The Last Jedi Why are some fans disappointed? - Part 1

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Because there aren't even blueprints in this instance. Lucas might not have had a clear idea of exactly where things would be going, but he would have had an idea of the direction he wanted to go. With the current situation there is no clear direction. We have one film that sets up a lot of ideas, and its follow up which discards all of those ideas. There is no instance in which that makes any logical sense for a trilogy. The only way a situation like this happens is if you don't have a plan in place.

Agreed, people waited 2 years to find out about all of those thing set up in the first movie. And whether it was hit intention or not, Johnson seemed to love throwing those things back in people’s faces.

I still love TFA, but the more I watch and think about TLJ, the worse it becomes.

 

[Frodo]

It's not like it's an invalid argument though. I don't think it's at all nitpicking to say this series feels devoid of direction, especially in the wake of what's been happening over at WB with the DC films.

It's interesting you point out WB as an example. I see Lucasfilm and WB having a bit of the same issue of wanting to have their cake and eat it too in terms of filmmaker-writer driven films while at the same time having a unified interconnected cinematic universe.

The thing is, if you're gonna be for "shaking things up" with every film in a trilogy , you have to be all in for that strategy, even if it doesn't turn out the way you want it to. You can't say you like it for this film but complain when the next film disregards or dismisses it.

Episode 9 may piss off fans of TLJ because JJ could , in theory under Lucasfilm's new strategy, undo a lot of TLJ and take the film in a direction that contradicts it and TFA.

Whether that's likely or not is a different debate, but if you're advocating a freewheeling type of storytelling in which each filmmaker can put their own stamp on what they think a SW film should be , regardless of what the last filmmakers and writers did, that's what you're going to get.

 

[henzINNIT]

I heard that Johnson made use of Han Solo's dice in 'The Last Jedi' to pay off a scene featuring them in TFA script. The scene was later cut.

The films are made too close together. I wonder how Rian would have approached the script if he had started after TFA was actually released and received.

 

[Frodo]

I heard that Johnson made use of Han Solo's dice in 'The Last Jedi' to pay off a scene featuring them in TFA script. The scene was later cut.

The films are made too close together. I wonder how Rian would have approached the script if he had started after TFA was actually released and received.

I'm not sure. If Lucasfilm still allowed or wanted the next writer-directors to do their own thing as far as the sequels go, it may not have been all that different.

I do think the films are made a bit too close together and I actually feel the three year gap between films is a benefit and gives some creative breathing room.

But they're attempting to do the Marvel model with a constant output of product every year.

 

[danoyse]

I heard that Johnson made use of Han Solo's dice in 'The Last Jedi' to pay off a scene featuring them in TFA script. The scene was later cut.

The films are made too close together. I wonder how Rian would have approached the script if he had started after TFA was actually released and received.

The scene with the dice is on one of the extra features on the TFA blu-ray. It's when Han visits the Falcon's cockpit for the first time, he puts them back up after he looks around.

The dice were also in the original movie. You can see Chewie bump into into them when they were in Docking Bay 94.

 

[henzINNIT]

The scene with the dice is on one of the extra features on the TFA blu-ray. It's when Han visits the Falcon's cockpit for the first time, he puts them back up after he looks around.

The dice were also in the original movie. You can see Chewie bump into into them when they were in Docking Bay 94.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, definitely best to write a sequel after the preceding film is finished.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

It's been over a month since the home video/rental/discs version of TLJ came out. This should be the last update to the chart for another 6 months to a year given the two bursts of rating activity (after theatrical release and home video release) are over or winding down. I only just figured out last night how to get the Vudu ratings ascertained by looking through the various entries web page's source code. You find a number the movie is rated in the source code like 64.07 and divide that number by 73 which is another number in the source code and then multiply by 10. Yeah it's really that stupid.

 

[Delwin]

I watched TLJ on DVD. That's very weak movie - sorry, nothing more. No plot logic (even for SW standards) and really not very good from movie standpoint. The scenes Luke vs. Ben Solo look like bad scenes at amateur theater. But the worst: I simply do not care whether anybody from new cast will die or not - it is simply boring and not engaging. There is no SW magic there -prequels are better. I have no idea how anybody can say that Driver is better actor than Christiansen... TFA was mediocre in my opinion but gave hope for solid development.

I recently made a MCU marathon (at home - not all day long though) and went to watch IW. Sorry - I am not comic fan but MCU outclasses sequel trilogy.

 

[Grootster]

Okay, this is a complaint that applies to the sequel trilogy overall, but I figured I'd mention it here since it's a big part of TLJ.

This thought just randomly struck me the other day...why does Han Solo have a son in these movies?

I know the idea of Han having kids goes back to the expanded universe...but is it really necessary? I mean, did Han Solo ever strike anyone as a "family man" kind of guy? I never really saw Han Solo as the kind of guy who'd want to settle down and raise kids. Heck, I never even saw him as the kind of guy who'd want a long-term relationship. He's a loner and a scoundrel, and TFA goes out of it's way to show us that Han hasn't changed much. If the old EU hadn't given Han kids, I think this decision would be seen as kind of out-of-place.

What's makes it weirder is that they didn't give Luke kids. Out of the two, doesn't Luke seem more likely to raise children? I know people change over time so I can't necessarily call either one "out-of-character", but this decision seems kind of arbitrary and even counter-intuitive.

 

[Flemm]

What's makes it weirder is that they didn't give Luke kids. Out of the two, doesn't Luke seem more likely to raise children? I know people change over time so I can't necessarily call either one "out-of-character", but this decision seems kind of arbitrary and even counter-intuitive.

Well, one obvious thing is that Leia and Han were the romance of the original trilogy. If you are going to jump forward in time, and want to keep the story "in the family," so to speak, then Leia and Han having a child or children is the obvious choice.

Luke is a Jedi Master, which complicates being a father and/or having a family. The prequel trilogy makes an effort to develop a tension between Anakin's romantic attachment to Padmé and his Jedi training, which eventually leads to the dark side.

I don't really pay enough attention to Star Wars material outside of the films to know what possibilities there might have been for Luke to have some type of marriage or romance as a Jedi Master, but The Force Awakens is largely interested in basically presenting a re-mixed version of familiar tropes, so it feels to me like a topic that the film would not be interested in dealing with.

If you focus on how the OT characters are portrayed in The Force Awakens, it can come across as a little disappointing, I guess. Especially Han and Luke. Han seems to have basically reverted to his old ways as a scoundrel after what happened to his son. Luke has gone into hiding for the same basic reason.

Only Leia has kept up the fight, seemingly, in spite of the tragedy.

In some ways, I guess that perception or reaction, on Johnson's part, might have led to The Last Jedi.

It's basically about that failure, on the part of the OT characters.

 

[batman1]

Okay, this is a complaint that applies to the sequel trilogy overall, but I figured I'd mention it here since it's a big part of TLJ.

This thought just randomly struck me the other day...why does Han Solo have a son in these movies?

I know the idea of Han having kids goes back to the expanded universe...but is it really necessary? I mean, did Han Solo ever strike anyone as a "family man" kind of guy? I never really saw Han Solo as the kind of guy who'd want to settle down and raise kids. Heck, I never even saw him as the kind of guy who'd want a long-term relationship. He's a loner and a scoundrel, and TFA goes out of it's way to show us that Han hasn't changed much. If the old EU hadn't given Han kids, I think this decision would be seen as kind of out-of-place.

What's makes it weirder is that they didn't give Luke kids. Out of the two, doesn't Luke seem more likely to raise children? I know people change over time so I can't necessarily call either one "out-of-character", but this decision seems kind of arbitrary and even counter-intuitive.

Wow a lot of responses.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I always thought Han and Leia were the ones if anyone was going to have children because the OT was about their romance and not Luke's romance.

 

[RocketsNutz]

Okay, this is a complaint that applies to the sequel trilogy overall, but I figured I'd mention it here since it's a big part of TLJ.

This thought just randomly struck me the other day...why does Han Solo have a son in these movies?

I know the idea of Han having kids goes back to the expanded universe...but is it really necessary? I mean, did Han Solo ever strike anyone as a "family man" kind of guy? I never really saw Han Solo as the kind of guy who'd want to settle down and raise kids. Heck, I never even saw him as the kind of guy who'd want a long-term relationship. He's a loner and a scoundrel, and TFA goes out of it's way to show us that Han hasn't changed much. If the old EU hadn't given Han kids, I think this decision would be seen as kind of out-of-place.

What's makes it weirder is that they didn't give Luke kids. Out of the two, doesn't Luke seem more likely to raise children? I know people change over time so I can't necessarily call either one "out-of-character", but this decision seems kind of arbitrary and even counter-intuitive.

You bring up an interesting point that's definitely not without merit.

I finished the audiobook of TLJ the other day, basically covering from the thrown room scene on. And at one point (can't remember exactly when), it mentions something about how Ben was basically already broken before the the incident at the academy. It struck me with how it was worded, because it wasn't that he'd turned before that night, but that basically this kid had already been broken by life somehow. Had me instantly wondering if this was trying to allude to Leia and Han not working out (although TFA's dialogue between them implies that happened afterwards).

I dunno, I just remember when I heard it thinking that it was almost trying to make him out to be some latch-key kid who'd found his way into trouble because no one was there for him or something (perhaps Leia's work in the Senate).

What's disappointing about that is that it really tends to lead to it having to be addressed in Episode 9, but without Carrie... man I just don't see how.

 

[titansupes]

Okay, this is a complaint that applies to the sequel trilogy overall, but I figured I'd mention it here since it's a big part of TLJ.

This thought just randomly struck me the other day...why does Han Solo have a son in these movies?

I know the idea of Han having kids goes back to the expanded universe...but is it really necessary? I mean, did Han Solo ever strike anyone as a "family man" kind of guy? I never really saw Han Solo as the kind of guy who'd want to settle down and raise kids. Heck, I never even saw him as the kind of guy who'd want a long-term relationship. He's a loner and a scoundrel, and TFA goes out of it's way to show us that Han hasn't changed much. If the old EU hadn't given Han kids, I think this decision would be seen as kind of out-of-place.

What's makes it weirder is that they didn't give Luke kids. Out of the two, doesn't Luke seem more likely to raise children? I know people change over time so I can't necessarily call either one "out-of-character", but this decision seems kind of arbitrary and even counter-intuitive.

What TFA established was all perfectly in character for the OT Big Three.

Han and Leia were obviously going to have kids. By the RotJ, he'd gone from rogue scoundrel guy (who SAYS he doesn't need anybody or care about anything, but his actions constantly prove otherwise, from as early as chasing away that squad of Storm Troopers on the Death Star) to full blown responsible in-it-for-the-long-haul leader.

That said, while people do change, they only change so much. After RoTJ, it stands to reason that Han and Leia-- while loving-- wouldn't necessarily be the best parents. Leia's a workaholic who's wiping up the remnants of the old Empire and helping build a new galactic government, and Han's a general who's not emotionally equipped to deal with a potent Force User who's "got too much Vader in him". While I'm sure he and Ben had things in common (hot-headed pilots), the Force stuff is quite a gulf between them. And while Leia has all that power, she doesn't train or really think about it-- it's just not her thing.

When Ben finally, officially turned, it makes sense that Leia would bury herself in her work and Han would backslide into his "young carefree" self so he can hide from the pain. It also consistent that he wouldn't be able to help himself from helping others when the time came, and from trying to win his son back. It's sort of the perfect ending for him.

Luke's a loving guy, but over the course of the OT, he becomes more and more detached. He's emotional, sure, but not in the same way as the others. He processes things differently because of his growing connection the Force, as well as often being physically absent from the rest to go pursue his Jedi stuff. It's his compassion that saves Vader, but it's Force driven rather than anything truly familial (since, y'know, they didn't really know each other beyond fighting and sensing each other sometimes). It stands to reason he'd continue all that post-RotJ. I also think it's telling that Leia says "Luke's a JEDI, you're his father" rather than "Luke's his UNCLE" in TFA. Hell, even in TLJ, Luke's saying things like "a boy whose MASTER had failed him" rather than uncle. Luke was never going to have kids, he was all about exploring the Force and the Jedi.

TFA was incredibly well thought-out and emotionally honest when it comes to those guys. But, that's Abrams. The mystery box and nostalgia are things for him definitely, but at the core, the guy loves characters and arcs. Johnson, to me at least, seems to be about the THEME of the overall movie, then manipulating the characters to fit that where he needs to. Both ways work great, but I don't think Johnson pulled it off (much at all really) this time.

 

[Flemm]

TFA was incredibly well thought-out and emotionally honest when it comes to those guys.

On this topic, I would say that I basically agree, in the sense that what happened to the OT characters between RotJ and TFA felt plausible to me. Like something that could have happened to them.

Not the best thing, maybe not the thing that you would have hoped for, but still convincing. So I wasn't bothered by it, though I can see why someone might be.

It's the type of thing that can happen to people. You're happy for a while, and the future looks bright. Then there is a tragedy, and things are never really the same. Maybe your relationships change. They don't work the way they used to. You blame yourself, whatever.

I didn't really expect The Last Jedi to dwell on that aspect quite as much as it did, but I do think that those were the best parts of the movie. Particularly the moment when Luke says he's sorry and gives Leia the dice, remembering Han.

 

[Grootster]

I suppose there are good arguments on both sides. As I said, it's not really a complaint, just something interesting to think on.

 

[godisawesome]

On this topic, I would say that I basically agree, in the sense that what happened to the OT characters between RotJ and TFA felt plausible to me. Like something that could have happened to them.

I agree... Provided that we exclude TLJ's starting point for Luke, and provided IX ends up revealing some other element of Ben's fall.

To me, there's an apathy and selfishness to the status quo Rian Johnson envisioned for Luke at the start of TLJ, one that does not compute with his OT portrayal. Luke being broken in some way by his nephew and best friend's son going to the dark side and razing his temple? Yeah, I can totally get that and expected it. But Luke being so broken he wants to just grow old and die on an island without expressing any string, overwhelming urge to help the Galaxy that just saw tens of billions murdered? No. That's too much. Even just suggesting that Luke's wracked with inner turmoil over his desire to help the Galaxy would have helped, but that almost certainly would have had to be accompanied by him doing something productive and not just hanging around Ach-To waiting for time to take him, and Johnson, I believe, was seduced by the idea that such a portrayal would be über-dramatic, and ignored the implications about Luke and the Galaxy as a whole in regards to SKB's use and destruction (thus why no effort was made to tackle the likely backlash against the First Order.)

And even Johnson's own film seem so to say there has to be something significant that happened to to Ben before his confrontation with Luke; part of the reason why Luke's horror at igniting his lightsaber over Ben doesn't connect with some critics is because Ben then immediately murders and brainwashes his fellow students. When the story seems to suggest that Luke may have simply seen his nephew was a burgeoning school shooter and cult leader, someone critical of the film may find themselves wondering if Luke's mistake wasn't igniting the lightsaber, but rather not finishing the job... And I don't think Johnson intended that at all. And I just don't think LFL can ultimately rest Kylo's darkness on Leia being a working mom and Han having a career a small well; there's going to be something added in, or it's going to be a permanent black mark on LFL's handling of OT characters in the ST.

 

[Flemm]

When the story seems to suggest that Luke may have simply seen his nephew was a burgeoning school shooter and cult leader, someone critical of the film may find themselves wondering if Luke's mistake wasn't igniting the lightsaber, but rather not finishing the job... And I don't think Johnson intended that at all.

I certainly have questions about that aspect.

When seeing the film in the theater, I wasn't sure how far along the path to the dark side Kylo is presumed to be at that point. Are we supposed to see Luke's actions as the tipping point? I thought that was the idea. Kylo's version of events is the most damning to Luke. Even though Luke's final version is slightly less sinister, he still seems to consider himself largely responsible.

Ultimately, I think that the points you made are central to the mixed reactions to the movie. The Force Awakens leaves us with questions about Luke, and The Last Jedi answers those questions, but in a way that is very critical of Luke.

He's a broken man. He gave up. Leia didn't. Han really didn't either, but Luke did. So the question is partly whether one can accept that characterization or not.

In essence, Luke thought about doing to Kylo what he wouldn't do to Vader in RotJ. That is another reason why it is a big deal. There's nothing like that in TFA.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

You bring up an interesting point that's definitely not without merit.

I finished the audiobook of TLJ the other day, basically covering from the thrown room scene on. And at one point (can't remember exactly when), it mentions something about how Ben was basically already broken before the the incident at the academy. It struck me with how it was worded, because it wasn't that he'd turned before that night, but that basically this kid had already been broken by life somehow. Had me instantly wondering if this was trying to allude to Leia and Han not working out (although TFA's dialogue between them implies that happened afterwards).

I dunno, I just remember when I heard it thinking that it was almost trying to make him out to be some latch-key kid who'd found his way into trouble because no one was there for him or something (perhaps Leia's work in the Senate).

What's disappointing about that is that it really tends to lead to it having to be addressed in Episode 9, but without Carrie... man I just don't see how.

Kylo Ren — or, if you prefer, Ben Solo — demanded a balancing act in the novelization. We of course wanted to know more about his past and his thoughts about the future…but at the same time, I had to be careful not to do anything that might step on Episode IX’s storytelling. Still, I was able to give us glimpses of his childhood, including Leia’s memory of Ben in the womb — a scene that reaches back to Chuck Wendig’s Aftermath trilogy.

https://www.starwars.com/news/how-t...cts-to-a-galaxy-of-star-wars-books-and-comics

 

[Flemm]

Well, I'm working from memory here, but doesn't that basically fit with the idea that Luke "sensed a darkness looming," or words to that effect?

He momentarily considers ending it there, Kylo witnesses his mentor's apparent betrayal, and this pushes him over the edge. He changes his allegiance, and becomes Snoke's pupil. Had Luke acted differently in that moment, then maybe the outcome is different?

I thought that we were at least supposed to consider that possibility, and it seems to be what Luke believes.

That is the best explanation for Luke's behavior. He truly believes that he failed as a master, and that he might fail again with Rey.

 

[RocketsNutz]

So... just listening to the very end. Apparently Luke had told the caretakers of the island that the girl was his 'niece'.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I expect her to be in the next Abrams Star Wars movie, but it in no way excuses the poor character writing or diminished story and screen time for the Rey character outside of that and it can't save this movie or the next one by itself.

 

[Flemm]

Leia is so crucial to this story making sense. I don't see how they can finish it without her.

 

[AlluAllu]

I'm sad that this ended up being so polarising. I just rewatched the film for the first time since theaters and I just love The Last Jedi. I'd like IX to be more Rian Johnson than JJ Abrams, but that seems unlikely now.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm sad that this ended up being so polarising. I just rewatched the film for the first time since theaters and I just love The Last Jedi. I'd like IX to be more Rian Johnson than JJ Abrams, but that seems unlikely now.

Yeah, I'm with you. I had some initial 'shock' to get over after the first screening, but every viewing since then has gone down like butter. There's a lot of beauty in this film. I really don't get the intense hatred at this point, and it's really annoying how flooded my Youtube feed is with clickbait videos about how Star Wars is ruined forever, but oh well. C'iest la vie.