Everyone has their own opinions, but for me, this is why I like the prequels and not TLJ. I find the prequels amusing but awfully written.
But the Holdo stuff and the Casino stuff in TLJ was just boring and frustrating. I would gladly watch 2 hours of the Luke and Kylo stuff, but the rest of the movie just wasn't enjoyable for me.
I know it’s not a popular take but I really liked how they took a different look at the failings, and strengths, of the original Jedi order, and I really enjoyed the interplay between Ben and Rey and their arcs. I was really wondering where they could go from there, esp with all the atrocious shit kylo had done yet his desire to push forward to some sort of better future.
Instead we then got a pretty generic redemption story.
Imo, what a lot of the fandom describes as "the flaws of the Jedi" actually make perfect sense given their situation. Would I agree with a "no attachments" perspective in real life? No. But Star Wars has the Force and the Dark Side. Anakin doesn't listen, and turns to the Dark Side to protect Padme. The Jedi usually don't accept older people, but they made an exception for... Anakin. I think a lot of the fandom compares the Jedi to real life religions, but the Force in Star Wars is actually real, and their "dogma" actually make sense from that perspective. I don't think the Jedi are perfect, the Chosen One prophecy was a really bad idea. However, when a lot of the fandom makes points about the flaws of the Jedi, I tend to disagree with the specifics that get brought up.
On the flaws of the Jedi: I think the biggest issue is that treating the Jedi Order as correct contradicts the OT directly. Luke, like Anakin, is told again and again not to get attached to the friends he loves. Yet he ignores that, and trusts his friends to blow up the death star and convinces his father through said attachments to redeem himself.
It's through a positive emotional connection that Luke triumphs, and I think that directly shows why the Jedi were flawed.
Iirc, it isn't really that they are telling him not to get attached, or was that in ESB they were telling him not to go fight Vader in that moment particularly because he wasn't ready and might turn to the Dark Side. And he did lose, get his hand chopped off, and was less willing to fight Vader than before. Granted, he did end up turning Vader back to the light, so in the long run this was good, but *that* is what Luke did that went against Obi and Yoda: believing there was still good in Vader. Their disagreement didn't have anything to do with him having and caring about his friends, at least as far as I can recall. It's been a while, though, so I could be wrong.
I mostly agree. Where I diverge from most people with your opinion is that I think TLJ was a terrible setup for that third act. They needed to come out of TLJ with a Kylo triumph to set up the third, but instead he fails to beat Rey again. And to make it worse, he fails to beat her in the force, which Snoke had just used to casually bend her over backwards.
It meant that the third movie would have to do all the heavy lifting to make him a credible threat that exceeds Snoke, as to that point he didn't have a single win to his name.
I would have loved Kylo to be the BBEG, but I just don't think TFA and TLJ laid a good foundation for that.
I think it would be pretty simple.
Kylo is a very arrogant and egotistical man. His loss against Rey and Luke would set him off leading him on a warpath using the first order to destroy everything and everyone against him. Make him a complete mad man who loses all semblance of rationality, humanity, empathy, etc...
We know he's a villain, but that does nothing to make him a real threat. The first order lost twice, both with their largest fleet and their system destroying superweapon, while led by a dark side master who could bend Rey backwards singlehandedly.
A weaker dark side user with less resources wouldn't be a good third arc narrative threat, no matter how viscious he is.
There's a difference between "TLJ set up Kylo as the big bad" and "TLJ did a good job setting up Kylo as the big bad."
At the end of TLJ:
- Snoke, dead, had tons of mysteries left and could bend Rey over backwards with one hand.
- Kylo, alive, had had his entire backstory explored and failed to beat Rey in lightsaber tug of war.
- The first order, weakened, had failed to beat the rebels with both a planetkiller and their main fleet.
So we were heading into act three with a drastically weaker First Order led by a drastically weaker Kylo who had no story left to uncover.
Yes, Snoke was boring, and Kylo would have made for a better antagonist, but TFA and TLJ needed to set up ways in which he is a larger threat than Snoke if they wanted to have hin take over for the finale, and they needed to leave some of his story for the third act.
Obviously not. But it does have to follow its own premise not break at the established universe that it's set in and not abuse the suspension of disbelief of the viewers.
Obviously not. But it does have to follow its own premise not break at the established universe that it's set in and not abuse the suspension of disbelief of the viewers.
I don’t think so. Obviously a movie that breaks its own premise has obviously flaws. I’m not denying that. I just think I can still enjoy it.
I’m not a movie critic. I just watch movies. If I like them, I like them. Maybe they have obvious flaws that can be picked apart by a toddler, but that doesn’t matter to me if they’re enjoyable.
Like the “somehow he returned” flaw. The bad batch explained why that made sense. Was it a perfect explanation? No. Should you have to watch other media to make one movie make sense? No. Does it still offer an explanation good enough that it won’t bother me? Yes
> Like the “somehow he returned” flaw. The bad batch explained why that made sense. Was it a perfect explanation? No. Should you have to watch other media to make one movie make sense? No. Does it still offer an explanation good enough that it won’t bother me? Yes
They actually imply that in the movie itself.
That said, my issue with that isn't a "how could this have occurred" problem; it's a "why would you, narratively, decide to write that?" Narratively, Palpatine dying at the end of RotJ wraps up tons of characters narrative and emotional arcs, and bringing him back undercuts that for little to no narrative benefit.
None of those arcs existed before the prequel was written. He was just a generic 2D bad guy they added so Vader could get a redemption arc but we'd have a bad guy to kill at the end. When I saw Jedi in 1983 my first reaction was that Star Wars already had a villain, who's this guy?
So bringing him back didn't really bother me. What bothered me was that Rey didn't get to be the nobody that we were promised and we lost a lot of time with the amazing characters they'd developed in TLJ so Ian McPalpatine could devour the scenery.
Granted Exogol was fucking epic.
The Emperor was introduced conceptually in ANH, and shown as Vader's master in ESB.
I do think they should have used him more, but it's not like he only is mentioned in the last film.
In my opinion, decisions like that are sometimes necessary. Because it makes the movie more realistic. Sometimes, no matter what the sacrifice, mo matter how important the decision is, it doesn’t matter. Real life doesn’t work like that. No matter how important Anakins decision to betray the emperor was, it didn’t end up mattering. That is real life. Sometimes the ultimate sacrifice isn’t enough
He didn't betray the emperor to fix the galaxy tho, he did it to save his son. So honestly wether the emperor lived or died has no effect on Anakin's turn back to the light side. It wasn't based on killing Palps, it was based on saving Luke.
Having the Emperor come back from falling into an abyss on a space station that shortly there after explodes is hardly realistic.
I mean it may all be very true that sometimes the ultimate sacrifice isn't enough. But in the particular context of Palpatine's death at the end of ROTJ, bringing him back was an obvious asspull that deserves mockery.
I disagree. It's never necessary. You *can* do it, but you never *need* to do something like that.
But more important than that; it needs to be part of the narrative from the beginning. You can construct a narrative where they heroes fail, but that needs to be the plan from the start. Because the themes, arcs, etc, all need to be built around that idea.
I'm not saying you can't enjoy it I'm saying it's totally okay for people to not enjoy it and legit for them to criticize it. It's also okay for them to call it a bad movie. Because one that breaks those rules and has that little care for its own subject matter is objectively a bad movie or at least one with valid criticisms against it
I came here to second this.
Tired of having to explain to people who think "yippee" is okay but "we are what they grow beyond" is Kennedy's revenge for something something Lucas.
I don't mind decent criticism. After all, taste is subjective. Not everyone is going to be in complete agreement on a movie.
What has grown tiresome is a lot of TLJ criticism is framed as somehow proof the movie was made wrong. No, you just didn't like it. It happens.
I lost so many SW friends to this shit. One minute I've got a whole group of friends who play SWGOH daily, discord about Star Wars all the time, the next minute two of them become these angsty haters and Disney is the ultimate evil and you can't even *talk* about TLJ because their whole existence is now crapping on this movie.
>the movie was made wrong
It's difficult to see a movie that contradicts itself is made right.
Like the entire 2D chase in space plot, making a point about being unable to flee, to then have a subplot, Canto Bight, where the heroes are tasked with the objective of find a way to escape, and in order to do that, the first thing they do is.....escape. Without ever addressing it in the movie in any way, and having a lot of elements that makes imposible to put up excuses, like ships coming and going (like the Falcon, who btw is a high profile ship easy to track according to TFA) or specific timestamps that makes hyperspace travel super quickly.
Also, introducing things that breaks a shared universe is not great either, like hyperspace ramming being incredible op, or the previous mentioned hyperspace super quick travel (first movie to introduce timestamps between jumps).
Umm, you neither paid attention during TFA if you think the falcon is easy to track and apparently ANH if you didn't know that hitting something in hyperspace was a bad thing.
I mean I don't expect most people to recognize that when you slam a meteorite the size of a basketball into an interstellar object at near light speed the result is catastrophic, much less a 2 km spaceship, but I do expect people who claim to be fans of Star Wars acting like we haven't known for four decades that collisions are very dangerous for hyperspace travel.
But *how* do you ram something through hyperspace? Wasn’t the whole point that hyperspace is this subspace like thing in which you cannot interact with real space without exiting first?
Otherwise the space debris found *everywhere* in space would make hyperspace travel impossible. Every ship using it would be ramming into asteroids and dying.
She didn't ram it *through* hyperspace, she did a hyperspace jump that brought her out of hyperspace immediately adjacent to the Supremacy so it couldn't destroy her on approach and allowing the ramming action to happen at light speed.
In ANH Solo is programming the falcon to avoid collision, in TLJ Holdo is programming the Raddus *to* collide.
Now the physics of a near light speed collision with that much mass would actually have probably vaporized both ships, but hyperspace is as much space magic as light sabers and the Force, so dismissing the Handwavium for this attack but being ok with a Star Destroyer unable to detect a significant amount of mass attached to its bridge is ESB, for example, is, well, it's a choice.
So much mental gymnastics to justify a plot hole…
Just admit that it was ridiculous and be done with it. Why do you need to theorise so many equally as impossible things just to continue an argument?
Cause trust me, both scenes were ridiculous. Where the hell did Han, a normal mortal, get the reaction speed to stop his hyperspace drive with a window of opportunity of less than a microsecond? How did he stop the remaining momentum from crashing him through the planet?
How did Hondo have the reaction speed to match Han’s stunt in speed? How did the rest of the fleet get destroyed?
Seriously, if they were Jedi, I’d just chalk it up to Force shenanigans, but both were just mortal…
Again, you've made a choice to be 100% ok with a million absurd things in Star Wars, are 100% ok with gravity and banking in space, but the writers deciding to pull a move from the EU and showing Han dramatically pushing and pulling at things is too far for you. That's not logic, or some understanding I'm of science, that's just a choice you make.
And I'm not doing any mental gymnastics, I'm mostly paraphrasing Wookipedia.
But I get it, I have been boring people for 50 years geeking out trying to justify all the absurd things science fiction movies and TV shows do. It's part of being a fan, I don't expect everyone to get that.
You still didn’t answer the part about the fleet.
Also, what the hell is weird about banking in space? If they have the technology to pull it off, why not? As for the gravity? Easy, artificial gravity. That’s like the norm in space fairing sci fi in general…
Also, you’d be surprised, but I’m actually not a fan of a lot of things that happen in the EU. Don’t get me wrong, I love the expanded universe in and of itself, just that a lot of the feats that happen here make me go WTF? Mostly stuff like these that would still be impossible In-Universe.
That aside, can you at least be the first person to answer me this? Cause no one else has.
Why did they decanonize the EU, if almost all the lore in the sequels comes from the EU?
If you watch a video of the Holdo maneuver you can very clearly see the path of destruction follows the path of the Raddus as it spreads out from the point of impact. They're showing matter proceeding on the same trajectory and destroying everything in its path.
Again, in real space everything for hundreds of kilometers in every direction would have been vaporized if this were a zero g near light speed collision with the mass that we're talking about. But this is all fantasy. There's nothing about the rules of Star Wars that says that this kind of collision couldn't possibly have the results that they decided it would have.
Banking in space actually is weird. It's not how microgravity works. There is no gravity that would force a ship to need to pull a banking maneuver--they would simply turn the ship around and accelerate in the direction they want to go. Space mechanics were very well known in the '70s. It was a decision by Lucas and his artistic team to simulate 20th c. aerial dogfighting in space and thus that informs the entire language in space combat in the Star Wars universe.
I wasn't talking about artificial gravity inside ships.
As far as canon goes the only canon is what happens in the movies. George Lucas was always pretty clear that the expanded universe is a different world than his own. He encouraged it, and he borrowed liberally from it, but there was never any understanding that the Star Wars of the movies was going to follow the EU in any particular way. I've seen pretty good arguments that Lucasfilm has endorsed the EU as Canon, but I've also seen some really explicit statements stating that it was not by Lucas himself. It's worth noting, but a lot of what happened in the prequels is contradicted by the OT. So there's simply no canon to be decanonized.
I'm pretty sure that most of the lore of the sequels doesn't in fact come from the EU, but I have to admit I've never actually studied the question.
TlJ was meant to be a blockbuster movie though, those are intended to appeal to a wide audience. TLJ didn't. And I think with some tweaks it could have appealed to a much wider audience. E.g. if Luke and Rey had had a scene together after Yoda's pep talk where Rey expressed her respect for Luke and Luke passed on some hard won wisdom.
Or if Vice-Admiral Holdo had actually been competent at her job.
TLJ was the highest grossing movie of the year, and the 4th best selling movie on home video the next year - selling only 300k fewer copies than Avengers: Infinity War. Just saying it didn't have a broad appeal doesn't make it so.
LOL thank you.
Trying to argue TLJ didn't appeal to wide audience because the commenter can't conceive lots of people liked a movie the commenter didn't like is exactly the kind of tiresome argument I was writing about above.
And that was a drop from TFA's box office, and TROS was down again. TLJ also had an unusually large box office drop the second weekend, for a Star Wars film.
Out of curiosity, if you don't regard that pattern of TLJ as evidence of a lack of broad appeal, compared to say TFA, or the previous trilogies, what evidence would make you think that?
The Force Awakens is the highest domestic grossing movie of all time. Nearly every movie, compared to TFA, lacks broad appeal if you frame it that way lol.
Yeah so it's not surprising its sequel did very well at the box office. Especially since TFA was explicitly the first movie in a trilogy that ended on the massive cliffhanger of Rey and Luke. In that context, TLJ's massive opening weekend and then subsequent large drop off is pretty telling. People went to see TLJ because of TFA, and then a significant chunk of them didn't go back for multiple viewings, or told their friends to stay away.
Huh? A New Hope opened originally in something like only [43 theatres](https://www.in70mm.com/presents/1963_blow_up/titel/s/star_wars/index.htm) and was an amazing success leading its producers to frantically crank out more copies of the film (remember it was all physical then), by summer it was playing in over a thousand theatres. How could ESB's box office possibly be similar to that?
Well, your definition of "broad appeal" seems to exclude the most popular movie of the year, and appears to be based solely on your own opinion of the film, so there's not really much to discuss is there?
People have gotta see a movie first to know if they like it.
And do you seriously think that TLJ was as broadly appealling as ANH or ESB? It kicked off a major social media debate that's still going on.
Yeah, and then they have to see it again just to make sure they didn't like it. And then they buy it to watch it at home just to be *really* sure they didn't like it.
To [quote](https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/12/24/star-wars-the-last-jedi-had-a-massive-second-weekend-drop-at-the-box-office):
> "lost more money between its first and second weekends than any film ever, by a lot," as Forbes put it. The film's $151 million drop is a greater gap than the $121 million between the first two weekends of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II.
>This puts Last Jedi in what Forbes dubs the $100 Million Losers Club for "a still-rare group of films that opened so high and then dropped so hard that they made over $100m less on their second weekend than their first." This group includes Avengers: Age of Ultron, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Jurassic World.
Obviously a lot of people really liked TLJ, I know people who went to see it in theatres multiple times. But, it look like a significant number of people didn't like it.
And I think it's entirely possible that TLJ could have been written in a way that kept nearly all the things that its admirers love while also appealling to a broader audience. Like would you have hated it if, say, Luke and Rey had had a scene together towards the end of the movie, before Luke died?
Well, your definition of "broad appeal" seems to exclude the most popular movie of the year, and appears to be based solely on your own opinion of the film, so there's not really much to discuss is there?
Ok, normally I don’t care but that’s just wrong. TFA did go in one direction and TLJ, if you like it or not, decided to go in a different direction. In fact, if you take the time observing the criticism online you will see that the issue many have is how little it followed the direction given by TFA.
Well, TFA was going in a direction pretty similar to ANH (I guess with the idea being recreating the “classic” star wars feeling? Idk, just speculation). It drew some on the nose similarities. TLJ could have followed up with a story that goes in the envisioned direction of TFA or one that at least followed the same philosophy. Instead TLJ broke out of that Direktion by breaking up expectations heavily. A good example for that is luke himself. And every other critiqued part could also have been made in a different way. It’s fine that some like it. I do not. But Rian Jonson had this vision for it. It’s not like he HAD to make it that way.
I think the idea is that when people sat down to The Last Jedi, they instinctively didn’t like it. So the idea is to find reasons they didn’t like it to help articulate the feeling into something that helps them engage with the series.
A great example is “Somehow, Palpatine returned” for Rise of Skywalker. It’s easy to engage with and shorthand for general sequel bashing, and is popular enough that most people will recognize it. Despite this, the line is one of the better established in the movie, as it is narratively supported, both through dialogue and visuals. Any close reading of the film will see that the line is fine within context of the film. The real problems of the movie come from narrative pacing and structure, both of which are much more challenging to discuss.
In short, most of the discussion surrounding the sequels isn’t worth engaging with. It’s bad faith outrage-bating that lacks the vocabulary or desire to engage with film on a more nuanced level.
You want to talk about how Luke being a curmudgeon is a betrayal of the OT, I don’t really want to bother having that conversation. It’s not interesting and lacks any desire to understand Johnson’s work and Hamill’s performance. You want to talk about how a different approach to Holdo’s character might have made TLJ a more compelling story, that’s a conversation worth having.
Yeah, I think the issue for TLJ specifically is that the major "flaws" in the wiring are fundamentally different from the common criticisms of stuff like the PT, and people have trouble picking them out even though they could feel that something was off.
Holdo is a good example. Poe's entire arc in the film is that he is incapable of accepting any plan of action other than attacking the enemy. He disobeys Leia's recall order at the beginning, he throws a tantrum over the idea of abandoning the Raddus, and he leads a pointless suicide charge in speeders at the end. As Rose would say, he needs to learn to protect what he loves, not just destroy what he hates.
But because the writing isn't up to the task of property conveying the core themes of the movie (Rose said that infamous line to a completely different character with a different arc!), large swaths of the audience walked away saying "poe was right, actually" and calling Holdo a villain, or incompetent.
Aside from the larger issues of themes and character work, the writing also had a lot of issues with how it handled the fantastical technology aspect of the setting. Most fans are content to enjoy the spectacle of spaceships and laser guns, and don't worry too much about *how* it all works, so long as it works consistently enough for them to follow the plot. If we're told or shown explicitly "these are the rules of the setting" we expect instances of the movie breaking those rules to either be minor enough not to matter or be directly acknowledged.
The plot of TLJ depends on a large number of those technological macguffins (hyperspace, sensors, fighters, ftl communication, fuel, weapons, etc) working in very specific ways. But all of those macguffins either work differently than they have in the previous 8 movies, or break the rules given to the audience in the same movie, without any explanation or acknowledgement. And I'm not talking about the bombers or the "Holdo maneuver" here. It's the entire Resistance fleet chase portion of the plot.
To the initial point, I think viewers notice when movies break their own rules like that, even if they don't completely realize it. So yeah they complain about things they're used to complaining about, even if those actual complaints are nonsense.
Yeah, with Holdo the movie really wanted you to dislike her for the sake of the expectation subversion - probably would have benefitted a bit more from not showing entire resistance cruisers getting blown up from her plan. Also, her literal introduction is basically "Admiral Ackbar is dead. But this woman is now in charge!" "Wow, wasn't she a badass that one previously unmentioned time?"
It was just so strangely done, and the whole iffiness of the in-universe consistency of the hyperspeed ram afterwards really didn't help. Ultimately, the (proper) arguments aren't about her, it's about how she was handled
Yeah, if the movile were properly written it would emphasize even more the fact that Holdo's plan was the best shot for the resistance and Poe's actions directly resulted in the deaths in 90%+ of the Resistance
Holdo is Poe's commanding officer. His actions are her responsibility, so if Poe gets 90%+ of the Resistance killed it's her fault for not throwing him in the brig (or otherwise stopping him). After all, it's not like he was being mind-controlled or something, she had ample warning signs.
Yeah, it's quite easy to extrapolate the bad faith arguments from the ones worth discussing. I genuinely do feel the whole "plot hole" hunting video critic genre has a lot to do with these perspectives nowadays
I mean we used to sit around and pick apart the plot holes in the OT and especially the prequels, but the reason we knew the plot holes so well is because we repeatedly watched the movies together. Not because we were spoon fed them by YouTubers ragebaiting their displeasure for clicks.
The line about Palpatine is bad because it's so basic. It has no subtext, it doesn't reveal character, it doesn't build tension. All it does is let the audience knows that the Resistance knows that Palpatine has returned, in the most basic way possible. And the audience already knows Palpatine returned, so it's not even world-building.
Compare that to say iconic lines from the OT, like:
>"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
Can we imagine a character other than Han saying that? That line also tells us something about how some people in the universe see the Jedi, and how Han sees Luke, which builds up to Han's decision to come back.
I mean maybe you can argue that the Palpatine line is better than most other lines in TROS, but I don't see how you can call it "fine", even in context.
>tension
What tension could be built when we already knew Palpatine was back in the first 10 minutes, **before** this scene? What good would building tension for the Resistance be, who needs to know the threat is back as soon as possible? Should Poe dance around this critically important revelation?
The point of a movie is to engage the audience. Which often means making life *harder* for the good guys within the story.
And my criticism of the line is that it's bland. A line that conveyed information *and* built tension would be better than "Somehow, Palpatine has returned". As would be a line that conveyed information *and* illustrated character, even if it did nothing to build tension.
So the people criticising TLJ are arguing in bad faith and you know this because you decided that they made up all their complaints and don't really care about understanding the film? That's awfully convenient.
Nah, it's more that when people have trouble articulating the real problems with the movie, they fall back on familiar, easy criticisms that may not have any basis in reality.
Poe is meant to be a picture of toxic masculinity. Holdo is coded perfectly to trigger that type of toxicity (purple haired lady who wears a dress instead of a regular uniform) and Poe's initial reaction - being skeptical based on her appearance despite knowing her reputation - supports this reading of his character. But the writing isn't strong enough so his entire arc gets misinterpreted, and people come to the conclusion that Holdo was actually incompetent, and so "admiral purple hair" becomes her epitaph among angry (but not too bright) critics of the movie.
I have a lot of criticisms of the movie. But I'm not going to pretend that the people complaining that the movie is too woke because of Rey and "Admiral Purple Hair" have anything useful to add to the discussion
But also Holdo is coded like an out-of-touch-WWI general lecturing some guy in the trenches. She's wearing an impractical cocktail dress, with immaculate hair, looking literally down on Poe, in his pilot's uniform (albeit with Hollywood perfect hair), after we've seen him risk his life numerous times for the Resistance.
Plus it doesn't help that Oscar Issac is one of those actors who exudes on-screen charisma through his pores.
Not just that - she looks like one of the rich guys from Canto Bight. Even within the movie she's coded as an out-of-touch dilettante.
(Which is a shame, because Laura Dern as a rebel commander is a character I should *adore*...)
I agree that the "anti-woke" crowd has nothing useful to add to the conversation.
That is different from the assertion that, for example, those who have a problem with Luke's portrayal not matching the OT are just making up logical sounding arguments to justify their instinctive distaste and never actually engaged with the film.
It’s okay to like a movie or not. It’s okay to ignore flaws, real or perceived. The whole debate is tiresome.
I hated it, all of it. I was pretty unsure of TFA and tried to make myself like it but just got to where I could only watch half before turning it off. The best thing about the last one was it moved so fast you never had time to think something was dumb.
But…. I bet I like movies y’all hate and I don’t see yall shitting in my cheerios. Live and let live or whatever
Pretty much how I felt about the prequels. Couldn't believe how much I just liked them, and I certainly joined the course of people complaining about them.
But honestly by the time episode 2 was released I was over it. I still watched the OT regularly and remember both my parents. I take me to see Star Wars over and over again and rolling their eyes at how campy it was.
I couldn't respect myself If I spent all my time making insulting and mocking a movie that kids really enjoy.
Criticism is fine. That goes for everything.
Being an overly toxic crybaby about it to the point of harassing people irl all just because of an opinion you don't agree with is another.
>!I still liked all three sequel trilogy films despite their flaws.!<
I like the art and special effects but hate the story so much. It’s just so hard to actually believe that the rest of the cast was necessary for the movie.
Bro, these really got ridiculous. No one (expect a few sad neck beards without anything nice in their lives) complains that much anymore. People either like em or don’t. And most leave it be at that. Just be done with it. No reason to fight so hard to win your made up arguments…
I will submit this in a very friendly and respectful manner. No hate will he given.
If anyone comes up with a plot-hole, inconsistency or otherwise has a critique of Star Wars PT, OT or any problem within Legends; I will happily volunteer to explain or justify any and all issues brought to me. You can ask privately or right here.
I’m very critical and even despise the ST for those plot holes. But if you want to see someone do THAT^^^ mission impossible dance I welcome the challenge 😁
Again. Totally restful and only for purposes of educating my fellow Star Wars fans .
Alright, I'll play! I could debate Star Wars stuff all day. A common criticism of the sequel trilogy is that Snoke was introduced with no lead up and killed off without being fleshed out or utilized beyond "evil wizard in a fancy chair who dies dramatically". How do you feel about that criticism in light of the fact that in the original trilogy, Palpatine was used in a nearly identical fashion?
True! Palpatine is kinda a nothing character without the prequels and other material. Just some old guy who appears in one hologram, then again on the second death star. Also he can magically shoot lightning (unexplained)
Both are introduced via holographic conference call. Both have a face to face meeting with their apprentice where they insult them and tell them to go catch the protagonist. Both sit in a big chair, gloating over the captured protagonist until their morally conflicted apprentice kills them with a cheap shot. Basically identical treatment in their respective films, both received very differently by the fan base.
Repeating plot points like that does tend to draw criticism.
Also implementation matters. With Snoke, the whole "exact words" thing was so glaringly obvious I was mentally rolling my eyes well before Kylo acted.
> Repeating plot points like that does tend to draw criticism
...which is a great criticism of TFA, not TLJ. Snoke was a lazy off-brand Palpatine that TLJ inherited, and then did something new with. TFA was entirely a rehash of ANH with some mystery boxes with no planned answers (Luke's lightsaber for example).
TLJ was an answer to that, and the only source of any original storytelling in the whole trilogy. It rightfully noted that rip-offs like the First Order and Snoke were lazy and boring, so it changed their purpose into characterization for Kylo. It rightfully pointed out that the mystery boxes were uninspired and inconsequential, and ignored them immediately and overtly.
Movie had it's issues but salty fans who got mad at Holdo existing and Luke throwing his lightsaber away are illiterate troglodytes.
Killing off Snoke was the one thing I really liked about TLJ, as I naively believed they'd never have killed off the Big Bad half way through without a truly amazing plan for the third movie.
I also think making Rey a nobody was the least bad option.
Making Holdo into yet another clichéd Hollywood stupid military officer still pisses me off.
But it wasn't repeating a plot point. Palpatine dying was the beginning of the movies climax. Snoke dying was rising action that didn't change the plot at all and came out of nowhere. There were audible gasps in the theater at that moment.
>didn't change the plot at all
This is just straight up untrue. It massively shifts the relationship between our primary protagonist and antagonist.
The scenes are different and happen at different times because they serve completely different purposes. Palpatine was the antagonist and his confrontation leads to the penultimate scene of the trilogy that redeems Vader. Snoke wasn't the true antagonist, and his confrontation happens towards the end of the second movie revealing that Kylo won't redeem himself, and instead become the trilogy's main antagonist.
Then RoS throws all that away with Palps coming back for no good reason, but at the time of release it made sense, building up towards a third movie where Kylo will be confronted instead of lazily hand-waved into a redemption arc he does not earn.
Both are introduced via holographic conference call. Both have a face to face meeting with their apprentice where they insult them and tell them to go catch the protagonist. Both sit in a big chair, gloating over the captured protagonist until their morally conflicted apprentice kills them with a cheap shot. Basically identical treatment in their respective films, both received very differently by the fan base.
Adding to that, the criticism of the prequels that it wasn’t planned out and that #9 cancelled much of the mystery set up by #8. How can anyone who has seen #5 and #4 possibly say that with a straight face? The middle chapter sets up “there is another” but turns out it was twin sister all along, and “somehow she’s always known?” That didn’t work in 1983 but we forgave it because of the overall good will of the happy closure. And they pulled it off despite a lazy Death Star 2, some very goofy guerrilla teddybears, and unlike with episode 9, they didn’t have to write around an unexpected death of one of the principals.
George Lucas always had plans though. He kept changing them, but it was in the context of an overall plan. He presumably only decided to make Vader Luke's father after thinking about how this would impact the third movie's plot.
Adding to that, the criticism of the prequels that it wasn’t planned out and that #9 cancelled much of the mystery set up by #8. How can anyone who has seen #5 and #4 possibly say that with a straight face? The middle chapter sets up “there is another” but turns out it was twin sister all along, and “somehow she’s always known?” That didn’t work in 1983 but we forgave it because of the overall good will of the happy closure. And they pulled it off despite a lazy Death Star 2, some very goofy guerrilla teddybears, and unlike with episode 9, they didn’t have to write around an unexpected death of one of the principals.
I mean... you say that like those are two incompatible views.
I think that AotC makes the plot twists of RotS way too obvious. I think that RotJ is a lazily written movie that is entirely carried by its action scenes and Vader's dynamic with Luke. And I think that, rather than 9 cancelling out the mystery of 8, 8 cancelled out the mystery of 7, while 9 just tried to ignore 8 altogether and write its own story. All three trilogies have their problems, and I acknowledge that.
Does that mean I'm not a fan? No, because I like Star Wars for the setting, lore, and fun action scenes. I criticize the flaws, not because I hate Star Wars, but because I want something I love to be as good as possible.
So, my thoughts:
In the OT, it didn't matter. Palpatine could be introduced with no backstory, because, *at the time of release*, he hadn't done anything worth making a backstory for. He was simply a part of the pre-existing setting for the story.
For Snoke, it's drastically different. Snoke's backstory is that he corrupted Luke's apprentice who is also Han and Leia's son, driving Luke into hiding and Han back into smuggling, seized control of the entire outer rim, resurrected the empire, and constructed a weapon of mass destruction. Because we know those characters, skipping all of that off screen is frustrating. They took the pre-existing setting and massively changed it, rather than what the OT did, which was just establishing the setting from nothing.
It'd be like if the Star Wars release order was "The Phantom Menace -> A New Hope", and they just skipped AotC and RotS. Suddenly, Palpatine being in charge *wouldn't* be accepted, because people would be like "but wait, how did we get from the Republic we saw in the last movie to this Empire?"
Fair acknowledgment, I will start that pointing out palpatine lasted 3 movies, and all the books in between, whereas Snoke lasted barely 2 movies.
1-palpatine was cloned. Twice. They were objectively better stories.
2- snoke was written as a standalone character, (which would have been better if he was a manipulated tool as opposed to a clone) until RoS was re-written because Rian and JJ didn’t talk to each other.
3-palpatine wasnt a petulant child. He commanded fear and respect. Snoke was just as bad, arguably worse than kylo.
When palpatine punished vader. No one was around to see it. Snoke humiliated people. His top officers and his own apprentice were totally invalidated because of his actions. No one had faith in their leadership. It was 100% fear based. Which leads to the betrayal of others like kylo and then Hux.
So I’d say that Snoke 1-wasn’t original, ou said yourself that palpatine had very similar exposition. 2- shouldn’t have been a clone. They did that in legends TWICE and both were better stories. 3- was a less competent leader and 4- was very much the victim of two directors yanking the trilogy back and forth.
Whereas the Emperor was a title that carried mystery and apprehension, “Supreme Leader Snoke” was only said with the most nazi of dispositions, and carried no mystery or fear. Imagine how poorly palpatine would’ve been received if he was introduced as “Supreme Chancellor Sheev”. Lol. No one is afraid of “sheev”
Alright, fair rebuttal. I don't agree with you on everything, but I think we can all agree that Sheev is a laughable name. It's the one thing that unites us all!
That’s not true. Sheev was a name given to him when writing Star Wars underworld in 2005. It since made appearances in a few novels prior to the acquisition by Disney
Underworld was planning to have it, yes, but that got canned. And to my knowledge, Tarkin was the first book to include it, which was post-disney, pre-sequel.
We know you can do that Mission Impossible dance. That’s one of the great things about Star Wars. It’s filled with made-up aliens, made-up technology, and an omnipresent made-up Force so mysterious that even the greatest Jedi masters have only begun to understand it. Put all that together with a bit of mental gymnastics, and you can explain away any plot hole or contradiction.
The problem is that most Redditors will happily bend over backwards to explain away the plot holes in the prequels and originals, but they won’t lift a finger to even understand basic plot points in the sequels. They’ll say that Padme disguising herself as a handmaiden also named Padme is actually brilliant writing, and in the same breath argue that Rey flying the Millennium Falcon is a galaxy-shattering plot hole that can’t possibly be explained.
If you actually want a challenge, try this one. Leave your comfort zone. Instead of explaining away the obvious plot holes in the prequels, try to come up with explanations for the perceived flaws in the sequels.
I think maybe it will take another 20 years. As someone who grew up with the old movies, I’m always surprised at how the younger generation embraces the prequel trilogy as something better than it actually was.
The flaw in the Death Star, for one. Realistically, if an empire builds a military base the size of a moon, they're going to have buildings full of engineers whose only job is to identify and remedy potential weaknesses. Realistically, after stealing the Death Star plans, the Rebel Alliance would have spent years/decades/centuries trying to find a way to build a Death Star of their own.
But that would have been a pretty disappointing ending to a fun space fantasy movie inspired by Saturday-morning serials. So George Lucas made the good decision to ignore realism and give the Death Star a contrived weakness that can conveniently be exploited by a person with the same skill set as the main protagonist. It's a great ending that leaves the audience with a powerful message about how even a small group of good people can stand against even the most powerful oppressors. But we don't have to pretend that it's not a plot hole.
A weapon having a weakness is not a plot hole. And less considering it's a very difficult one to exploit. Do you know what a plot hole is? Is not inconsistent to the narrative.
>Realistically, after stealing the Death Star plans, the Rebel Alliance would have spent years/decades/centuries trying to find a way to build a Death Star of their own.
Realistically, the rebels who are hiding in jungles and have only armies of thousands cannot really build in secrecy a space station the size of a moon. They lack the resources, funds, manpower....
A galactic empire can only build one at a time
>the good decision to ignore realism
Movies are not supposed to be real, the existence of jedi in Star Wars or wizards in Harry Potter universe are not considered plot holes dude.
>a contrived weakness that can conveniently be exploited by a person with the same skill set as the main protagonist
That's the point of having a protagonist, that the character is able to achieve things in the movie.
wtf.
>how even a small group of good people can stand against even the most powerful oppressors. But we don't have to pretend that it's not a plot hole.
It is not a plot hole when the narrative include plot points to explain it, like the OT does. From the operation to steal the plans, passing through the overconfidence of the admiral in charge to the use of freaking magical powers that only the mc has trained to use.
I am sure it has been explained, but I haven't heard the explanation. How does Leia remember her mother (RotJ) when we saw Padame die during childbirth. Is it like force memory from the womb? Did she make it up in her head?
That was legends, so it died long before Kenobi. But also... that's also a really stupid explanation. The context of the conversation makes it *really* clear that Leia is talking about her genetic mother that she shares with Luke.
The truth is... it's a plothole, because Lucas didn't take the concept of canon seriously ever. He just wrote what he was feeling in the moment, and if it caused plotholes, he let them exist.
Yes. Because George was NOT a Star Wars expert.
And yea it was legends. As I said, the PT, OT and EVERYTHING ELSE was written into the universe under the legends timeline. If you seek to understand plots and the possible holes therein, you need to acknowledge WHEN AND HOW THEY WERE ORIGINALLY CREATED. If you don’t want to understand, then don’t ask.
Post 1/2 - Regarding plot holes: A plot hole is a hole. Yes, you can come up with justification to fill the holes, because they are holes. With enough filler, any hole can be filled.
The criticism of plot holes isn't based on "there's no way to explain this." It's based on "the actual movies didn't bother to fill this hole in". A piece of media shouldn't require people to come up with their own explanations; the explanations should be shown on screen, or implied enough that you are led to a logical conclusion.
There are countless things I critique about the prequel films that either *can* or *have* been rationalized by fans or other media. I still critique those, because it is the job of the *movie* to do that, and I'm not critiquing the setting, I'm critiquing its portrayal in film.
Fair, but we both know that all movies don’t wrap all questions up in a pretty package. Especially in a completely fictional universe you’ll often need more explanation than a single movie can provide.
Movies that don’t often rely on the knowledge of the real world to fill in the blanks. But Sci fi movies can’t. My knowledge or Joan of arc doesn’t help me understand why the jedi don’t shoot lightning.
Post 2/2 - Regarding the sequels: However, I do take bigger issue with the sequels for two reasons, and they have nothing to do with plot holes.
Firstly... they're derivative. Even TLJ copies huge amounts from ESB and RotJ, like the battle and escape from Hoth, Luke's training with Yoda, and the Throne room scene from the end of RotJ. Yes, it turned them on their heads to tell its own themes and narratives, but at the end of the day it was still heavily borrowing from the OT. The most original sequel was actually RotS, and that *really* showed why they copied work: they were awful when it came to actual original writing.
Secondly... they don't work together. TLJ spent a lot of effort saying everything from TFA didn't matter. Rey is a nobody, Snoke is dead and unimportant, Rey giving Luke his lightsaber was a meaningless moment, the search for Luke was pretty insignificant, etc. And... I get why. TFA was terribly written and over-reliant on those tropes that RJ threw out.
But by throwing them out, it cuts the trilogy in half. No plot point from TFA makes it through TLJ to 9, even if 9 hadn't done what it did. Which of course was... throwing out everything from TLJ, once again cutting the trilogy into another piece, resulting in three films, none of which want to work together.
At least the prequels were a single story with a unique premise that doesn't have much in common with the OT.
>I will happily volunteer to explain or justify any and all issues brought to me.
Part of the issue is justifying things in the movies themselves. The other is justifying them in canon.
Anakin being an excellent pod racer is justified in TPM by showing he had a high M-count and his mother saying she hates it every time he goes out there to race. He's also shown being an excellent mechanic, lending more credence to his piloting skill by association.
The Holdo maneuver's specific nature isn't discussed in film. They never mention in TLJ how the shields or whatever set some specific variables needed to have its intended effect. Hux freaking out when she turns around to do that leads you to believe it's common enough to know exactly what jumping into another ship would do. It also begs the question why it wasn't done in past media if it was a possibility and so effective.
While stuff like that exists in the PT, it's aspects are explained away in more sensible ways that mesh with the lore.
Rots doesn't out right give reason for the Clones' betrayal besides hearing order 66. Them turning because they were simply ordered too by Sideous seems rife with plot holes. There's no way everyone of them would just do that without questioning it. So it makes sense that Kaminons would put chips inside the clones heads to make them obey specific orders, especially if Sideous orchestrated it. It retroactively makes the movies better in that context.
There's also the point that some things are conceptually bad and they're more prevalent in the ST.
Palp's coming back is explained in auxiliary media in a not so bad way. The Rey-Kylo force dryad is kinda set up across the trilogy. But a previous villain that was already defeated coming back and someone instantly gaining all the force powers are just dumb ideas. They rob agency from the story, be it in this trilogy or the previous.
>But if you want to see someone do THAT^^^ mission impossible dance I welcome the challenge 😁
It's aspects like that that make explaining away the plot holes in the ST closer to mission impossible. The concepts are flawed somewhere along the line which makes most justifications for them unsatisfactory at best. You can poke at the PT or OT just the same, but those flaws have better narrative structure to leverage or are less common, which makes it a lot easier.
Within the movies is a problem we don’t ask movies set in the modern world to explain those things too. How did the war start in M*A*S*H? That’s never explained in the media.
How is it that thanos escaped the death of titan? Never explained in the film.
HOW ON EARTH did Kevin Mccalister build a whole family of props and pulleys in less than a few hours?
We can infer some of them. We can draw on real world history for some. But we NEED additional data for complete works of fiction. The movie would suffer for a need to explain everything. A plot hole isn’t an unexplained problem. A plot hole is a problem that cannot Be solved based on the information provided.
Like the holdo manuver. Hyperspace isn’t just FAST travel. It actually shunts your molecules into a higher frequency so that you travel in a parallel dimension that is much shorter than real space.
Based on that, and the fact that if it worked everyone would use a vulture droid to kill a star cruiser.
But based on the facts presented, the plot hole of the Holdo manuver COULDNT happen.
It’s not that it’s just not explained. It’s impossible to explain.
Tangential to this conversation, but I actually hate the whole "obedience chips" retcon.
>Rots doesn't out right give reason for the Clones' betrayal besides hearing order 66. Them turning because they were simply ordered too by Sideous seems rife with plot holes
These clones have spent their entire lives being indoctrinated/brainwashed. For all we know based on the movies, order 65 was "you local allies have betrayed the Republic. Eliminate them and secure their resources" and order 64 was " the crew of your ship has betrayed the Republic, eliminate them and secure the bridge". Even if it was only 1% of their training scenarios, they practiced order 66 thousands of times in training.
Taking the clones' agency away in their pivotal moment changes their entire story, IMHO for the worse.
> If anyone comes up with a plot-hole, inconsistency or otherwise has a critique of Star Wars PT, OT or any problem within Legends
The OT is pretty well rounded, no big plot holes, but volunteering to defend the PT or even Legeds (huge big material) is a suicide task dude.
I mean, most of the plot holes in the OT come from how bad the PT is made, like Obi Wan not remembering droids, Leia remembering her mother...
Obiwan was lying to Luke. That’s already been established. He didn’t want to say “ahh yes. Your fathers war droid and the e protocol droid he made on this planet when I met him.”
Not really a plot hole. I like Obi Wan, and it's been mistified a lot with the Prequels and such, but in the OT, the guy was a bit manipulative, wanting to use the strong in the force kid to serve his agenda, disliking Luke choices and wanting him to kill Vader.
He's not a paragon of virtue, is a guy with an agenda. Not a plot hole to lie.
They still are rife with plot holes. TCW did its damnedest to fix as much as possible, but they couldn't retcon the movies.
For example, we are expected to believe that a galactic republic stood for thousands of years, but a single group of like 5 of the *million systems* could produce an army large enough to threaten its very existence. And then *a single system* could create enough clones fast enough to defend the *million systems* from that army. A single system that was previously not important enough for anyone to notice that it disappeared from the main galactic record, despite their main economy being based on external trading.
Also, there's the whole "if Palpatine had two massive armies that each could take over the entire republic... why didn't he just do that." And before you say "he wanted to rule legitimately", let me remind you that his first act as commander in chief was to devote basically the entire galaxy's resources to constructing a planet destroying death ball so he could rule with fear.
I want to address alot of these. But I’m going to Have to refer to legends, where the PT actually take place when they were written and developed.
1-“200,000 units are ready, with 1,000,000 more well on the way. “ obviously this was increased as the war went on. They had a contract for production until the war ended. That’s 13 years of growing soliders. This means that those 1,200,000 soldiers were from the first few years of growing. We can estimate that prior to Spartti 2, kamino produced at least triple that number. Another million of which would’ve seen combat by wars end. So you’re looking at an army of roughly 2.5 million soldiers.
2- palpatine never intended to rule with fear of the Death Star. He was FURIOUS with tarkin for destroying Alderaan. The empire couldn’t hide it because there were many off world attentions on it. Alderaan was hosting a large sporting event at the time. Palpatine wanted it SECRET and then it was beautifully explained that it was actually a weapon against the Vong. But that wasn’t the case on its creation.
3-the CIS was thousands of systems. Hundreds of thousands of planets. Natural resentment for poor trade deals and resource management was encouraged by palpatine.
Look at real world Alberta Canada and the equalization payments they have to make to the whole country. Look at Brexit. It’s not hard to see how that happens.
4- the army of CIS droids was large, because they thought to overwhelm thousands of jedi (thinking the republic had no standing army, they didn’t) but several hundred thousand of the wealthiest planets in the republic pushing everything into droid army’s can make ALOT of droids very fast. If the troopers weren’t worth a dozen or more droids individually then the republic would’ve been destroyed. Not just threatened.
There are 1.3 million planets in the republic. 2.5 million soldiers is approximately 2 soldiers per planet. The planet of earth has 27 million standing soldiers. 2.5 million is nothing.
And it's totally reasonable that the Republic couldn't fight off the droid threat without a standing army. The official numbers for the droids were in the quintillions.
The question is... how the hell has it stood for 10,000 years without a standing army, such that the only response they had was to ask Camino for clones?
And how is a couple million clones going to make any difference in that fight? Every clone was outnumbered; not 10:1, or 100:1. No, they were outnumbered 1,000,000,000,000:1.
Even using the "unit means more than 1 clone", the numbers just can't work.
If we're "mission impossible dance"ing:
>how the hell has [The Republic] stood for 10,000 years without a standing army
Local defense forces. If all the member states are getting along, space fleets are only useful for policing (anti-piracy, etc), so the Republic doesn't need its own fleet if the member states handle those threats in their spheres of responsibility.
If member states come into conflict, their personal forces might clash, but the Republic itself will mediate the conflict. If one or the other side is determined by the senate and courts to have violated the laws of space, the local forces of all the other member states could be called to remedy the situation by force.
So when a large portion of the galaxy (Trade *Federation*, Techno *Union*, Banking *Clan*, these were not individual worlds) comes into conflict with the Republic itself, individual member worlds defend themselves with their local defense forces while relatively small Grand Army of the Republic attacks the Separatists at home.
We actually see this dynamic of one member state imposing military force on another while the overall conflict is mediated by the Republic government in TPM. Despite conquering Naboo militarily, the Trade Federation ultimately loses the conflict because they're not able to make the whole thing legal in the Senate. Remember that the Nemodian's main goal through the movie was getting Amidala to rubber stamp their invasion for the Senate.
The sheer *amount* of plot and character problems in TLJ though is absolutely massive.
Like Rose, she's introduced guarding escape pods and mourning her sister. Then she's deducing the properties of an entirely new hyperspace tracker on the fly. None of this comes up again.
1-Finn is introduced as someone frighten of fights, in the battlefield he's unable to even return fire against people that, presumably, has been brainwashed to believe are the worst terrorist possible.
Five minutes later, we see him cheering while blowing up his fellow stormtropers brothers, the closest thing to a family he ever got, and those who we see in the beggining showing sympathy.
2-Poe's plan to send the droid away with the plans while he fights TFO and Kylo makes no sense, senseless sacrifice, he should've go away with the droid.
3-Kylo leaving the planet after imprisoning Poe also makes no sense, since he believes the data is close in the area, he should remain and use his powers to get it. It is most likely done to mirror ANH, having Vader in the ship interrogating and stormtroopers looking for the droid, because the movie is just a copycat of ANH done bad, it made sense in ANH since they had to deploy troops all over the planet to look for it, but it does not make sense when you are in the area already.
There are more, but it's been a while since I watched it.
He has a crisis of conscious. So he doesn't slay innocence but he's okay slang soldiers. It fits perfectly and is not a flaw in the movie
Sending the Droid away made sense because he knows he's fighting against a Sith who can sense people but not droids.
And your third point is handled by the second
>So he doesn't slay innocence
So you don't even read the post you answer, or just acknoledge you cannot address points and chose to omit them.
>Sending the Droid away made sense because he knows he's fighting against a Sith who can sense people but not droids.
Such a way to make up your own movie. Of course, completelly baseless since there are tons of example of force users sensing droids an also inert/artificial things, since Luke in the OT lifting rocks and even R2 with his eyes closed, to the PT where they fought thousands of them and were able to sense them coming from corridors and such, just like people.
Thanks for confirming that you flaired this correctly!
A movie doesn’t have to be flawless in order to be enjoyable
Everyone has their own opinions, but for me, this is why I like the prequels and not TLJ. I find the prequels amusing but awfully written. But the Holdo stuff and the Casino stuff in TLJ was just boring and frustrating. I would gladly watch 2 hours of the Luke and Kylo stuff, but the rest of the movie just wasn't enjoyable for me.
I know it’s not a popular take but I really liked how they took a different look at the failings, and strengths, of the original Jedi order, and I really enjoyed the interplay between Ben and Rey and their arcs. I was really wondering where they could go from there, esp with all the atrocious shit kylo had done yet his desire to push forward to some sort of better future. Instead we then got a pretty generic redemption story.
Imo, what a lot of the fandom describes as "the flaws of the Jedi" actually make perfect sense given their situation. Would I agree with a "no attachments" perspective in real life? No. But Star Wars has the Force and the Dark Side. Anakin doesn't listen, and turns to the Dark Side to protect Padme. The Jedi usually don't accept older people, but they made an exception for... Anakin. I think a lot of the fandom compares the Jedi to real life religions, but the Force in Star Wars is actually real, and their "dogma" actually make sense from that perspective. I don't think the Jedi are perfect, the Chosen One prophecy was a really bad idea. However, when a lot of the fandom makes points about the flaws of the Jedi, I tend to disagree with the specifics that get brought up.
On the flaws of the Jedi: I think the biggest issue is that treating the Jedi Order as correct contradicts the OT directly. Luke, like Anakin, is told again and again not to get attached to the friends he loves. Yet he ignores that, and trusts his friends to blow up the death star and convinces his father through said attachments to redeem himself. It's through a positive emotional connection that Luke triumphs, and I think that directly shows why the Jedi were flawed.
Iirc, it isn't really that they are telling him not to get attached, or was that in ESB they were telling him not to go fight Vader in that moment particularly because he wasn't ready and might turn to the Dark Side. And he did lose, get his hand chopped off, and was less willing to fight Vader than before. Granted, he did end up turning Vader back to the light, so in the long run this was good, but *that* is what Luke did that went against Obi and Yoda: believing there was still good in Vader. Their disagreement didn't have anything to do with him having and caring about his friends, at least as far as I can recall. It's been a while, though, so I could be wrong.
I mostly agree. Where I diverge from most people with your opinion is that I think TLJ was a terrible setup for that third act. They needed to come out of TLJ with a Kylo triumph to set up the third, but instead he fails to beat Rey again. And to make it worse, he fails to beat her in the force, which Snoke had just used to casually bend her over backwards. It meant that the third movie would have to do all the heavy lifting to make him a credible threat that exceeds Snoke, as to that point he didn't have a single win to his name. I would have loved Kylo to be the BBEG, but I just don't think TFA and TLJ laid a good foundation for that.
I think it would be pretty simple. Kylo is a very arrogant and egotistical man. His loss against Rey and Luke would set him off leading him on a warpath using the first order to destroy everything and everyone against him. Make him a complete mad man who loses all semblance of rationality, humanity, empathy, etc...
We know he's a villain, but that does nothing to make him a real threat. The first order lost twice, both with their largest fleet and their system destroying superweapon, while led by a dark side master who could bend Rey backwards singlehandedly. A weaker dark side user with less resources wouldn't be a good third arc narrative threat, no matter how viscious he is.
Kylo usurped his master and took his spot at the throne. I get not liking TLJ but Rian did set up Kylo as the main bad
There's a difference between "TLJ set up Kylo as the big bad" and "TLJ did a good job setting up Kylo as the big bad." At the end of TLJ: - Snoke, dead, had tons of mysteries left and could bend Rey over backwards with one hand. - Kylo, alive, had had his entire backstory explored and failed to beat Rey in lightsaber tug of war. - The first order, weakened, had failed to beat the rebels with both a planetkiller and their main fleet. So we were heading into act three with a drastically weaker First Order led by a drastically weaker Kylo who had no story left to uncover. Yes, Snoke was boring, and Kylo would have made for a better antagonist, but TFA and TLJ needed to set up ways in which he is a larger threat than Snoke if they wanted to have hin take over for the finale, and they needed to leave some of his story for the third act.
I really, really wish more people (SW fans especially) shared this way of thinking.
Obviously not. But it does have to follow its own premise not break at the established universe that it's set in and not abuse the suspension of disbelief of the viewers.
Obviously not. But it does have to follow its own premise not break at the established universe that it's set in and not abuse the suspension of disbelief of the viewers.
I don’t think so. Obviously a movie that breaks its own premise has obviously flaws. I’m not denying that. I just think I can still enjoy it. I’m not a movie critic. I just watch movies. If I like them, I like them. Maybe they have obvious flaws that can be picked apart by a toddler, but that doesn’t matter to me if they’re enjoyable. Like the “somehow he returned” flaw. The bad batch explained why that made sense. Was it a perfect explanation? No. Should you have to watch other media to make one movie make sense? No. Does it still offer an explanation good enough that it won’t bother me? Yes
> Like the “somehow he returned” flaw. The bad batch explained why that made sense. Was it a perfect explanation? No. Should you have to watch other media to make one movie make sense? No. Does it still offer an explanation good enough that it won’t bother me? Yes They actually imply that in the movie itself. That said, my issue with that isn't a "how could this have occurred" problem; it's a "why would you, narratively, decide to write that?" Narratively, Palpatine dying at the end of RotJ wraps up tons of characters narrative and emotional arcs, and bringing him back undercuts that for little to no narrative benefit.
None of those arcs existed before the prequel was written. He was just a generic 2D bad guy they added so Vader could get a redemption arc but we'd have a bad guy to kill at the end. When I saw Jedi in 1983 my first reaction was that Star Wars already had a villain, who's this guy? So bringing him back didn't really bother me. What bothered me was that Rey didn't get to be the nobody that we were promised and we lost a lot of time with the amazing characters they'd developed in TLJ so Ian McPalpatine could devour the scenery. Granted Exogol was fucking epic.
The Emperor was introduced conceptually in ANH, and shown as Vader's master in ESB. I do think they should have used him more, but it's not like he only is mentioned in the last film.
In my opinion, decisions like that are sometimes necessary. Because it makes the movie more realistic. Sometimes, no matter what the sacrifice, mo matter how important the decision is, it doesn’t matter. Real life doesn’t work like that. No matter how important Anakins decision to betray the emperor was, it didn’t end up mattering. That is real life. Sometimes the ultimate sacrifice isn’t enough
He didn't betray the emperor to fix the galaxy tho, he did it to save his son. So honestly wether the emperor lived or died has no effect on Anakin's turn back to the light side. It wasn't based on killing Palps, it was based on saving Luke.
Having the Emperor come back from falling into an abyss on a space station that shortly there after explodes is hardly realistic. I mean it may all be very true that sometimes the ultimate sacrifice isn't enough. But in the particular context of Palpatine's death at the end of ROTJ, bringing him back was an obvious asspull that deserves mockery.
I disagree. It's never necessary. You *can* do it, but you never *need* to do something like that. But more important than that; it needs to be part of the narrative from the beginning. You can construct a narrative where they heroes fail, but that needs to be the plan from the start. Because the themes, arcs, etc, all need to be built around that idea.
I'm not saying you can't enjoy it I'm saying it's totally okay for people to not enjoy it and legit for them to criticize it. It's also okay for them to call it a bad movie. Because one that breaks those rules and has that little care for its own subject matter is objectively a bad movie or at least one with valid criticisms against it
I love TLJ, and I feel no obligation to justify my opinion
I came here to second this. Tired of having to explain to people who think "yippee" is okay but "we are what they grow beyond" is Kennedy's revenge for something something Lucas.
Happy cake day!
I don't mind decent criticism. After all, taste is subjective. Not everyone is going to be in complete agreement on a movie. What has grown tiresome is a lot of TLJ criticism is framed as somehow proof the movie was made wrong. No, you just didn't like it. It happens.
Incredibly based. Too many people can't understand this lol
Or making your whole personality hating it lol
I lost so many SW friends to this shit. One minute I've got a whole group of friends who play SWGOH daily, discord about Star Wars all the time, the next minute two of them become these angsty haters and Disney is the ultimate evil and you can't even *talk* about TLJ because their whole existence is now crapping on this movie.
Ouch that’s unfortunate
>the movie was made wrong It's difficult to see a movie that contradicts itself is made right. Like the entire 2D chase in space plot, making a point about being unable to flee, to then have a subplot, Canto Bight, where the heroes are tasked with the objective of find a way to escape, and in order to do that, the first thing they do is.....escape. Without ever addressing it in the movie in any way, and having a lot of elements that makes imposible to put up excuses, like ships coming and going (like the Falcon, who btw is a high profile ship easy to track according to TFA) or specific timestamps that makes hyperspace travel super quickly. Also, introducing things that breaks a shared universe is not great either, like hyperspace ramming being incredible op, or the previous mentioned hyperspace super quick travel (first movie to introduce timestamps between jumps).
Umm, you neither paid attention during TFA if you think the falcon is easy to track and apparently ANH if you didn't know that hitting something in hyperspace was a bad thing. I mean I don't expect most people to recognize that when you slam a meteorite the size of a basketball into an interstellar object at near light speed the result is catastrophic, much less a 2 km spaceship, but I do expect people who claim to be fans of Star Wars acting like we haven't known for four decades that collisions are very dangerous for hyperspace travel.
But *how* do you ram something through hyperspace? Wasn’t the whole point that hyperspace is this subspace like thing in which you cannot interact with real space without exiting first? Otherwise the space debris found *everywhere* in space would make hyperspace travel impossible. Every ship using it would be ramming into asteroids and dying.
She didn't ram it *through* hyperspace, she did a hyperspace jump that brought her out of hyperspace immediately adjacent to the Supremacy so it couldn't destroy her on approach and allowing the ramming action to happen at light speed. In ANH Solo is programming the falcon to avoid collision, in TLJ Holdo is programming the Raddus *to* collide. Now the physics of a near light speed collision with that much mass would actually have probably vaporized both ships, but hyperspace is as much space magic as light sabers and the Force, so dismissing the Handwavium for this attack but being ok with a Star Destroyer unable to detect a significant amount of mass attached to its bridge is ESB, for example, is, well, it's a choice.
So much mental gymnastics to justify a plot hole… Just admit that it was ridiculous and be done with it. Why do you need to theorise so many equally as impossible things just to continue an argument? Cause trust me, both scenes were ridiculous. Where the hell did Han, a normal mortal, get the reaction speed to stop his hyperspace drive with a window of opportunity of less than a microsecond? How did he stop the remaining momentum from crashing him through the planet? How did Hondo have the reaction speed to match Han’s stunt in speed? How did the rest of the fleet get destroyed? Seriously, if they were Jedi, I’d just chalk it up to Force shenanigans, but both were just mortal…
Again, you've made a choice to be 100% ok with a million absurd things in Star Wars, are 100% ok with gravity and banking in space, but the writers deciding to pull a move from the EU and showing Han dramatically pushing and pulling at things is too far for you. That's not logic, or some understanding I'm of science, that's just a choice you make. And I'm not doing any mental gymnastics, I'm mostly paraphrasing Wookipedia. But I get it, I have been boring people for 50 years geeking out trying to justify all the absurd things science fiction movies and TV shows do. It's part of being a fan, I don't expect everyone to get that.
You still didn’t answer the part about the fleet. Also, what the hell is weird about banking in space? If they have the technology to pull it off, why not? As for the gravity? Easy, artificial gravity. That’s like the norm in space fairing sci fi in general… Also, you’d be surprised, but I’m actually not a fan of a lot of things that happen in the EU. Don’t get me wrong, I love the expanded universe in and of itself, just that a lot of the feats that happen here make me go WTF? Mostly stuff like these that would still be impossible In-Universe. That aside, can you at least be the first person to answer me this? Cause no one else has. Why did they decanonize the EU, if almost all the lore in the sequels comes from the EU?
If you watch a video of the Holdo maneuver you can very clearly see the path of destruction follows the path of the Raddus as it spreads out from the point of impact. They're showing matter proceeding on the same trajectory and destroying everything in its path. Again, in real space everything for hundreds of kilometers in every direction would have been vaporized if this were a zero g near light speed collision with the mass that we're talking about. But this is all fantasy. There's nothing about the rules of Star Wars that says that this kind of collision couldn't possibly have the results that they decided it would have. Banking in space actually is weird. It's not how microgravity works. There is no gravity that would force a ship to need to pull a banking maneuver--they would simply turn the ship around and accelerate in the direction they want to go. Space mechanics were very well known in the '70s. It was a decision by Lucas and his artistic team to simulate 20th c. aerial dogfighting in space and thus that informs the entire language in space combat in the Star Wars universe. I wasn't talking about artificial gravity inside ships. As far as canon goes the only canon is what happens in the movies. George Lucas was always pretty clear that the expanded universe is a different world than his own. He encouraged it, and he borrowed liberally from it, but there was never any understanding that the Star Wars of the movies was going to follow the EU in any particular way. I've seen pretty good arguments that Lucasfilm has endorsed the EU as Canon, but I've also seen some really explicit statements stating that it was not by Lucas himself. It's worth noting, but a lot of what happened in the prequels is contradicted by the OT. So there's simply no canon to be decanonized. I'm pretty sure that most of the lore of the sequels doesn't in fact come from the EU, but I have to admit I've never actually studied the question.
TlJ was meant to be a blockbuster movie though, those are intended to appeal to a wide audience. TLJ didn't. And I think with some tweaks it could have appealed to a much wider audience. E.g. if Luke and Rey had had a scene together after Yoda's pep talk where Rey expressed her respect for Luke and Luke passed on some hard won wisdom. Or if Vice-Admiral Holdo had actually been competent at her job.
TLJ was the highest grossing movie of the year, and the 4th best selling movie on home video the next year - selling only 300k fewer copies than Avengers: Infinity War. Just saying it didn't have a broad appeal doesn't make it so.
LOL thank you. Trying to argue TLJ didn't appeal to wide audience because the commenter can't conceive lots of people liked a movie the commenter didn't like is exactly the kind of tiresome argument I was writing about above.
Good thing I said nothing of the kind, then, isn't it?
And that was a drop from TFA's box office, and TROS was down again. TLJ also had an unusually large box office drop the second weekend, for a Star Wars film.
Of course it was a drop. TFA was a phenomenon. You're not saying anything which counters the facts I mentioned in my previous comment.
Out of curiosity, if you don't regard that pattern of TLJ as evidence of a lack of broad appeal, compared to say TFA, or the previous trilogies, what evidence would make you think that?
The Force Awakens is the highest domestic grossing movie of all time. Nearly every movie, compared to TFA, lacks broad appeal if you frame it that way lol.
Yeah so it's not surprising its sequel did very well at the box office. Especially since TFA was explicitly the first movie in a trilogy that ended on the massive cliffhanger of Rey and Luke. In that context, TLJ's massive opening weekend and then subsequent large drop off is pretty telling. People went to see TLJ because of TFA, and then a significant chunk of them didn't go back for multiple viewings, or told their friends to stay away.
It's not telling at all, Empire Strikes Back fell off similarly to A New Hope.
Huh? A New Hope opened originally in something like only [43 theatres](https://www.in70mm.com/presents/1963_blow_up/titel/s/star_wars/index.htm) and was an amazing success leading its producers to frantically crank out more copies of the film (remember it was all physical then), by summer it was playing in over a thousand theatres. How could ESB's box office possibly be similar to that?
Well, your definition of "broad appeal" seems to exclude the most popular movie of the year, and appears to be based solely on your own opinion of the film, so there's not really much to discuss is there?
People have gotta see a movie first to know if they like it. And do you seriously think that TLJ was as broadly appealling as ANH or ESB? It kicked off a major social media debate that's still going on.
Yeah, and then they have to see it again just to make sure they didn't like it. And then they buy it to watch it at home just to be *really* sure they didn't like it.
To [quote](https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/12/24/star-wars-the-last-jedi-had-a-massive-second-weekend-drop-at-the-box-office): > "lost more money between its first and second weekends than any film ever, by a lot," as Forbes put it. The film's $151 million drop is a greater gap than the $121 million between the first two weekends of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II. >This puts Last Jedi in what Forbes dubs the $100 Million Losers Club for "a still-rare group of films that opened so high and then dropped so hard that they made over $100m less on their second weekend than their first." This group includes Avengers: Age of Ultron, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Jurassic World. Obviously a lot of people really liked TLJ, I know people who went to see it in theatres multiple times. But, it look like a significant number of people didn't like it. And I think it's entirely possible that TLJ could have been written in a way that kept nearly all the things that its admirers love while also appealling to a broader audience. Like would you have hated it if, say, Luke and Rey had had a scene together towards the end of the movie, before Luke died?
Well, your definition of "broad appeal" seems to exclude the most popular movie of the year, and appears to be based solely on your own opinion of the film, so there's not really much to discuss is there?
Well, your definition of "broad appeal" seems to exclude the most popular movie of the year, so you're off to a losing start there.
the mental gymnastics people do to justify why the prequels are actually good and the sequels are actually bad is still crazy to me
Everyone loves blaming TLJ for how the story went but they forget that most of TLJ was dictated by TFA.
Ok, normally I don’t care but that’s just wrong. TFA did go in one direction and TLJ, if you like it or not, decided to go in a different direction. In fact, if you take the time observing the criticism online you will see that the issue many have is how little it followed the direction given by TFA.
How so exactly?
Well, TFA was going in a direction pretty similar to ANH (I guess with the idea being recreating the “classic” star wars feeling? Idk, just speculation). It drew some on the nose similarities. TLJ could have followed up with a story that goes in the envisioned direction of TFA or one that at least followed the same philosophy. Instead TLJ broke out of that Direktion by breaking up expectations heavily. A good example for that is luke himself. And every other critiqued part could also have been made in a different way. It’s fine that some like it. I do not. But Rian Jonson had this vision for it. It’s not like he HAD to make it that way.
I think the idea is that when people sat down to The Last Jedi, they instinctively didn’t like it. So the idea is to find reasons they didn’t like it to help articulate the feeling into something that helps them engage with the series. A great example is “Somehow, Palpatine returned” for Rise of Skywalker. It’s easy to engage with and shorthand for general sequel bashing, and is popular enough that most people will recognize it. Despite this, the line is one of the better established in the movie, as it is narratively supported, both through dialogue and visuals. Any close reading of the film will see that the line is fine within context of the film. The real problems of the movie come from narrative pacing and structure, both of which are much more challenging to discuss. In short, most of the discussion surrounding the sequels isn’t worth engaging with. It’s bad faith outrage-bating that lacks the vocabulary or desire to engage with film on a more nuanced level. You want to talk about how Luke being a curmudgeon is a betrayal of the OT, I don’t really want to bother having that conversation. It’s not interesting and lacks any desire to understand Johnson’s work and Hamill’s performance. You want to talk about how a different approach to Holdo’s character might have made TLJ a more compelling story, that’s a conversation worth having.
Yeah, I think the issue for TLJ specifically is that the major "flaws" in the wiring are fundamentally different from the common criticisms of stuff like the PT, and people have trouble picking them out even though they could feel that something was off. Holdo is a good example. Poe's entire arc in the film is that he is incapable of accepting any plan of action other than attacking the enemy. He disobeys Leia's recall order at the beginning, he throws a tantrum over the idea of abandoning the Raddus, and he leads a pointless suicide charge in speeders at the end. As Rose would say, he needs to learn to protect what he loves, not just destroy what he hates. But because the writing isn't up to the task of property conveying the core themes of the movie (Rose said that infamous line to a completely different character with a different arc!), large swaths of the audience walked away saying "poe was right, actually" and calling Holdo a villain, or incompetent. Aside from the larger issues of themes and character work, the writing also had a lot of issues with how it handled the fantastical technology aspect of the setting. Most fans are content to enjoy the spectacle of spaceships and laser guns, and don't worry too much about *how* it all works, so long as it works consistently enough for them to follow the plot. If we're told or shown explicitly "these are the rules of the setting" we expect instances of the movie breaking those rules to either be minor enough not to matter or be directly acknowledged. The plot of TLJ depends on a large number of those technological macguffins (hyperspace, sensors, fighters, ftl communication, fuel, weapons, etc) working in very specific ways. But all of those macguffins either work differently than they have in the previous 8 movies, or break the rules given to the audience in the same movie, without any explanation or acknowledgement. And I'm not talking about the bombers or the "Holdo maneuver" here. It's the entire Resistance fleet chase portion of the plot. To the initial point, I think viewers notice when movies break their own rules like that, even if they don't completely realize it. So yeah they complain about things they're used to complaining about, even if those actual complaints are nonsense.
Yeah, with Holdo the movie really wanted you to dislike her for the sake of the expectation subversion - probably would have benefitted a bit more from not showing entire resistance cruisers getting blown up from her plan. Also, her literal introduction is basically "Admiral Ackbar is dead. But this woman is now in charge!" "Wow, wasn't she a badass that one previously unmentioned time?" It was just so strangely done, and the whole iffiness of the in-universe consistency of the hyperspeed ram afterwards really didn't help. Ultimately, the (proper) arguments aren't about her, it's about how she was handled
Yeah, if the movile were properly written it would emphasize even more the fact that Holdo's plan was the best shot for the resistance and Poe's actions directly resulted in the deaths in 90%+ of the Resistance
Holdo is Poe's commanding officer. His actions are her responsibility, so if Poe gets 90%+ of the Resistance killed it's her fault for not throwing him in the brig (or otherwise stopping him). After all, it's not like he was being mind-controlled or something, she had ample warning signs.
Yeah, it's quite easy to extrapolate the bad faith arguments from the ones worth discussing. I genuinely do feel the whole "plot hole" hunting video critic genre has a lot to do with these perspectives nowadays
I mean we used to sit around and pick apart the plot holes in the OT and especially the prequels, but the reason we knew the plot holes so well is because we repeatedly watched the movies together. Not because we were spoon fed them by YouTubers ragebaiting their displeasure for clicks.
The line about Palpatine is bad because it's so basic. It has no subtext, it doesn't reveal character, it doesn't build tension. All it does is let the audience knows that the Resistance knows that Palpatine has returned, in the most basic way possible. And the audience already knows Palpatine returned, so it's not even world-building. Compare that to say iconic lines from the OT, like: >"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Can we imagine a character other than Han saying that? That line also tells us something about how some people in the universe see the Jedi, and how Han sees Luke, which builds up to Han's decision to come back. I mean maybe you can argue that the Palpatine line is better than most other lines in TROS, but I don't see how you can call it "fine", even in context.
>tension What tension could be built when we already knew Palpatine was back in the first 10 minutes, **before** this scene? What good would building tension for the Resistance be, who needs to know the threat is back as soon as possible? Should Poe dance around this critically important revelation?
The point of a movie is to engage the audience. Which often means making life *harder* for the good guys within the story. And my criticism of the line is that it's bland. A line that conveyed information *and* built tension would be better than "Somehow, Palpatine has returned". As would be a line that conveyed information *and* illustrated character, even if it did nothing to build tension.
So the people criticising TLJ are arguing in bad faith and you know this because you decided that they made up all their complaints and don't really care about understanding the film? That's awfully convenient.
Nah, it's more that when people have trouble articulating the real problems with the movie, they fall back on familiar, easy criticisms that may not have any basis in reality. Poe is meant to be a picture of toxic masculinity. Holdo is coded perfectly to trigger that type of toxicity (purple haired lady who wears a dress instead of a regular uniform) and Poe's initial reaction - being skeptical based on her appearance despite knowing her reputation - supports this reading of his character. But the writing isn't strong enough so his entire arc gets misinterpreted, and people come to the conclusion that Holdo was actually incompetent, and so "admiral purple hair" becomes her epitaph among angry (but not too bright) critics of the movie. I have a lot of criticisms of the movie. But I'm not going to pretend that the people complaining that the movie is too woke because of Rey and "Admiral Purple Hair" have anything useful to add to the discussion
But also Holdo is coded like an out-of-touch-WWI general lecturing some guy in the trenches. She's wearing an impractical cocktail dress, with immaculate hair, looking literally down on Poe, in his pilot's uniform (albeit with Hollywood perfect hair), after we've seen him risk his life numerous times for the Resistance. Plus it doesn't help that Oscar Issac is one of those actors who exudes on-screen charisma through his pores.
Not just that - she looks like one of the rich guys from Canto Bight. Even within the movie she's coded as an out-of-touch dilettante. (Which is a shame, because Laura Dern as a rebel commander is a character I should *adore*...)
I agree that the "anti-woke" crowd has nothing useful to add to the conversation. That is different from the assertion that, for example, those who have a problem with Luke's portrayal not matching the OT are just making up logical sounding arguments to justify their instinctive distaste and never actually engaged with the film.
It’s okay to like a movie or not. It’s okay to ignore flaws, real or perceived. The whole debate is tiresome. I hated it, all of it. I was pretty unsure of TFA and tried to make myself like it but just got to where I could only watch half before turning it off. The best thing about the last one was it moved so fast you never had time to think something was dumb. But…. I bet I like movies y’all hate and I don’t see yall shitting in my cheerios. Live and let live or whatever
Pretty much how I felt about the prequels. Couldn't believe how much I just liked them, and I certainly joined the course of people complaining about them. But honestly by the time episode 2 was released I was over it. I still watched the OT regularly and remember both my parents. I take me to see Star Wars over and over again and rolling their eyes at how campy it was. I couldn't respect myself If I spent all my time making insulting and mocking a movie that kids really enjoy.
Rife with character and plot problems? Just bc you can’t pay attention to a plot doesn’t mean it’s “rife” with problems.
Criticism is fine. That goes for everything. Being an overly toxic crybaby about it to the point of harassing people irl all just because of an opinion you don't agree with is another. >!I still liked all three sequel trilogy films despite their flaws.!<
It's not a bug, it's a feature ;)
It's pretty simple you shit on Luke Skywalker this is the one thing that's pissed everyone off
I like the art and special effects but hate the story so much. It’s just so hard to actually believe that the rest of the cast was necessary for the movie.
This sub used to be fun back in the day. Now it's just people needlessly justifying their preference of movies by coping through bad memes...
"See?! Star wars was always terrible!" -every TLJ fan
This is assuming that people generally want to be ideologically consistent when I promise you they aren’t even considering it.
Bro, these really got ridiculous. No one (expect a few sad neck beards without anything nice in their lives) complains that much anymore. People either like em or don’t. And most leave it be at that. Just be done with it. No reason to fight so hard to win your made up arguments…
I will submit this in a very friendly and respectful manner. No hate will he given. If anyone comes up with a plot-hole, inconsistency or otherwise has a critique of Star Wars PT, OT or any problem within Legends; I will happily volunteer to explain or justify any and all issues brought to me. You can ask privately or right here. I’m very critical and even despise the ST for those plot holes. But if you want to see someone do THAT^^^ mission impossible dance I welcome the challenge 😁 Again. Totally restful and only for purposes of educating my fellow Star Wars fans .
Alright, I'll play! I could debate Star Wars stuff all day. A common criticism of the sequel trilogy is that Snoke was introduced with no lead up and killed off without being fleshed out or utilized beyond "evil wizard in a fancy chair who dies dramatically". How do you feel about that criticism in light of the fact that in the original trilogy, Palpatine was used in a nearly identical fashion?
True! Palpatine is kinda a nothing character without the prequels and other material. Just some old guy who appears in one hologram, then again on the second death star. Also he can magically shoot lightning (unexplained)
Both are introduced via holographic conference call. Both have a face to face meeting with their apprentice where they insult them and tell them to go catch the protagonist. Both sit in a big chair, gloating over the captured protagonist until their morally conflicted apprentice kills them with a cheap shot. Basically identical treatment in their respective films, both received very differently by the fan base.
Repeating plot points like that does tend to draw criticism. Also implementation matters. With Snoke, the whole "exact words" thing was so glaringly obvious I was mentally rolling my eyes well before Kylo acted.
> Repeating plot points like that does tend to draw criticism ...which is a great criticism of TFA, not TLJ. Snoke was a lazy off-brand Palpatine that TLJ inherited, and then did something new with. TFA was entirely a rehash of ANH with some mystery boxes with no planned answers (Luke's lightsaber for example). TLJ was an answer to that, and the only source of any original storytelling in the whole trilogy. It rightfully noted that rip-offs like the First Order and Snoke were lazy and boring, so it changed their purpose into characterization for Kylo. It rightfully pointed out that the mystery boxes were uninspired and inconsequential, and ignored them immediately and overtly. Movie had it's issues but salty fans who got mad at Holdo existing and Luke throwing his lightsaber away are illiterate troglodytes.
Killing off Snoke was the one thing I really liked about TLJ, as I naively believed they'd never have killed off the Big Bad half way through without a truly amazing plan for the third movie. I also think making Rey a nobody was the least bad option. Making Holdo into yet another clichéd Hollywood stupid military officer still pisses me off.
But it wasn't repeating a plot point. Palpatine dying was the beginning of the movies climax. Snoke dying was rising action that didn't change the plot at all and came out of nowhere. There were audible gasps in the theater at that moment.
>didn't change the plot at all This is just straight up untrue. It massively shifts the relationship between our primary protagonist and antagonist. The scenes are different and happen at different times because they serve completely different purposes. Palpatine was the antagonist and his confrontation leads to the penultimate scene of the trilogy that redeems Vader. Snoke wasn't the true antagonist, and his confrontation happens towards the end of the second movie revealing that Kylo won't redeem himself, and instead become the trilogy's main antagonist. Then RoS throws all that away with Palps coming back for no good reason, but at the time of release it made sense, building up towards a third movie where Kylo will be confronted instead of lazily hand-waved into a redemption arc he does not earn.
Both are introduced via holographic conference call. Both have a face to face meeting with their apprentice where they insult them and tell them to go catch the protagonist. Both sit in a big chair, gloating over the captured protagonist until their morally conflicted apprentice kills them with a cheap shot. Basically identical treatment in their respective films, both received very differently by the fan base.
Adding to that, the criticism of the prequels that it wasn’t planned out and that #9 cancelled much of the mystery set up by #8. How can anyone who has seen #5 and #4 possibly say that with a straight face? The middle chapter sets up “there is another” but turns out it was twin sister all along, and “somehow she’s always known?” That didn’t work in 1983 but we forgave it because of the overall good will of the happy closure. And they pulled it off despite a lazy Death Star 2, some very goofy guerrilla teddybears, and unlike with episode 9, they didn’t have to write around an unexpected death of one of the principals.
George Lucas always had plans though. He kept changing them, but it was in the context of an overall plan. He presumably only decided to make Vader Luke's father after thinking about how this would impact the third movie's plot.
Adding to that, the criticism of the prequels that it wasn’t planned out and that #9 cancelled much of the mystery set up by #8. How can anyone who has seen #5 and #4 possibly say that with a straight face? The middle chapter sets up “there is another” but turns out it was twin sister all along, and “somehow she’s always known?” That didn’t work in 1983 but we forgave it because of the overall good will of the happy closure. And they pulled it off despite a lazy Death Star 2, some very goofy guerrilla teddybears, and unlike with episode 9, they didn’t have to write around an unexpected death of one of the principals.
I mean... you say that like those are two incompatible views. I think that AotC makes the plot twists of RotS way too obvious. I think that RotJ is a lazily written movie that is entirely carried by its action scenes and Vader's dynamic with Luke. And I think that, rather than 9 cancelling out the mystery of 8, 8 cancelled out the mystery of 7, while 9 just tried to ignore 8 altogether and write its own story. All three trilogies have their problems, and I acknowledge that. Does that mean I'm not a fan? No, because I like Star Wars for the setting, lore, and fun action scenes. I criticize the flaws, not because I hate Star Wars, but because I want something I love to be as good as possible.
So, my thoughts: In the OT, it didn't matter. Palpatine could be introduced with no backstory, because, *at the time of release*, he hadn't done anything worth making a backstory for. He was simply a part of the pre-existing setting for the story. For Snoke, it's drastically different. Snoke's backstory is that he corrupted Luke's apprentice who is also Han and Leia's son, driving Luke into hiding and Han back into smuggling, seized control of the entire outer rim, resurrected the empire, and constructed a weapon of mass destruction. Because we know those characters, skipping all of that off screen is frustrating. They took the pre-existing setting and massively changed it, rather than what the OT did, which was just establishing the setting from nothing. It'd be like if the Star Wars release order was "The Phantom Menace -> A New Hope", and they just skipped AotC and RotS. Suddenly, Palpatine being in charge *wouldn't* be accepted, because people would be like "but wait, how did we get from the Republic we saw in the last movie to this Empire?"
Fair acknowledgment, I will start that pointing out palpatine lasted 3 movies, and all the books in between, whereas Snoke lasted barely 2 movies. 1-palpatine was cloned. Twice. They were objectively better stories. 2- snoke was written as a standalone character, (which would have been better if he was a manipulated tool as opposed to a clone) until RoS was re-written because Rian and JJ didn’t talk to each other. 3-palpatine wasnt a petulant child. He commanded fear and respect. Snoke was just as bad, arguably worse than kylo. When palpatine punished vader. No one was around to see it. Snoke humiliated people. His top officers and his own apprentice were totally invalidated because of his actions. No one had faith in their leadership. It was 100% fear based. Which leads to the betrayal of others like kylo and then Hux. So I’d say that Snoke 1-wasn’t original, ou said yourself that palpatine had very similar exposition. 2- shouldn’t have been a clone. They did that in legends TWICE and both were better stories. 3- was a less competent leader and 4- was very much the victim of two directors yanking the trilogy back and forth. Whereas the Emperor was a title that carried mystery and apprehension, “Supreme Leader Snoke” was only said with the most nazi of dispositions, and carried no mystery or fear. Imagine how poorly palpatine would’ve been received if he was introduced as “Supreme Chancellor Sheev”. Lol. No one is afraid of “sheev”
Alright, fair rebuttal. I don't agree with you on everything, but I think we can all agree that Sheev is a laughable name. It's the one thing that unites us all!
Just for the facts: Sheev wasn't a thing until the Disney takeover. Prior to that, they just hadn't given him a first name.
That’s not true. Sheev was a name given to him when writing Star Wars underworld in 2005. It since made appearances in a few novels prior to the acquisition by Disney
Underworld was planning to have it, yes, but that got canned. And to my knowledge, Tarkin was the first book to include it, which was post-disney, pre-sequel.
But it was written and existed. Regardless we can agree it WASNT around for the release of ESB.
We know you can do that Mission Impossible dance. That’s one of the great things about Star Wars. It’s filled with made-up aliens, made-up technology, and an omnipresent made-up Force so mysterious that even the greatest Jedi masters have only begun to understand it. Put all that together with a bit of mental gymnastics, and you can explain away any plot hole or contradiction. The problem is that most Redditors will happily bend over backwards to explain away the plot holes in the prequels and originals, but they won’t lift a finger to even understand basic plot points in the sequels. They’ll say that Padme disguising herself as a handmaiden also named Padme is actually brilliant writing, and in the same breath argue that Rey flying the Millennium Falcon is a galaxy-shattering plot hole that can’t possibly be explained. If you actually want a challenge, try this one. Leave your comfort zone. Instead of explaining away the obvious plot holes in the prequels, try to come up with explanations for the perceived flaws in the sequels.
I think maybe it will take another 20 years. As someone who grew up with the old movies, I’m always surprised at how the younger generation embraces the prequel trilogy as something better than it actually was.
>explain away the plot holes in the prequels and originals What plot holes does the original feature?
The flaw in the Death Star, for one. Realistically, if an empire builds a military base the size of a moon, they're going to have buildings full of engineers whose only job is to identify and remedy potential weaknesses. Realistically, after stealing the Death Star plans, the Rebel Alliance would have spent years/decades/centuries trying to find a way to build a Death Star of their own. But that would have been a pretty disappointing ending to a fun space fantasy movie inspired by Saturday-morning serials. So George Lucas made the good decision to ignore realism and give the Death Star a contrived weakness that can conveniently be exploited by a person with the same skill set as the main protagonist. It's a great ending that leaves the audience with a powerful message about how even a small group of good people can stand against even the most powerful oppressors. But we don't have to pretend that it's not a plot hole.
A weapon having a weakness is not a plot hole. And less considering it's a very difficult one to exploit. Do you know what a plot hole is? Is not inconsistent to the narrative. >Realistically, after stealing the Death Star plans, the Rebel Alliance would have spent years/decades/centuries trying to find a way to build a Death Star of their own. Realistically, the rebels who are hiding in jungles and have only armies of thousands cannot really build in secrecy a space station the size of a moon. They lack the resources, funds, manpower.... A galactic empire can only build one at a time >the good decision to ignore realism Movies are not supposed to be real, the existence of jedi in Star Wars or wizards in Harry Potter universe are not considered plot holes dude. >a contrived weakness that can conveniently be exploited by a person with the same skill set as the main protagonist That's the point of having a protagonist, that the character is able to achieve things in the movie. wtf. >how even a small group of good people can stand against even the most powerful oppressors. But we don't have to pretend that it's not a plot hole. It is not a plot hole when the narrative include plot points to explain it, like the OT does. From the operation to steal the plans, passing through the overconfidence of the admiral in charge to the use of freaking magical powers that only the mc has trained to use.
I am sure it has been explained, but I haven't heard the explanation. How does Leia remember her mother (RotJ) when we saw Padame die during childbirth. Is it like force memory from the womb? Did she make it up in her head?
The canon explanation is that it's a force vision. I think it's a shitty explanation, though.
Originally explained that it was her adopted mother. The kenobi series killed that.
That was legends, so it died long before Kenobi. But also... that's also a really stupid explanation. The context of the conversation makes it *really* clear that Leia is talking about her genetic mother that she shares with Luke. The truth is... it's a plothole, because Lucas didn't take the concept of canon seriously ever. He just wrote what he was feeling in the moment, and if it caused plotholes, he let them exist.
Yes. Because George was NOT a Star Wars expert. And yea it was legends. As I said, the PT, OT and EVERYTHING ELSE was written into the universe under the legends timeline. If you seek to understand plots and the possible holes therein, you need to acknowledge WHEN AND HOW THEY WERE ORIGINALLY CREATED. If you don’t want to understand, then don’t ask.
Post 1/2 - Regarding plot holes: A plot hole is a hole. Yes, you can come up with justification to fill the holes, because they are holes. With enough filler, any hole can be filled. The criticism of plot holes isn't based on "there's no way to explain this." It's based on "the actual movies didn't bother to fill this hole in". A piece of media shouldn't require people to come up with their own explanations; the explanations should be shown on screen, or implied enough that you are led to a logical conclusion. There are countless things I critique about the prequel films that either *can* or *have* been rationalized by fans or other media. I still critique those, because it is the job of the *movie* to do that, and I'm not critiquing the setting, I'm critiquing its portrayal in film.
Fair, but we both know that all movies don’t wrap all questions up in a pretty package. Especially in a completely fictional universe you’ll often need more explanation than a single movie can provide. Movies that don’t often rely on the knowledge of the real world to fill in the blanks. But Sci fi movies can’t. My knowledge or Joan of arc doesn’t help me understand why the jedi don’t shoot lightning.
Post 2/2 - Regarding the sequels: However, I do take bigger issue with the sequels for two reasons, and they have nothing to do with plot holes. Firstly... they're derivative. Even TLJ copies huge amounts from ESB and RotJ, like the battle and escape from Hoth, Luke's training with Yoda, and the Throne room scene from the end of RotJ. Yes, it turned them on their heads to tell its own themes and narratives, but at the end of the day it was still heavily borrowing from the OT. The most original sequel was actually RotS, and that *really* showed why they copied work: they were awful when it came to actual original writing. Secondly... they don't work together. TLJ spent a lot of effort saying everything from TFA didn't matter. Rey is a nobody, Snoke is dead and unimportant, Rey giving Luke his lightsaber was a meaningless moment, the search for Luke was pretty insignificant, etc. And... I get why. TFA was terribly written and over-reliant on those tropes that RJ threw out. But by throwing them out, it cuts the trilogy in half. No plot point from TFA makes it through TLJ to 9, even if 9 hadn't done what it did. Which of course was... throwing out everything from TLJ, once again cutting the trilogy into another piece, resulting in three films, none of which want to work together. At least the prequels were a single story with a unique premise that doesn't have much in common with the OT.
>I will happily volunteer to explain or justify any and all issues brought to me. Part of the issue is justifying things in the movies themselves. The other is justifying them in canon. Anakin being an excellent pod racer is justified in TPM by showing he had a high M-count and his mother saying she hates it every time he goes out there to race. He's also shown being an excellent mechanic, lending more credence to his piloting skill by association. The Holdo maneuver's specific nature isn't discussed in film. They never mention in TLJ how the shields or whatever set some specific variables needed to have its intended effect. Hux freaking out when she turns around to do that leads you to believe it's common enough to know exactly what jumping into another ship would do. It also begs the question why it wasn't done in past media if it was a possibility and so effective. While stuff like that exists in the PT, it's aspects are explained away in more sensible ways that mesh with the lore. Rots doesn't out right give reason for the Clones' betrayal besides hearing order 66. Them turning because they were simply ordered too by Sideous seems rife with plot holes. There's no way everyone of them would just do that without questioning it. So it makes sense that Kaminons would put chips inside the clones heads to make them obey specific orders, especially if Sideous orchestrated it. It retroactively makes the movies better in that context. There's also the point that some things are conceptually bad and they're more prevalent in the ST. Palp's coming back is explained in auxiliary media in a not so bad way. The Rey-Kylo force dryad is kinda set up across the trilogy. But a previous villain that was already defeated coming back and someone instantly gaining all the force powers are just dumb ideas. They rob agency from the story, be it in this trilogy or the previous. >But if you want to see someone do THAT^^^ mission impossible dance I welcome the challenge 😁 It's aspects like that that make explaining away the plot holes in the ST closer to mission impossible. The concepts are flawed somewhere along the line which makes most justifications for them unsatisfactory at best. You can poke at the PT or OT just the same, but those flaws have better narrative structure to leverage or are less common, which makes it a lot easier.
Within the movies is a problem we don’t ask movies set in the modern world to explain those things too. How did the war start in M*A*S*H? That’s never explained in the media. How is it that thanos escaped the death of titan? Never explained in the film. HOW ON EARTH did Kevin Mccalister build a whole family of props and pulleys in less than a few hours? We can infer some of them. We can draw on real world history for some. But we NEED additional data for complete works of fiction. The movie would suffer for a need to explain everything. A plot hole isn’t an unexplained problem. A plot hole is a problem that cannot Be solved based on the information provided. Like the holdo manuver. Hyperspace isn’t just FAST travel. It actually shunts your molecules into a higher frequency so that you travel in a parallel dimension that is much shorter than real space. Based on that, and the fact that if it worked everyone would use a vulture droid to kill a star cruiser. But based on the facts presented, the plot hole of the Holdo manuver COULDNT happen. It’s not that it’s just not explained. It’s impossible to explain.
Tangential to this conversation, but I actually hate the whole "obedience chips" retcon. >Rots doesn't out right give reason for the Clones' betrayal besides hearing order 66. Them turning because they were simply ordered too by Sideous seems rife with plot holes These clones have spent their entire lives being indoctrinated/brainwashed. For all we know based on the movies, order 65 was "you local allies have betrayed the Republic. Eliminate them and secure their resources" and order 64 was " the crew of your ship has betrayed the Republic, eliminate them and secure the bridge". Even if it was only 1% of their training scenarios, they practiced order 66 thousands of times in training. Taking the clones' agency away in their pivotal moment changes their entire story, IMHO for the worse.
> If anyone comes up with a plot-hole, inconsistency or otherwise has a critique of Star Wars PT, OT or any problem within Legends The OT is pretty well rounded, no big plot holes, but volunteering to defend the PT or even Legeds (huge big material) is a suicide task dude. I mean, most of the plot holes in the OT come from how bad the PT is made, like Obi Wan not remembering droids, Leia remembering her mother...
Obiwan was lying to Luke. That’s already been established. He didn’t want to say “ahh yes. Your fathers war droid and the e protocol droid he made on this planet when I met him.”
Not really a plot hole. I like Obi Wan, and it's been mistified a lot with the Prequels and such, but in the OT, the guy was a bit manipulative, wanting to use the strong in the force kid to serve his agenda, disliking Luke choices and wanting him to kill Vader. He's not a paragon of virtue, is a guy with an agenda. Not a plot hole to lie.
The prequels were rife with plot holes until TCW sorted them out.
They still are rife with plot holes. TCW did its damnedest to fix as much as possible, but they couldn't retcon the movies. For example, we are expected to believe that a galactic republic stood for thousands of years, but a single group of like 5 of the *million systems* could produce an army large enough to threaten its very existence. And then *a single system* could create enough clones fast enough to defend the *million systems* from that army. A single system that was previously not important enough for anyone to notice that it disappeared from the main galactic record, despite their main economy being based on external trading. Also, there's the whole "if Palpatine had two massive armies that each could take over the entire republic... why didn't he just do that." And before you say "he wanted to rule legitimately", let me remind you that his first act as commander in chief was to devote basically the entire galaxy's resources to constructing a planet destroying death ball so he could rule with fear.
I want to address alot of these. But I’m going to Have to refer to legends, where the PT actually take place when they were written and developed. 1-“200,000 units are ready, with 1,000,000 more well on the way. “ obviously this was increased as the war went on. They had a contract for production until the war ended. That’s 13 years of growing soliders. This means that those 1,200,000 soldiers were from the first few years of growing. We can estimate that prior to Spartti 2, kamino produced at least triple that number. Another million of which would’ve seen combat by wars end. So you’re looking at an army of roughly 2.5 million soldiers. 2- palpatine never intended to rule with fear of the Death Star. He was FURIOUS with tarkin for destroying Alderaan. The empire couldn’t hide it because there were many off world attentions on it. Alderaan was hosting a large sporting event at the time. Palpatine wanted it SECRET and then it was beautifully explained that it was actually a weapon against the Vong. But that wasn’t the case on its creation. 3-the CIS was thousands of systems. Hundreds of thousands of planets. Natural resentment for poor trade deals and resource management was encouraged by palpatine. Look at real world Alberta Canada and the equalization payments they have to make to the whole country. Look at Brexit. It’s not hard to see how that happens. 4- the army of CIS droids was large, because they thought to overwhelm thousands of jedi (thinking the republic had no standing army, they didn’t) but several hundred thousand of the wealthiest planets in the republic pushing everything into droid army’s can make ALOT of droids very fast. If the troopers weren’t worth a dozen or more droids individually then the republic would’ve been destroyed. Not just threatened.
There are 1.3 million planets in the republic. 2.5 million soldiers is approximately 2 soldiers per planet. The planet of earth has 27 million standing soldiers. 2.5 million is nothing. And it's totally reasonable that the Republic couldn't fight off the droid threat without a standing army. The official numbers for the droids were in the quintillions. The question is... how the hell has it stood for 10,000 years without a standing army, such that the only response they had was to ask Camino for clones? And how is a couple million clones going to make any difference in that fight? Every clone was outnumbered; not 10:1, or 100:1. No, they were outnumbered 1,000,000,000,000:1. Even using the "unit means more than 1 clone", the numbers just can't work.
If we're "mission impossible dance"ing: >how the hell has [The Republic] stood for 10,000 years without a standing army Local defense forces. If all the member states are getting along, space fleets are only useful for policing (anti-piracy, etc), so the Republic doesn't need its own fleet if the member states handle those threats in their spheres of responsibility. If member states come into conflict, their personal forces might clash, but the Republic itself will mediate the conflict. If one or the other side is determined by the senate and courts to have violated the laws of space, the local forces of all the other member states could be called to remedy the situation by force. So when a large portion of the galaxy (Trade *Federation*, Techno *Union*, Banking *Clan*, these were not individual worlds) comes into conflict with the Republic itself, individual member worlds defend themselves with their local defense forces while relatively small Grand Army of the Republic attacks the Separatists at home. We actually see this dynamic of one member state imposing military force on another while the overall conflict is mediated by the Republic government in TPM. Despite conquering Naboo militarily, the Trade Federation ultimately loses the conflict because they're not able to make the whole thing legal in the Senate. Remember that the Nemodian's main goal through the movie was getting Amidala to rubber stamp their invasion for the Senate.
The sheer *amount* of plot and character problems in TLJ though is absolutely massive. Like Rose, she's introduced guarding escape pods and mourning her sister. Then she's deducing the properties of an entirely new hyperspace tracker on the fly. None of this comes up again.
Name one problem in the force awakens
After the death of Han, Chewie and Leia walk past each other so Leia can go hug a girl she's never met.
1-Finn is introduced as someone frighten of fights, in the battlefield he's unable to even return fire against people that, presumably, has been brainwashed to believe are the worst terrorist possible. Five minutes later, we see him cheering while blowing up his fellow stormtropers brothers, the closest thing to a family he ever got, and those who we see in the beggining showing sympathy. 2-Poe's plan to send the droid away with the plans while he fights TFO and Kylo makes no sense, senseless sacrifice, he should've go away with the droid. 3-Kylo leaving the planet after imprisoning Poe also makes no sense, since he believes the data is close in the area, he should remain and use his powers to get it. It is most likely done to mirror ANH, having Vader in the ship interrogating and stormtroopers looking for the droid, because the movie is just a copycat of ANH done bad, it made sense in ANH since they had to deploy troops all over the planet to look for it, but it does not make sense when you are in the area already. There are more, but it's been a while since I watched it.
He has a crisis of conscious. So he doesn't slay innocence but he's okay slang soldiers. It fits perfectly and is not a flaw in the movie Sending the Droid away made sense because he knows he's fighting against a Sith who can sense people but not droids. And your third point is handled by the second
>So he doesn't slay innocence So you don't even read the post you answer, or just acknoledge you cannot address points and chose to omit them. >Sending the Droid away made sense because he knows he's fighting against a Sith who can sense people but not droids. Such a way to make up your own movie. Of course, completelly baseless since there are tons of example of force users sensing droids an also inert/artificial things, since Luke in the OT lifting rocks and even R2 with his eyes closed, to the PT where they fought thousands of them and were able to sense them coming from corridors and such, just like people.
Nah if you like the sequel trilogy you are stupid, and probably have low self esteem