The Last Jedi General Episode VIII News/Speculation/SPOILER Thread - - - - - Part 14

[TheVileOne]

Blade X, your point is becoming lost on me...

Even if I agreed with her views, I wouldn't trust the legitimacy of said rumors because she's never proven herself to be a legitimate or credible insider with such things before.

I mean what if is pretty meaningless regarding Grace Randolph. If I had wheels and pedals, I'd be a bicycle. I know about the story, and it sounds goofy as all hell. Not buying it.

 

[writer0327]

Blade X, your point is becoming lost on me...

Even if I agreed with her views, I wouldn't trust the legitimacy of said rumors because she's never proven herself to be a legitimate or credible insider with such things before.

I mean what if is pretty meaningless regarding Grace Randolph. If I had wheels and pedals, I'd be a bicycle. I know about the story, and it sounds goofy as all hell. Not buying it.

I always found it hilarious that somehow this big secret meeting with the top man at a global powerhouse company got leaked, even though security guards were placed at the doors so some guy with a glass or the Weasley Brothers and their extendable ears couldn't eavesdrop. It sounded completely made up and utterly preposterous from the get go and I never ever bought it.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

Thank you, Rian. Thank you for making the best film in the Sequel Trilogy. Even though you were harassed by the Hapsburg-chinned fanboys for brave choices, you stood tall and rose beyond the rabble.

 

[MaceB]

Pshh, brave doesn’t equal good.

 

[Spider-Fan]

No it doesn't. But I would prefer something bold over something inoffensive devised by a think tank only concerned with selling lightsabers to people like us. Bold at least shows care and effort as opposed to pandering.

 

[fan4stic]

Thank you, Rian. Thank you for making the best film in the Sequel Trilogy. Even though you were harassed by the Hapsburg-chinned fanboys for brave choices, you stood tall and rose beyond the rabble.

No it doesn't. But I would prefer something bold over something inoffensive devised by a think tank only concerned with selling lightsabers to people like us. Bold at least shows care and effort as opposed to pandering.

what's particularly brave or bold about this? As far as I know it doesn't do that much different than what I think was described above as rabble.

Though I don't necessarily agree with something bold being really caring and/or particularly effortful.

 

[Spider-Fan]

what's particularly brave or bold about this? As far as I know it doesn't do that much different than what I think was described above as rabble.

Though I don't necessarily agree with something bold being really caring and/or particularly effortful.

If we're talking about TROS, I don't think that movie was particularly bold. Like every other movie he's ever made, this is a fairly safe and inoffensive movie. TLJ I do think made bold decision to especially in regards to Luke Skywalker and stuff though.

 

[fan4stic]

If we're talking about TROS, I don't think that movie was particularly bold. Like every other movie he's ever made, this is a fairly safe and inoffensive movie. TLJ I do think made bold decision to especially in regards to Luke Skywalker and stuff though.

TLJ. As far as I know even Luke is more or less having his character relearn his older lessons only now filtering it through a cranky old mentor but not really archetype. The ideas of failure, patience and hope for someone to be better I think are on display in the OT. Here, as far as I know, they're done without much context or developed reasoning in characterization behind building the character of Luke failing in them.

 

[Spider-Fan]

TLJ. As far as I know even Luke is more or less having his character relearn his older lessons only now filtering it through a cranky old mentor but not really archetype. The ideas of failure, patience and hope for someone to be better I think are on display in the OT. Here, as far as I know, they're done without much context or developed reasoning in characterization behind building the character of Luke failing in them.

What older lesson is Luke learning again? Just because the original trilogy ended with a hopeful Luke doesn't mean he never loses hope again. Life is a long time and things happen and we experience it in waves of good and bad. We don't just have one good thing happened in our lives and then everything is hunky-dory for the rest of existence. Luke tried to bring back the Jedi his way and it failed. The weight of that failure weight on him and made him depressed. I don't see this as a regression of anything. Luke's suffered defeat as a hero in the original movies at times, yes. But it is different to suffer defeat as a mentor or to feel like you failed your students. There's many kinds of defeat

 

[fan4stic]

What older lesson is Luke learning again? Just because the original trilogy ended with a hopeful Luke doesn't mean he never loses hope again. Life is a long time and things happen and we experience it in waves of good and bad. We don't just have one good thing happened in our lives and then everything is hunky-dory for the rest of existence. Luke tried to bring back the Jedi his way and it failed. The weight of that failure weight on him and made him depressed. I don't see this as a regression of anything. Luke's suffered defeat as a hero in the original movies at times, yes. But it is different to suffer defeat as a mentor or to feel like you failed your students. There's many kinds of defeat

how is that new though? How does this correlate with the development of the character? Does it? As far as I know we have no context if any for Luke's characterization in that to develop him into the place where he'd reach what he does in TLJ. I'm reminded of BvS where we have a dark Batman killing, but not much context other than a burnt Robin costume and a line or so about good guys not being left. The movie doesn't develop who that Robin was or what really happened to him or why that would matter that much to Bruce's character or in what way it would matter. I think I'm left to assume what the movie won't give me. As far as I know similar here. I think saying life is long doesn't mean much without the context in it. I think it's idea vs execution. Luke as a lost man who made bad choices, not a bad idea in and of itself. Why does this failure break him to the point where he doesn't carr about hid friends or family? Why did he fail? What's the context of getting the character to that place? As far as I know the movie doesn't develop it. By that measure I think it's essentially like they dropped us in on a new character, but played it like it was Luke, who'd learned that future visions were unreliable, who faced the consequences of acting rashly and that whole situation. I'm not saying he can't relearn this, but where's the development where we build to this character getting there to lose sight of it?

 

[Spider-Fan]

how is that new though? How does this correlate with the development of the character? Does it? As far as I know we have no context if any for Luke's characterization in that to develop him into the place where he'd reach what he does in TLJ. I'm reminded of BvS where we have a dark Batman killing, but not much context other than a burnt Robin costume and a line or so about good guys not being left. The movie doesn't develop who that Robin was or what really happened to him or why that would matter that much to Bruce's character or in what way it would matter. I think I'm left to assume what the movie won't give me. As far as I know similar here. I think saying life is long doesn't mean much without the context in it. I think it's idea vs execution. Luke as a lost man who made bad choices, not a bad idea in and of itself. Why does this failure break him to the point where he doesn't carr about hid friends or family? Why did he fail? What's the context of getting the character to that place? As far as I know the movie doesn't develop it. By that measure I think it's essentially like they dropped us in on a new character, but played it like it was Luke, who'd learned that future visions were unreliable, who faced the consequences of acting rashly and that whole situation. I'm not saying he can't relearn this, but where's the development where we build to this character getting there to lose sight of it?

Plenty of people try to argue with me this idea that there's absolutely no setup or explanation as to why Luke is that way, but that's just not true. The entire movie hinges on that moment between Ben and Luke years ago and that is the reason he's like that now. His failure with Ben lead him down the dark side. This is not like with Darth Vader wear he went bad when he was a baby or something like that. In this case he saw darkness and Ben and his push into evil he blames himself for. I think this is very very very explicitly clear in the movie, and more than justifies his character turn. Plus in the end, he gets his hope back through Rey and his conversation with Yoda. So it's not like he's gone down this abyss he can't come back from, he comes back from it. It's called character development. There's a difference between not liking a story Direction and saying it has no build up or doesn't make sense or is not explain. It's explain within the movie very well whether it's a direction people like or not

 

[fan4stic]

Plenty of people try to argue with me this idea that there's absolutely no setup or explanation as to why Luke is that way, but that's just not true. The entire movie hinges on that moment between Ben and Luke years ago and that is the reason he's like that now. His failure with Ben lead him down the dark side. This is not like with Darth Vader wear he went bad when he was a baby or something like that. In this case he saw darkness and Ben and his push into evil he blames himself for. I think this is very very very explicitly clear in the movie, and more than justifies his character turn. Plus in the end, he gets his hope back through Rey and his conversation with Yoda. So it's not like he's gone down this abyss he can't come back from, he comes back from it. It's called character development. There's a difference between not liking a story Direction and saying it has no build up or doesn't make sense or is not explain. It's explain within the movie very well whether it's a direction people like or not

Why he's in seclusion isn't what I'm talking about. What's his development building to making that choice that led to him choosing seclusion? I think that's like the BvS thing. Why should I care about a situation that, as far as I know, the movie hasn't developed a context for?

He went down it enough to as far as I know disregard his friends, family's and maybe civilians lives for years because of it. I don't see how that justifies that, particularly I think without the movie showing the development of the character into someone who'd make that choice.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Why he's in seclusion isn't what I'm talking about. What's his development building to making that choice that led to him choosing seclusion? I think that's like the BvS thing. Why should I care about a situation that, as far as I know, the movie hasn't developed a context for?

He went down it enough to as far as I know disregard his friends, family's and maybe civilians lives for years because of it. I don't see how that justifies that, particularly I think without the movie showing the development of the character into someone who'd make that choice.

The seclusion is all part of his failure with his Jedi Academy. He has secluded himself himself because it was his fault that Ben crossed over the dark side in his opinion. Yes I get the Temptation was there prior, but the straw that broke the camel's back in Luke's view was directly his fault as a mentor. So because he screwed up so badly, he thought it best that he just take himself out of the equation. It tracks very well. Luke flat-out states this in the movie to Rey when he comes clean about what happened that night. I don't know how much more explicitly clearly could have made that. Again it's one thing to disagree with that as a concept, but another to say they didn't develop it. Because they did

 

[Mani-Man]

For all the failure in execution and placement, what Johnson tried is something i deeply appreciate.
He tried something else after TFA almost completely used the OT star wars base.

It was the wrong movie to do, doing what he tried in the important second act of a trilogy was just a bad decision.
Im sure this all would have been better recieved if his movie would have been the first.
As it was, TLJ which was supposed to bring us into the final act...ripped the carpet from under the trilogys feet and left the final movie with barely anything to go with.

It left the final act in broken pieces that were almost impossible to pick up, everybody involved in the trilogy should have seen that.

Without Johnson we might have gotten a very predictable trilogy that copies the OT 90%, but if that would have been such a problem...i dont know.
Sometimes playing it safe is the best when dealing with something as huge as a sequel to the Original Star Wars trilogy.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't buy into that at all. I'm of the opinion that a movie needs to stand on its own merits. If a movie does that then it succeeds. I don't think that a franchise film inherently has to be something safe puff piece just because it won't offend as many people. That's the enemy of art in my opinion. Yeah just living off being nothing more than a recycled and repackaged pseudo reboot of the original movies may have offended less people, but none of that matters to me. I don't care how many people are offended by a Star Wars movie. I only at the end of the day care whether I liked or disliked what I just watched. I don't live life for other people, and dang it I want to be entertained.

 

[fan4stic]

The seclusion is all part of his failure with his Jedi Academy. He has secluded himself himself because it was his fault that Ben crossed over the dark side in his opinion. Yes I get the Temptation was there prior, but the straw that broke the camel's back in Luke's view was directly his fault as a mentor. So because he screwed up so badly, he thought it best that he just take himself out of the equation. It tracks very well. Luke flat-out states this in the movie to Rey when he comes clean about what happened that night. I don't know how much more explicitly clearly could have made that. Again it's one thing to disagree with that as a concept, but another to say they didn't develop it. Because they did

How did they develop Luke to the point where'd the character would make that choice with Kylo? As far as I know, we get no or very little structure for his characterization and/or development between ROTJ and the scene with Kylo.

What you're saying seems similar, to me, to defenses I've read about Superman trying to fight Batman in BvS: The scene where the woman says to Clark something about the only thing Batman understands is fists or something like that.

The movie giving a reason doesn't mean I buy the character would go by that reasoning. If I'm supposed to buy that he's fine with the universe being terrorized and his friends and family being killed because of that mistake, I don't. In particular I think without what I think is, as far as I know, building up the development of the character to the point of that mistake.

I want to point out that I do think but what they did with Luke's character was different for that character. But I think it's a thinner difference than something like the idea of a defected storm trooper that TFA had. Like Kylo has a thinner difference of Vader in TFA. He's essentially Darth Vader, but he also throws fits. Luke essentially learning similar lessons, but kinda differently.

 

[fan4stic]

For all the failure in execution and placement, what Johnson tried is something i deeply appreciate.

Sometimes playing it safe is the best when dealing with something as huge as a sequel to the Original Star Wars trilogy.

As far as I know, I don't think it did much different.

 

[Spider-Fan]

How did they develop Luke to the point where'd the character would make that choice with Kylo? As far as I know, we get no or very little structure for his characterization and/or development between ROTJ and the scene with Kylo.

What you're saying seems similar, to me, to defenses I've read about Superman trying to fight Batman in BvS: The scene where the woman says to Clark something about the only thing Batman understands is fists or something like that.

The movie giving a reason doesn't mean I buy the character would go by that reasoning. If I'm supposed to buy that he's fine with the universe being terrorized and his friends and family being killed because of that mistake, I don't. In particular I think without what I think is, as far as I know, building up the development of the character to the point of that mistake.

I want to point out that I do think but what they did with Luke's character was different for that character. But I think it's a thinner difference than something like the idea of a defected storm trooper that TFA had. Like Kylo has a thinner difference of Vader in TFA. He's essentially Darth Vader, but he also throws fits. Luke essentially learning similar lessons, but kinda differently.

Again though, the statement that they did not develop why Luke made that choice is just not correct. What you're arguing here is that you just don't like the decision. Which is completely up to you, but ultimately the plot line works for me.

 

[fan4stic]

Again though, the statement that they did not develop why Luke made that choice is just not correct. What you're arguing here is that you just don't like the decision. Which is completely up to you, but ultimately the plot line works for me.

if they didn't develop the character's mindset as a progressed between ROTJ and him standing over Kylo, I don't see how it was developed, because I think it i informs the decisions he made there and after. I think there's a difference between liking something and buying it. I like as a concept old lost Luke. It doesn't mean I think it works in accordance with the character as developed prior. I think them explaining his mindset isn't the same as developing it in a way I think works in accordance with I think the character as established. I think the character lacks development building around his characterization building up to his emotions and choices.

 

[Spider-Fan]

if they didn't develop the character's mindset as a progressed between ROTJ and him standing over Kylo, I don't see how it was developed, because I think it i informs the decisions he made there and after. I think there's a difference between liking something and buying it. I like as a concept old lost Luke. It doesn't mean I think it works in accordance with the character as developed prior. I think them explaining his mindset isn't the same as developing it in a way I think works in accordance with I think the character as established. I think the character lacks development building around his characterization building up to his emotions and choices.

We're just fundamentally not going to agree here dude. The movie States and shows why Luke is in the current mental state that he is. So he is developed. I don't know what else you're really looking for here. So we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Yeah it's not dramatized enough why Luke is OK with letting his sister / Rebels 2.0 clean up his mess while he drinks milk. He is a dickish, selfish, cynical old man who can't bothered to do anything because...?

 

[Hellion]

Well, better late and all that, right?

Finally saw it. Didn't see it when it came out. Along with Solo, so far the only SW's films I've missed in theaters. The last few years hearing or reading reviews, seems like I usually end up at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to reviews.

I really liked the film. I really don't want to get into anything. I feel like, the horror that was committed to celluloid as it was described, that wasn't the film I saw. At the most, certain choices of logic within the film, certain creative choices and liberties, I could see how the fanbase didn't like the film, but myself, I really liked it.

 

[DCnightwing23]

A little behind on some of the stuff I've seen going around social media, news sites, etc. But one thing I'd like to touch on is the actress that played Rose playing the victim here for her 1-minute appearance in the movie. First of all, I would never attack an actress or harass based on a role that was written by someone else, just to be clear there. With that being said, I haven't the slightest clue why on earth you'd think your role would be substantial on this final episode of the saga after your role was terrible and forgettable in the movie prior. Rose was one of the worst parts of episode 8, then again it isn't surprising given she was a Rian Johnson addition. So to go into Episode 9 and only have to deal with her crap for 1 minute was SPECTACULAR. I'm sure Disney and JJ know the number of fans that hated that character wanted to see less of her. Shoot, they even gave her an entirely new look for the movie instead of that ridiculous hair and getup the first time around. So this narrative that's being thrown around online that she was given less screentime because of her gender or race, as one does nowadays in this 'MeToo' era, is just ridiculous. To Kelly Marie Tran, with all due respect, your character was/is absolute trash and your 1 minute of screentime could have been used on someone else tbh. I emphasize character because I am not stupid and won't bash her as an actress or person, because Rian Johnson wrote that character and it was just terrible. Thank You

 

[flickchick85]

Where was Kelly Marie Tran playing the victim?

 

[DCnightwing23]

Where was Kelly Marie Tran playing the victim?

That's the narrative that's been thrown out there for the last week by outlet after outlet after outlet, and her camp has said nothing.. which typically means that have a say in said narrative as it's spotlighting Kelly. She could easily come out and support the direction that was taken for her character but hasn't. That also says a lot. I mean come on... her character was a pointless joke in Episode 8 and only served as a pawn for Rian's dumb narratives he wanted to inject into the story.