Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi (2017) (spoilers free to be seen)

[blspro]

So if The Force Awakens was unoriginal because it used the same formula as the original Star Wars

TFA was unoriginal because it simply repeated most of the same story beats (plot, characterization, settings, etc) as ANH.  It essentially traced the same path as ANH.

The Last Jedi was unoriginal because it subverted the formula of The Empire Strikes Back

TLJ did not raze, destroy, or overthrow the story beats (plot, characterization, settings, etc) of ESB.  It simply reversed them.  Like TFA, TLJ essentially traced the same path as ESB, only it followed that path backwards. 

Following the same path, be it backwards or forwards, is the opposite of "original" or "different".

The Prequels are largely seen as awful because they didn't do ANYTHING that the original trilogy did.

That is not the reason people generally consider them "awful".  That is a just a lazy straw man substitute for the actual reasons most people list for the prequels being bad.  From bad acting, to bad characterizations, to bad plotting, to overuse of CGI, etc etc - from conception to execution, there are myriad of reasons the prequels were legitimately identified as bad (whether one was "entertained" by them or not).  Ignoring those and pretending that the 'real' reason people didn't think they were good is simply because they weren't whole imitations of the previous films is the same as smearing all the people who don't think TLJ is good as 'really' just 'alt-right haters' or 'butt-hurt fanboys'.

It isn't honest argumentation.  It's ultimately just personal attacks.

Additionally, there seems to be a conflation between "good" art and "liking" a work of art here.  They are not the same.  One can like a work of art that is neither good nor original.  And one can hate a work of art and still acknowledge that it is good or original.  Put simply, one's emotional response to a work of art says nothing about whether it is a good or bad work of art.  Whether one 'enjoyed' it or not - whether one is "entertained" by it or not - says something about you the viewer, not about whether the movie itself is well crafted or poorly crafted, ie good or bad.

Those are two different things.

In other words, 'Because I liked it' is not the definition of 'good'.

[Pak-Man]

Additionally, there seems to be a conflation between "good" art and "liking" a work of art here.  They are not the same.  One can like a work of art that is neither good nor original.  And one can hate a work of art and still acknowledge that it is good or original.  Put simply, one's emotional response to a work of art says nothing about whether it is a good or bad work of art.  Whether one 'enjoyed' it or not - whether one is "entertained" by it or not - says something about you the viewer, not about whether the movie itself is well crafted or poorly crafted, ie good or bad.

Those are two different things.

In other words, 'Because I liked it' is not the definition of 'good'.

Well that's a more philosophical question. If art sets out to perform a task, and it accomplishes that task, isn't it good art? If the Star Wars movies set out to entertain, and they do so, isn't that good art? If you can't judge art based on the reaction of its audience, what can you judge it on?

If you're talking art in the Acadamy-Award-Winning, emotional-manipulation, poem-in-film-form sense, then the original trilogy wasn't great art either. But I like it.

[goflyblind]

[blspro]

If you can't judge art based on the reaction of its audience, what can you judge it on?

Theme, Plot, Characterization, Setting, integration, conception, execution, etc etc ad nauseum.

In other words, to judge a work of art, you look at IT, not YOU.

Again, BIG difference.

Looking at yourself tells you nothing about the thing in question.  It tells you about YOU.  That is why "Because I like it" is NOT the definition of "good" - though it does seem to be your definition of the term.  (Which would, interestingly enough, suggest that Box Office - ie popularity - is the definition of a "good" movie.  LOL) 

By this 'argument', there is no difference between The Room and The Godfather - except one's emotions.  There is NO standard beyond emotions by which one can look at either and say one is good and one is bad.

That is a bad argument - because it is NO argument at all.  It is the declaration that there are NO arguments to be made - period.  One can ONLY appeal to one's emotions.  That is not only the divorce of emotion from reason, but the elimination of reason from the equation entirely.  It is a complete rejection OF argumentation - of reasoning - itself.

There is no 'think' - there is only 'feel'.

That is your 'support' for why this (or any) movie is good?  That is not support at all.  That is an outright rejection of the need for support.

That would certainly explain the previously noted, unsupported 'nu uh'.

'I don't have to think.  I only have to feel' is not the definition of anything.  Like everything in TLJ, that is its complete opposite.

[Imrahil]

Rogue One was pretty good.

But honestly they just should not have made more Star Wars movies. The story is done.

[goflyblind]

Rogue One was pretty good.

insufficient. you need to provide a 147 page formal logic argument.

[Imrahil]

Well it didn't steal plots or shit on previous characters. Instead it added to the existing story instead of ruining it.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

If Star Wars is the story of the Skywalker lineage, then the story isn't over until the last one is gone (only one left now is Ren/Ben).  If Anakin was created by the Sith then it's not that great of a bloodline to begin with.

If you look at it from that point of view what Luke does after losing his school, nephew, and all his students make sense.  Everything between him and Han and his sister was different now because of guilt, and the Skywalker line is predisposed to brooding.  So to deal with his depression instead of going to the dark side he simply closed himself off.  Being a stubborn Skywalker he stayed that way.

At least he pulled himself out of it at the end with a little nudge from Yoda and saved the next generation, and his sister, but with Carrie Fisher gone anything that could come from that is now going to go unrealized.

I sort of wish they would just write in a horrible accident at the start of the next movie and have Leia's face burned, that way the story that was written could be told with a different actress, but I doubt that would work.  Has there ever been a movie with massive last minute rewrites that turned out good? 

[The Lurker]

If Star Wars is the story of the Skywalker lineage, then the story isn't over until the last one is gone (only one left now is Ren/Ben).  If Anakin was created by the Sith then it's not that great of a bloodline to begin with.

If you look at it from that point of view what Luke does after losing his school, nephew, and all his students make sense.  Everything between him and Han and his sister was different now because of guilt, and the Skywalker line is predisposed to brooding.  So to deal with his depression instead of going to the dark side he simply closed himself off.  Being a stubborn Skywalker he stayed that way.

At least he pulled himself out of it at the end with a little nudge from Yoda and saved the next generation, and his sister, but with Carrie Fisher gone anything that could come from that is now going to go unrealized.

I sort of wish they would just write in a horrible accident at the start of the next movie and have Leia's face burned, that way the story that was written could be told with a different actress, but I doubt that would work.  Has there ever been a movie with massive last minute rewrites that turned out good? 

I've heard All the Money in the World is good and they had to replace an entire actor last minute.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I've heard All the Money in the World is good and they had to replace an entire actor last minute.

But did they have to rewrite the entire script?  For the next Star Wars movie they have to delete a major character.

[blspro]

For the next Star Wars movie they have to delete a major character.

One of the problems with this Trilogy is that there has been NO plan for it.  This has been stated by JJ and Rian (and is evident when one looks at TLJ, which does not flow from TFA but 'flips the bird' it - oh, excuse me, "subverts" it - LOL).

Only last week did JJ go in and PITCH a story for IX for the first time.  There is no need for 'rewriting' or 'deleting' anything, because NOTHING has been written in the first place yet.

[The Lurker]

Which kinda happened with the original trilogy as well, despite George Lucas' insistence (like with Jabba the Hutt or Luke and Leia's relationship).

[blspro]

Which kinda happened with the original trilogy as well, despite George Lucas' insistence (like with Jabba the Hutt or Luke and Leia's relationship).

No.  Lucas had an overall vision and a general road map.  He certainly had to make adjustments as he drove down that road, due to changing conditions as time went on (Jabba = technology evolution enabling expansion of vision; Luke/Leia = decision NOT to do a sequel Trilogy, etc). 

There is NO overall vision NOR any road map for the current Trilogy.  This isn't conjecture.  Both JJ and Rian have admitted this explicitly.  Lucasfilm is making everything up as they go, with no thought to what comes next.

So quite the OPPOSITE of what happened with the original trilogy.

[Johnny Unusual]

Saw it today.  Thought it was great.  That is all.

[Charles Castle]

If you can't judge art based on the reaction of its audience, what can you judge it on?

Theme, Plot, Characterization, Setting, integration, conception, execution, etc etc ad nauseum.

In other words, to judge a work of art, you look at IT, not YOU.

Again, BIG difference.

Criticism, including yours, is entirely based on the critic and their perception. Of course, in analyzing after the fact you might catch where your emotions colored your perception, but there is no real way to separate the viewer from the art, and acting differently makes you sound like a robot with an equation attempting to explain why something is objectively bad. I reject your components and your equation. Most of what you are attempting to establish are subjective issues.

Perhaps what you are getting at is that some people have a wider field of knowledge which can color their perception in a way that you feel is more reliable? Either way, you aren't offering up anything particularly special in the way of your own criticism that displays that you are in possession of authority here. Repetitive use of phrases like "EVERY DETAIL" doesn't lend any authority to your arguments, and in fact makes them seem a lot less convincing than one would expect a person attempting to convey a reasonable case would like.

Looking at yourself tells you nothing about the thing in question.  It tells you about YOU.

Art is an interactive experience. You sound pretty soulless. Like the foreword to Understanding Poetry, by J Evans Pritchard in the subjectively annoying movie Dead Poets Society.

That is why "Because I like it" is NOT the definition of "good" - though it does seem to be your definition of the term.  (Which would, interestingly enough, suggest that Box Office - ie popularity - is the definition of a "good" movie.  LOL)

I agree here. The problem is that your criticisms with regards to the quality of "art" here have little to do with art, and lots to do with you not liking it. For instance, saying "And I don't mean TLJ imitates Empire in just one or two places. Where JJ traced ROUGHLY forward through the story path of A New Hope, Rian even MORE slavishly traced BACKWARDS through the story path of Empire" is a criticism of the process, not the art. Pretty much every film follows a path laid out for it by other films. Pretty much every story follows a path laid out for it by other stories. So we have no objective metric to determine from that whether or not the results are good or bad, we only know from having read your exhaustive rants that you did not respond positively to the result of the process used to achieve the result. There's no reason to assume you would not respond positively to the exact same writing process being employed to make something else, and there's no reason to assume that using this process automatically results in good or bad art.

By this 'argument', there is no difference between The Room and The Godfather - except one's emotions.  There is NO standard beyond emotions by which one can look at either and say one is good and one is bad.

Strawman.

That is a bad argument - because it is NO argument at all.  It is the declaration that there are NO arguments to be made - period.  One can ONLY appeal to one's emotions.  That is not only the divorce of emotion from reason, but the elimination of reason from the equation entirely.  It is a complete rejection OF argumentation - of reasoning - itself.

Strawman

There is no 'think' - there is only 'feel'.

That is your 'support' for why this (or any) movie is good?  That is not support at all.  That is an outright rejection of the need for support.

That would certainly explain the previously noted, unsupported 'nu uh'.

'I don't have to think.  I only have to feel' is not the definition of anything.  Like everything in TLJ, that is its complete opposite.

Strawman

Pull back on the "EVERY" and "BIG" stuff, and the relentless reconfiguring of other people's comments to you, explain why the big list of things you provided have resulted in a poor film, to you, and learn to deal with it if other people happen to agree with you on some of those things, yet still think the result is a good film, even if they still think it is a well made film. You'll live, and you'll seem a lot more easy to speak to.