A/V Episode VIII - THE LAST JEDI - Official Movie Discussion Thread

Possible romantic subtext shouldn't have been put into play to begin with. Dispelling a hoax after spreading it doesn't really absolve you of spreading it in the first place. The only problem you "fixed" is one you created.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

Why not? Every second film in a Star Wars trilogy has a romance. This one was a new and interesting take on romantic development, and it gives the two players more of an emotional connection rather than, "You killed your father, someone I knew for a day and only started to look up to because I project my emotional needs onto them".

 

I've lived to see the day in which playing on and subverting audience expectations is considered "spreading a hoax."

 

Bad wording, but my point is the same. It's like making Batman into a bank robber at the beginning of the movie, then revealing at the end that the banks being robbed were actually owned by Ra's al Ghul. The story writer "solved" a problem that should never have been written to begin with.

 

I don't know how that example tracks onto this one at all.

A better example might be that there should be no romantic tension between Batman and Catwoman because that should be a conflict of his ethics. But Batman's a guy, so it's ok. Or I don't know, I have no idea why this "should never have been written". Especially since it's a thing that not everyone would even agree is there if the writer hadn't pointed it out.

 

I agree that Batman should have no romantic tension with Catwoman. I don't give him a pass because it's a guy at all.

I would even go so far as to say that someone like Batman should have no romance with anyone. His mission is his life.

Taking this back on topic with 8, I would say the same about Kylo Ren. The Dark Side is his life. He has no time for romance with anyone, Rey or otherwise, and it's why I felt the whole Reylo vibe was incorrect.

 

And yet, Tom King is writing a critically-acclaimed Batman story right now in which that very thing happens. Something I'm seeing more and more, especially in Star Wars fandom, is a tendency for fans to reinterpret a beloved character's traits as character armor - inviolable, hard and fast "rules" intended more to protect the fan's preferred interpretation of a character than define who the character is. "Batman would never do that." "Luke would never do that." A rigid mentality like that is troubling - it requires storytellers to treat characters with kid gloves, to "respect the boundaries" instead of exploring a character to its fullest. Is Batman really a more interesting character if he has "no romance with anyone," ever, because that's just one of the rules of the character? Or is it more interesting - do we learn more about the character - when a writer explores under what circumstances Batman does allow himself romantic entanglements? Why did Batman compromise that principle? What will be the consequences? That's the story I'm more interested in. Or would be if I read Batman comics.

 

You have a point. The Batman of the original Bill Finger Bob Kane comics was very much into Catwoman. It's the later brooding version that came out, after the 60s show was over, who never would date Catwoman. The current comic book run is a blend of the early comics and the dark Batman, having him be dark and still date Catwoman.

There's a point that these franchises now have multiple iterations of a character. Batman himself is divided up into Earth Two incarnation of the Golden Age, Earth One incarnation of the Silver Age, New Earth incarnation between Crisis on Infinite Earths and 2011 Flashpoint, and the Prime incarnation. That's not counting the Animated Series version, Bale version, Affleck version, Adam West version, Burtonverse version, and more.

Luke Skywalker is divided into two iterations: Legends and canon.

So when we're saying that Batman would never date Catwoman, I'd be pointing to, say, the Affleck version and would technically be correct. If I said Luke would never hide like in 8, I'd be pointing to the Legends version and technically be correct. There are so many versions of a character to choose from, people can say that "this" iteration of a character would never do something, and still be correct. The lines are blurred because on this forum there are now 2 Luke Skywalkers, so when I'm saying Luke would never do stuff like in 8, I guess I mean Legends Luke. I think the general public still has to wash Legends Luke out of their minds, including Mark Hamill himself (fans told him about the novels and Mara Jade etc at conventions, so it might explain his initial shock at the character he read in the 8 script, although he did come around to Rian's take).

 

It's not a "hoax," though. He's not misleading the audience.

This doesn't track. It's not a twist, or a reveal - these aren't tricks played on us by the filmmaker, but rather within the story the characters go through something and come out on the other side of it. It's less "I am your father" and more "No, Han, he's my brother."

 

To be fair, I have the same issue with Nolan's films. He plays off his reputation for realism to fool us in 'The Prestige', only to find in the end it's about magical machines creating duplicates.

 

I think I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how you see that as similar to, say, Luke's arc.

 

I feel the movie tries to be daring, then pulls back. If they wanted to break expectations, Luke should have gone all the way, burned the books, and declared the Jedi dead. And there's enough material from the PT that the Jedi is actually a harmful religion not conducive to healthy thinking. I guess I've been influenced on the books I've been reading that theorize that Christianity was created as a propaganda tool to divide and pacify Jews to be content with their material lot under Roman rule (it makes more sense to me than people rising from the dead or walking on water, no offense to anyone here, I'm just following what works for me).

I see where Rian was going. But in the end it was a story to have it both ways (Luke cops out on the Jedi in the end but comes back). It doesn't satisfy the Legends crowd who wanted the Luke who would never give up on the Jedi way, just change it (reinstate marriage etc.). It doesn't satisfy the new ideas crowd who want Luke to go all the way and burn an obsolete religious institution. Obviously the movie made a lot of money, but that's because people went in without spoilers. I'm still contemplating what, if any, the effect was on Solo's box office.

 

Oh god the solo box office thread is spilling out.

 

It was just a thought. The fact that it went agianst Avengers and Deadpool 2 is probably more likely.

 

But again, doesn't this describe, like, every story? Main character is wrong about something and has to learn the truth by the end of the movie. Luke has already done this multiple times in the story: He was wrong about "Not getting involved," then the Empire gave him a harsh lesson about how involved he already was; his arc is about getting very much involved. Luke in The Empire Strikes Back leaves his training to rescue his friends; does the fact that he does not rescue his friends and does come back to the training mean that story was trying to have it "both ways"? Does the fact that Luke begins Return of the Jedi calling himself a Jedi Knight, then gets shut down by a laughing puppet who tells him to face Vader, is that film trying to have it "both ways"?

 

It does indeed describe most franchise stories these days that stick to a core theme and often become ads for the next story.

Any story that kills the whole idea of the franchise would probably end the franchise itself. That's why we don't see these stories often.

 

Ok, what are the movies where the main character is right about something and doesn't need to learn anything because they knew it all from the beginning? And are those movies any good?

I guess High Noon maybe? But even that guy was wrong about how incredibly alone he was gonna be at the end of the film.

 

Most Sherlock Holmes stories have him being right from the start, with Lestrade and Watson making the mistakes and Holmes is proven right in the end all along. And Holmes holds the record for most filmed literary character.

 

She, uh, she didn't.

 

I'm unclear as to what you are saying here. Are you saying that Rey is hearts-in-eyes in love with Kylo Ren and that's why she goes to him on the Supremacy? Because I think the film makes perfectly clear that Rey doesn't really have feelings for Kylo past a simple entertaining the thought. She goes to the Supremacy to try and save the Resistance, just as Luke goes to Cloud City to save his.

Rey is so much better than a character out if a Meyer or James novel. Instead of falling for the creepo romantic foil and his wiles she rejects him at the end of the film. I think that's a message that people need to hear these days. Falling in love with a "bad boy" (and I mean this in less the Nice Guy sense and more in the "this dude obviously has issues with power balances") is a really, REALLY bad idea.

 

Yep. Luke is a failure in every sense of the word.

Also, it's not so much that Luke has to deal with challenge or is wrong, it's just that his actions in the OT seem so pointless, that ultimately he does lose to the Empire and there isn't a single Jedi he's passed on to what he learned from Yoda.

I like tragedies. I like surprises. The problem is the ST did a complete 180 of OT Luke it was embarrassing.

 

There would've been other ways to have Luke be wrong then turning his back on the whole Jedi Order and being a grumpy old hermit waiting to die and not having any legacy other then ****ing up the whole galaxy again.

 

None of what we see was planned. It was a mish mash. When 7 destroyed the galaxy, abrams didn't know luke gave up the Force. Rian had to tell jj to cut the floating rocks at the end of 7.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk