ST ST Criticism Discussion Thread

I'd gladly have narrative asymmetry if it meant having a good story and characters that have something to them other than the possibility of being involved with a prior character who was far better conceived. Despite mirroring in order to emphasize certain themes, both prior protagonists actually had their own conflicts that weren't merely a question of being related to somebody else. Lucas kind of understood that both characters needed actual meat to their respective stories and frankly, I'd rather have had the creators involved in the ST emphasize the substance over attempting to emulate something that Lucas was understandably better at in his own story.

 

They're not actually saying he doesn't hate the movie, they're just upset that people are saying he hates the movie because he hasn't explicitly said it in so many words. Even though, IMO, most people would interpret all of his comments, when seen in their entirety, to point at an obvious strong dislike for the movie. It's fairly obvious that he is just being coy because he is walking a precarious line with Disney, since they are paying him to promote the films, not criticize them. So while clearly expressing his true feelings over and over and over, in interview after interview, about how much he disagreed with everything the director did, every once in a while, usually in response to a question about how much he dislikes the movie, he also throws in some vague or sarcastic compliments that he knows the audience will disregard, such as when he calls TLJ, "one of the great movies." No one can possibly think he really believes TLJ is one of the great movies and should be placed alongside Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, etc. It's ridiculous to think he honestly meant that, but based on the arguments of some, it'd be disrespectful not to believe him. So that means he would have to both disagree "with every decision the director made" and also consider it "one of the great movies." Because to believe one and not the other is cherry-picking...as opposed to common sense.

 

Or, you know, it's entirely possible he had massive reservations about certain aspects of his characterisation and writing, but enjoyed other things about the film? That's what he said. It's entirely possible to disagree with how RJ viewed and wrote Luke but enjoy the final film.

He essentially just said, most recently, to paraphrase, that people should look at the whole context and the entirety of what he says. Maybe we should respect that?

 

No, it's not entirely possible that he had massive reservations about CERTAIN ASPECTS of his characterization and writing. He DISAGREED WITH EVERY DECISION RJ MADE. Not certain aspects. EVERY DECISION. Let's not sugar coat what he said. And he didn't say it once. Or twice. Or ten times. He said it over and over and over. It's not cherry-picking if he repeated it over and over, like a mantra. And when you say he HAD reservations, that's also not what has been expressed by him, as far as I can see. To this day, he STILL has the same issues he had when he read the script about Luke. He doesn't like the fact that Luke died. That, to me, says he didn't like the ending of the film. That's pretty significant. This part should not be up for any debate. To say he HAD reservations is misleading.

If you're suggesting he really, really disliked the Luke stuff, but he thought the stuff with Finn and Rose, and Poe and Holdo was so great that he still enjoyed the film despite the Luke character being completely destroyed... I don't see that as very likely. It seems highly unlikely, IMO. The depiction of Luke is at the heart of the film. But if what you ultimately want to hear is that, yes, it's possible that MH loves TLJ...I suppose anything is possible. So yes. In that sense, you're right. Anything is possible.

 

Mark Hamill clearly didn’t like where RJ took Luke in TLJ. That’s undeniable. The question is: does it matter what actors think? I’ve heard so many actors whine about what great directors did to their characters (Malick being a favorite target), and most of the time, I don’t find their arguments very compelling. In this case? I think Luke was written in a pretty ham-fisted way, and agree with some of Hamill’s feelings about it. But I don’t hold up Hamill’s opinion of it to strengthen my critique. Frankly, I think his opinion is irrelevant. It neither weakens nor strengthens the argument for Luke’s story in TLJ. It’s just, like, his opinion man.

 

Sorry I meant to say that he has massive reservations about his characterisation and some aspects of the writing. I've also been using 'had' because I was talking about MH in the process of making the film (when someones says they disliked a film it doesn't mean that they now like it). I think you knew full well what I meant.

What I've been 'suggesting' has been consistent from the beginning and is simply taking MHs words at face value. He disagreed with essentially every aspect of his characterisation (at least on the island) on a script level, some things may have been changed through collaboration since we know that happened but fundamentally he still disagreed, he was upset that Luke died, it's unclear what he thought of the Crait scenes since that characterisation is ostensively "old Luke" but I gather -especially his final scene with Carrie - that he has a different attitude towards that, but as a film he thinks RJ created something that he enjoyed overall. I'm guessing he's frustrated - as am I - with the overall way the trilogy (TLJ in particular) was handled. But there is no evidence that he can be used by those who hate or severely dislikes the film as a standard barer who agrees with them. His words have also been cherrypicked and used for some peoples very negative narratives. It appears, given all his comments, his opinions on the films is far more complex than many people would have you believe, and I think we should do him the respect of letting him talk for himself rather than suggesting "he really meant this or that".

Let me clarify: I have no interest in MH agreeing with me. Many of his comments already run counter to mine. I have an interest in his comments not being twisted, because I think it's disrespectful when people do that. I think it's unsavoury that MH, for just being honest, has been hoisted as some anti-Disney, anti-RJ, anti-TLJ banner when his comments seem to be more nuanced than that in all respects; he seems to have a lot of personal and professional respect for all involved and may have even enjoyed the film as a film (if not for the Luke aspects).

 

Whether or not Mark Hamill says this or that, I think we should remember that the ultimate judgement about Luke's portrayal is not up to him. It is up to the individual person who saw it. I don't need Mark Hamill's words to tell me what is wrong with Luke Skywalker in TLJ. I saw the film for myself, and I can make my own case of why it doesn't work with just the film alone.

As for Kylo Ren's adolescence theme, it would have been more understandable if we know what he's fighting for. With Anakin, it is easy to pinpoint what motivated him and what led him to the Dark Side of the Force. We know that Anakin has a naive view on politics, believing that politicians should get things done and if they don't, someone should make them to get it done. It's a childish but understandable frustration that can easily lead to the path of tyranny and dictatorship, something that Darth Vader would be best known for. If we know more about what the First Order believes in (and no, bringing back the Empire doesn't amount to much since we don't know why they think that's a good idea), we might be able to see Kylo as something more than just a stand-in alt-right Neo-Nazis.

Even that doesn't really gander any sympathy from the mainstream audience if his group is still coded as Nazis. Maybe it would be better if he was not part of the First Order and instead was part of a vigilante group. Like say, the Knights of Ren are Dark-Siders who believe in bring peace through violence because utopia justifies the means. Like the Punisher from Marvel. It would certainly make Kylo Ren somewhat of a hero (from a certain point of view). Actually, that's not a bad idea at all...

 

I think this is almost always reasonably true. But this really was a special case, was it not? Hamill made this character famous forty years ago, and he has lived the character and will continue to live the character for the rest of his life. To ask him to do something he was so unhappy with, IMO, is simply bad form. They would never have done this to Harrison Ford, right? If he had complained, they would have rewritten his whole part. So they treated Hamill relative to the power he has, despite the fact that he was a founding member of this thing. I'm sure he was paid well, and that's a fair argument. But I still think this was wrong. Normally, yes, actors are paid for hire, and their opinions aren't that big a deal. So I agree with the general premise of actors' opinions not mattering, I just think this is a special case. They treated MH like he was just a regular actor doing a job, as opposed to collaborating with him. If Lucas had done it, I think I would have been okay with that, given their relationship. But this wasn't that at all.

 

These disgusting quotes, to me, show some insight into RJ's youth. Rejected by pop and beat up by jocks in HS would be my non-expert profile. Glad those themes *cough* Poe Dameron *cough* are what drove the entire story of the 8th movie in a franchise. The same quotes also drip with comtempt for HC as Anakin and the ol' "Kylo is Anakin done right" rallying cry.

In other Galactic Holo-Net news......Sebulba continued his podracing comeback in the Bespin open placing a respectable 3rd in just his second race back.

Everyone loves a comeback story....I know i do. Look at how everyone cheers for Tiger Woods to get back to form because he's so good for the game of golf. I really wanted to dig into that.

 

So that’s why he killed him?
Huh. I always thought he did it to prove his devotion to the dark side.
Oh well. Whaddaya know!

 

Yes it was to prove his devotion to the dark side. Maybe Snoke was holding back on his training because he didn't have his complete trust..

So once Kylo killed Han Solo, Snoke said "It's time" as in, has has proven himself, so I am ready to teach this guy everything I can to make him the powerful Dark Force user he can be.

And then we could see Kylo return as more polished and menacing in episode VIII. So despite his weaknesses in TFA, he will have transcended them after a time jump. That's what I thought. I guess it's my fault for speculating too much. Was I thinking too much?

 

I don't understand how RJ claims to understand the OT and Luke when he doesn't even realize that adolescence left Kylo Ren a good 15 years ago. Certainly long after he decided to turn.

 

Then he spends the next movie all over the map trying to convince Rey he’s just a bad boy and can’t say why he killed his father? Someone didn’t tell Rian.

Kylo doesn’t have a motive or a reason beyond “we decided that another Skywalker should be dark because that’s what happens in a Star Wars movie.” Which is the actual theme of the ST - “it’s what happens in a Star Wars movie.” Without thought as to why it worked the first time.

 

Well, to be entirely fair, I think TLJ does touch upon it, with Kylo telling Snoke “I’ve given everything I have to you. To the dark side.” - and then retorting “I killed Han Solo!” when Snoke expresses his doubts about Kylo’s devotion.

...but after that, the subject is dropped entirely. The film spends no time whatsoever trying to explain what motivates Kylo Ren. All it says is what he wants to do (Kill the past). We never learn why and that’s one of TLJ’s greatest failures.

 

Important to note that many ancient myths utilize psychologically uncomfortable terrain that’s difficult for people to associate with on the extremes specifically to get people to think about conflicts and concepts more personally.

Greek myths often featured children killing their parents or parents eating their children. Sons killing their fathers to make their mothers their brides. Husbands putting their wives into cubes they couldn’t escape from while at war. People who could see the future truly and accurately with consistency who were ignored by the masses. Mothers whose children were kidnapped and had the power to deliver crops withdrew those powers. There are plenty more.

In Greco-Roman myth a common dynamic explored to extremes was that of the father wanting to control the son to follow in his footsteps and remain below him in social status until the elder died and the son believing the father was wrong and incapable and an embrassment to the family’s potential and this conflict taken to extremes lead to parents believing it best to eliminate their sons from competition and in some cases eating them and the sons believing they were not only the better leader for the family line but also more deserving of the mother’s love than the father.

These extremes weren’t meant to be things that everyday people had all experienced recently. They went to the dark parts of human psychology with extremes because extremes allow us to feel more distant from it while also benefiting from the analysis of the concepts explored in less extreme ways.

Implying that Johnson thinks everyone can relate to killing their father literally feels intellectually disingenuous to me.

A great example of the power of metaphorical myth in Star Wars leading to psychological analysis and discussion happened in this very thread last night!

Some posters were effectively arguing in favor of minority report-like proactive measures from Jedi and death penalties in the name of protection. Others asked who watches the watch men, questioned thought police, and the power to change course, along with ideas related to how trying to control someone to that degree could lead to something worse.

The controversial interrogation / torture / scene of VII inspired a ton of debate and subtextual analysis.

Star Wars is at its best and most powerful when we can do that and when it engages the mind on multiple levels.

Johnson is very clearly looking at the situation less literally than many here are suggesting and closer to how someone may seek to analyze the Greek myths of parents devouring children or Oepidus complex.

He could have just as easily said in reference to the Anakin and Obi-Wan relationship that we can all relate to feeing like we’ve been held back by someone and angry and wanting them out of the way so that we can grow. Wouldn’t mean we can all relate to wanting to grab a weapon and seek to kill those people either.

 

It's clear RJ really identifies with Kylo. Why? What does he know about him that we don't?

 

IMO they do need to get more into the story of when Kylo Ren learned he was the grandson of Darth Vader because in the EU we learn that his own family kept that a closely guarded family secret. We’ve heard that Snoke began influencing him young. We know that he intends to finish what his grandfather started. They’ve talked up his sense of entitlement to the galaxy as a Skywalker and given us the impression that he sees his parents as squandering his inheritance as Vader’s heir. We also know his uncle saw the darkness in him, grew concerned, and sought to exert control in the name of protection and read his mind, with the fear of all that he and Leia had done to undo Vader’s legacy, leading Luke to his own dark side moment and that Ben Solo then pulled down the ceiling on both him and Luke.

That’s quite literally all we know with a significant portion of that in novels. How they collectively as a story group missed the value in getting into this more is beyond me. A great time to do it would have been a reworked scene for TFA where Han would confront Ben and Snoke. Han would plead with his son as he did and Snoke would remind that his parents could see that you had too much Vader in you and never loved you. This could have even come telepathically from Snoke to both of them if that was somhow easier to stage. Han could say they believed he could change that. Snoke could have said he need not change at all and share how as the grandson of Vader he was born to rule and imply that they kept his grandfather secret because they knew Ben was as special as him and were jealous of his power. Ben could have even asked him “Why didn’t you tell me who my grandfather was?” in TFA. That kind of scene would have been both powerful and provided some much needed exposition on his dark side recruitment and it’s incredibly disappointing that JJ missed that opportunity and that Johnson didn’t seek to recover from that missed opportunity. Having Luke get into it a little more wouldn’t have worked quite as well but it would have been better than nothing. Legacy is important in these stories. We’ve had descendants wish to pick up their family legacy on the Light side of the Force. It’s not terribly hard to imagine how the grandson of space Hitler might be recruited by neo nazis and hyped up as someone whose grandfather was right and told that he was like him.

It feels a lot of the time like they might be talking themselves into lack of exposition by pointing to the OT as their soft reboot template while also incorporating aspects of the PT which were about as on the nose with exposition as expositional writing can get. Sadly, there really is a balance between the two with slightly more exposition given than what the oldest films had without turning things into the guided audio tour at the Museum of Star Wars history either.

 

The thing with Greek mythology and their stories about fathers being killed by their children for various reasons, or children killed by their parents is... It was symbolism. Greek mythology never meant to glorify the literal murder of the parents or their children. That's what Freud explained about Oedipus' story, if I remember well: it represented the idea that on a psychological level, boys wanted to "kill" their father because they wanted their mother for themselves. Of course he didn't mean that the children literally wanted to murder their father: they only have the (generally unconscious) desire to push the father away from their mother. Jung then developed the idea differently, when he created the concept of the Anima and its various stages: the Anima represents for men the ideal version of the woman: when they're children, it's their mother, then when they grow up it's the woman they fall in love with. In the PT Lucas is very clearly influenced by Jung's theory on the subject: Anakin the child loves his mother above everything (she's the motherly figure of the Anima), then transfers this love to Padme when he becomes a young man (she's then both the motherly figure and the sexual figure of the Anima). Since he lost his mother in tragic circumstances, Anakin's love becomes quickly possessive: he's scared of losing her as he lost his mum. What can then seem incoherent in his attempt to kill her is actually not so much: since he always loved her in a possessive way, at the moment he thinks that she doesn't belong to him anymore (when he sees Obi-Wan and believes that Padme betrayed him in favor of his former friend), he reacts in a possessive way: "if I can't have you, nobody will". It's probably why the Jedi were opposed to any form of attachment: they knew that attachment often lead to this kind of possessive attitude towards the loved ones.

I think the problem in the ST is that they wanted to give Han's death the same kind of symbolic signification that Greek mythology did, but most of the viewers only saw him being literally murdered by his son, for there was no previous context that would have helped us to understand this act (while in Greek mythology, there's always a context. We do sympathize or we do not, but there's a story that leads to this symbolic murder). And of course, the total lack of backstory given in the movies to Kylo Ren doesn't help them at all to feel any sympathy for him: he wants to leave the past behind? ok. But why does he want that?

Abrams and Driver talked once or twice about his parents not being very present for Ben because they were too invested in their respective activities, and I think canon novels like Bloodline and Aftermath explain that Ben was watched by Snoke even before he was born, and was then very much influenced by him since his tender childhood. The problem is that none of this is said in the movies, so how could the audience know if they don't read the books? If RJ wanted us to sympathize with Kylo, he should have explained us all that. It seems that he thought that Rey's compassion for him was enough for us to share the same feeling, but he didn't even bother to explain why she felt this compassion either, so it couldn't work.

 

@godisawesome , the freeze itself was just another act of control over matter. Something we’ve seen many times before. Just applied differently.

The cooler part that felt more unique to me was his multitasking ability to then hold the bolt while carrying on a conversation fully and then releasing it later. That was the bigger thing. It implied an ability to multitask in his mind that we haven’t seen quite to that same degree on screen.

This then DOES carry over into VIII. He makes terrific use of the same multasking ability in his killing of Snoke as he knows his mind is being read and he’s talking but at the same time exerting control over matter elsewhere.

 

I genuinely do not think JJ meant the audience to view patricide like Greek mythological symbolism. It’s not his style, and anyway, his explanation for it was pretty grounded - he felt Vader’s successor needed to go there.

Even if it was his intent, it wouldn’t matter to me. Oedipus as a symbol is useful as a conversation device. When I read the actual story in college, it was gross. Experiencing characters do gross things in fiction is what it is. The symbolism might be what we carry forward, but in the context of the story, the characters did what they did and that’s how we experience them.

This, so much, this. Kylo’s stated motive for killing his father doesn’t get nearly enough credit for being shallow and narcissistic. “But I killed him because I needed to kill the past to be stronger in the dark side!” “Oh gee whiz, why didn’t you say so?! And here I was thinking you might have a motive like being manipulated into thinking it was for the greater good or something. But that’s totally sympathetic!” Um no.