Sign In

yotsuya

User Group
Members
Join date
2-Dec-2008
Last activity
19-Sep-2019
Posts
1,365

Post History

Post
#1297313
Topic
Small details that took you <em><strong>FOREVER</strong></em> to notice in the <em>Star Wars</em> films
Time

Creox said:

yotsuya said:

Broom Kid said:

20th Century Fox paid for the Special Editions, yes. It was on their dime, and I believe it was initially their idea, too. Lucas ended up negotiating with them further, and used the money they’d initially earmarked for a 20th anniversary restoration and re-release of Star Wars to be a “Special Edition” trilogy project (I believe they got Fox to increase the budget at that point as well) but the story of the Special Edition starts with 20th Century Fox approaching Lucas about getting the original film back in theaters as an event, and Lucas then using his leverage to fix things he wanted to fix then, and add things he couldn’t have added, especially since Fox agreed to pay for it.

Now the quality of the “fixes” can be debated, and have been for over 20 years now, I’m not going to argue that the execution was successful. But the intent of the Special Editions was definitely different than the intent behind the DVD release, and the later blu-ray release. The Special Editions were initially begun with a bigger idea of “fixing” the movies so that they looked and felt more like he wanted them to back then. The DVD and Blu-Ray additions - not paid for by Fox - were undertaken more along the idea of “this seems cool, put it in there.”

Director tinkering is the best description for all three edit passes. It was the same thought process and the same type of changes. Only TESB had some real technical fixes (recompositing the snow effects shots). The rest were outright changes to the entire frame or recompositing new effects over existing footage. There really isn’t much different between changing the door in the 2011 version of ROTJ and changing the sandcrawler in the 1997 SE. Who was paying for it is irrelevant to the nature of the changes. It was all GL tinkering with his films to “improve them”.

Yeah, I agree with your last sentence though I can see where GL was going with some of his edits. He wanted to bring the OT more in line graphically with the PT. Where I find his edits really annoying is when he changed key aspects of the plot or adding FX for no obvious reason.

That would be about half of them.

Post
#1297312
Topic
Rian Johnson to Head New Star Wars Trilogy
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Fang Zei said:

They said in the official announcement that this won’t be Episodes X, XI, and XII.

Right, but I 100% guarantee you that Episodes X, XI, and XII are coming after Johnson’s trilogy is finished.

I doubt it. TROS is supposed to finish the Skywalker saga and I think the best follow-up to that would be to go back to the ancient Jedi, before they were the jaded Old Republic Jedi of the PT. It would be the best way to show what happens next while not revisiting the Skywalker saga. I think some classic Jedi from a thousand years before ANH would be awesome and give them a fresh start at the same time.

Post
#1297264
Topic
Small details that took you <em><strong>FOREVER</strong></em> to notice in the <em>Star Wars</em> films
Time

Broom Kid said:

20th Century Fox paid for the Special Editions, yes. It was on their dime, and I believe it was initially their idea, too. Lucas ended up negotiating with them further, and used the money they’d initially earmarked for a 20th anniversary restoration and re-release of Star Wars to be a “Special Edition” trilogy project (I believe they got Fox to increase the budget at that point as well) but the story of the Special Edition starts with 20th Century Fox approaching Lucas about getting the original film back in theaters as an event, and Lucas then using his leverage to fix things he wanted to fix then, and add things he couldn’t have added, especially since Fox agreed to pay for it.

Now the quality of the “fixes” can be debated, and have been for over 20 years now, I’m not going to argue that the execution was successful. But the intent of the Special Editions was definitely different than the intent behind the DVD release, and the later blu-ray release. The Special Editions were initially begun with a bigger idea of “fixing” the movies so that they looked and felt more like he wanted them to back then. The DVD and Blu-Ray additions - not paid for by Fox - were undertaken more along the idea of “this seems cool, put it in there.”

Director tinkering is the best description for all three edit passes. It was the same thought process and the same type of changes. Only TESB had some real technical fixes (recompositing the snow effects shots). The rest were outright changes to the entire frame or recompositing new effects over existing footage. There really isn’t much different between changing the door in the 2011 version of ROTJ and changing the sandcrawler in the 1997 SE. Who was paying for it is irrelevant to the nature of the changes. It was all GL tinkering with his films to “improve them”.

Post
#1297163
Topic
Small details that took you <em><strong>FOREVER</strong></em> to notice in the <em>Star Wars</em> films
Time

Broom Kid said:

The actual Special Editions (the 97 theatrical releases are really the only ones that are actually “Special Editions,” everything else is just Star Wars) seemed a lot more concerned with “fixing” things, and a lot of errors were tackled. The Special Editions were also on Fox’s dime, entirely. Some of the more egregious additions to the Special Editions were done as a sort of testing ground for prequel effects, but the SEs did do a decent job of removing “mistakes” from the original releases.

You’re right however that the 2004 DVD release and the 2011 blu-ray release (which were Lucasfilm budgeted, I believe) were less about fixing anything and more about adding stuff if they could. Those releases didn’t really have the same mandate as the Special Edition did, and likely had a smaller budget. So the idea there was different, and the execution reflects that - those releases are definitely more along the lines of “put that thing in there, that’ll be cool” instead of “here’s a list of errors I’d like cleaned up.”

I don’t think the 1997 SE was on Fox’s dime. Lucas wouldn’t have let them get a claim on TESB or ROTJ that way. The SE’s were edits more than fixes. Did they actually fix a single real issue with any of the films? No, only things GL had problems with. He had a vision of what it should be and the SE’s were to mold the films to that vision not to fix any mistakes. The Hoth snow scenes recomposition wasn’t really necessary. It is nice, but not necessary. The audio changes weren’t necessary. The films was fine without the Wampa. The windows in Cloud city were added in some shots and not others creating continuity issues. The three times he touched the films he kept doing that same thing. The only real gaff that he fixed was the Tie-Figher holes on the falcon in ROTJ. Everything else was editing. He didn’t fix a single mistake in ANH (and there are a lot of them). Adywan’s revisited actually fixed the things that needed to be fixed.

Post
#1297142
Topic
Small details that took you <em><strong>FOREVER</strong></em> to notice in the <em>Star Wars</em> films
Time

captainsolo said:

The gaffes, errors, problems and shortcuts in SW are all due to Fox nickel and diming everyone the whole time and then the final rush to get shooting finished with everyone bicycling between stages and multiple units going at once.
And that’s a big part of why it is great. And a big chunk of what the SEs remove.

What drives me nuts is the the SE’s were supposed to remove mistakes and they just added in more. So many of GL’s changes don’t actually fix any continuity errors. They fix things GL didn’t like and thought they could do better. He left just about every gaff from editing alone and ended up adding more. The Rock in front of R2 doesn’t fit. The windows in Bespin aren’t consistent. The larger door to Jabba’s palace is only larger on the outside (the inside shots are of the same smaller door).

Post
#1296489
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

StarkillerAG said:

DrDre said:

StarkillerAG said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Actually the Luke of TLJ is the one who has finally internalized the lessons of TESB. Rey says herself that Luke is purposefully ignoring his success in ROTJ (which repudiated Yoda and Obi-wan), but he has a reason for doing so - saving Anakin did not destroy the Death Star in the short term, nor the Empire in the long term. On the contrary, Luke sees his victory there and elsewhere as having a direct line to his hubris in training Ben.

And anyway, Luke in ROTJ is very pointedly not able to avoid the emotions affiliated with the dark side. He brings his weapon with him when he goes to see Vader. He gives in to his fear, anger, and hatred. It is only when he is on the verge of killing his father does his rationality come in, and he realizes what he has done - it is an exact mirror of the flashback in TLJ. Of course the argument then is that “he should have known better.” Well fine if you feel that way. But in my mind, the dark side is a constant temptation, and the factors leading to that moment in Ben’s hut were such that Luke was, in his arrogance, unaware of what he was getting into (it was a far more subversive challenge than the explicit manipulation of the Emperor on the Death Star). This arrogance is of course a mirror to the arrogance of the Jedi in the PT not realizing the fear and the anger they were giving into, which caused their downfall. Luke, seeing the cycle of things he’s found himself perpetuating, decides to end the Jedi for good. I don’t see any regression at all.

To me this presents a very narrow point of view, and just like much of Luke’s character development seems to be ignored, reducing him down to his mistakes at some moment in the past, so too the Jedi are reduced to their mistakes at the darkest time in their history. Like Luke there is much more to the Jedi than their mistakes at a specific moment in time. The Jedi guarded the peace in the galaxy for over a thousand generations. That to me is clear proof, that the Jedi code works, and that Luke in TLJ was turned into a fool, not being able to look beyond the flaws of a couple of individual Jedi, who by no means seem to be representative of the Jedi over their millenia long history.

I mean, yeah, Luke is looking at it the wrong way, and he’s ultimately proven to be wrong. But Luke is no fool. All we know about the Jedi is that they were the guardians of peace for a thousands generations, but even that doesn’t mean there were a thousand generations of peace. They were exerting their will of the Force over the galaxy. Luke only cites the rise of Darth Sidious and the creation of Vader (because these are things we can connect to as we’ve seen those films), but the whole point of him being on the island is to study the long history of the Jedi, and this is the conclusion he came to, that the Jedi must end. You can nitpick that they didn’t give you sufficient explanation, but in my opinion the implication is clear, that there are more flaws to the order than just the ones we’ve seen in the films.

Yet, Luke then changes his mind.

He doesn’t change his mind about the Jedi, he changes his mind about helping the Resistance. This is shown very well in the Yoda scene. Yoda tells Luke that the teachings of the Jedi were flawed, and tells Luke to pass on everything he learned, both success and failure. Luke still believes that the old Jedi were flawed, but he decides to create a new order of Jedi, learning from the failures of the old.

I didn’t hear anything about a new order of Jedi. All I saw was Yoda chastising Luke for not living up to his potential as a Jedi.

You obviously weren’t paying attention during that scene. Yoda specifically says:

“Heeded my words not, did you. Pass on what you have learned. Strength, mastery, but weakness, folly, failure also. Yes, failure most of all. The greatest teacher, failure is. Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters.”

It was Luke who chose to only see the Jedi through the lens of his own failure, and thus couldn’t see the bigger picture.

Yes, but Yoda’s speech allowed Luke to see the bigger picture. Once again, the quote above clearly contradicts the point you’re trying to make.

No it doesn’t. There is nothing in Yoda’s lesson to Luke, that indicates he’s presenting Luke with some new insight, that did not exist when the Jedi were in their prime. In fact Yoda saying “heeded my words not”, suggests the opposite of what you are suggesting. What Yoda is telling Luke is, that he did not do as he was taught. He should not only pass on his successes, but also allow others to learn from his failures, a lesson he probably gave to many Jedi in the past.

Um… yes, he is presenting Luke with a new lesson that Luke has not had before. He may have used it before the heyday of the Jedi, but it is not among the lesson’s we saw him teach Luke and the way the dialog is written makes it clear that he had only told Luke to pass on what he had learned without specifying that his failures were included in that. So this was a new lesson for Luke.

Post
#1296386
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

[yotsuya said:]
If you don’t think he would act that way or be discouraged then I think you have missed something about the entire saga. Try watching TESB and TLJ back to back. Then tell me that TLJ isn’t in character. Yes, in ROTJ, he is more confident, but confidence can be shattered easily. Luke has shown that to be the case. Insisting that he maintain the confidence that he has for most of ROTJ is unrealistic. The unsure Luke we see in ANH and TESB is just hiding under the surface in ROTJ and only needed a sufficiently horrible event to bring it out.

In my view you missed something in the saga, because you keep going back to TESB to argue Luke in TLJ is consistent with his portrayal in the OT. The problem is you view Luke as this flawed static character. Luke in ROTJ is just the same character as in TESB with a little more confidence. Take that confidence away, and add a few years and you have Luke from TLJ. However, you ignore much of Luke’s character development in the OT. The Luke that let himself fall to his death rather than accept Vader’s offer, is not the same character as the one who left Yoda and Obi-Wan on Dagobah, and that’s without considering the time he’s had to reflect on the consequences of his actions. Then there’s his development in ROTJ, where after being goaded by Palpatine, and Vader to release his anger, at that seminal moment he realizes he will follow in his father’s footsteps, if he doesn’t let go of his fear, and anger. So, he throws away his weapon, and declares himself a Jedi. These are scenes of critical character development, that you just seem to ignore. The Luke at the end of ROTJ is not the impetuous naive, youth we met in ANH, nor is he the impatient hothead from TESB, nor is he the overconfident Jedi wannabe at the start of ROTJ. He is a fullfledged Jedi, in tune with the Force, and able to avoid emotions affiliated with the dark side of the, such as fear, anger and hatred. That is his arc in the OT, his hero’s journey. You say:

“Try watching TESB and TLJ back to back. Then tell me that TLJ isn’t in character.”

What you’re really saying for the Luke of TLJ to be in character, he has to regress back to the character he was, when he first entered the cave on Dagobah. To me that’s one of the running themes in the ST: regression. Han regressed back to smuggler, Leia regressed back to the leader of a fledgeling rebellion, the galaxy regressed back to the Galactic Civil War, and Luke regressed back to his younger stupid self.

No, I’m not saying Luke is static. I’m saying people have traits and those traits (good or bad) don’t just go away. Luke in TESB and Luke in ROTJ are one and the same, but different traits dominate. Luke in TLJ has reverted back to some of those old traits in TESB and ANH. They are some of his character flaws. And what I am saying is quite different from what you are saying. I’m saying that due to the horrible event of the destruction of the new Jedi academy, Luke has retreated back and let his character flaws show. Quite the opposite of what you seemed to want him to be that he would be unaffected by such a horrible event and maintain this Buddha like state of enlightenment without being impacted. You are the one saying he should not change when we are presented with events that would change just about anyone.

And Luke is not a full fledged Jedi in ROTJ. Yoda states that when Luke goes to see him. He is not a Jedi until the end of the movie when he throws down his lightsaber. Not until he faces Vader and the Emperor and stands fast to Yoda and Ben’s teachings is he a Jedi.

And what is wrong with regression when the need arises. The story setup is that a powerful remnant of the Empire is now threatening the Republic. Leia would naturally take up that challenge. And if Leia and Han split up, why wouldn’t Han retreat to what he knows so well. As for Luke, it is only a horrific tragedy that has led him to regress (I wouldn’t call the others regressing but just circling back to things they are good at). You seem to have a problem that our world runs in cycles and that the ST is showing us that. A new generation faces similar challenges and how will they cope… how will the win. And the key moment that has led to TFA is the fall of Ben Solo. That even has triggered just about everything we are seeing in the ST. Mother, father, and uncle are deeply impacted by it and the Galaxy is as well because of how he fell. The premise is set in TFA and TLJ just follows through with it. TROS will complete the story and I think will make things make a lot more sense. They have not been telling a simple tale with the ST and I think some of the complexity will not be revealed until the end.

That Luke could not experience something to break him and bring out his character flaws really ignores the real impact of tragic events on people. Yes, Luke was the hero of the OT. But we are passed that now. Life does not end with “they all lived happily ever after” and it is not in the nature of the serials Lucas started from. Happiness and success only last until the next event. Why you expect Luke to remain exactly where he was at the end of ROTJ is beyond me. TLJ shows us a Luke who is wise and jaded. He knows the force, knows it’s lessons, knows the history of the Jedi and has cut himself off because he could not protect his nephew. He is not static by any means. He is a fleshed out character who is exactly what I would expect after such a tragedy. His youthful character flaws are still there, but the person they appear in is not the same. It creates a very rich and interesting character to watch on screen. And Mark played it perfectly. Much more interesting than what you have suggested. And, if I may say so, much like some of the characters in the early drafts of The Star Wars. So I find his the TLJ version of Luke to be absolutely perfect for what the character has been through and where he should be 30 years passed ROTJ.

Post
#1296351
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

Broom Kid said:
“Luke wouldn’t do that” is a very strong statement, and definitely a valid one.

That is the main issue I think. For some, the events described don’t tally with their vision of Luke. For others of us, it does. I think the main focus is on whether you actually saw who Luke really was during the OT or not. If you take him as fallible and human as I feel he was portrayed, his actions between ROTJ and TLJ are in keeping with his character traits. If you take him as founder of the new Jedi order and don’t let him be human, you won’t like what this story has to say. The important lesson of this saga is that we are all human and fallible. Some fall further than others. Luke has a history of making mistakes and being hard on himself. He has great passion but he can be easily discouraged. All we have in the tale of the fall of Ben Solo is a case of Luke being discouraged by those events. If you don’t think he would act that way or be discouraged then I think you have missed something about the entire saga. Try watching TESB and TLJ back to back. Then tell me that TLJ isn’t in character. Yes, in ROTJ, he is more confident, but confidence can be shattered easily. Luke has shown that to be the case. Insisting that he maintain the confidence that he has for most of ROTJ is unrealistic. The unsure Luke we see in ANH and TESB is just hiding under the surface in ROTJ and only needed a sufficiently horrible event to bring it out.

Post
#1296350
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

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

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

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

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

And how many times does that happen in mythology… the old hero is disillusioned and won’t help the new hero. You make it sound like this is an epic fail in Luke’s story when it is a classic mythological journey and very valid.

I disagree. The hero and mentor archetypes are generally separate, and rarely does the hero become the mentor, except at the end of the story, when their journey is complete. Generally the mentor’s role is to provide aid, and when a mentor refuses to help, it is usually, because the mentor feels the hero does not meet the standards, that the mentor requires. So, the type of disillusioned mentor that Luke represents is rare, and it is even more rare for the mentor to pretty much refuse to help the hero right through to end of the story. In fact here the hero becomes so disillusioned with the mentor, that she tells him to stuff it, and takes the sacred texts to help herself.

One might say, that Luke provides an important lesson to Rey, through his failure. “The greatest teacher failure is!” However, I would point to this article, that through the perspective of several people, who are knowledgeable about the craft of storytelling, explains why TLJ’s use of failure is flawed:

https://medium.com/@matthewkadish/why-the-last-jedi-is-a-failure-storycraft-ba27d0b7aea7

This is a flawed examination of the film. Why? It ignores other successful films that likewise have failure. And most importantly it ignore the Star Wars trilogy structure and that failure is vital to the middle chapter of the trilogy. Should we examine TESB in terms of failure? Shall we list who all fails in that film? How pervaisive failure is. About the only person who succeeds in that film is Boba Fett. Lando fails to keep the Empire out of his city, Han and Leia fail to escape the Empire, Darth Vader fails to capture Luke, Luke fails his duel, fails to save Han, fails to listen to Yoda or Ben. The majority of successes for the Rebels relate to the escape from Hoth followed by a string of failures. TLJ is the middle act and the middle act of a film is always setbacks and failures. ATOC can be seen to do the same thing in some ways. Remember, when TESB came out, it was the sequel… the continuation of the story. For GL it was the second act that he’d cut down (ANH is really the first act followed by a truncated third act). His original draft was really Tatooine, asteroids, Bespin, Endor (in terms of the final locations).

If a character is going to fail, that character must do so despite their best efforts.

In other words, a character must do everything right, and STILL fail, in order for that failure to successfully allow the audience to identify with that character. Otherwise, if a character fails because they are stupid, lazy, incompetent, or dictated to do so by the plot, audiences will end up REJECTING the character and actively dislike him."

That is not the only way to tell a story. In fact if all the failures are like that, the character seems too perfect. Character flaws are what make for interesting characters. Sometimes those flaws cause failures and that is a good thing and audiences identify with that.

The problem with Luke’s failure is not, that he fails, but that he doesn’t fail despite his best efforts. Luke makes one mistake with Ben Solo, and then just gives up, rather than to take responsibility for his mistake, and try to fix it, and then fail. Luke is thus shown to be incompetent, and a coward. Two traits that generally don’t sit well with many viewers.

I disagree. Luke is shown to be human and wounded. It is consistent with how he is portrayed in ANH and TESB. In ROTJ he is riding high, but it still comes back when he says “I shouldn’t have come. I’m endangering the mission.” Luke is not perfect and is not supposed to be. He is the hero and he has been shown to have flaws. He took the failures with his nephew personally (I won’t even get into how common this is). What we have to do in TFA and TLJ is remember that Luke is no longer the hero. He is Sampson with his hair cut. How many failures did Hercules suffer? Over and over we have the old hero fallen and make a late effort to set things right. Luke is supposed to be Rey’s mentor but he can’t get past his failure to see what he needs to do. He is stuck at the end of his hero’s journey and sets things right with a final sacrifice.

And if you want a real world discussion about the ongoing fight against tyranny, we have only to look to the 20th century to see how that played out over and over again. Without even getting into all the back story, WWI led to WWII, which led to war after war around the globe. It is even coming back to haunt us today with the Nazi flag on public display. Of course in Star Wars those trials are more personal and also galaxy wide, but I personally feel the frustration of an enemy we defeated in 1945 rising again today. The ST and it’s depiction of the continuing struggle to defeat tyranny should be resonating with a lot of people. Seeing what you have spent a life-time building crumbling in front of you should resonate with many. Stories are not supposed to end in the perfect success all the time. In the serial nature of Star Wars, the next chapter after ROTJ (if it had occurred 2-5 years after ROTJ) Would have been about the struggle to finally defeat the Empire, Leia’s struggles to help forge the new Republic (with her adversaries having valid concerns). But we skipped over all that to get to the next generation and their struggle.

If you want to make comparisons to the real world, you know very well that all the wars you mention had a very different dynamic, and the motivations for each of the parties were very different as well. WWI was very different from WWII. The Cold War and its proxy wars were very different as well. Compare this to the Star Wars universe, where we got another war with pretty much the same participants, hoping to achieve the same goals, in a similar setting, and you should know that your argument is flawed.

That is not how I see it. The failures of WWI led to WWII. The Treaty of Versailles setup Germany so someone like Hitler could take it over with ease. It humiliated them and his message was one of pride. And there was a wonderful discovery that the founder of the Baath party in Iraq had served as a General in Eastern Europe under Hitler. He carried those fascist teachings back to Iraq and so we get the same two parties in conflict again in a different generation. But with other issues coloring it. The Cold War was an offshoot of the race to beat the Nazi’s to the atomic bomb. We won and the Soviets caught up and Nazi Germany never got close. It is all a weave of cause and effect with the same players in different combinations. Star Wars borrows from real world examples, but rarely copies exactly (though Palpatine’s rise very much mirror’s Hitler’s except the Jedi and Clone War). And when you go back further into history, the number of real world examples for what has happened increase. Such as the War of the Roses. Henry VII thought it was over and he still had to contend with new rebellions. Even when the last Plantagenet heir was dead, there were new enemies to combat. Life is circular and things repeat. Life is also hard. Success is not a measure of growth and the good myths teach that. Likewise Star Wars teaches that (and has for a long time). It isn’t about whether the heros win this round, but whether they keep going and keep trying and keep winning enough rounds to keep the bad guys at bay. Star Wars isn’t about clean Hollywood story telling, but about myths and the old one reel serials where the moment things succeed, something else comes up. Expecting ROTJ to be the pinnacle of Luke’s story ignores the primary inspiration behind all of Star Wars. Expecting the post ROTJ new Republic to stand for 1000 years likewise ignores the serial inspiration that led Lucas to create this in the first place. In the serials, something always goes wrong and the heros are back in the fight before they have even had a chance to catch their breath.

Just because you don’t like it does not negate Luke’s OT Hero’s journey, but that journey is over and Luke is now the Mentor and Rey is the Hero. And the state of enlightenment is precarious and can be lost. Because it can be lost does not mean it is unattainable. Your analysis is flawed.

The state of enlightenment should not be lost so easily, otherwise you risk deflating the value of enlightenment. Over the course of multiple movies we’ve been told and shown, what that state of enlightenment represents. It means becoming a Jedi. Being a Jedi means attaining a state of inner tranquility through calmness and meditation while avoiding emotions affiliated with the dark side of the Force, such as fear, anger and hatred. Being a Jedi means attaining that state. Does this mean Jedi are flawless? No, but because of their training they are not easily seduced to give in to negative emotions. So, we can expect a Jedi not to falter, except under extreme duress. One such example is Mace Windu, who when faced with the real possibility of the Jedi’s destruction, after having been manipulated by a Sith Lord to participate in a war, that severely depleted their ranks, and left much of the galaxy in ruins, gave into fear, and attempted to assasinate the Chancellor. Luke, who was not a Jedi yet, and after having faced the real possibility of the destruction of the Rebel Alliance, also gave into fear, and anger, when his father threatened to go after his sister. BUT and this is a big but, after he realized what he might become, he let go of his fear, and anger, and threw away his weapon in the face of one of the greatest evils the galaxy has ever seen. In that moment he reached that state of enlightenment, and became a Jedi. Now, does that mean it is impossible for Luke to falter in the future? No, but it would have to be under extreme duress. Does the situation with Ben Solo represent extreme duress for a Jedi, who has been through the experiences Luke has been through? I don’t think so. Luke is confronted with a possible future, a future he knows through his teachings, is always in motion. Ben hasn’t hurt anyone, and if the novice Rey can sense good in him in the present time, surely Luke, who felt good in his father, when no one else could, should have been able to sense the good still present in the conflicted young Ben Solo. Additionally unlike the situations with Mace Windu, and young Luke, there is no immediate crisis, or war going on. The New Republic is still in full control of the galaxy. There thus seems to be no rational explanation, why a Jedi Master like Luke would falter under such relatively favourable conditions, and ignite his lightsaber in fear of a hypothetical future. The fact that this is his own blood, should be all the more reason not to reach for his lightsaber in this situation. An average person may be tempted, but to have a Jedi Master fall so easily, and after one setback just give up? That deflates the value of enlightenment to such a degree, that it loses much of its meaning for me. Mark Hamill understood this:

“You see in the story why that is, but I had a real problem, because I don’t believe a Jedi would ever give up. You see, if he makes a mistake, he doubles down and does the right thing, regardless of the magnitude of his mistake — choosing Ben Solo and being so wrong and giving rise to the possible Darth Vader.”

That to me is the essence of enlightenment in the context of the Star Wars saga, and I’m personally not willing to give up on that so easily, and with such little context, and explanation, just to have the story continue, and to have Luke display a cool new Force power, and learn a lesson about, what it means to be a Jedi. A lesson he learned long ago when he faced his father, and the Emperor under much more unfavourable conditions.

Again, Mark came around to what RJ did. Yes, he had some early complaints and misgivings, but in the end he didn’t. And again, that is ignoring the serial nature of Star Wars. The story wasn’t finished in ROTJ. None of us knew what was coming next, but if the story continued, anything could happen and definitely an end to whatever success had been achieved. That is the nature of the story structure. And just what about this concept of enlightenment is inherant to ROTJ? ROTJ is about redemption. And Luke fails to achieve that through any action of his own. It only happens when Luke’s life is in danger and he is pleading with his father. Luke faced the dark side, even draws on it, and is able to remain untainted. I wouldn’t call that enlightenment. Star Wars is more about myth and humanity than it is about enlightenment. I would say a Jedi only achieves enlightenment by becoming one with the Force which Luke doesn’t do until TLJ. I think you have the concept of the story of the OT a lot elevated from what it really is. And Luke’s success at the end of ROTJ is really based on failure and giving up. He fails to turn his father back, fails to hold to his non-fighting stance. In the end, he only wins by giving up. He accepts failure. He doesn’t even try to stand up to the Emperor. You could argue that he was gambling that it might at last get through to his father, but there is no sign it might work until it actually does. To me it seems completely in character that when Luke is faced with a student that he sees might be the next Darth Vader or Palpatine, that he would be tempted to deal with them, only to cool off and remember that the future is uncertain. That it was his nephew and student increases his guilt. Luke has always been hot headed and his actions in ROTJ are no different. Seeing some grand enlightenment for the character really ignores that he is still the farm boy from Tatooine at heart. He has grown and matured, but is not perfect and has only shed his bad traits for a moment of final success. Lucas gave us a feel good ending but with the hope of eventually having a 7, 8, and 9, we all knew something bad would happen. Complaining about how JJ and RJ have followed the same format and GL is kind of silly. Especially when they based the part that is giving you your major gripe from GL’s original treatment (Luke in self imposed exile).

Post
#1296333
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

Broom Kid said:
And my counter to “I don’t want Luke to fail anymore” is that Luke Skywalker’s victories are as satisfying as they are BECAUSE he fails at first. And fails again! The best he’s ever been as a character is when he’s struggling to overcome his own self-doubts about what is possible, and whether or not he can do it. Luke is at his best as a character, and as a key component of Star Wars storytelling, when he’s in a low place, and through his goodness, his will, and his sense of right and wrong, he not only gets out of that low place, he finds himself standing in a much higher one, and he brought his friends with him, too.

I disagree. To me watching Luke rise above himself only to be kicked back in the dirt, or watching the rebels beat the Empire only to have it all destroyed just to have to do it all over again, or watch Han become a responsible leader, only to then abandon his friends and family, and become a smuggler again, is not all that satisfying. It may be satisfying in the moment, when they have their moment in the movie, but in the long run it seems pretty pointless, because they are running in circles. Yoda even has to give Luke the same lesson about looking to the horizon in TLJ, because apparently he didn’t get it the first time. I just feel the OT characters had their arc in the OT. This trilogy should have been about the new characters failing, and then overcoming new challenges. Now it seems the old guard had to fail, such that the new generation can step into their shoes, and do it better.

For many of us, you are completely misreading the universe. You are taking the OT as the final success. But we don’t see the final success. We see the death of Vader, the Emperor, the second Death Star, and one Imperial fleet. In the SE, we see them topple Palpatine’s statue on Coruscant, but we don’t see the rest. We don’t see the final battles that the Rebels had to fight to secure the new Republic, we didn’t see the political issues Leia had to deal with to forge the new Republic. And it is obvious from the opening of TFA that Leia has found a new cause in defeating the First Order - essentially a surviving branch of Palpatine’s Empire. Her job from ANH is not done yet. The Empire has not been defeated completely. This is a theme vistited by Timothy Zahn in is novel trilogy. Nothing about the ST galactic story line was not touched on in some way by the EU. And the Republic was not destroyed by the Starkiller weapon than the Empire was destroyed in ROTJ. It took a hit, but the member worlds can pick and new seat and reform their government like the Empire reformed in pockets (with the First Order being the one the ST is detailing with).

And if you want a real world discussion about the ongoing fight against tyranny, we have only to look to the 20th century to see how that played out over and over again. Without even getting into all the back story, WWI led to WWII, which led to war after war around the globe. It is even coming back to haunt us today with the Nazi flag on public display. Of course in Star Wars those trials are more personal and also galaxy wide, but I personally feel the frustration of an enemy we defeated in 1945 rising again today. The ST and it’s depiction of the continuing struggle to defeat tyranny should be resonating with a lot of people. Seeing what you have spent a life-time building crumbling in front of you should resonate with many. Stories are not supposed to end in the perfect success all the time. In the serial nature of Star Wars, the next chapter after ROTJ (if it had occurred 2-5 years after ROTJ) Would have been about the struggle to finally defeat the Empire, Leia’s struggles to help forge the new Republic (with her adversaries having valid concerns). But we skipped over all that to get to the next generation and their struggle.

And Luke’s journey is very poignant in this era of mass shootings. Luke is a teacher who had a student slay his own classmates. In Star Wars this is due to the influence of the Dark Side and it may be possible that Ben Solo can still be redeemed. But when you look at Luke specifically, he was riding high on success. He Built his own lightsaber, he trained and refined what he learned from Yoda, he rescued Han, he saved his father and saw the Emperor die and the Empire fall. He started rebuilding the Jedi Order. Success was his. But even people who experience such success are still the same and have the same flaws. Mythology teaches us this as one of the purposes of mythology is simplify the human condition to share wisdom with the young. Mythology is full of old heroes who have fallen in one way or another. Heroes can fall in the middle of their journey even. Luke is crushed when Ben falls and kills his fellow students. He is crushed to thin of a new Vader in the body of his own nephew. This is something you seem to make light of. You don’t seem to relate to how crushing a blow that could be. You want Luke to handle it like he is a God, not a human. The success he had achieved crumbled and he crumbled with it and those old insecurities come back out, just like the mythic tales and reality.

Success is temporary and we have to keep working at it. That is a very old truth that the ST is exploring and Mythology did many times.

Post
#1296331
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

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

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

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

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

And how many times does that happen in mythology… the old hero is disillusioned and won’t help the new hero. You make it sound like this is an epic fail in Luke’s story when it is a classic mythological journey and very valid. Just because you don’t like it does not negate Luke’s OT Hero’s journey, but that journey is over and Luke is now the Mentor and Rey is the Hero. And the state of enlightenment is precarious and can be lost. Because it can be lost does not mean it is unattainable. Your analysis is flawed.

Post
#1296046
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

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

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

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

Post
#1296035
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

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

Post
#1296008
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

Except in this Christmas story Santa Claus is still magic.

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

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

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

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

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

Post
#1296002
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

The question is what is a myth and do we believe it or do we think it is a lie. What I get from postmodern is that under that philosophy the myth is a lie. Postmodernism sets out to tear down myths.

What we have in TLJ ends in the opposite. Luke acts, not to create a false myth to tear down the Jedi, but to create a new myth to build up the Jedi. What he does is of mythic proportions. He does some Jedi fakery, but the First Order witnesses his actions and has no explanation. Luke stands on the battlefield of Crait and is blasted by the arrayed First Order forces and comes out unscathed. Kylo Ren takes the field to face him and after his saber appears to pass through him, Luke fades. While Luke’s actions in the OT happened in confined quarters with no witnesses, his actions here happen in the open in front of many witnesses on both sides with few understanding the reality of what just happened. Luke did not take this action to create a false myth that would destroy the Jedi (what postmodernism would do), but to create a new myth to help rebuild the Jedi. And for those of us who know what he really did (Kylo, Rey, and Leia probably understand as does the audience), his actions are even more mythic. Definitely not a postmodern attempt to create a false narrative to tear down the old ways.

TLJ is actually a critique of postmodernism because both Luke and Kylo start out the movie with a postmodernist desire to see the old fall to make way for the new. Kylo is a student of the dark side so his views are never the ones we need to pay attention to. Star Wars always makes it clear that the views held by the Dark Side are not the right ones. Luke is jaded but in the end abandons his darker views and returns to the original path of rebuilding the Jedi. He does, in his own unique way, what he had previously told Rey would not happen - he faces down the entire First Order with only his lasersword. He embraces the myth of the Jedi and takes action to carry it forward. Far from tearing down or deconstructing the old myths, he actively encourages and renews the old myths.

Again, while the views of grumpy Luke and dark side Kylo Ren may seem to be postmodern, the way the story plays out see the end of grumpy Luke and the rise of Mentor Luke and a return to old Star Wars and modern myth like it has always been. Taking grumpy Luke and Kylo Ren as the speakers for the film is a false view that is contradicted by not only the end of the film, but by all of Star Wars lore to date. You never listen to those on the Dark Side, even if they are telling the truth, they are doing it for their own nefarious ends. The Myth of Star Wars is intact after TLJ.

Post
#1295864
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post
#1295677
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

TomArrow said:

OutboundFlight said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not in my circles buddy. For years none of use liked TESB as much as ANH or ROTJ. We just didn’t. And we were not alone. I have found plenty documenting that this was widespread. The fanboys in 1980 weren’t too thrilled with TESB. It had some great stuff, but it wasn’t ANH. When ROTJ came out, that was more like ANH. Today my opinion is very different and I’m not really in touch with many people from those days to check out their current opinions of the films. My point is that opinions of films do not always remain the same and some opinions fade into the background of history.

We’ve been seeing this exact thing with the prequels. A new generation is here that feels differently about it than many of the older generation. They aren’t seeing some of the things as flaws. I have never seen the Ewoks as a flaw. I’ve always loved the dichotomy of their looks vs. their bravery and ferocity. And the 2nd Death Star only makes sense. If you develop a superweapon and your enemies destroy it, you build a bigger one. Not only is that realistic, but very in keeping with Flash Gordon.

Post
#1295622
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

TomArrow said:

OutboundFlight said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post
#1295278
Topic
Harmy's Despecialized Star Wars 1977 - Color Adjustment Project for v2.7 (released)
Time

The 5.1 is recreated from several sources so if you need a 2.0 track, stick with the one that is already 2.0. It is already the matrixed Dolby Stereo that can be decoded into 4.0 tracks by any pro-logic decoder. I personally like doing the same thing, but I always keep the mono soundtrack as it is so unique.

Post
#1295275
Topic
Small details that took you <em><strong>FOREVER</strong></em> to notice in the <em>Star Wars</em> films
Time

I’ve always noticed more production gaffs in ANH than the other films. I can’t really say when I noticed most of them, but one I know exactly when I noticed and why. When I sat down to watch Empire of Dreams in 2004, I saw that they used some alternate takes of R2 leaving the line in the droid sale. There is a partially costumed Jawa that helps R2 get started. In the final cut in the film (every version from 1977 though the 2011 blue-ray) you can see the long human arms coming out of the Jawa costume just behind R2 as he starts moving.

When the Imperial officer comes in to tell Vader and Tarkin that Dantooine is not the Rebel base, Vader’s dialog toward the end of the scene doesn’t line up to his hand gesture.

R2’s retraining bolt is put on in the correct place but then when he is sucked into the sandcrawler it is in the wrong position.

After R5-D4 blows his top, he is back in line next to R2.

I didn’t noticed the repeat for the Tusken Raider attacking Luke until Empire of Dreams and most of the time I still can’t unless I concentrate on it.

A lot of the dialog in the Blockage Runner if out of sync.

I think I first noticed this one thanks to comments on here. When they are headed to docking bay 94, as the camera pans as they walk around the corner, one R2 vanishes and another appears, skipping quite a distance.

Post
#1295215
Topic
<em><strong>Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge</strong></em> (Disney Theme Park)
Time

I agree, if you go looking for issues then you will find them. And if you were going to use an existing location from the films, which one would you pick? There are many and someone would complain if you picked one over the other. I like that it is a new place not seen in the films. And if you don’t know who Hondo is, you haven’t seen Clone Wars or Rebels and you are missing out. He is one of the nice scum that fits so well with what they were going for. I can’t wait to get to see in in person myself.