Cave Bear said:

---

[Now as you say, maybe she can fly through space using the force...and possess the power to negate problems 1-5 using the force too. This is difficult to believe though for two reasons: (1) it's not at all established that the force allows an user these tremendous powers and (2) it is made implicitly clear in The Force Awakens that Leia has not been trained as a Jedi. No other character untrained in the Jedi arts had demonstrated an ability to defy reality to this degree, even those who are equally strong in the force.

That's all besides the absurdity of her returning through the bridge door without sucking everyone in that corridor out into space. The entire thing was simply comical.

---

I believe Lea's use of the Force was instinctual, sort of like the way throwing his players under the bus & whining is for SonnyD.

Bear19 said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

[Now as you say, maybe she can fly through space using the force...and possess the power to negate problems 1-5 using the force too. This is difficult to believe though for two reasons: (1) it's not at all established that the force allows an user these tremendous powers and (2) it is made implicitly clear in The Force Awakens that Leia has not been trained as a Jedi. No other character untrained in the Jedi arts had demonstrated an ability to defy reality to this degree, even those who are equally strong in the force.

That's all besides the absurdity of her returning through the bridge door without sucking everyone in that corridor out into space. The entire thing was simply comical.

---

I believe Lea's use of the Force was instinctual, sort of the way throwing his players under the bus & whining is for SonnyD.

---

Bless you for bringing this back to football so chapmanisgone doesn't come here and yell at us

ducky23 said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

[Now as you say, maybe she can fly through space using the force...and possess the power to negate problems 1-5 using the force too. This is difficult to believe though for two reasons: (1) it's not at all established that the force allows an user these tremendous powers and (2) it is made implicitly clear in The Force Awakens that Leia has not been trained as a Jedi. No other character untrained in the Jedi arts had demonstrated an ability to defy reality to this degree, even those who are equally strong in the force.

That's all besides the absurdity of her returning through the bridge door without sucking everyone in that corridor out into space. The entire thing was simply comical.

---

I believe Lea's use of the Force was instinctual, sort of the way throwing his players under the bus & whining is for SonnyD.

---

Bless you for bringing this back to football so chapmanisgone doesn't come here and yell at us

---

It was a solid callback.

>Bless you for bringing this back to football so chapmanisgone doesn't come here and yell at us

It's off-season, some leeway for OT discussions is allowed. But this could have all been avoided had we been bowl eligible. Doh.

The Leia is a vacuum thing is dubious. But still less ridiculous than when Darth Maul stands stationary, mouth agape while Obi Wan double flips over him, grabs a light saber and then slices him in half. To make it worse, Darth Maul then survives and comes back later. Yeah, that makes no sense.

Cal84 said:

---

>Bless you for bringing this back to football so chapmanisgone doesn't come here and yell at us

It's off-season, some leeway for OT discussions is allowed. But this could have all been avoided had we been bowl eligible. Doh.

The Leia is a vacuum thing is dubious. But still less ridiculous than when Darth Maul stands stationary, mouth agape while Obi Wan double flips over him, grabs a light saber and then slices him in half. To make it worse, Darth Maul then survives and comes back later. Yeah, that makes no sense.

---

I mean, darth maul had the high ground. ***

Cal84 said:

---

>Bless you for bringing this back to football so chapmanisgone doesn't come here and yell at us

It's off-season, some leeway for OT discussions is allowed. But this could have all been avoided had we been bowl eligible. Doh.

The Leia is a vacuum thing is dubious. But still less ridiculous than when Darth Maul stands stationary, mouth agape while Obi Wan double flips over him, grabs a light saber and then slices him in half. To make it worse, Darth Maul then survives and comes back later. Yeah, that makes no sense.

---

The Snoke death scene makes that a wash.

Cave Bear said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Bless you for bringing this back to football so chapmanisgone doesn't come here and yell at us

It's off-season, some leeway for OT discussions is allowed. But this could have all been avoided had we been bowl eligible. Doh.

The Leia is a vacuum thing is dubious. But still less ridiculous than when Darth Maul stands stationary, mouth agape while Obi Wan double flips over him, grabs a light saber and then slices him in half. To make it worse, Darth Maul then survives and comes back later. Yeah, that makes no sense.

---

The Snoke death scene makes that a wash.

---

That was a great scene. What was the problem?

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

Who's to say that the rules of space are the same in the Star Wars galaxy? Why should it be so unbelievable that someone could float in space and possess enough powers to get back to the ship when it's someone like Leia? Why should people be sucked into space in their world like in our atmosphere when a ship is blasted? Why should bombers not work in their world in space? If you go to enjoy the movie, why get sidetracked by things like that?

Rey was special from the beginning. She was better in combat than those on her planet. She was extremely bright and resourceful. She prevented Ren from reading her mind, which he found mystifying. The new story line is showing that people can be gifted without being Jedi's, like how Finn was at least competent with a light saber (which also drove some people crazy). I think some were so profoundly impacted by the first 2-3 movies that if you move the bar or get outside of the lane one's used to or expects, it's almost a sacrilege.

Just keep the ewoks and gungans away and I'm cool as long as I like the story line.

The thing is, it's all a matter of preference and personal taste. I'm not telling anyone they should love the movie, just saying it's a shame to miss out on the joy of it. It seems like some here are speaking in absolutes, though, like of course this is a terrible movie that thinking people should hate.

I'd hate to miss out on the magic of Star Wars by thinking like that. I hope they make dozens more, as long as I like the characters and story lines. I love that Disney bought the franchise and brought new life into the series with new and talented directors and look forward to many years more of enjoyable entertainment, just like I'm glad that my favorite series -Game of Thrones- will live on in a prequel or sequel series, even though it won't be produced by Benioff and Weiss.

---

She got sucked out the scene just before, by an obvious decompression.

That was the universe they established one scene prior. Then they pretend they didnt...

Honestly, you can't have a universe with no rules. How could you choose to defend THAT?

---

The previous decompression happens unexpectedly, with weapons striking the ship.

When the crew goes to retrieve Leia, they are expecting to open the door. No, the movie doesn't show us this specifically, but it's not a major leap to conclude that they had some other kind of technology they could leverage to get someone back on board without depressurizing. I really don't understand why this is such a big problem for people.

---

It doesn't decompress because they are expecting it?

A simple solution is to seal it with a forcefield like they do with the flight deck... but they dont. they ignore it.

I am amazed people have such low expectations that issues like that don't bother them at all, to the point that they don't just say "yeah, that was silly but it didn't matter" or "it didn't bother me, but yeah" and instead do gymnastics to excuse an OBVIOUS discontinuity.

Cave Bear said:

---

ducky23 is off the reservation (in my view) when he signs off with his FU to the 'fanboys'. You don't have to be a fanboy (or fangirl) to care about characterization. Despite being called "episodes", Star Wars was never really episodic. It was an epic built around arcs which were contiguous through the individual movies. These films may have different directors, but given the pains Star Wars had always taken to preserve continuity in characterization, it's very disappointing to have The Force Awakens invite the audience to ask significant character questions like "Who is Snoke?" or "What is Rey's origin?" only to have the answer be 'don't matter lololol stupid fanboys' like some moronic internet troll.

Star Wars is supposed to be a saga, but this is not a continuation of that saga. It is the death of the universe as it existed before followed by the reanimation of its corpse under a new and schizophrenic identity. If that doesn't bother you then you're far less likely than I am to have objected to The Last Jedi. If you also like the 'storytelling' found in the modern superhero genre replete with lazy characterization, sophomoric/kitsch/slapsticky humor, and cheap melodramatic tension, you're likely to have loved this movie and be eagerly looking forward to more.

---

Let me clarify. Yes, I love the fact that Rian Johnson pissed off the fanboys (for the record, I dislike fanboys cause I believe that directors spend too much time trying to appease them rather than making a quality movie).

But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I think it was important for the story going forward that RJ broke with Abrams and bucked conventional expectations.

Abrams is really good at one thing. He can watch all the past movies from the masters, copy elements from here and there and then repackage it in the form of his own movie. He never has anything original to say. That's why he's the king of reboots. Just basically make the same movie, make it look a little prettier and add a bunch of Easter eggs and mystery boxes to appease the fan boys.

It would've been very easy for RJ to take the safe route and just follow Abrams blueprint. Make a safe movie that says nothing, opens some of abrams' mystery boxes (omg Rey is obi won kenobe's grandaughter!!!) and creates some more mystery boxes of his own.

And then the Star Wars franchise could just go down the road of the marvel franchise. Each movie laying just enough crumbs and teasers to set up the next movie that follows exactly the same pattern. And on and on and on. Critics will give it positive ratings, fanboys will rejoice, and Disney will rake in millions. This is how movies die a slow death, just like music has already done.

So I give RJ a ton of credit for breaking away from Abrams and bucking expectations. I liked how each hero was portrayed as flawed (especially Poe), I liked how Finns mission failed, and I loved that Rey's parents were nobody's.

When a movie franchise just follows the same blueprint over and over, the franchise inevitably becomes stale. Like is anyone really looking forward to the next avengers movie?

So yeah, I appreciate the risks that were taken. And if they happened to piss off the fanboys, that's just icing on the cake. I just wish that the actual execution was better.

Is it really that hard to make a thoughtful, well executed big budget film? Apparently it is since the last one I can think of was dark knight.

I am shocked - just shocked, I say - that a fan base which shows intelligence, reason and tempered judgement with it's teams and their coaches would so vehemently pick apart the 8th episode of a Sci-Fi series.

LunchTime said:

---

It doesn't decompress because they are expecting it?

---

Let's retrace the argument here. Your claim was that there couldn't possibly be any way for them to open the door without decompression happening within the ship, because an earlier sequence had shown decompression happening on the bridge.

My argument here is that IF the crew had some way to open a door without decompression happening, it wouldn't have applied to the scene where the bridge was struck with a missile or some other kind of weapon. They weren't expecting it to happen there. Understood?

LunchTime said:

---

I am amazed people have such low expectations that issues like that don't bother them at all, to the point that they don't just say "yeah, that was silly but it didn't matter" or "it didn't bother me, but yeah" and instead do gymnastics to excuse an OBVIOUS discontinuity.

---

It doesn't bother me because I don't view films as logic puzzles. They are emotional journeys with characters and hopefully for the purpose of delivering meaningful themes. I think this movie did a good job of that, for the most part. A scene where something implausible happens (and where I can quickly come up with my own explanation for it) isn't going to destroy the experience for me, especially in a movie series where implausible things happen all the time.

ducky23 said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

ducky23 is off the reservation (in my view) when he signs off with his FU to the 'fanboys'. You don't have to be a fanboy (or fangirl) to care about characterization. Despite being called "episodes", Star Wars was never really episodic. It was an epic built around arcs which were contiguous through the individual movies. These films may have different directors, but given the pains Star Wars had always taken to preserve continuity in characterization, it's very disappointing to have The Force Awakens invite the audience to ask significant character questions like "Who is Snoke?" or "What is Rey's origin?" only to have the answer be 'don't matter lololol stupid fanboys' like some moronic internet troll.

Star Wars is supposed to be a saga, but this is not a continuation of that saga. It is the death of the universe as it existed before followed by the reanimation of its corpse under a new and schizophrenic identity. If that doesn't bother you then you're far less likely than I am to have objected to The Last Jedi. If you also like the 'storytelling' found in the modern superhero genre replete with lazy characterization, sophomoric/kitsch/slapsticky humor, and cheap melodramatic tension, you're likely to have loved this movie and be eagerly looking forward to more.

---

Let me clarify. Yes, I love the fact that Rian Johnson pissed off the fanboys (for the record, I dislike fanboys cause I believe that directors spend too much time trying to appease them rather than making a quality movie).

But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I think it was important for the story going forward that RJ broke with Abrams and bucked conventional expectations.

Abrams is really good at one thing. He can watch all the past movies from the masters, copy elements from here and there and then repackage it in the form of his own movie. He never has anything original to say. That's why he's the king of reboots. Just basically make the same movie, make it look a little prettier and add a bunch of Easter eggs and mystery boxes to appease the fan boys.

It would've been very easy for RJ to take the safe route and just follow Abrams blueprint. Make a safe movie that says nothing, opens some of abrams' mystery boxes (omg Rey is obi won kenobe's grandaughter!!!) and creates some more mystery boxes of his own.

And then the Star Wars franchise could just go down the road of the marvel franchise. Each movie laying just enough crumbs and teasers to set up the next movie that follows exactly the same pattern. And on and on and on. Critics will give it positive ratings, fanboys will rejoice, and Disney will rake in millions. This is how movies die a slow death, just like music has already done.

So I give RJ a ton of credit for breaking away from Abrams and bucking expectations. I liked how each hero was portrayed as flawed (especially Poe), I liked how Finns mission failed, and I loved that Rey's parents were nobody's.

When a movie franchise just follows the same blueprint over and over, the franchise inevitably becomes stale. Like is anyone really looking forward to the next avengers movie?

So yeah, I appreciate the risks that were taken. And if they happened to piss off the fanboys, that's just icing on the cake. I just wish that the actual execution was better.

Is it really that hard to make a thoughtful, well executed big budget film? Apparently it is since the last one I can think of was dark knight.

---

Agreed very much, only I think it is generally well-executed.

Abrams made a perfectly affable, enjoyable Star Wars homage that said nothing about anything. Say what you will about the results, but Rian Johnson actually tried to say something with his movie.

What an interesting conversation/thread.

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

ducky23 is off the reservation (in my view) when he signs off with his FU to the 'fanboys'. You don't have to be a fanboy (or fangirl) to care about characterization. Despite being called "episodes", Star Wars was never really episodic. It was an epic built around arcs which were contiguous through the individual movies. These films may have different directors, but given the pains Star Wars had always taken to preserve continuity in characterization, it's very disappointing to have The Force Awakens invite the audience to ask significant character questions like "Who is Snoke?" or "What is Rey's origin?" only to have the answer be 'don't matter lololol stupid fanboys' like some moronic internet troll.

Star Wars is supposed to be a saga, but this is not a continuation of that saga. It is the death of the universe as it existed before followed by the reanimation of its corpse under a new and schizophrenic identity. If that doesn't bother you then you're far less likely than I am to have objected to The Last Jedi. If you also like the 'storytelling' found in the modern superhero genre replete with lazy characterization, sophomoric/kitsch/slapsticky humor, and cheap melodramatic tension, you're likely to have loved this movie and be eagerly looking forward to more.

---

Let me clarify. Yes, I love the fact that Rian Johnson pissed off the fanboys (for the record, I dislike fanboys cause I believe that directors spend too much time trying to appease them rather than making a quality movie).

But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I think it was important for the story going forward that RJ broke with Abrams and bucked conventional expectations.

Abrams is really good at one thing. He can watch all the past movies from the masters, copy elements from here and there and then repackage it in the form of his own movie. He never has anything original to say. That's why he's the king of reboots. Just basically make the same movie, make it look a little prettier and add a bunch of Easter eggs and mystery boxes to appease the fan boys.

It would've been very easy for RJ to take the safe route and just follow Abrams blueprint. Make a safe movie that says nothing, opens some of abrams' mystery boxes (omg Rey is obi won kenobe's grandaughter!!!) and creates some more mystery boxes of his own.

And then the Star Wars franchise could just go down the road of the marvel franchise. Each movie laying just enough crumbs and teasers to set up the next movie that follows exactly the same pattern. And on and on and on. Critics will give it positive ratings, fanboys will rejoice, and Disney will rake in millions. This is how movies die a slow death, just like music has already done.

So I give RJ a ton of credit for breaking away from Abrams and bucking expectations. I liked how each hero was portrayed as flawed (especially Poe), I liked how Finns mission failed, and I loved that Rey's parents were nobody's.

When a movie franchise just follows the same blueprint over and over, the franchise inevitably becomes stale. Like is anyone really looking forward to the next avengers movie?

So yeah, I appreciate the risks that were taken. And if they happened to piss off the fanboys, that's just icing on the cake. I just wish that the actual execution was better.

Is it really that hard to make a thoughtful, well executed big budget film? Apparently it is since the last one I can think of was dark knight.

---

Agreed very much, only I think it is generally well-executed.

Abrams made a perfectly affable, enjoyable Star Wars homage that said nothing about anything. Say what you will about the results, but Rian Johnson actually tried to say something with his movie.

---

So did George Lucas with the prequels. Doesn't mean it worked.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

My favorites were
1)Empire Strikes Back
2) Star Wars (the first film)
3)Return of the Jedi
4) Rogue One

I didn't really like any of the others. There were parts I enjoyed like the huge Jedi battles but I thought generally the more they made the worse it got. I hold Star Wars up in high regard and so I expect epic masterpieces from that similar to Lord of the Rings.

---

Agree. The rankings:
1. Empire Strikes Back
2. Star Wars
3, 4, etc... Who cares?

Ironically, my fav film critic, Mick LaSalle, didn't like Empire Strikes Back, but just because he's my favorite film critic, doesn't mean he is always right.

sketchy9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

ducky23 is off the reservation (in my view) when he signs off with his FU to the 'fanboys'. You don't have to be a fanboy (or fangirl) to care about characterization. Despite being called "episodes", Star Wars was never really episodic. It was an epic built around arcs which were contiguous through the individual movies. These films may have different directors, but given the pains Star Wars had always taken to preserve continuity in characterization, it's very disappointing to have The Force Awakens invite the audience to ask significant character questions like "Who is Snoke?" or "What is Rey's origin?" only to have the answer be 'don't matter lololol stupid fanboys' like some moronic internet troll.

Star Wars is supposed to be a saga, but this is not a continuation of that saga. It is the death of the universe as it existed before followed by the reanimation of its corpse under a new and schizophrenic identity. If that doesn't bother you then you're far less likely than I am to have objected to The Last Jedi. If you also like the 'storytelling' found in the modern superhero genre replete with lazy characterization, sophomoric/kitsch/slapsticky humor, and cheap melodramatic tension, you're likely to have loved this movie and be eagerly looking forward to more.

---

Let me clarify. Yes, I love the fact that Rian Johnson pissed off the fanboys (for the record, I dislike fanboys cause I believe that directors spend too much time trying to appease them rather than making a quality movie).

But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I think it was important for the story going forward that RJ broke with Abrams and bucked conventional expectations.

Abrams is really good at one thing. He can watch all the past movies from the masters, copy elements from here and there and then repackage it in the form of his own movie. He never has anything original to say. That's why he's the king of reboots. Just basically make the same movie, make it look a little prettier and add a bunch of Easter eggs and mystery boxes to appease the fan boys.

It would've been very easy for RJ to take the safe route and just follow Abrams blueprint. Make a safe movie that says nothing, opens some of abrams' mystery boxes (omg Rey is obi won kenobe's grandaughter!!!) and creates some more mystery boxes of his own.

And then the Star Wars franchise could just go down the road of the marvel franchise. Each movie laying just enough crumbs and teasers to set up the next movie that follows exactly the same pattern. And on and on and on. Critics will give it positive ratings, fanboys will rejoice, and Disney will rake in millions. This is how movies die a slow death, just like music has already done.

So I give RJ a ton of credit for breaking away from Abrams and bucking expectations. I liked how each hero was portrayed as flawed (especially Poe), I liked how Finns mission failed, and I loved that Rey's parents were nobody's.

When a movie franchise just follows the same blueprint over and over, the franchise inevitably becomes stale. Like is anyone really looking forward to the next avengers movie?

So yeah, I appreciate the risks that were taken. And if they happened to piss off the fanboys, that's just icing on the cake. I just wish that the actual execution was better.

Is it really that hard to make a thoughtful, well executed big budget film? Apparently it is since the last one I can think of was dark knight.

---

Agreed very much, only I think it is generally well-executed.

Abrams made a perfectly affable, enjoyable Star Wars homage that said nothing about anything. Say what you will about the results, but Rian Johnson actually tried to say something with his movie.

---

So did George Lucas with the prequels. Doesn't mean it worked.

---

Yes, the execution was very poor with those. And I'd argue that it's mostly the third prequel that comes closest to making a real point (perhaps not coincidentally, the best one of those).

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

It doesn't decompress because they are expecting it?

---

Let's retrace the argument here. Your claim was that there couldn't possibly be any way for them to open the door without decompression happening within the ship, because an earlier sequence had shown decompression happening on the bridge.

My argument here is that IF the crew had some way to open a door without decompression happening, it wouldn't have applied to the scene where the bridge was struck with a missile or some other kind of weapon. They weren't expecting it to happen there. Understood?

LunchTime said:

---

I am amazed people have such low expectations that issues like that don't bother them at all, to the point that they don't just say "yeah, that was silly but it didn't matter" or "it didn't bother me, but yeah" and instead do gymnastics to excuse an OBVIOUS discontinuity.

---

It doesn't bother me because I don't view films as logic puzzles. They are emotional journeys with characters and hopefully for the purpose of delivering meaningful themes. I think this movie did a good job of that, for the most part. A scene where something implausible happens (and where I can quickly come up with my own explanation for it) isn't going to destroy the experience for me, especially in a movie series where implausible things happen all the time.

---

If you ignore or dismiss everything that was wrong with the movie, it isn't bad?

I guess that's a valid argument, but it doesn't make the movie good. Needing to dismiss so much is what makes it bad, is my argument.

LunchTime said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

It doesn't decompress because they are expecting it?

---

Let's retrace the argument here. Your claim was that there couldn't possibly be any way for them to open the door without decompression happening within the ship, because an earlier sequence had shown decompression happening on the bridge.

My argument here is that IF the crew had some way to open a door without decompression happening, it wouldn't have applied to the scene where the bridge was struck with a missile or some other kind of weapon. They weren't expecting it to happen there. Understood?

LunchTime said:

---

I am amazed people have such low expectations that issues like that don't bother them at all, to the point that they don't just say "yeah, that was silly but it didn't matter" or "it didn't bother me, but yeah" and instead do gymnastics to excuse an OBVIOUS discontinuity.

---

It doesn't bother me because I don't view films as logic puzzles. They are emotional journeys with characters and hopefully for the purpose of delivering meaningful themes. I think this movie did a good job of that, for the most part. A scene where something implausible happens (and where I can quickly come up with my own explanation for it) isn't going to destroy the experience for me, especially in a movie series where implausible things happen all the time.

---

If you ignore or dismiss everything that was wrong with the movie, it isn't bad?

I guess that's a valid argument, but it doesn't make the movie good. Needing to dismiss so much is what makes it bad, is my argument.

---

Almost every movie has some flaws.

I didn't like this one overall, for reasons mentioned by others, but I think there were some truly good to great moments tossed in.

In particular, I loved the development of Kylo Ren. He has become the most interesting villain I can remember in a long time.

sycasey said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

ducky23 is off the reservation (in my view) when he signs off with his FU to the 'fanboys'. You don't have to be a fanboy (or fangirl) to care about characterization. Despite being called "episodes", Star Wars was never really episodic. It was an epic built around arcs which were contiguous through the individual movies. These films may have different directors, but given the pains Star Wars had always taken to preserve continuity in characterization, it's very disappointing to have The Force Awakens invite the audience to ask significant character questions like "Who is Snoke?" or "What is Rey's origin?" only to have the answer be 'don't matter lololol stupid fanboys' like some moronic internet troll.

Star Wars is supposed to be a saga, but this is not a continuation of that saga. It is the death of the universe as it existed before followed by the reanimation of its corpse under a new and schizophrenic identity. If that doesn't bother you then you're far less likely than I am to have objected to The Last Jedi. If you also like the 'storytelling' found in the modern superhero genre replete with lazy characterization, sophomoric/kitsch/slapsticky humor, and cheap melodramatic tension, you're likely to have loved this movie and be eagerly looking forward to more.

---

Let me clarify. Yes, I love the fact that Rian Johnson pissed off the fanboys (for the record, I dislike fanboys cause I believe that directors spend too much time trying to appease them rather than making a quality movie).

But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I think it was important for the story going forward that RJ broke with Abrams and bucked conventional expectations.

Abrams is really good at one thing. He can watch all the past movies from the masters, copy elements from here and there and then repackage it in the form of his own movie. He never has anything original to say. That's why he's the king of reboots. Just basically make the same movie, make it look a little prettier and add a bunch of Easter eggs and mystery boxes to appease the fan boys.

It would've been very easy for RJ to take the safe route and just follow Abrams blueprint. Make a safe movie that says nothing, opens some of abrams' mystery boxes (omg Rey is obi won kenobe's grandaughter!!!) and creates some more mystery boxes of his own.

And then the Star Wars franchise could just go down the road of the marvel franchise. Each movie laying just enough crumbs and teasers to set up the next movie that follows exactly the same pattern. And on and on and on. Critics will give it positive ratings, fanboys will rejoice, and Disney will rake in millions. This is how movies die a slow death, just like music has already done.

So I give RJ a ton of credit for breaking away from Abrams and bucking expectations. I liked how each hero was portrayed as flawed (especially Poe), I liked how Finns mission failed, and I loved that Rey's parents were nobody's.

When a movie franchise just follows the same blueprint over and over, the franchise inevitably becomes stale. Like is anyone really looking forward to the next avengers movie?

So yeah, I appreciate the risks that were taken. And if they happened to piss off the fanboys, that's just icing on the cake. I just wish that the actual execution was better.

Is it really that hard to make a thoughtful, well executed big budget film? Apparently it is since the last one I can think of was dark knight.

---

Agreed very much, only I think it is generally well-executed.

Abrams made a perfectly affable, enjoyable Star Wars homage that said nothing about anything. Say what you will about the results, but Rian Johnson actually tried to say something with his movie.

---

So did George Lucas with the prequels. Doesn't mean it worked.

---

Yes, the execution was very poor with those. And I'd argue that it's mostly the third prequel that comes closest to making a real point (perhaps not coincidentally, the best one of those).

---

If anyone here ever has 45 minutes to kill and would like to see an interesting and much better hypothetical reworking of the first trilogy storyline, check out Belated Media's three-part "what if Star wars episode I/II/III were good" videos on youtube.

Considering the length of this film the studio will need to cut out about 45-55 minutes of it to fit a 2hr time slot for television. I wouldn't be surprised to see this on net flicks in about 6 mo.

GoCal1 said:

---

Considering the length of this film the studio will need to cut out about 45-55 minutes of it to fit a 2hr time slot for television. I wouldn't be surprised to see this on net flicks in about 6 mo.

---

I honestly think studios don't care much about that anymore. Everything is on-demand now.

BearsWiin said:

---

sycasey said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

ducky23 is off the reservation (in my view) when he signs off with his FU to the 'fanboys'. You don't have to be a fanboy (or fangirl) to care about characterization. Despite being called "episodes", Star Wars was never really episodic. It was an epic built around arcs which were contiguous through the individual movies. These films may have different directors, but given the pains Star Wars had always taken to preserve continuity in characterization, it's very disappointing to have The Force Awakens invite the audience to ask significant character questions like "Who is Snoke?" or "What is Rey's origin?" only to have the answer be 'don't matter lololol stupid fanboys' like some moronic internet troll.

Star Wars is supposed to be a saga, but this is not a continuation of that saga. It is the death of the universe as it existed before followed by the reanimation of its corpse under a new and schizophrenic identity. If that doesn't bother you then you're far less likely than I am to have objected to The Last Jedi. If you also like the 'storytelling' found in the modern superhero genre replete with lazy characterization, sophomoric/kitsch/slapsticky humor, and cheap melodramatic tension, you're likely to have loved this movie and be eagerly looking forward to more.

---

Let me clarify. Yes, I love the fact that Rian Johnson pissed off the fanboys (for the record, I dislike fanboys cause I believe that directors spend too much time trying to appease them rather than making a quality movie).

But that's not really the point I'm trying to make. I think it was important for the story going forward that RJ broke with Abrams and bucked conventional expectations.

Abrams is really good at one thing. He can watch all the past movies from the masters, copy elements from here and there and then repackage it in the form of his own movie. He never has anything original to say. That's why he's the king of reboots. Just basically make the same movie, make it look a little prettier and add a bunch of Easter eggs and mystery boxes to appease the fan boys.

It would've been very easy for RJ to take the safe route and just follow Abrams blueprint. Make a safe movie that says nothing, opens some of abrams' mystery boxes (omg Rey is obi won kenobe's grandaughter!!!) and creates some more mystery boxes of his own.

And then the Star Wars franchise could just go down the road of the marvel franchise. Each movie laying just enough crumbs and teasers to set up the next movie that follows exactly the same pattern. And on and on and on. Critics will give it positive ratings, fanboys will rejoice, and Disney will rake in millions. This is how movies die a slow death, just like music has already done.

So I give RJ a ton of credit for breaking away from Abrams and bucking expectations. I liked how each hero was portrayed as flawed (especially Poe), I liked how Finns mission failed, and I loved that Rey's parents were nobody's.

When a movie franchise just follows the same blueprint over and over, the franchise inevitably becomes stale. Like is anyone really looking forward to the next avengers movie?

So yeah, I appreciate the risks that were taken. And if they happened to piss off the fanboys, that's just icing on the cake. I just wish that the actual execution was better.

Is it really that hard to make a thoughtful, well executed big budget film? Apparently it is since the last one I can think of was dark knight.

---

Agreed very much, only I think it is generally well-executed.

Abrams made a perfectly affable, enjoyable Star Wars homage that said nothing about anything. Say what you will about the results, but Rian Johnson actually tried to say something with his movie.

---

So did George Lucas with the prequels. Doesn't mean it worked.

---

Yes, the execution was very poor with those. And I'd argue that it's mostly the third prequel that comes closest to making a real point (perhaps not coincidentally, the best one of those).

---

If anyone here ever has 45 minutes to kill and would like to see an interesting and much better hypothetical reworking of the first trilogy storyline, check out Belated Media's three-part "what if Star wars episode I/II/III were good" videos on youtube.

---

My take on the movies made since the Original Trilogy is this:

The prequels had ideas. George Lucas did have a vision for them. However, he utterly failed to make them dramatically compelling. They are just not very entertaining, except in brief spurts. Especially in Episodes 1 and 2, there is far too much time spent on pointless side stories that only exist for fan service (where did Boba Fett come from? Who cares?) and flashy but weightless special effects. Behind all that you can see that he wanted to say something about how one man's fall from grace paralleled with the fall of a democratic government, but most of the time it doesn't connect emotionally.

The Force Awakens, unlike the prequels, does have a compelling dramatic setup. The new characters are much more likable and compelling than what we got in Phantom Menace. Beat-to-beat and moment-to-moment it carries you along at a good, breathless pace. Aesthetically it's nice, recalling the originals but also feeling appropriately updated for modern technology. I'm interested in seeing what happens to Rey and Finn. The problem is that it's not about anything. Any interesting threads that J.J. Abrams picks up (destroying the old order, passing the torch to a new generation, Rey's search for family) are quickly dropped in favor of a climax that just recreates another Death Star battle (only bigger!) and then a postscript that punts to the next movie (there's Luke! And . . . credits).

IMO, The Last Jedi strikes the right balance, in that we are following compelling characters (I still care about Rey and Finn, given the setup they got in TFA) but the movie is also charting its own direction. The various subplots do connect to an overarching theme about how old revolutions die and must be rekindled by a new generation. The characters who try to do what Luke and Han did in the OT (get headstrong and run off to save the day by themselves) fail at it, and the old characters also have to learn the lesson that it's no longer all about them. This happens for the heroes as well as the villains. It finishes the job that J.J. couldn't, which was to decisively pass the torch to a new set of characters and stop fan-servicing about the old stuff. I love this approach, but it is perhaps more challenging than many expected.

Sure it has some stuff that goes unexplained. All of the movies did. I'm not here to pick apart the logic of a space opera, I'm here for a compelling story that also resonates with the real world in some way. That's what I got in TLJ.

MoragaBear said:

---

The only of the three prequals that came close on that point IMO was 3, as it brought the story back to where it all began in A New Hope. Really appreciated that part of the storyline.

---

IMO, it's the only prequel that is watchable. Still maybe not quite "good" (Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman continue losing their battle with George Lucas' dialogue), but it has a real story with momentum, which easily puts it above the other two.

Too bad Lucas had to end it with "NOOOOOOOOO!" He was so close to sticking that landing.

sycasey said:

---

MoragaBear said:

---

The only of the three prequals that came close on that point IMO was 3, as it brought the story back to where it all began in A New Hope. Really appreciated that part of the storyline.

---

IMO, it's the only prequel that is watchable. Still maybe not quite "good" (Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman continue losing their battle with George Lucas' dialogue), but it has a real story with momentum, which easily puts it above the other two.

Too bad Lucas had to end it with "NOOOOOOOOO!" He was so close to sticking that landing.

---

I walked out of that movie furious.

Turns out the great Darth Vader never actually hunted down the Jedi at all. A bunch of Jango Fett clones did that. He just killed a bunch of kids and finance guys because he felt guilty about helping kill Samuel L. Jackson.

There was so much more that could have been done over the space of three movies that would have made Vader as epic as you would have assumed he was, but it turned out he was never anything special at all.

BearsWiin said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

If you want to complain about a plot hole, complain about why Dern's admiral didn't kamikaze into the FO fleet as soon as the transports were away, thus saving them all (she knew she was dead already, so why not take as many of the enemy out?).

---

---

This is actually explainable. In the original plan she needs to stay the course to keep the First Order's attention. The plan is to get the transports to the salt planet and then jump far away to pull the entire First Order fleet away. That plan gets derailed when they reveal the transports and start firing on them. When she decides to do her kamikaze attack the First Order detects that the larger ship is revving up to jump to lightspeed but CHOOSES to ignore the main ship because they want to continue taking out the transports. She only had the element of surprise because everyone was pre-occupied with the transports. Had she decided to do an attack earlier on they would've simply destroyed the main ship right away and the whole fleet would still be near the salt planet.

I thought this was a good analysis of the movie's themes:

https://bittergertrude.com/2017/12/20/this-is-not-going-to-go-the-way-you-think-the-last-jedi-is-subversive-af-and-i-am-here-for-it/

(Caution: contains lots of liberalism.)

The things that pissed me off about 1/2/3:
1. Anakin makes C3PO, a protocol droid, for his mother, a slave on Tatoine, while R2D2, a Swiss Army knife, is Queen Amadala's droid? Queens need protocol droids, slaves need practical droids that can help with the work--and if R2D2 were Anakin's creation, it would explain R2D2's unexplained knowledge and motivation in the later (in time) movies, he would be the machine that became human, as Anakin was the human who turned into a machine. He would be a long lost brother to Luke and Leia--much more emotionally satisfying. Just a huge waste of an opportunity for absolutely no reason.
2. Miticlorians--that use of the Force is genetic instead of a universal power that any living being (even as small as Yoda) can tap into, either through training or self discovery.

The airlock thing in this movie is silly, but at least there is a plausible answer (a force field of some sort). The absolute worst was the end of the Superman movie where Lois dies, so Superman starts flying around the world super fast, which reverses the Earth's rotation (without killing everyone on the planet as they fly off into space) which makes time go backwards! Then Lois is alive and he embraces her without solving any of the things that resulted in her death in the first place. And he never uses his time reversing powers to save anyone else ever again.

calumnus said:

---

The airlock thing in this movie is silly, but at least there is a plausible answer (a force field of some sort).

---

I watched it again this afternoon with an eye to what happens on the bridge. It looks like there's almost a small antechamber off the bridge with doors on each end, which functions as an airlock. She goes into that antechamber, but we never see the doors shut behind her before she collapses against the inner door. A half second of different editing would have solved the problem that people have with that particular element of the scene.

Since this is thread has a spoiler warning, I guess it is ok to comment about the last scene (how the boy "grabs" the broom). That tells us what we need to know about the next chapter in the story.

Good comments on this post and others. But I still have not seen any comments how KR reaching out to Ren was basically a replay of DV reaching out to LS and saying "join me and we can rule the universe together".

Why the concern with the problem of floating into space and not dying or any of the other "problems" ? The implausibility of the movies was set from the beginning when the star cruiser rumbled onto the screen in The New Hope - there is no sound in space! Give me that sound and I'll ignore the realities. Personally, I enjoyed the new movie, if a bit too long, and look forward to the next one. For the record, Mark Hamill is exactly two days older than me, but I possess none of the Jedi powers. Yet.