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

[Pak-Man]

I'm gonna go eat Pizza, which is a hamburger, but not.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Why did you have to say that, now I'm in the mood for a stromboli, stupid rolled up not-flat pizza....

[goflyblind]

[Imrahil]

He's not wrong. Just trying to be clever is not an actual argument. Maybe you don't want to have that argument, but don't pretend you've just scored some logical touchdown.

[Quirk]

He's not wrong. Just trying to be clever is not an actual argument. Maybe you don't want to have that argument, but don't pretend you've just scored some logical touchdown.

I was not arguing anything, nor do I feel the need to argue about it. I wrote it to make somebody laugh. If you agree with blspro's review or think it needs to be debated, you were not my target audience.

[Darth Geek]

I saw it again today. I liked it better the second time. I still have issues with some of it, but knowing what I was in for helped to enjoy the spectacle more this time. And the good performances by everyone (including Andy Serkis as Snoke) were even more noticeable.

The battle at the beginning made more sense, as well as Leia's actions to Po about it.

I still think they are missing a motivation for Admiral Holdo (Laura Dern) to not tell anyone about her plan. All we really needed was for them to say there was a suspicion of a First Order spy.

Having Snoke die before we learn anything about him is a terrible idea. He is a significant figure because he is responsible for seducing Kylo to the dark side (even if Luke's actions cemented that). He can't just be tossed aside like Rey's parents. So unless we learn a lot more about him in the next movie, that is a big missed opportunity in this trilogy.
And just from a filmmaking standpoint the death of Snoke is poorly handled. It should not have been shown beforehand that Kylo was turning the lightsaber.

The reversal back to Kylo and Rey being adversaries at the end made the whole fight in Snoke's throne room irrelevant. The scene would have been SO much more powerful if it had ended with Kylo offering his hand out to Rey. Mirroring the end of Force Awakens, as well as keeping the question of how she will respond till the next movie.

The way Luke's death is handled still doesn't work for me. The twist that he was doing that as a force projection was interesting, and then they just undo it by having him die anyway. So he might as well have been there.

The reason the casino scene seems out of place is because it feels like it should be in one of the side movies like Rogue One, not a Star Wars movie proper. I could definitely see this scene being in the upcoming Han Solo movie, for instance. And what makes it more irritating is that it is interupting the much more interesting scenes with Rey and Luke on the island.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

I guess I only saw Snoke as a plot device, never cared to learn any of his backstory, so thought his death scene was great.

It might have been a good for the audience to be surprised along with Snoke when the light saber ignited, but it was fun to be in on it when he is describing what he was blind to, thinking the new resolve in Ren was obedience instead of rebellion.

The reversal back to Kylo and Rey being adversaries at the end made the whole fight in Snoke's throne room irrelevant. The scene would have been SO much more powerful if it had ended with Kylo offering his hand out to Rey. Mirroring the end of Force Awakens, as well as keeping the question of how she will respond till the next movie.

They had to team up for a while, what better way to do that than have them fight side by side.

The reason they had to team up for a moment was they both had seen what they thought was the other turning to their side.  Without that Rey would not have gone to Snoke's ship and Ren might not have resolved to kill Snoke.

I think both of them being disappointed by what happens after the fight moves the story better than going for a cliffhanger.

Her "closing the door" on him was pretty good.

The way Luke's death is handled still doesn't work for me. The twist that he was doing that as a force projection was interesting, and then they just undo it by having him die anyway. So he might as well have been there.

Being there in person would not have given the resistance enough time to escape, since he appeared invincible it made Ren halt everything to deal with Luke.

The reason the casino scene seems out of place is because it feels like it should be in one of the side movies like Rogue One, not a Star Wars movie proper. I could definitely see this scene being in the upcoming Han Solo movie, for instance. And what makes it more irritating is that it is interupting the much more interesting scenes with Rey and Luke on the island.

Watching it a second time the casino stands out even more as filler, and yes it does break up better stuff that's going on.  Most of the casino stuff could have been edited down a lot and still provide everything the film needed.

[blspro]

The reason the casino scene seems out of place is because it feels like it should be in one of the side movies like Rogue One, not a Star Wars movie proper. I could definitely see this scene being in the upcoming Han Solo movie, for instance. And what makes it more irritating is that it is interupting the much more interesting scenes with Rey and Luke on the island.

Watching it a second time the casino stands out even more as filler, and yes it does break up better stuff that's going on.  Most of the casino stuff could have been edited down a lot and still provide everything the film needed.

While I too didn't like the Casino sequence, it isn't "filler" at all. I suspect Rian would, in fact, identify it as central to the film.

Of course the sequence is the reverse Cloud City, gives us the reverse Lando, and sets up the denouement which circles all the way back to Episode One (the force sensitive slave boy who tends racing animals instead of making racing vehicles).   But, perhaps more importantly, it actually serves numerous thematic and character development purposes as well.  Specifically, it lets Rose explicitly preach and blatantly practice the Theme of the film - ie the lessons to be learned by most of the characters (except Leia and Holdo, who also already know and practice that principle).  Of course, as with everything Rian did, he reversed the order - showing the actions and then, later, stating the theme. 

Rose states the theme of the film out loud - to Finn - in the middle of the Crait sequence.  The theme is that we "win...not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love!"  And Rose practiced that theme explicitly at the end of the Casino scene.  When it looks like they're trapped, and thus their mission is about to fail, Finn says:  It was worth it, though, to tear up that town; to make 'em hurt."  Rose rebukes him.  She steps up to the racing animal in front of them and frees it from its chains.  She steps back to Finn and replies "Now it was worth it."

The film's theme is that being a hero isn't about acting out of hatred, but out of love.  It isn't about destroying Casinos or "miniaturized Death Stars" (lol).  It's about saving the things we love. 

Throughout the film, Rose is the avatar for that theme.

And it is in relation to that theme that she identifies (and we are shown) the Casino people as "the worst".  DJ elaborates on this - they are the worst because they act out of no emotion whatsoever - neither love nor hate.  That's why they sell to both sides.  They aren't trying to hurt or save anything. 

This is the position DJ exists to 'teach'.  That they should just give up their emotional attachments - to "be free".  If you notice, DJ's character (besides being the stuttering opposite of the silver-tongued Lando) exhibits no excitement or energy, regardless of the situation.  Be he in jail, or stealing riches, or being released by the First Order, his emotions remain the same -  flat - essentially dead.  And that is what he is - essentially dead inside.  He - like the rest of the Casino City inhabitants - are essentially like zombies, meandering through life with neither love nor hate.  Theirs is presented, not as a 'grey' philosophy - ie some mix of light and darkness - some balance between love and hate etc.  From the theme's perspective, they are a NULL state.  They are nothing. 

But they are destroying everything.

So you see, both Rose and the Casino sequence were not something apart from the rest of the story.  They were essentially the heart of it.  Rose is teaching Finn (and the audience) the story's - the film's - lessons.  And this should come as no surprise, because Rose is NOT a 'new' character.

Rose is Yoda

That's why her hair is flipped up - to suggest Yoda's ears.  And (I've since discovered) that's why her name is Rose.  Apparently JJ's standin for Yoda was originally going to be called Rose, but he later changed it to Maz.  And so Rian took the name and gave it to HIS standin for Yoda. 

This is another of Rian's reversals.  Instead of the primary teaching sequence being on Dagohbah (Ahch-to), we get the reverse - the primary teaching sequence is on Cloud City (Casino City). 

Instead of the wise old jedi master teaching the film's Themes, we get the reverse - the wise young "nobody" teaching the film's Theme

And instead of the teacher teaching a fledgling Jedi, we get the reverse - the teacher teaching a former Stormtrooper.

So a LOT was being done with the Casino sequence - and doesn't leave room to trim very much of it at all.

[goflyblind]

[Henry88]

his death was more dignified to.

[Pak-Man]

He's not wrong. Just trying to be clever is not an actual argument. Maybe you don't want to have that argument, but don't pretend you've just scored some logical touchdown.

If you're referring to my jab, let me elaborate:

Sharing a quality with something but being completely different still means something is completely different. That's my Hamburger/Pizza analogy in a nutshell. There is much in common between the two, but you can't eat them both and claim you've had the same meal.

And furthermore, sharing DNA with the original Star Wars movies doesn't make the new movies unoriginal. It makes them Star Wars movies. You could argue, for instance, that the Hobbit and the larger Lord of the Rings trilogy hit a lot of the same notes. That they have scenes that are similar, but play out completely differently. That's formula, and you're really not supposed to spend that much time thinking about it. Those are the strings on the puppet. If you notice them, it doesn't have to ruin the movie. When you look at the story as a whole, is it GOOD? Are you entertained? My answer is yes, and I understand that others' answers may vary. I'll concede that there are striking similarities between Hoth and the salt planet, for instance. But the events that happen there and the story that was told was completely off the radar. At no point could I say, "I know what's going to happen next! The exact opposite of what happened in Empire!" Every event was a surprise and every event was new. The echoes may be there, but the story only hits some of the same basic storytelling beats that the originals did. That's where you get into the theory that there are somewhere between 3 and 6 stories that have ever been told, but the setting and characters makes them always feel new.

[Charles Castle]

Honestly, Empire Strikes Back is a SLAVISH reversal of A New Hope.

(Attempted) ridicule is not refutation.  In fact, the appeal to it is an explicit logical fallacy.

...Okay, but...

But hey, if you want to believe Crait wasn't "Hoth but not", DJ wasn't "Lando but not", Casino City wasn't "Cloud City but not", the slow speed chase wasn't "fast speed chase but not", the Throne Room scene wasn't "Throne Room but not", etc etc etc etc etc you are certainly free to cling to such bizarre beliefs.

Pot, or kettle? What do you, the viewer at home, think?

[Cyrusso]

I am still anxious to go see it again because I keep hearing from a lot of people that the movie gets better the 2nd time around.

[blspro]

Sharing a quality with something but being completely different

That's the whole point.  It wasn't "completely different" - anymore than Force Awakens was "completely different".  Simply claiming 'completely different!!!!' doesn't make it so.  I've listed just some of the ways it is an imitation of Empire.  The only thing you've done here say 'nu uh' to that lengthy argument, evidence, and conclusion.

There is much in common between the two, but you can't eat them both and claim you've had the same meal.

According to this 'logic' Force Awakens was 'original'.  That says all one need say about that 'argument'.

You could argue, for instance, that the Hobbit and the larger Lord of the Rings trilogy hit a lot of the same notes.

Hitting some of the same notes and slavishly imitating everything are two different things.  But again, according to the above 'argument', just because Force Awakens "hit a lot of the same notes" as a New Hope doesn't mean it was "unoriginal". 

That should be a strong indicator the definition of 'original' and "unoriginal" being used here are not valid.

At no point could I say, "I know what's going to happen next!"

That you don't see the pattern when first watching the film is not 'evidence' for the non-existence of that pattern.

[Pak-Man]

So if The Force Awakens was unoriginal because it used the same formula as the original Star Wars. And The Last Jedi was unoriginal because it subverted the formula of The Empire Strikes Back. The Prequels are largely seen as awful because they didn't do ANYTHING that the original trilogy did. How do you make a Star Wars movie feel like a Star Wars movie without people accusing it of trying to feel like a Star Wars movie?