STAR WARS : Episode VIII December 15, 2017 4 4

[I like pie]

26 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Did you miss that he didn't murder that sleeping boy?

He was tempted...

 

 

You lost me here.

Edited December 21, 2017 by I like pie

[Gatsby77]

Just now, fantastic_four said:

That scene didn't imply anything nearly that simple.  Luke was reacting to the evil that was already there, not the evil to come.  Yes, he probably did change Ben's exact path to the dark side, but nothing about that scene suggests Luke is who turned him to the dark side.

This.

The evil was already in Kylo - even if Luke had done nothing.

Yes - Kylo's path might have been changed/accelerated when he awoke to see Luke (supposedly) about to strike, but Kylo was already so strong with the Dark Side that Luke was there in the first place.

There's moral ambiguity there. Nothing is cut-and-dried or simple.

[fantastic_four]

48 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Quote

While Empire was originally part of a 12-film plan, by the time it was released, the number had clearly been reduced to nine. “The prequel stories exist — where Darth Vader came from, the whole story about Darth and Ben Kenobi — and it all takes place before Luke was born,” Lucas explained at the time. “The other one — what happens to Luke afterward — is much more ethereal. I have a tiny notebook full of notes on that. If I’m really ambitious, I could proceed to figure out what would have happened to Luke.”

Of course he couldn't just make him a cameo. He wanted to develop a story around where he had gone, and what had become of him.

That statement doesn't necessarily suggest that, but it also doesn't reference the last three parts being about the next "new hope" either, so who knows if he had gone from Luke being a cameo in his 1976 statement to Luke being the center of a new trilogy by 1980.  "What happened to Luke afterward" could have been as simple as one character stating a summary of what happened to him all the way up to an entire film--or even the entire third trilogy--dedicated to it.

Edited December 21, 2017 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

45 minutes ago, Artboy99 said:

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

The best part of what Rian did was Luke was to set up the situation of what he should have done once he saw Ben Solo's future as the likely next Darth Vader.  The idea of him drawing his saber, then hesitating, then Ben waking up and reacting is complex and compelling.  I'm fascinated by the question of what I would have done in that place...I'm still not sure.  I lean towards killing Ben, but I probably would've hesitated, too.

If you had better writers creating the story you wouldn't be put in that situation at all.

That's quality writing, so I have no idea what you're referring to as an alternative that would be so clearly better.    I don't necessarily extend that description of "quality writing" to Luke deciding to go to an island to live out his life alone, but this is probably the center of why the critics liked this film but the fans didn't--most critics don't have the emotional connection to Luke to track the consistency of his character across all the films or to be disillusioned by him deciding to no longer be a hero.

[Artboy99]

33 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This.

The evil was already in Kylo - even if Luke had done nothing.

Yes - Kylo's path might have been changed/accelerated when he awoke to see Luke (supposedly) about to strike, but Kylo was already so strong with the Dark Side that Luke was there in the first place.

There's moral ambiguity there. Nothing is cut-and-dried or simple.

Ok, so the child of Han and Leia was born the way he is: attuned to the dark side.

[fantastic_four]

Just now, Artboy99 said:

Ok, so the child of Han and Leia was born the way he is: attuned to the dark side.

When has ANY film suggested such a thing?  Everything I've seen across all the films, Last Jedi included, suggests that dark or light is a choice, not a destiny.  

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

That statement doesn't necessarily suggest that, but it also doesn't reference the last three parts being about the next "new hope" either, so who knows if he had gone from Luke being a cameo in his 1976 statement to Luke being the center of a new trilogy by 1980.  "What happened to Luke afterward" could have been as simple as one character stating a summary of what happened to him all the way up to an entire film--or even the entire third trilogy--dedicated to it.

It clearly states he was discussing a 9-part film story. And as part of the films from 4-9, he was going to further focus on some of the key characters. Luke was called out as one of those characters he may target, if he could.

So it rules out Lucas just wanting that cameo he originally mentioned to Mark Hamill as future Star Wars work. But what he failed to factor in was the steam he was losing in even wanting to continue on.

[bane]

2 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

That's quality writing, so I have no idea what you're referring to as an alternative that would be so clearly better.    I don't necessarily extend that description of "quality writing" to Luke deciding to go to an island to live out his life alone, but this is probably the center of why the critics liked this film but the fans didn't--most critics don't have the emotional connection to Luke to track the consistency of his character across all the films or to be disillusioned by him deciding to no longer be a hero.

But the general audience does ?

We need a clear definition here, just claiming that ALL people who don't like this movie or are indifferent to it are only rabid #nerdrage fans is just not true.

Critics gave it 93% so we should rejoice. However most people who I have spoken to who are not massive Star Wars fans, just out on a Saturday night are not agreeing with these critics.

So its not just #nerdrage.

[jsilverjanet]

the force is strong with these 2.

motivations for one is to just take the other side for the sake of debate, the other his path not so clear

[jsilverjanet]

so does Chewbacca, C3P0 and R2D2 die in the next movie? It would appear that R2 is only awake when it deals with Luke so now that he's gone, I guess he'll stay dormant

[bane]

1 minute ago, jsilverjanet said:

the force is strong with these 2.

motivations for one is to just take the other side for the sake of debate, the other his path not so clear

Last day at work and I'm winding down

[CAHokie]

Nerd rage, group think, aging crowd, general audience, etc....  Why do those that don’t like this movie have to be labeled in a way to invalidate their opinion?

I have no problem with those that like it. Heck, I’m glad someone did.  I wanted to...

Edited December 21, 2017 by CAHokie

[fantastic_four]

8 minutes ago, bane said:

But the general audience does ?

We need a clear definition here, just claiming that ALL people who don't like this movie or are indifferent to it are only rabid #nerdrage fans is just not true.

Critics gave it 93% so we should rejoice. However most people who I have spoken to who are not massive Star Wars fans, just out on a Saturday night are not agreeing with these critics.

So its not just #nerdrage.

I've got to figure out why these different measurements of audience reaction vary so widely before that question interests me.  I do trust post-viewing polls far more than people who are pissed enough to go write a negative review on Rotten Tomatoes.  Most people who enjoy a film aren't nearly as motivated to write positive reviews as people who are pissed feel the need to share their rage with others, a fact that's VERY easily visible across Metacritic audience reviews on great games where an unrepresentatively small handful of fans cause audience scores to plummet.  But I'm not sure it's that simple with the Rotten Tomatoes score...maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

[Rip]

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

That's the exact same quote I cited a few posts back, and it's the one that suggests Lucas would have only used Luke as a cameo.

http://www.starwars.com/news/the-long-winding-and-shapeshifting-trail-to-episodes-vii-viii-ix

I already posted earlier a bit of what Lucas had mapped out. From my understanding and more recent interviews he was going to have more focus on Luke earlier on. The sequel trilogy would have started closer to the Last Jedi with Luke on an island also in a dark place. Ray's name was Kira and she was younger. There are a few other interviews out there also, but here is a good article.

Our Only Look at George Lucas’ Vision for the ‘Star Wars’ Sequel Trilogy

http://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-sequel-trilogy/

In the book, we learn that one of the first meetings to visualize The Force Awakens happened on January 16, 2013 at Skywalker Ranch with George Lucas himself. Among the pieces presented at the meeting were portraits of an older Luke Skywalker training a new disciple named Kira (who was later renamed Rey). The idea was that, 30 years after the fall of the Empire, Luke had gone to a dark place and secluded himself in a Jedi temple on a new planet. The paintings show Luke meditating, reassessing his whole life.

Apparently, the initial plan for Star Wars: Episode 7 was that Luke, over the course of that movie, would rediscover his vitality and train this new Jedi. So basically, what we got from the Rey/Luke storyline in The Last Jedi was initially supposed to be the bones for George Lucas’ Episode 7. Imagine an alternate universe where Episode 7 was Luke reluctantly training a new Jedi – it would be completely different.

So why did it change? Everyone realized that Luke Skywalker would better serve the needs of the story as the person that everyone seeks but does not find until the final scene of The Force Awakens. This allowed Han Solo more time as the mentor of the story, and the visuals of Luke training Rey on the site of an old Jedi temple were shelved for the next movie.

One features Luke in heavy thought and another could depict a Sith Force ghost haunting him.

 

Having seen the book there is also some interesting things about a Sith/Dark Jedi Ghost which seems to Luke talk with.

[fantastic_four]

10 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

motivations for one is to just take the other side for the sake of debate

For the sake of discussion to help form my own opinion about the film.  Overall, I liked it, but I'm not at all sure I like the treatment of Luke any more than anyone else does.  But it's not enough to make me dislike the film overall, because it's clear Rian has a purpose in his un-heroic development of an otherwise heroic character.  The simple arc I see is hero up until he almost kills Ben, fallen hero, hero risen again when he projects the hologram.  But then that death is just SO damn weak, I don't think I like the take overall.  I'd rather they just leave him alive, Kylo shows up at the island at the start of Episode IX, and Luke gets whacked in dramatic form then.  Or just SOMETHING more satisfyingly epic.

[Artboy99]

9 minutes ago, CAHokie said:

Nerd rage, group think, aging crowd, general audience, etc....  Why do those that don’t like this movie have to be labeled in a way to invalidate their opinion?

I have no problem with those that like it. Heck, I’m glad someone did.  I wanted to...

agreed.

[bane]

5 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

For the sake of discussion to help form my own opinion about the film.  Overall, I liked it, but I'm not at all sure I like the treatment of Luke any more than anyone else does.  But it's not enough to make me dislike the film overall, because it's clear Rian has a purpose in his un-heroic development of an otherwise heroic character.  The simple arc I see is hero up until he almost kills Ben, fallen hero, hero risen again when he projects the hologram.  But then that death is just SO damn weak, I don't think I like the take overall.  I'd rather they just leave him alive, Kylo shows up at the island at the start of Episode IX, and Luke gets whacked in dramatic form then.  Or just SOMETHING more satisfyingly epic.

I know Johnson is a capable director, I really liked Looper. I just think he bit off more than he could chew with this film and he also co-wrote the -script.

[fantastic_four]

And here's why I'm still developing my opinion on Luke--I still don't fully understand why he thought the Jedi had to end.  But since it's the center and title of the film, I presume Rian's intent was far better developed than I've been able to glean so far.

[bane]

9 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

And here's why I'm still developing my opinion on Luke--I still don't fully understand why he thought the Jedi had to end.  But since it's the center and title of the film, I presume Rian's intent was far better developed than I've been able to glean so far.

IMO I think you are doing yourself a disservice, Rian Johnson hasn't directed the Star Wars equivalent of Citizen Kane, I think your looking for complicated answers to questions that simply aren't there. But that's my 2 cents.

[fantastic_four]

Just now, bane said:

IMO I think you are doing yourself a disservice, Rian Johnson hasn't directed the Star Wars equivalent of Citizen Kane, I think your looking for complicated answers to questions that simply aren't there. But that's my 2 cents.

I NEVER assume I'm smarter than the director on any film.  It's too common a mistake, one that most people make.  If I'm unmotivated by the work I'll just drop it without opinion, but I'll never assume there's no explanation for an outstanding question on any work of art in any medium without at least giving it the benefit of repeat viewings (or hearings for songs, or whatever senses are used for the medium in question).  In this case, I just need to hear (or see a transcript of) the dialogue from those sessions with Rey on the island another time or two.