Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) Post-Release
And that's why TLJ is the only Star Wars film I"m willing to rewatch. When I saw that movie in theaters, it felt like RJ looked at me directly and went: "I got you, fam"

I left TLJ excited about the possibilites of a new Star Wars finally unhindered by its past--and then incel fanboys inceled it up and we got the sequel we fucking deserved: a cynical, cowardly movie made solely to appease the worst of the fandom. I was absolutely fuming when I saw what they did to Rose. I don't hate a lot of movies, but fuck JJ, fuck TROS, and fuck the fandom. You guys got the movie you deserve.
"God moves in mysterious ways," they said. Maybe he is on your side, the way it all worked out. Remembering other Christmases, wishing for something, something important, something special. And this is it, baby boy Frankie Bono. You're alone now. All alone. The scream is dead. There's no pain. You're home again, back in the cold, black silence
Reply
(08-06-2021, 06:04 AM)rexbanner Wrote: The title of that AVClub article made my eyes roll. I used to read the AVClub, but it has committed hard to a 'what's the most obnoxious approach we can take under the guise of performative sanctimony' angle in the last few years.

But based on that headline... 'The Last Jedi let the past die... and pissed off a bunch of overprotective fans in the process'
Having actually read the article, it's really good. Not judging articles by the headlines and bylines editors shove on them despite knowing they're constantly misleading and intended to be as obnoxious as possible is a lesson I keep having to learn.
Reply
what’s funny is that Johnson’s “expectation subversion” approach to LAST JEDI is not all that different from what Kirshner and Lucas did with EMPIRE as a subversion of the original star war

it just doesn’t stand out quite as hard to us now because EMPIRE has been codified as one of the greatest sequels for decades.... and it was, at that point, only the second film (which, to be fair, performs its subversions more elegantly than Johnson’s film)

a lot of what schwartz describes LAST JEDI doing with its characters’ heroics was done in EMPIRE. it’s just doing them more pointedly with the eighth movie in an iconic series that has lasted 40 years at that point... with a sudden burst of female characters pushing back on the male characters... in a highly politicized climate with nonstop culture wars fought online via Twitter/youtube right on the heels of trump’s election

as I’ve mentioned several times over the past 4 years... I also initially thrilled at LAST JEDI being such a slap to everything forwakens seemed to represent (those initial reactions are all there in the early pages of this very thread).

But I realized that my initial thrill about that was a reactionary one that sneered at 2 years of inane theories and discourse that prioritized clickbaity wookiepedia LORE over cinematic storytelling that felt specific and meaningful.

I now consider Johnson’s movie to be a good faith continuation of the scatterbrained mess of forwakens by way of the series’ storytelling traditions... while also being what Johnson’s films have always engaged with; openly playing with what an audience expects of a genre and making that a part of the narrative
Reply
(08-06-2021, 10:17 AM)schwartz Wrote: 1.  A film doesn't have to endorse a particular perspective in its conclusion in order for that perspective to remain the most strikingly stated and memorable piece of that movie.  E.g, FIGHT CLUB may end up in a very conservative conclusion that anarchism is for suckers and Norton just needs to settle down with a nice girl, but the Durden anti-consumerist rants are what sticks with you, ditto the Joker "just wanting to see the world burn" and claiming that "when the chips are down, these so-called civilized people will eat each other" resonating longer than whatever Batman says when the boatpeople prove that there is still some good in Gotham.

Also, the "let the past die" approach is ultimately endorsed by Yoda, not just the villain.  Another point that the article itself mentions.

2.  I don't know where the idea that anti-nostalgia meant that somehow the Dark Side would become good and the Light Side would be bad.  But no, the movie doesn't do that.  But it does, along with ROGUE ONE, present the idea that the Rebellion/Resistance side of these star wars may not have the cleanest hands either, in more direct fashion than we are accustomed to from the other films.

3.  How radical it really is in the final analysis is a matter of opinion.  But it is notable that TFA gave audiences every reason in the world to expect a shot-for-shot remake of ESB.  And the movie does go out of its way repeatedly to subvert expectations in very explicit fashion.  Luke pointedly tossing away the lightsaber and directly verbalizing how this is not going to go how you think and I'm not going to beat everyone's ass with a lightsaber, Poe getting reprimanded for his X-wing heroics, Snoke's untimely demise followed by Kylo's rejection of lightside redemption, and of course the complete dismissal of Rey's parentage mystery box.  I think defenders of this film, in trying to make the point about how overblown the hater reaction is, often wind up dismissing a lot of what Johnson is actually trying to do.

4.  Having the accoutrement of STAR WARS does not prevent the movie from harshly interrogating STAR WARS nostalgia.  Or at least, "harsh" in the terms of a tentpole blockbuster that still wants to completely be a STAR WARS.  Whether that essential SW-ness neuters any such interrogation is again in the eye of the beholder, but I would say that the reaction to the film indicates that it made its points rather forcefully.

1. Yoda burns down the tree knowing that the books aren't in it, and he tells Luke that teachers have to pass on knowledge, wisdom, *and* failure. He's advocating for a 'build on and improve' approach, which is very different from Kylo's flailing 'kill them all' approach. It matters not a jot that Kylo, the Joker, Thanos, and Hannibal Lecter's worldviews are presented in a compelling way in their films - anyone leaving those films thinking 'Hey, that guy had a point, that movie really opened my eyes' is engaging with the film on a shallow level, in a bad faith way (ie. 'How dare they put this filth out there'), or simply prefers the antagonist's ideology to the protagonists' (which is almost always the film-maker's). 

2. A lot of TLJ advocates wanted (or thought) that the film was stepping towards exploring some sort of middle ground, where, somehow, the fact that life's rarely black and white means one's moral compass ought to point between good and evil; a lot of TLJ detractors thought the film was somehow counter to the series's ideology.

3. TFA may have prepped people for a remake of ESB, but it was Episode VII and the next was Episode VIII. Luke's saber toss and Rey's parentage only seem like twists and subversions if they're compared to what happens in the OT; they very logically follow on from VII. The mystery of Rey's parentage in VII is so half-baked that it only exists because it's a sequel/reboot of a series which had a famous familial reveal. The Poe/Holdo plot - fair enough, that is constructed around rug-pulling. 

4. If TLJ isn't a nostalgic film, I don't know what nostalgia means. The references and ties it has to the past films are almost all meaningful in some way - the camera swinging to the Falcon and the Rebellion fanfare playing is fun nostalgia, whereas R2D2 playing Leia's message is nostalgia for the audience and nostalgic for Luke. TFA, maybe, is about nostalgia in the sense of recreating the good times; whereas TLJ is more about nostalgia in the sense of remembering the good times in the context of an unpleasant or bittersweet present. Which, imo, is an elegant bit of thematic progression from 7 to 8. TLJ is about the past, whereas TFA is about reminders of the past.
Reply
Regarding #4: most, if not all, of those items feel more like stuff you can't (and don't want to) avoid when you're the eighth film in a series 40+ years old. As compared to TFA, which has a literal new Deathstar in it.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
(08-06-2021, 10:40 AM)ska oreo Wrote: When I saw that movie in theaters, it felt like RJ looked at me directly and went: "I got you, fam"

Interesting.

I felt like Rian Johnson had poked me in the eye, kicked me in the shin, and then run off giggling.
If we can dream it, then we can do it.
Reply
(08-06-2021, 11:18 AM)rexbanner Wrote: 4. If TLJ isn't a nostalgic film, I don't know what nostalgia means. The references and ties it has to the past films are almost all meaningful in some way - the camera swinging to the Falcon and the Rebellion fanfare playing is fun nostalgia, whereas R2D2 playing Leia's message is nostalgia for the audience and nostalgic for Luke. TFA, maybe, is about nostalgia in the sense of recreating the good times; whereas TLJ is more about nostalgia in the sense of remembering the good times in the context of an unpleasant or bittersweet present. Which, imo, is an elegant bit of thematic progression from 7 to 8.

the fact that LAST JEDI gives Hamill/Luke Skywalker the biggest spotlight of the film is heavily driven by both nostalgia and the desire to look closer that same nostalgia in a way forwakens generally did not

if the film wasn't nostalgic at all, it would be a very very different film
Reply
Yeah, for people who were so desperately aware of the backlash to the prequels, Lucasfilm seemed to have missed the decades of 'A second Death Star? That's a bit lazy' criticism directed at ROTJ.

I actually quite like Starkiller Base in terms of visuals, but 'Death Star-esque planet-killers' are one of those things I'd've instinctively not gone near if I were writing a sequel trilogy. Death Stars, family mysteries, a scrappy rebellion, and a masked villain (I'd've been wrong about the last one, but they made Kylo work in spite of his conceptual origins as a Vader knock off - he was 'Vader stand in' before he was 'Leia's angsty son who hero-worships Vader').
Reply
(08-06-2021, 01:34 PM)Belloq87 Wrote: Interesting.

I felt like Rian Johnson had poked me in the eye, kicked me in the shin, and then run off giggling.

[Image: tumblr_o31nbyYLUS1rtwmxqo8_r1_250.gifv]

(08-06-2021, 01:39 PM)rexbanner Wrote: Yeah, for people who were so desperately aware of the backlash to the prequels, Lucasfilm seemed to have missed the decades of 'A second Death Star? That's a bit lazy' criticism directed at ROTJ.

the "so it's bigger!" lampshading seems to indicate they were aware of it 

[Image: tumblr_mgwrduSA5X1qexqmio2_500.gifv]

(and obviously, the latter criticism was NOTHING compared to the initial reputation of the prequels)
Reply
How do you top the concept off a planet-killing weapon (x2) though and make it a threat legitimate enough to warrant a sequel trilogy? Make a multi-planet killer.

That’s possibly the reason George wanted to go inward and focus on the nature of the Force.
Reply
I'm a big fan of George Lucas, and before Star Wars themed-ire was directed towards the sequels spent a lot of time arguing in defense of him.

But hearing bits and pieces of his ideas - like how characters are essentially vessels for the Whills (he said 'vehicles for the Whills to travel around in') - makes me thank fuck that he finished with Revenge of the Sith. Like holy Jesus that sounds terrible.

I feel, as well, that that would damage the story in a way that no director or writer hired to do a sequel could ever do. It's one thing if JJ Abrams or Rian Johnson does something you find totally shit - they're fans of the series playing around in it; it's their take. If the creator says, 'Yeah, all this human drama was actually a bunch of aloof aliens puppeteering things to better manage an energy field', that's harder to compartmentalise and ignore.

Though I think all the reporting which depicted his ideas as an Inner Space-thing were being obtusely literal when he said his ideas were going 'to get into a microbiotic world'. I've always taken that to mean that the story would involve the mechanics of the Force and the Midichlorians, not that a lot of CGI would be spent on giant blood cells and miniaturised characters.
Reply
(08-08-2021, 07:52 AM)Stale Elvis Wrote: How do you top the concept off a planet-killing weapon (x2) though and make it a threat legitimate enough to warrant a sequel trilogy? Make a multi-planet killer.

make it an entire fleet of star destroyers with DETHSTA TECH!!!

you can have that great idea for free!
Reply
I wish I could see an alternate timeline where Lucas maintained control over the sequel trilogy, and watch the fans that love Lucas as much as Filoni and the prequels react. Especially regarding Luke deserting.
Reply
I watched the ol' Special Edition documentary on YouTube, the little making-of EPK that was on the SE VHS tapes. Everyone is so young! And that being said, it really made me wish that they'd done the ST instead of the PT back then, at the end of the '90s/beginning of the '00s.
Reply
Belloq joined me an Schwartz to podcast about The Last Jedi (and kinda the TFA and TROS). Had a blast with this.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
I'll have to see it in motion.
Reply
Nice!
Reply
I agreed to this one mainly as an attempt to trick commodore into rating and reviewing our show without listening to the episode.
Reply
don’t

disappoint us

commo

I’m suffering from “listening to podcast in the car screaming NO NO NOOOO!!!” syndrome harder than I ever have in my liiiiiife!
Reply
Joke's on you, schwartz, I abstain from podcasts and podcast-related discussion entirely!
Reply
but will you still engage in the discourse anyway???
Reply
(08-11-2021, 01:29 PM)Nooj Wrote: I’m suffering from “listening to podcast in the car screaming NO NO NOOOO!!!” syndrome harder than I ever have in my liiiiiife!

You're welcome!
If we can dream it, then we can do it.
Reply
(08-11-2021, 01:51 PM)commodorejohn Wrote: Joke's on you, schwartz, I abstain from podcasts and podcast-related discussion entirely!

Why?
Reply
Because I'd much rather read an essay than listen to someone else read an essay to me (as in discursive podcasts,) and talk shows (as in talk-show format podcasts) have never done much for me. I can use my eyeballs to consume words much faster than most people can speak them intelligibly, and then I can use my ears for other stuff.
Reply
I think we should start a commodore john podcast where we share our favorite news and rumors.
Reply
(08-11-2021, 03:06 PM)commodorejohn Wrote: Because I'd much rather read an essay than listen to someone else read an essay to me (as in discursive podcasts,) and talk shows (as in talk-show format podcasts) have never done much for me. I can use my eyeballs to consume words much faster than most people can speak them intelligibly, and then I can use my ears for other stuff.

With your obstinate attitude, it’s no surprise.
Reply
Is it "obstinate" to want to take in information and communication quickly and efficiently? I mean, I'm definitely obstinate in general, but this in particular seems like a very odd thing to say.
Reply
You went out of your way to say you abstain from podcasts like it’s a badge of honor.
Reply
Only because schwartz made a thing out of it Wink
Reply
Welcome to today's episode of the CommodoreJohncast! Before we get to our first guest, I want to tell you about Stamps dot com...
Reply
That was a really fun conversation to listen to. I think a really good balance was struck between arjen, belloq, and schwartz
Reply
Yeah, really interesting and in-depth listen. Far, far more nuanced and involved than 99% of TLJ discourse. Will definitely be working my way through your back catalogue of episodes.

Yous are wrong about 'The dead speak!' though - it, and TROS's crawl generally, is awesome. Pulpy as hell, and while I think it leans on the idea of what can happen off screen till it almost breaks (Kylo's discovery of Palpatine and the factions' reactions to Sheev's return is still in it, so while I think it's an efficient bit of propulsive in media res, I get why it would be a thudding ass pull for a lot of peoplel) I don't think it pushes it too far.

It's a bold risk that works in a film full of second guesses that don't. Generally the crawls in the ST are terrific. 'Luke Skywalker has vanished' is a genius opening hook (don't get me wrong, I know it's only four words, but reading that in the theatre was probably the purest moment of 'watching the OT for the first time when I was 5 or 6' feelings in all three films). They also have to do more heavy lifting than the OT and even the PT, given how desperately anxious the ST films are to avoid providing proper exposition most of the time.

The bit about a fatal flaw of The Force Awakens being the lack of rough edges in its characters was spot on (I really remember not getting it when reviews couldn't stop creaming themselves over the new characters, especially some insane BS* about them being better than the characters in the OT). The observation that the one wholly successful main character is the one they weren't scared of making flawed (and severely flawed) was similarly on point. The discussion about the handling of Luke was also fascinating, especially given the range of views.

Whichever one of you had the talk about Ben Solo going into the Unknown Regions - yes, yes, 100% yes. Artistically and financially a far, far, far, far better ending, one that a) in one fell swoop stops it being a retread of Return of the Jedi, b) doesn't kill off the Skywalkers (a bizarre situation I'm surprised more people didn't think was totally wild), and c) keeps Adam Driver on the board. Daisy Ridley did her best, but an Episode X centred on the adventures of Byronic Ben Solo would get bums on seats in a way that the chronicles of Rey the infallible absolutely won't.
Reply
I agree that Rey cheering and having fun blowing up tie fighters after her intense emotional experience was probably a directing mistake, they seem to hand wave that it invalidates her entire story in the entire movie because she was having fun for 30 seconds and she didn’t lose her pound of flesh and just… no.
Reply
(08-12-2021, 01:17 PM)rexbanner Wrote: Whichever one of you had the talk about Ben Solo going into the Unknown Regions - yes, yes, 100% yes. Artistically and financially a far, far, far, far better ending, one that a) in one fell swoop stops it being a retread of Return of the Jedi, b) doesn't kill off the Skywalkers (a bizarre situation I'm surprised more people didn't think was totally wild), and c) keeps Adam Driver on the board. Daisy Ridley did her best, but an Episode X centred on the adventures of Byronic Ben Solo would get bums on seats in a way that the chronicles of Rey the infallible absolutely won't.

That was me. We're in agreement in every way here.


(08-12-2021, 07:44 PM)freeman Wrote: I agree that Rey cheering and having fun blowing up tie fighters after her intense emotional experience was probably a directing mistake

You could have just stopped right here!
If we can dream it, then we can do it.
Reply
(08-12-2021, 08:16 PM)Belloq87 Wrote:
(08-12-2021, 01:17 PM)rexbanner Wrote: Whichever one of you had the talk about Ben Solo going into the Unknown Regions - yes, yes, 100% yes. Artistically and financially a far, far, far, far better ending, one that a) in one fell swoop stops it being a retread of Return of the Jedi, b) doesn't kill off the Skywalkers (a bizarre situation I'm surprised more people didn't think was totally wild), and c) keeps Adam Driver on the board. Daisy Ridley did her best, but an Episode X centred on the adventures of Byronic Ben Solo would get bums on seats in a way that the chronicles of Rey the infallible absolutely won't.

That was me.  We're in agreement in every way here.

(08-12-2021, 07:44 PM)freeman Wrote: I agree that Rey cheering and having fun blowing up tie fighters after her intense emotional experience was probably a directing mistake

You could have just stopped right here!

Rey's "I like this" moment is so, so tone deaf to what is happening in the scene it almost makes me wonder if it was originally supposed to be in a different part of the movie.  Or, maybe it was intended for a different film altogether. 

The decision to kill off Ben immediately after reviving him is so fucking inexplicable.  It's like ... what?  Way to incompetently ruin not only your own narrative beat, but also destroy the possibility of follow-up movies involving the one character from the ST that's not only actually interesting, but who seems like their story is far from finished.

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)