"Chasing Amy" doesn't get enough credit as a legit great comedy. Of course the kicker to that scene is that the whole speech was a set-up stunt to build up his image as a radical.
Have you ever considered that when you push an idea too far you end up with something that is too far removed from an individuals suspension of disbelief?
This film was full of this, Leia, by all means strong in the force. Mary Poppins in Space, too far.
Holdo, woman in charge, no problem. A dictator who doesn't consult with senior officer and nobody questions her, too far.
Poe, senior pilot with an organisation and nobody has ever pulled him up before, no chain of command, no discipline? Too far.
Finn, lowly maintenence worker for the First Order who knows everything about secret trackers? Too far.
Captain Phasma, flashy armour, dedicated soldier, beaten down with a stick. Too Far (and lets not even consider the continuity of that scene, I'm standing right next to you and going to kill you, big explosion, I'm on the other side of the area undamaged)
Get put in jail and there's a code breaker/lock picker there who can do what they need. Too far.
Glittery Pokomon foxes run into the base under attack to lead you to a "secret" back escape route. Too far.
Rey, strong in the force can beat anybody straight away. Too far.
Can you remember in A New Hope when Leia blasted a hole in the wall and they escaped into the garbage disposal. Genuine tension building scene, actors/audience/droids, nobody knew what was going on.
This film they would have fallen in the garbage and met a uniformed guide who showed them the way back to the ship, after letting them out and giving them a shoe polish.
I didn't find any of that too far. I just enjoyed myself a Star Wars movie.
* Leia: The Force can levitate starfighters and create lightning bolts from your fingertips. The idea, that, in a moment of struggle for survival, Leia could tap into her strength in the Force and pull herself to safety is certainly within the bounds set for the Star Wars Universe. After all, "[t]he ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." (I heard that somewhere)
* Holdo: She didn't consult with a recently demoted former senior officer. Poe was stripped of his Commander rank. And she's a bad*ss.
* Poe: He's a hot shot, but not yet a good strategic commander. A big part of his arc in TLJ is his growth into a leader who sees the bigger picture.
* Finn: John Boyega got tasked with some expository dialogue. To be honest, I don't remember who said what about the hyperspace tracker.
* Phasma: An unfortunately one-note character that even JJ couldn't find a good use for in TFA - and he created her. She's Boba Fett redeux - cool armor, now what the hell do we do with her? Maybe JJ will bring her back.
* DJ: Convenient plot device is convenient. Half of Hollywood movies have similarly convenient plot devices.
* Foxes: Seemed natural that local wildlife would know where the other way out is.
* Rey: Again, she's the Luke/Anakin-type with supernatural levels of talent. But, she was pretty powerless against Snoke.
Do I remember A New Hope? "Into the garbage chute, flyboy!" Yeah, that was a great scene. I felt a similar tension in the Rey, Kylo, Snoke scene. I had no idea what was going to happen, and I loved what Rian Johnson did with it. It blew me away.
The First Order is the richest and largest organisation in the known Universe? How? The rebels won, they destroyed the Empire, people had parties, Ewoks danced, the huge megacities had firework displays to celebrate, we saw it.
They did create a bigger Death Star. They do have tons of Storm Troopers. And despite the rebels' victory over the Empire, the new movies portray the First Order as stronger than the resistance. The First Order has more people and more ships, and both movies made a point of showing that the First Order's gear--ships, guns, uniforms and all--was shiny and new, while the resistance was dealing with dirty, aging equipment.
It's more dramatic when the heroes are the underdogs, and the best way to portray them as underdogs is to show that the bad guys are rich and powerful. The movie wouldn't be very interesting if the First Order was portrayed as small and underfunded.
I do think the author of that line wrote it because they were thinking about real-world politics instead of the Star Wars universe. But it still makes sense in-universe. Somebody has to have manufactured all those Storm Trooper guns and suits of armor, and whoever did it would have been paid well.
It's not that big of a stretch for one, single, individual person, Rose, to say the First Order's suppliers are the wealthiest people she knows of.
Or is it a massive strawman that you have created to negate any critisism of the female characters we have been presented with?
Why I don't like Rey? She bores me and I find nothing about her I can relate to. Any male/female that self assured makes me want to run to the hills. Same for Holdo. No weakness, no humanity.
And yes, it may well be my own lack of confidence or even some deep psychological trauma I experienced in childhood that I have a repressed memory of if you want to denigrate my opinion some more. Seeing as I don't have a "neckbeard" and don't live in a basement as that's the usual response
Go for it.
Seriously, that’s not what I said and I’m not interested in denigrating anyone’s opinion or guess how people live their lives.
I’m not too fond of Rey as a character or even the movie itself. But reducing criticism to ”it’s aggressive feminism” (which by the way, you cleary didn’t in your criticism) is just... I don’t know, dull. It’s not really criticism of a character or a movie anymore. It’s more like ”I think that you probably thought this when you wrote that, and I don’t like it”.
And my point about Ben was really that I don’t see people question his power level. In other ways he’s a really laughable character, and I kind of like that actually. It just seems that the Force got a boost in these latest movies. A bit like when The force unleashed came around and people suddenly could yank star destroyers out of the sky.
It's funny how no one worried where the First Order got thier money and resources from in the first movie... Anyway, that it has not yet been explained does not mean there is no explanation. It was what? 15 years? To explain where the Empire came from, and no one worried about it. It looks like someone is looking really really hard to pick holes to me.
Phasma - this is just trying to pick holes where there are no holes. She is a minor villain. Minor villains don't get much screen time, and get whupped by heroes. That is thier destiny in any movie ever. Although I do have a theory that in the next movie there will be a new clone army with Phasma as the template.
It must be a nightmare to try to write Star wars villains when every character will be hyped as the new Boba Fett/Darth Vader long before the movie even comes around. People are just bound to be disappointed. Kind of funny how Ben's Darth Vader complex works in a meta sense too. Poor guy can't live up to expectations in any universe.
If you like podcasts there's this great one called Imaginary worlds. They did an episode about The last jedi and talks about how we view characters and canon, with some nice comparisons with religious texts. https://www.imaginaryworldspodcast.org/the-canon-revisited.html
I think it's worth mentioning that Phasma got more screen time and dialogue that Boba Fett in original movies - and died in fight, not accidentally pushed into Scarlacc pit by blinded Han Solo in slapstic comic relief scene. And at this point we know as much about Snoke as we knew about Emperor at the end of RotJ. Can't be mad.
I do think that TLJ fails at many points (especially regarding Finn and to an extent Poe), but still liked it. Kylo Ren is, in my opinion, the best villain Star Wars had so far and one of the best in superhero kind of movies that I've seen.
It's more dramatic when the heroes are the underdogs, and the best way to portray them as underdogs is to show that the bad guys are rich and powerful. The movie wouldn't be very interesting if the First Order was portrayed as small and underfunded.
No. It's not automatically more dramatic when the heroes are underdogs. You have to build drama up. The above kind of statement is exactly what I think is one of the main things wrong with modern "epic" blockbuster movies: All appeal to convention, never taking the time to set anything up. "The good guys have to still be rebelsresistance because 'underdogs' are more dramatic and they were rebels in the original" is poor author thinking.
In fact, the idea that the New New Republic would've completely disarmed and discontinued its own fleet and the subsequent killing off of the Republic is probably the worst writing in the new movies in terms of writer-mandated idiocy and wasted opportunity, and that was written solely because above reasoning that the heroes have to be underdogs. This is likely what made it impossible for the new movies to bring anything new at all to the Star Wars table and made it inevitable that every thing was going to feel like a rehash of the original trilogy.
* Holdo: She didn't consult with a recently demoted former senior officer. Poe was stripped of his Commander rank. And she's a bad*ss.
Informed badass of the highest order. Would have worked so much better if they had used Leia or Ackbar, established characters we have relationships with, instead of some new, random person with so little character they had to resort to the worn out "oh and she has an unusual hair colour" method of attempting to make a character stand out.
Of course, Ackbar was killed off with only a side comment, and Leia was put out of action just so this complete rando could get the spot light. I can't help but feel that Holdo (at least she has a ridiculous name in the proper Star Wars tradition of giving everyone stupid names) is completely superfluous to the whole plot. Everything she does could have been done better and with more narrative weight by Leia. Imagine if it was Leia who sacrificed herself at the end instead of this completely new acquaintance that we never get to know or watch do anything remotely important or spectacular for the entirety of the time we see her. Good bye, random person. You meant as much to both me and the plot as the guy we saw die in the medical ship earlier on.
Or is it a massive strawman that you have created to negate any critisism of the female characters we have been presented with?
Why I don't like Rey? She bores me and I find nothing about her I can relate to. Any male/female that self assured makes me want to run to the hills. Same for Holdo. No weakness, no humanity.
And yes, it may well be my own lack of confidence or even some deep psychological trauma I experienced in childhood that I have a repressed memory of if you want to denigrate my opinion some more. Seeing as I don't have a "neckbeard" and don't live in a basement as that's the usual response
Go for it.
Seriously, that’s not what I said and I’m not interested in denigrating anyone’s opinion or guess how people live their lives.
I’m not too fond of Rey as a character or even the movie itself. But reducing criticism to ”it’s aggressive feminism” (which by the way, you cleary didn’t in your criticism) is just... I don’t know, dull. It’s not really criticism of a character or a movie anymore. It’s more like ”I think that you probably thought this when you wrote that, and I don’t like it”.
And my point about Ben was really that I don’t see people question his power level. In other ways he’s a really laughable character, and I kind of like that actually. It just seems that the Force got a boost in these latest movies. A bit like when The force unleashed came around and people suddenly could yank star destroyers out of the sky.
I'm sorry, I went far too OTT there, I know you didn't say that.
"too much aggressive feminism".
I think what happens is that people, especially on social media, in order to "win" an argument, throw everything at the wall and hope that something sticks.
So on one side you get everything thrown, including "too much aggressive feminism" for example.
And on the other, anything that can be denigrated as being out of step with progressive social mores is seized upon as evidence that the criticism is coming from an unacceptable position and therefore is dismissable.
What I would add though is that it's noticeable the amount of personal attacks on critics of the film rather than defending the film. (not here but on the various comment sections)
I really don't understand how, even if a critic says something outrageous about the film along those lines, that it's a defense of the film to attack the critic personally.
And if you widen it out, that's very much a feature of current social/political interaction. And it's pretty obvious, it's not working.
Would have worked so much better if they had used Leia or Ackbar, established characters we have relationships with, instead of some new, random person with so little character they had to resort to the worn out "oh and she has an unusual hair colour" method of attempting to make a character stand out.
No. It wouldn't. The whole point is that the audience share Poe's doubts in her competence/loyalty. If it had been Leia or Ackbar Poe, and the audience, would have trusted their judgment without question. The character HAD to be an unknown quantity.
As for Holdo's background and relationship to Leia, that has already been expanded on in an EU novel in the new continuity.
Would have worked so much better if they had used Leia or Ackbar, established characters we have relationships with, instead of some new, random person with so little character they had to resort to the worn out "oh and she has an unusual hair colour" method of attempting to make a character stand out.
No. It wouldn't. The whole point is that the audience share Poe's doubts in her competence/loyalty. If it had been Leia or Ackbar Poe, and the audience, would have trusted their judgment without question. The character HAD to be an unknown quantity.
As for Holdo's background and relationship to Leia, that was already addressed in an EU novel in the new continuity.
How does that make for good storytelling. There is no way I am going to start reading SW books ect. in order to understand a film. Show don't tell.
It's all so contrived, create a poorly explained scenario and then pull a fast one on the audience. This audence member didn't think she was incompetant/disloyal, I just thought she was a PITA. And thought the same after the little exersion to show off some ultra cool special effects.
The whole of the scenario, from start to finish was to showcase the special effects. That was the motivation, not story, not character development. Why on earth do you think there was advance publicity about "do not think the film is broken"
* Holdo: She didn't consult with a recently demoted former senior officer. Poe was stripped of his Commander rank. And she's a bad*ss.
Informed badass of the highest order. Would have worked so much better if they had used Leia or Ackbar, established characters we have relationships with, instead of some new, random person with so little character they had to resort to the worn out "oh and she has an unusual hair colour" method of attempting to make a character stand out.
Of course, Ackbar was killed off with only a side comment, and Leia was put out of action just so this complete rando could get the spot light. I can't help but feel that Holdo (at least she has a ridiculous name in the proper Star Wars tradition of giving everyone stupid names) is completely superfluous to the whole plot. Everything she does could have been done better and with more narrative weight by Leia. Imagine if it was Leia who sacrificed herself at the end instead of this completely new acquaintance that we never get to know or watch do anything remotely important or spectacular for the entirety of the time we see her. Good bye, random person. You meant as much to both me and the plot as the guy we saw die in the medical ship earlier on.
Holdo's arc wouldn't work for Ackbar or Leia. You aren't supposed to like Holdo at first. The POV character for her arc is Poe. If Ackbar had taken charge or Leia weren't incapacitated, Poe going against one of them would have turned the audience against Poe. But, Holdo is an unknown to Poe and the audience, so when he decides to go around her, the audience agrees with him. It's only later that we are shown that she knows what she's doing and she has a plan to save the Resistance. We come to that revelation with Poe (again, he's the POV character for her story arc).
And, why can't you go two posts without insulting someone? Holdo is a name real people have.
Would have worked so much better if they had used Leia or Ackbar, established characters we have relationships with, instead of some new, random person with so little character they had to resort to the worn out "oh and she has an unusual hair colour" method of attempting to make a character stand out.
No. It wouldn't. The whole point is that the audience share Poe's doubts in her competence/loyalty. If it had been Leia or Ackbar Poe, and the audience, would have trusted their judgment without question. The character HAD to be an unknown quantity.
As for Holdo's background and relationship to Leia, that was already addressed in an EU novel in the new continuity.
How does that make for good storytelling.
I assume you need a question mark. For Poe not to appear as a complete ass his actions should seem reasonable to the audience. I'm guessing you read spoilers before seeing the film. You are meant to wonder is Holdo incompetent? Is she an enemy agent?
There is no way I am going to start reading SW books ect. in order to understand a film. Show don't tell.
The film shows you all you need to know about Holdo, which is "we don't know much about Holdo". Movies are full of supporting characters who are fleshed out less than Holdo.
It's kind of a Star Wars tradition to flesh out minor characters in supporting EU content (Max Rebbo anyone?) but it's not needed to understand the film. She actually has about the same screen time as Tarkin.
The whole of the scenario, from start to finish was to showcase the special effects.,
No it wasn't (Star Wars never needs an excuse for flashy special effects - anyone could have been flying the cruiser). it was to provide Poe with a story arc - a character that had zero development in TFA. But then pretty much every character was underdeveloped in TFA. If TLJ has a fault it's in trying to hard to give every character an arc (even BB-8, but most of that was cut for time).
And about Holdo - you missed something - she WAS incompetent. Her plan might have been legit, but she lacked the leadership skills to inspire trust in her followers - not surprising in someone who is promoted from a long way down the chain of command.
@OP - what's your exception with the new Star Wars exactly? "Grace and truth" - do you really think this is just about traditionally type-cast heroes, and a given orthodoxy?
The Lucas round 2 was so poor that I have not returned back to Star Wars since the first movie of the second (Lucas) franchise. The Return of the Jedi was as complacent and merchandising friendly as a movie could be, at that era.
So I tend to think that The Empire Strikes Back is the last rather decent SW movie.
If The Last Jedi breaks those poorly previous norms, I maybe should give it the time of day.
You know, y'all, I didn't share that article to start any arguments. I found it interesting that it appeared in a local newspaper, and I was curious what people here might think about what he had to say.
I think he had some other important points besides the "Why are all the men losers?" comment, concerning the cultural impact of Star Wars as a modern myth, and why that's important. It's unfortunate that he invoked the feminism controversy, because since he did, nobody seems to hear anything else in what he had to say.
I've found most of the posts in the thread to be very interesting further reading about people's reactions to the movie, so thank you for all the insightful comments.
I would prefer that all the people who disagree with the author, which not unexpectedly seem to be a lot of the readers, rebut his points according to their contrasting opinions, and not to argue with other forum members, if possible.
I like to read both sides of any issue without emotions becoming heated.
Would have worked so much better if they had used Leia or Ackbar, established characters we have relationships with, instead of some new, random person with so little character they had to resort to the worn out "oh and she has an unusual hair colour" method of attempting to make a character stand out.
No. It wouldn't. The whole point is that the audience share Poe's doubts in her competence/loyalty. If it had been Leia or Ackbar Poe, and the audience, would have trusted their judgment without question. The character HAD to be an unknown quantity.
As for Holdo's background and relationship to Leia, that was already addressed in an EU novel in the new continuity.
How does that make for good storytelling.
I assume you need a question mark. For Poe not to appear as a complete ass his actions should seem reasonable to the audience. I'm guessing you read spoilers before seeing the film. You are meant to wonder is Holdo incompetent? Is she an enemy agent?
There is no way I am going to start reading SW books ect. in order to understand a film. Show don't tell.
The film shows you all you need to know about Holdo, which is "we don't know much about Holdo". Movies are full of supporting characters who are fleshed out less than Holdo.
It's kind of a Star Wars tradition to flesh out minor characters in supporting EU content (Max Rebbo anyone?) but it's not needed to understand the film. She actually has about the same screen time as Tarkin.
The whole of the scenario, from start to finish was to showcase the special effects.,
No it wasn't (Star Wars never needs an excuse for flashy special effects - anyone could have been flying the cruiser). it was to provide Poe with a story arc - a character that had zero development in TFA. But then pretty much every character was underdeveloped in TFA. If TLJ has a fault it's in trying to hard to give every character an arc (even BB-8, but most of that was cut for time).
And about Holdo - you missed something - she WAS incompetent. Her plan might have been legit, but she lacked the leadership skills to inspire trust in her followers - not surprising in someone who is promoted from a long way down the chain of command.
So why would or why wouldn't you want to show Poe as a complete arse? So what if he's an arse, give me a reason to care as a viewer rather than assume I have invested in the character.
What is this sudden obsession of a "character arc" being planned in advance rather than it occuring naturally as the story unfolds. If you have manipulate the circumstances in order to furnish a character arc, and it can be seen clearly what is being done, that's poor writing.
Poe did nothing wrong, he got rid of the guns on the "Dreadnaught" so the bombers could do their job.
And lets not even get into how utterly ridiculous that whole set up was with the made of paper, slow bombers, three of which were taken out by an accident
You know, the "fleet killer", the ship that could have wiped out the whole fleet. Are you suggesting that the appellation "fleet killer" was hyperbole?
And lets not even get into how utterly ridiculous that whole set up was with the made of paper, slow bombers, three of which were taken out by an accident
You know, the "fleet killer", the ship that could have wiped out the whole fleet. Are you suggesting that the appellation "fleet killer" was hyperbole?
The bombers were based on WWII bombers, like the B-24. And, yeah, WWII bombers were slow, and quite vulnerable without extended range fighter cover. During 1942-43, before extended range fighters were available, it was nearly statistically impossible for a bomber crew to make it to the end of their 25-mission tour. They were expected to be shot down within 8-12 missions.
Star Wars space battles have been inspired by WWII movie aerial battles since A New Hope. When the movie was assembled as a rough cut, actual WWII movie clips were used as placeholders for the unfinished space battle effects*. So basing the bombers on WWII bombers is in keeping with Star Wars tradition.
And lets not even get into how utterly ridiculous that whole set up was with the made of paper, slow bombers, three of which were taken out by an accident
You know, the "fleet killer", the ship that could have wiped out the whole fleet. Are you suggesting that the appellation "fleet killer" was hyperbole?
The bombers were based on WWII bombers, like the B-24. And, yeah, WWII bombers were slow, and quite vulnerable without extended range fighter cover. During 1942-43, before extended range fighters were available, it was nearly statistically impossible for a bomber crew to make it to the end of their 25-mission tour. They were expected to be shot down within 8-12 missions.
Star Wars space battles have been inspired by WWII movie aerial battles since A New Hope. When the movie was assembled as a rough cut, actual WWII movie clips were used as placeholders for the unfinished space battle effects*. So basing the bombers on WWII bombers is in keeping with Star Wars tradition.
Yes, I am quite aware of how vulnerable bombers were in WW2, my father was navigator on Lancasters. Luckily he survived.
However, the ariel dog fights were what inspired the OT, not bombing runs.
And this another example of where the film pushed things too far to the point where it loses credibility with the audience.
Exactly how can bombing runs (not dog fights, whole different area) inspire anything in space? Simply put, if anybody during WW2 had developed an anti gravity device, there would be no bombing runs.
And lets not even get into how utterly ridiculous that whole set up was with the made of paper, slow bombers, three of which were taken out by an accident
You know, the "fleet killer", the ship that could have wiped out the whole fleet. Are you suggesting that the appellation "fleet killer" was hyperbole?
The bombers were based on WWII bombers, like the B-24. And, yeah, WWII bombers were slow, and quite vulnerable without extended range fighter cover. During 1942-43, before extended range fighters were available, it was nearly statistically impossible for a bomber crew to make it to the end of their 25-mission tour. They were expected to be shot down within 8-12 missions.
Star Wars space battles have been inspired by WWII movie aerial battles since A New Hope. When the movie was assembled as a rough cut, actual WWII movie clips were used as placeholders for the unfinished space battle effects*. So basing the bombers on WWII bombers is in keeping with Star Wars tradition.
Yes, I am quite aware of how vulnerable bombers were in WW2, my father was navigator on Lancasters. Luckily he survived.
However, the ariel dog fights were what inspired the OT, not bombing runs.
And this another example of where the film pushed things too far to the point where it loses credibility with the audience.
Exactly how can bombing runs (not dog fights, whole different area) inspire anything in space? Simply put, if anybody during WW2 had developed an anti gravity device, there would be no bombing runs.
I think you overestimate the intelligence of most movie goers. I have a BS in Chemistry and it didn't even occur to me that bombs wouldn't drop in 0 gravity until it was mentioned here. Of course I go to the movies so I can actually shut my brain off for a little while so I guess I must suppress my sense of disbelief most of the time...
And lets not even get into how utterly ridiculous that whole set up was with the made of paper, slow bombers, three of which were taken out by an accident
You know, the "fleet killer", the ship that could have wiped out the whole fleet. Are you suggesting that the appellation "fleet killer" was hyperbole?
The bombers were based on WWII bombers, like the B-24. And, yeah, WWII bombers were slow, and quite vulnerable without extended range fighter cover. During 1942-43, before extended range fighters were available, it was nearly statistically impossible for a bomber crew to make it to the end of their 25-mission tour. They were expected to be shot down within 8-12 missions.
Star Wars space battles have been inspired by WWII movie aerial battles since A New Hope. When the movie was assembled as a rough cut, actual WWII movie clips were used as placeholders for the unfinished space battle effects*. So basing the bombers on WWII bombers is in keeping with Star Wars tradition.
Yes, I am quite aware of how vulnerable bombers were in WW2, my father was navigator on Lancasters. Luckily he survived.
However, the ariel dog fights were what inspired the OT, not bombing runs.
And this another example of where the film pushed things too far to the point where it loses credibility with the audience.
Exactly how can bombing runs (not dog fights, whole different area) inspire anything in space? Simply put, if anybody during WW2 had developed an anti gravity device, there would be no bombing runs.
Consider the TIE vs. Millenium Falcon scene in ANH. The Falcon is shown as slow and less maneuverable than the TIEs (unlike subsequent movies, where the Falcon is as agile as a starfighter), its defense comes from Han & Luke in the gun wells. It is most certainly inspired by bomber vs fighter combat.
The bomber scene doesn't strike me as "too far". This is a universe where they have weapons capable of generating at least 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy (that's the gravitational binding energy of Earth), which is equivalent to approximately 12 days of the Sun's energy output. So, I really don't bat an eye at the idea that they can magnetically accelerate* the bombs out of the bomb bay. If it bugs you, that's your prerogative.
There isn't much "science" in the science fiction of Star Wars. It has always been closer to traditional fantasy than, say, Isaac Asimov or Harlan Ellison. It was, after all, based mostly on Flash Gordon serials (which might as well be Conan short-stories in space) and Kurosawa (Jedi are basically Samurai, and there is a scene in "A New Hope" lifted straight out of "The Hidden Fortress". So the idea that explosions exists in space has always been the last thing on my mind. It's easy to point out, but entirely misses the point. And again, the space battles are based on WW2 dogfight movies for the same reason as the above examples. They were the entertainment Lucas remembered watching as a child and at film school. Beyond that, the iconic beginning "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" is meant to evoke Arthurian legend or fairy tales.
We expect way too much when we expect movies to give up narrative for realism. In most movies, there are always sequences where the hero is in danger where time either compresses or expands. A bomb has ten seconds to go off that takes 30 or 40 seconds of screen time. The spike room in "Temple of Doom" initially starts out at normal speed but slows to a crawl as the scene progresses (there is a scene like this in every Indiana Jones movie). So, in regards to the bombs in zero G, I guess it never even crossed my mind either. I just don't know why, in a movie that features a magical religion where those who can tap into it wield immense power, anyone would want realistic space physics.
The thing that bothers me the most about the Star Wars films is something that no one ever notices. And it's the fact that in the scene and lightsaber battle between Obi-Wan and Vader in "A New Hope", Vader's helmet and mask aren't on straight.
Don't mistake piloting skillz for the actual "force". Luke was already a good pilot as a farmer (actually I know IRL a guy who became a somewhat professional driver at the age of 13, true story) and he was natural like his dad who can drive at 1000km/h speed and win a race as a little retard like George L. decided/envisoned him to be. About the actual force Luke didn't know shiiiit, he trained hard under master Yoda, hard as Goku or even harder and he still was no match for his daddy the sith master. Kira/Rey on the other hand doesn't need no stinking of patriachry training, she is a natural force user and abuser (like Boo) because she has no stinking medichlorians, she has estrogenichlorians you shovinistic cisgender male scum piglets /wink/ No, seriously lol, Kira (why they changed her name to Rey? no idea..) has at least one great asset - She is not a trap, huehuehuehue. Also love the actress, poor girl is actually trapped in a shitty character but she can take it like a ma...ooops...last jedi. (paycheck is not bad at all, I guess....) but enough about white womens, lets talk about...no! stick with the white womens as long as we can.
I found Rey's skills to be a little too much when I first saw the Force Awakens. Kylo Ren clearly was extremely skilled and yet she managed to beat him without having any training or preparation.
Then my cousin mentioned offhand that she really only started winning when Kylo Ren offered to train her--which is when she realized she could use the Force as well, and there was enough potential in her for Kylo Ren to actually seek her out as an ally. And when I thought more about it and read people talking about it, it made more and more sense.
Rey is Force sensitive, but not very skilled. She did not have to be extremely skilled to beat Kylo Ren. Kylo Ren was clearly very conflicted about the process and on top of that, he was badly injured by the time they actually fought. Kylo Ren was not trying to kill her, and he clearly enjoyed toying with Finn much more than actually killing him. Kylo Ren was bested by a mixture of overconfidence in his abilities, reluctance to kill, his enjoyment of the fight and unwillingness to bring it to a quick end, and being blasted by a freaking laser.
This is actually why I find Kylo Ren to be the best character in the series, including the original movies. He's clearly young and impulsive and not in control of his emotions, and he betrays insecurity more than he does power. But it makes him seem very real, and when you see him in action, you see that he has immense passion and immense power inside him that he's struggling to contain. His warped view of reality, the lies he was fed by Snoke since the day he was born, the directionless rage he feels, his hero worship of Darth Vader, his impossibly high ambitions...
...this is a very deeply conflicted and confused person. But his response to moral confusion is rage, not indecisiveness. He makes a poor leader, but all that directionless rage makes him extremely dangerous. He vacillates between absolute calm and blinding rage.
And when he finally does conclude that someone is his true enemy, he destroys them, whether it's his own father or his own master--Supreme Leader Snoke.
Snoke completely paralyzed Rey; she was helpless to fight him. And Kylo Ren killed Snoke in one ingenious blow. Who's really the strongest Force user here?
@UnderstandMouseMagic Don't forget that there is a least one bombing run in zero-g in "The Empire Strikes Back". When the Falcon is hiding in that "cave" on the asteroid, Tie-Bombers (Yes they had an entirely separate model dedicated to bombing runs in the original trilogy) were making bomb runs on all the large asteroids to try and flush the Falcon out of hiding.
@UnderstandMouseMagic Don't forget that there is a least one bombing run in zero-g in "The Empire Strikes Back". When the Falcon is hiding in that "cave" on the asteroid, Tie-Bombers (Yes they had an entirely separate model dedicated to bombing runs in the original trilogy) were making bomb runs on all the large asteroids to try and flush the Falcon out of hiding.
Asteroids have gravity, that's how they are formed, or at least grow, pulling in other space debris that comes too close. Obviously it depends on size and composition.
If I remember rightly, the probe they landed on an asteroid (from earth, real life) was able to use the weak gravity of the asteroid. Had to include it in their calculations (really fishing here in my brain for something about that probe landing that specifically mentioned the gravitational pull of the asteroid that I'm sure was talked about at the time).
What we were shown in TLJ for that bombing was simply style over substance. To make a spectacular visual, to emphasise the dramatic.
Why exactly would you have hundreds of small bombs lined up to fall in sequence like a payout from a slot machine? Why would that have ever been designed that way? Isn't there something about bombs and the explosion they create that has to be calculated? For instance you detonate a nuke at an optimal height above ground for a greater blast radius.
And if we are talking about WW2, the bouncing bombs to destroy the dam (Dambusters film) had to detonate not on the dam, but in the water in front of the dam and it was the shock wave they created that did the damage.
BTW, I know sweet FA about bombs, but this is stuff you hear over the years.
Edited to add.
If one were to adopt the method shown of dropping that many bombs at that speed, then surely the first bombs dropped would be detonating before the other bombs had reached their destination? So the undetonated bombs would be blasted away from the target before they reached the target. Some of them straight up back to where they were being dropped from.
The bomb dropping doesn't bother me much when I remember that "Star Wars" is actually science fantasy rather than science fiction, and more closely follows the tropes of "Lord of the Rings" or "Dungeons and Dragons" than it does "Stargate" or "Star Trek".
Comments
* Leia: The Force can levitate starfighters and create lightning bolts from your fingertips. The idea, that, in a moment of struggle for survival, Leia could tap into her strength in the Force and pull herself to safety is certainly within the bounds set for the Star Wars Universe. After all, "[t]he ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force." (I heard that somewhere)
* Holdo: She didn't consult with a recently demoted former senior officer. Poe was stripped of his Commander rank. And she's a bad*ss.
* Poe: He's a hot shot, but not yet a good strategic commander. A big part of his arc in TLJ is his growth into a leader who sees the bigger picture.
* Finn: John Boyega got tasked with some expository dialogue. To be honest, I don't remember who said what about the hyperspace tracker.
* Phasma: An unfortunately one-note character that even JJ couldn't find a good use for in TFA - and he created her. She's Boba Fett redeux - cool armor, now what the hell do we do with her? Maybe JJ will bring her back.
* DJ: Convenient plot device is convenient. Half of Hollywood movies have similarly convenient plot devices.
* Foxes: Seemed natural that local wildlife would know where the other way out is.
* Rey: Again, she's the Luke/Anakin-type with supernatural levels of talent. But, she was pretty powerless against Snoke.
Do I remember A New Hope?
It's more dramatic when the heroes are the underdogs, and the best way to portray them as underdogs is to show that the bad guys are rich and powerful. The movie wouldn't be very interesting if the First Order was portrayed as small and underfunded.
I do think the author of that line wrote it because they were thinking about real-world politics instead of the Star Wars universe. But it still makes sense in-universe. Somebody has to have manufactured all those Storm Trooper guns and suits of armor, and whoever did it would have been paid well.
It's not that big of a stretch for one, single, individual person, Rose, to say the First Order's suppliers are the wealthiest people she knows of.
I’m not too fond of Rey as a character or even the movie itself. But reducing criticism to ”it’s aggressive feminism” (which by the way, you cleary didn’t in your criticism) is just... I don’t know, dull. It’s not really criticism of a character or a movie anymore. It’s more like ”I think that you probably thought this when you wrote that, and I don’t like it”.
And my point about Ben was really that I don’t see people question his power level. In other ways he’s a really laughable character, and I kind of like that actually. It just seems that the Force got a boost in these latest movies. A bit like when The force unleashed came around and people suddenly could yank star destroyers out of the sky.
Phasma - this is just trying to pick holes where there are no holes. She is a minor villain. Minor villains don't get much screen time, and get whupped by heroes. That is thier destiny in any movie ever. Although I do have a theory that in the next movie there will be a new clone army with Phasma as the template.
If you like podcasts there's this great one called Imaginary worlds. They did an episode about The last jedi and talks about how we view characters and canon, with some nice comparisons with religious texts.
https://www.imaginaryworldspodcast.org/the-canon-revisited.html
I do think that TLJ fails at many points (especially regarding Finn and to an extent Poe), but still liked it. Kylo Ren is, in my opinion, the best villain Star Wars had so far and one of the best in superhero kind of movies that I've seen.
In fact, the idea that the New New Republic would've completely disarmed and discontinued its own fleet and the subsequent killing off of the Republic is probably the worst writing in the new movies in terms of writer-mandated idiocy and wasted opportunity, and that was written solely because above reasoning that the heroes have to be underdogs. This is likely what made it impossible for the new movies to bring anything new at all to the Star Wars table and made it inevitable that every thing was going to feel like a rehash of the original trilogy.
Informed badass of the highest order. Would have worked so much better if they had used Leia or Ackbar, established characters we have relationships with, instead of some new, random person with so little character they had to resort to the worn out "oh and she has an unusual hair colour" method of attempting to make a character stand out.
Of course, Ackbar was killed off with only a side comment, and Leia was put out of action just so this complete rando could get the spot light. I can't help but feel that Holdo (at least she has a ridiculous name in the proper Star Wars tradition of giving everyone stupid names) is completely superfluous to the whole plot. Everything she does could have been done better and with more narrative weight by Leia. Imagine if it was Leia who sacrificed herself at the end instead of this completely new acquaintance that we never get to know or watch do anything remotely important or spectacular for the entirety of the time we see her. Good bye, random person. You meant as much to both me and the plot as the guy we saw die in the medical ship earlier on.
I'm sorry, I went far too OTT there, I know you didn't say that.
"too much aggressive feminism".
I think what happens is that people, especially on social media, in order to "win" an argument, throw everything at the wall and hope that something sticks.
So on one side you get everything thrown, including "too much aggressive feminism" for example.
And on the other, anything that can be denigrated as being out of step with progressive social mores is seized upon as evidence that the criticism is coming from an unacceptable position and therefore is dismissable.
What I would add though is that it's noticeable the amount of personal attacks on critics of the film rather than defending the film. (not here but on the various comment sections)
I really don't understand how, even if a critic says something outrageous about the film along those lines, that it's a defense of the film to attack the critic personally.
And if you widen it out, that's very much a feature of current social/political interaction. And it's pretty obvious, it's not working.
As for Holdo's background and relationship to Leia, that has already been expanded on in an EU novel in the new continuity.
There is no way I am going to start reading SW books ect. in order to understand a film.
Show don't tell.
It's all so contrived, create a poorly explained scenario and then pull a fast one on the audience. This audence member didn't think she was incompetant/disloyal, I just thought she was a PITA.
And thought the same after the little exersion to show off some ultra cool special effects.
The whole of the scenario, from start to finish was to showcase the special effects. That was the motivation, not story, not character development. Why on earth do you think there was advance publicity about "do not think the film is broken"
"snark, snark, the audiences are so stupid"
And, why can't you go two posts without insulting someone? Holdo is a name real people have.
Not at all, then.
The film shows you all you need to know about Holdo, which is "we don't know much about Holdo". Movies are full of supporting characters who are fleshed out less than Holdo.
It's kind of a Star Wars tradition to flesh out minor characters in supporting EU content (Max Rebbo anyone?) but it's not needed to understand the film. She actually has about the same screen time as Tarkin.
No it wasn't (Star Wars never needs an excuse for flashy special effects - anyone could have been flying the cruiser). it was to provide Poe with a story arc - a character that had zero development in TFA. But then pretty much every character was underdeveloped in TFA. If TLJ has a fault it's in trying to hard to give every character an arc (even BB-8, but most of that was cut for time).
And about Holdo - you missed something - she WAS incompetent. Her plan might have been legit, but she lacked the leadership skills to inspire trust in her followers - not surprising in someone who is promoted from a long way down the chain of command.
The Lucas round 2 was so poor that I have not returned back to Star Wars since the first movie of the second (Lucas) franchise. The Return of the Jedi was as complacent and merchandising friendly as a movie could be, at that era.
So I tend to think that The Empire Strikes Back is the last rather decent SW movie.
If The Last Jedi breaks those poorly previous norms, I maybe should give it the time of day.
ANH, TESB, R1 and TLJ.
I think he had some other important points besides the "Why are all the men losers?" comment, concerning the cultural impact of Star Wars as a modern myth, and why that's important. It's unfortunate that he invoked the feminism controversy, because since he did, nobody seems to hear anything else in what he had to say.
I've found most of the posts in the thread to be very interesting further reading about people's reactions to the movie, so thank you for all the insightful comments.
I would prefer that all the people who disagree with the author, which not unexpectedly seem to be a lot of the readers, rebut his points according to their contrasting opinions, and not to argue with other forum members, if possible.
I like to read both sides of any issue without emotions becoming heated.
It's kind of a Star Wars tradition to flesh out minor characters in supporting EU content (Max Rebbo anyone?) but it's not needed to understand the film. She actually has about the same screen time as Tarkin.
No it wasn't (Star Wars never needs an excuse for flashy special effects - anyone could have been flying the cruiser). it was to provide Poe with a story arc - a character that had zero development in TFA. But then pretty much every character was underdeveloped in TFA. If TLJ has a fault it's in trying to hard to give every character an arc (even BB-8, but most of that was cut for time).
And about Holdo - you missed something - she WAS incompetent. Her plan might have been legit, but she lacked the leadership skills to inspire trust in her followers - not surprising in someone who is promoted from a long way down the chain of command.
So why would or why wouldn't you want to show Poe as a complete arse?
So what if he's an arse, give me a reason to care as a viewer rather than assume I have invested in the character.
What is this sudden obsession of a "character arc" being planned in advance rather than it occuring naturally as the story unfolds.
If you have manipulate the circumstances in order to furnish a character arc, and it can be seen clearly what is being done, that's poor writing.
Poe did nothing wrong, he got rid of the guns on the "Dreadnaught" so the bombers could do their job.
And lets not even get into how utterly ridiculous that whole set up was with the made of paper, slow bombers, three of which were taken out by an accident
You know, the "fleet killer", the ship that could have wiped out the whole fleet.
Are you suggesting that the appellation "fleet killer" was hyperbole?
Star Wars space battles have been inspired by WWII movie aerial battles since A New Hope. When the movie was assembled as a rough cut, actual WWII movie clips were used as placeholders for the unfinished space battle effects*. So basing the bombers on WWII bombers is in keeping with Star Wars tradition.
* http://www.starwars.com/news/from-world-war-to-star-wars-dogfights
However, the ariel dog fights were what inspired the OT, not bombing runs.
And this another example of where the film pushed things too far to the point where it loses credibility with the audience.
Exactly how can bombing runs (not dog fights, whole different area) inspire anything in space?
Simply put, if anybody during WW2 had developed an anti gravity device, there would be no bombing runs.
The bomber scene doesn't strike me as "too far". This is a universe where they have weapons capable of generating at least 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy (that's the gravitational binding energy of Earth), which is equivalent to approximately 12 days of the Sun's energy output. So, I really don't bat an eye at the idea that they can magnetically accelerate* the bombs out of the bomb bay. If it bugs you, that's your prerogative.
* https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-biggest-revelations-from-the-last-jedis-official-gu-1821407270
We expect way too much when we expect movies to give up narrative for realism. In most movies, there are always sequences where the hero is in danger where time either compresses or expands. A bomb has ten seconds to go off that takes 30 or 40 seconds of screen time. The spike room in "Temple of Doom" initially starts out at normal speed but slows to a crawl as the scene progresses (there is a scene like this in every Indiana Jones movie). So, in regards to the bombs in zero G, I guess it never even crossed my mind either. I just don't know why, in a movie that features a magical religion where those who can tap into it wield immense power, anyone would want realistic space physics.
The thing that bothers me the most about the Star Wars films is something that no one ever notices. And it's the fact that in the scene and lightsaber battle between Obi-Wan and Vader in "A New Hope", Vader's helmet and mask aren't on straight.
Also, apparently this actually happened:
https://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/last-jedi-mra-fan-edit-women/
Don't mistake piloting skillz for the actual "force". Luke was already a good pilot as a farmer (actually I know IRL a guy who became a somewhat professional driver at the age of 13, true story) and he was natural like his dad who can drive at 1000km/h speed and win a race as a little retard like George L. decided/envisoned him to be.
About the actual force Luke didn't know shiiiit, he trained hard under master Yoda, hard as Goku or even harder and he still was no match for his daddy the sith master. Kira/Rey on the other hand doesn't need no stinking of patriachry training, she is a natural force user and abuser (like Boo) because she has no stinking medichlorians, she has estrogenichlorians you shovinistic cisgender male scum piglets /wink/
No, seriously lol, Kira (why they changed her name to Rey? no idea..) has at least one great asset - She is not a trap, huehuehuehue. Also love the actress, poor girl is actually trapped in a shitty character but she can take it like a ma...ooops...last jedi. (paycheck is not bad at all, I guess....)
but enough about white womens, lets talk about...no! stick with the white womens as long as we can.
Then my cousin mentioned offhand that she really only started winning when Kylo Ren offered to train her--which is when she realized she could use the Force as well, and there was enough potential in her for Kylo Ren to actually seek her out as an ally. And when I thought more about it and read people talking about it, it made more and more sense.
Rey is Force sensitive, but not very skilled. She did not have to be extremely skilled to beat Kylo Ren. Kylo Ren was clearly very conflicted about the process and on top of that, he was badly injured by the time they actually fought. Kylo Ren was not trying to kill her, and he clearly enjoyed toying with Finn much more than actually killing him. Kylo Ren was bested by a mixture of overconfidence in his abilities, reluctance to kill, his enjoyment of the fight and unwillingness to bring it to a quick end, and being blasted by a freaking laser.
This is actually why I find Kylo Ren to be the best character in the series, including the original movies. He's clearly young and impulsive and not in control of his emotions, and he betrays insecurity more than he does power. But it makes him seem very real, and when you see him in action, you see that he has immense passion and immense power inside him that he's struggling to contain. His warped view of reality, the lies he was fed by Snoke since the day he was born, the directionless rage he feels, his hero worship of Darth Vader, his impossibly high ambitions...
...this is a very deeply conflicted and confused person. But his response to moral confusion is rage, not indecisiveness. He makes a poor leader, but all that directionless rage makes him extremely dangerous. He vacillates between absolute calm and blinding rage.
And when he finally does conclude that someone is his true enemy, he destroys them, whether it's his own father or his own master--Supreme Leader Snoke.
Snoke completely paralyzed Rey; she was helpless to fight him. And Kylo Ren killed Snoke in one ingenious blow. Who's really the strongest Force user here?
If I remember rightly, the probe they landed on an asteroid (from earth, real life) was able to use the weak gravity of the asteroid. Had to include it in their calculations (really fishing here in my brain for something about that probe landing that specifically mentioned the gravitational pull of the asteroid that I'm sure was talked about at the time).
What we were shown in TLJ for that bombing was simply style over substance. To make a spectacular visual, to emphasise the dramatic.
Why exactly would you have hundreds of small bombs lined up to fall in sequence like a payout from a slot machine?
Why would that have ever been designed that way?
Isn't there something about bombs and the explosion they create that has to be calculated?
For instance you detonate a nuke at an optimal height above ground for a greater blast radius.
And if we are talking about WW2, the bouncing bombs to destroy the dam (Dambusters film) had to detonate not on the dam, but in the water in front of the dam and it was the shock wave they created that did the damage.
BTW, I know sweet FA about bombs, but this is stuff you hear over the years.
Edited to add.
If one were to adopt the method shown of dropping that many bombs at that speed, then surely the first bombs dropped would be detonating before the other bombs had reached their destination?
So the undetonated bombs would be blasted away from the target before they reached the target. Some of them straight up back to where they were being dropped from.