Movies: Star Wars: Episode VIII THE LAST JEDI December 15, 2017

[Do Make Say Think]

Episode VII set things up nicely.

This one has a lot of potential.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I do include the OT for this precise reason. If you start nitpicking like people are doing with all the newer movies, the initial positive experience will be lessened. ESB maybe being the exception.

SW isn't masterpiece material. It is very good entertainment. The universe is so unique and fun that we don't mind the overplayed and cliched story. SW has always been super formulaic and full of tropes.

I love SW, I love TFA and I love R1. I do realize they aren't, for the most part, great cinema.

The story in ANH and ESB isn't "original", but it takes a simple story and puts everything together in an incredible piece of cinema which still holds up today.

When people critique TFA and RO, they aren't nitpicking. Those movies have serious flaws and do not hold up in the same way.

So, you are incorrect. ROTJ is the closest to the current movies in terms of not holding up, but it still has a healthy gap over them because of how it finished off the trilogy.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

The story in ANH and ESB isn't "original", but it takes a simple story and puts everything together in an incredible piece of cinema which still holds up today.

When people critique TFA and RO, they aren't nitpicking. Those movies have serious flaws and do not hold up in the same way.

So, you are incorrect. ROTJ is the closest to the current movies in terms of not holding up, but it still has a healthy gap over them because of how it finished off the trilogy.

No, I am not incorrect. If you start looking at ANH objectively and not with nostalgia googles, you see that despite the GREAT movie universe it introduces, it is a very flawed movie.

Cliché and full of tropes (I mean, commoner discovering that he has a bigger destiny and having to rise up against evil; LITERALLY EVERY FREAKING FANTASY/EPIC STORY EVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH).

And that Han Solo guy, why does he come back? PLOT DEVICE! I mean, hell, we have no back story on the guy, no insight in why he would have a heart of gold. All he did throughout the movie is act selfish and, now, all of a sudden, BOOM, I AM A GREAT GUY!

Princess Leia. Why is she a princess? I mean, ****, of course, hey, there would be no epic story without a PRINCESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS in danger. So cliché! Gotta give them one thing though, at least, they made her head strong and resourceful. Gotta give the movie a little bit of credit here.

Great visuals, but, gosh, the dialogue is soooooooooooo bad. And don't get me started on the acting. Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher are wooden as ****. Harrison Ford carries the movie on his shoulder while the great Alex Guiness, while competent enough, just goes through the motions.

Oh, and that Empire Strikes Back movie? Come on. Oedipus fighting his father without knowing it much? Zeus fighting the titans much? Commoner finding he has "royal" blood or "heavy" heritage? Seen that before, zzzzzzzzz. Well executed, but sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo not original. And that Lando guy? Walking talking plot device! He is only there to make the story advance. Sure, he has motivations at the beginning, but, ooops, he abandons them... and worse... the heroes trust him WAYYYYYYYYYY too easily. Badly written character. Oh, and that whole Hoth thing before the battle.... BORING! So slow...

Kidding and extreme nit picking aside, when I see the "issues" you guys bring up with TFA and R1, that's what I read. Nit ****ing picking. Not enough character development in R1? Come on, it is VERY easy to figure out who everyone is and why they are fighting. Are the characters as relatable as Luke was? Maybe not, but it has more to do with how we evolved as an audience than it has to do with the movies themselves. Pacing? Well, ANH and ESB both start VERY slow before they get going too. The greatest part of BOTH ANH and ESB is also the third act. ESB has the Dagobah scenes though and those are great.

TFA is a rehash of ANH? Yeah, true, but it is a better movie. Flows better, better acted, better dialogue and, well, awesome visuals as well. Real issues? If you look for them, sure. If you let the experience "dominate", well, you will enjoy yourself.

In the end, we are more sophisticated as an audience and that's why we pick up on flaws much better than we did in the past. We don't see the flaws in the old movies we loved because we have a DEEP emotional connection to them. But real issues compared to the old ones? Nah. Similar issues for the most part. It is a space opera, not a freaking Bergman film.

Sorry for what may seem like an aggressive tone, but gosh, it is frustating.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

TFA is a rehash of ANH? Yeah, true, but it is a better movie. Flows better, better acted, better dialogue and, well, awesome visuals as well. Real issues? If you look for them, sure. If you let the experience "dominate", well, you will enjoy yourself.

Uh huh.

I think if we are that far apart then we are not going to agree. You clearly have a different opinion of the franchise than I do.

 

[Tawnos]

No, I am not incorrect. If you start looking at ANH objectively and not with nostalgia googles, you see that despite the GREAT movie universe it introduces, it is a very flawed movie.

Cliché and full of tropes (I mean, commoner discovering that he has a bigger destiny and having to rise up against evil; LITERALLY EVERY FREAKING FANTASY/EPIC STORY EVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH).

And that Han Solo guy, why does he come back? PLOT DEVICE! I mean, hell, we have no back story on the guy, no insight in why he would have a heart of gold. All he did throughout the movie is act selfish and, now, all of a sudden, BOOM, I AM A GREAT GUY!

Princess Leia. Why is she a princess? I mean, ****, of course, hey, there would be no epic story without a PRINCESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS in danger. So cliché! Gotta give them one thing though, at least, they made her head strong and resourceful. Gotta give the movie a little bit of credit here.

Great visuals, but, gosh, the dialogue is soooooooooooo bad. And don't get me started on the acting. Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher are wooden as ****. Harrison Ford carries the movie on his shoulder while the great Alex Guiness, while competent enough, just goes through the motions.

Oh, and that Empire Strikes Back movie? Come on. Oedipus fighting his father without knowing it much? Zeus fighting the titans much? Commoner finding he has "royal" blood or "heavy" heritage? Seen that before, zzzzzzzzz. Well executed, but sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo not original. And that Lando guy? Walking talking plot device! He is only there to make the story advance. Sure, he has motivations at the beginning, but, ooops, he abandons them... and worse... the heroes trust him WAYYYYYYYYYY too easily. Badly written character. Oh, and that whole Hoth thing before the battle.... BORING! So slow...

Kidding and extreme nit picking aside, when I see the "issues" you guys bring up with TFA and R1, that's what I read. Nit ****ing picking. Not enough character development in R1? Come on, it is VERY easy to figure out who everyone is and why they are fighting. Are the characters as relatable as Luke was? Maybe not, but it has more to do with how we evolved as an audience than it has to do with the movies themselves. Pacing? Well, ANH and ESB both start VERY slow before they get going too. The greatest part of BOTH ANH and ESB is also the third act. ESB has the Dagobah scenes though and those are great.

TFA is a rehash of ANH? Yeah, true, but it is a better movie. Flows better, better acted, better dialogue and, well, awesome visuals as well. Real issues? If you look for them, sure. If you let the experience "dominate", well, you will enjoy yourself.

In the end, we are more sophisticated as an audience and that's why we pick up on flaws much better than we did in the past. We don't see the flaws in the old movies we loved because we have a DEEP emotional connection to them. But real issues compared to the old ones? Nah. Similar issues for the most part. It is a space opera, not a freaking Bergman film.

Sorry for what may seem like an aggressive tone, but gosh, it is frustating.

Well articulates a lot of my frustration around here.

Another one: we're told early in ANH that Imperial Stormtroopers are very precise shooters. Then, when Luke and Leia are trapped essentially in a corner on the Death Star, no Stormtrooper can hit them in a very small target area. This is something that's part of the charm of Star Wars and we all smile and laugh about it now, but if ANH was a brand new movie today, everyone would bring it as a point of criticism.

I don't know if I would consider TFA to be better than ANH, but the gap isn't anywhere near what it's made out to be and some of ANH is enhanced by what happens in the next two movies (and honestly, is now enhanced by R1 also). Potentially, with the benefit of Eps VIII and IX, TFA will be elevated too.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

To me, ANH is a better movie than TFA because it is directed better, "shot" better, acted better and paced better (that last point having more to do to how movie audiences have evolved though - ANH's pace worked great in 1977, wouldn't work as well now). Story-wise, well, one is a copy of the other with some addition to tie things up together, so, of course, I won't say TFA has the better story. I would argue that it has the better script though.

Both movies work because Harrison Ford does a lot to make them work. Carrie Fisher is wooden in both. I think Daisey Ridley does a way better job than Mark Hamill did. John Boyega can be annoying, but he was a fine sidekick.

ANH holds up better because we grew up on it. We have a strong emtional connection to it and, well, as Tawnos said, we know how it ties up into the entire saga. Nothing wrong with that. After all, movies are, in the end, about how we experience them (yes, I will give you that one Sharee ). Episode VIII could indeed do a lot to elevate TFA.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Uh huh.

I think if we are that far apart then we are not going to agree. You clearly have a different opinion of the franchise than I do.

TBH, if I were to evaluate ALLLLLLLLLLLL fo the SW movies strictly as movies and not as "entertainment", I would probably say that even ESB isn't a cinematic masterpiece. I would argue that it is a very well-done efficient epic that uses classical tropes VERY well and establish a strong pathos - the twist at the end, masterful even if kinda cliché. Functions very well as a mainstream movie, but has bad acting and very MEH dialogue (nerf-herder lol). Slow pacing in the first two acts, masterful third act (sounds familiar?).

I think TFA is more well-crafted that ANH was. ANH was ground-breaking though. An epic in space? I mean... **** YEAH! And them visuals? Holy ****! And the Force? Mesmerizing. I have a much deeper emotional connection to ANH than I have to TFA. However, if you ask me which movie is the most "well done", I would vote for TFA.

 

[HanSolo]

To me, ANH is a better movie than TFA because it is directed better, "shot" better, acted better and paced better (that last point having more to do to how movie audiences have evolved though - ANH's pace worked great in 1977, wouldn't work as well now). Story-wise, well, one is a copy of the other with some addition to tie things up together, so, of course, I won't say TFA has the better story. I would argue that it has the better script though.

Both movies work because Harrison Ford does a lot to make them work. Carrie Fisher is wooden in both. I think Daisey Ridley does a way better job than Mark Hamill did. John Boyega can be annoying, but he was a fine sidekick.

ANH holds up better because we grew up on it. We have a strong emtional connection to it and, well, as Tawnos said, we know how it ties up into the entire saga. Nothing wrong with that. After all, movies are, in the end, about how we experience them (yes, I will give you that one Sharee ). Episode VIII could indeed do a lot to elevate TFA.

While I go back and forth on which is better in my opinion and agree with Tawnos that the gap is small, pacing is not an advantage TFA has over A New Hope.

I actually believe A new hope has the best pacing of the series (I've always felt that the way things take a somewhat abrupt turn in Empire Strikes Back was a little more frantic at the end and wasn't fleshed out as well as it could have been). It is a movie that gives the characters and plot room to breathe all the way through.

While TFA is a lot of fun, once Finn meets Rey, the movie shoots at a breakneck pace only stopping to breathe for Rey's force vision, and Han and Leia's scenes. I don't actually mind that myself, but I will always concede to critics of the film that it could have used better pacing.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

To me, that kind of pacing is perfect for an action film.

Slowish exposition, FAST PACED ACTION, a little bit more of exposition/context, FAST PACED ACTION, etc.

ANH is slowwwwwwwwwwww at the beginning then speeds up. I guess it is a matter of preference on that front.

But acting and directing, I think TFA is a clear win.

Enjoyment wise, well, to each his own, that's for sure.

 

[Acadmus]

Just noticed the "December 2017" thing in the thread title...did they move the film up a year? I thought it wasn't due until 2018 originally. Kind of wish it weren't, since Lucas even took 3 years per film for the original trilogy. Take a little time, get it right.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Just noticed the "December 2017" thing in the thread title...did they move the film up a year? I thought it wasn't due until 2018 originally. Kind of wish it weren't, since Lucas even took 3 years per film for the original trilogy. Take a little time, get it right.

The Episodic movies are every two years, exchanging with prequels and spinoffs.

It was always slated for 2017 as far as I know.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

The Episodic movies are every two years, exchanging with prequels and spinoffs.

It was always slated for 2017 as far as I know.

Correct me if I am wrong, but orignally it was slotted for Spring 17 and was moved back to Xmas 17. I also think they moved Han Solo from Spring 18 to Xmas 18 to continue to new "Xmas tradition".

 

[Jumptheshark]

Correct me if I am wrong, but orignally it was slotted for Spring 17 and was moved back to Xmas 17. I also think they moved Han Solo from Spring 18 to Xmas 18 to continue to new "Xmas tradition".

yep. They wanted to move it back to the traditional may weekend.

what opened may 1977??????? May 25th 1977

 

[HanSolo]

To me, that kind of pacing is perfect for an action film.

Slowish exposition, FAST PACED ACTION, a little bit more of exposition/context, FAST PACED ACTION, etc.

ANH is slowwwwwwwwwwww at the beginning then speeds up. I guess it is a matter of preference on that front.

But acting and directing, I think TFA is a clear win.

Enjoyment wise, well, to each his own, that's for sure.

The issue is, Star Wars isn't supposed to be like a typical action movie. I loved TFA. The recent turn on the film almost pushes me to say it's an ultimate guilty pleasure of mine. I will agree with you that it's beautifully crafted, the action is well done, to me the story is different enough to be enjoyable, and the new characters seamlessly carry the torch into a new age of Star Wars.

But I sincerely hope the pacing is more carefully handled in episodes 8 and 9. I can stomach a rapid pace in a movie like TFA which reboots the franchise and sets to reinvigorate interest in Star Wars after the artistic failure of the prequels.

But the remainder of the new trilogy needs to delve into some heavy stuff relating to Rey's parentage, the growing internal struggle within Ben Solo, Rey's transition into becoming a jedi and more.

It needs room to breathe more. Luckily we have Rian Johnson helming this one. While I felt Looper wasn't perfect, Rian Johnson certainly paced the movie well enough to appropriately hit on all its tones, themes, and plot points

Also I would agree that on the whole TFA was acted better than A New Hope. But it's pretty close. The acting performances are carried by Ridley and Ford for the most part.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I do agree with you that pacing HAS to be different depending of what story you are telling. Every form of pacing can be good, it really depends on the purpose.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Kidding and extreme nit picking aside, when I see the "issues" you guys bring up with TFA and R1, that's what I read. Nit ****ing picking. Not enough character development in R1? Come on, it is VERY easy to figure out who everyone is and why they are fighting. .

Criticizing bad character isn't a flipping nitpick.

With TFA, it's bad. With R1, it works, but is not as clear (a death sentence for film) and powerful as it could be.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Criticizing bad character isn't a flipping nitpick.

Depending on the criticism, it very well may be.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Depending on the criticism, it very well may be.

Ok, do you think it's a nitpick that Jyn Erso has a visceral, emotional reaction to the death of her father (for some reason...) complete with screaming, sobbing and the ever famous refusal to leave the carcass LEAVE HIM HE'S DEAD!!!11

And then a minute later she is rightly furious with the Rebellion for killing her father?

And then not 3 minutes later she is the one attempting to rally the leaders of the Rebellion with a sappy speech about hope and trust?

Is this blatant character inconsistency a "nitpick"? They could have mined this too, a Jyn Erso trying to control herself because she's talking to the people that killed her father (and imagine if that connection had meant sonething!), but she knows that she has to forgive to unite against a common threat is sooooo much better than Jyn just forgetting because the script also forgot.

This seems like a Reshoot problem, her ironic straight comment "Rebellions are built on hope" is in the trailers.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Ok, do you think it's a nitpick that Jyn Erso has a visceral, emotional reaction to the death of her father (for some reason...) complete with screaming, sobbing and the ever famous refusal to leave the carcass LEAVE HIM HE'S DEAD!!!11

And then a minute later she is rightly furious with the Rebellion for killing her father?

And then not 3 minutes later she is the one attempting to rally the leaders of the Rebellion with a sappy speech about hope and trust?

Is this blatant character inconsistency a "nitpick"? They could have mined this too, a Jyn Erso trying to control herself because she's talking to the people that killed her father (and imagine if that connection had meant sonething!), but she knows that she has to forgive to unite against a common threat is sooooo much better than Jyn just forgetting because the script also forgot.

This seems like a Reshoot problem, her ironic straight comment "Rebellions are built on hope" is in the trailers.

Yes, it is nitpick. Just like my comments on Han Solo were nitpicking. It doesn't make the story NOT work. Doesn't make the movie less enjoyable.

Is the movie perfect? No. It doesn't have to be. Hollywood films have these inconsistencies all the time. They are products. R1 is a product and works well as such. It is fun, mostly hits all the right notes and function perfectly within the Star Wars universe. Do the flaws really hinder the experience? Meh, maybe if you REALLY want to pay attention to that stuff. The OT is filled with cheesy moments and does have some inconsistencies (Han, Lando, to re-use the examples I have used before).

My point isn't that R1 and TFA don't have flaws. My point is that their flaws aren't really bigger than those in the originals, ESB included.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Han and Lando are not inconsistencies. Come on.

 

[johnjm22]

Both movies work because Harrison Ford does a lot to make them work. Carrie Fisher is wooden in both. I think Daisey Ridley does a way better job than Mark Hamill did. John Boyega can be annoying, but he was a fine sidekick.

I thought Harrison Ford was bad in TFA. Very forced. I also think Fisher and Hamill were great in the OT.

Daisey Ridley is very charismatic. She's a star, but I agree with the criticisms of Rey as a "Mary Sue" and that's part of what kills the character for me. Not Daisy's fault.

Boyega is probably a fine actor as well, but I really disliked how his character was written. There was so much more they could have done with him. A stormtrooper defecting is a cool idea, would've liked to see them take more time with it and really explore it. Finn just wan't believable.

TFA was too "crammed" I thought.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Han and Lando are not inconsistencies. Come on.

Why does Han come back and saves Luke? Because. Sudden change of heart. Not consistent with the established character. Does it matter? No.

Lando leaves the Cloud City and his responsibilities behind when the deals he made were all to make sure it would survive. Decides to leave and fight with the Rebels when he realizes that he got screwed by Vader. Was established as a Me first character and made the altruist decision in the end. Would have benefited more PERSONALLY by playing along. That's the way the character was established, he had a sudden change of heart when he saw what was going on.

Same with Jyn, but you guys complain. She was raised by Saw Guerrera and he is established as an extremist that will do whatever it takes. She understand extremes and it is very clearly established. Maybe the reshoots make the change seem too sudden, but character wise, it makes sense and there is background to establish WHY she would react the way she did in the end. As much sense as it did for Lando and Han. Minor inconsistensies at best. Execution, on that exact point, is better in ESB and ANH.

I am just nitpicking for nitpicking's sake because I feel that's what many people do with R1 and TFA.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I thought Harrison Ford was bad in TFA. Very forced. I also think Fisher and Hamill were great in the OT.

Daisey Ridley is very charismatic. She's a star, but I agree with the criticisms of Rey as a "Mary Sue" and that's part of what kills the character for me. Not Daisy's fault.

Boyega is probably a fine actor as well, but I really disliked how his character was written. There was so much more they could have done with him. A stormtrooper defecting is a cool idea, would've liked to see them take more time with it and really explore it. Finn just wan't believable.

TFA was too "crammed" I thought.

That's your appreciation of the movie and I respect that. Your opinion, the way you liked the movie, etc. But people try to say that the movie has huge issues. I just don't see those "issues". I understand that same people don't like the movie that much and have reasons for it, that's fine.

But, meh, I am arguing semantics, I think.

 

[Acadmus]

Also I would agree that on the whole TFA was acted better than A New Hope. But it's pretty close. The acting performances are carried by Ridley and Ford for the most part.

I'd disagree greatly, but it may be a matter of preference. The acting in ANH seemed more, for lack of a better term, sincere. The actors seemed more natural in the roles. In TFA I felt like it was actors playing parts. There was a certain phoniness to it. This may boil down to acting techniques changing over time, or the difference between actors that were helping create a universe versus actors that were reviving an established one, I don't know. But I found the characters in ANH more believable and likable.

 

[silverfish]

This is... a joke? Right?

The fact that I can't be sure is concerning.

No, sorry

I just pulled the plot summary for Ep V from IMDb and replaced a few names.