The Last Jedi Star Wars: The Last Jedi Hypesters Review Thread [TAG SPOILERS!]

[Filmfan93]

Having just watched the prequels again for the first time in years, I can assure this is not the case. Whatever disappointments some fans may have withe certain story or character decisions Johnson made, TLJ is without a doubt a well written and directed movie, with great performances from the actors.

The prequels, on the other hand, are an abject failure in terms of the writing and directing. The broad stokes of the plots are fine, but Lucas doesn't have much skill in writing dialogue, getting the best performances out of his actors, how to place the camera for the best shots possible or even something basic like when it's best to use practical locations and props and when it to do it in CGI.

The hyperbole surrounding The Last Jedi is truly astonishing.

It really is. Some people are really over exaggerating. TLJ is a much better crafted film than the prequels. In almost all aspects - directing, acting, script and VFX. Only Williams' music in the prequels is better and the fact that they include Ewan as Obi-Wan and McDiarmid as Palpatine.

With the exception of ROTS - that is a great SW film, imo.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I would probably put ROTS above TLJ in my rankings at the moment. That could change in the future, but at the moment it’s how I would rank them.

 

[Spider-Fan]

After much consideration, I am settling on 4.5 out of 5 for TLJ. Loved this movie. Has some flaws, but the moments it shines, it shines bright and overshadows those issues. I find myself often returning to it mentally, something Star Wars hasn't done for me in any positive manner since the OT. The PT just anger me on reflection, and TFA and RO don't leave much overall impact than entertainment in the moment. TLJ just offered me more. Love this movie and bravo to all involved

 

[Mjölnir]

I still think I need to see it again to give it a rating. Right now I'd probably give it a 6/10, which is probably a point extra for being Star Wars and not really accounting for disappointing treatment of Luke.

 

[I'm Old Greg]

I still think I need to see it again to give it a rating. Right now I'd probably give it a 6/10, which is probably a point extra for being Star Wars and not really accounting for disappointing treatment of Luke.

Yes go see again and two times more. Your rating is invalid amongst your peers and strangers and Star Wars fans until you see it a dozen times in your local theater since Disney threatened theaters for more showings. Who really cares if you really like really just buy it.

 

[Brawl]

I'm sorry this movie was garbage compared to the rest, bad place maybe even to the I,II,III.

PLOT LOGIC
Whty the bad place were the bombers thats were attacking the drednaut so DAMN SLOOOW, I mean it cant be a weight issue, its FREAKING SPACE!

If the one X-Wing can get so close to the ship with a booster why not just attach about 2 train box cars filled with bombs to a X Wing engine and have a droid Kamikaze the **** out of the Star Destroyers.

Why did all the fleeing capital ships flee ALL TOGETHER in one straight line, You get 5 guys running from 2 cops and they all split up.

Why did all the people have to pilots these capital ships till they were destroyed manually, you mean they can invent hyperspace drive but not a google car.

if you can basically destroy any ship by engaging hyperspace engine and ramming them why not hook hyperspace engines (same as on a X-wing) on asteroids and blow the **** out of any ship.


Character progression,

Sorry why again should i care about any of the good guys? They all seem so forgettable other than John Boyega who seem to do a good Denzel impression throughout the movie.

Kylo Ren:
Yea super lame bad guy, Darth Sith was soooo much more badass, bad place Count Dukel was too.

 

[Filmfan93]

Kylo Ren:
Yea super lame bad guy, Darth Sith was soooo much more badass, bad place Count Dukel was too.

No idea who "Darth Sith" or "Count Dukel" are

 

[Brawl]

No idea who "Darth Sith" or "Count Dukel" are

LMAO Sheeet I'm an old cat gimmie a break lol bad place Darth Maul and Count Dookie

 

[Brawl]

This is the only bad guy I want to see next, he was BAD!

 

[MaceB]

Some aspects of TLJ have really grown on me. I love the story 3-ways bit... it reminds me of Obi Wan's lesson about POV.

I just don't get how Disney wouldn't anticipate a huge backlash for this film though. This movie was designed to thwart and subvert expectations . They must have assumed that a tactic like that wouldn't be for everybody.

The biggest casualty of that design was Luke Skywalker. They purposely chose to give our childhood hero a bittersweet ending. It's an emotional gut punch to those of us who have fantasized for many decades about Luke's journey post ROTJ. This vision was less heroic than what many of us were hoping for. They must have known that.

I rate this movie a 6.5. I admire it's creativity and boldness. I think sometimes in the pursuit of the big reversal, the story came across as incoherent at times. Why characters make certain choices and how certain things happen feels forced throughout a lot of the film.

But yes, this movie is far far better than the prequels, in almost every category. It is the first Star Wars movie to actually have a relatable villain. It has one of the best action scenes in the whole series. It was well acted. Well designed.

ESB
TFA
ANH
TLJ
ROTJ
R1
ROTS
TPM
AOTC

 

[Mask&Cape]

I just don't get how Disney wouldn't anticipate a huge backlash for this film though. This movie was designed to thwart and subvert expectations . They must have assumed that a tactic like that wouldn't be for everybody.

I don't think this "backlash" is as significant as you think it is?

A few nerds crying into their pillows is no big deal.

People *****ed and moaned about the Prequels, TCW, Rebels, TFA and Rogue One. The seats still fill up.

It didn't make as much at the box office as TFA? No, but even I knew that would happen and I am no box office expert. The hype is running down.

It didn't do as well as TFA in China? That was nothing to do with the movie itself. $40 million is nothing to sneer at especially for a franchise that means nothing in China. I lived there for three years and meet hundreds of people - only one knew what Star Wars was. The ONLY reason TFA made as much it did at the Chinese box office was because Episode VII was all over the internet and Chinese people wanted to know what the hype was about. Most came away wondering what all the fuss was about.

 

[Mjölnir]

Leaving up to $400 million in revenue on the table is something that's going to get a ton of attention at Disney. Business economy is all about meeting expectations. So I'd go less for trying to insult people and more for learning the basics of economy.

 

[sirmarkus]

I waited over a month to review this, and have watched it a few times to fully take it in. I really enjoyed it, and thought that all the new characters got to grow, Kylo Ren the most, Finn the least. All told it was a beautiful looking film,not perfect, but the closest to that for a Star Wars film was Empire, and it got slammed upon release for not being a 'typical' sequel.

Full review here: https://sirmarkussite.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/the-last-jedi-my-look-at-a-divisive-star-wars-film/

 

[Kevin Roegele]

This is the only bad guy I want to see next, he was BAD!

"To understand how a species fights, first you must understand their art......Mr Anderson."

 

[Schlosser85]

I'm sorry this movie was garbage compared to the rest, bad place maybe even to the I,II,III.

PLOT LOGIC
Whty the bad place were the bombers thats were attacking the drednaut so DAMN SLOOOW, I mean it cant be a weight issue, its FREAKING SPACE!

If the one X-Wing can get so close to the ship with a booster why not just attach about 2 train box cars filled with bombs to a X Wing engine and have a droid Kamikaze the **** out of the Star Destroyers.

Why did all the fleeing capital ships flee ALL TOGETHER in one straight line, You get 5 guys running from 2 cops and they all split up.

Why did all the people have to pilots these capital ships till they were destroyed manually, you mean they can invent hyperspace drive but not a google car.

if you can basically destroy any ship by engaging hyperspace engine and ramming them why not hook hyperspace engines (same as on a X-wing) on asteroids and blow the **** out of any ship.


Character progression,

Sorry why again should i care about any of the good guys? They all seem so forgettable other than John Boyega who seem to do a good Denzel impression throughout the movie.

Kylo Ren:
Yea super lame bad guy, Darth Sith was soooo much more badass, bad place Count Dukel was too.

I guess I missed the episode with "Darth Sith" and "Count Dukel".

 

[DarthMuppet]

I'm sorry this movie was garbage compared to the rest, bad place maybe even to the I,II,III.

PLOT LOGIC
Whty the bad place were the bombers thats were attacking the drednaut so DAMN SLOOOW, I mean it cant be a weight issue, its FREAKING SPACE!

If the one X-Wing can get so close to the ship with a booster why not just attach about 2 train box cars filled with bombs to a X Wing engine and have a droid Kamikaze the **** out of the Star Destroyers.

Why did all the fleeing capital ships flee ALL TOGETHER in one straight line, You get 5 guys running from 2 cops and they all split up.

Why did all the people have to pilots these capital ships till they were destroyed manually, you mean they can invent hyperspace drive but not a google car.

if you can basically destroy any ship by engaging hyperspace engine and ramming them why not hook hyperspace engines (same as on a X-wing) on asteroids and blow the **** out of any ship.


Character progression,

Sorry why again should i care about any of the good guys? They all seem so forgettable other than John Boyega who seem to do a good Denzel impression throughout the movie.

Kylo Ren:
Yea super lame bad guy, Darth Sith was soooo much more badass, bad place Count Dukel was too.

I'll stick to destroying your plot logic issues since your character issues are just a matter of opinion.

1). Have you watched any of the other films? STAR WARS has always ignored the laws of physics when it comes to how things would really happen in space. On the commentary track, Rian explains that the bombers were designed to be like the B-17 Bombers from WWII... Slow and not very maneuverable(and in need of several fighters to keep them safe). They are designed to do one thing, carry and drop a lot of bombs. And this isn't directed at you, but since I've seen it said elsewhere, I'll address it as well. Spaceships in STAR WARS dropping bombs in space is not something new that Rian Johnson added in. The TIE Bombers in TESB did it as well.

2). Did you watch the prequels? Why anyone would be reluctant to use droid piloted ships in warfare should be obvious.

3). Because the same thing would have happened anyway, and the people on the smaller ships would have nowhere to go when their ship ran out of fuel. Did you miss the point where the smaller ships are called "support ships".

4). The concept of the Captain "going down with their ship" isn't new to STAR WARS. Seriously, stop trying to apply modern day real world logic man... it's STAR WARS.

5). Hmmm... Probably because they didn't have any asteroids readily available when the need arose. Also, I'm pretty sure they didn't just have any extra hyperdrive engines that would be powerful enough to move an asteroid just lying around. There's also the fact that asteroids most likely wouldn't be as structurally sound as a starship and would likely just break apart when the engines fired.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

I'll stick to destroying your plot logic issues since your character issues are just a matter of opinion.

1). Have you watched any of the other films? STAR WARS has always ignored the laws of physics when it comes to how things would really happen in space. On the commentary track, Rian explains that the bombers were designed to be like the B-17 Bombers from WWII... Slow and not very maneuverable(and in need of several fighters to keep them safe). They are designed to do one thing, carry and drop a lot of bombs. And this isn't directed at you, but since I've seen it said elsewhere, I'll address it as well. Spaceships in STAR WARS dropping bombs in space is not something new that Rian Johnson added in. The TIE Bombers in TESB did it as well.

2). Did you watch the prequels? Why anyone would be reluctant to use droid piloted ships in warfare should be obvious.

3). Because the same thing would have happened anyway, and the people on the smaller ships would have nowhere to go when their ship ran out of fuel. Did you miss the point where the smaller ships are called "support ships".

4). The concept of the Captain "going down with their ship" isn't new to STAR WARS. Seriously, stop trying to apply modern day real world logic man... it's STAR WARS.

5). Hmmm... Probably because they didn't have any asteroids readily available when the need arose. Also, I'm pretty sure they didn't just have any extra hyperdrive engines that would be powerful enough to move an asteroid just lying around. There's also the fact that asteroids most likely wouldn't be as structurally sound as a starship and would likely just break apart when the engines fired.

1. It especially ignores that the bombers were on a complete suicide mission, so Leia was just wrong for chastising Poe for risking their lives. The bombers fly so low, and chain-release the bombs, so it's automatic that the first bomb will detonate and set off the other bombs, causing a chain reaction up towards the bomber and destroy it. Especially since this is the first time such a slow type of ship has no relevant shields and is instead made out of paper, which makes them easily destroyed by TIE Fighters.

And that's not even counting how easy it would have been for the Star Destroyers to have picked off the slow bombers, but for some reason they just sat there and did nothing to protect their most important ship.

The Y-wing and TIE bomber are actually useful ships at least.

2. The droid fleets seemed great. You don't have to pilot them with a full army of B-units that require a central control unit (that was never an issue after TPM). If it wasn't for the Jedi the droid army would probably have won, despite that the clones should be incredible given that it's Jango Fett, and since we now have learned that hyperdrive engines is the ultimate weapon then droid piloted hyperdrives, with bulky bodies, seems like the ultimate fleet destroyer.

3. No, the same thing would not have happened. The First Order could only track one ship, so most would have gotten away clean.

4. I don't see how that's modern. It's not like those that went from Europe to America in ships stood and turned the ship's wheel the entire time.

5. His question is obviously why using hyperspace engines on things like asteroids isn't a basic military strategy when they are clearly the most powerful weapon around, and really common. Why spend absurd amounts of credits building Dreadnoughts when one hyperspace engine on an asteroid, or a built bulk body, will tear it to shreds from a distance where a fleet is otherwise incapable of doing anything?

 

[DarthMuppet]

1. It especially ignores that the bombers were on a complete suicide mission, so Leia was just wrong for chastising Poe for risking their lives. The bombers fly so low, and chain-release the bombs, so it's automatic that the first bomb will detonate and set off the other bombs, causing a chain reaction up towards the bomber and destroy it. Especially since this is the first time such a slow type of ship has no relevant shields and is instead made out of paper, which makes them easily destroyed by TIE Fighters.

And that's not even counting how easy it would have been for the Star Destroyers to have picked off the slow bombers, but for some reason they just sat there and did nothing to protect their most important ship.

The Y-wing and TIE bomber are actually useful ships at least.

2. The droid fleets seemed great. You don't have to pilot them with a full army of B-units that require a central control unit (that was never an issue after TPM). If it wasn't for the Jedi the droid army would probably have won, despite that the clones should be incredible given that it's Jango Fett, and since we now have learned that hyperdrive engines is the ultimate weapon then droid piloted hyperdrives, with bulky bodies, seems like the ultimate fleet destroyer.

3. No, the same thing would not have happened. The First Order could only track one ship, so most would have gotten away clean.

4. I don't see how that's modern. It's not like those that went from Europe to America in ships stood and turned the ship's wheel the entire time.

5. His question is obviously why using hyperspace engines on things like asteroids isn't a basic military strategy when they are clearly the most powerful weapon around, and really common. Why spend absurd amounts of credits building Dreadnoughts when one hyperspace engine on an asteroid, or a built bulk body, will tear it to shreds from a distance where a fleet is otherwise incapable of doing anything?

1. Watch the film again. The bombing run was not a suicide mission. Poe takes out the dreadnaught surface canons specifically so that the bombers can get close enough to deliver their payload. The support fighters were simply overwhelmed by the number of TIE fighters deployed to stop the bombers. The only reason that the bomber Paige was on was flying so low when the payload was deployed was that the pilot had just been killed. Also, we're not talking about a fleet the size of the one the Rebellion had. The Resistance fleet is much smaller and given the apparent age of the bombers, the resistance most likely had to make due with whatever they could get their hands on.

2. Again, the prequels make it self-evident why the resistance would be hesitant to use a droid army.

3. It is never stated that the FO is tracking only one ship, only that they wouldn't be looking for the smaller short range transports. Had any of the support ships in the fleet jumped to hyperspace in a different direction, the FO would have simply transferred the tracking of that ship to one of the Star Destroyers and sent that Star Destroyer after them. Finn specifically states that any of the Star Destroyers could have tracked them if need be, but that the lead ship was the only one tracking them at the time. As I said before, the same thing would have then ended up happening and the crew of the smaller ship would have had nowhere to evacuate to when their fuel was gone.

4. "Going down with the ship" is a maritime tradition that commonly gets used in films depicting Captains and their ships. When used in fiction, the Captain staying behind until all their crew has been evacuated routinely results in said Captain's death. Complaining about it in this case is nothing but nitpicking. Also, as I mentioned earlier, by no means is this the first instance of it being used in STAR WARS.

5. Seriously? Do you even like STAR WARS? Cool ship to ship space battles are one of the main aspects of the saga. It's like you're trying to think of reasons why they shouldn't be used.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

1. Watch the film again. The bombing run was not a suicide mission. Poe takes out the dreadnaught surface canons specifically so that the bombers can get close enough to deliver their payload. The support fighters were simply overwhelmed by the number of TIE fighters deployed to stop the bombers. The only reason that the bomber Paige was on was flying so low when the payload was deployed was that the pilot had just been killed. Also, we're not talking about a fleet the size of the one the Rebellion had. The Resistance fleet is much smaller and given the apparent age of the bombers, the resistance most likely had to make due with whatever they could get their hands on.

2. Again, the prequels make it self-evident why the resistance would be hesitant to use a droid army.

3. It is never stated that the FO is tracking only one ship, only that they wouldn't be looking for the smaller short range transports. Had any of the support ships in the fleet jumped to hyperspace in a different direction, the FO would have simply transferred the tracking of that ship to one of the Star Destroyers and sent that Star Destroyer after them. Finn specifically states that any of the Star Destroyers could have tracked them if need be, but that the lead ship was the only one tracking them at the time. As I said before, the same thing would have then ended up happening and the crew of the smaller ship would have had nowhere to evacuate to when their fuel was gone.

4. "Going down with the ship" is a maritime tradition that commonly gets used in films depicting Captains and their ships. When used in fiction, the Captain staying behind until all their crew has been evacuated routinely results in said Captain's death. Complaining about it in this case is nothing but nitpicking. Also, as I mentioned earlier, by no means is this the first instance of it being used in STAR WARS.

5. Seriously? Do you even like STAR WARS? Cool ship to ship space battles are one of the main aspects of the saga. It's like you're trying to think of reasons why they shouldn't be used.

1. Flying extremely slow bombers that can't take TIE fighter fire towards a fleet with several capital ships is a suicide mission. They had no way to survive that, and that's even despite that the Star Destroyers didn't do anything. And dropping the bombs like that still doesn't make any sense since the first blast will make the rest detonate and then most of them will explode in the "air" instead of hitting the target. I just don't see why anyone would make those bombers since they don't seem to have any use in a setting filled with fast fighters that can easily blow them up (and usually you don't have an impossibly good pilot like Poe to take out defenses).

2. You're not actually saying anything, you're just being dismissive while trying to get away without actually making an argument. I dared to explain my argument, apparently you don't.

3. I don't remember anything indicating that they could track all the ships if they jumped simultaneously, but even if they could it has the simplest solution. Make a short jump before making your actual jump. Not that this is the biggest flaw in that chase where, for example, the resistance ships are said to be faster, yet they still don't seem to increase the distance between them.

4. Captains would perhaps die in battle situations, but hardly when you slowly evacuate the ship with no enemy able to reach you. There's no reason for the captain not to go with the last of the crew on the final transport. And don't complain about nitpicking when you've clearly chosen to engage the issue yourself. If you don't like it, don't engage in a discussion about it. And beyond that, having a problem with what things others might dislike about a movie is a pettier thing than them not liking it.

5. No, I'm explaining the obvious reason why that was a poor choice to include if they want to maintain even the basic level of setting logic. If you show something relatively mundane for the setting to be among the most powerful weapons around, then you need to account for how that changes the way battles are made. I like star ship battles, so I prefer them not to introduce facts that make those redundant.

 

[MaceB]

There was a lot in TLJ that didn't make sense plot wise. I'm sure that there are many areas in the film where you could poke logical holes. A lot of movies are like that though, and it's really more about execution than anything else. For me, TLJ's plot issues didn't detract away from it for me.

Oh why did the X-wing do this? Why did the captain do that? Those kinds of arguments seem like nitpicks to me. I can enjoy the theatrics of a film even if it makes me suspend disbelief more than I might like. It's strange to get so granular with a film... like as if gravity wasn't presented rightly in one scene, that that takes away from everything else.

 

[Mjölnir]

There was a lot in TLJ that didn't make sense plot wise. I'm sure that there are many areas in the film where you could poke logical holes. A lot of movies are like that though, and it's really more about execution than anything else. For me, TLJ's plot issues didn't detract away from it for me.

Oh why did the X-wing do this? Why did the captain do that? Those kinds of arguments seem like nitpicks to me. I can enjoy the theatrics of a film even if it makes me suspend disbelief more than I might like. It's strange to get so granular with a film... like as if gravity wasn't presented rightly in one scene, that that takes away from everything else.

I would guess that it's the case of when you don't like a film then all the flaws stand out more.

I can take the Jonathan Kent death scene from MoS as an example. I think the scene is atrocious for many large and important reasons, and because I dislike it so much I've also grown to be annoyed at how the family forgets the dog, which you just don't do if you're a good dog owner. That thing in itself is very minor and I wouldn't care about that if I found the important parts to be good, but now I just can't cut the rest of it any slack either.

That's of course on top of the fact that fanboy discussions are always going to be unusually detailed, in both the good and bad directions.

 

[DyeLorean]

I think Episode IX will put things in perspective: If the new characters and storylines (without the Skywalkers as main or side characters for the very first time) are well done and the movie is good, The Last Jedi will be seen as a game-changer film that dared to do something new for the future of the franchise.
And if it isn't well made... well............
As of right now, the film is divisive and will stay that way until the next episode concludes the trilogy and we'll be able to see all three films as part of a whole.

 

[Mjölnir]

I think Rogue One did significantly more than The Last Jedi in order to be something new for a film in the franchise.

Less reliance on old characters, a more differing tone, not a bunch of scenes copied and tweaked from the OT, no lightsaber duels, etc.

The franchise isn't the saga films, it's the Star Wars brand.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think Episode IX will put things in perspective: If the new characters and storylines (without the Skywalkers as main or side characters for the very first time) are well done and the movie is good, The Last Jedi will be seen as a game-changer film that dared to do something new for the future of the franchise.
And if it isn't well made... well............
As of right now, the film is divisive and will stay that way until the next episode concludes the trilogy and we'll be able to see all three films as part of a whole.

This is true, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me if some things from TLJ were semi-retconned. For example, I don't think Rey's parents will stay as 'nobodies'. I think that and other things will be re-visited.

 

[DyeLorean]

This is true, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me if some things from TLJ were semi-retconned. For example, I don't think Rey's parents will stay as 'nobodies'. I think that and other things will be re-visited.

Oh yes, that could be the case. And knowing JJ Abrams, we'll probably have a couple of those. Still, some things can't be changed.

I think Rogue One did significantly more than The Last Jedi in order to be something new for a film in the franchise.

Less reliance on old characters, a more differing tone, not a bunch of scenes copied and tweaked from the OT, no lightsaber duels, etc.

The franchise isn't the saga films, it's the Star Wars brand.

I was talking about the main "Episode" saga but yes, Rogue One had the advantage of being a standalone Star Wars film with its own set of tone, character and rules.