Exactly! I've always liked fedoras, but I look awful in them. And I am right there with you -- my preferred rain-cover is the riverboat gambler I got in Virginia City, NV.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Post-release)
- Thread starter dbuck
- Start date
Exactly! I've always liked fedoras, but I look awful in them. And I am right there with you -- my preferred rain-cover is the riverboat gambler I got in Virginia City, NV.
Huyang
Active Member
Huyang
Active Member
Not sure if y’all saw this.
When I first saw TLJ. I was blown away. To me, there was a lot to cover in a new and exciting way yet stay true to the Star Wars Universe.
I also want to say “Typical Eighties Sequels” lets call them TES.
Remember horrible TES? The ones that you almost regret seeing because of their predictability and repeated framework? From my point of view wanting the same Star Wars Legacy films will only water down and dull out our favorite films.
These new films are exciting and NEW. Mostly different if not totally different. People scream for the same thing and then IMO with TLJ and Solo are missing some of the best stuff out there.
My only quaff with TLJ was I wanted more lightsaber fights. However I believe E10p1/10p2 (hopefully) will have more lightsaber fights than we can handle. Not that the throne room was bad, I was very satisfied with it.
Luke was supposed to be Luke. That’s what he was. Each character has their own differences. And Luke was sad. For a good reason. And if you think about it, it makes total sense.
cboath
Master Member
The entire reason luke is sad should not have happened in the first place, though.
He and yoda apparently have chatted like old pals through the years, and/or he found the jedi archives somewhere along the line to get the sidious/ fall of the jedi info he had. That said, he damn well knew going in to teaching that it's not going to be a 100% success rate. You WILL fail at some point, and likely more than once with no backup at your disposal or even anyone who knew how to teach. Failure was a given at some point.
Luke quitting on the universe after failing once, turning his back on his family and letting the failure run rampant across the galaxy is not Luke at all. Worse, is him considering killing off his nephew in his sleep. It is destroying the character simply to build up the new ones. There was no rational reason for this. If you can't write a script that emphasized the new without destroying the old - get better writers.
I never got an agenda from TLJ either quite frankly. After hearing others complaining about it and watching a couple more times I can see where they'd see it, but that didn't bug me. The character assassination of Luke put me over the edge, nothing else.
Sure, the end was very noble, but, you too little too late. His end was similar to padme's quite frankly. I do have things to live for, but @#$% it I simply quit on life. Snoke was able to pull of the same basic feet, but doing harder IMO in that it was between two other people and he was bridging the gap for them and letting them talk for a long time. How is luke's so much more difficult that he dies and apparently Snoke didn't miss a beat in doing it? Especially when snoke did it to the point that rain from Ach-To landed on Kylo's hand?
I mean, you bough 40ish (if that) people a means of escape with no one else coming to help, and you feel like good time to call it a life??
The sacrifice may have been very Jedi and/or very Luke. But the rest was the result of writers who were completely clueless.
He and yoda apparently have chatted like old pals through the years, and/or he found the jedi archives somewhere along the line to get the sidious/ fall of the jedi info he had. That said, he damn well knew going in to teaching that it's not going to be a 100% success rate. You WILL fail at some point, and likely more than once with no backup at your disposal or even anyone who knew how to teach. Failure was a given at some point.
Luke quitting on the universe after failing once, turning his back on his family and letting the failure run rampant across the galaxy is not Luke at all. Worse, is him considering killing off his nephew in his sleep. It is destroying the character simply to build up the new ones. There was no rational reason for this. If you can't write a script that emphasized the new without destroying the old - get better writers.
I never got an agenda from TLJ either quite frankly. After hearing others complaining about it and watching a couple more times I can see where they'd see it, but that didn't bug me. The character assassination of Luke put me over the edge, nothing else.
Sure, the end was very noble, but, you too little too late. His end was similar to padme's quite frankly. I do have things to live for, but @#$% it I simply quit on life. Snoke was able to pull of the same basic feet, but doing harder IMO in that it was between two other people and he was bridging the gap for them and letting them talk for a long time. How is luke's so much more difficult that he dies and apparently Snoke didn't miss a beat in doing it? Especially when snoke did it to the point that rain from Ach-To landed on Kylo's hand?
I mean, you bough 40ish (if that) people a means of escape with no one else coming to help, and you feel like good time to call it a life??
The sacrifice may have been very Jedi and/or very Luke. But the rest was the result of writers who were completely clueless.
MrSouthpaw
Sr Member
Yoda was obviously speaking about The Force in a general sense. Lifting things was only a convenient example for Yoda to use, since that was what they were trying to accomplish at the time.
Your sarcasm is a failed attempt and only shows how much you misunderstood that scene.
Paul Andrew
Master Member
My point was that every intricacy of the Force and its use was clearly not conveyed in that movie. It's no stretch to go where they went in TLJ.
And, just to put it out there, I feel very strongly that not only do these stories need to evolve in order to reach new audiences as time goes on, so does the mythology - including expanding the definition of what the force is and isn't and how it works.
And, just to put it out there, I feel very strongly that not only do these stories need to evolve in order to reach new audiences as time goes on, so does the mythology - including expanding the definition of what the force is and isn't and how it works.
Last edited:
gedmac66
Sr Member
Hey Paul ,
I thought GL ( the originator of the concept ) tried to expand the definition of what the force is and how it works in the PT ..., how’d that work out for him ?
Don’t get me wrong , I’m still a strong supporter of Mr Lucas and I didn’t mind the PT - even enjoyed them due to the fact that my kids were getting into Star Wars at right time and we could share the experience in the cinemas like I did back in ‘77 with my family .
I still don’t believe they’ve hurt the franchise more than TLJ though - which is truly abhorrent , for all the reasons discussed on here and elsewhere already .
:cheersGed
Last edited:
Paul Andrew
Master Member
Midichlorians aren't necessary for the mythology, but they don't offend me.
Shadow345
Well-Known Member
Very true.
Keycube
Well-Known Member
Do you mean expanding = clarifying, or expanding = changing? I thought there was a certain insinuation of The Force being an exclusively mystical thing, before it wasn't. So to that end, do you think things sometimes need to be redefined in order to pander to the audience (maybe a generational thing?) and/or simply keep things "fresh and new"? (which is totally fine if that's the case, I just want to understand your point)
Last edited:
Paul Andrew
Master Member
I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. In ANH Obi Wan described the Force as an energy field, while Han -a nonuser- was the one to describe the force in any terms like mystical, iirc.
So, while not needed naratively in TPM, I don't have a beef with the concept of midichlorians as a reason for why some folks can force and others can't.
I think there's a quibble to be made regarding Luke's 'death'. I can't recall the source, but I'm certain I read somewhere that George set up the different sides in such a way that the sith, dark siders, we're in search of this secret to live forever but it was Jedi who figured out how to transubstantiate into the force and kind of get there.
So, when Kylo says that using the force to actually put yourself across the galaxy would kill you, I assume he's looking at it from a darksiders POV where Luke knew that going that fully into the force would hasten his transference into it.
This is all my take of course, but I tend to accept all Star Wars movies as canon so I may be a bad source.
I guess that means I expect to see a both more variety in what the force is capable of and occasionally a dribble here and there about the specifics of its mechanics.
So, while not needed naratively in TPM, I don't have a beef with the concept of midichlorians as a reason for why some folks can force and others can't.
I think there's a quibble to be made regarding Luke's 'death'. I can't recall the source, but I'm certain I read somewhere that George set up the different sides in such a way that the sith, dark siders, we're in search of this secret to live forever but it was Jedi who figured out how to transubstantiate into the force and kind of get there.
So, when Kylo says that using the force to actually put yourself across the galaxy would kill you, I assume he's looking at it from a darksiders POV where Luke knew that going that fully into the force would hasten his transference into it.
This is all my take of course, but I tend to accept all Star Wars movies as canon so I may be a bad source.
I guess that means I expect to see a both more variety in what the force is capable of and occasionally a dribble here and there about the specifics of its mechanics.
Last edited:
kristen jones
Master Member
Personally that was my take on it as well.
I reckoned Luke decided he was at the end of his journey anyway... he was ready to transform into the Force... to move on to a bigger place in the universe. And by doing what he did to hold off the First order to save the Resistence--and also to tell Ben he was sorry and maybe learn him a little somethin' before he went--he was able to accomplish two feats in one. He helped those he loved and those whom he saw as the future to persevere, and he was able to join Yoda, Obi wan and other jedi long gone in The Force.
BTW... this doesn't mean we won't hear from him again
I reckoned Luke decided he was at the end of his journey anyway... he was ready to transform into the Force... to move on to a bigger place in the universe. And by doing what he did to hold off the First order to save the Resistence--and also to tell Ben he was sorry and maybe learn him a little somethin' before he went--he was able to accomplish two feats in one. He helped those he loved and those whom he saw as the future to persevere, and he was able to join Yoda, Obi wan and other jedi long gone in The Force.
BTW... this doesn't mean we won't hear from him again
Personally that was my take on it as well.
I reckoned Luke decided he was at the end of his journey anyway... he was ready to transform into the Force... to move on to a bigger place in the universe. And by doing what he did to hold off the First order to save the Resistence--and also to tell Ben he was sorry and maybe learn him a little somethin' before he went--he was able to accomplish two feats in one. He helped those he loved and those whom he saw as the future to persevere, and he was able to join Yoda, Obi wan and other jedi long gone in The Force.
BTW... this doesn't mean we won't hear from him again
And as per the Broom Boy coda, inspire a new generation.
Keycube
Well-Known Member
It's funny how it's really all about interpretation, eh. When OWK speaks of an "energy field", I still saw it as mysticism, just mysticism in layman's terms, to be a bit more palatable (to both Luke and maybe to us); of course, I was younger then, too...it was essentially "magic" to me.
I only asked because I wonder if the reason behind things like some of the TLJ rifts, is because of differences in how we all define "expansion"; one side very conservative, holding very close to what's been established, one side that's more comfortable with introducing new ideas under old monikers.
In fact, when I'm honest about it, that reason alone will get me to most of my own issues with TLJ (especially when some of those "old" monikers were only one movie removed).
Because he says “It’s an energy field created by ALL LIVING THINGS” I assumed there had to be a biological component.
Solo4114
Master Member
The problem with these films is that, at least during George's era, things remain static for long periods of time. It'd be one thing if the understanding of the Force changed gradually in the years between OT films or from the OT to the PT. But it didn't. It remained as Obi-Wan and Yoda described it, which is largely mystical, and nebulous. Like "mystical energy created by life...oooooooohhhhhh aaaaaaahhhhh...." With TPM, suddenly it's midichlorian counts and midichlorians channeling the Force, and so, like, I guess if you get a blood transfusion from a Force wielder you can be a Jedi too? Or something? Then you start to get shifts during the Clone Wars cartoon and introducing concepts like the living vs. cosmic Force, the unified Force, etc., etc. And finally you get some additional powers in TLJ.
At this point, I've come to accept the "midichlorians" thing. I think it's stupid, but...I also think it can be seen as an attempt to map science onto something that isn't so easily understood, and perhaps as emblematic of the Jedi's failure (not to mention that it could be a simple case of correlation != causation). Personally, I like the idea that the Force remains kind of a mystery, and that the descriptions we have are those of blind men describing an elephant on the basis of touch alone. They aren't inaccurate exactly, but they don't describe the whole thing. Which means there's room to grow and new things that can be learned.
At this point, I've come to accept the "midichlorians" thing. I think it's stupid, but...I also think it can be seen as an attempt to map science onto something that isn't so easily understood, and perhaps as emblematic of the Jedi's failure (not to mention that it could be a simple case of correlation != causation). Personally, I like the idea that the Force remains kind of a mystery, and that the descriptions we have are those of blind men describing an elephant on the basis of touch alone. They aren't inaccurate exactly, but they don't describe the whole thing. Which means there's room to grow and new things that can be learned.
mutronics
Sr Member
As others have said, the bad parts of this movie have been more than adequately covered in previous posts here, you wont have to look far.
And for me to answer your question about what part I particularly disliked I would have to have a copy of the film which I could view. That is never going to happen.
I can however suggest a critical review I watched awhile ago by MauLer from youtube and highly recommend it to everyone for its cathartic properties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw7pcCj0ORk
This and his other two videos cover pretty much every negative aspect of the movie. There is also the aspect of being called a racist and sexist by the makers for not liking the movie. Always a good business plan I find, but then hey, I didn't like Ghostbusters either, so i'm getting used to it now.
If you watch this and still wonder why other people don't like the last jedi then well I don't know.
Where there any parts of it that you didn't like or was it all just super for you?
Solo4114
Master Member
Where exactly did this story that the creators of the films said everyone who didn't like the movie is a racist or sexist come from? I keep seeing references to this or that said bt Rian Johnson or Kathleen Kennedy, but nobody is posting the actual quotes in context. Has anyone bothered to look for the actual quotes?
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Similar threads
