Star Wars: The Last Jedi

greymog said:
this is so good. Hamill is seriously breaking my heart. (review posted by Ryan farnes) #119
Click to expand...

That breakdown is the best articulation I've heard to dissect what I felt in my gut. And that is just part 1 of 3. ;)

What will be interesting to see is if Johnson does in fact helm 3 additional films. Disney/StarWars has a pattern of changing directors up pretty regularly.
 
So now that we've seen the film and heard about the experience of others who have also seen the film and have seen the trailers for SOLO and heard interviews with Kathleen Kennedy and saw attendance start to fall off after the first week, allow me to get updated reactions to what I posted earlier:
cyclone said:
Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm (and, specifically, the Star Wars franchise) was very ill-advised. And then to build an entire Star Wars Land at the theme park?! Someone is going to get fired for this. We are in the final days of Star Wars.
Click to expand...
The problems are two-fold:
1. Interest in the franchise is dropping fast (some are even angry at the franchise, but I am sure that will dissipate after a while), and
2. An entire "Star Wars Land" has one great disadvantage...it can't absorb or evolve into new ideas. For example, when Tomorrwland became Yesterdayland, it was easy to remove Monsanto's "House of the Future" and replace it with "Journey to Inner Space.". When GE's Carousel of Progress got old, it was replaced with "America Sings, "People Movers" became "Rocket Rods" (admittedly a failure). Adventureland revised the "Swiss Family Robinson's Treehouse" to become "Tarzan's Treehouse" and squeezed in Indiana Jones. The relaxing "Mine Train Through Nature's Wonderland" in Frontierland (one of my old time favs) was replaced by a roller coaster. Even The Haunted Mansion gets re-themed every Christmas.
I admit, we will all be very interested in how the Imagineers execute the new land. but will we return three, four or five times? I'm sure it won't hurt Disneyland's attendance, because we all love Disneyland and keep going back over the years...but will Star Wars be part of the reason? I love Disneyland and will certainly check out the new land when it opens. But I am questioning the wisdom of a Star Wars land for the long haul. If guests don't return over the years to re-experience the new land populated with characters that they love, Disney will be ill-advised to let it continue taking up space behind Toon Town and It's A Small World.
This repost isn't intended to provoke an argument, I am just curious about reactions now that we've seen the recent film and trailers(s).
 
I don’t think some of us matter to Disney’s success with Star Wars. From a pure marketing POV do you want a bunch of middle aged men who will be dead in a few decades, or a new generation of youth to fuel toy sales, 50+ years of content consumption, theme parks, etc who will all grow up to hook their kids?

Is it any wonder the new films have younger stars, SJW leanings, ADD pacing, focus on killing the old and expanding the new, etc?

They aren’t interested in completing the SW saga in a perfectly neat package with a bow, they want to blow the walls off so episode 1-9 are just the beginning and part of a dozen trilogies.
 
filmguy123 said:
with the exception of the Canto Bright stuff which I just don't like the aesthetic on very much, watching this footage compilation just makes me think of how awesome this movie could have been with a better story/script/pacing/etc...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEP_lxbTpQ
Click to expand...

Interesting. Definitely makes it feel like it could have been a more compelling film.

cyclone said:
So now that we've seen the film and heard about the experience of others who have also seen the film and have seen the trailers for SOLO and heard interviews with Kathleen Kennedy and saw attendance start to fall off after the first week, allow me to get updated reactions to what I posted earlier:

The problems are two-fold:
1. Interest in the franchise is dropping fast (some are even angry at the franchise, but I am sure that will dissipate after a while), and
2. An entire "Star Wars Land" has one great disadvantage...it can't absorb or evolve into new ideas. For example, when Tomorrwland became Yesterdayland, it was easy to remove Monsanto's "House of the Future" and replace it with "Journey to Inner Space.". When GE's Carousel of Progress got old, it was replaced with "America Sings, "People Movers" became "Rocket Rods" (admittedly a failure). Adventureland revised the "Swiss Family Robinson's Treehouse" to become "Tarzan's Treehouse" and squeezed in Indiana Jones. The relaxing "Mine Train Through Nature's Wonderland" in Frontierland (one of my old time favs) was replaced by a roller coaster. Even The Haunted Mansion gets re-themed every Christmas.
I admit, we will all be very interested in how the Imagineers execute the new land. but will we return three, four or five times? I'm sure it won't hurt Disneyland's attendance, because we all love Disneyland and keep going back over the years...but will Star Wars be part of the reason? I love Disneyland and will certainly check out the new land when it opens. But I am questioning the wisdom of a Star Wars land for the long haul. If guests don't return over the years to re-experience the new land populated with characters that they love, Disney will be ill-advised to let it continue taking up space behind Toon Town and It's A Small World.
This repost isn't intended to provoke an argument, I am just curious about reactions now that we've seen the recent film and trailers(s).
Click to expand...

I think the Star Wars brand is so enduringly strong, and the newest films have seemingly captured the interest of young consumers, that the brand is very safe and a Star Wars land will be profitable. The Last Jedi definitely seems like a major misstep, but the original trilogy alone can carry the brand for some time yet. I think there would have to be multiple films that left audiences shaking their heads before the Star Wars brand was in an jeopardy. Even then, nothing eliminates the originals.

One of these reviews, I forget which, talked about how enduring the original trilogy is/was. That you didn't see people wearing clothing with young Anakin, or JarJar Binks, or Count Dooku, but there are innumerable examples of clothing featuring Yoda, the Millenium Falcon, Darth Vader, R2D2, etc...

I think that kind of defines the enduring nature of the brand and that the original trilogy captured magic in a bottle. These newest films, I think the jury is still out. We'll see if people are wearing Rey t-shirts in 20 years, or Kylo Ren hats, or Finn memorabilia. I doubt it, but we'll see.
 
This page is really interesting, breaking down character screen time in each movie:

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls027631145/

Snoke had 7:30 of screen time between both episodes - almost exactly the same as Palpatine.

Obi Wan had 17:30 in A New Hope, Yoda had 16:30 in Ep 5+6 combined -- Luke had 22 in Last Jedi

What I "feel" when I watch the new movies is that Obi Wan, Yoda, Palpatine, etc. were "so much more significant" but I've also "known" them since a child and watched the movies a dozen times, played the games, etc. What I feel is that Luke's training with Yoda was so much more robust.

Granted, some of this has to do with film pacing WITHIN the minutes (ie The Last Jedi training supposedly takes place over 3 days VS Luke's 3 months and the passing of time in film IS something that has a significant psychological impact). But by screen time alone, Snoke and Palpatine are equal. Luke as a jedi master/mentor is more prominent than Obi Wan or Yoda, etc.

My takeaway here is that maybe rose tinted glasses are used in viewing the old trilogy. If I am honest, when I watch the films more recently and critically, I don't actually think they are that great... I mean... they are classics... and I better watch my words here... but compared to the storytelling advances in cinema we've seen in the last few decades by very talented directors (I keep coming back to Nolan's handling of The Dark Knight) we may have just been spoiled. It's not like Luke and Obi Wan's relationship was very meaningful or developed (honestly if you just watch it without the rose tinted glasses its sort of ridiculous), as is how well they sneak around the most menacing battle station in the galaxy so nonchalantly.

My point isn't to defend the new films or criticize the old films. Just reflecting that perhaps the filmmakers are being more true to the cadence and character pacing of the original trilogy then we realize, and without the rose tinted glasses, we are experiencing and seeing the plot and character development weakness that have always existed in the franchise without the distorted vision of nostalgia and 30+ years of character familiarity.

I'm not saying there aren't a plethora of other problems with the new films, I am merely wondering if a number of the problems that exist are common to the whole franchise and we're all being too hard on it. Holding the new films to an artificially high standard.

I mean, if I want to be really controversial: last time I watched the OT, I thought, none of these are actually objectively great films. A New Hope is a solid classic and enjoyable, but without the historical context, if this exact film was released today even with modern VFX it'd bomb big time. Empire Strikes back is by far the most compelling IMO but also would probably get mixed reviews for being slow paced and a number of other criticisms. And Return of the Jedi has some strong moments but also teeters on mediocrity.

I mean, am I wrong?

By that standard, maybe The Last Jedi did not live up to 2018 cinema standards, but it may well be on par with the non nostalgic standards set by the OT...
 
filmguy123 said:
Just reflecting that perhaps the filmmakers are being more true to the cadence and character pacing of the original trilogy then we realize, and without the rose tinted glasses, we are experiencing and seeing the plot and character development weakness that have always existed in the franchise without the distorted vision of nostalgia and 30+ years of character familiarity.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with RedLetterMedia's StarWars breakdowns? Or the videos I posted the first of three above? (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...t-Jedi&p=1986740264&viewfull=1#post1986740264)

Essential viewing for anyone thinking TLJ is par for the course for Star Wars. This guy will disabuse any notion that TLJ meets the threshold of a normal Star Wars film. This most recent film is so bad not only because it has abysmal writing, but because the OT sets out the rules and characters of the Star Wars universe (hyperspace, lasers, capital ships, fighters, the force, Luke, etc....) and then TLJ breaks them.
 
Finally got around to seeing this. WTH Disney?! The entire film just felt like a big mess. The Yoda scene in particular.... Just wow....
 
Last edited:
I walked out feeling Justin Theroux did more with his 30 seconds of screen time than most of the rest of the film did. I was excited to see it, but I walked out feeling 'meh'. I'd gladly watch a spinoff with Theroux reprising his charming space gambler role. Oh, and porgs! I want more porgs.
 
Watched this on a night flight back from Uganda yesterday as I had seen all the decent films on the in-flight system. So glad I didn’t pay to see it. Star Wars has long since jumped the shark, but this movie takes stupidity and pointlessness to staggering levels. Watching the moving map would have had more dramatic interest and less plot holes.
 
Star Wars used to seem extra big and special, but now has it become somewhat more of an endless comic book?
Not saying that is bad necessarily as it means more and more films for fans to go watch, but is it now reduced to just another endless franchise?
 
firehawk said:
Star Wars used to seem extra big and special, but now has it become somewhat more of an endless comic book?
Not saying that is bad necessarily as it means more and more films for fans to go watch, but is it now reduced to just another endless franchise?
Click to expand...

I am ok with that. the originals were really getting dated and more difficult to watch. I like it being like Game of Thrones in a way.

That said, just watched Last Jedi, and outside the context of all the hype, it was rather boring. All of the characters emoted, boy they emoted, in the acting, the frame choices, and the story, they all had emotion, but I really cared little about any of them. I was talking to my friend about this, and he said "So, they were all archetypical?" I think archetypes are ok, archetypes are fine, but the story has to make me care.

I am starting to notice a trend in narratives, that they are ok with taking the story down threads that fail and put the story back to where it was when that thread started. That Netflix series "Lost in Space" did a lot of that. Every mission or solution be the characters almost in the same position they were in at the beginning of the show every episode. "The Last Jedi" did something similar. I don't really care for this kind of writing. Kind of hate it. Going to see who the writers were and avoid them in the future.

Otherwise, I am enjoying the Star Wars Universe. Just wish they release new episodes more frequently. Too much preciousness and hoopla surrounding these films. The originals were ground breaking, but they were far from great by today's standards.

While SOLO is the most detached culturally of all in the series (cocky white male lead from a bygone era), the narrative feels like things are moving forward, even when there is failure. Last Jedi could not have happened and everything would be the same. nothing changed, except they dealt with and got rid of the original Skywalkers. But if TLJ didn't exist, I don't think we would be missing a beat going into the next one.

Rogue One was cool, in that it resolved in the end. That was unexpected. But the exposition killed that one for me. Overall was possibly the best. But Solo, despite the actors, was narratively more compelling than the others. That is total opinion, because I am not a trained writer.
 
Last edited:
These movies are so big. I don’t think anyone can save it from what it is.

In the meantime, as long as they keep popping them out on Christmas, it’ll be as traditional as the Super Bowl... no matter how bad it gets... just like the, eh... Super Bowl. (Sorry, for the USA culturally specific reference, i just assume only US people care about the trajectory of Star Wars)
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
These movies are so big. I don’t think anyone can save it from what it is.

In the meantime, as long as they keep popping them out on Christmas, it’ll be as traditional as the Super Bowl... no matter how bad it gets... just like the, eh... Super Bowl. (Sorry, for the USA culturally specific reference, i just assume only US people care about the trajectory of Star Wars)
Click to expand...

Come on, James...terrible comparison, lol.

Do you watch football, man?

The Super Bowl isn't a "no matter how bad it gets" production. It's a completely unpredictable game in which even superior teams may get beat "on any given Sunday" by underdogs. And because of the incredibly challenging playoff system (one and done), sometimes a team may get to the Super Bowl and play a team which is much stronger than they are (in overall offense & defense), and the results may speak for themselves...and sometimes not.

And you can't be talking about the halftime shows either because those have been pretty unbelievable productions (the lighting is an incredible performance).

Last year's Super Bowl in 2017 is considered to be one of the greatest games in the history of the NFL. The Patriots had an insane record-breaking comeback...and beat the Falcons in overtime whom at one point were leading by 25 points! (It's beyond uncommon to come back from a deficit like that.)

Even this past SB was favored because the Patriots - who are pretty much hated by anyone outside of the state of Massachusetts - lost the game.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top