Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi Discussion Thread (SPOILERS WITHIN)

[Dan H.]

17 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The original trilogy brought you from A to B. The Force Awakens automatically begins well+ into C without any explanation how we got from B to C. In fact it is even worse than that. It is as if there is no connective tissue whatsoever between the original trilogy and The Force Awakens. Currently, The Force Awakens seems to exist in a vacuum.

I'm not saying continue with the utopia established at Jedi's finale, but surely any future problems that have arisen in the aftermath have to be adequately explained.

Name one (original) character design in The Force Awakens that can rival Darth Maul? Name one scene in The Force Awakens that is as memorable as the light saber duel between the aforementioned and Liam Neeson and McGregor's characters?

 

I thought they adaquetly explained what happened in between, at least the stuff we need to know as an audience. There are bad guys, we know where they come from (the old Empire) and we know what they want (regain control of the Galaxy). Star Wars never was rich with detailed lore like GoT and LotR. In fact its a fairly simple good guys bad guys conflict. Shit, if I wanted to sleep through 2 hours of space politics, I'd watch TPM.

The story functioned well, it made sense, and followed a straight line with some fairly basic arcs just like the original films. I knew who was evil and why, and I knew who was good and why. I knew what the conflict was and what various characters motivations were.

Honestly BB-8 is truly as good of a design as Darth Maul, and his image is incredibly popular and celebrated. 

I honestly don't get why the Qui Gon Maul scene was so memorable to some people. It was cool and had decent choreography, and the setting was a nice but fairly simple homage to Vadar and Lukes fight on cloud city. It certainly was a highlight in the prequels, but hardly was impressive.

Personally I found the fight between Rey and Kylo to be very impressive, and its emotional context was greater because the villain is actually a fleshed out character and not a mumbling demon man who no one knows anything about.

TFA has a few serious missteps. Often the justifications people make for calling it a reboot of A New Hope seem nitpicky. Star Wars always borrows from itself, and originality isn't something that makes or breaks a movie. Really the only "remake" factor that gave me cause to eyeroll was the new Death Star which was an inexusible and embarrassing dumb ass idea.

Compared to the prequels, which do not function as enjoyable films because of serious flaws in the writing, tone, direction, production, execution, and VFX, The Force Awakens is well acted, has a fine script, keeps a consistent action adventure tone, and flows without noticable pacing issues. 

It truely is a good film. Not amazing or even great, but its a proper Star Wars film.

Edited January 31, 2017 by Dan H.

[ZoSoRose]

17 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Name one (original) character design in The Force Awakens that can rival Darth Maul? Name one scene in The Force Awakens that is as memorable as the light saber duel between the aforementioned and Liam Neeson and McGregor's characters?

 

1. Kylo Ren

2. The bridge scene and Ren vs Rey

[Dan H.]

Kylo's design is pretty cool too. Including his flaming lightsaber

Edited February 1, 2017 by Dan H.

[luciusfunk]

2 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

1. Kylo Ren

2. The bridge scene and Ren vs Rey

Kylo Ren is basically Jacen Solo from the EU, but instead of killing his aunt and being a Sith, he kills his father and JJ Abrams said he's not a Sith. 

[rocknroll41]

5 minutes ago, luciusfunk said:

Kylo Ren is basically Jacen Solo from the EU, but instead of killing his aunt and being a Sith, he kills his father and JJ Abrams said he's not a Sith. 

He wasn't a sith cause they wanted to avoid the stupid "destroy the Sith" prophecy that was established in the prequels that was then "fulfilled" in return of the jedi.

[DieselDaisy]

6 hours ago, tsinindy said:

TFA has a 92% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes and an 81 rating on metacritic based on critical reviews. So while there were surely indifferent or poor reviews of TFA, they were not the prevailing opinion by any means.

I did not say it was the 'prevailing opinion'. I said the reviews were mixed, with many of the reviews echoing my own thoughts.

[tsinindy]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I did not say it was the 'prevailing opinion'. I said the reviews were mixed, with many of the reviews echoing my own thoughts.

No, you literally said it produced indifferent opinioins "at best".  That clearly isn't true.  Have a nice day.

[luciusfunk]

15 minutes ago, rocknroll41 said:

He wasn't a sith cause they wanted to avoid the stupid "destroy the Sith" prophecy that was established in the prequels that was then "fulfilled" in return of the jedi.

That's a silly reason. If he's not a Sith because they were destroyed at the end of RotJ, fine, but if he's not a Sith because JJ didn't like part of Star Wars lore, that's shit. 

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, Dan H. said:

Star Wars never was rich with detailed lore like GoT and LotR.

Is this the franchise which began life as a fourth installment with the intention to flesh out the backstory at a later date?

4 hours ago, Dan H. said:

The story functioned well, it made sense, and followed a straight line with some fairly basic arcs just like the original films. I knew who was evil and why, and I knew who was good and why. I knew what the conflict was and what various characters motivations were.

It is not a question of whether the story functions well within the film itself. It is a question of its connective tissue with the original trilogy, e.g. the finale of Return of the Jedi. Currently The Force Awakens seems to exist in a sort of vacuum.

4 hours ago, Dan H. said:

Honestly BB-8 is truly as good of a design as Darth Maul, and his image is incredibly popular and celebrated. 

No. Just a R2D2 reprise.

4 hours ago, Dan H. said:

TFA has a few serious missteps. Often the justifications people make for calling it a reboot of A New Hope seem nitpicky. Star Wars always borrows from itself, and originality isn't something that makes or breaks a movie.

There is a difference between borrowing certain aesthetics and plot aspects from films and reassembling them, and rebooting a franchise's own opening installment practically in toto.

3 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

1. Kylo Ren

2. The bridge scene and Ren vs Rey

Is that the stroppy teenager who kills off Ford? No - not in the slightest.

 

8 minutes ago, tsinindy said:

No, you literally said it produced indifferent opinioins "at best".  That clearly isn't true.  Have a nice day.

I do not see where that statement has been contradicted by yourself?

[tsinindy]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

I do not see where that statement has been contradicted by yourself?

not my fault you can't read.  It's all good though, you clearly have a right to your opinion which is CLEARLY in the minority (despite what you tried to portray).   

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, tsinindy said:

not my fault you can't read.  It's all good though, you clearly have a right to your opinion which is CLEARLY in the minority (despite what you tried to portray).   

I must have read a handful of reviews of that film and they were producing marks like 2/5, 3/5.

[tsinindy]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I must have read a handful of reviews of that film and they were producing marks like 2/5, 3/5.

OK....good for you

[rocknroll41]

37 minutes ago, luciusfunk said:

That's a silly reason. If he's not a Sith because they were destroyed at the end of RotJ, fine, but if he's not a Sith because JJ didn't like part of Star Wars lore, that's shit. 

I can see why the latter may be a possibility, since "Sith" was a term that originated in the prequels, which JJ doesn't really seem to give a fuck about (can't say I blame him though). However, Maz Kanata did mention the Sith in TFA. I would imagine if JJ really hated that part of the lore THAT much he wouldn't of had her say that.

plus, the Sith have that weird rule-of-two thing. So had the Knights of Ren been Sith instead, we would only be getting two of them in episodes 8 and 9 instead of seven. So that couldve also been a contributing factor in the decision to make a new dark side faction.

lastly, making a new faction allows for them to give their new lead villain a more unique name instead of just having him be called Darth like every other major Star Wars villain in the past. For all the criticism TFA gets for being too similar, at least THAT aspect was different.

Edited February 1, 2017 by rocknroll41

[Silent Jay]

The prequels felt like the original StarWars, they matched up to the style of the original trilogy. They were even more innovative with the visuals, as TFA was a retro thing, an homage or something. It certainly does feel Disney-esque.

JJ Abrams sadly did just what he did with Star Trek, and that's mostly why it sucked. TFA relied too much on the audience's feelings of nostalgia for the original trilogy, it was an uninspired sequel devoid of any sort of deeper meaning. It really was.

Kylo Ren may be the worst villain ever. You tell me he's a powerful sith just as Palpatine and Dooku but can't beat the shit out of an ex-stormtrooper? Then you have the redhead dude, the stormtrooper in silver armor and giant Snoke. Fucking disappointing. Disney just can't come up with strong villains, they just can't.

Even the good guys were awful, fans gave Hayden Christensen so much shit but suddenly they are totaly ok with the black dude and the girl? The storyline between Leila and Han Solo was also unreal, thirty years later and Han Solo is still with Chewbacca doing shit.

Star Wars was a soap opera, it wasn't about spaceships, it was about family issues. The only thing is no matter how hard they try to convince us, it doesn't feel like Star Wars, and Disney failed big time.

No shame about milking the cash cow with young Han Solo, Darth Vader in Rogue One etc. Not for me, I'm not paying for this shit.

[luciusfunk]

8 hours ago, rocknroll41 said:

I can see why the latter may be a possibility, since "Sith" was a term that originated in the prequels, which JJ doesn't really seem to give a fuck about (can't say I blame him though). However, Maz Kanata did mention the Sith in TFA. I would imagine if JJ really hated that part of the lore THAT much he wouldn't of had her say that.

plus, the Sith have that weird rule-of-two thing. So had the Knights of Ren been Sith instead, we would only be getting two of them in episodes 8 and 9 instead of seven. So that couldve also been a contributing factor in the decision to make a new dark side faction.

lastly, making a new faction allows for them to give their new lead villain a more unique name instead of just having him be called Darth like every other major Star Wars villain in the past. For all the criticism TFA gets for being too similar, at least THAT aspect was different.

We don't know we're getting seven Knights of Ren in VIII or IX. It's all rumors. 

And Sith did not originate in the prequels. The novelization and all the Vader toys had him described as Dark Lord of the Sith. Sith is also mentioned in the original draft when Anakin Starkiller and Darth Vader were two different characters. 

Edited February 1, 2017 by luciusfunk

[rocknroll41]

42 minutes ago, luciusfunk said:

We don't know we're getting seven Knights of Ren in VIII or IX. It's all rumors. 

And Sith did not originate in the prequels. The novelization and all the Vader toys had him described as Dark Lord of the Sith. Sith is also mentioned in the original draft when Anakin Starkiller and Darth Vader were two different characters. 

Well, I'm assuming since we caught a glimpse of seven Knights of Ren for a brief second in TFA that we'll see them. I mean, it'd be pretty foolish of the filmmakers NOT to use them if they went through the trouble of teasing them.

and yeah, I know the word "Sith" was around from the very beginning. However, from a movie perspective (which im sure is the only thing JJ really gives a fuck about), that term was only first mentioned in the prequels, so he probably associates it with that era mainly, and not the original trilogy era. But like I said, he had Maz mention the Sith, so its not like he REALLY hates that part of the lore. He probably just wanted to avoid having to spend valuable story time retconning the stupid prophecy thing that was fulfilled by ROTJ. He had a lot of ground to cover in TFA, so there wasn't really room for explaining that sorta stuff.

Edited February 1, 2017 by rocknroll41

[luciusfunk]

There wasn't room to explain a lot of things, so a lot of things just went unexplained. Hopefully Rian Johnson does a better job. 

[AxlisOld]

Is this the franchise which began life as a fourth installment with the intention to flesh out the backstory at a later date?

 

No, the original Star Wars did not say "Episode IV"

Lucas came up with his little trilogy idea later.

[Silent Jay]

41 minutes ago, luciusfunk said:

There wasn't room to explain a lot of things, so a lot of things just went unexplained. Hopefully Rian Johnson does a better job. 

So we need to wait two more years to get any meaning to what we have seen... it's very much like watching an episode of Lost. The writers dont have a steering wheel, so even they dont know where they're going.

[James Bond]

Rian Johnson is an amazing writer and director so I have faith in his Star Wars abilities. Mark Hamill was raving about the dialogue so that's an aspect I'm definitely looking forward to.

[Zeppelin]

11 hours ago, Silent Jay said:

The prequels felt like the original StarWars, they matched up to the style of the original trilogy. They were even more innovative with the visuals, as TFA was a retro thing, an homage or something. It certainly does feel Disney-esque.

JJ Abrams sadly did just what he did with Star Trek, and that's mostly why it sucked. TFA relied too much on the audience's feelings of nostalgia for the original trilogy, it was an uninspired sequel devoid of any sort of deeper meaning. It really was.

Kylo Ren may be the worst villain ever. You tell me he's a powerful sith just as Palpatine and Dooku but can't beat the shit out of an ex-stormtrooper? Then you have the redhead dude, the stormtrooper in silver armor and giant Snoke. Fucking disappointing. Disney just can't come up with strong villains, they just can't.

Even the good guys were awful, fans gave Hayden Christensen so much shit but suddenly they are totaly ok with the black dude and the girl? The storyline between Leila and Han Solo was also unreal, thirty years later and Han Solo is still with Chewbacca doing shit.

Star Wars was a soap opera, it wasn't about spaceships, it was about family issues. The only thing is no matter how hard they try to convince us, it doesn't feel like Star Wars, and Disney failed big time.

No shame about milking the cash cow with young Han Solo, Darth Vader in Rogue One etc. Not for me, I'm not paying for this shit.

Meh. I'll take the lesser of two evils here. Leaning on nostalgia is unfortunate, but it's a side effect of the result of the prequel trilogy. Lucas punished Star Wars fans with a trilogy of overindulgent shit. It's not even eye candy at best. And people shit on Christensen because of the "acting" portion of Lucas' "script". Boyega and Ridley brought better acting in their first Star Wars movie than anything Hayden and Natalie brought for their entire duration of the prequels. I mean, the new actors nailed it fairly well, with blips here and there.

There was no deeper meaning in the prequels either. Where's the deeper meaning? When Anakin leaves his home just like Luke had to? When everyone and their brother had a lightsaber and waved it around as if it was dick measuring? Order 66 in Ep. III was supposed to have meaning because of the slaughter of all Jedi, but it has zero context. There are no deeper meanings in the supposedly more "original" prequel trilogy. They don't exist to me. Because Lucas failed to deliver a story in a saga that focuses on the Skywalker lineage. The whole point was to show Anakin's turn to the dark side. A complete contrast/comparison to Luke's road in the OT. Unfortunately, even that gets muddied in the absolute horrendous mess of effects, dialogue, acting, and ridiculous storylines that border on insulting to a fanbase that has been around for decades.

I don't really want to hear about how I have to watch Clone Wars either. Even though I watch it, the movies should explain themselves. TFA was guilty of this too. Relying on novels for back story and fluff like that. It's a negative characteristic for the Star Wars saga. Unfortunately, the prequels leaned on this far greater than TFA, which is ridiculous, considering it was George Lucas. He should've known better. 

People can give JJ shit all they want to, but he had to take a franchise that longtime fans were severely nervous about going into a new trilogy. He definitely leaned on nostalgia more than he needed to, but he sure as hell didn't insult us with some half-baked, middling, absolutely horrendous entry into the Skywalker saga. At the end of the day, the prequels barely said anything about the Skywalkers properly. JJ already proved he knew where he was going with it. Nostalgia or not.

And yes, SW is all about the Skywalkers.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Zeppelin

[DieselDaisy]

We are starting from a fairly low base with these films. Comparing The Force Awakens with the prequels is a bit like comparing diarrhea with vomit and asking the question 'which one is better?'

 

[downzy]

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

We are starting from a fairly low base with these films. Comparing The Force Awakens with the prequels is a bit like comparing diarrhea with vomit and asking the question 'which one is better?'

 

Ah, no...  The prequels are what you get when you eat uncooked chicken.  

[Zeppelin]

56 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

We are starting from a fairly low base with these films. Comparing The Force Awakens with the prequels is a bit like comparing diarrhea with vomit and asking the question 'which one is better?'

 

It's just based on what's newest, really. People will compare the newest (VII) with what came before it (PT). It's natural.

[Silent Jay]

6 minutes ago, Zeppelin said:

Meh. I'll take the lesser of two evils here. Leaning on nostalgia is unfortunate, but it's a side effect of the result of the prequel trilogy. Lucas punished Star Wars fans with a trilogy of overindulgent shit. It's not even eye candy at best. And people shit on Christensen because of the "acting" portion of Lucas' "script". Boyega and Ridley brought better acting in their first Star Wars movie than anything Hayden and Natalie brought for their entire duration of the prequels. I mean, the new actors nailed it fairly well, with blips here and there.

There was no deeper meaning in the prequels either. Where's the deeper meaning? When Anakin leaves his home just like Luke had to? When everyone and their brother had a lightsaber and waved it around as if it was dick measuring? Order 66 in Ep. III was supposed to have meaning because of the slaughter of all Jedi, but it has zero context. There are no deeper meanings in the supposedly more "original" prequel trilogy. They don't exist to me. Because Lucas failed to deliver a story in a saga that focuses on the Skywalker lineage. The whole point was to show Anakin's turn to the dark side. A complete contrast/comparison to Luke's road in the OT. Unfortunately, even that gets muddied in the absolute horrendous mess of effects, dialogue, acting, and ridiculous storylines that border on insulting to a fanbase that has been around for decades.

I don't really want to hear about how I have to watch Clone Wars either. Even though I watch it, the movies should explain themselves. TFA was guilty of this too. Relying on novels for back story and fluff like that. It's a negative characteristic for the Star Wars saga. Unfortunately, the prequels leaned on this far greater than TFA, which is ridiculous, considering it was George Lucas. He should've known better. 

People can give JJ shit all they want to, but he had to take a franchise that longtime fans were severely nervous about going into a new trilogy. He definitely leaned on nostalgia more than he needed to, but he sure as hell didn't insult us with some half-baked, middling, absolutely horrendous entry into the Skywalker saga. At the end of the day, the prequels barely said anything about the Skywalkers properly. JJ already proved he knew where he was going with it. Nostalgia or not.

And yes, SW is all about the Skywalkers.

Totally agree on Clone Wars and Star Wars novels. And I agree that "The Tragedy of Darth Vader" could have been much more deeper than that instead of constant politic talks and bad romance. Still I think they are very interesting things underlying the story.

Well if you're doing a new trilogy to something as legendary as Star Wars, at least you're trying to achieve a certain level where you're going to do your best to blow people's minds with news worlds, concepts etc. Which is probably not going to happen.

It's all about maximum profits and minimum risks and it's a scam. Fans are genuinely buying this into thinking this is the best that Disney could have done. 

I'm not even sure JJ knew where they were going with it. It's baby steps here, and baby steps there I guess that's why JJ was approached to direct TFA first. 

 

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

We are starting from a fairly low base with these films. Comparing The Force Awakens with the prequels is a bit like comparing diarrhea with vomit and asking the question 'which one is better?'

 

They sure have fooled everyone into thinking this movie will be memorable in the coming years. JJ and Disney tried to establish themselves as the true companion to the original trilogy but ultimately fell into the comparison trap.