Then Rey should've hopped on the Falcon with Chewie and gone off to an actually fun movie.
Luke being a dick is not something I needed to see on film. But apparently Rian Johnson confused his evil *character's* most quoted phrase from this movie (kill the past / burn the past) with a writing credo.
You not liking it doesn't make it bad writing or a bad choice, though. If it's the story you dislike, address that instead of making up things about bad writing to justify your dislike. I've no problem with you disliking it.
lol WHUT
Star Wars has always been about winging it. Always.
You're almost there....
He already learned that lesson in the previous movie. He only needed to re-learn it because of bad writing.
No, he didn't. He ran, selfishly. The only thing he cares about it Rey, and only turned around when Rey was threatened. In the beginning of this movie, he's running away again, with Rey being the only thing he cares about (he only says this a few times, so surely you didn't miss it). It's only when his ability to get to Rey is threatened by being thrown in the brig that he consents to a path that keeps him out of the brig.
Oh please, Ovi. Out of all the people on the 'net I never thought you would fall for this bleeding-heart-liberal pablum. This is a cliche so old it's not even remotely interesting any more. It is not interesting in the least. It the kind of thing I would expect in a student film.
It's very interesting because it's something not seen ever before in the Star Wars Universe. It's always been 'big bad evil empire vs plucky heroes, where beating the big bads means everything is okay!' This is actually a major departure from the usual, and that makes it not student film worthy (which is an interesting choice of criticism).
Also, you clearly pay as much attention to my posts of CM as you did to this movie. Concern about the military-industrial complex isn't a liberal/conservative breakpoint. But let's leave your interpretation of my politics, and politics in general, aside.
It inexplicably sends two characters away in the most contrived way possible, it gives us the runaround with the hacker for no apparent reason (either the star destroyer is so hard to hack that only Mazz's friend can do it, or it's so easy that any dude in jail can do it), it advances a lame boring and trite social commentary message, it features a way drawn out chase scene complete with property destruction for no reason (you're going to tell me every single car on the street was owned by an evil war profiteer?), and it bogs down the film just as we are getting some interesting Rashomon style depictions of what actually happened between Luke and Ben. All this in a movie that destroys any semblance of character consistency *and* is 30 minutes too long, *at least*.
A lot to unpack here. I've said this is the weakest part of the movie narratively, so, no I don't defend everything it does. However, the 'chance' finding of another hacker in jail is classic tropes-ville. That he doesn't work out upends that trope of the scruffy scoundrel with a heart of gold (Han Solo, anyone?). When he gives the medallion back, it's clear this is the trope their setting up, only to subvert. The 'social commentary' isn't that trite. And, yes, they established that Canto Bight is the resort for all the war profiteers, so it is set up that all of the nice things are owned by war profiteers on-screen. While I feel that's part of the weakness of this narrative, it's hard to argue that the movie didn't make that exact point.
You last is a very weird non sequitur -- where in any of that did you discuss character consistency? And, that established, what's the inconsistency?
I... guess? So how does that bode for part 9 when they will presumably have to 'pick up the guy(s) you just found' to rebuild the Rebellion which is down to like 20 people? 'Wait, we'd better not trust these new guys we just picked up, they could betray us like DJ.'
Also... DJ? Seriously? I mean Snoke was a dumb name but at least sort of Star Wars-y.
Hopefully, they'll come a bit more vetted than 'guy we met in jail.' If that's the best argument 'but this trope reversal means they can't trust anyone again because they'll all be picked up exactly the same way - strangers found in jail,' well, then, I have news -- that's silly.
And DJ isn't any more silly than any other name in Star Wars.
Deliberate trope flipping just because you *can*, *is* bad writing.
Yes, but this is not that. It's playing with some established tropes in the setting and uses those reversals to propel the story. It's not reversal for the sake of reversal.
Again, you're reading like someone with 'Writing 101' under their belt that's upset because some media doesn't follow the rules.
Hamfisted is never a good technique unless you want to mock a character.
You don't read much Shakespeare, do you?
Again, I wouldn't expect you, Ovi, to indulge in this kind of 'audiences are stupid' mentality.
Really? It's like you've never talked to me once over the last 12 years. People being stupid is a core belief of mine. People are dumb. Persons may be smart. When I talk to someone, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they may be a not-dumb person, but, on average, people are dumb.
Movies almost always have to punch their points into faces. I don't have a problem with that.
I didn't miss the points. I just thought they weren't worth making.
Huh, talk about bad writing, then. If you didn't miss the points the things you are criticizing were making, why, praytell, did you present them as making different points?
People have perfect diction in movies all the time. It's an acceptable break from reality. When people do not have perfect diction, it must be for some reason.
Rose could've been humanized without bad writing.
(P.S. Yeah yeah some films deliberately have more true-to-life diction. This isn't that kind of film.)
Incorrect you are. Limited, your vision is. Meesa think that you didn't really think-a this-a through. How many parsecs in the Kessel run?
Do I even need to step outside of Star Wars to show what a pointless argument this is? No, no, I don't.
When you violate the guidelines in the service of a great reveal or a great scene or a great character, that's fine. When you do it out of laziness, incompetence, or just to be a snarky jerk, that's not fine.
Luke being in an identity crisis is key to his character in this movie, so the lightsaber scene services that directly. Rose is unpolished and from simple stock, so not using perfect diction humanizes and sets her backstory without explaining why she's secretly a Liza clone (that's a My Fair Lady reference). DJ's betrayal certainly shocks some sense into Finn, as he realizes that just doing the minimum to get away gets people killed. Although, narratively, he was shoehorned into that badly, as DJ did rescue them and show he was somewhat trustable. Again, Canto Bight is the least narratively successful bit in the movie, no arguments, but it's not universally bad or a disaster -- it serves some very important functions to both the overall plot and the development of Rose and Finn.
So, yeah, if you missed the point behind the subversions -- that they propel the story Rian wanted to tell -- then you'll think they're pointless. But that's part of being to blind to the story told, whether that's because you missed it among your nitpicking or if you brought too much baggage into the film and it let you down by not meeting it (looking at the EU readers out there). There's a reason the critics loved this movie -- it's well made and uses some very nice techniques to subvert expectations in a way that propels the story. That's hard. The hate for this movie isn't because it's badly done, but because it's not what some fans with lots of preconceptions wanted.
