PT [TFA Spoilers] Criticism of Anakin vs. Kylo Ren

Oh I didn't mean I think falling Anakin is better than the fallen Ben. I was making an honest comparison. Sorry if it looks like I'm choosing 1 over another.

 

Nah, I didn't think so, you're good

That was to the posters in general because I may have misinterpreted the nature of the thread.

 

The one film where Han is treated as a stranger by his own son. As to why they should, that's part of what turning to the dark side is. It is giving into fear, anger and hate. That's why the Skywalker men were both depicted as giving into hate towards someone, which was meant to bring them over. Anakin hated Dooku, the Confederacy leadership and Obi-wan and those actions turned him into Vader. Luke fights Vader because he hates him, for all the terrible things that he's done to him and to those that he's cared for. And he almost kills his father because he hates what he is and how callous he has become.

Where does Ben hate Han? He just feels nothing for him. He's already decided to kill him, but only because of his greed which is right, but there should also be anger and hate. It's pretty bad when he's more emotional fighting a total stranger in Finn, than he is in going to kill his own father.

 

So Luke "almost" killing his father shows hate but Kylo actually killing his father doesn't? Yeah, ok.

Kylo was extremely emotional killing his own father. His emotions ran deeper and were a mix of different emotions from the time he spoke to him to the moment he killed him and you can see him going through all of them. He attemps to supress them by trying to convince himself that he feels nothing, but you can clearly see that isn't true. More ways to show anger and hate than just yelling and I'd say killing him pretty much covered that.

 

I feel I must come to the film's defence on this one. In addition to what Nate787 said, it is possible to observe Kylo/Ben storing up his emotions, and then unleashing them against Rey and Finn. It's telling that, even though their entrance casts a pale ray of light over the platform between himself and Han, Ben doesn't seem to notice them, at all, lost in his own conflict, until Chewie shoots him in response to him taking Han's life. Then he looks up at them with obvious hate and practically forces himself to start walking, death saber at the ready. His theme plays and the film segues to its dramatic action coda. The lighting in that part, when Chewie sets the explosions off, is even reminiscent of the Mustafar confrontation, as Anakin and Obi-Wan face each other down in the last portion of their duel along the lava flow. Anyway, I digress.

When Rey and Finn traverse the forest, Kylo is patiently waiting for them, and yet he is no longer the immaculate-haired man-in-control he was when he formerly removed his helmet. His soul has taken a battering and his appearance reflects his inner state. Kylo is suddenly awake to his own pain; things have suddenly become very real and very personal. The most striking expression of emotion -- arguably in the whole film -- is when Kylo baits Finn into fighting by barking, "Traitor!!!" He is essentially accusing Finn of actualizing the confrontation with Han and projecting all his anguish onto him. It was Finn that he detected having waivered in the village, giving him an ominous stare, and when the records are being checked to see who is helping Poe escape from the First Order, Kylo softly, almost sadly says, as if speaking to himself, "FN-2187". It is Finn's defection that causes Ben's world to unravel. Had Finn not defected, Ben might have postponed the confrontation with his father indefinitely, or at least tried to convince himself he could take Han's life if he was challenged to do so; safe in his own self-deceit while all the while being spared actually facing that reality -- a deception that Finn's actions bring to a remarkably swift end. There is some complexity at work in "The Force Awakens", surprisingly.

But on the other hand, having just watched the last part of the film again, I can assert, if only for myself, that it is nothing compared to ROTS. While I called you out, d-s, for attempting to quantify each movie's emotional impact/quality/qualia -- call it whatever you will -- I most certainly agree, having just refreshed myself, that TFA lacks mightily next to ROTS. The disparity isn't even funny. The last act of ROTS, in particular, bleeds drama and pathos in every scene, with a lyrical, almost cascading sense of misunderstanding, pain, and waste emanating from every shot, every moment, until the film reaches a heart-wrenching point of ekstasis when Obi-Wan chops down Anakin and he returns to the ship, only to have Padme ask after Anakin, in a sad daze, watched over by a forlorn Artoo. Absolutely tragic. And Lucas still isn't done artistically manipulating your emotions. There is a fine sense of melancholy and despair at the denouement of the film, stitched with poignant notes of hope as Yoda announces he has more training for Obi-Wan and everyone goes to their destinies. I'm describing this rather mechanically, but there is a very clever blending and controlling of tone at the end of ROTS, which does right by the accreted mass of story lore, honouring (and vindicating) the long build-up of the prequel trilogy itself, easing a viewer back into the original trilogy, and working within ROTS on its own terms. Now, I did formerly state that comparing TFA to ROTS was crooked, but there are ways in which the comparison is also valid. Not least in terms of their eschatological, world-shattering climaxes. And this takes us to a serious flaw in TFA's design: it tries to do too much.

Unlike ROTS, which is richly textured, supremely operatic, and engorged in tragedy, without becoming encumbered in trivialities or heavy-handed reveals/shocks/twists, TFA -- partly in trying to do too much, partly in being a film by J.J. Abrams -- remains stuck in a sort of arrested paint-by-numbers frenzy. Han and Ben's confrontation is tragic and suitably hushed (even if they all should have been shot and captured well before Han gets anywhere near Ben), but the film doesn't leverage the emotional impact of that scene for any great effect. Han and Ben's last moments together are raw, but they are also their first moments from the viewer's point-of-view, so we're asked to bring a lot to that one scene, and there isn't much encouragement to keep feeling shocked or sorrowful for any length of time. Whatever rawness the confrontation has (and I think it has some: great articulations, as I said previously, by darth_frared and Darth Downunder), I don't think the emotional artifacts of Ben's murder/Han's death carry across very well. Something about Han's death resonates outside of the film, but internally, the shock and the pain of it is transient (to me, anyway). I think I feel worse for Han than the other characters. Whereas, in ROTS, I feel some degree of sorrow for everyone; and I feel more emotionally nourished as a result. There's something very cold and anemic about TFA all the way through. After Starkiller Base blows and everyone flies home (and that section of the film has no definitive victory moment; which I don't think helps), the film botches it, badly, by having Leia and Chewie completely ignore each other (a huge WTF? moment: one of many). Leia embraces Rey, instead, and then there are brief shots (I don't think we can even call them scenes) of Chewie and Leia in a funk over Han's death, and then Artoo arbitrarily wakes up, to little reaction from Threepio (he was a heck of a lot more relieved to find Artoo in the sandcrawler in ANH; and was very concerned for Artoo's well-being after the Battle of Yavin, even offering to donate any of his parts if it would help him recover: "You MUST repair him!"). The film greedily arrogates many of the visuals, themes, and situations of the former movies (yes: the originals *and* the prequels), but makes a real dog's dinner of them. There are ways in which it is moderately effective at this or that, and it has solid production design and all the rest, but ultimately, it's much less than the sum of its parts, I think. With the prequels, and the originals, it's just the opposite!

The new movie is very confounding and I seem obsessed with it. But, alas, the real pain of it is: it's just not very good, in my opinion. My last viewing of the final stretch just brought it home to me. It seems more compelling when I try and meditate on it and get into a writing flow. But the movie itself, to me, is very drab and random. So you're more right than you are wrong, in my view. And what, by the way, is with those self-indulgent, eleven-minute-long credits??? It's not "Lawrence Of Arabia". I also wanted to projectile-vomit seeing the names "Simon Pegg" and "George Osborne" in the "thanks to" section at the end. The former being the smug brown-nosing cretin who likened the prequels to infanticide, the latter being the moon-faced David Cameron's right-hand man: the loathsome Tory duo and sad sacks of human excrement that have made a series of radical cuts to the welfare system in my country, resulting in spiralling misery for the sick, the disabled, working families, single parents, and the unemployed; and, in addition, these privileged little Etonian dicks have done absolutely nothing to deal with corporate tax evasion, have been systematically dismantling the National Health Service (which, alongside their trashing of the welfare system, represents the most radical shift to the right for the UK in over a generation), trashed (or are attempting to trash) the Human Rights Act, instituted (or are trying to institute) new powers for governmental spying, are appeasing the diseased upper classes and all their silver-spooned friends that want fox hunting back, and continue, at an astonishing pace, to prove that a Tory government can only ever be a government for the rich and powerful (and sociopathic). To see Osborne's name at the end of a Star Wars movie, even as a formality, is simply mind-blowing. This alone makes me despise everything that TFA stands for. The stench of money, of kowtowing, of compromise, of deceit and treachery -- these things are all over the movie. You want to do more to help the world and spread Lucasian values, Disney? Pledge more of your money to fighting evil politicians like this and all their machinations. Bring light and justice to the world. It's just talk otherwise. And your movie is tainted by association with this vile human being and his treacherous party.

But hey, as I said before, other people are free to have their own opinions. I just don't think this era of Star Wars is for me. While I feel some atavistic excitement from my childhood past, my adult intellect is in total revolt.

 

but there is no law that describes how 'the turn' has to happen, not as far as i know. and i think your description of anakin's turn seems a little flat to me as well. he also joins palpatine to save his wife, no?

i very much beg to differ on kylo ren not feeling for han. almost all of the character is in direct opposition to his family and their values. if he doesn't hate them to a degree and finds them disappointing, i'm not sure what the character design tells you. i guess there is an absence of an explicit 'i hate you' but listen to the rhetorics. i killed you son, your son is dead. he is clearly very moved by his father turning up and he would very much like to come along. i think he loves and hates his father and the conflict is very much informing the scene.

you don't become disappointed in someone who means nothing to you.

Cryogenic - why do you think they mention osborne in the credits? that is very disturbing.

also, astute analysis of TFA. especially wrt han's death. i think the whole film is - generously speaking - designed to be rewatched. i found it was on the 2nd viewing that i was able to take some of it in, which is a little sad. it's almost like they were afraid of giving the viewer time. but also, without han's death, the film would have almost nothing to offer we haven't seen before.

-------------------------------------------------------------

re anakin vs kylo ren

one of the things that interest me wrt both characters is their coding. there is some obvious mental health coding with kylo ren but it's his coding as feminine, the bleeding on the floor, crying, being overemotional, the dark, the hidden, that sets him apart from anakin, whose coding is more masculine, i think, possibly.

 

EDIT: I'm thinking more on this topic.

 

And his hatred also surely extends to Palpatine and himself.

But the great thing is, the movies put those pieces there, and then leave the viewer to interpret them.

Yes, very true.

But the movie isn't exactly keen to offer a generous raft of reasons as to why Kylo hates Han. He calls him "weak and foolish" to his face and tells Rey that Han would have disappointed her. There's precious little else to go on.

Rey's past is equally mysterious; although more of an enigma than a mystery (let's not degrade the other term). There is some kind of fraternal connection between Rey and Kylo, and a fair amount of rape/incestual subtext, but the film is otherwise tight-lipped about what their precise relationship is to one another.

Then there's Finn's lightweight defection and cheesy escape with Poe (who disappears for half the movie and re-appears in a puff of lazy plot logic). It slightly amazes me that some people are still running with the "Lucas reduced Jar Jar to a cameo after TPM!" trope, while giving TFA a free pass for sudden-reduction-to-cameo in the same movie.

Apparently, Disney received tax breaks by filming in the UK, and Osborne also claims to be a Star Wars fan (shame he hasn't learned any of the actual notes and themes). An even more preposterously dull Tory creature by the name of Ed Vaizey also has a credit (I went back and checked: it's true, unfortunately, he does). More here:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ns-george-osborne-credits-tax-relief-bfi-film



These paragraphs are especially good for a laugh:

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (where Vaizey is minister of state, with responsibility for culture, communications and creative industries), is ultimately responsible for certifying The Force Awakens as a British film, and therefore gives it access to tax relief. For all its Hollywood pedigree, The Force Awakens must be certified as a British film for tax purposes, and like other Hollywood blockbusters – including The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Gravity and World War Z – will take full advantage if, as appears highly likely, it is successful.

All films receiving tax relief must pass the “cultural” test administered by the British Film Institute, which operates a points system, taking into account such factors as the proportion of the film set in the UK or Europe, the nationality of the lead actors and crew, and how much of the film’s dialogue is in English. However, thanks to its production base at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire, a significant amount of UK crew, and its two British lead actors in Daisy Ridley and John Boyega, it is expected to easily pass the test.


It obviously passed this farcical testing and "became" a British film. Hurray!

And that means I am now slightly less puzzled by the odd copyright disclaimer at the very bottom of the credits:

For the purposes of United Kingdom copyright, Lucasfilm Ltd. was the owner of copyright in this film immediately after it was made.

Well, I guess it didn't fully become a British film. Take that, UK!

I think they were afraid, yes.

Here is a telling quote from Lawrence Kasdan:

“The feeling we wanted was from the first trilogy,” Kasdan says. “It’s fun, it’s delightful, it moves like a son of a bitch, and you don’t question too much.”

Source: http://www.wired.com/2015/11/building-the-star-wars-universe/


And I agree with your assessment. Han's death gives the film an edge it would otherwise entirely lack (aside, perhaps, from those incestual undertones between Rey and Kylo).

Moreover, Harrison Ford is the sole actor carrying the film. It desperately needs a "wise old mentor"/Obi-Wan-ish figure; especially since none of the bad guys, unlike in the OT, looks older than thirty.

The menstrual-like bleeding on the floor -- I'll give you that one. Anakin displays many of the other traits, though.

The more basic fact is, many young guys look, and perhaps sometimes act, a bit feminine, which probably explains (at least partially) why there was so much pederasty in the ancient world.

Although, quite what is meant by "masculine" and "feminine", in any discrete sense, isn't entirely clear to me (despite my own fondness for throwing those terms around).

Kylo and Anakin are both vulnerable loner figures; and, arguably, a bit emasculated (there I go again) as a result.

Hmm, now that I think about it, perhaps Kylo resented having a famous dad *and* a grandfather, but since the grandfather was dead and the father, in his eyes, neglected him, or wasn't the hero he imagined, it was easier to idolize the dead ancestor, instead.

I guess "there are heroes on both sides" of Kylo's ancestry. So, naturally, evil got everywhere. And a new hockey mask fetish was born.

 

ahhhhh Cryogenic i don't even know what to say!

i'm just going to happily shout at you

yes to the self-hatred! i think it takes copious amounts to be on the dark side.

yes it is sketchy. i'm giving them a pass because i'd forgive anything ( ) and also because it's the first film in a trilogy. i actually really like that you are left to infer what happened between them and why there's disappointment and pain. it's ok, it'll be ok. (otherwise i'm going to drive myself crazy speculating).

i think all three leads have mysterious origins in a way. we know or we think we know most about ben because we got to know his parents but everything else is in the air. i think rey and kylo ren will continue to clash and get to know each other. they are set up as a kind of yin/yang, which is where -neato!- the masculine and feminine comes in.(am i supposed to take you for a rey skywalker aficionado? is that why you keep mentioning incest?)

when i looked at the associated attributes, i found that kylo ren is more feminine albeit in a masculine disguise. i don't think anakin and padme are set-up quite in that contrast. and anakin's got the *wrong* origin, the desert planet. that's why he's more masculine. obviously, these aren't literal categories

re:emasculation kylo ren has his legacy sabre taken as well as his own destroyed. anakin has had his taken away but it's not quite as emasculating. else i've never quite interpreted it that way now that i think of it.

i think that is part of the new films, the young people. han isn't even a particularly good mentor. he's the loveable rogue, still doing his old job. anyway, i think the young cast is part of the new thing, i might be alone in thinking that it's about the legacy, their inability to establish any kind of lasting peace. essentially all the legacy characters are still doign the same job. it's a bit disturbing. i keep confusing rebellion with resistance because i'm not sure what the difference is. there are differences, please don't list them all at once, but not on first glance and it's the same wrt FO and empire.

i think that's why there will be a major shift. or else i'm hoping for a major shift. in fact, i'll be cross if there isn't a shift. honest!

i think that is some of his 'motivation' yes, i think the film is suggesting that without vader there might not be a kylo ren. and i think he idolises vader because a) vader can't correct his misconception and b) vader would have understood the force as he does. which begs questions, why wasn't he introduced to the legacy with warts and all? and if so, why is he conveniently ignoring some of it? it's really interesting but also i really hope the next film won't throw all of the set-up to the wind.

 

I could barely contain my laughter in the theater when I saw Han Solo die. The entire scene was so amusing to me. Han Solo, the rogue pilot of the original trilogy, was a seventy-three year old divorced deadbeat dad pleading with his emo son to abandon the dark side. Then Kylo Ren murdered his father because something something dark side motivation something something.

I thought Anakin's turn to the dark side was believable partially because he was born as a slave and was separated from his mother at such a young age.

Two loving parents raised Kylo Ren, and he suddenly decided to forsake his own loving family and turn to the dark side?

George Lucas should have killed off Han Solo in Return of the Jedi to prevent this terrible fan fiction.

 

Interesting conversation. Good points from all sides.

For me, as I eluded too in my initial post in this thread, the motivations and build-up to Han's Death fell very very flat. Though I still say that the actual scene was done very well, it would have, and should have been immensely more emotional had Kylo Ren been built up as a better character.

Since this conversation has turned to a comparison of Luke vs Vader I want to throw in my two cents.

For me, it is clear what Abrams was going for in the Han's Death scene. He wanted to build up to the final confrontation of Father vs. Son ala ROTJ, he wanted the audience to not be sure what was going to happen when that confrontation happens. He wanted to repeat that moment when Palpatine is frying Luke, and we, the audience have no idea what Vader is going to do. Why don't we know? Because Vader has been properly built up, as a character, for three movies, for that moment! We almost expect Vader to allow his Son to die, because Vader was built up as a monster, with this hint of conflict. So we are not sure what Vader will do as his Son cries out in pain and pleading for help. So when Vader saves his son, we are surprised that this monster, this evil villain did what he did.

In TFA, Abrams wants to re-create that, but, he does it completely backwards. In order for the death of Han Solo to be shocking, he has to make the audience believe that Kylo isn't going to do it, or at the very least convince us that there is enough conflict in Kylo that we the audience are shocked at the moment that not only is the lightsaber ignited through Han Solo, but than rammed further into him with anger and hate, Kylo didn't just stabbed his father, he than rammed that light saber further into him. Than as his son looks straight into his fathers eyes, again, stares straight into his Father's eyes with anger and hate, Kylo says "Thank You" to his Father, the most sarcastic of Thank You's a Father could ever receive from his son.



Than, to top it off, if igniting a lightsaber through one's Father, than ramming it deeper into one's father, and than telling one's Father "Thank You" for helping him do it, we see Kylo give his Father a small push that sends Han Solo off the catwalk. I know not many people see that, but if you look, you can clearly see Kylo's right arm pushes his father off the catwalk!

(Kylo's Arm extends faster than Han is falling backwards showing that Kylo is applying force and pushing his father!)



So where is the conflict? Why is there anger for Han Solo? Why is there hate for Han Solo? Where? Why?

Abrams wants the emotional shock and payoff that came with Vader vs Luke in ROTJ, and even to a lesser degree of Obi Wan (Father-figure) vs Anakin (Son) in ROTS, with absolutely little to no build up that allows us to be shocked at the act, as well as understand it!

He builds up Kylo as the monster, but, there is no understanding as to why this monster has this hate for his Father, and there is definitely nothing to suggest in the movie that Kylo will not kill his father. Abrams needed to show more conflict to confuse the audience and make them believe that it was possible that Kylo wouldn't kill his Father. Abrams trying at the last minute and using dialogue that has a dual meaning (Kylo's dialogue with Han) to show that Kylo is conflicted doesn't work, Kylo talking to a mask, doesn't work!

Than, the anger, hate, violence, the igniting of the lightsaber through his father, the matter of fact ramming it further into his father, the Thank You as he stares into his fathers eyes, then pushes his father into the abyss... That's the actions of a man conflicted?

Let's compare that to what Lucas does with his Father vs Son story.

It should be no secret to anyone reading this that Father vs Son motif in Star Wars is not just something he copied out of mythology or films of his youth. It had very personal meaning to him when it came to the relationship between him and his Father.

The scene in ESB is reminiscent of the struggle Lucas had with his own Father, in that his Father wanted him to not pursue the things Lucas wanted to, but, to come work with him in his stationary business (like Vader wanting Luke to join him in his business, the Empire).

We know Lucas looks at Star Wars (specifically the OT) with the Father vs Son, the family story as a big part of the story. This gets carried into the PT, but, is more metaphorical with Obi Wan taking over the role as Father for Anakin, and the Jedi being Anakin's family.

As from the Charlie Rose interview:

In the OT, we know that even though Luke has love for his Father, we know he has hate. This underlying hate is a result of the disappointment that Luke has for what his Father had become.

Lucas is playing with the psychological mindset of adolescent, pre-teen, boys towards their father. As young boys, we build our fathers up as hero's, as these bigger than life men. However, there comes a point when as a son gets older, we realize that our Fathers aren't hero's, that we have falsely believed something. And some boys, some of us resent our fathers for this. To me, this is the "hate" that Luke has for his father.

Luke builds his Father up as a hero, someone that was great and good something to look up too and become...

So in two movies we see that Luke (through no fault of his own really, just as a young boy isn't really at fault either) is building up his father as this hero, something he wants to be.

However, when Luke crosses that threshold of reality, when he learns the awful truth, that his Father is not a hero, but is in fact something that Luke will never want to be, Luke hates his father, he is disappointed in his father. It strikes the chord of the falling out Lucas had with his father, when Lucas tells his father he (Lucas) will never be what his Father is... It's a journey that many boys travel with their father!



So when we get to the third movie, we see that Luke has come to accept the truth of what his father is, wants to save his father, but, still has anger and hate for his father. That anger and hate comes out of him when Vader threatens Luke's sister. Then Luke is able to unleash that pent up rage!

Luke is able to realize though he doesn't have to kill his father in order to not be like him. Luke realizes he can be his own man, he doesn't have to kill his father in order to do that. His doesn't have to give into those emotions!



It takes three movies to build up that Father vs Son motif in the OT. Three movies worth of emotions and conflict!

Abrams wants to do it all in one, and imho he fails!

Instead, he rushes it, and crams it all together.

that's why I have said and something I agree with darth-sinister on, that the Kylo vs Han death scene is emotional because it's Han Solo, and not because of the actual events. If you replace Han Solo with some other character we just met in TFA, than there is very little emotion to the scene!

Abrams wants the payoff, but wasn't willing to put the work in to get there!

 

Attack of the Clones was the first Star Wars movie I ever saw.

My first impression of Anakin was "this is a sentimental guy who falls in love at first sight and who is a great pilot." Then he saved a senator, saved his master, and captured an assassin within the first twenty minutes of the film

My first impression of Kylo Ren was "this is an imitation Darth Vader whom J. J. Abrams created because Disney is unoriginal." Then he threw temper tantrums with his lightsaber, murdered his father for no reason (other than "the dark side"), lost in a lightsaber duel to a girl with no training, and only survived as a result of an earthquake.

 

There is a plenty of heroic vulnerability in PT. The author of the article should pay more attention before watching PT the next time.

 

Was JJ really going for the same impact that the Luke/Vader confrontation in ROTJ had?

Of course not!
TFA is the first act of a trilogy. It's the introduction of a new generation, for a new generation. It's intended to scratch the surface, let us know that there's a lot going on with these characters beneath the surface, tease us, make us hungry for more knowledge. We can see that Ben is deeply affected by this event and we can expect to learn more about his motivations and the long-term consequences of Han's death in the next episode.

Poor buildup? More like excellent setup!

 

Exactly! It's simply 2 different approaches. These long "analytical" posts that complain about the lack of build-up end up just looking like long winded rants showing that they don't understand the simple concept of mystery by design, which is also how we end up with silly "mary sue" comments. I don't know anyone who left the theater thinking that something was missing, they left thinking "I can't wait to find out!". It seems like the only people confused by this are the ones that claim to know SW the most.

 

mikeximus nailed it all perfectly. I won't re-post it due to length, but you've said exactly what the problem is.

Ben comes across more of hating what he used to be, as opposed to hating his father. More hints could have been dropped which could give us something. Instead, we get J.J. Abrams Mystery Box.




Patent pending.

 

What does TPM tell us about the Sith and their feelings/motivations?

- At last, we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last, we will have revenge.
- The Sith have been extinct for a millennium!
- Always two, there are; a master and an apprentice.

I know, we're not meant to get emotionally involved in that conflict just yet and no personal history is ever hinted at between Maul and Qui-Gon (because there is none), but still


But what about ANH and Vader?

- A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights. He betrayed and murdered your father. Vader was seduced by the dark side of the Force.

That's pretty much it, really. Not much to go on, but it sure was enough to keep the world going until TESB came out!

 

so could you provide an example?

also, is it just me or has this turned into a TFA/abrams bashing thread?

i agree the film isn't perfect but i found it wasn't han's death that was lacking, or the motivation behind it (it's an order, i think it happens mostly because it's an order and because .. plot) it's a lot of other things.

i think the characters build on another and enhance one another. that's why it's interesting. because kylo ren is a rubbish villain and he doesn't even enjoy his job. and we don't know why he sticks around.

anakin didn't enjoy his job either but he seemed a lot more stoic and less conflicted about it. because he thought that was going to be it. kylo knows his family is out there, he's never met anyone who could relate to him or understand him until he meets rey and she isn't that keen either.

they are both vulnerable loners and i like both characters enormously. that is all.

 

Right, because "impact" is all that I said.

It is clear what Abrams is doing, he is mirroring the scene in ROTJ where Vader is faced with a decision. Abrams is clearly trying to mirror the part where Vader is faced with the decision of whether to allow his son to die or save him.

Abrams clearly is trying to confuse the audience into not knowing which way Kylo will go when he faces his Father. It is meant to mirror how ROTJ is setup where when we get to the part where Vader is faced with his decision and the audience is not sure what Vader will do. I have said it many times now, Abrams doesn't set this confrontation up correctly. The audience is not confused, there is no doubt in most peoples minds that Han was a dead man going into his confrontation with Kylo. There was no surprise in what was going to happen because Abrams spends the entire movie showing us how bad Kylo is, with specific examples, but, not specific examples of the good, or conflict in him to make the audience second guess what might happen.

It is clear that he is mirroring ROTJ and trying to mine it for the same emotional setup and shock of the results, yet imo he fails at it because there is no emotional setup and there is no shock because we know the moment that Han walks out on that platform his evil son that has just been shown committing numerous atrocities but not one act of goodness to show a conflict within himself, that Han is dead.

Luke must face his Father as instructed by his master
Kylo must face his Father as instructed by his master
Both are Father vs Son
Both Luke and Kylo are faced with the decision to kill their own father which will cement their path down the darkside
The setup of whether Kylo will kill his father, and whether Vader will allow his son to die are done in the same way to try and make it a surprise when the decision actually happens. With TFA not being a surprise...

Again, just like most of anything else in TFA, Abrams is mining the OT for emotion rather than creating his own!

This has nothing to do with first movies of trilogies or anything like that. This has everything to do with a pivotal moment in the Star Wars franchise happening, and it's not a surprise, it's telegraphed. With very little emotion beyond that it's Han Solo.

We should be told before Kylo kills Han why he has that anger and hatred towards him, or why he is conflicted by it. Telling us in E8 or E9 that Ben Solo hated daddy because he wouldn't by him a Taun Taun for his 16th birthday doesn't make any sense! It does nothing to make the scene in TFA more emotional or make us more invested in what was happening. Moving forward we should be seeing how Kylo is dealing with the repercussions of what he did, and not having to go back in order to have it explained to us why he did it.

The bottom line is that we aren't invested in the Father/Son conflict because it isn't explained to us why we should be. Can anyone here dispute the possibility that Han was a really bad and disappointing Father? Can anyone here show me one specific example of how Kylo was feeling the pull of the light? How he was conflicted? Why he was conflicted, and what he was conflicted with to make me believe he might not actually kill his Father...

As I said before, does Kylo actions when he kills his Father show conflict? Ignites a lightsaber through his Father, than drives it further into his father, than looks his father in the eyes and sarcastically says 'Thank You", than pushes his father off the catwalk... That's a conflicted son? Really?

The only reason we are invested in that confrontation is because it's Han Solo!

That's obviously just your opinion!

Still what? You answered it yourself. Lucas is not using emotional cruxes and histories as a means to kill off Iconic characters in TPM! The concepts of why the bad guys are doing what they're doing in TPM are simple, greed, and because that's what bad guys do. This is the start of a trilogy that will lead to the emotional climax in ROTS! Not a emotional climax that needs further explanation over the course of two more movies!

Abrams in TFA is trying to convince us, that in the lead up to Han's Death, that Kylo isn't really a bad guy like Vader was, that he is conflicted. Where is the conflict? Where is the reasoning behind any of Kylo's actions that make what Kylo does have any sense? Oh wait, "That's a good question for another time" Right?

Once again, no one was killing their Father in ANH were they? Your comparison falls flat because that pivotal moment is not in TPM or ANH. That emotional climax is not meant to be there.

Now that is not saying Abrams was wrong for putting Hans death in TFA, but, what is wrong is there was no surprise in it,it's telegraphed and doesn't make sense by the actions and lack of action from the character that is supposed to be conflicted.

 

The one person I know in real life who mocked Hayden's Anakin also mocks Kylo Ren just as much now.

 

Funny enough, Adam did say the Kylo lacked a bit of cynicism not to long ago..

 

Kylo wasn't supposed to "hate" his father. He didn't kill him out of rage. Why is that a problem? Was he supposed to? Is that the one & only way a Dark Sider should kill a family member? What's made abundantly clear is that Kylo is emotionally conflicted. Clearly he's not "pure evil" enough to be able to murder people like LST without feeling some conflict & guilt. Even if just a small amount. This is causing distress, as he makes clear in the scene with Vader's helmet. It seems that Snoke senses this too. He tells Kylo that he's likely to cross paths with his father & that this will be the greatest test he's ever faced. He's not talking about a physical test. He's referring to a test of his will. The ultimate call towards the Light. From Kylo's dialogue to his father it's clear that he recognizes what this test entails & what he has to do to pass it. It's a terrible deed, but it's also an opportunity for him to finally rid himself of all conflict & allow the Dark Side to consume him fully. So it wasn't an act of rage or hate & it was never suggested that it was. It was a final rite of passage towards the Dark Side. Why has it taken so long you might ask. Seems to me that for the last decade or so there's been a relative peace in the galaxy. A tense stand-off between the Republic & the FO. There have also been no Jedi around for Snoke/Kylo to face. He hadn't faced this kind of test simply bcs he hasn't needed to. What's notable is that after Kylo kills his father Snoke says it's time to complete his training. I feel sure we'll be seeing a far darker & more powerful version of the character in the next episodes.

As for the scene, the reason IMO that it worked so well & that's it's been so highly praised is due to many factors. Obviously the amazing performances & the direction, but also the idea of a son in a state of conflict & distress murdering his own father as an act of silencing that inner conflict. That's a powerful & disturbing concept. Killing Han out of anger & hate would have IMO been quite boring & predictable. We've seen such acts in movies hundreds of times.

 

mikeximus: Yes, what I state as fact is, obviously, a fact from my point of view. Just as the facts in your posts are facts from your point of view.
I thought my smiley made it clear that I wasn't seriously trying to make a case with the TPM comparison. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

In ANH, though, Vader does kill a father figure. We are told that Obi-Wan was once his master and their confrontation is obviously very impactful for both of them.
Now, the comparison isn't perfect, since Kylo appears to be one of the three main characters of the trilogy, whereas Vader was not. However, I still don't feel that we are supposed to be as emotionally invested at this point as we are in ROTS and ROTJ. We can be (because obviously, some of us are), but to me, that doesn't seem to be the primary intention.
I'm repeating myself here - and we'll probably end up just having to agree to disagree - but it's made explicitly clear that this is a pivotal moment for Kylo. To my mind, it is made equally clear that we're meant to be intrigued and look forward to learning more. The killing of Han is just the beginning, not the climax. Their father-son relationship is obviously not the central issue of the trilogy. More likely, the Kylo/Rey story will take center stage.

This might seem like strange and ineffective storytelling to some, but for me, it works like a charm. I am looking forward to learning more and see how the relationship of Rey and Kylo develops.

 

i think han's death is meant to echo ROTJ luke/vader and ROTS obi-wan/anakin but they aren't the same scene. that'd be very repetitive.

Darth Downunder i think the concept of murder as a sort of pain relief is so disturbing that people come up with this double agent theory. and i can see where they are coming from but i really don't see it.