Star Wars Discussion Thread contains spoilers (and may contain nuts)

[Barrister]

The best hope we have is that critical backlash against TLJ is such that they have to make a comeback for the trilogy finale.

But it feels like that's going to be a Hail Mary.

The thing is TLJ didn't have a "critical backlash".  Critics enjoyed it.  It has a 91% "Tomatometer" score, for example.  And I thought it was a great movie.  But yes a minority of fans really, really hated it.

I hope they continue to do something interesting with Episode 9, but since it's Abrams again I am afraid it is going to be a fanservice-filled crowd pleaser.

[Valmy]

It has a 91% "Tomatometer" score, for example.

I wonder what they praised? I have seen B movies with more artistic value, and at least those are fun.

Though to be fair I didn't hate it. I just thought it was a terrible story, terribly told about terribly conceived characters. But I lack the emotional attachment to really hate it. But then I have never really been a Star Wars fan outside of enjoying the KOTOR games and liking the original movies when I was a small child.

[Barrister]

It has a 91% "Tomatometer" score, for example.

I wonder what they praised? I have seen B movies with more artistic value, and at least those are fun.

Though to be fair I didn't hate it. I just thought it was a terrible story, terribly told about terribly conceived characters. But I lack the emotional attachment to really hate it. But then I have never really been a Star Wars fan outside of enjoying the KOTOR games and liking the original movies when I was a small child.

It has many scenes that are just beautifully shot.  Going out and breaking so many sci-fi tropes was awesome to see.

I think the problem people have with the movie are many plot holes or instances which don't seem to fit within the "rules" of Star Wars.

[garbon]

I think it was just not a good movie.

[celedhring]

I think critics went all critic and rated the trope-breaking, plus it indeed was very well shot.

As I said, I appreciated them wanting to try different things, I just think these different things weren't much good.

[Syt]

But yes a minority of fans really, really hated it.

Some of which celebrated the relatively low box office results of Solo as proof that their boycott campaign worked.

[FunkMonk]

But yes a minority of fans really, really hated it.

Some of which celebrated the relatively low box office results of Solo as proof that their boycott campaign worked.

Are they the incels who think the SJWs have ruined Star Wars? 

"Rey is a Mary Sue!! There are no positive portrayals of white males in TLJ!!!!!"

[celedhring]

Tbf there aren't any positive portrayals of nearly anybody in TLJ.

[Razgovory]

I saw the movie.  It seemed okay to me.  Note: I don't normally care that much about Star Wars.

[Zoupa]

The plot holes alone ruined it for me. Like when purple hair admiral lady went to warp speed and destroyed the big bad ship. I laughed out loud in the theater and wasn't alone.

In the 7 movies preceding that, there were countless times when this strategy would have saved the day. Most notably against the death stars. If one person alone can pilot a huge ass ship and then just warp it into another then huh I dunno. Why don't they use that all the time then.

It was just dumb, non-sensical stuff all movie long. Pretty boring too.

[viper37]

You can't begin with the good guys triumphant in an epic. Nor can an epic have the moral ambiguity and political manoeuvering that, say, a "let's now win the peace" storyline would have imposed.

Obviously, you have never read anything written in what is now the "Legends Universe" over the last 30 years.

[Oexmelin]

No, I haven't read any of those, as they have zero interest for me. I am talking about the conventions of a genre. If you start with good guys triumphant, you are going against the general conventions of an epic. It doesn't mean you can't write sprawling, convoluted narratives - it means that to make it back into an epic, you have to find a way to bring your hero low again, and invent yet another existential threat. It can be done, but it dilutes the strengths of the genre (and frequently makes for mediocre storytelling).  Similarly, a subtle narrative of political intrigue doesn't fit well with epic, for they deal in absolutes - partly why the prequels had trouble interweaving the corruption of Anakin with the corruption of the Republic. It required a different genre. 

[viper37]

The plot holes alone ruined it for me. Like when purple hair admiral lady went to warp speed and destroyed the big bad ship. I laughed out loud in the theater and wasn't alone.

hyperspace.
Also, not really a plot hole.   Just something they picked from the formerly known as Expanded universe

In the 7 movies preceding that, there were countless times when this strategy would have saved the day. Most notably against the death stars. If one person alone can pilot a huge ass ship and then just warp it into another then huh I dunno. Why don't they use that all the time then.

Really, I don't know... Why won't a destroyer sink an aircraft carrier by ramming it?  It seems a viable strategy to me, it's faster and it can punch quite a hole.

In WWII the Japanese used airplanes loaded with explosives to sink a carrier or two.  Why didn't they win the war that way?

Think.

It's been told since the first Star Wars what are the risks of a blind jump.

They used that strategy because their vessel was damaged and was of similar size to the New Order one and was devoid of any life sign except the captain who sacrificed herself.

If you're dealing with a fleet to fleet battle, how efficient do you think it would be?  Wouldn't the other ships just all switch fire to the ramming carrier?  And if you are desperate for resources and you face an ennemy which has plenty of, how efficient do you think your strategy would be to win the war?

It was used as a desperate measure because the Empire was tracking this particular carrier through hyperspace.  It was a damaged ship requiring extensive repairs.  They only needed time to evacuate all of their people to an old base, where hopefully they could launch a distress signal and evade to fight another day.  Classic defensive move, sacrifice a unit to save the rest.

Nothing dumb about that part.

It was just dumb, non-sensical stuff all movie long. Pretty boring too.

there are many worst things than that in the movie.  Like the traval to another planet, far-far away, take their sweet time, come back, in what? less than a day?  That doesn't conform to existing travel time within the Star Wars universe.

A Jedi can extend air, that is known since Kotor II.  But they can't survive the cold void of space, they can't form a personal shield.  They can't do reverse telekinesis either, Obi Wan told us the Force is what surrounds every living thing.  It doesn't surround a fixed wall.  You can push the air to go through the wall, you can enhance your muscles too.  But nope, can't survive the cold void of space and drag yourself back to the ship, even by meditating prior to the explosion.

That you don't like the plots built by previous book is totally okay. In 30 years, there was a lot of crap written and drawn.  That you don't respect basic rules established by the previous, very popular movies is just dumb.

[Barrister]

No, I haven't read any of those, as they have zero interest for me. I am talking about the conventions of a genre. If you start with good guys triumphant, you are going against the general conventions of an epic. It doesn't mean you can't write sprawling, convoluted narratives - it means that to make it back into an epic, you have to find a way to bring your hero low again, and invent yet another existential threat. It can be done, but it dilutes the strengths of the genre (and frequently makes for mediocre storytelling).  Similarly, a subtle narrative of political intrigue doesn't fit well with epic, for they deal in absolutes - partly why the prequels had trouble interweaving the corruption of Anakin with the corruption of the Republic. It required a different genre.

I dunno - Star Wars itself is just a throwback to the early 1930s serials, which seemed to have little problem coming up with an existential threat of the week.

[viper37]

No, I haven't read any of those, as they have zero interest for me.

Then why do you assume that there are "conventions" which can't be moved, at the risk of creating a bad story when you deliberately ignore what does not fit to your pre-determined conclusion? 

It can be done, but it dilutes the strengths of the genre (and frequently makes for mediocre storytelling).  Similarly, a subtle narrative of political intrigue doesn't fit well with epic, for they deal in absolutes - partly why the prequels had trouble interweaving the corruption of Anakin with the corruption of the Republic. It required a different genre. 

I totally disagree.  Most of the Star Wars books start with a strong Republic and the Jedi order, or at least Luke, is at the top.  But yeah, obviously, there isn't much of a story with an invincible hero. 

So of course, it needs to be in jeopardy by something.  The New Republic needs to be threatend, Luke needs to be threatened, there must be struggles to overcome the apparent deficit in skills/strategy, obviously.

But it makes for really, really interesting stories.  Sometimes.

So, yeah, you can make an excellent story when the "heroes" start in a position of power.  And you don't need to utterly destroy everything around them or cut them of from all support to make it work.