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

[Asta]

...and had a portrayal of Luke that I really enjoyed... and yes, I did see an element of Conrad in Luke's isolation, not as a means to elevate himself as a god among the elementals but rather as a reaction to BEING elevated as a god/legend-- or perhaps buying into that praise. He fights against that by doing what he saw his masters (Obi, Yoda) do, removing himself from the board. I also really enjoyed the breakdown of the constant failures of the Jedi...

Yes, I think that's the rationale behind his exile. As you wrote, knowing where the Jedi went wrong he "removed himself from the board".

When Yoda did that it was to go into hiding, to save himself for a future opportunity. When Obi-Wan did it, it was to watch over Luke.

Luke is the one who does it without a pro-active purpose, unless it's viewed as proactive to remove himself from the danger of interfering in the lives of others.

Hamill is vocal in repeating that, "a Jedi wouldn't do that." But he concedes that we live in different times.

That supports the view that the treatment of Luke's character is at odds with the feminist ideology elsewhere in the film. Luke no longer wishes to conform to or be a party to old hidebound ideologies that haven't brought an end to the conflict.

In the depiction of Luke are we seeing Rian's resistance to Kathleen?

 

[jye4ever]

Who ever is the architect behind the dismantling of Hollywood piece by piece they’re doing a great job.

What is Hollywood/RT other than a Starkiller base sized media empire meant for public manipulation.

Right now there’s a huge and very successfull war being fought against the media empires to expose their corruption and discredit their integrity and show to the public that they are all fake news sold to the highest bribe for protection of people like your Weinsteins of the world.

Their high score for TLJ is being attacked in an attempt to expose to the public that it goes much deeper than just a difference of opinions.

It’s more of a systemic corruption of a very calculated formation of public manipulation thru a simple number score no less which is the best part and what better franchise exists if not SW to wage this war on right.

And you guys thought it was just a simple innocent review of a SW movie lol.

Movies are great conduits to wage your ideological battles, sorry parents have fun showing your kids what your childhood heroes are being used for now.

The sad reality is that many out there believe that there is only one true solution and the jews and arabs have known the solution for eons which is the complete eradication of the other side.

The US will continue to get uglier and uglier until eventually a civil war will once again be needed where yes people will die.

Conservatives and liberals are literally a version of the jew and arab war yet we mock them for being that way.

I’ve got news for the liberals they better start believing in guns because they are easily outgunned as it stands now lol

Begun the SW Ideological Wars has.

 

[Caped Baldy]

Did Rian really write TLJ before he even watched a final cut of TFA?

 

[Adolfo]

I wish goebbels was alive to review TLJ

 

[Adolfo]

Yes, I think that's the rationale behind his exile. As you wrote, knowing where the Jedi went wrong he "removed himself from the board".

When Yoda did that it was to go into hiding, to save himself for a future opportunity. When Obi-Wan did it, it was to watch over Luke.

Luke is the one who does it without a pro-active purpose, unless it's viewed as proactive to remove himself from the danger of interfering in the lives of others.

Hamill is vocal in repeating that, "a Jedi wouldn't do that." But he concedes that we live in different times.

That supports the view that the treatment of Luke's character is at odds with the feminist ideology elsewhere in the film. Luke no longer wishes to conform to or be a party to old hidebound ideologies that haven't brought an end to the conflict.

In the depiction of Luke are we seeing Rian's resistance to Kathleen?

Perhaps...perhaps...but

 

[Craig Walker]

Yeah, the Yoda thing bugs the hell out of me but so many issues in this movie anyway...

Yoda: "Pile of crap this movie is. Burn it down I must..."

 

[Asta]

Perhaps...perhaps...but

It would be nice to think that Rian managed to snatch at least one of his balls back from Kathleen's handbag.

 

[DarthNeil]

Yes, I think that's the rationale behind his exile. As you wrote, knowing where the Jedi went wrong he "removed himself from the board".

When Yoda did that it was to go into hiding, to save himself for a future opportunity. When Obi-Wan did it, it was to watch over Luke.

Luke is the one who does it without a pro-active purpose, unless it's viewed as proactive to remove himself from the danger of interfering in the lives of others.

Hamill is vocal in repeating that, "a Jedi wouldn't do that." But he concedes that we live in different times.

That supports the view that the treatment of Luke's character is at odds with the feminist ideology elsewhere in the film. Luke no longer wishes to conform to or be a party to old hidebound ideologies that haven't brought an end to the conflict.

In the depiction of Luke are we seeing Rian's resistance to Kathleen?

I like that possibility-- I will say that the one part that had me scratching my head was also (as many have pointed out) the moment of truth (in the three variations) when Luke ignites his green lightsaber over Ben's sleeping form. As it's been pointed out that is so not in his presented OT character, but, after seeing it for a fourth time last night I feel that when he reaches out to sense Ben's darkness the suggestion seems to be that Luke felt the death of Han at Ben's hands and also possibly the death of Leia and the reflex of protecting those two is what caused him to momentarily light up his lightsaber.

 

[Spazz]

Many many many pages later...

As a moderator my hand is always on the hip to infract at a moment's notice-- trigger finger itchy-- but then as someone who also has an Honours (spelled Canadian) Degree in English Literature and currently has a stack of Hamlet papers to get to I'm happy to see that the pros and cons discussion for this cinematic offering has taken a decidedly nicer (and intellectually stimulating) turn.

On the side of the pros-- is there a feminist agenda? Don't care. I can look beyond the hidden motifs to enjoy a story that kept me guessing-- had (in my opinion) strong character development-- and had a portrayal of Luke that I really enjoyed... and yes, I did see an element of Conrad in Luke's isolation, not as a means to elevate himself as a god among the elementals but rather as a reaction to BEING elevated as a god/legend-- or perhaps buying into that praise. He fights against that by doing what he saw his masters (Obi, Yoda) do, removing himself from the board. I also really enjoyed the breakdown of the constant failures of the Jedi... but in the end he is a legend and he can face the entire First Order by himself with just his laser sword-- but as Yoda correctly pointed out in Empire "Your weapons. You will not need them." And he didn't.

I'm guessing you're a high school teacher, correct? I once read a paper about the philosophy of education, arguing that the goal of the education system is to promote self-sufficient learning. The reasoning was sound: children need to be taught how to process, and learn from observation to create their abstract model, or understanding of the world.

Contrast this understanding of epistemology with the burning of the Jedi library, and what the alt right critics (tactlessly) describe as Rey being a "Mary Sue". While I feel that the approach to this criticism has been sexist and divisive, the underlying sentiment is that Rey apparently doesn't need to learn anything from experience. She doesn't need to practice, she doesn't need to be taught. She's perfect, as is. Does that bother you? The movie turns its back on logic and reason, promoting an understanding of knowledge as something "from within".

I agree with Kuat, that there are Post Modernist underpinnings throughout the film. As I see it, Luke's isolation is similar to a common misreading of Hamlet: His "tragic flaw" is that he doesn't want to act, for fear of making a wrong decision. He fears his own fallibility. In TLJ, we're expected to believe that if you just get out of your own way, and focus on others instead of your own vanity, some sort of 'justice' will guide you thanks to empathy.

 

[DarthNeil]

I'm guessing you're a high school teacher, correct? I once read a paper about the philosophy of education, arguing that the goal of the education system is to promote self-sufficient learning. The reasoning was sound: children need to be taught how to process, and learn from observation to create their abstract model, or understanding of the world.

Contrast this understanding of epistemology with the burning of the Jedi library, and what the alt right critics (tactlessly) describe as Rey being a "Mary Sue". While I feel that the approach to this criticism has been sexist and divisive, the underlying sentiment is that Rey apparently doesn't need to learn anything from experience. She doesn't need to practice, she doesn't need to be taught. She's perfect, as is. Does that bother you? The movie turns its back on logic and reason, promoting an understanding of knowledge as something "from within".

I agree with Kuat, that there are Post Modernist underpinnings throughout the film. As I see it, Luke's isolation is similar to a common misreading of Hamlet: His "tragic flaw" is that he doesn't want to act, for fear of making a wrong decision. He fears his own fallibility. In TLJ, we're expected to believe that if you just get out of your own way, and focus on others instead of your own vanity, some sort of 'justice' will guide you thanks to empathy.

I just travel from town to town in an old rusty van imparting knowledge wherever I can.

The goal is critical thinking-- but in many forms formal education is for mass production of a certain type of individual that Carlin correctly identifies-- the less said about that the better. Most of the discussion from the PT that centered around how the Jedi were presented (and even how Yoda points out their growing alienation) in a fashion that showed their flaws. Similarly to Arthur needing to refocus his knights and send them on a quest for the Grail-- is Rey a Galahad? It would make her origin (the offspring of a flawed Lancelot) much more interesting but I'm also OK with her lineage being separate from the Skywalker/Solo tree.

Hamlet's tragic flaw is his intellect-- Luke's tragic flaw is his understanding of his own limitations-- and that in itself is not a flaw at all.

Knowledge should come from within-- fueled by various other outside sources. But our reality is just that-- our reality.

 

[Asta]

I like that possibility-- I will say that the one part that had me scratching my head was also (as many have pointed out) the moment of truth (in the three variations) when Luke ignites his green lightsaber over Ben's sleeping form. As it's been pointed out that is so not in his presented OT character, but, after seeing it for a fourth time last night I feel that when he reaches out to sense Ben's darkness the suggestion seems to be that Luke felt the death of Han at Ben's hands and also possibly the death of Leia and the reflex of protecting those two is what caused him to momentarily light up his lightsaber.

There is deep conflict there. Luke was fundamentally a good character, full of wide-eyed innocence when we first see him in ANH.

But by the end of that film he's caused the deaths of maybe a million people in the service of saving an even greater number of people.

Since Lucas peaked too early, and had to create second Death Star once he'd discovered first film had been well received, the war wasn't over.

By the time we see Luke in TLJ there's been a continual cycle of violence, and the Jedi have been powerless to stop it. Then he senses the darkness in Ben, and he knows that by killing his nephew he could potentially save the lives of millions.

Would it be right or wrong?

He could kill his nephew but somebody else would surely take his place and commit atrocities anyway. And Luke would still have to suffer for killing his sister's son.

He can't take action, and feels his very existence is a constant danger. Like the Jedi before him he felt he was not only a failure, but part of the problem.

 

[Spazz]

Yes, I think that's the rationale behind his exile. As you wrote, knowing where the Jedi went wrong he "removed himself from the board".

When Yoda did that it was to go into hiding, to save himself for a future opportunity. When Obi-Wan did it, it was to watch over Luke.

Luke is the one who does it without a pro-active purpose, unless it's viewed as proactive to remove himself from the danger of interfering in the lives of others.

Hamill is vocal in repeating that, "a Jedi wouldn't do that." But he concedes that we live in different times.

That supports the view that the treatment of Luke's character is at odds with the feminist ideology elsewhere in the film. Luke no longer wishes to conform to or be a party to old hidebound ideologies that haven't brought an end to the conflict.

In the depiction of Luke are we seeing Rian's resistance to Kathleen?

No, I'd argue the depiction of Luke is consistent. Luke is a coward in light of his vanity. Kylo is a tyrant in light of his vanity. Poe is reckless in light of his vanity. The common thread is that Toxic Male Behavior stems from a culturally masculine need to elevate one's self. It's about the need to be special. In other words, Feminists are turning the "snowflake" argument against the alt-right. It's doubly ironic that Luke is still trying to be special in admitting the vanity of the Jedi. He's trying to be "above" it, while his friends are in peril. Only Rey's empathy can (physically?) shove Luke from his pedestal.

No testicles were regained during the making of this film.

 

[Spazz]

I just travel from town to town in an old rusty van imparting knowledge wherever I can.

The goal is critical thinking-- but in many forms formal education is for mass production of a certain type of individual that Carlin correctly identifies-- the less said about that the better. Most of the discussion from the PT that centered around how the Jedi were presented (and even how Yoda points out their growing alienation) in a fashion that showed their flaws. Similarly to Arthur needing to refocus his knights and send them on a quest for the Grail-- is Rey a Galahad? It would make her origin (the offspring of a flawed Lancelot) much more interesting but I'm also OK with her lineage being separate from the Skywalker/Solo tree.

Hamlet's tragic flaw is his intellect-- Luke's tragic flaw is his understanding of his own limitations-- and that in itself is not a flaw at all.

Knowledge should come from within-- fueled by various other outside sources. But our reality is just that-- our reality.

Hamlet's tragic flaw was his willingness to act in the absence of evidence. It was his impatience, in needing vengeance. Hamlet is actually an allegory for Elizabethan astronomy. It's about Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and CLAUDIUS Ptolemny. True story: Francis Bacon owned a family shield that belonged to Tycho, that he kept over his fireplace. Tycho's descendants? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern...

 

[klwn]

The guy with the largest audience on YouTube tears the movie apart:

 

[Asta]

No, I'd argue the depiction of Luke is consistent. Luke is a coward in light of his vanity. Kylo is a tyrant in light of his vanity. Poe is reckless in light of his vanity. The common thread is that Toxic Male Behavior stems from a culturally masculine need to elevate one's self. It's about the need to be special. In other words, Feminists are turning the "snowflake" argument against the alt-right. It's doubly ironic that Luke is still trying to be special in admitting the vanity of the Jedi. He's trying to be "above" it, while his friends are in peril. Only Rey's empathy can (physically?) shove Luke from his pedestal.

No testicles were regained during the making of this film.

The thing about cowardice is that neutrality is sometimes the most dangerous stance of all.

I remember something about the English Civil War where that point was made.

Then you come to the First World War and the treatment of conscientious objectors, and soldiers shot for 'cowardice'. Yet that was one of those pointless wars that owed a lot to family rivalry, and where the soldiers of each nation had more in common with each other than they did with their own leadership. If there had been more 'cowardice' the war could've been ended sooner. The establishment was terrified that the the troops might find a common socialist cause.

The causes for the Second World War would have been removed.


Luke removes himself also because he does possess the power to make a difference. Though he no longer trusts in his abilities after failing Ben.

 

[GasparZizou]

The guy with the largest audience on YouTube tears the movie apart:

I used to hate PewDiePie but he did a 180 and became watchable again.

 

[jye4ever]

I love it that Ackbar has been viewed by fans as this genius military tactician since 1983 because of his now famous “It’s a Trap!” quote and then Rian steps in and kills him off so unceremoniously with no brilliant last second epiphany from the seasoned Admiral not unlike the Warriors 3 in Thor 3.

Now some might not care and just say that’s the ugly reality of war you’re a respected heroic soldier one second then dead the next and while I agree with that perspective it would’ve been a crowd pleasing moment had he taken Holdo’s place and still had the same character ending BUT NO Rian needed his Poe vs Holdo coup subplot dammit.

Buy Admiral sorry you went out punked by the FO lol

 

[xipotec]

What's kinda funny is that nowhere here - or elsewhere from what I've seen - is ANYONE talking about what TLJ set up storywise in terms of Ep IX; what story and character mysteries engaged people and where those plot threads will lead.

There's been lots of talk about the fan backlash, the supposed negative reactions to ESB (sorry, context so different in so many ways it's NO comparison whatsoever) even how middle films are supposed to have the lowest B.O.

But compare this week's discussions to those in the week following ESB's release... Luke/Vader, what becomes of Han, who is the "other"? (Fett?!) where does a brutalized Luke go from here? What the hell is Vader with that skull head? The devastating realization that you had to wait THREE YEARS to see it continue and get the answers.

All people are talking about this week is who loved it and hated it, and more importantly what that judgement says about them and their "group" - their political views, their gender, their age, their race.

And there is something deeply sad about that - that this is where, after all these decades, SW has ended up. An incredible, deep, mythic journey that ends up in bickering about identity and politics in the wake of a new release. But frankly, says a lot about the quality of the storytelling for what is supposed to be a serialized storyline.




What might be best is to temporarily ban those who were lukewarm on TLJ, and permanently ban those who hated it. It's the only way to bring objectivity to this thread and keep discussion on the right path.

Very true....if there is one thing social media as given us , it’s the concept of

Me, me , me....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spazz]

The thing about cowardice is that neutrality is sometimes the most dangerous stance of all.

I remember something about the English Civil War where that point was made.

Then you come to the First World War and the treatment of conscientious objectors, and soldiers shot for 'cowardice'. Yet that was one of those pointless wars that owed a lot to family rivalry, and where the soldiers of each nation had more in common with each other than they did with their own leadership. If there had been more 'cowardice' the war could've been ended sooner. The establishment was terrified that the the troops might find a common socialist cause.

The causes for the Second World War would have been removed.


Luke removes himself also because he does possess the power to make a diferrence. Though he no longer trusts in his abilities after failing Ben.

I agree that there are times where inaction is the most powerful, or efficient thing that you can do. Absolutely. Hell, I've sidelined myself during several periods of my life where I realized that any action I'd take would only make things worse.

However, I don't think the movie shares our sympathetic view if strategic idleness. When Luke refused to train the Jedi, was it because he realized that the Jedi could flourish without his teaching? No. He sincerely thought the Jedi would end, without his help. Right? So Luke remained isolated in his vanity, assuming he had control over the fate of the Jedi when, as it turned out, he didn't. Jedi don't require his patriarchal teachings, thank you very much. His refusal to train other Jedi was futile, as he acknowledges at the end of the film.

 

[noface]

I understand now why they added the scene, but I still think I wouldnt find it funny if I watched the scene for the second time.
There was a reason for Kylo Ren's shirtless scene
https://mashable.com/2017/12/21/last-jedi-kylo-ren-shirtless-scene/#5HWeY_zueaqd