The Last Jedi The Biggest Problem with The Last Jedi is The Force Awakens.

[Boom]

Off topic, but... Is Battlefront 2 worth getting? That entire loot crate nonsense has put me right off.

No. It's terrible.

 

[matt47]

Yeah Battlefront 2 kinda sucks...Especially the story campaign.

 

[Boom]

As for the topic at hand, I'd say the biggest problem with TLJ was the Resistance storyline and the Finn/Rose subplot that spun off from it. It brought the film to a screeching halt, and I was honestly fidgeting in my seat waiting for the movie to get back to Luke, Rey, and Kylo. Hard to get into a movie when you're not invested half the time.

 

[jmc]

Why, it’s almost as if one is the ninth movie in a franchise that’s spanned 40 years, and is ripe for a bit of self analysis... while the other was meant to start a franchise from scratch, and should have been constructing, not deconstructing.

This isn’t hard.

Now stop sullying this thread with mentions of that whopping turd.

That's not a dissimilar argument to what the DCEU fans were saying except it was encompassing the characters across all media. So were your disagreements about BvS due to length of time the franchise had existed or because it was never in the best interests of the characters to be portrayed that way in the first place? My argument against that film and franchise was squarely down to feeling those were never the right characters to do that type of story with, and for Star Wars my feelings are similar, albeit this isn't nearly as bad in its execution.

 

[markjoedelonge]

No. It's terrible.

Yeah Battlefront 2 kinda sucks...Especially the story campaign.

Glad I didn't get that, but why do you guys think it sucks?

 

[Spider-Fan]

That's not a dissimilar argument to what the DCEU fans were saying except it was encompassing the characters across all media. So were your disagreements about BvS due to length of time the franchise had existed or because it was never in the best interests of the characters to be portrayed that way in the first place? My argument against that film and franchise was squarely down to feeling those were never the right characters to do that type of story with, and for Star Wars my feelings are similar, albeit this isn't nearly as bad in its execution.

Here is the major difference for me: Star Wars has been somewhat creatively stagnate on film for a long time. The DCEU was brand new. Sometimes it is true, you need to tear down some walls and rebuild the foundation of your house, but are you going to do that to a house you built 3 years ago? In the case of Star Wars, the house was old and the cracks were starting to show. When that happens, time to grab some sledgehammers and go to town. When you just built a house, you shouldn't go HGTV on it. Try dressing it up and adding some curtains first.

 

[Reaver027]

Here is the major difference for me: Star Wars has been somewhat creatively stagnate on film for a long time.

That one i don't understand. We had 3 movies around 1980. Then 3 very different movies around 2000. And now we had two movies prior to TLJ. One of those two movies was very close to the movies from the 80s and the other was a very different movie again.
I just don't see how Star Wars was stagnant.

 

[Spider-Fan]

That one i don't understand. We had 3 movies around 1980. Then 3 very different movies around 2000. And now we had two movies prior to TLJ. One of those two movies was very close to the movies from the 80s and the other was a very different movie again.
I just don't see how Star Wars was stagnant.

Because they were just recycling many of the same plot elements, particularly TFA, and not offering us anything new. At its core, the Saga was spinning its wheels trying to hard to match the OTs formula. Thus the series on a creative level was somewhat stagnate. Star Wars needed to grow beyond that formula, and that is what I think Johnson was trying to move us toward.

Not really talking about Rogue One. Mainly talking about the Saga here.

 

[Mjölnir]

Here is the major difference for me: Star Wars has been somewhat creatively stagnate on film for a long time. The DCEU was brand new. Sometimes it is true, you need to tear down some walls and rebuild the foundation of your house, but are you going to do that to a house you built 3 years ago? In the case of Star Wars, the house was old and the cracks were starting to show. When that happens, time to grab some sledgehammers and go to town. When you just built a house, you shouldn't go HGTV on it. Try dressing it up and adding some curtains first.

I don't agree that Star Wars has been creatively stagnant before. If anything it's been these new movies that made it stagnant, with TFA at the head. The Prequels were more creatively different from the OT than these new movies are so if they wanted creativity then make yet another step to a new context instead of repeating the one in the OT.

TFA remakes ANH, RO is basically just a prequel extension of ANH, and TLJ repeats many beats and scenes from ESB and ROTJ with some twists. All in the same evil empire vs rebels context. Now that's creatively stagnant when you have an entire galaxy to play in, and can choose whatever time you need.

I also don't call it creative if you have to tear down some fundamentals to do something with a story or character. It takes more creativity to build on what's there if you're using previously existing material. If you want to do the former it's both more creative and bold to just create new stories or characters.

 

[jmc]

Here is the major difference for me: Star Wars has been somewhat creatively stagnate on film for a long time. The DCEU was brand new. Sometimes it is true, you need to tear down some walls and rebuild the foundation of your house, but are you going to do that to a house you built 3 years ago? In the case of Star Wars, the house was old and the cracks were starting to show. When that happens, time to grab some sledgehammers and go to town. When you just built a house, you shouldn't go HGTV on it. Try dressing it up and adding some curtains first.

I find that a strange thing to say it's creatively stagnate. Yes, the prequels were for the most part garbage, but even the most hardened of detractors like myself can agree at the very least Lucas brought in a bunch of interesting ideas, designs and concepts. Say what you will about the prequels but it was not lacking in creativity. Execution was terrible, no argument from me there. And just because there are cracks means you tear down the wall. You can just as easy make something new again by renovating it.

 

[2kt09]

That one i don't understand. We had 3 movies around 1980. Then 3 very different movies around 2000. And now we had two movies prior to TLJ. One of those two movies was very close to the movies from the 80s and the other was a very different movie again.
I just don't see how Star Wars was stagnant.

Very different in my mind is doing to Star Wars what the animated shows have done, minus Rebels because that's going back to the well.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't agree that Star Wars has been creatively stagnant before. If anything it's been these new movies that made it stagnant, with TFA at the head. The Prequels were more creatively different from the OT than these new movies are so if they wanted creativity then make yet another step to a new context instead of repeating the one in the OT.

TFA remakes ANH, RO is basically just a prequel extension of ANH, and TLJ repeats many beats and scenes from ESB and ROTJ with some twists. All in the same evil empire vs rebels context. Now that's creatively stagnant when you have an entire galaxy to play in, and can choose whatever time you need.

I also don't call it creative if you have to tear down some fundamentals to do something with a story or character. It takes more creativity to build on what's there if you're using previously existing material. If you want to do the former it's both more creative and bold to just create new stories or characters.

But if you're building on what was essentially a remake of ANH, how are we not just going further and further down the rehash rabbit hole? Yes, TLJ played with familiar elements, but it left it to where we no longer had to rhyme with ESB or ROTJ going forward. Outside of us having the Rebels and Empire again (once again, something TFA started, not TLJ), the series has so much more room to grow now.

Sometimes a controlled fire can enrich the soil.

I find that a strange thing to say it's creatively stagnate. Yes, the prequels were for the most part garbage, but even the most hardened of detractors like myself can agree at the very least Lucas brought in a bunch of interesting ideas, designs and concepts. Say what you will about the prequels but it was not lacking in creativity. Execution was terrible, no argument from me there.

I will agree the PT tried harder than TFA to grow the brand, but at the same time, there is a pattern of similarity to them (if you watch the Red Letter Media reviews of them, many of them are pointed out in great detail...as well as outlining the Ring Theory idea used to defend the PT often). But even removing those from the equation, TFA put Star Wars into a corner where it couldn't grow. We were just spinning our wheels. Johnson tried to get the series to a point where it could go beyond that, and he think he did it. Yes, we have Rebels vs Empire again basically, but Episode 7 created that problem. TLJ though took away a lot of things that made it mirror the OT too much (no more Emperor looming over our new Vader, etc.) I just hope JJ does something with it. I said in another thread, if Episode IX has another Death Star, I am walking out, LOL.

 

[Reaver027]

Because they were just recycling many of the same plot elements, particularly TFA, and not offering us anything new. At its core, the Saga was spinning its wheels trying to hard to match the OTs formula. Thus the series on a creative level was somewhat stagnate. Star Wars needed to grow beyond that formula, and that is what I think Johnson was trying to move us toward.

Not really talking about Rogue One. Mainly talking about the Saga here.

Ok lets not count RO.
So Star Wars was stagnant for 2 years or better 1 movie and that is a long time? The Star Wars formula you are talking about was only used once more after RotJ in TFA. There was no need at all to just break everything down and rebuild it because of one movie. They could have moved away from the style of the OT without it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Ok lets not count RO.
So Star Wars was stagnant for 2 years or better 1 movie and that is a long time? The Star Wars formula you are talking about was only used once more after RotJ in TFA. There was no need at all to just break everything down and rebuild it because of one movie. They could have moved away from the style of the OT without it.

I disagree. Like I said, creatively the cracks and limitations of the series were starting to show. For me, that means extensive remodeling. I appreciate that some don't agree it needed that extensive of course correction. I understand why they did what they did with TFA, don't get me wrong. The PT hurt overall, and it needed to remind us of why we loved Star Wars so much. But, that will only take you so far. From a business standpoint, TFA was the smart thing to do, but creatively, I just don't see how building off that foundation was going to take us anywhere but the familiar with new curtains.

 

[2kt09]

I will agree the PT tried harder than TFA to grow the brand, but at the same time, there is a pattern of similarity to them (if you watch the Red Letter Media reviews of them, many of them are pointed out in great detail...as well as outlining the Ring Theory idea used to defend the PT often). But even removing those from the equation, TFA put Star Wars into a corner where it couldn't grow. We were just spinning our wheels. Johnson tried to get the series to a point where it could go beyond that, and he think he did it. Yes, we have Rebels vs Empire again basically, but Episode 7 created that problem. TLJ though took away a lot of things that made it mirror the OT too much (no more Emperor looming over our new Vader, etc.) I just hope JJ does something with it. I said in another thread, if Episode IX has another Death Star, I am walking out, LOL.

But...even RLM recently said this was "spinning the wheels" the movie while also stating this was practically the end of a franchise to where they almost don't care what happens next.

 

[Spider-Fan]

But...even RLM recently said this was "spinning the wheels" the movie while also stating this was practically the end of a franchise to where they almost don't care what happens next.

Honestly, I have not seen any videos on Episode 8 by them. I saw the Episode 7 one. Regardless, my point is not that RLM is the great authority on Star Wars and always right, but to say their PT analysis goes fairly in depth and showcases the problems that series has. I mostly agree with them on the PT. Less so on Rogue One.

 

[Mjölnir]

But if you're building on what was essentially a remake of ANH, how are we not just going further and further down the rehash rabbit hole? Yes, TLJ played with familiar elements, but it left it to where we no longer had to rhyme with ESB or ROTJ going forward. Outside of us having the Rebels and Empire again (once again, something TFA started, not TLJ), the series has so much more room to grow now.

Sometimes a controlled fire can enrich the soil.

They could have gone anywhere with TLJ (within reason). You didn't need to follow up ANH with ESB and ROTJ, that story could have gone a million different ways. And to make Luke into a new character, as I think they did, and use that to basically make him do even surlier Yoda is a double negative for me, and it didn't even out to a positive.

I don't think they've managed to be as creative as George Lucas was at any point in his Star Wars making (execution is a different matter though). I thought TLJ would be, but I felt it still repeated a ton of story, scenes and character beats and when it didn't it was sometimes less creative to me for the reason I mentioned.

Even with Episode IX there's plenty left that's similar to the OT, and with the context of the same kind of meta conflict and that we expect a trilogy resolution I don't think TLJ helped open things up nearly enough. I'm now holding my hope out for Rian's trilogy to be the big creative step in the new Star Wars. I hope I'll like the execution better than in TLJ though.

 

[FunkMiller]

That's not a dissimilar argument to what the DCEU fans were saying except it was encompassing the characters across all media. So were your disagreements about BvS due to length of time the franchise had existed or because it was never in the best interests of the characters to be portrayed that way in the first place? My argument against that film and franchise was squarely down to feeling those were never the right characters to do that type of story with, and for Star Wars my feelings are similar, albeit this isn't nearly as bad in its execution.

Nope. I see nothing wrong with a deconstructionist take on any fictional character, if it’s done well, and done at an appropriate time. If in ten to fifteen years, the DC cinematic universe chose to do a movie that deconstructed its most popular heroes in an effort to say something new about them, and create an original and compelling story, I’d be fine with it.

The glaring, overarching and comprehensive stupidity of Snyder & WB with BvS was attempting such a deconstructionist take at the absolute outset of their narrative. It isn’t good enough to say that characters like Superman and Batman have existed for decades, because those are all different versions of the characters.

Here is the major difference for me: Star Wars has been somewhat creatively stagnate on film for a long time. The DCEU was brand new. Sometimes it is true, you need to tear down some walls and rebuild the foundation of your house, but are you going to do that to a house you built 3 years ago? In the case of Star Wars, the house was old and the cracks were starting to show. When that happens, time to grab some sledgehammers and go to town. When you just built a house, you shouldn't go HGTV on it. Try dressing it up and adding some curtains first.

I think if we’re talking about how Luke in TLJ is a deconstructionist take, it’s less about creative stagnancy in the Star Wars movies, and more about a commentary on Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey, which was Lucas’s main and most important influence on how he wrote Luke.

Essentially, what Johnson is doing is saying that this ideology is a falsehood. That the hero’s journey isn’t something that ends at step 17. Life goes on past the myth of the journey. It doesn’t stop there. Nobody stays a hero. Everybody screws up eventually.

Or, as somebody else puts it in the best movie ever made:

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

By definition, if you continue Luke’s story past ROTJ, you must have him meet with some failure and weakness, otherwise there’s nothing compelling about that ongoing narrative and character arc.

 

[2kt09]

Honestly, I have not seen any videos on Episode 8 by them. I saw the Episode 7 one. Regardless, my point is not that RLM is the great authority on Star Wars and always right, but to say their PT analysis goes fairly in depth and showcases the problems that series has. I mostly agree with them on the PT. Less so on Rogue One.

That's just my condensed overview of their in-depth analysis on the matter.
From a non-OT watcher (mostly in regards to not yet fully seeing ESB), I was genuinely surprised by how much I learned about Yoda.

 

[Mjölnir]

Nope. I see nothing wrong with a deconstructionist take on any fictional character, if it’s done well, and done at an appropriate time. If in ten to fifteen years, the DC cinematic universe chose to do a movie that deconstructed its most popular heroes in an effort to say something new about them, and create an original and compelling story, I’d be fine with it.

The glaring, overarching and comprehensive stupidity of Snyder & WB with BvS was attempting such a deconstructionist take at the absolute outset of their narrative. It isn’t good enough to say that characters like Superman and Batman have existed for decades, because those are all different versions of the characters.

The characters having been around for so long and already having been portrayed very differently is a good reason why you can make them different yourself in my view, even if I personally wasn't in favor of what they did in the DCEU.

With TLJ you deconstructed something that's far younger than those characters when you knew that people were dying to see their old favorites again. That's shakier ground to me, although again I was personally open to them doing something new. I did not think they managed to do it well though.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I think if we’re talking about how Luke in TLJ is a deconstructionist take, it’s less about creative stagnancy in the Star Wars movies, and more about a commentary on Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey, which was Lucas’s main and most important influence on how he wrote Luke.

Essentially, what Johnson is doing is saying that this ideology is a falsehood. That the hero’s journey isn’t something that ends at step 17. Life goes on past the myth of the journey. It doesn’t stop there. Nobody stays a hero. Everybody screws up eventually.

Or, as somebody else puts it in the best movie ever made:

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

By definition, if you continue Luke’s story past ROTJ, you must have him meet with some failure and weakness, otherwise there’s nothing compelling about that ongoing narrative and character arc.

I agree with these points, as well. But, I think the creative stagnation is why maybe Johnson felt the deconstructionist take was necessary for much of the story. If we are always just doing the heroes journey without deviation, then there is no room to make something creative and we're doomed to repeat the same thing. But I 100% agree on Luke's part of the story. His journey as the hero was over, and him just being a perfect guy leaves no arc or interesting character to study.

 

[Mjölnir]

I agree with these points, as well. But, I think the creative stagnation is why maybe Johnson felt the deconstructionist take was necessary for much of the story. If we are always just doing the heroes journey without deviation, then there is no room to make something creative and we're doomed to repeat the same thing. But I 100% agree on Luke's part of the story. His journey as the hero was over, and him just being a perfect guy leaves no arc or interesting character to study.

First of all people have said many times that you can make Luke have had a road of failure and still be building on what was before. Secondly, if they don't want to do a normal hero's journey, why do we have Rey?

 

[Spider-Fan]

First of all people have said many times that you can make Luke have had a road of failure and still be building on what was before. Secondly, if they don't want to do a normal hero's journey, why do we have Rey?

Like I said, we're still following it. I never said they scrapped it...I said they deviated. There is a difference.

 

[FunkMiller]

The characters having been around for so long and already having been portrayed very differently is a good reason why you can make them different yourself in my view, even if I personally wasn't in favor of what they did in the DCEU.

The problem is though that assumes a level of knowledge from the audience they might not have, or might see differently. This holds especially true when talking about a character like Batman. Which version are they deconstructing in Snyder’s pretentious, faux-intellectual pile? Nolan’s? Burton’s? West’s? Miller’s? Adams? Lee’s? O’neil’s? That’s why BvS fails completely. It’s asking an audience to accept a deconstruction of a character that they have no prior knowledge of! Batfleck is never established!

There’s only ever been one Luke Skywalker, so you can rely on audience knowledge when you perform your deconstruction. I accept that for some this wasn’t done well though.

 

[Flemm]

By definition, if you continue Luke’s story past ROTJ, you must have him meet with some failure and weakness, otherwise there’s nothing compelling about that ongoing narrative and character arc.

The issue is that the movie absolutely is not willing to simply let Luke be a flawed character, it absolutely wants him to be the hero, but at the wrong moment.

The thing that apparently scandalized Johnson was precisely that Luke was no longer the hero, or heroic.

So the movie is a redemption arc that puts Luke in the position of hero again, but at a moment in the story when he is supposed to be passing the baton to other characters.

The movie wants to have its cake, and eat it, too. It wants to be critical of the hero's journey, but actually it's obsessed with it.

The same sort of thing happens with Holdo. We are told that she cares more about the light than seeming like a hero, but then immediately she sacrifices herself like a traditional hero.