Jump to content
Jay

SPOILER TALK - The Last Jedi (open spoilers allowed!!!)

Recommended Posts

Oh ok, I missed that.  Thanks.


EDIT: Wait a minute.  He could learn from reading her mind that they were nobodies, but how would he know how they died?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jay said:

Oh ok, I missed that.  Thanks.


EDIT: Wait a minute.  He could learn from reading her mind that they were nobodies, but how would he know how they died?

 

Rey probably felt it through the Force, didn't know what it was at the time, and he was able to gleam that as well.

 

Snoke was nothing more than a plot device intentionally thrown in as a buffer for Kylo Ren's actions. The Emperor was one of the worst characters in the OT, zero motivation or defining characteristics beyond "evil", existing only as a way to redeem Vader. The parallels are intentional, as was the subversive outcome. I'm just glad it happened in this one and not episode 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Docteur Qui said:

The Emperor was one of the worst characters in the OT, zero motivation or defining characteristics beyond "evil", existing only as a way to redeem Vader. The parallels are intentional, as was the subversive outcome.

 

The emperor is one of those characters that you accept as being evil. Doesn't turn him to a bad character. 

 

Think about how much more powerful Snoke's demise would have been, had his character been built up in this film. Look at the reveal of Vader's identity in Empire Strikes Back: had that film continued with Vader as he was in the original Star Wars, the twist would have landed like it did in this film - flatly. But the film chooses to build up Vader's character, so the reveal has impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Force visions - "the past, the future, old friends long gone," etc.  Rey touched Luke's lightsaber and saw Bespin, the burning temple, Knights of Ren, etc - things she knew zero about.  Kylo touched Rey and saw what he told her.  I just figured it was enough of a connection for him to get that.  Whether Rey knew and buried all the details, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Emperor was one of the worst characters in the OT, zero motivation or defining characteristics beyond "evil", existing only as a way to redeem Vader. The parallels are intentional, as was the subversive outcome.

 

The emperor is one of those characters that you accept as being evil. Doesn't turn him to a bad character. 

 

Think about how much more powerful Snoke's demise would have been, had his character been built up in this film. Look at the reveal of Vader's identity in Empire Strikes Back: had that film continued with Vader as he was in the original Star Wars, the twist would have landed like it did in this film - flatly. But the film chooses to build up Vader's character, so the reveal has impact.

 

edit: oops....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Snoke is no who this story is about. It's Kylo's and Rey's. I just don't see how the trilogy would avoid veering into ROTJ reenactmentof the throne room scenes had Snoke been kept alive for the next film.

 

The fact that I greatly enjoyed Snoke and wished I could've seen more of him is to the movie's credit, not the opposite.

 

Snoke's story is playing second fiddle to Kylo's story, so I'm more than happy that things turned out the way they did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Romão said:

But Snoke is no who this story is about. It's Kylo's and Rey's.

 

Its such a non-linear film, and one that tries to dabble in so many underlying themes, that to say "well, the story is about Kylo and Rey" is just untrue.

 

The time that was spent with Luke's daily routine, with the death of Rose's sister, with Poe's hang-up antics, with Monte Carlo and with animal cruelty, etc - could have been used to make Snoke at least somewhat compelling towards the twist.

 

At the very least, Andy Serkis deserved better!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, crocodile said:

The film might be entertaining but the fanboy bitching is even more so. I'm almost grateful for all the flaws because it gives us this kind of stuff to waste our time on.

 

Karol

 

The thing is that they are not even bitching about some of the flaws we've discussed here. They'e fundamentally against all the choices this movie made concerning the major characters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Romão said:

 

The thing is that they are not even bitching about some of the flaws we've discussed here. There fundamentally against all the choices this movie made concerning the major characters

Which is even funnier.

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stewdog1 said:

Every male in this film is portrayed as an incompetent boob and each female is a strong resilient leader or influencer. 

 

"Finally, a Star Wars movie to satiate its core fanbase: social justice lesbians and people who use the word “diverse” in every other sentence."

 

https://www.dangerous.com/39035/forced-diversity-postmodernist-humor-wasted-potential-mike-ma-reviews-last-jedi-spoilers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Romão said:

Now I really wished Rian Johnson was writing Episode IX, even with JJ directing. I'm afraid some of this backlash might reflect in a more conventional film

 

I definitely anticipate a more conventional film with IX. Even if VIII had received unanimous praise from everyone I think that would've happened, just for the fact that Abrams is directing it. I think he has strengths as a director, but daring originality certainly is not one of them. I hope that the slate Johnson created with this challenges Abrams to take more chances, but I'm not expecting it necessarily. And that's not really a bad thing... to a point. If he throws another Deathstar into it I'm gonna have a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

The emperor is one of those characters that you accept as being evil. Doesn't turn him to a bad character. 

 

Think about how much more powerful Snoke's demise would have been, had his character been built up in this film. Look at the reveal of Vader's identity in Empire Strikes Back: had that film continued with Vader as he was in the original Star Wars, the twist would have landed like it did in this film - flatly. But the film chooses to build up Vader's character, so the reveal has impact.

 

Wait, so the emperor is one of those characters you accept as being evil, but Snoke isn't? Even though they're identical in function and characterisation? How does that work?

 

Neither film in the new trilogy spent any time building up Snoke's character at all so I don't know where you're drawing the parallel of Vader from. His death had exactly as much meaning as his character did - it only served to further Kylo Ren, an infinitely more interesting character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17-12-2017 at 4:22 AM, Denise Bryson said:

Anyone else read the IMDb user reviews? TLJ has been universally slammed there!

 

And yet critics love it? I know the cool kids like to brag that they don't care what reviewers or critics say, but the steep gap between critic and audience response cannot be ignored. There's something weird going on.

 

Same thing on RT with its Audience Score of only 56%. Maybe it's too Prequel-ish? Or Disney forgot to pay the audience ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

Same thing on RT with its Audience Score of only 56%. Maybe it's too Prequel-ish? Or Disney forgot to pay the audience ...

 

 

Or critics (and to an extent, the studio) are out of touch with what SW fans want? Even the Trekkie backlash against the JJA Star Trek in 2009 wasn't this melodramatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen reports on the internet that DC fans have been using bots to lower the score of TLJ, due to Disney’s ownership of both Lucasfilm and Marvel) and raise the score of Justice League (Which is now around 80%). 

 

But that does sound ridiculously far-fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Will said:

Some thoughts on Luke, pacifism, and moral ambiguity:

 

I'm starting to come around to Luke's character arc a little more, although it still feels "off." I've been trying to think about the film in a pacifist light, and in that sense perhaps we can take something positive away from Luke: As best I can remember, he stays away from violence in this film. He has stayed on his island, scarred from his encounter with Kylo -- and even when he "leaves," he is really still on the island, able to buy time for the Resistance without hurting anyone or engaging in actual combat. He dodges Kylo rather than truly fighting him. Perhaps his grouchy demeanor towards Rey can be explained away by him forcing himself to remain on the island and not cause violence no matter what (as he tells R2, he feels that pull to come back, but he knows he can't). That would also explain his telling Rey about the balance of the Force, and how the Force is not a "power" (not to mention disparaging the old Jedi) -- but otherwise refusing to train her. Perhaps he doesn't want her to become powerful because he knows that will bring violence.

 

This pacifist theme also lines up with Rose's dark realization on Canto Bight that the rich people are making money as weapons dealers, as well as D.J.'s disinterested demeanor ("Don't join," "it's all a machine," etc.)

 

In this light, perhaps Rian was indeed brave to make that choice, since many fans (although not really me) surely wanted to see Luke and others going on killing sprees again. 

 

That said, there are serious problems with this interpretation. First, did Luke really have to be so grumpy? If Johnson wanted to depict pacifism in a positive light, surely he would have made Luke calm and joyful, not sad and angry. Luke is depicted as more of an embittered coward than a peaceful conscientious objector (although perhaps the line between those two is thin?) 

 

Second, while Luke may be less violent here than in past outings, it cannot be denied that the film as a whole celebrates violence, like Star Wars in general. Rose and Finn talk about sticking it to the rich people with violence, Rey kills a bunch of Praetorian Guards, the Resistance murders hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of First Order troops, etc. We are told, as usual, that violence is okay so long as it is for the right reasons. Luke seems disillusioned with the Jedi, perhaps in part because of their violence, but that is never really made explicit. Indeed, Luke just seems to hate life in general, and doesn't seem to have principled reasons for his stay on the island (e.g. learning about the Force). There's so much Jedi lore and history on that island, yet we hear of virtually none of it. 

 

Indeed, Luke discusses balance and the Force not being a light-dark dichotomy (e.g. how the Jedi ending won't end the Force), but we needed to hear more. It should have been like Bendu from Rebels. I suppose it is possible that Johnson was trying to go as far as he could with the pacifist theme, but kept enough violence and simple plot mechanics to please fans and keep the story interesting. Who knows. That said, as you can tell it is taking a bit of a strain to put together this interpretation that can justify Luke's actions as being something consistent with the light side of the Force. 

 

Apparently Rey took the Jedi texts with her before the tree was burned, so perhaps we'll hear more in Episode IX. Perhaps we'll then get a posthumous redeeming and justification of Luke (similar to that of Snape in Potter). Or at least something interesting about the Force. 

 

I suppose I should at least be glad that Luke didn't become some super-powerful "gray Jedi" who was even more violent than regular Jedi. Perhaps that was the only other acceptable way to go, so I should be glad Johnson chose the more peaceful, "fractured" light side way. 

 

Johnson touches on moral ambiguity and balance, but it's hard to say what, if anything, he's saying about the Force. The only thing we can say for sure if that he wishes to depict Luke as a broken man who finds "peace and purpose" by the end of the story. Incidentally, one could also read Luke's arc as an expression of the greatness of war (Luke is torn apart emotionally in solitude, but then goes into a war zone and finds "peace and purpose"). Furthermore, he treats Kylo as beyond redemption, and acts rather cocky, which seems fundamentally inconsistent with the pure Jedi way. 

 

Perhaps, even if all Johnson wanted to do was challenge Luke's character (which he did to most characters, for better or worse), there is still some value in that, in seeing that even our heroes can be broken men. Still, we seem to see broken men and cynical humor in a lot of media these days. That's not really anything all that interesting. More unusual is pure, unbridled hope and sincerity. Whatever else it may have lacked, TFA felt like it had that. 

 

EDIT: 

 

Just saw this interview with Johnson on the final scene - http://ew.com/movies/2017/12/18/the-last-jedi-spoiler-rian-johnson-ending-explained/2/:

 

“It’s mostly about Luke,” he said. “To me, it shows that the act Luke Skywalker did, of deciding to take on this mantle of ‘the legend,’ after he had decided the galaxy was better off with, had farther reaching consequences than saving 20 people in a cave.”

 

Several times in the movie, characters mention “the spark” that will light the fire that burns down the First Order. While completing the task is now the job of the new heroes, it turns out that spark was our old friend Luke.

 

“Now the Legend of Luke Skywalker is spreading. Hope is reignited in the galaxy,” Johnson said.

 

Needless to say, the final scene makes a pacifist interpretation all the more difficult because it depicts children idolizing violence and wanting to do it themselves. Indeed, "burning down the First Order" is quite a violent act. 

 

Thus I think it really is impossible to see the Luke from the first half of the film in a positive light no matter what view you take. The second depends on your particular beliefs, methinks. 

 

I feel like Johnson did a lot of things here just to be surprising, but didn't really flesh out why things were happening and the characters' deeper motivations. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMDB has never been a reliable gauge of audience reviews. A very small group of largely young, white male reviewers make up the majority of them, so you can imagine how easily skewed this "consensus" is. I imagine the Rotten Tomatoes audience is fairly similar.

 

4 hours ago, Red said:

 

I definitely anticipate a more conventional film with IX. Even if VIII had received unanimous praise from everyone I think that would've happened, just for the fact that Abrams is directing it. I think he has strengths as a director, but daring originality certainly is not one of them. I hope that the slate Johnson created with this challenges Abrams to take more chances, but I'm not expecting it necessarily. And that's not really a bad thing... to a point. If he throws another Deathstar into it I'm gonna have a problem. 

 

I have to disagree with this. TFA was easily the single most conservative and safe film he has ever written or directed, I was shocked at how conventional it was. Almost every project of his (including the TV shows LOST, Alias and Fringe) have been strikingly original and doused in his style. Television has never been the same  since "LOST", which arguably began the Golden Age of high-budget, high-concept scripted series. His kinetic, fast-paced direction and high-intensity dialogue has its parallels but you can't call him an unoriginal director.

 

He may play it safe in Episode IX, but it won't be nearly as safe as TFA was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The former is getting a Ph.d. in film, the latter is a college professor on the subject. They just know more about how film is scripted, shot, and edited better than the lot of YouTube "critics", and I find that their discussions have more nuance than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Docteur Qui said:

IMDB has never been a reliable gauge of audience reviews. A very small group of largely young, white male reviewers make up the majority of them, so you can imagine how easily skewed this "consensus" is. I imagine the Rotten Tomatoes audience is fairly similar.

 

Racism! Sexism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the backlash is pissing me off. TLJ is a far more interesting film than any of the last four marvel films. Johnson, Williams et al did a fantastic job, especially considering Johnson is an indie director. When Kennedy said they were bringing diversity and new talent to the franchise, this is exactly what I was thinking. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people were expecting an absolutely outstanding film, a masterwork for the ages, which this film didn't turn out to be.

 

Whereas with something like Marvel, people have come to accept its mediocrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...