StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mark Hamill has also said that Rian won him over and he now likes where things are heading. From what I remember from the Celebration panel, he said that he didn't like it when it was just on script, but seeing how the scenes actually play out completely changed his mind. It think its similar to how he felt about the ending of The Force Awakens, it looked bad on script, but worked really well in action, as mentioned in the article Kojiro posted.

Yeah, that could be.

Film is a visual medium, and while I maintain that for a conventional Hollywood film, the script is very important (and most often the weak link), at the same time, their are other factor that heavily influence the final result. Presentation matters a lot: you can see this in dialog which seems very hokey or humdrum on paper, for example, but works well when conveyed by a great actor.

Reminds me also of the Harry Potter play that came out a while back- commentary on the script was overwhelming negative, with the consensus seeming to lean towards things like "bad fanfic".

Reviews from people who actually saw the play were overwhelmingly positive (at least initially), and now its been winning awards.

I can only assume that that's the difference in quality once the presentation on stage, the visuals and the actors' performances and direction, is taken into account.

I mean SW has tradition of having dialog that looks really stiff and unnatural on paper but when given to decent enough actor they make it work regardless.

Plus, its not like actors never improvise lines.

Lord Revan wrote:I mean SW has tradition of having dialog that looks really stiff and unnatural on paper but when given to decent enough actor they make it work regardless.

Since Lucas no longer has a hand in writing any of the dialogue, I doubt that's Hamill's problem with it. My guess is that he probably figured Luke was going to be a confident and wise old Jedi master, not some depressed and confused old recluse who repudiates everything he learned in the previous three movies.

What I want from this film, more than anything else, is for Luke to be... I don't know if "redeemed" is the right word. But I want Luke to get at least once chance to show what he's capable of, to be the great Jedi Master he should have been, had fate been kinder. Even if its just a last stand before Snoke or Kylo Ren kills him, or coming to the realization that the Jedi (or at least Force Users serving the Light Side) can triumph.

I want to see a Master Luke worthy of the title.

The Romulan Republic wrote:What I want from this film, more than anything else, is for Luke to be... I don't know if "redeemed" is the right word. But I want Luke to get at least once chance to show what he's capable of, to be the great Jedi Master he should have been, had fate been kinder. Even if its just a last stand before Snoke or Kylo Ren kills him, or coming to the realization that the Jedi (or at least Force Users serving the Light Side) can triumph.

I want to see a Master Luke worthy of the title.

I'd say redeemed is the right word, you don't have to be evil to be redeemed, if Luke is apathetic and depressed and Rey is able to bring him back to champion of the light side he once was I'd still call that redemption even if Luke wasn't actively working for the bad guys.

Have you guys reconciled yourselves yet with the near certain fact we will have to endure a giant CGI Snooki doing a summersault lightsaber fight to the death with Luke? If not, brace yourselves little roots.

There is nothing inherently wrong with CGI.

Its either well-executed or its not. If it is, its useful. If its not, its just like any other poorly-made filmmaking.

Also, the overly acrobatic lightsaber fights of the Prequels seem to be a thing of the past. That's certainly not how Kylo Ren vs. Rey was choreographed, anyway, though that might just be down Ren being injured and Rey being inexperienced. I thought their duel was a nice mix of OT and PT styles, myself.

But you can score cheap points on the internet by bashing any aspect of a new Star Wars film, regardless of weather the criticism is accurate, so I don't expect it to stop any time soon.

Something I have recently been thinking is increasingly likely is that Rey's parents aren't anyone of note. In particular the novel Bloodline makes it questionable that it was Luke, because Kylo Ren had not yet turned to the Dark Side(he was training with Luke during those events) but Rey would also have already been left on Jakku. It is still possible that it was Rey's mother that left her behind, perhaps based upon a vision of the future, but it seems less likely based on what we now know about the timeline than it was when I first argued this. While Rey does seem drawn to Luke in some fashion, it could just as easily be that she is important due to her connection to the Force as opposed to her connection to Luke.

The biggest issue I had previously had with an idea like this came down to the fact that Kylo Ren apparently knew who she was. But this is where Bloodlines also gets in the way, as he obviously wasn't the one who dumped her there based on that timeline and would have never interacted with her at that point. While that still leaves the question of how he knew who she was, it is possible that he saw her in a vision in the same way that she saw him. If that vision featured Rey on the Millennium Falcon with Han, it would explain both his jealousy and that he reacted when he heard that the girl from Jakku stole a YT model freighter, putting the two elements together.

Anakin's lightsaber choosing Rey over Kylo Ren, indicating that she has a connection to the crystal within it might indicate a connection to Luke, but that connection doesn't have to be paternal. Rey's raw power probably has something to do with Jakku itself, as Palpatine was highly interested in it, and also likely why Lor San Tekka(Max Von Sydow) is there.

The only other oddity is Leia's reaction making it appear that she knew Rey, but it is also possible that she simply saw that Rey was important and was sharing in their grief over Han's death.

What is really interesting about this debate is how everyone is absolutely sure that they already know the answer.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

There is nothing inherently wrong with CGI.

Its either well-executed or its not. If it is, its useful. If its not, its just like any other poorly-made filmmaking.

Also, the overly acrobatic lightsaber fights of the Prequels seem to be a thing of the past. That's certainly not how Kylo Ren vs. Rey was choreographed, anyway, though that might just be down Ren being injured and Rey being inexperienced. I thought their duel was a nice mix of OT and PT styles, myself.

But you can score cheap points on the internet by bashing any aspect of a new Star Wars film, regardless of weather the criticism is accurate, so I don't expect it to stop any time soon.

While I'd have to rewatch it to be sure IIRC Vader's lightsaber style in Rogue One seemed more like sped up OT style then the needlessly flashy PT style and it does make certain sense for Vader to not go all out against Obi-Wan, Vader had no idea what Kenobi is capable of and last time Vader underestimated his old master, Vader ended up loosing 3 limbs and got burnt to a crisp that kind of experience would make him vary and not wanting to take needless risks.

Oh yes. Vader is almost always cool and calculating in how he fights in the OT era. I think he learned the lessons of Mustafar very well.

I want Master Luke just to killfuck Darth Crybaby.

I know that's not very Star Warsy, but after TFA, I just want Darth Crybaby to die.

And god I hope Darth Gollum, also known as SNOKE (I'm sorry I can't stop laughing when I spell out the name), just dies by falling into Orodruin. Mount Doom. Like, into the mouth of a turbolaser cannon of Darth Emo's Star Destroyer as it is about to fire.

I want the horrible abortions of a bad guy to be gone and make some screen time for someone like Krennic - a villain who doesn't make you laugh and cry.

Stas, the point of Kylo IS the well-done (IMO) subversion of URGH TOUGH MACHO EDGELORD Siths and it's actually quite relevant since it is a great portrayal of alienated radicalized wannabe-badass youths. Spree shooters, power-tripping maniacs, etc. The First Order's parallels to child-kidnapping Boko Haram, ISIS, whatever, their nature as a fascist holdover insurgency, etc. I think these were deliberate thematic choices. For all of the new trilogy's problemos, I think these aren't among them.

Yes, I hope Kylo dies a peasant's death in the end though.

Proton torpedoed by Poe Dameron or something.

Kylo is the anti Luke. The drama and question on him is if he resists the lure of the Lightside. Personally, I hope they kill him off instead of redeme him, but it is a good insight to the darkside that Anakin really didn't do.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Stas, the point of Kylo IS the well-done (IMO) subversion of URGH TOUGH MACHO EDGELORD Siths and it's actually quite relevant since it is a great portrayal of alienated radicalized wannabe-badass youths. Spree shooters, power-tripping maniacs, etc. The First Order's parallels to child-kidnapping Boko Haram, ISIS, whatever, their nature as a fascist holdover insurgency, etc. I think these were deliberate thematic choices. For all of the new trilogy's problemos, I think these aren't among them.

This.

Unfortunately, that also makes him seem kind of pathetic for a main antagonist in a film like this.

Snoke, I think, could be a great villain in theory, and Serkis is certainly not a bad actor, but at this point, he's underdeveloped, and largely comes off to me as a flat Palpatine knock-off.

One thing I did like was how accepting he seemed of the loss of Starkiller Base. Where your typical cliche super villain would be in denial and/or demand that his men pay for their failure, he basically, as I recall, just said to cut their losses and retreat, and make sure Kylo Ren got out. That's a hint of the kind of level-headed pragmatism and ability to find a silver lining in every situation that characterizes higher-class evil masterminds like Thrawn and David Xanatos. I'd like to see that angle developed more.

I'd also like to see Phasma develop into the strong antagonist the trailers promised us, rather than the bit part she turned out to be in TFA. In particular, I think she could work as a personal arch enemy for Finn (while Kylo is more Rey's adversary).

From what I've gathered the reason Phasma was under developed in TFA was that she wasn't suppose to be in it to begin with and she was inserted into the movie (because people took a liking to the look of a chromed Stormtrooper with a cape) so late in the process that there wasn't really time to rewrite the movie to give a her a proper role so her role in TFA is a bit kitbashy as result. Where as with Last Jedi they've had time to actually properly write her into the movie instead of going "oh shit we need to insert this new character into the movie but we don't have time for major rewrites"

The Romulan Republic wrote:I'd also like to see Phasma develop into the strong antagonist the trailers promised us, rather than the bit part she turned out to be in TFA. In particular, I think she could work as a personal arch enemy for Finn (while Kylo is more Rey's adversary).

This is sort of impossible now. She was punked so hard, written so badly as not just a coward but a traitor, that there is no way to turn her into a badass at this point. And she never was a badass, she does nothing in the film that justifies you having any fear of her.

They punked Boba Fett too but AFTER they already established him as a baddass, and then he immediately died.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Stas, the point of Kylo IS the well-done (IMO) subversion of URGH TOUGH MACHO EDGELORD Siths and it's actually quite relevant since it is a great portrayal of alienated radicalized wannabe-badass youths. Spree shooters, power-tripping maniacs, etc. The First Order's parallels to child-kidnapping Boko Haram, ISIS, whatever, their nature as a fascist holdover insurgency, etc. I think these were deliberate thematic choices. For all of the new trilogy's problemos, I think these aren't among them

About a month before the movie came out a guy I know made a comment to the effect that he'd forgive everything else about the movie if Kylo Ren turned out to be some dipshit kid trying way too hard to look tough and edgy. Turns out that's literally his character.

I can only imagine what the other Knights of Ren are like if Kylo is the most powerful of them all. Then again, Kylo's problem isn't that he lacks power, it's that he's emotionally unstable. Perhaps the other knights are better disciplined and more effective warriors overall even if they aren't as strong in the Force as Kylo.

Patroklos wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:I'd also like to see Phasma develop into the strong antagonist the trailers promised us, rather than the bit part she turned out to be in TFA. In particular, I think she could work as a personal arch enemy for Finn (while Kylo is more Rey's adversary).

This is sort of impossible now. She was punked so hard, written so badly as not just a coward but a traitor, that there is no way to turn her into a badass at this point. And she never was a badass, she does nothing in the film that justifies you having any fear of her.

I'm not sure why being a traitor is a mark against her when the regime she served is utterly vile. Or are you one of those people who thinks that the most important quality of a soldier is that they follow orders, no matter what?

Personally, I think what it sets her up as is a self-serving pragmatist, which can be an effective kind of villain if written well.

Isn't David Xanatos was Gargoyles exactly a self-serving (for the most part) pragmatist and is generally considered a decent villain and honestly I fail to see how Phasma's actions in TFA could be considered treason, stupid and cowardly sure but she was under dures and something that First Order seems to lack in the Galactic Empire's pettyness when it comes to unavoidble failures, it's not like she chose to drop the shields out of the kindness of her heart, she literally had gun pointed at her head, also I suspect she tripped the alarm on purpose while she lowered the shield.

The Romulan Republic wrote: I'm not sure why being a traitor is a mark against her when the regime she served is utterly vile. Or are you one of those people who thinks that the most important quality of a soldier is that they follow orders, no matter what?

Personally, I think what it sets her up as is a self-serving pragmatist, which can be an effective kind of villain if written well.

I don't disagree that can still be used but the vileness of the regime she served doesn't really affect her, she wasn't switching sides like Finn was. She just obeyed the order to lower shields rather than die for her cause. Which is odd given the fanatical brainwashed loyalty they're supposed to have. (But then it failed on Finn)

Personally I'd have her be super extra fanatical and vindictive towards the heroes going forward as her covering and overcompensating for her lapse.

Oh, no, of course her defection wasn't out of principle, but at the same time, I don't see why disloyalty to the space Nazis is a mark against her.

Going all out to prove herself next time is a possibility. Another is that she's been sacked/slated for execution and is now working as a mercenary or something, though that change would work better if who she was before was more strongly established, I think.