ST Rian Johnson Responds to Fan Backlash...

Touche.

But while Vader was the more interesting villain, Tarkin wasn't a secondary antagonist in ANH. He becomes one in retrospect as Vader becomes fleshed out.

 

He wouldn't be the first. Or the second.

 

As so often CoW, you spoke out of my heart and found the words I wanted to tell as well. And I made the same decision as you and return to tell my oppinion about this movie and especially Luke's treatment.

This movie could have showed us a broken Luke, this movie could have shown us dark things, but as in ROTS, these things are only there for some minutes, while the rest of the movie is still a fun adventure with mythology. So if you show a broken Luke, then give Luke a chance to recover from it.....ohhh please don't tell me the force projection and the next second when he dies will do this.

Another point why to make Luke (and other heroes) into these cynical characters, for the sake of shock? To be modern, because our society changed? I just saw a report that more and more rescuers are attacked by aggressive people. They attack people who want to help injured people, just because the are hindered to leave with their car. They spoke about a brutalization of society. When you keep this in mind, which kind of hero does this society need? A hero who says 'I don't care' or and hero who says 'I care'.

Here is a nice article about some aspects of this topic:
http://www.theimaginativeconservati...ker-postmodern-achilles-sean-fitzpatrick.html
"In the end, old traditions can make the world young again, especially when they are strong against cynicism, infused as they are with an ancient optimism. Optimism is the only antidote to cynicism, for the cynic is blind to value. The Devil’s Dictionary by satirist Ambrose Bierce defines a cynic as “a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.” It is this faulty vision that causes people to fall upon the sword of the present disease rather than find the lost cure. With Luke’s refusal, as the once-daring hero, there is an eschatological question with which the Star Wars saga flirts… and a cynical point of view. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the hero never failed to dare and never failed to succeed—and there exists a plot that has satisfied the ages, especially when it is the daring in and of itself that many cultures have hailed as victorious. But when the hero fails to be a hero, and furthermore denies his own status as a hero, what is the rationality behind such postmodern disenchantment? Where is the old hope in that, let alone a new hope?"

 

Well, to be honest, the Death Star is the villain of ANH. Tarkin is the one at the controls. Vader is a kind of bodyguard/enforcer, While I get the idea that Tarkin is more the bigger baddie because he ultimately is holding Vader's leash and threatening him, it is Vader who kills what we are led to believe is the last of the Jedi, a sweet old fellow, right in front of Luke's eyes.

I can see the Vader v. Tarkin argument going both ways. Tarkin isn't snapping people's necks and torturing princesses, but he's bossing the guy who is.

 

This is the soul of the disagreement, IMO.

Everything you listed I consider assets. Assets so important that I truly believe The Last Jedi will ultimately be viewed as one of the best Star Wars episodes of them all.

 

I can't believe The Fate of the Furious was a better 8th sequel to its franchise then TLJ.

 

Tarkin has less screen time than Vader, who himself is barely in the film.

 

I'm glad you said that, really, because it means that I did what I set out to do, i.e., find the finest point where we fundamentally disagree. I mean, all of these arguments basically hang on a disagreement over that sentence, right?

And again, let me state, I have no problem with one film out of 9 being kind of odd or taking an unusual tone. They just went too far with the one area where I simply cannot accept it, and that is Luke Skywalker.

 

I’m still astonished by just how many people are misreading the actual themes and lessons of the movie.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am astonished that you are still saying that people who didn't like this film don't understand it. How many times has this exchange taken place?

 

I understand they sold out for money rather then story telling.

 

While I can see this eventually rivaling my favorite Luke appearance, ROTJ.

For the ways in which TLJ wasn't perfect, the handling of Luke isn't on the list for me. It was bold, unexpected, but so right. And it afforded the best Mark Hamill performance as Luke of them all, by a mile.

 

I guess you won't disagree that there is never a universal understanding or right or wrong about any piece of art. Unless you are the creator of this art to explain more about the intention? If you are not, then what you see as misreading is just your subjective interpretation.

 

It's definitely an odd thing.

Solo is close, though! I'm excited and think it'll be good. Optimistic, anyways. Lol.

 

What you don't understand is storytelling.

 

I don't believe in the universal interpretation of art.

If you watch Full Metal Jacket and walk away saying it's a ringing endorsement for the Vietnam War than I'm gonna call BS and say you didn't get the theme.

And I'm not commenting on anyone in particular in this thread. Just going off on a bit of a tangent to acknowledge that it's absolutely possible for audiences members to miss the greater themes in a film. It literally happens all the time.

 

How so?

 

He agrees!

 

What you don't understand is that art is subjective. What you think is brilliant someone else can think is terrible and neither of you are wrong.

 

No, the person saying, "if you don't view the movie like I do, you don't understand storytelling" is definitely wrong.

 

I think we have got some people here on both sides of this debate who have forgotten that all of us are fans stating our opinion about a film. No more, no less.

We speak for no one other than ourselves, and no one cares what we think other than those choosing to take part in this discussion. Not one person here is more important than another. That goes for me, you, you, you, that guy over there, that lady over there, and you. And you. And you, too.

We are all fans discussing a movie. Period.

 

It’s ridiculous this is even controversial, when clearly people are doing exactly that. Doesn’t mean anyone has to like the direction chosen, but doesn’t mean people can’t also be missing the point.

 

Ok, let me rephrase - anyone who thinks they sold out storytelling, for the sake of money - by telling the story they believed in, doesn’t understand how people tell these stories, or specifically, how RJ approached the telling of this story.


@Xander Vos - I agree with that.

 

What is this point that you think we've missed? You keep saying that.