The "WHY" of The Last Jedi. **Spoilers**
UnderstandMouseMagic
Member Posts: 2,147
in Off-Topic
OK another thread about the current SW trilogy, but not so much to do with that film.
Read this on IMDB
Luke in the Extended Universe:
Elected one of the Representatives of the New republic
- Rebuilds the Jedi Order on Yavin, trains awesome new Jedi like Kyle Katarn
Defeats multiple empire remnant leaders like Grand Admiral Thrawn with the help of his friends
Not only defeats the Emperor's super hot and empowered personal assassin, Mara Jade, whose last orders were to kill Luke at all costs, but also turns her to the light and FUCKING
MARRIES her creating the coolest space couple ever
Has children with her who along with Han and Lea's kids spawn an entire new generation of interesting and impactful characters
Fights off dozens of new and interesting villains like the Yu'zonn Vong, an invading race from an entirely different galaxy who can hide from the Force making a new and interesting
dynamic, Lumia the Sith who uses a lightwhip like a bad-ass and turns one of the Solo kids into one of the most powerful Sith ever, and a reincarnation of one of the goddamn founders of the Sith order on Korriban
Overall, grows to be an amazingly powerful and wise character who grew from a farm-boy to the last hope of the galaxy to the courageous hero everyone in all of the galaxy knows they
can count on and will always be there for them.
I have never read anything about the EU, doesn't interest me that much, vaguely aware of it over the years. So please don't make accusations about "fan expectations".
What I'm having difficulty grasping is "why" Disney, of all companies, didn't basically have a story along these lines.
First trilogy, Hero's journey
Second trilogy, what happens next and reward
Third trilogy, passing on the legecy, new generation basically doing the same.
The second trilogy is missing, for that we can blame Lucas and now too much time has passed to make it. But it's easy to pick up the reins and now make the third trilogy
But here's the thing, Disney wants to make money, a lot of money. They want to sell their product globally.
They are famous, reknowned, for the "hero's journey" and the hero ending up with a fitting reward and being succesful.
It's what they have made their billions doing.
I thought they paid all that money for SW because it's fits exactly with what they have already made millions doing.
People haven't changed much, each generation is replaced with a new generation. And each generation wants the same things. It's akin to theme park rides, however long the queues, each person wants to experience it for themselves.
I never go on the rides, I sit and wait for my children and watch the crowds. There has never been an incident where because a person is the millionth person on the ride, it has affected their enjoyment of the ride.
Disney know this.
So why did they veer so far from that formular?
Who are they appealing to?
I hear that young children loved the new film, (at 21/2 hours long, hmmmmm) but was any of their enjoyment affected by upseting the older fans?
Did any 6/7yo (the age I am being told sat enthralled the whole time) turn round at the end and say,
"I really like that film because your expectations Mum/Dad were not met and the person you saw as a hero has been shown to be a failure. That for me was the real selling point."
The only thing I got enjoyment from when I went to see TLJ, was all of my four children (ages 17 to 28) turning around afterwards and saying with no prompting,
"How could that bastard have done that to Luke?"
They get it, you don't destroy because you can and you don't destroy when you can't replace with better. And even then, you have the humility to preserve because you aren't the second bloody coming.
So wanted to ask here, a forum that exists because we all play a game that celebrates the hero's journey and getting their reward at the end.
What was Disney thinking?
Read this on IMDB
Luke in the Extended Universe:
Elected one of the Representatives of the New republic
- Rebuilds the Jedi Order on Yavin, trains awesome new Jedi like Kyle Katarn
Defeats multiple empire remnant leaders like Grand Admiral Thrawn with the help of his friends
Not only defeats the Emperor's super hot and empowered personal assassin, Mara Jade, whose last orders were to kill Luke at all costs, but also turns her to the light and FUCKING
MARRIES her creating the coolest space couple ever
Has children with her who along with Han and Lea's kids spawn an entire new generation of interesting and impactful characters
Fights off dozens of new and interesting villains like the Yu'zonn Vong, an invading race from an entirely different galaxy who can hide from the Force making a new and interesting
dynamic, Lumia the Sith who uses a lightwhip like a bad-ass and turns one of the Solo kids into one of the most powerful Sith ever, and a reincarnation of one of the goddamn founders of the Sith order on Korriban
Overall, grows to be an amazingly powerful and wise character who grew from a farm-boy to the last hope of the galaxy to the courageous hero everyone in all of the galaxy knows they
can count on and will always be there for them.
I have never read anything about the EU, doesn't interest me that much, vaguely aware of it over the years. So please don't make accusations about "fan expectations".
What I'm having difficulty grasping is "why" Disney, of all companies, didn't basically have a story along these lines.
First trilogy, Hero's journey
Second trilogy, what happens next and reward
Third trilogy, passing on the legecy, new generation basically doing the same.
The second trilogy is missing, for that we can blame Lucas and now too much time has passed to make it. But it's easy to pick up the reins and now make the third trilogy
But here's the thing, Disney wants to make money, a lot of money. They want to sell their product globally.
They are famous, reknowned, for the "hero's journey" and the hero ending up with a fitting reward and being succesful.
It's what they have made their billions doing.
I thought they paid all that money for SW because it's fits exactly with what they have already made millions doing.
People haven't changed much, each generation is replaced with a new generation. And each generation wants the same things. It's akin to theme park rides, however long the queues, each person wants to experience it for themselves.
I never go on the rides, I sit and wait for my children and watch the crowds. There has never been an incident where because a person is the millionth person on the ride, it has affected their enjoyment of the ride.
Disney know this.
So why did they veer so far from that formular?
Who are they appealing to?
I hear that young children loved the new film, (at 21/2 hours long, hmmmmm) but was any of their enjoyment affected by upseting the older fans?
Did any 6/7yo (the age I am being told sat enthralled the whole time) turn round at the end and say,
"I really like that film because your expectations Mum/Dad were not met and the person you saw as a hero has been shown to be a failure. That for me was the real selling point."
The only thing I got enjoyment from when I went to see TLJ, was all of my four children (ages 17 to 28) turning around afterwards and saying with no prompting,
"How could that bastard have done that to Luke?"
They get it, you don't destroy because you can and you don't destroy when you can't replace with better. And even then, you have the humility to preserve because you aren't the second bloody coming.
So wanted to ask here, a forum that exists because we all play a game that celebrates the hero's journey and getting their reward at the end.
What was Disney thinking?
1
Comments
And the EU is bad. Like REALLY lets drop a moon on the wookiee and introduce Force-immune aliens BAD.
I find it encouraging that Disney where willing to make a good movie rather than repetative fan-service to milk the franchise for as much money as possible.
BOO!
As for Disney....I don't really know what they are thinking, so to speak. It certainly hasn't seemed to matter much, as the 3 movies they've put out have grossed well over 2 billion dollars domestically, just at the box office.
But all these things happened in the legends-EU:
Luke started an academy to train young jedi, only to have his most powerful student turn to the dark side and blow up a few star systems.
Han and Leia's son became a sith lord, killed Luke's wife, and was eventually killed by his sister (there was also a younger son who died like a punk on some trivial mission in a third-rate novel).
The hero's journey, universal theme. That needs to be experienced unsullied first before you get to the "too cool for this shtick"
The world doesn't revolve around a narrow age band which is too vocal and too disastified with everything they have experienced and only interested in what's coming next. Their self awareness is lacking, their belief that they know everything is unshakable.
And then they grow up.
Yep, I was like that between the ages 18 to 33.
15 years, everybody is.
I was into Punk because the Beatles were "boring".
Lol, much to my children's endless piss taking.
Disney, I thought, understood this. It makes Princess films, formulaic films, decade after decade. And makes a heck of a lot of money doing it.
You haven't answered the why.
TLJ is still a hero's jouney story. Only the hero is female and doesn't have special parents.
So, your question is "why aren't Disney money grubbing mercenaries with no imagination?" I think you really need to look inside yourself and ask yourself why you are even asking the question. Disney are better human beings than you
In China the film has bombed. Biggest domestic market they were trying hard to break into.
Why would Disney (and I can't emphasise this enough, Disney) make a controversial film when they could have easily made a different film for the same money?
What on earth possessed them to make a film that reflects the current political/social mores of N. America that will go down like a lead balloon in so many other countries?
My daughter suggested it was because they want you to believe that they hold those values. That they are buying off the critics who have been attacking Disney, literally for the whole of my life.
And I have to admit, it is amusing to watch those who would have spat and cursed at Disney 15/20 years ago now defending their huge money spinning products.
Are you being serious?
"Disney are better human beings than you"
If Disney made a mistake, it was in underestimating the degree to which the American anti-feminist lobby would target the film. But it was pretty much inevitable that some popular movie would attract thier ire, and since Disney make most of hem, they where always going to have to fave that doen at some point.
As it is for most succesful companies to be fair. It's hardly revolutionary to suggest that when a success makes money, money tends to dominate going forward. Everybody starts with good intentions.
I haven't mentioned the sex of the characters at all.
Not interested in having the argument you seem to want to have.
All large successful corporations are evil.
Disney is a large successful corporation.
Ergo Disney is evil.
IMO that's spurious logic, but never mind.
If you look at Disney's recent animated films: Tangled, Brave, Frozen, Beauty and the Beast, Moana, they have a strong feminist message. Now you can argue that Disney is simply trying to counter negative publicity generated by thier sexism of thier earlier films like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, but the bottom line is it doesn't matter if they are doing it for public image or because they think it's the right thing to do. Only actions matter, not motives.
Personally, I didn't like the new personality for Luke Skywalker. Not because it conflicted with the old one, but because it felt so forced, like they had to make him the "reluctant hero" again just to add a little bit of drama.
Still, Luke was living in self-imposed exile for years on a remote island, and people change over time even if they don't have psyche-shattering experiences like the overnight death of half of your disciples and the corruption of the other half. Luke doesn't need to be the same kind of person in the Last Jedi as he was in the original trilogy because he doesn't have the same role: he's no longer the protagonist. The new story is about Rey and Kylo Ren.
People have different expectations when they go see a new Star Wars movie; no one can satisfy them all. You can have a truly novel and unique story that departs from the tropes and themes of the original, or you can just replicate the same, time-tested story that people already know and love. But you can't do both at the same time.
I didn't care how close the new movies were to the originals, so for me, I just wanted to see a fun movie. I got what I wanted.
Which are all gone now, thanks to Disney. I also like the Yuzan-vong.
It's not a coincidence that some of the same writers who do D&D novels also made some nice scratch doing Star Wars EU content. It was meant to be formulaic and go down like a Big Mac at McDonald's.
And trust me on this....if you are a person who hates Luke's character in "The Last Jedi", his story-arc in the "Dark Empire" comic series (which was the seminal moment in the EU aside from Zahn's original trilogy), in which Luke totally invalidates his father's redemption and sacrifice by willfully becoming Palpatine's apprentice, would have sent you into fits.
But, there was a decision made to cast it as such and it does, to me, seem fair for people to ask why.
That that question was even asked seems to have been not good enough for some.
Unquestioning and automatic acceptance appears to be the only acceptable reaction.
TLJ, again it appears that even asking why, for instance, Holdo was introduced instead of going with Ackbar is enough.
Now the excuse being used is that the actor died, the actor who wore a suit to look like a fish and wouldn't be recognised in the street.
Yet Leia has died and they are planning her appearance in the next film?
The other excuse was that the audience would trust Ackbar and therefore realise Poe was being an idiot.
But that's what you want isn't it?
For the audience to understand and look forward to the character being an idiot to get their come uppance.
Instead it's the audience that's attacked and it now being said that it was because they are "sexist".
How does that broaden the demographic, put bums on seats?
The Last Jedi subverted that trope to surprise the audience. It certainly surprised me, and I didn't even like Poe! I thought he was reckless, and I groaned inside when I thought that the movie would artificially make his recklessness into a virtue. It did not.
And at the same time, it didn't hammer us over the head with some aesop about how Holdo was right all along and how Poe was an idiot: Aside from their brief argument early on, criticizing each other, which set them up as foils, Poe was never castigated for his poor planning, and Holdo was never showered with praise. Poe made some bad decisions, but he was never portrayed as a bad guy. Holdo performed a heroic sacrifice, and then there was silence.
I'm not sure if it was worth the screen time dedicated to it, but I think it's a good idea for films to subvert our expectations and throw the audience a curveball every now and then to keep people guessing. The idea isn't to confuse people; it's there to add to the drama.
Basically you (pl) fell for it.
Please explain how that broadens your audience for a popular blockbuster.
I don't go to the cinema to be trolled, I wasn't fond of Poe partly because the initial space battle was so utterly boring (the taking out the guns/call in the very, very, very slow, made of paper illogocal bombers)
I'm not talking about clever, for instance I loved Momento, it was an integral part of the story to mislead the audience, this however was trolling. And served no purpose but to troll.
People were trolled, reacted badly to being trolled, and are now called bigots.
Great way to build a loyal audience.
Which prompted the question of the thread.
This is obvious stuff.
Also, wondering why anybody gave a damn at how much of the fleet was lost considering the total lack of emotion about anybody else who died.
I think possibly the most callous regard for loss of life I have ever seen in a film.
"Oh look, there goes the medical ship, oh look, there goes the pilots in the hanger bay, oh look, there goes all the other pilots on (not) Hoth, oh look, there goes the transports blown up".
What were the people on the medical ship thinking about for their last moments do you think?
Think anybody looked out of one of the windows wondering why the big ship didn't do anything to protect them?
The medical ship?
That's the equivalent of the boys and squires at Agincourt.
It wasnt trolling. It was a simple subversion of expectations. It got you. It got me. It probably got just about everyone. You arent making a lot of sense with this line of reasoning - you're just coming across as biased against TLJ, and are undermining any good arguments you make.
TLJ isnt a cinematic masterpiece. It's a decent movie, with some pretty well done parts and some less well done parts. The Holdo/Poe arc probably falls into the former (It catches the audience off guard. It develops two characters at once, and sets the stage for Poe's arc into the third movie. Oh - and it kept most everyone's attention), while Canto Bight falls into the latter (Doesnt do much for character development. Sets a little bit of exposition, and ends up distracting you from the parts of the plot you're more interested in).
You're losing the plot as soon as you start questioning the movie for the personnel on board the medical frigate. You dont actually know if anyone is there aside from the pilot we see die. It's a trivial consideration and really doesnt further your argument or justify any ill-will towards the movie.
Also, the hyperbole isnt suiting you here either. "Most callous regard for loss of life I have ever seen". Yep.
Thankyou though for taking the time to point out the error of my ways.
This thread is really turning out to be quite extraordinary.
I have been thoroughly enlightened, not only am I a bad person apparently I am "biased" against a film .
That said - it's your prerogative to assume I was somehow attacking you. I wasnt trying to. Everyone's biased. It's pretty much the original condition for making an impassioned argument.
Turns out it wasn't, not for me, because "Heir of the empire" was utter crap, comparable to Eragon. So, if rest of EU is worse indeed, then I see the point of ditching it all.
Also - if there are going to be new Star Wars movies, I don't want to see Luke, Han and Leia again and again and again fighting the Empire in shallow cycle. Whatever issues I have with new movies I am glad that they
That is actually one of the characteristics of a great work of literature. So even though I didn't like seeing the hero of my youth deconstructed, "The Last Jedi" seems to be becoming a part of our shared cultural consciousness now, whether I liked it or not.
It's growing on me over time. I may watch it one more time when it comes out on streaming. But I'm always going to wince at "Leia flying through space", and "Luke milks a space cow boob."
That said, I like the Green Milk scene : P
Also, biased =/ holding an opinion.
Since when has the way TLJ has turned out been the only possible way the story could have turned out?
Who's to say there wouldn't be drama ect. if the story had been taken in another direction?
It's something nobody knows and isn't a defence of TLJ.