Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Dec 15th, 2017)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You got all this from a movie meant to sell toys? that's what it comes down to? Selling toys. I don't like the last jedi but one could look at revenge of the sith and say
"Hey. This movie seems like it's representing the desturction of christianity. A man in black robs who works with the devil killing an entire race of people who practice a religion. Seems like these asholes are trying to push there propaganda on me"
Now yea tlj has heavy feminist theme but I don't think they are freaking world ending like you claim.

I disagree. I think Disney was so adamant about the propaganda within the film, that it was knowingly willing to risk alienating their own demographic. When Kathleen Kennedy says that she "doesn't need to cater to male fans", does that sound like a company focused on selling toys? Normally, a company identifies their demographic and targets them. Why didn't Kathleen Kennedy?

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-kathleen-kennedy-male-fans/

The answer, is that Disney was willing to compromise toy sale money, in order to spread a particular message. Why? Perhaps Kathleen Kennedy went rogue with her philosophy, at the shareholder's expense. Or, maybe she did exactly what key shareholders wanted her to do. Again, read Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Disney is a very powerful company that has a "public relations" role on behalf of elites. Indoctrination has a monetary value.
 
I agree with Spazz.

The agenda is so blatant it's bigger than the nose on that old *****'s face that they kept showing for no good reason.

It was a very, very poor film. So was Justice League. After I watched Justice League, I kind of shrugged and said "damn, that stunk." and pretty much forgot about it.

SW is different. It does and always has meant MORE to me. To all of us. SW turned 40 last year. So did I. Luke MEANS something to me.

Kathleen Kennedy knew this and she said "**** you old man, you're done. I don't want or need your money or business. The Force is FEMALE."

Message received, loud and clear.
 
In my opinion.... Luke was not a "Master Jedi" he only used the force to turn his dad back to the good. When he succeeded I think his care for the force declined. I think he had to keep it up because that's what he thought he should do and he started to teach. Then he got in over his head with Ben and started to go a little crazy from all the pressure of being "Luke" and from the idea that he had to carry the Jedi "spirit." I think the way he acted in TLJ was perfect... Rey got his spirit back and in the end he died wile giving the entire galaxy "A New Hope" for the future.

That may indeed be what Johnson had in mind. However, when someone destroys the Death Star THEN saves the galaxy by believing that his father could redeem himself, wouldn't they have learned something from that? Suppose Luke had a sense of obligation, dragging his feet because he was sick of the whole "Jedi thing", and frankly, felt that he wasn't special. He felt that the Jedi shouldn't have a monopoly over the force, and that his intervention would only get in the way. What was the catalyst for this? It was his inexplicable decision to harm his nephew in his sleep, because he "detected darkness" from within him.

That's not a character arc. That's a massive character shift, without explanation. In other words, you can account for his apathy by recounting his fleeting urge to kill his nephew in his sleep, but that, as an explanation requires a lot of explaining! Why would Luke Skywalker of all people do that?! It's literally the anti-thesis of what Luke had been. If you want the story to move in that direction, fine, but you have to account for it!

It's like saying, "Man, why did Gandhi stop caring about self-sufficiency?" "Oh, well he became apathetic after contemplating whether he should kill all of those Jews in their sleep..." Character arc!
 
Oh good, this **** again.

Same thing I think every time someone posts about how much they "loved how Johnson subverted the whole, like, idea of SW and turned it on its head" blah blah blah blah.
 
I agree with Spazz.

The agenda is so blatant it's bigger than the nose on that old *****'s face that they kept showing for no good reason.

It was a very, very poor film. So was Justice League. After I watched Justice League, I kind of shrugged and said "damn, that stunk." and pretty much forgot about it.

SW is different. It does and always has meant MORE to me. To all of us. SW turned 40 last year. So did I. Luke MEANS something to me.

Kathleen Kennedy knew this and she said "**** you old man, you're done. I don't want or need your money or business. The Force is FEMALE."

Message received, loud and clear.

Yeah, the OT means a lot to me, too. It was part the mythology that raised us, but it was so much more than that. It literally changed the way entertainment incorporated graphic design with a narrative. It inspired innovation.

To be fair, I agree that the OT was heavy on white males in casting. Is it possible to have a more diverse cast without beating people over the head with ideology? Of course. The ideology itself was the problem, because it was literally aimed at alienating the movie's key demographic. Lucas film went from marketing this to us as children, to aiming an irrational, authoritarian ideology at us, from within it.

I agree, I got the message. The Force is Female, not for everyone.
 
Umm... again... for Empire Magazine's BEST ACTOR 2017: John Boyega for TLJ up against Gary Oldman from Darkest Hour. WTF???!:lol

That Space Vegas scene would've brought tears to Winston Chuchill himself.
 
That may indeed be what Johnson had in mind. However, when someone destroys the Death Star THEN saves the galaxy by believing that his father could redeem himself, wouldn't they have learned something from that? Suppose Luke had a sense of obligation, dragging his feet because he was sick of the whole "Jedi thing", and frankly, felt that he wasn't special. He felt that the Jedi shouldn't have a monopoly over the force, and that his intervention would only get in the way. What was the catalyst for this? It was his inexplicable decision to harm his nephew in his sleep, because he "detected darkness" from within him.

That's not a character arc. That's a massive character shift, without explanation. In other words, you can account for his apathy by recounting his fleeting urge to kill his nephew in his sleep, but that, as an explanation requires a lot of explaining! Why would Luke Skywalker of all people do that?! It's literally the anti-thesis of what Luke had been. If you want the story to move in that direction, fine, but you have to account for it!

It's like saying, "Man, why did Gandhi stop caring about self-sufficiency?" "Oh, well he became apathetic after contemplating whether he should kill all of those Jews in their sleep..." Character arc!


Without explanation? I just explained it. He was never powerful with the force… it was never a true part of him. He decided he wanted to be a Jedi because his dad was and then wanted to turn him. He was never fully committed. Heck, he ditched his training early to go help Han & Leia even after being told not to by the #1 Jedi of all time. Once his dad was turned he had no use for the force anymore… there was nothing else for him to do. He decided that he would teach and because he wasn’t a Master Jedi he screwed up and Ben got out of control and Luke knew he couldn’t handle him (I’ve only seen that much power once before) and with all the pressure of his past and the possibility of HIM being the one to unleash the next Vader he went NUTS, tried to kill Ben and ran away alone to some rock in the middle of nowhere. His “arc” is whiny brat, to cocky son trying to help his dad, to famous person with no direction, to teacher, to overpowered teacher, to nut, to possible martyr or savior or whatever you want to call him as he dies. Yes, it might have been nice to see some of that on screen but that’s not what we got so I filled in my theory and it works for me. Your mileage may vary.
 
Okay here we go. :D



See whenever I see people say "TLJ crapped on SW" or "crapped on the lore" all I hear is "TLJ crapped on Endor dance parties, teddy bears, and my favorite heroes who were supposed to live happily ever after." A lot of you *claim* that ESB is your favorite SW movie but it's clear that that isn't what you ever want out of SW again. What you really want is just more ROTJ. And by "you" I may mean you personally Bravomite or I may not. You judge. ;) But it definitely applies to a *lot* of TLJ naysayers.

What crazy rule exists that says that when a hero stops himself mid-murderous rampage and then tosses away his lightsaber that suddenly he's this perfected being of light that is immune to any further temptation, inadequacy, failure, depression, etc.? That's some goofy arbitrary limitation that apparently *only* applies to Star Wars. When Professor X slaughters his entire school of students? Oh that's transcendent art. A real evolution of the genre. But if Luke Skywalker even *thinks* about killing *one* student who is on a path of galaxy wide destruction? Well crap that just breaks the Saga. Funny I don't recall any notmyprofessor hashtags or Jake Xavier memes when Logan was in theaters.

TLJ has simply exposed the level of BS inherent in so many who claim that they hate the fact that Disney is making these movies when the fact of the matter is that most naysayers apparently want SW to be nothing but the MOST Disney-fied of all fairy tales. Remember Beauty and the Beast when he came back to life, kissed Belle, all the spells wore off and the castle was all shining as people lived "happily ever after" in cartoon heaven-on-earth fantasy? Yeah that's clearly what a number of people want out of SW. Oh they'll claim that they don't want things to be stagnant but that isn't really the case. They'll claim that they want to see development and/or conflict but at the *most* all they want is the pseudo-challenges experienced by your average MCU hero.

Like Tony Stark in Iron Man 2. Where Disney tried to adapt "Demon in a Bottle," one of the most celebrated of IM tales...but without actually making Tony an alcoholic. Can't do anything that would make him a "loser." So he has this honorable affliction where the suit is merely infecting his blood or skin which then gives him the *appearance* of having the flaw of alcoholism...but not the flaw itself. Oh he had a little too much to drink at *one* party. Whoopety do.

And here's the thing (and I'm so not directing any of this directly at you Bravomite) if certain people want that out of SW that's fine. Clearly we got an entire film where everybody was a shining star of morality and pro-active righteousness (even the previously gray scoundrels like Han and Lando) in Return of the Jedi. And that's fine if that's singular format that you want all SW films to take with respect to story and characters from here on out. I'm sure Disney will make plenty of those types of movies for you eventually and you can embrace them while those of us who like our stories with flawed and relatable heroes can embrace films like RO and TLJ.

"Wait Khev we actually liked RO it's just TLJ that sucked." Eh, now I believe that the only reason most TLJ naysayers liked RO is because they didn't have any preconceived notions about how Jyn and Cassian and everyone should be. If Jyn appeared in a previous film where she did something heroic at the end then she'd need to be perfect from that moment on and the second she hit a rebel in the face with a shovel everyone would have immediately disowned her. Because that's just how irrational and flaky a good portion of the fanbase is when it comes to these films.

There have been countless tales about heroes or main characters who ascend to the top of their field only to come crashing all the way back down in order to set the stage for an epic comeback. "Why didn't Rocky throw the towel sooner??? He forsook Apollo!! He literally got him killed! #notmybalboa" " Why the **** is Aragorn off sitting in a bar while the world goes to pot? 'Strider?' What's that bull****? Osgiliath and countless strongholds are falling while he mopes around by himself instead of marching into the halls of Gondor and claiming his crown!!" When you apply the complaints against Luke to any other hero in any other genre the absurdity just gets all the more exposed. "Aragorn spilled Eowen's nasty soup on his beard! I'm gonna go make memes!" smh

The truth is Rian Johnson actually dared to treat Luke Skywalker like a genuine character again. He isn't some force of nature in the background, he isn't a cartoonized embodiment of wish fulfillment fantasy (that people ironically scream bloody murder about when manifested in other characters like Rey,) he's a character with an actual arc who starts out lower than he's ever been before ultimately ascending higher than he's ever been. And that's simply good story-telling. I get it if people just want to escape and have AT-AT's and Sith Lords be stand-ins for whatever troubles you're facing in life. And that the extent of SW being an inspiring tale goes no further than watching things blow up so that you can either enjoy the pretty explosions or at most tackle your problems at home "just like Luke attacked that AT-AT." But what if Luke *himself* actually had to tackle your *real* problems at home? I'm not talking lightsabers and murder but simply the act of making a critical error that permanently estranges a close family member. Or handling hopelessness or depression. Those things just bring this epic space fantasy all the more down to real, honest, much more emotionally tangible themes.

I've literally read about amputee military veterans coping with losing a limb because there's a certain "coolness" to having a prosthetic hand or something because it's so ingrained in our consciousness after it happened to Luke Skywalker. Now Luke has gone several steps further by becoming an "emotional amputee" of sorts. And like his reaction to losing a hand where at first he gave up, he ultimately pulled himself up by his bootstraps and faced life head on until the very end. None of that is negated by how he faltered along the way, however ugly (though lovably so) it might have been during that process. In fact in the end it's all enhanced by his shortcomings and failings. He got to prove once and for all that his victory in ROTJ wasn't a fluke. That no matter what gets thrown at him, no matter who fails him and no matter who comes at him, whether it be friends, family, or even *himself,* that he's never ever fully down for the count and in the end will always be the hero that we can respect and admire.

Khev never passes on the opportunity to "do a Khev." I am honestly and wholly in awe of this gentleman - his passion, his tenacity, his level of detail.:clap

This thread is fast becoming THE most interesting discussion of TLJ ANYWHERE on the internet. And forget Leland Chee - Khev is doing God's work for LFL.:lol

While I always hear the "Ride of the Valkyries" when Khev gets the Rian Johnson/TLJ bomber squadron airborne, the problem is the volume of ordnance that has to be dealt with in the aftermath. I'm going to sift through this in the next day or so. But wow - has this thread blossomed or what? :hi5:
 
I'm going to sift through this in the next day or so.

1531731610567853382.gif


;)
 
Without explanation? I just explained it. He was never powerful with the force… it was never a true part of him. He decided he wanted to be a Jedi because his dad was and then wanted to turn him. He was never fully committed. Heck, he ditched his training early to go help Han & Leia even after being told not to by the #1 Jedi of all time. Once his dad was turned he had no use for the force anymore… there was nothing else for him to do. He decided that he would teach and because he wasn’t a Master Jedi he screwed up and Ben got out of control and Luke knew he couldn’t handle him (I’ve only seen that much power once before) and with all the pressure of his past and the possibility of HIM being the one to unleash the next Vader he went NUTS, tried to kill Ben and ran away alone to some rock in the middle of nowhere. His “arc” is whiny brat, to cocky son trying to help his dad, to famous person with no direction, to teacher, to overpowered teacher, to nut, to possible martyr or savior or whatever you want to call him as he dies. Yes, it might have been nice to see some of that on screen but that’s not what we got so I filled in my theory and it works for me. Your mileage may vary.

No, you didn't explain why Luke didn't want to kill his father despite all the mass deaths, yet wanted to kill his nephew because he detected some evil. I get it, you think Johnson indicated that Luke wasn't a Master Jedi. However, your claim that,

"(h)is “arc” is whiny brat, to cocky son trying to help his dad, to famous person with no direction, to teacher, to overpowered teacher, to nut, to possible martyr or savior or whatever you want to call him as he dies"

conveniently leaves out the fact that he destroyed the Death Star, then disobeyed two Jedi Masters in order to save the galaxy with compassion. We're expected to believe that he learned nothing from success? No one works that way. That's not a character arc. It's hack writing.

Also, if he wasn't a Master Jedi, how'd he defeat Vader?
 
I'm pretty sure you're older than Spazz.

Seeing as you liked TLJ, doesn't that mean I'm intuitively wiser, stronger and more capable despite my utter lack of experience? Thanks! :yess:
 
That cgi blood looks really bad lol

That push would not cause the brain to just clump up like that on a wall outside of your head. :lol

Your brain would just swell up and kill you from the massive increase of pressure.

Is that from GOT, never watched a single episode LOTR is all that matters when it comes to fantasy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top