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
Yes, we are all sharing and discussing our subjective opinions on this movie. "I like TLJ because XYZ" or "I hate TLJ because of 123" for instance. So thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Said the guy who felt compelled to point out that films in a trilogy are related to one another...

I don't know what you want from me, I've already shared my criticisms of the Canto Bight sequence. If you're expecting me to "defend" the sequence as such, I've pretty much already shared my thoughts.

Spell/grammar-checking is a poor debaters tactic

Said the guy who gave me flak for misstating bell hooks' pen name (and then made the same exact mistake a few months down the line)

My argument is as stated. Your reply was a strawman. If you don't understand that your reply was a strawman, then I stand by my statement about sentence structure.

So first you argue that Palpatine's history would have made ESB, specifically, convoluted. Now only ANH exists in a vacuum. That's a contradiction.

Also, why doesn't Palpatine's history make ANH convoluted? It is in there, brief as it was.

My argument is that Palpatine's backstory is not relevant to the narrative of ESB. It's not relevant to Luke's arc of training to become a Jedi. It's not relevant to Han's arc with Leia. It's not relevant to Vader and Luke. Inserting ANOTHER story thread into ESB about the Emperor is simply not necessary. ROTJ doesn't explain the background of the Emperor either. It's not relevant to the plot, it doesn't push the action.

I don't really think the one sentence about Palpatine disbanding the Imperial Senate is really any great insight into his "background."

If you're going to come back and say "well, they could have added a line." Ok, they could have added a line. Too bad they didn't.
 
Rian could have shown the hand falling onto the robes, recalling the shot of Obi-Wan's saber. But then everyone would be calling it a rip off of ANH, so...
Or just do it without sound effects, plenty of great movie scenes where the music drowns out the sound effects, Herzog’s Nosferatu,Good the Bad and the Ugly, etc.
But quite honestly...does it really matter if the hand falls or not...? We didn’t see Obi-Wan’s dirty underpants and wife-beater either just the brown robe and the lightsaber hilt. And Yoda disappeared along with his clothes.
 
Or just do it without sound effects, plenty of great movie scenes where the music drowns out the sound effects, Herzog’s Nosferatu,Good the Bad and the Ugly, etc.
But quite honestly...does it really matter if the hand falls or not...? We didn’t see Obi-Wan’s dirty underpants and wife-beater either just the brown robe and the lightsaber hilt. And Yoda disappeared along with his clothes.

Remember the history...Anakin was fully restored. There is no way on this Earth JJ Abrams will show Luke Skywalkers force ghost with a robot hand, no way on Earth (or in any galaxy far far away either)
 
Remember the history...Anakin was fully restored. There is no way on this Earth JJ Abrams will show Luke Skywalkers force ghost with a robot hand, no way on Earth (or in any galaxy far far away either)

Honestly, I don't think there's much chance they will show him with a mechanical hand, either.

But I don't think it's implausible if they wanted to go that route. The subject of Anakin being restored is a complicated one because Lucas himself rewrote the history. His "logic" (such that it is) for replacing Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen was that Anakin became a Force ghost as he was *before* he turned to the Dark Side. Since Luke died having never completely fallen to the Dark Side, would he become one with the Force as he was? That is, with his artificial hand? Or what if his hand was his reminder of the Dark Side and what he mustn't ever become? In which case, would that powerful of a connection with it allow it to travel with him into the Force afterlife?

It's not as if there's a rule book here to follow, since the rules have been changed on us already. I mean, we get Qui Gon, and apparently Anakin leaving a body behind but becoming Force ghosts. Obi Wan vanishes, but leaves his clothes. Yoda vanishes, robes and all. Luke pulls an Obi-Wan. We are clearly in "do whatever you want" territory, so whether he has his real hand or the mechanical one, either makes as much sense as the other.
 
Rian could have shown the hand falling onto the robes, recalling the shot of Obi-Wan's saber. But then everyone would be calling it a rip off of ANH, so
Im suprised Rian didnt turn the hand falling to the ground into another slap stick comedy moment. That would have ranked right up there with tossing the saber. If you mess up a potentially great scene with comedy, why not go all out. :facepalm
 
Im suprised Rian didnt turn the hand falling to the ground into another slap stick comedy moment. That would have ranked right up there with tossing the saber. If you mess up a potentially great scene with comedy, why not go all out. :facepalm

Absolutely. If he tossed away his robot hand and attached the light sabre to his arm, we talkin history right there.
 
Said the guy who felt compelled to point out that films in a trilogy are related to one another...

I don't know what you want from me, I've already shared my criticisms of the Canto Bight sequence. If you're expecting me to "defend" the sequence as such, I've pretty much already shared my thoughts.



Said the guy who gave me flak for misstating bell hooks' pen name (and then made the same exact mistake a few months down the line)

My argument is as stated. Your reply was a strawman. If you don't understand that your reply was a strawman, then I stand by my statement about sentence structure.



My argument is that Palpatine's backstory is not relevant to the narrative of ESB. It's not relevant to Luke's arc of training to become a Jedi. It's not relevant to Han's arc with Leia. It's not relevant to Vader and Luke. Inserting ANOTHER story thread into ESB about the Emperor is simply not necessary. ROTJ doesn't explain the background of the Emperor either. It's not relevant to the plot, it doesn't push the action.

I don't really think the one sentence about Palpatine disbanding the Imperial Senate is really any great insight into his "background."

If you're going to come back and say "well, they could have added a line." Ok, they could have added a line. Too bad they didn't.

I was compelled to point out that films in a trilogy related to each other due to your arguing otherwise.

This is not the place to discuss feminism or bell hooks. That was back in June when you got caught not knowing anything about her book. Stop obsessing about something from half a year ago. And don't send me another angry PM about it either.

It doesn't have to be "great insight" into Snoke's past. Just a quick explanation of how he assumed power would be nice. It also doesn't have to be relevant to any other characters arc, but it could have been written that way.
 
this is why the movie as so lame, these people got together in the girls clubhouse and wrote a movie for girls, no boys allowed-https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/movies/star-wars-last-jedi-women-run-universe.html
 
if you actually READ the article, you will see that your assertion that it's "no boys allowed" is ludicrous.

A quote directly from the article:

"Today, the Lucasfilm story group is a diverse outlier in Hollywood: five of its members are people of color, and the team includes four women and seven men."

That's 4 women and 7 men, for those who are having trouble keeping up. That means the men outnumber the women STILL almost 2:1.

Try a different argument.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was ok with the article, kind of, until the part where they use computer software to analyze what percentage of dialogue is spoken by what sex, race, etc., and somehow that can indicate the quality of the entries into the saga.

I can't think of many people (of whatever sex, race, or persuasion) in my life who wouldn't find that ridiculous.
 
I was compelled to point out that films in a trilogy related to each other due to your arguing otherwise.

No, that's not my argument. I'm talking about the writing process, and how the films were not written together. ANH was produced as a standalone film.

This is not the place to discuss feminism or bell hooks. That was back in June when you got caught not knowing anything about her book. Stop obsessing about something from half a year ago. And don't send me another angry PM about it either.

1) I never offered myself as an expert on hooks, I was pointing out that she was referenced for her definition of feminism, which you claimed was not present in the article I was linking.
2) you completely made up a term ("core concept of self") which LITERALLY doesn't appear in her book in order to claim I was somehow ill-informed.
3) referencing your history of poor reading comprehension is not a discussion of feminism

This is a pattern you have where you misread, or misunderstand what is being said, and then launch into a series of bizarre strawmen.

It doesn't have to be "great insight" into Snoke's past. Just a quick explanation of how he assumed power would be nice. It also doesn't have to be relevant to any other characters arc, but it could have been written that way.

Have already acknowledged this point and said it was valid.

OTOH, whether or not one line was included about Snoke doesn't make or break the movie for me.
 
if you actually READ the article, you will see that your assertion that it's "no boys allowed" is ludicrous.

A quote directly from the article:

"Today, the Lucasfilm story group is a diverse outlier in Hollywood: five of its members are people of color, and the team includes four women and seven men."

That's 4 women and 7 men, for those who are having trouble keeping up. That means the men outnumber the women STILL almost 2:1.

Try a different argument.


I'm with you. These people flipping out over the female roles need to get a grip. Massively. I said before i'll take their comments into consideration when they couple it with disappointment that the OT had like 1 female speaking role with more than 2 lines in each movie compared to 30 male ones. 1977, 1983 or not, that's a pretty sad ratio. But, add 3 or 4 to the sequels and all of a sudden, it's anti-male. Get a grip.

there are a number of things you can have legit issues with in TLJ...gender ratio's is not one of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm with you. These people flipping out over the female roles need to get a grip. Massively. I said before i'll take their comments into consideration when they couple it with disappointment that the OT had like 1 female speaking role with more than 2 lines in each movie compared to 30 male ones. 1977, 1983 or not, that's a pretty sad ratio. But, add 3 or 4 to the sequels and all of a sudden, it's anti-male. Get a grip.

there are a number of things you can have legit issues with in TLJ...gender ratio's is not one of them.

These Numbers are missing the point. It's not about quantity it's about quality. How female roles are portrait compared to the male roles is what many people complain about.
There could be 10 female leads and 5 male leads, if they are written well.
 
These Numbers are missing the point. It's not about quantity it's about quality. How female roles are portrait compared to the male roles is what many people complain about.
There could be 10 female leads and 5 male leads, if they are written well.

Sure, but I'd also reference what was said earlier in the thread about latent sexism. We can't even have a discussion about Poe and Holdo without the word "emasculated" being invoked.
 
I'm with you. These people flipping out over the female roles need to get a grip. Massively. I said before i'll take their comments into consideration when they couple it with disappointment that the OT had like 1 female speaking role with more than 2 lines in each movie compared to 30 male ones. 1977, 1983 or not, that's a pretty sad ratio. But, add 3 or 4 to the sequels and all of a sudden, it's anti-male. Get a grip.

there are a number of things you can have legit issues with in TLJ...gender ratio's is not one of them.

These Numbers are missing the point. It's not about quantity it's about quality. How female roles are portrait compared to the male roles is what many people complain about.
There could be 10 female leads and 5 male leads, if they are written well.

Exactly. I have zero problems with more female representation. It's exciting for me that not just my nephews, but my nieces as well feel included in the current SW universe.

KK specifically mandated that the new Jedi in the ST be a girl. Though most SW fans are male and tend to prefer a male hero they can identify with, there are other male characters in the saga for them to emulate than the main Jedi character, so if she's a girl, no problem. Let's make the leader of the stormtroopers a woman, too. Fine, doesn't really matter.

But then we take the male OT heroes and revert their characters. Remember how Harrison Ford was portrayed in Ender's Game? Decent haircut. Respected. Accomplished. As if he had grown as a human being, with increasing knowledge and insight that led him to that point in his life? Han Solo could have also grown in a logical way but still been faced with new challenges that mad for a compelling story. But instead he was presented as a scraggly-haired washed-out version of himself, worse than where he started before ANH.

And now Luke, who in the EU grew as a character, somehow in this universe waited many years before attempting to train new Jedi, only decided to do so after seeing the "mighty Skywalker blood" in his nephew, had ONE class that included his nephew, had it destroyed, and then abandoned all hope and secluded himself "to die."

Meanwhile the main female OT character, Leia, apparently was strong enough to weather life's disappointment and carry on as a normal adult would. The new female hero comes along and talks down to Luke and mercifully spares him after knocking him down. She's given force abilities—with no explanation—that exceed a Jedi Master.

Please stop with the accusations of sexism when the real issue is the bad storytelling. For the record, I want more females in the SW universe.
 
Lucas' treatment for the sequels centered on Kira, the character that basically became Rey.
http://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-sequel-trilogy/
In the book, we learn that one of the first meetings to visualize The Force Awakens happened on January 16, 2013 at Skywalker Ranch with George Lucas himself. Among the pieces presented at the meeting were portraits of an older Luke Skywalker training a new disciple named Kira (who was later renamed Rey). The idea was that, 30 years after the fall of the Empire, Luke had gone to a dark place and secluded himself in a Jedi temple on a new planet. The paintings show Luke meditating, reassessing his whole life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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