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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

No, of course the laugh track doesn't prove anything. The point-by-point analysis proving that the characters are acting like foolish comedy types and large parts of the plot are driven by those decisions does.

The "Holdo hates men" line is just a joke that plays on the notion some have that SW is now feminist (Force is female, etc). You seriously did not understand that was humor? RLM also goes over Holdo refusing to tell Poe the plan because she is a higher rank and expects him to just follow orders. This is the real criticism and is factually what happens in the movie.

Her decision is akin to refusing to tell people the escape plan during a fire, which is a decision any reasonable person would find foolish. This feeds into the writing failures that have the plot moving forward mostly due to characters making objectively stupid decisions.....like a comedy.

You are using a single definition of comedy of unknown origin. I'd like to see your source on that, especially since there have been numerous definitions of comedy throughout the ages. I'd also point out that Star Wars is not a classical work, it is a modern work. And the modern definition of comedy is a work with humorous elements, like Yo Mama jokes, hot potato saber tosses, people running around in leaking bags of water, and putting a droid under a box to disguise it as another droid. Any subplot in any work of fiction is a B or C or D, etc plot. It is not confined to sitcoms. If anything he was probably just using that as a convenient point of comparison because Mike was thinking of comedic story structure while writing the review out.

If the same structure can be applied to two highly different stories (comedy/tragedy), then what your really describing is just a general story structure. But you call it "Classic comedy" to try and sell the notion that the OT is structured like a comedy too.

RLM concluded that TLJ is objectively bad because the plot is driven forth by characters making decisions that any reasonable person would find ill-thought. And for other reasons as discussed in the video, but that is a primary point.

Currently, I'm not trying to convince the world that TLJ is a bad movie. A highly exaggerated claim on your part. I'm discussing the Plinkett review of it.
 
The "Holdo hates men" line is just a joke that plays on the notion some have that SW is now feminist (Force is female, etc). You seriously did not understand that was humor?

I fully understand that it was an attempt at humor. I also fully understand that the Plinkett reviews are, in their entirety, attempts at humor. If they were intended to be taken seriously as film criticism, they wouldn't be formatted as they are, with that character, and so many ridiculous side stories. They don't pretend to be definitive, yet they are propped up in places like this as definitive when people agree with their take. Do you understand that distinction?

Her decision is akin to refusing to tell people the escape plan during a fire, which is a decision any reasonable person would find foolish. This feeds into the writing failures that have the plot moving forward mostly due to characters making objectively stupid decisions.....like a comedy.

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of chain of command? Poe is only important to us, the audience, because he's one of the main characters in the story we are being told. But from a broader perspective, he's just a soldier. An underling. Telling him details of a plan is akin to pointless exposition from a story standpoint, and idiotic command decisions from a military standpoint (on which the Rebels and Resistance modeled their chain of command).

Poe's and Finn's subsequent decisions only appear stupid in hindsight due to their failure...thus making them SUBJECTIVELY stupid. They proceeded with a plan using the information they had. I'd argue that the only objectively stupid decision they made was to disobey orders -- which is a trope of so many different movies that it's almost expected anymore. The only difference is that most other films, with boring and lazy predictability, make that decision pay off by having the heroes be "right all along."


You are using a single definition of comedy of unknown origin. I'd like to see your source on that, especially since there have been numerous definitions of comedy throughout the ages. I'd also point out that Star Wars is not a classical work, it is a modern work. And the modern definition of comedy is a work with humorous elements, like Yo Mama jokes, hot potato saber tosses, people running around in leaking bags of water, and putting a droid under a box to disguise it as another droid. Any subplot in any work of fiction is a B or C or D, etc plot. It is not confined to sitcoms. If anything he was probably just using that as a convenient point of comparison because Mike was thinking of comedic story structure while writing the review out.

It seems you missed the part where I was talking about comedy as a structure for story telling versus comedy as a something involving a humorous outcome.

And if you are trying to dismiss the classic story telling elements of the Star Wars films, you need to rethink your entire perspective. The structures of Star Wars are about as classic as they get, beginning with the Hero's Journey. The films combine many different elements of classic story telling, including the structure of a comedy.

If the same structure can be applied to two highly different stories (comedy/tragedy), then what your really describing is just a general story structure. But you call it "Classic comedy" to try and sell the notion that the OT is structured like a comedy too.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm describing. And so are RLM. Comedy and tragedy are interwoven. Practically every single joke you've ever heard is based on the premise of misunderstanding and/or tragedy. That's the structure of comedy, regardless whether the outcome is actually humorous. Again, notice how they refer to the structure of ESB as a sitcom -- because it is. It's pretty hypocritical of them to give ESB a pass for using a comedy story structure and then slam TLJ for the same thing.

RLM concluded that TLJ is objectively bad because the plot is driven forth by characters making decisions that any reasonable person would find ill-thought.

How many Plinkett reviews have you watched? I can think of at least three off the top of my head that begin with "[insert movie here] is the worst movie" or "...most embarrassing thing," or some other variation, putting their opinions very much into the realm of hyperbole rather than objectivity.

They disliked the movie. You disliked the movie. Many other people disliked the movie.

I don't reject the validity of those OPINIONS. What I reject is the notion that this dislike somehow validates TLJ as "objectively" bad. Especially when you can go search YouTube and elsewhere online and find just as many examples of people praising the film and opining that it's a good film. Or do you just believe those people are wrong?
 
Folks can write essays arguing their defence of this film,...but I'm going to reiterate what I've said before,.....it is undeniable there is something terribly WRONG with TLJ, if there wasn't, there wouldn't be this divide

So can we stop wasting our lives away typing,...nothing can convince the two parties to see their point of view,.....& hope that Disney/LFL learn from their mistakes.....YES.....this film has been a mistake,....& make a Star Wars films that pleases almost everyone

J
 
If the forum scene, social media etc was as dominant when TPM was released, y’all would see the exact same divide. My friend is still ANTI prequel. I do believe the lingering bashers are being toxic, g&g, mz, etc.

I know people who haven’t seen any SW films and thought TLJ was interesting, entertaining and worth investigating by watching the other films.

It’s like everyone loves cheesecake and argues about which is better. It’s all cheesecake guys. Some are not to our liking. Big whoop.
 
Folks can write essays arguing their defence of this film,...but I'm going to reiterate what I've said before,.....it is undeniable there is something terribly WRONG with TLJ, if there wasn't, there wouldn't be this divide

The divide is largely fueled by forums like this, or people needing to pad their YouTube channels with a new hot take.

Empire was quite divisive when it came out. Letter columns of fan magazines were filled with both praise and dislike. But the nature of how fans were able to communicate with one another back then essentially kept the debate from sustaining itself. However, I have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that had a platform such as this been around when Empire was released, it also would have had a 200+ page thread endlessly arguing whether it was good or bad.

Point being, I think the only undeniable thing about the ongoing "divide" is that people really like to debate about topics they are passionate about.
 
I fully understand that it was an attempt at humor. I also fully understand that the Plinkett reviews are, in their entirety, attempts at humor. If they were intended to be taken seriously as film criticism, they wouldn't be formatted as they are, with that character, and so many ridiculous side stories. They don't pretend to be definitive, yet they are propped up in places like this as definitive when people agree with their take. Do you understand that distinction?



Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of chain of command? Poe is only important to us, the audience, because he's one of the main characters in the story we are being told. But from a broader perspective, he's just a soldier. An underling. Telling him details of a plan is akin to pointless exposition from a story standpoint, and idiotic command decisions from a military standpoint (on which the Rebels and Resistance modeled their chain of command).

Poe's and Finn's subsequent decisions only appear stupid in hindsight due to their failure...thus making them SUBJECTIVELY stupid. They proceeded with a plan using the information they had. I'd argue that the only objectively stupid decision they made was to disobey orders -- which is a trope of so many different movies that it's almost expected anymore. The only difference is that most other films, with boring and lazy predictability, make that decision pay off by having the heroes be "right all along."




It seems you missed the part where I was talking about comedy as a structure for story telling versus comedy as a something involving a humorous outcome.

And if you are trying to dismiss the classic story telling elements of the Star Wars films, you need to rethink your entire perspective. The structures of Star Wars are about as classic as they get, beginning with the Hero's Journey. The films combine many different elements of classic story telling, including the structure of a comedy.



Yes. That's exactly what I'm describing. And so are RLM. Comedy and tragedy are interwoven. Practically every single joke you've ever heard is based on the premise of misunderstanding and/or tragedy. That's the structure of comedy, regardless whether the outcome is actually humorous. Again, notice how they refer to the structure of ESB as a sitcom -- because it is. It's pretty hypocritical of them to give ESB a pass for using a comedy story structure and then slam TLJ for the same thing.



How many Plinkett reviews have you watched? I can think of at least three off the top of my head that begin with "[insert movie here] is the worst movie" or "...most embarrassing thing," or some other variation, putting their opinions very much into the realm of hyperbole rather than objectivity.

They disliked the movie. You disliked the movie. Many other people disliked the movie.

I don't reject the validity of those OPINIONS. What I reject is the notion that this dislike somehow validates TLJ as "objectively" bad. Especially when you can go search YouTube and elsewhere online and find just as many examples of people praising the film and opining that it's a good film. Or do you just believe those people are wrong?

You did call "Holdo hates men" a interpretation meant to be funny. It's not any kind of interpretation, it's a pure joke that plays on the "SW is now feminist" notion some have. And the Plinkett reviews, while healthily dosed with humor are also based on and contain serious critique of the subject. If you think these were nothing but joke reviews, then you truly do not understand them. I, also, actually agreed that their reviews are not definitive. Learn to pick your battles.

Poe, who was in direct and almost casual communication with General Leia (aka the leader), is obviously not just some underling. He was commanding a highly involved strike on a heavily armed enemy vessel. That is not something you leave up to "just a soldier". In this case, I would point out your lack of understanding of who would get such an assignment in a military structure.

Holdo could have used just as many words to tell Poe the plan as she did dressing him down. Maybe even ask his opinion on the matter. This simply comes down to RJ's failed writing having Holdo make a stupid decision to pull rank just to drive the plot along to the most worthless and pointless section of the movie, Canto Bight. A good commander wouldn't be heightening tensions by playing rank games in a dire situation. They would be using good judgement to essentially keep the crew together, not provoke it to panic. Holdo is a poor leader, especially if she didn't see Poe's mutiny coming or her causing it.

And which Star Wars films would those be? You stated OT movies are structured as "Classic comedies". Now you quote the heroes journey. Which is it? Star Wars might have elements of classic literature, but it is a modern story written to modern standards. That's why it does in fact have a pastiche of elements.

First you claim the structure is only "classic comedy". Then it's comedy/tragedy. Then when I correctly define it as a general structure, now you call it that too. Do please either get specific or stop shifting your argument around to avoid being proven incorrect. And, again, ESB is not a sitcom. Mike probably only used that description because he had comedy structure on the mind. Factually, any work of fiction with a subplot has a B plot no matter what RLM says in a single video. Funny how you rail against anyone finding a Plinkett video definitive, but you now treat it that way yourself to make your argument. Factually they have talked about B plots as general story elements (without mentioning sitcoms) in other reviews.

Still waiting for that source of your claim that a very specific structure is "classic comedy", btw.

I've seen every Plinkett review. And yes, their is hyperbole. It's an attempt at humor, not to be taken as a serious conclusory element of review. These are comedy-laced projects. Basically when Mike is not being hyperbolic as the Plinkett character, when he is just making observations, conclusions, and the like in the Plinkett voice. That is the real review.

Yup, TLJ is objectively poorly written. That's why I dislike it. RJ took SW and turned it into an ersatz version of Spaceballs.

You can color it as an opinion, but when the poorly written elements are (short) listed for you. You cannot even properly address them. I think that speaks for itself. You could say you tossed them behind your back like a hot potato.....:D
 
You did call "Holdo hates men" a interpretation meant to be funny. It's not any kind of interpretation, it's a pure joke that plays on the "SW is now feminist" notion some have. And the Plinkett reviews, while healthily dosed with humor are also based on and contain serious critique of the subject. If you think these were nothing but joke reviews, then you truly do not understand them. I, also, actually agreed that their reviews are not definitive. Learn to pick your battles.

I never said they were "nothing but joke reviews." I said they were in the realm of hyperbole rather than objectivity. There's a difference. Learn to read my posts.

Now you quote the heroes journey. Which is it?

I literally said the Star Wars movies combine many different elements of classic storytelling. There is no need for a "which is it." Learn to read my posts.


First you claim the structure is only "classic comedy". Then it's comedy/tragedy. Then when I correctly define it as a general structure, now you call it that too. Do please either get specific or stop shifting your argument around to avoid being proven incorrect. And, again, ESB is not a sitcom.

I never "first" claimed anything. When I brought up the comedy story structure I literally also said that this basic story structure can also apply to a tragic story because it isn't about the humor. Learn to read my posts.

I never said ESB is a sitcom. I said it's STRUCTURED like a sitcom, which generally utilizes main story and one or two side stories, and a series of obstacles and events to keep the characters apart and keeps them from reaching their goals, until they come together at the end. The other element of literally every sitcom ever written is that by the end of the story, whatever the characters have gone through or whatever personal journeys they undertake, they story generally is in the same place it started in so as to set up the next episode (like, say, starting out the film running from the Empire and ending the film re-grouping and running from the Empire).

I've also stated that this has nothing to do with the presence of jokes or lack thereof, but how the plot is structured.

Also, I'm not shifting anything. Stories can follow several different structures. Especially longer stories, such as films, which can follow different tracks, have mini-plots, etc. There's usually some main over-arching structure (such as the Hero's Journey in A New Hope).

Funny how you rail against anyone finding a Plinkett video definitive, but you now treat it that way yourself to make your argument. Factually they have talked about B plots as general story elements (without mentioning sitcoms) in other reviews.

There's more to it than just having a "B plot." And my point was never that RLM doens't make good points, it was that their review can hardly be definitive if they apply the same analysis to two separate films, but give one a pass and deride the other for it.

You can color it as an opinion, but when the poorly written elements are (short) listed for you. You cannot even properly address them.

I've gone over my views on what people have problems with regarding this film -- including the chain of command thing -- MANY times throughout this thread. It's disingenuous to say that I haven't "properly addressed them." You just don't agree with my take, which is fine, but not the same thing.
 
I never said they were "nothing but joke reviews." I said they were in the realm of hyperbole rather than objectivity. There's a difference. Learn to read my posts.



I literally said the Star Wars movies combine many different elements of classic storytelling. There is no need for a "which is it." Learn to read my posts.




I never "first" claimed anything. When I brought up the comedy story structure I literally also said that this basic story structure can also apply to a tragic story because it isn't about the humor. Learn to read my posts.

I never said ESB is a sitcom. I said it's STRUCTURED like a sitcom, which generally utilizes main story and one or two side stories, and a series of obstacles and events to keep the characters apart and keeps them from reaching their goals, until they come together at the end. The other element of literally every sitcom ever written is that by the end of the story, whatever the characters have gone through or whatever personal journeys they undertake, they story generally is in the same place it started in so as to set up the next episode (like, say, starting out the film running from the Empire and ending the film re-grouping and running from the Empire).

I've also stated that this has nothing to do with the presence of jokes or lack thereof, but how the plot is structured.

Also, I'm not shifting anything. Stories can follow several different structures. Especially longer stories, such as films, which can follow different tracks, have mini-plots, etc. There's usually some main over-arching structure (such as the Hero's Journey in A New Hope).



There's more to it than just having a "B plot." And my point was never that RLM doens't make good points, it was that their review can hardly be definitive if they apply the same analysis to two separate films, but give one a pass and deride the other for it.



I've gone over my views on what people have problems with regarding this film -- including the chain of command thing -- MANY times throughout this thread. It's disingenuous to say that I haven't "properly addressed them." You just don't agree with my take, which is fine, but not the same thing.

You said they were, and I'll quote.....
the Plinkett reviews are, in their entirety, attempts at humor.

You are in fact saying the entire videos are nothing but humor. That doesn't leave any room for real critique.

You only admit to SW being combined of many different elements after I challenged you to provide a source for your claim on the structure of classical comedies.

You did first claim it was classical comedy. Again I'll quote....

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

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

This was when you were trying to prove the OT was structured as a comedy. Only in later posts did you change your story. But you did in fact "first" claim this. Still waiting for you to source this specific definition of classic comedy, btw.

And you were wrong that ESB was structured like a sitcom. And ironically your backup of that claim is the RLM video. You rail against others finding it definitive, but you have no problem sourcing it yourself for your own definition. I'll say it for, third time now? Any work of fiction with a subplot has a B story, or a C story, or a D story, etc.

And you're only saying stories can follow several different structures, after I said it. Thanks for validating my argument, btw.

Actually, as quoted above. Your point was that the Plinkett review is "entirely humor". And again, Mike probably only cited sitcoms because he had comedy-structure on the mind. And again, RLM has discussed movies having B-plots without mentioning sitcoms at all. You are making far too much out of a single convenient comparison.

Your take on chain of command ignores the points I made about Poe's position within the military hierarchy and Holdo's ill thought command decisions. You are avoiding addressing them. Tell us how Poe is "just a soldier", yet communicates directly with the leader of the resistance (Leia) and leads massive operations, involving dozens of ships and dozens or hundreds of lives taking on an enemy vessel so powerful it can destroy fleets? Tell us how Holdo is a good leader by pulling rank and building resentment in her subordinate during a crisis situation, instead of fostering comradely and attempts at keeping her subordinates loyal? You can't otherwise you would have done so. Holdo is a poor leader and written so by RJ. She does nothing but make stupid command decisions while smugly throwing her rank around.
 
You are in fact saying the entire videos are nothing but humor. That doesn't leave any room for real critique.

You're strawmanning here. Hard. My premise is that their reviews are not objective, not that they never have valid points. They make their videos for entertainment purposes, hence the comedy.

You only admit to SW being combined of many different elements after I challenged you to provide a source for your claim on the structure of classical comedies.

You did first claim it was classical comedy. Again I'll quote....

No, I didn't change anything. I expanded. The Star Wars films including many different story structures throughout their narrative doesn't negate the comedy structure.

For example, if I say that Raiders of the Lost Ark is a thrilling adventure movie, and then in some later post also add that it has a lot of humor in it, does that negate my original assessment as an adventure, or does it add to it? How is that so hard to understand unless you just willfully don't want to get the point?



This was when you were trying to prove the OT was structured as a comedy. Only in later posts did you change your story. But you did in fact "first" claim this. Still waiting for you to source this specific definition of classic comedy, btw.

I didn't change any story. YOU did by your willful misrepresentation of what I've written. I've never deviated from the point that ESB is structured as a comedy with a main plot, secondary plot, obstacles keeping the characters from their goal, and essentially an ending where it began.

Again, this does not mean it can't also have other storytelling structures woven throughout the narrative.

And you were wrong that ESB was structured like a sitcom.

If you say so. However, I have outlined the elements of the story that follow the sitcom structure and you have not made one point to refute that other than to practically stick your fingers in your ears and say "no it isn't." So there's that.

I'll say it for, third time now? Any work of fiction with a subplot has a B story, or a C story, or a D story, etc.

And that's not the only thing that makes ESB structured like a comedy. But since apparently you have no refuting statements against the rest, this is what you keep coming back to.


Your take on chain of command ignores the points I made about Poe's position within the military hierarchy and Holdo's ill thought command decisions. You are avoiding addressing them. Tell us how Poe is "just a soldier", yet communicates directly with the leader of the resistance (Leia) and leads massive operations, involving dozens of ships and dozens or hundreds of lives taking on an enemy vessel so powerful it can destroy fleets? Tell us how Holdo is a good leader by pulling rank and building resentment in her subordinate during a crisis situation, instead of fostering comradely and attempts at keeping her subordinates loyal? You can't otherwise you would have done so. Holdo is a poor leader and written so by RJ. She does nothing but make stupid command decisions while smugly throwing her rank around.

The fact that Poe has a personal relationship with Leia, and therefore importance to her, doesn't automatically give him some high level Resistance rank. Even if he is considered a hero for his talent as a pilot.

The introduction of Holdo is specifically to show that there is more to the Resistance than just Leia. In fact, one of the themes of both TFA and TLJ is to try to expand the Star Wars pantheon beyond the small core of main characters we already know. Even the ending of TLJ is intended to show this: Even as the Resistance is nearly obliterated, we see that elsewhere in the galaxy the Force (and presumably hope) is expanding.

As far as Holdo is concerned, talented or not, Poe is still just a commander of an x-wing force and her plan has absolutely nothing to do with flying x-wings into combat. His expertise is piloting, not broader military strategy: as exemplified by the fact that he defied orders and got every Resistance bomber destroyed. There is absolutely no reason for her to fill him in on her plans because a) she has no personal relationship with him, b) his talents have zero bearing on her plan, and c) she rightfully expects him to follow orders.

(Regarding point a, the Plinkett review isn't the first to compare Holdo unfavorably with Picard due to the fact that Picard often consults with others... however, again, we're talking personal relationships here. Picard doesn't routinely ask for input from others on the ship. Only those with whom he has a personal relationship with -- something Holdo doesn't have with Poe.)

Also, I would argue that her decisions and her plan wasn't necessarily stupid. It really only failed because Poe again chose to defy orders and screwed everything up.
 
(Regarding point a, the Plinkett review isn't the first to compare Holdo unfavorably with Picard due to the fact that Picard often consults with others... however, again, we're talking personal relationships here. Picard doesn't routinely ask for input from others on the ship. Only those with whom he has a personal relationship with -- something Holdo doesn't have with Poe.)

It's also worth noting that he's generally asking questions of his command staff. We're unclear on the chain of command in the Resistance and how far up in it Poe actually is. We know he's a squadron leader, we aren't sure if he's, like, head of all fighters or whathaveyou.

Also, I would argue that her decisions and her plan wasn't necessarily stupid. It really only failed because Poe again chose to defy orders and screwed everything up.

And it's not necessarily bad to have characters make mistakes. As has been noted, their mistakes drive the drama. That's how drama tends to work: people make plans, the plans go sideways, and the drama is in how they solve the problem after the fact.

I think of it like this: most of the time, we're conditioned to assume that our heroes are "right" and that their daring plans will save the day, get the bad guy, solve the case, etc. Like, in the Lethal Weapon or Die Hard movies, the main characters leave paths of destruction behind them. Their plans cause a TON of collateral damage...which is generally ignored. At worst, they get chewed out by their captain or whathaveyou, and told they're on thin ice or whatever, but they defy orders and still win in the end. And because they win, we forgive every stupid thing they did in the course of the case.

Don't believe me? Go watch the movie To Live and Die in L.A. It's a much more "realistic" take on the kind of action cop movie of the 80s. The main characters take big risks and screw up bigtime, and the film doesn't really sugarcoat it (one car chase, for example, just comes across as a nailbiter where you're saying to yourself "Holy CRAP what the hell are these guys doing?!"). The film doesn't glorify the characters or the chances they take, and they face certain consequences for their actions. It's very, very different from other similar films of the era. And at the end, there's a level of...I dunno...disappointment unless you accept that this film is not a "buddy cop action flick."

In TLJ, I think audiences are frustrated because it seems like Poe and Finn and Rose's plans are just kind of pointless...because they fail. If they'd succeeded and the Resistance had gotten away, they'd be the usual heroes who took a daring risk and saved the day against all odds. And, you know, we've all seen that movie. Hell, we're conditioned to expect that that's how all of this works. We're not used to watching our heroes fail and for them to lose or at least almost lose because of it. It's jarring. It's not entirely pleasant, especially when you want to root for your heroes. And I can see where someone might not personally enjoy watching a film like that. I found To Live and Die in L.A. a jarring experience the first time I watched it, because I was expecting a very different movie. Now I really enjoy it because it feels a lot more grounded and realistic and because it's a change of pace from the usual buddy cop genre flick.

But the fact that TLJ is still a genre film that bucks genre film tropes doesn't make that decision objectively bad. Subjectively less enjoyable, maybe. But not objectively bad.

Whose reviews are objective then?

Honestly? Almost nobody's. At least based on the stuff I've read. People who get big into film criticism, I think, tend to be more objective, but even their stuff is infused with subjective opinion. I like a lot of what Film Crit Hulk writes, but he's also got his own personal opinions in all of the reviews he writes. Still, he focuses a lot on things like structure of films and how they function in terms of stuff like characters behaving in ways that make sense with what we've previously established about them, or emotional beats happening and whether they've been earned by previous setup. (E.g., he talks about how Carol Marcus screams when her father dies, but...like...why should we as the audience care about her, other than the fact that she's named Carol Marcus and we're primed to care about her because of previous films that involved an alternate universe version of her?)

There's some objective criticism in some folks reviews (Roger Ebert wrote good stuff in that sense), but there's always subjectivity involved. And that's ok. It's art. It's supposed to be subjective, even as you also can attempt to evaluate the objective. My only point in discussing the subjectivity/objectivity thing is to point out that a lot of folks talk as if TLJ is objectively bad, and I just don't think it is. Although I can absolutely see where it'd be subjectively disappointing or not entertaining.
 
We're not used to watching our heroes fail and for them to lose or at least almost lose because of it. It's jarring. It's not entirely pleasant, especially when you want to root for your heroes. And I can see where someone might not personally enjoy watching a film like that.
Erm...ESB anyone?
To a degree Raiders of the Lost Ark and LOTR...?

Honestly? Almost nobody's.
Precisely. So unless someone can irrefutably present an objective review it's kinda disingenuous to caveat that "their review is not objective".

There's some objective criticism in some folks reviews (Roger Ebert wrote good stuff in that sense), but there's always subjectivity involved.
All due respect to Roger Ebert but he has no more objectivity than Redlettermedia. That's my subjective opinion only of course.

My only point in discussing the subjectivity/objectivity thing is to point out that a lot of folks talk as if TLJ is objectively bad, and I just don't think it is.
So according to your subjective assessment it's objectively good. Therefore people who claim that it's objectively bad are biased by their subjective assessments. Makes perfect sense. :lol
 
Jaitea;4516048it is undeniable there is something terribly WRONG with TLJ said:
What is undeniable is that many care more about asserting their own opinion as fact rather than remember that i is just an opinion and not fact.

THAT is a big reason why this divide exists.

And while many of us have said continually that while we generally liked the movie, we nevertheless understand and respect that many others did not.

So what keeps the divide widening? One big contributor to that is the tendency of some to continue railing against the movie--and those who don't outright condemn it--instead of also saying "while I disliked it, I totally get that many others did, and I'm OK with that". Some have done, and those are the ones who are still able to debate this without rage-quitting.
 
Holdo is a poor leader, especially if she didn't see Poe's mutiny coming or her causing it.

I can agree that Holdo is a poor leader.

But that's not bad writing. Did we just assume that any resistance leader automatically has to be a good one? perhaps she is a poor leader because she was written to be one? I can't say for sure, but it seems more likely to me that these characters have flaws because they were written to have them, not just brand everything as 'bad writing" because they didn't do things the way "you" think is logical.
 
Whose reviews are objective then?

No ones... since reviews are subjective by nature. It's totally fine... as long as everyone keeps that in mind. But as soon as someone giving a review (which is inherently subjective) statrs claiming this or that is OBJECTIVELY good or bad, they have crossed a line.
 
What is undeniable is that many care more about asserting their own opinion as fact rather than remember that i is just an opinion and not fact.

THAT is a big reason why this divide exists.
Since this is your subjective opinion this carries no more weight than Jay's statement that you replied to.

No ones...
Then let me ask you too: isn't it disingenuous to caveat a review by saying it's not an objective review?

since reviews are subjective by nature. It's totally fine... as long as everyone keeps that in mind. But as soon as someone giving a review (which is inherently subjective) statrs claiming this or that is OBJECTIVELY good or bad, they have crossed a line.
So there is NO objectively good or bad then, right? Everything is as good as you think it is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, campfire, kumbaya my lord...I'm genuinely interested, what do you think of The Room for example? Or Troll 2? Are those not objectively good films because people enjoy them? Are we gonna start abolishing any objective standard and practically promote incompetence? Everyone is special therefore no-one is?
 
So according to your subjective assessment it's objectively good. Therefore people who claim that it's objectively bad are biased by their subjective assessments. Makes perfect sense. :lol

Nooo.... he said he just doesn't THINK it is. If he was stating that it was "objectively good", he would have said thus. But he said that he doesn't THINK it is objectively bad. The word think is one which here means that it is confined to his own opinion.
 
Since this is your subjective opinion this carries no more weight than Jay's statement that you replied to.


Then let me ask you too: isn't it disingenuous to caveat a review by saying it's not an objective review?


So there is NO objectively good or bad then, right? Everything is as good as you think it is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, campfire, kumbaya my lord...I'm genuinely interested, what do you think of The Room for example? Or Troll 2? Are those not objectively good films because people enjoy them? Are we gonna start abolishing any objective standard and practically promote incompetence? Everyone is special therefore no-one is?

Point A: the part where I stated that "THAT is a big reason why this divide exists" is certainly my opinion. Absolutely.
However, where I stated "What is undeniable is that many care more about asserting their own opinion as fact rather than remember that i is just an opinion and not fact "
That has been demonstrated over and over again in this very thread. That does seem objective to me.

Point B: No, I personally don't think it was disingenuous for Jay to have pointed that out. He's not invalidating the reviewer's points, only pointing out that it isn't right to say that something which is your own opinion is objective when it is exactly the opposite. THAT is the disingenuous part... in MY opinion. :)

Point C: I think The Room is so bad that in a way it is good. I've not seen Troll 2, but I am aware of it. I think it's silly. But, that is my subjective opinion. I'm quite sure there are those who think both are quite good. My stating that I think they are silly doesn't negate that theoretical person's view that they are good.. since both views are subjective opinions. I'm not really sure why we are debating this, since it seems that you also acknowledge that opinions (which is what all reviews are) are subjective. As I'd stated before, the line is crossed when someone states their opinion (subjective) and touts that view as objective. THAT is disingenuous...and I think you know that as well as any.
 
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