Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Rey is the progeny of...

  • Luke & (Mara?)

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Obi Wan & (Satine?)

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • Qui Gon & (Shmi?)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Anakin & (midi-chlorians?)

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Palpatine or/and Dooku

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Total voters
    13

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
It's like a visual representation of Frost's The Road Not Taken.
Every generation interprets this poem differently, and many overlook that the road "less traveled" is "really about the same." The point is to make a choice. In most every case Rian chose the more dramatic path. Killing characters is a bummer but life is cheap in this galaxy, and "war" is in every title.

It's very busy, but so were the serials which inspired it.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
It falls behind New Hope and Empire as my 3rd favorite and is growing. And yes, I saw the Original in theaters in 77, so I'm outside the targeted audiences.

My interest in <I>Star Wars</I> is more recent - I only saw the prequel trilogy a few years back - but this is where I am right now too. And on a visual level maybe only the original is as compelling.
 

Lambonius

New member
Attila the Professor said:
And on a visual level maybe only the original is as compelling.

Are we talking about the impact of the special effects (for the time) or the cinematography itself? If cinematography, I think there's a very strong case to be made that Empire is the best looking of all of the films in terms of pure shot composition, color palette, and lighting. For me, every single shot of Empire seems iconic in a way that is never quite as consistent in any of the other films. A New Hope does have some all time classic shots, but it's also got some more stale sections in it (most of the Death Star interior scenes, save for a handful like the tractor beam deactivation and the light-saber battle.) It think Empire is a lot more consistently gorgeous throughout.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Daisy Ridley said:
“J. J. wrote ‘Episode VII,’ he also wrote drafts for ‘VIII’ & ‘IX.’ Then Rian arrived and re-wrote [‘The Last Jedi’] entirely. I believe there was some sort of general consensus on the main storylines that would happen in the trilogy, but apart from that, we agreed that every director should probably make his movie his own way. Rian and J. J. Abrams met many times to discuss ‘The Last Jedi,’ although ‘Episode VIII’ is very much mostly Rian’s and I do believe Rian didn’t keep anything from the first draft of the ‘Episode VIII’ script.”
So Lucas wrote drafts for 7-9, and Abrams wrote drafts for 8 and 9. Did Rian write a draft for 9 or just flee the building giggling hysterically? It's like a choose your own adventure story. I hope to read all the paths someday.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iZQ3D0K_IL8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Gonna be honest, TLJ pretty much killed any passion I have for Star Wars, to t extent that I don't even hate TLJ anymore. It is what it is. Luke is dead, Han is dead, the Rebellion and those original three movies were all for nothing. These new films have a very nihilistic view of the universe. Dead is the fairy tale. I'm quite resigned. These films are certainly of their time. Nothing matters, the past doesn't matter and should be forgotten or rewritten to suit our purposes; old heroes are new villains.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
Luke is dead, Han is dead, the Rebellion and those original three movies were all for nothing. These new films have a very nihilistic view of the universe. Dead is the fairy tale.

Oh ye of little faith. It was a dark 48 hours between the Cross and The Tomb. There are no true believers.

But I still believe in the prophecy. Yoda came back in TLJ. He was dead. Obi Wan came back in ESB and ROJ. He was dead too.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Maybe someone like Sean Connery in Name of the Rose swooped in and saved the sacred Jedi texts. If I had and Photoshop skills I'd put these images together.
 

JasonMa

Active member
Moedred said:
Maybe someone like Sean Connery in Name of the Rose swooped in and saved the sacred Jedi texts. If I had and Photoshop skills I'd put these images together.
Rey saved the texts, we see them in a compartment of the Falcon in the final scene.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
JasonMa said:
Rey saved the texts, we see them in a compartment of the Falcon in the final scene.

Yep. Resurrected Yoda even knew that:

Yoda said:
?Wisdom they held, but that library contained nothing that the girl Rey does not already possess.?

So all he did was light a bonfire.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
Oh ye of little faith. It was a dark 48 hours between the Cross and The Tomb. There are no true believers.

But I still believe in the prophecy. Yoda came back in TLJ. He was dead. Obi Wan came back in ESB and ROJ. He was dead too.

I don't believe in Rian Johnson's nihilistic view that you must kill the past. I simply do not agree with the ideology of these films, nor do I like the characters.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
I don't believe in Rian Johnson's nihilistic view that you must kill the past. I simply do not agree with the ideology of these films, nor do I like the characters.


Hows-that-working-out-for-you.png
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:

Pretty good. I still have the original three films and in my head-canon the series ended happily on Endor. Han wasn't a deadbeat dad whose redemption arc meant nothing, Luke wasn't a coward whose character arc inverted itself, Leia wasn't a bad mother who put her work above her son, and their sacrifices weren't all in vain. It's a happier world that way.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Raiders112390 said:
I don't believe in Rian Johnson's nihilistic view that you must kill the past. I simply do not agree with the ideology of these films, nor do I like the characters.

Depiction's not endorsement. The film decidedly doesn't endorse Kylo Ren's "Let the past die. Kill it if you have to" message. On a superficial level, ok: Luke's dead, sure. And Ackbar. But those Jedi texts remain, and the film ends on an extremely hopeful note suggestive of a future unity of both the Rebels and the force-sensitive. Will Rey revive the Jedi? Seems like a good chance of that, sure,even if under a different name, but if she does, it will be a form of the Jedi that avoids those excesses and missteps of the Jedi past that Luke alludes to. Plus, obviously, Luke's self-sacrifice from afar was a way of denying a victory to Kylo (maybe also of avoiding putting a little more on Ben Solo's conscience, since "no one is ever truly gone."

Rose's "That's how we're gonna win: not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love" seems much more central to the film's themes than that key line of Kylo's. Finn's journey in the film is largely about growing to commit to something rather than looking for a way out; Poe's is about learning that leadership is about preservation rather than hotshot destruction. Rey? Well, maybe she learns that not everything or everyone can be saved? Though I doubt we've seen the last of her connection - whatever it is - with Kylo.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Attila the Professor said:
Depiction's not endorsement. The film decidedly doesn't endorse Kylo Ren's "Let the past die. Kill it if you have to" message. On a superficial level, ok: Luke's dead, sure. And Ackbar. But those Jedi texts remain, and the film ends on an extremely hopeful note suggestive of a future unity of both the Rebels and the force-sensitive. Will Rey revive the Jedi? Seems like a good chance of that, sure,even if under a different name, but if she does, it will be a form of the Jedi that avoids those excesses and missteps of the Jedi past that Luke alludes to. Plus, obviously, Luke's self-sacrifice from afar was a way of denying a victory to Kylo (maybe also of avoiding putting a little more on Ben Solo's conscience, since "no one is ever truly gone."

Honestly, it's just not a direction I personally agree with. And yes, I do believe Johnson's ideology in the film is to let the past die, kill it if you have to; I believe Johnson is speaking through Kylo there. You can say superificially it seems so, but I think on a deeper level the film espouses that as well. Luke was a symbol of the past, and beyond dead, he's a failure. Leia is a symbol of the past and its her and her friend's schemes that get most of the remaining rebellion wiped out. Luke's sacrifice, if you wish to call it that, was more a "redemption equals death" thing for me than a noble sacrifice. Why not go there in person, end it all, finish what he started?

These are interesting science fantasy films; I'll grant them that. But for me they strayed from what I feel was the heart of Star Wars, and that is the fairy tale. The prequels strayed from it too, albeit in different ways. The central ideology present in the original films is far different from the one presented here.

There were better ways of going about it all in my opinion, but I'm one of those who never wanted to see Luke and Co. again on the big screen. The ending of Jedi for me is one of those classic Hollywood endings, like Indy riding off into the sunset. Some things should be allowed to rest.

Rose's "That's how we're gonna win: not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love" seems much more central to the film's themes than that key line of Kylo's. Finn's journey in the film is largely about growing to commit to something rather than looking for a way out; Poe's is about learning that leadership is about preservation rather than hotshot destruction. Rey? Well, maybe she learns that not everything or everyone can be saved? Though I doubt we've seen the last of her connection - whatever it is - with Kylo.

That whole quote and the message behind it doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't win wars, either.

These films are for cultural theorists, and those who believe in modern critical theory. They're not for fans of Star Wars.
 

JasonMa

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
That whole quote and the message behind it doesn't make sense. It certainly doesn't win wars, either.

These films are for cultural theorists, and those who believe in modern critical theory. They're not for fans of Star Wars.
I agree with Raiders112390 here. These movies are made with a different viewpoint and one that IMO doesn't represent why Star Wars has been so enduring. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong or not worth investigating, I'm just not sure why you make that viewpoint into a Star Wars movie. Certainly not a Star Wars movie that is the continuation of the story that came before. I think this topic might have been great for one of the stand-alone stories like Rogue One or Solo, but not for the final trilogy of trilogies.

And I hate Rose's line because it is completely nonsensical in the moment.

"Hey, I stopped you from destroying the uber-weapon that was about to destroy us all because its important to save what you love. I died doing it, and barring a no-way-expected appearance by Luke Force-ghosting himself across the galaxy to buy the Rebellion the time they need to escape that they lost when I prevented the weapon's destruction, you're going to die at the hands of the Empire too. But aren't you glad we had this moment?".

I mean, really, in context of the scene, that's what was going to happen. How does Rose's move make any sense other than to the writer/director who knows what's going to happen next and that Finn and the Rebellion will survive. Without foreknowledge it appears Rose has just doomed the Resistance, killed Finn, and allowed the First Order to complete its conquest.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I agree too, but, then again:

JasonMa said:
I mean, really, in context of the scene, that's what was going to happen. How does Rose's move make any sense other than to the writer/director who knows what's going to happen next and that Finn and the Rebellion will survive. Without foreknowledge it appears Rose has just doomed the Resistance, killed Finn, and allowed the First Order to complete its conquest.


...from a certain point of view...

The Star Wars Deus Ex Machina that can be used to explain away everything in the Galaxy, Far Far Away.
 

roundshort

Active member
So, the wife was out and I was home alone (never happens) so I put this on to re-watch it. I only saw it once upon its release. I didn't make it more than 30 minutes. Really not a good movie.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
JasonMa said:
I agree with Raiders112390 here. These movies are made with a different viewpoint and one that IMO doesn't represent why Star Wars has been so enduring. That doesn't make the viewpoint wrong or not worth investigating, I'm just not sure why you make that viewpoint into a Star Wars movie. Certainly not a Star Wars movie that is the continuation of the story that came before. I think this topic might have been great for one of the stand-alone stories like Rogue One or Solo, but not for the final trilogy of trilogies.

And I hate Rose's line because it is completely nonsensical in the moment.

"Hey, I stopped you from destroying the uber-weapon that was about to destroy us all because its important to save what you love. I died doing it, and barring a no-way-expected appearance by Luke Force-ghosting himself across the galaxy to buy the Rebellion the time they need to escape that they lost when I prevented the weapon's destruction, you're going to die at the hands of the Empire too. But aren't you glad we had this moment?".

I mean, really, in context of the scene, that's what was going to happen. How does Rose's move make any sense other than to the writer/director who knows what's going to happen next and that Finn and the Rebellion will survive. Without foreknowledge it appears Rose has just doomed the Resistance, killed Finn, and allowed the First Order to complete its conquest.

To simplify it: These films are designed to make one think, whereas I think the original films were designed to make one feel. I'm not saying the originals were dumb action films; no, by far there are thought-provoking elements to them. But when you watch those films, you don't really have to delve deeply into nuance to justify elements, nor do you have to really dig deep to find meaning or explain how beloved characters being essentially turned into almost villains is actually brilliant. They're simple films for the most part and that's the charm of them. Empire is a classic film but it's not very thought-provoking, not compared to these current films anyway.

There's a very black/white thing going on in the originals, with some hints of grey here and there. You're supposed to FEEL the Force, not think about it or its social or socio-political significance. Here, the Force is something to be theorized, deconstructed - in fact, the whole film is deconstructionist.

TLJ deconstructs the original films and that's why a lot of older (Generation X) people love it - it's very Gen X in its mindset, very cynical. Almost akin to an early Kevin Smith film in a sense - nothing matters. No cows are sacred. Luke is a coward. Han is a scumbag. Leia is a bad mom. It connects well with how Gen X feels about the older generation; it connects well with the underlying cynicism Gen X, as they've gotten older, feel about the world. The traditions of the past are meant to be deconstructed preach the social scientists, and Gen X likes that very much because all their lives, they've been let down. They were the children of idealists turned stock traders, the first generation whose cohorts were aborted in huge numbers; unwanted - so why should the past matter? Kill it if you have to. Nothing matters, not tradition, not heroes. Heroes, especially in deconstructionist and Marxian philosophy, are meant to be taken down. After all, "you live long enough, you see yourself become the villain." Meanwhile, you throw some anti-capitalist elements in there to grab Millenial viewers.

In the originals, you had fallen heroes, but that was all there was to it. They were fallen. You had good guys, some who were anti-heroes and some who weren't - but these films weren't designed to make you think. In fact they were made for kids and teens to enjoy. They were made with a CONSCIOUS desire to get away from the thought-provoking and socially important science fiction films of the 1960s like Planet of the Apes and 2001. TLJ is closer to those films than to the simple story of a farm boy becoming a man.

In the originals a lot is shown, and just as much is told. In these films, we're shown a lot and told little, as well. And it doesn't matter, because nothing matters. Snoke's backstory? Doesn't matter, man. How Kylo even was turned by Snoke? Doesn't matter, dude. Nothing does.

Nothing matters. Tradition, and our heroes, are meant to be torn down and discussed until their meaning is lost.
 

JasonMa

Active member
And now, as a solid Gen X'er, I'm going to disagree with you. :D Your take on Gen X doesn't match anything me or my similarly aged friends feel or grew up with.

I will agree that yes, the original trilogy didn't make you think about the ramifications of a galaxy with the Force or how the Rebellion got the weapons to fight the Empire. But then, neither do most legends/fairy tales. And that's what the original trilogy was, our modern day fairy tale.
 
Top