I guess to me SW is about escapism.. about the heroes we don't have in real life but want to aspire to be. (my opinion) is that reluctant heroes, (along with assholes, and jerks and good but deeply flawed people) re in may many film. I love how that Joker film hit the zeitgeist of a lot of things about the mentally ill, rich vs poor and other aspects of society that people wanted to talk about anyway. But Star Wars for me was all about the fantasy , the pure spectacle, and characters that come together to fight the good fight, that learn something, but just have a lot of spirit. I'm more interested in whether or not someone can hit that exhaust port with a little faith than someone who is brooding, has lost all faith, drinks titty milk, patronizes people etc. The latter might seem realistic or whatever, but I don't find it entertaining. And often it feels hamfisted and actually simplistic at best. That's just me
That's all well and good, and good for about two or three movies. Mythology is capable of going many different directions, and meeting people at different points in their lives. Star Wars doesn't have to be all things to all people all the time. And the heroes I aspire to be are the ones that fail, own that failure, and get up and learn. Those are my heroes.
I have those heroes too. But they are not in every story. I might find them in Star Trek, or in other films. I just thought Star Wars was brilliant in it's simplicity while not being simple-minded. It was what I used to escape from the kinds of depression AND the kind of cynicism we are talking about.
Agreed. Mythic heroes are one thing and they certainly have their place. But heroes who can overcome their own self are ones that I relate to.
To quote an author; "Stories don't just tell me that dragons exist. They teach me that they can be defeated." That's what TLJ is for me. That the inner demons I fight can be defeated. Also, SW hasn't been simplistic since ESB.
well, neither this or TROS really informed us what exactly was Luke's timeline? Like that there was 35 years between Return of the Jedi and the Last Jedi.. When did he start his school? When did the Ben episode happen? How long has he been in exile?? What was he doing before he started Hogwarts... err.. jedi training and brooding academy?
When I hear the end throne room score from a New Hope, and think, tarnishing these characters is something that is something I would not be entertained to see. But anything can be good, .. in filmmaking, proper execution buries mere intent.. and I think that aside form how I feel, the film was a sloppy mess.. so yeah
These characters had to become characters, not archetypes for engagement. So their "tarnishment" is just a part of real life. Sorry if that violates the escapism or whatever. But, again, ESB started that road. And agree to disagree on the sloppy mess. Regardless, I don't think TLJ's goal was the ruination of characters or whatnot, so I don't think this is a point I will ever fully agree with.
Absolutely. The moment you made a sequel, unless you did not want to color outside of the lines that the initial film sets, you would have to complicate matters considerably. I look at every episode and it complicates the hero's story, whether that be Luke finding out Vader's his dad, finding out his sister is Leia, learning that his father was actually a pretty good kid, learning how his father fell in love with Luke's mother, learning the ultimate reason that his father fell was because of emotional attachment, learning that nephew followed Luke's father's steps, and learning that Luke was complicit in the fall of his nephew. Like it or not, but its ultimately all about making the story, and by extension the characters, more complicated or, if you prefer, more real. But no, he's not that farmboy who got thrust info galactic events. And its been a little less than 40 years since that's been true.
You know when the first film came out, people applauded. In Japan I think no one said anything.. but that was the highest bit of respect, the equivalent of applauding. People had never seen a film like that, something akin to pure entertainment. I don't know, I'm not going to debate all day that fervor and excitement is long gone, by the self imposed cynicsm. The original films did make the characters deeper.. not too deep.. but deeper.. by peppering in that depth organically. But now we are mired in "we've seen irt before" and "please please oh please make it edgy" .. and these things seem to trump the excitement and heroism that SW used to bring
And? People applauded at the end of the screening of each of the sequel trilogy films I attended. If you're waiting for 1977 to be recreated, well, you're going to be waiting a long, long time.
Sounds like trying to keep SW static and mired in nostalgia. Heroism is found in different ways. Not just in fanfare and applause.
I guess I'm a monster, because I love when things are upended. I want Kirk vs. Spock, Picard vs. Riker, heck, I like the sequel trilogy, but I would've loved Luke vs. Leia. With Luke having fallen to the Dark Side and leading it. While it didn't go as far as I wanted, I liked that Luke was flawed.
That's a generalization.. and again part of it is execution. They tried to employ huge changes , and added them stories that were already complex, convoluted and ultimately hallow. So yeah.. it's not intent .. it's execution
During the buildup to TFA, and even after its release, I wondered if Snoke wasn't a corrupted version of Luke, that perhaps he was playing both sides against the middle for whatever reason.
No, not a generalizing. Trying to come down to the hard foundation of why individuals don't engage the film. Telling me it's not intent, when there is a barrage targeted at Johnson and Kennedy for their "agenda", is inaccurate, to be generous. So, yeah, it's not just execution. You may not agree with the changes, but that doesn't make them less appropriate.
Fairly entertaining. But that was only Kirk vs. Spock for five minutes. I want a movie where there is a real divide between the two.