• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Order your Star Wars films


log in or register to remove this ad


Yeah, I loved it when I was young too. Ewoks are cute. Those speeder bikes are neat. And who doesn't want to see the Death Star again, except with more!

Because it was really aimed squarely at the kid market. By ROJ, Lucas had gone "full kids market," aka, realizing that the merchandising is where his money was being made. And most of the plot changes were dictated by the children's market. Ugh.

Again, fine! I'm not going to bah humbug on that; but it's really funny to me seeing so many people complaining about the current movies (OMG, they are re-using stuff, OMG, it's for kids, etc.) and not take a second to look in the mirror.

ROJ is fine; its'a good kids' movie. It's right there with, you know, the prequels.

I'm not sure what about a scantily clad woman choking a giant slug monster to death with her own chains or really any of the business with Jabba's Palace had to do with the "kids market" (other than toy set sales, which were honestly there from the beginning). RotJ also showed us Luke at his darkest (I mean, until TLJ). I mean yes, there were also awesome cute teddy bears fighting trained soldiers, but "technologically-superior-force-falls-to-underestimated-low-tech-civilization" is a well-worn trope for a reason.

I would argue the only prequel film made with kids in mind was Phantom Menace; RotS was the only Star Wars film rated PG-13 for a reason, and I refuse to believe that there was any kind of intentionality taking place at all on the set of AotC.

TPM succeeds on its own admittedly low terms, which is why it's the best prequel in spite of(or because of?) also having the most Jar Jar, because I've seen so many kids who absolutely love that garbage, and it's hard not to see why.

RotJ is a great movie that absolutely stands on its own, and if we're really going with "it's a kids film" then its a freaking revelation.
 




Yeah, you must not read many of my comments.

No, but I have seen 'Hidden Fortress', and it doesn't have many plot points in common with 'A New Hope' at all. There are some very loose connections between some the characters, but the plot points of 'The Phantom Menace' have more in common with those of 'Hidden Fortress' than they do 'A New Hope', such as the transportation of the noble woman in secret, and the story being about a veteran warrior who is secretly working for a defeated faction in a war.
 

There may be legitimate reasons to criticize TLJ, but many of them do not hold up under scrutiny.

Things that are questions of taste are generally legit, such as "I would have wanted Snoke to be more developed and not cut down so soon." That's perfectly legitimate since it's a personal preference. To make some claim that the movie is objectively bad or worse than previous movies because of that would be, as I see it, illegitimate.

But I think it's still possible to criticize some elements as problematic - and still like the movie overall. I think they make a mistake in discussing specific time values for their fuel and pursuit because it makes something concrete that probably would be better a bit more vague. How long does it take the Millennium Falcon to get from Hoth to Bespin and how long does Luke train with Yoda? We don't know. Ergo, there's all sorts of narrative room for the viewer to make assumptions. Eighteen hours in The Last Jedi removes that narrative room, which, I think, doesn't do the movie any favors. That said, I clearly don't consider it fatal since I enjoy the movie. I just see it as something they could have done better.
 


There may be legitimate reasons to criticize TLJ, but many of them do not hold up under scrutiny.

It's true that a lot of the criticisms are tied towards political beliefs rather than directly attacking the quality of the film. I can admit that I'd have issues with a film, regardless of the quality of its make, that wears on its sleeves ideals and messages that I disagree with (for example, I've made no secret of my contempt for "won't anyone think of the poor disenfranchised angry white man" genre of film, despite also acknowledging the competency of the craft of such films as Falling Down or Joker). Of course, I would argue that in this case those values run contrary to the values that Star Wars has always espoused (see also: Chuck Wendig's "you're not the Rebels; you're the Empire" rant).

Some of the complaints, though are, of a structural nature. Look at the common whipping boy: Canto Bight. Which, when you break it down, served the same role as the Hiding in the "Cave" segment from ESB; ie, we're just here to learn more about the characters and develop their relationship further, literally nothing plot-wise of consequence has occured; Canto Bight is just like... three times longer. And while it is technically doing more (world-building, introducing a new character, making very sure you know what this film is about), it does drag on a bit long. The whole film is a bit structurally weird; I think, ultimately in a way that serves it, but it's definitely not standard Hollywood storytelling (not that the best Star Wars ever are).

I can also see why people are disappointed in Luke's character development, I'll admit to being initially disappointed as well; but the more I thought about it the more I realize how fitting it is As one critic eloquently put it: "Star Wars isn't the story where daddy figures swoop in to save the day; it's the story where daddy figures screw up and disappoint you."

If there's one criticism I agree with is that it doesn't quite stick the landing, tonally. At least for the characters we're following, anyway. The ending stinger with the kid and the broom was brilliant; it nails down the theme of the movie perfectly. People who say all the stuff on Canto Bight had no payoff are wrong; that scene is the payoff.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top