THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

Situationally, and her cadence, implied she was a novice/in training, at least that was my impression. Honestly, I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here because her piloting wasn't an issue upon first viewing and still isn't something I care a whole lot about. I mostly ventured in because the usage of Han and Lando as examples of comparables, which as I've addressed are quite different to Rey. Looking at it now I do get the objections and find they do have some merit, but there are any number of reasons why it isn't a big deal. After all, Obi-Wan did not elect to buy a ship for Luke to pilot in ANH for a reason, and I would say both of Luke and Rey's skill sets regarding piloting at that time were probably at least comparable. However, I wouldn't have questioned had GL decided to have Luke fly a new ship off planet either.

I guess the question becomes how hard is it to calculate a jump to hyperspace? R2 did it for Luke and it is something some of us learned (and that maybe have to unlearn) from the old EU now legends. There were some precepts set there that I think still cause fans to reject certain new premises. Maybe now it's merely a matter of point and push, but I remember in the day that work was relegated to astromech droids, often as their primary function.

 

Luke ends the movie flying a ship off planet though....

 

There's no hyperspace though, the DS was "nearby".

Honestly, we're arguing over semantics and anyone can apply their own logic and head canon. So understand I'm arguing this with a certain amount of levity and I hope everyone else is too lol.

Luke flying a T-16 gave him atmospheric experience. He seemed to be pretty good at it too according to a reference by Kenobi. Would flying a space worthy X-wing be similar, made by the same company, close to the same size, how would that translate going into space? Anyone's guess, the same goes for Rey using a staff then a lightsaber, but that's another argument altogether. Knowing what I know now, I would think going into space would be vastly different, but maybe there were "compensators" to mediate the transition from atmosphere to space in the much more expensive X-wing (I play elite dangerous and it has such options lol... not sure if it would apply in SW though lol). By that same logic maybe the MF had upgrades to the hyperdrive calculator so it is just point and go. Quite possible in 30 some odd years. So who knows lol.

The argument for and against Rey's piloting I think hinges on two things. Has hyperspace calculations changed much and was the MF upgraded to accommodate, as well as how vast was her pilot training on Jakku. Did someone take her up and then panickly took the "wheel" from her promising never to let her fly again? Was she up once a week all her life for a few hours transporting goods to different cities or towns as a job? Something in between each of those extremes?

Personally I accepted she could fly. I thought her mistakes was her learning how the MF handles, kind of like going from driving a compact car to a 5 ton truck. There's a bit of a learning curb, but with the right attitude or with necessity those things can be overcome. The question then moves on to how extraordinary are the maneuvers she made in atmosphere with a brick that is the MF is? Did she ever do anything like that before, or practice anything like that? I would assume the average driver, or the occasional driver, would have problems doing a 180 on their own car using the e-brake. I would assume doing that in a much larger, unfamiliar and awkward vehicle as unlikely. Does that translate to ships at the speeds their going?

Final answer, maybe. I can officially say this is the most thought I've put into this argument since I came on here though lol.

 

Divisive? I think it’s a place where people who disliked the film can find common ground. If anything, it’s a refuge to unite the portion of the fanbase. And there absolutely are new topics brought to the table, because people keep finding new things that they dislike about the film, and wish to analyze and critique with the upmost scrutiny. It’s not 200 pages of “I hate the film, the film sucks”, it’s 200 pages of why “this is why, with five hundred different reasons and hurdles of supporting evidence, that this part of the film didn’t work for me or on an objective level of writing.” If the PT could be subjected for this kind of scrutiny and criticism for ten entire years, I think the ST in all of its fragility can sustain the same criticism over the course of one year. And it also helps that there’s a diversity in complaints on this thread—some people hate this film, but love Kylo Ren. I despise this film, and Kylo Ren is arguably the biggest reason I hate it. Some people hate this film because it barely resembles the OT, and as a prequel fan I hate it because it resembles the OT too much. You see? Different perspectives are coming together to weigh in on a mutual subject of resentment. Constructive conversations are happening here, even if you may not agree with them.

I think the thing that causes the most divide on this thread are the debates between those who enjoy the film and those that hate it, and even then, they’re mostly done through argumentative points and counter-evidence, not divisive attacks on character or insults.

The issue with that sentiment is that this isn’t a private thread: anyone can enter this thread, as a lover or hater of the ST, and discuss the current topic. Nothing draconian about a door anyone can enter.

Maybe the reason you keep seeing the same things over and over again is because both dissenters and defenders are arguing points that are reoccurring complaints about this film. If there was a “THREAD FOR THOSE THAT HATED ATTACK OF THE CLONES”, I guarantee you that Anakin and Padme’s romance would be discussed at least every three pages.

You may also be seeing the same things repeatedly because people on both sides are using the same methods of arguing over and over again. I try to avoid this myself, but even I’m a victim to it sometimes. People often rely on the method of argumentation they know best, despite their efforts to diversify their methods.

I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to that. I, for one, would happily take refuge in a “THREAD FOR PEOPLE THAT HATE KYLO REN” or “THREAD FOR PEOPLE WHO THINK THE SEQUEL TRILOGY RECYCLES TOO MUCH FROM THE ORIGINAL FILMS”.

In fact, if that latter thread existed, I don’t think I’d ever leave. That’s 99.9% of my problem with these new films in a nutshell.

We could go to a group PM if you’d feel more comfortable with that, but that essentially WOULD be the draconian private room of no entry that you’re supposedly against with all your being.

So I don’t know what you really want from us over in the dissenters’ camp.

Even if all you’re trying to do is make people feel better, the methods you’re using probably aren’t the best. For many occupants of this thread, TLJ (or for me, the entire ST saga) is the narrative equivalent of their house burning down. I don’t think the best way to comfort people in that situation is to state how the burnt remnants of their house make excellent word for furniture. It doesn’t really help those that feel miserable about the films to see how happy it made you—at least, not in my experience with people who no longer post here.

And I meant no accusations when I made that post…I was merely calling your methods into question, which I still am.

Not my opinion…factual. Rey is unoriginal, and everything about her character are basic elements of heroic characters that apply to almost every hero in fiction—to the point where she’s an indiscernible wall ornament, indistinguishable from a million other heroes that are also “good, caring, just, righteous, compassionate”, etc. And you can keep harping on the films occasionally entertaining some level of naivete or hubris on her part, but with how rarely they do so and how little consequences they actually pose, they’re not exactly defining character traits that will distinguish from a mountain of other bland, sparsely-written protagonists. They’re “distinguishing flaws” in the same way Harry Potter’s near-sightedness is a distinguishing flaw…in that it’s a happenstance trait that isn’t emphasized enough to be important, or relevant enough consequence to the core story to be a reoccurring part of the story. Rey’s naievete or hubris—for the microscopic instance that the films apply them to her character—do not have a lasting impact on the story. She does not lose battles because of them, set back in progression of strength or growth because of them, have her relationships hindered because of them, or undergoes radical changes because of them. These “flaws” are like droplets of water against a roaring fire—they’re so ineffectual as character traits that they might as well not exist. Almost like how Rey is so bland and unoriginal of a character that she might as well not exist. Imagine that.

This is basic, objective writing, and you can label it purely as an opinion all you like. But it’s still a factual representation of Rey’s character based on objective aspects of the film, not microcosms of vague interpretation that you may personally net from the film. You will no doubt have to do so to counter every single thing I’ve just said, as is par for the course with our discussions.

I read classic literature like Jane Austin, Emily Bronte and Margaret Mitchell as well. And I can tell you from reading those works that comparing Rey to any of the protagonists from those works is like comparing a rundown White Castle to a 4-Michelin Star Restaurant. Those characters undergo radical development, have their convictions and personalities challenged in ways that cripple their arcs in ways Rey never undergoes, and also have clear defining traits that separate one from another. Also, these character developments are “understated and don’t follow conventional rules”? What on earth are you talking about? The entire point of these characters is to fight against personal adversities, big or small, to cling to their convictions in a world which hampers their progress or goals at every turn. Elizabeth Bennet is a character who clings to individuality and freedom in a world of forced marriages and practical obstacles like crippling debt, family pride, vile gossip and rumors, and the non-existent rights of being a woman in the 18th Century. Her entire character is based on the idea of clinging to one’s convictions in a world where it’s impossible, to struggle against circumstances she can’t help…this is the most basic of character struggles, and it’s reflected constantly throughout fiction in stories with characters up against never-ending social odds. This has been the subject of several acclaimed stories and works of our lifetime, like Philadelphia, Hotel Rwanda, Milk, Hacksaw Ridge and a dozen others. There’s nothing understated or original about this in the slightest, it’s one of the most common developmental arcs for characters in fiction, let alone female ones.

The only difference is that it doesn’t apply to Rey at all, because unlike all these other characters, Rey barely struggles. Rey is not in a world where she’s at odds and underpinned by everything around her, she exists to crush every obstacle she comes across. She overcomes enemies in seconds, obtains wisdom in mere moments, wins over the hearts and minds of almost everyone she meets without long-term conflict or staying obstruction. The world doesn’t exist to overcome Rey, Rey exists to overcome the world. The only thing that marginally challenges Rey is her parental complex, and even THAT doesn’t halt her progress or hinder her ability to demolish every obstacle she meets. The most it does is delay it for a few short minutes before she powers up and delivers a wrathful Deus Ex Machina on everything in sight, like an atomic bomb-blast powered by bland character traits and juvenile writing.

The fact that you think any of the above mentioned character arcs are understated or conventional, much less that Rey measures up to even one of them, is laughable. That just tells me you’ve massively misinterpreted all of those stories, more than anything else.

Deeply sparse, and non-existent, would be the objectively-factual description of Rey’s non-evolution, but you’re certainly entitled to your perception of the film.

It doesn’t matter if the argument points are helpful, merely that they’re informed and correct.

You think Ripley is an invalid comparison, but I’d say that as long as we were comparing the quality of writing, it would absolutely be relevant. First off, Ripley isn’t more masculine than Rey is…I have no idea how you could reach that conclusion. They’re both written to be strong, independent, and self-reliant characters…it’s in their execution and writing competence that the differences lie. Where Ripley has to try and fail at doing things like convincing her crew members, confronting disagreements, fending off hostile threats and eventually combating the alien, Rey succeeds with very little obstacle. Not to mention, that Ripley’s personality as a no-nonsense, woman of action doesn’t necessarily make her masculine—that just makes her strong-willed, flawed, and willing to psychologically develop and scrape by on the skin of her teeth, against impossible odds. And having a strong will or reserving a dry wit or iron-fisted sense of determination isn’t solely a masculine trait; characters like Scarlett O’Hara, Madeline Fabray, Clarice Starling, Integra Hellsing, Beverly Marsh, Deanna Troi, Leia Organa, Ahsoka Tano, and Asajj Ventress are all examples of this, without even half of them relying on a parental complex as much as Rey’s writing does, and still retain strong character status without being written as “too masculine.”

Also, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think someone feeling loneliness or developing an attachment to one’s parents is a characteristic culturally associated with female characters. Feeling a sense of attachment or self-worth through one’s parent is a universal aspect of human behavior, and sometimes materializes as the defining motive for some character. Look at Bruce Wayne in Batman, a character whose entire psyche, motives, philosophy, pacifism, and emotional framework is built off of his attachment to his parents, and how is actions would be judged or measured by them if they were alive. Many would argue that he’s probably the most paternally-obsessed character in fiction, and yet you’d still be hard-pressed to find people who’d consider this aspect of Batman to be “culturally and conventionally feminine in nature.”

Not to mention that you can absolutely write a character for young girls and women without neutering the character to such a barebones degree, with only her attachment to her parents being the sole relatable quality. In fact, Ahsoka Tano from TCW was depicted with a prominent pursuit of appealing to young girls, according to interviews with her voice actor. And not only is Ahsoka’s attachment to her parents never once employed as an aspect of her character, but her writing and depiction made her insanely popular with Star Wars fans, with her winning the top spot in many polls and gaining enough popularity to feature in her own standalone stories. And despite not being saddled with Rey’s sole trait of parental longing, I don’t think you’ll find people out there that will argue that Ahsoka’s in any way “written to be less feminine” than Rey. In fact, I imagine most people would collapse into fits of laughter at such a notion.

Strong, independent, complicated, developed, and complex female characters do not hinge on perceived feminine tropes or narrative ploys….they hinge on the execution of their writing. They’re written as characters first and foremost, with a wealth of flaws, development, distinct traits, and personal obstacles….not paragons of perfection with one “flaw” attached like Rey, who is an objective low point for written characters in fiction.

I always write assuming as such. Whether or not you let the hyperbolic language I employ alter that assumption is completely your prerogative. I don’t respect anyone more or less on this thread, but I have varying levels of respect for individual points.

Please remember that before you assume I’m attacking you or critiquing you personally. In an argument, all ire or hyperbole is directed solely to points of the argument, as I’m doing.

And I appreciate your compliments. I imagine that it’s taxing to read these Magna Carta-sized rants I write, and I thank you for taking the time to respond to them, regardless of whether or not we find common ground in our discussions.

This is a sentiment I see everywhere on this forum, and is partially the reason why I don’t prefer to post on other threads regarding the ST. A lot of people—not all, but a lot—are unwilling to hear dissenting opinions on this film, or the complaints from those that are upset or let down by this film. They don’t want to hear it, and are prepared to shout down anyone who offers such opinions, often resorting to outright telling dissenters to “get over it.” As if that’s a viable option when the ST films are the focus of all the hype, speculation, topics, and debate threads on this forum as of late. It’s a bit hard to get over one’s dislike of something when it’s the sole occupant of the franchise they enjoy, and the sole emphasis of discussion. The ST is not a part of Star Wars, it’s most of Star Wars these days.

Which only leaves the option of either retreating to this thread, or not talking about Star Wars at all.

 

Rey's naivite and hubris made her get close to Kylo, trust him, misunderstand the complexity of his internal conflict, go to the throne room, precipitate the events which will lead to Snoke's murder. She is not defeated in the lightsaber battle against the guards, but she fails to turn Kylo and save the Resistance form the FO attack that will decimate them... That's having an impact in the story. Also the Skywalker lightsaber in her care, which somehow symbolises her power and strength, is shattered in two... That combined with the estate of the resistance and having Kylo as Supreme Leader, more deeply rooted in the dark side than before, is setback enough I should think... what actually turned out is so very different from what she thought things were going to be.. And about relationships, well, her relationship with her mentor suffers too, as she convinces herself that the fight against evil is something she can readily resolve, ignoring Luke's worries ... and we still don't know till what an extent her misguided closeness to Kylo will affect her relationship with Finn in the future.... Neither do we know how Rey has changed or evolved form the events in TLJ. That's a story for Episode IX to tell.

 

The understated elements of Elisabeth evolution in Pride and Prejudice I was referring to are not her struggles against circumstance, but mostly her changes as a human being: how she evolves from a sharp, bemused, full of irony, uninvolved critic of the world around her into a more considerate, understanding, grown up person. On the surface you see a woman fighting against convention and succeeding, but that is not the most powerful story in Pride and Prejudice, simply because her success in intimately connected with her "conveniently" loving and marrying the "big man"... But the most interesting and most relevant and empowering evolution in this story is Elisabeth's personal growth, and how she comes to appreciate qualities she would have mocked at the beginning of the story.
When I talk about Rey's arc and its understated elements I think of Rey's wide eyed innocence, how she craves form companionship, for parental guidance: "You look for your parents everywhere... it's your greatest weakness." Kylo is right. Others may consider this element in Rey's story weak and bland, but for me, this is what I'm really rooting for and what is moving her character forward (after all, it was her attachment to Han and his untimely death what made her embrace the fight in the first place...) Will Rey grow wiser? Will she become more self-reliant? Her place in the bigger picture will only be better and more satisfactory for me if these questions are addressed in episode IX.

 

My goodness, it's like you're only willing to herald a flaw or failure of a character by sheer virtue of existing, not by their effective use in the story.

Flaws and failures are what they because they have lasting consequence. They're roadblocks that prevent alternative successes from happening, and push the character backwards instead of forwards. And all that Rey's supposed "naivete" or "hubris" serves to do is to ferry her down a different route to success...that's about as impactful or consequential as a water-balloon on a forest fire. You claim that Rey's naivete and hubris that motivates her willingness to redeem Kylo Ren, because according to you, she wants Kylo's aid in saving the Resistance. And when she fails to turn Kylo, due of her naivete or hubris, does she fail to save the Resistance because of that? No...she ends up saving them anyway. Her mistake has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of events; she emerges last minute to save the Resistance from a swarm of TIE Fighters on Crait, takes out three of them with a single shot, expertly maneuvers them as a distraction to get the Resistance to safety, and then lifts the small ocean of rocks preventing the Resistance from escaping. She ends up saving the Resistance regardless of her supposed flaws, which makes them utterly pointless and without consequential impact whatsoever.

Her ultimate goal is to save the Resistance, and her flaws don't hinder that: she ends up doing it anyway, in a fashion that the film celebrates and validates her for.
If the writers wanted to pinpoint Rey's flaws as consequential, then the Resistance should've suffered losses because of her persistence to redeem Kylo Ren, not benefitted from her help almost exclusively. Her naivete and hubris should've gotten more people killed, caused her to give into Kylo's advances, or forced her to be unable to save people as she intended. But instead, the opposite of all three of these things happens, and she's victorious by film's end.

It's a completely disposable, ineffectual, throwaway character flaw tacked on to her character that has no lasting impact or plot-altering outcomes whatsoever. It's writing that reeks of incompetency, and a complete lack of understanding how character building works...which should be expected from someone like Rian Johnson.

Yes, it's very pretty symbolism to demonstrate how Rey's power is being split in two, but ultimately meaningless when she's able to lift a decimated mountain's worth of crushing boulders one scene later with Godlike proficiency, with an almost bored expression on her face.

There's a shot of Obi-Wan in the PT where half of his face is cloaked in shadow, which I could interpret as him being constantly torn apart by the Dark Side, but that doesn't make it a factual or true aspect of the story.

Considering Rey overcomes practically every obstacle she comes across, the audience has no reason to believe this will be any kind of setback for her. There's nothing that's been shown in the films thus far that suggests that any of this will prove to be a physical challenge for Rey.

The First Order being in control and the Resistance being reduced to a handful of people on a ship is not something that Rey caused, or has anything to do with a flaw in her character. That was a circumstance the First Order created throughout the events of the film, via a ship-to-ship chase where multiple Rebel craft went up like Roman Candles, in an area of space that Rey is lightyears away from for the majority of the film. Trying to link that progression in the film's events to Rey's flaws as a character is the epitome of overreaching. This is literally like trying to make a case for Luke's flaws as a character by stating that the Empire discovering the base on Hoth is a setback he'll have to personally deal with, a mistake he brought upon himself. It literally takes the recontextualizing and changing of factual events in the film in order to sell as any kind of slight against Rey's gleaming monolith of perfect traits.

She tries to save the Resistance by redeeming Kylo Ren, fails to redeem him, and saves the Resistance anyway.

If I were Rey, I'd be blown away by how fortuitous circumstances ended up being in my favor as well. It would be very different from how anyone would expect things to go.

Her relationship with her mentor? First off, calling Luke her mentor is laughable, considering she learns maybe two on-screen lessons with him at most. They don't exactly have an Anakin and Obi-Wan level bond, here. Secondly, most of her interactions with Luke are arguments and conflicts in stances about both the Jedi, and the prospect of Kylo Ren turning good. They don't share one moment sentimental bonding or deep-seated compassion towards each other in the entire brevity of interactions with each other, which Ben Kenobi and Luke share on a multitude of occasions in their short time together.

Leaving to save Kylo didn't soil any kind of relationship she had with Luke, because there wasn't a strong enough relationship there to begin with. Moreover, Rey never once offers any semblance of regret for not listening to Luke, or "repairing" their relationship before he died in the film, so we have no reason to believe that her relationship with Luke is something she even cares about, much less places on a high pedestal of importance. The most she offers is the hand-wave comment to Leia about "Luke departing in reverence" or whatever at the end of the film.

So, again: no decision she made in the movie based on her supposed flaws caused her to lose or sacrifice something we're meant to believe she holds in value.

It's quite telling that now it's down to the final film of the trilogy for any of Rey's flaws to flower into something vaguely resembling actual consequence, or having a direct effect on the outcome of the story. That's literally the embodiment of a character's "setbacks" amounting to nothing for 75% of their presence on film.

Luke's headstrong and impulsive nature wasn't something that magically created problems in ROTJ, it was a problem that dogged him throughout the trilogy, causing him to fail and suffer again, and again, and again, with personal losses both big and small. Anakin's obsessive attachment and emotional instability didn't only have lasting effects in ROTS, it was planted all the way back in the beginning of the PT, and forced him to make a multitude of bad decisions and be the butt of his own repeated failures throughout the trilogy and Clone Wars TV series.

And now, having faced almost no personal or self-caused setbacks of proper impact or long-term narrative relevance for two movies straight, it's time for the final film in the trilogy to finally create something resembling a significant obstacle that will set her back or prevent her from progressing any further.

What an excellent standard for storytelling and writing quality in film. I've literally seen more engaging narrative competency in One Direction fanfictions on Wattpad.

Having a character who is largely static and undergoes gradual instances of development is fine, as long as it's in service to a plot where the character faces a number of adversities and struggles to compensate with her limited changes, as Elizabeth does. The problem is that Rey is completely undeveloped, and she faces no significant challenges or consequential adversities. And that's the factual chasm of difference between her and Elizabeth.

Elizabeth could have absolutely no development whatsoever in Pride & Prejudice, and still be compelling and well-written largely because of how Elizabeth is written to counter the obstacles in her life, and how richly the story has layered her from the obstacles she's been forced to measure up to. Scarlett O'Hara is a character who's purposely written to be a character who never learns, who continues to be the same wretched, manipulative, and seflish person throughout her story, with only marginal advancements in growth throughout the story, but is still well-written because of how the story uses her unchanging personality traits against her, and forces her to overcome the worst of her personal struggles. Even characters who aren't meant to learn from their mistakes or change radically over the course of the story can be well-written, so long as the scenarios the story puts them in economizes on those aspects, and makes those aspects the challenging obstacle in the story.

Rey faces no such adversity or struggle. Her naivety or hubris, whatever scarce amount of each exists, do not hinder her or create scenarios in which she has to struggle or fail. She wins every duel, saves the Resistance each time, and evades the corruption and taint of the Dark Side without a second glance. Her non-existent personality traits do not create difficult scenarios of long-lasting or consequential impact to the narrative, harm herself or other characters, or halt her progression or repeated successes whatsoever.

Elizabeth and Scarlett are characters. Rey is a two-dimensional caricature that's empty of tangible flaws, impactful obstacles, or well-written depth.

 

You're mistaken. My understanding of those works is pretty sound. You see, you having an argument against mine does not mean you are right and I am wrong and "not getting it".... Just wait and let me expand. Hear me out. Don't be rash... Also, a bit of humility goes a long way.

 

Proper counterpoints based on valid evidence and correct readings of fact would go a long way in proving me wrong, not the mere proclamation that I'm wrong.

And recognizing someone's drastic misinterpretation of fictional work is not lacking in humility, anymore than correcting someone's mistakes is a lack of humility.

 

No, Rey has characteristics culturally regarded as female. Ripley doesn't. Read my post carefully. I did not say Ripley is "too masculine"... Incidentally, she is one of my favourite characters ever.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 13, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 13, 2018 ---

I have already done that in my previous post in which I talked about Elisabeth's more personal evolution... You cannot expect me constantly repeating myself.

 

And read my post. Wanting to see your parents is not a characteristic culturally associated or even mildly-reserved for female characters.

All you did was prove how Elizabeth is a character, and how Rey is not. Nothing you mentioned in regards to Elizabeth's character even marginally applies to Rey, seeing how the latter is not challenged or radically set back any of the scenarios she's put in.

 

I said suffering and waiting would be more culturally feminine. I don't talk in absolutes.

 

Suffering and waiting aren't culturally feminine either. Especially in modern storytelling culture.

The main protagonist of Slumdog Millionaire is someone who suffers and waits for his life to improve as an impoverished orphan. Waiting and suffering are circumstances that can and have applied to both genders in storytelling.

 

Fair point. Not all girls are the same. I personally like heroines with some degree of "feminine" development.

 

Well it's good to see we're finally able to reach some semblance of common ground. It would appear my efforts of writing Constitution-sized argument pieces aren't a complete waste of time and energy after all, and I'm actually communicating my stance to an acceptable level.

 

Good execution for you may be atrocious for me... There are certain parameters about good writing but it's not a science... Imperfectly stories may have more heart and engagement than perfect pieces... A film like The Orphanage is deeply flawed but that doesn't stop it being a great, deep horror movie.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 14, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 13, 2018 ---

That's nice to hear

And not at all taxing, don't worry. It's oddly interesting to read through your posts and see there is so much I disagree about, lol.

 

You can have a story that isn't perfect all around so long as it makes up for the areas it lacks by doing something else really well. The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly compromises a concise pace and subtle narrative development to provide objectively-good characterizations, dialogue, stakes and confrontations. Sergio Leone sarcrifices one thing to do really well in another area.

The issue is that objectively-speaking, the imperfections and compromises in TLJ's writing did not provide any positve redeeming qualities of any kind of objective value. For instance, Rey's development and flaws were downplayed in service of....nothing. It doesn't create any unique characteristics or scenarios, or consequential narrative setbacks or obstacles. Rey's empty character and blase writing doesn't service anything greater...she wins regardless, and remains undefeated regardless. Nothing of value is gained, and the poor writing doesn't create anything of value or distinction.

Likewise, it's nice to hear.

 

You forget she did not save the resistance. The resistance was decimated in the end and she failed to prevent it.
She also directly assisted Kylo, the person she was hoping to turn to the light, to become darker even... that’s set back. I don’t really get the sort of complete disaster you were hoping for... I think that by the end of 8 the situation was pretty grim...but maybe you have some examples of what you would have preferred.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 14, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 14, 2018 ---

Sorry you gave those examples

But a lot of people were killed, not directly because of her, but because she failed her self imposed act of heroicity... and she could not have given in to kylo. That’s completely against her character and would have made the story forced and not believable . Rey is a good person, exactly like Luke was...

 

Read my post again. The Resistance isn't decimated to a small number of people on Crait because of anything Rey did. Purely being unable to prevent it doesn't make it a byproduct of Rey's failure, especially when the film at no point sheds any kind of light on it as some kind of personal failure or setback on her part. Moreover, when the Resistance is at its most desperate hour on Crait, Rey is the one to swoop in on the Falcon and save the Resistance from the overbearing First Order forces, and again when she lifts the rocks and rescues all of them.

The film does not treat it as any kind of direct fault or setback to Rey whatsoever, anymore than ESB treats the retreat from Hoth as something squarely blamed on Luke's failing, or a personal obstacle for him to face. It's a scenario that was in motion regardless of Rey's participation, and is not reflected upon her or directed at her as a personal failing whatsoever.

People were killed because of the space chase occurring throughout the film, that Rey had no contact or close proximity to throughout her role in the story. You're trying to use the film's setting as some kind of framework for Rey's failure, to desperately clamber for something to disrupt her constant personal victories, and it's not going to work. She cannot lose a battle that she didn't start or was partaking in for even most of the film.

And my point is that despite being hopelessly naive or hubris-ridden, Rey does not have her progress hindered whatsoever. The guards don't defeat her, Kylo doesn't sway her, and nothing stands in her way or prevents her from saving the Resistance from their own self-imposed peril (peril that, despite your claims, is not something that Rey is responsible for, by any factual standard of the film). Her naivety and hubris did not make her lose anything of importance or set her back personally...she merely walked in at the end of the film in a situation where other characters were setback and in peril.

That doesn't make it her setback or failing when she wasn't the one to directly facilitate it. This is a completely invalid point that has no factual basis whatsoever.

 

For you it’s all about displaying physical power...

Rey utilises her power to help the last of the resistance... but we know that her spirit has been broken. Leia was flagged at the end of TLJ as her next parental figure. I wonder if they will play that out in 9 now that Carrie is gone...