Star Wars: Episode IX - THE RISE OF SKYWALKER

[JAWS]

Damn AJp summed it up prefectly. the ST. Nothing changed. We are back where we are with characters doing the same damn thing as before. I remember seeing the cool kylo ren lightsaber and thinking , damn this will be new but nothing new was brought to the table.

PT. flaws yes but brought new things to the table.

I will resort back to my comment I made way back when TFA came out.

The ST needed a little more George Lucas and the PT needed a little more Lawrence Kasdan.

 

[TaliBane]

Whatever you believe re any SJW agenda intentions by filmmakers, there is absolutely no doubt the response to SW fans was very much SJW driven.

As soon as there was a significant fan reaction to the way Luke was portrayed ("not my Luke", Jake Skywalker etc) and the list of lesser stuff like the seeming humilaiting sarcasm of Holdo as she mocks Poe, some seriously toxic, SJW driven drivel immediately entered the debate.

Much of it from outside the fanbase, and some it from more mainstream (mostly web-based) news sources - it was "so-called" fans, racist anti-diversity ponytailed creeps, out of touch neckbeards living in basements, old men who just needed to die and let the supposed "new generation of fans" (according to the numbers, there really wasn't one) have a turn.

If you think this is an overstatement, you simply didn't read widely enough in the weeks after TLJ opened. It got nasty, it was relentless and it was everywhere.

And yes, Rian Johnson himself waded into it. Totally inappropriately. And yet stayed with it, on and off, sniping nasty on Twitter (and in interviews,) for a LONG time. I mean he based a "Knives Out" character on his supposed toxic adversaries.

Then came the conspiracy theory stuff - Russian bots, hacks of RT, etc. - like it literally just wasn't possible that a large portion of the fanbase hated the movie. Nope, it was a "tiny but vocal minority of fans." Yet as I've said - the very publications that used "so-called backlash" and "supposed backlash" (over and over - as if trying to will it away) back in late 2017 and early 2018 no longer do. In the lead-up to TROS, most mainstream publications openly discussed the "major backlash" against TLJ in terms of assessing TROS's BO prospects.

Debate filmmaker intent all you want (and yes, a dozen people can see the same movie and take away a dozen different things,) but to say this didn't become instantly and viciously political, centered on identity politics tropes - the very definitions of "SJW" - is delusional.

To me that's why TLJ and SJW are totally interwoven.

 

[aussiebottt]

I went back and forth on how I felt about Luke's behavior and exile in TLJ but now I feel like it was a total homerun that does fit with the character as we knew him in the OT with the setup of an absolutely epic and satisfying payoff in TROS.

I 'm the opposite on this. In the OT Luke always sensed the good in his father and believed he could be turned. Why would he then be unable to sense the good in his nephew and believe that he was pure darkness? To me hiding in exile is not what Luke Skywalker would do.

 

[Captain Clown]

Yeah, that would've made sense if they kept Kylo irredeemable. Wasn't he supposed to be bad until the very end in Trevorrow's script?

 

[e30ernest]

I 'm the opposite on this. In the OT Luke always sensed the good in his father and believed he could be turned. Why would he then be unable to sense the good in his nephew and believe that he was pure darkness? To me hiding in exile is not what Luke Skywalker would do.

No, Luke turned and almost killed his father. He only held back at the last moment when he realized what was happening, and how he was being drawn to the dark side. This is similar to what happened to Ben. He almost killed Ben, but held back because he realized the wrong in doing so.

 

[TheDucky]

The PT has more artistic merit as a writer/director's singular vision and moreover from the creator of the franchise itself. Alas, he did it badly, very badly. Only TPM is watchable to me probably because of 1999 nostalgia. But they nevertheless have some relevance at least. For so long we knew the OT as Episodes IV, V and VI. We knew there was an intended backstory on the way at some point and we wanted it. But with the way ROTJ ended did we really want a sequel trilogy. We certainly didn't need it. But we got it and...

the ST was a product. Uninspired, repetitious and superfluous. For me it utterly failed to justify itself and is not canon whatsover.

I suppose it could be said I agree with Ironwez and Ducky - although I think they're doing more to keep this thread alive than they'll admit whilst claiming it's all Khev and Jye.

Haha! Another one for the cause!

Whatever you believe re any SJW agenda intentions by filmmakers, there is absolutely no doubt the response to SW fans was very much SJW driven.

As soon as there was a significant fan reaction to the way Luke was portrayed ("not my Luke", Jake Skywalker etc) and the list of lesser stuff like the seeming humilaiting sarcasm of Holdo as she mocks Poe, some seriously toxic, SJW driven drivel immediately entered the debate.

Much of it from outside the fanbase, and some it from more mainstream (mostly web-based) news sources - it was "so-called" fans, racist anti-diversity ponytailed creeps, out of touch neckbeards living in basements, old men who just needed to die and let the supposed "new generation of fans" (according to the numbers, there really wasn't one) have a turn.

If you think this is an overstatement, you simply didn't read widely enough in the weeks after TLJ opened. It got nasty, it was relentless and it was everywhere.

And yes, Rian Johnson himself waded into it. Totally inappropriately. And yet stayed with it, on and off, sniping nasty on Twitter (and in interviews,) for a LONG time. I mean he based a "Knives Out" character on his supposed toxic adversaries.

Then came the conspiracy theory stuff - Russian bots, hacks of RT, etc. - like it literally just wasn't possible that a large portion of the fanbase hated the movie. Nope, it was a "tiny but vocal minority of fans." Yet as I've said - the very publications that used "so-called backlash" and "supposed backlash" (over and over - as if trying to will it away) back in late 2017 and early 2018 no longer do. In the lead-up to TROS, most mainstream publications openly discussed the "major backlash" against TLJ in terms of assessing TROS's BO prospects.

Debate filmmaker intent all you want (and yes, a dozen people can see the same movie and take away a dozen different things,) but to say this didn't become instantly and viciously political, centered on identity politics tropes - the very definitions of "SJW" - is delusional.

To me that's why TLJ and SJW are totally interwoven.

It’s ironic, because after saying russian bots hacked RT with TLJ, Disney went ahead and paid them off to keep the audience score from moving on TROS!

I will resort back to my comment I made way back when TFA came out.

The ST needed a little more George Lucas and the PT needed a little more Lawrence Kasdan.

This is pretty much spot on. I agree with it. PT would have been better and viewed a lot better by more.

 

[aussiebottt]

No, Luke turned and almost killed his father. He only held back at the last moment when he realized what was happening, and how he was being drawn to the dark side. This is similar to what happened to Ben. He almost killed Ben, but held back because he realized the wrong in doing so.

Ok but after that why go in to exile and why not go find Ben with the purpose of redeeming him? For me Luke from the OT was all about never giving up hope so I can't accept that he would become an old hermit.

 

[TaliBane]

No, Luke turned and almost killed his father. He only held back at the last moment when he realized what was happening, and how he was being drawn to the dark side. This is similar to what happened to Ben. He almost killed Ben, but held back because he realized the wrong in doing so.

In ROTJ, Luke to me never seems close to killing Vader, despite his unleashed rage after the "sister" moment. He defeats Vader, but leaves him on the floor (when he could easily have killed him, and significantly the movie doesn't even dwell on a "will Luke kill him?" moment) then refuses the Emperor's command to kill Vader.

I mean when Luke surrenders he talks to Vader as "father" saying he's there because of the good in him, and later declines to even fight him REPEATEDLY - Luke killing him, even after the sister comment, makes little sense. To me the bigger question was would Luke join the Emperor/darkside somehow.

Luke never "almost killed his father."

For Luke in TLJ, my memory is a little rusty but in BOTH versions (it's Rashomon style - we see Ben's and Luke's quite different POVs of the hut moment) Luke does indeed go to that hut to kill Ben. This is a CRITICAL point.

In Ben's flashback, Luke goes ahead and swings the saber to kill him but Ben blocks, in Luke's version he ignites the saber to kill Ben, has a moment of doubt, but the sound of the saber has woken Ben, who attacks. Either way, Luke went 9/10s or more of the way to killing Ben.

These are two quite different Lukes - ROTJ vs TLJ.

Seriously, if I pick up a hunting knife and go to your tent in the middle of the night, unsheath the knife, and raise it above you as you sleep, that defines me a certain type of person, doesn't it? I would never do that, most people wouldn't, especially based on a sixth sense about something (didn't Yoda say the future is difficult to see, always in motion?)

To me, "my" Luke is not that person.

Luke hadn't just discovered proof Ben had murdered a couple of other students and was plotting something awful - he just had a bad feeling about Ben and where he was heading, his potential, his power (or something - curiously the movie has little interest in elaborating on this - SHOWING us what drove Luke to the hut.)

This is where Hamill's "not my Luke" came from. Forget hiding hermits, seacow teets, cowardice and skyping the climactic battle - this is the core of the Luke onion.

In some ways what Luke does triggers PTSD in Ben, altering Ben's memory of the near-murder event - so you can't even blame Ben for his version, and perhaps even partly for what he became. He woke up to his master in the moment of murdering him, whether he had a last-second change of heart or not.

This is a key point because SW is about continuity of family/bloodline and the choices we make. In this sense, TLJ Luke utterly betrays his OT origins and the thematic heart of the OT. And even worse, he does it not only to his force/Jedi protege, but to the son of his sister (whom he fought so hard to protect in ROTJ's battle) and the man who's like a brother to him, Han.

This is the muddle that the ST has introduced, partly in lazy and sloppy storytelling/flashbacks, almost as if people get confused about what they saw Luke doing because of the muddled way it's presented.

 

[jye4ever]

In ROTJ, Luke to me never seems close to killing Vader, despite his unleashed rage after the "sister" moment. He defeats Vader, but leaves him on the floor (when he could easily have killed him, and significantly the movie doesn't even dwell on a "will Luke kill him?" moment) then refuses the Emperor's command to kill Vader.

I mean when Luke surrenders he talks to Vader as "father" saying he's there because of the good in him, and later declines to even fight him REPEATEDLY - Luke killing him, even after the sister comment, makes little sense. To me the bigger question was would Luke join the Emperor/darkside somehow.

Luke never "almost killed his father."

For Luke in TLJ, my memory is a little rusty but in BOTH versions (it's Rashomon style - we see Ben's and Luke's quite different POVs of the hut moment) Luke does indeed go to that hut to kill Ben. This is a CRITICAL point.

In Ben's flashback, Luke goes ahead and swings the saber to kill him but Ben blocks, in Luke's version he ignites the saber to kill Ben, has a moment of doubt, but the sound of the saber has woken Ben, who attacks. Either way, Luke went 9/10s or more of the way to killing Ben.

These are two quite different Lukes - ROTJ vs TLJ.

Seriously, if I pick up a hunting knife and go to your tent in the middle of the night, unsheath the knife, and raise it above you as you sleep, that defines me a certain type of person, doesn't it? I would never do that, most people wouldn't, especially based on a sixth sense about something (didn't Yoda say the future is difficult to see, always in motion?)

To me, "my" Luke is not that person.

Luke hadn't just discovered proof Ben had murdered a couple of other students and was plotting something awful - he just had a bad feeling about Ben and where he was heading, his potential, his power (or something - curiously the movie has little interest in elaborating on this - SHOWING us what drove Luke to the hut.)

This is where Hamill's "not my Luke" came from. Forget hiding hermits, seacow teets, cowardice and skyping the climactic battle - this is the core of the Luke onion.

In some ways what Luke does triggers PTSD in Ben, altering Ben's memory of the near-murder event - so you can't even blame Ben for his version, and perhaps even partly for what he became. He woke up to his master in the moment of murdering him, whether he had a last-second change of heart or not.

This is a key point because SW is about continuity of family/bloodline and the choices we make. In this sense, TLJ Luke utterly betrays his OT origins and the thematic heart of the OT. And even worse, he does it not only to his force/Jedi protege, but to the son of his sister (whom he fought so hard to protect in ROTJ's battle) and the man who's like a brother to him, Han.

This is the muddle that the ST has introduced, partly in lazy and sloppy storytelling/flashbacks, almost as if people get confused about what they saw Luke doing because of the muddled way it's presented.

Great post!

BUT there was a time when I thought that Luke was really not trying to end Vaders life but more trying to get him to snap out of his bondage to the emperor as in literally using aggression against Vader who was really just standing there talking lol as an attempt to say OK ENOUGH ALREADY SNAP OUT OF IT!

And it worked lol

But I kept going back to Luke yelling NO right before attacking which always threw a wrench into my theory that really is the key scene which informs his immediate action.

The NO lends itself to him just going bonkers sith fully unleashed easily defeating pops and him looking at his hand at the end of the very short battle soaking in the wonderful feeling of uncaged aggression but then seeing Vaders stump which opened the door for the force to bring him down off his quick high.

I don?t know I guess I can see it both ways.

Yes he almost killed Vader with unleashed anger.

No he almost didn?t kill Vader he was just trying to get him to snap out of his bondage.

I was totally no help was I lol

I?m also ok with hermit Luke in isolation 32 years after ROTJ not being 101% exactly as he used to be.

If he is just the same ole ole then his character would just be a repeat of the OT 100% great morale compass zero changes in 32 years always the bright star.

As a human he should be vulnerable to having his feelings being pulled from external forces and being subjugated by varying layers of feelings from self doubt, mistrust, guilt and indifference.

Only once fully with the force can one break free from those morally conflicting wounds.

So yes while Luke was once a super star hero he was still a person and not the actual force therefore he could easily still change into something else he wasn?t before.

If you want a never ending unwavering perfect hero just go to Pornhub they are always there 24/7 ready to serve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Khev]

Whatever you believe re any SJW agenda intentions by filmmakers, there is absolutely no doubt the response to SW fans was very much SJW driven.

So true. In fact my defense of RJ's intentions all but evaporated the moment I saw him joining forces with CHUCK ****ING WENDIG to attack fans on twitter. That was my Vader standing next to the Emperor moment where I went "wait, what, oh no you didn't okay over the railing you go," lol.

But then Disney themselves tossed both Wendig and RJ over the railing which helped me to let go of the SJW "offenses" and focus on the the positives that TLJ brought to the Saga, including what I do consider to be daring filmmaking choices that I genuinely respect and even appreciate, partly on their own and partly due to TROS.

Also given the fact that TROS closed the Saga with arguably the single most right wing Hollywood blockbuster in modern history I find it even easier to just shrug off TLJ's SJW elements. I mean think about it, Disney Corporation literally allowed the Star Wars saga to close with the bad guys being defeated by a suave businessman with a shady past who becomes commander-in-chief of a massive populist army of self armed individuals. Trump and the NRA to the rescue! While Rose/Hillary (who thinks the way to win is by being an idiot and she'll murder you if you disagree) was sent home without even a horse of her own, lol.

Now I don't think for one second that they pandered to conservatives deliberately, I think they just put their blind bias on pause for a second and actually unwittingly experienced an attack of common sense that allowed them temporarily realize that hmm maybe such ideals aren't so evil after all. Of course anti-SJW Fandom Menace YouTubers proved that they're just a bunch of blind idiots themselves who are too stupid to realize when they get what they actually want.

No, Luke turned and almost killed his father. He only held back at the last moment when he realized what was happening, and how he was being drawn to the dark side. This is similar to what happened to Ben. He almost killed Ben, but held back because he realized the wrong in doing so.

Agreed, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that Luke "almost" killed Ben in TLJ. I think he just had an off the cuff overreaction more along the lines of Bilbo briefly going pyscho and reaching for Frodo's ring in Rivendell. Just an instantaneous moment of weakness that while tragic in no way undid his previous heroic deeds nor did it taint him forever going forward.

In ROTJ, Luke to me never seems close to killing Vader, despite his unleashed rage after the "sister" moment. He defeats Vader, but leaves him on the floor (when he could easily have killed him, and significantly the movie doesn't even dwell on a "will Luke kill him?" moment) then refuses the Emperor's command to kill Vader.

Interesting take but I definitely disagree. If ROTJ Luke was *not* well on his way to giving up on the "good" in Vader and killing him in anger then IMO it completely undoes his entire epiphany when he pauses and looks at his own mechanical hand in horror. If he had simply conducted a spirited and prolonged attempt to disarm his father and nothing more then why would such a turnaround be necessary. Just pause with lightsaber in hand and say "you have nothing to fear from me father, now please let go of your hate and come with me." No that is *not* what he said, he looked at his terrified dad (who was literally holding up a hand as a futile defensive gesture against the killing blow that Luke was on the verge of making), thought "holy **** what am I doing" and not only turned off his saber but flung the temptation as far away as he could.

That was the final test that Luke overcame. With your take there was no such test at all and Luke apparently just disarms himself out of sheer stupidity.

For Luke in TLJ, my memory is a little rusty but in BOTH versions (it's Rashomon style - we see Ben's and Luke's quite different POVs of the hut moment) Luke does indeed go to that hut to kill Ben. This is a CRITICAL point.

A critical point...if it were correct. But if you revisit TLJ (I'll leave that one up to you, lol) Luke actually doesn't go to Ben's hut to kill him, only to definitively discern the level of darkness lurking in his nephew's soul. What he finds temporarily shocks him so profoundly that he grabs and ignites his saber out of instinct. Which actually is explained beautifully by the TROS reveal that it was Palpatine because he was the one person who witnessed firsthand Luke almost lose it with Vader when Vader threatened his sister. He obviously used and magnified that very threat by showing Luke (through Ben's tainted soul) the "death and destruction of all I held dear."

So again like Bilbo briefly lashing out at *his* nephew Luke made a similar "in the moment" error.

 

[Khev]

Okay, here's how I see Holdo's behavior. If you can spare the time, Khev, I'd really appreciate it if you can tell me where I'm going wrong. Holdo was put in charge because her friend and mentor (Leia) was nearly killed in an assault by a FO that had tracked them through hyperspace. That friend and mentor (and the general of their military) had just been disobeyed by Poe because he had a short-range focus on taking out an enemy asset. Taking out that asset cost the Resistance much of their fleet (which Poe wanted to prevent from being wiped out).

Well apparently those bombers were literally designed to blow up the moment they engaged any enemy force so I don't think you can blame Poe for that, lol. The TLJ bombers were like the Star Wars equivalent of those goats that faint the instant a predator approaches.



But either way sacrificing the bombers was the *literal best case scenario* of that battle and Leia, Holdo, and everyone else would have been instantly aware of this fact the moment they realized that the FO could track them through hyperspace. Kind of a big deal that the Dreadnaught wasn't part of that super slow chase for the rest of the movie wouldn't you say?

So: 1.) Holdo has no clue how the FO tracked the Resistance through hyperspace, and 2.) she knows that there's a former stormtrooper onboard, and his friend happens to be someone who just directly disobeyed general's orders at the cost of unnecessary (and heavy) casualties. Out of an abundance of caution, Holdo keeps her cards close to the vest as to what her plan was. And she scolds Poe for defying orders in order to establish how chain of command works, and how it needs to be acknowledged.

At the very least (and even if a mole/spy was not a concern), Holdo was risking Poe not liking her plan and just doing his own maverick thing yet again. And guess what? That's exactly what he ended up doing.

Well yes but that can be attributed to Holdo creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Maybe the guy who is fight-first-and-ask-questions-later wouldn't have been persuaded that hiding out in a former Rebel base was the way to go. Plus, since when does a pilot (regardless of rank) get to insist on knowing the general's tactics and strategy? This is even a classic film trope: the commanding officer gives orders that a lower-ranking officer doesn't agree with, and he then defies orders with bravado.

Yes and the first time I watched TLJ I just took the Holdo/Poe conflict as something along the lines of Charlie and Maverick in Top Gun. But even when Charlie publicly scolded Maverick she still begrudgingly acknowledged that his maneuver was a "success" and then chased him down to say "dude just so we're clear yeah you know you're **** now let's go have sex," lol. TLJ gave Holdo no such layers (not that I wanted them to get romantic, lol) and instead positioned her as a one note gender studies icon. And in all honesty when I type it out I feel like I should be more annoyed with her character (and certainly understand why others are) but eh, I guess I'm just kind of "whatever" about the whole thing especially with the way they wrapped up the whole thing in TROS.

 

[punisher1974]

What if she gave Poe the "Holdo Maneuver"?

 

[Khev]

What if she gave Poe the "Holdo Maneuver"?

Maybe she gave it to Finn off screen which was why he was so confused when Merry brought it up as a military tactic in TROS. "Come on man how will THAT help us right now, focus people" lol.

 

[punisher1974]

Maybe she gave it to Finn off screen which was why he was so confused when Merry brought it up as a military tactic in TROS. "Come on man how will THAT help us right now, focus people" lol.

 

[ajp4mgs]

When the Disney acquisition and Episode VII was announced I was very excited. And I enjoyed the experience of TFA on first viewing in the cinema - probably gave it a few positive posts on here...apart from Han dying. I think I always hated that because I knew straight away what it had deprived us of. Heck I think I even enjoyed watching TLJ that first time but by TROS I was meh and that was exactly my response to the movie. I just cannot access whatever it was in that movie that salvaged the ST for Khev and JAWS. If the story and characters didn't engage someone in TFA or TLJ I don't know why they would in TROS. But no matter, to each their own.

So yeah, I was initially enthused at the prospect of a sequel trilogy. I was just wrong. TFA is a waste of time, bringing nothing new to the table and immediately establishing from the off that the galaxy has reverted back to where it was in ANH pretty much* - basically the same enemy and the same heroes doing all the same stuff we'd already seen - this starting premise sabotaged the rest of the trilogy by default and I came to the realization that Episodes 7, 8 and 9 were simply never needed in the first place. Return of the Jedi may not have been everyone's favourite movie but it was an acceptable story conclusion with more or less acceptable resolution of all characters.

Lucas had variously said that the Star Wars saga was about Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker - I know people have and will debate that - but in that context the ST just has no purpose or relevance by mere virtue of him not being in it anymore. He died in Episode VI


*and while I know you have rightly argued in the past that there's no reason why this couldn't plausibly happen there remains the question of 'yeah but should you go that way' with your piece of storytelling entertainment. Do people really wanna see that and in the broader scheme of the saga does it feel justified.

I keep going back to this basic reduction of the trilogies

PT: Fall of Republic/Jedi/Anakin - Rise of Empire/Sith/Vader
OT: Rebellion against the Empire/redemption of Anakin/Return of the Jedi and the Republic
ST: Nope, that last stuff didn't quite work, sorry, go again. Yep..yep.....now all is well

That's the summing up as far as I see it and the ST is clearly the odd one out. All it seems to do is disrupt the nice symmetry, Lucas's fabled poetry

A damn fine post. You have a great knack for distilling things and getting to the true core of what really matters.

No matter when you officially distanced yourself from the ST having any possibility of being part of your personal SW canon, you definitely were way ahead of me with clearer vision and foresight.

I expected this trilogy to end with a coda that cemented the Skywalkers as being integral (across more than just one generation) in securing the ultimate prosperity that they fought and died for. I expected a worthwhile reason for Luke's exile and sacrifice; to use it as a way to connect Luke with his father so that they could work side by side to save their family and the galaxy.

In my mind, that would've been a worthy reason for extending the story beyond ROTJ. Instead, Luke was sidelined and Anakin was barely present as the Palpatine Saga concluded with Rey being the conquering hero. I really don't get it. And yes, irrespective of anyone else's opinions of ROTJ, I think messing with that ending to GL's saga would need a far better justification and outcome than what we got.

 

[jye4ever]

What if she gave Poe the "Holdo Maneuver"?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ajp4mgs]

Well apparently those bombers were literally designed to blow up the moment they engaged any enemy force so I don't think you can blame Poe for that, lol. The TLJ bombers were like the Star Wars equivalent of those goats that faint the instant a predator approaches.

View attachment 482135

Yeah, the structural integrity of that first bomber that got destroyed sure does call into question the viability of those things. But at least the rest of them were destroyed by deflected bombs of the same type that destroyed the dreadnaught. I know that this doesn't negate your point, but I just wanted to try to salvage something.

But either way sacrificing the bombers was the *literal best case scenario* of that battle and Leia, Holdo, and everyone else would have been instantly aware of this fact the moment they realized that the FO could track them through hyperspace. Kind of a big deal that the Dreadnaught wasn't part of that super slow chase for the rest of the movie wouldn't you say?

But disobeying Leia's order wasn't done to gain a tactical advantage in a subsequent space chase. Poe had no clue that his actions would have a benefit moments later by clearing that piece off the board. So why should he get credit for it? To compare Poe's tactical decision-making to a game of chess, he sacrificed some pawns and both knights in order to take out a bishop. I'd play chess against Poe any day!

Losing every bomber, and some accompanying ships as well, to take out a single dreadnaught does far more damage to the Resistance than to the First Order. The FO still had other large-scale weaponized star destroyers, and maybe other dreadnaughts. It wasn't a tactical move on the level of something like sacrificing ships to take out Starkiller Base.

Well yes but that can be attributed to Holdo creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

True. But again, he had already disobeyed a general's order (from a general he actually cared for and respected), so I don't think it's a wild leap to suggest that he might've taken the same actions even if he was told the plan and treated differently by Holdo. And the main point of Holdo's characterization was to give the audience reason to doubt her in the same way Poe did.

Yes and the first time I watched TLJ I just took the Holdo/Poe conflict as something along the lines of Charlie and Maverick in Top Gun. But even when Charlie publicly scolded Maverick she still begrudgingly acknowledged that his maneuver was a "success" and then chased him down to say "dude just so we're clear yeah you know you're **** now let's go have sex," lol. TLJ gave Holdo no such layers (not that I wanted them to get romantic, lol) and instead positioned her as a one note gender studies icon. And in all honesty when I type it out I feel like I should be more annoyed with her character (and certainly understand why others are) but eh, I guess I'm just kind of "whatever" about the whole thing especially with the way they wrapped up the whole thing in TROS.

You need to remember that Connix (a female) was just as suspicious of Holdo as Poe was. And because we knew Poe's motives from TFA (and Connix to a lesser extent), we would naturally be rooting for him. Holdo's portrayal in interactions with Poe was a storytelling device for Poe's character growth, and used in a way to play off of the fact that Poe had our trust in a way that she didn't.

Holdo's character was softened as soon as the storytelling veil surrounding her trustworthiness could be lifted. "I like him," "God's speed, Rebels," and the hyperspace kamikaze sacrifice. Her interactions with Poe were designed to keep the audience at least somewhat aligned with Poe (and with Connix and Poe's alien pilot buddy).

 

[jye4ever]

Who was Connix again lol

ST truly has some piss poor background, tertiary and secondary characters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JAWS]

In ROTJ, Luke to me never seems close to killing Vader, despite his unleashed rage after the "sister" moment. He defeats Vader, but leaves him on the floor (when he could easily have killed him, and significantly the movie doesn't even dwell on a "will Luke kill him?" moment) then refuses the Emperor's command to kill Vader.

I mean when Luke surrenders he talks to Vader as "father" saying he's there because of the good in him, and later declines to even fight him REPEATEDLY - Luke killing him, even after the sister comment, makes little sense. To me the bigger question was would Luke join the Emperor/darkside somehow.

Luke never "almost killed his father."

For Luke in TLJ, my memory is a little rusty but in BOTH versions (it's Rashomon style - we see Ben's and Luke's quite different POVs of the hut moment) Luke does indeed go to that hut to kill Ben. This is a CRITICAL point.

In Ben's flashback, Luke goes ahead and swings the saber to kill him but Ben blocks, in Luke's version he ignites the saber to kill Ben, has a moment of doubt, but the sound of the saber has woken Ben, who attacks. Either way, Luke went 9/10s or more of the way to killing Ben.

These are two quite different Lukes - ROTJ vs TLJ.

Seriously, if I pick up a hunting knife and go to your tent in the middle of the night, unsheath the knife, and raise it above you as you sleep, that defines me a certain type of person, doesn't it? I would never do that, most people wouldn't, especially based on a sixth sense about something (didn't Yoda say the future is difficult to see, always in motion?)

To me, "my" Luke is not that person.

Luke hadn't just discovered proof Ben had murdered a couple of other students and was plotting something awful - he just had a bad feeling about Ben and where he was heading, his potential, his power (or something - curiously the movie has little interest in elaborating on this - SHOWING us what drove Luke to the hut.)

This is where Hamill's "not my Luke" came from. Forget hiding hermits, seacow teets, cowardice and skyping the climactic battle - this is the core of the Luke onion.

In some ways what Luke does triggers PTSD in Ben, altering Ben's memory of the near-murder event - so you can't even blame Ben for his version, and perhaps even partly for what he became. He woke up to his master in the moment of murdering him, whether he had a last-second change of heart or not.

This is a key point because SW is about continuity of family/bloodline and the choices we make. In this sense, TLJ Luke utterly betrays his OT origins and the thematic heart of the OT. And even worse, he does it not only to his force/Jedi protege, but to the son of his sister (whom he fought so hard to protect in ROTJ's battle) and the man who's like a brother to him, Han.

This is the muddle that the ST has introduced, partly in lazy and sloppy storytelling/flashbacks, almost as if people get confused about what they saw Luke doing because of the muddled way it's presented.

Great post!

BUT there was a time when I thought that Luke was really not trying to end Vaders life but more trying to get him to snap out of his bondage to the emperor as in literally using aggression against Vader who was really just standing there talking lol as an attempt to say OK ENOUGH ALREADY SNAP OUT OF IT!

And it worked lol

But I kept going back to Luke yelling NO right before attacking which always threw a wrench into my theory that really is the key scene which informs his immediate action.

The NO lends itself to him just going bonkers sith fully unleashed easily defeating pops and him looking at his hand at the end of the very short battle soaking in the wonderful feeling of uncaged aggression but then seeing Vaders stump which opened the door for the force to bring him down off his quick high.

I don?t know I guess I can see it both ways.

Yes he almost killed Vader with unleashed anger.

No he almost didn?t kill Vader he was just trying to get him to snap out of his bondage.

I was totally no help was I lol

I?m also ok with hermit Luke in isolation 32 years after ROTJ not being 101% exactly as he used to be.

If he is just the same ole ole then his character would just be a repeat of the OT 100% great morale compass zero changes in 32 years always the bright star.

As a human he should be vulnerable to having his feelings being pulled from external forces and being subjugated by varying layers of feelings from self doubt, mistrust, guilt and indifference.

Only once fully with the force can one break free from those morally conflicting wounds.

So yes while Luke was once a super star hero he was still a person and not the actual force therefore he could easily still change into something else he wasn?t before.

If you want a never ending unwavering perfect hero just go to Pornhub they are always there 24/7 ready to serve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Too me it was always obvious that he was just a step away from killing Vader. He was full of anger and hate when he attacked (John Williams Score drives that home) and the only reason he stops is that he looks at his hand.. He sees that he is about to follow down Vader's path. Vader's choices made him more machine then Human. It all harkens back to his Vison in Empire.

Now how you want to relate that to TLJ and killing his nephew is up to you... I did not see it as that crazy of an idea... As I have said.. Luke was far from perfect.​

 

[Khev]

I keep going back to this basic reduction of the trilogies

PT: Fall of Republic/Jedi/Anakin - Rise of Empire/Sith/Vader
OT: Rebellion against the Empire/redemption of Anakin/Return of the Jedi and the Republic
ST: Nope, that last stuff didn't quite work, sorry, go again. Yep..yep.....now all is well

That's the summing up as far as I see it and the ST is clearly the odd one out. All it seems to do is disrupt the nice symmetry, Lucas's fabled poetry

I can respect that take as it was clearly the one that late 90's/early 2000's George wanted you to take (who knows how his own ST would have screwed up the "symmetry" as you see it and botched the Saga even further though.) But for me I'll never be able to see Star Wars as anything other than the "Tale of Two Georges." I could easily break it down into many more than just two Georges as he has proven by his perpetual revisions/disgust for all that he previously made but I'm fine with just seeing his Star Wars as "before and after 1997."

And yes the OT SE/PT George has been very emphatic that the entire Saga is supposed to be the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker (until he was going to throw that out with his own ST but again I digress, lol.) But I can't see that as anything other than *complete* BS. Out of the entire OT and PT we literally got two (two!) films where Anakin was actually the main character (AOTC and ROTS.) How the hell can it be his story? (Not directing the "hell" at you but rather George. )

The OT was built from the ground up to be the hero's journey of LUKE SKYWALKER. So any additions to that journey that don't include him are superfluous at best IMO as far as "the" Saga goes. Hey I'm fine with one-offs and anthologies especially if they're done well but that just makes the entire PT its own little compartmentalized "anthology trilogy" that as you know I personally dismiss and only revisit for nostalgia and to remind myself of just how good the OT and ST are, lol.

All those big things that George fabricated out of thin air decades after the original film ("poetry," the story of Anakin, etc.) I just discard with all the other post 1997 nu-Saga nonsense.

And as you know with regard to continuing the story after ROTJ I just think that ROTJ dropped the ball in some pretty huge ways that left the door open for a proper resolution to follow. The fact that the finale is just so easy with no one making any hard sacrifices and the instant and randomly abrupt dance off in the ewok village to close out the entire Saga made that movie feel infinitely more like "Walt Disney's Star Wars" than any entry actually made by Disney! To me the ordeal of Star Wars that long and brutal *needs* to end with people half laughing, half crying at the end. More like LOTR or ALIENS or something. It can be sappy or cheesy (Newt saying "Mommy!" as she hugs Ripley) but dammit I want to see that the heroes are almost ready to collapse with relief after all they just survived. Of course I didn't want them to go too far the other way where everything just ends tragically and depressing which I really did think they were setting up after TFA and TLJ. "Oh good washed up Lando gets to be sad and die along with Chewie and the Falcon I'm sure." But obviously that didn't happen and I got to enjoy a nice telling of the euphoria of victory coupled with those bittersweet undertones of sacrifices and losses along the way. Basically breaking the Rebels/Empire conflict out of that Disney-fied little bow that was put on it by ROTJ and something that more honored the tone of SW/ESB.

Yeah George tried to somewhat correct his mistake with the ROTJ SE but it still needed something more which for me TROS provided with the exasperated celebration of the heroes after Exegol and then Rey's reflective trip to Tatooine. Of course I say "for me" because I know we're just two guys shooting the breeze for the fun of it with no hope of swaying the other person's opinion, lol.