The Last Jedi

To be fair to the movie I´d say that, now, after The Rise of Skywalker it´s "only" the second worst Star Wars movie. I fail to see what´s supposed to be so "bold" or "daring", or "subversive" about it. It´s just a poor man´s The Empire Strikes Back just like The Force Awakens was a poor man´s A New Hope.

Publicly, George has always been polite with the Disney movies and he chooses his words carefully.

After all, George has famously said:

"There are a lot of movies that are badly made that I love, and there are a lot of movies that are just beautifully made but I don't like them."

When TFA came out, he simply said "the fans will love it". Which was true, but knowing Lucas that's no endorsement. Just like TLJ being "beautifully made" isn't an endorsement either.

Watching TFA was the same experience for me as you describe. It was especially hard because of how much it was celebrated at the time as a "return to form." But by the time of TLJ I had stopped caring, and was only mildly disappointed by the film. My reaction to it was the same as Lucas', in that I could at least appreciate the obviously superior craft compared to TFA. I didn't rewatch it for a long time, having rejected the Disney movies altogether. However I noticed the backlash it got, so maybe it's the contrarian in me, but I started appreciating some of the things the film did, because it did try to do something else than just pander to OT fans. I think two things really exemplify this film getting the dichotomy of Lucas' Star Wars: The scene of Rey describing the Force, and the burping alien at the casino.

I think Lucas could appreciate Rian Johnson as someone who came off smaller movies to doing Star Wars. And Johnson's film is the complete opposite of TFA as far as "the fans will love it." It took risks and Johnson did what he thought was necessary for the story, not for the fans, just as Lucas did with the prequels. JJ did TFA out of malicious feelings for the PT, talking about showing Jar Jar's skeleton and wanting to destroy Coruscant. I see TLJ largely as a rebellion against that, and as something that returned the favor in many ways, such as destroying Kylo's Vader imitation mask and calling it "ridiculous." I think TLJ appreciates the PT in many ways.

I think the film is about learning from failure and children being the future. So I think there is thematic consistency and resonance with the Lucas saga. Honor and respect especially shine through the commentary track, when Johnson talks of doing callbacks to specific moments in the saga. And he didn't do them just as nostalgia bait for OT fans, but as thematic echoes the likes of which Lucas used in his saga.

"This is very consciously echoing a shot from Episode III of Anakin coming in that I always loved. Just a beautiful graphic shot that George did that we wanted to do a callback to."

Things like the slave children were very Lucasian. I think TLJ clearly has the most PT influence of all the Disney movies.

I think this film and Johnson are misunderstood in some ways similarly to the PT and Lucas. But then again, someone would probably say the same thing to me about TFA/TRoS and Abrams. We all have our differing points of view.

I will have to disagree. I will address some of that.

I wouldn't say the preachiness is any more vulgar than Lucas'. Lucas' films could be thought of as "preachy" if one wants to think like that. They present basic morality to children, things like symbiotic circles and that greed is bad. TLJ has these same themes. Canto Bight is actually an encapsulated representation of Lucas' themes of coexistence with nature and greed.

Anakin used the Force without training. Yes, he wasn't seen moving objects, but that is only one aspect of the Force. You yourself are against simplifying the Force to just "moving rocks." Anakin definitely used the Force in TPM, so you're just wrong on that one.

There is a logic to portraying Luke the way he is in TLJ, and it's pretty clearly laid out in the flashbacks. His journey was not meaningless, it informs his decisions.

Luke's talk of the Jedi is the truth, from a certain point of view. The idea that the Jedi were arrogant is in the prequels. But Luke comes out of this mindset and starts believing in the Jedi again after Yoda's pep talk.

But having morals is not the same as being preachy. I expand on that further below.


No, it's an obnoxious rant against rich people because they are rich. There's no tact, it's just blantant, shoved in.


I'm not wrong, you've just acknowledged what I was referring to. Having sharp reflexes is tapping into the Force subscounsciously, but it's not actively using the Force and command the energy field, be that telekinetic abilities, reading people's minds, etc. Those abilities come with time, knowledge and training.


Why did he decide to strike his nephew? How does he go from saving his fallen father to considering murdering his nephew in his sleep just because he felt the dark side in him or whatever he said?


It's not the truth, it's false. His rant is full of strawmen and other fallacies.

Some Jedi are arrogant, that doesn't make the Jedi and their ways arrogant. Arrogance is opposite to the Jedi way, which the Jedi strive to follow. But Luke wants to end it all (while protecting Jedi relics).


As weighty? Really? People can appreciate whatever they want, but I think there's a substantial difference between the two, starting from the fact that the OT and PT share the artist in charge.





Yes, which is completely diferent. Star Wars is a morality tale, but it's not preachy. The Disney movies not only lack that morality but are also preachy.


We don't see Anakin using the Force in TPM. Like we don't see Luke using the Force in ANH. They have sharp reflexes, foresight, but that's it. Using the Force is something that comes with knowledge and training that they eventually acquire. That's not the case with the Disney movies.


Establishing, but not explaning it. How come he does a 180º change? All the movies does is show that he changed, without showing or explaining why he changed.



Yes, non sequitur. He argues against claims that nobody made, and he makes accusations that are not reflected in the actual movies.


How was I off-base? And what about the meditation? What Jedi philosophy?


Levity? Luke died to mock is nephew, there was no lesson trying to be imparted. No call to reason. He only added fuel to the fire.

And Luke's death wasn't even what I was referring to, although it applies as well. I was actually thinking of Fin.


What wisdom? That the protagonist already knows what she needs to become a Jedi even though Luke taught her nothing?

I can find meaning and significance in SW even if the film in question wasn't directed by Lucas himself (e.g., TESB or ROTJ). Can you? I'm not that sycophantic.


If preachy means explicit moral instruction, then I'm baffled. None of the nine films in the Skywalker saga contain that.


Splitting hairs. See Seeker's latest post above.


It doesn't have to be mapped out. We don't see Han's change of heart before his surprise return in ANH's climax but we accept it, don't we?


No one explicitly argues that the Jedi have serious flaws but the writing's all over the wall. That's almost the whole point of the PT.


Your "floating rocks" comment strikes me as flippantly reductive. Not a serious argument.


Luke allowed the Resistance to escape and live to fight another day when all hope was lost. A return to form for Luke. The potshots at Kylo were icing on the cake.


If I recall correctly, Yoda states, "The greatest teacher, failure is." An apt point given the surrounding drama.

I think TLJ uses callbacks effectively. Some people, such as RLM, criticized Lucas' use of callbacks and thought they were nothing but empty nostalgia references. I don't think that is true, and I don't think it's true in the case of TLJ. When someone other than Lucas tries to do the same thing as him, I have to appreciate that.