Kylo Ren: "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. Only then can you become what you were meant to be." Yoda literally burned the sacred text.
Both tells you exactly this movie tries to do: no more past, not destroying the legacy but ending it. Who cares about what OT said or didn't say, this is a new story. As long as you are hang on about why Snoke matters or not or what's First Order's back story you would never enjoy the new movie. It's like company that still add new buttons and tabs to visual basic application wrote in 90s and wonders why all new technology doesn't work. To have something more than nostalgia jerkfast at some point enough is enough and you can't just keep dragging all the luggage with you forward. Imagine telling a 14 old year: sure, it's a great movie, but you need watch all theses 20 hours of movies first, and maybe read these 6 books, then you will be ready.
On December 20 2017 04:20 Vindicare605 wrote: No, I don't buy any of it. There needs to be some explanation for who the hell Snoke is, either in Ep 9 or at least in a standalone novel or something. You can't just not explain who he is, he's too important to the damn story.
Now what's the reasoning behind not giving Snoke a more detailed background?
On December 20 2017 04:20 Vindicare605 wrote: No, I don't buy any of it. There needs to be some explanation for who the hell Snoke is, either in Ep 9 or at least in a standalone novel or something. You can't just not explain who he is, he's too important to the damn story.
Now what's the reasoning behind not giving Snoke a more detailed background?
I don't know, I've been seeing a lot of posts on various forums about how "surprising, fresh, risky in a good way and exciting" that just killing off Snoke suddenly was without giving him any proper explanation, as though the shock factor somehow is superior to actual character building.
On December 20 2017 04:52 ragz_gt wrote: Kylo Ren: "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. Only then can you become what you were meant to be." Yoda literally burned the sacred text.
Both tells you exactly this movie tries to do: no more past, not destroying the legacy but ending it. Who cares about what OT said or didn't say, this is a new story. As long as you are hang on about why Snoke matters or not or what's First Order's back story you would never enjoy the new movie. It's like company that still add new buttons and tabs to visual basic application wrote in 90s and wonders why all new technology doesn't work. To have something more than nostalgia jerkfast at some point enough is enough and you can't just keep dragging all the luggage with you forward. Imagine telling a 14 old year: sure, it's a great movie, but you need watch all theses 20 hours of movies first, and maybe read these 6 books, then you will be ready.
No Ray stole the sacred text as you see them on the falcon at the end of the movie.
See I would agree with you but like a lot of the movie it just feels very rubberbandy where x happens and the crowd is made to think that y will happen now but instead the crowd gets faked out for the sake of a fake out and the story returns to the baseline. Snoke dieing is just tieing up a loose story thread for no reason while the first order stays exactly the same. The rebellion becomes 20 people in the back of a tramp freighter but will I presume will have an entire fleet in a day or two making no difference between the start and end of the movie. leia was looking to have died but nope she didn't die. The casino subplot was looking to have failed but nope DJ is there at the end and its okay. The speeder attack was risky and you thought someone was going to sacrifice themselves for the rebellion but nope everyones okay.
The movie can be great on its own while still calling back to previous universes and themes. Avengers 2 somehow managed to do this as joss Weldon's last great labor.
This is a good review that express's what I think better then I could.
On December 20 2017 04:20 Vindicare605 wrote: No, I don't buy any of it. There needs to be some explanation for who the hell Snoke is, either in Ep 9 or at least in a standalone novel or something. You can't just not explain who he is, he's too important to the damn story.
Now what's the reasoning behind not giving Snoke a more detailed background?
I don't know, I've been seeing a lot of posts on various forums about how "surprising, fresh, risky in a good way and exciting" that just killing off Snoke suddenly was without giving him any proper explanation, as though the shock factor somehow is superior to actual character building.
I agree with the sentiment of disappointment surrounding Snoke's lack of character. How did Snoke reach out to Ben Solo in the first place? How did the First Order gain so much influence so quickly? I was hoping that Episode 8 would answer some of these questions that JJ Abrams teased us with in Episode 7, and instead we got upheaval.
The development of Kylo Ren's character was pretty good, by contrast. We learned of Luke's failings and frustration, and although I wanted to see Luke ascend to godhood levels of Force control (as Leia somehow did, apparently), I was equally happy seeing him become a bitter hermit. You can really tell the degree to which he let himself down, and how he believed himself to be beyond redemption.
Another tone that the film did right was establishing the existence of shades of gray. The Jedi and Sith were painted to be ultimate polarities of good and evil. Rey and Kylo see value in a middle ground, which should in theory produce more nuanced characters.
The thing with star wars is that in between trilogies there is always a huge time skip and you just get presented with the status quo and have to buy it. For the prequels that wasn't the biggest problem because we already knew what followed (but even there the gap in between isn't explained, you just have to accept it or not) Now with the sequels it's the same basically. I agree that there could and should have been a bit more to it, but these gaps usually get worked out in other forms like comics, books or animation series (i didn't watch any of that, but i know it's happening)
On December 20 2017 06:18 Excalibur_Z wrote: I agree with the sentiment of disappointment surrounding Snoke's lack of character. How did Snoke reach out to Ben Solo in the first place? How did the First Order gain so much influence so quickly? I was hoping that Episode 8 would answer some of these questions that JJ Abrams teased us with in Episode 7, and instead we got upheaval.
The development of Kylo Ren's character was pretty good, by contrast. We learned of Luke's failings and frustration, and although I wanted to see Luke ascend to godhood levels of Force control (as Leia somehow did, apparently), I was equally happy seeing him become a bitter hermit. You can really tell the degree to which he let himself down, and how he believed himself to be beyond redemption.
Another tone that the film did right was establishing the existence of shades of gray. The Jedi and Sith were painted to be ultimate polarities of good and evil. Rey and Kylo see value in a middle ground, which should in theory produce more nuanced characters.
Except the shades of grey thing was already there in spades in the Star Wars universe. The first real showing of it was Obi-Wan's point of view speech, it then gets even clearer in the Prequels.
One of the greatest parts of the prequels is how Palpatine manipulates the Jedi using their own principles against them in order to beat them. The story is told from the Jedi's perspective obviously, but the Clone Wars later delves more into how common people became dissatisfied and even distrustful of the Jedi order because they were blamed for starting the war in the first place. Then there's the whole scene in Episode 3 where the Jedi ponder over needing to take control of the Senate in order to maintain order while they dispose of the chancellor. It gets glossed over a lot, but there is a lot of moral ambiguity in the prequels.
There was already plenty of metaphorical shades of grey going around long before the sequel trilogy, the sequel trilogy just brought it front and center.
On December 20 2017 06:26 The_Red_Viper wrote: The thing with star wars is that in between trilogies there is always a huge time skip and you just get presented with the status quo and have to buy it. For the prequels that wasn't the biggest problem because we already knew what followed (but even there the gap in between isn't explained, you just have to accept it or not) Now with the sequels it's the same basically. I agree that there could and should have been a bit more to it, but these gaps usually get worked out in other forms like comics, books or animation series (i didn't watch any of that, but i know it's happening)
Well you answered it yourself, the Prequels had their time skip to explain how the story was eventually going to end, but the prequels also did a very significant amount of world building even if you don't include the Clone Wars show. These world building moments were even hated by fans at the time, but they stand as some of the best storytelling that was done in the prequels especially in episode 1.
The prequels built the Galactic Republic and made it feel real! The prequels built the Jedi Order Temple and gave us an idea of how old and ingrained it was and even how they operated on a day to day level. The Jedi introduced the concept of the Sith, and gave them a background story.
They even introduced the concept of Core Worlds, expanded on the lore of the outer rim, and created the concept of the Galactic Economy and even used it as a central plot in one of the movies.
There's a time skip for sure, but unlike the Sequel Trilogy, the Prequel Trilogy actually spent a significant amount of time explaining how the Galaxy was different than in the Original Trilogy. There's almost none of that at all in the sequels.
I am specifically talking about the end of episode 3 and the start of episode 4. That time skip isn't worked out at all, everything in between is mystery and you have to buy that the staus quo of episode 4 makes sense. I can definitely see that it's easier that way, but it's still similar in concept.
The sequels don't have enough worldbuilding in a sense, i think that's true yes. But if that really bothers you is just priority/preference. I think it's actually closer to the OT in that sense, the OT didn't have much either
On December 20 2017 06:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am specifically talking about the end of episode 3 and the start of episode 4. That time skip isn't worked out at all, everything in between is mystery and you have to buy that the staus quo of episode 4 makes sense. I can definitely see that it's easier that way, but it's still similar in concept.
The sequels don't have enough worldbuilding in a sense, i think that's true yes. But if that really bothers you is just priority/preference. I think it's actually closer to the OT in that sense, the OT didn't have much either
The original trilogy had a lot more, and even if it didn't that's not an equivalent statement. It would be like saying "Once upon a time there was a land far far away" is the same kind of story as "And now 30 years later we find our heroes here!" When you reuse old characters in a familiar setting you set yourself up for needing to explain the time skip.
When you have a time skip of 30 years in a sequel, you owe it to your reader/audience to explain at least some of how you got to where you are since the story already has continuity to it.
If Disney wanted to avoid having that storytelling obligation they could have made it an even further time skip and used 100% original characters (ala Star Trek the Next Generation), but they wanted to make sure the original cast was involved, so now we need an explanation for how everyone got to where they are.
So far, they've just scoffed at that obligation in the movies and what bugs me is that they're scoffing at it while simultaenously just retelling the original trilogy's story. It's such weak writing. They're not fulfilling basic storytelling needs while at the same time they're just rehashing old content. It's lame, and no amount of special effects or one liner jokes can make that NOT lame.
On December 20 2017 04:52 ragz_gt wrote: Kylo Ren: "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. Only then can you become what you were meant to be." Yoda literally burned the sacred text.
Both tells you exactly this movie tries to do: no more past, not destroying the legacy but ending it. Who cares about what OT said or didn't say, this is a new story. As long as you are hang on about why Snoke matters or not or what's First Order's back story you would never enjoy the new movie. It's like company that still add new buttons and tabs to visual basic application wrote in 90s and wonders why all new technology doesn't work. To have something more than nostalgia jerkfast at some point enough is enough and you can't just keep dragging all the luggage with you forward. Imagine telling a 14 old year: sure, it's a great movie, but you need watch all theses 20 hours of movies first, and maybe read these 6 books, then you will be ready.
I have read all your posts and, I dont find a reason for you to be a good movie different from lets forget the past, big paragraphs and zero substance in your comments.
On December 20 2017 06:56 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am specifically talking about the end of episode 3 and the start of episode 4. That time skip isn't worked out at all, everything in between is mystery and you have to buy that the staus quo of episode 4 makes sense. I can definitely see that it's easier that way, but it's still similar in concept.
The sequels don't have enough worldbuilding in a sense, i think that's true yes. But if that really bothers you is just priority/preference. I think it's actually closer to the OT in that sense, the OT didn't have much either
The original trilogy had a lot more, and even if it didn't that's not an equivalent statement. It would be like saying "Once upon a time there was a land far far away" is the same kind of story as "And now 30 years later we find our heroes here!" When you reuse old characters in a familiar setting you set yourself up for needing to explain the time skip.
When you have a time skip of 30 years in a sequel, you owe it to your reader/audience to explain at least some of how you got to where you are since the story already has continuity to it.
If Disney wanted to avoid having that storytelling obligation they could have made it an even further time skip and used 100% original characters (ala Star Trek the Next Generation), but they wanted to make sure the original cast was involved, so now we need an explanation for how everyone got to where they are.
So far, they've just scoffed at that obligation in the movies and what bugs me is that they're scoffing at it while simultaenously just retelling the original trilogy's story. It's such weak writing. They're not fulfilling basic storytelling needs while at the same time they're just rehashing old content. It's lame, and no amount of special effects or one liner jokes can make that NOT lame.
I wasn't even talking about the exposition, just general worldbuilding. I already agreed that they should have explained a little more, at least enough so the FO makes more sense. With that being said though, i disagree that you need to explain the path of every single OT character to where they are now, that stuff was established well enough.
I also disagree that they are retelling the OT, themes are the same but that's simply star wars. I bet if it didn't use the same themes and go more in the direction of the prequels people would also be mad because it's no "adventure" anymore, etc. It's not only about special effects or "one liners", it's about general filmmaking. Acting, dialogue, cinematography, scene composition, set design, etc. Also writing has a lot of sub categories as well (well i already mentioned dialogue), you make it yourself really easy with these oversimplifications, not only you all the people who bash the new movie. All you and other people care for is such a small part of a movie, a lot of similar complaints could be even used for other star wars movies as well. I'll say it again, but anyone who thinks that TLJ is worse than the prequels simply has no idea what he is talking about quite frankly. That opinion is completely out there and basically only based on 1% the prequels maybe did better (uniqueness)
I think the opinion that its worse then the prequels is wrong in the sense that it does more damage to the universe as a whole then the prequels did, I think jar jar and midoclorians are worse then anything in TLJ, I think if you hyper cut maybe an hour of the second and third movies together and did a few reshoots to make it into coherency then its a good movie.
There are just so many fake twists and gotcha moments in TLJ though. So much time spent on pointless things that don't work and so little time spent on the things that do work. Bad humor in serious moments subverting expectations to subvert expectations instead of creating something of quality.
TFA was a shitton of fan service that would make an anime fan ask to turn it down a bit. But it was the great return to the star wars universe. TLJ was directed written and produced by a guy looking to create a name instead of making a great star wars movie.
Basically I'm at the point where Its fairer to compare TLJ to Thor the dark world. If this is as bad as it gets then things are okay.
Saw it today! pretty stoked and pretty epic all the way, yes many plotholes weird shit and tbh I disliked the girl/Finn subplot but it captured my attention throughout the entire movie, bit suprised that Leia didn't die lol, thought since Carry died she would be a goner.
On December 20 2017 08:39 Sermokala wrote: Basically I'm at the point where Its fairer to compare TLJ to Thor the dark world. If this is as bad as it gets then things are okay.
Good that I’m not the only one to see that connection.
Of course, they might have as shitty a follow-up as Thor and just handwave any existing plot in favor of whatever else the next director wants. But I don’t think Abrams will do that.
On December 19 2017 20:14 levelping wrote: I agree about the kylo - rey team up - the setting (with the red tones) was also great. It was also pretty great that in the lead up and the aftermath, you aren't really sure where Kylo's loyalties lie.
Snoke though, if you look back at Episode 5/6 people just accepted Palpatine as being the Emperor. There wasn't really a need to know further than that, since Vader was supposed to be the main focus.
That's such a false equivalency. We accepted Palpatine because he was the Emperor of the Galactic Empire, a force that existed since the start of the films and didn't really need an introduction. (And that's ignoring the obvious fact that George Lucas gave us 3 prequel movies to explain what the Empire is and who Palpatine was)
Snoke can't just come in and be Supreme Leader the way Palpatine did in the story because we have this entire already existing universe that he needs to somehow fit into.
...
But then on top of not providing backround info on The First Order, Snoke seemingly comes out of nowhere to serve as a crucial antagonist since he's responsible for Kylo's turn to the Dark Side. You can't just write him off like he doesn't count since he's a key character in the actual plot of the entire story!
When we first see Palpatine, he basically fills all the characteristics of what Snoke is right now. He is the leader of the big bad organization, he is the master of a henchman, and in fact you know even less about his past than what we know about Snoke. At very least you know that Snoke played a role in corrupting Ben Solo, but with the Emperor you know that he is vader's master and the emperor, that's it. He then gets throw into the endless Death Star Pit.
All the exposition on the prequels only came after the fact.
It it loosely true that Snoke has to fit into an existing universe, but there is a big enough time jump between ROTJ and TFA that much of the universe is pretty much reset and the directors are working with a clean slate.
When I said you don't need to explain snoke, I am saying that the movie doesn't have to fill in every detail for the audience. Some things can be left unexplained - star wars is full of these half explained points. The Clone Wars, which ended up being a pivotal time period, started off as a complete throw away conversational line by Obi Wan.
It's okay if you, personally prefer that Snoke should have had more background (I actually fall in to that group too!), but to insist that the lack of explanation of Snoke spoils the movie, I think, over exaggerates this issue doesn't seem to really get Star Wars.
Plus, Kylo's theme of destroying the past folds in nicely with the fact that Snooke is in fact, a villian without much of a past. The movie (at least for the antagonist side) is literally saying that the past is unimportant.
Further, I dont' really think Snoke is a key character at all, because the narrative focus is clearly on Ben Solo instead. Snoke's just there to provide some plot and that's about it.
What no thats silly. The end of ROTJ was a massive victory for the rebellion but it wasn't the end of the war by any measure. The empire was still set up throughout the galaxy and had to have some loyalist planets while the rebellion had no populis planets. Other media has filled in the gap for what happened between the two (the battle for jakku coming 4 years after ROTJ being the end of the war and the creation of a new republic). but the universe is far from a clean slate.
Snoke plays a large part in the whole story though. He apparently was a known person to luke when he was running the academy and the fear of him is what led him to his attempted murder of Kylo. presumably hes who Kylo turned to after this happened. Hes a loose thread that appears quite a few times for him to just be a throwawy line by owiwan.
I mean the emperor is completely different because he as a character embraces his status as the big arch enemy bad. He doesn't die until the very end and when that happens its celebrated as the defeat of the dark side. He doesn't need explanation because hes just the big bad. Snoke gets lines that impact the plot and critical impact on the plot in various places and is simply refereed to as "supreme leader".
On December 20 2017 11:08 Sermokala wrote: What no thats silly. The end of ROTJ was a massive victory for the rebellion but it wasn't the end of the war by any measure. The empire was still set up throughout the galaxy and had to have some loyalist planets while the rebellion had no populis planets. Other media has filled in the gap for what happened between the two (the battle for jakku coming 4 years after ROTJ being the end of the war and the creation of a new republic). but the universe is far from a clean slate.
Snoke plays a large part in the whole story though. He apparently was a known person to luke when he was running the academy and the fear of him is what led him to his attempted murder of Kylo. presumably hes who Kylo turned to after this happened. Hes a loose thread that appears quite a few times for him to just be a throwawy line by owiwan.
I mean the emperor is completely different because he as a character embraces his status as the big arch enemy bad. He doesn't die until the very end and when that happens its celebrated as the defeat of the dark side. He doesn't need explanation because hes just the big bad. Snoke gets lines that impact the plot and critical impact on the plot in various places and is simply refereed to as "supreme leader".
When I mention "clean slate" i mean that sufficient time has passed for the movies to bring in new characters without the need to also excessively explain their backgrounds in the movie. Nearly all of the new characters are introduced this way - Finn is just a storm trooper. Poe is a pilot. Hux is a general. You don't know extensive back histories for all of these people, because enough time has passed since ROTJ for all the necessary back history to take place.
The emperor and snoke were both set up as the big bad, so I don't get how you are trying to differentiate them. The only real difference is that Snoke dies earlier. The Emperor gets all sorts of lines that impact the plot too such as trying to corrupt luke, tryin gto get luke to be his apprentice, and so on. And you have to remember that back then, all the extra exposition about the Rule of Two, the Sith, and so on, had not yet been established - it was just what's in the movie at that time.
Again - I can understand if we all hope that Snoke could have had a bit more backstory. I would have liked that too. But, I don't think it's really essential to the movie.