Lets talk all things Star Wars
- Status
CB2001
Master Member
I have a question in regards to saying "fans wouldn't like it no matter how they wrote it": If you have one of the producers of the original trilogy literally saying that Abrams, Johnson and what is basically Disney-owned LucasFilms don't know what they were doing with the story and that the fans have a better understanding of the material than the filmmakers working on the Sequel Trilogy... who are you more likely to believe in who understands the material better? If the fans knows a character better than Abrams and Johnson, and that character does something that is drastically out of character for them, who is in the right: the fans or the filmmakers?
If a film maker portrays an established character in a manner that is inconsistent with their previous characterization (without at least a good in-story reason, such as mind control, imposter or some such) then that film maker is in the wrong. The people who understand the material know how the story and characters should proceed, and they also know which directions it should not.
This is why I simply classify the newer IJ, ST and SW materials as "alternate" rather than mainline; they may present some interesting ideas, but they are not consistent with what has already been established onscreen.
Well I can tell you that, in general, when Lucasfilm/Disney was branding all the fans as misogynists for not liking Rey, they were wrong. Mara Jade and Jaina Solo were consistently in the tops spots on many starwars.com and SW Insider favorite EU character polls. That is a clear example of great well written characters and then Rey.
By all rights, they should have proceeded with them instead; Mara Jade is a hundred times more interesting, and Jaina truly lives up to her mom and dad's reputations.
Yeah, they forget Leia, who:Yet they conveniently ignore Leia, who broke all the sterotypes of the damsel in distress from the very first movie. Yeah. I guess we just don't like female leads.
-Told Darth Vader off
- Informed Han Solo that he was "braver than she thought" for rescuing her in the Falcon.
-Was a competent part of the Rebel Alliance command staff.
-Was more than capable of using a blaster (ask all the stormtroopers she shot in the Original Trilogy)
-Called Solo a "Scruffy Nerfherder".
-Stopped Chewbacca from strangling Lando with one word.
-Bluffed the fat, disgusting overgrown toad Jabba the
-STRANGLED that fat, disgusting overgrown toad Jabba the
-Got Jabba's Sail Barge Cannon pointed at the deck
-Could ride a speeder bike like nobody's business.
-Could use a lightsaber. (with Luke's training).
And we all just fell in love with that girl!
Joek3rr
Master Member
The problem is, some fans do like it. We all have different tastes. To this day I still love TLJ. I can toss all the rest of the Disney Star Wars, but I'm keeping TLJ. And I'm a Star Wars fan.
Ultimately when a filmmaker comes to make a film in an established franchise, the only fan they should be writing for is themselves. Denis Villeneuve has said something to this effect about Dune. (I recall Nicholas Meyer saying something similar about The Wrath of Khan.) You can't please them all. And if you choose one group, that's hardly fair to the other fans.
Joek3rr
Master Member
I mean Star Wars, post Thrown Trilogy, is a two edged sword. Many fans became attached to background characters, because the EU took the time to make them into something other than meme material. I mean look at the lore and the literal cult following one dude in cool armor spawned. And only a fraction of that has to do with the films.
So I can understand the frustrations of fans when Ackbar is just blown up. Its even worse if you don't catch when it's happening and you get informed about later in the film. Because while to some fans Ackbar is nothing more than a meme. But to others he's a proper character.
Now with they said, I hate key jangling nostalgic fan service. Ackbar didn't need some goofy over the top heroic death. And he definitely shouldn't be playing Holdo's role in the story. But it is a tad irksome to just see him in the background getting blown up.
I think it would have been preferable if he was standing next Leia. So it's clear he was killed with standing next to her.
CB2001
Master Member
Except both The Wrath of Khan and Dune were good. And Wrath of Khan came after TMP, which was not considered good and ended up being considered the best sequel out of the TOS Movie crew (and also tied itself back to the original series by bringing Khan back). Also, I don't think anyone knocked on Villeneuve's Dune, as all I've heard from fans have been positive responses. So, if anything, they're more akin to Peter Jackson and his Lord of the Rings films (Jackson is a fan of the books, but stayed true to the material and didn't stray from the source material like Disney's Sequel Trilogy has), and proves that producers original statement: fans have a better understanding of the source material, unlike Abrams and Johnson, who both supposedly claimed to be fans. but clearly weren't or grown up to hate the OT to the point where they didn't care about it as much as they used to (see what Abrams did to Star Trek, as he stated he wasn't a Star Trek fan, but directed the first two films anyway, and clearly didn't care about the source material either. And the only reason why anyone would do a deconstruction like Johnson is if they hated the source material and wanted to point out the obvious glaring holes in logic about it in hopes of ruining it for everyone, like someone waiting for Citizen Kane to start in the theater and then screaming out, "Rosebud's a sled!" just to ruin the experience for everyone).
Last edited:
The key difference is that Velleneuve was a die hard fan of the Dune novels and was well versed in the history of the series, both in television, and the film adaptations, and worked collaboratively with other writers to help develop his adaptation. Meyer didn't know much about Trek, but he also took what people liked about it into consideration- as well as getting acquainted with the material to get a feel for what it was about being astute enough to recognize the nautical drama - only set in space.
Rian Johnson is like that cocky student who knows he's smart- but he's constantly reminding people who didn't ask. His scripts really come across that way, and not just this movie- all the movies of his I've seen. There's a smugness to it. Being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, rather than doing what best serves the story. The above mentioned directors were concerned with telling a good story, not serving their own ego. If The Last Jedi were it's own movie and not a Star Wars movie things may have played out differently.
Then again, we all know Disney had no overarching plan or plot for the Sequel trilogy- so it's no wonder that it's a stinking pile of flaming garbage. Time will be the ultimate judge and it won't be kind.
Rian Johnson is like that cocky student who knows he's smart- but he's constantly reminding people who didn't ask. His scripts really come across that way, and not just this movie- all the movies of his I've seen. There's a smugness to it. Being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, rather than doing what best serves the story. The above mentioned directors were concerned with telling a good story, not serving their own ego. If The Last Jedi were it's own movie and not a Star Wars movie things may have played out differently.
Then again, we all know Disney had no overarching plan or plot for the Sequel trilogy- so it's no wonder that it's a stinking pile of flaming garbage. Time will be the ultimate judge and it won't be kind.
Time is already not being kind.
Disney would love to be in the middle of a new trilogy/series starring Rey right now. It's not happening because they literally cannot make a SW movie at a profit anymore. They can't even wring any more money out of Lucas's timeline/characters, never mind using the ST.
Solo4114
Master Member
But that's exactly my point: they use the language of objective, authoritative language to describe what is ultimately something that isn't really the thing they dislike.
Like, I already explained my general issue with the PT: I just don't like the story. I'd have preferred a different story. Not because I was misled, just because it's the kind of story I'd have enjoyed more. It would've been more interesting to me, and it's mostly what I'd imagined that story would be (or at least something kinda like it). And instead, what we got was...a different story. The story itself isn't a bad one, it's just not one that interests me. And yes, its telling has some flaws to it. But so do plenty of other movies that I love, and many have the exact same flaws.
I and plenty of others have picked over TPM with a fine toothed comb. When Red Letter Media did its first (seriously weird) video about TPM, people lapped that stuff up. I thought it was weird, but I thought the insights into the technical flaws in the film were interesting. But over time, the more I've thought about it, the more I've come to realize that those technical flaws are in ALL of the Star Wars movies to some degree. It's just that we don't care in the other films because we like them more. So spending time talking about those flaws is actually obscuring what's at the heart of the viewer's discontent. We act like it's these flaws that are the reason we don't like the films when...that's not true. It just isn't. It's something else. Something deeper, usually.
I also want to be clear that I'm not saying that this applies to literally everyone who criticizes these films. But I do think a significant portion of the fanbase has adopted a lot of these points of view as a fancy, long-winded (and that's comin' from me...) way of saying "I just don't like it" and they're still no closer to being able to answer "Ok, but why not?"
Look, ultimately what I'm getting at here is that we in fandom definitely do feel passionately about various franchises. We love what we love pretty fiercely. And when that thing we loved changes or a new entry comes in that we don't like, we savage it. That's...just fandom. It's gonna happen. Hell, it's always happened (but the internet amplifies it).
But at least based on my observation, a lot of what the fans go to when they say "This was bad, and that was bad, and OMG can you believe this?!" is surface-level stuff that isn't actually getting to the heart of what drives their dislike of things. There's usually, again just based on my observations, something more going on. But that something isn't addressed. It's instead papered over with technical critiques as if having found those flaws is the answer for why you didn't like a thing. But as I've said, if those flaws appear in other stuff you did like, then obviously it's not the presence of those flaws that actually causes your dislike. It's something else, and we should try to figure that out.
I don't actually think that 9 out of 10 times the expectation is generated by the material. I think especially these days, people often don't engage with the material as much as they are engaging with their idea of the material. TFA is a perfect example.
In TFA there's a lot of mystery introduced about Rey's parents. It's mostly implied, though, rather than directly stated. Like, nobody says "Rey, you're so powerful because your father was---ARRRGH!!!" and then keeling over dead with a knife in their back or something. But the question is raised "Why is Rey so powerful?" And that question is lampshaded throughout the film.
BUT if you actually watch the film and engage with the "text" of the film itself (rather than the "meta-text" of how the film is trying to manipulate you), this question is...utterly unimportant to the story itself. Rey discovering her heritage has zip to do with anything that happens in the film. Hell, she doesn't even spend much time wondering about it in TFA. She's confused, she doesn't understand the visions she sees, but the film barely gives you any time to wonder about the mystery, because we're on to the next big action sequence. That's the structure of the film. And for plot purposes, Rey's parentage is likewise unimportant in TFA. What matters is that she beats Kylo Ren in the forest by connecting with the Force, and that she's able to find the map to Luke, which it turns out is pretty unimportant to the events of the film itself anyway. It's truly a macguffin to get her from A to B and so on.
In TLJ, the film actually bothers to have Rey grapple with the question of her identity. It becomes a central part of the story. Rey wants to know her identity because by learning that identity it'll presumably provide her with both confidence in herself and a path forward. But what the film does is point out that the answer to that question doesn't matter. What matters is how it informs Rey's choices. In other words, it doesn't matter if Rey discovers that she's a nobody, a Kenobi, a Skywalker, a Palpatine, or a Fisto's Cousin Twice Removed. Her destiny isn't the point; the point is what she chooses for her path forward.
As I've said several times in the past, people like to say that TLJ "threw out" everything that TFA introduced...but it didn't. It took it and ran with it, just in a direction people didn't like. It still addresses Rey's parentage. It just does so in a way that makes it clear that the answer to the mystery (i.e., "Who are Rey's parents?") doesn't actually matter for Rey. What matters for Rey is whether that information affects her choices, and in the end, it doesn't. What matters is that she says "I'm gonna do this myself. It's time to stop waiting for someone else to fix this for me."
Yeah, I agree here, but I also think that the "this character wouldn't really act like this" can be taken a bit far, especially in a franchise where you have a mixture of different media depicting who that character is. Like, you've got everything from old Marvel comics from the '70s and '80s, to the newspaper strips from around that time, to multiple different depictions in wildly different video games, to multiple books by different authors from the '90s and early '00s, to the Dark Horse Comics, to the freakin' Holiday Special. Which is the "real" Luke? If all you have is the movies to work off of, you see a snapshot of Luke at a point in his life, and then you fast forward some 25-ish years to the galaxy in the state it's in at the start of TFA.
You ask me, the real problems with the ST tie back to three critical decisions: (1) the decision to bring back the OT characters and ONLY set the story some ~25-ish years in the future; (2) the decision to have different directors basically write their own chapters; and (3) the decision to hire JJ Abrams to start things off. All the problems people have stem from those decisions.
No, they don't. First, her past was addressed in TLJ. It just wasn't addressed in a way they liked. If the issue hadn't have been addressed, there'd be no mention of it whatsoever. Like, if TLJ had Rey do pretty much all of the stuff she does and never once even ask the question "Who are my parents?" that would be "failing to address it." If we pretended the question didn't even exist, that'd be failing to address it. The film addresses it, though. It just doesn't address it in the way a lot of fans wanted, because they got all wrapped up in solving the mystery, and the speculation of whether she was a Kenobiwalker or whatever. And in the end, none of that s*** mattered. It never mattered. "Why is Rey powerful?" is not an issue that even gets addressed in the story in any significant way until the very last entry: TROS. Prior to that point, her heritage is completely unimportant to the story.
Now, I want to be clear here: it's very important to the audience because the issue was introduced as a "mystery" on purpose. But that "mystery" has zip to do with the actual story of the first two films. Put another way, the answer to the question would have zero impact -- regardless of what it was -- on the story of the first two films. And ultimately, I think the audience has a right to be annoyed with how the mystery was introduced: as a meta-narrative shiny distraction to get them wondering, but which was never actually intrinsic to the story itself until the third film.
I disagree. As I've said, those same critiques can be leveled against the films the fans claim to actually love, and yet....they don't. But suddenly they matter here? Why? Why is it a killer problem here, but not there? Nobody talks about Neo as a "Gary Stu," ya know? People just accept that Neo is "The One" because he's "The One." But suddenly Rey's power coming out of nowhere is a problem? Luke had power out of nowhere, too. Luke had basically zero training (sorry, but 5 min on the Falcon doesn't count), but he can make a "one in a million" shot and nobody bats an eye. Nobody complains that he didn't "earn" his power.
I think a lot of this stuff is used either because people are unable to articulate their real problems, and so they go to other issues as a means of justifying their generalized dislike, or people use this stuff to add a gloss of legitimacy to what they feel are insufficient reasons. I tend to think it's more the former, though. People latch on to a problem that isn't really their problem with the film, but is still "a problem." Like, the criticism of the Sith knife stuff is absolutely legitimate. That bit makes zero goddamn sense. But that's not the problem with the film. Even gathering a collection of "See? And they did it here, and here, and here, and here, and here as well" isn't really the problem. The problems are deeper, and they're usually not the result of a simple accumulation of technical flaws.
Sure, I think people tend to overidentify with the object of their fandom. Thus, an attack on the object becomes an attack on them. We've seen that tons of times over the years just in this forum alone, to say nothing of the wider world.
I also want to be clear that "I just didn't like it" is a perfectly good and justifiable reason to not like a film all by itself. I mean, great if you can articulate what you didn't like about it, but I think for a lot of people, that's actually way more difficult than it seems. What we like can be ephemeral. What works for one work fails in another, and what fails in one work isn't a problem when it also happens in another. I think it's worth questioning what the "something more" was that made the difference, though.
I think that depends entirely on the facts. In the case of Star Wars, I'd say that fans thought they knew the character, but -- especially with the jettisoning of all EU material prior to the LFL sale to Disney -- they no longer knew the characters. Either the characters were entirely new (e.g., Poe, Finn, Rey, etc.), or they were snapshots of those people some 20-30 years ago (e.g., the OT heroes).
Consider the "New Republic" as if it were a character. We "knew" that character from the novels that came out in the 90s and on. But then those novels were thrown out. So did we "know" the character now? No, we didn't. With the new chronology, we had no idea what to expect. It's part of why TFA is kind of a mess: it takes no time to actually explain the state of the galaxy and, more importantly, we are not coming to it as blank slates the way we did with ANH. So now, who are the Resistance in relation to the Republic? Where'd the First Order come from, and why isn't it just "The Empire Resurgent" or the "Imperial Remnant" or whatever? WTF is it?
But not understanding the character, not having a sufficient backstory presented to grasp it, doesn't mean that the character is "portrayed wrong" or "written wrong." "The New Republic would never have done that!" Well...we don't really know that because we don't know squat about the last 30 years or whatever. It's fair to criticize how effectively that new state of affairs is introduced, but it's not fair to say they got it "wrong."
I think we can spin our wheels endlessly about what "should" have happened with Ackbar, but at the end of the day, I think that issue is a microcosm of the problem of including OT characters in the story at all. Everyone's got a "favorite" side character or whatever, and nobody wants to see their heroes die. More to the point, though, this guy has no lines, no involvement in the story, and literally doesn't matter. At all.
If they'd never confirmed that it was Ackbar, nobody would give a s*** that some random Mon Cal got blown into space. But because they said "Yeah! That was Ackbar!" now it's a big deal? The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. I mean, ok, fine, if you're gonna go as far as to include Ackbar, actually do it. Make him part of the story or give him a reason to be on screen or something to do. They kinda sorta do that with Nien Nunb in TROS, after he pops up for 2 seconds in TLJ. But I think it's just dumb fan service either way. Blow 'em up unceremoniously, or give them a great poignant death, it's all still just fan service.
Well, there's also the little matter of the SAG-AFTRA strike that's ongoing, and the fact that the WGA only just made a deal...
That and Disney itself has been under a bunch of strain in its leadership totally unrelated to Star Wars or Marvel or the gripes of their respective fans.
Joek3rr
Master Member
There are those who would argue that TLJ was a good film as well. I mean it's not like Rian set out to make a bad film. And neither did Villeneuve or Meyer.
As you say both Abrams and Rian claim to be fans. I find though they were primarily fans of the first film. Not necessarily the sequel or Prequels. JJ kinda knows what made the first film so popular. But that's all it. It's the tone and the vibe of the first film. But very little substance. (Aside from Rey and Kylo are a Yin Yang thing.)
Now with Rian. The thing that immediately stuck out to me. Was he went to the things that inspired Star Wars. While JJ just looked back other Star Wars. Rian went to WW2 films, Kurosawa, Joseph Campbell, and various myths. I know a lot of people didn't like the depressed and disillusioned Luke. And yeah I suppose it could have been done a bit differently. But 100% in keeping with Campbell and mythic tropes which Luke follows. (Even Rey's story is beat for beat the Heroine's Journey. Victoria Lynn Schmidt's version specifically.) JJ doesn't GET that part of Star Wars. He's kinda like Dave Filoni. The trapping and iconography of the myths are there, without the meaning and the lessons.
And being a fan shouldn't be decided factor. Because A) there's A LOT of fans who's don't get Star Wars or what it's teaching. And B) what is considered to be some of the best content came from non-fans. Tony Gilroy said he never liked Star Wars. (I'm not even sure he'd ever watched Star Wars.) Yet Andor is considered to be some of the best content since Disney bought Lucasfilm. I seem to recall Meyer also saying he'd never liked or watched Star Trek. But yet his films are considered to be some of the best of Star Trek.
It's not so clear cut.
You keep hinting that the fans who dislike something are unable to identify it- as if it's some unspoken- undefinable trait. If we can't use definitive language to express that, if we can't use the basic rules of fiction writing, if we can't cite specific examples from the movie- or contrast the new installment to the superior previous installment to point out a continuity gap, and even you can't define it specifically- then maybe it's that you simply don't find any explanation to be reasonable enough. Which is fine- but it also loses any sense of credibility when you can't even define what this mysterious element that critics have against the films. According to your take, we can't define it, but you can, but won't. So..... we are at an impasse.
I watched the same movies you did, and I understood the concepts and ideas that were expressed, taking them at face value, but also remembering the overall narrative, but if we can't agree on a set of definable parameters to honestly discuss the material, I'll just excuse myself from the conversation.
I watched the same movies you did, and I understood the concepts and ideas that were expressed, taking them at face value, but also remembering the overall narrative, but if we can't agree on a set of definable parameters to honestly discuss the material, I'll just excuse myself from the conversation.
Solo4114
Master Member
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I think they're either uncomfortable admitting that this is ultimately a matter of preference (which they shouldn't be), or that they lack the insight into themselves and the understanding of film as a storytelling medium to really identify the problem in a technical sense.
As I said, I tend to doubt that it's the accumulation of specific instances of "This didn't work" and "that was bad" that are the problem. Those are examples of what may be a larger issue, but for a lot of fans, they end up obscuring the larger issue and becoming the thing they say is the problem, instead of standing as examples of the bigger problem. I think this is most pronounced when other works -- not even within Star Wars, but just generally -- share similar issues, but receive no such criticism.
Like, you can go on youtube and pull up dozens, probably hundreds, maybe even thousands of videos all about what went wrong with each of the individual movies in the sequel trilogy (and before it, the prequel trilogy), many over an hour long, sometimes videos that are longer than the movies themselves. And what do they tend to focus on? They tend to pick apart, piece by piece, the individual, isolated moments and bits that they think "didn't work" or "didn't make sense." And yeah, lots of times those individually picked out bits don't make sense.
But so what? We give that stuff a pass all the time in movies we like. We accept stupidly impossible stunts, superhuman durability of regular people in anything from fistfights to gunfights. We accept swordplay that'd get you killed in real life, and inherently unrealistic depictions of all manner of technology, and we do it without even a peep...because we like those movies.
And it's not because the ones we don't like have technical flaws, and the ones we do like don't have such flaws. It's because of...something else.
My point in a lot of this discussion is that people point to the technical flaws as if they explain why they didn't like the movie, but I'd say most of the time they only see the technical flaws because they don't like the movie. The movie's already lost them somehow, and so now their minds will wander and analyze and pore over all the minutiae of the film because, ultimately, they are simply not being entertained (sorry, Maximus). I think people grasp for ways, for vocabulary to describe what they don't like about the film, but they land on the wrong things.
Like, consider the timing of events in TLJ. People have nitpicked that one plenty. The film starts, apparently, like a day or two after the destruction of the Starkiller device. Rey's already on Ach-to by that point. Finn heads off with Rose to go find a way to disable the tracking device, and ends up on Canto Bight. Rey gets 3 lessons from Luke on How To Be a Jedi. Yadda yadda. The thing is, the actual sequencing and timing involved here is...completely unclear. The film doesn't even try to address the passage of time, as if each separate location has its own individual timestream. Rey goes through at least 2-3 day/night cycles on Ach-To. Finn and Rose are on Canto Bight for at least a day. None of this takes into account actual travel time, and Rey's journey back from Ach-To to the First Order fleet is likewise unclear. People pointed all of this out as examples of "why TLJ is bad." (Not the only ones, obviously, but they got discussed.)
But they don't have a problem with it in ESB. The exact same thing happens in ESB, but nobody's doing a 40-minute youtube video to break down how time doesn't work in ESB.
So...what gives? Is this issue a problem or isn't it? Does it "break verisimilitude and take the audience out of the film" (for example; a technical consideration), or doesn't it? If it's such a bad thing, how come nobody cares about it in ESB?
I'd argue that the time compression/dilation issues aren't really a problem, even if they're a technical "flaw" with the film. They aren't "why the film is bad." Because if they are, then I guess ESB is bad, too, and nobody's arguing that. No, I think it's something more. I think it's that, at least for some people, the way that TLJ tells its story is just...not entertaining. Not because of technical flaws, but because they just would prefer something different.
Now, sometimes films ARE technically flawed, and those flaws really ARE the reason why people don't like the film. But I think a lot of fandom gets all twisted up in nitpicking the details without recognizing that what's really bugging them is something deeper, and that the "something deeper" is often a matter of preference.
I totally agree Solo.
Most technical/logical flaws aren't really the problem. They become lightning rods for people's general feelings about the movie in a broader way.
Look at the guy playing the flamethrowing guitar in 'MM Fury Road.' So many viewers saw that guy and smiled & laughed. Some even point to him as an example of why the movie is so cool.
But I'd argue that if people didn't like the movie as a whole, then the same viewers might be pointing to that same character as a perfect example of what was wrong with the movie. "The early MM movies had believability. They didn't have that kind of ridiculous stuff. The bad guys are supposed to be deadly killers. It totally spoils the seriousness of the chase every time they show the idiot with the guitar. That was when Mad Max jumped the shark."
Most technical/logical flaws aren't really the problem. They become lightning rods for people's general feelings about the movie in a broader way.
Look at the guy playing the flamethrowing guitar in 'MM Fury Road.' So many viewers saw that guy and smiled & laughed. Some even point to him as an example of why the movie is so cool.
But I'd argue that if people didn't like the movie as a whole, then the same viewers might be pointing to that same character as a perfect example of what was wrong with the movie. "The early MM movies had believability. They didn't have that kind of ridiculous stuff. The bad guys are supposed to be deadly killers. It totally spoils the seriousness of the chase every time they show the idiot with the guitar. That was when Mad Max jumped the shark."
Last edited:
Rawktrooper
Well-Known Member
TLJ had so much more than technicalities that made it a bad film. I'm not even going to go into it all because i hated the movie. The mention of ESB is interesting, because it was very similar to ESB in a few ways. However, the differences were what made it terrible. I will say that ESB did mention some passage of time.. Han Solo did mention happenings in the aftermath of the move from Yavin that made the passage fairly known, also the mention of adapting the TaunTauns to the cold was interesting because you would assume there that not as much time had been established on Hoth itself. So while the exact time was not known, it was assumed they had been running and while finding a spot to hide, not much time had passed while prepping the planet.
Adversely, i dont remember even a mention in TLJ about time, and i dont remember caring about it. We knew it was after.. and we assumed it was directly after because of the opening 10 minutes. But whether a week or month or a year was not spelled out, that i recall. Then again, i have only seen it less than 5? times.
Adversely, i dont remember even a mention in TLJ about time, and i dont remember caring about it. We knew it was after.. and we assumed it was directly after because of the opening 10 minutes. But whether a week or month or a year was not spelled out, that i recall. Then again, i have only seen it less than 5? times.
CB2001
Master Member
Those people are welcome to argue TLJ was a good movie. It might have been a good movie in general, but the problem is that it just wasn’t a good Star Wars movie. Johnson went on to do another deconstruction that was actually better. And that was Knives Out. And it did it without trying to destroy pre-established storylines and characters. Both Looper and TLJ show sci-fi his not the best genre for him (Brick, The Brothers Bloom, Knives Out and Glass Onion are all films by Johnson that work better than Looper and TLJ. The only thing Looper had going for it was the world-building, despite the generic plot).
Also, The Mandalorian went back to the source materials that inspired Lucas also, and did a better job at storytelling and managed to sway the fandom back towards the franchise at first.
- Status
Similar threads
