruction of the first Death Star lit the fire that would destroy the Empire. Another Empire has to be beaten by a struggling rebellion, and another fallen Jedi apprentice has be be conquered by a new hope. We’re narratively right back to square one, which seems completely at odds with the idea, that TLJ puts the franchise in a new direction.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Well said, mate.

Not well said. As long as debates are civil, any subject should be open for discussion. I don’t tell anyone else what they should or should not write about, and I expect the same courtesy.

Neither did I. In fact, I specifically said feel free to dissect and rant. My point was to occasionally give some thought to taking a break from trying to beat the franchise and the fans who may not agree with you.

…It has been suggested by Jason, that too many negative posts allways warrent moderator action. I obviously feel this is not in the best interests of an open forum with a free flow of ideas, but also feel this is a bit disingenuous, considering the mostly negative threads on the prequels and special edition changes on this forum.

Actually, what I posted was… (and the full post can be found here - http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1156598)

oojason said:

An issue for anyone trying to read through this thread most likely - whether they agree or disagree - whatever their stance. Most topics on the site with seemingly endless repeated and circular negative content will eventually result in a mod trying address the issue therein.

Let’s not put words into the mouths of others, nor take them out of the context in which they were used. Ok.

The problem with this reasoning is, that:

1. As far as I can tell only those that disagree with the criticisms have expressed their frustration with what they apparently percieve to be endless repeated and circular negative content.

2. The endless repeated and circular negative content valuation is entirely subjective IMO.

3. The endless repeated and circular negative content is IMO inaccurate, as these debates involve two sides of the equation, which by extension must imply there’s endless repeated and circular positive content also.

4. I’m not the only poster who has expressed frustration with this in my view one sided approach. Several very eloquent posters have indicated they too feel the same way. These opinions are apparently ignored, in favour of the complaints by those posters with positive opinions of the film.

5. Most if not all toxic discussions are based on one side disrespecting the other with statements like “I can’t understand how anyone can like this movie”, “RJ has destroyed Star Wars”, or “First they complain about a lack of originality, and now it’s too original”. So, it’s not really about the positivity or negativity of the opinions towards the film, that are expressed, but how they are expressed.

6. Your post fails to address the apparent bias towards percieved endless repeated and circular negative content as opposed to percieved endless repeated and circular positive content. Aside from the lack of support in the forum rules, why is only negative content singled out? The forum rules restrict themselves to bad behaviour, and logically don’t put any restrictions on content, unless inflamatory or profane.

No, the problem is that you are sidestepping the issue and ignoring putting words into others mouths and taking them out of context.

All of these posts from your reaction to a moderator posting ‘By all means feel free to vent, deconstruct, debate, rage, etc. I do it occasionally myself. It’s what makes this forum work. However, maybe give some serious thought to focusing on what you like. The stuff we don’t like about the franchise isn’t going away.’ - wow.
 

Now, as not to derail the thread further - feel free to PM with any concerns you may have.

 

Back on topic…

PM sent.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Well said, mate.

Not well said. As long as debates are civil, any subject should be open for discussion. I don’t tell anyone else what they should or should not write about, and I expect the same courtesy.

Neither did I. In fact, I specifically said feel free to dissect and rant. My point was to occasionally give some thought to taking a break from trying to beat the franchise and the fans who may not agree with you.

…It has been suggested by Jason, that too many negative posts allways warrent moderator action. I obviously feel this is not in the best interests of an open forum with a free flow of ideas, but also feel this is a bit disingenuous, considering the mostly negative threads on the prequels and special edition changes on this forum.

Actually, what I posted was… (and the full post can be found here - http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1156598)

oojason said:

An issue for anyone trying to read through this thread most likely - whether they agree or disagree - whatever their stance. Most topics on the site with seemingly endless repeated and circular negative content will eventually result in a mod trying address the issue therein.

Let’s not put words into the mouths of others, nor take them out of the context in which they were used. Ok.

The problem with this reasoning is, that:

1. As far as I can tell only those that disagree with the criticisms have expressed their frustration with what they apparently percieve to be endless repeated and circular negative content.

2. The endless repeated and circular negative content valuation is entirely subjective IMO.

3. The endless repeated and circular negative content is inaccurate IMO, as these debates involve two sides of the equation, which by extension must imply there’s endless repeated and circular positive content also.

4. I’m not the only poster who has expressed frustration with this in my view one sided approach. Several very eloquent posters have indicated they too feel the same way. These opinions are apparently ignored, in favour of the complaints by those posters with positive opinions of the film.

5. Most if not all toxic discussions are based on one side disrespecting the other with statements like “I can’t understand how anyone can like this movie”, “RJ has destroyed Star Wars”, or “First they complain about a lack of originality, and now it’s too original”. So, it’s not really about the positivity or negativity of the opinions towards the film, that are expressed, but how they are expressed, in most cases attacking the other group of fans.

6. Your post fails to address the apparent bias towards percieved endless repeated and circular negative content as opposed to percieved endless repeated and circular positive content. Aside from the lack of support in the forum rules, why is only negative content singled out? The forum rules restrict themselves to bad behaviour, and logically don’t put any restrictions on content, unless inflammatory or profane, unless the argument is, that negative opinions are in of themselves inflammatory.

I’m sorry to keep banging on about this, but I would like to get some clarification on, whether there indeed are restrictions on content, as you seem to suggest, no matter how mild, and if so, how these restrictions are reflected in the forum rules?

Anchorhead said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

Well said, mate.

Not well said. As long as debates are civil, any subject should be open for discussion. I don’t tell anyone else what they should or should not write about, and I expect the same courtesy.

Neither did I. In fact, I specifically said feel free to dissect and rant. My point was to occasionally give some thought to taking a break from trying to beat the franchise and the fans who may not agree with you.

I might have overreacted a bit, so sorry about that. I do feel strongly about such things. I don’t like the suggestion, that there’s some link between negative opinions about the film, and negative behavior in the forum or towards other fans. I think both sides give as much as they get. As such, the idea that too many negative opinions creates some sort of toxic environment or something is alien to me, and it suggests some sort of bias for positive opinions, who apparently don’t have to take a break from praising the franchise. Most of us try to put some thought into these posts, whether positive or negative, and I think these posts should be judged on the merit of their content. It has been suggested by Jason, that too many negative posts allways warrent moderator action. I obviously feel this is not in the best interests of an open forum with a free flow of ideas, but also feel this is a bit disingenuous, considering the mostly negative threads on the prequels and special edition changes on this forum.

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

This thread is stupid.

I agree, time to focus on the things I like.

Puns, hopefully.

DominicCobb said:

This thread is stupid.

I agree, time to focus on the things I like.

Post deleted

TV’s Frink said:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=give your head a wobble

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Softlad

DISCLAIMER: It’s Urban Dictionary. Does not necessarily represent oojason’s usage.

Great! Somehow your disclaimer doesn’t really make me feel that much better, but thanks for the translation.