ST Poll: Rate the Title "The Last Jedi"

Nowhere. But just because the 2 main characters were teenagers doesn't mean that there wouldn't be other teenagers (or children) around them, taken that they were all Jedi students. And I highly doubt George would have had Luke's Jedi academy slaughtered ala ROTS-style in order to reset things to where they were in ANH. While some may say that this slaughtering would be very much in GL's style of "poetry rhyming", they seem to forget one thing: GL would have at least had his film take place during the events of this slaughtering - and not just in some flashback.

The fact that many fans are asking for a spin-off movie showing Kylo Ren's turn to the dark side and the eventual attack on the academy proves that the story taking place prior to the ST seems more interesting than the ST itself.

 

But you said, "But as we know..."

 

Yeah, we know that they didn't like GL's original draft because it seemed too "prequelly".

 

Who is that quote from?

 

Mystery solved.

 

AlternativeFacts.com

 

Nonsense. It seems you are the ones who are paranoid, and quickly dismissing people as being paranoid about "PT-hate post-Lucas" without even reading my previous posts where I specifically stated that Disney does not hate the prequels. Oh lord. So much for that.

And there is a source:
http://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2016...ens-hints-at-star-wars-episode-viii-plot.html

Iain McCaig said that Lucas original drafts were rejected because of Disney not wanting things that would seem too prequelly. That's it. Does this quote mean that Disney hates the prequels? Nope. It simply means that they are trying to play it safe.

But please, be my guest and continue high-five each other. It seems you guys enjoy it.

 

Well, I'm not sure what evidence you'd look for? Written official press statements? They bought the property, so clearly they're not going to go out of their way to damage its value. I think it clear that Abrams didn't care for the PT and even talent hired by Lucasfilm/Disney (Simon Pegg, Gary Whitta) are unabashed bashers.

People have opinions, what are you going to do? And who cares? Some love what Lucas did in the 70's and 80's, me included. Some hate what he did around the turn of the century. There's fair criticism there. What I'd like from Lucasfilm is a something new from the old. Create a synthesis. Make something of their own. If you want more in camera I'm all for it. If you want to push the tech to revive the parts of dead actors, as long as estates approve, again, I'm all in. If you want to limit CGI to the absolute necessities, sounds good to me, but let that all serve the story, which is the most important part. Hell, if you've got a great story and you want to use a puppet show, if that's what it takes, by all means.

 

That is not a reliable source. Many denied that McCaig used those words, including other people who were present.

 

Or bounce through a supernova.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That'd end the thread real quick.

 

Yeah, 8 is about right. Not blowing my mind, but it's probably a good fit for the story.

 

After thinking a bit about this, I'd like to retract my "7" and instead vote "?"

Because if The Last Jedi refers to Luke as "the last Jedi" simply because he is the last Jedi, then The Last Jedi is a pretty ho-hum, blah title. "The Last Jedi" rolls off the tongue well, but does little more if Luke being the last Jedi is all there is behind "The Last Jedi." We already know that, as of this moment, Luke is the last Jedi.

However, if the point is that Luke is "right now" the last Jedi but by the end of the film it refers to Rey (because Luke has bought the farm and she has become a Jedi), then the title is dynamic--it actually has a deeper meaning and isn't simply "this movie revolves around Luke who, as we are all aware, is the last Jedi."

 

I gave it a 10. However, I love Spinal Tap, so TESB and ROTS get 11.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Whatever happened to titles that gave the impression of rank?

Jedi, Jedi Knight (could be the same thing), Jedi Master and Jedi Grand Master.

What made the Jedi, Knights anyway? Knights were a European feudal era title that meant the exchange of land for military service, especially with regard to what was at the time known as christendom, the Christian Church being the most powerful institution of the feudal European era. The Samurai were knights of this kind in feudal Japan in the 16th and 17th centuries as well, although the distinction being the absence of a unifying institution, like a church. Moreno, Samurai were under the tutelage of regional warlords or a powerful Shogun. The Knights of Ren remind me of the former as the Japanese Samurai and Snoke the powerful Shogun.

It's interesting that the only time I can recall the Jedi being referred to as Knights was in A New Hope when Obi-Wan spoke the famous line ".....The Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice.....

As been noted, the title The Last Jedi breaks the title mold from the previous Act II titles in the series. It's still ominous. The Jedi at an existential crosscroads. Unable to secure for future generations the legacy of the Jedi, having suffered through a kind of genocide and an attempt by Imperial officials to limit their influence by destroying all knowledge of the order from galactic memory and history. I'm good with that. Although it's not a great title, I can understand the title from that perspective.

I'm good with breaking molds, but one thing I am concerned about is the decision to start The Last Jedi right at the point that The Force Awakens ended. And I'll take the rest of my thoughts to the Rian Johnson thread.

 

I prefer to see the movie first before rating the title.

 

I agree with that, but within the context of the saga thus far, which is like 7/9 of the story (and knowing a little more given Rogue One's Guardian's of the Whills), how does The Last Jedi stand? <Pun>

 

I love the new title because it fits where the story is heading. It is simple but sort of ominous.