THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

I think he was talking about the future. Isn't that the thing about dark side user? The foresee stuff and so on.

 

The future? Are you sure buddy? Isn't it during the scene Snoke berates Kylo Ben, and talks about "when I found you", ending with "You're just a child in a mask".
I took it as Snoke is talking about the past when he discovered Ben... and I'm having difficulty reconciling that line in the script to him talking about the fetus he influenced as established in Bloodline.

 

I meant that he discovered this unborn baby and saw the future. A future of raw and untamed power. Kinda like Luke saw the future of Ben Solo.

 

Ah ha, I see. Cheers for that. I see what you mean but it doesn't quite cut it for me personally.

"Hmm. The mighty Kylo Ren. When I found you, I saw what all masters live to see: raw, untamed power...and beyond that, something truly special. The potential of your bloodline. A new Vader. Now, I fear I was mistaken."

That's the actual line, and I think the "beyond that, something truly special" could be about the future, but the "When I found you, I saw what all masters live to see: raw, untamed power" does seem to be precisely the moment Snoke found Ben, and I just find it a bit silly that a fetus could have raw, untamed power. And I can see that this could be seen as nit picking, but I just think it's (yet) another example of the poor planning and lack of communication and direction between the film makers and the story group.

 

Why do we think Snoke was influencing Ben in utero now?

 

It was mentioned in "Empire's End". But I don't think it was mentioned that it was Snoke, just hinted at it.

 

Really? I read that book (all the Aftermath books). I don't remember that. I know Leia has a Forcy moment in 'Life Debt' where she senses bun-in-oven Ben and a darkness with him. I didn't read that as something external though. Just a part of who he is. Why he's susceptible to Snoke later on. Not that Snoke was actually involved at that point.

 

I'm reposting this here for Sparafuceli(sp?), originally in another thread. Anyone is of course free to reply.
---

But I'm not basing it on experience, I'm basing it on several practical factors; for instance, the criticisms. I can tell a person is just following a group dynamic when the criticisms are obviously being fabricated and repeated by a group. In this instance, I don't think I've heard a single criticism of TLJ that isn't painfully obvious that it's completely fabricated, other than the criticism of Luke's representation in the story.

What I mean is that, when I hear the same criticisms being leveled against the film but a broad spectrum of people, and that criticism is based on a double-standard or a lack of relevance, then I know immeditately that the people making the criticisms are not genuine and are merely following a trend being set by other people. Examples being:

1. Scientifically inaccurate. Criticisms against the movie for not being scientifically accurate e.g. "Bombs don't fall in space" "Leia can't survive a vacuum in space" etc. The fact is that nothing in Star Wars has ever been scientifically accurate since Luke ignited the first lightsaber in episode 4. And everybody knows this. Everybody knows that Star Wars is not about being scientifically accurate. So anyone making this criticism is showing that they are not genuine and are simply following a larger group dynamic which is detached from the truth.

2. Misuse of terms. Anyone using terms such as "Ex Machina" "Mary Sue" etc. are clearly following others. These terms are the same as name-dropping, and they are being used in a way that is not the proper use of the term, doesn't fit the material at all, and is only being repeated by way of a kind-of mantra which is an obvious following. Ex machina doesn't mean "perfect timing", it means something written in to the story's conclusion with no purpose in the story other than to resolve the conflict. I don't think Ex Machina has existed in stories since ancient times.

A Mary Sue is based on the concept of an author placing themselves into the story and exhibits the traits of universal capabilities, and acceptance. Rey fails all the way through TLJ. She is naive and rash, just like Luke in Empire. She fails to bring Luke back. She fails to overcome Snoke. She fails to turn Kylo. Mary Sues do not routinely fail all the way through the story. Yoda is the one who saved Luke from his state. Kylo is the one who saved Rey from Snoke. And no one saved Kylo from himself. These are not the traits of a Mary Sue, they are the traits of OT Luke 2.0.

3. Storytelling 101. Criticisms such as "There are no character arcs" "Everything is at the same place at the end as when the story begins" etc. These are not only untrue (every character does have an arc) but these are criticisms that should also (if genuine) be made against many other films but since this is Star Wars, let's say, The Empire Strikes Back. What is the story in episode 5? Vader chases Han? What are the character arcs? Luke has no patience? Han gets frozen in carbonite?

4. Canto scenes had no purpose. It did have a purpose, Finn - through Rose - begins to move along his arc from, run away, to, defend what you love, which is resolved in the run toward the walkers. But even if it had "no purpose in the story" the same criticism would hold true in many scenes in the films as a whole. What was the purpose of the asteroid scenes in Empire?

5. Strategy-Sense. "That military strategy makes no sense" Tell me how much sense landing AT-ATs on Hoth makes. I've heard the strategy used on the slat planet "Makes no sense, why would you land the walkers so far away from the target?" while in the same breath talking about how great Empire is - when Empire has the exact same scene. Military strategy generally doesn't make sense in Star Wars (or, any movie for that matter) for the same reason it's not scientifically accurate: because it's a space opera not a documentary. And everyone knows this is the case.

6. It's SJW. This is clearly projecting a biased interpretation onto an inherently blank canvas of film interpretation. It's a political agenda, and it's not genuine criticism.

7. They ruined Luke. This is the one criticism that I've seen that is genuine, though misguided. Dislike of this is even expected. I disliked it. Because no one will like seeing someone they care about being at the nadir of their story. But it's not a criticism of the film, it is a response based on empathy. Luke was definitely down in the dumps, and I didn't like seeing it. But he came back to himself in the end, and that completes his arc, and brings Luke back. People claiming "Ruined Luke" are detached from the finale, and not taking that ascent from the nadir into account. They are picking and choosing that on which to formulate a criticism by criticisizing the one, and rejecting the other. That's fabricated criticism, and fabricated criticism is a sure sign of a person merely mimicing a following.

So by these, I can tell that the hate was entire pre-packaged, and the criticisms entirely fabricated to justify the pre-packaged dislike. I'm not saying the dislike is not genuine, but that it is clearly the result of a mass following.

On the flip side, a great number of people who loved the film are also followers. But the difference is that they are following something they like, even love. Their praise is genuine. It isn't being fabricated any more than praise of someone you love, and how everything they do is perfect. This isn't fabricated, it is the genuine result of sincerely liking/loving a person so that your ability to criticize that person is diminished to the point of virtual impossibility.

Note that I'm not saying, everyone who disliked the movie went into the movie determined to dislike it, but the vast majority of everyone I've seen criticizing it did. The way a person criticizes the film will make manifest to me whether their feelings are pre-packaged followings, or, genuinely didn't like the film. And I've yet to see genuine critcisms outside of the Luke storyline.

 

Oh look. More condescending remarks directed towards people who had the audacity not to like TLJ. There are clear weaknesses to the movie and great number of people identified the weaknesses and agree on what they are.

Accusing others of mindlessly following a group dynamic is just refusal to confront the fact that a whole lot of people disagree with you. That doesn't mean those people aren't independent, free thinking individuals.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 20, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 20, 2018 ---

With all due respect, it is pretty tough to take someone's movie analysis terribly seriously when they have to ask "What are the character arcs (in Episode 5)?" and the best answer they can come up with is "Han gets frozen in carbonite."

Ah yes. When a bunch of people talk about how much they liked the movie, their praise is genuine. But when a bunch of people talk about how much they disliked it, it's mindless groupthink.

Gimme a break.

 

Sorry to the fans here who don't want to debate and only want to share their frustration and vent a bit at TLJ. Don't blame Metadude, I suggested he take this post here since it seemed to go beyond the topic of the thread we were discussing.

1. This is where I agree there is some nit picking. The bombers for example, I personally never questioned how the bombs dropped or were propelled, I just assumed that would have been worked out before they would be used. However, that does not mean it gives any director a pass for explaining new phenomena. I don't think it's common knowledge that people can survive up to a minute in the vacuum of space. Not everyone has seen the cartoons, and speaking for myself, I don't take the cartoons as literal as I do the movies. So in the case of science here, I think RJ could have used a scene earlier to show people could survive in space, whether it be a throw away line or a scene, I feel it was needed so that all fans could better suspend their disbelief for that moment that Leia shows her Force powers. Stuff does get explained in SW, like when Han tells Luke about the dangers of flying through hyperspace ect...

Anyways, I don't see any evidence of group think here. I didn't like TLJ, so if I was going to dislike anything simply because others did too and I wanted to be a part of it, I would have disliked the bombers and I don't.

2. I haven't heard "Ex Machina" very much, so I'll focus on Mary Sue. I think MS is a term that is relatively loose and could mean different things for different people. I went into TLJ thinking we'd have a reveal as to why Rey could use mind trick and was so good as to stand toe to toe with a Jedi trained force user in lightsaber combat. I had obviously heard the MS accusations, but I gave SW the benefit of the doubt that there'd be an interesting twist and/or reveal to explain how quickly she picks up skills. There were none in the movies, apparently a book says she downloaded the info from Kylo in TFA, but I didn't learn of that until after I'd seen TLJ. Even now that I know that, it's a very weak explanation imo (and could stand to be a major plot hole... why didn't Yoda just download his knowledge into Luke? Why train Jedi at all? ect...).

As for Rey's failures, I left the movie not seeing her failures, because she didn't really act like she failed at anything. Her weaknesses are also strengths, or are at the very least endearing. She does not have any real flaws other than a bit of ignorance, which she could hardly be blamed for being raised on Jakku. When there are opportunities to showcase shortcomings, they're missed (a desert living person being able to swim in an ocean).

I've come to peace with her being a MS not because of those who keep preaching to me that she's not, but because of someone who loves the movie who convinced me that it's okay to like a MS. Many of us have and do love MS and OP characters all the time. It's not that they can't be challenged, it's how are they going to overcome that challenge. So for me, someone who dislikes Rey being a MS is mostly someone who dislikes that kind of story telling. Think Batman, Bond, MI, among many others. The difference in many of those, is that over time we've been shown that they've had extensive training. So far with Rey, she's just lived among goons on a desert planet, but that's not training, just a hard life. Some of her better traits, her caring and such, just don't jive with that life experience.

We can keep going, but there are threads on this alone that explore Rey and MS's. I don't think she necessarily checks every box, but she checks enough imo to make the statement valid. I have no issue with those who believe otherwise, maybe it just wasn't conveyed convincingly enough to some of us. Also, there's still another episode to go.

I don't hate Rey and I generally like the actress. I think she sells Rey pretty well and we're definitely inclined to like her, as we're supposed to. I do find she discovers her powers too quickly given her background. Make Rey Mara Jade and I'd have no issues because I would know there was training. Give Rey a few years, or a different upbringing, some training, and I'd be more willing to buy her arc. So this isn't all on RJ.

So again, I don't find evidence of group think. I had made a partial opinion after TFA, and TLJ propelled it further by not offering an explanation (I never read the book that does, but even knowing that explanation, I don't find it a suitable one). Her powers increase in ways we haven't seen before in SW.

3 and 4 (as I find they're mostly one and the same). I can't help but feel Finn was wasted in TLJ. His whole mission was rendered useless and worse, I can't help but feel the lesson taught was dorky. The romance forced. His whole arc felt rushed and not thought out. It doesn't help that it feels greatly out of sync with the rest of the movie in terms of tone.

Finn was probably the new character I was most looking forward to seeing after TFA. What RJ did with him was very disappointing. There was a lack of imagination and effort into his story line. Once again, I did not need other people to tell me this, it was obvious sitting in theater. What's more, a lot of people who like TLJ even point out Canto Bight and Finn's arc as being weak points, so this isn't group think, it's people being honest with a part of the movie.

5. I'll give you this one. You can search any thread, I don't complain about SW strategy. The only thing I would question is the use of hyperspace as a weapon, mostly because it's never been a thing and we've had multiple large scale space battles already, and this tech has been around for over 1000 years. But mostly I don't like the slippery slope of introducing something like this takes us. Again, there are threads specific to this, but again I felt this way while in the movie. As much as I was awed by the visuals, I almost immediately wondered why it had never been done before, and why it wasn't ect... It took me out of the movie by the questions it asked by its very existence. Again, not group think, but individual critical thinking.

6. For me, the SJW element is there because KK put it there, not by being female, but by emphasizing on interviews and such that she's determined to put this front and center. IF I didn't know about KK (as I mostly didn't know about GL in the OT) I would have no inkling to her wanting to be inclusive. I personally feel it's her rhetoric that injects the SJW backlash to TLJ and the ST as a whole. I personally have no issue with including females or a more multicultural cast. However KK's method of championing that cause makes people more hyper aware of it, which then has fans possibly seeing more than what is really there. Rey being OP doesn't help any, if you're of that opinion.

I will give you that here there probably is a certain amount of group think because this is not just from TLJ, but from interviews pre TLJ and TFA. So people's minds were already searching for these elements, especially after TFA.

7. I think Luke's arc mostly works, but there are elements that just feel off. The flashbacks are creepy and Luke is definitely crossing some ethical lines. Had RJ just changed that aspect of Luke, I think the movie as a whole would have went smoother. Still have Luke fail, but not cross into creepy territory. I've gone on at length on this on other threads. If you stumble on them and want to talk more about it, I'll do so then. I just feel when Han is still Han, and Leia is mostly still the same Leia, having Luke change so much is jarring, and when given the reasoning, it doesn't seem plausible as the ethical question makes us feel less sympathetic to him. I feel like RJ didn't fully mesh out that idea and given another year, they probably would have come out with something slightly different and better.

As for group think, other than thinking Luke was going to be grumpy, I didn't have a heck of a lot of expectations. I don't feel like I followed a group thought or expectation, I reacted, examined and rejected what was portrayed, then I came here to find others did for many different reasons. I did not need Luke to go all Jedi Master and vanquish his enemies. I just needed to recognize the character from VI, and I feel I couldn't. There was nothing left, and no good explanation given, the explanation we got made the Luke I knew ugly (not his beard, that was awesome).

So yeah, I think there might be some elements of group think, but I think you're projecting more than there really is. I think there are a bunch of individuals who came to similar conclusions, and found each other to see that there are others of like mind on some issues. But our opinions were made before, not after we talked with others, at least for the most part.

I've rejected a lot of the complaints thrown at TLJ. Just because I really don't like the movie doesn't mean I have an overwhelming need to hate every aspect of it. I also don't feel I need to agree with everything others who dislike it do.

Honestly, I've simply distanced myself from anything SW to do with the ST and even the saga. I'm still looking forward to the new stuff they'll come out with and hoping it will be more to my liking. Some people are looking forward to the next SW movie in 18 months or so, for me I'm looking forward for the next SW movie in possibly 30 months or so.

Thanks for posting here metaldude. You are of course free to think and believe what you want, but others are of course free to disagree with your conclusions. The reverse is of course, also true.

 

https://futurism.media/star-wars-af...t-snoke-is-a-being-from-the-unknown-regions-1

The last paragraph of that article:
"Intriguingly, Empire's End offers hints that Snoke sensed this even before Ben Solo had been born. In one nightmarish scene, a half-dreaming Leia struggles with the sense that something dark and powerful is watching her, focused upon her unborn son; Ben Solo leaps in her womb, and she believes he's reacting to her own fear, but perhaps even the baby sensed the watchful gaze of Snoke."

And take that information and apply it to the line in the script:
"Hmm. The mighty Kylo Ren. When I found you, I saw what all masters live to see: raw, untamed power...and beyond that, something truly special. The potential of your bloodline. A new Vader. Now, I fear I was mistaken."

@metadude : You're making some sweeping generalisations there, regarding the people who don't like the film. Tread carefully buddy.

 

I am not exactly one to jump in and defend TLJ, but I always thought this line of criticism was silly. Not only do I ignore violations of the laws of physics in the GFFA, but I don't even think a violation occurred here.

People and objects still have quite a bit of weight in space when they are that close to a planet. For example, astronauts on the space station weigh about 95% what they would if they were standing at sea level. They only seem weightless because they are falling towards Earth at the exact same rate the structure they are in is falling towards Earth. Fortunately, despite constantly falling towards Earth, all concerned parties get to avoid actually hitting the ground because they are moving sideways so fast that the ground recedes from them at the same rate they are falling towards it (hence the term "orbit").

So when a ship which is not in orbit drops a payload, that payload is going to be pulled towards the planet by that planet's gravitational pull. Given my rough estimate of the distance between the ship and the planet during this scene, the payload would fall towards the planet at roughly 90% to 95% the rate of acceleration it would have if that ship was at sea level.

I want to give Star Wars the benefit of the doubt. I really do. But it is getting tougher and tougher to pretend there is no SJW agenda at play in these movies, especially given Kennedy's public statements on the issue.

Kennedy wants strong female characters. For that matter, so do I. What she (and Rian Johnson) needs to realize is you don't do that by making your females characters overpowered Mary Sues whilst turning your male characters into buffoons.

 

It's not condescending, it's an explanation. I'm not saying that not liking the movie is impossible, and it's expected that people will not like any given movie. I'm saying that most of the criticism I see is clearly fabricated, demonstrating the dislike of that specific group is following a group dynamic. When everyone is espousing the same fabricated (therefore not genuine) criticism, it's the result of group dynamic.

Genuine criticism of a subjective experience would be subjective "I didn't like it" "I was bored" "I don't like the characters" "I didn't like the story" "I don't like sci-fi" etc. Objective reasons are by nature fabrications. I'm not actually just saying this about TLJ but any movie (or subjective expression) at all.

Agreement in a group dynamic is obviously going to be expected.

This actually started by me stating that the vast majority of people are by nature followers. That's just the way that it is. I know a great number of followers like to think they are independent free thinking individuals, but they're not. This I can discern by the nature of the criticisms being leveled against the movie (or, again, any given movie/subjective expression), which is why I made this post to begin with. Meaning, I was in a roundabout way asked "How do you conclude that these critics are merely following a group dynamic?" and thus the explanation you're reading.

And like I said, there's nothing inherently wrong with the nature of following others. It's basic human nature. But, it does carry with it the ability for me to say "This is all fabricated group dynamic".

What are the arcs in episode 5? Also, I'd say that the criticism itself is inherently a fabrication (i.e. 'character arcs are a necessity for a story to be liked/good') and also based on a false group dynamic because it's readily untrue. What is the arc of the man with no name in the Sergio Leone films? What is the arc of Gandalf in the LotR films? What are the arcs in Predator? Character arcs are unnecessary in story, and using the phrase in conjunction with criticism is only being done to fabricate criticism, which is by nature, not genuine.

Yeah, praise will be genuine when you like/love something. Criticism will be genuine if it's subjective in nature, thus matching the subjective nature of the criticized expression. The attempt to objectively measure a subjective expression means you must fabricate an objective measure by which to judge. Fabrication is by nature not genuine. "I like pizza with mushrooms" is genuine. "I don't like pizza with mushrooms" is genuine. "Pizza with mushrooms is objectively bad/good pizza because pizza must/must not have mushrooms" is fabricated criticism, and not genuine.

 

The point here is that the criticism is a double-standard fabrication. No one needs to explain to the audience that Star Wars isn't hard sci-fi. No one needs to explain why there's sound in space, or how a laser beam can sit on the hilt of a lightsaber, or why blaster fire doesn't move at the speed of light, or why droids express emotion and pain. It has been obvious since the first movie that these are not hard sci-fi, events do not obey scientifically accurate absolutes. Anyone critcizing a Star Wars movie for lack of scientific accuracy is fabricating the criticism.

It's a double-standard fabrication because no one is leveling the same criticism against the OT. This shows that the motivation for the fabrication is a bias. I'm presuming here that everyone I'm going to be engaged with here is of the mind that such as A New Hope and Empire are "great" Star Wars movies, and the lack of scientific accuracy is an unjustifiable critcism of those films. The reason of course being that we all know that Star Wars isn't hard sci-fi.

This is like criticizing Superman movies for his "scientifically inaccurate" ability to fly. Criticizing superhero movies for being scientifically inaccurate because "that's not how mutations work" "No one who is bit by a spider can then climb walls" etc.

I'm not saying it is all one specific group dynamic. There are factually multiple different groups in any social gathering.

Which is why I said the Mary Sue criticism is the equivalent of name-dropping. It doesn't actually have an objective meaning, and is being name-dropped to attempt to disguise a fabrication as an objective standard of judgment. But the fact is that whatever ambiguous name-dropping of the term "Mary Sue", Mary Sues do not fail all the way through their story. Again the basic concept is the author of a story placing themself into the story. Do you fail all the way through your daydreams? No, because you're the Mary Sue in your daydreaming. If Rey were truly a Mary Sue, Luke would've been readily accepting of her, she would have thwarted Snoke with the lightsaber turn instead of Kylo being the one to save her, and Kylo would've went over to her side without fail.

We know she has the force. Her fighting skill with a staff weapon were showcased. Her tinkering skills and knowledge of ship technology were explicitly shown and stated. She flat out stated that she was a flyer. You said earlier that explanations are necessary, and here you have them. In TFA, Kylo is trained in weapons combat. So is Rey, and her training is from youth. Kylo is hit by a blaster which is shown to be very powerful. He has just killed his own father. His mind is not at peek levels of focus in the moment. Anyone questioning how Rey can fight and defeat Kylo in this scene is fabricating a criticism because their is no way to objectively judge who should win the duel between the two.

I don't know the books; most don't. I'm only talking about the movies.

She wanted to bring Luke back, she failed. She failed to thwart Snoke. She purpose for going to the FO was to bring Ben to her side. She failed. If you're not seeing that these three things are what happens in the story then you're not seeing facts of the matter, or are trying to dismiss facts with fabricated explanations. Rey failed to perform her purposed intentions. That's what happened in TLJ.

That's a genuine subjective criticism. It's an opinion and there's no refutation of like things because that is just how you feel.

If they say "I didn't like it" then it's genuine. If they're saying "It had no relevance to the story" they are fabricating a criticism. One is a subjective statement, the other is not. It's relevant to the story in that it is moving Finn along his arc from running away, to, standing and fighting to protect. This is the narrative connection between "I abandon ship" Finn at the intro to "I stand and fight Phasma" "I make a suicide run to protect" Finn at the end.

Remember the scene in Empire where Han turns the Falcon around, charges the Star Destroyer, and sneakily makes it look like he's went into hyperspace, but actually he didn't? Did that scene take you out of the movie, and suddenly your individual critical thinking made you ask "Why didn't he do that before?" Remember when Luke showed up at Jabba's after everyone was captured? Well, why didn't he do that before? Remember in Infinity War when Thanos just turned Drax and mantis into blocks and curly-Q's, negating their ability to attack him? Well, why didn't he do that afterward? Why didn't he just turn Iron Man into curly-Q's? You seeing the double-standard going on here? You're thinking that I'm suggesting this kind of, fabricated judgment is exclusize to Star Wars, but it isn't. It's a part of the entire system of human judgment, which is as corrupt as can be. Right judgment is virtually non-existent in our society. When you talk about, how you came to that question during TLJ before you had a chance to be influenced by a group dynamic, I'm saying you were already engaged in that group dynamic long before you ever went to see TLJ. That dynamic is running every time you watch a movie, every time you engage in criticism of, anything.

The reason why this is the first time you've seen that happen in a Star Wars movie, is because it's the first time anyone has written it into a Star Wars movie. It's the "questionable military strategy" fabrication. These are not documentaries of war strategies they are movies. Do you realize how incompetent the Empire is all the way through the OT?

I don't know what Kathleen Kennedy may have said, but I do know film interpretation is inherently a blank canvas. Any criticism of the film as "SJW" is projecting a biased interpretation, and a fabrication by its very nature of forcing ideaology into subjectivity. Much like Luke going into the cave on Dagobah, what you will see in TLJ is, only what you take with you.

As for OP Rey, it's another fabrication. Was Anakin OP for pod racing? Was Luke OP for deflecting multiple blaster shots while wearing a blinder not hours after meeting Ben? For shooting a proton torpedo down a shaft? Is Han OP for being able to successfully navigate an asteroid field (we even have a probability curve by which to objectively form a claim on that one). Was Luke OP for being able to duel Vader in Empire? Black Widow OP for hanging with the Avengers? Thor OP for taking down Thanos while he's wearing the Infinity Gauntlet? By what objective measure are you judging "OP"? Or is it just, by arbitrary whim?

Okay but the story doesn't need for you to recognize Luke. "I need such and such" aren't valid criticisms, they are genuine statements which are subjective to you (and many). "I needed Rey to be Luke's daughter" isn't criticism. "I need" is as valid here as it is for a father to say to his kid "I need you to be what I want, or I'll be disappointed"

And I would ask, the Luke that showed up on the salt planet, did you recognize him?

The question isn't, when did you talk to people? It is not something specific to, see movie, make claims, talk afterward, therefore genuine. Just like the cave on Dagobah, you're taking things with you into the theater. Things that have been in the group dynamic before you saw the movie.

Again, not every group is the same group; we are dealing with variable dynamics. You mentioned the SJW group going in, looking to see it. And I can tell you, you will always see what you're looking for. There are people who dislike Star Wars and went in looking for fabrications in order to cause trouble. There are people who have learned to judge things in an incorrect fashion, and that bleeds over into film. There are people who just want to sound like movie critics and name-drop "Mary Sue" "Plot hole" "Tonal imbalance" "Pacing" "Ex machina" to project an aura of being, intellectual and expert in analysis. There are all manner of people. I cannot tell you who belongs to what group dynamic, but I can tell you who is fabricating criticism by the very nature of the criticism. I can spot genuine from ingenuine with ease by listening to the words being spoken.

Free to disgree, sure. Free to reasonabley disagree? Another matter, altogether.

 

So, your issue is that a canonical line of dialogue disagrees with the pet theory of some guy named Tom Bacon? That's why it doesn't line up? The first bit of his piece hypothesizes that Snoke is some source of the Force itself. I think we can safely conclude that he's wrong on at least that part, yeah?

 

Well, didn't Palpatine think that? I really don't know. I personally think that's ridiculous. And that was the first link I found that references the baby in the womb thing, not where I'd heard it from. I think I read it first somewhere on these very boards.

My issue is that I thought they would have made sure everything storywise was water tight. Everything is canon now.

EDIT: My issue is more to do with the highlighted parts of text in my previous post than that blokes theories (and the influencing Ben in the womb is not his theory, it's just the first place I found when I googled it).

 

Palps just sensed that there was something out there. Something dark and malevolent he wanted to find out more about. People theorized that something was Snoke, but that’s just conjecture.

Yeah, supposedly. But then you have Wendig inserting a Phasma type character into Aftermath, who wasn’t Phasma, and Foster having Poe and Rey meet at the end of TFA. There’s already been some slight discrepancies. And that’s inevitable. With so many people working on so many things, maybe not all of them talking, things are bound to get a little messy.

I totally get that. Sorry if I came off pissy. My point is that this was only a theory. An interpretation of an element presented by Wendig. For example, he also introduced these ‘Acolytes of the Beyond’ guys. Everyone immediately thought “oh, this must be where the Knights of Ren came from.” Near as we can tell now? Nope. No connection at all.

Whatever presence is felt in that scene regarding fetal Ben wasn’t revealed to be Snoke. So there’s no contradiction or incongruity with his line in TLJ. Just one more Wendig red herring, I’d guess. What do I know though? Hell, I didn’t even remember that sequence from Empire’s End

 

I think all your points have been debated endlessy, and have been answered again here by others making the effort. They are common grounds for criticism, that not all will agree on, but in general are prevalent. I find it strange that you do not see the reasoning behind it, even if you are of a different opinion.

Now, I’d like to comment on your idea of group thinking, and entering with a predermined opinion.

I entered the movie with the SW flag held high. I really wanted to like it, just as I have enjoyed all SW movies previously.

I ended up not liking it at all, for many reasons. To my great surprise and worry. I later found out I was far from alone, for some time I thought it might just be me.

In regards to group thinking, TLJ actually had the odds stacked in its favor. People wanted to love it, they were also expected to love it from their peers. They would even be critisized thenselves, for not liking it. Like they themselves were somehow at fault, and were the black sheep. The «lost». The ones who do not know any better. You yourself are an example of this attitude.

If there ever was a peer pressure, or group thinking going on, it would be to like it.... Especially on a fan site like this. TLJ really would have to be spectaculary divisive, (and in my mind simply bad) to create such a sense of loss and anger in a fan base that used to swallow up everything with the SW logo on it.

Perhaps you should check your own bias and premeditated opinions.

 

Being that the Kenobi movie is likely on permanent hiatus, I'm now feeling the salt rising out of my pores. While it isn't official, I cannot believe they are likely going maintain RJs trilogy. I suppose he still has to pitch something officially down the road, but being that he can't even design a interesting spaceship, I guess it's a long road up hill yet.

Great documentary.

"I felt I needed humor in the picture, and yet I couldn't have gags" 1h30m54s says it all to me

 

Making Kylo Ren free from all crime has bothered me.
He is getting a 'out of jail' card for being related to a Skywalker.

We still don't know his purpose or 'why' he acts the way he does.