• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Grading & Discussion

Grade the movie.


  • Total voters
    290
My problem is that there is no real reason to withhold the plan from anyone. (Other than plot machinations.) The plan involves everyone on board, were they just not going to tell people what was going on until the last possible second? Did the pilots of the destroyed ships know what they were dying for? Did the people that had to check the transports know? Did the pilots left on board know? To get the plot to that point, all we've seen is some people standing around not doing anything. (Which makes sense, that seems to be their M.O. in this movie.)

Or was it just Poe who wasn't told anything?

There's also the fact that, since Holdo is literally commanding the very last ship in the Resistance and is vastly outnumbered and outgunned, she doesn't have the luxury of not telling everyone the most essential information (even Poe, regardless of his mistakes or demotion). She has no one else to rely on, there's no cavalry to rescue them. If it were the case that the Resistance wasn't so badly weakened and there were other resources, or if they had established concerns about potential traitors on board, then I think Holdo's decisions would seem more logical (to me, at least ;)). Both of those possibilities could be solved with a line or two of dialogue, as could Holdo explaining her plan so Poe wasn't confused about the strategy.

I inferred that Holdo did tell some crew (perhaps bridge crew and shuttle pilots) and not others, presumably the other fighter pilots, based on their support Poe in his mini-mutiny. I may be wrong on that when I do a rewatch, but that was my basic impression. One could always argue it was more friendship/loyalty towards Poe, but if they were being left in the dark by Holdo as far as the plan, that would be the greater motivation IMO. Perhaps a combination of both.
 
So have you actually seen it yet? Or are you still trying to convince us that reddit spoilers are basically the same thing?

Ummm. Yea that's not what I said, and how I saw spoilers on the movie. Second, yea I went to the theatre. The room was silent all the way thru it. It wasn't like TFA, there were tons of fanboys like yourself cheering like some youtuber freaking out and squealing like a little girl. But I'm this one, no..nothing. Silence. Absolute silence. I went on Saturday night. I stick by my grade.

Also when you see a sentence start out with "So" you know the smartass reply is coming. So predictable. :rolleyes:

QUOTE="Hela, post: 12295256, member: 66763"]
Also: comparing yourself to a man who is completely irrational, accidentally killed hundreds due to bad judgement, and is explicitly noted to have all his reasoning facilities fried, is an...interesting choice. But hey, you’re certainly ‘entitled’ to do it.[/QUOTE]

I figured it was appropriate given the venue, but lets look at the flip side of Decker. He lost his crew, went mad about it. Tried to destroy the doomsday machine, and ultimately killed himself over remorse. However, it was his death and sacrifice that gave Kirk the idea and example he needed to save his ship. So Commodore Decker redeemed himself from his dark side demons in the end. Similar theme to the Disney STAR WARS mythos and corporate formula don't you think? Anyhow..love the snark..but I'm not even tired bro.

QUOTE="Hela, post: 12295256, member: 66763"]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ.:eek:

That specific screed aside, there’s something I’ve been wondering about after reading a few more ’excited’ reviews (aka. The idiots on Facebook bragging about botting the RT audience score.)

When did being ‘anti-slavery,’ ‘anti-murder,’ and ‘anti-black market arms dealing’ become a ‘liberal’ things?[/QUOTE]

Okay..I read that too..My response is the same as yours..
Jesus Titty Fucking Christ.:eek:
 
When did being ‘anti-slavery,’ ‘anti-murder,’ and ‘anti-black market arms dealing’ become a ‘liberal’ things?

I guess it's the placement of it in the dialogue as a PSA kinda smacks of an agenda or preachy to some. My gripe is story, acting, and the "kill off the old, promote the new!" Attitude that pisses me off. Reminds me of MARVEL Legacy, what a crap fest that was.. The OT and their characters deserve respect. After all That's what kicked it all off in the first place..a lesson Disney execs should learn.
 
Also, the theory about the First Order jumping to hyperspace to get ahead of the resistance ships doesn't bear out because the resistance ships would jump to hyperspace as soon as the First Order did. Presumably the First Order is not able to track them if they are not there at the start of the jump. This is hinted at by the dialogue earlier in the film regarding the "thread" they have attached to the resistance fleet.
Only the flagship is tracking them, they have several other Star Destroyers tagging along that could have flanked them.
 
Why should we really care about the bloodline at all, if not for its Force potential?

I don’t know dude, but we were somehow managing before you brought it up.

How would a distant Shmi relative be fundamentally more interesting or important than any other random?

They wouldn’t. Never claimed they would be.

Not that it’s ever stopped the ‘randoms’ from being interesting. Sometimes they get their own movies.

People see what they want to see, apparently. The movie called the Skywalker blood "mighty" and "something truly special" when it took the occasional break from promoting your agenda.

Yeah...a decade or so after the movies started. And of course, the latest movies thouroughly deconstruct that. (Fuck, the prequels arguably deconstructed that.)

Besides, the Skywalkers in the actual movies aren’t ‘special’ because of anything to do with ‘The Force.’
  • Luke was our hero he’s was adventurous, selfless, whilst also struggling with impulsiveness. There’s a reason his funk in TLJ is shown by his ‘get up and go’ having gotten up and went. Not ‘oh noes, I lost my magic.’
  • Leia was brave, determined, headstrong, and tough. She also has absolutely no connection to the Force until the last 10 minutes of the (at the time) last darn movie.
  • Anakin was a flawed man, who was spectacularly corrupted by a combination of fear, emotional scarring leaving him with trust issues, an untempered selfish streak, and being completely unable to deal with loss.
  • Kylo’s a man child, short tempered, deeply insecure, and envious. He is also the only who has any belief that he is special just for being born into the right family, which is presented as a sign of him being downright delusional. Hmmm.
On a side note: people need to stop using ‘agenda’ as a dog whistle. Literally everybody doing anything is doing so with an agenda. Attempting to use a fact of life as some sort of behavioural critique just sounds ridiculous.

If you're talking about creation by the Sith here, that option was in no way 'provided' by the EU. It was implied as a possibility by ROTS itself...

When? Quote it.

"Anakin's father was just some deadbeat" is still lame no matter who is in charge, and it messes with Shmi's characterization. The clear intent of the film should count for something.

It really doesn’t. As the use of ‘should’ instead of ‘does’ shows you’re well aware of.

Plus even a die hard proponent of auteur theory would probably concede that ‘intent’ ceases to matter when you literally sell all creative decisions to someone else.

And how exactly does having sex take away from Shmi’s characterisation? What did you think she and Lars Snr got up to?

Not really, that's primarily fan ideology. And for whatever it's worth the current position of the franchise is that everything released since the changeover is 'binding', but you'll find that doesn't matter to some people. History seems to repeat itself.

No, not fan ideology. It was very much Lucasfilms official stance. They actually codified ‘Tiers of canon’, because we were apparently really too obtuse to just not sweat the small stuff.

And no shit history is repeating. The quality level is still 50/50 if you’re feeling generous, inconsistencies are already creeping in, and fans shall bicker. That’s tie ins for you,
 
Ummm. Yea that's not what I said, and how I saw spoilers on the movie. Second, yea I went to the theatre. The room was silent all the way thru it. It wasn't like TFA, there were tons of fanboys like yourself cheering like some youtuber freaking out and squealing like a little girl. But I'm this one, no..nothing. Silence. Absolute silence. I went on Saturday night. I stick by my grade.

Also when you see a sentence start out with "So" you know the smartass reply is coming. So predictable. :rolleyes:


I’m sure I’ve been just been really ‘pwned.’ Unfortunately, the rest is completely illegible. Your quote tags are so bad, that you’re sabotaging my attempts to quote you.

Of course, you might have planned that. In which case, bravo.:shifty:
 
Last edited:
  • Leia was brave, determined, headstrong, and tough. She also has absolutely no connection to the Force until the last 10 minutes of the (at the time) last darn movie.
Leia and Kylo share a Force Moment as Kylo hesitates while attacking the Resistance fleet and Leia is on the bridge of the Raddus. This moment was also heavily marketed in the trailers and refreshingly appears in the film in that exact context (not an editing bait-and-switch).

Leia senses the explosive decompression of the bridge of the Raddus. Watch her face right before it happens. She can see it coming and is helpless to stop it. Carrie did an excellent job with her scenes!

Later, Leia also senses Luke through The Force when Luke calls out to her and wakes her from unconsciousness. I'm guessing he does that so that Luke can later "see" where he needs to Force-project to confront Kylo through Leia - she is always in visual range of Projection-Luke on Crait.
 
Leia and Kylo share a Force Moment as Kylo hesitates while attacking the Resistance fleet and Leia is on the bridge of the Raddus. This moment was also heavily marketed in the trailers and refreshingly appears in the film in that exact context (not an editing bait-and-switch).

Leia senses the explosive decompression of the bridge of the Raddus. Watch her face right before it happens. She can see it coming and is helpless to stop it. Carrie did an excellent job with her scenes!

Later, Leia also senses Luke through The Force when Luke calls out to her and wakes her from unconsciousness. I'm guessing he does that so that Luke can later "see" where he needs to Force-project to confront Kylo through Leia - she is always in visual range of Projection-Luke on Crait.

...TLJ came out before ROTJ?

I guess the titling scheme does still work. Maybe even better than the reverse.
 
True.

Thing is, I’m guessing Leia being a Skywalker wasn’t an inkling in Lucas eye at that point. She was just randomly sensitive, or Luke was doing all the Force work, or whatever.

Considering the open mouth kissing, I hope it wasn’t an inkling in milkman George’s eye.
 
Remembering what Carrie Fisher looked like at 21...it be difficult to no want to kiss her like that.
 
Remembering what Carrie Fisher looked like at 21...it be difficult to no want to kiss her like that.

Sorry, can’t empathise. The thought of accidentally tongue wrestling my siblings has just flat out murdered anything resembling sexual desire.

An oil-covered Chris Hemsworth could magically appear right now for a striptease, and I would feel nothing. It’s going to take days for me to recover.
 
Actually, if you check the Lucasfilm official foreign translations of ROTJ (no the) it is not singular but plural. Just like The Last Jedi movie title is also plural.

I know, coming from a country where the title was in plural... but actually, to me it makes more sense for it to be singular and aimed at Anakin. Because why use plural: Last time I checked, Luke's still just one man, Leia just has the force sensitivity but is no Jedi, Yoda dies in that movie (and quite frankly has no need to return since he never left the Jedi, same would go for Obi-Wan). That leaves Anakin who actually was a Jedi, turned and returned. Luke's brush with the dark side... Well, this confrontation was his trial as a Jedi, so I'd argue that he finally qualified as a Jedi, rather than returned.

And I'd argue that TLJ should be singular as well, since Rey is no Jedi (as is argued along the movie that not every force user is Jedi and/or Sith), Kylo and Leia aren't either... again, just Luke left. One could arguably include Yoda who convinces Luke that the Jedi are a relic of a time long past.
 
...TLJ came out before ROTJ?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about something else.
"I withdraw my question." [opens, eats chocolate bar]
ejd8r5.jpg
 
I know, coming from a country where the title was in plural... but actually, to me it makes more sense for it to be singular and aimed at Anakin. Because why use plural: Last time I checked, Luke's still just one man, Leia just has the force sensitivity but is no Jedi, Yoda dies in that movie (and quite frankly has no need to return since he never left the Jedi, same would go for Obi-Wan). That leaves Anakin who actually was a Jedi, turned and returned. Luke's brush with the dark side... Well, this confrontation was his trial as a Jedi, so I'd argue that he finally qualified as a Jedi, rather than returned.

And I'd argue that TLJ should be singular as well, since Rey is no Jedi (as is argued along the movie that not every force user is Jedi and/or Sith), Kylo and Leia aren't either... again, just Luke left. One could arguably include Yoda who convinces Luke that the Jedi are a relic of a time long past.
See, IDK...

Yea, Anakin killed all the Jedi at the time of the end of the Clone wars. Became vader, and the rest is history. But with the empire destroyed by Luke and the rebels, those jedi who disappeared during the clone wars could have had kids, who have kids who are force sensitive. Midichlorinated..lol so the baby at the end of the movie, there probably are others around that galaxy. Jedi order is a religion..a practice, like shaolin monks. Both a discipline in a fighting art, and body and soul training.
 
A story that (in various ways) feels like it's based on a TESB template doesn't feel like it's part of the Star Wars film franchise?

You can base a film on an older entry, but that does not guarantee its going to uphold the creative strengths and traditions of the older film.


I guess it's the placement of it in the dialogue as a PSA kinda smacks of an agenda or preachy to some.

Exactly--the ideological left often makes the historically incorrect assertion that they were/are the "owners" of moral action and behavior, so as a result, they sell themselves as its representatives.

My gripe is story, acting, and the "kill off the old, promote the new!"

Essentially what Star Trek Generations did with the lowballed "passing the torch" plot, thn killing off the symbol of the franchise in Kirk. It said much that after 7 TV seasons, Rick Berman and his cronies still needd to kill off a character more popular thatn the entire TNG.
 
It’s ironic-sadly-that both Shatner and Hamill have regrets about their final performances. (As living, breathing characters; because I’m sure Luke’s Force ghost will be back in Episode IX. With the recent spat between Shatner and Jason Isaacs it looks unlikely that they will ever come up with an angle to bring Kirk back.)

All that being said, I think Generations handled Kirk with more respect than TLJ did for Luke. In Generations Kirk got two heroic deaths and he spent less time arguing with Picard about the stakes. Once he got that he could still make a difference, that he couldn’t live in fantasyland anymore, he came back and kicked ass. It wasn’t the Nexus remnant Kirk, but the real, physical guy. In general Trek (including the Kelvinverse) has treated past shows and older characters with more respect, tweaking and updating if necessary without burning the house down. Because if you burn the house down completely, then why call it Star Wars anymore? If you remove the Jedi/Sith aspects, then what is Star Wars, but essentially Battlestar Galactica or Firefly? It removes the distinctiveness of Star Wars. Certainly, there is more to the Star Wars universe than the Jedi and Sith, but when you hear those words you automatically know people are talking about Star Wars. Arguably you could also say the same applies to ‘rebel’s or ‘empire’, though we’ve seen various series (film or television) that describe those things. I will give you “Deathstar” though as automatically informing the audience this is Star Wars.

It seems like Johnson felt he had to destroy and deconstruct many of the tropes of Star Wars, perhaps in his mind to ‘save’ it, to make it fresh or new. But I see it as creating a vacuum and what’s going to fill it? The new sequel characters are mostly watered-down versions of previous Star Wars characters, so there’s not much fresh or new there outside of the optics. Let me be clear, I have no problem with diverse characters. (In many of my posts over the years on this website I have advocated for greater diversity and even in my fan fiction on this website I put that into practice).

Some of the new sequel criticism I suspect is just concealing racial or gender biases, but I also hold that not all criticism derives from those negative corners.

If Star Wars is going to diversify then make the new characters as interesting, well-written, distinct, and unique as some of the previous Star Wars characters were. Even Lucas had trouble doing so for his prequel (new or old) characters, even though he had the template from the original trilogy, to work back from. It’s not an easy job to create interesting and somewhat ‘fresh’ characters, but I wish Disney had looked more to the EU and saw which characters resonated the most with fans and just cherry-picked traits and ideas from there. Even without that, look at the canon Clone Wars and Rebels cartoons for some clues as well.

Back to Johnson…it’s not enough to tear down if you don’t have a plan to build it back up or really take it into interesting places. And I’m not sensing an overarching vision for this sequel trilogy, which made it easier for Johnson to just upset the apple cart. For all of Disney’s caution, I am surprised they allowed Johnson to take TLJ and Star Wars in this route, to toss out so many things and to leave the franchise in such an uncertain place. Now that can be exciting and thrilling but so far I haven’t seen much from either TFA or TLJ that makes me fill confident that Episode IX will tie a satisfying bow on this trilogy. It doesn’t so far seem to be about nothing but supplanting the old characters (and doing it too often dismissively, and the side effect is also dismissing some older fans), introducing new characters, and that’s about it.

I don’t get what Disney is trying to tell us with this new trilogy. Is it about scrapping the past, that anyone can be a hero or the hero, that heredity isn’t destiny, to assume the unexpected, that Star Wars as we know and enjoy it must die in order to live? If any of that’s the case it ignores that some of these themes have already been explored in Star Wars (in the films or other media). While also challenging the foundations laid by Lucas. To me, Lucas did respect the idea of lineage and history. The past mattered, restoring what was broken or taken away mattered. But it wasn’t just about restoration to return to the old way of doing things, but more so creating a firm foundation on which to move forward.

Yet at the same time Lucas also attempted to show how anyone, including slaves, farm boys, screw ups, and smugglers can become heroes, can save the day. That a diverse group of people can come together to make great change.

Disney seems to be wanting to rip apart that foundation-which is fine since they own Star Wars-but I don’t see what new foundation they will replace it with (if any at all) that isn’t similar to what Lucas did, which makes this deck shuffling a bit pointless and needlessly riles old fans who have kept the flame of Star Wars burning for a long time. I get that change is necessary, that sometimes old fans are too stubborn and set in their ways, but at the same time I don’ think that many old fans just want Star Wars stuck in amber. They want good stories and characters that keep the spirit (as however they see it, and that is varied) of Star Wars without necessarily replicating what has come before. TFA got criticized for being too similar to ANH, and Star Trek Into Darkness got criticized, among other things, for lifting too much from TWOK. Another thing that old fans bring to this is likely a knowledge of Star Wars that extends beyond the films and into novels, comics, video games, etc., and so many are aware of some of the twists (tricks) Johnson pulled in TLJ and have seen them done better in other stories. Heck, for all its faults, The Legacy of the Force novel series, in many ways was better than the sequel films thus far. I wish they had adapted that.

Driver would’ve been great as Jacen and Ridley as Jaina. You could still have Han and Leia fretting over their son’s dark turn. You could have the Imperial Remnant, instead of the First Order (which is essentially the same thing). You could toss in Snoke as a replacement for Darth Krayt or Abeloth. Laura Dern could’ve been Mara Jade (though I’ve always thought Julianne Moore would be awesome as Mara Jade).
 
Last edited:
I inferred that Holdo did tell some crew (perhaps bridge crew and shuttle pilots) and not others, presumably the other fighter pilots, based on their support Poe in his mini-mutiny. I may be wrong on that when I do a rewatch, but that was my basic impression. One could always argue it was more friendship/loyalty towards Poe, but if they were being left in the dark by Holdo as far as the plan, that would be the greater motivation IMO. Perhaps a combination of both.

The most obvious explanation for Holdo keeping things close to the vest was that she suspected that the First Order found them because of a mole on board, since hyperspace tracking was an unheard-of technology that bordered on the hypothetical as an explanation for what happened ("Inform them of what? A new weapon, that's invisible? Raving lunatics, that's what they'll call us. That we're so desperate to exonerate the captain that we'll say anything."). I suspect there might've been a line to that effect that was trimmed from the movie, given how Poe says the infiltration of the Supremacy is "need to know" and Holdo doesn't, as if he were throwing something back in her face.

I did see an article mentioning that some of Holdo's lines were altered so she was less abrasive and condescending towards Poe (I noticed some dialog replacement as I was watching the movie), a bit about her being paranoid about a spy that didn't exist might've also been lost.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top