ST How do you build off the Sequel Trilogy moving forward

I believe the comments are squarely on praise regarding The Last Jedi. Han dies in TFA and Leia dies in TROS. Luke does not die "in vein". I think you are missing my point.

One thing I don't understand Is you make negative comments about the ST, opinion based, and then go on to say why not stick to what made Star Wars popular, which is, imo, one of the biggest mistakes of The Force Awakens, in that it plays it way too safe with story and character progression. Whys Han smuggling again? Oh you know he was really cool in the OT like that and fans bought it up made us successful so we stick to that. Falcon chessboard? Check. Trash Compactor? Check. Fit Leia and Harrison in their same costumes from 30 years ago? Check. So Disney did stick to what made it popular. Aren't you complaining about the same thing you are praising? I felt my comment was clear. I believe the EU(everything) has warped much of what Star Wars is at its heart. That needed to be broken down. The one area I was pleased with in hearing was Disney scrapping the post ROTJ EU and saying that is not our direction. (this was still in hopes that Lucas would have his stories told.)

 

When did the prequels "tear down" Anakin, who we knew pretty much nothing about in the OT, Obi Wan and Yoda, who are still heroes? Also, the PT is supposed to be the Greek Tragedy. The ST has turned the OT into a tragedy. (BTW, should I mention I've seen each prequel once and never seen the Clone Wars? Nor do I care to?)

Disney stuck to the trappings of what made it popular and wrecked the characters (she says for time eleventy billion). I guess, like the Fresh Prince, I'm going to have to go through this about 200 more times...

 

I think it's you being 'nitpicky'. After all, they were your descriptions of Luke and not mine.

How can one measure if someone is only a little 'bit' entitled? Can someone be just a little bit evil? A little bit dead perhaps??? It's not a great use of language, but we're all guilty of that. But even so, it's not germane to the point, as you chose the adjectives in question.

Describing him as arrogant and entitled for starters.

We can all be guilty of that, to some degree... I don't believe you're ignoring context. I think you're just choosing not to apply significance to it.

Yes we know that...

I agree... that could. But I'd posit that it's not adequately presented in the films, not nearly enough IMHO. TLJ just presents a broken Luke from the off, and that was a creative choice, it was not the constraints of opportunity.

But as others have said, Luke is an established character, and probably the most established of the entire OT. To develop him in new and unexpected ways takes some commitment to the writing process. I don't believe that is evident in any of the sequels.

As per previous reply, I think that's just an interpretation of your posts.

No... I referred to your claim that some didn't like TLJ, due to preconceptions/expectations, as an example of where you were as guilty as those you charge.

Everyone is stating an opinion.

It must be an English/American thing... 'your contention' (read disagreement) that character has to stay true to Lucas. You are disagreeing with the notion that character has to stay true to Lucas' ideas.

Well you do often refer to people, who don't like the ST (or facets of it), as being in a 'vocal minority'. So I think relative audience demand for Star Wars is relevant to the point, even if you disagree with the assertion.

Your statement suggests that all such material is crafted to the very same standard... be that Citizen Kane or Sherlock Gnomes (for example). And whilst it's admirable to believe that 'everything is art', I don't actually prescribe to that (not fully anyway).

But it's a measure of success, relative to each other, whether we like it or not. I think TFA is the weakest SW film, but the data tells me it was one of the most popular. It doesn't change my opinion of the film.

That's a rather childish response... given that I'm attempting to explain why I (and others) believe the data is an indicator of the films relative popularity...

 

We are speaking about the praise of The Last Jedi, not the other films.

 

Well, when it comes to Luke I can look at other peaple who are entitled - his father for instance - compare him to them and go "well, Luke's only a little bit entitled."

Leaving aside the fact that I would not describe any Sith/Dark Sider we've been shown in the francise as merely somewhat arrogant or a bit entitled, Sith are not the only Star Wars characters to display arrogence and entitlement - IMO several heroes show the traits as well (and worse then Luke), and some show both.

Probobly becuase I don't see the significance that others do

Considering I've explained my actual position several times and can't be more clearer on what it is I don't see why peaple should be "interpreting" anything anymore.

Of course I'm as guilty as them - I've always matained (and indeed it's at the core of my arguments quite often) that I don't think anyone's opinion is any more or any less valid then anyone elses, and naturally that includes my own opinion. I had my own preconieved notions for how Luke would be dipicted in the ST just as every other fan did; and that includes both you and Rian Johnson.

It must be becuase I've never seen it used that way - in my experience saying "your contention is" is akin to saying "your argument is" or "your position is."

Of course not all material is crafted to the same standard - I think all art is valid, but that does'nt mean I think all art is created equal or is even good; a child's crappy drawings are just as much art as is the Mona Lisa, but that does'nt mean the child's drawings are as good as the Mona Lisa.

Well, considering both TLJ and TROS both made boatloads of money and TLJ specifically was the highest ranking film of it's year I'd say that, despite making less then TFA and drawing in less peaple, both still drew in enough peaple to prove they were popular, which does'nt dispove my "vocal minority" belief.

Okay, so one guy online chose to phrase his opinion a certain way. So what. That's just his opinion, ingore it if you don't like it.

And IMO you might want to try to phrase how you say things better, becuase you say it was burned down a lot without showing this context, which along with your clear anger towards how the OT characters were dipicted and the manner in which you present that anger makes it easy for one to think that you also think it was burned down.

I really, honestly don't understand your intense dislike of Johnson. All he did was make a movie you don't like, and yet you act like he personally slighted you or something.

He apparently complimented Johnson after seeing it and by all accounts it's - or at least it's dipiction of Luke - is pretty close to what he himself envisioned for the ST (closer then the rest of the trilogy), so I doubt he was damning it with faint praise.

You don't "have" to read about that, you know.

Maybe...and just bear with me here becuase this is gonna sound crazy..they, you know...did'nt think they were destroying them?

A truly shocking concept, I know.

I also don't think it's fair to paint all the peaple who like the ST as nihilistic hipsters - last I checked I was neither; in fact, many peaple whould probobly accuse me of being an optimistic square - it's possible to like the ST for reasons that have nothing to do with the deconstructive and nihilistic aspects of TLJ, or like those aspects without being nihilistic yourself.

It's a particulerly ironic complaint too, becuase the other complaint leveled (fairly, IMO, to a degree) is that the ST was too unoriginal.

"TFA was just a re-hash of ANH. JJ Abrams does'nt understand Star Wars - we wanted something new and fresh."
"TLJ broke the rules. Rain Johnson does'nt understand Star Wars - he should have stayed true to what came before!"
And then you have TROS, which went out of it's way to pander to peaple upset by the prior too films and still ended up being hated by those very peaple.

The ST literally could'nt win no matter what it did; with fans like those, who needs enemies?

An excellent point.


This is the Old Bardwell Barn at the edge of my hometown's limits. It was a working farm up until '88, but after that it was abandoned and fell into decay. It was a local landmark for the two towns whose borders it straddled though, and a lot of peaple in both grew to love it and regard it with affection as part of the local color (myself included). Nobody ever thought it would stop being their and the ocasional motion to have it torn down to make use of the land (when we we're building a new county jail when I was around twelve I recall that there was a strong push to knock down the barn and replace it with a prison complex that fell through) was always met with fierce opposition from the old-timers, the Historial Society patrons and varius townies of varying age from both sides of the line.

This is the shopping plaza that now stands were the barn did. They finally tore it down in 2008; some peaple were upset that a town landmark and peice of history was gone, others were glad that what they saw as an eyesore was replaced by something useful, and others just did'nt give a crap either way.

As you say, fredrik, everything grows old and dies. The barn's time had come - things change, it's not good, bad or disrespectful to what came before, and Star Wars, like the face of my hometown, was due for a change. Luke, Leia and Han dying in the process of that change/renewal is'nt any more negative to Star Wars then the Old Bardwell Barn being knocked down to make way for a bunch of stores was negative for my town.

 

After The Last Jedi it left me wondering why in heck Disney hired JJ. After the film I was shocked by the negative reception, or its rexeption in comparison to TFA.

Yeah I dont know. Some people go out of their way to make them and then start whining when it bites them in the behind. Karma I guess.

That applies to prequel haters then wondering why the sequel trilogy is the way it is, and also TLJ haters wondering why TROS sucks so bad(imo, but a pretty level headed one lol)

 

And I can`t understand this accusation leveled at critiques.

Would you want me to give your hand frostbite? No, okay, I can understand this. But that must mean that you would want me to pour boiling water over it, right? I mean, you can`t dislike both things, right?

Why would it be shocking or even strange if someone doesn`t like extremes? Either extreme? I find it perfectly natural if someone says "I don`t want the exact same thing over and over again even if it is a thing I liked" but at the same time also says "but I don`t want a thing I liked sledge-hammered either".

We also already had this discussion about TROS. People who loved TLJ might have been upset with it because they felt it pandered to "haters". But since they didn`t hate TLJ, how can they claim that surely, TROS gave those "haters" what they wanted so why are they still upset. Someone who didn`t hate TLJ can hardly talk with authority on how much of a balm to the soul TROS surely had to be. Just because it didn`t give TLJ-lovers what they wanted, doesn`t mean it made TLJ-haters happy. It still can not work for both groups at the same time.

Someone who didn`t think Rey was obnoxiously over-powered will hardly understand how increasingly annoyed someone, who did feel that way, was feeling by the end of TLJ. And TROS went down and doubled on that. If you (general you) can`t understand what made someone angry, sad or upset - because you don`t feel the same way - you can hardly understand what would or wouldn`t make them happy then either. Or berate them for not being "happy" enough.

You honestly found it shocking? That movie had that reaction written right over it. It just had too many things in it that were guaranteed utter divisiveness. I think even Johnson (as well as Lucasfilm and Disney) knew that Loser!Luke was gonna be a hopeless sell to a lot of people. Maybe they thought more people would be much more wow-ed by the Crait thing but the depiction on Ahch-To? That was a surefire bet to at least tick a good portion of the audience off.

 

I don't like his attitude but that's neither here nor there. JJ seems like a perfectly nice person but I wouldn't hire him to direct traffic either. I'd say they should both have to run the cameras at C-Span hearings for the rest of their careers but that's an insult to the talented camerapeople of C-SPAN.

Yeah, I'm going to need some evidence of that one.

I can go on Twitter and, without me requesting it, I see the Kylo fans going on about how bad Luke, Han and Leia were as parents. So it's kind of unavoidable. That's without even touching the constant clickbait articles.

@Alliyah Skywalker just discussed this but wow, am I tired of this argument too. There's a happy medium between outright copying and outright copying for purposes of "subverting expectations."

I could have described them as people with terrible taste but okay.

 

I think it has more to do with Disney having a bit too much faith in the film going audience, considering The Rise of Skywalker is as dumbed down as they come.

For example, Luke doesn't lose and he's not a lover on acheto, yet people cling to a few lines of dialog without trying to understand where they come from. Audiences of today have become accustomed to television and marvel or they want literally every derail spoon fed to them.

 

Of course it's not shocking if someone does'nt like that - in fact I dare say it's understandable, but we're not talking about the difference between frostbite and boiling water but rather more the difference between a house being painted black when you'd rather it be painted white.

And in that discussion I pointed out that Abrams was'nt combing the internet with a fine-toothed comb looking for valid and well-thought-out complaints to adress, he was looking for the biggest, loudest and most prominant "issues" peaple were bringing up regarding both TLJ and TFA. The fact that he did'nt pander to you specificly does'nt change the fact that he did pander to peaple who were unhappy by the prior to films.

Maybe to you it seem obvious, but to a lot of us it was'nt and we were indeed suprised by the sheer amount of vitrol thrown at the film (and still being thrown at the film).

Though given how peaple reacted to the PT and TFA maybe we should have known better

I don't no why you need to insult them and wish harm up there careers just becuase they made a movie you did'nt like. Live and let live, it's just a movie.

Well, lucky for you I posted the relevent link literally a page ago.

Then just don't go on twitter and don't click those articles. Seems like a fairly easy fix to me

And since we did'nt have that happy medium it's not relevent to the complaint; peaple said "do something new" with TFA and then complained when TLJ...did something new, that's the point I was making. And honestly call me a cynic but knowing this fandom as well as I do I'm pretty sure that even had TLJ struck that happy medium peaple would still find something to complain about.

"If I'd held onto the company I could have done it, and then it would have been done. Of course, a lot of fans would have hated it, just like they did Phantom Menace and everything, but at least the whole story from beginning to end would be told."
- George Lucas, 2018.

Turns out he hit the nail on the head, becuase true to his word once the story was finally told from beginning to end peaple hated it, just like the did the PT (don't worry though, becuase just like the PT everyone will be clamoring to praise the ST and say "oh, it was'nt that bad" once a new trilogy comes along in fifteen years to "kill" Star Wars all over again anew). Nobody hates Star Wars like us Star Wars fans

 

What George overlooked is, it's a safe bet that every single one of those fans that hated it, would have first paid money to see it. Probably even going to second viewings.

What I'm really sceptical is the claim it'd be "done". No, George, we know your tricks by now, it'd never be done. He'd never leave it along and stop tinkering with it.

 

I mean we all love SW. I think people get upset precisely because they care so much. I hate the toxic fan comments as much as anyone as they make us all look bad.

 

People paying money and then posting about their experience? That's fine.

Sending death threats and virtually bullying those involved in creating it? Not OK.

It's a very easy line to walk and stay on the right side of.

 

No need for the wink, many if not most recognize that. Its true for many popular anythings.

 

EDIT - just saw that apparently I posted a hotlinked image earlier. I did'nt relize, sorry, that's my bad so apologies to any mods out there. It was a picture of a Market Basket, so it's not like you guys are missing anything

I'd wager that, lowered turnout aside, plenty of peaple did just that with the ST as well, either becuase they believed they saw an inpending trainwreck and could'nt look away, were hoping the films would turn out good or just simply could'nt say away.

He almost certainly had plenty more ideas, but he seems geniunly burned out to me and more then content to move on. I doubt he ever would have sold it otherwise.

It's the things we love that hurt us the most. Like Star Wars..

...and my cat...

You know chris, I don't much care for the seemingly near-constant negativity from the side of the fence the haters sit on, I think you know that pretty well by now, but I'll take it each and every day over *those* kind of peaple - they do indeed make the rest of us look bad.

The wink was more to make everyone know I was making the comment in a lighthearted way (though I did mean it) as so to hopeful preclude the possibility of someone taking exception to the observation.

 

But even after TFA if people said "well, that was kinda too much like ANH, couldn`t they do something fresh", that doesn`t at all mean they said "and by that I mean a deconstructionist and subversive tale". You seem to imply if you didn`t like the first, then you lose all right to complain or critique about the second. Which I heavily disagree. It is possible to want something in between that is neither what JJ or RJ made. And it is perfectly okay for the same people to critique both movies, for different reasons.

But since you were never on the side of criticisms for TLJ, if you deem it valid or not, how can you judge if the people who you think TROS pandered to were sufficiently "happy" or "grateful" enough for said pandering? You can`t judge their reaction by your standards because their reaction to TLJ already didn`t adhere to your standards. It`s not a case of "you can never please them" or "so hypocritical" because you are not them and therefore can`t make a judgement call on how they should or should not be appropriately "pleased", pandering or not.

You were annoyed by the pandering because I assume you felt it was too much (and/or shouldn`t have been there at all) and maybe they were annoyed by the pandering because they felt it was way too little and if you only hand out table scraps, then why bother in the first place. Which ironically would mean both sides would agree on the pandering being a bad idea, just for wildly different reasons.

You never thought at least the Luke stuff would be controversial?

But there you have it, you said yourself we didn`t get a happy medium but maybe people who complained about both extremes WANTED a happy medium. So is that apparently hypocritical or not valid to then complain about both extremes? I can`t understand this thought process "you didn`t like this, now you got something else, which means you absolutely HAVE to like this". Why?

And I do believe if TLJ had struck a more happy medium, it would have been better received in terms of criticism that the TLJ, we got, received. Would it have received different criticisms? Possible. Every new thing can be criticized on its own merits.

+

Because no franchise or fan-content is ever successful or praised or loved. That always gets ignored and those "fans always hate everything" mantras only come out when something is not. I`m pretty sure if the MCU experiences a downturn that significantly angers fans, we will hear the same things how "nobody hates it as much as the fans", completely ignoring the relatively upbeat (with some slight droughts in the middle) 10 years of success.

What? I assume you meant he wasn`t a loser on Ahch-To? Well, you don`t get to dictate which characters people feel is a loser or not. And I guarantee audiences of not just today but yesteryore would have found that portrayal loser-ish. It would always have been divisive.

And please not the old chestnut of basically going "if people don`t see it exactly as I do and interpret things the same way, they must be stupid or simple-minded".

Even Johnson literally said in an interview about his story for Luke and possibly making him a coward "I didn`t want it to", meaning even he realizes that, yes, there will be people who will look at it and think "coward". Just because by his definition Luke is not one means zilch to everyone else`s definition.

 

Right, he understood that people may misinterpret his intent.

People can like or dislike the portrayal but they cannot, with great respect, dictate the artists intent.

 

I don`t think a lot of people really care about the intent of the artist, only how successful they are in selling it to them. Or even moreso, how successful they are in entertaining them. So IMO Johnson knew from the start there would be people he wouldn`t be successful with.

To me, RJ can have whatever intent he wanted, it doesn`t matter to me because I hated the movie and Luke in it. So if his intent was to not make him a coward a thousand times over, I couldn`t care less because in doing so he wrote the exact same things that would make a character a coward to me.

I`ve said before there have been cases when the intent of the creator was to make something wholly different than what I saw from it and yet I still liked the material because thankfully their intent (which I hated) didn`t come through for me in the works one bit and I saw the exact opposite in the final product. End result: I like the final product. Should I then hate it because the intent was different? Not really.

So when you proclaim "Luke was not a loser", you appeal to the authority of the intent living in Johnson`s head not to make him one? Your feeling he wasn`t one? The first is IMO irrelevant and the second is just as much an opinion as me thinking he was one.

What you can`t claim is that "factually" he wasn`t one because it`s not a math equation or a scientific fact but interpretation/opinion on a fictional character. You will never get facts out of this, in either one direction.

 

You can do whatever you want, like or dislike whatever you want. However, your opinion begins to lose credibility when it comes across like you are enforcing it unto the entirety of the viewers.

Luke a loser? News to me. I dint see it that way, i know many others didn't, and apparently the director himself didn't but did understand that many may find a hard time understanding that.

 

I agree with that. Which is why you can`t say "Luke is not a loser" just because YOU (or Rian Johnson) didn`t think so. What you can say is that he wasn`t one to you (and obviously to others who didn`t see hin as one). But you can`t make that claim for all the people who thought differently. Otherwise you are doing exactly what you wrote above.

It has nothing to do with people "not understanding." There is nothing to understand about it, they see it differently.

 

The film suggests he's not and his actions suggests he's not and his conversation with yoda even goes into failure and growth. Lukes story in TLJ is not that of a loser. The film says this. He hits hurdles but he overcomes.

 

The film presents several scenes. How ones sees and interprets those scenes is up to them. The film doesn`t get to dictate people`s reactions to it. That would be ludicrous. So what if to me it was the story of a loser who went out with a whimper? If I wanted to write someone like a loser, I would do it like TLJ did with Luke. Obviously when RJ wants to write someone not as a loser, he writes TLJ. Both can be true at the same time. People can have different standards. People can have different ideas on what makes someone a loser in the first place. In fiction and honestly even in real life that is true.

I hated the failure convo with Yoda. Found that entire dialogue in the context very annoying and laughable.

 

To each their own. I guess its just down to perception.

So who is a winner in Star Wars?

 

Currently, IMO Rey. And unless Disney besmirches her character, she is likely gonna stay that way.

Though the opposite of "loser" is not necessarily a winner, IMO not in fiction and in real life. In fiction I`d say the opposite might be "hero". The absolute majority of people are just normal, neither, nor. Otherwise, extremes wouldn`t stick out. It`s just in fiction, you usually follow the stories of heroes (or maybe villains or anti-heroes) because the random normie just doesn`t produce interesting enough content for a story. In fiction they make up "the world" in the background.

For the OT3, I would only call Luke in the ST a loser, all three were failures but to me he was something worse.

 

So having his faith reignited by rey, saving leia and the resistance, inspiring the galaxy, show people that there are alternatives to fighting, and becoming the true luminous being jedi knight.......these are loser acts?