I'm sorry, I'm not of the mind that because a film hadn't used a tool before that it is forever forbidden from using the tool.
The Last Jedi - Actually Widely Hated?
- Thread starter crookeddy
- Start date
I'm sorry, I'm not of the mind that because a film hadn't used a tool before that it is forever forbidden from using the tool.
Consistency of style has always been important to SW, until KK just said screw it
RJ got the job because it's so far up her ass.. and he writes "strong female characters"
RJ got the job because it's so far up her ass.. and he writes "strong female characters"
OT Obi-Wan, certainly by the end of Empire, really wasn't meant to be particularly admirable or likeable and I think many fans never did particularly like him after it. I believe Obi-Wan's defense "What I told you was true, from a certain point of view" is widely regarded, both pre- and post-prequels, as a big cop-out by both the character and filmmakers.
It's funny. When the books did it it's fine. The movies do it not fine...
The son of Leia & Han, formerly one of the heroes, going bad, becoming monstrous, basically just because the writers wanted to do something like the PT, have a lot of angst and show the OT big three as failures was bad in the books.
The entire point of a visual medium is to show not tell. So the original and prequel trilogies were broken in that regard.
We all have things that we think would be better if we did them "our way" (I'm pretty strongly opposed to choices made on Star Trek: Discovery), but that is an opinion. For whatever reason, we didn't earn the right to sit in the chairs that steer our favorite franchises. And being fans doesn't give us the right to be abusive to folks sitting in those chairs.
Not by design. Obi-Wan was used as a way to absorb a retcon on the part of Lucas. Also, Obi-Wan was never a main character in the OT. It was OK for him to have been a failed teacher. It's hard to take a protagonist and shift him to a side-character when mentally you are still thinking of him as a protagonist.
Think of the way Han was used in Force awakens. The character wasn't made unlikeable, but they made him regress back to where he was in A New Hope outside of now being a believer in the force.
Leia's character just stagnated. She never became a Jedi (which is why in theory I liked that she used a force power in Last Jedi). Lucas' original treatment for the sequel trilogy would have had Leia train to be a Jedi. So those thinking that somehow things followed Lucas' template are way off base. Some similarities, yes, but not that many.
Is Disney soliciting suggestions? 
Retcon the prequels, TFA and TLJ, recast Luke, Han, and Leia, and pick up where ROTJ left off? Personally I think Star Wars is big enough to support new characters. If well conceived, they can be just as memorable as the original characters. Leave the original characters in the original trilogy.
Retcon the prequels, TFA and TLJ, recast Luke, Han, and Leia, and pick up where ROTJ left off? Personally I think Star Wars is big enough to support new characters. If well conceived, they can be just as memorable as the original characters. Leave the original characters in the original trilogy.
The key point to consider is....thirty years.
What were you doing thirty years ago?
What do you mean by "formal style" here?
Thirty years.. isn't enough to just sharply change a character like Luke in this way.. especially not one that actually is more of an archetype thana a character.. a classical hero,, the kind of character kids at make-a-wish look up to.. they should be more careful with how they handle a character like that
Sure I'm not the same as I was thirty years ago, but ultimately realism isn't why I turn to an escapist fantasy likeSw,.. the 30 year time jump is a lot of horse shit
The movie isn't out yet, but the Maverick trailer has a 30 year time jump as well, and one of the fascinating things is how the trailer sells this time jump, how you believe that Maverick is the kind of character that would basically be the same. It seems to respect the fact that the original movie was not some treatise on human nature.. it was a cheesy formula film.. and SW, as much as we love it, is a somewhat cheesy space adventure, very pulpy in style, with the mythological underpinnings
Sure I'm not the same as I was thirty years ago, but ultimately realism isn't why I turn to an escapist fantasy likeSw,.. the 30 year time jump is a lot of horse shit
The movie isn't out yet, but the Maverick trailer has a 30 year time jump as well, and one of the fascinating things is how the trailer sells this time jump, how you believe that Maverick is the kind of character that would basically be the same. It seems to respect the fact that the original movie was not some treatise on human nature.. it was a cheesy formula film.. and SW, as much as we love it, is a somewhat cheesy space adventure, very pulpy in style, with the mythological underpinnings
I lol'd when I saw the Maverick trailer. He's STILL a fucking pilot. It stretches credulity to the point it shatters reality. There's no fucking way he would still be a pilot. The only reason he's still a pilot is so there can be action sequences involving the character. Oh, he shoulda been an admiral says Ed Harris... But Maverick is such a Maverick he has turned down every promotion.
Whatever.
It makes Maverick downright ridiculous. It looks like a terrible male fantasy of an aging movie star.
Because it's a movie, not a documentary. People aren't going to go to a Top Gun movie to see the snot nosed punks. Look at the way the TOS movies contrived to get Kirk back out hopping galaxies and didn't let the bridge crew leave until Trek VI when Sulu got the Excelsior.
Oh, and BTW, Chuck Yeager kept flying into old age despite promotions.
Wait. What? Hold up, hold up. Seriously? It's ... not REAL. We aren't watching a real person? Oh, MAN, I wish someone had told me that earlier. Wow. My mind is BAH-LOWN.
Of course people aren't going to see a Top Gun movie to see a brand new cast. It was a movie based around Tom Cruise being Tom Cruise. While it certainly is a stylized movie, it's still clearly set in more or less the real world.
And, yeah, look at how the TOS movies got Admiral Kirk... oh... yeah...
(Of course, let's not point out the difference between the guy who is commanding a ship and a guy who takes orders to fly a fighter jet. A better comparison would be if Wedge was still an X-wing pilot 30 years later... Sad, sad. But, he's a MAVERICK, YA'LL!!!)
But, to the larger point, the problem is back to the audience, they don't want to see anything different. They want to see the same thing with the illusion that it's different.
Is it possible for you to contribute to this thread without being rude and obnoxious?
Well, Han was a smuggler again in Force Awakens and the movie made 2 billion. Kinda hurts your paradigm of this "unrealistic" aspect being a showstopper for the public, dunnit? I thought it was kinda regressive, sure, but crowd-pleasing.
Yeah, so? The public wants what the public wants. Shake your fist at them as you wish.
The Maverick trailer has 284K likes to only 12K dislikes. I'd say they struck the right chord.
I'd say you've got an uphill battle to convince people to reject Maverick based on the premise.
Then stop pointing out the obvious. Of course it's a movie.
1. It's a movie in a galaxy far far away.
2. I never said it was a showstopper. I said I wasn't interested. I'm sure Maverick will makes lots of money.
3. And it agrees with my point, people want to see the same thing with the illusion of difference.
4. Ford was right, Solo shoulda died in ROTJ.
Lol. I'm not really. I'm more rolling my eyes at them. Especially when the public--like here--Why can't we get something original.
*looks to see where I claimed it wouldn't succeed or be popular, can't find it.*
*shrugs*
I didn't realize I was trying to convince people to reject Maverick. I thought I was rejecting Maverick. But, you're right, it's going to be an uphill battle convincing me to not get in the car and go see the --- Oh, look at that. I did it! I convinced myself to reject Maverick! I saved myself time and money! Woo hoo!
Miracles CAN happen here, ya'll!
You know what convinced me to reject Maverick? The trailer.
Yep.
Wrath of Khan handled aging very well.. though there was a time jump from the series, the character got older, but he didn't go psycho on us. We buy it as the same character. Of course the problem is that if you think about it, ever since Wrath of Khan most of the Trek films became about aging. I mean really..it got so bogged down in it.. just because it worked for Wrath of Khan and maybe the follwoing two films.. even the TNG films were all about aging.. and whatever inspired TOS was gone from the films.. and I feel that whatever inspired SW to begin with is all gone now .. it's dried up sorry huck of its former self. .. uninteresting and not entertaining
If that's fair, then along those lines leave those who reject The Last Jedi alone. Fair 'nuff?
Didn't think so.
Topic of this thread is whether or not The Last Jedi is widely hated. The answer is, it is. That doesn't invalidate that you like it. Enjoy being in the minority.