Shadow1980 said:
I liked the movie, therefore I'm deluded, and I'm in the wrong for encouraging others to watch it instead of listening to people who say "don't bother"? Yeah, sure. How about you bite me, okay? Even I don't think TLJ is perfect, as I clearly stated, but I think the most strident criticisms of it are unfounded.
...might also in a moment of weakness ignite his lightsaber after seeing what lied within Ben's mind but still refrain from striking him down seems completely plausible to me. It seems to me that a lot of fans had this idea in their head that Old Luke was supposed to have become some wise Jedi Master, an Obi Wan 2.0 or whatever. Or something more akin to however Luke was portrayed in the old Legends material. Instead we got OT Luke with grey hair and some people called foul. In other words, their headcanon was ignored. A legacy character's portrayal not conforming to your personal idea of how they should be portrayed does not make the movie bad. What's next? "Rey is a Mary Sue!"? Please. She's even more flawed in this film. Still stubborn, impulsive, naive, hotheaded, and nothing goes according to plan for her (in keeping with "failure" as an overarching theme of the movie). There's nothing about her any more Mary Sue-ish than, say, Luke using the Force to get the kill shot on the Death Star despite next to no training, or young Anakin whoops-ing his way to getting the victory for the good guys at the Battle of Naboo. Snoke's death? Not really much different than Palpatine in the OT. Snoke and the Emperor were both one-note Bigger Bads who served as a plot device to advance another character's story arc and spent their brief screen times engaging in evil gloating. Vader killed Palpatine to save his son and redeem himself. Kylo Ren killed Snoke to achieve his own goals. And just like Snoke, Palpatine had no character background or anything. His history was a blank. We just knew he was the leader of the bad guys. Palpatine didn't become fleshed out until the prequels. Snoke may be the Bigger Bad, but Kylo Ren is the main antagonist, and it's his story that matters on the villainous side. The fact that some people didn't get the back story they wanted out of Snoke does not make the movie bad. The "Holdo Maneuver"? Pointless technical quibbles easily handwaved away, and such minutiae not immediately satisfying your questions does not make a movie bad (as if the writers are obligated to explain to you in the film itself how they view the economics and tactical usefulness of a lightspeed kamikaze in a way that satisfies you). And besides, it's an awesome scene. Let's be honest. There is precious little in the way of legitimate film criticism coming from the vocal minority that are TLJ's haters. It's not a bad movie by any stretch. Rabid fans not liking something does not make that film bad. Ishtar, Howard the Duck, Plan 9 from Outer Space, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Dragonball Evolution, and the works of Uwe Boll and Seltzer & Friedberg are bad movies. The Last Jedi is not, even if it doesn't satisfy your needs and desires as a fan.
Rotten Tomatoes scores for all the Star Wars films: A New Hope: 93% I know it might be controversial to say so, but film critics are usually right (note the qualifying language I'm using and will continue to use; critics are humans and therefore not perfect). They are typically people that went to film school, studied film seriously as art, and are generally best equipped to be objective about what makes for good film, such as the quality of its writing, cinematography, screenplay, acting, set/art/costume design, etc. General audiences are not (fans especially can be too obsessive to be objective, case in point the more toxic segments of Star Wars fandom). When critics universally praise a movie, it's probably a good movie, even if it's not for everyone. When they universally pan a movie, it's probably a bad movie, even if some people may unironically enjoy it as dumb fun (and there's nothing wrong with enjoying an objectively bad movie). Audiences too often think that critics are only right if the critics' opinions are congruent with their own. If critics praise a movie they don't like or pan a movie they do like, they call foul, but if their tastes agree with that of the critics they nod their head in agreement. We see this all the time. As an example of the latter, every time "Anticipated Blockbuster X" gets glowing reviews the people looking forward to the movie trot out the RT score to say "See! It's a good movie!" Meanwhile, movies that are legitimately mediocre films sometimes become hits with general audiences (live-action Transformers, anyone?). Also, your questions about the First Order and the Resistance are easily answered. It's clear from the films that the Empire didn't just vanish, but reconstituted itself under a new name, and that the Resistance is Leia's own personal paramilitary organization separate from the New Republic that, unlike the Republic, sees the FO for the threat it is. With only the Resistance seeing the FO as a serious threat and the FO holding up in the Unknown Regions (a barely-explored part of the galaxy that was established in the fiction long ago and retained as canon), the idea that they could keep Starkiller Base a secret (hell, the Rebellion only learned about the DS2 because Palpatine let them). It's easy to put two and two together. There's also a lot of details in sources outside the films. If you want a wiki summary, here you go: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Resistance |
"What's next? "Rey is a Mary Sue!"? Please. She's even more flawed in this film. Still stubborn, impulsive, naive, hotheaded, and nothing goes according to plan for her (in keeping with "failure" as an overarching theme of the movie). There's nothing about her any more Mary Sue-ish than, say, Luke using the Force to get the kill shot on the Death Star despite next to no training, or young Anakin whoops-ing his way to getting the victory for the good guys at the Battle of Naboo."
>Compared to Luke, Rey is a Mary Sue: Luke actually demonstrated clear and obvious weaknesses. Gets his ass handed to him by tusken raiders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4UhQ4hZzRM
Needs saving at the cantina against some creeps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6PDcBhODqo
Without R2/C3PO's help, he'd be crushed in a trash compactor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U3Oti2L8S4
Without Han Solo, Darth Vader would have likely had his ass. And with Ben's help, gets the kill shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WBG2rJZGW8
And that's just Episode 7. Rey on the other hand is a great fighter (handles multiple opponents on her own in the desert), great pilot (a big ship like the MF able to outmaneuver fighters defies physics but it's Rey), great mechanic who can handle the Falcon better than Han freaking Solo himself, great user of the force (how the hell is she able to read minds!? doesn't that require training?), and is automatically and immediately trusted with a mission as important as going to meet Luke Skywalker. She's the one who embraces Leia after Solo's death instead of Chewie because of course she is! She's the center of the Universe.
There's nothing wrong with a character having SOME ability like Luke having good aim but with Rey, she's overdone: the world she's in doesn't feel dangerous because she's constantly coming out on top on her own. Anakin at the Battle of Naboo has a similar problem: the battle scene becomes a joke when a little kid is able to excel at it. The world's danger is subverted.
Luke Skywalker is an underpowered character in a dangerous world, Rey and Anakin are overpowered characters who make a mockery of the world they inhabit. Where am I supposed to feel any tension when the world seems pretty easily overcome?
