Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Post-release)

[sztriki]

I get the notion of "plans go awry and the characters have to go to great lengths to make it work," but...so what? Like, that doesn't make it a bad film in an objective sense. It makes it a film that's incongruous with fan expectations/desires, sure, but that doesn't make it bad in an objective sense. The fact that the film is structured like a madcap comedy, where you end up with a series of mishaps that push the characters into a range of different situations, and where there's a lot of movement and transition between characters...doesn't really matter.

There’s the fan-expectations card again. Look, most people wanted to see a Star Wars movie when they bought their tickets, after all the title has Star Wars in it. Or is that an already heavily biased expectation? Cuz I’m not sure any previous Star Wars movie plot (prequels included) was based on characters screwing up things and then bumbling through til the end credits. That is the point he’s trying to make that there are instances when structuring a plot like that works but Star Wars might not be the one. Again, if youmre okay with it good for ya.
I mean fair enough, the Prius is not a bad car objectively. So if the Prius comes out as the new Porsche 911 then it’s fine, it’s all about the fan expectations?

Where's the bit about characters' states of mind not matching what just happened? The thing about the ship exploding and people talking in the background? That strikes me as extreme nitpicking and can be just as easily applied to the OT (e.g. the "cheer" when the first transport escapes Hoth).

Somewhere at the end, I think part 8. But it’s easier if you just watch it if you’re interested. I get it if you’re not I mean to me it got to the point now where I just can’t be bothered about the whole TLJ/Star Wars business any more. It’s been discussed ad nauseum, probably why the Plinkett one didn’t make too big an impression on me either.

 

[Bigdaddy]

I don't know who plinkett is or why it's an important review. I know why I didn't like the movie and don't require any validation of my opinion. I'm curious though IF this guy's review holds so much weight...what if he liked it!
Would the TLJ detractors have to "suck it"? :lol

 

[Zuiun]

I don't know who plinkett is or why it's an important review. I know why I didn't like the movie and don't require any validation of my opinion.

(Emphasis mine.)

See, to me this is key.

What I find so annoying throughout this thread are those who say the movie is crap as though it is an objective fact, rather than a subjective opinion.

I'm curious though IF this guy's review holds so much weight...what if he liked it!
Would the TLJ detractors have to "suck it"?

Well, clearly Plinkett would be dismissed as a hack.

The thing is, I fully expected a negative review from these guys. They built their careers off of the Phantom Menace review and have since had a history of making their opinions of non-OT Star Wars known. At least they are consistent with what they are likely to enjoy and what they are likely to bag on, which gives their reviews proper context.

 

[sztriki]

The thing is, I fully expected a negative review from these guys. They built their careers off of the Phantom Menace review and have since had a history of making their opinions of non-OT Star Wars known. At least they are consistent with what they are likely to enjoy and what they are likely to bag on, which gives their reviews proper context.

It’s not like the negative review was a secret, their opinion was known from the get-go when Half in the Bag came out.
It’s not always a given though. Titanic and Avatar reviews were not full-on diss-fests and they liked TFA so that review was mostly about the contemporary Star Wars phenomena. But he does acknowledge what you mean in the TFA vid, says something like he “paved the way how other armchair critics can complain on the internet about movies”.

 

[MrSouthpaw]

As with literally *ALL* criticism, the opinions of the critic has to be filtered through their own bias. For example, I disagreed with Roger Ebert on a great many reviews, despite him being my all time favorite film critic. The thing is, I knew what his biases were -- and he was consistent with them -- so I could appreciate his reviews.

The guys behind the Plinket reviews are heavily biased toward Star Trek over Star Wars, and that bias tends to influence their opinions of the Star Wars films. This isn't to say that they are "wrong." They are expressing their own opinions. But their bias is strong.

So yeah... I can agree with you about not being overly impressed with their take on the film. And the notion that some others have expressed that this is somehow the "definitive" take on TLJ is pretty ridiculous. These are just a group of guys who have built their fame on the popularity of a vulgar, horrible, character. Entertaining? Sure. Definitive? Not so fast...

RLM is pretty consistent as well. It's one of their strengths actually.

Their SW criticism has nothing to do with "Trek vs Wars". Mike brings up Star Trek at the drop of a hat....any hat. And he also criticizes Trek as well. The Plinkett review covers Trek movies. They even give random criticism to older Trek movies and shows during their various projects.

I don't think RLM would call their opinion definitive either. They aren't that egotistical, imo. I don't think it's definitive, but it does distill a lot of the most relevant complaints down to a 1 hour video. Which is much quicker and more entertaining than reading through something like this topic or the dozens of "TLJ is not good" videos. And I've never seen anyone else make the comparison to comedic movie structure, that is novel.

 

[Solo4114]

There’s the fan-expectations card again. Look, most people wanted to see a Star Wars movie when they bought their tickets, after all the title has Star Wars in it. Or is that an already heavily biased expectation? Cuz I’m not sure any previous Star Wars movie plot (prequels included) was based on characters screwing up things and then bumbling through til the end credits. That is the point he’s trying to make that there are instances when structuring a plot like that works but Star Wars might not be the one. Again, if you're okay with it good for ya.

Minor point here re: characters screwing up: Characters' mistakes form the basis for a ton of Star Wars. For example, Obi-Wan admits his mistake in trying to train Anakin the way he was trained, which in turn led (or at least contributed) to the rise of Vader. No Vader, no story. The Jedi f-up on a galactic scale by failing to discern the causes of the Clone Wars and the rise of the Sith, and completely missed Palpatine as the true threat. Again, no screwup, no story. Qui-Gon makes the decision to train Anakin in spite of the council saying "Dude, DO NOT DO IT. This kid has anger issues." And that's just the events of the prequels.

In ANH, the whole rescue of Leia is basically one botch to the next once they leave Tatooine and before they reach Yavin. They fly to Alderaan, but -- whoops! -- it's been blown up. Instead of high-tailing it out of there, they chase a TIE fighter, get too close to the Death Star, and get pulled in by a tractor beam. They then have to hide in the floor compartments to avoid detection, steal stormtrooper armor, Chewie and Han shoot up whatever command station making a ton of noise and leaving bodies to clean up, they find Leia, sneak into the detention block...for about 3 seconds before the whole plan goes to hell because they fail their "con" roll, destroy the detention center, break Leia out, Han fails his "con" roll again, and they get trapped in the detention center with zero chance of fighting their way out. Leia blows a hole in the wall, they dive into the garbage chute -- and it's lucky that didn't just go straight to an incinerator, by the way -- and get stuck in...a trash compactor! They're almost crushed to death, but R2 makes his hacking roll and saves them. They walk out of the compactor -- apparently thinking it's a smart idea to ditch their disguises in the process (whoops) -- and...run straight into a squad of stormtroopers. Han shoots a bunch of them, he and Chewie give chase, Luke and Leia try to get back to the ship. Along the way, Han chases a couple of troopers and then runs into another full squad and has to run away. Luke and Leia escape several troopers, find themselves at a bridge, Luke shuts the door then shoots the control panel...only afterwards realizing that he also blew up the controls to extend the bridge. He has to swing across -- which he manages to do -- and then he and Leia finally can make it back to the ship. Obi-Wan dies fighting Vader, the rest escape...buuuut their ship is being tracked. Also the Falcon gets shot up a bunch and 3PO almost melts. The only difference is that they manage to succeed in (1) rescuing Leia (at the cost of Obi-Wan's life), and getting the plans back to the Rebels (at the cost of the Empire knowing where the Rebel base is). Oh, and the trench run is a series of f-ups, too. The Y-wings get almost completely wiped out, the X-wings almost get wiped out too, and even Luke almost gets fried by Vader if not for Han's timely appearance on the scene. It's only because Luke can use the Force that they manage to destroy the Death Star at all.

In ESB, both the A and B stories are all about screwups. Luke repeatedly screws up with Yoda, failing to understand his advice, and goes to confront Vader which is arguably the greatest screw-up of all since it almost gets him killed which would have led to the permanent installation of the Empire. Meanwhile, Han's ship keeps breaking down and he can't fix it. He manages to land on an asteroid....inside a space slug that almost eats the Falcon. He barely manages to fool the Empire with his fly-by trick, but fails to fool Fett who tracks him to Cloud City, where Vader has already set up a reception, and uses them all as bait for Luke -- including freezing Han which leads to Han being taken to Jabba where he would otherwise have remained stuck on Jabba's wall indefinitely.

In both cases, it's all about their mistakes. No mistakes, no drama, no story.

And there's plenty of humor in those situations themselves ("incredible smell you've discovered," "walking carpet," "no reward is worth this," "I think we took a wrong turn," the hydrospanners falling on Han's head, yelling at 3PO about the computer, "shut him up or shut him down," "you don't have to do this to impress me," etc.). One may prefer the style of humor from the older films, but that doesn't mean there's never been humor in the films or that humor has no place in Star Wars.

I mean fair enough, the Prius is not a bad car objectively. So if the Prius comes out as the new Porsche 911 then it’s fine, it’s all about the fan expectations?

Somewhere at the end, I think part 8. But it’s easier if you just watch it if you’re interested. I get it if you’re not I mean to me it got to the point now where I just can’t be bothered about the whole TLJ/Star Wars business any more. It’s been discussed ad nauseum, probably why the Plinkett one didn’t make too big an impression on me either.

Yes, exactly. The Prius is not a bad car, but if you go into buying one expecting a Porsche 911 because the Prius has body styling reminiscent of a Porsche...yeah, you're gonna be disappointed not because the car is a bad car, but because it didn't meet your expectations.

Look, I'm not saying that it's unreasonable for fans to be disappointed if their expectations weren't met. Their expectations themselves might be unreasonable (although for the most part, I don't think so in the case of a lot of TLJ), but the fact that you expected A and got B instead is a perfectly reasonable basis to say "I didn't like the film." All I'm getting at here is that there's been a lot of talk about how objectively bad TLJ has been and a lot of the criticism isn't really based in objective problems with the film, but rather in subjective problems with what people would have preferred to see.

Put another way: there's a big difference between me saying "Eric Clapton's music sucks and he's a total hack," and me saying "I just don't like what Clapton does, and his artistic choices turn me off." George Lucas, I think, gets a mix of criticisms. Some are about objective mistakes he makes. He's not a great director; he fails to pull good performances out of many of his actors (especially during the PT era) in spite of the actors' capabilities. His dialogue is clunky and often lacks emotion or is too on-the-nose for an otherwise competent actor to allow the dialogue not to get in the way of their conveying the character's emotions and mindset.

But, that's different from me finding Jar Jar annoying, or thinking that Anakin's motivations are stupid or uninteresting as the basis for the fall of the Jedi and the Republic. Those are issues with my preferences rather than with Lucas' execution of what his vision was.

I'll also say that, at least in some cases, it is generally a stupid idea to frustrate fan expectations just to prove how clever you are. I was a huge fan of How I Met Your Mother, but the finale was hot garbage in my opinion. However, much of that was based on my own expectations being frustrated, in addition to criticisms of the technical execution of the story they tried to tell. I was pissed that they spend 9 years telling a particular story, only to invalidate a lot of what they were doing at the end. And while they might have gotten away with the goal they were working towards if they had more effectively constructed their story, they actually managed to undercut the goal they were shooting for in the telling.

RLM is pretty consistent as well. It's one of their strengths actually.

Their SW criticism has nothing to do with "Trek vs Wars". Mike brings up Star Trek at the drop of a hat....any hat. And he also criticizes Trek as well. The Plinkett review covers Trek movies. They even give random criticism to older Trek movies and shows during their various projects.

I don't think RLM would call their opinion definitive either. They aren't that egotistical, imo. I don't think it's definitive, but it does distill a lot of the most relevant complaints down to a 1 hour video. Which is much quicker and more entertaining than reading through something like this topic or the dozens of "TLJ is not good" videos. And I've never seen anyone else make the comparison to comedic movie structure, that is novel.

I think you have to ask, though, "Relevant in what sense?" Relevant in cataloguing why people didn't like the film? Absolutely. Their complaints are entirely relevant in that sense, although I think they don't quite go deep enough because a lot of them can be leveled at the original trilogy, which people still revere (mostly). Certainly, ANH and ESB "suffer" from plenty of the things they point out here, which raises the question "Why was that one better than this one?"

But relevant in pointing out objective failures in the construction of the story? I don't see it, really. It's a lot of "Here's stuff I disliked" rather than "Here's stuff that's just objectively bad."

 

[sztriki]

And there's plenty of humor in those situations themselves ("incredible smell you've discovered," "walking carpet," "no reward is worth this," "I think we took a wrong turn," the hydrospanners falling on Han's head, yelling at 3PO about the computer, "shut him up or shut him down," "you don't have to do this to impress me," etc.). One may prefer the style of humor from the older films, but that doesn't mean there's never been humor in the films or that humor has no place in Star Wars.

Dan, you're better than using this argument. Nobody has a thing against humour in general in Star Wars. We all know it's there. Inappropriately timed humour is a completely different story. Especially in excess. In TLJ the humour deflates and derails any attempt at a serious scene. The film undermines itself or at the very least creates a very alien tone. This chap explains the ins and outs better than I do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuDTnMPMgc

You can't make Ep9 a Twilight-esque rom-schlock just because there were love and kissing in previous episodes for example.

Yes, exactly. The Prius is not a bad car, but if you go into buying one expecting a Porsche 911 because the Prius has body styling reminiscent of a Porsche...yeah, you're gonna be disappointed not because the car is a bad car, but because it didn't meet your expectations.

See, this is where the difference is between the "manage your expectations" people and the disappointed ones lies. Or at least it's a very big misunderstanding because that's not what I meant at all with the car example.
The former think that there is a blank slate or at least should be a blank slate every time a car comes off the assembly line and judged on its own. But the problem is that this car came with a Porsche badge from a long-established factory from Stuttgart and was intended to be the successor of a line of sportscars that have their own identity and heritage. Now if this car is essentially a Prius wearing a Porsche 911 Carrera badge then you can say whatever you want about it being a nice hybrid car for the family and for urban trips because I'm sure that plenty who know or like Porsche will have issues with it.

But, that's different from me finding Jar Jar annoying, or thinking that Anakin's motivations are stupid or uninteresting as the basis for the fall of the Jedi and the Republic. Those are issues with my preferences rather than with Lucas' execution of what his vision was.

I think that a screenwriter not being able to create motivations that would make the characters relatable so that the audience can get emotionally invested in them is an objective failure. Given that there's plenty of people who think that Anakin's, Padme's, Qui-gon's, Obi-wan's, Luke v2.0's, Rose's, Holdo's motivations are stupid would certainly show that at least there is an issue. Not saying everyone in the world, but it cannot be argued that it's divisive in the very least.

I'll also say that, at least in some cases, it is generally a stupid idea to frustrate fan expectations just to prove how clever you are. I was a huge fan of How I Met Your Mother, but the finale was hot garbage in my opinion. However, much of that was based on my own expectations being frustrated, in addition to criticisms of the technical execution of the story they tried to tell. I was pissed that they spend 9 years telling a particular story, only to invalidate a lot of what they were doing at the end. And while they might have gotten away with the goal they were working towards if they had more effectively constructed their story, they actually managed to undercut the goal they were shooting for in the telling.

Well, guess no surprise we agree here. I was all up for the unexpected for this movie but to me it just came off as contrarian instead of inventive.

 

[kristen jones]

(Emphasis mine.)


What I find so annoying throughout this thread are those who say the movie is crap as though it is an objective fact, rather than a subjective opinion.

Oh my God, bloody AMEN!

 

[Solo4114]

Dan, you're better than using this argument. Nobody has a thing against humour in general in Star Wars. We all know it's there. Inappropriately timed humour is a completely different story. Especially in excess. In TLJ the humour deflates and derails any attempt at a serious scene. The film undermines itself or at the very least creates a very alien tone. This chap explains the ins and outs better than I do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuDTnMPMgc

I didn't watch the entire 20-min thing, but...eh. I still think a lot of that is a subjective matter. Infusing a serious scene with a bit of levity doesn't destroy the seriousness of the scene necessarily. Nor is it out of place...depending on the type of movie you think you're watching. If you think you're watching Saving Space Private Ryan, then yeah, it's tonally way, way off. But as I said, Star Wars has always had humor. Again, think back to the conversation between Han and whoever the officer is on the other end of the comm in the detention block. They've just finished blasting their way into it after a failed attempt at bluffing, and Han (rather humorously) botches the bluff again. Out of place? No? I don't see Poe's joke as all that different, really. Same story with what happens immediately after they get out of the garbage compactor. For chrissakes, they almost were crushed! They're in the midst of an enemy space station! Their lives are on the line! And yet...a bit of humor. There's humor interspersed in the action sequences, too. None of it feels out of place, because that's just...the kind of movie they were making.

I find most of the humor in TLJ to be of that variety. It fits in with the rest of the film and never really felt jarring to me. By contrast, I felt like the Jar Jar humor in TPM was waaaaaay over the top, and not even in a "bathos" sense. It just...was awful. But I also recognize that that's more of a matter of preference and choice on my part. I didn't find it funny. I'm sure the 5 year olds in the audience thought it was hysterical. I tend to think that the humor in the OT and in TLJ is a bit more universally accessible (i.e., both kids and adults will find it funny) whereas I thought the humor in TPM was entirely juvenile and inaccessible for adults. But as between the OT and TLJ, I think it's more a question of degrees of humor. I agree that TLJ goes a good bit farther to draw out the beats of its humor in otherwise tense or serious situations. In that sense, it's perhaps less organic to the story and more directed at the audience. It's not just a funny situation where the characters are behaving in an irreverent manner to alleviate the tension of the situation, or even after having escaped a tense situation. There's an element to it that's clearly for the audience's benefit, almost knocking on the 4th wall (albeit not actually breaking it).

You do see that in ROTS, though, and I find it to be largely unobjectionable there. For example, when crash-landing the separatist ship at the start of the film, Obi-Wan and Anakin crack wise with each other, with Obi-Wan remarking rather nonchalantly that they are now flying half a ship. It's clearly done for laughs, and there's an element of winking towards the audience, but you also get the sense that that's just the dynamic between the characters. I would argue that the more jarring aspects of the humor in TLJ come from two sources: (1) we haven't really gotten to know the characters all that well yet (because TFA spends...less time than it should establishing who they are), and (2) the characters we do know (or did) are quite different here than what they were before. Luke was never all that humorous, aside from his interactions with R2 on Dagobah. To see him deploying curmudgeonly humor in training Rey is...jarring. Hell, seeing him being generally unpleasant at all is also jarring. I still think a lot of that fits with what we come to find out about Luke in the course of the film, and I also blame a fair bit on the lack of context for...well, pretty much the entire ST as a result of how TFA was made, but it's all jarring regardless.

You can't make Ep9 a Twilight-esque rom-schlock just because there were love and kissing in previous episodes for example.

That's not remotely what I'm advocating for. And yes, that would be friggin' awful because Twilight is friggin' awful at a baseline. 'Nuff said on that.

See, this is where the difference is between the "manage your expectations" people and the disappointed ones lies. Or at least it's a very big misunderstanding because that's not what I meant at all with the car example.

The former think that there is a blank slate or at least should be a blank slate every time a car comes off the assembly line and judged on its own. But the problem is that this car came with a Porsche badge from a long-established factory from Stuttgart and was intended to be the successor of a line of sportscars that have their own identity and heritage. Now if this car is essentially a Prius wearing a Porsche 911 Carrera badge then you can say whatever you want about it being a nice hybrid car for the family and for urban trips because I'm sure that plenty who know or like Porsche will have issues with it.

Yeah...but that's kind of where the analogy breaks down. Well, actually, I'd say it breaks down on two lines. First, I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say that the film is a "Prius." It's different from what came before, sure. But where people say "It's a Prius!" I find myself saying "No, it's more like they toned down the 'bug-eyes' quality of the headlights, got rid of the standard spoiler on the back, relocated the engine for better balance, and flattened the profile of the vehicle overall to make it more aerodynamic." But because Porsche body stylings hadn't changed much between 1967 and 1998, people just assume the Porsche will look like that era and not like the post-'98 style.

I'm also not saying that it's a blank slate every time...exactly. I'm saying there's a marked difference between a story you don't enjoy and a story that's poorly told in an objective sense. I don't think TLJ tells its story poorly at all. I can absolutely see why people might not like the story it tells, though.

I think that a screenwriter not being able to create motivations that would make the characters relatable so that the audience can get emotionally invested in them is an objective failure. Given that there's plenty of people who think that Anakin's, Padme's, Qui-gon's, Obi-wan's, Luke v2.0's, Rose's, Holdo's motivations are stupid would certainly show that at least there is an issue. Not saying everyone in the world, but it cannot be argued that it's divisive in the very least.

Hang on a sec. I think that the motivations of a character break down on two lines here. One is whether it fits with the character as depicted in the film. The other is whether the audience likes the motivation. I think George Lucas actually did a pretty good job of illustrating Anakin's motivations for turning evil. Partially it comes from unresolved separation anxiety, caused partially by his leaving his mother at age 9 and then being thrown into the Jedi order, which he then transferred to Padme as he grew older. Partially it comes from a reservoir of anger and resentment he had at being a slave (and a fairly exceptional one at that), coupled with the otherwise incompatible approach to life -- and especially emotion -- that the Jedi had; where they practiced and preached detachment and calm to the point of near absence of emotion, Anakin's natural instinct was attachment and passion. Mix it all together, throw in some Sith manipulation by a silver-tongued devil, and you end up with Darth Vader. I think Lucas rather rushed Anakin's actual turn in the final act of ROTS, and could've done more to establish that he was slipping towards darkness, but on the whole, I think the A-to-B-to-C of it fits together pretty well.

That's just...not a story I care to hear. I think it's a kind of dumb motivation, and I don't particularly enjoy the way it was portrayed and can think of better examples of how I'd have done it or how I'd have established other motivations that get you to the same end point. So. Is the motivation objectively bad? No, but it sure was unsatisfying for me.

Well, guess no surprise we agree here. I was all up for the unexpected for this movie but to me it just came off as contrarian instead of inventive.

I think there's more to it than mere contrarian design, but we've hashed that out before.

What I want to make clear is this:

There is nothing wrong with finding the film just...generally not that enjoyable. Nor, for that matter, is it wrong to be disappointed because your expectations weren't met. You're right that many films these days are presented as "brands" where the brand itself has value precisely because it tells you up front the general kind of experience you can expect when you walk in the theater. If you don't get that experience -- whatever it was you had in mind -- it's reasonable to be bothered by that fact and to not enjoy the movie as a result. Now, not all expectations are legitimate, and frankly some I think are worth frustrating even if it pisses some people off (more on that in a second), but that doesn't mean the end result of "Well, I didn't like it" is invalid or wrong. You like a film or you don't.

What I'm getting at is that there's fundamentally a difference between cataloguing the things you don't like about a film and describing how a film functionally fails to execute what you think it's overall design is.

As a final matter, on the issue of frustrated expectations, I think that some folks were expecting -- maybe even hoping -- for basically a rehash of ESB on some subconscious level. They might not explicitly say "I wanted an ESB remake!" but there's a part of them that finds it just....wrong....that this film didn't map to ESB the way they had in mind. I think this kind of attitude is ultimately dead-end thinking for a film franchise. For me, it boils down to the nearly impossible goal of "Make it the same, but new and different."

The problem here is that TFA set things out as being very much the same as what came before, which in turn set expectations that the next two entries would likewise be mostly the same. They'd hit a lot of the same beats, have the same overall vibe, etc. They'd play on established tropes within the series, like somber mentors who valiantly sacrifice themselves for the greater good, after having bestowed their profound knowledge on a young pupil, or the hero learning a terrible secret about themselves, and then everything would basically resolve itself with a final showdown between good and evil in the 3rd movie and you'd tie a bow on it.

Now, it looks like...that's not really possible without a HUGE time jump, or JJ basically completely undermining what Johnson did by saying "Oh, it's ok, it turned out there were a TON of Rebel sympathizers and now there's a huge new fleet. Also, Rey is Obi-Wan's granddaughter and Luke's secret daughter." I'm really, really hoping that doesn't happen. I think we have a setup for some really cool stories to come if JJ doesn't try to just wrap everything up and do a ROTJ retread with his next film the way he did his rather uninspired Wrath of Khan retread with Star Trek Into Darkness. But...I guess we'll see.

 

[sztriki]

[...]

Look, with all due respect, the movie came out 9 months ago. We discussed it back and forth and we're not gonna see eye-to-eye. You're stuck in the mindset of "this just wasn't what people expected and it's JJ's fault as well" and I'm stuck with my "this movie is failure in screenwriting and direction and sticks out from Star Wars like a sore thumb" mindset. It has come to a point where a previous discussion with Jagjaguwar where we just had to agree to let it go because our approach and mindset was vastly different.
And on top of that I really am beyond caring both for TLJ and where Star Wars is going in general. I didn't care much for the Disney deal and after TFA came out I was hoping that we might actually get 2.5-2.75 good movies. Guess I gotta keep the 0.5-0.75 and just move to pastures greener. Wasn't interested in any of the anthology stuff anyway and just not interested in Ep9 or whatever comes off the conveyor belt after that anymore. After 9 months it's become really irrelevant. That's where my disappointment was with the Plinkett review too, I really like their sick humour so I expected good entertainment most of all, but it was just a rather straight critique of something I don't care anymore. I regularly rewatch the prequel reviews just as entertainment even if I can't care about the films anymore. Probs not gonna happen with this.

One thing though, despite me thinking that the movie is highly problematic on a basic filmmaking level it doesn't invalidate anyone's joy of it.
I'm the first one to admit that there are movies that are messy, problematic or fail at some aspect but I still love them. John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness for example.
Do I think the movie fails to successfully pull of the premise of the quantum-physics evil aspect?
Nope, it gets messy and it just kinda fades away.
Do I think the climax is worthy for the buildup?
Nope, it descends into a kinda boring possessed/zombie fight third act.
Do I think the romance is believeable and the two main characters have chemistry?
Hell no.

I still love the film because of its atmosphere, music, I think it works great as a suspenseful horror flick with an overall sense of dread, it's original in its approach mostly even if it doesn't manage to pull it through all the way and it just oozes those signature Carpenter-moves that I really enjoy.
Yet, to this day I've only met maybe 2 or 3 people who said "yea, TLJ had some issues but overall I enjoyed it and I'm still on board for the next ride".

 

[DARTH ANIBAL]

Yet, to this day I've only met maybe 2 or 3 people who said "yea, TLJ had some issues but overall I enjoyed it and I'm still on board for the next ride".

Yeah, TLJ had some issues, but overall I loved it, I'm still on board, and I'm pretty psyched to see what they come up with for the next episode.

Now, it's 4.

 

[Solo4114]

Look, with all due respect, the movie came out 9 months ago. We discussed it back and forth and we're not gonna see eye-to-eye. You're stuck in the mindset of "this just wasn't what people expected and it's JJ's fault as well" and I'm stuck with my "this movie is failure in screenwriting and direction and sticks out from Star Wars like a sore thumb" mindset. It has come to a point where a previous discussion with @Jagjaguwar where we just had to agree to let it go because our approach and mindset was vastly different.

Yeah, that's fair. I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other, just explain my position.

And on top of that I really am beyond caring both for TLJ and where Star Wars is going in general. I didn't care much for the Disney deal and after TFA came out I was hoping that we might actually get 2.5-2.75 good movies. Guess I gotta keep the 0.5-0.75 and just move to pastures greener. Wasn't interested in any of the anthology stuff anyway and just not interested in Ep9 or whatever comes off the conveyor belt after that anymore. After 9 months it's become really irrelevant. That's where my disappointment was with the Plinkett review too, I really like their sick humour so I expected good entertainment most of all, but it was just a rather straight critique of something I don't care anymore. I regularly rewatch the prequel reviews just as entertainment even if I can't care about the films anymore. Probs not gonna happen with this.

One thing though, despite me thinking that the movie is highly problematic on a basic filmmaking level it doesn't invalidate anyone's joy of it.
I'm the first one to admit that there are movies that are messy, problematic or fail at some aspect but I still love them. John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness for example.
Do I think the movie fails to successfully pull of the premise of the quantum-physics evil aspect?
Nope, it gets messy and it just kinda fades away.
Do I think the climax is worthy for the buildup?
Nope, it descends into a kinda boring possessed/zombie fight third act.
Do I think the romance is believeable and the two main characters have chemistry?
Hell no.

I still love the film because of its atmosphere, music, I think it works great as a suspenseful horror flick with an overall sense of dread, it's original in its approach mostly even if it doesn't manage to pull it through all the way and it just oozes those signature Carpenter-moves that I really enjoy.

I actually enjoy that film, although it's definitely flawed and not nearly as strong as the other two films in his "Apocalpyse Trilogy." I do respect that he made his films on (largely) his own terms, though.

Yet, to this day I've only met maybe 2 or 3 people who said "yea, TLJ had some issues but overall I enjoyed it and I'm still on board for the next ride".

I assume I'm included in that number?

 

[sztriki]

Yeah, that's fair. I'm not trying to convince you one way or the other, just explain my position.

Absolutely. It's just something we've all discussed and explained to each other many times. Probably time to dust off the old airbrush and epoxy and venture back to the actual prop threads more.

I actually enjoy that film, although it's definitely flawed and not nearly as strong as the other two films in his "Apocalpyse Trilogy." I do respect that he made his films on (largely) his own terms, though.

Nothing touches the Thing for me, not even Halloween as much as I love it and Mouth of Madness is just joy because of Sam Neill and the Lovecraftian fun. PoD is still a really cool flick it just doesn't spin as much as the other two or Big Trouble or Halloween.

I assume I'm included in that number?

Well you do redirect a lot of the issues but yea. :lol
Jokes aside it's all cool. I'm just glad that we can talk and even clash opinions and still stay on good terms. It's simply that I'm really starting to let the whole SW stuff go.

 

[Jagjaguwar]

What I haven’t heard are people who think TLJ is a great film without any caveats. Do we have anyone here who loves TLJ without any significant qualifiers?

TLJ is my least favorite of the Disney era films so far, though my issues have more to do with the style of humor (starting off with mom jokes) and a few of the relatively minor things that Rian did that I felt made TFA matter a bit less in retrospect, than any of the issues people have with Luke as a character, or the whole Rose/Finn side quest. Primary example: I absolutely hate that what I felt was one of THE most powerful scenes in TFA- where Rey holds out Luke’s saber at the end, and he stares at it- was completely undone in TLJ by a literal “throwaway gag.” The one-two punch of the dialogue starting off with “your mom” jokes and then that tossed saber set an “off” tone for the movie that took a while to recover from, and never fully did IMO.

 

[Solo4114]

What I haven’t heard are people who think TLJ is a great film without any caveats. Do we have anyone here who loves TLJ without any significant qualifiers?

TLJ is my least favorite of the Disney era films so far, though my issues have more to do with the style of humor (starting off with mom jokes) and a few of the relatively minor things that Rian did that I felt made TFA matter a bit less in retrospect, than any of the issues people have with Luke as a character, or the whole Rose/Finn side quest. Primary example: I absolutely hate that what I felt was one of THE most powerful scenes in TFA- where Rey holds out Luke’s saber at the end, and he stares at it- was completely undone in TLJ by a literal “throwaway gag.” The one-two punch of the dialogue starting off with “your mom” jokes and then that tossed saber set an “off” tone for the movie that took a while to recover from, and never fully did IMO.

I wouldn't say that I think it's great without any qualifiers, but I honestly do think it's an amazing film for reasons I've articulated in this thread. The thing is, the stuff I really like about it is stuff that I think is maybe more buried and less up front. But it's not without it's flaws. I think it could've used more action to punch it up some. I think the slow-motion chase was visually uninteresting and didn't end up evoking the sense of dread that perhaps they were going for. I think having Rey become just another Jedi is kind of a waste and I would've liked to have seen some of the dichotomous approaches to the Force opened up a bit (e.g. Grey Jedi, or the notion that the Force itself isn't good or evil, but rather a single thing with good and evil aspects, and what really matters is how you use it). I think the Canto Bight sequence ends up feeling pointless largely because they don't succeed, but also because the coda at the end isn't quite the payoff you'd expect for a sequence that long. I found DJ to be...I dunno...kinda bland. I think Leia should've been the one to pilot the ship into the Supremacy, and the burden of leadership really should have fallen to Poe in a more concrete fashion.

But a lot of that is nitpicking and how I'd do it differently if I ran the zoo. It's not me thinking the film is bad because of those issues. More like it was good, but could've been better, and had a few genuine flaws to it and some missed opportunities. The rest of it I'm fine with. It literally did not impact me in the theater at all. The humor, the Luke stuff, the "Rey's parents don't matter" stuff, none of that. I actually enjoyed it.

Actually, come to think of it, I think my own expectations/hopes factored into a lot of this. I really was hoping for NOT another TFA-like film. I'd heard Ep. VIII was going to be "really different," and I was excited by that. I didn't want an ESB replica. In general, I think that some of fandom's worst impulses (across all fandoms) are an inability to think beyond what they've seen already, which I've seen play out (in the 90s-era EU novels). So, I was glad to see the film buck many of those trends and leave things so that we really don't know what will happen next. In other words, the film met and even exceeded my expectations/hopes in many ways, so I'm probably more forgiving of the things that bother other folks.

 

[Zuiun]

What I haven’t heard are people who think TLJ is a great film without any caveats. Do we have anyone here who loves TLJ without any significant qualifiers?

To be fair, the only film in the Star Wars franchise that I feel is great without any caveats is A New Hope.

I really enjoyed The Last Jedi, and while I do have issues with it, I wouldn't say that any of them are "significant."

 

[MrSouthpaw]

I think you have to ask, though, "Relevant in what sense?" Relevant in cataloguing why people didn't like the film? Absolutely. Their complaints are entirely relevant in that sense, although I think they don't quite go deep enough because a lot of them can be leveled at the original trilogy, which people still revere (mostly). Certainly, ANH and ESB "suffer" from plenty of the things they point out here, which raises the question "Why was that one better than this one?"

But relevant in pointing out objective failures in the construction of the story? I don't see it, really. It's a lot of "Here's stuff I disliked" rather than "Here's stuff that's just objectively bad."

Yes, what people say they don't like about a thing is virtually the textbook definition of a complaint. I just thought using the word complaint would be more efficient. And RLM does a good job at addressing the major ones. They do some fairly in-depth analysis for the time allotted without actually becoming endlessly nitpicky. They also made a 46 minute "Half in the Bag" episode on TLJ. So maybe you can glean more depth from that if you think a 1 hour review somehow doesn't have enough content to explore.

Balls in your court to prove ANH and ESB "suffer" the same problems as TLJ. ESB is perhaps the Citizen Kane of space movies and ANH is not far behind, so you have a very big job on your plate.

RLM literally did a point by point of how large parts of TLJ were structured exactly like a comedy. They also show how it fails to achieve an ending as emotionally resonant or appropriate as ESB. You obviously did not watch the whole video. I'll also revisit your "depth" argument and opine that you did not see depth to it because, again, you did not watch the whole video.

 

[Solo4114]

Yes, what people say they don't like about a thing is virtually the textbook definition of a complaint. I just thought using the word complaint would be more efficient. And RLM does a good job at addressing the major ones. They do some fairly in-depth analysis for the time allotted without actually becoming endlessly nitpicky. They also made a 46 minute "Half in the Bag" episode on TLJ. So maybe you can glean more depth from that if you think a 1 hour review somehow doesn't have enough content to explore.

Balls in your court to prove ANH and ESB "suffer" the same problems as TLJ. ESB is perhaps the Citizen Kane of space movies and ANH is not far behind, so you have a very big job on your plate.

RLM literally did a point by point of how large parts of TLJ were structured exactly like a comedy. They also show how it fails to achieve an ending as emotionally resonant or appropriate as ESB. You obviously did not watch the whole video. I'll also revisit your "depth" argument and opine that you did not see depth to it because, again, you did not watch the whole video.

What I watched suggested a lot of surface level complaints that amount to "It didn't work for me." Cool. So, they didn't like the film. That's fine. Enjoyment of entertainment is subjective.

Which is my point.

Subjective lack of enjoyment does not equate to objectively poor construction of the film. Something can be done well but it just doesn't really do it for ya. The thing is, I think most people....don't get that. If it doesn't work for them, the movie is a failure. Full stop. Not "a failure for me," but an objective failure. And in that, I think they're mostly wrong, or at least they're using the wrong terminology to describe their own reaction to a film.

From an objective point of view, ESB and ANH do many of the things that TLJ did. They use humor, including bathos. The characters fail repeatedly. The differences between the films are matters of degrees, which boils down to a matter of taste. My own reactions to the prequel films are similar.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. These are arguments and language that I've used in the past to discuss TPM.

"Jar Jar Binks is a horrible character whose inclusion in TPM robbed it of any gravitas, undercut the seriousness of the film, and had no place in a Star Wars movie." That's me, speaking in objective terms. The way I'm discussing the film is to make objective conclusions about how XYZ aspect of the film (Jar Jar in this case) is not merely something I don't care for, but is actually an objective failure on the part of the film. I'm saying that the film doesn't work -- for anyone -- because of Jar Jar, and that Jar Jar doesn't belong in a Star Wars film under any circumstances.

But I'd be wrong there.

A more accurate statement would be: "I find Jar Jar Binks to be incredibly annoying. I find his humor to be juvenile and unfunny. I find his very presence in the film distracts from the kind of more serious story that I'd prefer to see. In my opinion, Star Wars ought to be entertaining to people of all ages instead of targeted exclusively at little kids, because I have no desire to see a kiddie-oriented Star Wars film."

I think, however, that Lucas' goal with the Jar Jar character was to include the role of the "fool" who turns out to be important and meaningful in spite of his foolishness, and to make a film where the humor is targeted towards 5-year-olds. And in both of those counts, I think he succeeded. You can't say that TPM is an objective failure on either count, certainly. You can, however, say that it definitely wasn't for you and isn't the kind of Star Wars film you want to watch.

When people claim that TLJ is an objective failure because it's "structured like a comedy" that presupposes that it's not meant to be structured like a comedy or that structuring it like a comedy is on its face a bad thing, given Rian Johnson's goals. That's different from saying that TLJ shouldn't be structured like a comedy because that person prefers Star Wars films that are or would be structured differently, based on what they think Rian Johnson's goals should have been. One is an objective statement, the other a subjective statement.

Lots and lots and lots of people talk about how they subjectively dislike TLJ. They spend a lot of time pointing to the things that subjectively did not work for them. Not as many people spend time talking about actual objective failures of the film. For example, the "bathos" thing. I think sztriki posted the video about bathos and its use in film, and the video opens with a shot from Django unchained where Django shoots a woman who goes FLYING backwards as if she's been pulled by a cord round her waist. It's purposefully funny and off kilter and stands in contrast to the otherwise serious tone of the scene. That doesn't make it bad or wrong. Perhaps the point is that we shouldn't take this film or this sequence so seriously.

Likewise with Poe's crank call to Hux and how Hux generally comes off as a clown in many cases. People point to that as an example of objective failure. But what they're really saying is that they would prefer a villain who is more menacing, less buffoonish, and who represents a greater threat, as well as a film where the tone is generally more serious. That is a subjective complaint unless you think that Johnson really did mean for the film to play seriously and to make Hux out to be an unquestionably evil, dangerous villain at whom you should definitely not laugh. If that was his goal, then the film is an objective failure because there's no way you could look at Hux in the film and not find him to be a buffoon, at least in the instances we see. He could still be menacing in other instances, but here he's clearly a buffoon. And maybe that's the point: he's a buffoon and we should recognize him as such even as we also recognize the very real threat that a buffoon can pose. And sure, someone can say "But that's not anything I want to watch," and that'd be an entirely reasonable statement! But it's not reasonable to say that buffoons should never, ever appear in Star Wars films as villains under any circumstances as if that is an objective fact, because it's really just a dressed-up expression of subjective preferences.

 

[MrSouthpaw]

What I watched suggested a lot of surface level complaints that amount to "It didn't work for me." Cool. So, they didn't like the film. That's fine. Enjoyment of entertainment is subjective.

Which is my point.

Subjective lack of enjoyment does not equate to objectively poor construction of the film. Something can be done well but it just doesn't really do it for ya. The thing is, I think most people....don't get that. If it doesn't work for them, the movie is a failure. Full stop. Not "a failure for me," but an objective failure. And in that, I think they're mostly wrong, or at least they're using the wrong terminology to describe their own reaction to a film.

From an objective point of view, ESB and ANH do many of the things that TLJ did. They use humor, including bathos. The characters fail repeatedly. The differences between the films are matters of degrees, which boils down to a matter of taste. My own reactions to the prequel films are similar.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. These are arguments and language that I've used in the past to discuss TPM.

"Jar Jar Binks is a horrible character whose inclusion in TPM robbed it of any gravitas, undercut the seriousness of the film, and had no place in a Star Wars movie." That's me, speaking in objective terms. The way I'm discussing the film is to make objective conclusions about how XYZ aspect of the film (Jar Jar in this case) is not merely something I don't care for, but is actually an objective failure on the part of the film. I'm saying that the film doesn't work -- for anyone -- because of Jar Jar, and that Jar Jar doesn't belong in a Star Wars film under any circumstances.

But I'd be wrong there.

A more accurate statement would be: "I find Jar Jar Binks to be incredibly annoying. I find his humor to be juvenile and unfunny. I find his very presence in the film distracts from the kind of more serious story that I'd prefer to see. In my opinion, Star Wars ought to be entertaining to people of all ages instead of targeted exclusively at little kids, because I have no desire to see a kiddie-oriented Star Wars film."

I think, however, that Lucas' goal with the Jar Jar character was to include the role of the "fool" who turns out to be important and meaningful in spite of his foolishness, and to make a film where the humor is targeted towards 5-year-olds. And in both of those counts, I think he succeeded. You can't say that TPM is an objective failure on either count, certainly. You can, however, say that it definitely wasn't for you and isn't the kind of Star Wars film you want to watch.

When people claim that TLJ is an objective failure because it's "structured like a comedy" that presupposes that it's not meant to be structured like a comedy or that structuring it like a comedy is on its face a bad thing, given Rian Johnson's goals. That's different from saying that TLJ shouldn't be structured like a comedy because that person prefers Star Wars films that are or would be structured differently, based on what they think Rian Johnson's goals should have been. One is an objective statement, the other a subjective statement.

Lots and lots and lots of people talk about how they subjectively dislike TLJ. They spend a lot of time pointing to the things that subjectively did not work for them. Not as many people spend time talking about actual objective failures of the film. For example, the "bathos" thing. I think sztriki posted the video about bathos and its use in film, and the video opens with a shot from Django unchained where Django shoots a woman who goes FLYING backwards as if she's been pulled by a cord round her waist. It's purposefully funny and off kilter and stands in contrast to the otherwise serious tone of the scene. That doesn't make it bad or wrong. Perhaps the point is that we shouldn't take this film or this sequence so seriously.

Likewise with Poe's crank call to Hux and how Hux generally comes off as a clown in many cases. People point to that as an example of objective failure. But what they're really saying is that they would prefer a villain who is more menacing, less buffoonish, and who represents a greater threat, as well as a film where the tone is generally more serious. That is a subjective complaint unless you think that Johnson really did mean for the film to play seriously and to make Hux out to be an unquestionably evil, dangerous villain at whom you should definitely not laugh. If that was his goal, then the film is an objective failure because there's no way you could look at Hux in the film and not find him to be a buffoon, at least in the instances we see. He could still be menacing in other instances, but here he's clearly a buffoon. And maybe that's the point: he's a buffoon and we should recognize him as such even as we also recognize the very real threat that a buffoon can pose. And sure, someone can say "But that's not anything I want to watch," and that'd be an entirely reasonable statement! But it's not reasonable to say that buffoons should never, ever appear in Star Wars films as villains under any circumstances as if that is an objective fact, because it's really just a dressed-up expression of subjective preferences.

And, again, you did not watch the whole video. They raise many points that easily qualify as objectively poor decisions on how the movie is made. Such as the writing which has characters making stupid and unnecessary decisions to drive the plot. Is there some subjective opinion in it? Sure. But not enough to dismiss the whole video as such.

I'm not really interested in a lecture on the difference between subjective and objective. I already know the difference. So I'll be ignoring any of that.

The small doses of humor in ANH and ESB comes naturally and stays in-universe. It's not forced like Poe telling "Yo mama" jokes or Luke throwing the saber over his shoulder, nor is it as constant as the humor in TLJ. The characters failing in the other SW movies are a product of things not going well for them. In TLJ things go bad for the characters because they make objectively stupid decisions. The video has a whole section on it, perhaps you'll watch it one of these days.

You've failed to make your case that ANH and ESB suffer the same problems as TLJ.

Structuring a Star Wars movie like a comedy, intentionally, turns Star Wars into a parody of itself. That's why Poe's Yo Mama I'll hold phone call feels just like it belongs in Spaceballs, not Star Wars. Is it objective fact or subjective opinion that SW movies should not be parodies of SW movies? There's only one correct answer here.

 

[Zuiun]

And, again, you did not watch the whole video. They raise many points that easily qualify as objectively poor decisions on how the movie is made. Such as the writing which has characters making stupid and unnecessary decisions to drive the plot. Is there some subjective opinion in it? Sure. But not enough to dismiss the whole video as such.

Merely putting a laugh track over a backwards recitation of the plot does not prove objectively bad writing.

"...and Holdo wouldn't tell Poe her plan because she hates men." <-- This isn't an example of objectively bad writing. It's an example of RLM inserting their own interpretation of the situation into their review, largely in a juvenile attempt at being funny. And that's what the majority of the video is: Them using stuff they didn't like or agree with as a platform for humor.

This doesn't invalidate their OPINIONS. Likewise, just because their opinions happen to align with your dislike of the film doesn't make their opinions objective facts about the film.

Structuring a Star Wars movie like a comedy, intentionally, turns Star Wars into a parody of itself. That's why Poe's Yo Mama I'll hold phone call feels just like it belongs in Spaceballs, not Star Wars. Is it objective fact or subjective opinion that SW movies should not be parodies of SW movies? There's only one correct answer here.

The problem here is that you and RLM are confusing comedy as a story structure, and comedy as a humorous event -- which are two very different things.

In classic writing, "comedy" refers to a basic plotting device of establishing characters "destined" to be together, but an event or events (external events beyond their control and internal events, such as miscommunication) continually prevent them from doing so until they overcome the obstacles and are together in the end.

Sound familiar? It's essentially the story structure of the entire Han and Leia relationship in the original trilogy. It's the story structure of all of ESB (Plinkett even acknowledged that ESB was essentially structured like a sitcom -- but was fine with that because it didn't support the narrative of blasting TLJ for the exact same thing.)

The thing about the comedy story structure is that it isn't about the humor. It's about the situations: events keeping the characters apart as long as possible. Making a comedy funny is one way to handle it. Another is to make it a tragedy (see: Titanic). So Star Wars has used the comedy story structure for at least aspects of its plotting since day one.

Coming to the conclusion that TLJ is objectively bad for doing the same is objectively wrong.

Again, disliking the film because of personal disagreements with the choices made is one thing. Trying to convince the world that the film is objectively bad because you don't like it is tilting at windmills. But then, I suppose, trying to convince you of that is just another windmill...