ST ST Criticism Discussion Thread

I'll admit that I haven't read all 300+ pages of this thread, so maybe this is something that's been touched on before among those I missed and if so I apologize. But after finally watching The Last Jedi again I finally put a finger on a feeling that's been bothering me since I first saw it. When it comes to people outside the traditional Star Wars fanbase, a lot of the praise has been directed at it's willingness to act as a deconstructionist entry to the franchise. But even looking at it in that light, I just can't help but think it or those who read out of it that angle just wind up kind of cheating by for lack of a better term straw-manning the previous movies. Not getting them perhaps. Often declaring things about them that the first six in my mind felt like they already said implicitly without actually challenging them in a meaningful way. The treatment of Luke is no doubt the biggest example of this for me.

It's often the place of the second film in a trilogy to do something like this. Challenging the often somewhat idealistic assumptions portrayed in the original film. Like say The Empire Strikes Back greying up the conflict by beginning to show the potential for the Luke's temptation and revealing that the great hero he had looked up to in his father was actually one of the greatest evils in the galaxy which also puts a shadow onto his mentors for not telling him the truth. Or for another example The Dark Knight by having Bruce's stalwart code of ethics established in the previous movie become attacked by showing the potential consequences of allowing such dangerous criminals to live without the luxury of an easy out such as the case of the last film's ending and forcing him to possibly push the line beyond what he or the audience might normally be comfortable with in his battle. Even much more contested sequels like The Matrix Reloaded and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest make genuine efforts to accomplish the same. The Last Jedi feels like it's trying to do that not only, or perhaps even primarily, to its immediate predecessor but to the series as a whole.

Anyway, onto the Luke thing we all know the film has an over-arching theme about how victory comes through "saving what you love" not "destroying what you hate". Luke's great mistake is presented as just that. Almost giving into some primal desire to kill his nephew out of fear which turns into the catalyst for his turning evil. But that's really just a restatement via a reversal of the ending of Return of the Jedi. Where he manages to resist the Dark Side and not kill his father in spite of his anger, which ultimately is what allows the two of them to succeed. Essentially, the same point displayed as a lesson learned by the same character who would later almost make that very mistake. And yet it plays like it is this great re-evaluation of the saga that required reconfiguring Luke into practically a different character. Lines like the "You can't solve everything by jumping into an X-Wing and blowing something up" feeling like it was adopting the "Star Wars was always too black and white mindless action movies" mindset.

If you were actually trying to challenge the original movies and the Luke that was actually in them in some way, wouldn't his mistake been in giving someone like Ben too many chances? His spirit being broken because the ideals that worked in Anakin's case failed him on somebody else. Feeling responsible for the bad things that wound up happening because he wonders if he should have stopped it early. Questioning whether even after how much Empire had already forced Luke to grow-up some and realize things were more complicated than he thought that he still was too idealistic on some level. Now, I'm not saying that the film would ultimately agree to that idea or that that's even what I think they should have done. I don't even think you necessarily need to challenge the pervious movies in such a way to be a great sequel with any franchise. But it would have felt like a more honest attempt at critical re-evaluation of what came before if that's what you were trying to go for. Which, again, makes me question the necessity for them to do what they did to Luke.

Similarly there's the point about the Jedi as a whole, namely that they were flawed. Which I thought was made fairly clear by things like Yoda outright talking about how arrogance was a flaw that had become really common among the Jedi before the rise of the Empire, one of their top members Mace Windu becoming openly willing to break their code of conduct after the pressure had really come on, or even Luke's character arc coming to an end when making his own decision in defiance of what his mentors told him he needed to do in sparing his father's life was what led to his victory. What I'm getting at is that I don't think the films were unaware of any of this but it feels like it's being touted as some grand new insight because it was verbalized on screen directly. I don't think I even need to say much on the whole "It added a morally grey dimension" to Star Wars thing. So at the end of the day it all just kind of feels unearned to me personally. Within movie and the adulation it's received for it.

Or who knows, maybe I'm just overthinking all this. Lol

 

I think the real root is bad story telling with bad knockoffs.

Personally - almost every "message" in TLJ I generally agree with but that didn't make the movie any better. Just horribly done imo.

 

I wasn't critizing you either

I might like the idea of a SW with a deeper meaning, providing that it's done well. Some people claim that we are all overthinking, but what are we supposed to do? Nothing is clear in the movie, so obviously we need to analyze it in an attempt to understand what's going on. If they didn't want it to be studied in detail, they could have done it less cryptical in the first place.
Either you make it simple or you must expect the critiques when you try to be deep and fail miserably.

 

You guys are right...its just horribly done.

No nuance, no logic...it all just "is". I am baffled, truly by the way this ST story is being told.

Maybe all the other crap in it is to misdirect from the fact that it simply has no substance at all.

 

I think you don’t have a deep appreciation for myth and fairy tale if you think it’s all just happiness and escapism. Luke was cast in the specific tradition of some well-known Celtic fairy tales (namely, the Fisher King). You don’t have to like it. I, for example, think it could’ve been executed better. But it’s no use claiming that it was outside the boundaries of Star Wars. I mean, did you watch ROTS? Clearly, Lucas thinks Star Wars is more than Ewok celebrations. He was aware of the tragedy, melancholy and yearning found in myths and fairy tales, and explored that further in the PT (and with Filoni via TCW). RJ plumbed those depths too. He just did it with your favorite character, and in a rather blunt way, and you didn’t like it. Fair enough. But as soon as you argue he went beyond the spirit of Star Wars, you lose me. Because by that standard, Lucas has also violated that spirit.

 

So don’t you think that yoda and obiwan would have wondered WHY Luke had closed himself off from the Force and would have checked into it?

An even better question is why didn’t yoda and obiwan speak to Luke and help him BEFORE everything went south and the Jedi students were killed and the school destroyed? Why didn’t they help him when Luke was starting the Jedi school or , at least, when it became evident that Kylo was having problems? That didn’t just all happen the night of the massacre. Kylo was likely heading into darkness long beforee then. So, why didn’t the force ghosts give Luke some help and advice then? It certainly didn’t seem from the conversation on Ahch to that yoda had ever visited Luke after Endor until he appeared on that island.

And I agree with @Darth_Tweakpiece . This idea of Luke closing himself off from the Force was yet another bad writing choice. It was a lazy way of the writer getting out of explaining a whole lot of things that really don’t make sense.

 

Possibly after, before he went into exile.

No his plan was to cause the light to rise from a new source. I've already said I wish it was explained better, but it's there none the less.

 

I'd be interested to know where in the movie Luke shows he plans to cause the light to rise from a new source.

 

Same. This is the first I've heard about this.

 

People are ignoring that RJ gave the explanation that the reason he can't do this is because it would prevent a new light from rising. Granted it wasn't emphasised in the film, but it's there none the less.

 

You’re entitled to your own strong opinion, particularly given that this is the ST Criticism thread. I think Luke could’ve been treated less harshly as well. But your contempt for the homeless and destitute, through your repeated “hobo” insult, is really off-putting, and makes me wonder if you really do understand the spirit of Star Wars, or the Jedi.

 

Luke Skywalker is not the kind of character that you turn into a Fisher king, especially when you do it in such a TERRIBLE way. This is a character who was beloved by generations of fans for over 40 years, and they destroyed him. At least if they would have allowed the character to redeem himself by LIVING to train rey and restore the Jedi order after bringing him so low, maybe it would be less disappointing and maddening. But they didn’t. They seem to have almost gleefully deconstructed the character, and then never took the time or care to build him back up again. With what TLJ has given us, Luke Skywalker ended up being a complete and utter failure. He left no Jedi legacy; not even one trained student. Worst of all, after being the catalyst who helped bring down the empire and return his father to the Light, he became the catalyst who helped the First order rise and started his nephew on his darkside path.

These filmmakers took the happy, hopeful ending away from Luke, Han, and leia, and gave them nothing but misery and failure in return. The New Hope ended up being made into a near villain, ultimately responsible for a lot of the death and destruction. The character was so different from the Luke of the OT, that even Mark Hamill thought if him as a totally different character. Iconic, beloved characters should never be handled this way. If they couldn’t come up with a role that showed respect and care for the character, then they never should have included the character in the sequel trilogy. I don’t even feel that I have seen Luke in this trilogy, because the character that had Luke’s name in TLJ was nothing at all like the character that I had enjoyed for almost three decades. It would have been far, far better if Luke had died defending his students the night of the massacre. That would have been the Real Luke Skywalker...

 

So you needed to resort to insulting me? You couldn’t come up with a counter to my comments so you decided to attack me instead?

 

I gathering it from the scene where Rey says to Luke that the Jedi are needed to counter Kylo and he counters with the idea that the light doesn't die with the Jedi nor does it belong to them. I took this to imply he was making way for a new light to rise in their place (because of reasons he explained later) by intentionally removing himself. Rian also clarified this later in interviews. I've said previously that I would have liked it established more clearly.

I don't think it's too much to ask that you not repeatedly use the term hobo. It's a pejorative and suggests you hold them in the same contempt you hold Luke in.

 

That line was a complete mess imo. When he asked "do you understand this?" I wished she answered "do you?"

 

Hmm. Seems a leap. That quote appears to merely be part of an explicit argument why the Jedi are innessential. He's arguing it's time for the Jedi to end, not for the Light to rise. This implicit plan b to counter the dark just isn't there.

 

Something like:

Rey: "But why can't you return? At least be with your sister?"

Like: "Every day I wish I could. But a new light needs to rise in place of the Jedi, and I need to be gone for that to happen."

Obviously with better dialogue, but you get the idea.

 

@DarthPhilosopher
ok but what do you have in mind, precisely, when you talk about a new light?

 

Rey being awakened.

 

ROTS is the tragedy that the OT is set up to turn into a triumphant ending. To turn the whole thing back into hell again ignores that ROTJ was meant to end the cycle and return Light to the galaxy. I also hate the Fisher King - I couldn't even make ten minutes of that movie. It works in Excalibur because, oh, look, the relationship with Arthur and Merlin, which has underpinned the whole thing, is revived. If you wanted to make this work, then Han and/or Leia should have been the one to call Luke back and he should have come in person.

The problem is that idea, to steal from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, is a load of dingo's kidneys. First, how would Luke even figure that out? It sounds like some rationalization he made up in his head to explain why he left Han, Leia and the galaxy to fend for itself while he licked his wounds for six years. Star Wars isn't Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you don't kill one Jedi and get a new one.

Plus this whole idea of a new light or a "purer light" as I saw RJ quoted, is that it continues the idea that Luke, Han and Leia were failures and fools and could never make things work but our new special heroes will. It's the idea that the Jedi - who, let us be honest here, Luke barely knows anything about except what he dug up and it looks like Anakin, Yoda and Ben didn't even bother to help him - need to be "reformed" by "purer" Rey, who knows less than nothing but magically has everything she needs, downloaded from a dark sider.

When is that, exactly? Is it when she's born? Is it when she runs into BB 8? When she's tortured by Kylo and downloads some of his knowledge? Closes her eyes and magically has the Force in the duel? None of that works because Snoke says "light rises to meet dark" well, the timing is a mess, unless we've decided Kylo turned at 10. Because he's already been tearing up the galaxy for six years by the time Rey "awakens."

 

I didn't make myself clear: my question is: what do you consider to be a valid alternative, once you get rid of the Jedi?
Ok, Rey might be the messiah, that's fair, but messiah of what message? What set of new values?

 

He's a Jedi. Maybe he knew the Force would react to his disappearance with something new.

The whole point of the film is that Rey isn't some ideal 'purer light'. That was Luke's idealism.

Maybe it doesn't happen instantaneously?

Well Luke was wrong, so I don't think he was right in thinking the new awakening would be better. That was simply him being very idealistic.

 

Sorry if I insist on this, don't take it personally but my problem is that I don't even get what was Luke's utopia. He vaguely talks about the light, the Jedi and blah blah blah, but nobody is able to tell me what he had in mind. This is why I call BS on Rey's first lesson.
You say he was idealistic, but frankly I struggle to understand what his ideals were.

 

Oh I see what you're asking, my apologies. Well I'd imagine it had something to do with whatever the new light being, being able to create a system free of the fundamental flaws of the Jedi (a philosophy where people like Kylo Ren don't fall, etc.). Luke, being of the Jedi, probably reasoned these flaws were not able to be seen by him and it needed completely 'fresh' eyes, so to speak.