- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Star Wars Episode 8: The Last Jedi Discussion Thread ***SPOILERS***
Posted on 12/21/17 at 8:59 am to JabarkusRussell
Posted on 12/21/17 at 8:59 am to JabarkusRussell
quote:quote:
it had laser sword fights.
No it didn't.
Rey & Kylo vs. Snoke's guards was pretty close. And one of the better scenes in the movie, in my opinion.
1
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:01 am to LSUBoo
quote:
Rey & Kylo vs. Snoke's guards was pretty close
Except that it wasn't at all a light saber duel.
quote:
And one of the better scenes in the movie, in my opinion.
Agreed. Although that's not saying much.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:02 am to Sentrius
People who like the film, like that they "Destroyed the past," "moved on from the SKywalkers," etc. answer me a few questions:
1) Why is it important that you destroy something, or why is it important that you explicitly do it in a film?
2) Why is it a good thing that someone had destruction as a goal? And what does that make that person?
3) Why do you like Star Wars if you just wanted to see it "move on from what it was?"
4) Why not encourage that creator to build something new instead?
It feels like taking something that people like and intentionally changing it in negative ways is a massive troll job and a massive waste of time just to sow discontent. Just that the act was created to upset people, and for nothing else. I really can't wrap my head around the intentionality of it, that it was done just to throw it in people's faces and make sure they knew it. Seems really odd.
Everyone who wanted something different from Star Wars, maybe you didn't want Star Wars to begin with?
(ETA: I'm not really that upset, but some people are. Why is that ok? Or why is it ok that someone set out to just end what had already been built? I don't get it)
1) Why is it important that you destroy something, or why is it important that you explicitly do it in a film?
2) Why is it a good thing that someone had destruction as a goal? And what does that make that person?
3) Why do you like Star Wars if you just wanted to see it "move on from what it was?"
4) Why not encourage that creator to build something new instead?
It feels like taking something that people like and intentionally changing it in negative ways is a massive troll job and a massive waste of time just to sow discontent. Just that the act was created to upset people, and for nothing else. I really can't wrap my head around the intentionality of it, that it was done just to throw it in people's faces and make sure they knew it. Seems really odd.
Everyone who wanted something different from Star Wars, maybe you didn't want Star Wars to begin with?
(ETA: I'm not really that upset, but some people are. Why is that ok? Or why is it ok that someone set out to just end what had already been built? I don't get it)
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 9:04 am
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:31 am to Freauxzen
I think those are some loaded questions, but I'll give it the old college try...
1) Why is it important that you destroy something, or why is it important that you explicitly do it in a film?
Because Star Wars had become stifling. We had become resistant to treating the characters as people, instead only wanting them to BE the legend. they couldn't have flaws anymore, which is just an anathema to drama. You need tension, and to not keep telling the same story of the Hero's Quest (and I like the Hero's Quest, but you need to mix it up). The legend had gotten in the way of effective storytelling, and our nostalgia and refusal to let go of the past was making it impossible for a new generation to take over Star Wars. We had to let go of our death grip on this thing. It felt like love, but we were strangling the puppy, not hugging it.
2) Why is it a good thing that someone had destruction as a goal? And what does that make that person?
Because it allows new things to grow. The old generation has to step aside and let the new generation take over. That's just life. Old people die and young people take over, and part of growing up is killing your idols. They will see flaws in us we never saw as they will have different values. That doesn't make either generation better than the other, just different. Think of this as burning the old trees so the sunlight can reach the forest floor and allow the underbrush to grow. The destruction is painful, but it is a healthy part of life for the forest. It will grow.
3) Why do you like Star Wars if you just wanted to see it "move on from what it was?"
I wanted it to have life again and feel like a living universe. I did enjoy TFA, but Abrams was TOO reverent towards the past (and even his characters acted like geeked out fanboys towards the original cast). It was becoming cast in bronze, unable to move. This was the first Star Wars since Empire that felt dangerous and exciting. It was the first one (except maybe Rogue One) that you didn't know where it was going. The wiping the board clear is a standard move in long-running serials, but it's always interesting because of what can come next: anything. As Kylo Ren said, "Kill the past." But that meant different things to him and to Rey. That's because they had a different point of view...
And what could be more Star Wars than that?
4) Why not encourage that creator to build something new instead?
He did. But in order to build, he had to tear down the idols. At this point, look where the series is: it now belongs to the next generation. Kylo Ren leads the First Order. Rey is fully the hero who must oppose him. Poe is in charge of the Resistance now. Finn is now fully invested in the Resistance and not just himself. Luke is now a story used to inspire people, continuing the cycle. How beautiful is that? This WAS an act of construction. But even construction crews have to knock down old buildings to build new ones.
I, too, get what people are upset. But there's a reason the only other Star Wars movie to get this kind of divisive audience reaction at the time of release was Empire Strikes Back, which also demystified the universe and changed our perceptions. People forgot how unhappy many fans were at its release. Change is hard and uncomfortable.
1) Why is it important that you destroy something, or why is it important that you explicitly do it in a film?
Because Star Wars had become stifling. We had become resistant to treating the characters as people, instead only wanting them to BE the legend. they couldn't have flaws anymore, which is just an anathema to drama. You need tension, and to not keep telling the same story of the Hero's Quest (and I like the Hero's Quest, but you need to mix it up). The legend had gotten in the way of effective storytelling, and our nostalgia and refusal to let go of the past was making it impossible for a new generation to take over Star Wars. We had to let go of our death grip on this thing. It felt like love, but we were strangling the puppy, not hugging it.
2) Why is it a good thing that someone had destruction as a goal? And what does that make that person?
Because it allows new things to grow. The old generation has to step aside and let the new generation take over. That's just life. Old people die and young people take over, and part of growing up is killing your idols. They will see flaws in us we never saw as they will have different values. That doesn't make either generation better than the other, just different. Think of this as burning the old trees so the sunlight can reach the forest floor and allow the underbrush to grow. The destruction is painful, but it is a healthy part of life for the forest. It will grow.
3) Why do you like Star Wars if you just wanted to see it "move on from what it was?"
I wanted it to have life again and feel like a living universe. I did enjoy TFA, but Abrams was TOO reverent towards the past (and even his characters acted like geeked out fanboys towards the original cast). It was becoming cast in bronze, unable to move. This was the first Star Wars since Empire that felt dangerous and exciting. It was the first one (except maybe Rogue One) that you didn't know where it was going. The wiping the board clear is a standard move in long-running serials, but it's always interesting because of what can come next: anything. As Kylo Ren said, "Kill the past." But that meant different things to him and to Rey. That's because they had a different point of view...
And what could be more Star Wars than that?
4) Why not encourage that creator to build something new instead?
He did. But in order to build, he had to tear down the idols. At this point, look where the series is: it now belongs to the next generation. Kylo Ren leads the First Order. Rey is fully the hero who must oppose him. Poe is in charge of the Resistance now. Finn is now fully invested in the Resistance and not just himself. Luke is now a story used to inspire people, continuing the cycle. How beautiful is that? This WAS an act of construction. But even construction crews have to knock down old buildings to build new ones.
I, too, get what people are upset. But there's a reason the only other Star Wars movie to get this kind of divisive audience reaction at the time of release was Empire Strikes Back, which also demystified the universe and changed our perceptions. People forgot how unhappy many fans were at its release. Change is hard and uncomfortable.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:33 am to Freauxzen
You just don't get it. The whole point of the film was that relying on a singular "legend" to just jump in and save the day is childish and not the way to tell a story. The Jedi aren't gods that can just swoop in, kick arse and solve serious problems.
Oh wait, what's that? A singular legend actually did just swoop in and save the day? And the woman that's destined to take his place as the next legend just kicked arse and then flew down to the planet and single handedly used her exceptional abilities to perform an impossible feat and save everybody's asses?
Nevermind, then.
It looks like Rian Johnson just decided to troll everybody.
Oh wait, what's that? A singular legend actually did just swoop in and save the day? And the woman that's destined to take his place as the next legend just kicked arse and then flew down to the planet and single handedly used her exceptional abilities to perform an impossible feat and save everybody's asses?
Nevermind, then.
It looks like Rian Johnson just decided to troll everybody.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:46 am to Baloo
quote:
I think those are some loaded questions, but I'll give it the old college try...
I rewrote them a few times, just couldn't find a better way to ask...
quote:
Because Star Wars had become stifling. We had become resistant to treating the characters as people, instead only wanting them to BE the legend. they couldn't have flaws anymore, which is just an anathema to drama. You need tension, and to not keep telling the same story of the Hero's Quest (and I like the Hero's Quest, but you need to mix it up). The legend had gotten in the way of effective storytelling, and our nostalgia and refusal to let go of the past was making it impossible for a new generation to take over Star Wars. We had to let go of our death grip on this thing. It felt like love, but we were strangling the puppy, not hugging it.
I don't disagree, but there were better ways to do this. If the argument is that Johnson had to do it because this is what Abrams left him, that's fair. I mean, just don't even have the Skywalkers at all. I don't know why the better goal, if dismantling was the goal before TFA, was to just distance ourselves completely from the Skywalker/Galactic Rebellion storyline. It just seems like a big miscalculation.
quote:
Because it allows new things to grow. The old generation has to step aside and let the new generation take over. That's just life. Old people die and young people take over, and part of growing up is killing your idols. They will see flaws in us we never saw as they will have different values. That doesn't make either generation better than the other, just different. Think of this as burning the old trees so the sunlight can reach the forest floor and allow the underbrush to grow. The destruction is painful, but it is a healthy part of life for the forest. It will grow.
Again, I don't disagree with that sentiment, but can it be a little more reverent? I get the image of Luke tossing the lightsaber, that was Rian tossing the OT aside, it's what Abrams had setup to chase, but find another way.
quote:
I wanted it to have life again and feel like a living universe. I did enjoy TFA, but Abrams was TOO reverent towards the past (and even his characters acted like geeked out fanboys towards the original cast). It was becoming cast in bronze, unable to move. This was the first Star Wars since Empire that felt dangerous and exciting. It was the first one (except maybe Rogue One) that you didn't know where it was going. The wiping the board clear is a standard move in long-running serials, but it's always interesting because of what can come next: anything. As Kylo Ren said, "Kill the past." But that meant different things to him and to Rey. That's because they had a different point of view...
And what could be more Star Wars than that?
Again, I agree but I just dislike the way he did it. I know we aren't supposed to use the EU, but there are a lot of good non-Skywalker stories in there.
quote:
He did. But in order to build, he had to tear down the idols. At this point, look where the series is: it now belongs to the next generation. Kylo Ren leads the First Order. Rey is fully the hero who must oppose him. Poe is in charge of the Resistance now. Finn is now fully invested in the Resistance and not just himself. Luke is now a story used to inspire people, continuing the cycle. How beautiful is that? This WAS an act of construction. But even construction crews have to knock down old buildings to build new ones.
I didn't think of it like this, but it does make me feel a little better. However, I don't see Kylo or Hux in better places. You might be right about Finn, but man the way they did it was awful.
Wasn't Luke always a story though? That was kind of a plot of the first one.
Anyways...
quote:
I, too, get what people are upset. But there's a reason the only other Star Wars movie to get this kind of divisive audience reaction at the time of release was Empire Strikes Back, which also demystified the universe and changed our perceptions. People forgot how unhappy many fans were at its release. Change is hard and uncomfortable.
My point is, and I know you know where I am going, if "new things," "living universe," "old generation," "destruction," are all true sentiments, then are none of these things true:
A) Maybe those people don't like Star Wars
B) Maybe part of the charm of Star Wars is its stodginess
C) Why not just find a new property that feels more "new" more "deconstructed" more "living"
In short, if new is what you want, then why use Star Wars?
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:50 am to Baloo
You’re usually pretty good but that last post was off. Every one of your answers dodged the real reason people are upset.
It’s not simply “moving on” and trying “something different” that is pissing people off.
It’s that they used shite writing, shite characters, and shite on established characters to do it for NO GOOD reason other than “change” itself.
There was the perfect opportunity to go the “change” route in the movie - which flowed directly from the plot: The Throne Room scene. Where Rey and Kylo fought together.
That’s easily one of the best single sequences in ALL the SW movies and I think the reason we ALL got excited was BECUASE we all sensed the change. We all wanted the change.
Then they immediately shite on that too and put us right where we always are: Big evil Empire forces against against a small band of ragtag rebels led by a novice but good hearted Jedi. Hell, for all the “change” TLJ supposedly brought us...we end up in the same exact place.
It’s not simply “moving on” and trying “something different” that is pissing people off.
It’s that they used shite writing, shite characters, and shite on established characters to do it for NO GOOD reason other than “change” itself.
There was the perfect opportunity to go the “change” route in the movie - which flowed directly from the plot: The Throne Room scene. Where Rey and Kylo fought together.
That’s easily one of the best single sequences in ALL the SW movies and I think the reason we ALL got excited was BECUASE we all sensed the change. We all wanted the change.
Then they immediately shite on that too and put us right where we always are: Big evil Empire forces against against a small band of ragtag rebels led by a novice but good hearted Jedi. Hell, for all the “change” TLJ supposedly brought us...we end up in the same exact place.
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 9:51 am
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:02 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Again, I don't disagree with that sentiment, but can it be a little more reverent?
The last thing Star Wars needs is more reverence. It's up to its eyeballs in reverence. A little chaos is just what the doctor ordered. Let's tip some statutes! TFA was nothing but reverent and while I enjoyed that movie, at the end of the day, its just rehashing a story already told in a slightly new setting. The reverence is KILLING not just Star Wars but everything. Fanatical fanboys have got to let go of things a little bit and let them change and grow. It's okay to love things, but not when you smother it to death.
quote:
My point is, and I know you know where I am going, if "new things," "living universe," "old generation," "destruction," are all true sentiments, then are none of these things true:
A) Maybe those people don't like Star Wars
B) Maybe part of the charm of Star Wars is its stodginess
C) Why not just find a new property that feels more "new" more "deconstructed" more "living"
In short, if new is what you want, then why use Star Wars?
Because Star Wars needed to be saved from the people who loved it, and were killing it. A series that can't change and grow is dead. It was in serious danger of becoming nostalgia porn, and just Hollywood selling our childhoods back to us, a sad fate for one of the most pioneering and exciting movies in history. I wanted my kids to have their own Star Wars, to have their own heroes... and they are now going to get that. And that means painfully saying goodbye to the things I loved.
But the Force doesn't belong to me. It can be owned by any one person. It is between all things.
The charm of Star Wars is NOT its stodginess. If it is, it has become the complete opposite of what it is was at its birth, a revolutionary movie that literally transformed the industry and how we make and consume movies. Turning it into a stodgy museum piece that can't get broken breaks my heart. This is the first daring Star Wars film, thematically speaking, since Empire Strikes Back. This IS getting back to what made the film great.
I know fans love Star Wars. but you were killing it. We all were. Let it go. Let it be audacious and thrilling again. Your love was smothering it death.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:06 am to Baloo
quote:
Because Star Wars needed to be saved from the people who loved it, and were killing it. A series that can't change and grow is dead. It was in serious danger of becoming nostalgia porn, and just Hollywood selling our childhoods back to us, a sad fate for one of the most pioneering and exciting movies in history. I wanted my kids to have their own Star Wars, to have their own heroes... and they are now going to get that. And that means painfully saying goodbye to the things I loved.
It's possible to do all of this without making an excruciatingly stupid movie as the medium.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:06 am to Baloo
I agree, Star Wars and the characters are too famous for their own good
Tear it down, but do that in a good movie, not a pile of garbage
Tear it down, but do that in a good movie, not a pile of garbage
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:09 am to DelU249
Why does anything have to be tore down? Just set the new trilogy a century into the future. Preserve the old characters in their time and make a new trilogy with new characters for this time.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:13 am to TheFolker
It doesn’t need to be torn down. It needs to be left the frick alone and then new things done.
Johnson ironically fell into the trap that abram did not. He felt luke was too important to the audience and had to be the hero at the end. Abrams had him in the force awakens for like a second because he would take attention away from rey
Johnson ironically fell into the trap that abram did not. He felt luke was too important to the audience and had to be the hero at the end. Abrams had him in the force awakens for like a second because he would take attention away from rey
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 10:30 am
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:27 am to Baloo
quote:
The last thing Star Wars needs is more reverence. It's up to its eyeballs in reverence. A little chaos is just what the doctor ordered. Let's tip some statutes! TFA was nothing but reverent and while I enjoyed that movie, at the end of the day, its just rehashing a story already told in a slightly new setting. The reverence is KILLING not just Star Wars but everything. Fanatical fanboys have got to let go of things a little bit and let them change and grow. It's okay to love things, but not when you smother it to death.
There's a happy medium I would think.
quote:
Because Star Wars needed to be saved from the people who loved it, and were killing it. A series that can't change and grow is dead. It was in serious danger of becoming nostalgia porn, and just Hollywood selling our childhoods back to us, a sad fate for one of the most pioneering and exciting movies in history. I wanted my kids to have their own Star Wars, to have their own heroes... and they are now going to get that. And that means painfully saying goodbye to the things I loved.
Did you read the EU, watch Clone Wars, play the video games, etc.?
quote:
The charm of Star Wars is NOT its stodginess. If it is, it has become the complete opposite of what it is was at its birth, a revolutionary movie that literally transformed the industry and how we make and consume movies. Turning it into a stodgy museum piece that can't get broken breaks my heart. This is the first daring Star Wars film, thematically speaking, since Empire Strikes Back. This IS getting back to what made the film great.
I just rephrase that because again, I don't disagree. But why is it bad that Star Wars has its lore, its Force, its rules of balance, the Empire, etc.? If it has those things, and those are what built it, why is it so important that they go away?
What is the core of Star Wars then?
quote:
I know fans love Star Wars. but you were killing it. We all were. Let it go. Let it be audacious and thrilling again. Your love was smothering it death.
I disagree here though. I love playing as Kyle Katarn in the games. Enjoyed the Thrawn trilogy, some of the comic books, character like IG-88 and the like. I never needed Luke in everything Star Wars I consumed. I haven't in a long long time.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:31 am to Freauxzen
quote:
There's a happy medium I would think.
The trilogy should have started 500 years after Return of the Jedi and been titled Episode X: The Force Awakens
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:33 am to theunknownknight
quote:
we end up in the same exact place.
Isn't that Luke's whole point and the point of BDT's character?
You blow up me, I blow up you... You kill these sith, we kill these jedi. It's all a cycle that you are too close to, to really see and understand.
I feel like the story being told here is bigger than a Skywalker story arc and that truly is the crux of why people are pissed. The Skywalkers are pieces on the chess board. People want them to be more than that.
I think it's interesting that people are hating on Luke for staying on the island, But weren't pissed when Yoda stayed on dagoba.
I did cringe when Luke threw the Saber over his shoulder and when he said "see ya around kid" to Ben when Ben realized he wasn't really there.
I feel like my issues are really nitpick. Overall I am happy to move on and okay with how it was done.
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 10:35 am
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:35 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Did you read the EU, watch Clone Wars, play the video games, etc.?
Outside Thrawn, can we admit most of the books are terrible? Clone Wars is the only good thing to come out of the prequels, though.
quote:
I just rephrase that because again, I don't disagree. But why is it bad that Star Wars has its lore, its Force, its rules of balance, the Empire, etc.? If it has those things, and those are what built it, why is it so important that they go away?
None of that DID go away. The Force is still there. The Empire was defeated, so we needed a new enemy, and the First Order uses all of the trappings of the Empire. What went away is the previous generation. It was time for them to step aside, forcefully if necessary.
It's also why the worst scene BY FAR is Leia floating through space. If anything, the movie isn't ruthless enough. It's biggest misstep is refusing to let go of Leia too.
quote:
I disagree here though. I love playing as Kyle Katarn in the games. Enjoyed the Thrawn trilogy, some of the comic books, character like IG-88 and the like. I never needed Luke in everything Star Wars I consumed. I haven't in a long long time.
And literally nothing changes that. Those games and books still exist. If you love them, go enjoy them. They are untouched. If you needed them to be canon, then you didn't really love them. The EU was a damn staightjacket, and most of it was written by hacks so Lucas could squeeze out more money.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:35 am to extremetigerfanatic
quote:
I feel like the story being told here is bigger than a Skywalker story arc and that truly is the crux of why people are pissed. The Skywalkers are pieces on the chess board. People want them to be more than that.
I really think this is incorrect. People have enjoyed a plethora of stories with barely a mention of the Skywalkers.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:39 am to Baloo
quote:
Outside Thrawn, can we admit most of the books are terrible? Clone Wars is the only good thing to come out of the prequels, though.
Of course they are, but the question was: Can people enjoy books that have little to do with the core OT franchise, the answer is yes, high quality or not.
quote:
None of that DID go away. The Force is still there. The Empire was defeated, so we needed a new enemy, and the First Order uses all of the trappings of the Empire. What went away is the previous generation. It was time for them to step aside, forcefully if necessary.
It's also why the worst scene BY FAR is Leia floating through space. If anything, the movie isn't ruthless enough. It's biggest misstep is refusing to let go of Leia too.
The Empire can for sure go away, or what's the point? And I think I'd be fine with Rey suddenly being a Jedi Knight with zero training if there was something else good about it (and trust me, Rey is a good character, I like her so far. It's the distance from the idea that the Force is something that you simply can't use wily nily that's the problem).
quote:
And literally nothing changes that. Those games and books still exist. If you love them, go enjoy them. They are untouched. If you needed them to be canon, then you didn't really love them. The EU was a damn staightjacket, and most of it was written by hacks so Lucas could squeeze out more money.
That's not the point. Is that not proof that people enjoy non-Skywalker, non OT things? Why did there have to be a big destroying of the universe if we've already seen things happen outside of the core conflict, that's all I mean bringing up that stuff.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:44 am to Freauxzen
quote:
What went away is the previous generation. It was time for them to step aside, forcefully if necessary.
I do not understand this line of thinking at all.
Instead of just creating your own new unique universe or forging your own unique star wars story, so many of you are not only ok with but championing the idea that it was necessary for some reason to take a dump on the entire fanbase simply for the purpose of ensuring that they go away and never come back.
What kind of fricked up ideology is that to hold and follow?
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:46 am to Freauxzen
quote:
That's not the point. Is that not proof that people enjoy non-Skywalker, non OT things?
Sure, but that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the Star Wars super fan was strangling the life out of Star Wars, and that EU stuff had to be excised. Hell, that was done for TFA, a far more reverential film. This was the second, more painful cut: killing your idols. This was clearing the field for the next generation (one of whom is related to the Skywalkers... Kylo Ren is explicitly connected to Darth Vader).
As for the EU stuff, I do feel some Star Wars fans feel upset that their VIP pass in Star Wars fandom has been revoked. They used to have special knowledge that has been deemed inessential to the Star Wars universe. but that had more to do with TFA than this film. That's when the decision to make EU not part of canon was made. So it's irrelevant to TLJ, honestly.
Page 90 of 128
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News