Star Wars: The Last Jedi

[Thor]

[JPL]

4 hours ago, Kevvy Metal said:

I was throwing shade at some of the detracting posts in this thread that have just dismissed the piece "cuz".  

Who has dismissed it ‘cuz’? Certainly not me.

 

@Eighthours The reason I thought it was a poor article was was one pretty simple, but critical reason. He starts off by promising he’ll get to the bottom of why it’s such a divisive film, but does nothing of the sort. He basically just ends up reeling off all the things he liked about the film, then tells anyone who doesn’t like those things that they’re wrong in a hugely patronising manner. It’s not an objective piece about why people’s opinions differ in any way.

 

Now, I’ve got nothing against him liking the film and I’ve got nothing about him believing his opinion on it is the right one, but it wasn’t good to read a whole article and not actually get to the crux of what it was supposed to be about.

 

He should have called the article ‘Why I’m right about The Last Jedi and anyone who doesn’t like it is wrong.’ It would have saved me half an hour!

 

I’d still love to read a good, in-depth OBJECTIVE article about why it’s so divisive though, so if anyone’s read one, let me know.

[Treble]

I haven't read one. The main factor seems to be that there are so many changes to the established formula, but Johnson doesn't make a great film out of it. He makes a GOOD film out of it, but not great. 

 

If it was great - a classic blockbuster  like Indy, Jaws, BTTF, Titanic, the original film - it'd be a more straightforward 'fan boys vs critics/the non-invested'.

 

But frustratingly, it has too many flaws to confidently shrug off fanboy frothing: it has a lumpen second act; it has new characters that are underwritten; it has old characters that don't have enough screen time; it has a slow pace; the space/vehicle action scenes are pedestrian. 

 

On the other hand, it also has loads of stuff that works beautifully, especially some striking visuals, good hand to hand fight scenes and a wonderful interpretation of the force. 

 

Looper was solid but pretty insubstantial and not particularly satisfying. I think this is the hardest Johnson ever has and ever will work, but shows that even his 'best' is not brilliant.

 

That mix of good ideas and lore shake-up has made the fans feel like it's a rebuke on one hand, and film fans knock it for its technical and artistic flaws on the other, doomed to never unite either audience fully. 

 

I'd say that if it wasn't a Star Wars film, it'd be thought of as alright but no big deal then, like Looper, forgotten outside of genre fan circles. 

 

Oh, apart from Joseph Gordon-Levitt's weird Bruce Willis facial prosthetics, which still haunt me 

[Alex W.]

1 hour ago, JPL said:

Who has dismissed it ‘cuz’? Certainly not me.

 

@Eighthours The reason I thought it was a poor article was was one pretty simple, but critical reason. He starts off by promising he’ll get to the bottom of why it’s such a divisive film, but does nothing of the sort. He basically just ends up reeling off all the things he liked about the film, then tells anyone who doesn’t like those things that they’re wrong in a hugely patronising manner. It’s not an objective piece about why people’s opinions differ in any way.

 

Wut? He spends the entire article outlining a thesis for why there's a completely different way of approaching the film that leads to people hating it. I mean, it's basically the same "what you want vs what you need" drum he's been banging about the way we approach movies and the creation of fictional characters for as long as he's been writing about films, but it's not exactly something you can miss. You might not like it, but to argue that it's not there is absurd.

 

I think what you're looking for isn't something that's "objective" necessarily but something that views your personal take on the movie as valid.

[Alex W.]

1 hour ago, Treble said:

But frustratingly, it has too many flaws to confidently shrug off fanboy frothing: it has a lumpen second act; it has new characters that are underwritten; it has old characters that don't have enough screen time; it has a slow pace; the space/vehicle action scenes are pedestrian. 

 

See, for my money it has the opposite problem on pacing and character development. They're trying to do about four different pretty clear and well-defined character arcs and give them screen time and none of them have any breathing room for stuff that wasn't absolutely in service of plot, theme, or character.

 

But I suppose the real question is, rather than get in to why I felt the second act was tiring, rather than long, or slow, is what on Earth people mean when they say the characters are underwritten? What does being more or less written mean to people in this context? It sure isn't what I'm taking it as meaning.

[JPL]

8 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

 

Wut? He spends the entire article outlining a thesis for why there's a completely different way of approaching the film that leads to people hating it. I mean, it's basically the same "what you want vs what you need" drum he's been banging about the way we approach movies and the creation of fictional characters for as long as he's been writing about films, but it's not exactly something you can miss. You might not like it, but to argue that it's not there is absurd.

 

I think what you're looking for isn't something that's "objective" necessarily but something that views your personal take on the movie as valid.

Nah, he spends the entire article picking on points that he likes about the film that others don’t - character arcs, screenwriting, direction, etc, then goes on to tell anyone who thinks those things aren’t very good that they’re completely wrong and how he knows much better because he’s written books on it, or something.

 

It absolutely doesn’t get to the bottom of the reason he apparently wrote the article. It just waffles on in a self congratulatory tone because he gets it and anyone who’s doesn’t like it doesn’t.

 

Rather than making the article about how his opinion is so much better than other people’s (which may be his schtick, I dunno), it would have been nice to have a more balanced view.

 

So yeah, maybe that’s what I mean rather than objective; a balanced view.

 

It’s definitely played for the people who like the film. You just have to look at the reactions to it in this thread to see that. Which, for us who don’t really like the film, comes across as quite patronising and a promise that he didn’t deliver on.

[Treble]

Good points, the new ones being underwritten is debatable, for sure. I'd say that Holdo is pretty thinly sketched and you could describe her in broad terms - stern, confident, powerful - but I credit Dern with much of that rather than the writing. 

 

Rose is also not great. She starts well, with this edgy energy, but then is just reactive apart from the shoehorned bit about animal rights. 

 

But yeah, there's a strong argument that the new characters don't hinder the plot, I suppose. 

 

Edit: @Alex W.

[Alex W.]

2 minutes ago, JPL said:

Nah, he spends the entire article picking on points that he likes about the film that others don’t - character arcs, screenwriting, direction, etc, then goes on to tell anyone who thinks those things aren’t very good that they’re completely wrong and how he knows much better because he’s written books on it, or something.

 

It absolutely doesn’t get to the bottom of the reason he apparently wrote the article. It just waffles on in a self congratulatory tone because he gets it and anyone who’s doesn’t like it doesn’t.

 

Rather than making the article about how his opinion is so much better than other people’s (which may be his schtick, I dunno), it would have been nice to have a more balanced view.

 

So yeah, maybe that’s what I mean rather than objective; a balanced view.

 

It’s definitely played for the people who like the film. You just have to look at the reactions to it in this thread to see that. Which, for us who don’t really like the film, comes across as quite patronising and a promise that he didn’t deliver on.

 

I'm sorry but you're just simply, objectively wrong here. You can disagree with what he's saying about the different perspectives that people brought to the movie but you can't with a straight face claim it's not what the piece is about and keeps going back to over and over.

[JPL]

25 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

 

I'm sorry but you're just simply, objectively wrong here. You can disagree with what he's saying about the different perspectives that people brought to the movie but you can't with a straight face claim it's not what the piece is about and keeps going back to over and over.

I’ll come back to this tomorrow, Alex, with a much more in-depth post on why I’m right. It’s friday night and I’m too hot right now! I’m gonna have to read the bloody article again though, cheers!

[Thor]

1 minute ago, JPL said:

I’ll come back to this tomorrow, Alex, with a much more in-depth post on why I’m right.

 

[JPL]

Just now, Thor said:

 

What’s funny?

 

It’s friday night, I’m hot and I’m having a beer. I’ve already started a draft post, but I can’t be arsed with the rest of it right now. It’s an interesting discussion though, so I’ll pick it up tomorrow.

[MechE]

Rose and Holdo are both clearly incidental characters, whose roles are in service of the character arcs of the main protagonists. It's a testament to the quality of the writing that they're both as fleshed out as much as they are.

 

I mean who of us (apart from you @Darren) could tell us the first thing about Nien Nunb?

[SMD]

49 minutes ago, JPL said:

Nah, he spends the entire article picking on points that he likes about the film that others don’t - character arcs, screenwriting, direction, etc, then goes on to tell anyone who thinks those things aren’t very good that they’re completely wrong and how he knows much better because he’s written books on it, or something.

 

It absolutely doesn’t get to the bottom of the reason he apparently wrote the article. It just waffles on in a self congratulatory tone because he gets it and anyone who’s doesn’t like it doesn’t.

 

Rather than making the article about how his opinion is so much better than other people’s (which may be his schtick, I dunno), it would have been nice to have a more balanced view.

 

So yeah, maybe that’s what I mean rather than objective; a balanced view.

 

It’s definitely played for the people who like the film. You just have to look at the reactions to it in this thread to see that. Which, for us who don’t really like the film, comes across as quite patronising and a promise that he didn’t deliver on.

 

 

so you don't want an objective view, you want someone to tell you it's okay that you don't understand basic storytelling

[JPL]

9 minutes ago, SMD said:

 

 

so you don't want an objective view, you want someone to tell you it's okay that you don't understand basic storytelling

Eh? Why are you totally making up what I’m saying? Why are you being insulting? It’s just a film dude, you don’t need to get all personal over it!

[Kevvy Metal]

3 hours ago, JPL said:

Who has dismissed it ‘cuz’? Certainly not me.

 

 

Yes you have, then you literally just went ahead and demonstrated that very fact with your sequential posts. 

[JPL]

23 minutes ago, Kevvy Metal said:

 

Yes you have, then you literally just went ahead and demonstrated that very fact with your sequential posts. 

Ok mate. I’ll finish my reply to Alex tomorrow, then I’ll leave you all to it. Some of the weird, over-protective behaviour in here tonight has freaked me out. It’s only a bloody film!

[SMD]

 

"I'm just here to talk!"

[Kevvy Metal]

9 hours ago, JPL said:

Ok mate. I’ll finish my reply to Alex tomorrow, then I’ll leave you all to it. Some of the weird, over-protective behaviour in here tonight has freaked me out. It’s only a bloody film!

 

I simply can not wait! 

 

 

[Unofficial Who]

18 hours ago, Treble said:

 

Looper was solid but pretty insubstantial and not particularly satisfying. I think this is the hardest Johnson ever has and ever will work, but shows that even his 'best' is not brilliant.

 

That mix of good ideas and lore shake-up has made the fans feel like it's a rebuke on one hand, and film fans knock it for its technical and artistic flaws on the other, doomed to never unite either audience fully. 

 

 

 

The bit in bold is key. I actually think he probably overworked it (even fans of the movie here like myself admit there are bits that need editing, sometimes less is more.)

 

But working on the Star Wars mainline movies is a poisoned chalice as you've pointed out. There's just no way to keep everyone happy.

[Hanzo the Razor]

20 hours ago, MechE said:

I mean who of us (apart from you @Darren) could tell us the first thing about Nien Nunb?

 

Nein Nunb is cool as fuck.  Rose and Holdo aren't.  That's all I need to know about him.

[Chadruharazzeb]

Sexist.

[Hanzo the Razor]

I knew that was coming.

[c-cat114]

1 hour ago, Hanzo the Razor said:

 

Nein Nunb is cool as fuck.  Rose and Holdo aren't.  That's all I need to know about him.

This. Nunb, Bib Fortuna, Fett, Dengar, 4Lom and so on were amazing characters. Served the plot. Nothing more. Rose and Holdo (and Phasma to an extent) looked cool but had so little story and motivation to back up their frequently stupid actions that they generally spoiled the film for me. 

 

Even Max was better than them and she was a completely rubbish character. 

[MechE]

5 hours ago, Hanzo the Razor said:

 

Nein Nunb is cool as fuck.  Rose and Holdo aren't.  That's all I need to know about him.

Agreed

 

 

[Hanzo the Razor]

3 hours ago, c-cat114 said:

Rose and Holdo looked cool

 

No they didn't.  Their action figures are probably in the bargain bin alongside Ric Olie and Captain Panaka.

[HarryBizzle]

I finally got around to seeing this and was pleasantly surprised. I went in with low expectations and for the first 45-60 minutes I thought “Star Wars is dead, this is Zombie Star Wars,” but things definitely improved in the second half. 

 

There was certainly stuff I didn’t like:

 

Spoiler

• That whole casino planet bit felt like it was straight out of the prequels. I thought they’d let Lucas back on set or something. Lingering on stupid CGI characters (in what is a bloody long movie), heavy handed messages, and that whole “Now this is pod racing bit at the end.”
• The pacing is definitely off and it definitely felt like we were getting Obligatory Checking In With The Fleet scenes. 
• Lack of internal consistency. If they’re only tracking the lead ship, the others should jump rather than just wait to be blown to bits. Holdo only seemed to stay behind to do what an autopilot does but then ended up just staring out of a window, wistfully, until the plot needed her to be on the ship. And if that’s what sending a ship at light speed into another one does, it really makes you wonder why they don’t do it on a regular basis. Miss “I just spend my whole day behind pipes” being sent out on those salt racer things to face down a battering ram cannon was another one.
• Totally out of place slapstick comedy. 
• I generally don’t like that it feels like we’re back to square one with the Rebellion. It’s felt like very little progressed between the end of episode VI and the big reset in episode VII and we’re retreading the same old big bad empire vs small rebellion theme.

 

Things I liked:

Spoiler

• How Kylo Ren turned and why Luke left. I thought that was really well done and Luke’s disgust with himself and decision to go into exile makes a lot of sense.
• The way the throne room scene played out was good, and unexpected. 
• Luke showing up at the end was also done well and didn’t feel overdone  I like the way he’s obviously sentimental towards R2 and C3P0 but still essentially knows they’re droids at the end of the day, unlike weirdo Poe Dameron and everyone else in the prequels and whatever this current trilogy is called, who show genuine affection towards a bunch of robots.

 

I saw someone mention Holdo’s hair and gamergate people. That’s certainly not who I was reminded of. 

 

[Harsin]

12 hours ago, c-cat114 said:

This. Nunb, Bib Fortuna, Fett, Dengar, 4Lom and so on were amazing characters.

 

Wait what? Dengar and 4Lom are ‘amazing characters’? They’re on screen for 30 seconds and don’t even have any lines! Fair enough if you don’t like how Rose and Holdo were written, but they are actual characters . Dengar and 4Lom were just set dressing.

[Paulando]

7 hours ago, HarryBizzle said:

Lack of internal consistency. If they’re only tracking the lead ship, the others should jump rather than just wait to be blown to bits.

 

IIRC, they’re tracking from the lead ship. As in, the lead First Order ship is the only one tracking them. The plan was to break in and deactivate their tracker without them knowing.

[Hanzo the Razor]

22 minutes ago, Harsin said:

 

Wait what? Dengar and 4Lom are ‘amazing characters’. They’re on screen for 30 seconds and don’t even have any lines! Fair enough if you don’t like how Rose and Holdo were written, but they are actual characters . Dengar and 4Lom were just set dressing.

 

They are Star Wars characters.  Rose and Holdo aren't.

[HarryBizzle]

58 minutes ago, Paulando said:

 

IIRC, they’re tracking from the lead ship. As in, the lead First Order ship is the only one tracking them. The plan was to break in and deactivate their tracker without them knowing.

 

Think it’s both. Leia’s exact line is “Holdo knew the First Order was tracking our big ship.”

 

Doesn’t really matter, anyway. The whole thing is a contrivance.