Bronn Stone

The Last Jedi (Spoilers): Force-Choke or Tour-de-Force?

283 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Please continue.

I'm of the opinion that if there was ANY way Hyperspace jumps could be weaponized it makes no sense whatsoever that the Rebels did not exploit this in the OT.

The only reasonable explanation is that opening a jump near a massive object just fails.

Edited by Bronn Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For all its flaws, I do believe that TLJ is a great Star Wars film, that fits well in the universe.

Many critics have latched on Kylo Ren's words, leave the past behind, kill it... and interpreted them as a message from Disney that they intend to destroy all we loved in the OT and form their own version of Star Wars. But we should remember that these words come from the villain. And while Luke also says something similar, It's time for the Jedi to end, these are the words of Luke who chose to hide himself away, not the Luke at the end.

Yoda, on the other hand, delivering one of the best lines in the whole saga, says that we should learn from our failures. The epitome of Star Wars is in this contrasting messages. A villain will always try to hide from his failures, while a hero will acknowledge and learn from them.

Edited by Corvinus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most prevalent theme of the film is failure and how the characters learn from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I think the most prevalent theme of the film is failure and how the characters learn from it.

the greatest of teachers, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that the OT's humor is heavily scripted is also hilariously wrong. Most of the humor and beats were things that weren't remotely in the main script - things like 'who's scruffy looking' as an example. TESB is the one most unscripted and allowed the most input from the actors, including the famous 'I know' line, which only the director and Ford knew was going to be said. "Boring conversation anyway" is another improvised one, and they simply didn't have the film to redo things so the actors could get away with it. 

I can see an argument for the humor not being precisely the same, but it's certainly in the same vein, and certainly similar to KOTOR and Indiana Jones and the like - the conversational, almost 4th wall breaking vein mixed with a good dollop of physical humor and sight gags. The best one so far is the one from TFA, where the stormtroopers see Ren's tantrum and nope the fuck out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

I think the most prevalent theme of the film is failure and how the characters learn from it.

Yup.  I guess there is some serendipity there.  While Abrams' involvement was remote, LOST is wholly about redemption.  And what comes after failure, especially learning from failure...

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Most of the humor and beats were things that weren't remotely in the main script

Bar none, the funniest moment from the OT for me is "how are you?"

Still makes me laugh every time, after hundreds of times.  Also - so Kershner knew about "I know?"  That's not too surprising, but the legend I've always heard is Ford did it entirely on his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went to see the film again the other day, with my brother (who had seen some reviews and heard some negative feedback from friends) and my son (who hadn't heard anything). Main observations:

- I knew all along I'd have to see this twice in the theatre to properly assess it. It's that kind of film. Second time around, I enjoyed it a lot more. The movie is actually a lot of fun, and it's easier to appreciate that second time around, when you're not going 'huh, this is not what I expected to see'.

- a number of the scenes people are complaining about (Poe/Hux call at the start, Leia using the Force, the pursuit of the Resistance fleet, the whole of Canto Bight) are actually a lot shorter than I remembered them being, as is the Yoda/Luke conversation.

- Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill are phenomenally good, and so is Daisy Ridley. I'm still not sold on Adam Driver but that may be a personal taste thing. Kelly Marie Tran is really very good too: I cannot understand any complaints about her performance. She's a solid plus for the film.

- I teared up three or four times, even seeing those scenes a second time. Luke and Leia's goodbye... oh, man.

- opinions from those who hadn't seen it before: my son (casual SW fan, aged 20) thought it was better than TFA, worse than R1. My brother said he didn't understand what the complaints were about. Just anecdata, but I think they're fairly typical of most people who'll watch this film: they think it's fine. They're not going to go write paeans of praise, but they have no major issues with it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just cannot get over the stupid prank call on General Hux at the start of the movie.  How many times does Poe pretend to not hear Hux?  Was it three or four times?  I think instead of the prank call to start the movie, I would have preferred Hux's star destroyer to just blow Poe up in a single shot.  This would not only be unexpected, it would also get rid of a character who doesn't really add anything to the story.

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I was just thinking of how many problems would have been solved in the movie if the First Order shows up and completely annihilates the Resistance fleet.  That way we would get no flying Leia, no Poe and Rose to the Casino planet, and no mutiny plot.

Edited by Rubicante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mormont said:

 opinions from those who hadn't seen it before: my son (casual SW fan, aged 20) thought it was better than TFA, worse than R1. My brother said he didn't understand what the complaints were about. Just anecdata, but I think they're fairly typical of most people who'll watch this film: they think it's fine. They're not going to go write paeans of praise, but they have no major issues with it either.

I'm pretty certain I'd think the movie was fine had I no attachment to the originals. Someone who was 20 would probably be more aware of the prequels than the OT and so wouldn't be associating Star Wars with classic quality film making anyway. The brand has become so diluted and meaningless over the years that I'm sure younger people don't know what to think of it.

TFA and TLJ are absolutely standard 'fine' movies in the scope of movies that have come out this decade. Nothing really wrong with them in isolation, they look good next to Jurassic World or Hunger Games.

My issues are really to do with how they stack up in comparison to the OT, which I feel is relevant because its quite often attempting to give some sort of continuity to those movies. (The prequels at least do us the service of feeling completely different to the OT, and make little attempt to join the two together stylistically)

And these new movies come out worse on so many levels, that the clashes in style of quality just highlight the problems in the movie. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

29 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I'm pretty certain I'd think the movie was fine had I no attachment to the originals. Someone who was 20 would probably be more aware of the prequels than the OT and so wouldn't be associating Star Wars with classic quality film making anyway. The brand has become so diluted and meaningless over the years that I'm sure younger people don't know what to think of it.

TFA and TLJ are absolutely standard 'fine' movies in the scope of movies that have come out this decade. Nothing really wrong with them in isolation, they look good next to Jurassic World or Hunger Games.

My issues are really to do with how they stack up in comparison to the OT, which I feel is relevant because its quite often attempting to give some sort of continuity to those movies. (The prequels at least do us the service of feeling completely different to the OT, and make little attempt to join the two together stylistically)

And these new movies come out worse on so many levels, that the clashes in style of quality just highlight the problems in the movie. 

 

I saw, when they first came out, and loved the originals and loved this movie.  That is a pretty sweeping generalization there.

Fine to have a difference of opinion, but no one has a "better" claim on their fandom.

Edited by Guy Kilmore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I saw, when they first came out, and loved the originals and loved this movie.  That is a pretty sweeping generalization there.

Fine to have a difference of opinion, but no one has a "better" claim on their fandom.

I’m not saying I have a better claim, only that I’m likely more attached to a certain vision of Star Wars , that I feel only highlights the new movies flaws. I’m talking about myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, Bronn Stone said:

Please continue.

I'm of the opinion that if there was ANY way Hyperspace jumps could be weaponized it makes no sense whatsoever that the Rebels did not exploit this in the OT.

The only reasonable explanation is that opening a jump near a massive object just fails.

Ok, I'm going to unwisely try and explain this as charitably as possible from a narrative perspective:

Hyperspace jumps can be used as a weapon, but only at relatively short range (because after that you're fully in hyperspace).  Thus, the reason that hyperspace ram is rarely/never used is because any ship attempting to ram another would be well within range of turbolasers.  Indeed, if Hux et all had concentrated their fire on the cruiser, they could have destroyed it easily, but they didn't because they were foolishly focusing on the shuttles. 

Even this explanation has problems.  Han's line about "bounce too close to a supernova" indicates that at least the ship you are in can be damaged or destroyed while fully in hyperspace.  However, since hyperspace has obviously never been carefully explained in the SW universe, we can more or less make up the rules here and assume that ships/planets that are hit by something in hyperspace are not themselves seriously affected.  We sort of have to assume that, because if we assume the amount of energy even a Falcon sized ship would be carrying if it were truly "moving" at FTL speeds, then crashing into a planet would be an extinction level event for a planet.  No real need for the Death Star guys, you can just use an everyday bulk cruiser to destroy Alderaan.  We have to assume such a thing is impossible, becuase it would totally change the entire series otherwise. 

In addition, it seems pretty obvious that there are times when a ship would be overmatched and the smart move would be to maneuver and ram a larger vessel.  Presumably a single Corvette could destroy a star destroyer.  The fact that this isn't a common tactic indicates that there is some weakness to this strategy that we are missing.  All that I can come up with is that the ships need to be relatively equal in size (thus the bombers or X-Wings couldn't have just gone to hyperspace instead of their actual bombing run) and preparing a ship for hyperspace leaves a capital ship very vulnerable. 

That's about all I can come up with.  It feels thin, but this hyperspace ram was a really dumb idea for continuity.  Even Han's totally impossible "get out of hyperspace within the atmosphere" from TFA could be explained away as a one-time thing (even if it was like a 1 in a quadrillion chance).  This ramming thing really invalidates the entire concept of space combat in SW. 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only explanations I can come up with for the hyperspace ram are either 1) No one thought to do it before and it will be a big deal going forward or 2) There's a taboo in the SW galaxy of intentional suicide attacks. There's apparently no autopilot systems that exist and I don't think we've seen droids piloting ships either, which means any ram would need a human pilot. And that pilot would definitely die in the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, mormont said:

Went to see the film again the other day, with my brother (who had seen some reviews and heard some negative feedback from friends) and my son (who hadn't heard anything). Main observations:

- I knew all along I'd have to see this twice in the theatre to properly assess it. It's that kind of film. Second time around, I enjoyed it a lot more. The movie is actually a lot of fun, and it's easier to appreciate that second time around, when you're not going 'huh, this is not what I expected to see'.

- a number of the scenes people are complaining about (Poe/Hux call at the start, Leia using the Force, the pursuit of the Resistance fleet, the whole of Canto Bight) are actually a lot shorter than I remembered them being, as is the Yoda/Luke conversation.

- Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill are phenomenally good, and so is Daisy Ridley. I'm still not sold on Adam Driver but that may be a personal taste thing. Kelly Marie Tran is really very good too: I cannot understand any complaints about her performance. She's a solid plus for the film.

 

I completely agree with the bolded. Just sitting back and accepting the film for what it is and not having to compromise that with my expectations works wonders of my enjoyment of the film. On a second viewing it amazed me how short the Canto Bight scenes actually are. While they are still the weakest parts of the film, imo, they bothered me much less the second time around and I actually enjoyed parts of them.

However, I have to disagree with you concerning Adam Driver. He has been the best part of the new trilogy for me so far. His portrayal of Kylo Ren has impressed me. Not taking anything away from Carrie, Mark and Daisy.

@Fez Not to mention ships are probably extremely expensive.

 

Edited by Astromech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dislike Adam Driver as the villain, I don't see sufficient gravitas there, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Ok, I'm going to unwisely try and explain this as charitably as possible from a narrative perspective:

Hyperspace jumps can be used as a weapon, but only at relatively short range (because after that you're fully in hyperspace).  Thus, the reason that hyperspace ram is rarely/never used is because any ship attempting to ram another would be well within range of turbolasers.  Indeed, if Hux et all had concentrated their fire on the cruiser, they could have destroyed it easily, but they didn't because they were foolishly focusing on the shuttles. 

Even this explanation has problems.  Han's line about "bounce too close to a supernova" indicates that at least the ship you are in can be damaged or destroyed while fully in hyperspace.  However, since hyperspace has obviously never been carefully explained in the SW universe, we can more or less make up the rules here and assume that ships/planets that are hit by something in hyperspace are not themselves seriously affected.  We sort of have to assume that, because if we assume the amount of energy even a Falcon sized ship would be carrying if it were truly "moving" at FTL speeds, then crashing into a planet would be an extinction level event for a planet.  No real need for the Death Star guys, you can just use an everyday bulk cruiser to destroy Alderaan.  We have to assume such a thing is impossible, becuase it would totally change the entire series otherwise. 

In addition, it seems pretty obvious that there are times when a ship would be overmatched and the smart move would be to maneuver and ram a larger vessel.  Presumably a single Corvette could destroy a star destroyer.  The fact that this isn't a common tactic indicates that there is some weakness to this strategy that we are missing.  All that I can come up with is that the ships need to be relatively equal in size (thus the bombers or X-Wings couldn't have just gone to hyperspace instead of their actual bombing run) and preparing a ship for hyperspace leaves a capital ship very vulnerable. 

That's about all I can come up with.  It feels thin, but this hyperspace ram was a really dumb idea for continuity.  Even Han's totally impossible "get out of hyperspace within the atmosphere" from TFA could be explained away as a one-time thing (even if it was like a 1 in a quadrillion chance).  This ramming thing really invalidates the entire concept of space combat in SW. 

My own theory is that it greatly depends on the shield strength of the ship doing the ramming, and less on mass difference. Most small craft have little or no shield strength. The bombers had none, or maybe very little, an X-wing has a bit of shielding, an Imperial TIE doesn't, a First Order TIE does a bit etc. This is because we've already seen in SW that powerful shields require big, powerful generators. The cruiser Raddus clearly had powerful shields, which were still active, and the ship got destroyed as it sliced through the enemy ships anyway, but maybe its shields held on long enough for its kinetic energy to have an impact on the ships it hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fez said:

The only explanations I can come up with for the hyperspace ram are either 1) No one thought to do it before and it will be a big deal going forward or 2) There's a taboo in the SW galaxy of intentional suicide attacks. There's apparently no autopilot systems that exist and I don't think we've seen droids piloting ships either, which means any ram would need a human pilot. And that pilot would definitely die in the attack.

Both of those explanations strike me as even worse than what I came up with. Although I suppose "no one thought of it" works from a continuity perspective, it is just bafflingly stupid.  Ramming ships is something that has been around for millennia, and we even see it happen in SW (the A wing into Executor's bridge, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Corvinus said:

My own theory is that it greatly depends on the shield strength of the ship doing the ramming, and less on mass difference. Most small craft have little or no shield strength. The bombers had none, or maybe very little, an X-wing has a bit of shielding, an Imperial TIE doesn't, a First Order TIE does a bit etc. This is because we've already seen in SW that powerful shields require big, powerful generators. The cruiser Raddus clearly had powerful shields, which were still active, and the ship got destroyed as it sliced through the enemy ships anyway, but maybe its shields held on long enough for its kinetic energy to have an impact on the ships it hit.

Oooh, I like adding that layer to my explanation.  That would explain why asteroid + hyperspace drive does not equal superweapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Oooh, I like adding that layer to my explanation.  That would explain why asteroid + hyperspace drive does not equal superweapon.

Yes, it may be a good explanation for how it works, but I still got nothing on why no one used it before. At the battle of Endor, when it became clear that "that thing is operational!!!" one of the Mon Calamari cruisers could have made the ultimate sacrifice. Then again, maybe the shield protecting the DS was strong enough to have negated any kind of impact even of that magnitude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The idea that the OT's humor is heavily scripted is also hilariously wrong. Most of the humor and beats were things that weren't remotely in the main script - things like 'who's scruffy looking' as an example. TESB is the one most unscripted and allowed the most input from the actors, including the famous 'I know' line, which only the director and Ford knew was going to be said. "Boring conversation anyway" is another improvised one, and they simply didn't have the film to redo things so the actors could get away with it. 

I can see an argument for the humor not being precisely the same, but it's certainly in the same vein, and certainly similar to KOTOR and Indiana Jones and the like - the conversational, almost 4th wall breaking vein mixed with a good dollop of physical humor and sight gags. The best one so far is the one from TFA, where the stormtroopers see Ren's tantrum and nope the fuck out. 

I generally like the humor in the new ones, but it's nothing like the OT, and sometimes feels forced and can distract from the overall feel of the film.  This happened A LOT in the prequels, and my only complaint about Rogue One was that damn "Don't choke on your aspirations" line from Vader.  That's a glaring example of forcing comedy into a scene where it had no business.  TLJ and TFA do this in a few spots, though not as egregious.  Where Rogue One succeeds the most is the humor coming from the droid.  It's more on par with the humor in the OT that came from 3PO and Han, which is more dry and less slapstick.  Personally, I cringed during that stormtrooper scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now