Speaking of porgs, I've read something online that casts them in a whole new light. Remember the scene where a flock of them surround Chewbacca as he's about to feast on one of their roasted brethren? And they look at him doe-eyed and open-mouthed? We all assumed they were aghast at the idea that he would even consider consuming them. But what if they were begging for tablescraps? Cannibalistic porgs ... I like them better already!
To be fair, I actualy asome they are begging him for food, but I'm not sure they where aware WHAT he is eating
Know as Maciej Kur, Mr. M., Maik, Maiki, Pan, Pan Miluś and many other names.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Dec 20, 2017 3:25:49 GMT
And I guess Luke dies because he "lost the will to live", just like his dear old mother. What an anticlimactic end to the franchise's original hero. He deserved better. After Carrie Fisher's death, it would probably have been fitting to retool the script and give all of Holdo's scenes to Leia, letting the character sacrifice herself for the good of the Resistance (minus the ridiculous subplot of Poe being kept in the dark about the plan for no good reason)... might have required a bit of voice-over and CGI work but it would have been worth it to wrap-up Leia's fate in a worthy and meaningful way, rather than having her die off-screen between this and the next movie which now seems to be their plan. Holdo could have been Leia's successor in Episode IX.
And I guess Luke dies because he "lost the will to live", just like his dear old mother. What an anticlimactic end to the franchise's original hero. He deserved better.
I actualy like the way Luke's dies.
Unlike Han Solo who's death I found anticlimatic, tacked on and sort of not fiting for the character (well we just learn he has a Son and not now that Son kills him - yaaay), Luke's death let's him keeps all his dignity. It's a nobel sacrafice as he used all his energy to create the projection, but at the same time he out-smarted Kylo and die 100% on his own term (got the "last laugh" if you will)
Again, I get why the people are upset about the idea of killing all the old characters in the first place but I like this type of death better then if he was just killed by Kylo or something like that.
My guess is that with the way this part ends, they will just jump a year old two with the next one and just open with Leias funeral. Yhe, I would prefer some type of sacrifice but I would hate if they just CGI her for a scene. There is something VERY disrepsectfull to the late actress about it....
I did say about "Dark Knight Trylogy" after Ledger die that I woudn't mind another actor playing the Joker in the third part of the movie, but in this case bringing another actress just show the character die would felt cheap.
Know as Maciej Kur, Mr. M., Maik, Maiki, Pan, Pan Miluś and many other names.
And I guess Luke dies because he "lost the will to live", just like his dear old mother.
No, you misunderstood the scene. Like Pan said, the idea is that doing the astral-projection thing while still alive was an insanely costly, difficult thing to pull off, and he burnt off all of his lifeforce doing it, sacrificing himself for the greater good.
My guess is that with the way this part ends, they will just jump a year old two with the next one and just open with Leias funeral. Yhe, I would prefer some type of sacrifice but I would hate if they just CGI her for a scene. There is something VERY disrepsectfull to the late actress about it....
I agree with you wholeheartedly, the practice of using CGI to bring back actors who have passed should be discouraged in general; not only does it seem disrespectful, but it's a slippery slope (I can see how it might be a bargaining chip in future when companies negotiate with actors about appearing in sequels). It was one of my complaints about "Rogue One"; they should have either cast a new actor for Tarkin or written him out. And under no circumstances would I want them to insert Carrie Fisher into Episode IX using CGI, nor recast the role. But I guess I would have been okay with their making an exception in this one case, given the importance and the historic nature of the Leia character, and maybe repurposed some of the unused footage of Fisher from the shoot (although I read that they used most of it in the final film), with CGI filling in the hole, to give her life a more memorable end. But I understand the desire to leave her performance intact, as well. However, as others have pointed out, Leia choosing to flee and let her longtime friend and trusted lieutenant sacrifice herself, when as leader of the Resistance she could have made the decision to be the one to stay, does seem out of character. For that matter, I'm not sure what the point was in putting Leia in a coma for a big chunk of the movie.
Scrooge MacDuck said:
No, you misunderstood the scene. Like Pan said, the idea is that doing the astral-projection thing while still alive was an insanely costly, difficult thing to pull off, and he burnt off all of his lifeforce doing it, sacrificing himself for the greater good.
I figured it out later, but it didn't strike me while watching the movie. It almost seemed to me at the time that Luke was saying, "Well, that was fun, now I'll just kill myself like I planned". I still think that the Luke of old would have actually physically been by his allies' side, instead of using parlor tricks (yes, I know his X-Wing was broken ... maybe he could have just flown through the vacuum of space like Leia apparently can). But if they wanted us to truly believe "new Luke" was dejected, depressed and had the fight knocked out of him, as appeared to be the case throughout this movie, then yes, his end was fitting. "Astral projection" and "surviving in space" were obviously the end result of the writers struggling desperately to come up with something, anything, that we haven't seen before. Unfortunately, to me, both fell flat and seemed more ridiculous and pointless than exciting and fresh. I sympathize with their dilemma; rehashing things from the earlier movies would lead to accusations of their being out of ideas, while inventing new things that are so divergent from established lore would cause audiences to be outraged that they're undermining the franchise. I think that's exactly what happened here, in both aspects. Maybe the solution would have been to focus on the side movies like "Rogue One" and "Solo" instead of trying to keep milking a story that ended so perfectly with "Return of the Jedi". But the lure of cash-flow from a newly-acquired property was probably too great for Disney to resist. I have to admit that there were the seeds of some potentially interesting plotlines in "The Last Jedi" that I would have liked to have seen explored in greater depth (Luke's disillusionment with the Jedi and his valid points about their vices in the Prequel era, the possible collaboration between a morally-ambiguous Kylo Ren and a conflicted Rey [his offer to her had shades of Vader's plea to Padme in "Revenge of the Sith], etc.) but these were abandoned in favor of the same old safe, tired, predictable Empire-vs-Rebels, old-Jedi-master-sacrifices-himself and Sith-apprentice-kills-Sith-master narratives that were enthralling the first time around but seem unoriginal and repetitive now. I'd be interested to know what Lucas' version of the Sequel Trilogy, which he submitted to Disney at the time of the Lucasfilm acquisition and which Disney rejected, was like. Was that ever revealed? Also: didn't Luke say he trained other Jedi? What happened to them? Did they all go to the Dark Side with Kylo Ren? Again, even if so, what happened to them?
I am a huge Star Wars fan, but not of Disney's version, I prefer the old Expanded Universe which is now called "Legends". Though I like Rogue One, The Force Awakens kind of sucks in my opinion and I haven't even seen The Last Jedi, which is even more worse according to spoilers I've read.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Jun 16, 2018 18:39:26 GMT
Okay, so, "Solo".
(SPOILERS BELOW)
By now I've learned not to expect much from Disney Star Wars, and to treat each new film as elaborate fan fiction. Releasing a new Star Wars movie every year also detracts a lot from the magic of when the premiers of these movies were rare, almost communal events. I was so disappointed with "The Last Jedi" that I almost skipped this one in theaters, and was going to wait until it became available for home viewing. Still, it wasn't all that bad. "Rogue One" remains the only Disney Star Wars movie I really liked, but "Solo" didn't rankle all that much, although it wasn't particularly memorable.
But ...
1. I'm still unclear as to how Han was actually able to enlist in the Imperial Navy in the first place. He didn't have the ID to get off Correlia and was wanted for possession of stolen coaxium, yet he is somehow accepted into the Empire without question? Does the Empire not perform even the most basic of background checks? 2. Also, the name "Solo" wasn't his original last name but one bestowed upon him by an Imperial Officer because he is alone ... an idea that I was not wild about. Also, we know that the medium of communication in the Star Wars galaxy isn't English. So is "Solo" a translated name? If so, are other English-sounding names like Skywalker, Maul, Sidious, Grievous, etc. also translations? 3. Qi'ra's inexplicable emergence as a trusted lieutenant in Crimson Dawn is too coincidental and convenient to be taken seriously, IMHO. What are the odds? 4. Neither of the actors playing younger versions of previously established main characters (Han and Lando) particularly looked, nor made any effort to act like their Original Trilogy counterparts. Maybe not a huge deal, but it did make it a little hard to completely buy this as an official prequel to "A New Hope" (especially since it takes place in the time period immediately before that film). 5. One of the biggest surprises of the movie, is of course, the revelation of Darth Maul as the villain pulling all of Crimson Dawn's strings. As someone who does not really follow the new canon "Expanded Universe" (TV shows, games, novels, etc)., I was vaguely aware that this character was revealed to not really have died after all in "The Phantom Menace" (not George Lucas' original intent, I'm sure), but I don't know the details and I'm still confused by the circumstances. No explanation is given for the benefit of "movies-only" audiences who used to be a respected part of the fandom. The details of the Maul-Qi'ra relationship are also left hanging at the end of the movie. Is there supposed to be a sequel? If not, the way this plotline was handled is a huge disservice to audiences. 6. How did Chewbacca end up where he was on Mimban? Why had he never tried to escape before he met Han? It's not like he needed Han to break free. 7. My biggest gripe is probably that Han, as portrayed in this movie, is nothing like the character we meet in " A New Hope". Original Trilogy-Han is a pirate, a scoundrel, a selfish outlaw who's willing to work for the highest bidder and has no morals or scruples. His decision to reform and ally with the Rebellion over the course of Episode IV was a pivotal character journey. Solo-Han, however, is clearly a good guy at heart and already taking sides. It cheapens his redemption arc from "A New Hope". Also, the Han-Lando relationship seems far less deep and more fleeting than what "The Empire Strikes Back" implied.
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Jun 18, 2018 16:10:00 GMT
I read that the original directors (Miller/Lord) had a more comedic take on the movie than Ron Howard ultimately ended up adopting, and I wonder if some of the more lighthearted elements (Han getting the name "Solo", the use of the Imperial March as an in-universe theme) may have been their contributions, surviving the directorial change.
Coming back to The Last Jedi ... I just realized how misleading that title is. It's the exact opposite of what happens in the movie! Luke clearly says he's *not* the last Jedi! That's like calling Episode IV "No Hope Left", or Episode V "The Empire Sits on Its Hands", or Episode VI, "The Jedi Are Gone".
Coming back to The Last Jedi ... I just realized how misleading that title is. It's the exact opposite of what happens in the movie! Luke clearly says he's *not* the last Jedi!
As the foreign titles show, "Jedi" here is plural.
Coming back to The Last Jedi ... I just realized how misleading that title is. It's the exact opposite of what happens in the movie! Luke clearly says he's *not* the last Jedi!
As the foreign titles show, "Jedi" here is plural.
That's not what director Rian Johnson said pre-release:
"It's so funny when people started asking that when the title was announced because I never even pondered that question... In my mind its singular. They say in The Force Awakens that he's gone on to find the last Jedi temple. Luke is the last Jedi."
As the foreign titles show, "Jedi" here is plural.
That's not what director Rian Johnson said pre-release:
"It's so funny when people started asking that when the title was announced because I never even pondered that question... In my mind its singular. They say in The Force Awakens that he's gone on to find the last Jedi temple. Luke is the last Jedi."
Well that's weird. It's unambiguously plural in the various languages where the article "the" has different singular and plural forms.
That's not what director Rian Johnson said pre-release:
Well that's weird. It's unambiguously plural in the various languages where the article "the" has different singular and plural forms.
Those foreign translators seem to have picked up on the inaccuracy of the title where Johnson didn't, even when it was pointed out to him, and made the necessary adjustment. Jedi being plural here makes more sense, but Johnson's the boss, so, like Barks saying Gyro is a chicken, the "Jedi" in The Last Jedi is singular.