Jump to content
lady narcissa

Game of Star Wars: The Final Hope

Recommended Posts

Another case of the ST not ignoring prior movies but making them central - Luke's outlook in TLJ is heavily influenced by the failures of the Jedi in the PT. His conclusions about what to do are wrong, but he's not wrong in judging what happened then as a condemnation of what the Jedi had become.

Yoda's appearance aligns with this as well - teach your successors your mistakes so they don't make them. Luke didn't make the same mistakes as the PT Jedi, they need to impart those lessons so Rey doesn't repeat either of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Toth said:

That seems to me to be an odd view to have. Worldbuilding doesn't mean getting the emperors tax returns. It means establishing the setting. And I think especially the first movie did an excellent job dropping just enough bits of history to know exactly what you are dealing with. That there is a galaxy-spanning oppressive empire. That it used to be a republic, that the powergrab of the emperor was a gradual process since the senate was dissolved just now. That there used to be an enigmatic cult of magic-wielding peacekeepers that has been betrayed and slaughtered. That there are now rebels fighting the empire. That the rebels are staffed by discontent former imperials...

The problem is, a lot of that background was just cool ideas or phrases that Lucas dropped in. But, as it proved, he didn't really have anything other than a vague notion about what a lot of those things were or how they related to each other - 'the clone wars' being probably the easiest example. 

As for the Senate only just being dissolved, that's a good example of what I mentioned above: 'worldbuilding' that makes no real logical sense. The power structures of the old Republic still exist, in whatever form, up to the beginning of ANH: but everyone acts as if the Empire has been in charge for decades and the old Republic is nothing but a dusty memory. It's the Jedi problem all over again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with those who say that the original trilogy doesn't have much in the way of worldbuilding. But that's ok- that's not what I go to Star Wars for. It has amazing atmosphere; that Mos Eisley cantina scene is the best example, or just looking at life on Cloud City. It doesn't necessarily all make sense when put together, but who cares? It's fun and striking and draws you in and is all a backdrop to the stories of the main characters. As someone pointed out upthread, the prequel trilogy and the expanded universe books have the most worldbuing by far. That doesn't stop the prequels from being bad movies or the majority of the expanded universe books from being terrible (hello, Kevin J. Anderson).

 This is also why I remain unsympathetic to all the hand-wringing about how Holdo's hyperdrive maneuver in The Last Jedi ruins the worldbuilding. It was cool, it was visually striking, it was inspiring, it was bold. It's no less plausible than a teenager from Tatooine jumping into an X-Wing for the first time and being the best pilot of the bunch because he's special, or the Death Star just so happening to have an easily exploitable weak point that blows the whole thing up. It was everything Star Wars should be to me.

Edited by Caligula_K3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Caligula, that to enjoy a Star Wars movie, a viewer needs to set aside some logical questions and enjoy at a more emotional level - there's so much corny, silly shit in the OT that we celebrate anyways. 

As to your last point, my favorite of the last seven films exists solely to explain your final point, though! I need, I keed.

I just watched TLJ last night, first time in many months. I still found the entire casino and save-teh-animalz scene palpably stupid and a waste. I think the total dissing of Chewie is egregious. I enormously disliked Holdo, simply because of how ridiculous it was for a commander to not tell their most heroic soldier what her plan was. There were several really iconic visual moments that tugged on my nerdy heartstrings, and I suppose I'm in general more of a fan of it than many. 

I am worried that the final chapter will leave me super disappointed. I am still planning on taking some of my original figures and putting them on my massive recliner seat's armrests because thats what 6 year old me woulda done and he deserves it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

I agree with you Caligula, that to enjoy a Star Wars movie, a viewer needs to set aside some logical questions and enjoy at a more emotional level - there's so much corny, silly shit in the OT that we celebrate anyways. 

As to your last point, my favorite of the last seven films exists solely to explain your final point, though! I need, I keed.

I just watched TLJ last night, first time in many months. I still found the entire casino and save-teh-animalz scene palpably stupid and a waste. I think the total dissing of Chewie is egregious. I enormously disliked Holdo, simply because of how ridiculous it was for a commander to not tell their most heroic soldier what her plan was. There were several really iconic visual moments that tugged on my nerdy heartstrings, and I suppose I'm in general more of a fan of it than many. 

I am worried that the final chapter will leave me super disappointed. I am still planning on taking some of my original figures and putting them on my massive recliner seat's armrests because thats what 6 year old me woulda done and he deserves it. 

If this never existed TLJ would have been a much better movie. It felt like pandering to kids to have the whole save the animals thing and the betrayal was just Lando 2.0 without the charisma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I agree with those who say that the original trilogy doesn't have much in the way of worldbuilding. But that's ok- that's not what I go to Star Wars for. It has amazing atmosphere; that Mos Eisley cantina scene is the best example, or just looking at life on Cloud City. It doesn't necessarily all make sense when put together, but who cares? It's fun and striking and draws you in and is all a backdrop to the stories of the main characters. As someone pointed out upthread, the prequel trilogy and the expanded universe books have the most worldbuing by far. That doesn't stop the prequels from being bad movies or the majority of the expanded universe books from being terrible (hello, Kevin J. Anderson).

 This is also why I remain unsympathetic to all the hand-wringing about how Holdo's hyperdrive maneuver in The Last Jedi ruins the worldbuilding. It was cool, it was visually striking, it was inspiring, it was bold. It's no less plausible than a teenager from Tatooine jumping into an X-Wing for the first time and being the best pilot of the bunch because he's special, or the Death Star just so happening to have an easily exploitable weak point that blows the whole thing up. It was everything Star Wars should be to me.

Rogue one gave a pretty good explanation (admittedly 30 years later) and the podracing didn't affect military tactics. Holdo's manoeuvre technically doesn't destroy past worldbuilding (if we make the mental stretch no one else ever tried it) but without a FTL ram shield it completely changes how battles are fought. Maybe the shit load of ships in the new trailer is actually a fleet of suicide ships. Or maybe it's the strategy for avoiding FTL rams by creating a buffer shield of smaller expendable ships around your main fleet.

Ultimately the main issue that scene is guilty of is lazy writing though as the admittedly beautiful shot could have been kept and make sense. Instead of pissing around on horserace/casino planet they could have had Finn and Rose could have infiltrated the star destroyer and shut down its FTL ram shield prior to the attack. Easy enough.

I'd still love to have a scene where veterans from the destruction of death star 1 and 2 reminisce about how much easier and less costly it would have been to use the ramraid maneuver.

JJ Abrams shrinking of distance and time when traveling is probably a larger issue in the long run but we can at least choose to accept that as ending rather than everything being a 2 minutes ride away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love R1 fir the battle at the end. I know everyone jizzed over the Vader scene but for me the part where they ran the two Star Destoyers was just Star Wars bliss. Easily one of my top 3 Star Wars moments. 
 

Also while I’m rambling I believe R1 is the only Disney SW so far Lucas is on record as really liking though I don’t think he’s says anything about TLJ orcSoli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, red snow said:

but without a FTL ram shield it completely changes how battles are fought

Indeed. I don't think Disney intends to have future Star Wars space battles entail unmanned droid ships -- little more than rocks with hyperdrives, hyperspace missiles -- ruling the roost and capital ships becoming obsolete. So they'll have to come up with something.... or they just ignore the Holdo maneuver entirely and pretend it never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend texted me:

V

IV

Rogue 1

VI

VIII

VII

III

Solo

I

II

 

Discuss.

 

My only comment is that II being at the bottom seems correct. 

ETA:   also torn on VIII vs. VII and which is better / less bad.

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had some previous ratings/rankings going on here, for those interested. 

To recap mine:

V

IV

VI

R1

VII

VIII

Solo

I

III
II

Biggest loser in this is TLJ, which I came out liking more than TFA initially, but over time I was increasingly bugged by it in several respects and decided that objectively I liked it less, even if it had some really terrific moments that surpassed anything in TFA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ran said:

 

Indeed. I don't think Disney intends to have future Star Wars space battles entail unmanned droid ships -- little more than rocks with hyperdrives, hyperspace missiles -- ruling the roost and capital ships becoming obsolete. So they'll have to come up with something.... or they just ignore the Holdo maneuver entirely and pretend it never happened.

This is more like how the expanse treats space conflicts (without FTL) but the difference is they embraced and thought it through beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VI is too high. Loved it as a kid but it's not better than the newer movies. Clunky story telling and rehashed plot elements are a core part of the SW universe it seems. 

For me, there's three tiers: 

IV, V

VI, TFA, Solo, R1, TLJ

I, II, III

I enjoy the epic scenes in Star Wars as much as any coherent plot or story/character arc. The shot of the crashed Star Destroyers in TFA trailer is just cool as anything for example. Also the sense of a worn universe, a bit past a previous prime. Like LoTR in that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 11:04 AM, mormont said:

The problem is, a lot of that background was just cool ideas or phrases that Lucas dropped in. But, as it proved, he didn't really have anything other than a vague notion about what a lot of those things were or how they related to each other - 'the clone wars' being probably the easiest example. 

As for the Senate only just being dissolved, that's a good example of what I mentioned above: 'worldbuilding' that makes no real logical sense. The power structures of the old Republic still exist, in whatever form, up to the beginning of ANH: but everyone acts as if the Empire has been in charge for decades and the old Republic is nothing but a dusty memory. It's the Jedi problem all over again. 

Okay, this is the last thing I say to it because I honestly didn't expect that what I said was so controversial that you felt the need to change the subject. My entire point was that in what it did, Episode 4 was effective. Nothing more, nothing less. People weren't going out of the cinemas arguing about how that world works. Because Lucas for all his faults knew that in storytelling you don't infodump, but instead reveal aspects of the world as they become necessary for the plot. The clone wars, Vader's betrayal and the massacre of the Jedi weren't just thrown in for the sake of it, but to establish the connection between Obi-Wan, Vader and Luke. The characters and the world became intertwined into each other. Once again, we didn't need the emperor's tax returns for that to work. In fact, Lucas in some interview freely admitted that Episode 4 was shot while under the assumption that the emperor is just a pawn to Vader and Vader actually runs things, explaining why he wasn't necessary for the plot up until the decision was made to make Vader Luke's dad and reverse their relationship in order to give Vader a villain for a redemption arc.

But whatever retcons were pulled back then, it doesn't matter because my initial point was never to make it a dick measuring contest about what movie had the "best" worldbuilding. Whatever that even is, given that there is worldbuilding that is about establishing a setting and worldbuilding that is about expanding upon an existing setting. My argument was just an example to compare the Sequel trilogy with, especially since the Sequel Trilogy in its obsession with being a modern knock-off of the Original Trilogy seemed to treat its "so shit happened and now we are back at the start but maybe not quite I don't know" worldbuilding as of the establishing kind, even though they then went about in the most lazy way possible that relies entirely on the audience not giving a fuck. I dare you to ask J.J. Abrams who Snoke was. I'm fairly sure he doesn't know and doesn't care to know, because placing this narrative mystery box to make people talk about was all he ever intended. And it's especially bad because the setting already existed. With the world existing and the last certain plot point being the defeat of the Empire in Episode 6. Therefore a movie that introduces massive changes to the world and characters being made in that timeframe has the obligation to at least tell us what happened when the entire main conflict and character traits of the old cast depend on that change. So there are new imperial guys who may are in charge of the galaxy or may just be an exile fleet that somehow still becomes in charge of the galaxy or something... and then there is the resistance who are part of the republic or maybe not officially or something and Luke who went out of his way to redeem a genocidal warlord because of his unwavering idealism suddenly is totes fine with child murder as his first action upon having a bad hunch? Basically the only character where they kinda went out of their way to mention that his current situation is due to a falling out with Leia is Han and I somehow have a feeling that's because Harrison Ford beat someone bloody with a stack of scripts.

Ugh... Sorry the rant... So that's where I stand and I know I am not allowed to have that opinion because nowadays you are not allowed to criticise stories for an insulting lack of care just because they have a big brand name and expensive flashy pictures. I really liked Rogue One, I see value in much of the stuff Rebels did and even found Solo fairly okay. So I'm not just here to hate on Disney or rant about an imagined evil hidden agenda. It's just the Sequel Trilogy that pisses me off with its intellectual laziness and I dare to say that it would be nowhere near as dividing to the fandom if a few competent writers had come together early on to think up where they want to go with it instead of just forcing the first slap-dash mess of a script someone scribbled on a paper napkin through Abrams' lens-flare generator.

Edited by Toth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toth said:

Okay, this is the last thing I say to it because I honestly didn't expect that what I said was so controversial that you felt the need to change the subject. My entire point was that in what it did, Episode 4 was effective. Nothing more, nothing less. People weren't going out of the cinemas arguing about how that world works. Because Lucas for all his faults knew that in storytelling you don't infodump, but instead reveal aspects of the world as they become necessary for the plot. The clone wars, Vader's betrayal and the massacre of the Jedi weren't just thrown in for the sake of it, but to establish the connection between Obi-Wan, Vader and Luke. The characters and the world became intertwined into each other. Once again, we didn't need the emperor's tax returns for that to work. In fact, Lucas in some interview freely admitted that Episode 4 was shot while under the assumption that the emperor is just a pawn to Vader and Vader actually runs things, explaining why he wasn't necessary for the plot up until the decision was made to make Vader Luke's dad and reverse their relationship in order to give Vader a villain for a redemption arc.

But whatever retcons were pulled back then, it doesn't matter because my initial point was never to make it a dick measuring contest about what movie had the "best" worldbuilding. Whatever that even is, given that there is worldbuilding that is about establishing a setting and worldbuilding that is about expanding upon an existing setting. My argument was just an example to compare the Sequel trilogy with, especially since the Sequel Trilogy in its obsession with being a modern knock-off of the Original Trilogy seemed to treat its "so shit happened and now we are back at the start but maybe not quite I don't know" worldbuilding as of the establishing kind, even though they then went about in the most lazy way possible that relies entirely on the audience not giving a fuck. I dare you to ask J.J. Abrams who Snoke was. I'm fairly sure he doesn't know and doesn't care to know, because placing this narrative mystery box to make people talk about was all he ever intended. And it's especially bad because the setting already existed. With the world existing and the last certain plot point being the defeat of the Empire in Episode 6. Therefore a movie that introduces massive changes to the world and characters being made in that timeframe has the obligation to at least tell us what happened when the entire main conflict and character traits of the old cast depend on that change. So there are new imperial guys who may are in charge of the galaxy or may just be an exile fleet that somehow still becomes in charge of the galaxy or something... and then there is the resistance who are part of the republic or maybe not officially or something and Luke who went out of his way to redeem a genocidal warlord because of his unwavering idealism suddenly is totes fine with child murder as his first action upon having a bad hunch? Basically the only character where they kinda went out of their way to mention that his current situation is due to a falling out with Leia is Han and I somehow have a feeling that's because Harrison Ford beat someone bloody with a stack of scripts.

Ugh... Sorry the rant... So that's where I stand and I know I am not allowed to have that opinion because nowadays you are not allowed to criticise stories for an insulting lack of care just because they have a big brand name and expensive flashy pictures. I really liked Rogue One, I see value in much of the stuff Rebels did and even found Solo fairly okay. So I'm not just here to hate on Disney or rant about an imagined evil hidden agenda. It's just the Sequel Trilogy that pisses me off with its intellectual laziness and I dare to say that it would be nowhere near as dividing to the fandom if a few competent writers had come together early on to think up where they want to go with it instead of just forcing the first slap-dash mess of a script someone scribbled on a paper napkin through Abrams' lens-flare generator.

Calm down, nobody said you couldn’t criticise, the issue i took, and mormont took too seemingly was your statement that you didnt like it and hoped it would die a slow death, or whatever the exact wording was. Which, whether you intended it to or not, sounds very much like you are saying because you dont like it, others who do like it shouldnt be able to continue enjoying the franchise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 4:04 AM, mormont said:

 

As for the Senate only just being dissolved, that's a good example of what I mentioned above: 'worldbuilding' that makes no real logical sense. The power structures of the old Republic still exist, in whatever form, up to the beginning of ANH: but everyone acts as if the Empire has been in charge for decades and the old Republic is nothing but a dusty memory. It's the Jedi problem all over again. 

Man, that's still one of the greatest flaws in Star Wars...as a kid watching, you do get the impression that the Empire has been in control for a good long while...but when you're older and you realize the Emperor has only been in power for 19 years? It screws you up some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Triskele said:

I had never heard of this term bathos, but this video explains what it is and how it messes up TLJ quite a lot.  

That definitely explains a lot of my own problems with TLJ. The movie cannot maintain any consistent tone or sense of tension, and its misuse of humour is a major part of that (the other factors IMO being pacing and story structure).

I think it's a real shame because at least TLJ was trying something interesting (unlike TFA). I was totally on board for what Johnson was trying to do thematically. But the actual result is all over the place. It's definitely not all bad, some individual moments are brilliant, but as a whole it's kind of a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God yeah. The tonal shifts of TLJ are probably its biggest problem.. well...among many. It never seems to work out what it is. I get the logic of not trying to come across as too serious and self indulgent, but there are better ways to break that tension (if you actually even need to break tension) then to throw in a terrible joke about milking space cows. Plus none of the humour is consistent with the characters themselves, and mostly turns good characters into humour punchbags -see Finn and General Hux.

I might have liked the movie if it wasn't 50% dark middle chapter, 50% fluffy slapstick jaunt.

I'll have to remember this Bathos thing.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×