Game of Star Wars: The Final Hope

[Davrum]

8 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Similar idea of a funny/awkward conversation over radio between the good guys and bad guys, with the good guys stalling for time. In the first scene, it enhances the tension. Han is desperate and scrambling, and eventually says fuck it and shoots the console. It's funny, but it reinforces just how much shit the heroes are in. The second scene, punctures any tension that might have built up, and makes it hard for the subsequent battle to really establish any. What's there to be scared of? The main bad guy has just been made to look a total buffoon. No threat. No tension. And the subsequent battle is definitely meant to be taken seriously by the audience, given the way the scene is framed and Leia's reaction to the loss of life. But you (or at least I), can't ever fully take it seriously when the memory of it starting with a prank call is still fresh.

Absolutely nailed it. The difference between those two scenes is that the Han Solo one is a Star Wars scene and the Poe Dameron one is a Spaceballs/Robot Chicken/Family Guy riff on the Han Solo one. Unless you're making a spoof movie, undermining the bad guys in so humiliating a fashion is only a good idea in the final act of the film and the Poe/Leia/Finn/Rose half of the film never really recovers.

Fortunately the Rey/Kylo/Luke stuff does a much better job of coming back from a similarly Mel Brooksian opening joke.

[Darth Richard II]

I'm a big lover of TLJ and even I cringe at the prank call bit.

Also, Bathos today sounds alike a Star Wars planet.

[Heartofice]

In isolation I do admit there are some elements in TLJ I liked and that could have worked really well. Luke’s arc on paper does seem well done ( considering child murder aside) and I also liked his last moments.

But unfortunately those moments are surrounded by the rest of the movie, which is a calamity of much stupider, badly thought out moments. 
 

Luke’s arc doesn’t feel real or connected to his OT character for me because it’s in a movie with Finn saving space horses on a casino planet, Leia flying in space, the dullest slowest space chase in movie history, warp speed kamikazes, yo mamma jokes, anything with Finn and Rose, redundant bad guys, space cow milking, Porgs... I mean the list almost endless.

It’s hard to block all that out and try to concentrate on the one or two well shot moments.

[Darth Richard II]

You don't like Porgs? The fuck, everyone likes porgs.

[Liffguard]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

At the end of the day the reason I loved the movie is that the parts I liked greatly outweighed the parts I did not, and every beat of Luke's arc in the story landed for me with the intended emotional punch. So when he sits up, looks into the twin sunset with binary sunset playing over it and becomes one with the force I cry.

Yeah, totally fair take. I liked the parts with Luke, Rey and Kylo. My problems with the film are almost entirely confined to the fleet chase and Canto Bight. I definitely don't hate TLJ, and I think there's the potential for something really good there, I just personally found the execution...messy, I guess.

I think four changes could have solved most of my issues with the film:

1. Excise Canto Bight entirely. I don't think it really adds anything to the film thematically, and it detracts from the tone and pacing of the rest of the film. You can still keep the subplot of Poe, Finn and Rose going behind Holdo's back to infiltrate the enemy fleet, just do it within the confines of the chase plot.

2. Make the fleet chase a bit more dynamic. Take a leaf out of Battlestar Galactica's "33." Make it more of a cat-and-mouse with the rebels getting tracked from system to system, and having to scramble to escape each time. Ramp up the tension, then ease it, then ramp it back up again. As a bonus, you can add more visual variety in the process.

3. As discussed above, change up the humour a bit. Not saying it can't be there, but don't drop a joke into every scene, and when they're there, make them work with the scene's tone. For example, let's take the prank call again. Change up the language to make it sound not quite so "modern." Then maybe change Poe's tone a bit so he's a bit more desperate, less super cool and in control. Maybe as soon as he starts fucking with them, they cut the line and start shooting, he has to evade, the battle starts. You can still get a laugh, whilst also reinforcing that shit's about to get serious.

4. Edit down the fourth act a bit. I think that the basic plot kind of requires a four-act structure, with the confrontation in the throne room being the third act climax, and Luke's confrontation with Kylo being a fourth-act denouement. But the fourth act that's actually in the film drags a lot. I think you could probably just get rid of the speeder battle. Just have the First Order turn up at the base, things look hopeless, Luke arrives, take it from there.

[Liffguard]

Also, on the topic of humour, I actually think that some of the irreverent jokes used with Luke work really well. Like, the lightsabre toss at the start. IMO this is an appropriate use of bathos. The whole point of Rey’s initial interactions with Luke is to puncture her impressions of this wise and powerful Jedi master. So establishing this powerful moment of Rey offering him the lightsabre, only for him to casually toss it, actually does work to reinforce the tone of the scene. The point is to deflate Rey’s reverence, so irreverent humour works in this case.

[The hairy bear]

On 10/25/2019 at 11:04 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. 

I've never thought that was a problem. The obvious real life historical referent is the Roman Senate, and it survived not only the transition from Republic to Empire, but also the fall of the Empire. It's not unheard of that new regimes maintain the power structures of the previous ones to maintain an appearance of legitimacy, gradually voiding them of real power.

I'd say that there is nothing in the original trilogy that really couldn't have been adequately explained. It's only the prequel trilogy that created tons of inconsistencies.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

I've never thought that was a problem. The obvious real life historical referent is the Roman Senate, and it survived not only the transition from Republic to Empire, but also the fall of the Empire. It's not unheard of that new regimes maintain the power structures of the previous ones to maintain an appearance of legitimacy, gradually voiding them of real power.

Except it wasn't just a symbolic/ceremonial body, or so the viewer is told very early on.  They had functional power - at least apparently including "control of the bureaucracy" - up to this point:

 

[The hairy bear]

@DMC,

Wouldn't that scene confirm that the Senate was only a vestige of the past with no real power? They only control bureaucrats that can be easily just ignored or instilled to collaborate through fear by the Emperor, that has absolute control of the armed forces. We also see that it can be dissolved unilaterally by an imperial order, and the control "on the ground" is held by regional governors that seem to be named directly by the the Emperor.

Once the Imperial Senate once held all the executive and legislative power of the Republic. It's obvious that its power has been progressively curtailed before the Emperor has been able to make that move.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Wouldn't that scene confirm that the Senate was only a vestige of the past with no real power? They only control bureaucrats that can be easily just ignored or instilled to collaborate through fear by the Emperor, that has absolute control of the armed forces. We also see that it can be dissolved unilaterally by an imperial order, and the control "on the ground" is held by regional governors that seem to be named directly by the the Emperor.

That scene seems clear to me that there was some type of shared power arrangement between the Senate and the regional governors vis-a-vis control of "the bureaucracy."  Now, obviously the influence of the bureaucracy is entirely nebulous and ill-defined throughout the films - which only reinforces the lack of worldbuilding btw. 

However, the immediate concern expressed about the dissolution of the Senate, and Tarkin's response which seems to take such concern as legitimate, indicates whatever "the bureaucracy" is composed of, it's something that actually retains considerable implementation influence at the least.  Which, of course, generally would make sense, as that is what bureaucracies do. 

Therefore, if the Senate still had retained some type of power - oversight, direct, shared, or whatever - over the bureaucracy, it stands to reason that dissolving such a body throughout an entire galaxy would result in a rather immediate and significant resistance.  Especially after an entire planet was blown up, there is very little incentive for appeasement among those that necessarily would be ousted from power.  That's just not good diplomacy.  "Compliance or death" feeds revolutions more than anything.

So, based on the logic of that scene, it doesn't make much sense why the Rebel Alliance needs to rely on a 19 year old that can bullseye womp rats and a deus ex machina - and particularly why they were in such dire straits for the remainder of the OT.  To be clear, I don't have any real problem with this in terms of the films.  Obviously the above is way overthinking it, and just fun for me as an institutionalist.  I'm fairly confident Lucas did not consider anything remotely resembling the above, or the Roman Senate, when he wrote that scene.  And that's fine.  But it is demonstrably poor and/or ignoring worldbuilding, which was the topic at hand.

[Vaughn]

7 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

You don't like Porgs? The fuck, everyone likes porgs.

You know who liked Porgs? Chewie did. At least until he was guilted out of eating any more. 

[Vaughn]

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

I'd say that there is nothing in the original trilogy that is really couldn't have been adequately explained. It's only the prequel trilogy that created tons of inconsistencies.

What I don't need from Star Wars is tons of explanations, just stories which avoid inconsistencies. If Obiwan says he doesn't rememberer the droids, then leave them out of the scenes with him in the first three movies, etc...  If you're going to hide Darth Vader's kids, why not give them both false identities with non-relatives instead having one kid keep his last name and having him live with Vader's closest living relatives. Etc...  

 

There is no adequate explanation for the 'rescue Han from Jabba's palace' plan other than they are all idiots but it was still entertaining.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

I thought the milk scene was hilarious. It satirises fan service.

[Argonath Diver]

The more you guys mention it, the more I'm reminded and irritated by all the failed humor. That goddamn prank call makes me wince. Dampen that bullshit, absolutely agreed, remove the awful and useless casino bit, and have a long lingering make out between Poe and Finn and we are back in business.

[mormont]

Eh. The prank call isn't bad. Possibly a touch overlong, but it's explicitly meant as a delaying tactic.

I'm not sure that glossing an old complaint with a new, not-that-accurately used terminology ('bathos') is that revolutionary of an argument, either. The Last Jedi isn't in my top three Star Wars films, but the arguments about its flaws continue to be rather one-eyed IMHO.

[Heartofice]

The prank call is that bad and seems to be brought up quite often when discussing the films flaws:

Would have been fine if you know, it was in another movie, another universe, another genre. 
 

Everyone is allowed to like or dislike the movie but it’s just as one eyed to gloss over its flaws and only focus on the bits you liked IMHO 

[dog-days]

When I was in the cinema the audience around me enjoyed the prank call - I did too the first time, though when I watched TLJ again on my laptop I found it less funny. The weird sea-cow with the green milk is still class. To me that was also a very Star Wars moment - the humour and grotesquerie. The playfulness. That kind of thing is what SW is about to me as well as the Manichean family drama and the really big spaceships.

[Myrddin]

IMHO, the "bathos" video is partially right, but it overplays the point. All the SW movies have silly comedic moments/gags (Jar Jar getting tongue shocked and farting tattoine animals anyone?). The prank call bothered me less than the general getting spun around on the floor and being used to mop the tile. Porgs, sea-cows, maid service, all worked for me. The lightsaber toss was a good use of subverting expectations.

But the tone does swing widely and kept the audience off balance, and not in a good way. The entire movie felt off pacing wise, but I attribute it to the slow speed chase through space. (I never understood why the First Order didn't just send a few ships ahead to the next hyperspace point)

Overall, I remember enjoying TLJ, but it is not a favorite. I haven't even rewatched it since the initial theater viewing, even though I bought the bluray. I'll rewatch it before RotS.

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Myrddin said:

IMHO, the "bathos" video is partially right, but it overplays the point. All the SW movies have silly comedic moments/gags (Jar Jar getting tongue shocked and farting tattoine animals anyone?). 

 

Lol. I mean the humour in TLJ should definitely be compared to Jar Jar farting and treading in poop, and not in a good way. Jar Jar is a great example of what NOT to do in a SW movie, and how not to do humour. Maybe Johnson is the one person outside of Lucas who thought that Jar Jar was a good idea? 

[Darth Richard II]

Jar jar is genius, what you talking bout.