RU.08

DominicCobb said:

The camera does not shake in that shot. I’m losing my mind. There is a difference between a non-static camera in shaky cam.

Shaky-cam is just one part of the overall filming style that JJ goes for.

More to the point, the sequel trilogy is standard Hollwood style, that’s a big part of the problem for me. Disney turned down making the original Star Wars movie because it was sci-fi and Hollwood didn’t like sci-fi, horror, or “blockbusters” in the 70’s. Lucas didn’t want to make his movie in the standard Hollywood style. Within the standard Hollywood formula you only hire the top 10% of attractive actors, your most attractive actor is always the leading man (by that formula Harrison Ford should be the leading man), no children or animals, and so on. The “Hollywood universe” often feels completely unreal.

Disney took Lucasfilm, and instead of respecting the flexible ambitious nature of the film-making that made Star Wars and Indiana Jones special and unique, decided to make them using the standard Hollywood conventions and the using the contemporary “superhero genre” of the 00’s-10’s (not to be confused with the older superhero genre of the 70’s-90’s). The visual style of Lucas’ movies was to make it grounded in reality so it felt real and relatable. Whereas the sequels have been made in the style of Marvel or Transformers and other comic-book/superhero movies that don’t appeal to me. Those movies have their fans, one of my friends his favourite movie of all time is one of those movies - I can’t even remember which movie it is because they’re all the same to me, I did watch it but I found it forgettable. Another movie in this genre I saw was Guardians of the Galaxy - I didn’t want to see it, but a friend and I were going to see another movie and it was completely sold-out at the cinema, he wanted to see Guardians (and he just loves those kind of movies) so we saw it, there are lots of people that love that kind of aerial action and adventure, but I really don’t remember much of it at all because for me it was a forgettable face-paced meaningless action ride. Jodie Foster might go a bit far in my opinion, but I agree with her frustration - this kind of “superhero genre” content has become so dominant that it has swallowed-up entire franchises.

An entire generation has grown up with these new movies, and for them that’s what Star Wars is now. Its been moved out of its own niche genre that Lucas created and into the dominant mainstream “superhero” genre. This has had the effect of making force-users superhumans, instead of regular people. Palpatine surviving Return of the Jedi makes him superhuman. Rey’s powers go well beyond Luke’s and those displayed in the OT and PT where the characters require deep concentration to move objects with the force, and even struggle to do so. In the superhero genre the only people who can oppose a superhuman is another superhuman, this is why in ROS it is Rey and Kylo who fight against Palpatine. In TLJ Snoke moves Rey around with the power of the force - that was never possible in the Lucas-saga films - once you allow a force user to simply levitate other people rendering them completely powerless like that the only people that can fight back are other equally-strong force-users. Whereas in the Lucas saga films the resistance is powerful in itself, they’re able to oppose the galactic empire effectively, and in fact ultimately succeed where the Jedi failed. Luke’s ethical dilemma in TLJ is taken right out of the superhero genre’s songbook - it’s one of the most common story tropes “with great power comes great responsibility” - it’s the force-users that caused all the galaxy-wide problems, the sooner they’re gone the better for humanity.

DominicCobb said:

I just think you fundamentally have a different definition of the term. If you asked me I would say there’s only a couple shots that are “shaky,” and they’re in the cell block hallway.

Yes I think so let’s get the basics right so we’re on the same page. Are you happy to accept the Wikipedia definition?

Honestly, shaky cam on its own is not the problem. It is that it’s over-used and combined with other filming techniques that consistently move the camera unnecessarily. Like the shot that Finn takes of his helmet. To me it looks awful. If the camera was pulled back and steady it would look fine.

DominicCobb said:

You must have a very liberal definition of shaky cam then. Do you think there’s any shaky cam in these scenes?
https://youtu.be/wtoHjGWc2s8?t=200
https://youtu.be/T_OSeRxhGOY?t=62

Yes the Tie Fighter attack has more, but they both have it. I’d say both are good examples of acceptable levels, there’s lots of shots in the Tie fighter scene where the camera is completely stationary to counter-balance that effect, whereas JJ barely ever allows the camera to be stationary.

DominicCobb said:

I mentioned that one before. It’s one of the only moments in the entire film when the camera does that. The fact that that’s your only example does not help your case.

It’s not the camera at all, it’s intentional. This is what it would look like if stabilised:

https://imgur.com/a/JSvlGwk

No, the camera is shaking in that scene because it is a sort of ‘action’ scene, where they’re trying to repair the Falcon before the toxic fumes kill them. It’s one of only two dialogue scenes in the entire film with “shaky cam.”

There’s shaky cam when Finn takes off his helmet, basically any shot that has an extreme-close up like that has some level of it or some other annoying camera technique (lots of zooming, lots of focus-shifting), when they get to the bar that entire scene is filmed like it’s hand-held.

And the action scenes don’t have shaky cam either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sarFZJl3h0

There’s what? Two, three shots total in this scene that if you squint you could call almost shaky cam? And I just picked a random scene.

Much of that shot and for that matter the movie feels like it’s framed for 1.85:1 not Scope (2.35:1) - i.e. the camera feels like it’s too close. Honestly there’s a ton of shaky-cam in that scene, I don’t know how you could possibly count two or three shots only. It’s not just shaky-cam, it’s a combination of things.

DominicCobb said:

Hilarious honestly that you’re still holding onto this. Anyway, I’ve said what I’ve said about the “shaky cam.” It’s practically nonexistent in his Star Wars films. Complain away about the other tenets of his style.

There is no reason to be disrespectful. Are you saying you don’t think this shot is shaky-cam?

There’s a reason why I believe JJ’s shaking the camera like that in non-action shots, and that’s to make the shaky-cam less jarring when we come to the actual action sequences.

I’ve started a new topic to discuss shaky-cam. I haven’t seen the Bourne movies (I’ve seen clips of the action and it looks awful so I’ve never been motivated to watch one), most films which are heavy with shaky-cam I’ve never seen.

This thread likely contains spoliers for The Rise Of Skywalker - if you don’t wish to be spoiled… do not read the rest of this thread.

I’m starting a new topic so this can be discussed more appropriately.

Background info: I wish I had read this before I saw TFA, because I had not seen a JJ film since Mission Impossible III and I was totally unprepared for his style. I can’t stand his style - it’s not any one factor alone, but the combination of the filming techniques that he employs - notably shaky-cam, snap-zoom, framing decisions, lighting decisions, excessive very fast edits, focus-shift, constantly moving the camera around, and so on.

Some people are saying there isn’t much shaky-cam in TFA - well I don’t know by what yard stick you’re measuring with, but compared to 80’s and 90’s action classics like Terminator II there’s an awful lot. And it’s not only in action shots, here’s an example of shaky cam in a stationary shot: https://imgur.com/xrULFXV. And an example scene from ROS that has a ton of shaky-cam in it: https://youtu.be/693qGarrgbw?t=15

So what is shaky cam? According to Wikipedia, it’s a cinematographic technique where stable-image techniques are purposely dispensed with. It is often “hand held” or has the appearance of hand-held.

Do people like it?

There are a range of individual responses to the technique. I think that most people do not like it but will tolerate it, or at least tolerate it to a certain level. I tolerate it too, but TFA was way too much for me. Its effect is also very different in the cinema compared to the small screen at home. It can make some people feel dizzy or sick - that doesn’t happen with me, my eyes glaze over and I stop trying to follow the action. Some people do like it as well, as is the case with the author of the Verge article which was written before TFA even came out.

Why is it used?

According to the discussion on cinematograpy.com, one reason it is used is as a compromise. Sometimes there is not enough time to film action sequences, or the action just doesn’t look right so the director will shake the camera. In JJ’s case, as with the example I’ve posted, he uses it even outside of action scenes - for him it’s an artistic choice, rather than done out of necessity. It’s also become more common and accepted in Hollywood action films over the past 15 years. In my opinion this kind of filming represents over-use of the technique, when the camera is pulled in too close and half of the action is out of frame, the audience can’t follow it even if they want to.

Broom Kid said:

“Shaky cam” is just a colloquial synonym for “hand-held photography.”

Nobody’s actually shaking the camera, it’s just not stabilized on a dolly or tripod or steadicam machine.

It’s not in this movie, OR in The Force Awakens very much.

I obviously can’t speak for ROS as I haven’t seen it, but Force Awakens was shaky-cam from start to finish. It wasn’t just in the action shots - yes there was steady-cam of course, but there’s many scenes where there’s shaky-cam just for the sake of it for example when Finn and Rey are on the Millenium Falcon It’s not “hand held” it can look like it, but it’s a stylistic choice. If you like it that’s fine, some people like it, and some people like me can’t stand it being over-used. Here’s an example from Force Awakens, and this isn’t even an action scene: https://i.imgur.com/xrULFXV.mp4. Completely unnecessary, it’s there by the director’s choice.

There’s a good discussion on it on the cinematography.com forum, this I think is very very true: “Please, please, please, tell those who think that the audience enjoys it that they are wrong, wrong, wrong. At best, they tolerate it. At worst, they despise it.” And here is what a director said:

"I’m finishing a movie right now with a domestic fight scene that I had to shoot in this style. I wanted so bad to stage the whole thing in one single, static, wide shot similar to the domestic fight scene in Raging Bull, but it was beyond my abilities to make it authentic. I just couldn’t do it and believe me I tried. So, the last minute decision was to shoot in the Borne style and make it in editing.

"The scene came out okay, but I can’t help but think how much better it would have been if I could have staged it properly in a static wide shot.

"Point is, we do what we feel we have to in order to make it work. The shaky cam scene is one of many, many, many compromises I made on this movie. When you’re in charge of a project, you do whatever it takes to make it the best it can be and obviously there are plenty of directors out there that feel the shaky cam is what works best for their project. If you don’t like it, then get out there and show us how it’s done. 😉"

That is very different to JJ’s approach, he uses the style for the whole movie. But it’s not just shaky-cam that I don’t like about JJ’s style, it’s the culmination of filming and editing techniques - snap-zoom, focus shifting, lighting decisions, having the camera too close to the action all the time, huge number of edits/shots in single scenes, etc.

DominicCobb said:

This. Shaky cam doesn’t mean moving camera. It’s means handheld photography. And it’s almost entirely absent in the film. In that clip, not a single live action shot is handheld.

To sit there and say that there’s no shaky-cam is disrespectful. You don’t notice it, clearly, that’s fine. But you don’t get to make up your own definition so you can dismiss it - shaky cam is any shot where the camera moves unnecessarily in more than one direction. As Wikipedia puts it shaky cam is: “a cinematographic technique where stable-image techniques are purposely dispensed with”. It’s fine when it’s used in moderation, but JJ’s style has no moderation at all.

Lesser said:

I know what shaky cam is and I definitely didn’t say it wasn’t there, I was meaning that I had no clue what people were talking about cause my mind just doesn’t register it I guess, then I watched the clip again and saw it, but it seemed too small for me to understand why some people would refuse to see an entire movie solely based on that.

Exactly right, you’ve hit the nail on the head, you don’t notice it. That’s perfectly fine. Some people don’t notice it, it doesn’t distract them - heck directors like JJ wouldn’t use it if they thought they would. Some people love the style.

Also I apologise for suggesting you said there wasn’t shaky-cam there, it was this comment that set me off:

DominicCobb said:

Yeah I mean, there’s basically no shaky cam in that clip.

Lesser I think your phrasing is a little off “refuse to see an entire movie …” I don’t see most motives that come out. Some don’t interest me in the slightest. Sometimes I’ve seen movies because I’ve gone with someone who wanted to see a particular film I never would have chosen to watch. I’m certainly not “refusing” to see it - if someone wanted me to see it with them I would, even if I have to pay twice as much to see it in their chosen cinema.

However in to answer you underlying question, yes I hate the style and I wish I knew about JJ’s style before going to see TFA because I was completely unprepared. It’s not just in action sequences, it’s in the whole TFA, which I don’t remember watching in full a second time. I am a little offended by your comment, I don’t begrudge anyone for enjoying it, all the better to you if you do. But it’s not for me, I know that for myself. It’s a 3D movie and not even being shown here in 3D which I see as pointless - not just because I like 3D, but all the framing decisions that are done for 3D are irrelevant to 2D, most of the time they don’t translate well. There’s no way I can see this movie here right now and appreciate the director’s intent, unfortunately.

Lesser said:

I also have no clue what people are talking about with the shaky cam. In the Poe/Finn Falcon clip that was released people were saying the shaky cam was god awful but I barely noticed until I saw a million posts complaining about JJ’s style, and even now it doesn’t bother me whatsoever.

If you like shaky-cam that’s fine, but don’t say it isn’t there because it is. Shaky-cam is any shot that moves in more than one direction, unnecessarily, where it isn’t a tracking shot. For example a shot that moves left, then up, then right. It can be a shot that is vibrating, but it doesn’t have to be, it can also be anything that looks like unstable hand-held style shots. See this video for a comparison between shaky-cam and steady-cam. Almost the entire clip is shaky cam, this one tracking shot is the sole exception:

That’s a tracking shot. Although it’s not tracking anything, it’s just panning the camera down. Every other shot in that clip, without exception, is shaky cam. Some have more shaking, some have little, but not a single shot is a steady-cam/tracking shot. I respect your opinion to enjoy it, some people prefer it and their opinions are just as valid as mine, but I find it awful. Done in JJ’s style anyway, as I mentioned before it can be used effectively as in the T2 clip.

Broom Kid said:

I think SOMETHING happened either during production, post-production, or even both, because this movie just doesn’t make sense a lot of the time. It’s not just retconning things and moving too fast for its own good (there are not a lot of “moments” in this movie, and it hurts a lot of the emotional punches it’s consistently failing to land), it’s referencing plot points that didn’t happen prior to their referencing, and half the time it’s not finishing off things that they ARE setting up. (What was Finn going to tell Rey? Why was Lando talking to Jannah at the end like we were supposed to insinuate… something? Why is Rey kissing Kylo at all?)

TL;DR: it’s not a saga film, it sets up everything in the First Act and doesn’t rely on the previous two films stories.

Also I understand the refusal to not write Leia out between movies but that would have been preferable to what they did here. By far. She became a literal PROP by the end. And her presence in the scenes she was “active” in was utterly false, no matter how good the CGI lighting and costuming was. There was no feeling that she was acting with anyone, or that anyone was acting with her. There’s good reason for that, of course, and I feel like trying to glide over that unavoidable reason through movie trickery just called more attention to it. The only Leia scene that carried any of the weight it was intended to was Chewie reacting to her death, and even THAT had nothing to do with anything happening in THIS movie, but relied on literal decades of familiarity from previous, much better movies.

I was really worried about that after what they did to Tarkin in RO. 😦 That’s heartbreaking. They were saying very early on after TLJ that she had a very significant part in the story in the ninth film. They actually never had to write her out at all, there was plenty of opportunity to have her die at the end of The Last Jedi with some really simple re-writes and re-shoots after Carrie’s death. But JJ and whoever else was in charge instructed Rian Johnson to leave her alive for the ninth film.

This is the worst film Abrams has directed, and I have a hard time believing it’s turned out this way solely because of bad vision and worse execution. Something about this movie just seems straight up broken in multiple ways, and not in the “What else could I do look what I was left with” sort of way, but in the “I have a release date I have to hit no matter what and this movie doesn’t work the way it is but I’m literally out of time so hopefully we can cobble SOMETHING together.”

JJ came in late after they fired Colin Trevorrow. While we don’t really know why he was fired, Palpatine wasn’t a part of his original script and Ian McDiarmid confirmed he was hired by JJ only a year ago.

It’s never a great idea to make such radical changes mid-production, especially with such a tight deadline.

yotsuya said:

But considering I think that TFA is the worst of the 8 previous saga films, I don’t have much hope. Still, I love the characters and I hope someone put in enough good stuff that it can be edited into something enjoyable. I don’t know when I am going to see it. Maybe Sunday or maybe later over the holiday break. I was excited to see it, now I’m not. I think I’ll read the spoilers again.

I think TFA is the worst as well, which is why I’m not going to buy a ticket for this one. Why see something you know you won’t like - just wait for Netflix release.

The biggest problem I think was in making the Sequel Trilogy all-out action films. That should have been saved for the stand-alone films, with the Saga films continuing the sci-fi/fantasy “space-opera” themes.

Now we know why a couple of months ago it leaked that they were doing re-shoots following the comments JJ made saying ROS “won’t please everyone”. Possibly those comments were taken out of context, but the leaked reports were that behind the scenes they were not happy with the film as it was, and even some early reviews have said the film felt rushed and unfinished.

My favourite prequel is Phantom Menace, I don’t mind the slapstick childish stuff in it, I don’t hate Jar Jar, I’m happy to share the film with a young child audience. Fundamentally it’s fantasy sci-fi you can’t take it too seriously, it’s meant to be fun not ultra-realistic. I like that there are children in the prequels - that feels more like the real world, unlike the typically Hollywood-universe where society somehow exists without children in it! I’m with Mark Hamill I think it was appalling how people treated Jake Lloyd. Today we would call that cyber-bullying, I’m not sure we knew about cyber-bulling yet in 1999, I digress. Like Mark Hamill says if you want to be angry about Jake Lloyd’s Anakin it’s the director you should be angry at, not the 10-year-old actor. It was a regression, in my humble opinion, to have made the Sequels with no kids in them.

yotsuya said:

Well… you seem to have missed the point. The Rule of Two is all about there can only be two Sith because they are always trying to kill each other.

I’m aware of the Rule of Two but it is by no means a theme firmly established in the movies. There’s scope to believe whatever you want about the Sith in the George Lucas saga. I don’t think it’s any great “rule”, maybe it is, but I see it as Palpatine’s lust for the power of the force.

For Palpatine it really becomes the rule of three because he has an apprentice, but he always has backups floating around in case his apprentice gets too powerful and might kill him.

I think he uses other people, we see this in Attack of the Clones where he uses and betrays Count Dooku. There’s scope to believe what you want - perhaps its self-preservation because it’s the Sith way for the apprentice to kill his master. In fact Dooku has already betrayed Palpatine at this point, because he ratted him out to Obi-Wan when he tells him “the Republic is now under the control of a Dark Lord of the Sith … hundreds of senators are under the influence of a Sith Lord called Darth Sidious.” He couldn’t have been more specific than that, but Obi-Wan didn’t believe him. On the other hand is that Palpatine has no loyalty whatsoever to Dooku and is interested in replacing him with Anakin - perhaps Dooku has sensed this and is acting out of his own self-interest/preservation. There’s no one opinion on this that is necessarily proven right, as with good storytelling there’s scope for a range of possibilities.

His goal in ROTJ was for Luke to replace Vader. But Vader is plotting the same thing.

Palpatine’s goal is to rule the galaxy as supreme Emperor. Everything else is second to that really. That’s part of his character arc in the prequels - he creates wars by influencing both sides into war (even going so far as to arming both sides so that they can go to war) so that he can get the power to overthrow the Republic and create his own Galactic Empire. He’s motivated by power. Some of the execution of this in the prequels is very clumsy - like when Jar Jar sits in for Padme as a Senator and sponsors his bid for “emergency powers” (it does make sense in that he chases her away with assassins from being able to block him, but what doesn’t make any sense is Jar Jar doing her job, however it could have been done a lot better and certainly without Jar Jar).

One of the reasons he uses Anakin is because he wants to use him to manipulate the Jedi Council - that doesn’t work out exactly as he had planned, but he’s still able to get Anakin to betray the Jedi.

He is either a genius have having multiple options or a genius at finding out how to turn a bad situation to his advantage.

I don’t see it that way that he has “multiple options”, I think he uses “multiple strategies” to achieve his primary goal. So he secretly commissions an army to be built for the Republic. He convinces the Trade Federation to start a war with Naboo. He makes friends with the power-brokers in the Republic’s Senate so he can manipulate votes (a power broker is a politician who controls a large block of votes). He white-ants the incumbent Chancellor by manipulating the very young and impressionable Queen Padme Amidala. I believe this is when he decides to destroy the Sith, so that they will not be able to oppose him, and so that he can pursue his main goal to ultimately become the Supreme Galactic Emperor. So he sends his Sith apprentice to his death. 10 years later Padme doesn’t trust him, obviously, she probably recognises she was manipulated. She blocks his bid for an army, so he chases her away with assassins so he can create an army, create a full-scale war, put the Republic into a catastrophic emergency that justifies granting him “emergency powers”. Once he’s in this position, as Supreme Chancellor of the Republic, he unleashes the clone army he had secretly made which is much stronger than the Trade Federation and their allies, thereby guaranteeing him success in the war (this will make him a war hero to the Republic). This enables him to build more arms for the Republic. Once he has power, and he’s all but won the galactic war, the only ones that can oppose him are the Jedi, so he destroys them. He dismantles the Republic so he can create his ideal Galactic Empire and rule as Emperor, and from there he continues building their arms.

The whole story and character-act is completely coherent and consistent, at least as far as Palpatine is concerned. Dooku gets himself caught up in his plot somehow, and that’s actually quite a good curve-ball to his story (he can’t just rise to power completely unopposed). Where it gets messy is with some of the other characters like Jar Jar and Anakin who behave in ways that achieve Palpatine’s but are not consistent with their own characters.

trimboNZ said:

But Rey is a Skywalker now. That was the message I thought came across at the end. Family is not just blood. Adoption and all that.

But the film undid the last film and made her a Palpatine. Not a Skywalker.

How is this an arc that began in Episode 7?

Mavimao said:

Oh and I don’t recall seeing that much lens flare at all RU.08. The JJ lens work is pretty subdued.

Lens flare doesn’t bother me, in a 3D movie it is a technique to achieve extra depth. But out of all the cinemas in my area none are showing 3D sessions at all. Which is ridiculous - love or hate 3D, it’s the director’s intention.

Its his “hand held” style I don’t like.

Ryan-SWI said:

I hope everyone who ragged on George Lucas relentlessly for decades is happy, because this is what happens when a committee of execs frothing over boardroom market research concludes one of cinema’s most important stories. What a joke.

All of the prequels had good receptions when they came out though, that’s the thing. Yes a subset of fans were unhappy from the start, but they were well received overall.

The Saga ended with Return of the Jedi, this is an abomination. Disney Wars is not Star Wars and Rey is not a Skywalker.

No wonder George wasn’t at the premiere, he was probably at home drinking himself stupid.

ROFL! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That sounds like a more sensible way to spend the afternoon.

Also interesting is that none of my local cinemas, and there are 5 different chains showing the movie, not a single one of them has 3D sessions. This website confirms it:

How is it that Disney allows this? For the record I like 3D, and I’d much rather see a 3D movie in 3D.

IlFanEditore said:

5. The title… the most boring and obvious meaning. Rey who takes the name Skywalker. That’s all. Nothing from Luke, Leia or Anakin.
6. Palpatine’s death is just ridiculous. First, in Episode III he didn’t die because of Force lightning being re-directed at him. Why does he die now? Plus, the whole “I’m all the Sith!!!” VS “I’m all the Jedi!!!” is… is… you choose the words.

LMAO, yeah I was thinking much the same thing. Also someone has posted a clip of that scene here. My problem with it is that Palps never cares about another Sith. He kills his master. He sends Darth Maul to his death, falsely promising “they will be no match for you”, do you think he cares? Of course not! He’s testing his apprentice to see if he’s strong enough for him. In the prequels, Palpatine has a really great but subtle character arc. His relationship with Anakin is very different to the one he had with Darth Maul, with Anakin they start out as friends and he uses him to betray the other Jedi. Palpatine single-handedly destroyed the Sith, and then he went about destroying the Jedi as well. So his line, never-mind Rey’s line, just makes no sense he would never say “I’m all the Sith” because he’s claiming to be all of something that he destroyed! He didn’t want to share his power, he didn’t train Darth Vader he just recognised how strong with the Force he was and brought him over to his side. In the original trilogy, Darth Vader is never referred to as a Sith, he’s a Jedi that has been converted to the dark side (for example I’ve always understood “Your sad devotion to that ancient religion …” to be referring to him as a Jedi not Sith).

And as for Rey taking the name Skywalker - makes no sense. It’s Leia Organa (or is it Leia Solo?) who trains her. The only Skywalker she meets is Luke.

8. They all said for months that this would have been the ending for the whole saga. But there is NOTHING from the prequels… and I didn’t even hear anything in the soundtrack (not Duel of the Fates, nor Battle of Heroes, nothing).
9. The Skywalker family has become a joke. Anakin didn’t do anything. Luke didn’t do anything. Leia didn’t do anything. It was a Palpatine who brought balance.
10. So… Palpatine had a son. When? With whom? And why? It sounds like the whole Cursed Child storyline. Both Voldemort and Palpatine are characters who are not supposed to have any offspring, because they both tried to achieve immortality.

Yep I was pretty much thinking the same things. What are they “concluding”? They’re just undoing the ending from one film (Return of the Jedi) and shifting it to this one. One massive retcon to rule them all. Palpy had a deadbeat son, really?

The Last Jedi was coherent, wether people liked it or not. This one was two hours and half of them saying “TLJ didn’t happen. here, look at palpy and be happy”.

Yep it was coherent. I just felt unfinished - there was no lightsaber battle for example.

There are of course things I liked. Lando is so cool. Babu Frik is funny. Williams score has a couple of very good moments. And the whole fleet arrival is just great.
But except for these aspects, I was disappointed.

Last thing: I’m not classified as a prequel hater, sequel hater or original worshipper. I just judge the single movies. My favourite in the saga is Episode V, followed by Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope at second place. Then there’s The Last Jedi.

See that’s interesting. Lots of people think Revenge of the Sith is the best prequel, I’ve changed my mind over that a few times, and I’m back to thinking it’s the worst because of how it betrays all our beloved characters. If Revenge of the Sith had really preceded the Original Trilogy, then fans would have been just as angry about finding Yoda living as a cynical old hermit refusing to train Jedi as when they found Luke living as one in TLJ. There’s literally no reason why Obi-Wan shouldn’t have spent the time between Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars (A New Hope) training new Jedi, and for that matter Yoda as well. These are the last two Jedi in the galaxy, and they just give up and let the Sith Emperor rule?

Warning, deep spoiler:

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsLeaks/comments/ecbvpa/rey_vs_palpatine/

That looks so awful.

Rey: “I am all the Jedi”???!?!? She’s not even a Jedi how can she claim to be them all? And Palpatine claiming to be “all the Siths” literally makes no sense as in the prequels, and indeed the Original Trilogy as well, he literally destroyed all the Siths. He killed them first, then the Jedi. He showed absolutely no allegiance to the Sith order. In my favourite Prequel he sends an ill-prepared apprentice Darth Maul to his death with the false-promise that he is much stronger “they will be no match” he tells him. That’s one of my favourite things about Phantom Menace is how heartless he is towards Maul, he’s really testing him to see if he’s strong enough to serve him - it’s complete self-interest. Just like how he tests Luke in Return of the Jedi (but he isn’t prepared for Luke).

Oh dear this is what Star Wars has become. Bringing back a beloved villain, just to make a complete mockery out of him.

One problem with the prequels was exposition. Lots of people complained about Palpatine being a grinning two-faced politician, but how else was he meant to claw his way to the top and then topple the democratic order?

A much better example of a terrible scene, done purely for exposition, is where Anakin declares to Padme that he dislikes democracy. Why is this a bad scene? Well it doesn’t make sense for his character arc. There’s no reason behind it. Did democracy sell him and his mum into slavery, that’d be a good justification for his distrust. Maybe his Jedi training has indoctrinated him into this belief? Maybe there is a genuine dislike he has for the Republic, something, anything? Alas, he has literally no reason to say he dislikes the institution and that people “should be made to agree”. With good storytelling there should be a reason behind his line of thought, but there’s none. This is pure exposition to inform the audience that Anakin has authoritarian tendencies. This is one of the unfortunate storytelling tropes Disney Star Wars has been using.

Sir Ridley said:

This clip says yes. https://youtu.be/693qGarrgbw?t=15

Wow thanks! That looks so awful, action sequence or not. You don’t need to that kind of thing in action scenes. One of my all time favourite action scenes is this one in Terminator 2. There is shaky-cam but the balance feels better. There are more tracking-shots (plus of course this scene starts earlier it’s only as it escalates that it gets to this part being the shakiest). In the clip you linked there is only one shot for a couple of seconds that’s a tracking shot, everything else is shaky-cam.

Thanks for posting that clip!

Newly spoiled screenshot from the ending of the film:

7. No pictures, gifs, memes or other similar links to pirated material - including cams, mobile phone recordings, screeners, leaks, pre-retail releases, or ‘for your consideration’ award leaks etc.

Mavimao said:

I’ll be seeing this in 5 hours (yay Europe!). I’ll let y’all know how it goes.

The premiere here is less than 90 minutes, lol, and still plenty of seats available at all my local cinemas. All I want to know before I buy a ticket is this. Is it the same JJ shaky-cam style cinematography as in The Force Awakens, if it is I’m not going. Let me know! This will determine whether or not I see it tomorrow.

DrDre said:

Jeremy Jahns who I consider a balanced critic, and I generally agree with, gave the film a scathing (spoiler free) review:

https://youtu.be/Hobn57uzQlk

Nice thanks! Yeah he mentioned a few things I dislike about JJ’s style and new-SW in general like too much exposition. One of the things about the TLJ is that it doesn’t build on the previous two film’s work, it’s meant to be the concluding chapter of a trilogy but it starts off with a retcon to “raise the stakes”. I don’t like retcons, no one likes them - yes literally no one, sometimes you have to have them out of necessity. For example Better Call Saul had to ignore some of the finely-crafted details of Breaking Bad - but they must be earned. They’re usually used out of necessity, not so you can just do ridiculous things like undo the ending of a previous movie so you can shift its ending to the present one.

Anyway Jeremy Jahns has some really great insights. For example:

Finn has no character-arc. I debated in my previous post whether or not to have a stormtroopers removing his helmet and turning good as one of the original ideas brought to expand the SW mythology in TFA. The reason I didn’t bother is because there’s no character-arc in it. What about other stormtroopers in his situation? What about his training could be useful to the good guys? What ideas can he bring from his unique perspective? None of that has been explored, and Jeremy Jahns has confirmed that isn’t in TLJ either.

Rey has had no character-arc either. She starts out so strong already, with so many abilities that litterally the only place to go, according to the Jeremy Jahns review is:

to make her superhuman. But the Jedi were not superhumans, that’s the problem with this arc - they were still human with human failings, all of them (well human or alien failings of course).

Luke gave up all hope and was living as a cynical old hermit in the last movie, something Mark Hamill is on the record saying he was “appalled” by. Rian Johnson wanted to introduce him in the same way as Yoda. Yoda in Empire Strikes Back is, introduced, as a cynical old hermit as well. It’s Obi-Wan who was the last hopeful Jedi, who’s Jedi ghost pushes Yoda to accept Luke for training. If you think about Yoda as introduced in The Phantom Menace, his character-arc makes no sense, something I’ve always been dissatisfied with. George Lucas didn’t justify his self-imposed exile at all. This wise old Jedi, capable of training new Jedis, just give up the fight? That character arc in the prequels was a betrayal, it wasn’t earned at all. Even the fact that Obi-Wan doesn’t train new Jedis, when he is in fact a hopeful and optimistic character, doesn’t make sense with the prequels. Sure he couldn’t train Luke because his uncle wouldn’t allow it - but he literally trains no one? This is probably why I don’t like Revenge of the Sith, but I do like Phantom Menace a lot - Phantom Menace doesn’t betray all our beloved characters from the original trilogy, and no Anakin at his point of innocence is not a betrayal, plus Phantom Menace has a really great villain. In my opinion, ROTS should have been “Rise of Vader”, and we should have had much less Hayden - probably by the end of the first act have Vader, fully caped, for the rest of the film. Exactly as we knew him from the Original Trilogy, but younger. In fact I think the transition should have happened at the end of Attack of the Clones. One full prequel movie with a powerful, and victorious Darth Vader, would have been exactly what everyone could have loved. Lucas drew that character-arc over two films: AOTC and ROTS, I just think it should have been reduced to one film AOTC. He has already been fully trained by Obi-Wan at the start of AOTC, there was no reason it had to be drawn out. Padme didn’t have to die in childbirth either, that was just really lazy writing, just have her find out she’s pregnant and leave Darth Vader of her own agency: simple. Just think up a creative reason for her to let Luke’s uncle and aunt adopt him. Yes it leaves a loose end because no one knows how she eventually dies, but honestly that didn’t need to be explained any further than it already was in ROTJ. And if you think it does, just insert a scene into the next Special Edition of ROTJ, that would have been better than a mangled ending for her character, that frankly betrays Padme and certainty didn’t fit her character-arc at all.

Jeremy Jahns’ comment that it doesn’t “feel like Star Wars” - I reckon that’s probably because as I criticised above that they haven’t been expanding the Star Wars mythos/the Star Wars universe with each new movie.

Density said:

So the leaks have been confirmed – screenshots, multiple accounts from people who have been verified to have seen the film, etc. There have even been reports of Disney cracking down on leakers. JJ even alluded to it on Kimmel. So we know the leaks were indeed from a legitimate source in the first place, not just fakes or speculation based on trailers and such.

Of course! I always knew the leaks were real, I read the whole script outline of The Force Awakens at least 6 months before the film’s premiere, and it may have even been in 2014 I honestly don’t remember. I’d forgotten it by the time I saw the movie, but I remembered later because of things in the actual movie that jogged my memory like Luke’s lightsaber calling to Rey.

Star Wars, or at least new Star Wars, is dead to me now. The special editions couldn’t do it, the prequels couldn’t do it, none of the other Disney films could do it. But this? This has done it. Almost certainly. Unless the whole thing is somehow a giant hoax or plays out WAY better when seen than it sounds. But that’s unlikely to say the least. No point in lingering in the denial stage too long.

The first two Disney films did it for me.

TFA because of the unbearable style, shaky-cam, mostly. Most of everything else I can forgive but the style doesn’t fit Star Wars, it was just too radically different, and in a direction that I personally don’t enjoy. And Rogue One for Grand Moff Tarkin. The droid in Rogue One was great, lots of other things about that film that I loved, but bring back a dead actor in such a horrible way was just atrocious. It was disrespectful in the extreme. #NotMyTarkin #NotPeterCushing. It wouldn’t have been so bad if he was just a minor character, but they made him pretty much the main antagonist, they used extreme close-ups, if I remember correctly (I’ve only seen the movie once!) I never want to see that movie again, because I felt it destroyed the character of Grand Moff Tarkin, and I never want to have to feel that way when watching the original Star Wars. What I remember, clearly, is that he looked like a video game character. So I was also really worried about what they did with Carrie Fisher in this new movie, given how much disrespect they’ve shown to dead Star Wars actors I have absolutely no trust in Lucasfilm/Disney to be respectful to her, and frankly she died a whole year before The Last Jedi and I originally hated that she had lived at the end because there are three obvious points in the film where she could have easily been killed off (the last one after her interaction with Luke, with some minor reshoots would have been ideal), and I wrongly attributed that decision to Rian Johnson, but of course we now know it was because:

JJ wanted to have her train Rey in Rise of Skywalker.

You can’t get more cynical than that. A completely unneeded character arc that could have been replaced, creatively, in literally so many other ways. But oh no to keep it they had to keep Leia alive at the end of TLJ.

All I care about now is the OUT. I’m going to pretend everything else is non-canon, same as I do for horrible sequels in other good franchises – e.g. Crystal Skull.

Which means if Disney can’t even give me the OUT, I will legitimately wish George never sold to Disney. What difference would it make? Not getting it either way, and at least that way there would only be three terrible films instead of six. I doubt George would ever have actually gotten around to making his own sequels, and even then I doubt they could have ruined Star Wars as badly as this is about to do – the prequels didn’t.

Yep that’s true, he sold up because he didn’t want to make any more movies. Although the curmudgeonly old codger didn’t acknowledge that he could simply be co-writer and producer and let others direct this time around. In fairness to him though I do not think he anticipated the betrayal he was dealt. He created Star Wars, and with the new trilogy (The Force Awakens in particular) they didn’t want to create anything at all, they just wanted to use the existing cinematic universe. To shame!

oojason said:

Nice one lads, thanks.

I’m looking forward to seeing the film itself - and didn’t bother very much with the leaks (and only watched a few of the numerous tv spots available).

I did see those photos appearing online last night - but given the lack of context for me there’s nothing that puts me off seeing it.

Ah right, don’t let us cynics deter you! I’ve read all the spoilers months ago so I know the whole movie inside out without having to see it (although they re-edited the film and only had it finalised in November). Let us know what you think after you see it!

The issue I have with “fan service” and “nostalgia” is that neither plays well when overused or crammed into every scene. The chunkiness of the Millennium Falcon’s gunning seats was one of best “nostalgic” elements, one of the worst ones was CGI Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One, in my opinion anyway.

I would have given this film a chance had Colin Trevorrow directed it. But when he was fired for “creative differences” that spelled for me the writing on the wall: they wanted a yes man. They incorrectly attributed the fan-backlash of “The Last Jedi” to Rian Johnson having too much creative control, rather than the alternative hypothesis that they put out an unfinished movie because they worked to a rushed production schedule which didn’t allow for the necessary re-shoots that would have been required to fix most of the “unpopular” elements. True enough that having Luke living as a cynical old hermit would never have gone down well, but other things could have been fixed for example force-ghost Yoda using Palpatine’s force-lightning, Luke making a force-hologram, Princess Leia’s superwoman-like flying through space, all of that stuff could have been corrected with a few re-shoots and perhaps a delayed release date. So if there’s anyone to blame for that movie going down badly, it’s the Mouse not the director in my humble opinion.

Another concern of mine is George Lucas himself - JJ brought him back on-board earlier this year to help. But he wasn’t at the World Premiere and reports are:

That he was very unhappy with the film.
That Disney/Lucasfilm/JJ disregarded most of his input anyway, despite bringing him in.
That he wasn’t even invited the World Premiere!

Also the world premiere was not held for its intended audience. Honestly this is the most ironic thing of all - Star Wars is meant to be a children-friendly family franchise, and yet the world premiere is held for Hollywood and media bigwigs with no children in the audience! There’s half a chance the film won’t even be suitable for young children - this is the mistake George Lucas made way back in 2005 with Revenge of the Sith: I knew a lot of parents that were Star Wars fans who felt unhappy that the movie was not suitable for their pre-teen children. Anakin’s slaughter of the younglings is what they felt made the movie unsuitable for young children. We can sit here unhappy that Lucasfilm won’t release the theatrical edition, but imagine being a parent in 2005 and you’ve been mislead into believing that the PT was a child-friendly trilogy, parents felt just as betrayed about that in 2005 as the people here felt betrayed by the 1997 Special Edition replacing their beloved originals. As aptly observed here “Twenty years after its release in 1999, we shouldn’t view The Phantom Menace as the worst Star Wars movie ever. Instead, it’s actually the best one for small children.” Out of all the Special Edition changes, censoring the blaster shots was clearly a decision to make the violence more child-friendly (I reckon young children would prefer the 1997 special edition of the original trilogy compared to the OOT, things that look silly to adults like CGI Jabba are things that they love).

yotsuya said:

I just read through the tagged twitter comments (no spoilers to speak of) and they are generally positive. A few hated it or thought it would divide fans. Others thought it would unite fans. From the gist of the reactions, it reinterprets parts of TLJ while embracing other aspects of it. A definite change from TFA.

Yes but there’s nothing in this film that’s exciting or new. For example:

Kylo’s character arc is exactly the same as Anakin’s. Lured to the Dark Side by Palps, and redeemed by someone he loves.

There’s nothing in their comments suggesting there are beautiful new worlds and concepts to get immersed into. Every one of George Lucas’ movies has something new that the Star Wars universe expands into. If we stick with The Phantom Menace, let’s see - we have the Jedi council (love it or hate it) along with Coruscant, we have Alderaan with some really great model work, we have podracing on Tatooine, slavery on Tatooine, a young Obi-Wan Kenobi who is still a Jedi in training under his master, Midichlorians, comical battle droids, underwater cities with soft bubble-like barriers, the Gungans, and we have a Sith apprentice with a double-bladed lightsaber that has been the most popular villain in all of Star Wars since Darth Vader. There’s quite a bit to speak of that are all positive developments for the star wars universe there, and yes a small number of negative developments (the concept of Midichlorians being responsible for the force for example). What do we have in The Force Awakens? Death Star 3.0, older han, older chewie, a mechanic-droid that rolls who is overly-assertive, a young force-sensitive adult who’s suddenly introduced to the force, holograms, a dark lord, the First Order and their leader, a desert planet with a scrap-yard, an old Jedi the last of the order living as a hermit in hiding, a big clunky levitating “speeder”… all of those are existing concepts, there’s nothing really new in it at all. Kylo using the force to stop blaster shots, Luke’s lightsaber calling to Rey, and Rey’s portion-bread are the only really “new” concept introduced and they barely expand the mythology (in fact does anyone know why Luke’s lightsaber calls to Rey in the first place - it doesn’t really make sense). Yes Rey’s portion-bread is really cool, but that’s literally the only thing I can think of that’s a fresh new concept in that movie. JJ could have instead taken some very simple concepts out of the “expanded universe” that have been unused in the films, and at the very least BB8 could have had a different character personality to R2D2. In avoiding the possibility of introducing any “new concepts” that will have a backlash, JJ instead decided to play it “very safe”.

In my opinion that was a mistake, I think most viewers and Star Wars fans will forgive some concepts they don’t like if you give them some they can get behind and love. The sequel trilogy is also incredibly hostile to the prequel trilogy, for example in The Last Jedi when Rose and Finn go to Canto Bight, in the cinema I (wrongly) anticipated seeing the Kaminoans there mingling with their kind. Another clear example being Kashyyyk - that would have been the logical place to find Han and Chewie in TFA, it’s been barely used appearing only briefly in ROS. The prequels introduced new planets and locations with unique designs, but most locations in the sequel trilogy as well as interior set designs feel far too familiar and from the Original Trilogy.

So yeah lots of positive comments, that’s all fine, I’m sure lots of people will enjoy the movie and I wish everyone all the best in seeing it. I just feel this movie isn’t for me. There’s nothing in social media reaction comments (including the positive ones) that makes me think this film will bring some great new ideas and concepts from the Star Wars mythology to the screen that I haven’t already seen before. None of the positive comments were saying “great cinematography with no shaky-cam” - I’m really not a fan of JJ’s directorial style. I should have read this before I saw The Force Awakens because I hadn’t seen a JJ film since Mission Impossible 3, and I wasn’t at all prepared for his style of cinematography, from that article: “It’s a visual holdover from his Star Trek films, and I think it will be a stake in the ground for the rest of the Star Wars saga. The smooth tracking shots we saw in the aerial battles of the prequels will be replaced with a visceral shaky cam perspective. Personally, this is my favorite trademark of his, and I’m glad to see it being put to use in Star Wars. The style really makes it feel like you’re in the environment, feeling the turbulence of the action.” That guy might be a fan of shaky-cam, that’s fine I know some people like it, I don’t mind it being used occasionally, but there’s was absolutely no subtly in the way it was used in TFA, and I find that style when used to that extent unbearable.

I’ll be very interested to and look forward to hear from people on OT what their reactions are for the ending of the film, and also if I’m right about the movie being shaky-cam like TFA, if it is there’s no way I’m paying to see that in a cinema. I know that style has its fans, I don’t mean to criticise but I can’t stand it. If it’s not a shaky-cam movie then I will probably go and see it in the cinema, so please do let us know what the filming style/cinematography is! See this description of JJ’s style written before TFA even came out because what I’m referring to is a disorientating combination of shaky-cam, dolly-shots, snap-zooms, and close-ups, and I’m not bothered by Dutch-angles and lens-flares.