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
I will...if you go read FILMCRITSWIQ.

I would, except that's not a thing anywhere outside of your head and what you write here. ;)

Seriously, go run a google search for film crit hulk. Pull up his review of TFA. He had some serious criticisms of it you might find interesting. Fair warning, though, if you start reading more of him, you'll learn really really quickly that he has decidedly left-leaning politics. That said, he has some interesting insights outside of the political stuff, if the political stuff is too distasteful for you.
 
You're a anti-SWIQ-ite.

A rabid anti-SWIQ-ite!!!

It's difficult to be rabid about something one doesn't really understand.

My sense of SWIQ is that it's based on your gut feeling about a sense of fidelity to the first two films, but I've never seen it clearly articulated in one place what that actually means.

Using a term like "IQ" implies that it's something numerically quantifiable, but I've never seen anything other than "high" or "low" used (I gather there's no "medium" SWIQ?). Not to mention that the quantification is objective and set against some kind of clear standard. But you've not really articulated what that objective standard is, other than -- as best as I can guess -- "It's like ANH/ESB."

Without clear, objective criteria which are clearly stated up front, it's impossible to see the "IQ" as anything but arbitrary and subjective. Moreover, it's impossible to even begin to challenge -- or defend -- the substance of what makes up the "IQ" in question. Even if it was a simple, binary evaluation (good/bad, high/low, in/out), we still don't have a clear sense of the objective criteria upon which the evaluation is based.

If you described "high" as something meeting at least 5 of 7 criteria, and those criteria themselves were easy to objectively determine, we could at least (1) predict what the outcome would be without your input, or (2) debate you on the validity of the criteria.

So, for example, a "high" SWIQ post might include 5 of the 7 following things:

1. References Luke's character as being fundamentally uncorruptable and unflinchingly virtuous.
2. Demonstrates an appreciation for the sense of wonder and mysticism surrounding the Force.
3. Disregards any explanation of the Force which contradicts what is explicitly stated by Obi-Wan in ANH, and Yoda in ESB.
4. Demonstrates disapproval for any moral greying of characters and motivations; prefers adherence to strict "good vs. evil" characterization, with the only "grey" involved being redemptive arcs indicating a character's remorse for past evil deeds.
5. Thinks Chewie's hair looked better in ANH (combed back) vs. ESB/ROTJ (forelocks hanging forward).
6. Explicitly insults or disdains Kathleen Kennedy or Rian Johnson in some way.
7. Demonstrates disdain for political correctness or politically left-leaning attitudes, especially within the films themselves.

Those are, at least, objective criteria. What we could debate as subjective is their selection as criteria. Are they the right criteria? Are they wrong? We could go back and forth on that. But at least we'd have an objective scale on which to measure SWIQ. I haven't ever seen anything like that. All I've seen is you saying that a film or a post demonstrates high SWIQ or low SWIQ, and when challenged, you point to the objective standard of the films without really elaborating on what that objective standard is (i.e., saying "Look at the films" doesn't go far enough. Look at what about the films? What do you see in the films that makes them the gold standard, which does not appear in the other films?)


At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter a ton to me, which is why I'm not really a "rabid anti-SWIQ-ite." I think it is basically a fancy way for you to say what your opinion is. And to be clear, it's perfectly fine for you to talk about your opinion. God knows that's what we do around here all day long (well, our own opinions, mostly, not just yours). I also think that there are objective standards on which stories can be judged, but they're based more on things like technique, structure of the tale, and how effectively they convey a narrative. That's also completely different from what someone subjectively enjoys or doesn't enjoy. There's a difference between what someone just enjoys, and what is objectively well constructed. (Assuming one gives any credit to the theories involved in film or literature theory.)

Enjoy what you enjoy. But if you're gonna keep bringing up SWIQ, it would help if you could express clearly what the objective criteria are by which one determines a "high" or "low" SWIQ.
 
I really think you are giving Rian to much credit here. There is no way he has though as deeply as you about the line “let the past die”. He wanted to kill off or alter as many of the original characters as he could, and did. He added the line because it sounded clever to him.

My prerogative to interpret the finished work as I will has little to do with "credit" given to the author, as the value of any interpretation cannot lie in its fidelity to whatever opaque "intent" you see fit to ascribe to the author. Intent is irrelevant. The author is dead. Any opinion that doesn't contradict the text of the work is valid. (Also, the interpretation that accounts for the highest percentage of the work's content is the most valid, but that's another topic.)

Setting that aside, let's talk about authorial acumen, because I'm in a sporting mood and you've brought it up. I still hold that Johnson is the most adept writer to ever touch this franchise. And I've read them all. As in, like, the words on the page. (Along with the screenplays of hundreds of other screenwriters, but let's stick to Star Wars.) I'm including Lucas, Huyck & Katz, Brackett, Kasdan, Hales, Filoni, Abrams -- everybody. Rian's structural and compositional cinematic craft is lightyears ahead, to my sensibility.

For my money,The Last Jedi elevated the entire series, and while I acknowledge that he elevated it somewhere a certain (overestimated) percentage of fans did not want it to go, I'm incredibly grateful that he did because I suspect it just might be the salvation of the series' potential longevity. I feel that he did that, contrary to some of the opinions expressed in this thread, by embracing the thematic implications of the entire series (prequel and original trilogy both) and rendering them as the basis of his chapter. What was once relegated to subtext was finally expressed as text, allowing for exponentially more complex thematic explorations in its wake.

It is a shame that those who did not enjoy the movie give it sufficient power to "compromise" their "hero", but if its any consolation (I know it isn't), those same choices made Luke come alive for me -- as an active, living conduit of the series' mythology -- in a way he hasn't since Star Wars ('77). I love all of Lucas' Star Wars, but I've also got beef with the series that starts with certain constricting narrative decisions made in Empire. (A movie which I simultaneously hold as both one of the best and one of the worst sequels ever made.) Sins which, by my own estimation, have only be atoned for in The Last Jedi.

Okay, you posted this after midnight. Drunk, I imagine.

Nope. Drunk me wouldn't bother. Up late working under a deadline after getting home from the Incredibles double-feature, and all the gears were turning.

I mean, who talks like this? :lol

Me. You should see the non-conversational version.
 
If it's the Zahn novels you want, you can find them adapted by Dark Horse comics. I think Dark Horse can still sell its old stuff, but if not, try to find 'em on Ebay.

As for the ST, I don't think he ever expected to explain some of the background stuff. Rey's parents? Yeah, maybe. I still don't like the way he did it.

But, here's the thing: even if you think TLJ killed that line of inquiry......it didn't. Rey's parentage -- her true parentage, I mean -- could still be revealed later. And the beauty of it, in my opinion, is that it won't hurt what I liked about TLJ (that Rey ultimately creates her own path, rather than having it handed to her by destiny). You could reveal it later and have it turn out that Ben was simply "reading" Rey and her assumptions about her parents, when some other truth exists. Like, he didn't actually know the truth, he just knew what Rey thought was the truth. So, the truth could be revealed later, and hopefully it would be meaningful for Rey (instead of just for the audience).



I have a friend who runs a restaurant that makes awesome ruen bing.
But what are you basing that off of? Just his past work? That stuff wouldnt be explained? The only thing that I could see that he would do a poor job on was Maz obtaining lukes lightsaber. Just cause of the nature of how he lost it. But Snoke, Reys parentage, I figure he would be able to come up with something interesting. We are talking about Star Wars being backed by Disney! They have all the money in the world to throw at writers and people that can make an amazing movie. Imagine what the Russo Brothers would do if they got to do Ep 8 instead of Ruin. Taking something someone did before (captain america) and making it even more awesome, and cohesive of a story. I think JJ could have done that, I mean, not as good a job as they could have, but at least he respected the fanbase enough with TFA. It still had that same "star wars" feel, of using practical effects, creature design, characters etc
 
As for the ST, I don't think he ever expected to explain some of the background stuff. Rey's parents? Yeah, maybe. I still don't like the way he did it.

It is also interesting -- if ultimately meaningless -- to note that this particular narrative void was inserted very late in post-production reshoots. Marvel at the lack of geographical context whenever Rey expounds on her motivations through dialogue. They were all reshot on stages or on the Bad Robot roof. I'm still incredibly curious what her original motivations were, in principle photography. (I've heard vague mentions to her wanting desperately to leave Jakku, rather than return to it, but I'd love to know what the original conception was in total.)

Generally irrelevant, but an interesting developmental curiosity.
 
But what are you basing that off of? Just his past work? That stuff wouldnt be explained? The only thing that I could see that he would do a poor job on was Maz obtaining lukes lightsaber. Just cause of the nature of how he lost it. But Snoke, Reys parentage, I figure he would be able to come up with something interesting. We are talking about Star Wars being backed by Disney! They have all the money in the world to throw at writers and people that can make an amazing movie. Imagine what the Russo Brothers would do if they got to do Ep 8 instead of Ruin. Taking something someone did before (captain america) and making it even more awesome, and cohesive of a story. I think JJ could have done that, I mean, not as good a job as they could have, but at least he respected the fanbase enough with TFA. It still had that same "star wars" feel, of using practical effects, creature design, characters etc

Past work, yes. For example, in Trek '09, there were questions about how we ended up with a rebooted universe and such. That stuff was apparently addressed in a comic book. (It's been a while, so I don't remember the details.) But you also point out another "Wait, WHAT?" moment that just wound up breezed right by.

Also "able to come up with something interesting," isn't (in my opinion) a good way to write. It's better to know where you're headed. You might deviate if, for example, your characters force you to do so or you end up with actors who pass away or who embody something different and inspire you differently, but going in you should know the answers to the questions you're raising instead of "Well, that's the mystery! Ain't it grand?"

The other thing I base it off of -- especially Rey's parents -- is how Rian handled it. While he had free reign, I doubt he acted in complete isolation from the other writers. He and Abrams were apparently interacting while he was writing the screenplay and Abrams was shooting TFA. Basically, I look at what Rian did, and I assume that he didn't go in and simply contradict what Abrams was doing. Abrams might've envisioned the story playing out somewhat differently, but something major like Rey's parents? I don't think Rian would've just said "Nah, that's stupid" and ditched it out of hand. I could be wrong, of course, but that's my guess. I know the films are made where each crew has autonomy to some degree, but there's still supposedly a Story Group, and presumably they are able to say "Yeah, you can't do that because it'll conflict with this other thing."

So, basically, you have four options:

1. Rian knew what JJ was intending, and completely disregarded it and substituted his own thing, thereby throwing the entire arc of the story into chaos...and nobody paid close enough attention or cared enough to do anything. I find this one hard to believe, especially when you look at Rogue One and Solo's production, and how each film had substantial input from the studio saying "No, do it differently."

2. The studio itself is utterly incompetent and has no idea where it's story is going, even in broad strokes, nor what it wants to do, and everything is being done entirely on the fly. Again, I find that hard to believe, albeit somewhat more likely than #1. I think they have a general idea of where they're headed with the episodes, but not necessarily all the details mapped out. Basically, you can paint with whatever colors you want, but you have to stay within the lines. That's my guess anyway.

3. JJ either didn't know who Rey's parents were and just thought it was neat to raise the question, or JJ had an answer, but it was ultimately unimportant to Rey and her journey. Kind of like how "Where did Snoke come from?" is ultimately unimportant to the events of TFA and TLJ (even if it's important to provide the audience context). So, it'd end up being something relegated to a comic book or whathaveyou. Kinda like "Why is Threepio's arm red?"

orrrrr.....

4. Rian was playing the long game and has been grossly misunderstood by the fan base who expected an answer in Movie 2 because "that's how it works, when the big bad guy tells you the truth about your parents." And in fact, that revelation will come in Movie 3 or later. Remember that TFA doesn't tell you anything about Rey's parents. It just shows a ship flying away and Rey screaming. We don't even know what Rey thinks about her parents. We only find that out in TLJ when she meets with Ben. Compare that to ANH, where we had ominous hints about Luke's father from Uncle Owen over dinner, and then Luke telling Obi-Wan that his father was a navigator on a spice freighter, all within the first 30 min or so, after which Obi-Wan tells him "Your dad was a Jedi!" This matters because (1) we know Owen wants to keep him home, and (2) Luke is feeling the pull of adventure, especially after learning that his father was a Jedi. And then in movie 2, we find out, nope, Vader is his dad! These revelations are as important to Luke as they are to the audience. The best case scenario is that either (a) JJ reveals Rey's true parentage in Ep. IX, and we've now been set up to expect that Rian's version is the truth (when it's really just Rey's own belief), and the reveal is deeply meaningful for Rey, or (b) JJ never touches on the issue and Rian's explanation stands. In either case, what matters is the impact of the information on Rey, rather than the audience.

My point about JJ's laziness with using the mystery box is that the box is all about audience manipulation, and not about the character. If it matters to the character, I'm fine with a big, shocking reveal. And I mean matters in the sense of "propels them to important action they might not otherwise take." It should be something more than just juicing the audience.
 
It's difficult to be rabid about something one doesn't really understand.

My sense of SWIQ is that it's based on your gut feeling about a sense of fidelity to the first two films, but I've never seen it clearly articulated in one place what that actually means.

Using a term like "IQ" implies that it's something numerically quantifiable, but I've never seen anything other than "high" or "low" used (I gather there's no "medium" SWIQ?). Not to mention that the quantification is objective and set against some kind of clear standard. But you've not really articulated what that objective standard is, other than -- as best as I can guess -- "It's like ANH/ESB."

Without clear, objective criteria which are clearly stated up front, it's impossible to see the "IQ" as anything but arbitrary and subjective. Moreover, it's impossible to even begin to challenge -- or defend -- the substance of what makes up the "IQ" in question. Even if it was a simple, binary evaluation (good/bad, high/low, in/out), we still don't have a clear sense of the objective criteria upon which the evaluation is based.

If you described "high" as something meeting at least 5 of 7 criteria, and those criteria themselves were easy to objectively determine, we could at least (1) predict what the outcome would be without your input, or (2) debate you on the validity of the criteria.

So, for example, a "high" SWIQ post might include 5 of the 7 following things:

1. References Luke's character as being fundamentally uncorruptable and unflinchingly virtuous.
2. Demonstrates an appreciation for the sense of wonder and mysticism surrounding the Force.
3. Disregards any explanation of the Force which contradicts what is explicitly stated by Obi-Wan in ANH, and Yoda in ESB.
4. Demonstrates disapproval for any moral greying of characters and motivations; prefers adherence to strict "good vs. evil" characterization, with the only "grey" involved being redemptive arcs indicating a character's remorse for past evil deeds.
5. Thinks Chewie's hair looked better in ANH (combed back) vs. ESB/ROTJ (forelocks hanging forward).
6. Explicitly insults or disdains Kathleen Kennedy or Rian Johnson in some way.
7. Demonstrates disdain for political correctness or politically left-leaning attitudes, especially within the films themselves.

Those are, at least, objective criteria. What we could debate as subjective is their selection as criteria. Are they the right criteria? Are they wrong? We could go back and forth on that. But at least we'd have an objective scale on which to measure SWIQ. I haven't ever seen anything like that. All I've seen is you saying that a film or a post demonstrates high SWIQ or low SWIQ, and when challenged, you point to the objective standard of the films without really elaborating on what that objective standard is (i.e., saying "Look at the films" doesn't go far enough. Look at what about the films? What do you see in the films that makes them the gold standard, which does not appear in the other films?)


At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter a ton to me, which is why I'm not really a "rabid anti-SWIQ-ite." I think it is basically a fancy way for you to say what your opinion is. And to be clear, it's perfectly fine for you to talk about your opinion. God knows that's what we do around here all day long (well, our own opinions, mostly, not just yours). I also think that there are objective standards on which stories can be judged, but they're based more on things like technique, structure of the tale, and how effectively they convey a narrative. That's also completely different from what someone subjectively enjoys or doesn't enjoy. There's a difference between what someone just enjoys, and what is objectively well constructed. (Assuming one gives any credit to the theories involved in film or literature theory.)

Enjoy what you enjoy. But if you're gonna keep bringing up SWIQ, it would help if you could express clearly what the objective criteria are by which one determines a "high" or "low" SWIQ.

Well, I guess you missed my initial introduction to SWIQ, in which I explained it in full detail. And I guess you missed my several subsequent posts, in which I also explained it in detail. And I guess you missed my more recent posts in which I highlight the essentials of SWIQ. A bit hard to believe, I must say, the way you traffic these threads day in and day out. But I'll take you at your word.

No time right now, but I will do a thorough explanation again on the site, to disabuse you and your fistful of followers of your misunderstandings on the subject of SWIQ.

The Wook
 
My prerogative to interpret the finished work as I will has little to do with "credit" given to the author, as the value of any interpretation cannot lie in its fidelity to whatever opaque "intent" you see fit to ascribe to the author. Intent is irrelevant. The author is dead. Any opinion that doesn't contradict the text of the work is valid. (Also, the interpretation that accounts for the highest percentage of the work's content is the most valid, but that's another topic.)

Setting that aside, let's talk about authorial acumen, because I'm in a sporting mood and you've brought it up. I still hold that Johnson is the most adept writer to ever touch this franchise. And I've read them all. As in, like, the words on the page. (Along with the screenplays of hundreds of other screenwriters, but let's stick to Star Wars.) I'm including Lucas, Huyck & Katz, Brackett, Kasdan, Hales, Filoni, Abrams -- everybody. Rian's structural and compositional cinematic craft is lightyears ahead, to my sensibility.

For my money,The Last Jedi elevated the entire series, and while I acknowledge that he elevated it somewhere a certain (overestimated) percentage of fans did not want it to go, I'm incredibly grateful that he did because I suspect it just might be the salvation of the series' potential longevity. I feel that he did that, contrary to some of the opinions expressed in this thread, by embracing the thematic implications of the entire series (prequel and original trilogy both) and rendering them as the basis of his chapter. What was once relegated to subtext was finally expressed as text, allowing for exponentially more complex thematic explorations in its wake.

It is a shame that those who did not enjoy the movie give it sufficient power to "compromise" their "hero", but if its any consolation (I know it isn't), those same choices made Luke come alive for me -- as an active, living conduit of the series' mythology -- in a way he hasn't since Star Wars ('77). I love all of Lucas' Star Wars, but I've also got beef with the series that starts with certain constricting narrative decisions made in Empire. (A movie which I simultaneously hold as both one of the best and one of the worst sequels ever made.) Sins which, by my own estimation, have only be atoned for in The Last Jedi.



Nope. Drunk me wouldn't bother. Up late working under a deadline after getting home from the Incredibles double-feature, and all the gears were turning.



Me. You should see the non-conversational version.


Wow. Thanks for being in a sporting mood. You know I also enjoy reading. Sometimes big books, small books, some have long words, and sometimes they don’t have any pictures at all.


Some of your thoughts are interesting/perplexing. For my money though (which unfortunately paid for two viewings as I couldn’t quite grasp the car crash unfolding in front of me the first time) I thought the director showed an incredible ignorance of knowledge of his subject matter and it’s history. There is barely a frame in this movie that doesn’t have some sort of problem. From the script, the characters, pacing, style, cinematography I could go on but am not going to. The problems have already been covered.


For me It’s not so much where he got to in the movie, as to be honest he didn’t go very far, it’s more how he bumbled along there. Approximately 75% of the critics on rotten tomatoes including myself feel that he hasn’t elevated the series or extended its longevity, rather expedited its demise whilst also having a detrimental effect to the stand alone films.


Just out of interest, and I only ask to try and better understand your view of the last Jedi over some of the others movies in the series, but how do you rate the new ghostbusters movie? And most importantly though have you read the script for it?
 
Wow. Thanks for being in a sporting mood. You know I also enjoy reading. Sometimes big books, small books, some have long words, and sometimes they don’t have any pictures at all.

Some of your thoughts are interesting/perplexing. For my money though (which unfortunately paid for two viewings as I couldn’t quite grasp the car crash unfolding in front of me the first time) I thought the director showed an incredible ignorance of knowledge of his subject matter and it’s history. There is barely a frame in this movie that doesn’t have some sort of problem. From the script, the characters, pacing, style, cinematography I could go on but am not going to. The problems have already been covered.

For me It’s not so much where he got to in the movie, as to be honest he didn’t go very far, it’s more how he bumbled along there. Approximately 75% of the critics on rotten tomatoes including myself feel that he hasn’t elevated the series or extended its longevity, rather expedited its demise whilst also having a detrimental effect to the stand alone films.

Just out of interest, and I only ask to try and better understand your view of the last Jedi over some of the others movies in the series, but how do you rate the new ghostbusters movie? And most importantly though have you read the script for it?

I agree with your take. Quite frankly, it's the only rational take.

But I'd like to piggyback on your Ghostbusters question, and ask him how he rates Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen? And did he read the script for it?
 
I agree with your take. Quite frankly, it's the only rational take.

But I'd like to piggyback on your Ghostbusters question, and ask him how he rates Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen? And did he read the script for it?

lol! Thanks Wook! I’m never sure which transformers movie it is I’ve fallen asleep to these days. I cant distinguish between them anymore, its just one big jumble of generic robots lolloping around mumbling stuff.
 
Well, I guess you missed my initial introduction to SWIQ, in which I explained it in full detail. And I guess you missed my several subsequent posts, in which I also explained it in detail. And I guess you missed my more recent posts in which I highlight the essentials of SWIQ. A bit hard to believe, I must say, the way you traffic these threads day in and day out. But I'll take you at your word.

No time right now, but I will do a thorough explanation again on the site, to disabuse you and your fistful of followers of your misunderstandings on the subject of SWIQ.

The Wook

Hang on.

I have followers?!
 
Some of your thoughts are interesting/perplexing. For my money though (which unfortunately paid for two viewings as I couldn’t quite grasp the car crash unfolding in front of me the first time) I thought the director showed an incredible ignorance of knowledge of his subject matter and it’s history.

First, a question: by your estimate, through what means does any work of narrative fiction, or its creator, show "an incredible ignorance of knowledge of his subject matter and it’s history." You seem to be implying that your grievances with his "knowledge" of "history" lie within the work itself -- for if its evidence did not live in the object itself, what cause would there be to object to it? (Unless you enjoy reacting to publicity interviews rather than the work itself, which stands alone.)

So, how does that "ignorance" manifest itself, specifically, in the movie, and how might it have displayed the "knowledge" you scarcely define, in contrast?

If I were to venture a guess, I'd say it's more likely that you've convinced yourself that the creation of a work of fiction that disagrees with your sensibilities can only be explained by "ignorance" on the part of the creator, and that a greater degree of "knowledge" would have resulted in an agreeable outcome for you. As if the only factor determining the content of an artistic endeavor is a mechanistic output based on a specified input. If there is a math to story, it is hardly so simplistic. It also supposes that, if there is a measurable degree of "knowledge" of a fictional world, and that quality is solely deterministic of creative success within that series -- it is not -- that you have placed yourself in a position of superiority despite there being no objective measure by which to compare the two.

Thought experiment: If you and Rian Johnson sat for a 40-day marathon Star Wars trivia competition, and he won, would you be any less displeased with The Last Jedi? Of course not. Because a creator's level of "knowledge" has nothing to do with the process of decisions that lead to the content of the movie you didn't like.

You didn't like it. That's okay. You don't need to puff up your Star Wars chest to justify not liking it. We're all fans here.


There is barely a frame in this movie that doesn’t have some sort of problem. From the script, the characters, pacing, style, cinematography I could go on but am not going to. The problems have already been covered.

I invite you to choose a frame, or a moment, or a beat, or any other cinematic element from The Last Jedi, and to innumerate your grievances in specific terms. I've seen very little specificity among the dissent, and I'm beginning to believe that the hatred doesn't offer much in the way of granular analysis, but that can't possibly be the case ... can it? The aim, by the way, is not to "win" an "argument", as I don't believe that's what's relevant to the experience of art, but rather to dig deeper into why we've reacted in opposite fashions to the same thing. Which brings us to the way you don't do that ...


Just out of interest, and I only ask to try and better understand your view of the last Jedi over some of the others movies in the series, but how do you rate the new ghostbusters movie? And most importantly though have you read the script for it?

Irrelevant to this thread, but the less said about that movie, the better.

If your intent is legitimately to try to understand my view of The Last Jedi or the series as a whole, only questions hammering into the movie in question will offer any insight. You can't triangulate an understanding of someone's taste based on reactions to a few other works. The raw elements that comprise even one of them are incalculably complex. Even the attempt to pinpoint something as subjective as taste or participation in the artistic experience plays into the utter fallacy that there is an objective truth or value that can be summarily agreed upon and measured against. People don't walk into that dark room for the same reasons.

The *craft*, however, is entirely measurable, and if you'd like to point to any specific element of cinematic craft in The Last Jedi you feel doesn't measure up, we can dive in from there.

- - - Updated - - -

Hang on.

I have followers?!

No, he'd just rather believe that everyone who disagrees with him agrees with each other. Which, as we know from our myriad tussles through the years, couldn't be further from the truth.
 
I invite you to choose a frame, or a moment, or a beat, or any other cinematic element from The Last Jedi, and to innumerate your grievances in specific terms. I've seen very little specificity among the dissent, and I'm beginning to believe that the hatred doesn't offer much in the way of granular analysis, but that can't possibly be the case ... can it? The aim, by the way, is not to "win" an "argument", as I don't believe that's what's relevant to the experience of art, but rather to dig deeper into why we've reacted in opposite fashions to the same thing. Which brings us to the way you don't do that ...
I don't want to come off as arrogant, but there's 199 pages in this topic currently. Sure there were a few ****storms. There are few people on both sides of the fence who express their feelings but don't really go into analysis. But there are plenty of exciting and thoughtful exchanges where supporters and detractors of the film list countless arguments pro and con. And as you say it's not about winning the argument, but exchanging points of view. There's lots of good discussion in this and the Ep IX threads, I had lots of interesting exchanges with Dan (Solo4114) where I presented my views on why I think the movie didn't work. Psab keel, laszlo, Keycube, Nitz146 all had very good thoughtful input (apologies if I left anyone out, Friday beers already started working). So the material is out there. Not saying it's gonna change your view on the movie if you liked it, but if you just read FB and YT comments then you won't see any analysis.

The *craft*, however, is entirely measurable, and if you'd like to point to any specific element of cinematic craft in The Last Jedi you feel doesn't measure up, we can dive in from there.
Again, plenty of it was discussed before, from questionable character motivations and reactions to plot inconsistencies, the strange editing choices, the overall tone of the movie (or lack thereof), the fact that the film tends to jump back and forth between what message it really wants to convey, the extra 40 minutes of sub-plot that goes nowhere...there is a long list and can go into more details, but really all have been discussed.
I'm not saying "you should have come earlier to the party, go home", I'm actually happy to get down and discuss things again, just don't think it's a fair assessment to say "there's hardly any substantial reason or analytic opinion against the film".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@nickytea Your posts are a real chore to get through man. They are really a slog. Can you maybe try and take off your film analysis hat and speak like a normie? Cause if I was trying to converse with you in person I would probably have to get up and walk away. Cause damn.

You have my permission to mute me here and ignore me at the next prop party. I promise I won't take it personally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have my permission to mute me here and ignore me at the next prop party. I promise I won't take it personally.
Cool thanks for your permission. :lol See, stuff like that is so douchey. Are you wearing a fedora and vaping as you type? Im just saying you might get through to more people and have better discussions without having resort to those kind of tactics. You come off as pompous and unrelatable. Just saying.
 
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