Voss Caltrez

OutboundFlight said:

Is it weird I found the planet killing Star Destroyers logical within the lore? It feels a natural progression from Death Star, not unlike the evolution and mass production of atomic weapons.

I find Starkiller Base more egregious because it’s big thing is “it’s bigger”. It becomes so big it’s unbelievable, and it’s a very stupid concept to make yourself a bigger target after two failed Death Stars.

I assume that the power to destroy a planet would need to have something to stabilize it, so a giant Star Killer, that harnesses the power of a sun to destroy planets kind of makes sense. Putting this same type of laser on a much smaller ship that can blow up planets…seems like it wouldn’t make as much sense. How are the ships able to harness that kind of energy and stay mobile?
It feels like an evolution of Dr. Evil’s idea of Sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads.

I don’t think this lived up to the hype of “most streamed” TV show. It’s not amazing by itself.
But as far as being a Star Wars spin-off show? It’s great.

One thing I found fault with about the prequels was that it didn’t feel like it occupied the same universe as the OT. It felt like a completely different franchise.

The Mandalorian feels pretty close to the Star Wars TV show I always wanted as a kid.

Here are my critiques though:
-The episode where Mando helps the villagers fight off the bad guys, boring. I did like that it reminded me of the Ewok movies, but the villagers just seemed like some random people you’d find in Silicon Valley.
-I didn’t like that we saw his face. I would have preferred that they have IG-11 take off his mask and we only see a dark silhouette of his face.
-Considering Baby Yoda was going to kill Cara Dunne, I think her response should have been more terrified than just saying, “Not okay!” This little infant creature can apparently kill people with his mind. Play that up!
-Felt like a video game when Mando kept going to the shop keeper, I mean, Mandalorian woman, to purchase more ITEMS/WEAPONS.
-I really hope he loses the rocket pack. Feels like Rocketeer.
-/+ I felt the IG-11 storyline was too similar to T2: Judgment Day, for my tastes. However, younger audiences probably won’t notice it, so I think it was also worked well.

Things I liked:
+Baby Yoda of course. I went in upset they were demystifying Yoda’s species but hey, can’t argue with results.
+I loved that they bring some mystery back to the Jedi and the Force.
+I never saw the appeal for Boba Fett but The Mandalorian made the character design really work. The flame thrower and grappling hook are awesome in action.
+The visual aesthetic of the galaxy is just like the OT or an evolution of it.
+It has an old west feel to it, but space.
+IG-11 coming to save the day on a motorcycle…awesome.

Although I think that the ST has been more polished and has had better acting and more emotional moments, as a whole, I think I prefer The Mandalorian.

I’m up to Episode 4.
This definitely feels more Star Wars-like than the Prequels and even the new Disney trilogy at times. It has that grimy feel to it, which I like. Baby Yoda attempting to heal the Mando initially and then later revealing his Force powers with the rhino was great.
The Mandalorian himself is a great Star Wars protagonist, though I’d have preferred to not have a typical orphan origin for him. Keep it mysterious is best. But I can see now why THIS character design is so popular.
I never though Boba Fett was a big deal in the OT, and I thought Jango was just silly with him having the ability to shoot missiles, grappling hooks, gauntlet razors, etc. Why not have a buzz saw as well?
But the Mandolorian with the grey/crimson color scheme, and cape, plus the way he carries himself seems more like this intimidating death merchant than the walking swiss army knife of AOTC.
I thought the singing or stining birds upgrade was stupid. How did they know to target the storm troopers but not baby yoda?

So far I’m at the episode where they save the village from the AT-ST. This felt like a filler episode, and reminded me of The Ewok TV movie specials. Not necessarily a bad thing though.

Overall a pretty good series though, so far.

Z6PO said:

The general idea is that since the rebels didn’t have a “military budget” they simply got whatever they could get their hands on, and aesthetics wasn’t exactly a priority either. The Y-Wings f.ex. are canonically old de-commissioned CW-era fighters that had been stripped down to their bare essential even before they stole them. Also the OT is after all 20-ish years post PT, so even if some of the more “modern” boxy designs are only 10 or so years old, that’s plenty of time for them to end up looking old and worn in by a rebellion that literally hides out in caves and has minimal equipment for maintenance. The degree of wear also varies from ship to ship. The Tantive IV and the Calamari cruisers are much more well maintained as they were in the service of their respective militaries before joining the rebellion, but on the other hand something like the Nebulon-B frigate is meant to be stolen imperial ships much much of their outer plating stripped off (similar to the Y-Wings.)

As far as retcons go I think they’ve mostly done a good job of it.

To me, that kind of makes sense, but it falls a part in execution.
The original Star Wars had a very distinct look. Even as a teenager I didn’t realize it was inspired by Flash Gordon until I had it pointed out to me. It felt very much like it’s own thing, and I think that’s great art when you put all your inspirations in a blender and have it end up looking like this unique thing.

The designs of the ships in the PT look like something from a completely different franchise. If they were making a modern but retro looking Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers film, then I’d say they nailed it. If they were doing a film that was meant to evoke the feeling of the 1930/40s sci-fi, nailed it. If they were trying to make audiences feel like this is the same universe that the OT took place in, they failed.

I suppose the 1950s car analogy works, but that’s very specific. Cars from the 2000s don’t look drastically different from those in the 2020s. So if the 1950s are the point of comparison for Star Wars tech, does that mean that star ships had only been in production for 50 years prior to that? Because that’s where auto technology was at in 1950.

DominicCobb said:

You’re missing the point I think, taking things a bit too literally. The goal of the original Star Wars film was for you to feel the unique thrill of being dropped into a serial halfway through, but obviously it’s not exactly the same.

My point is mostly that in old serials, be it Flash Gordon, Gene Autry, Batman, Zorro, whoever, there was always the presumption, even at the end of the serial, that there would be some other threat, some other adventure on the horizon that they’d be there to stop. Lucas has compared Star Wars to James Bond a lot and it’s the same idea. Again, obviously rendered very differently.

My point is, that just because it’s inspired by Flash Gordon doesn’t mean you have to have it be just like Flash Gordon, or Batman. I think it should aspire to be better than those serials. And again, I feel like Star Wars was an amalgamation of many different inspirations, to the point that it became its own thing.

I’m fine with him coming back, but just having it explained that he survived ROTJ? That’s it? Luke and Yoda didn’t feel a disturbance in the Force during this time?
If the bar is serials from 80 years ago okay fine. But that’s a low bar to me.

I suppose that Star Wars, as a whole was never great cinema. Only one of them attempts to be a bit better than the rest, feels like it was going for a slightly more serious direction. So yeah, these new films are in-line with what came before.
I personally didn’t need to see this new trilogy. I didn’t really care about these new characters, the “mysteries” weren’t even good, the story felt disjointed.
The OT had a good story, although ROTJ was a severe regression in quality.
Making a PT of Anakin Skywalker was definitely worth telling, but the result was very bad.
The new ST just feels like a cynical cash grab, and less about someone having this important story to tell.

DominicCobb said:

Even though bringing back Palpatine makes sense of all the mysteries about Rey and Snoke? It is almost like that is what Abrams was thinking when he wrote TFA. And since Ian is still alive, how do we know that wasn’t one of Lucas’s ideas that they reused? It is the kind of move he would pull. Probably why I like it. And it is what they kept doing with Ming in Flash Gordon. It is what they keep doing with the Master in Doctor Who. He’s supposed to be dead and unable to regenerate, yet he keeps finding new ways to cheat death. I think we are up to 5 or 6 different ways at the present. So I really have no complaints about bringing back Palpatine once. It fits with the mythic origins of Star Wars.

Palpatine does NOT make sense of the mysteries around Rey and Snoke. Rey’s parent-reveal was out of left field and didn’t make sense with what TFA and TLJ seemed to be establishing.
Snoke was being puppeted by Palpatine or was he just a pawn? What if Snoke had convinced Kylo to kill Rey in TLJ? Then what? Made no sense.
Reusing the Emperor does sound like a Lucas move, and that on it’s own I don’t necessarily have a problem with. It probably would feel more “Star Wars”-like if they just reuse him, versus some green skinned alien with a pony tail as the new big bad.
However, I can see the complaints that none of the sacrifices seem to matter if the SAME guy keeps coming back. It kind of works in different genres in different mediums, but I think those particular stories lose integrity, and why stories with a definitive ending are often times superior.

Z6PO said:

Look at the automobiles from the fifties, with all their curves, and then by the seventies they’re all boxy.

But it still doesn’t make sense.
1950s cars are all curvy, 70s they get more boxy.
But why is it that all the “1950s” ships in the PT look like they just got driven off the lot, while the “1970s” ships in the OT look like they’ve been around for more than 20 years? They’re all dirty, and worn-in.

It doesn’t seem like a natural progression in technology because if that’s the case, why does all the starships in the ST look so similar to the ones in the OT, worn in and everything? The real reason is that the production design team was inspired by the space ship designs of the pulp magazines. That’s a cool homage but it doesn’t feel like “Star Wars.”

DominicCobb said:

I don’t agree with everything your saying but it is important to remember Flash Gordon. Star Wars, like old space opera serials, is supposed to be a never ending saga, where we know no matter what the heroes will always be there to save the dar. If the evil can be defeated for forever, that’s it’s not really never ending is it?

This gets back to the fact that I fully believe that many people just fundamentally did not want to see movies made set after ROTJ, whether they say so or not. Simply put, to make a story set after ROTJ, you needed to undo that ‘happily ever after’ victory. What made TFA and TLJ so great is that they didn’t just wantonly undo it, they gave a thematic reason for doing so that justified their addition to the story. TROS… not so much.

But Flash Gordon didn’t go on forever. There were three Flash Gordon serials, with each episode within each serial only being 12-15 minutes long. Even the OT is split up into “episodes,” each film is equal in story to one full Flash Gordon serial. Not to mention, there was a two year wait in between the film serials, not unlike the OT. However, in the ST’s case, there’s been a 30+ year wait. So having the same villain as all the others feels much different from 30 years ago is different than just bringing back the same one two years later.

I both liked and disliekd Queen Amidala’s get ups in The Phantom Menace.
I liked them because they were very striking, and I liked the idea that she had this extremely formal wear and deepened voice to giver her a more intimidating appearance to the Senate because in reality she was just a short, petite, teenage girl.

However, when watching it, it looked very clearly to be Asian-inspired. So much so that it didn’t feel like I was in a galaxy far, far away, but instead a local Kabuki-themed production.

For the longest time I didn’t realize Darth Vader’s design was patterned after samurai armor. If anything, I thought of Doctor Doom. Even the initials are inverted.

So much of The Phantom Menace, design-wise felt wrong. I think Palpatine was wearing clothing that was reminiscent of some kind of Renaissance-era tunic. Naboo looked like a cross between Roman/Renaissance period/Florence and Dinotopia. It didn’t feel like Star Wars at all.

And Darth Maul’s design was always kind of weak to me. It’s like what a 6 year old would come up with. Black and red with spikes coming out of his head. And it was also weird that both teenage, human Amidala, and obviously-alien Darth Maul were both wearing what looked like kabuki makeup.
In hindsight though, Darth Maul ended up being the best villain in the whole trilogy. He even had a motorcycle which was cool. They really dropped the ball with killing him off so early. He could have been the new Darth Vader.

I thought the film was very entertaining and fun, but I wonder if the plot details of this trilogy had been leaked prior to the films coming out, how would people feel about it?

Would they read it and think, “wow, this is fun and exciting?”
Would they think it reads like fan-fiction?
Would they feel like like it’s a natural progression of the story from the OT?

Valheru_84 said:

I have much respect for the man for numerous reasons and could never thank him enough for giving us Star Wars

Yeah, same here.
The Star Wars OT, and the Indiana Jones trilogy were amazing, and a treasure to watch during my childhood.

I don’t think George is full of it but the point at which I started seriously getting pissed off with him was the changes to the OT crossing a culmulative threashold where Han no longer shoots first, there’s prequel level silly shit going on around Mos Eisley, Obiwan’s force scream mimic to scare of the Sand People sounds ridiculous that it makes me do a “WTF?” laugh, Luke now screams as he falls down the Cloud City shaft, Vader says “NOOOOOOOO!” when picking up the Emperor, completely different end celebration music after the funeral pyre with obvious CGI locations celebrating, including Gungans.

I think the actual animosity started not from the quality of prequels, but when he initially refused to release the theatrical versions on DVD, then later relented but there were a poor quality and not remastered or anything like most other films.
I think Ridley Scott’s final cut of Blade Runner is the perfect example of tweaking a film for the better.

I love the added effects to Cloud City in ESB. Makes it look so much better. Other than that, I don’t like any of the other SE changes.

Wait, he edited midicholorians into The Making of Star Wars?

I think it was when he said that the the original films were too damaged or don’t exist, and that the only way to watch Star Wars on new media formats was with the SE versions. Then later he released the original OT on DVD, although it wasn’t remastered or anything.

It seemed to me that he wanted the updated SE’s to be seen as the definitive versions, and just made up excuses as to why he couldn’t put out the theatrical version of the OT.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with him making stuff up as he went along. Writers and creative types often do that for a variety of reasons. And on top of that, I can see why he wants to push the narrative that he had the whole thing planned out from the very beginning, and that Star Wars was always about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Some fans don’t want to hear that key aspects of their favorite story, good or bad, were a mistake or last minute.

Shopping Maul said:

But why repeat the mistake when you know you have a trilogy planned? It just doesn’t make sense to me at all, especially given how much scrutiny is inevitable with a franchise like this one.

Oh, I definitely agree on this point.
But I think it does make sense considering they don’t have an infinite amount of time to come up with the perfect story, while at the same time, they can’t take too many artistic risks considering how much they bought the property for. Which is why we get repeats of so many things from the OT.

I don’t think Luke was a Marty Stu at all. That first lesson on the Falcon still didn’t amount to anything that might dampen Han Solo’s cynicism (“I call it luck!”). Luke was like “I did feel something…” but it was pretty vague and hardly conclusive. It’s not like he turned around and mind-tricked Chewie into handing over his wallet. And the Death Star thing was just an extension of that lesson - “do that thing I showed you earlier” - not to mention that Luke was already pretty confident with regard to two-metre targets.

For me, I think it just felt too convenient, and in hindsight, it seems rushed and way too condensed. Lucas originally envisioned an epic story which took place over a series of films. He didn’t think he’d get the chance, so he condensed all the story into one film, which is why we never got to see Luke dueling with a lightsaber, and yet we still get to see him destroy the Death Star and save the galaxy.
Plus, that’s crazy how his x-wing shot literally turned to go down the corridor. Even Robot Chicken made fun of that.

By TESB it seemed clear to me (in 1980) that Luke, now fully aware of his heritage as a Jedi’s son, would have been practising as best he could in the intervening 3 years (“but I’ve learned so much!”) - and even then his levitation skills were pretty lacklustre on the Jedi scale. He got a boost under Yoda’s tutelage, managed to lift some rocks (but not an X-Wing), and of course Yoda wasn’t such a big fan of failure back then! We know the rest. He quit his training early and got his ass handed to him by Vader.

This is a good point. I would have thought that you would need someone to train you in the Force, but at least the film made it seem like there was some considerable amount of time between ANH and ESB.

ROTJ occurred some time later, and again - given Luke’s new attitude re Vader (sheer outrage had been replaced by a calm Zen ‘must save Dad’ attitude) - it seems clear that he had honed his skills during that time. There is at least a sense of growth, of progress, and of consequence. Rey just gets everything on a platter - mind tricks, levitation, you name it, and at no cost, no Dark Side issues etc.

I agree. I thought there was some slight implication Rey would be tempted by the dark side in TLJ, but mostly that was because Luke got scared at her abilities, and that thing with the hole in the ground. I didn’t sense there was much, if any, internal struggle with Rey.

Of course the Force doesn’t exist, so credulity is in the eye of the viewer. For me Luke’s journey was like that of the Karate Kid. Firstly, not any Tom, Dick, or Rey can do Karate. You have to train for it. Secondly, you have to master the self, balance the forces that can sway you one way or another and thwart your quest for mastery. Without this the Force is boring. It’s just an X-Men power that lucky kids wake up with one day.

I agree on this.
But despite the ST hitting most of the same beats as the OT, one beat they didn’t want to repeat was watching another Jedi-in-the-making struggle to train. It was shown in ESB for a reason: to show that Luke was impatient with the training, and that him taking the shortcut to save his friends was signaling to the audience that he too was making the same mistake as young Vader, and possibly was going to turn to the dark side.
Also, there’s a different message going on in the ST. Whereas the those adept with the Force in the OT might appear as “privileged” or members of an exclusive family dynasty, the Force in the ST is shown to be more inclusive. Power to the people and all that, rather than relying on a select few to make change in the world.

DrDre said:

So, there’s failure from a certain point of view, but from many others she is unrealistically successful (or lucky) given her lack of experience, and naive nature, and she achieves many of these successes with powers that she just almost instantly recieved from on high, and thus hasn’t really earned.

I agree with this.
But I don’t think it would play well if we saw Rey getting beat up like other action heroes tend to be.
Had Rey been rescued by Poe Dameron in a Hoth-like situation, people would accuse the filmmakers of resorting to the damsel-in-destress trope.
If Snoke had been hurling giant pieces of machinery at Rey’s back and head, she gets beaten and bruised with a black eye (ala Luke at the end of ESB) AND she loses the fight, it looks like a display of violence against women, and accusations of misogyny are made.

yotsuya said:

So Rey is not an overly physical strong character but is capable and is the main character and therefor supposed to outshine the others. She has setback after setback in what she wants to do as the story (which you can read as the force) pushes her to her destiny. She is exactly the type of strong character we need and definitely not a Mary Sue.

Maybe the problem is 1) using the term “Mary Sue” 2) politicizing of the issue and 3) amateur Youtube critics.

1)As I said, I didn’t think of the term “Mary Sue” when seeing TFA, and I didn’t think Rey being good at so many things right away was because the character was a woman.
I thought that they further explained her abilities, albeit vaguely, in TLJ. She’s particularly strong with the Force, like the Skywalker family was, for no other reason than the Force chose her. In fact she’s so powerful that it’s implied that she could be tempted to the dark side. But I do think there are some valid criticisms of her character.

2. I can sympathize with amateur critics when they believe that the writer’s injecting too much of their own personal opinions, in a way that it’s not done well and it takes you out of the story. However, it seems like the ST has been used by political personalities to further their own agenda.
   I went into TLJ ready to dislike it, but despite interpreting, what I believe to be obvious socio-political messages I didn’t find it do be too distracting. I agree with some here that it could have been more subtle, but this is a mainstream popcorn flick, going after the same modern, young crowd who are political aware and involved. The story, characters and effects were done well enough, so I never felt like it took me out of the film.

3)I like average people reviewing movies on Youtube because often times they can be better than the “professional” stuff. But the problem is that some don’t have a solid background in film history and are critiquing movies from a very narrow perspective.
For example, accusations of “forced diversity” while citing how awesome Lando Calrissian is in the OT.
The original Star Wars was criticized for a lack of diversity, and some have said that the inclusion of Billy Dee Williams in ESB was a concession to those critics.

yotsuya said:

The entire idea of what Poe did being mansplaining is nonsense and idiotic. It really shows a lack of depth to a person’s education in film and fiction. What he did was question authority. I can’t even count the number of times that has appeared in movies, books, TV shows, etc. where both parties are men. It shows a lack of understanding of what mansplaining is. Because that ain’t it.

Maybe if Poe was shown also ignoring male superiors in the film, it would be more clear that he has a problem with authority in general. But considering that the only two superiors he ignores are female, and considering the cultural climate and timing of the film it’s hard to think that may NOT have been the intention of the film makers.
I’m not a fan of the term “mansplaining.” Any time a man talks condescending to a woman, how do you know it’s because she’s a woman? How do you know that the man isn’t condescending to men and women?

On it’s own though, I think Poe Dameron is just supposed to be the typical action hero who questions authority. I don’t think he’s supposed to be sexist as a character, but I think the way it’s presented is supposed to draw allusions to sexism in modern society, in order to make it more relevant.
We’ve seen the action hero who questions authority a thousand times. By having him question his superiors in this one who are all female, it makes it more interesting and more current.
And it also sets up the theme about learning from our mistakes.

And quit blaming Disney. In modern movies the Director and the writer (sometimes the same person as in TLJ) controls the film.

Didn’t Lord and Miller get fired from Solo after they started shooting?

Lucasfilm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney, but Kathleen Kennedy is running it the way Lucas wanted (and if you look at her resume she has some pretty awesome films to her credit). Blame the director because that is where the success or failure of a film (in terms of quality) lies.

So is Kathleen Kennedy in charge or is it the directors?

Shopping Maul said:

I can’t for the life of me understand why these people didn’t think to write a story first!

That’s how it feels at times.
But couldn’t the same be said of the OT?
It feels like Lucas was making it up as he went along.
ANH: Vader and Luke’s father are clearly different people.
ESB: Lucas decides he wants a twist in the story and makes Vader Luke’s father. And just some insurance to get you hooked for the final film, he has Yoda say, “there is another.”
ROTJ: Oh crap, how do we resolve Yoda’s line? Okay how about a twin sister? And make her be Leia.

And although I think Luke was more relatable in his failings compared to Rey, couldn’t he be seen as having aspects of a Marty Stu?
Obi-Wan gives him one brief lesson on the Millennium Falcon, and suddenly he’s able to use the Force and destroy the Death Star with it?
How did he learn telekinesis at the beginning of ESB?
As a kid I always assumed that Luke went back to Dagobah to finish his training before he went to rescue Han and that’s why he was more powerful. Rewatching it, that’s not the case. He returns to finish his training after all that went down, and Yoda just tells him, “nah, you’re training is finished, you just need to kill Vader and then you’ll be a Jedi.”
I always got the impression that to become a Jedi there had to be rigorous training involved, and looking back, Luke has very little training. At least they could have written it so that Luke DID continue his training with Yoda between ESB and the beginning of ROTJ.

DrDre said:

The darkness rises and light to meet it explanation seems contrived, underdeveloped, and a cheap shortcut in Rey’s development, such that we can focus on Luke and Kylo, and have a ROTJ like throne room confrontation in the middle chapter, which sees Rey being evenly matched with Kylo, despite the fact that she only learned about the Force a few days earlier, and Luke has taught her very little, aside from telling her the Jedi suck. The explanation for her sudden rise in power is just too thin, making Kylo seem weak by comparison, and no attempt is made to make it fit into existing canon. Like the FO’s unlimited resources, and Snoke’s ascension, it’s just pulled out of thin air, and we’re supposed to be entertained enough to ignore the undercooked nature of these story developments. It seems even the creators realized this, when they introduced the idea of Rey downloading the know how from Kylo’s mind in the novel.

This is how I felt watching the first film.
But here’s the problem: each generation of Star Wars usually consists of 3 films. But nowadays we’re used to epic franchises that span over multiple installments in order to build up characters and set up the story. Take The Harry Potter series and the MCU for example.
With Star Wars, Disney has to compete at that same level of epic grandeur in far less time. Not to mention they want to fulfill some degree of expectations and familiarity to fans: Deathstar 3.0. Darth Vader Jr, Rey being Han, Obi-Wan AND Luke in the first film, etc.

I don’t know if I’d site the problem with the ST as Rey being a Mary Sue. Instead, I see it more as a problem with trying to give fans what they want, trying to make a profit, and trying to do something new to stay relevant.
The explanation for the rise of the First Order in the first film seemed pretty thin. It’s just fast tracked and glossed over so we can get a story that’s almost the same as the original trilogy.

DominicCobb said:

First thing I think you should understand, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.

I didn’t say you did.
I worded it that way to underline to you, and other people, that I myself don’t think having political leanings in a film, Star Wars or otherwise, is a bad thing.

Just because others have interpreted it that way doesn’t make it the only “obvious” interpretation. Seems to me more Poe having an issue with authority in general. That they’re both women seems to be interpreting something that may or may not be there. At the very least, you have to agree it’s not in the text of the film, which by definition makes it subtext.

The point is you were saying these interpretations were absurd, when they don’t appear to be.
Everything is up for interpretation, and just because the term “mansplaining” is not used, and other characters don’t actually say, “Hey Poe, you’re ‘mansplaining’ to General Holdo because she’s a woman,” doesn’t mean the films lacks subtlety. Again, you’re isolating individual things, while I’m saying that taken as a whole, the political leanings of the film is very apparent, at least more so than Aliens.

“Now it’s worth it” has to do with the theme of “saving what you love.” I don’t see how that is an exclusively left-leaning message, or even all that political a message to begin with.

Again, on it’s own, it wouldn’t. Taken as a whole with everything else in the film, that’s a different story.

Any anti-capitalist sentiment is extremely overstated. Much like how you view Aliens, it’s really more critical about greed and people profiting off war, which is also not that controversial (please show me where anyone says money=bad).

I don’t think I said TLJ was anti-capitalist. Maybe I did, but I thought I was specifically mentioning the “one percent.”

I didn’t say there was nothing there that could be interpreted that way, just that complaints overstated them.

Except I wasn’t complaining about it. I specifically said that I believe that Disney wanted to make the film relevant to modern film audiences, and was successful in doing so.

Don’t forget they went there to find the code breaker, who seems to be a good enough guy (Maz lauds him). And Rose’s line is really, like I said before, condemning war profiteers. She’s not saying all rich people suck, just these.

She says “Only one thing gets you THIS rich. War.” The implication is that the extreme rich only get that way through immoral means.
We have different ideas of what constitutes “on the nose” or lack of subtlety.
For example, if Rose screamed out “Die capitalist pigs,” and her and Finn were plotting to overthrow the “capitalist system,” I wouldn’t merely being saying that the message lacked subtlety or was too on-the-nose.

You previously want examples of people explicitly stating things, yet Rose never says “only war profiteers are evil.” She’s goes out of her way to mention the rich elite, which would probably be the Star Wars equivalent of the “one percent.”

I didn’t say you did, and I wasn’t speaking directly to you, more just in general about those complaints.

Well then why mention it? Don’t lump me in with others, since I don’t have a problem with the themes in TLJ.

There aren’t many things that gets me stressed out and I can promise you this isn’t one. I love Star Wars and I love talking about Star Wars. This site has been where I’ve done that for years. But the discourse around this film specifically has been exhausting. I’m not upset, just disappointed. For once we were having an intelligent discussion about the movie and then on cue it devolved into the same old tired and silly talking points.

Everyone else seemed pretty cordial until one particular poster came in insulting others.
Right now, this particular discussion with you seems pretty chill and productive.

It’s obvious that the father twist was made up for ESB. And yet, that little moment when Obi-Wan hesitates to tell Luke how his father died, makes it seem like it the story was all planned.

A lucky moment indeed.
Obi-wan was great in that scene.

double post

DominicCobb said:

The argument is absurd. There’s nothing about TLJ that is overtly political. Everything you mention is as “subtle” in TLJ as it is in Aliens.

No it’s not, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that either, if the goal is to have it immediately resonate with audiences now, rather than them discovering these themes years later.

There’s nothing in TLJ that’s has anything to do with “gender inequality” (literally only one reference to gender I can think of). There’s not a single instance of “mansplaining” or the calling out of such. There’s not a single instance of any male having trouble with a female in charge (Poe’s problems with Holdo have nothing to do with that).

Forget that Poe ignored General Organa’s orders, and then creates a mutiny against Holdo, both women.

And about “mansplaining”:
Vanity Fair: “Star Wars: The Last Jedi Offers the Harsh Condemnation of Mansplaining We Need in 2017”

The Washington Post: “…Leia is flanked by an unflinching vice admiral in the lavender-tressed Amilyn Holdo (Laura Dern), who, when called upon, has a deep sense of mission and knows well the painful wages of war. When challenged by a “mansplaining” flyboy like Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), she gives no quarter.”

TheMarySue.com: “his first conversation with her is to mansplain how they only have so much fuel left (something she would already have been briefed on) and let us not forget the first thing he does this movie is disobeying Leia’s orders, which leads to the destruction of all the current Rebel Bombers and the death of Rose’s sister.”

The “animal rights” message is barely anything (animal abuse being wrong is not a controversial or even liberal opinion, not to mention no one in the film even talks about it being wrong we just see it, and on top of that the Fathiers seem to be intelligent which makes this abuse specifically extra bad).

Considering how prominent it was in the film, with Rose and Finn saying “it was worth it” even if the Resistance is doomed, in conjunction with all the other themes, gives the film a more left-leaning tilt than Aliens. Which is fine.

Any anti-capitalist sentiment is extremely overstated. Much like how you view Aliens, it’s really more critical about greed and people profiting off war, which is also not that controversial (please show me where anyone says money=bad).

Isn’t there a part where Rose says something like “Only one business in the galaxy gets you this rich.”
Seems to be a criticism of the 1% percent, especially considering that we see all the rich elite drinking space wine while wearing tuxedos and gowns during a time of conflict. I immediately thought of video footage during Occupy Wall Street, of the rich drinking champagne from their balconies and looking down at the people on the streets protesting.

The arguments of TLJ being “shove in your face” political are some of the most annoying bullshit I’ve had to put up with talking Star Wars in this past year.

I never said TLJ “shoved” anything in anyone’s face. I agreed with someone else that it was more on the nose compared to something like Aliens. Disney obviously wanted to make Star Wars more relevant to today’s modern audiences, I think they succeeded in their approach.

How have you had to put up with it? Participating on message forums is voluntary. If it’s getting you that stressed out, take a break from certain topics.

I’m tired of the parroting of clunky, poorly thought out talking points. I try not to argue about this movie anymore but the Aliens comparison is particularly apt and really points out the extremely ridiculous double standard some guys apply to their analyses.

There was some nice arguments for and against Aliens handling a female action lead better.
You seem to the be the only one letting this discussion get under your skin while resorting to insults.

RogueLeader said:

Regarding Rey “downloading” lightsaber skills to defeat Kylo, I see what you’re saying but I look at it like this: A big part of the Force is that by “letting go”, you let the Force partially guide your actions. This is how the Force is described in the OT. So when Rey closed her eyes, she let go of her doubts and her fears, and let the Force flow through her and guide her actions. I think it carries a strong message of believing in yourself to overcome the challenges you face.

I think by that point in the battle, Kylo was afraid, injured and unbalanced, only going off his learned skills, which is no match to the power and reflexes the Force can give you, which Rey had at that moment.

Also with the Jakku chase, the First Order had orders to capture the droid, so they might have been trying to disable the ship rather than simply destroy it, which might’ve made their job a little harder.

The Jakku chase still seems a bit iffy-it’s been a while since I saw it-but what you said makes sense about Rey and the Force in her first showdown with Kylo. And there’s precedent with Luke in A New Hope. Obi-Wan just tells Luke to use the Force, and he’s able to blindly block the little floating sphere’s blasts. Same with him suddenly using the Force to target the Death Star’s weak spot instead of actual onscreen display schematics.
Plus, she already has experience fighting with a staff, so that, combined with allowing the Force to guide her actions, makes the scene work in hindsight.

DominicCobb said:

I think I already did? There’s no discernible difference in the way Aliens and TLJ treats “politics” but you seem to be able to pretend that in one it’s only obvious when you go back and look really hard but in the other it’s “in your face.”

I like both movies, but TLJ does seems more heavy handed in the way it handles politics compared to Aliens.
In TLJ it felt specifically geared to the political beliefs of left-leaning millennials.
It felt like there were allusions to the 1%, animal rights, “mansplaining”, gender inequality, and men being threatened by women in charge.

I guess Aliens could be considered anti-capitalism, although at the time I thought it was more specifically a criticism of corporate greed. Other than that, I didn’t detect any overt political messages in it.

Valheru_84 said:

The difference being in the case of Ripley is that the male characters aren’t shown as normal male characters that are dumbed down to make her stand out. Instead there are some actually dumb ones (that are essentially stereotyped grease monkeys) and there are smart and capable ones that work alongside Ripley in Alien to operate the mining vessel and later attempt to contain the alien.

That’s true. I think it was Lt. Gorman that was the dumb one, and it wasn’t presented as due to his gender, but because he had zero real life combat experience.
Burke is initially, one of the good ones (from the Company), since he’s the one who agrees with Ripley initially against Gorman’s objections.
Then there’s Hicks who sides with Ripley from the beginning.

And it that lays the example of how to do it right. The political issue is left to be discovered afterwards by means of critical analysis and introspection rather than the movie breaking the 4th wall to tell you directly about animal rights, capitalism and gender inequality as TLJ does and is so on the nose about it.

Val

You make some excellent points here too.
I thought Del Toro’s character challenging Rose and Finn’s belief that it’s not only the New Order that making the weapons dealers rich but also the Resistance was showing that the issue isn’t black and white. But yes, I think you’re argument that a more subtle and complex approach to these topics make usually make for a better story and discussion.