Star Wars Disenchantment

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

"We were in the legislative academy together. His name was Palo."

[Chen G. 3,949]

Urgh. Don't remind me.

 

If you can believe it, a deleted scene had Anakin meet Padme's parents: y'know, girl brings boy home; girl gets teased by sister over "boyfriend"; boy gets the "talk" from the father as the girls talk it out in the kitchen; boy and girl go into girl's childhood bedroom - the usual rom-com treatment, just in a Star Wars film...

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

15 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Naboo...a planet ruled entirely by teenage girls.  Their phone bill must be outrageous!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

11 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Urgh. Don't remind me.

 

If you can believe it, a deleted scene had Anakin meet Padme's parents: y'know, girl brings boy home; girl gets teased by sister over "boyfriend"; boy gets the "talk" from the father as the girls talk it out in the kitchen; boy and girl go into girl's childhood bedroom - the usual rom-com treatment, just in a Star Wars film...

 

Her father was played by Graeme Blundell. I was in the same class as his actual daughter when I did my Diploma of Journalism in '05.

[John 2,032]

It's funny; after recently rewatching TLJ for perhaps the fifth time, I feel that out of these four new installments, TLJ feels the least like a high-budget fan film and the most like a true Star Wars movie. TFA remains my favorite of the Disney-era movies, but the amount of effort, respect, and love put into TLJ is undeniable.

 

The more I read and listen to TLJ reviews that are essentially twenty minute rants on how "dae ruined muh Luke" and "Holdo's plan and dah Canto Bight subplot ruined dah whole movie", the more I've realized that this movie's flaws aren't nearly as big as detractors of TLJ claim them to be. I fully appreciate TLJ and Johnson's vision, nitpicks and all.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

12 minutes ago, John said:

The more I read and listen to TLJ reviews that are essentially twenty minute rants on how "dae ruined muh Luke"

 

I don't know if it's been stated in this thread over two hundred times, but I genuinely want to know people's problem with Luke in this movie. Yeah he's a bitter old man at the start, but he actually has a progression back into an optimistic hero that everyone laments was missing. The first time watching, I was nervous that when Kylo asks, "Are you here to say sorry?" or whatever the line was, that Luke was gonna say something like, "No. I'm here to kick your ass," but thankfully, and importantly, Luke makes no aggressive action in the whole film, maintaining his integrity from the originals.

[SteveMc 2,674]

1 minute ago, Nick Parker said:

 

I don't know if it's been stated in this thread over two hundred times, but I genuinely want to know people's problem with Luke in this movie. Yeah he's a bitter old man at the start, but he actually has a progression back into an optimistic hero that everyone laments was missing. The first time watching, I was nervous that when Kylo asks, "Are you here to say sorry?" or whatever the line was, that Luke was gonna say something like, "No. I'm here to kick your ass," but thankfully, and importantly, Luke makes no aggressive action in the whole film, maintaining his integrity from the originals.

I think they did Luke right in TLJ.  If anything, it was Lucas who made a creative misstep with Luke in ROTJ.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I've known people in their 30s more jaded, broken and resigned than Luke was in TLJ. He was totally realistic and relatable.

[Score 770]

31 minutes ago, John said:

It's funny; after recently rewatching TLJ for perhaps the fifth time, I feel that out of these four new installments, TLJ feels the least like a high-budget fan film and the most like a true Star Wars movie. TFA remains my favorite of the Disney-era movies, but the amount of effort, respect, and love put into TLJ is undeniable.

 

The more I read and listen to TLJ reviews that are essentially twenty minute rants on how "dae ruined muh Luke" and "Holdo's plan and dah Canto Bight subplot ruined dah whole movie", the more I've realized that this movie's flaws aren't nearly as big as detractors of TLJ claim them to be. I fully appreciate TLJ and Johnson's vision, nitpicks and all.

 

 

I still don't see what is supposed to be so wrong with the Canto Bight subplot! If nothing else, it served to introduce a new character (DJ) that might have a role in the next movie. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

1 minute ago, Margo Channing said:

I've known people in their 30s more jaded, broken and resigned than Luke was in TLJ. He was totally realistic and relatable.

 

I live next to what used to be the biggest slum in the US, I've known twenty year olds like that!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

3 minutes ago, Margo Channing said:

I've known people in their 30s more jaded, broken and resigned than Luke was in TLJ. He was totally realistic and relatable.

 

Whealistic and whelatable!

[John 2,032]

7 minutes ago, Score said:

I still don't see what is supposed to be so wrong with the Canto Bight subplot! If nothing else, it served to introduce a new character (DJ) that might have a role in the next movie. 

 

Many accused it of harboring an anti-animal cruelty/war profiteering message, though I struggle to see how that's even remotely a bad thing.

 

I saw it as more of an example of the prevalent inhumanity of the galaxy at large.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's not a bad thing in isolation, but it was annoyingly preachy. It was almost one step away from Rose breaking the fourth wall and berating the audience for allowing this to happen.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

1 hour ago, Margo Channing said:

He was totally realistic and relatable.

 

Not for a Jedi.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

* Not from a Jedi.

[Bilbo 3,709]

Ironic

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

This is outrageous.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 hours ago, John said:

Many accused it of harboring an anti-animal cruelty/war profiteering message, though I struggle to see how that's even remotely a bad thing.

 

Its not that the themes are bad themes, its that they're not the themes of the movie as a whole, so they make the setpiece feel like it lacks focus.

[John 2,032]

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its not that the themes are bad themes, its that they're not the themes of the movie as a whole, so they make the setpiece feel like it lacks focus.

 

The overarching theme of TLJ is failure, and how one deals with it. Finn and Rose ultimately fail in their quest on Canto Bight (retrieving the master codebreaker and deactivating the FO's tracking becon), so I'd argue the Canto Bight subplot very much aligns with the overall theme of the movie.
 

Besides, I don't see what's so inherently wrong with exploring a planet and society we have never seen before in this universe.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 minutes ago, John said:

I don't see what's wrong with exploring a planet and society we have never seen before in this universe.

 

The problem is that the film isn't a two (and a half, unfortunately) hour excuse to exhibit this world.

 

Its there to tell a story, with this world as a mere stage.

 

Otherwise, just make a spinoff mockumentary about Canto Bight instead.

[John 2,032]

Just now, Chen G. said:

The problem is that the film isn't a two (and a half, unfortunately) hour excuse to exhibit this world.

 

Its there to tell a story, with this world as a mere stage.

 

I don't understand.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Showing-off the film's world, for the sake of showing it off, is the quickest way to making an unfocused narrative. In some part, that's what hindered Lucas in his prequels: excessively exploring the politics of the Republic and the Jedi Council, and earlier drafts of the script (and even the first cut of film) to the original Star Wars exhibited this. There's a smidgin' of it in Empire Strikes Back, where Han mentions some past adventure (never to be seen) as he talks to Leia, but that's so small its utterly inconsequetial. 

 

For the record, I don't think Johnson's aim was to "show off" Canto Bight. He just got a bit lost in there. It was also clearly intended to be much longer, originally. To me, it ends up not working on any level whatsoever.

[John 2,032]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Showing-off the film's work, for the sake of showing it off, is the quickest way to making an unfocused narrative. In some part, that's what hindered Lucas in his prequels: excessively exploring the politics of the Republic and the Jedi Council, and earlier drafts of the script (and even the first cut of film) to the original Star Wars exhibited this.

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I didn't think the Canto Bight subplot was exhibited excessively. I certainly wouldn't compare its length to the much more exhaustive political scenes in the prequels. I felt we had plenty of time, narrative-wise, to explore what was simultaneously going on with Luke and Rey on Ahch-To.

[Holko 9,526]

If we go by the isolated score (simpler than skipping through the movie), we spend about 10 minutes on Canto Bight from the 2 hours and 30 minutes with a whopping 2 cuts to it. So that's that for many people crying "I hated the movie all those times it cut there" and "spending half an hour on that useless planet". Not saying that's the case in this thread, we thankfully have better thought out easily refuted nitpicks than those.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Ten minutes can be more than enough to ruin the pace of the film, particularly in the second act.

 

A long first act isn't going to make a film feel slow, because even casual filmgoers with no formal knowledge of narrative structure, will intuitivelly know that this is the "build up" and that its going to culminate in something more interesting. I mean, the original Star Wars has a 45-minute first act, Braveheart takes over an hour, etc. But in the second act, you expect a film to start soaring and if it stalls soon thereafter - people will start complaining.

[Score 770]

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Ten minutes can be more than enough to ruin the pace of the film, particularly in the second act.

 

A long first act isn't going to make a film feel slow, because even casual filmgoers with no formal knowledge of narrative structure, will intuitivelly know that this is the "build up" and that its going to culminate in something more interesting. I mean, the original Star Wars has a 45-minute first act, Braveheart takes over an hour, etc. But in the second act, you expect a film to start soaring and if it stalls soon thereafter - people will start complaining.

 

From most of your posts I get the impression that, when you approach a new movie, you first evaluate whether its formal structure is in accordance with some general codified textbook structures, and then, based on this, you decide whether you like the movie or not. If this were the case (maybe I'm wrong, you tell me), I would find this unnatural, like putting the cart before the horse. Surely it is not how most people react to a work of art, and art should always appeal to people, not just to those with technical knowledge. When I listen to a piece of music (an area in which I have, I'd say, a rather deep technical knowledge), I first react to the content and the message of the work (if there is one), and afterwards, if I want to understand why I liked it or not, I start analysing and taking note of what worked or did not work for me, when it can be expressed in technical terms. If I were to judge the formal structure first, I would not like film music at all (film cues have no well-developed structure), and even more, I would probably not like anything written after the 19th century!     

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Score said:

If this were the case

 

Its not.

 

Analyzing the structure is done after the fact. I mentioned this earlier, but "it was long" was literally the first thing I said coming out of The Last Jedi.

 

Also, a film doesn't necessarily have to comply to this structure to be effective: For instance, one of my favorite movies, Braveheart, doesn't really have a three-act structure. Its true of other (good) films as well: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, for instance. 

 

So, no, mine is not a "checking boxes" approach.

[publicist 4,643]

43 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

So, no, mine is not a "checking boxes" approach.

 

No but an 'unhealthy obsession with minutae details of recent blockbuster movies that aren't worth obsessing over'. I'm obviously not going to forbid you to unburden your heart on movies dear to it, but can you just stop doing it to the same three pictures all the time?

[Chen G. 3,949]

I'm a very casual filmgoer: I don't see a lot of films every year and the ones I do see are the tentpole blockbusters. I think there's a reason why its those particular types of movies that have become so succesful and prevalent.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Thats why Pub looks down on them.

[publicist 4,643]

I don't but this obsessive over-analyzation going on here is a nerd's folly. It doesn't accomplish much and Chen just can't let it go.

[Chen G. 3,949]

It isn't overanalysis.

 

Narrative structure is the most basic element of assesing a film of any kind.

 

Overanalysis would be fussing over each nuance of the textbook three-act structure (y'know, "inciting incident", "turning point" 1/2, etc...) which to me always seems like an redundant and overly-dogmatic form of critique. But the main acts? the planting/payoff mechanisms between them? The thrust? Those really aren't that complicated or minute.

[publicist 4,643]

But this (very) basic film literature knowledge dressed up as words of wisdom from your humble self obviously does not in any way explain why people love or enjoy a movie. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I think in this case, it helps explain why a lot of people felt The Last Jedi was awkwardly-paced.

 

And honestly, if you insist on referring to one's persona ("humble self", "dressed up as words of wisdom") and moviegoing habits rather than one's arguments, than this discussion is going to go nowhere.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Then why not stop talking?

[Chen G. 3,949]

Why shut down the argument entirely where one can course-correct it?

 

Look at this thread as a case study: we started with SJW nonesense, and in these last few pages we managed to produce what I believe is a fruitful discussion on the merits and demerits of The Last Jedi. What reason have we to stop unless the discussion had run its course? Just because of some memebers' fondnest for low-key ad hominem arguments? If one cannot endure those occasional blurbs, one best not go online in the first place. That doesn't mean that one has to mince words in replying to such inappropriate arguments.

[Holko 9,526]

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

we started with SJW nonesense, and in these last few pages we managed to produce what I believe is a fruitful discussion on the merits and demerits of The Last Jedi.

 

Notice how Goldenrod disappeared.

[A24 4,331]

2 hours ago, publicist said:

 

 I'm obviously not going to forbid you to unburden your heart on movies dear to it, but can you just stop doing it to the same three pictures all the time?

 

Star Wars, Braveheart and LOTR ?

[Chen G. 3,949]

And the Avengers (the original and the recent film), and Indiana Jones (especially 3 and the alledged forth one), and Harry Potter - not that its anyone buisness, but still - more than enough films to discuss inteligently, as opposed to throwing smarmy comments at members of the board.

 

Besides being blockbusters, most of these films are part of a serialized franchise. I have a fascination with the use of the multi-film form in storytelling, so naturally I will participate in discussions of movies in big franchises.

 

All of this however is irrelevant to the discussion, and we would be better off referring to one's arguments rather than one's filmgoing or participation-in-discussions habits. I don't recall ever examining the habits of another member of the board. Pity some others can't extend the favor.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Hobbit!

[publicist 4,643]

28 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

What reason have we to stop unless the discussion had run its course? Just because of some memebers' fondnest for low-key ad hominem arguments? If one cannot endure those occasional blurbs, one best not go online in the first place.

 

You certainly do not see even very visible stop signs. Be that as it may, the worst thing now would be offering you more chances to present yourself as poor victim of boorish online trolling so proceed in your vapid ways. A bit of self-reflection wouldn't hurt, though.

[Arpy 4,145]

Who does it hurt, pub? There's an entire forum with other threads where other discussions can be had.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But Pub wants this thread to be about combatting the hostility!

[Chen G. 3,949]

Combating it? Yeah, right...

 

One does not combat hostility by snarkily implying disingenuousness on the part of others, especially when said "others" have never done the same (this post being the exception to the rule).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Are you suggesting I'm not being truthful?

[Chen G. 3,949]

No.

 

Where did you get that?

 

Anyway, I'm going to join @Disco Stu's camp in regretting having said what I just did.

[Nick1Ø66 4,714]

 

[Arpy 4,145]

Maybe Star Wars draws out the negativity in us all?

 

You never see this stuff with Star Trek, but maybe it's in the name after all...

 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

That would be true of the first 20-something pages, where it was about Star Wars (kinda). As of these latest few posts, its all about the use of ad hominem remarks in the forum, unfortunately.

[Arpy 4,145]

Yes, quite a few of us can get tetchy it seems, it's why I like to take a sabbatical every once in a while to come back less grumpy.