Has your TLJ opinion changed dramatically over time?

This is certainly an interesting thing to say.

 

Just say girls are icky and have cooties and move on.

 

What I find a little disheartening is that you are asked for your opinion...you post your honest view, and then someone decides to give you a negative rating. Like you were trolling etc. Not that it matters much, but still...

It seems to be a response that we mostly see from the "love" camp. The one's that do not care for TLJ I rarely see putting negative remarks out, a neutral disagree are the most often used feedback. Just an observation. I think in general an acceptance of the people who detested TLJ would pay off community wise. Agree to disagree?

 

The neg rating likely stems from the thinly veiled sexism in the Gilmore Girls comment.

 

when you see neg ratings that you don't feel are proportionate to the discussion (such as you just described), click the report button and we can look at it. it's disheartening that anyone does this, but emotions sometimes run high and people click as a reaction now and then.

that's not to say we remove all neg ratings just because people complain, but we are willing to arbitrate if something seems off-base or egregious or must be an accidental butt-click (that happens more than you would expect). : D

 

I'm going to expound on this a bit more and why the dialogue around TLJ is such a nightmare.
When you directly correlate your dislike for something that is generally know to be or considered to be feminine (or any other group) and that is what you use as your basis for dislike (as the post above does) it's just a lame way of saying "ew girls" it's really no different than saying Finn was there to appeal to the "Tyler Perry crowd" or Oscar Isaac is only there to appeal to the "George Lopez crowd". You are dissolving the character down to this one point and hitching your dislike to the character on that.

If you don't like Rose Tico, that's fine. But it is NOT fine when your dislike is basically "Yeah but she's a girl."
If you don't like Rose because the story didn't gel for you or the performance didn't work for you, that's fine.

if your main complaint is race/gender just say it. Don't use thinly veiled things like "Gilmore Girls crowd" and nonsense like that.
Or maybe you don't even realize that's the point you're making because of language barriers or you just aren't sure why you don't like it.
And if that's the case, don't be afraid to say you don't know why. It happens.

 

And I think it is a thin excuse for you to just bash someone who voices his opinion after being asked of it.

I will add an opnion on TLJ and it's director to compare:

"Rian Johnson is a stuck-up snob. He will trash anyone who disagrees with him and his choices for TLJ. His later films lack originality, and just copies others while adding "subversions" and failing to produce a real story. Actually, I hate him, what a d-bag. He is a bitter old coot. He has never really made a good movie, at least not in the last decade. He should just go away foreverer..."

Now, perhaps not so sexist so that you can defend putting a dislike on it? But we can certainly have this as justification instead.

Put a dislike on me too, just remember to remove your own post where you use this near exact language to describe James Cameron. Or give some leeway. Live and let live.

 

Full stop: No it is not. It's a thinly veiled attempt at a sexist comment. Attaching Rose Tico to Gilmore Girls is little more than a way to say "she brought girls in"
There is literally no other interpretation of that.

Cameron said bad things that displayed bad character. How is that in anyway similar to saying you don't like a character because she exists as a woman?

And again no one has said hoot about his other opinions just the one that is seemingly based in the character being a woman.

 

Actually he never mentioned sex. He just refers to Gilmore Girls fans...female or male, I am sure there are some of the latter too even though it is probably disproportionate. It is you who make the assumption that he is sexist and justify that for the dislike. A thin excuse.

Well, since I will walk the fine line here, I will just finish off with what I really hate;

People who have the "holier then though" attitude. Really hate their ilk. Thinking they are untouchable.. It seems you and I have have a lot in common in that regard...judging from you earlier posts that is...

 

Good lord really gonna take this road? Yeah. Later.

 

We constantly hear about how it's unfair to lump all the people together who hate TLJ and then you see people defending blatant sexism. Just because you both don't like the film doesn't mean you have to defend trollish and gross statements. It's such an odd hill to die on, but it happens way more than it should.

 

My first viewing I liked it. There were a few quibbles I had with some of the chase mechanics but I figure if I bought Star Trek TNG techno babble to explain things I will give the fuel and acceleration issues a pass.

On my second viewing I picked up on more of the quick lines of dialog that padded some of those ideas.

Overall I loved it. I am frankly confused by the accusations that it ignored lore and changed canon that seems to me to ignore themes and things that have existed from the beginning.

 

No, my opinion hasn't changed. While I quite enjoyed the new force powers on screen (Force Stasis and Force Projection), I think this moment, if applied to history, has some pretty heavy implications.



This imagery, life many things in TLJ, was not by accident. Had it been Luke or another future Jedi that learned to do more after death, it would be a lot less controversial. Unless Force ghosts have continuing education.....

 

Obi-Wan told Anakin he'd be more powerful than he could ever imagine after death.
so this was not only suggested since ANH, but to me seems a logical progression to actually becoming one with the Force (being able to tap so much more).

 

Why not physically interfere prior? "If you choose to face Vader...... I cannot interfere." Well, why can't you Ben?
Again, I am all for it, but not without learning - it would have made more sense as a future point. He asked why people don't like the supposed lore changes - that can very easily be construed as a big change to many. Yoda and Ben could have been doing more in the past if we go with that thought process.

 

i won't pretend to know why Obi-Wan did any of the things he did. why would Obi-Wan and Yoda choose to step in here and not there, etc.
but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with plausible answers: they needed Luke to do it himself? it takes a while to get to this level of power?
the point is that it doesn't necessarily change lore. it doesn't actually contradict lore (you can't contradict the absence of action, only action).

there's a 30 year gap between RoTJ and the ST during which it's implied in the movie and in the eu that Luke learns a lot of new stuff about the Force.
you're concerned that they are changing lore. i just see them expanding and building on what's already there.

 

I'd bet there are limits on what force ghosts can and can't do. They can influence but not directly interfere type thing. I dont ever want strict rules but nothing Yoda does is that wildly different than what we've seen before. For all we know lighting the tree on fire was just smoke and mirrors from Yoda. It doesn't directly affect the outcome only influences it so the force allows it to happen.

 

I gave you a perspective as to why people think that has big implications - and why it feels like a change. I don't care one way or another if you disagree, however you also need to speak to the imagery Johnson used throughout the film. It is a commentary whether you like it or not.