ST The Reception of The Last Jedi vs The Empire Strikes Back

It's been stated multiple times that Episode IX was to be 'Leia's movie' in the same way that Episode VII and VIII were Han and Luke's, respectively.

And if you think 'we're making it up as we go along, there is no planning' is how these movies are produced, then you're either lost or just being silly because Rian was vocal about the amount of creative control that he has. It doesn't mean that there is no plan and no collaboration.

 

How is Shmi more significant than Leia is in relation to her relationship to the resistance, kylo, rey, poe and Luke. Considering that the resistance is led by her. Kylo's shred of humanity is shown when confronted with her demise. Rey is guided by her. Poe is mentored by her and Luke literally connects back to the force because of her, but go ahead, tell me about Shmi....

 

I know there is a bit of a collaboration for details, but at no point they sated there was an actual overarching plan for the trilogy. Didn't Rian even use the expression "blank slate"?

But my point still remains. The stories of TFA and TLJ left clear openings for Leia to intervene, either as a mother (on Crait, on TFA) or as a Force user (like, lifting the rocks, or help at least). Heck, even as a sister (clearly her ANH message did more than Rey did in convincing Luke, so why didn’t she go with Rey? It’s not like she was needed in the Resistance – they have a structured chain of command in case of leader’s absence as we saw). She didn’t intervene or really do anything where her activity could make a difference. And that’s what is puzzling about it. That’s what I call massive sidelining of what should be an important character. And the plot contrivances used to sideline her only make her character feel frustratingly dumb in hindsight.

Episode IX wouldn’t have changed that. It could, however, “fix” it. But now it’s, very unfortunately, too late for that.

 

I understand that. I also understand that criticism that people are equating with ESB could be equated with any SW movie, but people want to compare it to ESB to diminish criticism, imo, because the vast vast majority of people here, including those that dislike TLJ, love ESB.

Just because the audience had expectations going into both ESB and TLJ doesn’t make their flaws the same. Literally every single post-ANH SW movie had to deal with audience expectations. These are not the same movies. These are not the same caliber of movies. Of everyone that I know that’s seen TLJ, one person equated it with ESB. The rest? No, not close. It varied from dislike to okay to liked to loved for what it was, but not as the next ESB.

It’s become a cliche to want to compare every SW movie to ESB. It’s like if every non-SW sci-fi movie is forever compared to Bladerunner 2049 because it’s such a masterpiece. No. The next Bladerunner 2049 doesn’t need to be compared to Bladerunner 2049 because it will be it’s own thing remember for what it is, not for what something else is.

 

I highly disagree with the notion that Leia wasn't needed in the Resistance. We literally see everything go to **** in the Resistance while she's in a coma. It isn't until she wakes up that everything settles down and the plan can be executed with no internal resistance. And had she been awake during the time Finn, Rose, and Poe come up with their plan to sneak aboard the Mega-Destroyer, they probably wouldn't have even gone, and the Crait plan would have worked.

 

Yes, Shmi was vital to the story of Anakin and was utilized as such in both movies. Leia is not utilized when she should be vital. Poe learns nothing from her, he learns from Holdo. Rey learns from...honestly I have no idea, she learns from herself I guess. Leia also didn't do any leading of the Resistance as she was mostly in coma and Holdo took charge, and after Holdo, Poe immediatly took the wheel again.

And yes, Luke connecting back to the Force because of Leia is another point to the list of "why didn't Leia go to Luke and actively try to convince him". Her role in the movies is extremely passive and under utilized for a character that should have had an active role in many situations.

 

SW has an absolutely dreadful record with the portrayal of mothers. I thought KK would fix it, but R1 and TLJ have convinced me I was being optimistic. Great point on the Shmi comparison though. She had a tremendously important impact on Anakin’s story.

 

No no, tell me about Shmi...

 

I’ll tell you about Shmi. It’s Anakin’s sense of his failure to save her that begins his descent to the dark side.

 

The mother who actually had a lot of screen time with her son and was a vital influence in Anakin’s story trajectory in both movies she appeared?
And she wasn’t even a major character or a Force user. No, Shmi was definitely not under utilized.

 

So we accept Shmi's impact to Anakin but reject Leia's impact to Kylo? Both of which are passive
Do we also accept Shmi's hospitality to the jedi but reject Leia's lesson to Poe at the beginning of the movie?
Do we also accept Shmi's kind words to Anakin but reject Leia's kind words to Rey?
Do we also accept Shmi's skills of holding the pod race viewer but reject Leia is one of the main reasons Luke comes back and sparks the resistance?
Do we also accept Shmi's flexibility in allowing Anakin free time to build C3PO but reject that Holdo's sacarfice is in part for her love towards Leia?

I mean, we can go into how Leia is portrayed in TFA but i dont know what else i can compare it to Shmi's "a lot of screen time"

 

You realize we’re down to compare the minor story details of character whose only attribute was “mother of Important Character”, to a character who is supposedly a) a Legacy character; b) mother of an Important Character, c) sister of an Important Character and d) Force user?

Shmi, as a mother of Important Character had a significant role. Take her our and you have to rewrite Anakin’s story trajectory and his characterization as well.
And as a mother, she was given the proper screen time and the necessary plot important to function as such in both movies. She was never sidelined or wasted in two movies.

Leia is sidelined as a mother, as a Force user, as a Legacy character and even as a Resistance leader, though she has a bit more role as a Resistance leader than in the rest. Take out her, and you only have to change a few scene details, but otherwise characterizations remain unchanged, story trajectories remain unchanged, etc. Her role as a leader in TLJ was replaceable. But her role as a mother and as a sister and as a Force user shouldn't be replaceable, and despite the movies creating story openings where she could've intervened or had a major influence in any of those roles, she was sidelined. Which was my original point.

I also don’t get the impression that Poe’s story trajectory was hugely influenced by Leia the way Anakin’s story was by his mother. It could've been - I think the comics are detailing in this area - but that's not the impression I had in TLJ.

 

Shmi dies at childbirth, Anakin is raised by Watto, QGJ takes him, he falls in love with Padme, Jedi tell him he can't have attachments, Anakin ignores this, marries Padme, has dreams she will die at childbirth, wants to keep her from dying, Palpatine offers him the gift of immortality, Anakin falls to the dark side.

 

See, you had to rewrite his story. You forgot the part of his first important step to the darkside due to the death of his mother (have to change that), and the part of his attachment-based motivations revolving around his bond to his mother and his fear of loosing family because of lost of family in the past (have to change that) and the part of where the Jedi Order was distrustful of him since the beginning because of said attachments to his mother (have to change that).

Either you change his entire story - and his characterization as an extent - or you have to create a new "mother" type character to fill the hole left in the story when you remove a significant character.

 

We seem to have veered off topic here....

 

^ Sorry about that, it's probably my fault.
I'll contain myself.

 

Just to put this to an end on my part...

I agree, i think Shmi played an important role in Anakin's life. But i think her role isn't as important as Leia's role is in ST....but in general, this is the issue I have with fans that disliked this movie, they seem* to go to great lengths to criticize a movie they don't like and inflate random things like Shmi's portrayal. Peppered around this thread are clear example of contradictions in reactions to this movie compared to our nostalgic view of ESB. Something that seemed logical in Empire Strikes Back is illogical in TLJ. My argument is that both can be illogical and logical and that is what makes these movies so good. But if you don't accept floating Leia, then you must reject asteroid walkers. If you don't accept TLJ Luke, then you must reject that Luke on Degobah. Notice how he acts very similar to the Luke on the island, instead of viewing it as a character arch, you should view this as part of his personality. Luke was never superman, some fans created this superman,wise, humorless figure who was pure, when in fact, Luke was very human and flawed, and that's ok. Likewise, what ESB did with the force and its expanded meaning of which we have since accepted as norm, you can accept that TLJ expanded the meaning of the force and what a force user can do. And if you can accept C3PO's humor in ESB, I'm sure there is a part of you that can accept the humor of TLJ.

*I mean I guess you can view Shmi's importance bigger than Leia's but just remember, like the OT, everything is put in motion thanks to Leia....if Leia wasn't on a mission to get Obi Wan, nothing would have started...likewise, if Leia hadn't sent Poe to find Lor San Tekka, nothing we are seeing now would've happened. I think that is an awesome parallel.

 

OK....now back on topic, please.

 

This is a lot of "you have to" and "you must". People are very much allowed to see the whole thing differently and have a different opinion and outlook, then don`t "have to" see it just this one way that you do. Luke had flaws but also strengths, bad qualities but also good ones. Right now it seems almost like "he was only ever a loser in the OT, that`s why him being a loser in TLJ is wonderful character work".

The fundamental difference to me between ESB and TLJ (or really TLJ and any previous Star Wars movie) is that no movie deconstructed the fundamental myth Star Wars is build on. ESB obviously didn`t do that because it was a middle part in the story of building that myth in the first place. The quintessential heroes are heroes and good vs. evil story. Yes, it`s pretty much a fairy tale at its core, just in a space setting.

Empire was dark and not the fun-filled, cheery space-adventure that ANH was. It took huge risks, introducing a muppet as a Jedi master. The "I`m your father" reveal probably was less risky because that would predictably more of a wow-factor. Whereas Yoda truly could have bombed as a character.

TLJ deconstructs conventional ideas of heroism (which coincides with my ideas of heroism). It does so by deconstructing the protagonist who went on the hero`s journey in the OT. ESB never did anything even remotely like that for very obvious reasons. So IMO whatever the reception to ESB is not comparable to the specific reception of TLJ. No Star Wars movie prior has been criticized for doing what TLJ did because obviously no movie before did what TLJ did.

Now, if every movie henceforth takes a blowtorch to myths and characters from the OT, then we might have a reference group but IMO ESB isn`t in it.

People to this day still respond to certain ideas and philosophies and not to others. RJ might share (or appears to share) a completely different outlook on "heroism" than I do. Some people are with him in that, some are not. That is a very fundamental thing. It`s the core of a movie If you fundamentally disagree with a message an author conveys, that is different than "I didn`t like x plot point or x character". What was in Empire that was comparable to such a fundamental disagreement?

 

I didn’t mean to say that Luke was a loser in Degobah, what I meant to say was he was strong willed, opinionated, questioned authority, lacked faith...

“You ask for the impossible”

And

“I don’t believe it”

Re watch the entire scene when Yoda lifts the swing and notice how Luke acts. I wouldn’t call him a loser.

 

The scenes on Dagobah are in context of him being a student and beginner of learning the force. I do not expect a Luke Skywalker who has familarized himself with the force some thirty years later to still act the same way. Even in ROTJ a scene where he went wide-eyed and disbelieving with the "OMG force-powers like this, I don`t believe this" would have seemed silly.

The Luke in ESB worked in the context of what I know about basic storytelling as well as the specific context of what I have been shown about Luke in ANH. I can relate to the guy and his choices. The only two characters I could really fully emotionally understand throughout the entire movie in TLJ were Poe and Kylo. Like, I didn`t always agree with every action but understand their underlying thought process and emotions.

 

Trying to equate Luke in TLJ to Luke in ESB is off for a number of reasons, and only one is that Luke is the student in ESB, not the Master. Luke in TLJ has lived a lifetime as a Jedi Master. He's not a dumb kid. Regardless of whether one agrees with his conclusions, he carries wisdom that comes with experience. That is how he should be regarded.

The other thing is, though, Luke has a completely different personality in ESB. Yeah, he's immature and pessimistic about what he can achieve through the force, but that seems pretty normal for a kid that's just beginning to learn a new craft. OTOH, he is stalwartly committed to the fight against the dark side. Luke being strong willed isn't the problem some see in his portrayal in TLJ. Neither is Luke being opinionated, questioning authority (how does the lone Jedi Master in the entire galaxy even question authority anyway? Who exactly has authority over him?), or lacking faith... not that I think one could even argue that he lacks faith in TLJ. I'd say his faith is pretty well intact. He believes the force will right all wrongs without having to do anything to help it along it seems.

 

Yeah, so you've missed the point I was making.

You've answered those questions with logical inferences. But when the same luxury is provided to TLJ it's 'writing it for the writer' or too much 'headcanon'. There is a clear and blatant double standard. Provide a point against TLJ that I can't answer with the same level of logical inference as you have provided here.

Or, you know, they had planned for Leia to have a significant role in IX.

 

See this is where these conversations go off the rails, even besides the fact that whataboutism doesn’t really make TLJ even arguably better to those that don’t like it.

Different movies are different. Just because people have one opinion of something happening in one movie doesn’t mean that they’re hypocritical or applying a double standard if they view an arguably similar situation in a different movie in a different context differently. These movies aren’t entitled to be liked just because most of us loved ESB. People can feel ESB works when it cut a corner at the exact same time they think TLJ didn’t work when it cut a corner, and they can do that while they’re being perfectly rational.

I think a lot/most of the nitpicks in TLJ would be forgiven by more people if those same people liked the movie as a whole more. It’s really that simple. I always to this day kind of laugh at the scene in ESB where Han and Leia think they’re walking into a cave on an asteroid without space suits. Why would there be atmosphere or heat? Why all the gravity off the ship? I chuckle about it, but I don’t care because I love that movie. I think it’s a bloody space fairy tale masterpiece. That doesn’t mean that I have to think the bomb dropping sequence at the beginning of TLJ works just because someone can argue how it works on a message board. I can conceive of lots of ways it’s perfectly rational, but that doesn’t change the fact that when I watch it, I just think it looks like a thoughtless duplication of WWII ships that doesn’t even pretend to try to acknowledge it’s in space. And I would still be cool with that if I felt the movie overall was a masterpiece the way I think ESB is. But despite loving ESB and viewing it as a masterpiece, I am happy to discuss its silly flaws and inconsistencies and even laugh about them with my friends and family, because none of it is that serious.

 

See this is the double standard.

For the movie you really like you just look over it's logical flaws. The logical flaws don't count against it. That's fine.

For the movie you don't like the logical flaws aren't looked over. They count against the film.

That is a double standard. You are being overly harsh in pointing out flaws of TLJ, whilst being willing to look over them in TESB. It doesn't mean you should like it as much as TESB - that's not the argument. It means holding up TLJ's logical flaws as evidence that the film is worse than TESB (which has been done) is a terrible argument.