That some can’t just be disappointed that something is not for you, rather they feel they have to fight back against what they perceive as yet another thing you feel is out to get them.
But, it seems that is the kind of thing that gets traffic going, so we can expect to see that POV getting pushed, whether it comes from a sincere place, or is just another thing to glom onto to get people sharing and arguing with each other in the comments.
The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that we have now seen how audiences can indeed force studios to "course-correct" a franchise if enough people are vocal enough to express their grievances. Most of the internet erupted in foamy-mouthed, apeshit crazy rants over "Batman v Superman" - with so many fans trashing it online, with news sources using it as a punching bag for their love/hate relationship with the comic book genre, and with normals simply looking to bash and troll movies and other fans.
And hey - it worked!
Or at least it displayed its influence. Because suddenly, the already-completed "Suicide Squad" went in for emergency reshoots. "Wonder Woman" embraced an entirely different tone. And "Justice League" was also a film at least conceived in response to the hateful criticisms of both "Batman v Superman" and "Man of Steel;" it might not have been entirely successful, but most fans do agree it was better than BvS.
So if we can see with our own eyes how studios are watching social media response, to steer future film projects? Then you can bet that those of us who genuinely hated a movie - hated a movie within a saga we dearly love - are going to express our dissatisfaction with it.
And to be clear, that is not what I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that people who hated it shouldn’t express what they feel. I can believe that people hated what was made and want to express themselves about that. And I get you that fans expressing themselves is something the studios likely pay attention to. But if you look back at my post, that wasn’t the thing I was talking about, my point was about those that go a step further, in ascribing bad intent.
What gets me is these bull shit petitions by fans. Whether it’s to strike the Last Jedi from continuity or have the Snyder cut of Justice League released, it reads very millennial.
Maybe this is me being cynical about the current state of pop culture journalism, but I sometimes wonder if some of the more outrageous fan petitions might actually be created and signal boosted by the same bloggers who will then make hay out of them. The “Look at this ridiculous thing same fans started a petition for!” is a perfect, no-budget story for those places to report on. It would also be an easy thing for a blogger to bait themselves.
That said, it would be just as easy for a fan to sincerely start something like that, it also costs them nothing and gets them attention, if that is what they feel.
Maybe this is me being cynical about the current state of pop culture journalism, but...
I'm definitely cynical about pop culture journalism - as well as about the immense power Rotten Tomatoes wields in divining which films attract the masses, and also about tactics used by studios themselves to ensure their tentpole films succeed while their competition fails.
Here's a weird story, take from it what you will: I saw "Thor: Ragnarok" at a special WGA screening on opening weekend here in L.A., and just as the film started, a woman in a business suit sat right down next to me. It was odd, because the five seats between me and the aisle were all empty - yet she chose to be right there. Then, all throughout the film from joke #1 onward, this woman laughed out loud *at every single light moment* (almost like DeNiro in "Cape Fear" lol). And about five minutes before the film's end, the woman abruptly gets up and exits. I'd never before seen evidence of what's referred to as "audience plants" - people sent by the studio to its premieres to try to bolster an audience's positive response to the film - but that experience made me believe that's exactly what happened.
Listened to Kevin Smith and Marc Bernardin's review on "Fat Man on Batman" (they both liked it, btw). I laughed out loud at Bernardin's description of the Imperial Destroyer's pursuit of the Resistance fleet as "the Star Wars version of OJ in the white Bronco."
Maybe this is me being cynical about the current state of pop culture journalism, but...
I'm definitely cynical about pop culture journalism - as well as about the immense power Rotten Tomatoes wields in divining which films attract the masses, and also about tactics used by studios themselves to ensure their tentpole films succeed while their competition fails.
Here's a weird story, take from it what you will: I saw "Thor: Ragnarok" at a special WGA screening on opening weekend here in L.A., and just as the film started, a woman in a business suit sat right down next to me. It was odd, because the five seats between me and the aisle were all empty - yet she chose to be right there. Then, all throughout the film from joke #1 onward, this woman laughed out loud *at every single light moment* (almost like DeNiro in "Cape Fear" lol). And about five minutes before the film's end, the woman abruptly gets up and exits. I'd never before seen evidence of what's referred to as "audience plants" - people sent by the studio to its premieres to try to bolster an audience's positive response to the film - but that experience made me believe that's exactly what happened.
This reminds me of something I know happens for theater openings, what we sometimes call "Papering the House". Basically, on the night you know press will be in, which are usually some of the final previews before opening, you set aside and give away some seats to people you can expect to be enthusiastic. Friends, fellow theater makers, the college students you teach, etc. In my experience, as someone papering the house for shows I am in, as well as someone being someone given those sorts of seats for other peoples work, you are not expressly told how to react, but you are looked to as a supportive, warm audience member who is on the side of the show (or, maybe, just glad for the free tickets). And in a rare time or two, I can remember being very strategic about exactly who would be sat right next to the all-important New York Times critics.
Listened to Kevin Smith and Marc Bernardin's review on "Fat Man on Batman" (they both liked it, btw). I laughed out loud at Bernardin's description of the Imperial Destroyer's pursuit of the Resistance fleet as "the Star Wars version of OJ in the white Bronco."
I think the best part of their review was Bernardin's take on what makes a great SW movie. All these movies have issues, story or otherwise, so a great SW movie is one with many moments that make you feel like a kid again and remind you why you loved this stuff in the first place. That idea really resonated with me. Probably in part because I saw it with my 7 year old, who literally jumped out of his seat when Kylo did the thing with the lightsaber.
I think the best part of their review was Bernardin's take on what makes a great SW movie. All these movies have issues, story or otherwise, so a great SW movie is one with many moments that make you feel like a kid again and remind you why you loved this stuff in the first place. That idea really resonated with me. Probably in part because I saw it with my 7 year old, who literally jumped out of his seat when Kylo did the thing with the lightsaber.
That's exactly why I didn't like this movie - it only threw tons of the opposite feeling at me. Am genuinely stunned that people say they like "The Last Jedi" so much.
I saw it for the first time this past Sunday morning. I knew what happened, of course, but it played different then it read.
I’m on the fence about what I think of the movie. I didn’t care for some of political undertones, but I believe it really only became apparent to me because of an article I read stating such.
I thought the story was interesting. I wasn’t sure what I thought about Luke’s death when I read it. Having seen it, I liked it. I liked that he did exactly what he asked Rey what she expected from him; “stand alone in front of the Empirial Army with a laser sword.” I also like his last words to Ben; “I’ll be seeing you, kid.”
It was interesting to see when it looked like everything was over, Luke told Ben it was just the beginning.
The tone wasn’t something I favored. It reminded me too much of the prequel trilogy. I thought the origins of Snoke & who Rey’s parents are were intriguing, so to essentially dismiss them was a let down. It seemed like they couldn’t think of anything clever for him. I predict a significant time jump to Episode 9, so by that point, Snoke won’t matter.
I can foresee instead of being related, Ben & Rey wind up a couple. That’s how they bring balance to the Force.
No amount of therapy or meds will ever release me from the grip of seeing Luke Skywalker milking the engorged nipples of a sentient reclining Nessie.
I read an article about the great pains they went through to film this. The huge animatronic creatures were built at Pinewood studios to exacting specifications, and shipped to the island, at great expense and reassembled on the cliffside. They felt it was important that Hammil would be able to milk them naturally, using no CGI.
It felt a bit too long to me. Which is weird, because I like getting my money's worth.
I get respecting the chain of command, but would a bit of info from Rose really have been a bad thing. It would have made the Casino plan unneeded. And in fact, the Casino plan made things worse.
I enjoyed it except for the non-continuation of plotlines from the Episode 7. We never get to find out where Snoke came from? We didn't find out about Rey's parents? (I don't believe Kylo Ren/Ben Solo's explanation) Suddenly Phasma just shows up without any comment on what Han and Finn may have done to her in Ep. 7? Well, everything just seemed too convenient at times. Other than that, I liked it. :wink: I sort feel like Johnson painted JJ into a corner to see how he gets out of it. :smiley: And oh, by the way, it wasn't too long for me. In fact, for an almost 3 hour movie, I thought the time went by quite quickly. As for Episode IX (9): I'm curious as to whether the force kid will be involved. And how the heck did he get his hands on a Resistance ring? For that matter, how did Rose get one? Are they on sale somewhere? So, I guess we're going back to the casino planet. I'm also wondering whether both Snoke and Phasma survived. I mean, if Leia can do it...
Phasma's survival was covered in supplementary materials. Her comic, to be precise. Which I haven't read yet. I just know she escaped the garbage chute and Starkiller Base alive.
I really dont think there's anything to add with Rey's parents. She's Rando Rey.
I was ready to move on after Return of the Jedi. The heroes’ journeys were completed then and there. Happily ever after, the end, and all that. Star Wars wasn’t built on a foundation designed to support a never-ending saga, and I'm not convinced its popularity will run as long and as deeply as Disney hopes it will. Nobody likes a war that drags on and on with no end in sight. ;)
Tell that to fans of the Yuhzan Vong War/Expanded Universe books :p
I never read that other war. It was on my list to go through all those books.... but now I don't need to.
It's still weird and disappointing to me how any true Star Wars fan (as Ryan Johnson claims to be) - after *34 years* of waiting to get to write a fully formed badass Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker - would decide - instead - to plant him on Chicken Island as a brooding Lord Byron-type - so mopey and emo and guilt-ridden about failing his nephew that he doesn't even take responsibility for it by chasing down said nephew and - oh, I don't know - trying to protect his loved ones *and the rest of the galaxy* from nephew's potential Dark Side mass violence?? No. Instead, Luke sucks tit-milk. That is what we get on our screen after 34 years.
That instead of telling us that our #1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise had even an ounce of spine... that no... he just gave up. In flashback. And that we're supposed to accept a few seconds of Jedi badassery at the end of this movie to make up for ALL of that unbelievable, unwanted characterization - just before Ryan Johnson then decides to kill off our #1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise - even though this "Skywalker Saga" still has one movie left - and even though we just witnessed the painful death of beloved legacy character Han Solo one movie ago - and even though we are still accepting the painful death of beloved legacy actress Carrie Fisher - and even though we are insulted at how badly our beloved legacy characters of R2-D2, C-3PO and Chewbacca are virtually ignored in this trilogy - that Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy and whoever else is in charge of the Star Wars franchise would think (even for a second) that going that extra mile and killing off Luke Skywalker, too - right here - would be a good idea??
Horrendous does not begin to define what I am feeling about this.
Even if the Canto Bight and slowspeed space chase subplots hadn't been crappy, and even if this film's "new" take on The Force itself hadn't sounded so muddled and ugly, this decision - this ill-timed, ill-conceived snuffing out of the most important hero in modern cinema - was beyond distasteful for me.
It's still weird and disappointing to me how any true Star Wars fan (as Ryan Johnson claims to be) - after *34 years* of waiting to get to write a fully formed badass Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker - would decide - instead - to plant him on Chicken Island as a brooding Lord Byron-type - so mopey and emo and guilt-ridden about failing his nephew that he doesn't even take responsibility for it by chasing down said nephew and - oh, I don't know - trying to protect his loved ones *and the rest of the galaxy* from nephew's potential Dark Side mass violence?? No. Instead, Luke sucks tit-milk. That is what we get on our screen after 34 years.
That instead of telling us that our #1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise had even an ounce of spine... that no... he just gave up. In flashback. And that we're supposed to accept a few seconds of Jedi badassery at the end of this movie to make up for ALL of that unbelievable, unwanted characterization - just before Ryan Johnson then decides to kill off our #1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise - even though this "Skywalker Saga" still has one movie left - and even though we just witnessed the painful death of beloved legacy character Han Solo one movie ago - and even though we are still accepting the painful death of beloved legacy actress Carrie Fisher - and even though we are insulted at how badly our beloved legacy characters of R2-D2, C-3PO and Chewbacca are virtually ignored in this trilogy - that Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy and whoever else is in charge of the Star Wars franchise would think (even for a second) that going that extra mile and killing off Luke Skywalker, too - right here - would be a good idea??
Horrendous does not begin to define what I am feeling about this.
Even if the Canto Bight and slowspeed space chase subplots hadn't been crappy, and even if this film's "new" take on The Force itself hadn't sounded so muddled and ugly, this decision - this ill-timed, ill-conceived snuffing out of the most important hero in modern cinema - was beyond distasteful for me.
Hmm, first define “true fan.”
Is it proven or assumed if you’re a fan, then Luke is “your number 1 hero”?
It’s not too much of a stretch to see Luke become disenfranchised by this point. First, it sounds like he bought into his own “legend.” Something Rocky Balboa experienced in Rocky III. Or even Ronda Rousey by the time she lost her first fight.
We’ve also seen this in other stories; by TDKR, Bruce was just waiting to die. Same with Wolverine in Logan. At some point, being “THE guy” weighs on a person.
I never expected Luke to show off his lightsaber dueling prowess. If I did, then I’d feel like a Jedi is about fighting “and moving rocks.” The tit milk scene kinda of reminded me of when we first saw Yoda on Dagobah. Granted he didn’t do anything seemingly disgusting, but felt offputting at first.
It felt like in order for the Resistence to have A New Hope, Luke had to save the day one last time. And it’s through his failure as a teacher that Rey will become the next generation.
Is it proven or assumed if you’re a fan, then Luke is “your number 1 hero”?
It’s not too much of a stretch to see Luke become disenfranchised by this point. First, it sounds like he bought into his own “legend.” Something Rocky Balboa experienced in Rocky III. Or even Ronda Rousey by the time she lost her first fight.
We’ve also seen this in other stories; by TDKR, Bruce was just waiting to die. Same with Wolverine in Logan. At some point, being “THE guy” weighs on a person.
I never expected Luke to show off his lightsaber dueling prowess. If I did, then I’d feel like a Jedi is about fighting “and moving rocks.” The tit milk scene kinda of reminded me of when we first saw Yoda on Dagobah. Granted he didn’t do anything seemingly disgusting, but felt offputting at first.
It felt like in order for the Resistence to have A New Hope, Luke had to save the day one last time. And it’s through his failure as a teacher that Rey will become the next generation.
Nah, Luke's not a sports champ like Rocky or an antihero like Batman and Wolverine - Luke is a hero. An adventure/fantasy/sci fi hero, but a true hero by definition. Han Solo is the franchise's antihero; that's why you can play deadbeat dad/fallen-from-grace with Han and it works because it fits with the character type. It does not fit with Luke's. At least not for me and the many others who genuinely felt let down by "The Last Jedi."
As for Luke needing to be your or my personal #1 hero, that's not what I meant. I said "#1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise" - as in, the heroic character at the center of modern cinema's top money-making franchise (ticket sales, toys, games, books, merch, etc.) - as in, a character too important to our culture to have been treated like this. Luke Skywalker had a lot of story mojo left in him, certainly enough to have driven him through this movie and into the next before letting him die. Instead, we got the stale Hollywood chestnut of "broken old has-been makes good one last time."
Is it proven or assumed if you’re a fan, then Luke is “your number 1 hero”?
It’s not too much of a stretch to see Luke become disenfranchised by this point. First, it sounds like he bought into his own “legend.” Something Rocky Balboa experienced in Rocky III. Or even Ronda Rousey by the time she lost her first fight.
We’ve also seen this in other stories; by TDKR, Bruce was just waiting to die. Same with Wolverine in Logan. At some point, being “THE guy” weighs on a person.
I never expected Luke to show off his lightsaber dueling prowess. If I did, then I’d feel like a Jedi is about fighting “and moving rocks.” The tit milk scene kinda of reminded me of when we first saw Yoda on Dagobah. Granted he didn’t do anything seemingly disgusting, but felt offputting at first.
It felt like in order for the Resistence to have A New Hope, Luke had to save the day one last time. And it’s through his failure as a teacher that Rey will become the next generation.
Nah, Luke's not a sports champ like Rocky or an antihero like Batman and Wolverine - Luke is a hero. An adventure/fantasy/sci fi hero, but a true hero by definition. Han Solo is the franchise's antihero; that's why you can play deadbeat dad/fallen-from-grace with Han and it works because it fits with the character type. It does not fit with Luke's. At least not for me and the many others who genuinely felt let down by "The Last Jedi."
As for Luke needing to be your or my personal #1 hero, that's not what I meant. I said "#1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise" - as in, the heroic character at the center of modern cinema's top money-making franchise (ticket sales, toys, games, books, merch, etc.) - as in, a character too important to our culture to have been treated like this. Luke Skywalker had a lot of story mojo left in him, certainly enough to have driven him through this movie and into the next before letting him die. Instead, we got the stale Hollywood chestnut of "broken old has-been makes good one last time."
I’m not certain I’ve ever really seen Luke as a “true hero.” I also think this movie parallels Luke’s story with Obi-Wan. Both had notions their main student would be key to the future of the Force. When they failed, both disappeared for decades. Both were looked to for help in stopping the Empire. Both used their sacrifice at the hands of their pupil to assist with an escape & propel the new line of Jedi forward.
Yoda even commented on learning more from failures then successes (side bar: that’s why I hate this “everyone gets a trophy” idea).
And I believe whether it’s a sports figure, hero, antihero, or a dude who works in a cubicle, there’s a burden in any role. If you feel like it’s overshadowed you, getting burnt out by it is natural.
I have to admit, I’m on the fence about what I thought about the movie. I do like Luke’s story, though. I’m not convinced I’d like the version you’re suggesting. It’d feel too fake.
I’m not certain I’ve ever really seen Luke as a “true hero.”
Well, he was. He was given what's called "a hero's journey," and he touched every base on his way to completing it. Luke also exemplified the textbook hero definition in how he believed in and attempted to find justice by following an ordered set of rules, The Force. (Whereas the saga's textbook antihero, Han Solo, derided The Force's rules and order and instead lived by his own code, as all antiheroes do.)
I also think this movie parallels Luke’s story with Obi-Wan. Both had notions their main student would be key to the future of the Force. When they failed, both disappeared for decades.
But Kenobi didn't disappear out of shame and cowardice, as we are now told Luke did. Kenobi and Yoda both went into hiding out of pragmatism and hope for the future - to wait for Luke and Leia to mature and meet their calling. And why is something automatically and suddenly good simply because it's supposed to be seen as part of a parallel? Lol When "The Force Awakens" used characters and settings which paralleled "A New Hope," many of the same people now defending "The Last Jedi" had called TFA's parallels cheap rehash.
I have to admit, I’m on the fence about what I thought about the movie. I do like Luke’s story, though. I’m not convinced I’d like the version you’re suggesting. It’d feel too fake.
What version did I suggest? All I've said is that I wanted a Luke who was more in line with his established character, and not a mockery of it for 99% of what would turn out to be his last movie (outside of the hammy/jokey Force Ghost Luke who I'm sure will be plastered all over Episode IX). Maybe that's the real difference between us: from your posts over the years, I've always gotten the impression that you prefer antiheroes like Batman to more formal heroes like Superman. Which is fine, I mean no disrespect. I'm only bringing it up because I happen to prefer heroes to antiheroes - and great heroes haven't been as common to find in my lifetime. Heroic characters - and actors who can make them even more compelling, like Mark Hamill or Christopher Reeve - they are very rare. Which is why it frustrates me to see a great silver screen hero downshifted into antihero, which I consider the easier and more cliched path for both actors and writers to take.
I’m not certain I’ve ever really seen Luke as a “true hero.”
Well, he was. He was given what's called "a hero's journey," and he touched every base on his way to completing it. Luke also exemplified the textbook hero definition in how he believed in and attempted to find justice by following an ordered set of rules, The Force. (Whereas the saga's textbook antihero, Han Solo, derided The Force's rules and order and instead lived by his own code, as all antiheroes do.)
I also think this movie parallels Luke’s story with Obi-Wan. Both had notions their main student would be key to the future of the Force. When they failed, both disappeared for decades.
But Kenobi didn't disappear out of shame and cowardice, as we are now told Luke did. Kenobi and Yoda both went into hiding out of pragmatism and hope for the future - to wait for Luke and Leia to mature and meet their calling. And why is something automatically and suddenly good simply because it's supposed to be seen as part of a parallel? Lol When "The Force Awakens" used characters and settings which paralleled "A New Hope," many of the same people now defending "The Last Jedi" had called TFA's parallels cheap rehash.
I have to admit, I’m on the fence about what I thought about the movie. I do like Luke’s story, though. I’m not convinced I’d like the version you’re suggesting. It’d feel too fake.
What version did I suggest? All I've said is that I wanted a Luke who was more in line with his established character, and not a mockery of it for 99% of what would turn out to be his last movie (outside of the hammy/jokey Force Ghost Luke who I'm sure will be plastered all over Episode IX). Maybe that's the real difference between us: from your posts over the years, I've always gotten the impression that you prefer antiheroes like Batman to more formal heroes like Superman. Which is fine, I mean no disrespect. I'm only bringing it up because I happen to prefer heroes to antiheroes - and great heroes haven't been as common to find in my lifetime. Heroic characters - and actors who can make them even more compelling, like Mark Hamill or Christopher Reeve - they are very rare. Which is why it frustrates me to see a great silver screen hero downshifted into antihero, which I consider the easier and more cliched path for both actors and writers to take.
I understand the quest bit & all, I just didn’t see him as anymore or less hero then Han & Leia; just the focus of the story.
I’m one of those people who had issues with TFA being essentially ANH. I’d say parallels between Luke & Obi-Wan isn’t the same thing. There were parallels with characters in the prequel series & I don’t recall people claiming they were replicant movies.
Would Qui-Gon be an antihero? He didn’t exactly follow the rules.
I also disagree with both Obi-Wan & Yoda not going into hiding following failures. I’d buy that more without watching Episode III. How Ben reacted to his battle with Anakin & Yoda’s battle with Palpatine illustrated to me both failed, leading to what happened next. Sure both went into hiding because of the Jedi genocide, but there was failure too.
“Ghost of a Muppet” seems similar to a hologram message of one of Anakin’s kids.
I read your posts as wanting someone like Superman; always doing the right thing with no flaws. I’ve never bought that idea. I do prefer antiheroes & reluctant heroes. I prefer to see a person with flaws, who ultimately overcomes those flaws & setbacks and can still do what he/she has to to win the day. I don’t see Luke anymore or less a hero then I did before just because he lost his way from a failure.
I think I have more respect for Luke because he overcame his past failures and fears. I like the character growth we see in him during the film. He goes from his lowest point in the Saga to his highest and becomes one with the Force. I also think this best performance of Mark Hamill we have ever seen.
While I totally understand that it would not be what everyone would want, for me the Luke we got in this movie was still a hero, and still on a hero's journey. And the fact that he had an arc- that he was a character that not only taught, but also learned something, grew, and changed- is what made this his movie and, I think, a fitting final movie for his character.
A Luke that was kickass the whole time would, for me, have felt more like fan service than having a Luke who still had a story to experience and room to grow and learn (as well as teach). It worked for me. And, as @chrisl mentioned, Hamill acts the hell out of it.
I agree with @BionicDave. Not only was this not the Luke of the original trilogy it wasn't even the Luke from the last film who had a map left behind for people to find him.
I also disagree with both Obi-Wan & Yoda not going into hiding following failures. I’d buy that more without watching Episode III. How Ben reacted to his battle with Anakin & Yoda’s battle with Palpatine illustrated to me both failed, leading to what happened next. Sure both went into hiding because of the Jedi genocide, but there was failure too.
Kenobi didn't go into hiding on Tatooine because of its chicken-friendly inhabitants and great brooding weather. He was there to watch over Luke. He was biding his time while still planning to overthrow Palpatine/Vader, using Luke. Go back and rewatch the end of Episode III, that closing scene at the table with Yoda, Kenobi and Bail Organa. Kenobi says they've got to hide baby Luke/Leia someplace where the Sith wouldn't be able to sense their presence. Organa offers to raise Leia on Alderaan. Then Yoda orders Kenobi to take Luke to Tatooine, to be with his father's family. Kenobi agrees, says he'll watch over him. Yoda then affirms: "Until the time is right... disappear, we will." While Kenobi and Yoda may voice regret or even shame for what's happened, I don't for a minute buy that that's why they go to live like hermits following Episode III - unlike Luke in this new movie.
I read your posts as wanting someone like Superman; always doing the right thing with no flaws.
Not true at all. Heroes can and do make mistakes, and can have flaws too. A difference between heroes and antiheroes is that heroes don't let their mistakes and flaws shake their belief in higher laws or forces; while antiheroes mostly believe in themselves, seeing the universe more existentially.
I'm not saying the Luke of "The Last Jedi" doesn't show himself to be a hero, eventually. I'm saying I hated the fact that after 34 years of wanting to see badass, full-fledged Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker on the big screen, even in just a supporting role... I am instead given 150 minutes of mopey emo brooding chicken Luke sucking on tit milk and flashing back to wanting to murder his young nephew in his sleep merely because he smelled a whiff of dark side on him - and then I am given 2 minutes of heroism, before Luke's bumped off for good. I know you and others in this thread enjoyed that. Not me.
For all that were shocked and disgusted by that Luke scene... I have terrible news about where the milk you buy in the store for your coffee and cereal comes from. ;)
For all that were shocked and disgusted by that Luke scene... I have terrible news about where the milk you buy in the store for your coffee and cereal comes from. ;)
For all that were shocked and disgusted by that Luke scene... I have terrible news about where the milk you buy in the store for your coffee and cereal comes from. ;)
Cowardly almonds? :joy:
Well, I suppose those already avoiding lactose are excused. :)
I also disagree with both Obi-Wan & Yoda not going into hiding following failures. I’d buy that more without watching Episode III. How Ben reacted to his battle with Anakin & Yoda’s battle with Palpatine illustrated to me both failed, leading to what happened next. Sure both went into hiding because of the Jedi genocide, but there was failure too.
Kenobi didn't go into hiding on Tatooine because of its chicken-friendly inhabitants and great brooding weather. He was there to watch over Luke. He was biding his time while still planning to overthrow Palpatine/Vader, using Luke. Go back and rewatch the end of Episode III, that closing scene at the table with Yoda, Kenobi and Bail Organa. Kenobi says they've got to hide baby Luke/Leia someplace where the Sith wouldn't be able to sense their presence. Organa offers to raise Leia on Alderaan. Then Yoda orders Kenobi to take Luke to Tatooine, to be with his father's family. Kenobi agrees, says he'll watch over him. Yoda then affirms: "Until the time is right... disappear, we will." While Kenobi and Yoda may voice regret or even shame for what's happened, I don't for a minute buy that that's why they go to live like hermits following Episode III - unlike Luke in this new movie.
I read your posts as wanting someone like Superman; always doing the right thing with no flaws.
Not true at all. Heroes can and do make mistakes, and can have flaws too. A difference between heroes and antiheroes is that heroes don't let their mistakes and flaws shake their belief in higher laws or forces; while antiheroes mostly believe in themselves, seeing the universe more existentially.
I'm not saying the Luke of "The Last Jedi" doesn't show himself to be a hero, eventually. I'm saying I hated the fact that after 34 years of wanting to see badass, full-fledged Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker on the big screen, even in just a supporting role... I am instead given 150 minutes of mopey emo brooding chicken Luke sucking on tit milk and flashing back to wanting to murder his young nephew in his sleep merely because he smelled a whiff of dark side on him - and then I am given 2 minutes of heroism, before Luke's bumped off for good. I know you and others in this thread enjoyed that. Not me.
I’m not convinced how Obi-Wan “looked after Luke” didn’t reflect his failure with Anakin.
So, if a hero (not antihero) becomes disenfranchised with his/her role because the person’s beliefs were shaken, then you have an issue with it?
I really didn’t expect Luke to be anymore active Ben was in ANH. I think his intent to kill Ben Solo made sense. No wonder he became disenfranchised with the Force.
My intent was never to change your opinion on the movie.
I’m not convinced how Obi-Wan “looked after Luke” didn’t reflect his failure with Anakin.
I'm not denying that Kenobi felt deep regret for what happened to Anakin, I'm merely saying his guilt and shame is not what pushed him into hiding and living as a hermit - as it did with Luke in "The Last Jedi." Kenobi is on Tatooine for constructive purposes; he is there to watch over Luke and, eventually, bring him to his destiny. Luke is on Chicken Island (or wtf it's called) for destructive purposes; he wants the Jedi to be snuffed out, and wants his role as brother/friend/leader dissolved.
So, if a hero (not antihero) becomes disenfranchised with his/her role because the person’s beliefs were shaken, then you have an issue with it?
If the hero is Luke Skywalker - and if the story is Star Wars, and not "The Wrestler," or any other cinema verité actor-vehicle stressing cold ugly truths about our bleak existence which we see every day - and if this is the hero's final adventure, after waiting 34 years to see him again? - then yeah, you bet I want to see more than 2 minutes of my space hero at the end of a movie where you then kill him. I'm not against seeing my heroes shaken or wracked with doubt, that's drama. But I am against it when that takes up the entire story of the final, long-awaited chapter of one of the last enduring movie heroes we had left.
I really didn’t expect Luke to be anymore active Ben was in ANH.
Unless you're young enough to have first experienced the saga in episode order, then when you saw ANH, you were not nearly as invested in Kenobi as you are with Luke in TLJ. I didn't resent seeing comparatively little of Kenobi in ANH, or that he dies; I'd just met him.
I think his intent to kill Ben Solo made sense. No wonder he became disenfranchised with the Force.
In ROTJ, Luke risks his own life moving heaven and earth to try to redeem his father - who by then is responsible for the murder of millions - because Luke can sense the good within him, even still. We're supposed to believe that a mere 15 years later (in Star Wars time), an even stronger and more mature Luke happens to smell some dark side on his otherwise innocent teenaged nephew, and so decides he must murder the boy in his sleep?? Then, when that shit hits the fan, we're supposed to believe Luke didn't even take responsibility for this - that he just gave up and retreated to Chicken Island - knowing said nephew quite possibly would stalk and kill Luke's family and friends, let alone try to subjugate trillions of innocents across the galaxy under Snoke's instructions?? I'm sorry, this might be believable story for loner characters like Shane or Rick Deckard or Frank Castle. But Luke wasn't a loner. He had a big family of humans, aliens and even droids he cared about, took responsibility for, and led. I wish Rian Johnson had tried harder to come up with a story which tracked with that. But antiheroes and characters with feet of clay are much easier to write; you just have to look to your right or left. Heroes take work.
My intent was never to change your opinion on the movie.
Just playing to the audience, then? :joy: I understand though. At the end of the day, whether we enjoyed a movie or didn't, there's usually not much anyone can say to change our minds. I'm just extremely passionate about Star Wars (or was), so I need places like this where I can write my thoughts out. Thanks for helping me with that
I think it's kindve funny that Luke runs away because he considered killing Ben. Then finally comes back because he realizes he needs to kill Ben? But yet he comes back in a way that he's essentially incapable of killing Ben? And dies. Kindve like how in civil war tony stark was so guilt ridden over unintentionally causing the death of an innocent teenage boy that his response is to snatch up an innocent teenage boy (Peter Parker powers or not) and intentionally thrust him directly into harms way lol.
I think it's kindve funny that Luke runs away because he considered killing Ben. Then finally comes back because he realizes he needs to kill Ben? But yet he comes back in a way that he's essentially incapable of killing Ben? And dies. Kindve like how in civil war tony stark was so guilt ridden over unintentionally causing the death of an innocent teenage boy that his response is to snatch up an innocent teenage boy (Peter Parker powers or not) and intentionally thrust him directly into harms way lol.
I think that’s a simplified interpretation of what happened in Civil War. Parker was used for the show in numbers rather then force. That’s why Tony told Parker to keep his distance.
At that point, Tony knows Wilson & Barnes are with Cap; only 1 of those 3 has actual superpowers. Wanda, Lang, & Barton were revealed to Tony at that point. This was an apprehension mission with former allies, not to take on Loki or Ultron.
I don’t really think so. If he’s so wracked with guilt that he’s willing to go to war with friends to relieve himself of responsibility for disastrous consequences of combat, plus having just learned that very lesson the hard way. Not mention he’s certainly well aware of the horrors and uncertainties of combat. Yeah he can be reasonably confident his opponents will exercise restraint, but shit happens... look at Rhodes.
Comments
That said, it would be just as easy for a fan to sincerely start something like that, it also costs them nothing and gets them attention, if that is what they feel.
And it is also easy to ignore them.
Here's a weird story, take from it what you will: I saw "Thor: Ragnarok" at a special WGA screening on opening weekend here in L.A., and just as the film started, a woman in a business suit sat right down next to me. It was odd, because the five seats between me and the aisle were all empty - yet she chose to be right there. Then, all throughout the film from joke #1 onward, this woman laughed out loud *at every single light moment* (almost like DeNiro in "Cape Fear" lol). And about five minutes before the film's end, the woman abruptly gets up and exits. I'd never before seen evidence of what's referred to as "audience plants" - people sent by the studio to its premieres to try to bolster an audience's positive response to the film - but that experience made me believe that's exactly what happened.
I’m on the fence about what I think of the movie. I didn’t care for some of political undertones, but I believe it really only became apparent to me because of an article I read stating such.
I thought the story was interesting. I wasn’t sure what I thought about Luke’s death when I read it. Having seen it, I liked it. I liked that he did exactly what he asked Rey what she expected from him; “stand alone in front of the Empirial Army with a laser sword.” I also like his last words to Ben; “I’ll be seeing you, kid.”
It was interesting to see when it looked like everything was over, Luke told Ben it was just the beginning.
The tone wasn’t something I favored. It reminded me too much of the prequel trilogy. I thought the origins of Snoke & who Rey’s parents are were intriguing, so to essentially dismiss them was a let down. It seemed like they couldn’t think of anything clever for him. I predict a significant time jump to Episode 9, so by that point, Snoke won’t matter.
I can foresee instead of being related, Ben & Rey wind up a couple. That’s how they bring balance to the Force.
I read an article about the great pains they went through to film this. The huge animatronic creatures were built at Pinewood studios to exacting specifications, and shipped to the island, at great expense and reassembled on the cliffside. They felt it was important that Hammil would be able to milk them naturally, using no CGI.
What the hell.
I get respecting the chain of command, but would a bit of info from Rose really have been a bad thing. It would have made the Casino plan unneeded. And in fact, the Casino plan made things worse.
I really dont think there's anything to add with Rey's parents. She's Rando Rey.
Tell that to fans of the Yuhzan Vong War/Expanded Universe books :p
I never read that other war. It was on my list to go through all those books.... but now I don't need to.
That instead of telling us that our #1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise had even an ounce of spine... that no... he just gave up. In flashback. And that we're supposed to accept a few seconds of Jedi badassery at the end of this movie to make up for ALL of that unbelievable, unwanted characterization - just before Ryan Johnson then decides to kill off our #1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise - even though this "Skywalker Saga" still has one movie left - and even though we just witnessed the painful death of beloved legacy character Han Solo one movie ago - and even though we are still accepting the painful death of beloved legacy actress Carrie Fisher - and even though we are insulted at how badly our beloved legacy characters of R2-D2, C-3PO and Chewbacca are virtually ignored in this trilogy - that Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy and whoever else is in charge of the Star Wars franchise would think (even for a second) that going that extra mile and killing off Luke Skywalker, too - right here - would be a good idea??
Horrendous does not begin to define what I am feeling about this.
Even if the Canto Bight and slowspeed space chase subplots hadn't been crappy, and even if this film's "new" take on The Force itself hadn't sounded so muddled and ugly, this decision - this ill-timed, ill-conceived snuffing out of the most important hero in modern cinema - was beyond distasteful for me.
Is it proven or assumed if you’re a fan, then Luke is “your number 1 hero”?
It’s not too much of a stretch to see Luke become disenfranchised by this point. First, it sounds like he bought into his own “legend.” Something Rocky Balboa experienced in Rocky III. Or even Ronda Rousey by the time she lost her first fight.
We’ve also seen this in other stories; by TDKR, Bruce was just waiting to die. Same with Wolverine in Logan. At some point, being “THE guy” weighs on a person.
I never expected Luke to show off his lightsaber dueling prowess. If I did, then I’d feel like a Jedi is about fighting “and moving rocks.” The tit milk scene kinda of reminded me of when we first saw Yoda on Dagobah. Granted he didn’t do anything seemingly disgusting, but felt offputting at first.
It felt like in order for the Resistence to have A New Hope, Luke had to save the day one last time. And it’s through his failure as a teacher that Rey will become the next generation.
As for Luke needing to be your or my personal #1 hero, that's not what I meant. I said "#1 movie hero from our #1 movie franchise" - as in, the heroic character at the center of modern cinema's top money-making franchise (ticket sales, toys, games, books, merch, etc.) - as in, a character too important to our culture to have been treated like this. Luke Skywalker had a lot of story mojo left in him, certainly enough to have driven him through this movie and into the next before letting him die. Instead, we got the stale Hollywood chestnut of "broken old has-been makes good one last time."
Yoda even commented on learning more from failures then successes (side bar: that’s why I hate this “everyone gets a trophy” idea).
And I believe whether it’s a sports figure, hero, antihero, or a dude who works in a cubicle, there’s a burden in any role. If you feel like it’s overshadowed you, getting burnt out by it is natural.
I have to admit, I’m on the fence about what I thought about the movie. I do like Luke’s story, though. I’m not convinced I’d like the version you’re suggesting. It’d feel too fake.
I’m one of those people who had issues with TFA being essentially ANH. I’d say parallels between Luke & Obi-Wan isn’t the same thing. There were parallels with characters in the prequel series & I don’t recall people claiming they were replicant movies.
Would Qui-Gon be an antihero? He didn’t exactly follow the rules.
I also disagree with both Obi-Wan & Yoda not going into hiding following failures. I’d buy that more without watching Episode III. How Ben reacted to his battle with Anakin & Yoda’s battle with Palpatine illustrated to me both failed, leading to what happened next. Sure both went into hiding because of the Jedi genocide, but there was failure too.
“Ghost of a Muppet” seems similar to a hologram message of one of Anakin’s kids.
I read your posts as wanting someone like Superman; always doing the right thing with no flaws. I’ve never bought that idea. I do prefer antiheroes & reluctant heroes. I prefer to see a person with flaws, who ultimately overcomes those flaws & setbacks and can still do what he/she has to to win the day. I don’t see Luke anymore or less a hero then I did before just because he lost his way from a failure.
A Luke that was kickass the whole time would, for me, have felt more like fan service than having a Luke who still had a story to experience and room to grow and learn (as well as teach). It worked for me. And, as @chrisl mentioned, Hamill acts the hell out of it.
I'm not saying the Luke of "The Last Jedi" doesn't show himself to be a hero, eventually. I'm saying I hated the fact that after 34 years of wanting to see badass, full-fledged Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker on the big screen, even in just a supporting role... I am instead given 150 minutes of mopey emo brooding chicken Luke sucking on tit milk and flashing back to wanting to murder his young nephew in his sleep merely because he smelled a whiff of dark side on him - and then I am given 2 minutes of heroism, before Luke's bumped off for good. I know you and others in this thread enjoyed that. Not me.
So, if a hero (not antihero) becomes disenfranchised with his/her role because the person’s beliefs were shaken, then you have an issue with it?
I really didn’t expect Luke to be anymore active Ben was in ANH. I think his intent to kill Ben Solo made sense. No wonder he became disenfranchised with the Force.
My intent was never to change your opinion on the movie.
At that point, Tony knows Wilson & Barnes are with Cap; only 1 of those 3 has actual superpowers. Wanda, Lang, & Barton were revealed to Tony at that point. This was an apprehension mission with former allies, not to take on Loki or Ultron.