We saw a Star War! Last Jedi spoiler thread

[Maxperson]

That's just asinine.

First, they didn't become "people with failures blah blah blah," they become failures. Their new characterizations are defined by their failures, and their past successes have been rendered inconsequential, and dismissed. Leia is a leader, and failed. Luke is a Jedi, and failed. Han is the pilot of the Millennium Falcon, who was elevated by his love for Leia. He failed. They all failed utterly at the very thing for which they became iconic. There's a huge difference between humanizing a character and destroying it.

Secondly, no one looks to Star Wars for nuanced depictions of people with complex personalities. Star Wars is an epic fight of good versus evil, just like The Lord of the Rings. I don't open a Tolkien book to explore the misery of pipeweed addiction, and I don't go to a Star Wars movie to watch a fallen hero wallow in self pity. The Star Wars story is unabashedly and unapologetically an interpretation of "the hero's journey" as an epic space fantasy. You can change that to be a dramatic exploration of human foibles, but that takes the story out of the realm of science fiction/fantasy and recommends it for a much lower budget. Besides, no one seems to feel like Rey needs to "become [a person] with failures, setbacks, and foibles," that kind of crap is reserved for the heroes introduced by George Lucas.

I've been neck-deep in adulthood long enough to appreciate my escapist treats.

As much as I agree with you about the destruction of the old generation of heroes, Rey does suffer failures and setbacks. She suffers a setback when she fails to convince Luke to train her and has to steal the books in order to learn, and she suffers another setback when she fails to bring Kylo back to the light side.

If she was this Mary Sue people keep talking about, she would have succeeded in having Luke train her, and then brought Kylo to the light side, which actually would have been cool. The two of them could have faced off against Snoke in the third movie.

 

[Maxperson]

Snoke's dead, baby. Snoke's dead.

Whatever your Snoking man, I want some.

 

[Water Bob]

As much as I like TLJ, there is a big part of me who wanted to see the original Trilogy characters win. What Disney did was reboot the main conflict from the original trilogy. Instead of Rebels vs. Empire, we've got Resistance vs. First Order. Mainly the same, with a few chrome changes, like next year's model of car.

I would have liked to have seen Leia as a head of state. Han, her husband, running something underground intelligence through his old smuggler contacts. Luke, a Jedi Master shepherding other Jedi. And Lando, rich, owning something or other just outside of New Republic space. Then, the First Order raises its ugly head and proves that it is more than just one of the thousands of small militant political groups that abound in the galaxy.

Instead, we see Leia, back with a Rebellion type organization--still and underdog because the New Republic does not formally recognize the Resistance. Han and Chewie go back to their smuggling roots, just like in the original trilogy. And, Luke, after a failed attempt, goes off to die, hiding on some forgotten world.

I can see why Disney went the way it did. First, the prequels were about the Emperor, the heads of state, the creme of the Jedi Order. So, we'd had a decade of those films.

And, then, there's the EU...decades of comics and novels, the majority of which is focused on Leia as head of state, Han, her husband, doing Republic business. Luke, the Jedi Master and head of the New Order of Jedi Knights. And, Lando, rich and owning something just outside of New Republic space.

It has been a long time since the films reflected the feeling of the original trilogy. And, after all, the conflict--thus, the drama--resides with the battle, not the aftermath.

So, now, we have First Order vs. Resistance.



One thing I will say, though, about the new direction of the Star Wars stories. I really have no idea of what to expect about the next movie. I'm totally clueless.

That's probably the highest compliment I can give a Rian, because he got us there.

 

[Maxperson]

As much as I like TLJ, there is a big part of me who wanted to see the original Trilogy characters win. What Disney did was reboot the main conflict from the original trilogy. Instead of Rebels vs. Empire, we've got Resistance vs. First Order. Mainly the same, with a few chrome changes, like next year's model of car.

They didn't even have to win. Luke could have died fighting and killing Snoke, or any number of other ways to heroically sacrifice himself. Having a heart attack or whatever after a force projection was a disappointment. Pass the torch off, don't incinerate the torch.

 

[Water Bob]

The Fuel Thing


I'm reading the third Marvel Poe Dameron Volume, and Fuel, and the Resistance's lack there of it, is central to the plot.

It's interesting how they worked into the last story the way the First Order found to limit the Resistance's supply.

For those that game in the Star Wars universe, or for those that just like to know details: Fuel comes in more than one type. There's Tibanna Gas (not sure if this is to "fuel" turbo lasers or another use for the gas, as we already know it is used for plasma ammo for blasters and turbo lasers), Rydonium, and Hypermatter.

It doesn't say, but that seems like Tibanna Gas (Fuel for turbo lasers), Rydonium (Fuel for sub-light drives), and Hypermatter (Fuel for the Hyperdrive). Just a guess by yours truly. :wink2:

 

[Water Bob]

They didn't even have to win. Luke could have died fighting and killing Snoke, or any number of other ways to heroically sacrifice himself. Having a heart attack or whatever after a force projection was a disappointment. Pass the torch off, don't incinerate the torch.

Hollywood is having a hard time killng off our heroes. I always think an icon should go out, well, heroically.

Captain Kirk, in Generations....Kirk should have died in the Captain's seat, commanding a ship, sacrificing himself for the greater good.

Han Solo should have gone out...better. Maybe if they'd done it in the second movie, after we've had time to get to know and digest Ben/Kylo Ren. Then, he killing his own father would have more resonance.

And, Luke...while I'm OK with it, I think it could have been a lot more heroic.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Actually, it hit just one system, the Hosnian Prime system, but it hits multiple targets within that one system--Hosnian Prime and its moons, mostly.

According to the official information, it destroyed 5 planets in the Hosnian system (all 5 that were in the system) as well as all of the ships in the entire system. The novelization explains that there were Republic bases on 2 of the other planets in the system and they (along with the ships in orbit there) were destroyed as well.

Inside the movie it's difficult to tell exactly what is destroyed since they only show a quick shot of a couple planets being hit but don't show the whole thing. In the novelization, it is explained that when the planets exploded large pieces of the scatter throughout the system, smashing through the fleet and the other planets, destroying them all.

I recognize that all the official information says they only destroyed one system. The reason I thought they killed more than one was because I figured with the distance they were away from the beam, they still saw it split into pieces and blow up at different times. I figured even with the conceit that they could somehow see the beams from lightyears away, that means each beam stopped at a different system. Now I know that the beam splitting was just another side effect of "They can see the beam"

Pablo Hidalgo, the Star Wars canon guy at Disney tweeted out an explanation for it, but then he deleted his tweet later. It has some bad language but the explanation is given here: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/que...am-visible-from-takodana-in-the-force-awakens

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If that's coming from George Lucas, it's BS. He has a bad habit of revising and revising and revising his own history with respect to his intentions with Star Wars and padding it with significance as if it were all planned. Based on some of his earliest discussions, he did start in media res intentionally because he wanted to do an homage to the serial movies of Flash Gordon and others like that. He wanted it to feel like it was part of an ongoing story and we were just seeing a portion of it. What he didn't have was a story arc telling us the saga of Anakin Skywalker or any plan for special effects for Episodes 1-3 that he couldn't accomplish with the technology of the time so he started with Episode 4. That's pure Lucas revisionism BS.

It came from a speech given to us by Pablo Hidalgo, the current canon/lore guy for Star Wars at Disney. He worked for Lucasfilm for many, many years.

He was at a convention around 1997-1998. It was just before Episode 1 had come out. One of the people in the crowd asked about why they started with episode 4 and what he told us was that what George had told him was that he had a basic outline of episodes 1-3 and 4-6 and that he felt the story of 4-6 was smaller and easier to film since it would require less special effects and that 1-3 was written in a way that it could act as a background for the other movies after they were released so he made the decision to start with those first. Since episode 1 was already announced and coming out soon, Pablo also said that the reason they were making the other movies now and the reason it took 20 years was that he felt technology had finally caught up with his vision and he could finally make what he saw in his head.

I asked him, since I had heard at the time that Lucas had written an outline for 9 movies, not 6, what about the other 3 movies? Pablo told us that Lucas had originally written an outline for 1-9 but that over the filming of 4-6 and due to thinking for a long time about it, he had decided that the theme of Star Wars wasn't Good vs Evil like he originally thought it was but was instead about the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker. So his ideas for 7-9 no longer fit the theme he was going for and therefore didn't need to be made any longer. Though he said that George had an idea that COULD be made into a new 7-9 that fit his new theme but that he wasn't thinking about it right now since they still had 1-3 to make.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Wait, we're now saying that things we know to be true in real life only apply in Star Wars if stated in the movie? Our inability to see planets in other star systems isn't valid because it isn't stated in the movie?

Yes. I'm saying a large number of things in the movie don't follow real world logic. A lightsaber can't work the way it is described, hyperspace isn't really a thing, there is no sound in space, and so on. Most of the physics in the movie are just nonsense. It's been like that for a while. Lucas even used parsec as a measurement for speed and an explanation had to be given in books for that to make any sense...but it was just covering up for poor understanding of physics and artistic license by the filmmakers.

I wish it wasn't like that, but we kind of have to go in with a healthy sense of "Did that really happen exactly that way or the the filmmakers really want to show us a cool explosion so even though an explosion shouldn't be able to happen...it does anyways?"

Pretty much if we look at something and think "Huh...that doesn't make much sense the way it is explained to us" then we have to assume there is another explanation they just haven't given us or the movie is just wrong.

3 of us walked out of the theatre saying "They were on a planet too far away to see the beam. That doesn't make any sense. How did they see that beam?" and no one could come up with an answer for it. The 3 of us were positive that the planet they were on was very far away since they had established that through a lot of other dialog (everyone died in the Hosnian system, they didn't die...they weren't in the Hosnian system). So, we were left with 2 conflicting things the movie told us: They were super far away and yet they saw the beam in the sky which physics tells us is impossible. So, we just walked out confused and frustrated that the movie told us 2 different things. However, most of us were willing to bet that given Star Wars' (and especially JJ Abrams') history with fudging physics for storytelling, that it's likely they just wanted our heroes to see the explosion in the sky and react to it, physics be damned.

When we found out later that the novel and the official lorekeeper, Pablo Hidalgo had both answered the question with "weird hyperspace rip" that could be seen everywhere in the galaxy, we shrugged and figured it was a retroactive attempt to explain poor filmmaking.

Because your "10 logical inconsistencies" are one thing, phrased 10 different ways, and I've answered it over and over and over again. You keep writing essays saying the exact same thing.

But hey, you drew me back in. Like I said, you can think what you want. It's fine. I know what I think.

That's because you never responded to any of them at all. You didn't explain why all the logical inconsistencies don't matter.

This conversation could be summarized as:
You: "They have to be in the same system, you couldn't see it in the sky otherwise"
Me: "But the lore people at Lucasfilm say that the planets are super far apart and even give an explanation as to why you can see the beam so far away."
You: "None of that matters since it isn't in the movie. They have to be in the same system, you couldn't see it in the sky otherwise."
Me: "Fine. But the movie pretty much says they aren't in the same system. Multiple times. Plus if they were in the same system, the entire plot wouldn't make sense. How do you respond to that?"
You: "But they have to be in the same system, you couldn't see it in the sky otherwise."

There's one piece of evidence that says they are in the same system and about 20 pieces that they aren't.

 

[Morrus]

Yes. I'm saying a large number of things in the movie don't follow real world logic. A lightsaber can't work the way it is described, hyperspace isn't really a thing, there is no sound in space, and so on. Most of the physics in the movie are just nonsense. It's been like that for a while. Lucas even used parsec as a measurement for speed and an explanation had to be given in books for that to make any sense...but it was just covering up for poor understanding of physics and artistic license by the filmmakers.

I wish it wasn't like that, but we kind of have to go in with a healthy sense of "Did that really happen exactly that way or the the filmmakers really want to show us a cool explosion so even though an explosion shouldn't be able to happen...it does anyways?"

Pretty much if we look at something and think "Huh...that doesn't make much sense the way it is explained to us" then we have to assume there is another explanation they just haven't given us or the movie is just wrong.

3 of us walked out of the theatre saying "They were on a planet too far away to see the beam. That doesn't make any sense. How did they see that beam?" and no one could come up with an answer for it. The 3 of us were positive that the planet they were on was very far away since they had established that through a lot of other dialog (everyone died in the Hosnian system, they didn't die...they weren't in the Hosnian system). So, we were left with 2 conflicting things the movie told us: They were super far away and yet they saw the beam in the sky which physics tells us is impossible. So, we just walked out confused and frustrated that the movie told us 2 different things. However, most of us were willing to bet that given Star Wars' (and especially JJ Abrams') history with fudging physics for storytelling, that it's likely they just wanted our heroes to see the explosion in the sky and react to it, physics be damned.

When we found out later that the novel and the official lorekeeper, Pablo Hidalgo had both answered the question with "weird hyperspace rip" that could be seen everywhere in the galaxy, we shrugged and figured it was a retroactive attempt to explain poor filmmaking.


That's because you never responded to any of them at all. You didn't explain why all the logical inconsistencies don't matter.

This conversation could be summarized as:
You: "They have to be in the same system, you couldn't see it in the sky otherwise"
Me: "But the lore people at Lucasfilm say that the planets are super far apart and even give an explanation as to why you can see the beam so far away."
You: "None of that matters since it isn't in the movie. They have to be in the same system, you couldn't see it in the sky otherwise."
Me: "Fine. But the movie pretty much says they aren't in the same system. Multiple times. Plus if they were in the same system, the entire plot wouldn't make sense. How do you respond to that?"
You: "But they have to be in the same system, you couldn't see it in the sky otherwise."

There's one piece of evidence that says they are in the same system and about 20 pieces that they aren't.

I don’t know whether you’re unable to understand my point or you’re being deliberately obtuse, but I’m done.