Star Wars: The Last Jedi release thread (spoilers)

[Effie]

So your argument is that high-quality things are good, and low-quality things are bad. I don't see how any of the other things you're saying around it matter, then.

What I'm saying is that there are rules for writing and they're the rules because they generally work, like "make your protagonist sympathetic." This isn't to say you can't break the rules but it requires more skill and effort to make a compelling unsympathetic protagonist. You have to know and understand the rules before you can break them effectively.

You're not saying that at all. You seem to largely be jumping around from point to point without ever actually settling on a meaning for the things you say. I suppose, though, that Rian Johnson obviously doesn't "know the rules", having only directed two widely-respected films and several extremely acclaimed television episodes, plus a lesser-known film, plus several shorts, plus editing Lucky McKee's directorial debut...

[ray245]

You're not saying that at all. You seem to largely be jumping around from point to point without ever actually settling on a meaning for the things you say. I suppose, though, that Rian Johnson obviously doesn't "know the rules", having only directed two widely-respected films and several extremely acclaimed television episodes, plus a lesser-known film, plus several shorts, plus editing Lucky McKee's directorial debut...

Rian Johnson is known to do a deconstruction of tropes or established narratives in his films, with Looper being a prime example. The issue is what works for a standalone movie might not work for a franchise film.He has successfully weakened the foundation of the film and deconstructed the myths and legends that a sizeable segment of the audience no longer sees SW as a mythic story.

The whole point of SW is meant to be escapist in nature, a world where a simple good can win over simple evil at the end of the day. A world where the heroes don't give up and etc. In other words, it's the wrong franchise to do a deconstruction, because he was the boy that said the emperor was naked and not wearing any clothes. When that happens, it makes every follow-up more difficult.

Why should audience give a crap about the next generation when Rian Johnson showed heroes are limited in what they can really do for the Galaxy? What's stopping the next generation of directors from creating a story where Finn, Rey, and Poe are failures because SW is a franchise of eternal war and good guys must always be the underdog? Why should anyone give a crap about the New Jedi Order under Rey when they will simply be destroyed the next time Disney ran out of ideas?

Rian Johnson might know the rules of creating a good movie that stands on its own, but that's different from being part of a building block for a cinematic universe. Directors or producers who may be good at producing good movies might not be good at building a cinematic universe. If anything, the failure of everyone else other than Kevin Feige in building a cinematic universe showed just hard it is and how different it is from simply making good individual movies.

[Kojiro]

Luke told Leia in ROTJ: "In time you'll learn to use it as I have." I always thought that was a pretty clear foreshadow of her training.

This would seem to imply if she had any training, it wasn't to full Jedi levels. Given the training Luke actually had, that would arguably be quite a small amount.

I hate seeing Mark Hamil so... down.

[jollyreaper]

You're not saying that at all. You seem to largely be jumping around from point to point without ever actually settling on a meaning for the things you say. I suppose, though, that Rian Johnson obviously doesn't "know the rules", having only directed two widely-respected films and several extremely acclaimed television episodes, plus a lesser-known film, plus several shorts, plus editing Lucky McKee's directorial debut...

[jollyreaper]

Rian Johnson might know the rules of creating a good movie that stands on its own, but that's different from being part of a building block for a cinematic universe. Directors or producers who may be good at producing good movies might not be good at building a cinematic universe. If anything, the failure of everyone else other than Kevin Feige in building a cinematic universe showed just hard it is and how different it is from simply making good individual movies.

In other words, it's the difference between an athlete who is good at individual sports vs. a team sport. Raw athletic ability is insufficient if you are unable to coordinate with the rest of your teammates.

Teamwork in general is difficult and even the best, most cooperative players are still going to have a hard time without leadership from the top. You can't make up for lack of direction from the top with extra effort from the bottom.

Aside from the Edgar Wright issues with Ant-Man, the MCU has done a pretty good job of letting the individual directors find their voice while still keeping each film comfortably within the universe.

Of the three Mouse Wars movies, I think Rogue One seems to edge out TFA for best-received. It didn't have to stick with a direct hand-off from another film. TFA had less of a hand-off but more meddling to set things up but then TLJ had all this setup but zero coordination. 9 will be the same. Solo had the potential to not have the same difficulty with needing the hand-off but there's no telling how it wound up until we actually see it. The reshoot situation sounded utterly chaotic.

[Effie]

You're not saying that at all. You seem to largely be jumping around from point to point without ever actually settling on a meaning for the things you say. I suppose, though, that Rian Johnson obviously doesn't "know the rules", having only directed two widely-respected films and several extremely acclaimed television episodes, plus a lesser-known film, plus several shorts, plus editing Lucky McKee's directorial debut...

Rian Johnson is known to do a deconstruction of tropes or established narratives in his films, with Looper being a prime example. The issue is what works for a standalone movie might not work for a franchise film.He has successfully weakened the foundation of the film and deconstructed the myths and legends that a sizeable segment of the audience no longer sees SW as a mythic story.

The whole point of SW is meant to be escapist in nature, a world where a simple good can win over simple evil at the end of the day. A world where the heroes don't give up and etc. In other words, it's the wrong franchise to do a deconstruction, because he was the boy that said the emperor was naked and not wearing any clothes. When that happens, it makes every follow-up more difficult.

Why should audience give a crap about the next generation when Rian Johnson showed heroes are limited in what they can really do for the Galaxy? What's stopping the next generation of directors from creating a story where Finn, Rey, and Poe are failures because SW is a franchise of eternal war and good guys must always be the underdog? Why should anyone give a crap about the New Jedi Order under Rey when they will simply be destroyed the next time Disney ran out of ideas?

Rian Johnson might know the rules of creating a good movie that stands on its own, but that's different from being part of a building block for a cinematic universe. Directors or producers who may be good at producing good movies might not be good at building a cinematic universe. If anything, the failure of everyone else other than Kevin Feige in building a cinematic universe showed just hard it is and how different it is from simply making good individual movies.

There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, let me say this. No grown adult has ever cared about whether something is a "cinematic universe" or not.

Second of all, I dispute your statements about what Star Wars is "meant to be". There has been quite a bit of ink spilled about the political aspects of Star Wars, starting more or less from when it was released.

But third of all, if something can't be deconstructed- in the proper sense of the word, not in the nerd sense- without falling apart, then it's trash. It has no value beyond exciting the lizard brain.

Fourth of all, saying that you don't care about people unless they live in a universe where divinely-descended kings fix everything is, well, something.

Fifth of all, all of your fears could have already happened and indeed would have been more likely to happen if TLJ had been the way you wanted it. Expanding what Star Wars is expands the ways in which Star Wars may be made while remaining contiguous Star Wars. Keeping Star Wars as a narrow set of variations on three movies made between 1977 and 1983 means that it will definitely repeat itself endlessly like you fear.

[ray245]

There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, let me say this. No grown adult has ever cared about whether something is a "cinematic universe" or not.

Adults have cared about world-building and how to build a good secondary world. SW is not a standalone movie and that's pretty much a fact. SW is less of a movie but more of a TV series like Game of Thrones.

Second of all, I dispute your statements about what Star Wars is "meant to be". There has been quite a bit of ink spilled about the political aspects of Star Wars, starting more or less from when it was released.

The appeal and success of SW largely come from its rather simple black/white nature compared to the movies of its era during the 70s. It's like trying to make a superhero film grimdark and wondering why people like it less compared to more light-hearted superhero movies.

But third of all, if something can't be deconstructed- in the proper sense of the word, not in the nerd sense- without falling apart, then it's trash. It has no value beyond exciting the lizard brain.

Deconstruction isn't useful when you are constructing a franchise. Deconstruction works tend to exist as a stand-alone, a one-off story on its own.

Fourth of all, saying that you don't care about people unless they live in a universe where divinely-descended kings fix everything is, well, something.

Who said anything about divinely-descended kings? Stop straw-manning.

Fifth of all, all of your fears could have already happened and indeed would have been more likely to happen if TLJ had been the way you wanted it. Expanding what Star Wars is expands the ways in which Star Wars may be made while remaining contiguous Star Wars. Keeping Star Wars as a narrow set of variations on three movies made between 1977 and 1983 means that it will definitely repeat itself endlessly like you fear.

The new movies are not expanding the universe in any meaningful sense. It's just a big reset button that wipes out the Jedi order once again because they think everyone wants more Empire vs underdog rebellion.

TFA and TLJ is a narrow set of variation of the three movies made between 1977 and 1983. Sure, TLJ is a deconstruction of some major aspect of the OT, but it still revolves around the same kind of conflict back in 1977.

[Vympel]

Yeah, I never did get why that's a thing, other than the fandom's obsessive need to tie every single thing together, or a misguided desire to try to go the easy route of one-upping Palpatine with an even bigger Sith Lord.

Yup - I think also, Jenny Nicholson (youtuber) pithily summarised this odd need to tie everything together the best: "I get it, people like to hear familiar names."

[Kurgan]

One of the problems, and it is one of the excuses the filmmakers are even supporting now, is that Star Wars fans are impossible to please (so don't try?) because they didn't like it when they made a "familiar" movie, and didn't like it when they made a "different" movie.

But it's a false dichotomy (anyone who wants to say that must be a strawman, I don't even care to bring up the quotes proving it):

Star Wars fans, like all movie fans, want a GOOD MOVIE. We don't want a blatant remake/reboot, and don't want to be swerved just for the sake of being swerved (such things won't stand the test of time)... we don't want "new" at the cost of burying and crapping all over the past (just to then get pale copies of what we had before). People who want the past destroyed and something new and different, those aren't fans of Star Wars. Those are people who either never liked it or are bored with it. But we don't need retreads and reset buttons, we have vcrs now, don't we?

The challenge for Disney is they have to decide what "Star Wars" is. IS it a struggle between two forces... the "overlord" bad guy force using the dark side against the underdog good rebel force, with a trio of protagonists (two men, one woman, and some sexual tension in there too)? Does it have to have stormtroopers, tie fighters, lightsabers, death stars, star destroyers, x-wings, jokes, cutesy slapstick sidekick creatures, etc? Is this going to be a saturday morning cartoon or comic in which the bad guy just barely gets away every time, so that the story can go on forever?

I think they're struggling to find this "winning formula" to keep the profits flowing. Fan service isn't necessary... fans already know about the old movies and where to find them. All those on the nose references do is make us wish we were watching those better films instead. Over saturation is a problem, but primarily so in a franchise when that saturation is from mediocre stories and too much recycling.

As for "tying everything together perfectly" that is what the books, comics, video games, breakfast cereals and customizable card games are for. Let "nerds" (us) consume those. But the movies should flow together reasonably well without recourse to those things being necessary.Believe it or not there are millions of Star Wars fans who don't care about tech journals and tie in cartoons. In other words, don't leave things out purposely to make this a nerd-centric franchise.

Otherwise you end up with this scenario:

Casual Viewer: I kinda liked that movie we just saw, but I have a few questions... how come X, Y and Z? That was odd.

Nerd Viewer: Well, that's all clearly explained in NuEUpisode #2, 113, and 547. I have those in my collection, want to borrow them?

Casual Viewer: Nah. Let's see Jumanji next week, I hear the Rock is good in that.

I used to consider myself a Nerd viewer, I guess I've lost my faith, so I have more sympathy for the Casual viewer. If you're going to go the nerd centric route (a la, "The Matrix" franchise), then have an actual plan, don't just make it up as you go along, that's another thing that I think has caused unnecessary problems for the filmmakers. And yes, Lucas did that too, are you just trying to copy him because you don't know what else to do or improve on what he did? If Star Wars is going to be like Highlander or Star Trek, where continuity doesn't matter much, then somehow you're going to have to communicate that bold new direction to the audience, so they don't get upset when things don't quite make sense even within the same universe from story to story. Apologists will get angry and say "don't change a thing," but they'll be happy with the product regardless so should just calm down and let Disney figure out what they're going to do.

[Straha]

But third of all, if something can't be deconstructed- in the proper sense of the word, not in the nerd sense- without falling apart, then it's trash. It has no value beyond exciting the lizard brain.

Deconstruction isn't useful when you are constructing a franchise. Deconstruction works tend to exist as a stand-alone, a one-off story on its own.

[Galvatron]

This would seem to imply if she had any training, it wasn't to full Jedi levels. Given the training Luke actually had, that would arguably be quite a small amount.

On the other hand, Kanan Jarrus and Asajj Ventress both seemed to have a greater command of the Force than Luke did even though neither one of them actually completed their Jedi training.

Leia, therefore, needn't be a Jedi herself in order to use the Force either.

[The Romulan Republic]

You're not saying that at all. You seem to largely be jumping around from point to point without ever actually settling on a meaning for the things you say. I suppose, though, that Rian Johnson obviously doesn't "know the rules", having only directed two widely-respected films and several extremely acclaimed television episodes, plus a lesser-known film, plus several shorts, plus editing Lucky McKee's directorial debut...

Rian Johnson is known to do a deconstruction of tropes or established narratives in his films, with Looper being a prime example. The issue is what works for a standalone movie might not work for a franchise film.He has successfully weakened the foundation of the film and deconstructed the myths and legends that a sizeable segment of the audience no longer sees SW as a mythic story.

The whole point of SW is meant to be escapist in nature, a world where a simple good can win over simple evil at the end of the day. A world where the heroes don't give up and etc. In other words, it's the wrong franchise to do a deconstruction, because he was the boy that said the emperor was naked and not wearing any clothes. When that happens, it makes every follow-up more difficult.

First, we need to be clear that "deconstruction" is not synonymous with "darker/more cynical". Nor is there any reason why deconstruction cannot work within a larger ongoing series, rather than a stand-alone. For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer did partial deconstructions of itself frequently- and they were often among the best, most memorable, and most acclaimed episodes. But you are right that what works for one franchise may not work for another- so let's look at Star Wars specifically.

Star Wars is at its best when it tells a simple, idealistic good vs evil story, with a twist that shows it in a new light. Such as "I am your father" transforming a simple hero defeats villain story to a story of the hero trying to avoid making his father's mistakes, and winning by redeeming rather than killing his enemy. Or the Prequels taking a Sith vs. Jedi war and having it ultimately be a ruse by the villain to play both sides against each other (which is actually a far more cynical deconstruction of Star Wars than anything TLJ did).

I also think that what TLJ attempted (and only partially accomplished) was not just a deconstruction, but a reconstruction. It is not however, in its ultimate conclusions, a cynical film, nor at odds with the idea of a universe in which there is good and evil, and good can triumph.

It tries to relate Star Wars to the political/cultural cynicism and apathy so widespread today. It asks those questions, directly or implicitly: are there still heroes? Can good triumph over evil? Is there a point to anything we do? Do the old legends and myths still have power and meaning today? It tries too hard sometimes to misdirect the audience with cheap deceptions and twists rather than just telling its story (I remember my exasperation at the film's ending trying to make us repeatedly think Luke and Rose were dead/not dead over the course of ten minutes or so, before finally coming down on "Yes" and "No" respectively). But its ultimate answer is that yes, there is still hope, and there are still heroes.

DJ's whole character is also an obvious and direct shot at the "both sides" narrative, for example, which should have tipped everybody off to what this film is doing.

Why should audience give a crap about the next generation when Rian Johnson showed heroes are limited in what they can really do for the Galaxy?

If the film challenges the arrogant conceit that because our victories are not permanent and universal, that there is no point in trying to make the universe a better place- then that's a damn good thing.

What's stopping the next generation of directors from creating a story where Finn, Rey, and Poe are failures because SW is a franchise of eternal war and good guys must always be the underdog? Why should anyone give a crap about the New Jedi Order under Rey when they will simply be destroyed the next time Disney ran out of ideas?

You might ask- why should we give a damn about the defeat of Hitler when their are still dictators and Nazis and genocides? Why should we give a damn about abolishing slavery if there is still racism? Why should we give a damn about anything if history doesn't stop?

That's no doubt what a lot of cynics would say. It is also the mindset that this film is quite rightfully challenging.

Rian Johnson might know the rules of creating a good movie that stands on its own, but that's different from being part of a building block for a cinematic universe. Directors or producers who may be good at producing good movies might not be good at building a cinematic universe. If anything, the failure of everyone else other than Kevin Feige in building a cinematic universe showed just hard it is and how different it is from simply making good individual movies.

I will acknowledge that TLJ (somewhat deliberately, I think) fits awkwardly with the rest of the franchise in some respects. I do not think that that necessarily makes it a bad film. And if there are continuity issues, I am inclined to put the blame more on the lack of firm editorial guidance and oversight, than on any individual writer or director or film.

Edit: In short, I think that on the whole, Rian Johnson knew what he was doing making this film. I'm not yet sure Disney/Lucasfilms management knows what its doing, or what it wants from this franchise, other than "Make money by appeasing whichever group of critics is complaining loudest at the moment."

[Effie]

There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, let me say this. No grown adult has ever cared about whether something is a "cinematic universe" or not.

Adults have cared about world-building and how to build a good secondary world. SW is not a standalone movie and that's pretty much a fact. SW is less of a movie but more of a TV series like Game of Thrones.

Second of all, I dispute your statements about what Star Wars is "meant to be". There has been quite a bit of ink spilled about the political aspects of Star Wars, starting more or less from when it was released.

The appeal and success of SW largely come from its rather simple black/white nature compared to the movies of its era during the 70s. It's like trying to make a superhero film grimdark and wondering why people like it less compared to more light-hearted superhero movies.

But third of all, if something can't be deconstructed- in the proper sense of the word, not in the nerd sense- without falling apart, then it's trash. It has no value beyond exciting the lizard brain.

Deconstruction isn't useful when you are constructing a franchise. Deconstruction works tend to exist as a stand-alone, a one-off story on its own.

Fourth of all, saying that you don't care about people unless they live in a universe where divinely-descended kings fix everything is, well, something.

Who said anything about divinely-descended kings? Stop straw-manning.

Fifth of all, all of your fears could have already happened and indeed would have been more likely to happen if TLJ had been the way you wanted it. Expanding what Star Wars is expands the ways in which Star Wars may be made while remaining contiguous Star Wars. Keeping Star Wars as a narrow set of variations on three movies made between 1977 and 1983 means that it will definitely repeat itself endlessly like you fear.

The new movies are not expanding the universe in any meaningful sense. It's just a big reset button that wipes out the Jedi order once again because they think everyone wants more Empire vs underdog rebellion.

TFA and TLJ is a narrow set of variation of the three movies made between 1977 and 1983. Sure, TLJ is a deconstruction of some major aspect of the OT, but it still revolves around the same kind of conflict back in 1977.

I mean, what you're arguing is that:

1. Star Wars is deeply stupid and morally inane.

2. The new movies are simultaneously too slavish to the OT and too different.

3. Cinematic franchises are apparently some kind of moral good and equivalent to worldbuilding.

I don't really think there's much point in discussion there lol.

[ray245]

I'm saying SW at its heart is a simple fairy tale. If you deconstruct the fairytale, you're drawing the curtains and breaking the immersion.

First, we need to be clear that "deconstruction" is not synonymous with "darker/more cynical". Nor is there any reason why deconstruction cannot work within a larger ongoing series, rather than a stand-alone. For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer did partial deconstructions of itself frequently- and they were often among the best, most memorable, and most acclaimed episodes. But you are right that what works for one franchise may not work for another- so let's look at Star Wars specifically.

Star Wars is at its best when it tells a simple, idealistic good vs evil story, with a twist that shows it in a new light. Such as "I am your father" transforming a simple hero defeats villain story to a story of the hero trying to avoid making his father's mistakes, and winning by redeeming rather than killing his enemy. Or the Prequels taking a Sith vs. Jedi war and having it ultimately be a ruse by the villain to play both sides against each other (which is actually a far more cynical deconstruction of Star Wars than anything TLJ did).

I also think that what TLJ attempted (and only partially accomplished) was not just a deconstruction, but a reconstruction. It is not however, in its ultimate conclusions, a cynical film, nor at odds with the idea of a universe in which there is good and evil, and good can triumph.

It tries to relate Star Wars to the political/cultural cynicism and apathy so widespread today. It asks those questions, directly or implicitly: are there still heroes? Can good triumph over evil? Is there a point to anything we do? Do the old legends and myths still have power and meaning today? It tries too hard sometimes to misdirect the audience with cheap deceptions and twists rather than just telling its story (I remember my exasperation at the film's ending trying to make us repeatedly think Luke and Rose were dead/not dead over the course of ten minutes or so, before finally coming down on "Yes" and "No" respectively). But its ultimate answer is that yes, there is still hope, and there are still heroes.

DJ's whole character is also an obvious and direct shot at the "both sides" narrative, for example, which should have tipped everybody off to what this film is doing.

The point is this fundamentally undermines the journey of the new generations of heroes. What's stopping the next generation of filmmakers from turning Rey, Finn and Poe into massive failures as well?

If the film challenges the arrogant conceit that because our victories are not permanent and universal, that there is no point in trying to make the universe a better place- then that's a damn good thing.

Congratulations, you've turned SW into WH40k, a grimdark universe of constant failure because the heroes can never be allowed to retire and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

In real world, we know that victories might not be permanent, but we can at the very least create a better world to die in at our old age. The people who fought in WW2 can rest in peace that they managed to create a world where WW3 is not a real option for any facists.

You might ask- why should we give a damn about the defeat of Hitler when their are still dictators and Nazis and genocides? Why should we give a damn about abolishing slavery if there is still racism? Why should we give a damn about anything if history doesn't stop?

That's no doubt what a lot of cynics would say. It is also the mindset that this film is quite rightfully challenging.

I'll argue that the post-WW2 world is a much better place than the world during WW2 and before that. That even though there are still problems with our world today, the problems are not comparable to what it was back during the 1940s.

The new films tried to give us WW3 because they refused to let the heroes pass the torch in a time of relative peace. Instead we got another big Galactic conflict with neo-Empire vs neo-Rebels.

I will acknowledge that TLJ (somewhat deliberately, I think) fits awkwardly with the rest of the franchise in some respects. I do not think that that necessarily makes it a bad film. And if there are continuity issues, I am inclined to put the blame more on the lack of firm editorial guidance and oversight, than on any individual writer or director or film.

Edit: In short, I think that on the whole, Rian Johnson knew what he was doing making this film. I'm not yet sure Disney/Lucasfilms management knows what its doing, or what it wants from this franchise, other than "Make money by appeasing whichever group of critics is complaining loudest at the moment."

I don't think Rian Johnson is a bad director. I think he was given a very poor set-up by JJ Abrams that left him with very little room to explore.

I mean, what you're arguing is that:

1. Star Wars is deeply stupid and morally inane.

2. The new movies are simultaneously too slavish to the OT and too different.

3. Cinematic franchises are apparently some kind of moral good and equivalent to worldbuilding.

I don't really think there's much point in discussion there lol.

I'm not sure why you are strawmanning my points. SW is nothing more than a simple fairytale at the end of the day. It's pure escapism from the world we are living in. It's target audience to a large degree, was kids.

But yeah, if all you can do is to straw-man my points, I don't think we have anything to discuss.

[The Romulan Republic]

The point is this fundamentally undermines the journey of the new generations of heroes. What's stopping the next generation of filmmakers from turning Rey, Finn and Poe into massive failures as well?

Simply repeating your assertion does not make it any more valid than it was the first time.

Congratulations, you've turned SW into WH40k, a grimdark universe of constant failure because the heroes can never be allowed to retire and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

So either the heroes victories are absolute and permanent, or nothing matters and everything is grimdark and failure?

That is the very attitude that I am objecting to.

TLJ is not grimdark. Not at fucking all.

In real world, we know that victories might not be permanent, but we can at the very least create a better world to die in at our old age. The people who fought in WW2 can rest in peace that they managed to create a world where WW3 is not a real option for any facists.

Maybe so, but I often wonder how WW2 vets feel when they see things on the news like the Charlotsville march, and then hear their President call white supremacists/Neo Nazis "good people".

I just think "Yes, there are still problems in the world, but that doesn't mean we should give up" is something a lot of people need to hear right now.

I'll argue that the post-WW2 world is a much better place than the world during WW2 and before that. That even though there are still problems with our world today, the problems are not comparable to what it was back during the 1940s.

The new films tried to give us WW3 because they refused to let the heroes pass the torch in a time of relative peace. Instead we got another big Galactic conflict with neo-Empire vs neo-Rebels.

I still would not say that that made the old heroes actions meaningless. They bought the galaxy a few years of greater freedom and peace, at any rate. And, let's be honest- Snoke and Kylo Ren are a hell of a lot less dangerous than Palpatine and Vader.

I don't think Rian Johnson is a bad director. I think he was given a very poor set-up by JJ Abrams that left him with very little room to explore.

I don't think Abrams' set up was that bad (a bit thin, perhaps), but it was at odds somewhat with the film Johnson wanted to make, yes.

[ray245]

Simply repeating your assertion does not make it any more valid than it was the first time.

Yeah, but you've haven't address what's stopping that from happening in the future?

So either the heroes victories are absolute and permanent, or nothing matters and everything is grimdark and failure?

That is the very attitude that I am objecting to.

TLJ is not grimdark. Not at fucking all.

It might not be AS grimdark as WH40k, but a world of eternal Galactic war is pretty grim. The Old Republic is said to have enjoyed a millennia of peace. Yes, there is obviously conflict throughout the galaxy like the invasion of Naboo, but they aren't a massive Galactic war.

I want the heroes to be able to build a world where people can grow old and die in peace without ever seeing another Galactic war. The dream of the New Republic is to be able to match the success of the Old Republic. That's what I want to see the heroes build after the defeat of the empire.

Maybe so, but I often wonder how WW2 vets feel when they see things on the news like the Charlotsville march, and then hear their President call white supremacists/Neo Nazis "good people".

I just think "Yes, there are still problems in the world, but that doesn't mean we should give up" is something a lot of people need to hear right now.

The point is those neo-Nazis are still relative fringe group compared to what it was like during the 1930s and 1940s. If the FO was a fringe group in some corner of the Galaxy, I would be fine with the premise of the new films.

Instead, we got a boring repeat of the same conflict.

I still would not say that that made the old heroes actions meaningless. They bought the galaxy a few years of greater freedom and peace, at any rate. And, let's be honest- Snoke and Kylo Ren are a hell of a lot less dangerous than Palpatine and Vader.

20-30 years of peace compared to millennia of peace under the Old Republic. The Old Republic took Sidious years to undermine and subvert into an empire. The New Republic was basically wiped out in a single day.

That's not a success. It's a short respite from Galactic civil war. And the Jedi Order was wiped out once again.

I don't think Abrams' set up was that bad (a bit thin, perhaps), but it was at odds somewhat with the film Johnson wanted to make, yes.

There's very little room to develop the story with the premise given. You're forced to either remake ESB or completely subvert expectations. The Canto Bright sub-plot completely doesn't mesh with the premise of TFA. People getting rich from the military industrial complex works if you are talking about a cold-war setting, with rival superpowers pumping weapons into proxy wars.

It's at odds with a premise with an NR that effectively demilitarised itself.

[Straha]

I'm saying SW at its heart is a simple fairy tale. If you deconstruct the fairytale, you're drawing the curtains and breaking the immersion.

So your argument is that TLJ shouldn't try to communicate a message?

[ray245]

So your argument is that TLJ shouldn't try to communicate a message?

I think if you are looking at SW for some deep commentary about the nature of heroics and deep discussion about the notion of good and evil, you're looking at the wrong franchise.

I'm not saying it can't have a message, but the messages should be simple in a franchise meant for 7-10 years old. The main target audience should not be 40 something years old who grew up with SW back in 1977.

You'll lose the escapism of SW if you treat it too seriously.

[Straha]

So your argument is that TLJ shouldn't try to communicate a message?

You'll lose the escapism of SW if you treat it too seriously.

Why?

[ray245]

Why?

Because this will draw attention to its very simple nature and set-up? The whole point of SW when it was created ( against the backdrop of the Vietnam war) is that it offers a very simple good vs evil set-up. This is a world where bad guys are very clearly defined and the dreams of creating a new golden age and people being able to live happily ever after is central to its appeal, especially among younger audiences.

It's not a franchise that takes itself too seriously and that formula was part of its long-lasting appeal for almost 4 decades. By trying to deconstruct SW, you are effectively producing a film for the 40 years old at the expense of kids and newer audiences.

Why should SW be a serious, critical commentary about the world we are living in? How does that help the franchise in being appealing to children of all ages? I think you are privileging yourself as an older fan at the expense of new and younger potential fans.

[Effie]

Why?

Because this will draw attention to its very simple nature and set-up? The whole point of SW when it was created ( against the backdrop of the Vietnam war) is that it offers a very simple good vs evil set-up. This is a world where bad guys are very clearly defined and the dreams of creating a new golden age and people being able to live happily ever after is central to its appeal, especially among younger audiences.

It's not a franchise that takes itself too seriously and that formula was part of its long-lasting appeal for almost 4 decades. By trying to deconstruct SW, you are effectively producing a film for the 40 years old at the expense of kids and newer audiences.

Why should SW be a serious, critical commentary about the world we are living in? How does that help the franchise in being appealing to children of all ages? I think you are privileging yourself as an older fan at the expense of new and younger potential fans.

Why should we care about the franchise, or about it being appealing to anyone? Why not care about Star Wars as art?

Also, again, scholarship on Star Wars disputes the "simple good vs. evil set-up" that most people use to praise or condemn the movies.

[Civil War Man]

TLJ is not grimdark. Not at fucking all.

I wouldn't call TLJ grimdark, but it is definitely one of the most pessimistic Star Wars movies I've ever seen. Attack of the Clones and maybe Revenge of the Sith are the only ones I'd rate as being in the same ballpark as The Last Jedi in terms of its pessimism.

It tries to put up a rosy front with its talk of hope and all the "we are the spark that lights the fire" stuff. But you dig beneath that, and this is a world where you cannot depend on heroes or legends because they will inevitably disappoint (even Luke's final sacrifice is for the sake of an illusion, constructed to inspire listeners with events that did not actually happen as depicted), where the system breeds never-ending injustice because the same people are profiting by selling weapons to both the good guys and the bad guys, and where Gondor calls for aid, only to find that Rohan will not answer because they've already written the east off as a lost cause.

"We are the spark that lights the fire" sounds pretty, but they never had to say anything like that in The Empire Strikes Back, because there, despite all of the setbacks, the fire never stopped burning. You can only be the spark that lights the fire when the last fire has been extinguished, which we see in the case of TLJ because the Republic's gone, the entirety of the Resistance can fit fairly comfortably within the Millennium Falcon, none of the Resistance's allies were willing to respond to its call for help, and the Last Jedi is completely alone in a way that even Luke wasn't during the OT.

[Effie]

I think that's a pretty bad reading, though. There's a sequence devoted to the fact that Luke's sarcastic "you think I'd just flash my laser sword and cut down all the First Order" was more or less true. There's a sequence devoted to the fact that it is possible to attack the system.

Which goes back to the point about the spark that lights the fire. The Resistance fundamentally misunderstood the war they had to fight. Rey fundamentally misunderstood who her real enemy is. Which is why Snoke dies and yet the war goes on, because the real enemy is Canto Bight and all it represents. The fundamental problem is that Kylo sincerely believes that because Rey is a child of junkie junk traders, she needs to be uplifted by him into being a protagonist, that people sincerely think that the Force is only accessible if you've got the right mutation. Because the Resistance failed to understand that, they were put to the trial, but they passed it successfully.

The movie says that while legends aren't everything, they're still necessary, which is why it concludes with people reenacting what we've just seen, and then being inspired to call upon the Force and wear the symbol of rebellion. A message of hope that's not about waiting for Godot/Luke, but about using them to motivate yourself to action.

[Vympel]

I find it pretty weird to call a movie that ends with a force-sensitive child looking up at the stars while holding a symbol of the Rebel Alliance 'pessimistic'.

It tries to put up a rosy front with its talk of hope and all the "we are the spark that lights the fire" stuff. But you dig beneath that, and this is a world where you cannot depend on heroes or legends because they will inevitably disappoint (even Luke's final sacrifice is for the sake of an illusion, constructed to inspire listeners with events that did not actually happen as depicted)

Its not at all clear that Luke's legend "did not actually happen as depicted" - we don't know what the kids are saying. All we know for sure is that Luke went out, faced an army, and saved the Resistance from certain destruction against impossible odds. As to being an illusion - good. Everyone who wanted bad ass Force Jedi Super Grand Master Luke to force slam star destroyers is being a fanboy baby and has totally missed the point of what the Jedi are supposed to be (I'm not saying you're asking for that, I'm just tired of the sentiment). Luke's final sacrifice is perfectly in keeping with Jedi ideals as relayed by Yoda in TESB. That we are luminous beings, and that a Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defence, not attack. Luke's sacrifice embodies sacred Jedi ideals as relayed to us by the trilogy's best film when it comes to Force / Jedi philosophy.

In any event, Luke's sacrifice is the exact opposite of "you cannot depend on heroes or legends because they will inevitably disappoint". Luke was wrong to think that.

(We have Rian Johnson being interviewed on the point to confirm that yes, this is the message, though its obvious in the film anyway)

where the system breeds never-ending injustice because the same people are profiting by selling weapons to both the good guys and the bad guys

That's DJ's cynical and wrong view, which Finn expressly rejects.

and where Gondor calls for aid, only to find that Rohan will not answer because they've already written the east off as a lost cause.

That's not the message of the film either. The movie ended with the rebellion reborn thanks to Luke.

"We are the spark that lights the fire" sounds pretty, but they never had to say anything like that in The Empire Strikes Back, because there, despite all of the setbacks, the fire never stopped burning.

Empire Strikes Back isn't interested in the subject matter of 'the fire' at all, so I don't see the point of the comparison. It's an intensely personal story about Luke, Han, Leia and Darth Vader - nothing to do with the rebellion.

[ray245]

Why should we care about the franchise, or about it being appealing to anyone? Why not care about Star Wars as art?

Also, again, scholarship on Star Wars disputes the "simple good vs. evil set-up" that most people use to praise or condemn the movies.

Because that makes it a shared experience with the whole family? Like Pixar films, these are movies that young and old can equally enjoy.

A film does not need to have deep messages or complex storytelling to be good. It can simply be fun and simple to make it enjoyable.

It's not like ANH needed complex and deep themes to make it a good film. It's just really fun.