ST Rey's Various Abilities Discussion Thread

No, I don't think I do. I'm not talking about "my likes and dislikes" or "whether the story pleased me", I'm talking about whether I think certain choices in characterization and plot were convincing, interesting, etc. I think, for example, the decision not to have Rey and Luke have any real relationship was a poor one that passed up lots of opportunities for character development and interaction, thus poor writing. The decision to have Rey fall for Kylo in the blink of an eye was unconvincing, thus poor writing. The decision to have Finn basically repeat his arc from the first movie was redundant, thus poor writing. Etc. Like I said, those choices are not separate from the process of writing.

Also, I'm not sure how you're distinguishing what is, and isn't, thematically-valid "execution". One could just as well argue that Starkiller Base was irrelevant to Rian Johnson's theme, so he was quite right never to mention it or show its destruction as having had any consequences whatever.

 

Then I do not agree with you. To make short, i will never judge an artist's choice, i will judge only the execution of these choices.
And yes i stand my point, the problem is that you didn't like his choices.
Let's play a game, imagine that in the Empire Strikes Back, instead of teaching him, Yoda behave like Luke, and Luke like Rey... Do you honnestly think that you would say it's bad writing? no, you would think "ok that's the story Lucas wants to tell, i wonder where it will go". The reason is that when TESB was released, nobody had any exprectation on what role Yoda was supposed to play in this story. Had Lucas told this story, everybody would have accepted that "Luke realizing that he has to stand on his own feets and that he cannot count on the old Jedi to teach him" was his character arc. The "problem" with the Last Jedi is that you wanted Luke to behave in a certain way, you wanted to see what kind of relation he would have with Rey, because Luke is (i guess) your childhood hero. So i totally understand you did not like it, but you are mistaking quality of writing and artistic choices. Aritistic choices are a big part of what makes us like or dislike a piece of art, but they are not something we can objectively judge.
As I said, even if RJ had wanted to portray Luke as a pedophilic cannibale that killed Rey upon meeting her, eventhough i would not have liked it at all, i would not be able to state the writing is bad on this base only. Only the execution matters, and in the case of TLJ, Rian Johnson decided for Luke and Rey not to have this deep relationship you wanted them to have, and the execution of his choice is consistent with his choice.
But for the Starkiller Base, not mentionning it is inconsistent with Rian Johnson's choice to start his movie a few minutes after TFA so it's a writing problem (i would not say it's a huge problem though).

 

Ah, yes, it always comes to this. If one criticises the portrayal of Luke in the film, one is invariably (and condescendingly) informed that it's because one's "expectations" were not met. One is then informed, still more condescendingly, that one understands nothing about art or writing and is looking at things from the naive perspective of a child.

I assure you that I am an intelligent, well-read and well educated adult who knows plenty about art and literature. Far more than you, I suspect, since your pronouncements on what is "good" writing come down to a highly simplistic binary rule which you apply in an almost completely arbitrary fashion. And this is your personal "rule". The normal convention is that creative choices may be discussed and criticised along with everything else. You do not get to dictate otherwise and frankly you have no business talking down to me for not bowing to your "rule".

By the way, Luke was not my childhood hero and I did not have any particular expectations going in. However, I thought his character arc was a waste of time, badly portrayed and inconsistent with previous characterisation. Thus, "bad writing". This is a perfectly workable definition. Of course a large element of subjectivity is involved- that is a given.

Finally, the choice not to mention the destruction of Starkiller Base is indeed inconsistent with the previously established facts of the story. It is, however, perfectly consistent with the themes of the film. According to your rule that puts it totally beyond criticism. Note how its omission doesn't even lead to awkward dialogue, or poor framing of shots, or whatever "execution" actually means to you. It's simply... not there. The film treats it as though it never happened, and proceeds full steam ahead with the story Johnson wanted to tell. That's how unworkably narrow your definition of good/bad writing is- you're having to "cheat" in order to criticise an obviously flaw.

Edit: I was angry when I posted this. I do realize you are not wholly fluent in English and may have missed some of the nuance of my previous arguments, rather than wilfully ignored it, so that you really did read everything I said in my earlier posts as, "I don't like it, so it's bad". Like a halfwit. I am not halfwitted and this is not what I was saying.

As an illustration: I dislike the Rey/Kylo plotline because I consider it sexist. I think it contains bad writing because it is inconsistent with established characterisation and in-story facts and wastes opportunities for character development. (Also, stilted dialogue- but hey, it's Star Wars). Now do you see?

 

Okay, first i was not talking you down, i'm sorry if that's how you understood it, i thought we had a respectful discussion.
Second, i still stand my point, you can criticize any plot decision you want but it will be a matter of taste and not some objective qualities. For exemple, even if i did not hate it, i was not fond of plot decisions for Solo, because i found them very.... meh... nothing surprising (except the final cameo) and i don't really see the point of the movie, except for just illustration of something we already knew... but i would never said the movie was badly written because of that. If i start judging the quality of a movie based on the premises, i am giving myself to claim that any movie telling a story i don't like or that does not interest me as a bad movie. I think it's wrong. You could have a movie about an accountant making calculus for 2 hours in order to pay less taxes, and it could be a masterpiece... the fact that i do not want to see such a film does not allow me to claim it's bad... even if this movie was called "Star Wars, episode X" (if it was IX there would be a problem of continuity)
I know some peoples do not think like that, but i think they are wrong, and usually, art critics tends to do like me (or rather i do like them) that is why the movie "Triomph of the will" is qualified by film critics as a masterpiece eventhough it's a horrible nazi movie (and don't give me a Godwin point because i am not comparing you to nazies).
So think what you want, i will not convince you, you will not convince me, i explained you why i think you are wrong, you want to call me a cheater, good for you, but in the end, you are still putting your personnal dislikes as objective criticisms. End of the discussion for me with you, it's going nowhere.
Oh and last thing, the movie is NOT about letting the past die.. it's just a sentence told by the villain that was in the trailer (and in the movie) it does not means it's the main theme of the movie.. In the end, Luke accepts his own legacy...

 

@bweurk. I apologize for snapping at you, but please see the addendum to my previous post. You just don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say, and it's getting very frustrating. I believe the language barrier is at fault.

I may have to ask you to take it on faith that yes, I do understand the conventions of literary and film criticism and no, I do not think, "If I dislike something, it must be bad". You keep telling me I'm saying this, but I'm not. I've tried to explain over and over what I do mean, and I don't know what else is left.

 

No worry, i understand your point of view, but i am sorry i will say it again, if you think that two characters not having a deep relationship is bad writing, then you are saying that any movie about two characters not having a deep relationship is a badly written movie... and that's what this movie is about (among other themes) that is why i think you cannot say this. IF the movie was claiming these characters had a deep relationship, then i would agree with you, because the movie would fail to tell the story it intends to tell, but it's not the case, so we fall in the personnal tastes territory.
After that you could argue "ok that's what the director/writer wanted, and he did well on that, BUT it's not consistent with the previous movies" (which is what you said i think in one of your previous answers) and if it was the case, you would be right on this point (but that would not mean the movie is bad, it would just mean it fails as a sequel) but even on this point i strongly disagree, but you'd have to read what i said in the mark hamill thread to understand why i think Luke was fairly consistent with the previous movies.
ADDENDUM:
i don't really see how it is sexist... there is a guy in this thread that have very well explained how Rey and Kylo's relationship works... basically she is disappointed with Luke, and Ben, through Snoke's established force Skype, becomes her only friend while she's stranded on this island, the only person she can talk to... and she starts to identify with him and think he could be turned back... which i too think he can... not sure he will... but that's the "mistery" of this trilogy, we have no certitude on how it will end, and because Kylo is the only skywalker, there are huge stakes because we could lose him, the last skywalker (which i think nobody could have believed in ep VI because Luke was the good guy, and for episode III we all knew Anakin would turn to the dark side but have two kids that would be the next heroes...)
SECOND ADDENDUM (so i will not double post)
I think i know why we don't agree. I think you are basing your idea of what is good and what is bad writing on what a filmwriting teacher would advice to his students, like "make the main character sympathetic" or "a character of importance must be fleshed out", etc...
but the truth is these are not strict rules, these are advice on how to easily write a movie that will please the audience... but these rules can be broken if the writer knows he is breaking them and why he/she is breaking them. It's like the rule of thirds in photography, it's an advice on how to compose a nice picture, but it's not a strict rule, a photographer who choses not to follow them, who knows why he is doing it, and what effects it has on the viewer is not making a bad photography... execution is the key. If what he does is consistent with his premise, then it's done well...

 

Well, that's what I meant about you applying an overly-simplistic binary. As far as I can work out, you're assessing writing purely on authorial intent. It's "good" writing if it conveys what the author says it does, "bad" if it doesn't. Correct? Again, you're entitled to that belief, but I consider it very limited and narrow, and I simply don't accept it. It is in no way a standard rule of criticism.

And no, I'm not saying any movie without a deep relationship is bad, I'm saying that I believe a more realised relationship between these two characters in this particular movie would have made for a better movie. Again, I reserve the right to criticise creative choices. (And again, I don't judge things as "bad" just because I don't like them, or think they have an immoral message.)

 

Ok so tell me why it would have made a better movie?
(also i put two addendum in my last post, i am not sure you have seen them)

 

I would have preferred if we could have seen Rey learn these abilities with the Force after some trial and error. Makes a more compelling and dramatic story. Maybe she will fail? Maybe she will succeed? But having her succeed and beat Kylo in the first film really diminished his character and even her own character arc too.

 

Because it wouldn't have wasted the set-up. And yes, it is better not to waste the set-up and it is better to flesh out the main characters. Are these absolute "rules"? No. Are they closer to being "rules" than your personal one about, "if the author claims something is in the story and it is, it's good writing". Yes.

That testvif your may seem "objective" test, but in truth it is a test only of the element it tests, not an overall "litmus test" for "good writing". Again, I don't accept it and I don't think many other people do. The truth is that there is no universal, objective test.

And yes, "Reylo" is bloody sexist. It makes the "female protagonist" a mere prop in Kylo's story. It also makes her an idiot.

But you know what? This is all massively OT and belongs in the Criticism Thread.

 

There are no pure objective test when you talk about art i agree, but you can try to remove as much of subjectivity when judging something and that is why i think my way of judging is better than yours.
Don't get me wrong, it's not because i claim that a movie is not badly written based on more objective criterias that you have to enjoy it but the problem with your way of judging is that it allows you to dismiss any piece of art based on their premises and not on their execution.
I could claim for exemple "Rap music is bad" (i don't like rap) therefore any rap song is a bad song, which would be wrong, there should be some objective ways (if objective judgement is possible on a piece of art... but if it's not then you are even more wrong to claim anything negative about the movie) of judging a rap song. If my exemple doesn't please you because i'm using a whole genre, then i could also claim that "a story about a man going to the store to buy toilet paper" is boring, therefore any movie about a man going to the store to go toilet paper would be boring... it is wrong, a movie about that could be frigging genius if done well. So once again the execution matters.
Disappointement (and failing to live up to the legendary statut) is one of the movie's theme (and no i am not adding it to the list of thematics just for adding to my point) so yes once again i claim that "wasting" a set up (i don't really think it was wasted though) is an artistic choice. I guess you do not like either that the whole Finn and Rose mission is a failure in the end because it "wastes" the whole set up and the mission itself... yet, there again, the author chose to do a movie about failure, so the "wasting" is justified.
But i know we will not agree, so i am telling you this without talking you down or being agressive (in case my limited use of english could give you this impression) so i think it's no use to keep on doing this, because you will keep on saying "this is bad writing" and i will keep on saying it isn't.
Once again, i am not trying to force you to like the movie, but either there are objective criterias to judge a piece of art and then it is important to remove as much as subjectivity as possible (and not liking a theme because you think it's anticlimatic is a subjective criteria) or we can claim that any subjective criteria is enough to judge a movie, but then you will claim it's badly written based on your ideas of what is bad writing, and i will claim it's very well written based on my ideas of what is good writing, and it would mean nothing in the end.
Also, don't think that i am using this kind of criterias because i liked the movie and i want to defend it... yes i loved it, but there are movies that i hate for a lot of reasons that i would not claim are poorly written or enven poorly anything else, i just admit that art is not only about objectivity, there is a lot of subjectivity, so you are, in your own subjectivity, totally entitled to think the movie is bad... but it's only your subjectivity.
End of the discussion, not because i do not want to "lose" this debate, but because we are out of the thread topic and i suspects mods will soon come and berate me.
Have a good day/night (depending on where you are)

 

Yep. I might even have appreciated that scene a bit more if this had been the case. When I saw the sabre turning I was already thinking 'No. You've got to be kidding me, don't do this, no......oh God......aaaannd......he's actually dead....................unbelievable....'

 

yes but in your case it's less problematic since (if i understand correctly) you did not want Snoke to be killed... so this shot of the saber turning was a bit of taunting you before the movie killed him... it's cool in a sadistic way...
for me i had no problem with the killing of snoke, but i just guessed a few secod too early, i think it would have been better without it.
Movies tends to do that a lot lately... i also wish they did not have the darth vader's castle scene in rogue one... i didn't hate this scene, don't get me wrong... but how epic would have it been if the first time we saw him was when his lightsaber turns on ... (and i don't know if you like marvel movies, but just picture civil war if nobody had known spider-man was in it until he appeared)

 

I don't mind Snoke being killed, it was just the way it was done was so ridiculous and that was compounded in ridiculousity by how it was telegraphed. He is literally saying he can read Kylo's every thought and feeling and now he's going to strike down his TRUE enemy.....my hand was slapping to my forehead and I was going 'durrr'. It made Snoke look like a chump when moments earlier he was made to look all-powerful.
I truly don't believe Rian Johnson is talented when it comes to establishing and maintaining tone and character consistancy.

UNLESS it was all a trick and Snoke is still alive......then I can accept it, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I do not agree with you, but yes, like Palpatine, Snoke is defeated by his own over confidence.
There is something we learn from this scene though, it's that Snoke could not read Kylo's mind like he thought he did, he was just reading (or hearing) Kylo's internal monologue which was probably something like "now i am turning the lightsaber, and then i ignite it to strike my true ennemy"

 

Dude, if that's how Kylo's internal monologue works then I don't know how he gets through the day. And why on earth would he say 'my true enemy' internally?

Nah, Snoke was supposed to have been so mentally powerful that he could breach, scrutinise, and join their minds from across the galaxy and we then have to believe he doesn't know what's up right beside him? And don't say Palpatine was the same at the end of ROTJ as he only ever vaguely 'sensed' the emotions of others through the force. Snoke, we are led to believe, knows Kylo's every intimate thought. Ok, maybe he was boasting, but then that makes the whole earlier manipulation harder to buy. It's just internally incoherent.

 

It's simple, Kylo Ren knows that Snoke reads his mind, and it's not just MY interpretation of the scene, Snoke admit that he knew Ben solo was conflicted and used it to lure Rey he also says that he can read every of his intents... So Ben uses it, he creates an internal monologue that will trick Snoke into thinking he is going to kill Rey, he even turns his own lightsaber at the same time that he turns Anakin/Luke/Rey's lightsaber so Snoke has a visual confirmation that Ben is indeed turning the saber...
You can hate the scene all you want but there is nothing really stupid here, except for Snoke who has too much confidence in himself and cannot believe his apprentice/slave is able to betray him, which is exactly the same thing as with Palpatine. Palpatine thinks Vader is his slave and will never betray him even if he starts torturing his son in front of him, which is very very stupid when we know that Anakin turned to the dark side because he wanted to protect his family from death....

 

I agree. The scene was very clearly presented and well written... many criticisms I hear of it are along the lines of "I wanted a big bad...I wanted to see the big bad kill some heroes and be awesome and barely overcome, and the scene took that from me"

Kylo Ren is no slouch and we know he is powerful. He also knows Snoke is overconfident. Not only would snoke not concieve of his betrayal, he wouldn't assume Kylo Ren could mask his true intentions.

 

It is because at this point in time, Rey's telekinesis feats put her above everybody except Sidious and Yoda.

 

It puts her above Yoda too, fwiw. Yoda had to concentrate to lift the x-wing in ESB and he's also shown struggling to keep a few large rocks from crushing him in his fight against Dooku in AOTC.

The only Force user with feats more impressive than Rey's in cinematic canon is Snoke.

ETA: and for good measure, here's Vader displaying his tk prowess in Rebels. He's slow and it's clearly taking some effort.

 

I disagree have you ever heard the story of Darth Plagues the wise?