Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

Qhue · Dec 17, 2017

Starkiller Base comments spoilered for reasons of Last Jedi context

I think the fact that this massive facility with the power to obliterate an entire star system being viewed by Snoke as somewhat disposable is actually key to the relative strength of the First Order compared to the Resistance. As we see in TLJ the First Order has a massive mobile command and control ship plus tons of Star Destroyers, at least one Dreadnaught, etc. Rather than being some gun happy fringe group tacitly supported by the Imperial Remnant the First Order is disturbingly strong. They were probably more than an even match for the New Republic navy before they blew the entirety of the New Republic to bits by taking out the Hosnian system.

Yeah it probably would have been good to NOT lose Starkiller Base, but other than its value as a first strike weapon of ludicrous destructive potential it isn't terribly useful. As it stands there are no other systems that the First Order would really want to completely obliterate.

Losing Snoke was probably much more damaging than losing Starkiller Base as there must have been some reason he was able to pull all of this together in secret. Holdo blowing away most of that fleet and likely crippling the massive command ship was also a much bigger hit I would imagine.

Chris · Dec 17, 2017

I wonder if Starkiller base wasn't mobile so it only had two shots at start with, so destroying it AFTER the Senate and Fleet were destroyed wasn't a big deal since it had done the task it was built for.

Furry · Dec 17, 2017

Relative wanted to see this, but I declined since I thought the movie wasn't worth seeing twice. After negotiation I ended up with a full bottle of crown royal black and a free movie ticket.

On a second viewing:

Fuck this stupid movie. I think this one is prequels level bad. It really is that shit.

Valishar · Dec 17, 2017

Qhue said:
Starkiller Base comments spoilered for reasons of Last Jedi context

Losing Snoke was probably much more damaging than losing Starkiller Base as there must have been some reason he was able to pull all of this together in secret. Holdo blowing away most of that fleet and likely crippling the massive command ship was also a much bigger hit I would imagine.

In the novels it is shown that Snoke did not create the First Order (it was General Hux's dad) and doesn't lead it until very recently. Considering the First Order was going along fine for twenty or so years before he showed up I'd imagine it will continue fine without him if it wasn't for the fact of there being a hot-headed young Skywalker in charge.

Losing Starkiller base would be a blow but I'd say it was actually a successful enterprise since it did actually destroy the Republican government. The fact that it failed in it's secondary goal of destroying a minor hostile paramilitary group is probably not a huge morale boost for the average person. "Sure they nuked Washington but the Michigan militia survived!" isn't a great rallying cry.

Royal · Dec 17, 2017

Chris said:
I wonder if Starkiller base wasn't mobile so it only had two shots at start with, so destroying it AFTER the Senate and Fleet were destroyed wasn't a big deal since it had done the task it was built for.

It was mobile.

Gavinmad · Dec 17, 2017

Chris said:
I wonder if Starkiller base wasn't mobile so it only had two shots at start with, so destroying it AFTER the Senate and Fleet were destroyed wasn't a big deal since it had done the task it was built for.

No, Starkiller Base was mobile. The only thing that could have made Starkiller Base even dumber would be if they spent that much time and effort building something that could only shoot twice. Of course the idea of moving Starkiller Base with sublight drives is every bit as retarded as the weapon itself, since everyone on board would be dead of old age before they arrived at another power source for the weapon. You'd think that whatever ridiculous technology that lets them fire through hyperspace at targets halfway across the galaxy would have some kind of equally ridiculous application that would allow them to move the planet through hyperspace, but no, the planet clearly has rocket ports.

zignor 4 · Dec 17, 2017

I finally watched it. I went in with pretty much zero expectations after reading the onslaught of dramatically different reactions.

Despite some prequel level flaws, I enjoyed the hell out of it. It should have been at least 45 minutes shorter, Laura Dern's character could have been 100x better with just some slight adjustments, and it would have been nice if they could have come up something much more interesting than the Finn/Rose subplot. My initial reaction is that I liked it more than TFA, but I can see how the flaws would get more irritating with repeat viewings.

Jive Turkey · Dec 17, 2017

Merrith said:
Pretty sure everyone knew Porkins from the "Cover me Porkins" right before he's shown on screen. Biggs literally bites it/sacrifices himself to cover Luke on the trench run. I doubt anyone knew "AT-AT" unless the toys were labeled until the AT-ST's were in Jedi and the distinction was made. But everyone knew what Imperial walkers were (which they did say in the movie)

pharmakos · Dec 17, 2017

Chris · Dec 17, 2017

pharmakos said:

My god, I'm turning gay.

zignor 4 · Dec 17, 2017

In all seriousness, I really like Adam Driver in these. If only he could be swapped in for Anakin in the prequels I might not have to go into a meditative state before I watch the OT to ensure I don't accidentaly picture Hayden in the Vader suit.

ham · Dec 17, 2017

I liked the movie despite its repetitive use of deus ex machina and jokes for the whole family. some other stuff I could dive into but it's the first star wars I enjoyed since the originals because it didn't feel like it was going back to the well over and over again like the previous 4 have. I think they could've lost 30 minutes off the runtime and turned it into a repetitive viewing type of film for kids growing up today, but it's just so fucking long that I think it could hurt it in that regard.

Chris · Dec 17, 2017

zignor 4 said:
In all seriousness, I really like Adam Driver in these. If only he could be swapped in for Anakin in the prequels I might not have to go into a meditative state before I watch the OT to ensure I don't accidentaly picture Hayden in the Vader suit.

I love Kylo Ren, he's a great character and acted well. He's essentially the same thing as Anakin Skywalker but done right.

I like Rey too. Nice moment in the movies was her playing with the rain running off the Millenium Falcon, was a short moment with no dialogue but reminded me of her from the last movie only having seen a desert.

spronk · Dec 17, 2017

Box Office: ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ Soars to $220 Million Opening Weekend

$220m opening weekend domestic second highest behind TFA at $248m
$240m foreign and $450m worldwide opening weekend

Lithose · Dec 17, 2017

Royal said:
I'm gonna put a pin in the Luke stuff for now until after I've seen it again.

But the Tolkien line that came to mind is just that and not a strict one-to-one comparison on my part. More to do with her origins as someone of little consequence who fate has chosen to make a shaper of consequences. I'm not saying hers is a full blown shire-folk story because like you said we pick it up with her already being a very capable person. But she's not an Aragorn. He was very much the product of a bloodline. The reason he was a man of great abilities was due in part to his Numenorean blood. A large part of his motivations as a character were the responsibilities he felt that he inherited from his forebears and some of his misgivings were born out of the possibility of having also inherited their weaknesses. Rey has none of that going on. She is the departure from what was really just an anomaly with the Skywalkers as the First Family of force users or the very idea that there should even be a First Family where the force is concerned. Though it seems she may be a different sort of anomaly herself.

My point was that yes, Aragorn's abilities came from his blood. We never saw them earned, they were there and we accepted them because he was a king and was drawn to his responsibility or destiny. Think about that, and now think about Rey. How did learn any of her powers? She didn't...she seemed to just know them, she even exclaimed "I don't know how I'm doing this!" Also think of what spurs her to adventure, it's an internal need to figure out what happened, delivered through a vision. Rey's entire plot was set up just like Aragorn's--the only difference is discovering she was the king, or someone of note. She certainly is not a Hobbit. A hobbit would have been bumbling and naive and totally unprepared for the world beyond. Seriously, watch TFA again, and just try to chew on Rey--try to figure out why people thought she had some powerful lineage. It's not just because she has amazing force abilities. It's because she knows how to do everything, she's nearly flawless, and she has what feels like a destiny--I mean she's literally being called to by destiny. All we're missing is the knowledge of her blood line, but everything points to her having one.

Which is why it felt so unsatisfying as twist. We didn't watch Rey grow into a powerful Jedi. Rey was already a powerful Jedi. We were waiting for a reveal as to WHY. Just like Aragorn. When Legolas reveals he's the King everyone is like "Oh, that makes sense, he had all these special abilities and a sense of purpose--that explains it." Rey was set up like an Aragorn, and then they simply said she was a hobbit. But the problem is, being a "Hobbit" is very much part of your ability too, naivety and innocence requires ineptness. If you're already prepared to deal with the world, everyone will wonder "why the hell were you stuck where you are".

In fact, one of the central themes of the Hero's Journey is how you can't ever really go home--when you go home, you fundamentally change it because you've changed. You now have the power and wisdom to mold what you used to know, and it will never be the same. That's why most end as a bitter-sweet moment, innocence lost, but the start of an "adult" life where you have power over things now, which of course is the whole metaphor for the Hero's journey, childhood into adulthood.

But if someone starts out powerful...we're forced to ask ourselves....Why was she "innocent" in her home before then? Why was she a scrounging junker, and not someone who owned the junk yard or at least defend the people who cared about her from the ruthless practices of those in the junkyard? (We saw the woman who took care of her scrounging to make a living). Why didn't she scour the shire as it were? None of the rest of the story feels right because we started off on a note of competence and power--which is why I say she's an Aragorn. Trapped in her life by ignorance, unaware of the strength in her blood....Except, I guess not now. I guess Rey was just silly and let herself be abused, and her friends be abused until she rescued a little robot (And yeah, I get the legend of Luke is supposed to be about this, how people need cues, and hope to know they become more. But Rey didn't have cues and hope to become more--she already was it, she just never used it. See how that's a major thematic issue?)

Any case, I certainly see the point you're making, and I understand what they were going for. But I just re-watched TFA with my kids preparing for this, and seeing Rey? Yeah, I can totally see why people expected her to have a back-story akin to Ben's.

Lithose · Dec 17, 2017

khorum said:
Answering that could take a movie by itself. It would be Star Wars hogwarts where Harry Potter was being possessed by Voldemort and dumbledore only discovers it by using the most intrusive magic possible! Goddamn that analogy is like poetry.

I mean...yeah, that's the point. You don't expect the audience to believe an entire movie's worth of character development, on a character which had THREE films to develop it, just by saying "some shit went down". It would be like Dumbledore being there while Voldermort turned Harry into a continue button, and Dumbledore refusing to kill Harry, and instead protecting him and having faith he'd turn out to be good. Then years later, SENSING Harry's son might face the same test and raising his wand to instantly murder the little shit for the start of the new stories.

khorum said:
Luke himself explains that his failure as a master was when he came to and saw most of his students murdered and his new temple in flames. His own doubt and overreaction provoked that and like anyone whose convictions have been disrupted he chose to go inward and confront them.

In fact, the portrayal that he came ready to attack Ben was BEN’S version of it. When Luke admits it, he just saw Snoke’s growing corruption on Ben and was repulsed by BEN’S ACCEPTANCE OF IT—he didn’t come in there looking to kill Ben, but Ben woke up at the wrong moment and was provoked into that reaction.

The script mirrors that when Luke observes the same ‘openness’ in Rey—he says “you didn’t even think twice about refusing it” when Rey sees the evil force hole at the bottom of the island. Luke saw the same potential for corruption in Rey and started freaking out with “ive seen this sort of raw power before. It didn’t frighten me then. It does now”. He is tacitly admitting that when he saw the extent of Snoke’s grip on Ben he wasn’t frightened by it at the time, but then Ben woke up and kicked his ass.

I get the frustration with seeing a fixture of one’s childhood being overturned and exposed as having the same frailties as everyone else...but that’s actually just so he could show one last bit of GROWTH before we’re reminded of what he is by the end.

It's not about seeing the frailties. Its about a frailty that contradicts the single strength Luke was built on. Literally...Literally the guy's strength was hope and faith in others. Remember Palpatine's line "Your faith in your friend's is yours". Through three movies, his quintessential attribute, the thing that makes him who he is, is an enduring faith and hope in OTHER people. The Emperor and Luke were literally calling out each other's strengths and saying they could be weakness--Palpatine's was his confidence, throughout all the movies, it really was his defining feature, absolute brass balls. Luke's was his faith in other people, an absolute, unwavering faith in what is good in them.

How does your point make sense when he stood before the dark lord himself, a guy literally destroying entire systems, and threw his light-saber down (When he realized he'd have to kill his father too) and put his faith in his father--putting all of his friends at risk. Literally everything he was, was put on the line despite standing in front of the dark lord, who was corrupting the man he was trying to save. No "hogwartz" magic needed, Luke was literally bathing in the dark side energy that had a grip on his father.

Bro, come on Khorum. Don't make excuses for that schlock. It's fine to give a character frailty. In fact, given Hermit Luke, I expected him to have tons of frailty. Hell, I never even liked Luke as a character much because he was a naive dumb-ass that was TOO frail already--he's got TONS of flaws. In fact, the entire story seemed set up to prey on Luke's actual flaw--he was too naively hopeful about people. Him watching the darkness in Ben, and continuing to believe in the kid until the kid murders everyone? Boom--believable. Luke's greatest strength has just been subverted, and turned on its head and shown to be a flaw as well. They didn't do it just because they wanted a twist without thinking of the implication. You know this to be true. Come to the dark side. Let the hate for this film flow through you. (Kidding, it's still not a terrible movie, 6/10, its way too pretty and entertaining as a stand alone to be a "bad" movie--it just sucked as a continuation of characters we already know).

Masakari · Dec 17, 2017

zignor 4 said:
I finally watched it. I went in with pretty much zero expectations after reading the onslaught of dramatically different reactions.

Despite some prequel level flaws, I enjoyed the hell out of it. It should have been at least 45 minutes shorter, Laura Dern's character could have been 100x better with just some slight adjustments, and it would have been nice if they could have come up something much more interesting than the Finn/Rose subplot. My initial reaction is that I liked it more than TFA, but I can see how the flaws would get more irritating with repeat viewings.

Good to find someone else that enjoyed it. It's kind of like when I watch any movies that have to do with the military, you can point out obvious flaws but it takes away from it (what movie doesn't have flaws?). I just shut that voice up in my head and let my imagination run with it, gladi did. The Laura Dern/Snoke ship scene was awesome, probably going back for another showing just for that.

ohkcrlho · Dec 17, 2017

Lithose said:
I mean...yeah, that's the point. You don't expect the audience to believe an entire movie's worth of character development, on a character which had THREE films to develop it, just by saying "some shit went down". It would be like Dumbledore being there while Voldermort turned Harry into a continue button, and Dumbledore refusing to kill Harry, and instead protecting him and having faith he'd turn out to be good. Then years later, SENSING Harry's son might face the same test and raising his wand to instantly murder the little shit for the start of the new stories.

It's not about seeing the frailties. Its about a frailty that contradicts the single strength Luke was built on. Literally...Literally the guy's strength was hope and faith in others. Remember Palpatine's line "Your faith in your friend's is yours". Through three movies, his quintessential attribute, the thing that makes him who he is, is an enduring faith and hope in OTHER people. The Emperor and Luke were literally calling out each other's strengths and saying they could be weakness--Palpatine's was his confidence, throughout all the movies, it really was his defining feature, absolute brass balls. Luke's was his faith in other people, an absolute, unwavering faith in what is good in them.

How does your point make sense when he stood before the dark lord himself, a guy literally destroying entire systems, and threw his light-saber down (When he realized he'd have to kill his father too) and put his faith in his father--putting all of his friends at risk. Literally everything he was, was put on the line despite standing in front of the dark lord, who was corrupting the man he was trying to save. No "hogwartz" magic needed, Luke was literally bathing in the dark side energy that had a grip on his father.

Bro, come on Khorum. Don't make excuses for that schlock. It's fine to give a character frailty. In fact, given Hermit Luke, I expected him to have tons of frailty. Hell, I never even liked Luke as a character much because he was a naive dumb-ass that was TOO frail already--he's got TONS of flaws. In fact, the entire story seemed set up to prey on Luke's actual flaw--he was too naively hopeful about people. Him watching the darkness in Ben, and continuing to believe in the kid until the kid murders everyone? Boom--believable. Luke's greatest strength has just been subverted, and turned on its head and shown to be a flaw as well. They didn't do it just because they wanted a twist without thinking of the implication. You know this to be true. Come to the dark side. Let the hate for this film flow through you. (Kidding, it's still not a terrible movie, 6/10, its way too pretty and entertaining as a stand alone to be a "bad" movie--it just sucked as a continuation of characters we already know).

By watching that clip, i just wanted to smile for how awesome SW was back then and cry because i will never see anything like it.

Royal · Dec 17, 2017

spronk said:
Box Office: ‘Star Wars: The Last Jedi’ Soars to $220 Million Opening Weekend

$220m opening weekend domestic second highest behind TFA at $248m
$240m foreign and $450m worldwide opening weekend

It's gonna be interesting watching how the box office for this one shapes up over the coming weeks. Some people have said that this is Lucasfilm's BvS. That may well prove to be true. But there are two components to that. Like TLJ, BvS was very divisive among that franchise's core fans. A lot of those fans that landed on the "Do not like" side of it checked out of the movie franchise afterwards and it didn't gain enough traction with general audiences to come anywhere close to replacing them. That was initially evidenced by the steep drops in week-to-week holds at the box office and the reality was solidified by the miserable performance of JL. So we won't know for a while yet if the comparison is accurate. The Solo flick about is 5 months away but not only is that not a saga film but between recasting one of the franchise icons and the issues it's had in production it won't be surprising if it performs relatively poorly at the box office for totally unrelated reasons. Kathleen Kennedy has rather infamously said she doesn't feel like she owes the longtime fans anything. It may take a couple of years but I suspect those words are going to be put to the test.

Oblio · Dec 17, 2017

Royal said:
It's gonna be interesting watching how the box office for this one shapes up over the coming weeks. Some people have said that this is Lucasfilm's BvS. That may well prove to be true. But there are two components to that. Like TLJ, BvS was very divisive among that franchise's core fans. A lot of those fans that landed on the "Do not like" side of it checked out of the movie franchise afterwards and it didn't gain enough traction with general audiences to come anywhere close to replacing them. That was initially evidenced by the steep drops in week-to-week holds at the box office and the reality was solidified by the miserable performance of JL. So we won't know for a while yet if the comparison is accurate. The Solo flick about is 5 months away but not only is that not a saga film but between recasting one of the franchise icons and the issues it's had in production it won't be surprising if it performs relatively poorly at the box office for totally unrelated reasons. Kathleen Kennedy has rather infamously said she doesn't feel like she owes the longtime fans anything. It may take a couple of years but I suspect those words are going to be put to the test.

As I previously stated, I was super disappointed in this movie, but I will be going to see it again. I will be going with my wife and kids because I am not going to let my opinion taint my kid's Star Wars experience. The OTs do not mean as much to my kids as they do to me, in fact I bet my kids enjoyed the prequels more than the OTs. I am hopeful I will get some joy watching my kids enjoy TLJ, I honestly think they will love it. So yes, I am giving Disney more money for something that makes me sad quite the conundrum isn't it. Also,

Masakari I am glad you enjoyed it dude, I am jealous.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

Trump's Staff

Potato del Grande

WoW Office

Molten Core Raider

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Mr. Poopybutthole

Molten Core Raider

Karen

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd

Potato del Grande

Molten Core Raider

Lord Nagafen Raider

Potato del Grande

FPS noob

Buzzfeed Editor

Buzzfeed Editor

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures

Utah