EP 9 teaser trailer

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd say one problem with TLJ is that it uses typical framing for stuff like Poe of that suicide run to the point that details like how the suicide run was going to fail get lost in cliches like "this dangerous efforts looks like it's going to fail and a bunch of people think it will, but it just about succeeds in a shocking dramatic way". So, everyone assumes Finn was going to succeed, because that's how scenes like that go.

I think a good chunk of the problems with TLJ come down to genre conventions being so ingrained that when you try to deliberately subvert them, a large chunk of the audience simply refuses to accept the subversion and instead just dismisses it as bad writing.

[ray245]

Star Wars Celebration Episode IX panel hosted by Steven Colbert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnhiLZOprZE

Some interesting stuff regarding The Rise of Skywalker here.

Can you surmise?

ANYWAY I think it's not really Palpatine as the main antagonist. I swear I hope to hell it ain't. MAYBE Kylo in his madness and worship of the lore and shit, his incel nerd MRA toxic fanboysim and shit, he goes to the Death Star 2 ruins to try to absorb the evil. Maybe there IS the essence of Palpatine there... but it's not a personal fight against him, it's more a struggle against what his essence represents. So it's not just Palpatine, it's the sins of the past and all that, sure solidified by the fade of Palpatine and his laugh... but all the regrets and evils that were done, that's the core of it. For aside from Palpatine, Vader also died there.

Holy shit so the Rise of Skywalker will see Kylo being corrupted by the darkness of the past (represented by Palpatine)... but he is defeated and saved by Rey who then channels the goodness that came from that place too. For while Kylo thought that place represents Ultimate Evil, the core of the Dark Side and the remains of Sidious and Vader... that was also the site of Anakin Skywalker's redemption and Luke's triumph. If Palpatine's evil is within there, so is Anakin's last good deed. And Luke's probably around as a ghost.

So Rey channels this, Kylo is either saved or destroyed or both, and the calling of Anakin and Luke's acts are what's seen as the Rise of Skywalker and what Rey brings with her as she founds a new order honoring that, the Skywalker legacy.

I bet we'll see an image of Anakin's purest moment to vanquish the abomination possessing Kylo, the shade of Sidious screaming as pure white envelops him and erases him, his cackles and shrieks drowned out by the hearty gleeful cry of YIPEEE!

I hope JJ Abrams has an imagination on par with yours, but I doubt it.

[Crazedwraith]

I'd say one problem with TLJ is that it uses typical framing for stuff like Poe of that suicide run to the point that details like how the suicide run was going to fail get lost in cliches like "this dangerous efforts looks like it's going to fail and a bunch of people think it will, but it just about succeeds in a shocking dramatic way". So, everyone assumes Finn was going to succeed, because that's how scenes like that go.

I think a good chunk of the problems with TLJ come down to genre conventions being so ingrained that when you try to deliberately subvert them, a large chunk of the audience simply refuses to accept the subversion and instead just dismisses it as bad writing.

While I'm sure I'll just be reinforcing your point for you, I can't agree. That's what gets me about people praising TFA as meta or TLJ for subverting expectations. Oh it was so meta that Ren is a Darth Vader wannabe in and out of universe, oh they subvert expectations because we're not supposed to be on Poe's side.

You ca't rely on that, that can't be the sole thing about your film that people comment on. It's got to be actually good and contribute something as well.

It's like Kirk's death, they made it shit because people were expecting a big death scene for ST's first big Captain, except it was just shit so people hated it.

eta: And basically if a large chunk of your audience missed or refused to accept the point, maybe that really is shit writing.

[Mange]

-Abrams is quite complimentary of Johnson, and reiterates that his favorite addition of Johnson's is Rose/Tran. A nice fuck off to the haters on that score.

I do hope that you're above the age of 15 as the term "hater" is juvenile...

You know what's juvenile? Opening your post with an unprovoked insult/ad hominem. But then, I dare to like TLJ, and clearly that is an unforgivable sin in the Star Wars fandom.

Oh, absolutely not. Where did I say that? On the contrary, it's a difference of opinion about a movie. I find referring to detractors of your own opinion as "haters" is offensive, it indicates an unwillingness to accept other people's opinion and to reduce the value of their opinion. It wasn't intended as an insult and I apologize if you thought it was. It's my strong aversion of the word.

I for one do not care about Rose.

Yes, clearly. Which is why you felt the need to state this before going into a diatribe about how badly written the character is, etc, etc.

Yes, as you rejected critics of the character as being "haters", I don't think it was more than right to explain why I don't care for the character.

It's not about the actress, I think Kelly Marie Tran did an adequate job given what she had to work with, but the character was badly written and didn't bring any qualities to TLJ (not that TLJ had many qualities to begin with). That the character also was involved in the most idiotic scene in any of the Star Wars movies doesn't help her case.

Rose crashes into Finns skimmer and says afterwards that: "We're not going to win this for fighting against what we hate, but by fighting for what we love." (People who says that Lucas writes bad dialogue should take a good listen to that tripe.) Not only did Rose almost got both of them killed in vain, she also didn't consider the consequences of her actions and that those actions could've led to the destruction of the Resistance (or is it Rebels again?) as well as themselves and preventing Finn from saving the Res... Rebels, effectively putting her own needs and wants first. This felt strange as she praised her sister's self-sacrifice when she first met Finn. And then that kiss: After no chemistry whatsoever between Finn and Rose, that came right out of the blue.

I mean, a person who's just lost probably her last remaining family not wanting to lose someone else she cares about... unthinkable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: characters should be written as people, not tactical computers programmed for MAXIMUM HARD MAN PRAGMATISM. But apparently most fans online don't seem to get that.

In any case, from what I recall, there is every indication is that Finn would have died before he could take out the enemy canon, rendering it a pointless death.

I get that and I've already addressed part of the problem: We don't see her caring much for him. And I don't think a character acting like a lovesick puppy is a very good one.

And yes, the "master codebreaker" subplot was stupid as heck.

It was a lighter diversion from the main plot which furthered Finn's character development. I'm pretty sure it only attracts such venom because of a toxic combination of it starring non-white characters, general Rose hate, and "animal rights sucks Hur Dur".

Now you're painting with those broad strokes again. For me it's mostly because of this: It continues the inane "I worked with sanitation on the Starkiller so I know how to disable the oscillator." (though he lied)-trope, but now it's "I used to mop the floor on Snoke's Star Destroyer so I know everything there's to know about the hyperspace tracking device" (a bit exaggerated, but...). And to find a master codebreaker? What? Everything hinges on finding a single individual. With the amount of time they had, why not something more practical like some more fuel or ships? It did move Finn's motivations forward, but the execution was bad and ultimately it was of no consequence. (And I don't care much about the "Battlestar Galactica" story.) It's an example of poor storytelling, in my opinion.

[tezunegari]

I'd say one problem with TLJ is that it uses typical framing for stuff like Poe of that suicide run to the point that details like how the suicide run was going to fail get lost in cliches like "this dangerous efforts looks like it's going to fail and a bunch of people think it will, but it just about succeeds in a shocking dramatic way". So, everyone assumes Finn was going to succeed, because that's how scenes like that go.

I think a good chunk of the problems with TLJ come down to genre conventions being so ingrained that when you try to deliberately subvert them, a large chunk of the audience simply refuses to accept the subversion and instead just dismisses it as bad writing.

These genre conventions exist for a reason. They work and are understood by the audience.
For a subversion to work it has to be used sparingly while using the very conventions as a build-up.

Not like the TLJ pile-up where they subverted the expectations to the point of it becoming meta.

[Ender]

I'd say one problem with TLJ is that it uses typical framing for stuff like Poe of that suicide run to the point that details like how the suicide run was going to fail get lost in cliches like "this dangerous efforts looks like it's going to fail and a bunch of people think it will, but it just about succeeds in a shocking dramatic way". So, everyone assumes Finn was going to succeed, because that's how scenes like that go.

I think a good chunk of the problems with TLJ come down to genre conventions being so ingrained that when you try to deliberately subvert them, a large chunk of the audience simply refuses to accept the subversion and instead just dismisses it as bad writing.

No.

This is Star Wars. The reason that swashbuckling million to one chances payoff is not because of "genre conventions". It is because of The Force. The series bakes in that it functions a certain way to it's very world building, from the first movie on. Throwing out the core premise of every film in an attempt to be edgy is not subversion, that is just being bad at your job. "Don't be brave, try to survive", "suicide is a solution" and "your anger can be justified" is the antithesis of everything Star Wars is about. If you embrace those themes and say that people are wrong to overcome their fear and do brave, risky things in the face of impossible odds — and that they are dumb and will not be rewarded for those risks through faith in the transcendental power of the Force and each other, then all you are left with is laser swords and explosions in space.

There are a lot of elements to like in The Last Jedi,and a lot of criticism of it is off base. But it is still a very flawed film both independently and in the context of the larger series

[Ender]

Amusingly, it took less than 24 hours for the Episode IX teaser to accumulate 4M more views than the Solo teaser currently has. The argument that Solo just wasn't that interesting (amongst all its other hurdles) to the general audience than the main saga is pretty firmly established I think.

It will never not be funny to me that Disney pulled Miller and Lord off Solo, and got one of the most boring and forgettable pieces of drek ever, and so Lord and Miller walked over to Sony and made a movie so brilliant it took Disney's layup Oscar from them.

[Gandalf]

No.

This is Star Wars. The reason that swashbuckling million to one chances payoff is not because of "genre conventions". It is because of The Force. The series bakes in that it functions a certain way to it's very world building, from the first movie on. Throwing out the core premise of every film in an attempt to be edgy is not subversion, that is just being bad at your job. "Don't be brave, try to survive", "suicide is a solution" and "your anger can be justified" is the antithesis of everything Star Wars is about. If you embrace those themes and say that people are wrong to overcome their fear and do brave, risky things in the face of impossible odds — and that they are dumb and will not be rewarded for those risks through faith in the transcendental power of the Force and each other, then all you are left with is laser swords and explosions in space.

There are a lot of elements to like in The Last Jedi,and a lot of criticism of it is off base. But it is still a very flawed film both independently and in the context of the larger series

But doesn't that come against Obi Wan's "there are alternatives to fighting" line? Clearly there's more to it than running around doing stuff because "God wills it!" Otherwise the Jedi would still be around. I think one of the ideas is that faith is good and may be rewarded, but don't be an idiot about it.

[Ender]

No.

This is Star Wars. The reason that swashbuckling million to one chances payoff is not because of "genre conventions". It is because of The Force. The series bakes in that it functions a certain way to it's very world building, from the first movie on. Throwing out the core premise of every film in an attempt to be edgy is not subversion, that is just being bad at your job. "Don't be brave, try to survive", "suicide is a solution" and "your anger can be justified" is the antithesis of everything Star Wars is about. If you embrace those themes and say that people are wrong to overcome their fear and do brave, risky things in the face of impossible odds — and that they are dumb and will not be rewarded for those risks through faith in the transcendental power of the Force and each other, then all you are left with is laser swords and explosions in space.

There are a lot of elements to like in The Last Jedi,and a lot of criticism of it is off base. But it is still a very flawed film both independently and in the context of the larger series

But doesn't that come against Obi Wan's "there are alternatives to fighting" line? Clearly there's more to it than running around doing stuff because "God wills it!" Otherwise the Jedi would still be around. I think one of the ideas is that faith is good and may be rewarded, but don't be an idiot about it.

It doesn't go against it in the slightest, unless you think the only way to be brave is to fight and kill.

The very summation of the series and its message is the battle in the Emperor's Tower. Luke's triumph does not come from being the greatest pilot, the best fighter, the most skilled warrior. He does not win because he is the better murderer and out-kill his enemy. In the final moments, Luke battles down his fear and anger. He has Vader at his mercy and can follow the action hero mold of being mentally traumatized in a helpful way, and applying more violence than the other guys to win. Instead he stops fighting, refuses to kill his father, and, in the ultimate moment of vulnerability, throws his lightsaber away. This isn’t choosing death, this is choosing to be vulnerable and put faith in his father and the Force so he can prove the Sith and to himself that the Light Side of the Force is stronger than the Dark. Faith, hope, and love at what win the day, an alternative to fighting like Obi wan said.

It is important to remember that at the end of the day, Star Wars is a children's movie, and its message is one for children. It is a dressed up fairy tale, but fairy tales are important. The lesson about faith and trust, about refusing to give into your fear and anger, about letting go of the past and how others have hurt you so you can live the life you need, these are the lessons of Star Wars. They are lessons children need to learn. This is part of why some of the objections to the sequel trilogy are absurd. Yes, the villains follow a different stereotype, but the threats they see follow a different mold. Yes, there are a lot more women and non white people on the screen; shockingly kids that aren't little white boys need to learn these lessons as well. No, it isn't what you remember and love, because you learned the lessons as a child and now you need to make room for new children to learn them their way.

It is also why the thematic change of The Last Jedi is so bad. "Don't be brave, try to survive", "suicide is a solution" and "your anger can be justified" are terrible lessons, and "suicide is a solution" as a message to kids is mindbogglingly inappropriate.

[Gandalf]

I'd be fascinated to know from where you get those lessons in TLJ.

[Ender]

I'd be fascinated to know from where you get those lessons in TLJ.

the entire thing of everytime someone tries to do something bold it goes badly, Luke's attempt to murder Ben being presented in a morally grey stance, and Paige and Holdo's suicides to win moves.

[Gandalf]

I'll admit I read wholly different things from those events, considering Luke acknowledges how fucked up it was for him to try and kill Ben, and the "suicides to win" moments instead being acts of sacrifice so that others could live. The difference is made pretty stark as a concept when Leia dresses down Poe at the start of the film.

[Ender]

I'd be fascinated to know from where you get those lessons in TLJ.

or if you were asking where TLJ presents the usual star wars lessons about radical vulnerability, rejecting anger and fear, and trust and hope being greater than past hurts, the closest it comes is Luke's face off against Kylo. But largely I would agree it doesn't really address those morals, which is why it is such a break from the rest of the series.

It also kind of touches on the prequel message about beware the greed of big business leading to war and tyranny, but that message wasn't executed well in the prequels or TLJ

[Ender]

I'll admit I read wholly different things from those events, considering Luke acknowledges how fucked up it was for him to try and kill Ben, and the "suicides to win" moments instead being acts of sacrifice so that others could live. The difference is made pretty stark as a concept when Leia dresses down Poe at the start of the film.

"sacrifice so others have a chance" is a pretty dressing of "good things will happen if you kill yourself", similar to calling it "honor" instead of "pride". It is pretty notable that you don't see it anywhere else in the series - Luke doesn't accept death when he throws away his lightsabre, he is accepting suffering, that he will see others continue to struggle against the Emperor. When his death sentence is pronounced, he refuses to fight, but still resists, throwing up his hands in defense and begging his father for help rather than acquiescing. On Bespin he makes a leap of faith to the trash shoot rather than hurl himself to his death, Kenobi knows Vader striking him down isn't the end, and tells him as much, and notably Vader does the deed. Killing yourself being presented as having a good outcome only appears in TLJ, and it is really inappropriate.

[Civil War Man]

I think context is important when judging whether depictions of heroic sacrifices count as glorifying suicide. If it is depicted as tragic or a last resort, it is less problematic than if it is depicted as expected or redeeming of some past cowardice on the part of the sacrificer, at which point you are entering into the realm of Eco's properties of Ur-fascism. Specifically the one where a cult of death starts to form because everyone is taught that dying in anything other than a blaze of glory is shameful.

Anyway, it's way too early to be pessimistic based on a single teaser trailer, but I will echo some others in saying that there are concerns, and some potentially bad omens. Kylo Ren rebuilding the mask is one, since his impulsive destruction of it was a pretty apt metaphor for his future development in the movie. His development is actually one part I really enjoyed about TLJ, since as soon as he stopped trying to emulate Vader he, ironically, became more like Vader was in life. Rebuilding the mask threatens to undo that development, and return him to pantomiming Vader instead of truly succeeding him.

The other is with Rey repairing and still using the Skywalker saber. As many have pointed out before me, having Luke build a new lightsaber instead of salvaging his old one showed how far he advanced in the intervening time, and established him as a fully actualized Jedi, since he could now make his own saber instead of having to use the one he inherited from his dad. Having Rey do the same would have shown similar development in her character. I do not think she will be able to get out from under the Skywalker shadow so long as she continues to rely on using the Skywalker saber instead of one of her own design. Plus, since Star Wars is big on merchandising, new lightsaber hilt for Rey mean new design for lightsaber toys, and one that would probably sell like gangbusters with young fans.

-Killing Snoke in the second film, and having a successful apprentice betrayal with Kylo elevated to Big Bad.
-Deliberately deconstructing and reconstructing "Light vs Dark" morality.
-Trying to subvert the usual "Lone Rogue Action Hero vs Corrupt/Incompetent Superiors" plot line with Holdo and Poe.
-Making Rey "No one".

You can argue how well any of those ideas worked in practice, but they were all major points in the film, and none of them were conventional or particularly safe. Especially the first and last one. The similarities, meanwhile, are generally fairly broad ones, in some cases stuff that would apply to pretty much any big budget action film (like the chase plot, the infiltration subplot, and the evil villain vs. heroic protagonist duel).

1. It's only unique in the very specific comparison of Star Wars with Snoke as Discount Palpatine. There are multiple cases of bait-and-switch villains, including ones that were mere lieutenants to the implied Big Bad before their betrayal, in every form of media.
2. I strongly disagree that there was a deliberate deconstruction of the morality of Star Wars. I can't even think of a moment that I could qualify as a serious attempt. Maybe you were thinking of it deconstructing the nature of the Force, but even in that case it's only new in the sense that it was one of the movies doing it as opposed to a book or video game (specifically KOTOR 2).
3. This is a very culture-specific trope, and even then it's not universal. Since you got me thinking about it, I believe TLJ's subversion of this "usual" plot line is actually the first time that plot line has even been used in a Star Wars movie.
4. Stories of heroes from humble beginnings are about as old as language itself. The only reason this could even be considered in the same galaxy as unconventional or risky is because it was specifically tearing down earlier vague foreshadowing from one of Abram's mystery boxes.

I think that Canto Bight served an important purpose, not so much in furthering the plot, but in furthering Finn's character development, his progression from storm trooper, to scared deserter running for his life, to a man who's only in the fight for Rey, to someone who by the end of the film is genuinely committed to the Resistance's cause, enough to proudly declare himself a Rebel and to try to give his own life for it. By having him see the galaxy from the point of view of an ordinary Resistance grunt (Rose), and see the corruption beneath a pretty place like Canto Bight. And, of course, furthering his relationship with Rose in the process.

That's all well and good, but character development gets seriously undermined when it is so closely coupled to an idiot plot, where the main catalyst of the conflict is the heroes not even attempting to find a legal parking space for their ship during their critical top secret mission, which ends up cascading into the near total destruction of the heroes and the death of one of the main heroes of the original movies.

I mean, Rogue One returned us to the beloved OT era, with loads of fan service and an ending directly tying into A New Hope. It did it beautifully and brilliantly, so I'm not complaining. My point is that it took risks, but in a very familiar setting. I'm not sure how that's so different from TLJ, which took risks within a vaguely familiar plot structure.

Because TLJ's risks were largely superficial. Rogue One's risks involved departing from the usual tone of the movies and plot threads that are not particularly merchandiser friendly in an IP that is all about merchandising. TLJ's risks were taking a familiar story and replacing specific individual plot points with different specific individual plot points.

[Ender]

I think context is important when judging whether depictions of heroic sacrifices count as glorifying suicide. If it is depicted as tragic or a last resort, it is less problematic than if it is depicted as expected or redeeming of some past cowardice on the part of the sacrificer, at which point you are entering into the realm of Eco's properties of Ur-fascism. Specifically the one where a cult of death starts to form because everyone is taught that dying in anything other than a blaze of glory is shameful.

I think that goes to the maturity of the audience. That level of nuance is certainly important in adult films or movies for teens. And here it is worth noting that part of the "edgier" and "target a larger audience" bent of the sequel trilogy is that it is PG-13 while the originals are PG. But the ones going absolutely nuts for star wars, the ones who these films and their message we're originally crafted for, are 6-13. That age where jar-jar is funny, the ewoks are cute, the rancor is terrifying, and Revenge of the Sith is a horror movie (instead of just a horrible movie). At that age subtext is not really a thing.

Anyway, it's way too early to be pessimistic based on a single teaser trailer, but I will echo some others in saying that there are concerns, and some potentially bad omens. Kylo Ren rebuilding the mask is one, since his impulsive destruction of it was a pretty apt metaphor for his future development in the movie. His development is actually one part I really enjoyed about TLJ, since as soon as he stopped trying to emulate Vader he, ironically, became more like Vader was in life. Rebuilding the mask threatens to undo that development, and return him to pantomiming Vader instead of truly succeeding him.

If you look at the helmet repair shot in the trailer, that isn't Kylo Ren repairing it. The hands look furry and clawed.

[Civil War Man]

I think that goes to the maturity of the audience. That level of nuance is certainly important in adult films or movies for teens. And here it is worth noting that part of the "edgier" and "target a larger audience" bent of the sequel trilogy is that it is PG-13 while the originals are PG. But the ones going absolutely nuts for star wars, the ones who these films and their message we're originally crafted for, are 6-13. That age where jar-jar is funny, the ewoks are cute, the rancor is terrifying, and Revenge of the Sith is a horror movie (instead of just a horrible movie). At that age subtext is not really a thing.

I think you may be giving kids a bit too little credit, particularly at the higher end of that age range. There are levels of nuance that will be too subtle, sure, and there is variance in how much individuals will comprehend, but generally older kids are not just sponges that will automatically take everything you give them at face value and immediately internalize the simplest and most literal possible message. I don't think "heroic sacrifice that is regrettable" versus "heroic sacrifice that should be something you aspire to" is too complex for a lot of older kids to differentiate between.

If you look at the helmet repair shot in the trailer, that isn't Kylo Ren repairing it. The hands look furry and clawed.

That does increase the possibilities of why it's being repaired, which is why I said it's too early to start being pessimistic. But it's also too early to completely write off concerns as unfounded. The mask may be getting repaired so it could be used in a disguise, or because it had some HUD that was recording stuff, and there is important intel for the plot that needs to be recovered from internal storage. Or, it could be getting done at the behest of Kylo Ren because he's back to being a Vader cosplayer. The only thing that confirms is that Kylo Ren is not personally repairing it.

Hopefully it's not a sign of backtracking on Kylo Ren's character development, but considering what the mask has represented, giving it the prominence of being included in the trailer designed to be our first impression and major hype-generator means that some level of apprehension is not completely unwarranted, at least until we get further information down the road.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll admit I read wholly different things from those events, considering Luke acknowledges how fucked up it was for him to try and kill Ben, and the "suicides to win" moments instead being acts of sacrifice so that others could live. The difference is made pretty stark as a concept when Leia dresses down Poe at the start of the film.

"sacrifice so others have a chance" is a pretty dressing of "good things will happen if you kill yourself", similar to calling it "honor" instead of "pride". It is pretty notable that you don't see it anywhere else in the series - Luke doesn't accept death when he throws away his lightsabre, he is accepting suffering, that he will see others continue to struggle against the Emperor. When his death sentence is pronounced, he refuses to fight, but still resists, throwing up his hands in defense and begging his father for help rather than acquiescing. On Bespin he makes a leap of faith to the trash shoot rather than hurl himself to his death, Kenobi knows Vader striking him down isn't the end, and tells him as much, and notably Vader does the deed. Killing yourself being presented as having a good outcome only appears in TLJ, and it is really inappropriate.

I am also often troubled by the glorification of suicide attacks in media. But its pretty clear to me that in ESB Luke expected to die, and that it was pure luck that he didn't. And I don't see how Holdo ramming the Supremacy is all that different from that A wing pilot ramming the Executor at Endor, except that it got more screen time because Holdo was a major character. And then there's Obi-wan letting Vader cut him down...

TLJ does have a recurring motif of characters sacrificing their lives in battle, but...

Paige's suicide run is portrayed as a tragedy which, while it accomplishes the mission, leaves a grieving sister and, unless you're one of the "Poe was right" idiots, never should have happened in the first place. She is the face to all those deaths Leia demotes Poe and Holdo dismisses him for. Heck, its pretty much the only time in the franchise that a random fighter pilot's death is given much weight.

Holdo... was a last ditch manuver by someone who was already dead or worse than dead anyway (she effectively killed herself the moment she decided to remain on the Raadus). Symbolically, it was intended to show that Poe was wrong when he called her a coward, so you could take it as glorifying suicide in battle, but under the circumstances, I think it worked.

Luke's death, meanwhile is ambiguous- did he go in knowing he was going to die, or was it simply a risk that he acccepted? It also obviously echoes Obi-wan's and Yoda's deaths.

And the motif is subverted at the end, when Rose refuses to let Finn carry out a suicide attack (which doubtless ties back to her sister's death, and not wanting to lose someone else she cares about under such circumstances).

I'd be fascinated to know from where you get those lessons in TLJ.

the entire thing of everytime someone tries to do something bold it goes badly, Luke's attempt to murder Ben being presented in a morally grey stance, and Paige and Holdo's suicides to win moves.

In no way is Luke's attempt to kill Ben portrayed as in any way ambiguous. And even calling it an attempt is stretching it, given that if you believe Luke's account of events, it was a momentary impulse that he would not have followed through on (which I'm inclined to believe because the only alternate account is from the highly unstable Kylo, and let's be honest- if Luke truly wanted to kill that incompetent, and took him off-guard and sleeping, do you really think he would have lost?)

In any case, Luke's actions are portrayed as his greatest mistake, something which destroys a young man in his care, leads to the destruction of all his other students and his family, and which he spends the rest of his life bitterly regretting. That's not "grey", that's "This was a horrible fucking mistake and he should never have done it".

I'd be fascinated to know from where you get those lessons in TLJ.

or if you were asking where TLJ presents the usual star wars lessons about radical vulnerability, rejecting anger and fear, and trust and hope being greater than past hurts, the closest it comes is Luke's face off against Kylo. But largely I would agree it doesn't really address those morals, which is why it is such a break from the rest of the series.

It also kind of touches on the prequel message about beware the greed of big business leading to war and tyranny, but that message wasn't executed well in the prequels or TLJ

TLJ can be a bit difficult to parse, due to its heavy use (arguably overuse) of subversion and misdirection, but most of those themes are there to some extent.

The importance of rejecting anger and fear can be seen in how Luke's anger and fear destroyed Ben, and in how Luke has to overcome his regret (as I would interpret it, his fear of his own failure) to be a hero again. And in how Rey's insecurities about her past and identity lead to her being manipulated. And, for a non-Force user example, how Poe's fears lead to him fucking everything up spectacularly.

Of course, we also see fear arguably driving Leia's and Rose's actions, and its much less negatively-portrayed (Rose saving Finn at the end, Leia's reluctance to let anyone else die), so its a bit open to interpretation.

But pretty much the entire point of the ending is restoring hope, even in the worst of circumstances.

Edit: You can also argue that Paige's death doesn't qualify as a suicide attack, because from what I recall, by the time she died releasing the bombs, her ship was already crippled. She wasn't making it out of there alive. All she did was die in a manner that would give her death some meaning.

[Shroom Man 777]

The great heroes having no other avenue left and having to resort to such things might also be part of TLJ's playing with the conventions - showing the consequences and the no-other-choices people end up in, which discomforts and makes hard the happy-go-lucky power projection fantasies and escapisms and comfortable superhero-series-style-staleness conventions that a lot of nerds lap up. Even sans Rian and TLJ, we already begin with a Vader fanboy nerd incel MRA fixated on fanworship and legacy entitlement that he's become a midichlorian-juiced saber-swinging spree killer. I bet after Luke fucked up and Kylo went apeshit, he totally got a transmitter and started broadcasting his saber-spree of the New Jedi Order live on HoloNet with all the First Order recruits, Imperial/FO-sympathetic cretins, alt-imp losers getting hard in their cesspools in Holochan. Are the Knights of Ren his peers from the Order, or are they copycats who came to be afterwards, spooling the holos of Kylo's attacks over and over again while going through his ironic manifesto?

[The Romulan Republic]

Heh.

Honestly, I always kind of figured that the Knights of Ren were, at least in part, those of Luke's students who chose to join Kylo rather than be killed by him.

[Shroom Man 777]

Heh.

Honestly, I always kind of figured that the Knights of Ren were, at least in part, those of Luke's students who chose to join Kylo rather than be killed by him.

Nah they're just privileged shits from Coruscant or Kuat who went there not only because they're Force sensitive but to placate the high societies who were afraid that Skywalker would create a corps that wouldn't include Imperial-leaning worlds and populations, so Luke was like OK but then obviously he has students from all over the galaxy and so these shits started crying about forced diversity or the Hothwood Agenda or Cultural Mothmaism or something and got sithpilled by Kylo

[The Romulan Republic]

Heh.

Honestly, I always kind of figured that the Knights of Ren were, at least in part, those of Luke's students who chose to join Kylo rather than be killed by him.

Nah they're just privileged shits from Coruscant or Kuat who went there not only because they're Force sensitive but to placate the high societies who were afraid that Skywalker would create a corps that wouldn't include Imperial-leaning worlds and populations, so Luke was like OK but then obviously he has students from all over the galaxy and so these shits started crying about forced diversity or the Hothwood Agenda or Cultural Mothmaism or something and got sithpilled by Kylo

That works too.

[Civil War Man]

I am also often troubled by the glorification of suicide attacks in media. But its pretty clear to me that in ESB Luke expected to die, and that it was pure luck that he didn't. And I don't see how Holdo ramming the Supremacy is all that different from that A wing pilot ramming the Executor at Endor, except that it got more screen time because Holdo was a major character. And then there's Obi-wan letting Vader cut him down...

Crynyd's death is a bit different in that he didn't have full control over his fighter when he crashed into the Executor. Honestly, without EU sources, it wasn't entirely clear whether he had any control at all. Apparently the canon is that he was hit, lost control, realized he was about to die, and so he wrestled just enough control back to direct his A-wing into the bridge. For Holdo, her death may have been just as inevitable, but it was not as imminent, so there's more a sense of deliberation in her decision to do a suicide run.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am also often troubled by the glorification of suicide attacks in media. But its pretty clear to me that in ESB Luke expected to die, and that it was pure luck that he didn't. And I don't see how Holdo ramming the Supremacy is all that different from that A wing pilot ramming the Executor at Endor, except that it got more screen time because Holdo was a major character. And then there's Obi-wan letting Vader cut him down...

Crynyd's death is a bit different in that he didn't have full control over his fighter when he crashed into the Executor. Honestly, without EU sources, it wasn't entirely clear whether he had any control at all. Apparently the canon is that he was hit, lost control, realized he was about to die, and so he wrestled just enough control back to direct his A-wing into the bridge. For Holdo, her death may have been just as inevitable, but it was not as imminent, so there's more a sense of deliberation in her decision to do a suicide run.

Fair enough, but there are enough examples in any case that both the OT and TLJ have a mixed bag on portrayals of suicidal actions.

You could also add Padme, possibly, if you take the "lost the will to live" thing at face value (I don't).

[Civil War Man]

Fair enough, but there are enough examples in any case that both the OT and TLJ have a mixed bag on portrayals of suicidal actions.

Definitely not contesting that at all. Just adding that the perceived deliberateness or premeditation of the action can drastically change how it comes across, and in turn its dramatic implications.

You could also add Padme, possibly, if you take the "lost the will to live" thing at face value (I don't).

Even at face value it doesn't really fit. It would actually be kind of impressive if Padme actively killed herself by being sad really hard, though.