Star Wars 9: The Sky of Ricewalker: A senseless, incoherent nightmare.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

crimson5pheonix:

3-6 I might grant, but definitely not 1 and 2, which is 2/3 of his story and the vast majority of the rise of Palpatine. He plays second fiddle to Palpatine as soon as he becomes important.

Because Palpatine is more important than Anakin to the galaxy.

Sure, but what constitutes a story plot goes way beyond geopolitics. To follow your argument to a logical conclusion, Andrei Bolkonsky is unimportant to the novel War And Peace, because Napoleon and Tsar Alexander are the guys making things happen in the big picture of world events. But that's an insane way to assess the plot of War and Peace.

Well the prequels tried, though I don't blame anyone for ignoring that.

However we can see that by the standards of basically every other jedi shown in any movie, Luke has the least powerful (or at least the least dramatic) displays of force power.

Sure, we're told there's a way to measure midichlorians and thus force power, but apart from saying Anakin is super-high, no-one else's score is recorded so we are not given a comprison.

We know Luke can lift however many tons of starfighter with his mind, and project his image across lots and lots of light-years of space, neither of which are small beans as far as I can see. One might also argue that he beats Anakin/Vader in an even fight (Obi-Wan does so only with a huge positional advantage and Anakin's enraged misjudgment), which is more than any other Jedi accomplished.

(Although we can't really apply it to the argument as we have to take the movies as they are, force powers seem to me to undergo power creep throughout the three trilogies.)

Well as to why we don't see other Jedi during the OT, there's actually supplemental material showing what was going on, but what the movies show us is that Jedi are hunted down and killed. There are necessarily going to be a dearth of force users in the galaxy, story as written.

If Luke as of ep7 was trying to retrain Jedi alone, the most realistic assumption is that at the start of ep4 there are the grand total of 2 active, non-Sith force users in the galaxy and by the end of ep6 there is one.

I terms of supplementary material the pre-Disney stuff I know of was declared non-canon and I've not seen any any post-Disney stuff, so you can feel free to fill me in on anything I'm missing.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:

3-6 I might grant, but definitely not 1 and 2, which is 2/3 of his story and the vast majority of the rise of Palpatine. He plays second fiddle to Palpatine as soon as he becomes important.

Because Palpatine is more important than Anakin to the galaxy.

Sure, but what constitutes a story plot goes way beyond geopolitics. To follow your argument to a logical conclusion, Andrei Bolkonsky is unimportant to the novel War And Peace, because Napoleon and Tsar Alexander are the guys making things happen in the big picture of world events. But that's an insane way to assess the plot of War and Peace.

This entire argument has been about their power and importance in universe. If not you, then other people are complaining that the only force users are Skywalkers (and now Palpatines). So if you're not arguing that, you've walked into the wrong argument. I've already said they are of course narratively important, being the main characters and all. But the people who are complaining aren't complaining that lineages are the only main characters, they're arguing that lineages are the only powerful characters, which is BS.

Well the prequels tried, though I don't blame anyone for ignoring that.

However we can see that by the standards of basically every other jedi shown in any movie, Luke has the least powerful (or at least the least dramatic) displays of force power.

Sure, we're told there's a way to measure midichlorians and thus force power, but apart from saying Anakin is super-high, no-one else's score is recorded so we are not given a comprison.

We know Luke can lift however many tons of starfighter with his mind, and project his image across lots and lots of light-years of space, neither of which are small beans as far as I can see. One might also argue that he beats Anakin/Vader in an even fight (Obi-Wan does so only with a huge positional advantage and Anakin's enraged misjudgment), which is more than any other Jedi accomplished.

(Although we can't really apply it to the argument as we have to take the movies as they are, force powers seem to me to undergo power creep throughout the three trilogies.)

Force powers are at their strongest in the prequels, which makes sense since there are tons of force users around. So you get super speed, super lightning, fighting entire armies, etc. OT is the weakest since it's right after and during the culling of force users so lifting rocks (and a starship) is super impressive. The ST is ramping back up which does make sense since the cullings stopped and force users can start to proliferate again, but there's not really anyone around to teach anymore.

Well as to why we don't see other Jedi during the OT, there's actually supplemental material showing what was going on, but what the movies show us is that Jedi are hunted down and killed. There are necessarily going to be a dearth of force users in the galaxy, story as written.

If Luke as of ep7 was trying to retrain Jedi alone, the most realistic assumption is that at the start of ep4 there are the grand total of 2 active, non-Sith force users in the galaxy and by the end of ep6 there is one.

I terms of supplementary material the pre-Disney stuff I know of was declared non-canon and I've not seen any any post-Disney stuff, so you can feel free to fill me in on anything I'm missing.

There is some post Disney stuff, Rebels on DisneyXD has other force users during the between of the prequels and the OT, along with Anakin's old apprentice. I've only watched some clips of it, but I don't think it's concluded so we don't know if any of them die or survive to the OT.

But in any case, it's established force sensitivity is largely random, it stands to reason there are force sensitives born every once in a while. Point of fact, Luke has a school. What they don't have is any way to teach people what to do, since the Jedi temple was the big repository of that knowledge.

Johnny Novgorod:

1) I laughed out loud when they sidelined Rose. It made me think of Homer getting shoehorned into the basement with the "very important" job of looking at a bee in a jar, while the plant inspection goes on upstairs. Bold move, guys.

Not really bold when at least some of it is due to the backlash Rose/Kelly Marie Tran received, some of it being...fine, disgusting.

2) Did Finn and Poe have an arc at all in this movie?

Poe has the conclusion of his arc from TLJ as we see that he's less willing to throw lives away. Finn, not so much, but his arc is acknowledged by proxy through Jannah and the other defectors. On the other hand, his whole "I have something to tell you [Rey]" schtick goes nowhere.

5) If the movie is about being better than your heritage, why does Rey pose as a Skywalker at the end rather than just embrace her real name?

It could be said to be representing that theme by Rey walking away from her heritage and being her own person.

Course, I think it would have worked better if Rey wasn't a Palpatine, thus giving more of the sense that she's 'earned' the Skywalker surname rather than trading one surname for another, but meh.

6) How did Palpatine survive RotJ, again?

"The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to abilities many consider to be...unnatural."

...oh wait, you wanted a real answer. Um...

The only thing I can think of is Palpatine's spirit transferred to a new body or something. I mean, this is a movie that establishes that spirit transfer is a thing, and clones have long been a thing as well. On the other hand, if that's the case, I'm left to ask why being thrown into a reactor doesn't do the job, while being zapped with lightning does. Maybe he was out of bodies?

I'd also be remiss that the EU did the whole body/spirit thing first with Palpatine. :(

crimson5pheonix:

And yet what's actually important to the plot is the trade federation starting a civil war. Even within the movies, and II is the worst about it, the plot focuses on other characters more than Anakin and his chosen-y ness. The other half of episode II is Obiwan's adventure to finding out about a shadowy conspiracy behind the civil war.

Yet he remains important. Important enough that it dictates a lot of Qui-Gon's actions in Ep. 1, and by virtue of his death, Obi-Wan's.

Wow, I didn't realize that being a secondary character makes you a non-entity and Not Count(tm).

In fiction, primary characters usually get more backstory than secondary characters. That's what makes them primary. But even then, are we supposed to brush aside that the two main characters of the first two trilogies are "the special?"

She also doesn't show much force use in the OT and yes, she's adopted by a political family, but the rebel leader aspect is entirely on her. Just like with Mon Mothma.

Mon Mothma's barely a character in the movies. I don't think she's even named in RotJ. Holdo's more of a character than she is.

And Leia being a member of the rebellion is implied to have been made possible because of her dad. Bail helps the Rebellion, Leia helps Bail, plans transmitted to Tantive V, cue start of Ep. 4.

You had me until you got to fan theory crafting. That's by definition not something in the movie. TFA made absolutely no buildup to her parents being somebodies, some fans did. To the rest of us who didn't, and just assumed she was like literally everybody else in the galaxy except for Luke and Anakin, it came out of nowhere. Because we were paying attention to the narrative instead of assuming the film makers were catering to us.

Okay, fan-crafting isn't part of the movie, I'll give you that. But TFA never resolves the parent thing. The last we hear of them is Maz telling Rey "in your heart, you know they're not coming back." However, Ben says (paraphrased) "Han would have been a poor father" [for Rey]; acknowledging the bond that's formed between them. Even if TFA isn't in of itself suggesting that Rey is of special linneage, it never closes the lid on the issue either. Rey is never shown to come to terms with it. And also, this J.J. "Mystery Box" Abrams. I highly suspect that the parents were left ambiguous for the trilogy to follow up on. And even if he didn't, Rey is insanely powerful, able to best a Skywalker in lightsaber combat. Suspecting she's from some Jedi line is pretty reasonable fancrafting, even if we accept that the film isn't pushing for it.

I'm not going to say the OT is a bastion of complex characters, far from it, but I'm not buying that the new trilogy has shown any more moral complexity. "Arms dealers sell to both sides!" is about on the level of "Han shot first".

There's still more moral ambiguity in Canto Bight than Han. Han's moral ambiguity is based entirely around his character, and it's resolved by the end. You could cut the scene out of the film entirely and lose nothing plot-wise. Canto Bight, on the other hand, IS relevant to the plot, as well as driving Finn's character arc.

Granted, Canto Bight drags on for too long IMO, but meh.

SW if full of characters, tons of characters, and with the backdrop of space battles (star wars, if you will), Luke may be the one to face down the evil space wizard, but that chance only comes on the backs of a ton of characters.

Saying these characters aren't important and thus Don't Count(tm) when talking about where people in the story come from is like saying Frodo isn't important in LotR because Aragorn is the one fulfilling prophecies. Or the reverse saying Aragorn isn't important because Frodo got the ring to the volcano.

Arragorn and Frodo are both important, but it's importance that comes from different sources. Aragorn is Isilidur's heir, true king of Gondor, yadda yadda yadda. Frodo is a nobody, but has the strength of character to bear the One Ring. By Star Wars, Aragorn is Luke, Frodo is Rey pre-Rise.

That isn't to say these characters aren't important, but they're still subservient to the protagonists. Lord of the Rings simultaniously embodies traditional heroism (Aragorn) and subverts it (Frodo). Star Wars arguably subverted it as well through Anakin, but he was still "the special" in that context.

And proceeds to get carried to the final fight to redeem his father, everyone else goes on to actually win the war.

Which doesn't diminish his "the special" status. Obi-Wan outright states that Luke is their last hope, Leia aside.

And ends up the pawn in a scheme by Palpatine, the actual most important person in the galaxy while the other jedi fight in a war and try to uncover his plot.

None of which negates his "the special" status. Him being manipulated doesn't diminish his raw power, or origin via immaculate conception.

I admit that it was a bad plot twist to make her Palpy's spawn. However the first part of your statement is flat out false. The fact that there is a Jedi order at all (and that Jedi are celibate) implies that the force can flow through anyone. And we had several movies showing exactly that. TLJ wasn't saying anything new or exciting by saying this.

Yes, Jedi are around, and we know that the Force isn't bound by blood (though IIRC, one of the reasons the Jedi forbid magic in the old EU was to stop 'Force dynasties' rising). But EU, old or new aside, the films aren't free from bloodlines either. Again, Luke says how "the Force is strong in my family," and considering what we see him, Vader, and even Leia do, that's a fair assessment. In the OT, Qui-Gon asks who Anakin's father is - actually dipping into the old EU for a second, the novelization establishes that Qui-Gon could sense that the Force was strong with Shimi, but that the strength wasn't so great that it could explain Anakin's raw power).

Point is, the existence of Jedi in of themselves doesn't negate that even going just by the films, bloodline apparently plays a key role.

immortalfrieza:

And you're correct that that would take a whole tv show to adequately explain. The problem is that Johnson destroyed the resistance at the end of movie 2 out of 3 with absolutely nothing stopping the FO from taking the galaxy, so movie 3 would have to be about going into hiding and building up to the new new trilogy. Nothing could realistically stop them now.

Not really, though they'd have had to extend the movie a bit (RoS was already 2 movies crammed into one) to do it. Just have a scene somewhere along the line of Poe and Co convincing some rich guy or military commander or someone like that to support the Resistance, maybe throw in a space battle to show that they were worth the time to recruit. After that, a throwaway line or two about similar groups they've brought into the fold for the Resistance would've been enough to adequately explain with just a movie's length. Yeah, building back up the Resistance could've been the basis for a TV show, but it didn't have to be to work as a plot setup.

Hell, have Finn's defection set off a cascading series of First Order defections instead of a random pack of Stormtroopers lay down their guns because of the Force or whatever. Then, the FO is losing troops and material at the same rate as the Resistance is gaining it *and* Finn's one-in-a-million choice has narrative weight.

Though if I were running the show, I would've delayed the movie another year or two and started with Leia's funeral. Lots of dramatic and important people in history die inconveniently of mundane circumstances. It sucks from a financial standpoint but Disney could've sucked it up.

So the FO is bleeding resources and the other Imperial remnants either aren't enough to break the stalemate or are actively antagonistic to them, the Resistance is fragile but gaining momentum, Hux is zealous but bad at Realpolitik and unwittingly cuts off FO supply lines by destroying the degenerates of Canto Bight, and Ren is stuck between not being the monster that Hux is but wanting to be. He sees the Resistance gaining recruits and resolve despite every war crime Hux is throwing at them and realizes that the Dark Side is easy power, not lasting power.

Yes, I'm still mad that he doesn't end up having a redemption arc, just a truncated heroic sacrifice.

Of course, if I were running things I'd definitely go to great lengths to point out that Kylo Ren is a dark Jedi and Rey is a light-side Sith. She runs off almost pure emotion and connection,

Hawki:

crimson5pheonix:

And yet what's actually important to the plot is the trade federation starting a civil war. Even within the movies, and II is the worst about it, the plot focuses on other characters more than Anakin and his chosen-y ness. The other half of episode II is Obiwan's adventure to finding out about a shadowy conspiracy behind the civil war.

Yet he remains important. Important enough that it dictates a lot of Qui-Gon's actions in Ep. 1, and by virtue of his death, Obi-Wan's.

He's basically a macguffin in 1, so yeah? Kinda? But within the story he's largely used to get off the planet to get back to their job. Getting the chosen one is a freebie.

Wow, I didn't realize that being a secondary character makes you a non-entity and Not Count(tm).

In fiction, primary characters usually get more backstory than secondary characters. That's what makes them primary. But even then, are we supposed to brush aside that the two main characters of the first two trilogies are "the special?"

Are you going to complain that a plot containing a chosen one focuses on the chosen one? These are the big tentpole movies, they are going to focus on that and leave other stories to other movies and media. If you're concerned that the numbered movies focus on a small core group of characters, let me tell you about all the other SW media you can consume to get away from them.

She also doesn't show much force use in the OT and yes, she's adopted by a political family, but the rebel leader aspect is entirely on her. Just like with Mon Mothma.

Mon Mothma's barely a character in the movies. I don't think she's even named in RotJ. Holdo's more of a character than she is.

Mon Mothma is from the OT, as the highest ranking resistance member we know. She explains the plan to destroy the Death Star. She organizes the resistance.

And Leia being a member of the rebellion is implied to have been made possible because of her dad. Bail helps the Rebellion, Leia helps Bail, plans transmitted to Tantive V, cue start of Ep. 4.

A useful connection, but she stuck her neck out to be a rebel, she definitely proves herself capable regardless of her parentage.

You had me until you got to fan theory crafting. That's by definition not something in the movie. TFA made absolutely no buildup to her parents being somebodies, some fans did. To the rest of us who didn't, and just assumed she was like literally everybody else in the galaxy except for Luke and Anakin, it came out of nowhere. Because we were paying attention to the narrative instead of assuming the film makers were catering to us.

Okay, fan-crafting isn't part of the movie, I'll give you that. But TFA never resolves the parent thing. The last we hear of them is Maz telling Rey "in your heart, you know they're not coming back." However, Ben says (paraphrased) "Han would have been a poor father" [for Rey]; acknowledging the bond that's formed between them. Even if TFA isn't in of itself suggesting that Rey is of special linneage, it never closes the lid on the issue either. Rey is never shown to come to terms with it. And also, this J.J. "Mystery Box" Abrams. I highly suspect that the parents were left ambiguous for the trilogy to follow up on. And even if he didn't, Rey is insanely powerful, able to best a Skywalker in lightsaber combat. Suspecting she's from some Jedi line is pretty reasonable fancrafting, even if we accept that the film isn't pushing for it.

It was left open and her having strong lineage is definitely a possibility (and let's avoid talking about how absurdly strong she is compared to a trained warrior), but all that was teased is that her parents may or may not be alive.

I'm not going to say the OT is a bastion of complex characters, far from it, but I'm not buying that the new trilogy has shown any more moral complexity. "Arms dealers sell to both sides!" is about on the level of "Han shot first".

There's still more moral ambiguity in Canto Bight than Han. Han's moral ambiguity is based entirely around his character, and it's resolved by the end. You could cut the scene out of the film entirely and lose nothing plot-wise. Canto Bight, on the other hand, IS relevant to the plot, as well as driving Finn's character arc.

Granted, Canto Bight drags on for too long IMO, but meh.

Plotwise you could cut it, but it's character establishing, so that his subversion of it at the end of the movie is more meaningful. And one of the biggest complaints is that group went on a wild goose chase on Canto Bight. It was a roundabout way for Holdo to be hypocritical.

SW if full of characters, tons of characters, and with the backdrop of space battles (star wars, if you will), Luke may be the one to face down the evil space wizard, but that chance only comes on the backs of a ton of characters.

Saying these characters aren't important and thus Don't Count(tm) when talking about where people in the story come from is like saying Frodo isn't important in LotR because Aragorn is the one fulfilling prophecies. Or the reverse saying Aragorn isn't important because Frodo got the ring to the volcano.

Arragorn and Frodo are both important, but it's importance that comes from different sources. Aragorn is Isilidur's heir, true king of Gondor, yadda yadda yadda. Frodo is a nobody, but has the strength of character to bear the One Ring. By Star Wars, Aragorn is Luke, Frodo is Rey pre-Rise.

That isn't to say these characters aren't important, but they're still subservient to the protagonists. Lord of the Rings simultaniously embodies traditional heroism (Aragorn) and subverts it (Frodo). Star Wars arguably subverted it as well through Anakin, but he was still "the special" in that context.

And in SW we have Han, Obi-wan, Poe, Finn, and the real hero, R2-D2, just to name a few. And these are the character who actually get shit done. They fight the armies, they uncover the plots, so on. The 'specials' just show up for the final fights with the evil wizard.

And proceeds to get carried to the final fight to redeem his father, everyone else goes on to actually win the war.

Which doesn't diminish his "the special" status. Obi-Wan outright states that Luke is their last hope, Leia aside.

And ends up the pawn in a scheme by Palpatine, the actual most important person in the galaxy while the other jedi fight in a war and try to uncover his plot.

None of which negates his "the special" status. Him being manipulated doesn't diminish his raw power, or origin via immaculate conception.

So what? Results matter.

I admit that it was a bad plot twist to make her Palpy's spawn. However the first part of your statement is flat out false. The fact that there is a Jedi order at all (and that Jedi are celibate) implies that the force can flow through anyone. And we had several movies showing exactly that. TLJ wasn't saying anything new or exciting by saying this.

Yes, Jedi are around, and we know that the Force isn't bound by blood (though IIRC, one of the reasons the Jedi forbid magic in the old EU was to stop 'Force dynasties' rising). But EU, old or new aside, the films aren't free from bloodlines either. Again, Luke says how "the Force is strong in my family," and considering what we see him, Vader, and even Leia do, that's a fair assessment. In the OT, Qui-Gon asks who Anakin's father is - actually dipping into the old EU for a second, the novelization establishes that Qui-Gon could sense that the Force was strong with Shimi, but that the strength wasn't so great that it could explain Anakin's raw power).

Point is, the existence of Jedi in of themselves doesn't negate that even going just by the films, bloodline apparently plays a key role.

In what way though? All you've shown is that they play a key role in being called special. If that's your complaint, then okay I guess, SW has a problem with calling the chosen one the chosen one. But I thought this was a complaint that only chosen ones get to be heroic in SW, which technically Rey isn't one either, just having a powerful ancestor doesn't make you a special. I know the actual complaint with her is that she have no parentage instead of verified powerful parentage, but whatever SW has said about someone being special, it has always put it's emphasis on what the characters did, no matter what their destiny said they were supposed to do.

SW already takes a character's motivation, skill, and personal choice above anything else about their heritage.

crimson5pheonix:
This entire argument has been about their power and importance in universe. If not you, then other people are complaining that the only force users are Skywalkers (and now Palpatines). So if you're not arguing that, you've walked into the wrong argument.

Other people can look after their own arguments. My own is simply that I feel in terms of force users, the movies give the idea that if you won't born to greatness, hard luck. I don't think that's a very attractive message.

Force powers are at their strongest in the prequels, which makes sense since there are tons of force users around. So you get super speed, super lightning, fighting entire armies, etc.

Yeah, maybe. That seems to me a bit like writing our own logic on what is really an unknown, though.

There is some post Disney stuff, Rebels on DisneyXD has other force users during the between of the prequels and the OT, along with Anakin's old apprentice. I've only watched some clips of it, but I don't think it's concluded so we don't know if any of them die or survive to the OT.

It generally seems improbable that if any Jedis survived the empire purge they've one and all gone to ground and even after the restoration of the Republic stay that way rather than help rebuild the Jedis or otherwise concern themselves resisting the First Order.

But in any case, it's established force sensitivity is largely random...

Except all the main characters of the movies, in which case it's internal logical inconsistency in the SW world.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:
This entire argument has been about their power and importance in universe. If not you, then other people are complaining that the only force users are Skywalkers (and now Palpatines). So if you're not arguing that, you've walked into the wrong argument.

Other people can look after their own arguments. My own is simply that I feel in terms of force users, the movies give the idea that if you won't born to greatness, hard luck. I don't think that's a very attractive message.

I don't see it since the only characters born great are Anakin and Luke, and it's arguable that Luke is born great and not just a last ditch effort. And for all Anakin's greatness, he loses more fights than he wins on screen. Supplemental material may change that, but in the movies Anakin's kind of a loser.

Force powers are at their strongest in the prequels, which makes sense since there are tons of force users around. So you get super speed, super lightning, fighting entire armies, etc.

Yeah, maybe. That seems to me a bit like writing our own logic on what is really an unknown, though.

It's an easily verifiable observation. The most impressive thing we see Luke do is a lift a ship. Once. In the prequels we see rocks and pods get thrown around as attacks.

There is some post Disney stuff, Rebels on DisneyXD has other force users during the between of the prequels and the OT, along with Anakin's old apprentice. I've only watched some clips of it, but I don't think it's concluded so we don't know if any of them die or survive to the OT.

It generally seems improbable that if any Jedis survived the empire purge they've one and all gone to ground and even after the restoration of the Republic stay that way rather than help rebuild the Jedis or otherwise concern themselves resisting the First Order.

There might be a show that concerns itself with it later then. This is more a problem of Disney not communicating with it's own departments. They couldn't even plan out movies, like hell are they going to acknowledge their shows.

But in any case, it's established force sensitivity is largely random...

Except all the main characters of the movies, in which case it's internal logical inconsistency in the SW world.

How are they not? The Jedi might have had a prophecy, but they were sketchy on whether it was true and finding Anakin was absolute chance. And clearly just having a force sensitive ancestor isn't enough, otherwise Palpatine's direct child would have been important and powerful too. Deep lore says it ups your chance of force sensitivity, but it's still not a guarantee.

It's random.

Hawki:

Johnny Novgorod:

1) I laughed out loud when they sidelined Rose. It made me think of Homer getting shoehorned into the basement with the "very important" job of looking at a bee in a jar, while the plant inspection goes on upstairs. Bold move, guys.

Not really bold when at least some of it is due to the backlash Rose/Kelly Marie Tran received, some of it being...fine, disgusting.

I think Disney's message is equally disgusting: there's no creative vision, just a series of reactions to reactions.

Poe has the conclusion of his arc from TLJ as we see that he's less willing to throw lives away. Finn, not so much, but his arc is acknowledged by proxy through Jannah and the other defectors. On the other hand, his whole "I have something to tell you [Rey]" schtick goes nowhere.

Poe's arc in TLJ is "learn to blindly follow orders that don't appear to make any sense from people withholding vital information for no real reason". Which doesn't matter in Rise of Skywalker because he's the one ordering people around by the end.

Finn's arc in TLJ is "don't sacrifice yourself, love is (somehow) gonna save us". Which is completely disregarded by his final suicidal move in Rise of Skywalker.

In both cases the characters learn nothing new and succeed out of sheer dumb luck, AKA Deus Ex Lando.

It could be said to be representing that theme by Rey walking away from her heritage and being her own person.

... by assuming the name of people whom she isn't related to?
"Being her own person" is the obvious intention of the final scene. What I'm saying is that the way they tried to convey it makes no sense if you think about it for 2 seconds.

6) How did Palpatine survive RotJ, again?

"The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to abilities many consider to be...unnatural."

...oh wait, you wanted a real answer. Um...

The only thing I can think of is Palpatine's spirit transferred to a new body or something. I mean, this is a movie that establishes that spirit transfer is a thing, and clones have long been a thing as well. On the other hand, if that's the case, I'm left to ask why being thrown into a reactor doesn't do the job, while being zapped with lightning does. Maybe he was out of bodies?

No answer then.

crimson5pheonix:
I don't see it since the only characters born great are Anakin and Luke...

...and Leia and Rey and Kylo.

It's an easily verifiable observation. The most impressive thing we see Luke do is a lift a ship. Once. In the prequels we see rocks and pods get thrown around as attacks.

Maybe, but an X-wing is a great deal larger and heavier than a senate chamber pod. I am also inclined to think that projecting ones image and voice across many light years of space is not a negligible accomplishment.

Of course, lots of force powers are totally uneven. Obi-Wan can flip himself metres into the air, other Jedi users can throw rocks and stuff, but seemingly no force user can levitate to the ground when dropping from a great height.

Deep lore says it ups your chance of force sensitivity, but it's still not a guarantee.

It's random.

In the world of heredity, "not a guarantee" is a very different thing from "random".

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:
I don't see it since the only characters born great are Anakin and Luke...

...and Leia and Rey and Kylo.

How is Rey born great? Anakin is the only chosen one, technically. Luke gets thrown in. Leia and Kylo are just part of the family.

It's an easily verifiable observation. The most impressive thing we see Luke do is a lift a ship. Once. In the prequels we see rocks and pods get thrown around as attacks.

Maybe, but an X-wing is a great deal larger and heavier than a senate chamber pod. I am also inclined to think that projecting ones image and voice across many light years of space is not a negligible accomplishment.

It's clearly a strain to Luke while those senator pods aren't light and they get thrown in bunches.

Of course, lots of force powers are totally uneven. Obi-Wan can flip himself metres into the air, other Jedi users can throw rocks and stuff, but seemingly no force user can levitate to the ground when dropping from a great height.

I wonder if that's part of jumping?

Deep lore says it ups your chance of force sensitivity, but it's still not a guarantee.

It's random.

In the world of heredity, "not a guarantee" is a very different thing from "random".

Just because odds are weighted doesn't mean they aren't random. Leia might be force sensitive to an extent, but she never showed anything near Luke's power, and Luke isn't anywhere near Anakin's power. Neither are as strong as Palpatine as far as we ever see and Palpatine doesn't have any notable heritage as far as the force is concerned. He just ate his Wheaties.

crimson5pheonix:

Force powers are at their strongest in the prequels, which makes sense since there are tons of force users around. So you get super speed, super lightning, fighting entire armies, etc.

Yeah, maybe. That seems to me a bit like writing our own logic on what is really an unknown, though.

It's an easily verifiable observation. The most impressive thing we see Luke do is a lift a ship. Once. In the prequels we see rocks and pods get thrown around as attacks.

I always thought the prequels having more impressive force powers had more to do with the force users both being in their physical prime and having the benefit of training in its use for their entire lives rather than there being more force users alive in the universe. In the original trilogy the force users are either very old or only have a relatively little amount of training so it makes sense that the powers displayed would be somewhat less spectacular. I mean, I know the real reason is advances in special effects and CGI, but in universe it doesn't seem like there is any allusions to there being less force to go around because the jedi were killed off, or even any examples that spring to mind of multiple force users coming together to collaborate in order to use some sort of force power they wouldn't be able to do individually.

Silent Protagonist:

crimson5pheonix:

Yeah, maybe. That seems to me a bit like writing our own logic on what is really an unknown, though.

It's an easily verifiable observation. The most impressive thing we see Luke do is a lift a ship. Once. In the prequels we see rocks and pods get thrown around as attacks.

I always thought the prequels having more impressive force powers had more to do with the force users both being in their physical prime and having the benefit of training in its use for their entire lives rather than there being more force users alive in the universe. In the original trilogy the force users are either very old or only have a relatively little amount of training so it makes sense that the powers displayed would be somewhat less spectacular. I mean, I know the real reason is advances in special effects and CGI, but in universe it doesn't seem like there is any allusions to there being less force to go around because the jedi were killed off, or even any examples that spring to mind of multiple force users coming together to collaborate in order to use some sort of force power they wouldn't be able to do individually.

Well yes, I don't mean that there are literally fewer force users, thus powers are weaker. I mean there's a smaller pool to draw from and yes, they aren't trained. Luke isn't that impressive, but he may be one of only a handful of users in the galaxy, so he's one of the most powerful by default.

crimson5pheonix:
How is Rey born great? Anakin is the only chosen one, technically. Luke gets thrown in. Leia and Kylo are just part of the family.

If Rey is Palpatine's granddaughter, and Luke and Leia are the last Jedi possibilities to turn Anakin (and his children), the suggestion is that the force is at least partially heritable.

It's clearly a strain to Luke

He's an apprentice at the time. Palpatine and Yoda are masters with decades (centuries in Yoda's case) of experience.

I wonder if that's part of jumping?

I think it's creator convenience, so the threat of fatal falls still exists.

Just because odds are weighted doesn't mean they aren't random.

Random means not having patterns or predictability, so if the odds are weighted, it's not random. (We can argue that there is an element of randomness beyond certain parameters.) That's why your physician might ask you whether your forebears have a history of mental health disorders, heart problems, etc. If they did, it doesn't mean you necessarily will, but it substantially increases the probability you will.

Leia might be force sensitive to an extent, but she never showed anything near Luke's power, and Luke isn't anywhere near Anakin's power. Neither are as strong as Palpatine as far as we ever see and Palpatine doesn't have any notable heritage as far as the force is concerned. He just ate his Wheaties.

Like I already said, no two force users ever have their capabilities measured against others. There are no grounds to argue whether one is greater than another. Maybe one wins a lightsabre duel just because he/she is fitter or more skilled, not because they are stronger in the force. Leia may have more potential than Luke, it's just she wasn't trained. And as said, we are not told what the heritage of any other Jedi/Sith are so we cannot draw conclusions from them either way: maybe Palpatine's mum/dad/grandparent was a top Jedi, or someone very force sensitive never trained. How do we know otherwise?

Broadly, one for one, the Sith appear to be more powerful than the Jedi (perhaps because they have access to "additional" power from dark emotions, or because there are only two of them?)

Part of me wants this new trilogy to be remade, with only a few alterations, no change in overall plot and only ONE SINGLE DIRECTOR for the whole trilogy:

-Make Rey aware of her force powers from the get-go, possibly years before the movie starts so that she practices in secret and utilizes it in inconspicuous ways, she deliberately doesn't call attention to it because she believes it puts a spotlight on her, meaning she and those close to her become targets by whatever mobs run the planet.
-(Related) give Rey friends on that desert shithole so leaving it has emotional weight.
-(Dark side related) Rey has grown up in a far more ruthless environment where Sith logic makes more sense to her, she overcomes this mindset throughout the trilogy.

-Develop Finn's squadmates as side characters with faces, names and identities, post-pone his betrayal to the second act and make this "traitor" arch something that spans the entire series where he tries to save his old comrades from a system that does not value them as human beings, this should inform a reluctance to fight, add occasional failure for drama.

-Finn and Poe become wholesome gay lovers and brothers in arms.

-Kylo is more of a zuko-like character that is both misguided by the FO's ideology and fearful of standing up to high command, he's shown to lead with more concern for the wellbeing of his soldiers than other commanders and believes their cause is just, his arch is about seeing he is part of the problem and his newfound idealism leads him to the light side.

-Kylo-Rey shipping is still possible, learning from each other along the way, respected adversaries in the first movie, redeemed friends in the second, falling in love in the third.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:
How is Rey born great? Anakin is the only chosen one, technically. Luke gets thrown in. Leia and Kylo are just part of the family.

If Rey is Palpatine's granddaughter, and Luke and Leia are the last Jedi possibilities to turn Anakin (and his children), the suggestion is that the force is at least partially heritable.

Luke and Leia can turn Anakin not because they're jedi, but because they're his kids. SW has made a big deal about how force sensitivity is random and can appear in anyone.

It's clearly a strain to Luke

He's an apprentice at the time. Palpatine and Yoda are masters with decades (centuries in Yoda's case) of experience.

Indeed. That's what I've been arguing in this thread before you came up. I've been arguing against the people saying that hard work and dedication don't match up to having a fancy lineage.

Just because odds are weighted doesn't mean they aren't random.

Random means not having patterns or predictability, so if the odds are weighted, it's not random. (We can argue that there is an element of randomness beyond certain parameters.) That's why your physician might ask you whether your forebears have a history of mental health disorders, heart problems, etc. If they did, it doesn't mean you necessarily will, but it substantially increases the probability you will.

That's not what random means. If I roll 2 6 sided dice I'll come up with 7 more than anything else, but you can still gamble on this. To take your analogy, just because your family has a high risk of mental disorders doesn't mean they immediately put you on medication, they just scrutinize you more closely for them.

Leia might be force sensitive to an extent, but she never showed anything near Luke's power, and Luke isn't anywhere near Anakin's power. Neither are as strong as Palpatine as far as we ever see and Palpatine doesn't have any notable heritage as far as the force is concerned. He just ate his Wheaties.

Like I already said, no two force users ever have their capabilities measured against others. There are no grounds to argue whether one is greater than another. Maybe one wins a lightsabre duel just because he/she is fitter or more skilled, not because they are stronger in the force. Leia may have more potential than Luke, it's just she wasn't trained. And as said, we are not told what the heritage of any other Jedi/Sith are so we cannot draw conclusions from them either way: maybe Palpatine's mum/dad/grandparent was a top Jedi, or someone very force sensitive never trained. How do we know otherwise?

Actually we do know Palpatine's parents, they're career politicians, not force users. Palpatine was just a random force sensitive picked up by Darth Plagueis (the wise). And I wouldn't count on anyone being descended from a jedi in the old republic, the jedi were celibate, with exactly one recorded exception.

As for measuring force sensitives, midichlorians did get dropped, but we can still see their feats and deeds and get a rough estimate of how powerful they are compared to each other in given time frames.

Broadly, one for one, the Sith appear to be more powerful than the Jedi (perhaps because they have access to "additional" power from dark emotions, or because there are only two of them?)

The general agreed upon framework from all sorts of other material is that the dark side gets you power faster, but not necessarily more of it.

Agema:

crimson5pheonix:
How is Rey born great? Anakin is the only chosen one, technically. Luke gets thrown in. Leia and Kylo are just part of the family.

If Rey is Palpatine's granddaughter, and Luke and Leia are the last Jedi possibilities to turn Anakin (and his children), the suggestion is that the force is at least partially heritable.

That's...not remotely new. Luke was flat out told in the Original Trilogy that the Force is strong in his family. Whether that was due to it being a hereditary trait or divine providence wasn't explained, but from that alone we knew it was possible. In at least a few of the EU stories that was also one of the reasons that the Jedi discouraged having families; aside from the issues of emotional attachment it also risked creating Jedi dynasties. Hell, much of the EU was based around the Skywalker line, almost all of which were exceptionally strong in the Force. Toss in the more recent Old Republic franchise and the Jedi are led by Grandmaster Satele Shan, who is descended of the legendary Jedi of KoTOR, and you get the Emperor's exceptionally powerful children in the expansions. That Force Sensitivity can run in families is not remotely novel at this juncture.

Taking that to the extreme of "need to be born great", however, is a stretch to say the least. While the franchise establishes that Force Sensitivity can run in families, it's also baked into the series that Force Sensitives come from anywhere and everywhere. The canon has long been that the overwhelming majority of those who would become Jedi and Sith are discovered and recruited, not born into a family tradition. In Harry Potter terms, most Force Sensitives were muggle-born.

Phantom Menace further codified this in through the almost offhanded testing of Anakin for Force Sensitivity and the subsequent explanation that the marker for Force Sensitivity (Midichlorians) was present to some extent in literally all life they knew of but also strongly implied that only individuals with high concentrations of that marker were Force Sensitive.

Combustion Kevin:
Part of me wants this new trilogy to be remade, with only a few alterations, no change in overall plot and only ONE SINGLE DIRECTOR for the whole trilogy:

-Make Rey aware of her force powers from the get-go, possibly years before the movie starts so that she practices in secret and utilizes it in inconspicuous ways, she deliberately doesn't call attention to it because she believes it puts a spotlight on her, meaning she and those close to her become targets by whatever mobs run the planet.
-(Related) give Rey friends on that desert shithole so leaving it has emotional weight.
-(Dark side related) Rey has grown up in a far more ruthless environment where Sith logic makes more sense to her, she overcomes this mindset throughout the trilogy.

-Develop Finn's squadmates as side characters with faces, names and identities, post-pone his betrayal to the second act and make this "traitor" arch something that spans the entire series where he tries to save his old comrades from a system that does not value them as human beings, this should inform a reluctance to fight, add occasional failure for drama.

-Finn and Poe become wholesome gay lovers and brothers in arms.

-Kylo is more of a zuko-like character that is both misguided by the FO's ideology and fearful of standing up to high command, he's shown to lead with more concern for the wellbeing of his soldiers than other commanders and believes their cause is just, his arch is about seeing he is part of the problem and his newfound idealism leads him to the light side.

-Kylo-Rey shipping is still possible, learning from each other along the way, respected adversaries in the first movie, redeemed friends in the second, falling in love in the third.

Mostly on-board with that, but...why the gay lovers part? Considering the final bulletpoint, I'm getting some real "pair the suitors" vibes from it. Moreover, I'd go so far as to argue that putting Finn in a romantic relationship with one of his new comrades in arms would be detrimental to the character arc by adding overtones of "going to college to get her Mrs." to his defection (ie, joining something to be close to the beau rather than on their own impetus) and thereby distracting from him finding a cause and people he's passionate enough about to fight and die for.

Agema:
Broadly, one for one, the Sith appear to be more powerful than the Jedi (perhaps because they have access to "additional" power from dark emotions, or because there are only two of them?)

crimson5pheonix:

The general agreed upon framework from all sorts of other material is that the dark side gets you power faster, but not necessarily more of it.

I'd say you're both right.

Due to that Rule of Two only one master and apprentice get to call themselves Sith, which they likely have to defend against pretenders to the title. A master has incentive to find a apprentice powerful enough to be a valuable ally (if nominally) and to eventually succeed him to ensure Sith teachings and title live on. Likewise, the apprentice has incentive to seek out as much power as possible to be useful to the master, and in hopes of one day killing him to take his place. If the apprentice falls short, he's replaced. If succesful, he eventually finds his own disciple, the cycle repeats.

It's an environment that promotes survival of the fittest; only the strongest, most cunning and most ruthless live. That's why I think the average Sith is more powerful than the average Jedi. Because they have to be powerful by necessity.

Also pretty much all interactions between Jedi and Sith end in a fight, which I'm guessing is advantageous to Sith, since the Dark Side thrives on quick and easy solutions like violence.

Chimpzy:

Agema:
Broadly, one for one, the Sith appear to be more powerful than the Jedi (perhaps because they have access to "additional" power from dark emotions, or because there are only two of them?)

crimson5pheonix:

The general agreed upon framework from all sorts of other material is that the dark side gets you power faster, but not necessarily more of it.

I'd say you're both right.

Due to that Rule of Two only one master and apprentice get to call themselves Sith, which they likely have to defend against pretenders to the title. A master has incentive to find a apprentice powerful enough to be a valuable ally (if nominally) and to eventually succeed him to ensure Sith teachings and title live on. Likewise, the apprentice has incentive to seek out as much power as possible to be useful to the master, and in hopes of one day killing him to take his place. If the apprentice falls short, he's replaced. If succesful, he eventually finds his own disciple, the cycle repeats.

It's an environment that promotes survival of the fittest; only the strongest, most cunning and most ruthless live. That's why I think the average Sith is more powerful than the average Jedi. Because they have to be powerful by necessity.

Also pretty much all interactions between Jedi and Sith end in a fight, which I'm guessing is advantageous to Sith, since the Dark Side thrives on quick and easy solutions like violence.

We all know what Kenobi and Yoda pacificsm got the universe - tyranny and death

trunkage:

Chimpzy:
snip

We all know what Kenobi and Yoda pacificsm got the universe - tyranny and death

Not really the point I wanted to make. It's not that Jedi confronting the Sith is a wrong thing, but that confronting them by swinging a lasersword at them is a less than ideal solution, because violence is where the Dark Side is strongest. It's giving the Sith the home field advantage, so to speak.

Chimpzy:

trunkage:

Chimpzy:
snip

We all know what Kenobi and Yoda pacificsm got the universe - tyranny and death

Not really the point I wanted to make. It's not that Jedi confronting the Sith is a wrong thing, but that confronting them by swinging a lasersword at them is a less than ideal solution, because violence is where the Dark Side is strongest. It's giving the Sith the home field advantage, so to speak.

image

SupahEwok:
image

To be fair, spinning IS a good trick.

SupahEwok:

Chimpzy:

trunkage:
We all know what Kenobi and Yoda pacificsm got the universe - tyranny and death

Not really the point I wanted to make. It's not that Jedi confronting the Sith is a wrong thing, but that confronting them by swinging a lasersword at them is a less than ideal solution, because violence is where the Dark Side is strongest. It's giving the Sith the home field advantage, so to speak.

image

image

Asita:
That's...not remotely new.

I know. Hence my disbelief at crimson5phoenix trying to claim otherwise.

Combustion Kevin:
Part of me wants this new trilogy to be remade, with only a few alterations, no change in overall plot and only ONE SINGLE DIRECTOR for the whole trilogy:

One single scriptwriter or creative lead, maybe, ensuring a coherent storyline with the directors kept on the right path and their individual flourishes constrained.

Chimpzy:
To be fair, spinning IS a good trick.

Waste of effort, and you've no control (e.g. ability to change direction) at all with all that flying through the air.

Agema:
Waste of effort, and you've no control (e.g. ability to change direction) at all with all that flying through the air.

In reality, yes.

But these are the Star Wars prequels, where spinning is a good trick. Which is why everyone does it all the time. Even Anakin figured that out the first time he flew an actual space ship, and he's the dumbass who didn't notice the super obvious Sith Lord practically telling him he's a Sith Lord.

Chimpzy:

Agema:
Waste of effort, and you've no control (e.g. ability to change direction) at all with all that flying through the air.

In reality, yes.

But these are the Star Wars prequels, where spinning is a good trick. Which is why everyone does it all the time. Even Anakin figured that out the first time he flew an actual space ship, and he's the dumbass who didn't notice the super obvious Sith Lord practically telling him he's a Sith Lord.

Well you know, a Sith alluding that they're probably a Sith in front of a hotheaded youth trying to prove his inflated sense of self-worth to the Jedi Council is a tactic some would consider to be...unnatural. So obviously it would completely blindside them, thereby guaranteeing the tactic's success. *sage nod*

Agema:

Asita:
That's...not remotely new.

I know. Hence my disbelief at crimson5phoenix trying to claim otherwise.

I never claimed otherwise.

Asita:

Well you know, a Sith alluding that they're probably a Sith in front of a hotheaded youth trying to prove his inflated sense of self-worth to the Jedi Council is a tactic some would consider to be...unnatural. So obviously it would completely blindside them, thereby guaranteeing the tactic's success. *sage nod*

That or the prequels were written and directed by a guy who'd spent so long out of movie-making that his talent had atrophied and he made a load of flashy garbage. Just putting that idea out there ;)

Agema:

Asita:

Well you know, a Sith alluding that they're probably a Sith in front of a hotheaded youth trying to prove his inflated sense of self-worth to the Jedi Council is a tactic some would consider to be...unnatural. So obviously it would completely blindside them, thereby guaranteeing the tactic's success. *sage nod*

That or the prequels were written and directed by a guy who'd spent so long out of movie-making that his talent had atrophied and he made a load of flashy garbage. Just putting that idea out there ;)

I mean sure, if you want to be completely serious about it. But sometimes a guy just wants to tear down a scene by paraphrasing it. :P

Batou667:
That's verging on being an almost complete non sequitur. No, the film isn't a tragedy because Gaston (the villain) dies at the end. But that was in response to you asserting that "real men are beasts, not dandies", so I'll repeat the question; according to who?

I've been holding off on replying to this one because.. it's an essay.

Beauty and the Beast is a didactic story. It was written as a didactic story. It's a story that is specifically meant to teach or instruct its audience in some aspect of morals or social convention. The two books on which the Disney film is based were written to teach and reinforce societal conventions about marriage and relationships which made sense in the 18th century, a time when women (at least, women of the social class would be subject to arranged marriages. The point of beauty and the beast is specifically, textually, to teach women that their own desires are immoral and selfish. The moral is that women must learn to overlook the physical or character deficits of their appointed husbands, because a good woman, a virtuous woman, accepts her allotted station with grace and makes the best of what she has.

When Disney rewrote the story, they made some pretty obvious changes, in particular removing a lot of elements which would be kind of weird or offensive to modern audiences. They changed Belle's character to make her more of an assertive modern woman, and added the standard Disney protagonist motivation of vaguely wanting something more out of life. The moral is now superficially less about how women should strive to display perfect unconditional love because otherwise their husbands will die of magic blue balls and is now more generally about the need to look past superficial appearances. But the original core of the story is still there, it's just less an allegory for arranged marriage as it is about an idealised idea of heterosexual romance. In fact, it taps into some very common tropes about heterosexual romance and its presentation in media.

Imagine a story about a beautiful woman who finds herself forcibly placed under the absolute control of a frightening, feral guy whom she is initially repulsed and frightened by, but through small acts of humanity and protection she comes to realise that deep down he's actually a good, decent person. She falls in love with him, and in turn he is magically transformed and becomes the person he always was inside.

It exists, and it's called The Terminator.

In fact, this is the romantic subplot (or even the main plot) about women being kidnapped, imprisoned or held hostage by violent tough guys whom they end up falling for can be found in literally dozens of films, not to mention countless books and other stories, in which it is portrayed as romantic and indeed relatable. For men, it allows for fetishization of male dominance over women, and the fantasy of getting the girl without actually having to make any effort or improve yourself. For women, it prays on a fantasy of fixing someone who is damaged purely by being the most manic pixie dream girl ever. People like these stories because they serve as a heightened depiction of relationship dynamics which are still seen as good or desirable. In film, men are allowed to be broken, self-loathing and flawed without actually being bad people. They are allowed to be coercive, inflexible, threatening, violent or domineering while still being redeemable, as long as they remain sympathetic. Through the magic of film, these men don't have deep seated emotional and interpersonal problems which they need to work through. They just need to meet the right woman, a woman who is so special and deep and not like other girls that she can see through all their horrible shitty behaviour and realise that deep down they really are a good person, whereupon all their problems will magically disappear and they will turn into a real boy.

So again, beauty and the beast is about an idealized romantic relationship. Now, bearing that in mind, let's move on to your questions.

Firstly, I think it should be obvious that anyone who draws a line between "real men" and other men who aren't real, I guess, is basing that on a set of fairly arbitrary prejudices. That line does not actually exist. It's in no way required to actually explain reality. However, large parts of our culture are still predicated on those arbitrary prejudices, and on the idea that being a man or a woman should come with certain behaviours, expectations and standards which separate "real men", men who measure up to those standards, from the others.

In our culture, and certainly within the quite explicit didactic ideology of beauty and the beast. Beast is "real". That's why it's okay for him to act like kind of a dick, because it's not like he's a bad person, he's just a brooding byronic hero, he keeps it real and plays by his own rules even if people get hurt sometimes, but it's only because he's true to himself. After all, at the end of the day he's doing it for love. Sure, he's not perfect, but what kind of woman needs a perfect man? Just because she's incredibly beautiful and has absolutely no character flaws and is basically framed as the perfect woman doesn't mean she can reject whoever she wants, right? After all, isn't it better to settle for something that's real, even if it's not perfect? She'll learn that after a few months imprisoned in the castle, I'm sure.

Gaston is not "real", he's superficially hyper-masculine, but in a way that is contrived and self-involved, which makes him, again, a dandy. With a few exceptions, our culture does not generally tell romantic stories about people like Gaston. They don't get to be abusive dickbags and still get away with being redeemable or the hero. Even before Gaston has revealed himself to be the truly sadistic character he at the end of the film, noone is rooting for him to learn to be a better person and for him and Belle to end up together as a romantic couple, and that's because of the way he's characterised. There is something off about him, something which was put there deliberately to signal to the audience that this was someone you were not supposed to relate to or see as redeemable.

And again, it just so happens that the mechanism used to convey that draws on a lot of the assumptions about how people of different genders, sexualities behave, or are "supposed" to behave.

Johnny Novgorod:

I think Disney's message is equally disgusting: there's no creative vision, just a series of reactions to reactions.

Not defending the planning of the sequel trilogy (or lack of it technically) but that isn't really a message per se.

Poe's arc in TLJ is "learn to blindly follow orders that don't appear to make any sense from people withholding vital information for no real reason". Which doesn't matter in Rise of Skywalker because he's the one ordering people around by the end.

Not really. It's more knowing how to pick your battles, learning to follow chain of command, etc. I think the film could have done a better job with it though.

Finn's arc in TLJ is "don't sacrifice yourself, love is (somehow) gonna save us". Which is completely disregarded by his final suicidal move in Rise of Skywalker.

What suicidal move in Rise? I honestly don't remember it.

But, no. Finn's arc is TLJ is more him learning to appreciate the moral greyness of the galaxy, yet also being able to commit to a cause he believes in. TFA is the start of his arc (leaving the First Order), TLJ is a continuation/conclusion of it. Rise doesn't really continue or conclude an arc for him, but does at least acknowledge it through his actions inspriring other stormtroopers to defect.

... by assuming the name of people whom she isn't related to?
"Being her own person" is the obvious intention of the final scene. What I'm saying is that the way they tried to convey it makes no sense if you think about it for 2 seconds.

Well, no, I still think it counts. No-one else is going to take the Skywalker name, and she's earnt it.

I think it would have worked a lot better if she hadn't got an actual surname to fall back on, but still, it does work overall.

Combustion Kevin:

-Kylo-Rey shipping is still possible, learning from each other along the way, respected adversaries in the first movie, redeemed friends in the second, falling in love in the third.

If he's redeemed in the second film, who's the antagonist in the third?

Can I just add here that I really hate the Reylo ship? I mean, I kind of get why so many people like it, but in the context of the films...Kylo's given two "outs" of the First Order and rejects both of them. Kylo kills his own father, and did his darndest to kill Luke, and that's in addition to all his other sins. My understading was that by the end of The Last Jedi, Rey's moved on from hoping she can redeem him, which fits in with the themes of the film. But what do we get in Rise? Palpy's back (because reasons), and they share a loving kiss because it turns out that "I didn't want Kylo, I wanted Ben." Bleh. I said it in my review of Rise, and I'll say it here - in the film, there's two good men who are clearly interested in Rey, but she spurs both of them to be with a person who should be well past the moral event horizon by now.

Did I like Ben's scenes with Han and Leia in the film? Well, yeah, kinda. But Kylo's perhaps the most interesting character in the trilogy, but Rise sidelines him for Palpy, because apparently Disney thought the drooling fanboys preferred lightning shows to character development. :(

Asita:

Agema:

Asita:

Well you know, a Sith alluding that they're probably a Sith in front of a hotheaded youth trying to prove his inflated sense of self-worth to the Jedi Council is a tactic some would consider to be...unnatural. So obviously it would completely blindside them, thereby guaranteeing the tactic's success. *sage nod*

That or the prequels were written and directed by a guy who'd spent so long out of movie-making that his talent had atrophied and he made a load of flashy garbage. Just putting that idea out there ;)

I mean sure, if you want to be completely serious about it. But sometimes a guy just wants to tear down a scene by paraphrasing it. :P

I've never had a problem with that scene, or Anakin not learning Palpy's Sidious until later. We know from the EU that Palpy acted as a secondary father figure to Anakin, so obviously Anakin's had a blind spot. But even in the context of the films by themselves, Anakin's expressed dissatisfaction with the Jedi/Republic since Ep. 2, and in Ep. 3, he's already frustrated and fearful because of the Jedi and Padme. So, here's Palpy telling the story of Darth Plagius. I don't think it's unreasonable for a chancellor to be well versed in galactic lore/history, and he's telling Anakin exactly what Anakin wants to hear - that his frustrations with the Jedi are justified, and that there's a, um, "force" in this universe that can save people from death.

You can certainly criticize a lot of the execution of the prequels, but I don't consider that scene one of them. Honestly, for me, it's one of the best in Revenge, and the PT as a whole.

evilthecat:

Imagine a story about a beautiful woman who finds herself forcibly placed under the absolute control of a frightening, feral guy whom she is initially repulsed and frightened by, but through small acts of humanity and protection she comes to realise that deep down he's actually a good, decent person. She falls in love with him, and in turn he is magically transformed and becomes the person he always was inside.

It exists, and it's called The Terminator.

This is me being pedantic, but screw it, I don't have anything better to do right now.

T1 does use the tropes you describe, but I disagree with the notion that Reese is "transformed" in the film per se. To me, it's less Sarah 'transforming' him and more him just allowing himself to be a person that he hasn't lost per se, but has kept intentionally suppressed. We see in the future-flashbacks that Reese does have humanity to him, such as his quiet grief over losing his comrade to the HK-tank, plus how he returns the child's 'pew pews.' That, and even in 1984, he never really harms people. Doesn't hurt the cops, does what he can to get people out of the way in the club, and checks one of the bodies the T-800's left in its wake. Also tells Sarah in the motel that "you turn yourself off," when referring to how one copes with the torment of the future.

I think a difference between T1 and Beauty/Beast is that Reese is intentionally keeping himself emotionally distant for personal and professional reasons, while the Beast is the one who does change as a person. If anything, it's Sarah that has the arc in T1, while Belle...doesn't. Not really. Belle doesn't really change as a person, though apparently her desire to explore the great wide somewhere transformed to "screw it, I've got a castle now!"

Ah, women...

SupahEwok:

Chimpzy:

trunkage:
We all know what Kenobi and Yoda pacificsm got the universe - tyranny and death

Not really the point I wanted to make. It's not that Jedi confronting the Sith is a wrong thing, but that confronting them by swinging a lasersword at them is a less than ideal solution, because violence is where the Dark Side is strongest. It's giving the Sith the home field advantage, so to speak.

image

I will always love episode 3.

Hawki:

Johnny Novgorod:

I think Disney's message is equally disgusting: there's no creative vision, just a series of reactions to reactions.

Not defending the planning of the sequel trilogy (or lack of it technically) but that isn't really a message per se.

Yes it is. They let backlash dictacte their next move (in a pretty transparent way) rather than backing their own decisions.

Poe's arc in TLJ is "learn to blindly follow orders that don't appear to make any sense from people withholding vital information for no real reason". Which doesn't matter in Rise of Skywalker because he's the one ordering people around by the end.

Not really. It's more knowing how to pick your battles, learning to follow chain of command, etc. I think the film could have done a better job with it though.

1) That is not Poe's arc.
2) The last film all but ignores him anyway.

Finn's arc in TLJ is "don't sacrifice yourself, love is (somehow) gonna save us". Which is completely disregarded by his final suicidal move in Rise of Skywalker.

What suicidal move in Rise? I honestly don't remember it.

But, no. Finn's arc is TLJ is more him learning to appreciate the moral greyness of the galaxy, yet also being able to commit to a cause he believes in. TFA is the start of his arc (leaving the First Order), TLJ is a continuation/conclusion of it. Rise doesn't really continue or conclude an arc for him, but does at least acknowledge it through his actions inspriring other stormtroopers to defect.

He "commits" by trying to sacrifice himself for a good cause, only to get a slap in the wrist for it. He gets to enjoy the nobility of an act that serves no purpose and is immediately chastised for it with an unrequited kiss.

... by assuming the name of people whom she isn't related to?
"Being her own person" is the obvious intention of the final scene. What I'm saying is that the way they tried to convey it makes no sense if you think about it for 2 seconds.

Well, no, I still think it counts. No-one else is going to take the Skywalker name, and she's earnt it.

According to whom, besides herself?

Johnny Novgorod:

Yes it is. They let backlash dictacte their next move (in a pretty transparent way) rather than backing their own decisions.

Which isn't in of itself a message.

This is semantics really. The entire sequel trilogy has been reactionary, and from the sound of it, we both dislike that.

1) That is not Poe's arc.

Then what is it?

2) The last film all but ignores him anyway.

No, not really. Want a character who's ignored? Look at Rose. Or not, since she barely gets any screentime.

But Poe does get the arc referenced considering his despair at throwing away so many lives in the final battle.

He "commits" by trying to sacrifice himself for a good cause, only to get a slap in the wrist for it. He gets to enjoy the nobility of an act that serves no purpose and is immediately chastised for it with an unrequited kiss.

That doesn't negate the arc he goes on, and Rose's actions have more in common with Po's arc than Finn's.

I think it could be better handled, like a lot of things in TLJ, but it's still there.

According to whom, besides herself?

Um, the audience?

It's clearly what the scene is going for. Themes/motifs/idea within a work don't always require in-universe reflection of that.

Jesus, six pages and still going. Honestly, there is nothing left to talk about it at this point. Almost everyone is just rambling in circles. All I have left to say is that I am getting this day one on Blu-ray.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here