yotsuya

Rian Johnson wrote TLJ based on the script for TFA. He had a script before we ever saw the film. And to make sure his script worked, he and JJ worked together to make tweaks. So Abrams knew where the story was going in TLJ before he committed to the final edit of the film. So many make it sound like TLJ was done in a vacuum without Abrams input and forget that Abrams was a producer on the film and I seriously don’t believe he did more that set things up in TFA (he was never supposed to continue the story). So whatever he might have envisioned he either shared with Rian or had no expectation that his vision would be followed. And we know that even though they publicly said they threw out George’s treatments that they used them. JJ and Rian have not shared how much of their story they borrowed from George’s treatment, but we do know that Luke in self exile and a female student came from George. How much more is anyone’s guess. But Abrams knew what lay ahead in TLJ before the premier of TFA. He even changed a few things in TFA so they fit better.

ZkinandBonez said:

SilverWook said:

What’s hilarious is once Anakin has turned that first moral corner, Palpatine essentially fesses up that he actually doesn’t know how to keep Padme from dying.
But Anakin keeps on Sithing with the vague B.S. promise from Palpy they’ll find the secret out together. How? If Palpy didn’t learn it from Plagueis already, I don’t think he ever would.
And since Anakin’s visions revolve around Padme dying in childbirth, there isn’t exactly a whole lot of time to find the secret, if it exists at all.

Well, technically he never said he could actually do it, only that it was a Sith ability requiring the Dark Side and that Plageuis had given his apprentice all of his knowledge.

I guess, after killing Mace there really wasn’t much else for Anakin to do than hope that he and Palpatine could figure it out together. Though, I think the whole “we can discover the secret together” -thing was Palpatine’s way of guaranteeing Anakin’s cooperation until he got consumed by the Dark Side. Otherwise Anakin might have quickly turned on him.

I think Palpatine was the apprentice who learned everything and he was lying to Anakin about not knowing how to keep people from dying. I’ve been working on color correcting AOTC so I’ve watched a few times recently and it hit me that the dreams and Shmi’s death could be the force or they could be a plant by Palpatine with him keeping Shmi alive until the dreams drove Anakin to look for her and when he knew Anakin was there, he let her die in Anakin’s arms to heighten Anakin’s emotional reaction. While on the surface it seems that there are many setbacks for Palpatine, pretty much everything goes his way in the PT. He even brags that Anakin will be his new apprentice, though the slicing and burning and the need for the suit might not have been entirely expected, it did create a fearsome figure in Vader to do Palpatine’s bidding.

DominicCobb said:

ZkinandBonez said:

DominicCobb said:

snooker said:

“Wait, Mace Windu, don’t kill Palpatine, it’s not the Jedi way!”

Literally 15 minutes later:

Anakin slaughters the Jedi, including defenseless toddlers

This is the biggest logic leap in the entire franchise, and it completely ruins the rest of the movie for me.

I unfortunately have to agree. The kid’s all over the place. It’s telling that the only way for the novelization to make this work was to spell out that Anakin was literally out of his mind and seemingly incapable of making rational decisions.

Isn’t that how the Dark Side works though? Prior to ROTS we saw Anakin loose it completely in AOTC when he slaughtered an entire village (incl. the children), and even Luke went kinda berserk in ROTJ after Vader threatened to turn Leia. That’s a pretty agressive and wild outburst for an otherwise fairly calm and rational character. ROTS even emphasises Anakin’s yellow eyes to illustrate that he has been completely consumed by the Dark Side.

Well sure, but the problem is he turns to the dark side forever on a dime.

In the two situations you referred to, big emotional moments spark them to lash out with the dark side, after which they both later repented/regretted. In ROTS, I guess we can say that Windu almost killing Palpatine is a big emotional moment, but is it really enough to push him past the point of no return and seemingly turn the dark side switch on and lock it there for the rest of his life? No… and the film tries to make it out that he’s doing this semi-rationally, as a means to save Padme (he even second guesses himself, saying “What have I done?”). But… no, he’s got no problem murdering his friends and colleagues minutes later.

He’s all over the place, and the motivation for the consummation you refer to just isn’t there.

He doesn’t turn on a dime. We find out that Palpatine has been his mentor and whispering to him since TPM. Anakin holds Palpatine in high regard. In AOTC we are faced with how rebellious and arrogant Anakin is. He bucks the rules and starts a relationship with Padme. He forms a forbidden attachment (in my mind this is a failing of the Jedi that rather than actually train Jedi how to handle themselves, they just forbid everything that is remotely dangerous). When Tuskin Raiders murder his mother, he slaughters an entire village in his rage. In ROTS he seems to have grown up, but he is again having nightmares. This time of Padme dying instead of his mother. And Palpatine leads him along. He never promises any answers. The entire PT, we see Palpatine playing both side and being sneaky. I think there is plenty there to suggest that Palpatine is treating Anakin the same way he is treating the Republic. Both dreams (Shmi and Padme) are planted by Palpatine. Palpatine keeps Shmi alive until Anakin arrives. Later Palpatine keeps Anakin alive to get him into the new suit. Possilbly even longer. You could tie it into Palpatine in Jedi still keeping Vader alive and when Vader kills him he is doomed to die and not just because the force lightning fried his suit. This ties in with Darth Plagueis being Palpatine’s mentor. He could keep others from dying, but not himself. And the final thing that cinched Anakin’s fall making complete sense for me was the audio of the scene when Anakin kneels after Mace goes out the window. Listen to the audio. It reminds me of The Voice in Dune. In that moment Anakin is teetering. He no longer trusts the Jedi but he has not given over to anger. Palpatine pulls him down and makes him his servant. When next we see him, he is striding into the Jedi temple with yellow eyes and slaughters anyone who stands against him. Shortly after he even chokes Padme. It was like driving over a steep hill. Once on the down side, he was carried along and only years later when Luke was about to die did he find his way back. But the way I see it, is he was pushed over the top by Palpatine. He didn’t exactly go willingly.

DominicCobb said:

Undermining fan theories isn’t the same thing as undermining the preceding film.

Exactly. How many fan theories did Lucas undermine back when he made the OT?

Are you going to go further? Very interesting to watch.

I want this to have a complete set of theatrical versions.

Formicula said:

snooker said:

Funny you mention Leia’s movement cause she was a real actress under the CG face. (Unless you meant facial movement.)

I meant the whole person, same goes for Tarkin. I don’t know what it is, but they both do not move like they were actually there, something’s very unnatural about the movement.

Both were played by actors on set an only the face was replaced (well, with Tarkin it was the entire head) but the body was that of a real actor in costume on set. So if you think the body movement is off and looks cg, that is kinda a compliment to the CG.

As for the quality of the face, I found both to be hyper detailed. I think using a softening filter might make them less objectionable.

ZkinandBonez is right. From seeing GL’s original 12 movie idea, TPM is really the introduciton. Our characters (Obi-wan, Qui-gon), join up with Padme and then Anakin along the way. The politics aren’t really playing much of a role. They are there and Palpatine is the villain, at least in his guise and Darth Sidious. The next two movies bracket the Clone Wars. From the moment we meet Anakin in TPM, the trilogy is about him, Padme, and Obi-wan. Palpatine in his role as Senator and Chancellor, is Anakin’s mentor and friend (while all the time whispering things in his ear that lead to his downfall). Palpatine’s part of the story is like that of the Empire in the OT - it is necessary, but it is part of the tapestry of the story. But where the rebels in the OT are on the outside looking in, the trio in the PT is on the inside in the thick of things. That is part of the story of how the Republic fell. Anakin can’t be on the outside when he ends up at the heart of the new Empire. When Palpatine was so pivotol to the conclusion of the OT and Vader’s fall, Palpatine was always going to be pivotal to the PT. And being the Chancellor turned Emperor, he is at the heart of politics. He largely did away with the political structure when he abolished the Senate in ANH in favor of regional governors. The political landscape was always part of the story and lies at the heart of Anakin’s turn to Vader.

I see what you are doing, but the audio mix doesn’t completely match that either. Interesting that the clip you have include a shot that bugs the hell out of me - after the Falcon takes off and after Ben straps in, you see Ben leaving the cockpit behind Han.

Yes, real actress on set, face replaced digitally. Probably actual ANH dialog from Carrie herself. I have some minor issues with the CG with these two characters, but I emphasize minor. I have more of an issue with Tarkin’s voice. It was not crisp enough. Too muddled. Both faces have the same problems and it is very common for all cg humans. We notice it less with non-humans. They got the movement of the face close, but not quite and our minds pick up on that. They did a much better job with the animation of Rachel in Blade Runner 2049, but they did a crappy job of making it look like Sean Young. I thought it was a look-a-like actress when I saw the film in the theater. But no, they intended it to be Sean Young and in that respect it was bad. So at least they go the faces right in Rogue One. But have you checked out Superman in the last movie? Caville had a mustache that for some reason he couldn’t shave off and regrow and the CG work they did is horrible. He looks more fake because of his upper lip than Tarkin or Leia do, and he was virtually all real.

Um… Leia kisses Luke at the chasm and says “for luck.” It’s been in every cut. Luke just doesn’t throw twice, though he does pull out the cord twice.

I think the green comes from the dust. It has a similar color in a lot of the behind the scenes photos.

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

I have just been revisiting the PT because I decided return to tackling them before trying TESB, ROTJ, or TFA. After watching them again I have to agree that ROTS is the most dramatic and is a great fast paced action film and tragedy. But I still feel that TPM got the universe right. Yes, we see the galaxy looking pretty good, but like fruit that is about to spoil, it looks good on the outside while hiding the rot on the inside. And the story goes where the characters are. The focus in the fall of the Republic so spending so much time on Coruscant makes sense.

I think one would argue though that the focus should not have been on the fall of the Republic, that should have merely been the backdrop to Anakin’s story. It isn’t quite in keeping with the other SW films to have galactic politics so far at the forefront of the story.

I disagree since the OT focused on the the rebellion against the Empire - something that is very much galactic politics.

Creox said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

Again, we know this. Everyone in the galaxy should know this, since they lived it for a thousand generations. Furthermore, the audience knows this. That’s one reason (beyond the execution) that the Leia scene and the Casino planet rankles some people I expect - these are things we already know and are on board with, delivered in so slipshod a way as to actually do harm to the narrative and make the audience question their acceptance of these things.

It might give some that feeling, but that is not what I got out of it. I find the Leia scene to be important and enjoyed the casino planet as something new and different and yet at the same time a call back to the original cantina scene - only this time the scum were well dressed. There really isn’t anything about TLJ that I didn’t enjoy. The flaws of TFA are gone or ignored and the end product is something I can enjoy watching over and over again. Best Saga movie since 1983. I think the story is well written and the film well directed.

I first found the Casino scenes a bit disorienting but on second viewing I warmed up to it. It also broke up the space chase which would have been boring to watch for 30 minutes with cut scenes from TFO and the resistance.

I really liked the Leia scene in that it demonstrated a powerful force user react purely out of survival instinct. Thinking back on it I wouldn’t be surprised in Rian filmed it that way to pay tribute to Fisher.

That scene with Leia was one of the earliest things leaked about the story so I doubt he changed it along the way.

Yes, excellent flesh tones for one of the scenes that can look the worst if it isn’t just right. Outstanding as always.

I have just been revisiting the PT because I decided return to tackling them before trying TESB, ROTJ, or TFA. After watching them again I have to agree that ROTS is the most dramatic and is a great fast paced action film and tragedy. But I still feel that TPM got the universe right. Yes, we see the galaxy looking pretty good, but like fruit that is about to spoil, it looks good on the outside while hiding the rot on the inside. And the story goes where the characters are. The focus in the fall of the Republic so spending so much time on Coruscant makes sense. I have a friend whose biggest problem with the PT is going to Tatooine. I never had an issue with that or with a lot of things that some fans do. I take them as the story George wanted to tell and just go with the PT being inferior to the OT because the story wasn’t quite as interesting. I don’t mind the quirky dialog that comes out of Anakin’s mouth because I’m always imagining the lines coming from James Earl Jones. Both Jake and Hayden use the same phrasing and it sounds atrocious coming from them. I don’t know why Lucas did that, but then I don’t know why he did a great many things. I’d love to have the actor form Clone wars redub Hayden’s lines and hear how that sounds.

And I have a feeling that Lucas’s version of the ST would be just as divisive if not more so that what we are getting. I think he did his best work on the OT mainly because he had a lot of outside input. We know a lot of the greats had input on Star Wars (Spielberg, Coppola, De Palma, and Marsha Lucas - known for her editing skills). Leigh Bracket did the script for TESB and his choice of directors for TESB and ROTJ gave him more time to tweak the scripts. For the PT, he seems to have done the scripts virtually solo and never had others look at them. A big no-no if you know anything about writing.

I’ve actually enjoyed all the films more than I remember. I think AOTC needs a good edit. The clashing of Anakin and Obi-wan needs to be toned down and that stupid droid factory scenes needs some cuts. And I think the end of ROTS could use some editing to get back the surprise of Luke and Leia’s parentage. The end is great for a 4,5,6,1,2,3 viewing order, but sucks for the 1,2,3,4,5,6 viewing order. And no, I would never do a machete order.

And there is some good foreshadowing of Anakin’s fall in AOTC. He doesn’t fall just because of Padme. He falls for a whole list of things that you have to pick up on. Palpatine is his mentor, his mother dies, he chafes at the Jedi rules, he jokes that people should be made to do things, just a whole list of things that reveal he is being pulled down by Palpatine from TPM on. IT is far too subtle for most people to catch, but it is there. That is one reason why the argument that some don’t believe Anakin’s fall just doesn’t make sense to me. It is all there. This time through I realized that Shmi’s torture was probably ordered by Palpatine and he was probably keeping her alive like I think he ended up keeping Anakin alive long enough to get him into the suit (and maybe even through ROTJ). Shmi being alive and the dreams pushing Anakin there to arrive just as she died all create the ideal situation to put Anakin on the path to the dark side. And from what the movies reveal, Palpatine would have known this weakness of Anakin’s and could have the power to exploit it. And when Anakin rescues Palpatine from Mace, Palpatine uses a voice that I think shows that he is not just relying on Anakin’s fear and hatred to turn him, that he is literally using the dark side of the force to push him over the edge. Lots of subtle things that add together. But, probably too subtle.

I found out why the music for TPM is better. That was the last film John Williams scored an edit of the film. The following films have been more thematic scoring with the music edited in as needed. It does’t work in my opinion. I like the traditional way and I think it creates better music. That is not to say Williams’ talents have decreased one bit with age. His Rey theme is on of the best of the saga. But doing it piecemeal instead of with the film just doesn’t work. The music doesn’t fit as well. That is one reason I have never liked the score for 2001. It just doesn’t fit.

Luke throwing and missing is a detail that was never on film. Never. Any memory of it would be based on mis-remembering and having an image from the novelization (where that did happen). I have always had a very clear image of that myself, but in researching it, I have found that while there was an early release that features some differences, none have any substantial content differences. I can trace the current (as in GOUT) edit back to 1977. It was for the wide release during the summer of 1977 and matches the international release made about the same time (this was the release the mono soundtrack was made for). The original cut is preserved in Puggo Grand and Moth3r’s bootleg (identified by the original crawl and a mono mixdown of the stereo soundtrack). Both show 3 effects shots and the end credit replaced (the star destroyer shotting at the Falcon as it flees Tatooine; Han, Luke, Leia and the droids arriving on Yavin 4 with the matte painting of the temple; the rebel fighters blasting off from Yavin 4; and the end credits are spaced very differently and a glitch at the beginning was removed).

From my research, the Biggs scenes (except maybe the one on Yavin 4) were cut almost as soon as they were shot. They where the first scenes shot in Tunesia and none of the other scenes were ready so we really have them because Lucas was keeping the crew busy. He was persuaded to write those scenes by friends and after shooting them decided not to include them and stick with his original idea of following the droids and meeting Luke when they encountered him. A lot of the shots were originally longer and contained more dialog or there were alternate shots done and then the dialog revised. A lot of little things got cut. We have at least 3 of them. More dialog right before Tarkin enters the briefing room (including the first use of the word Sith), an extra line from Luke at the end of the scene in Ben’s hut, Liea’s extra line after they destroy Alderaan. Who knows how much more there is. From the description of the B&W rough cut, most of these would have been in it. That cut was done with a B&W copy negative not the real negative. The next cut was done by George and Marsha and the final cut comes from what they did. What they rearranged and decided during the editing process is not something that we have access to. Uncovering the hints that remain in the audio vs. video of the final GOUT cut are interesting.

Deleted Magic made it clear that the scene in Ben’s hut was redone because the lightsaber section and the Leia’s message were flopped (watch C-3PO - he is off at the wrong time and on at the wrong time). Luke missing during the trench run could have also been in there (the Deleted Magic team certainly thought so). So what the film looked like before they made the final changes is certainly not what it looks like now. Even the SE retains all those editing choices, even if it replaced some of the shots with new ones or longer ones. The biggest changes to the film outside of those are a slightly different framing choice of the scenes that bracket Jabba’s scene (like all the fades and wipes, they were FX shots and they went back to the original negative to redo them for the 97 SE and they changed the in and out points).

My take is that if the film itself incorporates the logo, the logo should never be removed. If the logo is in front of the film, I don’t really care. For instance, I love that old gritty 20th Century Fox fanfare before Star Wars from 1977, but when they did the SE, I wish they would have updated the sound to match the other two. I had no problem with the new visuals. However, as a huge Vangelis fan, I was very offended that when MGM got the rights to the 1984 film The Bounty that they stuck their leo logo on there with the roar… over the music. Sorry, but it should have been black with the logo before the movie started. There are quite a number of movies where the logo is integral to the film and there are movies that it doesn’t matter. I’d much rather see a new studio add their logo in front of the older logos and leave them be.

NeverarGreat said:

Again, we know this. Everyone in the galaxy should know this, since they lived it for a thousand generations. Furthermore, the audience knows this. That’s one reason (beyond the execution) that the Leia scene and the Casino planet rankles some people I expect - these are things we already know and are on board with, delivered in so slipshod a way as to actually do harm to the narrative and make the audience question their acceptance of these things.

It might give some that feeling, but that is not what I got out of it. I find the Leia scene to be important and enjoyed the casino planet as something new and different and yet at the same time a call back to the original cantina scene - only this time the scum were well dressed. There really isn’t anything about TLJ that I didn’t enjoy. The flaws of TFA are gone or ignored and the end product is something I can enjoy watching over and over again. Best Saga movie since 1983. I think the story is well written and the film well directed.

DominicCobb, I really can’t find anything in your original post to argue or even disagree with. That said, I do find TPM to feel more like Star Wars. From the music to the settings, it captures the world very well. In ROTS that world is falling apart and changing so while it is a better film in most respects, that familiar feeling I had when I saw TPM is not there. So when I rank them I usually rank TPM over ROTS.

NeverarGreat said:

yotsuya said:

NeverarGreat said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

No, one of the points of this film is that anyone can use the force. Not everyone is powerful enough, but people who are powerful enough can come from anywhere. This is implicit in the PT Jedi code - attachment is forbidden and by extrapolations, so is procreation. That means that none of the powerful Jedi we see came from a long line of Jedi in the family. So if being powerful only runs in the blood, where did all the PT Jedi come from?

I don’t see what this has to do with my point. I don’t really care about Leia’s Force powers, since they don’t really affect the story, but the movie spends its time showing this impressive feat with sweeping wide shots and powerful music as if it has totally changed the game in terms of Leia’s role in the story, only to drop that and have nobody speak of it again. Cut from the bridge explosion to Leia unconscious and nothing is lost from a story perspective.

The movie does go in many interesting directions, but this is the middle chapter and we did not see a resolution to any of them. This lack of resolution leads to this erroneous conclusion that this movie did not further the story. It furthered the characters and changed them. It tackled grander things than the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict, which it left mostly in limbo.

Are you mistakenly talking about ESB, where the larger war was in limbo? Because in TFA, the First Order was treated as a sort of terrorist fringe organization, whereas in TLJ it all-but rules the galaxy.
Besides, this is again missing the point. The critic is saying that we are first given a very interesting direction which is quickly undermined in favor of a far less interesting direction. It would be like Vader saying ‘I am your father!’ and Yoda later saying ‘Messing with you, Vader was. Your father, he definitely isn’t’ and that being that.

And we know from ROTJ that Leia is strong in the force and like her brother in TESB (who grabbed his light saber with no known training of doing that) she grabbed a ship and in keeping with the laws of physics, she moved not the ship. Rey, Leia, and the boy at the end show us that anyone can use the force, from a Skywalker to a stable boy.

That’s all very nice, but again, what does it have to do with anything? We already assumed that Leia had the capability of doing what Luke could do (even if it was left undeveloped). Why would Rian bother to show us what we already assume unless these powers are called upon later in the movie? Luke and his lightsaber is a set up for the duel with Vader, where he is now able to pull himself up out of the Carbonite pit. It shows the progression of his skills. Leia’s ability is one-and-done.

My point, which you seem to have missed and which is in answer to your previous post is that this movie is showing us that you don’t have to be trained to use the force. And it only makes sense. I an a galaxy of trillions of beings, no every force sensitive will end up being a Jedi. In ROTJ Leia recognizes she is too old (she already has her calling - one that if you look at it closely relies on the force). Now she is even older but when the need arises, she is able to tap into that power. She does something she must have seen Luke (and maybe Kylo) do hundreds of times. The main thrust of the saga has been the Skywalker line, but this movie gets back to showing the wider picture. If anyone can be strong enough to be a Jedi, and if basic training doesn’t take that long, it won’t take generations to rebuild the Jedi order. While Leia using the force doesn’t impact her story, it has a huge impact on the greater story, as does Rey and the stable boy.

And the First Order is far from just a terrorist organization in TFA. It is shown to be a large and formidable threat. That threat comes to the forefront when they use the weapon to destroy the Hosnian system. That is not a random terrorist attack, but a targeted first salvo in a war aimed at takeover. On the First Order side, this movie starts off being a simple mission to wipe out the Resistance base and they first loose the Dreadnaught and then Snoke’s ship (not to mention Snoke himself). Then Kylo has a very embarassing encounter with Luke. But the larger invasion plan is not furthered at all, just like in TESB the Rebellion’s cause is not furthered at all. And what Kylo told Rey about her parents is a very key part of the story. How he told it isn’t, but the details are. He used it to put her down and then try to lure her to the dark side. But the essence of what he said is that a anybody can be a Jedi. It is a reminder that the Old Republic Jedi were nobodies. All pulled from their families as children and raised in the order to be a Jedi. None born to it. No great Jedi families. Just nobodies. Rey doesn’t have to be a Skywalker or Kenobi or anything else. Who were these other student’s of Luke’s? They were not Skywalkers, just Ben. So an underlying message of TLJ is that you don’t have to be a Skywalker to be a Jedi and you don’t have to be a Jedi to use the force. Leia’s use of the force is part of that. The rest of her story isn’t impacted, but the greater story is.

DrDre said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

I disagree. The expectation that Vader will kill Luke follows from the way his character is set up from the get go, namely he is the villain, and murderer of Luke’s father. The fact that he IS Luke’s father thus comes as a complete surprise. Kylo Ren has already been set up as the villain, and thus the twist, that he still is the villain after Rey and Kylo dispatch Snoke’s guards isn’t much of a reveal or surprise. Thus the movie ends where it started with Rey still the hero, and Kylo Ren still the villain having replaced Snoke, who’s treated as little more than a plot device. The author of the article is thus correct in my view, when he states that a lot happens, but with little consequences other than Kylo Ren replacing Snoke who TLJ largely makes redundant.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

Yes, and so Luke’s reputation is back to what it was before TLJ, that of a legend, which is the main criticism of the author. RJ shakes things up, and a lot happens in the story, but ultimately we more or less end up, where we started with the Resistance/rebels on the run from the FO, despite having won a symbolic victory (SKB’s destruction in TFA), Ben Solo has reaffirmed his villain status (which he also did in TFA by killing his father), Rey’s still a hero having learned to let go of her past (a lesson also given to her by Maz in TFA, when she tells her her parents aren’t coming back), and Luke’s back to being the legend he was after the defeat of the Empire.

Since when was Vader’s intention in TESB to kill Luke? His intention is clearly stated in words and deeds - to capture him and take him before the Emperor. In TLJ we are given two people with cross purposes who imagine the intentions of the other. Rey imagines Kylo will turn, Kylo imagines Rey will turn, while both miss that what they saw was just the two of them fighting on the same side against Snoke’s guards. What the larger scope of TLJ means won’t be clear until we have IX to analize. But what it did story wise is very clear. The Jedi were a myth from the past. Luke’s victory in ROTJ was witnessed by no-one. His victory in TLJ is witnessed by the First Order and the Resistance and spreads. So far from nothing happening in this film, a hell of a lot happens and it is all very significant. No progress in the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict does not mean nothing has happened. Snoke is dead and Kylo has seized power. Tales of Luke’s heroics are spreading around the galaxy. Rey, Finn, and Poe have grown and are ready to carry on the fight. In fact I would say far more has happened on the grander scale than happened in TESB.

NeverarGreat said:

djsmokingjam said:

DrDre said:

Here are two links from the same critic. The first discusses weaknesses in RJ’s story, and argues that TLJ’s biggest weakness is, that the story doesn’t go anywhere. There are no consequences.

Short summary:

"In The Last Jedi, a lot happens. But not a lot happens for long. Leia’s sudden and unexpected death only proceeds her jarring return to life.

Kylo Ren’s betrayal of Snoke, which leads to a team-up with Rey and himself against Snoke’s guards, implies his redemption… But it isn’t long lasting as his actions hardly reflect his intentions. After the fight, he has to explain himself to Rey, and how they still aren’t on the same side.

This is a classic break from “show, don’t tell.” Kylo has to tell us his motives for the scene to make sense. He essentially retcons the entire sequence, because it might as well not have happened. The scene ends up telling us nothing new. Kylo Ren is a bad guy. But we were already aware of that. Actions should speak for a character, but in the most powerful scene of the film, they don’t.

Lastly, when Luke finally faces Kylo, there’s a moment where we’re meant to believe this is the end for the Jedi Master. It seems as if Luke has accepted his fate as Kylo runs toward him with his blade drawn. Luke literally tells him something similar to what Ben Kenobi tells Darth Vader: “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”

Luke seems fearless. But then, we realize Luke has nothing to fear after all. He’s not even actually there. This scene is meant for us to anticipate Luke’s death, only for it to be revealed he’s fine… Only for it to be revealed a moment later that he dies anyway."

Both these points seem incredibly pedantic and overinflated to me.

In the first instance, “show don’t tell” does not mean either that dialogue is redundant in cinema, or that actions and dialogue always have to be in perfect concert, especially regarding villains (who are often by nature duplicitous or unstable). The entire point of the throne room sequence is to set up an expectation (Kylo will side with Rey) that is then upended; in much the same way as the action at the end of ESB sets up an expectation (Vader wants to kill Luke) that is then contradicted by dialogue (“I am your father”) rather than action.

On the second point, he’s just being incredibly literal. The entire subtext of the dialogue is not that whether Luke will literally be struck down - Luke has already made it clear throughout the film that he does not fear death - but that in opposing him, Kylo ensures Luke’s reputation will echo throughout the galaxy and that thousands will be inspired by his example, which we see happen in the final scene.

To say there are no consequences to the events in the film is absurdly reductive, and frankly typical of the wilfully and uncharitably misreading “criticism” I’ve seen so much of about this film.

I think what the critic was trying to get at is that the story does its best to deflate its own most interesting ideas. There are obviously consequences and character progression, it’s just that these moments are ultimately not as consequential as we are first led to believe.

Leia is blown out into space, presumably to her death! But wait, she’s using the Force in a way we’ve never seen from her before! Has she had substantial training in those thirty years? Has the Force suddenly ‘awakened’ in her as well, making her the ‘new hope’ for the galaxy that Luke suggested in ROTJ?

No, sorry. It was just an instinctual reaction to her impending death and her Force powers will not be a big factor in the rest of the movie.

Kylo kills Snoke! Now he’s teaming up with Rey against the goofy red guards! Will he really turn to Rey’s side and will they strike out together in a new direction in order to prevent a repeat of Rebels vs Empire that we got in the previous trilogy?

No, sorry. Kylo’s still a bad egg and Rey still has a deep loyalty to the Jedi ideals (despite her teachers hating them) and the Resistance (despite knowing them for maybe a day at most). And it will be a Rebels vs Empire situation quite explicitly until the end of the movie.

You get the idea. The movie goes in some interesting directions, but it seems to make a point of teasing these truly interesting directions and pulling it back to something much more tame.

No, one of the points of this film is that anyone can use the force. Not everyone is powerful enough, but people who are powerful enough can come from anywhere. This is implicit in the PT Jedi code - attachment is forbidden and by extrapolations, so is procreation. That means that none of the powerful Jedi we see came from a long line of Jedi in the family. So if being powerful only runs in the blood, where did all the PT Jedi come from? The movie does go in many interesting directions, but this is the middle chapter and we did not see a resolution to any of them. This lack of resolution leads to this erroneous conclusion that this movie did not further the story. It furthered the characters and changed them. It tackled grander things than the Resistance/Republic/First Order conflict, which it left mostly in limbo. And we know from ROTJ that Leia is strong in the force and like her brother in TESB (who grabbed his light saber with no known training of doing that) she grabbed a ship and in keeping with the laws of physics, she moved not the ship. Rey, Leia, and the boy at the end show us that anyone can use the force, from a Skywalker to a stable boy.

Ah, I have it. I can’t wait to watch it. These are such valuable resources when trying to color correct the other versions. Puggo, you are a saint!

I’d volunteer as well, but I’m kind of hit or miss with when I’m here. I could put it on certain organ if that is desired.