Star Wars, Episode 8: The Last Jedi

[Drifter]

Farm boy from nowhere goes off with the wizard to save the princess and along the way team up with the rogue where they all end up defeating the black knight and thwarting the evil empire? Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

 

It's the nihilistic futility of struggle as shown by the static, if not demonstrably worse, setting for their story that betrays the premise and nullifies the accomplishments of the first films of the franchise that's pissing me off. That is the insult to fans. That is the appropriation. It's not about if the new films suck or not; I actually like them, but fuck those writers for unnecessarily shitting over my childhood to do so.

[Iambaytor]

You're confusing fairy tales with The Hero's Journey, which is used in a few fairy tales but also stories at large.  Joseph Campbell published an examination of a trope, not a rulebook.

 

Is it the nihilistic futility of struggle or the concept that violence begits violence writ large?  It's why Anakin turned to the dark side, it's why the Jedi order died, it's the lesson that Luke ignored and lost his hand for, it's the lesson Luke finally learned and helped turn Vader back to the light, it's the lesson Luke had to remind himself of for his triumphant scene in the Last Jedi.  There must be a light side and a dark side and if one side destroys the other then the force is out of balance and the cycle repeats.  Did you even watch these movies?

[Drifter]

I apparently know them better than you it would seem. And that 'balance' new-age bullshit was forced down our throats in the god-awful prequel series as a poor attempt by Lucas at trying to look 'mature' in his shit writing and was nowhere to be seen in the original trilogy; which is just as well because even in the prequels as soon as any of the sane touch-up scriptwriters got a hold of it you were shown that said quest for 'balance' was an unmitigated disaster for all involved and also any reference to such bullshit notions were promptly dropped at the wayside when blasters, lightsabers and starfighters came on screen because these were damn Action Movies. Then Lucas shoe-horned that balance shit into the script again at the end and we're wondering just how the hell any of that applies to what's been shown on screen; leaving it up to the writers of the supplementary material to retcon the hell out of things to try and make Lucas' 'ever evolving view' of what he wants to force to be to fit to what's been shown.

 

Which has nothing to do with the unnecessary crap that the new writers took on the previous films of the franchise just to change the tone to match the new darker grittier bullshit we've been getting in modern sci-fi. There's a reason that The Orville has been blasted by critics but is still one of the most beloved new shows to come out of fox and modern sci-fi, raking in record ratings for it's time slot; it's because it's not some grim-dark piece of shit.

 

As for what that crap they took on the franchise was, I stated it before, snatching defeat from the jaws of the heroe's victory:

 

On 4/3/2018 at 4:46 PM, Drifter said:

A lasting impact doesn't have to be forever or absolutely everywhere, but it sure as hell shouldn't be equivalent to as if it had never happened at all, aka, absolutely fucking nothing. The problem is that this isn't the next part of the cycle, it's that these new films are continuing the last part of the cycle. This isn't Epilogus Interruptus, this is Defeat in Epilogue; this isn't Star Wars: The Next Generation, this is Star Wars: The Animated Series of Failure. 

 

And we're seeing a 'microcosm' of the galaxy in these films, not some isolated series of unrelated and contained incidents with no far reaching repercussions, no matter how remote the systems they take place in; they make it quite clear in these films that they are fighting over "the fate of the galaxy." And in that often used statement it's actually the word 'galaxy' that is the understatement because they're actually talking about at least 4 galaxies, the main one and 3 (that are canon, with up to another 4 non-canon) surrounding micro-galaxies. That last scene in Empire? They're in orbit of a protostar in another galaxy, VIEWING THE GALAXY. The scope of the conflict isn't childish fanboying, it's a re-statement of lines from the film series.

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Drifter

[Da Cap'n 2099]

To do list:

 

1) Never come in this thread again.

[Iambaytor]

So is it new-age or grimdark?  Your cognitive dissonance is coming to a head here.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Iambaytor

[Drifter]

Gee wiz, it's like writers can't take a hippy gimmick and put it in a shit-hole setting... what's wrong with you? Also, it's not the point; it's about the new films negating the accomplishments of the previous ones for no reason other than to unnecessarily change the tone of the setting because in the unimaginative eyes of the new writers gritty is modern. Gah, I'm talking in circles because you're only reading the parts of my posts that you want to hear.

 

Smiles from the happy shit-hole setting

Edited April 5, 2018 by Drifter
clarity "; it's about"

[Iambaytor]

I'm hearing all the parts, I'm just letting you remove any doubt that Jumbie's claim that there's any depth to your argument beyond not adhering to the movie you've created in your head is baseless.  It's fine, there are at least three versions of the conflict-light victory lap you would prefer in book and video game form.  And that's clearly the foundation of your fandom, that's fine.  You don't have to like everything that comes out of a property, I think 99.9% of the supplemental materials are poorly written and stupid (and the .1% isn't exactly art itself) but they're their own thing.  You clearly wanted something different and that's fine too, but this didn't betray you because it never owed you anything to begin with.  Instead of doing a victory lap they decided to delve deeper into the philosophical themes of the series and explore them rather than make a light popcorn blockbuster.  But this take is neither a heel turn nor a sudden departure from style, it just wasn't the aspect you had hoped to see emphasized.  You didn't like it and you didn't have to, other people did, neither side is right, make peace with it.

[Drifter]

Regardless of who owns the property I'm contending that it's a dick move to unnecessarily shit over the resolution of the previous films just to darken the setting of the new ones. They unduly robbed the fanbase of their cathartic happy ending by unimaginatively conforming the setting of the new films to the senseless nihilistic pessimism that permeates modern sci-fi just so they could pettily attempt to peddle nostalgia... pathetically. They've detracted from the enjoyment of the original series in perpetuity by subverting the original conclusion of the previous films with Defeat in Epilogue.

 

It's not that the new ones are good or bad, I actually think they're fun, but it was sheer asshole-ery by the new writers to undermine the ending of the original series and whatever fulfillment the audience enjoyed from it, for piss poor reasons. It feels like they're Lucy with the football and we're all Charlie Brown.

 

Instead of a new story or continuation of the old story we get a rehash of the first one by new characters that came about because of the utter failure of the original characters, a failure that is contradictory to the spirit and premise of the original films. It's a bait and switch in some ways.

 

Ultimately they've changed the experience of the original films for the worse. You can't go back and re-watch them now without knowing that everything you're seeing is all for naught, and that every accomplishment the protagonists achieve is fleeting to the point of being meaningless. And that is a disservice to a lot of people.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Drifter

[Iambaytor]

 

[Drifter]

I can't view videos at work but the spirit of Carnac the Magnificent is with me... what is a video of the world's smallest violin?

[Iambaytor]

I didn't go quite that flippant, but yes.

[The NZA]

kinda done saying that if something has to continue from your perfect happy ending without having unresolved issues (or recycling things, like the original series did the death start/etc) that should say something about revisiting it at all

 

but if you're really gonna say it's so bad to mess up the perfect little bow you thought the originals wrapped up in, if that OG series was so fragile - maybe the original stuff wasn't the greatest thing ever to begin with? i mean, fuck, matrix was my thing in the day and i can scarcely think of a sci-fi series that shit the bed nearly that bad...but i can still enjoy the first one as a stand-alone thing  the dark knight strikes again didn't make the original dark knight returns any less enjoyable. 

[Iambaytor]

I do recall one of the (completely unfounded) fan theories I read before The Force Awakens (maybe even before Disney bought the rights) was that Palpatine had created the Galactic Empire and various Death Stars as a solid military force to combat an apocalyptic dread fleet slowly approaching from galaxies away and that Luke and company would have to deal with this new much more powerful enemy using what little remained of the Empire's weaponry and infrastructure post-Jedi.  That idea was based on nothing that I'm aware of and depends on the "The Sith are the real good guys of the series" theory which was and ever will be fucking stupid.  But the idea of the rebels and what little remains of the Empire having to throw aside grudges and fight a massive war against a new enemy that vastly outmatches them could've been a real cool idea to work with.  I'm still quite happy with the movies we got and I'm sure the potential is far greater than the reality of that idea but I gotta admit it's got legs.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Iambaytor

[Little Nemo McFly]

10 hours ago, Iambaytor said:

But the idea of the rebels and what little remains of the Empire having to throw aside grudges and fight a massive war against a new enemy that vastly outmatches them could've been a real cool idea to work with.

 

That's pretty much where the EU went post-ROTJ.

 

Yeah - a new 'conflict' / 'warring players' would've been nice w/ the Sequel Trilogy.

 

I LOVED the 'Jedi' vs 'Robots' stage (and both sides being manipulated) of the Prequel Trilogy - and the 'Rebels' vs 'Nazis' of the Original Trilogy.

 

The Sequel Trilogy stage is...it just feels uninspired and fucking lazy.  It's insane that Abrams and Kasdan got together - spent the time...and what they came up w/ was LITERALLY: remake 'A New Hope' / the OT stage...and let the next directors figure out...somewhere...something to do w/ it.  It's such a damn shame.

 

It really is a jarring jump after RoTJ.  Two movies into the Sequel Trilogy - and it still has you asking: sooo wait - what happened after the Empire was defeated?  How are they back?  Was there peace?  Hold on - what did our heroes actually accomplish in the OT?  Why is it 30 years later...and still - it's 'Rebels' vs 'Nazis'?  30 freakin' years?  Am I really supposed to believe, creatively: "there's nothing else you can do w/ Star Wars"?

 

 

...I guess you can ruin Luke...

 

 

 

UTTER.  MADNESS how this image / moment never happened...

[Drifter]

35 minutes ago, Little Nemo McFly said:

Hold on - what did our heroes actually accomplish in the OT?

 

Well, absolutely fucking nothing, it would seem. But hey, everybody hurts sometimes so, whatever.

[Keth]

Y'all are gonna throw money at part 3 though, yeah?

[Drifter]

Of course, what do you take us for, pop culture philistines!

[The NZA]

"how are there still nazis 30 years later?!" star wars fans ask unironically while existing in trump's america 

 

I hope none of y'all read comics 

 

1954 - cap defeats hydra 

1975 - does so again

1988 - guess who's back 

2009 - secret warriors guys, they're gone for real this time

2017 - HOW DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING, DID ALL THOSE BOOKS I READ COUNT FOR NOTHING [\spoiler]

[Drifter]

I think Nemo was just disappointed on the lack of variety in the new villainy. We had Nazis, then Robots, but instead of the next logical step of 'Aliens' (granted, hard to do with every other character technically an alien but as he said, the EU gave us extra-galactic horrors from beyond the rim) we got Nazis again. Lazy, unimaginative writing.

 

 I say keep the Space-Nazis if you want, I'm just disappointed that nothing has changed with the overall backdrop and setting since RotJ, unless you count things having gotten worse. Space Nazis milling about with impunity, showing up at a moments notice anywhere and everywhere. An Emperor stand-in demonstrably more powerful than the last one (say what you will but we have 4 films and 2 cgi tv series with Palpatine in them and at no time did he ever come close to pulling crap the likes of which Snoke casually and easily whipped out). The small insignificant and ineffectual Anti-Space Nazi opposition. The rampant local corruption. The the last lone and broken Jedi in hiding... Failure in Epilogue.

 

...  or Arrested Development?

 

Hell, if feels as if there was no epilogue at all, like the characters never even grew or matured in all that time, just got older. This wasn't the Star Trek: The Motion Picture of Star Wars as much as Star Trek: The Continuing Voyages of Suckage. Less Star Wars: The Next Generation, more Star Wars: The Animated Series of Failure. Good Luck re-watching the OT and thinking the characters were actually accomplishing anything anymore... anyways... always alliterate...

Edited April 6, 2018 by Drifter

[Jumbie]

As always, Spoilers below because the tags don't work right.

(And no one should be in a SW discussion without seeing the movie under discussion anyway, so you deserve it if anything gets spoiled)

 

Though, I should mention, spoilers for the movie LOGAN as well...

 

On 4/3/2018 at 1:37 AM, The NZA said:

Luke was a kid who wasn't a great jedi & essentially had to commit patricide to save the galaxy.  lacking direction after scoring the big touchdown, he found he wasn't great at other things either, and likely due to both kylo's descent & the resurgence of the sith, dove into isolation & from there, nihilism.  there's nothing there that strikes me as "shapeshifting".  

3

 

In terms of 'Is that technically possible?' It's realistic. In terms of 'Is that likely given what we know going in, and thus believable?' it's not realistic.
 
And in the suspension of disbelief, it is probable that wins out over possible. 'You can make me believe a man can fly, but you will never make me believe he would wear his underwear on the outside of his clothes,' (I forget who said that, but they were doing a fiction writing guide on how to get your readers to buy-in to stories.)

 

So to adequately explain what Luke becames,  what we know has to expand to justify the change.

 

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -Carl Sagan

 

And they whiffed it by using two elements: a vaguely presented dark side temptation scene about killing his nephew and an unexplained megapowered Snuke. Um Snoke.

 

I don't want to spend time on this because Luke's shapechange wasn't part of my original explanatioon. I put forward that a broken an dejected Luke would be fine in some circumstances. It is failure to show an actual return of the Jedi that is the failed promise. 

 

One other reason Luke's character presents a storytelling failure is that they clearly started from a point of saying 'we want hermit Luke to be a contrast to Rey' and then traced a line from ROTJ to TLJ to get that regardless of how unlikely that shape was instead of taking a sound story telling approach like saying, "Given what we know, where would Luke be now?" or "Hey, if this catastrophe happened, what would it do to Luke?"

They ended up with a shoehorned explanation that couldn't create the suspension of disbelief.
 

On 4/3/2018 at 1:37 AM, The NZA said:

things like wanting to see a more evolved republic, in the few places we've seen so far (another dustball, inside of ships, space-ireland with luke, etc - but that's forgetting the thriving casino scene that some folks didn't seem to dig either)

1

 

Uh, there may be some confusion of terms here. By Republic I mean an organization and a functioning structure of government. So by an evolved Republic  I'm thinking of seeing a 'country' so to speak. You seem to be thinking of the presentation of the locations on screen being rich or deep in a worldbuilding sense and that is not what I meant at all. 

The New Republic was a thing built by the hard work of Leia and the Alliance. It was the gift/legacy the Campbellian heroes brought back to their people. It was wiped out by a space laser in a scene that had been edited down to flashes of scared faces that lasted 20 seconds.

 

George Lucas on the other hand, understood the role of a new Republic (Though he never called it that.) In an interview in Newsweek (or was it Time?) in 1983, he talked about what Eps 7,8 and 9 would be: The struggles of a young government to stay true to its values. This is exactly the opening we needed for a good look at the resurgence-of-fascism dynamic. A reset doesn 't do it! Because the reset skips over what happen. The drama is over. 

 

True drama comes from endangering the gains of the past. So, endanger the New Republic and threaten a reset and it's actually more tense than actually destroying the new Republic.

 

On 4/3/2018 at 1:37 AM, The NZA said:

a large problem in anti-fascist movements is that once fascist groups & governments are done away with, the momentum is gone & the majority of people involved go back to living their lives - a cycle that allows fascism to grow in power from the shadows all over again.

 

 

And what would we need to do to fight a resurgence of nazism in the Star Wars universe? What happens when a Hux/Snoke/Darth Trump shows up to threated what you've spent 30 years buiiding? I would be SOOOOO into seeing these questions addressed. Instead we get 'Fascisms back, go fight it from the grassroots again. no lessons to be learned here.'

 

I think what you wrote above was in response to me saying the Republic seemed to casual about the danger it was in. I'd like to point out that 50 years after WW2 was 1995. Israel was still hunting down war criminals. We were still giving awards to Schindler's List and Speilberg was doing Shoah documentation, US presidents were traveling to France to do D-Day commemorations, the death camps were still preserved and being used to educated people about how they were used, Germany still had laws about not displaying Nazi imagery, Nazi were still the baddest of bad guys in the public culture and conscience.

 

30 years after Vader and Palpatine fell and with a constant Empire continuing on the fringes, it seems ridiculous that there is a disarmed and helpless Republic sitting like a duck for the First Order to attack.

Again, bad writing born out of coming up with a setup of 'weak Republic' first and justifying it flimsily after rather than asking, 'What would the Republic be, given what we know?"
 

On a related note, the idea of the Force being forgotten is artificial too. 

If they had asked themselves, 'What would happen to the knowledge of the Force if Kylo destoryed it all?" the answer would never be, 'the public forgets it all.'

For one thing, the rebuilding of the Jedi would have been very public, involving active recruiting. Luke was a celebrity at the end of ROTJ. (He was. TLJ ironically proves this. TLJ makes a big deal about how a phantom sword battle that only the First Order troops witnessed became a cultural phenomenon bringing hope and the legend of Luke Skywalker's Last Stand to slave children all over the galaxy who make action figures of him. Imagine how big a celeb he must have been at the end of the OT when he was going around publicly recruiting force sensitive young people to be cosmic cops?)

 

So the idea that Han has to insist that it was all real, like some legend. Bullcrap. It's been 30 years since Nakatomi Plaza and no one's forgotten that.

That Han speech on the Falcon was the moment I checked out of suspending disbelief in the new trilogy.

 

 

 

On 4/3/2018 at 1:37 AM, The NZA said:

i posit that the story many older fans would've wanted - "happily ever after", a more evolved republic with sith & jedi on equal footing, etc - sounds a lot more boring than what we saw. 

2

 

THE PROBLEM IS NOT 'HAPPILY EVER AFTER'.

 

Sorry to shout, but I've said that over and over. I know Drifter used the term because he had no better words, but I contend that the happiness of the characters is not an issue for the alienated fans.

 

When Drifter himself details his opinion he's talking about purpose and accomplishments.

The Campbellian heroes brought gifts and benefits to their world that have been erased. They could all die horribly and there would be no problem as long as ther accomplishments remained to build a story on. And I'm not talking about lasting an eternity. The things they build would only need to last long enough to be part of the new generation's heroics. We want to see Rey fighting to preserve a new Republic alongside the returned Jedi, not as part of a total reset where it is on her now to do the same thing Luke did and restart a new government and a new Jedi order.

 

I'm not sure why you think any scenario but an underdog reset would be more boring. It's ultimatelly down to the writer. The most enthralling part of TLJ, which even harsh critics will admit to enjoying is the Rey/Kylo dynamic and that exists outside of any consideration of stakes.

 

In fact, such a relationship might be even more notable in a fight between two equal sides because they are being presented as two equal opposites.

 

What's more, I challenge you to explain any part of the plot of TLJ that required the Republic or the Jedi students to be eradicated for it to work. 

 

I know they make a big deal about ALL THE REBELLION is on that fleet, the last hope etc. But think back to a superior film with a superior chase setup: The Falcon with a broken hyperdrive being chased by Vader through an asteroid field. We knew the rest of the Rebellion was safe. Only the people on that little ship were in danger. But almost all the people we cared about were on that ship. Likewise, in TLJ, we didn't need everyone in the Resistance to be on the endangered fleet. Just the people we cared about.

 

Not only could the plot and excitement of the movie have been just as solid in a clash of equal forces scenario (to give one possible alternative, not my favored alternative), but many elements could have been stronger. The moral ambiguity angle would have real depth. When DJ points out that the Resistance pays arms dealers for weapons, our reaction is, 'Of course they do, they're being wiped out by bad guys.' No weight.

 

But if the Rebellion is a hegemony itself, then that is complicity in warmongering. This goes back to Lucas talkinng about the struggles of a young government. You want to bring order back to the galaxy after a war, but how do you govern fairly, without violating sovereignty, without restricting freedoms yourself.

 

All this praise I see for TLJ having depth infuriates me because it's actually quite shallow, choosing the most simplistic power dynamic to examine.

 

On 4/3/2018 at 1:37 AM, The NZA said:

to evolve & continue to grow with younger fans, you acknowledged that it had to shed the older characters.  maybe it had to shed some of the more cantankerous & toxic elements of its fanbase too (particularly anyone unironically using the phrase "SJW" in their critique), you know? 

 

 

I'm kinda stunned you'd say this.

Looking at it in the frame of storywriting choices, are you saying the writers were considering ways to alienate sections of the fanbase when they were writing? Because if they were doing anything besides trying to write a fun adventure that made you engaged and want to buy toys, they were not doing their jobs.

 

I mean, MY whole contention starts with granting that they were trying to be good writers and swung the pendulum too far on a reset unintentionally. You're accusing them of being bad writers.

 

Also, you're doing this thing I've seen over and over in the debate about this movie which is make it a virtue test. Your statement doesn't allow for Drifter being a non-toxic fan. At the least, your implication is that most of the people who dislike this movie have suspect motives.

 

I reject the whole premise. The people who have genuine problems with this movie are mostly not involved in the representation debate. I know there are loud voices on youtube and elsewhere who have made it a talking point, but to focus on them is to lose sight of the forest for a few rotten trees.

 

Lastly, there is no reason that younger fans can't be brought in without cutting out the accomplishment and affection for the older characters. Star Wars OT has never had trouble finding new fans. Half the people complaining about Luke being etrayed etc are in their twenties. They never saw it in theaters. I bought my 5yo niece all kinds of Rey toys over the last 2 years. She made her own Leia outfit for Halloween instead. 

 

Those characters have a charm that exists beyond their old fans. The issue of preserving their in-story achievements and their legacy has nothing to do with the toxic elements.

 

==============================

 

On a separate note one of the things I've been contemplating is this issue of aged/weak heroes. Particularly I've been thinking of Will Munny from Unforgiven and Logan from Logan. These characters work as decrepit old men who have lost most or all of who they were in younger stronger days. So why no fan backlash to old man Logan or the portrayal of 'the man with no name'? (Unforgiven is basically a sequel to those movies.)

 

With Unforgiven, I think the answer is easy. Will Munny and his predecessors were never heroes. They were in it for personal selfish gains. They lacked clear morality. They were not Campbellian heroes of the monomyth class and thus they never had a legacy to their in-movie world.

 

But a lot of people have brought up the idea that TLJ is only evolving characters or addressing issues of aging and limitations that tons of other movies have done. The key is that Star Wars and Luke Skywalker, in particular, was so bound up in the elements of the monomyth hero that you can't remove it without destroying it. Or at the least you can't examine it in canon.

 

It's almost the same as satirizing Star Wars to give your audience a new understanding of the original. Spaceballs skewered Star Wars on things like it's merchandising, it's father-son pot complications, Lightspeed conveniences, ridiculous costumes, vague magic system, even it's over-reliance on superweapons.

 

But it did that with stand-in characters in a stand-in universe. 

 

An examination of Luke as an old warrior could take place in a similar way. But when you go to a property with a set tone, set expectations, and then start to subvert expectation, you are messing with story foundations. Old Man Luke doesn't work in a monomyth universe even though the monomyth implies constantly that old heroes lose and come to bad ends because the myth has a role for old heroes as mentor figures. Obiwan was once a vibrant hero and he lost it all and became and old hermit, right? 

But backstory doesn't come with legacy gifts and we never have an emotional bond with the legacy of the mentor figure.

 

Why is there no pushback on LOGAN? (And I want to point out that Logan went full out 'SJW' having a young Spanish speaking female with a multi-ethnic group of friends take over as the new generation while killing off our beloved LOGAN.

 

Logan has hovered on the edges of being a Campbellian hero of the monmyth style. Especially in recent years when he has become less and less an outsider. But I think Logan fits more the role of a noir hero. he's a hard luck case. He's going to pull off some small-scae heroics to help a single person and suffer from the effort and gain nothing.

 

That's been a pattern for him for a long time.

 

Logan is just a culmination of those noir themes.

 

 

(I also wish to point out that neither Logan nor Unforgiven needed world-shattering scenarios to be captivating, generally well-liked movies. Logan was about the life of a single girl (Not even her friends really mattered) and Unforgiven was about some wronged prostitutes and the house that Little Bill was building. So again, I have to say the TFA/TLJ reset was unnecessary.)

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Jumbie

[Iambaytor]

 

[The NZA]

i'm gonna start by saying: i'm not nearly invested enough in SW as a property to read all that, man. i'm just not.  slow days at work are the only reason i indulge this thread at all, because i clearly don't think it's as great as some of y'all do

 

star wars was/is a hodge podge of pulp, kurosawa samurai morality tales/troupes and a fixation on joseph cambell's hero's journey to allow you nerds to get away with writing about it in  high school/college.  the amalgam of those things is fun, but does not warrant the lengths you're going to here, for me.

 

gonna pull a joel here & respond to what i thought worth responding to:

 

Quote

 

THE PROBLEM IS NOT 'HAPPILY EVER AFTER'.

Sorry to shout, but I've said that over and over. I know Drifter used the term because he had no better words, but I contend that the happiness of the characters is not an issue for the alienated fans.

 

 

Drifter is more than capable of using words to explain his view, and has used thousands of them here.  maybe trying to ovelarp your arguments isn't a great idea, because you're trying to speak for something else in this divided fanbase

 

Quote

Also, you're doing this thing I've seen over and over in the debate about this movie which is make it a virtue test. Your statement doesn't allow for Drifter being a non-toxic fan. At the least, your implication is that most of the people who dislike this movie have suspect motives.

 

i didn't once say drifter fell into the anti-"SJW" segment, though.  you can be a crusty old bitter fan and not root your disdain for this movie in misogynist terms - but i do think you're being a bit dishonest here pretending that isn't a very large part of the vocal complaints with this film.

 

is it yours or drifter's? thankfully not, but a cursory online search will show that whatever arbitrary % of the fanbase you're riding for here, it's likely not as large as they are.  

 

i mean, you shouldn't take it to heart.  sci-fi in general, comics, anime, hip hop, video games - lots of things i enjoy have shitty vocal fanbases with deep issues regarding women, minorities, LGBT etc issues.  disliking something by no means lumps you in with them, but hand-waving them away doesn't really help things either.

 

Quote

Looking at it in the frame of storywriting choices, are you saying the writers were considering ways to alienate sections of the fanbase when they were writing?
Because if they were doing anything besides trying to write a fun adventure that made you engaged and want to buy toys, they were not doing their jobs.

 

of course not - but if i was among them?  i'd give you all the closure/pandering with the old characters &  move right along, because looking at the backlash this enjoyable entry to the franchise got from its dustier fans, creatively speaking, ya'll feel like dead weight.   

 

plotlines that were okay to recycle in older films have a part in the new ones?  zzzz.  characters didn't evolve the way you saw them?  it's a betrayal, the franchise is dead to me, etc etc.  

 

i appreciate that i asked for nuance on the backlash, and you've given me your personal stance.  i just don't know that yours is a common one, especially given your apathy towards people wanting "happily ever after" while the guy right next to you here seems to be saying just that.  

 

[Jumbie]

EDIT: This is posted in response to Baytor and his music.

 

Yeah, I'm working on a reply to your posts. 

One thread I notice is your mocking of the alienated fans.

 

You're making it seem like this is all about them being whiny, weak people for not liking something and voicing their opinion?

 

I'm not sure what your beef is with them. May I ask, what should they have done in your opinion? These alienated fans, they don't control what they like or dislike, so you can't be asking them to start liking the movie. Are you saying they should not complain online? Are you saying they shouldn't make videos on youtube breaking down the things they see wrong in the movie? 

This is what I'm talking about when I say the supporters of this movie have taken a very unusual stance in discussions because they seem to think that liking or disliking it is a sign of personal virtue. 

Anyway, not sure when I'll get to replying to your comments, but you raised some issues I had not considered and I want to tackled them to shore up my thesis.
 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Jumbie

[Jumbie]

15 minutes ago, The NZA said:

 

plotlines that were okay to recycle in older films have a part in the new ones?  zzzz.  characters didn't evolve the way you saw them?  it's a betrayal, the franchise is dead to me, etc etc.  

 

Well, that certainly proves you were telling the truth and didn't read what I wrote...

 

That's alright, I know it's long. I said that one reason I was taking so long to write on this was not being sure I could distill it properly. This thread has been great for me to get things somewhat streamlined in my head, so hopefully by the time I put it in a blog post or something it flows and I can incorporate the back and forth in a way that is just flat statements.

As for Drifter, I didn't try to speak for him. I just pointed out that HIS OWN clarifications spoke for what he meant and he was talking about characters' in-movie legacies, not their personal fates.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Jumbie

[Iambaytor]

1 hour ago, Jumbie said:

EDIT: This is posted in response to Baytor and his music.

 

Yeah, I'm working on a reply to your posts. 

One thread I notice is your mocking of the alienated fans.

 

You're making it seem like this is all about them being whiny, weak people for not liking something and voicing their opinion?

 

I'm not sure what your beef is with them. May I ask, what should they have done in your opinion? These alienated fans, they don't control what they like or dislike, so you can't be asking them to start liking the movie. Are you saying they should not complain online? Are you saying they shouldn't make videos on youtube breaking down the things they see wrong in the movie? 

This is what I'm talking about when I say the supporters of this movie have taken a very unusual stance in discussions because they seem to think that liking or disliking it is a sign of personal virtue. 

Anyway, not sure when I'll get to replying to your comments, but you raised some issues I had not considered and I want to tackled them to shore up my thesis.
 

 

As I said, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else disliking this movie.  It's the complete sense of entitlement and lack of self-awareness that irks me.  Your points are all very well thought out but they're based on a lot of assumptions and your whole diversion on how it fails because it doesn't fit Cambellian myth is the most confounding thing I've ever read.  The Hero's Journey isn't a rulebook, it's an examination of traditions in storytelling that persevere to this day.  There are canonical reasons they took the path they did, maybe you didn't care for it because it doesn't fit with your interpretation of events but it's all on the page so they didn't just pull this out of their ass.  And I'm really trying to curb my dickishness here because I respect you, but when you come in here asking me to disregard people's clear and thought out statements because they can't possibly know what they actually mean or telling Nick that he can't understand because he's not enough of a fan to be in mourning I'm making a jerk-off motion in the air.  So much of Star Wars fandom is an image we build in our minds that's culled from a lot of sources, I was surprised on revisit of how much stuff that I took as integral to the films was actually brought in from books I'd read or things I'd just imagined. 

 

I actually don't have a problem with Drifter and Nemo's issue with the new bad guys being a little too similar to the old ones, I don't agree with that because I think the similar set-up and similar structure is part of the commentary on the cyclical nature of struggle but I get that that's not everyone's bag.  My issue is that people can't seem to stop at not liking the movie, you want your opinions to be objective and they're just not.  It's fine, my opinions aren't objective either, but you're trying to chart out poorly thought-out handling of the property and while I can point out bits of shoddy writing in both films, they really did work hard to not just throw these characters under the bus Mission Impossible style.  Are these turns surprising and not as pleasant as people had hoped?  No, they're not, but for the people that like the movie that's what they like.

 

Drifter's on to something with the morally grey stuff, he's being crazy hyperbolic on how dark that has made the franchise because it is still crazy romantic and hopeful despite the few flirtations with darker subject matter (still nothing anywhere near as dark as what we've seen in Rogue One or Revenge of the Sith.  Also, if you didn't get chills when Holdo put that ship in warp then your life is empty.)  It's clear they're heading toward a future with no Sith or Jedi, but a mixture of the two.  A true balance to the force.  That is a really interesting idea and it fits with what has come before, why would Luke succeed at what the Jedi order failed at a generation ago when he doesn't have the training or the wisdom that they did?  What does a galaxy controlled by a massive totalitarian empire do when that power structure is removed?  And the character dynamics they're building with Poe, Rey, and Finn (and maybe Rose, we'll see how that shakes out) are deep and nuanced.  Ultimately, we all know they're going to defeat the First Order and things will go from there, by all accounts the Skywalker saga comes to an end with episode 9, I'm definitely interesting to see what Johnson does with three movies where people don't expect him to cater to a specific picture of a character or tone that they've built in their minds.

 

But mostly I just think that The Hero's Journey is a great framework from a story but I'm far more interested in how a story can subvert the tropes of that narrative than cling to it.  Part of growing up is realizing that glory fades and once the hero rides off into the sunset they don't just get absorbed into the sky and convert into positive energy, they live lives and life sucks.  Logan is a good example of this, look at all the various triumphs in the X-Men movies.  Logan gets sent back into the past to prevent an apocalyptic future only to wind up in an even more depressing one where he dies slowly, poisoned by his own bones.  Sidebar: I think the reason that doesn't bother people is that continuity means nothing in the X-men film universe, as far as people are concerned Logan is what DC comics used to call an "Imaginary Story."  It's a What If, an Elseworlds, it didn't happen even though it literally is the last word on the X-men universe started with the first live-action movie (not counting Deadpool which lives in a grey area between the original series and the reboot movies) and that's not to speak of the loose continuity between the three Wolverine solo movies.  But I think of that statement people make that the reason Shane doesn't respond to the little boy calling his name at the end of the movie because he has succumbed to his wounds and is slumped over dead on his horse and the reason the audience doesn't realize this is because the big THE END credit is obscuring our view.  I don't know if there's any truth to that and I very much doubt there is but it's an interesting play on such a traditional narrative as Shane.  I like the exploration of the concept of "what do these people who were so laser-focused on fighting the bad guys do when they succeed at their task?"  And I love that they chose to take one of the most archetypal franchises and rather than make a safe sequel, explore what these damaged people became between conflicts.  Luke sums up the best part of his character in The Last Jedi "What, did you expect me to just pick up my laser sword and go beat The First Order single handed?"  Would it have been cool to see Luke wipe out the First Order's entire ground forces?  Absolutely, but that's the kind of empty spectacle that would fade over time, what he actually ends up doing is far more interesting and in line with what Obi-Wan did in A New Hope.  My only concern is that with Carrie Fisher's death, they're never going to complete Leia's arc.  I know people are balking at recasting and I don't like Meryl Streep for the part (the only actress capable of taking the baton from Carrie Fisher is Margot Kidder) but I really feel the character deserves the closure that they planned for her.

 

Basically, I accept the fact that some people don't like the movie and my blanket statement to those people is that that's fine but quit being so fucking mopey about it and doing the "well actually..." and then pouring bile out every time someone says they like it.  And especially don't try and make a big explanation for why it's objectively bad, I know you have your reasons but telling someone they don't actually like something makes you look like a flaming asshole every time.  And I mean that for fandom in general, it irks me when my film critics rag on the Marvel movies for being unoriginal like they didn't also grow up in a world where The Phantom and Steel were genuine big budget stabs at legitimate superhero movies.  By all means, hate the movie, live your life, but just calm the fuck down about it.