Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10409
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Elfdart » 2020-01-01 10:07pm

Tribble wrote:
2020-01-01 12:59pm
Mange wrote:Oh, the arrogance of that man! A character which even isn't his own creation... Aaand you just showed that Johnson has no grasp of the character whatsoever. I sure don't want to see Luke as some sort of divinity (heck I'm not a fan of the character as is), but Luke is a hero who overcame "wounds & flaws" through his arc in the OT and had certainly matured over the three decades since ROTJ and left him more equipped with handling "recurring wounds & flaws". Johnson hit the reset button (and not in a good way as Johnson's failure to grasp the character made Luke see Kylo Ren as unredeemable). A good comparison would be Obi-Wan (and Yoda as well). Heck, Obi-Wan didn't even want to fight his friend, but Luke was about to murder his own nephew in his sleep! It's so bad I can't stand it!
To be fair, that can equally be said about Abrams as well. Abrams had Luke abandon his friends and family when he knew he was needed... for reasonz. Namely, that Abrams didn't want Luke outshining his new favourites. Any reason that Johnson came up with for Luke's absence was going to be stupid because the fundamental flaw was Luke abandoning everyone in the first place. That's just not the type of character he was in the OT, let alone how he should have been by now given three decades he had to mature and grow as a person.

Han Solo wasn't treated any better... he abandoned his family and friends too, not to mention the Falcon. And became a smuggler again. Because, you know, reasonz. So much for his character growth from the OT.

Johnson may have served a pile of crap, but the ingredients were given to him by Abrams.
True, but turning Luke into a murderous prick willing to kill his sister's child in his sleep (however briefly) pretty much killed my interest in Star Wars as "must see". I still haven't watched Disney's latest offering, but since I was given a Disney+ subscription for Christmas, I'll just wait until it comes on TV. Even then, it's not a priority since I was also given a Criterion Channel subscription and watching The Hidden Fortress and Dersu Uzala (two films that inspired Star Wars, and are great movies in their own right) makes Disney Star Wars look just that much worse.
"One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks."

--Matt Taibbi

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29168
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Vympel » 2020-01-01 11:42pm

Solauren wrote:
2020-01-01 09:44pm
Luke's walking away would have made sense if..

#1 - Ben had only been Kylo for a few months (or maybe a year) then The Force Awakens occurs
#2 - He didn't walk away. it was a tactical retreat to find the First Jedi Temple, to figure out what went wrong/heal from what happened

and...

#3 - He was 'in hiding' to prepare to train Rey, who he saw in a vision. He was waiting there, because that is where the Force told him to wait.

But, they didn't go that route....
It really doesn't work. Like again, this is the same kind of "make Luke some inscrutable and bizarre mercurial being" approach that all of these 'fixes' come up with to try and make Force Awakens make sense. If you don't want Luke to actually have made any sort of error to actually explain his behavior, then you basically need to go back to Force Awakens and rework the entire movie.

It is - frankly - the exact same kind of "don't worry about it" handwave that you just know Abrams would've done if he had been in Johnson's place. Just have Luke wave his hand and say "I was waiting here until the right time" and just blithely glide past all the ways that makes no sense - probably by having characters burst onto the scene and attack them at an opportune time so as to interrupt the conversation.

Then he would have Luke mouth some unearned Yodaisms and lift X-Wings and generally just stand around giving fanboys the memberberries they so sorely need. Like in TROS :roll:
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

Ralin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3016
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Ralin » 2020-01-02 01:24am

Gandalf wrote:
2020-01-01 06:39pm
The jump from "disliking the EU" to "you hate books" is an amusing one. :lol:
Your jump from "Non-fans can't be bothered to read books and or keep track of non-movie continuity" to "I just dislike the EU" is pretty dishonest.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15536
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Gandalf » 2020-01-02 06:05am

So do I hate books, or is it somehow wrong to call them merch? Your posts have left me bamboozled.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

Ralin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3016
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Ralin » 2020-01-02 06:53am

Gandalf wrote:
2020-01-02 06:05am
So do I hate books, or is it somehow wrong to call them merch? Your posts have left me bamboozled.
Your gimmick of asking leading questions and pretending you don't know the answer is annoying.

User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2797
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Tribble » 2020-01-02 09:02am

Vympel wrote:
2020-01-01 11:42pm
Solauren wrote:
2020-01-01 09:44pm
Luke's walking away would have made sense if..

#1 - Ben had only been Kylo for a few months (or maybe a year) then The Force Awakens occurs
#2 - He didn't walk away. it was a tactical retreat to find the First Jedi Temple, to figure out what went wrong/heal from what happened

and...

#3 - He was 'in hiding' to prepare to train Rey, who he saw in a vision. He was waiting there, because that is where the Force told him to wait.

But, they didn't go that route....
It really doesn't work. Like again, this is the same kind of "make Luke some inscrutable and bizarre mercurial being" approach that all of these 'fixes' come up with to try and make Force Awakens make sense. If you don't want Luke to actually have made any sort of error to actually explain his behavior, then you basically need to go back to Force Awakens and rework the entire movie.

It is - frankly - the exact same kind of "don't worry about it" handwave that you just know Abrams would've done if he had been in Johnson's place. Just have Luke wave his hand and say "I was waiting here until the right time" and just blithely glide past all the ways that makes no sense - probably by having characters burst onto the scene and attack them at an opportune time so as to interrupt the conversation.

Then he would have Luke mouth some unearned Yodaisms and lift X-Wings and generally just stand around giving fanboys the memberberries they so sorely need. Like in TROS :roll:
Thats exactly the kind of thing Abrams would have done:

Rey: “How did you find this planet and why did you leave?”
Luke: “That is a good question for another time”.
Rey: “Ok let’s go.”

Speaking of which, did they ever explain how they got the lightsaber from Bespin?
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15536
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Gandalf » 2020-01-02 09:22am

Ralin wrote:
2020-01-02 06:53am
Gandalf wrote:
2020-01-02 06:05am
So do I hate books, or is it somehow wrong to call them merch? Your posts have left me bamboozled.
Your gimmick of asking leading questions and pretending you don't know the answer is annoying.
Makes sense. Everyone's annoying to someone, I suppose. :)
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

houser2112
Padawan Learner
Posts: 464
Joined: 2006-04-07 07:21am
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by houser2112 » 2020-01-02 09:58am

Tribble wrote:
2020-01-02 09:02am
Speaking of which, did they ever explain how they got the lightsaber from Bespin?
We don't need details such as that. Just like we don't need to know: Spoiler
  1. how the NR failed to check the FO, and why the Resistance had to step in
  2. how Palpatine was resurrected
  3. how Palpatine suddenly had kids, let alone grandkids

User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4158
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Mange » 2020-01-02 03:56pm

Vympel wrote:
2020-01-01 07:10pm
Mange wrote:
2020-01-01 10:19am
Bullshit, it wasn't instinct. I forced myself to sit through the horrendously bad, boring and bland TLJ the other day and that scene was one of those I took especially note of. Luke didn't draw the sword from instinct. He drew the sword and actively considered murdering his nephew, which he had known since Ben's birth, in cold blood for many seconds based on a vision. I have already established the lessons learned by Luke in TESB. Visions is one thing, but Vader became even more of a direct threat to Leia once he learned Luke and Leia were siblings. Luke, even though the immense psychological pressure he was under, finally came through and threw away his lightsaber. Luke was under no such pressure here and Ben wasn't a direct threat. In fact, Johnson portrayed Luke Skywalker as a psychopath who considered murdering his nephew who, unlike Vader, hadn't done anything evil.
What rubbish. It's literally in the script that it was pure instinct on Luke's part, and quickly passed.

Oh really? In the script? I haven't managed to find the script anywhere online, so perhaps you'll cite the passage. Oh, we have Luke saying that it was "pure instinct", but he lied earlier (or "from a certain point of view") and we're also shown Kylo's point of view. And the version from Luke's POV is quite enough.

And if we're playing the script game, I'd like to cite the end of the TFA script:
IT IS LUKE SKYWALKER.

Older now, white hair, bearded. He looks at Rey. A kindness in his eyes, but there's something tortured, too. He doesn't need to ask her who she is, or what she is doing here. His look says it all.

In response, Rey pulls something from the pack.

LUKE'S LIGHTSABER.

And she holds it out to him. An offer. A plea. The galaxy's only hope.

HOLD ON LUKE SKYWALKER'S INCREDIBLE FACE, amazed and conflicted at what he sees, as our MUSIC BUILDS, the promise of an adventure, just beginning...
While one shouldn't read too much into some parts of this (especially not the "He doesn't need to ask her who she is, or what she is doing here. His look says it all."-part), this doesn't read as a character being handed his father's lightsaber only to toss it away in the next few seconds. Rian Johnson did his own failed take on the character.
Vympel wrote:The idea that Luke flipped out because "Vader became even more of a direct threat to Leia" is also rubbish. Luke literally turned to the dark side based on a taunt Vader had no way of actioning in the moment.
Now you're flat out contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways. Vader, and the Emperor, were direct threats to Leia. I'm not saying that they could bring her onto the Death Star at an instant, but they were in a dominant position. Why wouldn't Luke, again under the immense pressure he was under, break? The two situations aren't comparable. Ben Solo wasn't a direct threat to anyone, yet Luke acted as a psychopath and was considering murdering his nephew (heck, what was his plan anyway? Just mindprobe Ben in his sleep based on "visions"?).
Vympel wrote:
Finally you get it: Luke, as portrayed by Johnson in TLJ, is a jackass, in pain or not. I'll leave it at that.
And why are you 'leaving it at that'? Is it because I pointed out how "he was in isolation until he was needed" is pure nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything and doesn't do anything to improve the story?
Doesn't it? I think it does but I think it's impossible to come to some sort of consensus here. I think it's implied in TFA and you do not and is heavily invested in Johnson's storytelling.
Vympel wrote:That's my point: given the premise of TFA, you can either have Luke as someone suffering from trauma, or as a bizarre inscrutable mystery figure who does things that make no sense and make things infinitely more complicated for everyone for no goddamn reason at all.

Only one of those two things allow for a character with an actual arc.
Luke is an established character who has had his arc to be further built upon, not torn down and rebuild a new character (Jake Skywalker) .
Vympel wrote:
Oh, the arrogance of that man! A character which even isn't his own creation... Aaand you just showed that Johnson has no grasp of the character whatsoever. I sure don't want to see Luke as some sort of divinity (heck I'm not a fan of the character as is), but Luke is a hero who overcame "wounds & flaws" through his arc in the OT and had certainly matured over the three decades since ROTJ and left him more equipped with handling "recurring wounds & flaws". Johnson hit the reset button (and not in a good way as Johnson's failure to grasp the character made Luke see Kylo Ren as unredeemable). A good comparison would be Obi-Wan (and Yoda as well). Heck, Obi-Wan didn't even want to fight his friend, but Luke was about to murder his own nephew in his sleep! It's so bad I can't stand it!
Dude, you're so desperate to preserve his divinity you literally just came up with a bunch of inscrutable, incoherent "I must go until I am needed" nonsense as an acceptable alternative to him simply being a human being in suffering - which is an infinitely more interesting story than ... well, nothing. Because that's what" I must go until I am needed" is. A total cul-de-sac.

The idea that Johnson 'hit the reset button' is ridiculous. Luke never had to deal with a personal failure like he had with Kylo Ren. When did that happen in the OT? Did he fail his sister and her husband in preventing their son from falling to the dark side in the OT?
Vympel, I know you've seen the OT so I can also see three reasons as to why you don't understand the arguments: 1. I fail to make myself understood (English is, after all, my second language), 2. You are unwilling to understand or 3. You are unable to understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with either 1 (the most likely) or 2.

You are the one spouting nonsense. As I have said many, many times over, Luke is an already established character! He developed through the OT and has had 30 years to mature. We know of his personal characteristics. Are those set in stone? No, but if Johnson tried to deconstruct Luke, he must build on characteristics the character already had!

What I mean with the reset button is that the Luke as portrayed in TLJ has no characteristics, no strengths and weaknesses of the character as portrayed in three goddamn movies before the TLJ trainwreck. The lessons the character learned from the OT such as the nature of visions, the lessons he learned confronting the Emperor and him finally throwing away his lightsaber and stepping away from the Dark Side and his tendency to rush and help his friends in need. All of this was undone with Jake Skywalker (I'm not at all surprised that Mark Hamill and John Boyega discussed their respective characters at length during the production of TLJ and that both rejected the direction their characters went.). While I'm sure that an older, more mature Luke wouldn't rush head over heels to help his family or friends, the OT, you know, the three movies with the character of Luke Skywalker, doesn't establish a character that would sit on his ass doing nothing when his family and friends are in mortal danger. That's Rian Johnson's bullshit.

(TESB: "They are my friends! I got to help them! TLJ:" The galaxy is being overrun by the First Order and my sister Leia is in mortal danger. Meh, I'll sit this one out brooding as I've been doing already for the past six years.")

Heck, let's talk about the psychological trauma Rey would've suffered and why that doesn't come across in the movies if it's fair game to pick Luke as some sort of deconstructionist playground.

And finally, Star Wars is a simple story. It's great to try to think in another direction, but again, if Johnson wanted to do it then he should've done it in his goddamn movies. Ultimately this is Kennedy's fault.
Vympel wrote:
Oh, so Matt Martin has authored the comic, has he? I yield that for now, however.

"...stated back in the Episode 7 VD." And? Heck, the Episode 8 VD states that the Sith lineage was "undone" when Vader "destroyed" Darth Sidious... No,it's not a fan misconception (and the people reading the VD's, especially the general audience, is a minuscule). In fact, Luke states in TLJ that Kylo: "...vanished with a handful of my students." Sounds like Abrams had another idea than that forward in the VD, huh? (I doubt Johnson, like Abrams, was strong-armed by the Story Group to adhere to a passing reference in a children's book.) To cite the title of an article by Screen Crush about the Episode IX VD: "You shouldn't have to buy a book to understand Star Wars".
Vympel wrote:I don't know the relevance of this, Rise of Kylo Ren is also a book that is not necessary to understand the movies? In any event, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Everyone knows Palpatine in Episode IX is an ass-pull that wasn't set up in either Episode VII or VIII. And Abrams didn't have any ideas at all. Maybe Johnson considered that all/some of Luke's students were part of the KoR, or maybe he just left a loose thread dangling in case it wanted to be used, but it hardly contradicts the comic.
That I can agree with. I also agree that Abrams didn't have any ideas and I knew that the trilogy would be a trainwreck as soon it was announced he was doing Episode VII. I had hoped it would have stayed at that movie.

User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Darth Yan » 2020-01-02 05:36pm

I agree that you will always have to overcome your flaws, because the temptation to fail is always going to be there. Thing is Luke came off as TOO broken and cynical. If he'd been somewhat gruff and hostile but still wanting to fight I'd be a bit more accepting. I do agree that Mange is putting Luke on a pedestal.

User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Darth Yan » 2020-01-02 08:51pm

Elfdart wrote:
2020-01-01 10:07pm
Tribble wrote:
2020-01-01 12:59pm
Mange wrote:Oh, the arrogance of that man! A character which even isn't his own creation... Aaand you just showed that Johnson has no grasp of the character whatsoever. I sure don't want to see Luke as some sort of divinity (heck I'm not a fan of the character as is), but Luke is a hero who overcame "wounds & flaws" through his arc in the OT and had certainly matured over the three decades since ROTJ and left him more equipped with handling "recurring wounds & flaws". Johnson hit the reset button (and not in a good way as Johnson's failure to grasp the character made Luke see Kylo Ren as unredeemable). A good comparison would be Obi-Wan (and Yoda as well). Heck, Obi-Wan didn't even want to fight his friend, but Luke was about to murder his own nephew in his sleep! It's so bad I can't stand it!
To be fair, that can equally be said about Abrams as well. Abrams had Luke abandon his friends and family when he knew he was needed... for reasonz. Namely, that Abrams didn't want Luke outshining his new favourites. Any reason that Johnson came up with for Luke's absence was going to be stupid because the fundamental flaw was Luke abandoning everyone in the first place. That's just not the type of character he was in the OT, let alone how he should have been by now given three decades he had to mature and grow as a person.

Han Solo wasn't treated any better... he abandoned his family and friends too, not to mention the Falcon. And became a smuggler again. Because, you know, reasonz. So much for his character growth from the OT.

Johnson may have served a pile of crap, but the ingredients were given to him by Abrams.
True, but turning Luke into a murderous prick willing to kill his sister's child in his sleep (however briefly) pretty much killed my interest in Star Wars as "must see". I still haven't watched Disney's latest offering, but since I was given a Disney+ subscription for Christmas, I'll just wait until it comes on TV. Even then, it's not a priority since I was also given a Criterion Channel subscription and watching The Hidden Fortress and Dersu Uzala (two films that inspired Star Wars, and are great movies in their own right) makes Disney Star Wars look just that much worse.

The Mandalorian is VERY good and has a real spaghetti westerns feel. It’s why my parents got Disney plus. It’s only 8 episodes and they all dropped

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29168
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Vympel » 2020-01-02 10:56pm

Mange wrote:
2020-01-02 03:56pm
Oh really? In the script? I haven't managed to find the script anywhere online, so perhaps you'll cite the passage. Oh, we have Luke saying that it was "pure instinct", but he lied earlier (or "from a certain point of view") and we're also shown Kylo's point of view. And the version from Luke's POV is quite enough.
Luke saying it's pure instinct means its in the script. Like - that's the script. That's why he said it. Also, if you're actually going to argue with a straight face that the third version we see isn't the truth, then you're not actually engaging with the film in good faith at all, you're looking for excuses to dislike it. It's some of the most blatantly obvious storytelling imaginable:

1st Version: Luke's lie;
2nd Version: Ben's version;
3rd Version: what actually happened
And if we're playing the script game, I'd like to cite the end of the TFA script:
So what? That says absolutely nothing meaningful at all. What am I supposed to take away from this? We actually know from Mark Hamill that he asked Abrams for direction on how to play this in the script? You know what Abrams had for him? Nothing. No guidance at all.
While one shouldn't read too much into some parts of this (especially not the "He doesn't need to ask her who she is, or what she is doing here. His look says it all."-part), this doesn't read as a character being handed his father's lightsaber only to toss it away in the next few seconds. Rian Johnson did his own failed take on the character.
No, his take on the character is successful, coherent and above all - human. The alternative you've proposed is nothing of the kind. More on this later.
Now you're flat out contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways. Vader, and the Emperor, were direct threats to Leia. I'm not saying that they could bring her onto the Death Star at an instant, but they were in a dominant position. Why wouldn't Luke, again under the immense pressure he was under, break? The two situations aren't comparable. Ben Solo wasn't a direct threat to anyone, yet Luke acted as a psychopath and was considering murdering his nephew (heck, what was his plan anyway? Just mindprobe Ben in his sleep based on "visions"?).
There's no contradiction here at all. Luke received visions in the Force when he reacted to the darkness he sensed from Ben. Visions which we know from six movies now (from both Anakin and Luke) have a tendency to come true, and feel extremely real. Luke didn't get a vision in the throne room, he was merely taunted. And he still flipped out and almost killed his father. But him instinctively activating his lightsaber and then immediately being ashamed of himself is some sort of unforgiveable betrayal of the character? Please.
Doesn't it? I think it does but I think it's impossible to come to some sort of consensus here. I think it's implied in TFA and you do not and is heavily invested in Johnson's storytelling.
It's impossible to come to a consensus because you refuse to actually recognise what's going on in TFA for what it is, and even if your - frankly - fantastical version of Luke's exile was true - it would still make for incredibly poor storytelling.

Nowhere have you even begun to grapple with all the issues this "I must go for no reason until I am ... needed" stuff creates for TFA. Indeed, you haven't even tried. You're just asserting that you think it works without even attempting to justify it.

In reality, your version makes Luke a bad character with no possible explanation for his behavior that could be recognised and understood by human beings. Let's break this down:

1. Luke disappears because for some reason you can't really explain except to say that he thinks he'll only be "needed" later.
2. In disappearing, he doesn't bother telling Han, Leia, or anyone where he's actually going. This is in TFA - the first Jedi temple is where he is rumored to have gone.
3. Not only does he not bother telling where he's going or why, so as to actually give his friends and family hope for the future, he doesn't even give them a way to contact him.
4. This kicks off an intergalactic easter egg hunt that is only resolved years after his disappearance by one of Leia's old friends discovering - as the opening crawl says - "a clue" (i.e. the map) to his whereabouts. This is the map you think he actually purposefully left behind (an objectively false assertion, but let's leave that aside), by the way. The First Order, also searching for Skywalker, comes within literal minutes of finding the map first and using their own archives to find Luke and kill him.
5. The Luke who somehow thinks he will only be 'needed' later sat on his hands and did nothing at all even though he should've felt in the Force both the death of Han and the destruction of Hosnian Prime.

How does your version actually explain any of this behavior? It doesn't. At all. Because it's not something that's recogniseably human or an audience could actually comprehend. It turns Luke Skywalker for a human being who is dealing with real problems and from which the audience can identify with, sympathise with, or draw actual lessons from (e.g. the importance of learning from failure, the value of legends even if you can't always live up to them) to an inscrutable, distant diety figure who just does crazy, irresponsible and selfish shit for no understandable reason at all.
Luke is an established character who has had his arc to be further built upon, not torn down and rebuild a new character (Jake Skywalker).
This doesn't mean anything. Again, tell me what kind of arc you envisage that would actually explain any of this behavior and not include Luke somehow going through a personal crisis?
Vympel, I know you've seen the OT so I can also see three reasons as to why you don't understand the arguments: 1. I fail to make myself understood (English is, after all, my second language), 2. You are unwilling to understand or 3. You are unable to understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with either 1 (the most likely) or 2.

You are the one spouting nonsense. As I have said many, many times over, Luke is an already established character! He developed through the OT and has had 30 years to mature. We know of his personal characteristics. Are those set in stone? No, but if Johnson tried to deconstruct Luke, he must build on characteristics the character already had!

What I mean with the reset button is that the Luke as portrayed in TLJ has no characteristics, no strengths and weaknesses of the character as portrayed in three goddamn movies before the TLJ trainwreck. The lessons the character learned from the OT such as the nature of visions, the lessons he learned confronting the Emperor and him finally throwing away his lightsaber and stepping away from the Dark Side and his tendency to rush and help his friends in need. All of this was undone with Jake Skywalker (I'm not at all surprised that Mark Hamill and John Boyega discussed their respective characters at length during the production of TLJ and that both rejected the direction their characters went.). While I'm sure that an older, more mature Luke wouldn't rush head over heels to help his family or friends, the OT, you know, the three movies with the character of Luke Skywalker, doesn't establish a character that would sit on his ass doing nothing when his family and friends are in mortal danger. That's Rian Johnson's bullshit.

(TESB: "They are my friends! I got to help them! TLJ:" The galaxy is being overrun by the First Order and my sister Leia is in mortal danger. Meh, I'll sit this one out brooding as I've been doing already for the past six years.")

Heck, let's talk about the psychological trauma Rey would've suffered and why that doesn't come across in the movies if it's fair game to pick Luke as some sort of deconstructionist playground.

And finally, Star Wars is a simple story. It's great to try to think in another direction, but again, if Johnson wanted to do it then he should've done it in his goddamn movies. Ultimately this is Kennedy's fault.
You can see he's an 'established character' all you want - its a meaningless statement. Luke was in his early 20s at the end of ROTJ. The idea that 30 years later all he would've done is "mature" so that he would never make an actual error again is garbage. What does the Luke of ROTJ know about training an apprentice? Is that a lesson he learned in ROTJ, is it? Did Luke learn that you never trust Force visions in ROTJ? When did that happen? Your entire argument is basically "Luke learned everything he needed to know in ROTJ so he would literally never make a mistake again, nevermind that nothing in the OT ever put him in this situation".

And the weird thing about it is that you keep making excuses for TFA and trying to heap the "blame" on TLJ even though "the galaxy is being overrun by the First Order and my sister Leia is in mortal danger" is clearly established in TFA. It's the whole premise of the movie - that Luke is a MacGuffin that needs to be found, because he's vanished!

Just what sort of worthwhile story do you think can be told with Luke that explains his behavior if you refuse to allow him to make any sort of mistake?

Unlike Abrams, Johnson had a clear idea of Luke's actual purpose as a character in a mythic story given the character's position and age:
"With Mark, it was a much bigger conversation about the whole kind of shape of the character and where it was going. And it was about his expectations coming into it and I think the expectation that this would be, you know, much closer to the Luke from - that was the hero, his hero's journey from the original trilogy.

Whereas for me, this is 30 years later, and not only that, this is - you know - if you look at any classic kind of hero's myth that is worth its salt, and if you look at the beginning of the hero's journey like with King Arthur, he pulls the sword from the stone and he's ascendant, he has setbacks, but he unites all the kingdoms and get his knights together, or Beowulf - you know - killing Grendel's mother and taking it all down and getting his own hall.

There's always that first arc, but then any one of these things, if you keep reading and it goes past that and then you get into the hero's middle aged life and beyond, it always starts to get into - you think about King Arthur betrayed by his best friend and his wife and ultimately depending on what version you read, coming up against the product of incest from him who has completely usurped his kingdom, and he has to kill him at the cost of his own life - it gets into darker places.

And there's a reason for that. Because myths are not made to sell action figures. They're made to reflect the difficult transitions we go through in life. That early part of the hero's journey- I think - is about going from adolescence into adulthood, where you're ascendant and you're finding yourself, and you're winning.

In order for something to address middle age and beyond in a really honest way, if you look at the myths - the Fisher King, it deals with disillusionment, like you're losing your place in the world, everything changing, and loss - and that's because they're honest and they have to be honest because that's what these things are there for.

And it would be a betrayal of them and of Luke Skywalker as a character not to take it seriously enough to reflect that I think, and just give us the waxworks version of Luke that we might love and expect, because he's up there as the action figure in plastic on our wall looking heroic and stuff. If you want to take him seriously as a character- for me at least - it felt important to go into that realm.
And that sort of reasoning will always be worth more than this bizarre desire to put the character of Luke up on a pedestal and make him for all intents and purposes infallible, because for some reason our distorted childhood images of him are somehow meant to be precious things.

And it's this point that is really critical - there's no actual story here. You're just working backwards from "I didn't want this to happen", no matter how little sense the final result makes.

Also, I could honestly give a shit what either Mark Hamill or John Boyega think about their character arcs. They're not writers, they're actors. Their ability to speak intelligently about what makes for good writing - particularly where its irrevocably tied up with their careers and conceptions of themselves - is zero. It's the laziest, most irrelevant appeal to non-existent authority imaginable.

Boyega actually argued with a straight face that his character arc in TROS is better than in TLJ, lol. Boyega's part in TLJ was a weak part of the film, but at least he got an actual independent, complete story arc where he wasn't just chasing after Rey screaming "Reeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" every goddamn two seconds. Hamill at least had the self-awareness to call his ideas for the film stupid.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Darth Yan » 2020-01-03 01:20am

When Luke lashed out at Vader his friends were in danger the Rebel fleet was being ambushed outside he already was deeply conflicted about what to do with Vader......Vader’s taunt, in addition to being more tangible was when Luke was in a tense state of mind. Him lashing out wasn’t just some small matter over a single taunt.

By contrast all Luke had regarding Kylo was some vague visions. To immediately jump from there to killing his nephew is.....kind of ooc. That’s why a lot of people called bs

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29168
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Vympel » 2020-01-03 02:22am

Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-03 01:20am
When Luke lashed out at Vader his friends were in danger the Rebel fleet was being ambushed outside he already was deeply conflicted about what to do with Vader......Vader’s taunt, in addition to being more tangible was when Luke was in a tense state of mind. Him lashing out wasn’t just some small matter over a single taunt.

By contrast all Luke had regarding Kylo was some vague visions. To immediately jump from there to killing his nephew is.....kind of ooc. That’s why a lot of people called bs
And if he had gotten into a rousing lightsaber fight with Ben Solo that ended up with him maiming and then almost killing him before pulling back at the last second, I would call bullshit too. But that isn't what happened. It was the briefest possible slip at the worst possible time.

Implicit in all of the complaining about Luke and Ben in the hut in TLJ is the seemingly unconscious belief that Kylo Ren's version of what happened is actually accurate, and it isn't.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10409
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Elfdart » 2020-01-03 08:18pm

Vympel wrote:
2020-01-03 02:22am

And if he had gotten into a rousing lightsaber fight with Ben Solo that ended up with him maiming and then almost killing him before pulling back at the last second, I would call bullshit too. But that isn't what happened. It was the briefest possible slip at the worst possible time.

Implicit in all of the complaining about Luke and Ben in the hut in TLJ is the seemingly unconscious belief that Kylo Ren's version of what happened is actually accurate, and it isn't.
That's because Luke's version of the story is bad enough, even if he's telling the truth in this Bizarro World version of Roshomon.
"One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks."

--Matt Taibbi

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10409
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Elfdart » 2020-01-03 08:31pm

Darth Yan wrote:
2020-01-02 08:51pm
The Mandalorian is VERY good and has a real spaghetti westerns feel. It’s why my parents got Disney plus. It’s only 8 episodes and they all dropped
I haven't watched it yet, even though Baby Yoda is a big deal now.

Image

With HD versions of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (Disney's only great sci-fi movie), Darby O'Gill And The Little People and Journey To The Center Of The Earth a click away, I'll have to wait til I have a day off and can watch it all at once.
"One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn’t believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks."

--Matt Taibbi

User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Darth Yan » 2020-01-03 09:36pm

Atlantis the Lost Empire was a cool movie as well. Real Jules Verne feel

User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Darth Yan » 2020-01-03 10:23pm

And Baby Yoda is AWESOME. Fun Fact. They WERE going to put CGI in but Werner Herzog shamed them into keeping it

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Adam Reynolds » 2020-01-04 12:24am

A funny thing with baby Yoda is that his life cycle makes little sense in light of actual Yoda. At 900, Yoda seems to be elderly for his species. If baby Yoda is still effectively a baby at 50, with development at around the same level as a human one year old, this implies that their development cycle is vastly different than humans.

User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Darth Yan » 2020-01-04 12:32am

Who cares? He’s adorable.

User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3059
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Ziggy Stardust » 2020-01-04 01:15pm

Adam Reynolds wrote:
2020-01-04 12:24am
A funny thing with baby Yoda is that his life cycle makes little sense in light of actual Yoda. At 900, Yoda seems to be elderly for his species. If baby Yoda is still effectively a baby at 50, with development at around the same level as a human one year old, this implies that their development cycle is vastly different than humans.
The development cycle of magical green space bat-people with millenium long lifespans is vastly different than humans?! You don't say!

User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4158
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Mange » 2020-01-04 03:48pm

Vympel wrote:
2020-01-02 10:56pm
Mange wrote:
2020-01-02 03:56pm
Oh really? In the script? I haven't managed to find the script anywhere online, so perhaps you'll cite the passage. Oh, we have Luke saying that it was "pure instinct", but he lied earlier (or "from a certain point of view") and we're also shown Kylo's point of view. And the version from Luke's POV is quite enough.
Luke saying it's pure instinct means its in the script. Like - that's the script. That's why he said it. Also, if you're actually going to argue with a straight face that the third version we see isn't the truth, then you're not actually engaging with the film in good faith at all, you're looking for excuses to dislike it. It's some of the most blatantly obvious storytelling imaginable:

1st Version: Luke's lie;
2nd Version: Ben's version;
3rd Version: what actually happened
So, characters in movies are infallible? Interesting. It isn't I who ascribes them divine traits then... And as I've already said, the third version (this type of storytelling breaks the SW narrative form just as Johnson's Broom Boy ending breaks Star Wars endings) shows that it wasn't instinct. He walked into Ben's chamber with an intent. That also reminds me of another lesson: Luke's failure at the cave and Yoda beforehand telling him: "Your weapons. You will not need them." Then in ROTJ he throws away his lightsaber as he comes to the realization where he's going.
Vympel wrote:
And if we're playing the script game, I'd like to cite the end of the TFA script:
So what? That says absolutely nothing meaningful at all. What am I supposed to take away from this? We actually know from Mark Hamill that he asked Abrams for direction on how to play this in the script? You know what Abrams had for him? Nothing. No guidance at all.
Vympel wrote:
While one shouldn't read too much into some parts of this (especially not the "He doesn't need to ask her who she is, or what she is doing here. His look says it all."-part), this doesn't read as a character being handed his father's lightsaber only to toss it away in the next few seconds. Rian Johnson did his own failed take on the character.
No, his take on the character is successful, coherent and above all - human. The alternative you've proposed is nothing of the kind. More on this later.
Uh, Star Wars is, and has never been, a character study. It is mythology and its characters are simple archetypal ones. If I want to watch a character study, then I watch "Taxi Driver".

Luke's character isn't human. He's acting like a psychopath. What's worse, Johnson failed to develop the other characters, especially Rey and who is without an arc in the entire trilogy (and in the end, Jedi training is quite unnecessary and Rey is already the BESTEST EVAR which is a shame as I have a great amount of fondness for the character). Finn got shafted and got dragged into the most worthless and worst executed subplot in the SW saga, the Canto Blight[sic] sequence. In that subplot, Finn spent most of the time being constantly preached to by one of the worst characters in the saga and in the end, that subplot didn't have any meaning or impact on the rest of the story as it ended up where it started.

In short, Johnson's "subverting expectations" is the equivalent of Abrams's empty "mystery boxes" (even though Johnson denies it was the goal). He can craft his own characters, use Star Wars inappropriate language ("bigass") and create movies which will age as badly as TLJ in his own SW trilogy (if it will actually happen) as it has no timeless character unlike the OT.
Vympel wrote:
Now you're flat out contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways. Vader, and the Emperor, were direct threats to Leia. I'm not saying that they could bring her onto the Death Star at an instant, but they were in a dominant position. Why wouldn't Luke, again under the immense pressure he was under, break? The two situations aren't comparable. Ben Solo wasn't a direct threat to anyone, yet Luke acted as a psychopath and was considering murdering his nephew (heck, what was his plan anyway? Just mindprobe Ben in his sleep based on "visions"?).
There's no contradiction here at all. Luke received visions in the Force when he reacted to the darkness he sensed from Ben. Visions which we know from six movies now (from both Anakin and Luke) have a tendency to come true, and feel extremely real. Luke didn't get a vision in the throne room, he was merely taunted. And he still flipped out and almost killed his father. But him instinctively activating his lightsaber and then immediately being ashamed of himself is some sort of unforgiveable betrayal of the character? Please.
As I've said time and time again (and as Darth Yan has also said), how are the two situations comparable? Also, Luke didn't know Vader from childhood. He had known Ben, the son of his sister and his best friend, since birth! That action has no bearing on the character's journey in the OT and the action can't be understood (in that context) nor forgiven.
Doesn't it? I think it does but I think it's impossible to come to some sort of consensus here. I think it's implied in TFA and you do not and is heavily invested in Johnson's storytelling.
Vympel wrote:It's impossible to come to a consensus because you refuse to actually recognise what's going on in TFA for what it is, and even if your - frankly - fantastical version of Luke's exile was true - it would still make for incredibly poor storytelling.

Nowhere have you even begun to grapple with all the issues this "I must go for no reason until I am ... needed" stuff creates for TFA. Indeed, you haven't even tried. You're just asserting that you think it works without even attempting to justify it.

In reality, your version makes Luke a bad character with no possible explanation for his behavior that could be recognised and understood by human beings. Let's break this down:

1. Luke disappears because for some reason you can't really explain except to say that he thinks he'll only be "needed" later.
2. In disappearing, he doesn't bother telling Han, Leia, or anyone where he's actually going. This is in TFA - the first Jedi temple is where he is rumored to have gone.
3. Not only does he not bother telling where he's going or why, so as to actually give his friends and family hope for the future, he doesn't even give them a way to contact him.
4. This kicks off an intergalactic easter egg hunt that is only resolved years after his disappearance by one of Leia's old friends discovering - as the opening crawl says - "a clue" (i.e. the map) to his whereabouts. This is the map you think he actually purposefully left behind (an objectively false assertion, but let's leave that aside), by the way. The First Order, also searching for Skywalker, comes within literal minutes of finding the map first and using their own archives to find Luke and kill him.
5. The Luke who somehow thinks he will only be 'needed' later sat on his hands and did nothing at all even though he should've felt in the Force both the death of Han and the destruction of Hosnian Prime.

How does your version actually explain any of this behavior? It doesn't. At all. Because it's not something that's recogniseably human or an audience could actually comprehend. It turns Luke Skywalker for a human being who is dealing with real problems and from which the audience can identify with, sympathise with, or draw actual lessons from (e.g. the importance of learning from failure, the value of legends even if you can't always live up to them) to an inscrutable, distant diety figure who just does crazy, irresponsible and selfish shit for no understandable reason at all.
To put it simply, I'm not a storyteller.

And no, he didn't feel the destruction of Hosnian Prime or the death of Han in the Force as it was established by Johnson that it's possible to shield yourself from the Force: Rey: "But I didn't see you. Nothing from you. You closed yourself off from the Force.". Also, Luke asked Chewie about Han: Luke: Wait. Where is Han?" And then Johnson, just as Abrams did in TFA, cuts away so we don't see Luke's reaction to the death of his best friend. But Johnson is soooo good at writing characters...

Even after learning all of this, Luke still sits on his hands and gives Rey a long speech on how he won't help and that he won't train her.

Vympel wrote:
Luke is an established character who has had his arc to be further built upon, not torn down and rebuild a new character (Jake Skywalker).
This doesn't mean anything. Again, tell me what kind of arc you envisage that would actually explain any of this behavior and not include Luke somehow going through a personal crisis?
You misunderstand me, a personal crisis is fine as an explanation.

Vympel wrote:
Vympel, I know you've seen the OT so I can also see three reasons as to why you don't understand the arguments: 1. I fail to make myself understood (English is, after all, my second language), 2. You are unwilling to understand or 3. You are unable to understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with either 1 (the most likely) or 2.

You are the one spouting nonsense. As I have said many, many times over, Luke is an already established character! He developed through the OT and has had 30 years to mature. We know of his personal characteristics. Are those set in stone? No, but if Johnson tried to deconstruct Luke, he must build on characteristics the character already had!

What I mean with the reset button is that the Luke as portrayed in TLJ has no characteristics, no strengths and weaknesses of the character as portrayed in three goddamn movies before the TLJ trainwreck. The lessons the character learned from the OT such as the nature of visions, the lessons he learned confronting the Emperor and him finally throwing away his lightsaber and stepping away from the Dark Side and his tendency to rush and help his friends in need. All of this was undone with Jake Skywalker (I'm not at all surprised that Mark Hamill and John Boyega discussed their respective characters at length during the production of TLJ and that both rejected the direction their characters went.). While I'm sure that an older, more mature Luke wouldn't rush head over heels to help his family or friends, the OT, you know, the three movies with the character of Luke Skywalker, doesn't establish a character that would sit on his ass doing nothing when his family and friends are in mortal danger. That's Rian Johnson's bullshit.

(TESB: "They are my friends! I got to help them! TLJ:" The galaxy is being overrun by the First Order and my sister Leia is in mortal danger. Meh, I'll sit this one out brooding as I've been doing already for the past six years.")

Heck, let's talk about the psychological trauma Rey would've suffered and why that doesn't come across in the movies if it's fair game to pick Luke as some sort of deconstructionist playground.

And finally, Star Wars is a simple story. It's great to try to think in another direction, but again, if Johnson wanted to do it then he should've done it in his goddamn movies. Ultimately this is Kennedy's fault.
You can see he's an 'established character' all you want - its a meaningless statement. Luke was in his early 20s at the end of ROTJ. The idea that 30 years later all he would've done is "mature" so that he would never make an actual error again is garbage. What does the Luke of ROTJ know about training an apprentice? Is that a lesson he learned in ROTJ, is it? Did Luke learn that you never trust Force visions in ROTJ? When did that happen? Your entire argument is basically "Luke learned everything he needed to know in ROTJ so he would literally never make a mistake again, nevermind that nothing in the OT ever put him in this situation".

And the weird thing about it is that you keep making excuses for TFA and trying to heap the "blame" on TLJ even though "the galaxy is being overrun by the First Order and my sister Leia is in mortal danger" is clearly established in TFA. It's the whole premise of the movie - that Luke is a MacGuffin that needs to be found, because he's vanished!

Just what sort of worthwhile story do you think can be told with Luke that explains his behavior if you refuse to allow him to make any sort of mistake?
Of course Luke can make mistakes, but even raising his lightsaber and murder his nephew in cold blood? That's not a "mistake", that's nuts. Luke learned from Yoda that "Always in motion is the future." and that not even Yoda could see the future of his friends. (Yoda also cautioned Anakin to be careful.)

No, I'm not saying that Luke "learned everything he needed", but the character must be based on what has already been established! Luke was still young, 24 years old, in ROTJ, but he wasn't in his teens. Virtually everything the character challenged and overcome in the OT was thrown away in TLJ. Oh, and 24 years was incidentally the time that passed between ROTJ and the incident in Ben's chamber and the destruction of the Jedi Temple.

And I'm not making excuses for TFA. TFA was poor movie from many perspectives, not least when it comes to setting up the sequel trilogy (and it being a beat-by-beat remake of ANH). It was Abrams (and perhaps also Kasdan) and ultimately Kennedy who is responsible for this mess.

As for the rest of your post. I do think you have a valid opinion and it's a piece of art as well as entertainment, so... However, I will point out that many directors work with their actors to develop the characters. Mark Hamill knew and understood his character (otherwise he would be a bad actor), but I don't agree Johnson did.

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29168
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Vympel » 2020-01-04 10:49pm

Mange wrote:
2020-01-04 03:48pm
So, characters in movies are infallible? Interesting. It isn't I who ascribes them divine traits then... And as I've already said, the third version (this type of storytelling breaks the SW narrative form just as Johnson's Broom Boy ending breaks Star Wars endings) shows that it wasn't instinct. He walked into Ben's chamber with an intent. That also reminds me of another lesson: Luke's failure at the cave and Yoda beforehand telling him: "Your weapons. You will not need them." Then in ROTJ he throws away his lightsaber as he comes to the realization where he's going.
There's nothing about understanding that the third version of the story is the true version that requires us to believe characters are infallible. It's just obvious storytelling. There's no reason to believe that the final version is not the truth. That's the way its presented.
Uh, Star Wars is, and has never been, a character study. It is mythology and its characters are simple archetypal ones. If I want to watch a character study, then I watch "Taxi Driver".
Virtually all of TESB is a character study. The story being mythological isn't mutually exclusive with that.
Luke's character isn't human. He's acting like a psychopath. What's worse, Johnson failed to develop the other characters, especially Rey and who is without an arc in the entire trilogy (and in the end, Jedi training is quite unnecessary and Rey is already the BESTEST EVAR which is a shame as I have a great amount of fondness for the character). Finn got shafted and got dragged into the most worthless and worst executed subplot in the SW saga, the Canto Blight[sic] sequence. In that subplot, Finn spent most of the time being constantly preached to by one of the worst characters in the saga and in the end, that subplot didn't have any meaning or impact on the rest of the story as it ended up where it started.
Luke's character is far more of a "psychopath" at the climax of ROTJ than he is in TLJ, if we're going to use overheated rhetoric. As for the claim that Johnson failed to develop the other characters, nonsense. Every single character in TLJ got developed. The entire core of TLJ is developing Rey's character through her interactions with Luke, her preoccupation with her parents, and her shared loneliness with Kylo Ren. Not everything needs to be some sort of 'training' montage to develop character.

As to Finn, Canto Bight is a weaker part of the film but Finn got plenty of development. He finished TFA as someone who lied his ass off to get to Starkiller Base, literally saying he was only there for Rey. He never committed to the Resistance in TFA. That only happened in TLJ.

Meanwhile in TROS, he has no subplot at all. No arc. Nothing. He just chases after Rey screaming her name like a puppy. It's the most laughable disservice to the character imaginable.
In short, Johnson's "subverting expectations" is the equivalent of Abrams's empty "mystery boxes" (even though Johnson denies it was the goal). He can craft his own characters, use Star Wars inappropriate language ("bigass") and create movies which will age as badly as TLJ in his own SW trilogy (if it will actually happen) as it has no timeless character unlike the OT.
Oh come on, really? "Bigass" is some sort of ding worth mentioning now?
As I've said time and time again (and as Darth Yan has also said), how are the two situations comparable? Also, Luke didn't know Vader from childhood. He had known Ben, the son of his sister and his best friend, since birth! That action has no bearing on the character's journey in the OT and the action can't be understood (in that context) nor forgiven.
And Darth Vader is his literal father. So what? You keep talking like Luke actually intended to murder him. It's amazing how you just don't see any connection between a dark side rage because of a taunt but a literal Force vision of death and destruction illicting the briefest horrible reaction is somehow unacceptably "psycopathic".

In both cases, Luke felt a dark side instinct and fought it off. That's perfectly in keeping with the character, and there is nothing at all interesting or dramatic you can do with a character who does it once and therefore receives a permanent buff to resistance to dark side urges for the rest of his life - especially if you're trying to explain why he's a hero in exile.
To put it simply, I'm not a storyteller.
Which is exactly why "I have to go until I am needed" is simply an unsatisfactory handwave given what we know from TFA. So we agree we have to move on to a personal crisis.
And no, he didn't feel the destruction of Hosnian Prime or the death of Han in the Force as it was established by Johnson that it's possible to shield yourself from the Force: Rey: "But I didn't see you. Nothing from you. You closed yourself off from the Force.".
I know that, that's the whole point. That's entirely Johnson's writing - that's why its there, to explain how something so horrible could happen and have Luke just staring off at the ocean at the end of TFA, seemingly unaffected. It also explains why Leia couldn't simply contact Luke with the Force, for that matter.
Also, Luke asked Chewie about Han: Luke: Wait. Where is Han?" And then Johnson, just as Abrams did in TFA, cuts away so we don't see Luke's reaction to the death of his best friend. But Johnson is soooo good at writing characters...
Because it's redundant. We see him reacting to the death of his friend. On the Falcon, later, followed by his scene with R2.
Even after learning all of this, Luke still sits on his hands and gives Rey a long speech on how he won't help and that he won't train her.
Because it would absolutely no sense for the character to go "yeah, I'll agree to train you!" when he literally felt strongly enough that he should exile himself in the first place. Why would Han's death change his mind? He has convictions that are so strongly held he literally exiles himself for years, but those convictions should instantly collapse the moment he's presented with their consequences? What, he's some dumbass who didn't give his exile enough thought to realise that they could indirectly hurt people? This is a character that makes sense?
You misunderstand me, a personal crisis is fine as an explanation.
Then you need to come up with one that is sufficiently horrible to explain someone exiling themselves for years. That's what Johnson did. It had to be a horrible mistake that affected Luke on a deep personal level. He has to consider himself directly responsible for Ben's fall, not just tangentially in the Obi-Wan "well I didn't train him properly but its really all Palpatine's fault" way.
Of course Luke can make mistakes, but even raising his lightsaber and murder his nephew in cold blood? That's not a "mistake", that's nuts. Luke learned from Yoda that "Always in motion is the future." and that not even Yoda could see the future of his friends. (Yoda also cautioned Anakin to be careful.)

No, I'm not saying that Luke "learned everything he needed", but the character must be based on what has already been established! Luke was still young, 24 years old, in ROTJ, but he wasn't in his teens. Virtually everything the character challenged and overcome in the OT was thrown away in TLJ. Oh, and 24 years was incidentally the time that passed between ROTJ and the incident in Ben's chamber and the destruction of the Jedi Temple.

And I'm not making excuses for TFA. TFA was poor movie from many perspectives, not least when it comes to setting up the sequel trilogy (and it being a beat-by-beat remake of ANH). It was Abrams (and perhaps also Kasdan) and ultimately Kennedy who is responsible for this mess.

As for the rest of your post. I do think you have a valid opinion and it's a piece of art as well as entertainment, so... However, I will point out that many directors work with their actors to develop the characters. Mark Hamill knew and understood his character (otherwise he would be a bad actor), but I don't agree Johnson did.
I've said all I can on Luke being "psychopathic". There's nothing in TLJ that somehow 'throws out' what Luke was at the end of TLJ. Luke's characer arc in TLJ serves a mythological purpose, as Johnson has explained. The shot of Luke looking at his ignited lightsaber in ROTJ and TLJ was mirrored by Johnson deliberately. And both Johnson and Hamill were very clear that they talked about the character a lot. Some quip about "Jake Skywalker" doesn't erase that.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

User avatar
Lord Insanity
Padawan Learner
Posts: 409
Joined: 2006-02-28 10:00pm

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Lord Insanity » 2020-01-04 11:47pm

Ziggy Stardust wrote:
2020-01-04 01:15pm
Adam Reynolds wrote:
2020-01-04 12:24am
A funny thing with baby Yoda is that his life cycle makes little sense in light of actual Yoda. At 900, Yoda seems to be elderly for his species. If baby Yoda is still effectively a baby at 50, with development at around the same level as a human one year old, this implies that their development cycle is vastly different than humans.
The development cycle of magical green space bat-people with millenium long lifespans is vastly different than humans?! You don't say!
Yoda started teaching Jedi at ~100 years old. If 50 is still "baby" that implies there must be some sort of ridiculous hyper growth spurt at least a few years before Yoda would have started teaching. And that is in a universe where 14 year old humans get elected "Queen" of a planet.

Really if they would have just stated the "baby" is like 10 or even 20 it might have worked but 50 is just stupid. Someone remembered Yoda was 900 years old but forgot he was training Jedi for 800 years. Is it really so outrageous to expect Disney's Lucasfilm to have a continuity editor that actually knows what they are doing? Casual viewers don't care one way or another but the fans will absolutely pick this apart when it is wrong. For something that is so easy to fix and otherwise doesn't matter anyway it is just inexcusable. That crap pulls me straight out of the story every time.
-Lord Insanity

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men" -The Real Willy Wonka

User avatar
Darth Yan
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2085
Joined: 2008-12-29 02:09pm
Location: California

Re: Kathleen Kennedy's management of the franchise

Post by Darth Yan » 2020-01-05 12:01am

The problem with Vympel’s post is that with Vader it was a high stress situation. His friends and the entire rebel fleet were in danger, he had a front row seat to the whole thing and THEN Vader taunted him with a fairly tangible threat. Throw in that Vader also maimed him and that everything’s at stake and Luke going apeshit makes sense.

With Kylo he walked into that house (which is weird) and knew the kid from birth.......and yet all it takes is ONE vision for him to draw his sword. That’s kinda odd.

Stuff like that is the problem.

Post Reply