Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Post-release)

What did you think of Star Wars: The Last Jedi?

  • It was great. Loved it. Don't miss it at the theaters.

    Votes: 154 26.6%
  • It was good. Liked it very much. Worth the theater visit.

    Votes: 135 23.4%
  • It was okay. Not too pleased with it. Could watch it at the cinema once or wait for home video.

    Votes: 117 20.2%
  • It was disappointing. Watch it on home video instead.

    Votes: 70 12.1%
  • It was bad. Don't waste your time with it.

    Votes: 102 17.6%

  • Total voters
    578
Almost none of that was explained or alluded to in the film. So for many people, those contexts don't exist.


Hmmm... that's funny, because I haven't read any ancillary materials and have only viewed the same two movies that you did... and yet i got all of that.


I was under the impression (from Lukes words) that Luke did not have students 30 years ago; he took them on at the same time he took on kylo as apprentice.

We aren't exactly told in the films how long it was after ROTJ when he took on new students...or how old they were at the time he took them on. The point is that it was after ROTJ. Judging by how he looked in the flashback sequence it must have been a while, as he had his grizzly beard look going on then too


Either way, poor storytelling.

What exactly about this makes it "poor" storytelling?

The first episode of Lost in Space is better than both the new Star Wars movies,

Yeah.... OK. If you TRULY believe that, then what are you even doing here discussing two films that you think so lowly of? Just to spread a little more hate about them?

Engaging in a spirited debate about something you see at least *some* redeeming qualities in can be quite healthy. But endlessly deriding something you regard as utterly worthless seems like a gigantic waste of time and not at all productive.
 
Hmmm... that's funny, because I haven't read any ancillary materials and have only viewed the same two movies that you did... and yet i got all of that.
In light of this, let me ask:

The New Republic didn't send them away. The remnants of the Empire retreated on their own to the uncharted regions and there is where Snoke organized them into the First Order.
Where is that stated or explained in the movies?

Ummm... yes, people noticed. Leia had been warning the New Republic leadership about the growing threat of the First order for years. But the generally pacifistic leadership left her warnings unheeded to the point General Leia was all but ostracized and was basically leading the Resistance on her own.
Where is that stated or explained in the movies?

They left Coruscant because that had been the seat of the Empire. The new Republic moved their governmental seat regularly... specifically to avoid having a "home world" like the Empire did. And again, YES... some did take notice of external threats... namely General Leia and the Resistance. that is literally why they existed.
Where is that stated or explained in the movies?


As to the coincidences in TFA i know perfectly well all the back details of why and what but they are just laughably unbelievable and clearly shoved in just to make the films quick and pacy ... Also chucking throwaway lines into side movies such as Rogue one in order to make something at odds with the OT in TFA's isn't cleaver .. its showing that there are problems.
To be completely fair, ANH had plenty of coincidences too. But I do agree that slowing down a bit here and there to give some expository dialogue could have gone a long long way.

I've read a couple of the books pre TFA etc but they books are as badly written and plotted as these movies ..
Oh god, finally someone, every time I hear someone complaining that the old EU is thrown out I keep scratching my head as to what was so valuable there...


Yeah.... OK. If you TRULY believe that, then what are you even doing here discussing two films that you think so lowly of? Just to spread a little more hate about them?
Why not? Are only fans of the movie allowed to discuss it? This is the thing I don't understand about people who like this movie and being so protective about it. People who are disappointed have the same amount of rights to express their opinions and try and put a finger on why it didn't work for them. A praise-fest is just about as mundane and stale as naysaying. Judging from his posts he is reacting to what people say here instead of banging a drum and yelling "this is crap, this is crap".
 
Hmmm... that's funny, because I haven't read any ancillary materials and have only viewed the same two movies that you did... and yet i got all of that.




We aren't exactly told in the films how long it was after ROTJ when he took on new students...or how old they were at the time he took them on. The point is that it was after ROTJ. Judging by how he looked in the flashback sequence it must have been a while, as he had his grizzly beard look going on then too




What exactly about this makes it "poor" storytelling?



Yeah.... OK. If you TRULY believe that, then what are you even doing here discussing two films that you think so lowly of? Just to spread a little more hate about them?

Engaging in a spirited debate about something you see at least *some* redeeming qualities in can be quite healthy. But endlessly deriding something you regard as utterly worthless seems like a gigantic waste of time and not at all productive.
I don't believe you, please, what dialogue in the film mentions any of That?

It's poor storytelling because it's relying on ancillary material to fill in gaps (like details you mentioned).

I'm here because I can be. I didn't mind TFA so much, (until TLJ came out.) I've been a fan since 77, and find Disney's take utterly disappointing.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
 
I don't believe you, please, what dialogue in the film mentions any of That?

Well then... the tone of this retort right at the beginning makes me disinclined to engage you further.

I'm glad you're "here cuz you can be". That's great.

Your circular reasoning techniques leave little in the way of possibility for debate, so I'll leave it there.
 
In light of this, let me ask:


Where is that stated or explained in the movies?


Where is that stated or explained in the movies?


Where is that stated or explained in the movies?



To be completely fair, ANH had plenty of coincidences too. But I do agree that slowing down a bit here and there to give some expository dialogue could have gone a long long way.


Oh god, finally someone, every time I hear someone complaining that the old EU is thrown out I keep scratching my head as to what was so valuable there...



Why not? Are only fans of the movie allowed to discuss it? This is the thing I don't understand about people who like this movie and being so protective about it. People who are disappointed have the same amount of rights to express their opinions and try and put a finger on why it didn't work for them. A praise-fest is just about as mundane and stale as naysaying. Judging from his posts he is reacting to what people say here instead of banging a drum and yelling "this is crap, this is crap".

Okie...

I don't have my pocket copy of the TFA script here to thumb through, so i guess I'll have to wait until I get home and rewatch and write down time signatures for you to show you exactly where little bits of background info were revealed in dialog, but for now I will restate that when i came out of watching TFA the first time I didn't have all of these nagging questions.. so I managed to catch the dialog just fine. I'll come back with more specifics later.

Also, I didn't say only fans of the film could discuss it. did you read what i wrote? you must have, because you quoted me enough. I said that it made no sense to me that someone who so vehemently hates a movie would continue to engage in debate about it. If that person saw some good in it, then i could see why they would continue..perhaps hoping to come to a better understanding through discourse or change some of their views in light of other viewers' opinions or thoughts.

Nobody asked for a praise-fest, either. Perhaps if you spent less time taking what people say to an extreme and paraphrasing it, and more time responding to what was actually written, alot of these things could be avoided.


****EDIT****

I found a copy of the TFA script online and began going through it hoping to clarify. When I'd noticed that Han's speech about Luke and what happened to him was not in it, i realized that wasn't going to help me. So I'll have to go home and watch my Blu Ray.

I will say ahead of that though, that having every bit of info about how the First order rose to power for example is not paramount to the story, and if one wants to know that answer it is easily found in ancillary materials (which are readily available) and I would remind the audience that this is how we know alot of what we know about the OT BTW... as lots of little details were not fleshed out in the dialog and we only know then because of things that came out later.

I do recall that there is a scene--while missing from the theatrical release, but nevertheless on the blu ray--which shows Leia dicissing some of this with her friend in the Senate.

But the argument that "if it isn't in the theatrical release then we can't possibly know it, and if we have to read other things to get those details, it's bad writing" isn't a valid argument at all. as many have said (myself included) we knew as little about certain details in the OT at the time... and it was the thirst for knowledge about those things that either led to the extra materials being released or led those wanting to know to seek them out.

You cannot answer every niggling little question in 2 hours. And if you refuse to explore the ancillary stuff that is out there then i guess that's on you. but let me ask you this: how much did you know about the Emperor after ESB? Hmm? Was it as much as we know now? No. Why? Because those answers were filled in after ESB was released. Some of them LONG after. that's how this works, and we all know it.

I'm not saying TFA is flawless.. never said that. BUT.. if you're going to have issues with it, the fact that they didn't spell out for you where The First Order got their ships from for example should not be one of them. If it's germaine to the story, they will put it in. If it's background clarification you desire, you get that from other media. This is nothing new.
 
Last edited:
Well then... the tone of this retort right at the beginning makes me disinclined to engage you further.

I'm glad you're "here cuz you can be". That's great.

Your circular reasoning techniques leave little in the way of possibility for debate, so I'll leave it there.
Ah. Good. Saw that you couldn't cite where that info was in the movie. You can't just come in an make stuff up. You said it was, now you're backpedaling saying it's not necessary.

Whatever though, continue to engage yourself with your made up dialogue and details, if that's what it takes to appreciate the movie.

(I did read ancillary material, btw).

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
 
kristen jones, this bit?

HAN
This map's not complete. It's just
a piece. Ever since Luke disappeared,
people have been looking for him.

REY
Why'd he leave?

HAN
He was training a new generation of
Jedi. One boy, an apprentice turned
against him, destroyed it all. Luke
felt responsible... He walked away
from everything.

FINN
Do you know what happened to him?

HAN
There're a lot of rumors. Stories.
The people who knew him the best
think he went looking for the first
Jedi temple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okie...

I don't have my pocket copy of the TFA script here to thumb through, so i guess I'll have to wait until I get home and rewatch and write down time signatures for you to show you exactly where little bits of background info were revealed in dialog, but for now I will restate that when i came out of watching TFA the first time I didn't have all of these nagging questions.. so I managed to catch the dialog just fine. I'll come back with more specifics later.
Please do, I'd be intrigued to see the results.

Also, I didn't say only fans of the film could discuss it. did you read what i wrote? you must have, because you quoted me enough. I said that it made no sense to me that someone
who so vehemently hates a movie would continue to engage in debate about it. If that person saw some good in it, then i could see why they would continue..perhaps hoping to come to a better understanding through discourse or change some of their views in light of other viewers' opinions or thoughts.

Nobody asked for a praise-fest, either. Perhaps if you spent less time taking what people say to an extreme and paraphrasing it, and more time responding to what was actually written, alot of these things could be avoided.
Okay, break it down then. You straight away questioned the point of someone being here and being involved in a discussion solely on his low opinion on the movie. Then you suggested he's just here to spread hate. All this (I assume) in the name of positivity and anti-hate. I didn't have to take anything to the extreme, what you said was extreme to begin with, I merely mirrored it. If there's no point for someone to be involved in the discussion of something that he/she utterly dislikes then surely there's no point in the involvement of those who can't do anything but sing praises, right?
I mean no offense here but I'm baffled by your logic. There are reasons galore for someone who dislikes something to be involved in discussions as long as the discussion is kept civil and there are arguments and counterarguments instead of just barfing up "this is rubbish/no this is great/no this is rubbish". There's tons of things I initially disliked a lot and engaging in discussions made me change my mind about them. There are plenty of things I liked and engaging in discussions with people that didn't made me realize that those things weren't exactly up to scratch indeed. Then there's plenty of things I like and I talk to people who don't like it and we agree to disagree. Again, I emphasize as long as the discussion is kept civil and there is reasoning involved.


I will say ahead of that though, that having every bit of info about how the First order rose to power for example is not paramount to the story, and if one wants to know that answer it is easily found in ancillary materials (which are readily available) and I would remind the audience that this is how we know alot of what we know about the OT BTW... as lots of little details were not fleshed out in the dialog and we only know then because of things that came out later.

The thing about this sequel trilogy is...well, they're sequels. The OT did not need massive backstories, it had the luxury of being able to drop you in medias res and let you experience the world. That being said, the exposition of the main political setting happened in the first 3 minutes of ANH:
- Title crawl explaining there's an evil galactic empire that has the ability to crush planets and a small rebel alliance against it
- Massive, seemingly never-ending Imperial ship vs tiny ill-equipped rebel ship (visual storytelling)
- Faceless white fascist troopers led by a huge black skull faced goon slaughtering people with faces with no questions asked (visual storytelling)

Then there's a bit of backstory from Ben and more expository dialogue in the Imperial meeting about how there was a peaceful and more revered Republic that was overthrown by the evil empire. That's all the exposition you really needed to understand ANH.

When you have a series that goes from A to B then ends in C and 30 years later the story starts at G, you kinda need to refer to D, E and F.


I do recall that there is a scene--while missing from the theatrical release, but nevertheless on the blu ray--which shows Leia dicissing some of this with her friend in the Senate.

You must have a different edition of the bluray than I do, coz I don't have this scene on mine.

But the argument that "if it isn't in the theatrical release then we can't possibly know it, and if we have to read other things to get those details, it's bad writing" isn't a valid argument at all. as many have said (myself included) we knew as little about certain details in the OT at the time... and it was the thirst for knowledge about those things that either led to the extra materials being released or led those wanting to know to seek them out.
Again, what was required to understand the story were in the movies. The only thing I agree with that was never explicitly said in the movies and only the novelizations explained was how and why Vader was wearing that suit.

You cannot answer every niggling little question in 2 hours.
You don't have to. Just flesh out the background enough so it's understandable easy.

how much did you know about the Emperor after ESB? Hmm? Was it as much as we know now? No. Why? Because those answers were filled in after ESB was released. Some of them LONG after. that's how this works, and we all know it.
We knew that he was the head of the empire, personally leading it instead of just being a figurehead (like he was meant to be originally), we knew he was a dark force user and that even Vader was cowed and humbled by him. What further information did we need for the story at that point?

I'm not saying TFA is flawless.. never said that. BUT.. if you're going to have issues with it, the fact that they didn't spell out for you where The First Order got their ships from for example should not be one of them. If it's germaine to the story, they will put it in. If it's background clarification you desire, you get that from other media. This is nothing new.

I applaud you if you understood it perfectly just from the movie. It made no sense to me as to why there is a Resistance when there's the Republic, Leia should simply be part of the Republic army. Who does she resist? Resistances in history were formed against an occupying force. Was the First Order occupying the Republic? Was it smaller, larger, equal force to the Republic? I was left with these questions because last time I checked in the Empire was defeated and the New Republic was going to be set up by our heroes. 3 minutes of exposition or 2-3 extra sentences in the title crawl could have explained how the chessboard is set up. Not saying the movie tanks because of this but we are allowed to discuss it if it bothers some of us, right?


I just want to tell you both, good luck. We're all counting on you.
Surely, you can't be serious...?
 
So, on the subject of the backstory for the ST (NT? Have we settled on nomenclature here?), I think you're dealing with two opposing -- and ultimately irreconcilable -- demands.

There's the demands of the story itself, and there's the demands of the audience.

In most stories, the story demands that you keep the pace moving, and reveal to characters that information which is relevant for them to know. In other words, what would they already know, and what wouldn't they already know? The audience demands enough information to effectively build the world in which the story occurs.

Usually, the easiest way to deliver the information that the audience needs and the information the characters need is to put the characters and the audience in parity as far as their knowledge. Also known as an audience stand-in or proxy. You see this all the time on Doctor Who. It's the primary role of the companion: to be the person to say "What was that we just saw?" and allow the Doctor to then prattle on for a few minutes about who the Zygons are for any audience members not already familiar. In ANH, our audience proxy is basically Luke. In TFA, it's Rey. So far, so good.

What I maintain is that Rey and Luke's knowledge of their world is about equal, and the story spends almost equal time providing them (and us) with context. Everything else is provided through the opening crawl and other characters' interactions (although the other characters aren't really audience proxies). For example, you can compare the scene in Ben's hut in ANH to the scene on the Falcon with Han in TFA, where we provide a very little bit of exposition to the audience/proxy character. Ben tells Luke a bit about the Jedi and Vader and his father (ahem...), but doesn't go into a lot of detail about how the Emperor gained control, where the Rebellion came from, etc. In TFA, Han does basically the same thing talking about Luke, but doesn't give any explanation for the First Order, who Snoke is, how he came to power, who the Resistance are, etc.

In other words, the OT provided us with basically the same amount of info about the state of the galaxy as the ST does. The key difference is in audience expectations because the audience arrives already familiar with the universe.

I've alluded to this before, but if you actually watched the entire story in episode sequence (or even just ROTS to TLJ), you would have....exactly the same kind of experience going from the PT to the OT. If the PT had been the first trilogy and the OT had been the second trilogy, there'd be a TON of questions about the state of the galaxy. Where the hell did the Rebellion come from? How are they "too well equipped" and "more dangerous than you realize"? How'd the Emperor just get the ability to completely disband the Senate? What happened to the clones, and how come the stormtroopers don't sound like them anymore? How did the Empire manage to exterminate all the Jedi? Surely there must be some left, no? How did the Imperial military retool so quickly? For that matter, how exactly is the Empire tyrannical? All we see is a reference to it in the opening crawl. I mean, yeah, blowing up Alderaan is pretty tyrannical, but prior to that, what's Luke's beef with the Empire when he says he hates it? Why's he hate it? We never really see anything about the Empire to suggest that it's really evil. It's stated in the crawl, and then implied by the visuals (but again, if you saw the PT first and saw the clones in white, faceless trooper armor, you might not immediately assume that they were the bad guys).

So, again, I don't think you see all that much of a difference between the presentation of information in the OT and the ST. The difference lies in the audience's experience and expectations. In the OT, the audience had no prior knowledge of the universe, so information was simply presented by the film and accepted, and the audience filled in the blanks. In the ST, the audience comes in with the foreknowledge of the OT, and therefore has to square what it saw at the end of the OT with what it sees at the start of the ST. So, what's that mean?

It means that the two stories cannot help but be judged by different standards, even if they function nearly identically and impart nearly the same level of information. So, yes, I do think it's a failure of the ST -- especially TFA -- to neglect to provide more context than what the OT did to bridge the gap between the OT era and the ST era for world-building purposes. Even if it was something like Rey being completely unaware of who the First Order is and who the Resistance is, you could've done something to provide more context. Hell, you could've rewritten the opening scrawl to do it, and that probably would've worked. Or, as I've said repeatedly, cut the rathtar sequence and instead swap in the scene of Leia's senate ally (Maisie Richardson-Sellers) to provide context on what the hell is going on in the galaxy.

The stuff with Luke, I think, makes sense. It's jarring to people who've spent 35 years rewatching ROTJ and/or reading the old EU, who have come to expect how Luke would behave, but I think the interceding event of Ben's fall to the Dark Side is ultimately a perfectly reasonable trigger for the collapse of his family. Plus, I think it actually makes the story more interesting than having Luke be a wise old hero who has no regrets and simply straps on his sabre to go kick a little pseudo-imperial ass again. I think we're meant to have a kind of "Oh my God...what happened?!?! How did it all go so wrong?!" reaction to Luke's tale, but the answer makes sense, even if one doesn't particularly like it. (Much the way the answer makes sense as to "Why did Anakin turn evil," even though I don't particularly like it.)

Ultimately, I think the failure of the ST is a failure in managing its audience effectively and spending too much time in TFA on action sequences instead of exposition. TLJ, I think, still works just fine. The failures of TLJ, to me, are much more about the foundation laid by TFA.
 
The stuff with Luke, I think, makes sense. It's jarring to people who've spent 35 years rewatching ROTJ and/or reading the old EU, who have come to expect how Luke would behave, but I think the interceding event of Ben's fall to the Dark Side is ultimately a perfectly reasonable trigger for the collapse of his family. Plus, I think it actually makes the story more interesting than having Luke be a wise old hero who has no regrets and simply straps on his sabre to go kick a little pseudo-imperial ass again. I think we're meant to have a kind of "Oh my God...what happened?!?! How did it all go so wrong?!" reaction to Luke's tale, but the answer makes sense, even if one doesn't particularly like it. (Much the way the answer makes sense as to "Why did Anakin turn evil," even though I don't particularly like it.)

Germane to the rest of your post, it's the contrast between Luke and Obi-Wan that a lot of people are having trouble with. Obi-Wan failed with Anakin, retreated to the deserts of Tatooine for 19 years to watch over Luke, and, when the call came, strapped on his lightsaber to go kick some Imperial ass, sacrificing himself in the process. Luke failed with Ben, retreated to the isolation of Ahch-to for 3 or 4 years to wrestle with wiping out the last traces of the Jedi (and his own sense of guilt, which Obi-Wan also had), and, when the call came, struggled a bit more, then got over himself and straped on the Force to intervene the only way left available to him by that point, sacrificing himself in the process.

One of the macro-questions I have after TLJ is... How long would Luke have wrestled with destroying the Jedi texts before finally deciding whether or not to do it? If he'd had another decade and a half to sit with his sense of guilt over failing Ben, would have have found his way to the same inner resolution as Obi-Wan had? Was his journey wrenched off on a different course due to Rey interrupting his hermitage when she did? Since we know corporeal death isn't the end for Jedi, is he going to have an advisory arc similar to Obi-Wan's?

--Jonah
 
And in his Jedi robes (yeah I know it's fancy tatooine garb, but get over it, they're Jedi robes now).
in my head canon im considering erasing the prequels entirely so that's just Tatooine garb and the Jedi wore what Luke was wearing in RotJ. (That's how everyone immediately recognized him as a Jedi suddenly).

In fairness, of the things that bothered me about PT that's one of the smallest and easiest to overlook.

Bigger problems are one's that retroactively damage the originals. Which is really the root of what I think is bothering people with this one: it has things that, if canon, do diminish the originals in some ways.
 
Last edited:
And in his Jedi robes (yeah I know it's fancy tatooine garb, but get over it, they're Jedi robes now).

Rian was locked into this by the end of TFA. JJ clearly didn't plan to have Luke cut off from the Force, he was going to have him levitating rocks around him when Rey arrives. So as soon as Luke walks off, he gets his depressed homeless dude burlap sack outfit on. It doesn't make sense... so he randomly got his hated Jedi garb on, on the day Rey arrives?
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top