ST Rey's Various Abilities Discussion Thread

No. Shallow underdeveloped characters is objectively bad writting. You can disagree that they are shallow and underdeveloped, but I dont know many who would argue that they dont want interesting, deep characters.

 

Well, you can argue that. But that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that the writer's choices are part of writing. They're integral to it. Most writers don't formally decide exactly what to write, then do the actual writing on autopilot, with no change of plans possible. They make choices during the whole process.

 

Neither Luke nor Rey are shallow and underdevelopped characters.... their relationship is shallow, but that's the point of the movie... she didn't find the father figure she looked for in Luke... that's the writer/director's choice... and if it was OBJECTIVELY bad writting, the movie would not have such good critic reviews... and don't tell me Disney bought them, because Solo's review were not that stellar...

 

One of the key statements we hear from Kylo Ren later is that Rey is searching for her parents everywhere. The dark side cave shows us she can barely remember their faces at all. The force back scene may very well be her thinking she's found her parents again for two people she wishes could have been them when she was young who were not. Plutt could very well be holding her back like, "Not this again." It's a purposefully dream-like Force back vision of multiple moments of the past and future.

 

to me these are two distinct things... writing, and choices of story...
to be honest, Luke could have been portrayed as a pedophile rapist (let me reassure you, i would not have liked it) and the writint could still be good
the question is "would the choice be bad?".... it's very hard to answer... i see what you mean... but it's a very complex subject....

 

Rey is perceiving Luke’s actions and finding parallels in them and what Ben is telling her that he experienced with Luke. Rey is putting herself in Ben Solo’s shoes earlier into his life because she is experiencing similar actions from Luke.

Luke looms over her as she sleeps before telling her he will give her 3 lessons.

Ben tells her Luke approached while he was sleeping.

Luke likens her directly to Ben Solo and tells her that her raw power reminds him of Ben’s and that it didn’t scare him before but does now.

Ben tells her Luke sensed his powers growing and feared them as he does yours.

Luke expresses concern that she is going to the Dark during his first lesson.

Luke tells her he noticed Ben going to the Dark during training.

Rey has a connection with Ben that at the time she didn’t understand. It is a mystery box for both of them why it’s happening and her reaction in the throne room later indicates that she never once expected it was Snoke. So what else did she think it was? The will of the Force itself?

After experiencing what she experienced when they connected skin on skin and became one and sensing all of these new sensations of the future within her she believed he was destined to turn and that her role was a part of that. That Ben was going to turn for her. That perhaps she was wrong about it being Luke who is the one who might come back. Maybe it isn’t the one who tosses the saber. Maybe the one who will come back is the one who wanted that saber all along.

It is very much a psychological drama. A triangle on an island where the villain drives a wedge between the two heroes the audience initially wanted to see connect and bringing the hero and villain closer in the process.

 

it's an interesting interpretation...

 

These things pretty much sum up what has annoyed me about the ST thus far. I just prefer when a story is well planned out, it shows more respect for the audience really. I don't want Star Wars to turn into the tv show Lost where things are seemingly just made up on the fly and contradict what has gone before in order to have cool sequences. George Lucas was not totally innocent of this but at least he had some kind of story mapped out from A to B.

 

I kinda agree with that... i wouldn't say it makes the sequel trilogy bad at all... but it could be a lot better if it was planned.... but with the hiring of Rian Johnson to write his trilogy, as well as the hiring of the Game of Thrones guys, i think Lucasfilm is well aware of that...
What happened, in my opinion, is that when Disney bought them, they had to rush into production a first movie and had no time to plan a trilogy, so they opted out for this strategy hoping they would get lucky like Lucas was when he made a New Hope...
It worked pretty well as far as i know

 

That's exactly what happened, yes. However I would say it 'worked out' for TFA, or to be slightly less charitable - they got away with it for TFA ! But the undeniable backlash (or however people want to frame it, but the fact remains it was a turning point in the history of SW and things got ugly) after TLJ has shown that the strategy has been unwise as concerns the feelings of fandom, leaving aside money made. Now, I loved Solo, but the film has made less money than it should have because of how the The Last Jedi was perceived, nothing else.

 

I think quite the opposite... TFA kinda works but it's too much like ANH and it set up an episode VIII that was to be a carbon copy of TESB then an episode IX that was to be a carbon copy of ROTJ... Luckily, Rian Johnson is more clever than that and he made sure not only his movie was not a copy of TESB (even if there are some mirroring, but as George Lucas would say "it rhymes") but also that episode IX could not be a copy of ROTJ...
I did not hate Solo, but it lacks a lot in term of originality... the movie offers almost nothing we could not have guessed about Han...

 

ok sorry

 

Indeed. I just wish that they never went down the mirroring route at all. Most fans wanted to see some evolution in the story and not another rehash of the plucky rebels against the evil empire set to the story of a naïve desert kid learning to be a jedi again.

Boring.

 

here again i kinda agree, but i try to be optimistic... they finnish their semi remake of the original trilogy, and luckily, after that, they will start making 100% original Star Wars... seeing how Rian Johnson succeeded in making something new with what was given to him (and i think it was not an easy task) i think his trilogy can be something really great...
I know a lot of people don't think like me here (and also a lot of people do) but i think Rian Johnson is the best thing that happened to Star Wars in a long time... and i think it would have been a lot better had they asked him to write and direct episode VII instead of VIII (or if the gave him both). The guy knows what he wants to say, he knows how to surprise the audience (alas, half of the audience doesn't like to be surprised) and above all, he knows how to inject adult thematics, symbolism, and everything that can elevate Star Wars above the average space opera. (But don't get me wrong, i do not think TLJ was 100% perfect...)

 

I am no fan of Rian Johnson's approach, but in fairness to you, you have defended your position well and I can understand and accept why you like the film based on what you said. So, what did you dislike about TLJ to make it less than 100%, out of curiousity?

 

I think as far as audience reception. He'll do much better with his trilogy original characters, than ones he inherits from previous films.

 

Surely. He can do what he wants with them as fans won't have any particular notions of attachement from their childhood thus won't be horrified at any perceived betrayal of the character.

That's IF his trilogy ever gets made that is !

 

It'll happen. Despite the online divisiveness of TLJ. He still has the best working relationship with LucasFilm among its directors.

And TLJ still made over a billion with behind the scenes production drama.

And he made them the stupidly marketable Porgs. Higher ups love that stuff.

 

(let's just hope the mods don't blame me for the little off topic as i will answer your question)
what i didn't like in the Last Jedi:
-first i didn't like the BB8 humor in this film, it reminded me too much of R2D2 in the prequel trilogy (especially ROTS)... it's just a matter of taste but i liked BB8 in TFA with a lot a very subtle gags (like when he/it struggles to climb down the stair in Maz's castle, or his/its head movements when Finn asks him to reveal the rebel base location...)
-i think Rian Johnson should not have deleted Luke's mourning of Han Solo (i liked the milk scene but i agree with Hamill, if he had to sacrifice one of these two sequences, he should have kept the mourning and delete le milk, which was, in my opinion, less essential... but may be it would not have worked well in term of editing)
-i think he should also have left Finn's awakening and his discussion with Poe... to be honest i didn't really missed that scene but i really understood the whole point of Finn's arc only in my second viewing of the movie (which was later confirmed by the director himself, so i know i understood correctly) but since a lot of people seem not to understand what is going in Finn's mind during the movie, the little exchange where he states to Poe that he has not joined the rebellion may have helped them to understand.
-there is one thing where Rian Johnson kinda messed up with the continuity, it's the way we never feel what are the consequences for the first order of the Starkiller base destruction... either he could have stated that the FO has lost a lot of their forces in the attack (which could have been used as a additionnal explaination to why Hux rather waits for the Raddus to run out of fuel instead of sending Tie Fighters to detroy it, eventhough i was satisfied with the film reason)... OR... they could have stated that they knew the Starkiller base was basically a one shot (after what happened to the more mobile death stars it would be logical for the first order to know they wouldn't keep that kind of weapon for long) and just imply they had already mostly evacuated it before it was destroyed.
-I would have liked for more Chewie scenes, but it's not really a problem.
-Finn and Rose trip to Canto Bight is a little clunky, but i have to admit that while i have put a lot of thoughts (which is a total waste of time... what we do when we get bored....) i don't really know how to improve it...
-Ackbar deserved maybe a little more than just "Ackbar is dead" but i don't think he should have been the one to do the kamikaze lightspeed jump, first because his name is Ackbar (for obvious reasons) and also because if he had been the commander instead of Holdo, people would not have sided that easily with Poe (since he is a legacy character and it would have been even worse if it was Leïa) and it was important that the audience "stupidly" sided with Poe so we could have something to "think about" when it was revealed that Poe was wrong
-I would delete the shot of the saber turning just before Snoke gets killed... it spoils the surprise a few seconds too early
-maybe not kill Phasma... or not that way... but there again, if JJ wants her back, RJ gave her a "non definitive" death....
I think that's all...

 

A small, masochistic, part of me actually wants to see it go ahead out of morbid curiousity. As I personally felt that TLJ was an unholy fustercluck of a film in terms of carrying on the Skywalker story I wonder to what he would do given free reign over three movies. And if they were all rubbish too then at least we'd know for sure who was right in the 'Ruin Johnson' debate.

Although on the other hand that would destroy Star Wars beyond all hope and I would be a sad, sad old man fuming away his discontent on the internet.

OR, it could be utterly brilliant. Stranger things have happened at sea.....

 

What I'm saying is, the choice of what to write- how your "world" is set up, how you portray the characters, what happens to them, how they react to it and each other- is part of the process of writing, not a separate thing. In fact I'm honestly not clear what "good writing" means to you, if you see it as completely removed from characterization, plotting etc. Not trying to pick on you- I just really don't understand. Is it simply the choice of words, to you?

 

Yes it's part of the writing, but it's not (for me) a point on which you can judge the quality of the writing. For exemple i have read somewhere (i don't think it was here) someone say "it's poorly written, the main character is unpleasant" but i don't agree with that, Breaking Bad is a beautifully written show about an unpleasant character... so an unpleasant character is not a sign of bad writing.. what is a sign of bad writing is when the author wants you to like the character and makes him unpleasant, the bad writing is in his failure to accomplish what he meant to do.
For the Last Jedi, the lack of a deep relationship and understanding between Luke and Rey is the author's choice. If after all that happens between them, they left each other hugging, with Rey telling Luke "thank you master, i learned a lot with you" then it would be bad writing because the movie would have failed in showing that... but the movie is consistent, while she is on Achtoo, she never bonds with Luke, they never really understand each other, and they split after a little fight. That is what the author wanted to tell... i understand that a lot of people didn't like this because they wanted to see Luke as a wise Jedi Master teaching the new generation of hero, but that is not what the author decided, you can dislike his choice, but he wrote correctly the story he wanted to tell (at least on this point, because as i said on a previous post, i do not think the movie is perfect, see, for exemple what i said about canto bight or the destruction of the starkiller base)

 

Then we're basically arguing semantics. All I can say is your definition of "good writing" is a very narrow, even idiosyncratic one, which I don't share. However, if that's what it means to you, than that's what it means to you.
How do you justify your criticisms of the movie, then? All those things are choices too, no?

 

The problem with your definition of good/bad writing is that you can label a movie as well or badly written just on its premises and not on its execution.
When i have to judge the quality of a movie i try to put away my likes and dislikes and judge it on the way the movie's premises are executed. Anyway if the story told doesn't please me, i will say i disliked the movie, but i will not claim it's badly written... there are a lot of masterpieces that i don't like...
My criticisms of the movie are rarely about choices but more on how they are executed... for exemple i like Finn's arc (eventhough i think the trip to Canto Bight is a bit clunky, but since i cannot put my finger on the real problem here, i will not judge) but i think the director made a mistake when he removed the dialogue at the beginning of the movie where Finn states he has never joined the resistance. Also, RJ choose to start his movie a few minutes after TFA's ending, yet he never tells us what are the consequences of the destruction of Starkiller Base... and its not like "not telling about the consequences of the Starkiller Base" is one of the thematics of the movie, like "misunderstanding and failures" is, so yeah, on this point, the writing is failing to execute well RJ's choice.
Do you understand what i mean?