Star Wars Rewatch

[Paul Farquhar]

Abrams has rarely shown much ambition when directing movies.

No creativity I would say. Everything he does is superficial. Eye candy of no nutritional value.

 

[The Firebird]

I don't see it at all. There are literally two of his movies which are about that, and they're both very mannered and exaggerated in a way that's distinct from the rest of his movies. Both are also after TLJ.

Brick, The Brothers Bloom, Looper, you're trying to tell me they're centered on "thinking about contemporary society" more than any other director? Come on.

So to me this seems like backfill/retcon.

Fair point with his older films.

I think the kind of satire you see in Knives Out is fun when you're in on the joke and grating when you're not. Or when it feels directed at you. The Last Jedi didn't go as far, the characters aren't caricatures in the same way, but I don't find it surprising it came off that way.

I feel like this is massive Gen X-ish projection. There's absolutely nothing in the movie that supports that.

The issue is entirely external, and all about the headcanon of older fans, which tended to revolve around EU-ish visions of Luke (either directly or indirectly informed by the EU books). Thus they find deviations from that "antagonistic".

The biggest SW fans I know all loved it except one - and he was the only one who had very fixed EU-based ideas about Luke.

Three statements. First, I'm a bit under 30; I'm not part of Gen X, nor the Tik Tok generation you're referring to in other posts. Second, I love what Johnson did with Luke. I think it's the strongest aspect of his movie. Third, I used to be a big star wars fan, but I never read the EU stuff. It was before my time; I was a kid when the prequels were in theaters. And I didn't love TLJ.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Three statements. First, I'm a bit under 30; I'm not part of Gen X, nor the Tik Tok generation you're referring to in other posts. Second, I love what Johnson did with Luke. I think it's the strongest aspect of his movie. Third, I used to be a big star wars fan, but I never read the EU stuff. It was before my time; I was a kid when the prequels were in theaters. And I didn't love TLJ.

Then what, exactly, do you mean was "antagonistic"?

Because literally the only two things I've ever seen anyone point to and claim was somehow "mean to Star Wars fans" are:

A) The kid who moves the broom with the force. I'm assuming this isn't it, because that is a laughable and ridiculous thing to complain about, let alone find "antagonistic". But when the movie came out people were saying that - by about three months after release anyone who did got roundly mocked/downvoted, but it was a thing, briefly.

B) "Luke is a big sad failure" - I mean, not only is that not actually true and a profound misunderstanding of the movie (among other things), but it's clearly something that can only be upsetting if you have a preconceived notion of where Luke "should" be. This is evidently not your objection.

(A subset of B is "Luke died!!! Luke isn't allowed to die!!!", which is weird to me because most of the same people were fine with Han dying.)

I've seen people claim that Rey not being a Skywalker etc. was in some way trying to cause a problem for Abrams, but given that when it happened, the next director up was Trevorrow, and that Trevorrow's script is just fine with that (the change it makes is to bring back Luke as a kind of Super-Saiyan), that's basically revisionism of the bad kind. I've not seen it suggested that was "anti-fan", I think because an awful lot of fans liked it, because an awful lot of fans have long been bored with Skywalker dynasty stuff (some people were bored with that in the 1990s, even, before the prequels).

The Last Jedi didn't go as far, the characters aren't caricatures in the same way, but I don't find it surprising it came off that way.

I do find it surprising. I can't see any evidence of that at all in TLJ. The closest he comes to a contemporary issue is arms-dealing, and the OT and prequels come that close or closer many times (especially the prequels, where it's basically the plot).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Will get back to the rest but the big issue with Luke was him trying to kill his own Nephew. The reason people have trouble with that part is Luke is the guy who saw the good in his father, Vader. Even Mark Hamil had issues with it. The rest of the hermit Luke stuff was fine. They were trying to turn him into Yoda, which I got. That stuff wasn’t the issue. It was having Luke do the one thing his character wouldn’t

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Will get back to the rest but the big issue with Luke was him trying to kill his own Nephew.

Interesting, I've never heard that one before!

Also, wasn't Luke really conflicted about it? I guess I'd need to rewatch it (also, isn't this from TFA rather than TLJ?).

 

[Belen]

The key difference to when we were kids is phones and YouTube/TikTok giving people a way to deliver detailed and consistent messaging and ideas, in a convincing and well-produced way to kids without parents knowing (which they're never couching as "political" - that'd be a turn-off, but rather as "here's how the world is, learn from me so you can be strong/clever/powerful"). That's literally why this change has happened (and why it disproportionately impacted one gender), and it's impacting kids younger than 12 where parents are giving them free access to YouTube/TikTok/etc. That said it's much worse in the 14-18 age range, most 12 y/os are probably still likely ignoring Andrew Tate etc. in favour of Minecraft and so on!

My kids get phones when they have a job and can pay for them. I do not allow social media apps and YouTube is locked down.

Social media is a cancer and developing minds should not have access to it.

 

[Belen]

I actually think Lucas would have done the same thing as Johnson here, had he made the sequels. The Jedi hero (and there would have been one) would not have been a Skywalker/Palpatine/similar with Lucas I believe, but someone new.

We already know that the Skywalker kids would have been protagonists in Lucas' sequels as he had written the outlines already.

 

[The Firebird]

Then what, exactly, do you mean was "antagonistic"?

Neither A or B in your post bothers me.

-The one that brings me out of the movie the post is Laura Dern's subplot. It's a shame because she and Oscar Isaac are both great actors, and I think the subplot has the potential to be interesting, and, I'll state emphatically, I agree with the message Johnson is trying to get across. But it's so much of a lecture, so corporate training session, that it comes across as condescending.

-The same goes for Canto Bight. It's a nice idea, I think it's a good message, but it's dealt with in a way that it feels like scolding the audience. Like, "if you don't agree with me about this topic you should feel bad". Which, you know, may be true! But have some subtlety, have a lighter touch, you know? Or cast it as something universal, the way Lucas does.

-The way some of the old lore and characters are handled. Especially the hyperspace ram sequence, which is gorgeous...but we were having conversations about this for decades prior, and I think it wrecks the canon. Some people care about Ackbar also. That didn't bother me but I can see if it did.

It's a shame because I think these are mostly issues with execution. And I think Johnson is a talented enough director to do a better job. I wonder if a longer production schedule would have helped.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

-The one that brings me out of the movie the post is Laura Dern's subplot. It's a shame because she and Oscar Isaac are both great actors, and I think the subplot has the potential to be interesting, and, I'll state emphatically, I agree with the message Johnson is trying to get across. But it's so much of a lecture, so corporate training session, that it comes across as condescending.

And the plot of the prequels doesn't?! Some of the things the Jedi say in the prequels don't? This seems like a double-standard to me.

-The same goes for Canto Bight. It's a nice idea, I think it's a good message, but it's dealt with in a way that it feels like scolding the audience.

Can you explain how you believe the audience is being "scolded"? I think the vast majority of the audience already agrees.

And how are these two antagonistic to "Star Wars fans", rather than "the audience" (which is entirely different thing)? Because that was the claim - "to fans".

Agree on TLJ feeling a bit antagonistic to fans.

-The way some of the old lore and characters are handled. Especially the hyperspace ram sequence, which is gorgeous...but we were having conversations about this for decades prior, and I think it wrecks the canon.

That's not "antagonistic to fans", that's exactly the "IT DOESN'T FIT MY HEADCANON!!!" I was describing re: Luke. You even point out that you came up with this headcanon.

And let's be clear, you called it "canon", but it's not - it's headcanon - because canon-wise, it's never been entirely clear why that wouldn't work from actual canon sources. You said you had no knowledge of the EU, but the only sources which contradicted this are old EU sources.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Interesting, I've never heard that one before!

Also, wasn't Luke really conflicted about it? I guess I'd need to rewatch it (also, isn't this from TFA rather than TLJ?).

My memory is him trying to kill Kylo in a flashback scene in TLJ. I don’t remember it coming up in TFA but possible I am forgetful

Yea he was conflicted and ultimately didn’t do it but the point is it doesn’t make that much sense his character would do that (both because killing a family member seems completely out of character and because of his faith in people to choose good). And Kylo was his own student