Current Events > I just watched The Last Jedi. Why did ppl hate it? (Spoilers)

(+) Yeah! (+)

I want Snoke to be someone. my theory was that he was a Sith Lord that is thousands over years old who found a way to survive. He's from the Sith Empire in the time of the KOTOR games. and he was behind the scenes of the entire Star Wars series. that was my dream. so I was mad when he died or seemed to die.

_RETS_ posted...

A few improvements I would have made:

Cut the entire subplot on the casino planet. It was goofy, pace killing, and disrupted the tone too much. If you still need the subplot, then have them infiltrate an imperial base or ship. Also, make Benicio Del Toro the codebreaker they were going after and not the other asshole who was mentioned for no reason.

Make the rebels' escape from the FO have more urgency. Them lazily floating through space was lame.

Obviously no way to foresee Carrie Fischer dying, but her sacrificing herself by ramming the ship would have been much better, and make it a situation in which there was no other way for the rebels to escape Downside would be her not "reuniting" with Luke via projection.

Killing Smoke and the throne room scene were both brilliant. But they completely squandered the opportunity to do something narratively powerful to set up for episode 9. They should have had Rey agree to join Kylo after his compelling case for going to the dark side, and episode 9 would be her going so far into the dark side that Kylo becomes wary of the monster he created and must then defeat her or save her. This would be redemption for them both and a lot better than Rey ultimately winning Kylo to the light side. It was even perfectly set up from when Luke tells her she went immediately to the Dark Side on the island. And RJ fucked it up. I would have forgiven all else if this plot point was allowed to materialize the way it should have, then episode 9 would be compelling as shit. Kylo staying Kylo and Rey staying Rey completely negated the incredible throne room scene as nothing changed for either characters' situation other than Kylo taking over the First Order. That scene should have been cataclysmic for the narrative but the conflict is literally the same as it was before. God damn it I am frustrated just talking about it.

I agree with most of this. Disagree about the throne room scene though, I think what they did was enough setup for Kylo in e9. I hadnt considered the idea of changing who the codebreaker was supposed to be, but that would have been a good way to cut out a bunch of BS in that part of the film.
---

_RETS_ posted...

Doing what they did to Snoke was a perfect subversion to set it apart from the OT

I think people who claim this is overstating it a bit much. It was unexpected because people expected the film to copy paste Empire Strikes Back, but for this scene it instead copypasted Return of the Jedi. Not exactly that major of a subversion.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Doing what they did to Snoke was a perfect subversion to set it apart from the OT

I think people who claim this is overstating it a bit much. It was unexpected because people expected the film to copy paste Empire Strikes Back, but for this scene it instead copypasted Return of the Jedi. Not exactly that major of a subversion.

No it didn't copy ROTJ. The circumstances were completely different. Vader killed Palp as a fulfilment of his redemptive arc, not to usurp him. This was also in the climax of the final movie of the trilogy. Kylo killed Snoke midway through the trilogy to assume his command and to use it as leverage to get Rey to the dark side. It was the same only in that the master wanted the apprentice to kill someone and the apprentice killed the master instead. The dynamic and the reason were totally different

I thought it was great. My only real gripe with the film was the humor didn't land at times. Not all of it was a miss, but some was. The Finn and Rose criticism is a bit overstated. Is everything ever supposed to go to plan or be deemed a useless waste of screen time?
---

Zikten posted...

I want Snoke to be someone.

I don't. Never liked nor was impressed by Snoke, didn't care about who he was or what motivated him, and honestly, one of the last things I wanted was this bargain-bin Palpatine being the ultimate big bad for this entire trilogy. That's ultimately what JJ Abrams seems fixed on creating: serviceable yet pale imitations of the films and franchises he worshipped as a kid.

I just reasonably assumed that they'd never be so bold as to off Snoke in any way close to the manner that they did, and I almost cheered when it happened.
---

Zikten posted...

Snoke was the main one, but I still think that they can fix it in the next movie. Say that it was a clone or something. he didn't really die. and move on.

Seriously, Snoke's death was absolutely awesome. It took a turn no one expected and was just the perfect way to establish Kylo Ren as a threat. If they reversed it, it would be an absolutely horrible move that retcons a great moment.

Zikten posted...

I want Snoke to be someone. my theory was that he was a Sith Lord that is thousands over years old who found a way to survive. He's from the Sith Empire in the time of the KOTOR games. and he was behind the scenes of the entire Star Wars series. that was my dream. so I was mad when he died or seemed to die.

This is exactly the point. It wasn't what you expected, so you think it sucks.

Also, people's obsession with trying to make KOTOR part of the movies is weird. It was a great game, but it's its own thing, and that's a good thing.

_RETS_ posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Doing what they did to Snoke was a perfect subversion to set it apart from the OT

I think people who claim this is overstating it a bit much. It was unexpected because people expected the film to copy paste Empire Strikes Back, but for this scene it instead copypasted Return of the Jedi. Not exactly that major of a subversion.

No it didn't copy ROTJ. The circumstances were completely different. Vader killed Palp as a fulfilment of his redemptive arc, not to usurp him. This was also in the climax of the final movie of the trilogy. Kylo killed Snoke midway through the trilogy to assume his command and to use it as leverage to get Rey to the dark side. It was the same only in that the master wanted the apprentice to kill someone and the apprentice killed the master instead. The dynamic and the reason were totally different

So what you're saying is that it copied RotJ but did something different with the scene. Which is not something I was denying.

It was a movie about a slowmo space chase. With a really boring casino side track.

Horrible plot
Terrible new characters who added nothing of value (Holdo and Rose)
No development again on Finn and barely any on Rey
Snoke was a complete waste of a character
Luke wasn't Luke at all. This was a butchered version of him on a writing standpoint. His plot and demeanor make the entire first movie pointless.
Music wasn't even memorable. At least TFA had some good new tracks. Easily JWs worst score.
Acting was ABYSMAL from Rose, Finn, Rey
---

I hated TLJ so much that it actually made me lose interest in Star Wars to a point that I can't even stomach watching them anymore.
---

I didn't hate it but I wasn't impressed. I actually didn't mind either Rose/Holdo nor did I hate Luke's portrayal.

The movie just didn't excite me.
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

Doing what they did to Snoke was a perfect subversion to set it apart from the OT

I think people who claim this is overstating it a bit much. It was unexpected because people expected the film to copy paste Empire Strikes Back, but for this scene it instead copypasted Return of the Jedi. Not exactly that major of a subversion.

No it didn't copy ROTJ. The circumstances were completely different. Vader killed Palp as a fulfilment of his redemptive arc, not to usurp him. This was also in the climax of the final movie of the trilogy. Kylo killed Snoke midway through the trilogy to assume his command and to use it as leverage to get Rey to the dark side. It was the same only in that the master wanted the apprentice to kill someone and the apprentice killed the master instead. The dynamic and the reason were totally different

So what you're saying is that it copied RotJ but did something different with the scene. Which is not something I was denying.

No I'm saying another than an apprentice killing the master literally the entire context was different, the significance on the timeline was different, every other aspect was different. And it was done in a way that specifically didn't give us a repeat of ROTJ come episode 9.

_RETS_ posted...

No I'm saying another than an apprentice killing the master literally the entire context was different

This is just nonsense.

They took the base scene in Return of the Jedi and reconstructed it for repurpose. The contextual characters are the same, the set-up is the same, the setting is the same, the climax is the same.

I'm not saying it has the same meaning in the new movie as it did in Return of the Jedi or that "teh sikniphikanse 4 teh tynelime" is the same. That's weirdly specifik and not a criteria I've ever heard used before in determining whether something is unoriginal (it's totally different because it has a unique significance for the timeline!").

My point was simply that taking a scene and repurposing it from the next movie rather than the one everyone was expecting you to to copy from is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaally not that impressive or bold or whatever people like to claim it is.

Hey you know what would be cool? Original scenes that has the same symbolic meaning as just taking old scenes and giving them new significance for the timeline.

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

No I'm saying another than an apprentice killing the master literally the entire context was different

This is just nonsense.

They took the base scene in Return of the Jedi and reconstructed it for repurpose. The contextual characters are the same, the set-up is the same, the setting is the same, the climax is the same.

I'm not saying it has the same meaning in the new movie as it did in Return of the Jedi or that "teh sikniphikanse 4 teh tynelime" is the same. That's weirdly specifik and not a criteria I've ever heard used before in determining whether something is unoriginal (it's totally different because it has a unique significance for the timeline!").

My point was simply that taking a scene and repurposing it from the next movie rather than the one everyone was expecting you to to copy from is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaally not that impressive or bold or whatever people like to claim it is.

Hey you know what would be cool? Original scenes that has the same symbolic meaning as just taking old scenes and giving them new significance for the timeline.

It took the basic premise of the scene and changed literally everything about it to completely subvert the expectation of where things were headed. That is original enough considering no one anticipated it.

What did it change about the scene other than the end result of the antagonist's actions and add a fight scene?

NibeIungsnarf posted...

What did it change about the scene other than the end result of the antagonist's actions and add a fight scene?

The fact that it wasn't the climax of a trilogy.

The fact that the entire motivation was different.

The implications it has for the narrative moving forward.

The fact that it happened not as a redemption arc for a character but to push a character further away from redemption.

The fact that it was a subversion of the build up and anticipated outcome of the new trilogy.

The only downside is they squandered the opportunity to actually make it a meaningful scene for the complexity of the story

_RETS_ posted...

The fact that it wasn't the climax of a trilogy.

The fact that the entire motivation was different.

The implications it has for the narrative moving forward.

The fact that it happened not as a redemption arc for a character but to push a character further away from redemption.

The fact that it was a subversion of the build up and anticipated outcome of the new trilogy.

Literally every single point you made is context that exists outside of the way the scene itself plays out, WHICH I ALREADY AGREED IS DIFFERENT.

Are you [that thing we can't call each other anymore]ing me?

_BIueMonk posted...

mostly because it wasn't the movie they had imagined it was gonna be in their head/fan theories.

^^^
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

The fact that it wasn't the climax of a trilogy.

The fact that the entire motivation was different.

The implications it has for the narrative moving forward.

The fact that it happened not as a redemption arc for a character but to push a character further away from redemption.

The fact that it was a subversion of the build up and anticipated outcome of the new trilogy.

Literally every single point you made is context that exists outside of the way the scene itself plays out, WHICH I ALREADY AGREED IS DIFFERENT.

Are you [that thing we can't call each other anymore]ing me?

What can't we call each other anymore?

And I agree then, if you ignore literally all the context and watch only that scene and turn it off as soon as Snoke dies, it is exactly the same. Too bad it exists in the context of a greater narrative and that is what I've been saying makes it unique and subversive.

I feel like there's a huge theme in this movie that gets overlooked. It was a movie showcasing that sometimes bold heroics fail in the face of overwhelming odds, that sometimes making the safer, more logical choices will net the best possible outcome.

Rose and Finn went out with their bold heroics, and essentially accomplished nothing the entire film other than putting themselves in terrible danger.

Poe, who the movie baited you into rooting for, was flying about with his bold heroics sack hanging free, and nearly put an early end to the trilogy.

Rey was begging Luke to come whipping out with some bold heroics, and he straight up told her: You think I'm just going to waltz out there with a laser sword and save the day? Haha, fuck no. This is bigger than that.

Rey didn't listen, and set off on her own with her own little brand of bold heroics, and almost got herself killed by Snoke, and had to be rescued by someone who has been much more calculating and manipulative throughout the whole ordeal.

The only reason the Resistance survives is because the ones who chose to throw bravado by the wayside were so deliberate in their choices, and their sacrifices.

The Snoke death scene was definitely different than the Vader killing Palps scene. It's definitely a callback to that though, just not as egregious as a lot of the other callbacks saturating the rest of the ST. Still, it's one of those scenes that makes me think 'man I wish they had come up with some original ideas for this trilogy.'
---

_RETS_ posted...

And I agree then, if you ignore literally all the context and watch only that scene and turn it off as soon as Snoke dies, it is exactly the same. Too bad it exists in the context of a greater narrative and that is what I've been saying makes it unique and subversive.

So basically it's the same scene but they did different things with it. Glad you agree.

You know what's a great subversive scene? The one where Kylo Ren informs her of the truth of her parents. Because it was just a big nothingburger out with it. I guess it would have been amazing and had a totally different significance for the timeline though if Luke had told her right after Rey beat his ass.

"Rey... I am not your father!"

Would have been brilliant!

NibeIungsnarf posted...

_RETS_ posted...

And I agree then, if you ignore literally all the context and watch only that scene and turn it off as soon as Snoke dies, it is exactly the same. Too bad it exists in the context of a greater narrative and that is what I've been saying makes it unique and subversive.

So basically it's the same scene but they did different things with it. Glad you agree.

You know what's a great subversive scene? The one where Kylo Ren informs her of the truth of her parents. Because it was just a big nothingburger out with it. I guess it would have been amazing and had a totally different significance for the timeline though if Luke had told her right after Rey beat his ass.

"Rey... I am not your father!"

Would have been brilliant!

Yes, if you ignore everything that makes it unique a d subversive it is exactly the same. That's your argument. It isn't a good one.

bump
---