Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)

[TaliBane]

I'm sure you remember ROTJ. What do you think Luke was doing when he yelled out, lit his lightsaber, and started swinging wildly after Vader threatened to turn Leia? Did Luke have murderous intent with those swings at his father, or was he just playing patty cake?

In Ben's hut that night, if Luke sensed his nephew's corruption (corrupted enough to slaughter his fellow students minutes later, eventually be capable of killing Han, and even help orchestrate the murder of billions of others), what is so objectionable and out of character about Luke having a *very brief* dark thought that he immediately felt ashamed for even thinking?

The point is that Luke didn't act on that brief impulse. That's the takeaway. He saw the potential horror (much worse than that of Vader turning Leia to the dark side) and chose to let his nephew live. Luke was always impulsive, but ends up doing the right thing. It was no different in TLJ.

Why show this pivotal, critically defining moment as a brief backstory flashback?

In ROTJ we see everything - the leadup, the precise context, the moment itself - so can fairly judge the act.

It always amazes me in TLJ they chose to show all of this rich, emotional stuff - Luke encountering and then training Han and Leia's son and what all of it leads to - as these ultra brief flashbacks. And instead, in its place, we get what we get as the A-story.

 

[ajp4mgs]

I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp that what happened in ROTJ was under very different circumstances. He descended into hell to save his father, but the Emperor also needed to be destroyed. He didn't seem to be reaching his father and he was cornered. He was in a desperate situation.

There's a difference between having a "very brief dark thought" and what he actually did in TLJ. He worked himself up to killing Ben directly after seeing some bad vision, not even stopping to ponder it and went so far as to ignite his lightsaber. He huffed and he puffed and he was ready to blow Ben's house down. He was in a quiet hut, standing over his sleeping nephew. Not in the middle of a battle.

Are you saying that how Luke reacted to Vader's comment about Leia in that ROTJ scene had something to do with needing to destroy the Emperor? If so, how is that consistent with Luke then throwing away his lightsaber when the Emperor was standing right there in front of him about two minutes later?

Luke is impulsive. He struggles with darkness because he too (more directly than his nephew) is a son of darkness. But Luke's darker impulses always have good intentions. Going after his father with violent/murderous intent was because of the threat against his sister. Igniting his lightsaber in Ben's hut was to prevent the death and destruction he was foreseeing from his already-corrupted nephew.

Another key thing that separates Luke's violent impulses from those of his father and nephew is that Luke has shown remorse and better judgment when he reflects on what he's doing. It happened when he threw his saber down in ROTJ, and it happened when he describes his shame in the TLJ flashback. Understandable intentions; morally-questionable impulsive extremes; able to self-correct in time. Same Luke.

Why show this pivotal, critically defining moment as a brief backstory flashback?

In ROTJ we see everything - the leadup, the precise context, the moment itself - so can fairly judge the act.

It always amazes me in TLJ they chose to show all of this rich, emotional stuff - Luke encountering and then training Han and Leia's son and what all of it leads to - as these ultra brief flashbacks. And instead, in its place, we get what we get as the A-story.

Fair enough. A more extended version of the flashback scene might have taken away some/all of whatever ambiguity there is about that moment. The question becomes, how extensive of a flashback scene should you do in the middle of the larger story that is unfolding in real-time? Or, how much do you just trust the audience to interpret it as intended? I'm not sure if it was just assumed that the audience would fully understand the context without needing to see it play out more explicitly.

Perhaps this is just a matter of stylistic preferences when it comes to exposition. For me, having Luke's dialogue narrating over the flashback provided enough exposition. He describes the depth of darkness he saw in his nephew, and that his brief instinct with the lightsaber was a reaction to how truly disturbing it was (and how much the hard-earned peace would be undone as a result), followed by an explanation of the shame he felt for even entertaining the thought . . . I didn't think it needed to be more spelled-out than that. But it seems that many other fans did, so it's fair to say that the final flashback should've been more extensive.

 

[xipotec]

I still feel like Luke was under the influence of the Dark Side at that moment.

Palps says to him “Take your Jedi weapon, strike me down.........and your journey TOWARD the Dark side is complete....

And he does just that. After that moment, where Luke WAS about to murder Palps, (a defenseless old man at that point) , I think he did let the Dark Side in, and its been festering in him since then and forever will.

Yea , he made a better choice later, but within the span of a few hours he goes from killing a defenseless man (like Anakin to Dooku ) to a honorable person?

Nope, he is a creature ruled by emotion, always was always will be.




Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[TaliBane]

Fair enough. A more extended version of the flashback scene might have taken away some/all of whatever ambiguity there is about that moment. The question becomes, how extensive of a flashback scene should you do in the middle of the larger story that is unfolding in real-time? Or, how much do you just trust the audience to interpret it as intended? I'm not sure if it was just assumed that the audience would fully understand the context without needing to see it play out more explicitly.

Perhaps this is just a matter of stylistic preferences when it comes to exposition. For me, having Luke's dialogue narrating over the flashback provided enough exposition. He describes the depth of darkness he saw in his nephew, and that his brief instinct with the lightsaber was a reaction to how truly disturbing it was (and how much the hard-earned peace would be undone as a result), followed by an explanation of the shame he felt for even entertaining the thought . . . I didn't think it needed to be more spelled-out than that. But it seems that many other fans did, so it's fair to say that the final flashback should've been more extensive.

I think the greater point I'm making is THAT story - the one reduced to brief flashbacks - is a far stronger, more high-stakes and more emotional (and more "SW" - its centered on Luke's choices, now as a mentor, as well as equally on the new generation) as an A-story than the one we got, or are getting. Rey's story is SO low wattage (at its core, a pale re-telling of Luke's OT story, just with a female lead to make it "different") compared to that.

And no, I'm not saying that story would have been about the "old farts" as the sole leads - I know everyone's very touchy about that. Let's be clear - old people are OLD.

 

[TaliBane]

Wow. That was straight into the ol' exhaust port.

 

[slikkerias]

I think the greater point I'm making is THAT story - the one reduced to brief flashbacks - is a far stronger, more high-stakes and more emotional (and more "SW" - its centered on Luke's choices, now as a mentor, as well as equally on the new generation) as an A-story than the one we got, or are getting. Rey's story is SO low wattage (at its core, a pale re-telling of Luke's OT story, just with a female lead to make it "different") compared to that.

And no, I'm not saying that story would have been about the "old farts" as the sole leads - I know everyone's very touchy about that. Let's be clear - old people are OLD.

So in other words. You wanted another movie based on a time in the past... well, you might get that one day. As a movie, book or comic - but that is a completely different movie. TLJ was the second in a sequel trilogy and it isn’t really fair to use that a a criticism.

 

[xipotec]

I think the greater point I'm making is THAT story - the one reduced to brief flashbacks - is a far stronger, more high-stakes and more emotional (and more "SW" - its centered on Luke's choices, now as a mentor, as well as equally on the new generation) as an A-story than the one we got, or are getting. Rey's story is SO low wattage (at its core, a pale re-telling of Luke's OT story, just with a female lead to make it "different") compared to that.

And no, I'm not saying that story would have been about the "old farts" as the sole leads - I know everyone's very touchy about that. Let's be clear - old people are OLD.

Since we have not seen that story, who can tell.....

But overall I agree. I think many people were disappointed we didn’t see that story. And your right, I think seeing Kylos fall, and Lukes fall , simultaneously would have made a great middle film in a trilogy.

But sad to say, I think the time to tell that story was 15 years ago.




Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[Sachiel]

So in other words. You wanted another movie based on a time in the past... well, you might get that one day.

They're all based on a time in the past. A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....

 

[ShadowX81]

I think the greater point I'm making is THAT story - the one reduced to brief flashbacks - is a far stronger, more high-stakes and more emotional (and more "SW" - its centered on Luke's choices, now as a mentor, as well as equally on the new generation) as an A-story than the one we got, or are getting. Rey's story is SO low wattage (at its core, a pale re-telling of Luke's OT story, just with a female lead to make it "different") compared to that.

And no, I'm not saying that story would have been about the "old farts" as the sole leads - I know everyone's very touchy about that. Let's be clear - old people are OLD.

Why not? Who says the leads of movie all have to be in their 20s? If anyone is strong enough characters to carry a series by themselves its Luke freaking Skywalker and Han Solo.

 

[TaliBane]

Why not? Who says the leads of movie all have to be in their 20s? If anyone is strong enough characters to carry a series by themselves its Luke freaking Skywalker and Han Solo.

Luke and Han, as seen by the Lucasfilm Story Group and progressive media...

 

[xipotec]

Why not? Who says the leads of movie all have to be in their 20s? If anyone is strong enough characters to carry a series by themselves its Luke freaking Skywalker and Han Solo.

Mmmmm, I do not think so. The majority of studios know the biggest demographic is now Millennials. Boomers are aging out and not really in the film industry sights. And most of us, Gen X are being overshadowed now since we are small in numbers compared to the Millennials.

Millennials want to see themselves. Not Gen X whome they consider silly idealist and focused on the wrong things.

If you understand the Millennial mind, you can see alot of the flaws some see in the film , are directly attributed to the differences in world view from Millennial the X’er.




Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[TaliBane]

Mmmmm, I do not think so. The majority of studios know the biggest demographic is now Millennials. Boomers are aging out and not really in the film industry sights. And most of us, Gen X are being overshadowed now since we are small in numbers compared to the Millennials.

Millennials want to see themselves. Not Gen X whome they consider silly idealist and focused on the wrong things.

If you understand the Millennial mind, you can see alot of the flaws some see in the film , are directly attributed to the differences in world view from Millennial the X’er.




Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

U.S. moviegoers who are 50+ comprise nearly a third of ALL theater admissions. 50-plus audience also visits the theater more often than the average moviegoer.

And FYI, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers are currently all in the 70m range, so roughly EQUAL in population numbers (though Millennial numbers are driven far more by immigration, and recent immigration, than the other two demo groups, so may or may not be as connected to movies/US pop culture as those older groups.)

 

[The Autistic Asexual]

Luke and Han, as seen by the Lucasfilm Story Group and progressive media...

Yep, millennials are a bunch of ageist Nazi creeps.

 

[Prime Clone]

In defence of George, he's always been more of a technical/design/big-picture guy, and is well aware of his own shortcomings as a director. That's why he asked several of his close friends to direct the PT, but they turned him down because they knew he'd be a constant presence and they didn't want to be second-guessing him.

Of course by the time Ron Howard did end up directing a SW flick it wasn't in the best circumstances.

 

[xipotec]

U.S. moviegoers who are 50+ comprise nearly a third of ALL theater admissions. 50-plus audience also visits the theater more often than the average moviegoer.

And FYI, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers are currently all in the 70m range, so roughly EQUAL in population numbers (though Millennial numbers are driven far more by immigration, and recent immigration, than the other two demo groups, so may or may not be as connected to movies/US pop culture as those older groups.)

While I agree with your overall idea, I think what your missing is Disneys attempt at making loyal Brand followers.

What they want is Us.....what I mean is they want another generation of die hard fans , whom consume products and media the way we have for 40 years.

Personally I think its a pipe dream. But thats the goal. They may have made some in roads with Marvel in that regard, as the children of Millennials will be the eventual target, having their parents and their parents values indoctrinated into them. If the capture Millennial minds, those parents will buy the merchandise they love for their kids, and continue the cycle for another generation.

Even if the 50 plus crowd spends more at the theater, they are beyond brand name indoctrination for the most part.

I think your numbers are a bit off on population.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

 

[slikkerias]

While I agree with your overall idea, I think what your missing is Disneys attempt at making loyal Brand followers.

What they want is Us.....what I mean is they want another generation of die hard fans , whom consume products and media the way we have for 40 years.

Personally I think its a pipe dream. But thats the goal. They may have made some in roads with Marvel in that regard, as the children of Millennials will be the eventual target, having their parents and their parents values indoctrinated into them. If the capture Millennial minds, those parents will buy the merchandise they love for their kids, and continue the cycle for another generation.

Even if the 50 plus crowd spends more at the theater, they are beyond brand name indoctrination for the most part.

I think your numbers are a bit off on population.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

No company in their right mind would aim at the audience that went to the cinema in 1977. We just need to accept that. And with that in mind I think what we’re getting is pretty good.

 

[ShadowX81]

Mmmmm, I do not think so. The majority of studios know the biggest demographic is now Millennials. Boomers are aging out and not really in the film industry sights. And most of us, Gen X are being overshadowed now since we are small in numbers compared to the Millennials.

Millennials want to see themselves. Not Gen X whome they consider silly idealist and focused on the wrong things.

If you understand the Millennial mind, you can see alot of the flaws some see in the film , are directly attributed to the differences in world view from Millennial the X’er.

Considering that I am a Millennial, im pretty familiar with the mindset. And just like any other time a "grownup" tries to understand how we think, this is dead wrong.

Millennials grew up in a world saturated with pop culture. A culture that glorified the idea of being 10 years old and pretty much told us to act like that forever and love what we loved at age 10 forever. And we loved Star Wars. But it was about more than just loving starship fights and lightsabers. We loved the characters we were raised on. We could care less that they are middle aged. Harrison Ford is still a bad-ass and even Mark Hamill is still pretty cool. We don't need everyone on screen to be a pretty teenager. Sure we knew that they had to throw some new people in there for action scenes, but at the end of the day that's not at all what drew us in. At the end of the day we just hoped that the distraction of new faces was entertaining enough to make us not miss the real people we came to see whenever they weren't on screen, and that the heroes we loved wouldn't just be unceremoniously shuffled offstage to make room for Bland Teenstar.

Hell, I was Anakin's age when Episode 1 came out and even at 10 years old most of us hated him and thought he "was for babies."

No one is going to be playing with Finn or Rey toys 40 years from now.

 

[TaliBane]

While I agree with your overall idea, I think what your missing is Disneys attempt at making loyal Brand followers.

What they want is Us.....what I mean is they want another generation of die hard fans , whom consume products and media the way we have for 40 years.

Personally I think its a pipe dream. But thats the goal. They may have made some in roads with Marvel in that regard, as the children of Millennials will be the eventual target, having their parents and their parents values indoctrinated into them. If the capture Millennial minds, those parents will buy the merchandise they love for their kids, and continue the cycle for another generation.

Even if the 50 plus crowd spends more at the theater, they are beyond brand name indoctrination for the most part.

I think your numbers are a bit off on population.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

Sent from the inside of a giant slug in outer space.....

Yeah, I have no doubt they want long time pop culture consumers - I'm just not sure they are getting a new loyal fanbase like the fans of the past 40 years (those won over by the OT.)

And not sure what you mean about numbers being off with population - the graph you posted shows exactly what I said: boomers, Gen X and Millennials are all currently around 70m (Gen X is high 60s, Boomers and Mills low 70s), so roughly EQUAL as potential consumers of entertainment product. You had suggested that Mills vastly outnumbered the other groups.

No company in their right mind would aim at the audience that went to the cinema in 1977. We just need to accept that. And with that in mind I think what we’re getting is pretty good.

The majority of people that buy tickets to the Disney SW films are male and over 30. When TFA went on sale, it was widely reported that the average SW fan buying was male and 34. RO's opening skewed even older and more male: toward late 30s.

No, that's not quite someone who's 50 (I assume that's what you mean by an "audience that went to the cinema in 1977,") but it's not exactly the "children" or "a new generation of fans" or "a new SW female fanbase" we constantly hear is the majority. Those are aspirational audience groups, the people who many in the media would like to believe the Disney SW films appeal to (and are therefore made for, and are also "not made for" other groups such as older fans or males) but they are not who actually buys most of the tickets.

 

[slikkerias]

Yeah, I have no doubt they want long time pop culture consumers - I'm just not sure they are getting a new loyal fanbase like the fans of the past 40 years (those won over by the OT.)

And not sure what you mean about numbers being off with population - the graph you posted shows exactly what I said: boomers, Gen X and Millennials are all currently around 70m (Gen X is high 60s, Boomers and Mills low 70s), so roughly EQUAL as potential consumers of entertainment product. You had suggested that Mills vastly outnumbered the other groups.



The majority of people that buy tickets to the Disney SW films are male and over 30. When TFA went on sale, it was widely reported that the average SW fan buying was male and 34. RO skewed even older and more male: toward late 30s.

No, that's not someone who's 50 (I assume that's what you mean by an "audience that went to the cinema in 1977,") but it's not exactly the "children" or the "new generation of fans" or "a new SW female fanbase" we constantly hear is the majority. Those are aspirational audience groups, the people who many in the media would like to believe the Disney SW films appeal to (and are therefore made for, and also "not made for" other groups such as older fans or males) but they are not who actually buys most of the tickets.

Not yet. But they are free to aim for a future audience as they wish. And honestly if a male audience feels alienated by female leads it just makes it even more evident that it’s about time we get them.

 

[TaliBane]

Not yet. But they are free to aim for a future audience as they wish. And honestly if a male audience feels alienated by female leads it just makes it even more evident that it’s about time we get them.

I'm unclear on what you've said. We're discussing the audience for the Disney SW films that have come out or are about to come out? You seem to be discussing films at some point in the future.

And I just made clear who the MAJORITY of ticket buyers are - how have you interpreted that as a male audience feeling alienated by female leads?

That same awful audience you seem to loathe - older and overwhelmingly male - are the same ones who whole-heartedly embraced movies like Terminator and Alien - enough that these became enduring, female-lead brand names that are still mined today. This is where these statements about older male fans hating to see female leads gets confusing. Leia was loved by male fans in 1977 just as much as female fans.

Where was the toxic push-back against Leia, Ripley and Sarah Connor?