Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[AlanC9]

There are compliments and then there are compliments. Whilst generally the Tilly love does stop just short of ‘Phwoar, I’d give her one, and twice on Sundays!’ Mark, it does get close. Personally, I think Tilly is the least photogenic lead in Trek since Miles O’Brien. As a rule, we are all Hollywood pretty, or borderline, by the 23rd and 24th century. A least the leads and main guest cast usually are.

There's only one real metric for this; would you hit it, or not?

I'd hit it.

 

[lawman]

We're not talking about discussion or annoyance. We're talking about...

Okay, your own example of what's "indefensible"...

"I refuse to believe Luke Skywalker would ever act like a grumpy old man on a secluded island who doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything!" sums up alot of people's reaction to that opening scene. What, do you suppose, that reaction could be based on if not an overly specific interpretation of who and what Luke Skywalker actually is?

And if you have a very specific idea of who a particular character is, then any behavior that deviates from that idea shatters your illusions. This is, evidently, the problem with Discovery too: there's a small but highly vocal population that has a very specific vision for what Star Trek is SUPPOSED to be, and they react very badly when it doesn't measure up to their vision.​

...does not support your point. At all. As Jaime has already pointed out, the hypothetical fans you're "quoting" here are not "reacting very badly," nor saying anything unreasonable at all, much less "whining" or "bitching" or throwing the kind of tantrum you imagined up with your later food-service examples. They are merely expressing an opinion about the film in light of expectations based on prior installments. I personally don't actually agree with that opinion — I think the portrayal of Luke is just fine (and TLJ has plenty of other story problems to spare) — but it's perfectly fair to express it. Hell, Mark Hamill himself said much the same before he thought better of the PR implications.

The fact that I disagree with someone else's opinion, or find it to be poorly reasoned or poorly expressed, does not mean I object to that person expressing it. In fact, I'm far more likely to object to someone objecting to other expressing themselves than I am to any particular opinion being expressed. Freedom of speech isn't just a legal technicality, it's a critically important cultural value.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The post you quoted that I replied to, started by suggesting Old Fart On An Island Edition Luke Skywalker (action figure with real lactation sucking action! from Hasbro!) (TM) is not something some people find a logical outgrowth of the character as they have seen it.

The post I quoted said nothing of the kind.

I was actually paraphrasing an article on screenrant -- one of SEVERAL with approximately the same theme -- because it was 1) still fresh in my mind and 2) highly indicative of the phenomenon of petulant whining by the butthurt minority of Star Wars fans.

I did warn you, however, that the act of coming to the defense of people acting like angry ten-year-olds leads only to hilarity. You are now in the position of defending an article you didn't read, written by a person whose name you do not know, in regards to a movie you did not watch. If this was an episode of Star Trek, Rahul would call it "bad writing."

Dickheads editing the ladies out of the film is not really in the same area is it?

Yes. Very much so.

Unless you simply define area as ‘Didnt Like TLJ and was Not Happy About it’.

That's kind of my point. Most people, when they don't like something, decline to partake in this thing they don't like and move on to a product they DO like. They may express their lack of approval when asked, and in some cases they may even ask for a refund if the product is demonstrably of poor quality.

But actively seeking out an audience to air grievances with this product -- going out of your way to express your disapproval to as many people as you can, even those who didn't actually ask your opinion on the matter -- is not the same area.

 

[fireproof78]

The fact that I disagree with someone else's opinion, or find it to be poorly reasoned or poorly expressed, does not mean I object to that person expressing it. In fact, I'm far more likely to object to someone objecting to other expressing themselves than I am to any particular opinion being expressed. Freedom of speech isn't just a legal technicality, it's a critically important cultural value.

Can the same kindness be extended to show production staff? As a general rule, mocking writers and the like is far more objectionable in discussion to me ("worst writers in Hollywood" "Not real Star Trek fans," etc..) than criticizing the show itself.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Okay, your own example of what's "indefensible"... does not support your point.

Nor was it meant to. The point of THIS post was that a negative reaction to a product that is unrelated to the quality thereof generally has more to do with the expectations of the user than the actual product. People were expecting a wise, heroic and flawless mentor to take Rey under his wing; instead, they got a broken, exhausted, reclusive retiree who had to be guilt-tripped into providing even basic support to the generation that would succeed him.

And if you didn't already have a well-developed illusion about who Luke Skywalker was SUPPOSED to be, this would come as a surprise (it certainly was to Rey, who like the audience was expecting to be wow'd by the legend of Luke Skywalker and was NOT expecting to find what she did).

But the negative reaction isn't based on what happened in the film. The negative reaction is based on what happened OUTSIDE the film in the minds of its audience. Much like the reaction of a ten year old on Christmas, getting an Xbox instead of a Playstation, isn't based on any fundamental flaw with the Xbox or any superiority of his choice of consoles. It has to do with his expectations not being met.

Now, if you would like to inject yourself further into this discussion and follow the breadcrumbs that lead to this point, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the difference between a criticism and a complaint? Again: there is a reason why Professional Critic is a thing while Professional Complainer is not.

Freedom of speech isn't just a legal technicality, it's a critically important cultural value.

The right to speak does not imply the right to be heard, particularly by people who do not think you have anything positive to contribute.

 

[jaime]

The post I quoted said nothing of the kind.

I was actually paraphrasing an article on screenrant -- one of SEVERAL with approximately the same theme -- because it was 1) still fresh in my mind and 2) highly indicative of the phenomenon of petulant whining by the butthurt minority of Star Wars fans.

I did warn you, however, that the act of coming to the defense of people acting like angry ten-year-olds leads only to hilarity. You are now in the position of defending an article you didn't read, written by a person whose name you do not know, in regards to a movie you did not watch. If this was an episode of Star Trek, Rahul would call it "bad writing."


Yes. Very much so.


That's kind of my point. Most people, when they don't like something, decline to partake in this thing they don't like and move on to a product they DO like. They may express their lack of approval when asked, and in some cases they may even ask for a refund if the product is demonstrably of poor quality.

But actively seeking out an audience to air grievances with this product -- going out of your way to express your disapproval to as many people as you can, even those who didn't actually ask your opinion on the matter -- is not the same area.

Sigh. Let’s go back to the metaphors.
You eat in the same restaurant for forty years. Management changes and changes the menu, you no longer like the way the dishes you have been regularly spending money on for forty years, maybe you have been telling your friends about this place....are you likely to pass on your criticism of the food? Express your displeasure to people who shar your interest in that restaurant?
Yes, yes you are.

I separated out those who are being inappropriate from those who are not, I separated out unreasonable expectations from reasonable. That you cannot is your own approach. I feel you are mistaken.

But of course, you did warn me, as you say. On the other hand, you are apparently discussing the article over at screen rant, and I thought we were originally discussing DSC, with TLJ involved only as a simile.

 

[jaime]

Nor was it meant to. The point of THIS post was that a negative reaction to a product that is unrelated to the quality thereof generally has more to do with the expectations of the user than the actual product. People were expecting a wise, heroic and flawless mentor to take Rey under his wing; instead, they got a broken, exhausted, reclusive retiree who had to be guilt-tripped into providing even basic support to the generation that would succeed him.

And if you didn't already have a well-developed illusion about who Luke Skywalker was SUPPOSED to be, this would come as a surprise (it certainly was to Rey, who like the audience was expecting to be wow'd by the legend of Luke Skywalker and was NOT expecting to find what she did).

But the negative reaction isn't based on what happened in the film. The negative reaction is based on what happened OUTSIDE the film in the minds of its audience. Much like the reaction of a ten year old on Christmas, getting an Xbox instead of a Playstation, isn't based on any fundamental flaw with the Xbox or any superiority of his choice of consoles. It has to do with his expectations not being met.

Now, if you would like to inject yourself further into this discussion and follow the breadcrumbs that lead to this point, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the difference between a criticism and a complaint? Again: there is a reason why Professional Critic is a thing while Professional Complainer is not.


The right to speak does not imply the right to be heard, particularly by people who do not think you have anything positive to contribute.

The important question you keep failing to ask is ‘why?’ Why does the ten year old think he is getting a PlayStation? Why do people have certain expectations of Luke Skywalker? Why do people think Star Trek has certain ideals?

Criticism is still criticism even if it is ‘negative’. I don’t think you understand the difference either, based on your discussion so far. I can explain why the narrative choices lead to expectations if you like, but you don’t want to hear that...you think someone who has followed the narrative of a thing, and come to a negative conclusion, is simply throwing a hissy fit. You’re also quite aggressive about it. Perhaps you shouldn’t have had the expectation that these things would be universally accepted and beloved by all on the boards.

 

[lawman]

I was actually paraphrasing an article on screenrant -- one of SEVERAL with approximately the same theme...

I did warn you, however, that the act of coming to the defense of people acting like angry ten-year-olds leads only to hilarity. You are now in the position of defending an article you didn't read, written by a person whose name you do not know...

Well, whose fault is that? You are the one who chose to provide only a paraphrase, not a direct quote nor a link, nor (until now) even a suggestion of the source. It's not like anyone could have defended the original if they wanted to.

Okay, your own example of what's "indefensible"... does not support your point.

Nor was it meant to.

Your own example (paraphrased to suit your argument, even) was not intended to support your argument? Uh-huh.

Most people, when they don't like something, decline to partake in this thing they don't like and move on to a product they DO like.

I don't think you're in any position to make generalizations about how "most people" behave, but even if you were right... who gives a fuck? There is no reason to hold "most people" up as a standard here. We're talking specifically about fans. Whether it's fans of a restaurant (as in Jaime's example), or of a TV franchise (as with Trek), or of a movie franchise (as with Star Wars), they are by definition a self-selected subset of people, who care about the object of interest more than "most people."

Moreover, when you're talking about a movie, as with your TLJ example, the behavior you advocate isn't a viable option. If you consider the movie as a thing in itself, divorced from the context of its franchise, then you've already paid for it and seen it; there's no way to decline it and "move on" because the experience is done. Conversely, if you consider the movie in the context of its franchise, it's just one installment among many, so deciding to "move on" from the entire franchise because the latest part of it disappointed would be a precipitately disproportionate judgment; it makes far more sense to voice the reasons for one's disappointment in the hope that future installments will be more to one's liking.

But actively seeking out an audience to air grievances with this product -- going out of your way to express your disapproval to as many people as you can, even those who didn't actually ask your opinion on the matter -- is not the same area.

And a perfectly reasonable one. Why does this bother you so much? You really seem to think that people should just be grateful for whatever they get, or otherwise shut up and go away. That's not how the world works, nor should it be. I think you were onto something earlier when you described your rather draconian upbringing as the foundation of this attitude.

The point of THIS post was that a negative reaction to a product that is unrelated to the quality thereof generally has more to do with the expectations of the user than the actual product. ... The negative reaction is based on what happened OUTSIDE the film in the minds of its audience.

Here's a suggestion... stop trying to read the minds of your interlocutors. You can't actually do it, and besides, it's irrelevant. Try responding to the substance of what they say, and stop worrying about the motivations for what they say. Either you agree with the argument that Luke Skywalker was mischaracterized in TLJ or you don't; either way, you should be able to explain why. Either you agree that DSC fits logically into Trek's previously established "prime" timeline or you don't; either way, you should be able to explain why. If anyone is really just saying "I expected something different!" without any reasons why, well, then, that should be a pretty easy argument to rebut. But passing judgments on (your impressions of) people's emotions is entirely outside the scope of the discussion.

For instance...

-- because it was 1) still fresh in my mind and 2) highly indicative of the phenomenon of petulant whining by the butthurt minority of Star Wars fans.

...how about a new rule? The first person to dismiss his opponents in a discussion as "butthurt" automatically loses.

After all, that is not an argument, it's an insult. And then you're the one slinging the "vitriol" you profess to dislike so much.

Now, if you would like to inject yourself further into this discussion and follow the breadcrumbs that lead to this point, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the difference between a criticism and a complaint? Again: there is a reason why Professional Critic is a thing while Professional Complainer is not.

As I've already said... for the purposes of the discussion at hand, there is no difference. To be best of my knowledge, nobody in this discussion is actually a professional critic. Apparently you think that means we should all shut up and sit down, but that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of what fandom (and these forums) are all about.

The right to speak does not imply the right to be heard, particularly by people who do not think you have anything positive to contribute.

Then stop listening, already. But there's really no point in hanging around telling people "hey, I don't like listening to you!"

Now, on a separate tangent...

Can the same kindness be extended to show production staff? As a general rule, mocking writers and the like is far more objectionable in discussion to me ("worst writers in Hollywood" "Not real Star Trek fans," etc..) than criticizing the show itself.

I'm not sure what "same kindness" you're talking about... supporting people's right to express themselves freely? I've never opposed it. And FWIW I haven't "mocked" anybody; the only people I've named as among the worst writers in Hollywood are Kurtzman and Goldsman... and I meant it quite sincerely, tongue not remotely in cheek, and I explained why, with examples.

If you'd like a counterpoint of the people I think are among the best writers in Hollywood, I could offer that too, FWIW... in no particular order, the list would include Joss Whedon, and Aaron Sorkin, and J. Michael Straczynski, and Woody Allen, and Charlie Kaufman, and Wes Anderson, and David Simon, and David E. Kelley, just off the top of my head. They write in a wide range of styles and genres, but if I were to look for commonalities, I'd say they're all writers who do fantastic, emotionally evocative dialogue, who craft thought-provoking stories, and who handle ensemble casts with finesse.

 

[Jesse1066]

Nor was it meant to. The point of THIS post was that a negative reaction to a product that is unrelated to the quality thereof generally has more to do with the expectations of the user than the actual product. People were expecting a wise, heroic and flawless mentor to take Rey under his wing; instead, they got a broken, exhausted, reclusive retiree who had to be guilt-tripped into providing even basic support to the generation that would succeed him.

And if you didn't already have a well-developed illusion about who Luke Skywalker was SUPPOSED to be, this would come as a surprise (it certainly was to Rey, who like the audience was expecting to be wow'd by the legend of Luke Skywalker and was NOT expecting to find what she did).

But the negative reaction isn't based on what happened in the film. The negative reaction is based on what happened OUTSIDE the film in the minds of its audience. Much like the reaction of a ten year old on Christmas, getting an Xbox instead of a Playstation, isn't based on any fundamental flaw with the Xbox or any superiority of his choice of consoles. It has to do with his expectations not being met.

Now, if you would like to inject yourself further into this discussion and follow the breadcrumbs that lead to this point, perhaps you'd like to weigh in on the difference between a criticism and a complaint? Again: there is a reason why Professional Critic is a thing while Professional Complainer is not.


The right to speak does not imply the right to be heard, particularly by people who do not think you have anything positive to contribute.

I don't know the difference between criticism and complaining, but I've had a lot of time to think about what I didn't like about The Last Jedi. The characterization of Luke doesn't make the list. You didn't ask for it and it has nothing to do with the thread's topic, but here it is, in no particular order yet numbered anyway:

1. The Republic: Apparently, in the few hours that have passed since the destruction of their capital, the remaining Republic worlds (millions of them presumably) have made no attempt to regroup and reorganize but have instead all been conquered by the First Order. In a few hours. Plus, their entire (vestigial) military was apparently in the Hosnian system when it was destroyed, just waiting to be blown up. How this New Republic lasted thirty years in the Star Wars universe is a mystery to me.

2. Finn and Rose: Everything Finn and Rose do ultimately fails. They accomplish nothing besides undermining Holdo's plan (which she really shouldn't have just kept to herself). They don't even meet up with Rey to escape together while they're on the same ship at the same time. Poe doesn't accomplish much either, at least after he destroys the dreadnought at the cost of the entire bomber fleet and many X and A-Wings.

3. The Resistance: For all intents and purposes, The Resistance is gone. They lost every bomber (why were they in such a tight formation that a hit on one could destroy all of them?), every fighter, every capital ship, and even every transport ship they had. They have no weapons or other resources besides what's on their persons. All that's left is a group of people small enough to fit comfortably in the Millennium Falcon, with few supplies if any.
Similarities can be drawn to ESB, in which the Rebellion lost a lot of people, resources and ships. Also like TLJ, most of the cast spent most of the movie on the run from the enemy fleet, but at the end of that movie, the main characters (minus Han) meet up with a large Rebel fleet and apparently form a plan to get Han back, reassuring the audience that everything will be okay in the next movie. TLJ's symbol of hope is a kid with a broom.
If the First Order truly controls the entire galaxy now, Abrams has his work cut out for him writing a story where the good guys end up winning. With any luck, a great Episode IX will go a long way to redeeming TLJ for me.

4. Weird physics: Dropping bombs in space, turbolasers firing in arcs, and ships out of fuel both slowing and sinking are a few things that seemed pretty kooky from a physics perspective. I'm sure it's all been explained behind the scenes, but should that really be necessary?

Things I didn't like initially but got over, I guess:

Grumpy Luke: I had other expectations for the character going in, but I now think that this take on old Luke is deeper and more interesting than the EU's SuperLuke. Besides, Yoda didn't want to train Luke in ESB either, and neither Yoda or Obi-Wan was as Gung-ho in the OT as in their younger years. They knew they were past their prime and so does Luke.

Luke's death: We've seen what ghost Yoda can do. Is death really gonna slow down Luke? If anything, he'll be more useful this way. "More powerful than you can possibly imagine" and all that.

Snoke's death: A character with mystery instead of backstory is dead and replaced by a more interesting character. Plus it led to an amazing fight scene.


I, uh, think this pretty much sums up my thoughts on TLJ.

 

[lawman]

Wow. FWIW, that pretty much matches my impressions of the movie exactly. Except that I'd put the "weird physics" up front at #1, because it was right there in the opening sequence, practically slapping my face and shaking my lapels for attention.

Beyond that, you're right that the opaque galactic politics of the whole thing have become annoying. How did the First Order manage to reconstitute the old Empire (right down to the giant ships in its fleet) under the noses of the New Republic? Why was the New Republic such a house of cards just waiting to be toppled? Did nobody learn anything from the major revolution just a generation earlier? And what about all the planets out there — who's governing them? We never see anything except generals strategizing; there's no sense of how anything non-military actually gets done in this galaxy.

 

[jaime]

I don't know the difference between criticism and complaining, but I've had a lot of time to think about what I didn't like about The Last Jedi. The characterization of Luke doesn't make the list. You didn't ask for it and it has nothing to do with the thread's topic, but here it is, in no particular order yet numbered anyway:

1. The Republic: Apparently, in the few hours that have passed since the destruction of their capital, the remaining Republic worlds (millions of them presumably) have made no attempt to regroup and reorganize but have instead all been conquered by the First Order. In a few hours. Plus, their entire (vestigial) military was apparently in the Hosnian system when it was destroyed, just waiting to be blown up. How this New Republic lasted thirty years in the Star Wars universe is a mystery to me.

2. Finn and Rose: Everything Finn and Rose do ultimately fails. They accomplish nothing besides undermining Holdo's plan (which she really shouldn't have just kept to herself). They don't even meet up with Rey to escape together while they're on the same ship at the same time. Poe doesn't accomplish much either, at least after he destroys the dreadnought at the cost of the entire bomber fleet and many X and A-Wings.

3. The Resistance: For all intents and purposes, The Resistance is gone. They lost every bomber (why were they in such a tight formation that a hit on one could destroy all of them?), every fighter, every capital ship, and even every transport ship they had. They have no weapons or other resources besides what's on their persons. All that's left is a group of people small enough to fit comfortably in the Millennium Falcon, with few supplies if any.
Similarities can be drawn to ESB, in which the Rebellion lost a lot of people, resources and ships. Also like TLJ, most of the cast spent most of the movie on the run from the enemy fleet, but at the end of that movie, the main characters (minus Han) meet up with a large Rebel fleet and apparently form a plan to get Han back, reassuring the audience that everything will be okay in the next movie. TLJ's symbol of hope is a kid with a broom.
If the First Order truly controls the entire galaxy now, Abrams has his work cut out for him writing a story where the good guys end up winning. With any luck, a great Episode IX will go a long way to redeeming TLJ for me.

4. Weird physics: Dropping bombs in space, turbolasers firing in arcs, and ships out of fuel both slowing and sinking are a few things that seemed pretty kooky from a physics perspective. I'm sure it's all been explained behind the scenes, but should that really be necessary?

Things I didn't like initially but got over, I guess:

Grumpy Luke: I had other expectations for the character going in, but I now think that this take on old Luke is deeper and more interesting than the EU's SuperLuke. Besides, Yoda didn't want to train Luke in ESB either, and neither Yoda or Obi-Wan was as Gung-ho in the OT as in their younger years. They knew they were past their prime and so does Luke.

Luke's death: We've seen what ghost Yoda can do. Is death really gonna slow down Luke? If anything, he'll be more useful this way. "More powerful than you can possibly imagine" and all that.

Snoke's death: A character with mystery instead of backstory is dead and replaced by a more interesting character. Plus it led to an amazing fight scene.


I, uh, think this pretty much sums up my thoughts on TLJ.

Wow. FWIW, that pretty much matches my impressions of the movie exactly. Except that I'd put the "weird physics" up front at #1, because it was right there in the opening sequence, practically slapping my face and shaking my lapels for attention.

Beyond that, you're right that the opaque galactic politics of the whole thing have become annoying. How did the First Order manage to reconstitute the old Empire (right down to the giant ships in its fleet) under the noses of the New Republic? Why was the New Republic such a house of cards just waiting to be toppled? Did nobody learn anything from the major revolution just a generation earlier? And what about all the planets out there — who's governing them? We never see anything except generals strategizing; there's no sense of how anything non-military actually gets done in this galaxy.

And this is why I am not exactly champing at the bit for this film...

 

[Tuskin38]

Can we get back on topic?

We have a sub forum for Star Wars already. A lot of those questions can be easily answered over there.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not sure what "same kindness" you're talking about... supporting people's right to express themselves freely? I've never opposed it. And FWIW I haven't "mocked" anybody; the only people I've named as among the worst writers in Hollywood are Kurtzman and Goldsman... and I meant it quite sincerely, tongue not remotely in cheek, and I explained why, with examples.

And calling someone "the worst writer" is kindness now?

I don't get this.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I separated out those who are being inappropriate from those who are not, I separated out unreasonable expectations from reasonable.

Expecting a restaurant owner not to change any of his recipes after 40 years isn't a reasonable expectation. Hell, expecting an owner to continue to run the same restaurant for 40 years isn't even that reasonable of an expectation.

On the other hand, criticizing the new menu requires a direct analysis of the new menu and the food items currently on it. If there are problems with the items on that new menu, a food critic would NOT have to invoke comparisons to the old menu -- or, indeed, even have any idea that there WAS an old menu -- in order to notice those problems.

That you cannot is your own approach.

I never said people can't COMPLAIN. I'm pointing out two things:
1) Complaining about things you can't control is a childish, unproductive behavior that is not worthy of any defense or attempt at justification
2) Complaints and criticism are two different things, and most such complaints (especially in this case) stem directly from the expectations of the audience, not the quality of the product itself.

After all, "I don't like change!" is a complaint, not a criticism. The fact that a vocal minority of Star Trek and Star Wars fans are uncomfortable with change doesn't tell us anything about whether or not those changes are actually good.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The important question you keep failing to ask is ‘why?’ Why does the ten year old think he is getting a PlayStation?

I literally asked my son this exact question when he threw a huge tantrum over his birthday when he didn't get a Nintendo Switch. My exact words were "How in the HELL are you even slightly surprised by this?" After spending six months constantly bugging me about it and having me so "No" literally every single time it came up, he still somehow assumed I would get it for him anyway.

It's called "wishful thinking." It's how you set yourself up for false expectations when a thing you WISH would happen begins to seem more and more likely TO happen in your mind despite all evidence tot he contrary. "I wish I could get a promotion and make more money!" becomes "I'm going to get that promotion and make more money!" Then you get passed over for the promotion because your performance is poor, you're consistently late, you don't take direction well and you're generally unqualified for the job. You're disappointed, and you're even a little angry, but did your boss actually screw you over or did you just get your delusions shattered in the most abrupt way? (I have literally been on BOTH sides of that conversation at least twice).

Why do people have certain expectations of Luke Skywalker? Why do people think Star Trek has certain ideals?

Because people spend more time talking among themselves and/or talking TO themselves about these stories than actually watching the stories. A fairly large amount of the lore around Star Wars and Star Trek doesn't actually come from canon at all and is derived from fan theories and audience assumptions about what's really going on.

As a really glaring example: a tremendous number of Star Trek fans believed (and many still believe) that Spock was the only Vulcan in Starfleet during TOS. This is an interesting interpretation of what we saw of the fleet from the old series, but there's nothing on screen that actually establishes that this is the case. But someone who spends a lot of time pondering the implications of that theory -- and becomes very familiar with it and internalizes it as part of their vision of who and what Spock actually is -- would find it very hard to adapt to a version of Spock where he ISN'T the only Vulcan in the fleet, or even the first, or even particularly unique in that regard. It's someone who expects something to be true about Spock that was never actually true in the first place and then becomes angry when it turns out it isn't.

People have a right to be childish and unrealistic. But it is what it is, whether you choose to defend it or not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

1. The Republic: Apparently, in the few hours that have passed since the destruction of their capital, the remaining Republic worlds (millions of them presumably) have made no attempt to regroup and reorganize but have instead all been conquered by the First Order. In a few hours. Plus, their entire (vestigial) military was apparently in the Hosnian system when it was destroyed, just waiting to be blown up. How this New Republic lasted thirty years in the Star Wars universe is a mystery to me.

2. Finn and Rose: Everything Finn and Rose do ultimately fails. They accomplish nothing besides undermining Holdo's plan (which she really shouldn't have just kept to herself). They don't even meet up with Rey to escape together while they're on the same ship at the same time. Poe doesn't accomplish much either, at least after he destroys the dreadnought at the cost of the entire bomber fleet and many X and A-Wings.

3. The Resistance: For all intents and purposes, The Resistance is gone. They lost every bomber (why were they in such a tight formation that a hit on one could destroy all of them?), every fighter, every capital ship, and even every transport ship they had. They have no weapons or other resources besides what's on their persons. All that's left is a group of people small enough to fit comfortably in the Millennium Falcon, with few supplies if any.
Similarities can be drawn to ESB, in which the Rebellion lost a lot of people, resources and ships. Also like TLJ, most of the cast spent most of the movie on the run from the enemy fleet, but at the end of that movie, the main characters (minus Han) meet up with a large Rebel fleet and apparently form a plan to get Han back, reassuring the audience that everything will be okay in the next movie. TLJ's symbol of hope is a kid with a broom.
If the First Order truly controls the entire galaxy now, Abrams has his work cut out for him writing a story where the good guys end up winning. With any luck, a great Episode IX will go a long way to redeeming TLJ for me.

4. Weird physics: Dropping bombs in space, turbolasers firing in arcs, and ships out of fuel both slowing and sinking are a few things that seemed pretty kooky from a physics perspective. I'm sure it's all been explained behind the scenes, but should that really be necessary?

I'm not sure I would call those criticisms, but you've hit the bullseye pretty squarely.

I hesitate to call them criticisms because #2 is clearly intentional (it's a complete subversion of the "plucky hero goes rogue and saves the day despite incompetent over-cautious general grounding him" trope), and #3 is clearly a setup for something NEW to take shape in the next film. The resistance is basically having to start over from scratch at this point, and maybe -- just maybe -- it will involve Rey and Han and the crew gathering up force sensitives and training a new Jedi order or something? Who knows, lots of possibilities.

And yeah, weird physics is weird.

Grumpy Luke: I had other expectations for the character going in, but I now think that this take on old Luke is deeper and more interesting than the EU's SuperLuke. Besides, Yoda didn't want to train Luke in ESB either, and neither Yoda or Obi-Wan was as Gung-ho in the OT as in their younger years. They knew they were past their prime and so does Luke.

Luke's death: We've seen what ghost Yoda can do. Is death really gonna slow down Luke? If anything, he'll be more useful this way. "More powerful than you can possibly imagine" and all that.

Snoke's death: A character with mystery instead of backstory is dead and replaced by a more interesting character. Plus it led to an amazing fight scene.

I, uh, think this pretty much sums up my thoughts on TLJ.

Hell, this sums up MY thoughts on TLJ!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Beyond that, you're right that the opaque galactic politics of the whole thing have become annoying. How did the First Order manage to reconstitute the old Empire (right down to the giant ships in its fleet) under the noses of the New Republic?

They deal with that extensively in the novels. It basically boils down to "politics." The Republic's legislature was too busy bickering among themselves and looking after their varied provincial interests to put up a united front against the First Order and no strong central leader emerged who could rally them to the cause. A weak central government and a strong anti-military political sentiment.

It's not that big of an issue thematically, but the movies don't explain it in detail because that would probably be boring.

 

[Tuskin38]

Please stop. I'm begging you. Take it to PM's or something you're clogging up the thread with unrelated banter.

 

[The Wormhole]

I don't know, it's nice to have something to liven the discussion up from ""Is Prime"/"Isn't Prime" "Is a reboot"/"It's a retcon." "Everything looks different."/"Looks aren't canon." being repeated on an infinite loop for ninety pages.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well then go to another thread