Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Elysium is already Blomkamp Star Wars, just set thousands of years after Luke, in a different galaxy.
Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight is my favorite Star Wars trilogy.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


cargohills posted:

what's funny about "attack of the clones"? this is a genuine question, i really don't get what's wrong with it.
It's an intentionally dorky title harkening back to old monster movies. But I think the clones bit also throws people of, even in the movie itself where the clones seem almost like a vestigial plot point.

Empire Strikes Back is also a dorky title, but it's evocative in that it indicates a film where our heroes are in a more precarious situation.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Milkfred E. Moore posted:

you seem to have forgotten the existence of every jedi in the prequels not named skywalker
No, he's not because it's a pedantic point.

The jedi in the prequels who are not Yoda, Obi-Wan, or Jinn are pretty incidental including Mace Windu. They serve little other purpose besides showing a world with more than a handful of Jedi. Star Wars as a series has been one in which galactic spanning politics and war have revolved around one family even dragging Leia--the character who was actually standing up to the empire from the jump--into it even what doesn't make particular sense.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Aug 28, 2018

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Milkfred E. Moore posted:

you mean the series that was about the history of one family put that family in a central role???
I mean yes, but more I'm saying that your point that there are more jedis than the Skywalkers is pretty pedantic when the only ones that matter are basically father figures for Skywalkers in some way. Yoda, Jinn, and Obi-Wan are all part of the family at the end of the day. The rest of the Jedi existed to establish the world of the prequels than be actual characters on their own. Using them to refute Bushisms' point makes no sense.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Daddy Thanos posted:

The parents of the founder of a royal line are never royalty themselves
They often retroactively are

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I feel like the wizards and witches in Harry Potter are actually a better comparison since:

1) They function similar to the Jedi in that the magic powers are both random and mostly inheritable
2) Like the Jedi, in story terms, the Wizards represent the fantasy that there is forgotten old world magic whereas
3) The X-men and mutants represent the fantasy that there is something unique and magical about your generation and the olds are just scared of it

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I feel like as a kid, there was something about Boba Fett that made him Evil Han Solo in my mind. I guess because he also had a cool ship

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Hey just stopping by to say that after decades of Star Wars being pretty clearly better than Star Trek for the sheer better average of quality; Star Trek is now clearly better because it's just more interesting.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


M_Sinistrari posted:

From what I've been reading around, it's unusually ambitious for a theme park section. Disney's going full on immersion with it so the park staff's essentially LARPing with either being Resistance or pro-First Order opinions, no standard signage so people will have to ask the staff where things are and all, prices are listed in credits. I can see it being fun for a really intense Star Wars fan, but not so much for others. I really can't see how it'd function on a heavy crowds day to standards.
I don't think it's that unusual when you think of it two ways:

1) Disney was really ambitious and sort of crazy with OG Disneyland. Ignoring the fact that he literally tried to recreate his childhood with Main Street USA, the theming and immersion of Dinsey Parks has always been strong.

2) The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is a huge hit and part of it was because it tried to sell visitors on the experience of actually being in Hogsmeade.

I think it's just raising the ante of something that has always been part of the parks and trying to reaching the success of Harry Potter.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Polo-Rican posted:

IMHO, Palpatine in the OT was never even a great villain. His character primarily exists to add more depth to Darth, and to allow Darth to turn at the end.
The Emperor is such a great villain. Like he doesn't have a lot of depth to him, but he's a great Evil Yoda.

I'm not a big prequels defender, but I do generally like the twist that the Emperor isn't some big ancient evil. He's just Mitch McConnell. It makes Maul's line about revenge kinda tragic because dude actually believes in... something. But Palpatine's just collecting power.

It's why the use of Snoke was pretty on point in The Last Jedi. It really doesn't matter who he is or what his backstory is because just like Palpatine there's nothing there. There's no tragedy or ideology. Just some other jerk consolidating power for themselves. He's just exactly who think he is and it calls into question just how many Emperor like figures there were before Palpatine and Snoke.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Perfect, now everyone will have to admit The Last Jedi was a good movie

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Mike N Eich posted:

She spent all of TLJ trying to win him over so why would this surprise you?
Well, The last Jedi makes a big deal that it doesn't work. They get to the Return of the Jedi-esque moment of redemption, the big bad is dead, and it turns out that Kylo just sucks.

I know that sounds reductive, but I actually really like that. I like the idea of showing how everyone assumed this trilogy was going to end and it for it just fail.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


General Dog posted:

As much as I like Palpatine and like Return of the Jedi, I don't understand how Palpatine envisioned things turning out when he brought Luke up to the throne room and took off his handcuffs. Seems like the only possible outcomes are:

-Vader kills Luke defending Palpatine
-Luke kills Vader and Palpatine
-Luke kills Vader and Palpatine kills Luke
-Luke and Vader team up and kill Palpatine

Palpatine doesn't really ever make a pitch for Luke joining his side, he just seems to assume that it's a given if Luke kills Vader, like Luke is contractually obligated to go for work for him in that scenario.

The best explanation is that Palpatine just gets off on this sort of thing and just wants to see what happens more than he really cares about living.
I think my read on it is that the whole thing was a reaction to Vader planning to overtake the Emperor at the end of Empire with look at his side. The outcome didn't really matter (Luke dies and Vader stays on board; Vader dies and Luke takes his place; Both die). It's Palpatine realizing that the whole Vader situation is not tenable and cutting his losses.

I think the context of the scene is an early indication that Palpatine is just a huge bullshitter. He does taunt Luke with the idea of him turning to the Dark Side by striking him down, which Luke does try to do, but it's really not earnest. He's just prodding at Luke's own insecurities. He knows that Vader is going to defend him. He's using language that is reminiscent of Obi-Wan's "if you strike me down" language from the first film, but there's no actual follow through. All the Emperor cares about is maintaining power. Luke ultimately wins partially because he reminds Vader of his humanity, but on a personal level, by just not engaging in Palpatine's bullshit.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


General Dog posted:

But thereís no reason Luke would ever join Palpatine. Even if he fell to the dark side, Palpatine doesnít have anything he wants. If fully surrenders to anger and aggression, that means heís suddenly going to make peace with his mortal enemy?
Yeah, I agree, that's why I'm saying it's more about Vader than it is about Luke. I don't think Palpatine really cares about Luke. It's more about getting Vader in line either by forcing him to murder his son or by letting Luke kill him. And if Luke by some chance ends up joining up then bonus.

Like I said, the offer for Luke to join the Dark Side is super disingenuous. Palpatine claims the way to join the Dark Side is to strike him down, but he clearly never intends to let Luke kill him. The plan is always for Vader to defend him and pit them against each other.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Mike N Eich posted:

Every outcome that includes Palpatine surviving is good for Sheev. Best case is he turns Luke and keeps Vader alive. But if Luke kills Vader or Vader kills Luke, thatís fine with him, heís assured loyalty from Vader and Luke killing his own father would seal his turn to the dark side, and he trades up to a younger, able-bodied apprentice.

If Luke beats Vader and wonít turn, Sheev just kills Luke and goes on the lookout for a new apprentice, heís very experienced with that anyway. Itís a bummer but not a huge loss for him.

And like others said, dude just likes having a good time and watching people squirm. Itís all good fun for him.
I think this is on point, but the most important thing is that Palpitine really isn't fighting any sort of cultural or philosophical war. He's just pure self-interest.

I think that's something that Last Jedi gets really well.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


The prequels would have been such a trip if 1 hour into The Phantom Menace, you did have Obi-Wan introduce Anakin to his pupil, Darth Vader.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


sigher posted:

Yeah but his story was garbage, his story didn't make the character great, it's McDiarmid's acting that was perfection.
Nah, it legitimately is a clever turn on the character. When you see him in RotJ, he's this big ancient evil, but the prequels revel that he's just a basic opportunist. The fact that the antagonists like Maul are being scammed into dying for him when they actually buy into their actions having some real purpose is sad.

The comic Saga has a similar turn where there is just this lovely government worker constantly on his cellphone who shows up every now and then, and by the end of the series, you realize that this guy is actually the closest to a big bad in the comic. But he's just some anonymous rear end in a top hat who the main characters don't even know.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I think the disappointing thing if it's a vision is that they already remade the Luke-in-the-cave scene in The Last Jedi in an interesting way. Redoing it is repetitive, but beyond that, going to the dark side really doesn't resonate as a fear or tension with Rey.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Wild Horses posted:

Citation needed
The cave scene in The Last Jedi is dope. It's taking Yoda's comments about the path to the Dark Side from The Phantom Menace and Luke's vision from Empire and making them very literal. Yoda basically claims that the path to the Dark Side starts with you becoming trapped in your own head (Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate...). We see that in Luke's fears of turning to the dark side being thrown back into his face with his Vader vision. The Last Jedi creates a physical representation of this as the Dark Side just being a person echoed and reflected in on themselves eternally.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


galagazombie posted:

Rey's lame cave vision was baby's first "Two ytr3 q mirrors put in front of each other" visual. She learned neither anything about herself nor changed anything about herself.
I think it says a lot.

It reflects on the ultimate emptiness of the Dark Side. The Dark Side has nothing to offer you. There is no insight or greater power beyond the material world. It's only your own fear and anger in a literal echo chamber.

But it is also showing us what Rey's actual fear and weakness is: Being alone. It's what makes her vulnerable to Kylo in the film. She is someone who had no parents, found friends only to have to leave most of them, and left them to find the man who she thought could lead her to her place in the universe had become bitter and uninterested. She is tantalized at the end of the seemingly infinite Reys by the image of what might be her parents only to find just herself.

This ends up mirroring what Kylo thinks is the sort of killing blow to her sense of self: That her parents were nothing, just a bunch of jerks, but she doesn't have to be alone with him. The ending for the film is her find empowerment in all of this. She doesn't need Luke or her parents or Kylo. She'll define herself and she'll define what it means to be a Jedi.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Sep 1, 2019

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


CharlestonJew posted:

that would be a neat idea but you've read into it a lot more than the film has, as it did nothing with it and did not explore it in any way
I'm not really reading into things that deeply.

Empire has Yoda almost literally giving my reading...

Luke: What's in there?
Yoda: Only what you take with you.

And it foreshadowing Rey's fear of being alone is hard to even call a reading. It's her going on an endless search and almost seeing what looks like her parents and then just seeing herself.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Problem 1: The scene isnít remotely scary, even in a theoretical sense.

Problem 2: Your interpretation is based exclusively on like the first minute of the scene.

The cave scene actually shows Rey learning to predict the future with the snap echo thing. She literally envisions herself as one of her projections - all extending forwards into infinity.

If anything, the fading of the two shadows represents the elimination of her parents as obstacles.
1) I think in isolation, it's a pretty spooky scene. It first looks like a reflection, but is more of a visualization of an echo. On its face it looks like a mirror in a mirror, but then you realize the Reys are not in sync and not actually reflecting each other. Like the dropped frames in Luke's cave fight, it gets some mileage out of just being slightly off. Then there is also the changing points of view of the different Reys, becoming lost in herself, ultimately looping back to the original Rey.

2) naaah

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Mandrel posted:

the heart of the thing is, the ESB scene is compelling as gently caress and the TLJ one isnít. iíve seen a ton of person stands in front of a bunch of mirrors and it represents mumble mumble something about emptiness and who they are mumble. Zardoz did that poo poo.

in ESB you have no idea whatís going on with that cave, Yoda is cryptic as hell about it, you donít know what to expect. then Vader shows up seemingly in the flesh and Luke cuts his head off and his helmet blows up and youíre confronted with a dead eyed Luke head inside staring at both Luke and you the viewer. itís as clear an elemental metaphor as you can get while being visceral and visually striking.

my evidence of this is that ESB scene has stuck with me my whole life and I literally forgot about the scene in TLJ until these posts
For what it's worth, I don't want to invalidate something not sticking with you. Like it's fine to just say something didn't resonate.

I actually like Rey as a character, but I get why a lot of the sequel cast doesn't really resonate with people in general. It's a cast of people who are individually pretty good characters or well at least played by good actors, but don't necessarily connect the way the original cast did. And I reckon that the lack of investment in the scene has more to do with just not being as clearly invested with the characters. I get why Luke's fear and anger regarding Vader feels much clearer than Rey's pretty wishy washy motivations.

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 2, 2019

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The issue is that youíre going more off of the exposition about a different phenomenon from an entirely different film to understand this one.
You're right. They are in the official canon two completely different magical evil caves.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Yes. And they are also narratively different.
What does narratively different mean?

Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Sep 3, 2019

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Dishwasher posted:

Fair enough. The broader scope of the war isn't really touched on as well as I'd like. But, remember, many of the finer details in the OT were also left open to context clues and 'sequel-prequel'-bait while the PT had a little too much exposition on details to where its in danger of failing to 'show-don't-tell'. All three had goofy quirks in their execution (and lots of literal goofy rear end poo poo in general). The PT and OT stuck the landing with satisfying conclusions and maybe a feeling of some missed opportunities if examined objectively. If the ST has a good ending, and I do like this current leak much more than TLJ's around this time, much of it's quirks will be forgiven too I think.
The issue is more just clarity. A New Hope is correctly celebrated for telling you everything you need to know about the Empire and the Rebellion in the opening shot whereas the Resistance is both a tiny group of rebels and part of the big government and the First Order is both a fringe group and a huge threat. Even The Phantom Menace quickly and cleanly established in the opening scenes everything that you need to know about the Trade Federation in that they're really boring.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Honestly, the sequel series is fine, if not ultimately unnecessary. But I feel like over investment in fan bullshit ruined it.

-The Force Awakens was a fun movie that was a retread. And people complained about it being a retread.
-The Last Jedi was a good but flawed movie that did interesting things and tried to set up the trilogy to go to new places. But people complained about it.
-Now Rise of the Skywalker is just going to be a remake of Return of the Jedi despite the fact that one of the dramatic questions The Last Jedi ends on is, "What do you do when the redemption Vader/Anakin went through, doesn't work?" And like the Millennium Falcon will blow up or something and I'll probably cry. And It'll be like... fine.

But they should have just filmed these movies back to back. Not because of the asinine criticism that they should have plotted things out, but just to avoid over investment in people who spend too much time focused on movies they don't like.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I legitimately find the the relatively benign assertion that Holdo should have explained her plan to Poe like has some entitlement to know kind of icky.

A lot of Last Jedi is about deconstructing the unhealthy notion of a chosen one: Luke's depression because he can't reconcile a moment of weakness with his reputation as the savior of the galaxy or Kylo trying to shove his anger and abusiveness into a hero's journey. Poe's story is one of humility, one where he learns that he's not necessarily the hero of the story and that there are bigger things than him.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


SolarFire2 posted:

He deserves an explanation because he's a commanding officer on board the ship that's currently under attack.
He was just demoted, she's in charge, and she is really transparent about why she's not interested in him being involved. It's also important to note that Poe's sexism isn't subtextual. He has a passing respect for Holdo's reputation, and only questions her based on how she appears.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


John Wick of Dogs posted:

Does he mention anything about her appearance at any point?
Yes. His first reaction to her is implicit respect for her reputation followed by "Not what I expected."

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Horizon Burning posted:

This is so dumb, dude. Holdo is wearing what amounts to an evening gown on the bridge of a starship where virtually everyone else is wearing military uniforms. In fact, I feel pretty safe in saying that she's the only character except Leia, who is a political leader and figurehead, to do so. Even Leia, with her overcoat-esque cloak and dark colors brings to mind a revolutionary leader (in-exile or otherwise). Is Lieutenant Connix suffering from internalized misogyny, too?
It is sexist to judge lady in the workplace for wearing lady clothes.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


FlamingLiberal posted:

That went out the window when Rey and Kylo didn't join up together in some fashion

I'm not really seeing how things are that different at the end of TLJ than at the end of TFA. What's left of the Resistance is on the run, Kylo is going after them, Rey wants to stop Kylo.
The Last Jedi ends with the nuanced idea that there is a path beyond complacency and completely ripping down the past: Rebirth. The Jedi and their teachings still matter, but their salvation is that someone new will come to push things forward, leave the bad, reinvent the good.

Kylo is a good representation of how tearing things down or just rolling a grenade into the system is at best not in of itself virtuous and at worse, disingenuous. Kylo doesn't want to tear things down because of social inequity or whatever. He's just angry at his family and can't maturely reckon with that.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


YaketySass posted:

The Chosen One prophecy means that post-Vader the Sith have to call themselves something else.
I don't even know if people know about the Sith. It's important to remember that Palpatine doesn't really give a poo poo about the Sith. The whole revenge thing is just how he's using Maul. Once he's actually in power, he calls himself Emperor and has no problem with the whole notion of the Force fading into obscurity because he's got what he's wanted.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


CharlestonJew posted:

Dont forget the theme of letting the past die... except not really
This isn't the theme of the movie.

This is best demonstrated through Yoda's quote...

YODA: Pass on what you have learned. Strength, mastery, hmmÖ but weakness, folly, failure also. Yes: failure, most of all. The greatest teacher, failure is. Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters.

Also, by the guy who keeps talking about destroying the past being full of poo poo.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


I get from a cynical--and not wrong point of view--that the The Resistance and the First Order are just repaints of the Rebellion and Empire to maintain the imagery of the original films despite the ending of the original trilogy. And so any actual depth in the new trilogy is a bit hindered by these two idealogical factions being born out of corporate edict more than a sense of metaphor.

Still in the context of the films, I find it a little weird that Leia and the Resistance in general is drafted as being pro-Status Quo. My read on the Resistance was that the Republic had reestablished a status quo that seemed comfortable enough, but was as fundamentally vulnerable as the previous republic. So, you still had these people in the Resistance waving their hands saying, "Hey, the fight isn't over!" despite the establishment not taking them seriously.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


PeterWeller posted:

I think one of the ideas behind "Palps was always around in the background" is that it helps reconcile this. The New Republic didn't fully deal with the menace, which is why it came back 30 years later. Basically, Palps is It, but a new generation has to finally deal with the (mechanical) spider monster.
Yeah, but I feel like TLJ kind of already did this with Snoke. The implication is that there is just some other rear end in a top hat like Palpatine who manages to manipulate his way into a position of power and dispensed with the Democratic structures. Like we don't need three movies to show it because we know how this works. The whole implication of TLJ is that Palpatine isn't particularly special.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Its Coke posted:

it is, of course, meant to parallel Vader in ROTJ. but some people predicted it even before the leaks because it's the only end that makes sense for his character in standard storytelling. it would be too much of a boring bummer for him to die evil but he's done too many bad things to not atone somehow, so he has to be redeemed and then die
The problem is the fun of The Last Jedi is that they basically did the Vader ending of ROTJ and it failed. For all you can criticize The Last Jedi for, taking a retread of The Last Jedi's ending off the table was a bold choice. But welp.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


Irony Be My Shield posted:

Leia would be moving along with it at the same speed, you don't instantly 'stop' when you leave a moving vehicle.

The complaints about the scene are weird to me. If you can use the force on yourself to jump then can't you equally use it on yourself to move a short distance through space. TLJ's new applications of the force were logical extensions of previous uses we've seen.
I think TLJ is a lot better when you treat is a live-action Miyazaki movie. Leia is totally cast as one of Miyazaki's witches just like Luke is cast as one of his gruff old men. The casino scene is copping as much from Spirited Away as it is from the Cantina scene. Holdo in particular feels like a Miyazaki as gently caress.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


So I watched the RLM review of RoS... and I find it really weird this notion of (paraphrasing0 "The Last Jedi painted you in a corner where either you brought back Palpatine or just made a new evil lord figure.

I'm not even arguing about the quality of TLJ... but the film ends with Adam Driver--one of the best actors currently working--as tyrannical space dictator. Like... you can't figure out a way to make the work?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006


TheKingofSprings posted:

It was also not intended to be a trilogy and was the result of being unexpectedly successful beyond his wildest dreams

The new ones donít have that excuse
Counter-Point: If the trilogy was planned out then Anakin really would have been murdered by his fellow apprentice, Darth Vader, an evil space knight.

The Original Trilogy not being planned isn't a thing that needs to be excused. The original films wouldn't be as fondly remembered without the loose nature. Similarly, while it might be a bummer that ST isn't great, at least The Last Jedi is interesting. If it was planned from the beginning, we would just got three boring straight remakes of the OT.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply