1. Due to the increased amount of spam bots on the forum, we are strengthening our defenses. You may experience a CAPTCHA challenge from time to time.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

Figuring out why I dislike TLJ.

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' started by Sparafucile, May 13, 2018.

  1. Use the Falchion

    Use the Falchion Jedi Contrarian

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Trophy Points:
    90,417
    Credits:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +12,959 / 27 / -10
    Maybe that's the crux of the issue? The contradiction between thematic resolution and common sense? I don't necessarily feel that way about this here, but I do understand your feelings (and frankly feel similar about Kylo's talk with Han in TROS).

    I think Luke's action was a rejection of becoming evil, not a rejection of fighting evil. That's the difference. Luke and the Jedi have (or should have) no problem with fighting evil, but recognizing what truly is evil, how to fight it, and deciding if there are better ways come first. Jedi exist to protect and to pave a way for a better future. That's why Obi-Wan's sacrifice in ANH and Luke's sacrifice in TLJ are so resonant - they're doing the most Jedi thing possible.

    But that's also why Luke's reflex in TLJ is so heartbreaking. Luke has become so used to fighting evil that he didn't know how to deal with it in any other way, and Ben freaked out.

    Vader's action wasn't one born of hate, but one of love for his son. It was a redeeming action, not a crusading one.

    Killing someone who simply signed up for a dream job or a better life for their family isn't the same as killing someone who joined just for the power. And it's even harder to justify when you can't tell which is which. There may be a "moral event horizon" for these bad guys of course, but what if one person honestly didn't know?
    I'm not condoning the Empire's actions, just pointing out that there is room for complexity, nuance, and sympathy.

    This is a loaded argument. Righteous anger is perfectly fine*, but how does one define evil? Is it anything you hate? Or things that oppose you? Is it simply what the law says, or maybe even the law itself due to how much harm it brought? That's the problem with hatred, it blinds people to what is good and what is evil, and robs them of empathy. Hatred leads to cruelty, and cruelty to evil itself. (Or as Yoda says, "hate leads to suffering.") One can be opposed to things and refuse to tolerate them without hatred. Righteous anger and hatred can't exist hand-in-hand.**

    The thing is that Luke gave Jabba all the chances possible to come stop the fight. Jabba didn't, so Luke proceeded with his promise. It'd be one thing for Luke to barge in, lightsaber swinging and killing everything, demanding the release of Han, while also claiming he was a Jedi. But Luke offered Jabba a trade, then a deal, then subterfuge, then a warning, and then only after every other option failed, violence.

    Overall @The Birdwatcher I think your questions are good ones, but they are ones Star Wars really doesn't like to go into depth about too often. Dark Disciple is the last time I remember these being explored in any great effect.
    These comments aren't really pushing the conversation farther or true to the original intent of the plea. There are other places to express your dislike of TLJ. This thread isn't really one of them.


    *But what defines "righteous" is another problem.
    **Although anger is often a secondary emotion, and hatred can be a primary one. One is angry because something they hate offended their sensibilities. It makes sense. But again, the line is blurry. Do I take action against something because I hate it, or because it's wrong? Saying both won't guarantee that the problem will be solved.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Cute Cute x 1
  2. deadmanwalkin009

    deadmanwalkin009 Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    2,559
    Trophy Points:
    10,767
    Credits:
    3,591
    Ratings:
    +3,954 / 29 / -4
    Same issue with TFA. Unfair to blame TLJ for something that was in TFA as well.

    The prequels are a lot worse in this department. Even A-List actors struggled to make it work in the prequels.


    Ironically out of all of the Sequels, this movie is the closest we get to another George's SW. Instead of "poop" jokes we got "your mama" jokes.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Iotatheta

    Iotatheta Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2018
    Posts:
    198
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    6,057
    Credits:
    890
    Ratings:
    +646 / 2 / -0
    I’ll tack on, with the whole “non-violence” stance of Luke at the end of RotJ is not the same as saying “don’t fight.” Luke isn’t in a battle to save the galaxy. His friends are, and he is still confident that they will win and destroy the Death Star.

    His only purpose there was to try and reach out to his father. His conundrum was “do I strike down my father or not? Do I believe there is still good in him?” And he essentially says “I would rather die than kill my father and be corrupted.” It’s a battle for the soul, not the fate of others.

    as pointed out elsewhere, yes, fight what is evil. Stand up to it, resist it. But beware of that having its basis in hate for something, because you could be blinded. The Empire and the First Order already do that. They hunt down the Rebellion and Resistance because they hate them. Rose’s “saving what you love, not fighting what you hate” is a statement of motive, to make them stand out against the First Order. They will fight, but to protect others, not just to win.

    Luke’s approach at the end of TLJ is 3-fold: 1) he can’t get there in time.
    2) he does it to help the Resistance
    3) he doesn’t want to kill Ben, nor does he want Ben to follow through on killing him. If he’s there, as opposed to Han where it split Ben’s soul, Ben genuinely hates Luke, and if he kills him in that state, then that would more likely cement Ben further in the Dark Side than anything.
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. The Birdwatcher

    The Birdwatcher Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2019
    Posts:
    189
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    6,222
    Credits:
    916
    Ratings:
    +927 / 22 / -6
    His only purpose there was to try and reach out to his father. His conundrum was “do I strike down my father or not? Do I believe there is still good in him?” And he essentially says “I would rather die than kill my father and be corrupted.” It’s a battle for the soul, not the fate of others.

    Which ironically defeats the purpose of the original Star Wars to begin with. The point in the original was a small band of people making a difference by helping out each other to take down the Death Star and to believe in something [larger than themselves] (The Force).

    Return of the Jedi is hilarious in hindsight in how incredibly extreme it goes with its depiction of Luke haphazardly going to the dark side because he places all of his faith in ONE person if he dies to save the Rebel Alliance- Leia, and then falls for Vader's crappy argument and threat even more easily than the Emperor's rather poor argument, which was irrelevant, because Luke has every reason to kill the Emperor and bring the galaxy the justice that it deserves.

    So, the red lights, the elevator shafts, and the ominous choir music, we have to experience where the plot is taking us, and the audience has to believe that this is legitimate for Luke's character. And then, killing Vader is still the right thing to do on account of giving others justice- the Jedi are "guardians of peace and justice", but it's treated as the evil thing, since Luke has hate. And patricide is apparently evil. Because of hate. And honestly, the hate reason doesn't even make much sense- there were so many other reasons Luke could have gone crazy over with killing Vader, and it's his "sudden fraternal love" for Leia and his fear of the Rebel Alliance being utterly doomed without Leia that turns Luke? It makes Luke look narrow-minded, to be completely honest.

    as pointed out elsewhere, yes, fight what is evil. Stand up to it, resist it. But beware of that having its basis in hate for something, because you could be blinded. The Empire and the First Order already do that. They hunt down the Rebellion and Resistance because they hate them.

    No, they just want complete control of the galaxy, and the Rebellion and Resistance's stances are a threat to that level of control. Why did the Empire want to find those hidden plans? Because the rebels were going to use it to blow up the Death Star, which was being used to

    Not to be rude, but stop simplifying things to emotional terms unless you have a good basis or reason for it.

    They will fight, but to protect others, not just to win.

    That seems like a simplistic way of seeing the Empire's attempts to control and dominate every average citizen's normal way of life in the galaxy in the OT, to be honest. Not trying to judge your terminology, but "winning" is such a simplistic way of putting things. Also, it's a possible reference to Rogue One, which might be why it exists in the first place:

    "You will never win".

    These films explain this stuff like they're children or toddlers or something or playing in some intergalactic game of "Sorry!" or something. Don't they have any

    Also, a quote from the Revenge of the Sith novelization that didn't gel with me when I first read it and still doesn't feel cool, despite its attempt:

    "When those two blades met, it was more than Yoda against the legions of Jedi; this was the expression of the fundamental conflict of the universe itself.
    Light against dark.
    Winner take all."

    The last bit- "Winner take all."- usually turned me off because it was over the top and simplistic. Also, impersonal, terribly impersonal. It's almost automated. In addition, ridiculous choice of terms.

    "3) he doesn’t want to kill Ben, nor does he want Ben to follow through on killing him. If he’s there, as opposed to Han where it split Ben’s soul, Ben genuinely hates Luke, and if he kills him in that state, then that would more likely cement Ben further in the Dark Side than anything."

    That's Return of the Jedi logic and Yoda's train of "once you go down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you, it will" thinking from Empire, which there is probably evidence in The Empire Strikes Back that refutes this- Vader still caring about Luke, still potentially restraining his terms of Lando's deal with him, Luke not choking a general at Empire's ending. Also, Vader talking personally with Luke like a normal person. In addition, it's more the use of HOW one uses the Force- are you using the dark side of it. An emotional state has less to do with it from the perspective of the original Star Wars and even in Empire, I believe- it's the use of the "dark path".

    In Return of the Jedi, there is also this emphasis on "being on a side", whereas in ANH and TESB, it was not "being on a side" but the "use of a side". This difference has really, really distorted the lore of the Force quite significantly, if you ask me. Because Vader is said "to be on the dark side", despite having "good" in him by Luke, he needs to be saved, which ordinarily would be confusing and conflicting. But since Vader "has hate", he is "stuck on the dark side".

    Luke's killed plenty of Imperial Stormtroopers and goons, and while it might not be from hate, he certainly doesn't like the Stormtroopers and is willing to kill them to take their armor in order to survive.
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  5. Grand Admiral Kraum

    Grand Admiral Kraum Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Posts:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    4,576
    Trophy Points:
    14,367
    Credits:
    8,760
    Ratings:
    +7,962 / 709 / -484
    The thread is titled: "Figuring out why I dislike TLJ."

    That's my last word on The Last Jedi ;) the rest of the internet has torn it limb from limb by now. :D
     
    • Wise Wise x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Iotatheta

    Iotatheta Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2018
    Posts:
    198
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    6,057
    Credits:
    890
    Ratings:
    +646 / 2 / -0
    This turned out much longer than anticipated. But here goes..

    I don’t fully see how it “defeats the purpose” at the moment. It's not a matter of one purpose vs another in the films, as both can exist. Yes, ANH was an adventure about how a group could come together to make a difference. RotJ is about finishing that fight, but also about family. Both can exist within the same thing, and neither truly diminishes or contradicts another. In fact, RotJ as a whole maintains a theme similar to ANH with the rest of the Rebellion and their attempts to take down Death Star 2.

    This isn't too far off from where ESB had him. Luke knows Leia is a good leader, and it's important to note that this faith isn't "in ONE person if he dies to save the Rebel Alliance." Like I said before, Luke is already confident that the Rebels will win. The only reason his fate in the Emperor's throne room might impact the fate of the Alliance would be if the Rebels failed to destroy the Death Star regardless. But his battle was essentially inconsequential to the Rebellion's mission.

    But I think you seem to be distorting some of the messages. The Jedi are "guardians of peace and justice," yes. But Peace and justice also require one to be able to have compassion as well as impartiality. Luke killing Vader would essentially be justice, yes, but he would lose himself if he did so in that moment. That was exactly what Palpatine wanted, anyway. Just like Palpatine wanted Luke to try and strike him down, which lead to the Skywalkers fighting each other (also, an interesting addition as of Rise of Skywalker, as what Palpatine said would happen to Rey would also happen to Luke in that moment). Luke's "sudden fraternal love for Leia" really isn't all that sudden, when he already cared for his friends and ditched his training with Yoda to rescue them. Even if Leia wasn't his sister, he likely still would have done similar when Vader threatened them. Because Luke cares for his friends, and is pretty impulsive as well in his responses.

    Also, yes. Patricide is evil. There is no apparently about that. Patricide is literally murder, which is not justice.

    I mean, yeah. But they do hate the Rebellion and Resistance. That's not hard to see. Yes, they want complete control, but the Empire literally has a basis in hate and fear. Just listen to how they speak of the Rebellion and the Resistance. They can want complete control and hate the Rebellion/Resistance (even other aliens, just to add to that, as the Empire is highly xenophobic) at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

    But it's not just "simplifying things to emotional terms". This is looking also at the intent of said action. For example, in our world, murder and manslaughter are broken up depending on the how, but also the why. Was it intentional? Was it done out of hate for the person? Was it done in defense? In Luke's case, if he killed Vader in that flurry of emotion he was feeling in RotJ, it would have been done in a state of fear and hate. It's important to remember that emotions can have a bigger impact on Force Users, and that hate and fear are tools of the Dark Side, the quick and easy. And we can even see in our own world, once someone takes the route of hate and/or fear, or they simply decide to take the easy path, it can be difficult for them to come out of that. This, at least, seems amplified by the Force.

    I..guess it's simplistic/ but sometimes the simple answer is the best one. After all, the result of a war or battle? One side wins, the other loses. While what comes of those victories differs, the base is the same: they won. The result of the Empire winning? Total control. The result of the Rebellion winning? Freedom from the tyranny. The result of Sidious or Yoda winning? Well, that would shape the years to come. Sidious wins, we see more or less how that plays out. Yoda wins, well, at least no Emperor Palpatine. I don't mean this to be rude, but it seems like you take a big issue with the winning/losing terms here, which makes no sense because winning and losing are a part of war. Maybe I didn't go into explicit detail of what would come of those victories or losses, but does that really matter? Especially since, if we're here and discussing these things, we already know what the goals would be after the winning and losing?

    Yoda is both wrong and not. If not for the fact that Luke was his son, Vader would have remained on "that dark path", dominated by the Dark Side, and even then, he never really turned back until Luke decides not to kill him. He also sought to brind Luke onto the dark path. The guy even takes his own son to the Emperor, knowing what his fate would likely be, and also continues to fight him until the end. Him "restraining his terms of Lando's deal with him" had nothing to do with there still being good within Vader, or that he isn't currently dominated by the Dark Side.

    Idk why you mention Luke not "choking a general at Empire's ending" as an example of refuting

    I believe the sense we're supposed to get from Yoda's statement is that Vader turning back was *not* the norm, but an exception. No other Sith had turned back before Vader, if we are to hold Yoda's statement is true, and that's not hard to believe when we look at all the other Sith we know of, notably Palpatine. But It is a combination of Vader's love for his family (his reason for falling as of the PT), and his son's actions that remind him of who he is, as Anakin.

    I disagree on a difference being introduced in "being on a side" and "use of a side". For most of the OT, the Light Side wasn't really mentioned. It was the Force and the Dark Side of the Force. But in using the Dark Side, in following its ways, Vader and Palpatine are, in fact, on the Dark Side. The Dark Side, going by the information we're given, even just in ESB or ANH, is that the Dark Side is a corrupting thing. Yoda, as you pointed out, talks about how following the dark path will dominate one and consume them. Obi-wan, in ANH, speaks of Vader as having been "seduced" by the Dark Side. Vader and Palpatine, iirc, are said to also be "servants of the Dark Side", meaning they are "on the side of."

    While yes, how one uses the Force is an important distinction, the intent, or the how one draws on it, is equally important. Compare Vader's Force Choke to Luke's in RotJ. Vader is angry, he's trying to make a point. Luke...we don't know his full mental state, but the intent was to, at least, clear a path to help his friends, and then promptly afterward he just uses a mind trick on the Twi'lek. Both Force Choke moments are the same technique, which then comes down to intent (after all, Force Choke is just an application of Telekinesis). Compare further to Anakin's in The Clone Wars: similar end goal as Luke's, trying to save a friend, but he does it out of anger to where you think he is just going to kill Poggle.

    I'm..not sure how this applies here. Yeah, he killed, oftentimes in defense or necessity, though an argument could be made for just after Obi-wan dies cause Luke just starts shooting and not running. Remember, though, this is the same Luke that was going to join the Academy...the Imperial Academy. He seemed indifferent toward the Stormtroopers at Mos Eisley. At the point he starts killing Stormtroopers, they're already firing at him, and he's thrust into the war.
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 3
  7. Use the Falchion

    Use the Falchion Jedi Contrarian

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    2,573
    Likes Received:
    11,280
    Trophy Points:
    90,417
    Credits:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +12,959 / 27 / -10
    And from my experience, the best way to do that isn't to validate negative feelings, but explore where they come from in the first place. Take a scene apart, ask what it makes you feel, ask what would have fixed it for you, and figure out what that missing link is. That way, not only is one able to express their feelings more accurately. Which is the the OP did and what those participating are trying to do. Coming in and saying "yeah it sucks for these reasons" without explaining why those reasons make it suck for you (because, remember, this is all subjective), doesn't contribute anything.

    Again, I'm not saying it's bad for you to dislike, TLJ. But people were having a good discourse about it, and providing subjective reasoning on why you dislike it without any other context and claiming it to be objective wasn't helpful. (This is something I myself am working on, so don't read it too much as an attack. Think of this more like in Pokemon, when you're told you can't ride a bike inside. "There's a time and place for it, but not here.")
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Grand Admiral Kraum

    Grand Admiral Kraum Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Posts:
    2,454
    Likes Received:
    4,576
    Trophy Points:
    14,367
    Credits:
    8,760
    Ratings:
    +7,962 / 709 / -484
    I do see what you're saying. It's all subjective and didn't mean to frame my critiques as factual.. it all came from my perspective and absolutely not attacking anyone who enjoys the movie.

    Whether someone has Empire, The Last Jedi or The Phantom Menace as their favourite movie.. they're a Star Wars fan just the same (artoo)
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Birdwatcher

    The Birdwatcher Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2019
    Posts:
    189
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    6,222
    Credits:
    916
    Ratings:
    +927 / 22 / -6
    I still think ROTJ is behind the hatred of TLJ. This film is pretty anti-ROTJ at times.

    Also, I liked the film going into it without having seen it, and only initially disliked 3 separate moments within the film

    Here's my logic:

    If you dislike ROTJ, you will be far happier with this film than one who does like ROTJ.

    Liking ROTJ generally comes with these perks:
    1. The emperor is cool as the big bad.
    2. Luke is cool as the hero, despite his lack of training (He trained on his own to a near-Jedi status in the Tatooine cave, when Yoda and Obi-Wan wanted him better trained?).
    3. Vader must kneel before the Emperor- suck in every possible manner before the Emperor. Or, if shown as equals, still submit to the Emperor, despite the Emperor's cacklings and talk of "the dark side" and "destiny".
    4. Vader must have a redemption.
    5. Luke must be the one to provide said redemption, even if that means acting like a wimp, acting stupid (throwing away the lightsaber), and begging for Vader's help.
    6. Luke must be acknowledged as the one who provided the redemption from the redeemed, even if it was entirely the redeemed's choice to redeem him or have a change of heart.
    7. Vader must be the one to destroy the Emperor in an act of self-sacrifice.
    8. Luke going berserk is seen as "being cool", instead of a horrifying thing- the act of Luke deciding to finally Vader over something that he doesn't even know could happen- Leia somehow turning to the dark side, because Luke believes that Leia is the only hope left to the rebellion (technically he believed that ALL of the Rebellion was going to be destroyed, so how could Leia even help if she was dead or the only one left?).
    9. Vader must be too stupid to think of killing the Emperor in any other fashion, despite ample time, in order to have the tragic yet redemptive death.
    10. The empire is more incompetent in favor of the good guys winning.

    So, disliking ROTJ (and liking ANH and TESB) comes with:
    1. Acknowledging the Emperor as not the big bad, which allows one to favor other villains: TESB Vader, Tarkin, etc.
    2. Acknowledging ANH or TESB Luke as the better Luke.
    3. Vader not needing to kneel before the Emperor.
    4. Vader not needing redemption; he can talks things out, like with Luke in TESB.
    5. Luke doesn't need to provide redemption to Vader- he can acknowledge Vader's choices or see Vader as a complex portrait of good and evil, not necessarily "stuck on a side", which only is emphasized in ROTJ (aside from being "lost to the Emperor", which is still Vader's choice in TESB).
    6. It's up to Vader to decide his choices.
    7. Vader chooses to sacrifice himself to destroy the Emperor or will kill the Emperor to gain power.
    8. Luke's choices are seen as more reasonable in respect to his emotions.
    9. Vader is infinitely smarter.
    10. The empire is more competent.

    TLJ has these primary issues, imo, as well:
    1. Fan service
    2. Having certain characters function as stand-ins for the actual fans, i.e., Rey, Rose, Holdo, etc. This is still tied into the theme of heroes and legacy, which increases its plausibility, but is still awkward and hardly fits the narrative in a believable fashion.
    3. Leia catching up in space to the ship with enough speed.
    4. Inherited obligatory re-hash of characters, themes in order to make the film "feel Star Wars"
    5. When caving into ROTJ too much. Part of the reason why fans go berserk over Luke trying to kill Kylo is failure to understand its parallel- which is mostly in ROTJ- Luke intends to kill Vader (Hamill, I believe, even mentioned three-phases to the throne room fight in The Making of Return of the Jedi in an interview- the third phase was "kill Vader".). This is mixed with Luke seeing a vision of his friends in pain and unsure if they will die in TESB in TLJ, though this time, Luke sees them dying, which, combined with the ROTJ parallel, causes him to want to kill Kylo.
    I also don't like Luke acting cocky towards Kylo, which reflects more of a ROTJ sensibility (confidence without much reason) than a TESB one (slightly cocky, youth), imo.
    6. Compromising/overshadowing previous characters with other ones- Luke still bears his Obi-Wan persona from ROTJ and now has a TESB Yoda meld, when combined with his whininess from TESB, results in "grumpy Luke".

    Therefore, my hypothesis is: You like Return of the Jedi too much and need to analyze its script more carefully. By recognizing the flaws of Return of the Jedi better and acknowledging it as an inferior/illogical script in general, you will have a much better time with TLJ.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 27, 2020, Original Post Date: Nov 27, 2020 ---
    Yoda is both wrong and not. If not for the fact that Luke was his son, Vader would have remained on "that dark path", dominated by the Dark Side, and even then, he never really turned back until Luke decides not to kill him. He also sought to brind Luke onto the dark path.

    No, Vader would have continued looking for legacy. Living alone is not fun for villains- they will take someone with them by force if it means comfort. Sephiroth does this even in FFVII, cutting off what he thinks to be his mother's head, in order for them to go up North. He also wishes to merge with every soul on the planet Gaia to justify his inferiority/superiority complex. Oersted in Live A Live is plain miserable in the ending where he wins but has no humans around to keep him company.

    Now whether that legacy would have changed Vader's mind or not- that is up to Vader to choose.
    The guy even takes his own son to the Emperor, knowing what his fate would likely be, and also continues to fight him until the end.

    That's in ROTJ, not TESB. ROTJ Vader's endgame is ambiguous, and he is either biding his time (to kill the Emperor and to turn Luke) for FAR TOO LONG or he is dominated by the plot to act in such a way.

    Him "restraining his terms of Lando's deal with him" had nothing to do with there still being good within Vader, or that he isn't currently dominated by the Dark Side.

    It shows that despite Vader's brutality, his evil is complex and is still practical- he could technically go worse, but doesn't. It also shows Vader as more of a regular person, or at least a developed, more realistic character and interesting personality.

    Idk why you mention Luke not "choking a general at Empire's ending" as an example of refuting

    I meant Vader, not Luke.

    I believe the sense we're supposed to get from Yoda's statement is that Vader turning back was *not* the norm, but an exception.

    Depends what "forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will" means, to be honest.

    No other Sith had turned back before Vader, if we are to hold Yoda's statement is true, and that's not hard to believe when we look at all the other Sith we know of, notably Palpatine. But It is a combination of Vader's love for his family (his reason for falling as of the PT), and his son's actions that remind him of who he is, as Anakin.

    This is a post-TESB notion. This focuses on Vader's potential for redemption, whereas in ANH and TESB this is not addressed, as far as I know.

    I disagree on a difference being introduced in "being on a side" and "use of a side". For most of the OT, the Light Side wasn't really mentioned. It was the Force and the Dark Side of the Force. But in using the Dark Side, in following its ways, Vader and Palpatine are, in fact, on the Dark Side.

    My point is that it seems that this is only really given urgency in ROTJ about being "stuck on a side", as opposed to ANH's "turned to evil"- i.e. committed to doing evil actions.

    The Dark Side, going by the information we're given, even just in ESB or ANH, is that the Dark Side is a corrupting thing. Yoda, as you pointed out, talks about how following the dark path will dominate one and consume them. Obi-wan, in ANH, speaks of Vader as having been "seduced" by the Dark Side. V

    Yes.

    Vader and Palpatine, iirc, are said to also be "servants of the Dark Side", meaning they are "on the side of."

    Unless being the "Dark Lord of the Sith", means being a servant of the dark side, then no. "Agent of evil" is used to describe Vader in TSB, meaning that Vader actively carries out evil, but I still do not think that it means being on Team Dark Side, especially if Vader still has good in him, as potentially shown in TESB and mentioned by Luke in ROTJ. Vader uses the dark side most of the time, but that doesn't make him a part of the dark side if he has good in him as well. I still don't get why he needs to get redeemed to get off of it if he has good in him- if dark side= evil and light side= good.

    While yes, how one uses the Force is an important distinction, the intent, or the how one draws on it, is equally important. Compare Vader's Force Choke to Luke's in RotJ. Vader is angry, he's trying to make a point. Luke...we don't know his full mental state, but the intent was to, at least, clear a path to help his friends, and then promptly afterward he just uses a mind trick on the Twi'lek. Both Force Choke moments are the same technique, which then comes down to intent (after all, Force Choke is just an application of Telekinesis). Compare further to Anakin's in The Clone Wars: similar end goal as Luke's, trying to save a friend, but he does it out of anger to where you think he is just going to kill Poggle.

    Yes, one could argue that in ROTJ. I understand your point. In ROTJ, in 1983, the audience had only seen Vader Force Choke in ANH and TESB; it's especially terrifying how Vader utilizes it in ANH. So, by association, Luke was making an "evil" Vader move on the guards.
     
    • Clouded Clouded x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Iotatheta

    Iotatheta Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2018
    Posts:
    198
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    6,057
    Credits:
    890
    Ratings:
    +646 / 2 / -0
    what if..I like them both and don’t see one as contradictory to the other?

    I feel like some of this is becoming a false dichotomy, That either you like RotJ, or you like TLJ. When both do in fact work together, quite well in fact. Because in light of Luke in RotJ, we’re then able to understand how low of a place he is actually in during TLJ, and more fully enjoy the moment of his return. (Am I the only one not bugged by Luke’s shoulder dusting taunt and stuff?)

    there’s a lot I don’t have time to reply to, but currently:

    never said he wouldn’t. That doesn’t contradict my point, actually. It is suggested that it is the connection Luke had with Vader that allowed Anakin to return. It’s likely that if Vader took another that he didn’t care for, he never would have that opening.

    well, yeah it’s not addressed in ANH or TESB. Neither Obi-wan or Yoda believe Anakin is redeemable. Only Luke, and only after Vader reveals the truth and also doesn’t really try to kill him, which is at the very end and there’s no philosophical discussion about that in ESB.

    Redemption, at least in Star Wars, is a more spiritual aspect. The idea is the Vader, and most Dark Siders, are often consumed in something. Pain, greed, hatred, that it’s just easier. Like you said, it depends on how one interprets “forever it will dominate your destiny, consume you it will.” Lucas, at the time, seems to be suggesting that once you start on the path of the Dark Side, you’ll keep being drawn further and further into it, as it gets easier to use. An addiction. And that part of you that follows the Light would get less and less. The truth is, redemption out of that is never easy, and the point of only Luke sensing the good in Vader is that it’s so buried it seems gone to everyone else. Vader’s connection to Luke, especially in the context of the PT, sparks that back, first by giving him pause to just giving him to the Emperor, but rather by turning him and ruling together, which then grows to the famous moment in RotJ.

    The truth is, while yes, Lucas’s goal may have changed over time, he eventually settled on the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Because Star Wars is about Hope, about redemption, or at least it became that way. And it’s a beautiful message to send.

    I may not change your mind on RotJ, i can accept that. But personally, the tapestry of the Skywalker Saga, now complete, flows nicely to me, minus a few awkward bumps (spans of time, awkward flirting about sand, etc).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Jaxxon

    Jaxxon Green Space Rabbit

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Posts:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    14,351
    Trophy Points:
    146,617
    Credits:
    11,728
    Ratings:
    +16,062 / 29 / -4
    I've wrestled with this question myself. I think, partly, my discomfort comes from the culture around this film. A friend of mine recently watched through the Saga for the first time, and when I told him that TLJ was super controversial, he was totally surprised. Nothing about the movie struck him as especially controversial in itself.

    So while there are things about the movie I don't care for, I think most of my exhaustion actually comes from fandom controversy. But not really from the toxic misogynist corner of "fandom"--because honestly, I have no trouble tuning them out.

    What gets on my nerves is something else, and I wonder if any of you have experienced this.

    TLJ checks a lot of the "good film" boxes of our day and age. I.e., the focus on character psychology over spiritualism, and the focus trope subversion over mythology. There's a Very Online film crowd that doesn't really care about Star Wars, but it has glommed onto TLJ as the "good" Star Wars movie. The other movies, being more spiritual and mythological, are treated as naive in comparison. There's an attitude of, "Isn't it a shame all those other Star Wars movies can't be complex as Last Jedi?"

    But I would argue that they are complex, sometimes even more complex, than the Last Jedi. They just don't always play to what our zetigeist considers grown-up, complex storytelling.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. The Birdwatcher

    The Birdwatcher Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2019
    Posts:
    189
    Likes Received:
    818
    Trophy Points:
    6,222
    Credits:
    916
    Ratings:
    +927 / 22 / -6
    First of all, I'm not going to be hateful here, but, as usual, I am suspicious of ROTJ, from prior information, experiences, and the film itself. And no one else seems to be- lol.

    That being said, I feel that ROTJ may be the missing piece linked to the collaspe of good storytelling in Star Wars.

    I feel like some of this is becoming a false dichotomy, That either you like RotJ, or you like TLJ.


    That is often the trend on YouTube videos that dislike TLJ. Or, critics will cite TLJ as betraying the original trilogy or Return of the Jedi; i.e. TLJ Luke is not my Luke; the Luke that they refer to is often ROTJ Luke or all three "Lukes" from the original trilogy, despite the fact that all of the Lukes are different from one another, especially ROTJ Luke compared to ANH and TESB Lukes, imo. Also, EU Luke is (sometimes?) praised, despite entirely different writers and perspectives that have contributed to his personality. In addition, the EU posits Luke as the beginning of a hopeful return for the Jedi, whereas, the Jedi could be re-found again elsewhere. So, Luke wanting the Jedi to end in TLJ (to prevent a destructive cycle from occurring for the greater good of the galaxy) runs sour for some people, and it turns them off.

    When both do in fact work together, quite well in fact.

    Disagree. Some of TLJ's plot problems stem from parallels/rehash of ROTJ.

    Rey's characterization- stoicism, confidence on Snoke's ship does roughly imitate Hamill's performance in the throne room in ROTJ, though I think it's better acted and emotional than Hamill's entire performance (mostly stoic, fearful, oddly confident) there.

    Snoke talking about Kylo striking Rey down to complete his "training" doesn't make sense from a ANH or TESB perspective as much as it does from a ROTJ, with the emperor telling Luke to strike him down to "complete his training". People have called Rian out for this writing, I believe, but in actuality, Rian is imitating or referencing ROTJ's notion of the emperor completing Luke's training through a single act of murder. From a political perspective, Rian makes this better, actually, as Snoke is further testing Ren's loyalty to him, as he was conflicted about returning home (almost symbolically from his facial scar). If Kylo destroys the Jedi, it will show that Kylo is for the Sith or at least yielding to Snoke's commands.

    I suppose ANH, TESB, and some of the prequels show that hard work is needed to "complete one's training" in the Force, but Return is where things head awry. Luke trains in an unnamed Tatooine cave off-camera, for the most part, and completes most of his training, with the only piece of training left (Worse yet, completing a lightsaber by Vader is seen as a sign that Luke's skills are complete; doesn't make sense at all. Making a new lightsaber is supposed to be seen as Luke finally becoming a man or reaching maturity from The Making of Return of the Jedi, even though Luke's actions in the script, for the most part, show otherwise. (I'm not a fan of Luke's show of maturity; it ends up being very arrogant and alternates between stoicism and terror for his personality.)) being that he confronts (kills, as Obi-Wan implies and Luke responds) Vader.

    Since ROTJ is so well-beloved, and since the sequels are set on referencing/imitating it with its words, they unfortunately inherit its problems.

    Luke decision to kill Kylo is likely based on "the phase three" of Luke's fight with Vader in the throne room, which is to kill Vader. Luke snapping in ROTJ is one of the few times where we see him deliberately go berserk in the trilogy. (Also, to be fair, Hamill's portrayal of Luke makes him to appear crazy in much of ROTJ, but the script (I think) wants to tell us otherwise, so it's difficult to tell.).

    Because in light of Luke in RotJ, we’re then able to understand how low of a place he is actually in during TLJ, and more fully enjoy the moment of his return. (Am I the only one not bugged by Luke’s shoulder dusting taunt and stuff?)

    Part of the reason why Luke is in that place is because of his faulty "teenage" "whiny" side that a lot of people tend to criticize, but I think that "Hamill's whiny Luke" performance often shows an inner stability and maturity that Hamiil's ROTJ Luke performance- a Darth/Obi-wan/mature Luke does not.

    Luke's visions in TESB of his friends being in pain do end up coming true. It was the outcome of his friends possibly dying, which Luke did not see in TESB. So, perhaps Luke is desperate to save his friends from an emotional standpoint. I'd like to point out that Luke's reasoning for killing Kylo hinged on his prior experience of seeing visions that came true. The visions that he saw in TLJ were the pain and death of his loved ones. So, out of ignorance (barring the prequel trilogy's visions of Anakin seeing Padme die, which came true, anyway), Luke wanted to prevent it, but Rey says that Kylo's choice wasn't made then, which was Luke's fault.

    Also, Luke saw that "Snoke had turned Kylo's heart" to complete darkness, or so he thought, and freaked out. This is more the TESB side of Luke, being terrified of Vader when Vader kicks his butt on Bespin, though Luke does show fear when he realizes that Vader can sense him on the undercover Imperial shuttle to Endor in Return of the Jedi.

    Th extreme reaction of Luke trying to kill Kylo is a ROTJ thing- the "third phase" of the throne room fight of Luke attempting to kill Vader in ROTJ.

    The main thing in TLJ that I can see Luke isolating himself from others is Vader's death, which Luke is quite sorrowful about. However, later on, Luke seems to alright with Vader dying, smiling proudly, perhaps as Vader's armor burns. And then appearing slightly sad at the party, being fine when he stares at the ghost of his father at the party, and then smiling and returning to the party. The former sorrow is almost forgotten about, and it's possible that the emotional states are in conflict with one another in the film. In TLJ, Luke may be finally upset that his father ended up dark, as the PT trilogy posits the Jedi as somewhat responsible.

    Shoulder dusting taunt is fine, it does highlight Luke's cockiness and confidence, which he does have (before ROTJ), but in ANH and TESB, it's not really in the limelight, and is still around a 3 or a 4 on the 1 to 10 scale. In ROTJ, it's about a 7-8 (confidence before Jabba, C-3PO and the Ewoks roast scene, the Emperor throne room scene, the bridge scene). I might be even generous with that scale; it could be a 9.

    never said he wouldn’t. That doesn’t contradict my point, actually. It is suggested that it is the connection Luke had with Vader that allowed Anakin to return. It’s likely that if Vader took another that he didn’t care for, he never would have that opening.

    True, but that connection was still a relationship lasting a few hours at most- I think that TESB has the better emotional character reactions out of the two: Vader pursues Luke like crazy from the very beginning of the film- he is curious about his boy- it makes sense that he still refers to Luke as "Skywalker", Luke's still largely impersonal to him at this point. Later in the film, when he is impressed by Luke's skills, he gives him the offer to train further and rule the galaxy with him.

    What's interesting (now thinking about it) is that the brief scene of Luke and Vader calling out "Father" and "Son" captures my attention more than Luke's robotic "I know, father" in ROTJ. Actually, nearly every segment on the bridge scene is poorly handled from an emotional performance from Hamill and the dialogue is still cringy and inconsistent with TESB there, imo. It's not really convincing that father and son are talking there, except from Vader's perspective, and he is being rather soft in that scene. At least, in retrospect, Vader views Luke as the long-lost or forgotten son, and Luke views Vader as his father that he idealized and is still alive but nearly thoroughly corrupted by evil. It makes sense; however, I don't know about beyond that.

    well, yeah it’s not addressed in ANH or TESB. Neither Obi-wan or Yoda believe Anakin is redeemable. Only Luke, and only after Vader reveals the truth and also doesn’t really try to kill him, which is at the very end and there’s no philosophical discussion about that in ESB.

    Vader still takes overhead lightsaber swings at Luke in TESB (after Luke keeps resisting him during Vader's surprise attack in the corridor) and cuts off his hand. He DOES put Luke in mortal peril, but it's not in his best interest to kill Luke immediately and he warns Luke to stop at specific points and join with him ("You are not a Jedi yet.", "You're destiny lies with me, Skywalker", "You are beaten").

    Redemption, at least in Star Wars, is a more spiritual aspect. The idea is the Vader, and most Dark Siders, are often consumed in something.

    True.

    Pain, greed, hatred, that it’s just easier.

    The emphasis is on hate in TESB, it's not even on "pain" or "greed", through their is talk of seduction and galactic conquest.

    I may not change your mind on RotJ, i can accept that. But personally, the tapestry of the Skywalker Saga, now complete, flows nicely to me, minus a few awkward bumps (spans of time, awkward flirting about sand, etc).

    For me, Star Wars is incomplete (except for ANH and TESB; I think that they end poignantly) because it fails to live up to its potential.

    I've wrestled with this question myself. I think, partly, my discomfort comes from the culture around this film. A friend of mine recently watched through the Saga for the first time, and when I told him that TLJ was super controversial, he was totally surprised. Nothing about the movie struck him as especially controversial in itself.

    So while there are things about the movie I don't care for, I think most of my exhaustion actually comes from fandom controversy. But not really from the toxic misogynist corner of "fandom"--because honestly, I have no trouble tuning them out.

    I think it's the part of fans who believe that ST Star Wars has betrayed the past OT Star Wars. it has, in many ways done that (no Joe Johnston, lack of 70s/80s sci-fi influence, no Ralph McQuarrie, Gary Kurtz, Hynes, little Lucas, and only some Kasdan). It's also been lazy with the creative process of creating the aliens and some of the worldbuilding (which is fine, honestly).

    Also, I don't think that they are necessarily misogynist, but they seem to have fallen for Lucas's talks of the saga being the redemption of Anakin Skywalker, which I can remember Lucas discussing back around 2005, and trying to promote the idea for a while, whereas at one point, it was Luke's story, and before that, more the story of a small group of people rising up before a major threat/terror.

    They are also under the belief that the true Luke from the OT (which Luke???) is different from TLJ Luke, since they cite Luke's optimism and wanting to redeem Vader as much as possible, while ignoring Luke's choices (Luke staying with Uncle Own and Aunt Beru out of responsibility, Luke fighting Vader to kill/stop him in TESB, and Luke giving up on pulling the X-Wing out of the water) and whiny nature (tendency to be unhappy, mull over things, and think things through) from ANH and TESB, mostly.

    However, TLJ Luke is more akin to TESB Luke (and ANH Luke as well) through his "grumpiness", which is just his whininess in adult form with TESB Yoda pessimism influence. (I think subconsciously they hate him because of this.). And unlike ROTJ Luke, where he barely questions (and his questions almost seem childish in respect to TESB where Luke accepts Vader as his father, by crying out "Father!" and acting emotionally disturbed both during and after the revelation scene with Vader) Yoda, has a slight reaction (it's more for suspense, imo) and questions Obi-Wan with not much of a reaction. He isn't disturbed by what they say, and only seems to disagree with his mission to kill Vader.

    What gets on my nerves is something else, and I wonder if any of you have experienced this.

    TLJ checks a lot of the "good film" boxes of our day and age. I.e., the focus on character psychology over spiritualism, and the focus trope subversion over mythology. There's a Very Online film crowd that doesn't really care about Star Wars, but it has glommed onto TLJ as the "good" Star Wars movie. The other movies, being more spiritual and mythological, are treated as naive in comparison. There's an attitude of, "Isn't it a shame all those other Star Wars movies can't be complex as Last Jedi?
    "

    TESB is a complex film (visually, especially), and so is Star Wars. Star Wars has just been getting dumber in some ways, if I am not being too harsh.

    And I personally think that while there has been this shift from the spiritual side of Star Wars to psychological, more modern writing/thoughts, character psychology is basically making the script more realistic and having a brain- spiritualism can still be at the core. The same goes for the focus on trope subversion; they're layers to put over the core of spiritualism to make it smarter and more personal. Without spiritualism, the film is vapid, as the psychology and trope subversion is hot air.

    There was still plenty of "psychology" and trope subversion (there's proof in one or two areas of ROTJ in production of wanting a twist) in the OT. I think ANH and TESB had plenty of psychology and subversion (Vader being Luke's father, the princess being more capable than her traditional role, Luke's plan to infiltrate and find the princess is dubbed as a "bad plan" by Han, etc.). It is, once again, when Star Wars goes straight for the talk and over-emphasis of "the dark side", "complete", and "destiny", the focus on sentimentality and drama between Vader and Luke and the rushed pace near the middle/end of ROTJ, without addressing characterization, psychology as much. (Also, logic.). Also, the trope subversion is handled terribly in ROTJ (Vader stalling to kill the emperor, Leia being Luke's sister), imo, without acknowledging and recognizing TESB's continuity as much.

    Trope subversion (or a plot twist, to be honest) can handle the spiritual/moral aspects, and I've seen it done before in a lot of different pieces of media. It's a twist, so it causes you to think. Often, it can even enhance the spiritual/moral aspects, TESB's plot twist with Vader does it (within that film), and if we want to make it count, Vader being Luke's father makes it a moral dilemma for Luke in ROTJ.

    The "so called" trope subversion in TLJ is actually, most of the time, TESB talk/script/themes that are carried over. I.e. "Don't challenge authority or obey authority/take their advice"- probably an interpretation of "things would have been better if Luke has stayed with Obi-Wan and Yoda". Luke acting rash and paying for it in TESB is similar to Poe acting rash in TLJ (although the Resistance pays for it more than him, but he's still responsible, indirectly for the deaths of many of the Resistance). Canto Bight is Cloud City (nice on the outside, has a dark secret on the inside) without it being a trap and a period of torture for other characters. (Technically, despite character development for Han and Leia, Cloud City is a bit of a "detour" in respect to Luke's plot, as well.). Subverting the ROTJ throne scene imitation in TLJ is just TESB followed through (Vader wanting to rule the galaxy with Luke), instead of stupid, rushed dark side talk and the Vader saves Luke plot twist in ROTJ. DJ being Lando by betraying the group to survive- both are survivor-esque (from the comics, novelization, and in the film at times), though Lando is more responsible. If anything, the trope subversions in TLJ are subversions of plot points and twists in ROTJ, not even so much in ANH, since ANH is usually aware of it (Han calling out Luke's bad plan, using the Force, only after many pilots died following the targeting system, etc.). I mean, Lando has enough trust in Han's group ("We've got to give them more time".) to not go with the plan of escape from Ackbar (and I think Lando attempts to actually get near the Star Destroyers to try to take them down and he thinks that their chances are better (?) by taking them down rather than escaping). I think if the rebels' X-Wings could go into hyperspace, I think that they would have emergency fuel (or maybe I'm incorrect about that) in order to escape through hyperspace.

    Even ROTJ, which I am increasingly disliking more and more, has a complexity in the screenplay- so which is/has been ignored by the fanbase in general due to ignorance. Now, a lot of that complexity is stupid and repetitive (i.e. "Luke's crazy, can't save anyone, let alone himself" line to re-prove that Han is once again wrong and that Luke is right at the end of the film, without the character progression (Han's) that is in ANH), but it is complex.

    So, it's basic ignorance. Probably, from the Very Online crowd.

    But I would argue that they are complex, sometimes even more complex, than the Last Jedi. They just don't always play to what our zetigeist considers grown-up, complex storytelling.

    They're forgotten Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. I think that much of Star Wars' plot is ad-hoc, random, and juvenile at points, but it all shifts like sand under the weight and creativity of a group project. The excellent parts shift into the inferior parts, the inferior parts shift into the excellent parts, which is exacerbated by the emphasis on repetition, merchandizing, hero or celebrity status of certain characters over the actual plot and its meaning/s, and going purely symbolic, instead of treating your characters like actual human beings as well, which started to especially kick up around ROTJ.

    That "grown-up storytelling" in TLJ was a momentary return to the seriousness of TESB, and since the film imitated a lot of TESB, it was a pale imitation of TESB in parts and even a continuation of TESB in areas (Kylo becoming supreme leader).

    Star Wars has been stuck in the mud for so long that it's any wonder that fans find relief in The Mandalorian, Rebels, or The Clone Wars?
     
    #112 The Birdwatcher, Dec 8, 2020
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2020
Loading...

Share This Page