THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

If you're asking why I can't see the "reasoning" behind the criticisms I'm using as examples, it's because there's no reasoning behind them to see. There is no "reasoning" behind criticizing Star Wars for being "scientifically inaccurate"; there is no "reasoning" behind criticizing TLJ for "flaws" that are equally applicable to the films that came before; there is no "reasoning" behind "where are the character arcs" when there are not only arcs, but arcs aren't necessary in any story. Arcs make a specific type of story, but aren't a rule for storytelling. Etc.

Again I'm not saying everyone went in with a predetermined opinion anymore than I'm saying Luke went in to the cave on Dagobah with a predetermined opinion. I'm saying some people did. Other people went in with no predetermined opinion, yet a predetermined expectation. Other people went in with no predetermined opinion, yet a preexisting faulty method of judgment. Other people went in with no predetermined opinion, yet were influenced by the group dynamic of the very audience with which they experienced the film. Some people went in with no predetermined opinion, formed an opinion, then unconsciously conformed to a different opnion after being influenced by a group dynamic. There are many variables in the dynamics at work.

As I said, it's not possible for me to know what dynamic is the specific culprit in any general case, but what I can do is listen to a single person's criticism, and determine if it is genuine or fabricated. With enough information, I can have a better guage to determine the specific group dynamic running in a specific person's character but that is something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The post I moved into this thread was an explanatory post which followed the question of, how do I know there are group dynamics at work leading to fabricated criticisms of the film.

And I also want to emphasize that this is not exclusive to TLJ, or Star Wars movies. But I happen to be on a Star Wars forum, so I'm specifically talking about a Star Wars movie.

Feel free to tell me what they were, and then we'll know if they're genuine or fabricated. You see how when I ask questions like "What are the arcs in Empire?" "What is the purpose of the asteroid scenes?" "By what objective standard are we determining Rey is OP?" etc. there are no answers?" "How do we determine odds of who should win the duel?" there are no answers to the questions? And the relevence of those questions are at the heart of the discussion. There are no answers because there is no reasoning behind the criticism. Because it's fabricated.

That's a statement, but I'm not saying, everyone should like this movie and if you don't like this movie then you are wrong not to like it. I'm not saying, the dislike is not genuine. I am saying, and explaining by way of specific lines of reasoning, as to why the criticisms for the most part, are not genuine and fabricated criticisms. A fabricated criticism is not genuine criticism, and is evidence of a group dynamic in play.

I don't have any.

 

The hard and fast fall of TLJ after the first weekend was worse than Solo's domestically and TLJ was helped by December. Solo might take longer than TLJ (23 days) to hit 90% of its final gross if it makes around $211M or more (RO was 25 days and TFA was 30 days).



Other Star Wars movies versus Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
Rogue One: -37.46% first weekend, -43.18% final. 5.72 pont drop relative to TFA.
The Last Jedi: -11.27% first weekend, -33.79% final. 22.52 point drop relative to TFA.
Solo: -65.95% first weekend, -76.06% current (compared on day 26). 10.11 point drop relative to TFA.

Other Avengers movies versus Marvel's The Avengers (2012)
Age of Ultron: -7.79% first weekend, -26.37% final. 18.58 point drop relative to MTA.
Infinity War: +24.23% first weekend, +10.90% current (compared on day 54). 13.33 pont drop relative to MTA.



TLJ went wrong whether anybody admits it or not. That's what happens when you make a divisive movie.

 

According to you, when people praise the movie, it is genuine. When they criticize the movie, it is fabricated. I am not even putting words in your mouth, that is literally what you said in a previous post, which is a highly biased and poor statement on quite a few levels.

 

Look at what this movie has done to all of us. sigh. On a lighter note, have any of you caught wind of this yet? Is it a joke?



Rian seems to want it to happen lol H's just joking obviously,.. or is he?

 

Yet again let me emphasize that I am not saying all criticism is fabricated. Criticisim that isn't fabricated would be subjective e.g. "I didn't like it" "I was bored" "I couldn't follow the story" "I don't like the characters" "I don't like the actors" etc. I am saying that most of the criticism I see is fabricated. I can tell this because the "critic" is attempting to create an objective measure for the subjective experience. The moment a person attempts to constrain a subjective experience with an objective measure causes fabrication of an objective measure if that measure is a double-standard or irrelevant, which is the case.

Again you're attempting to circumvent the reasoning given. Take the first in the list: not scientifically accurate. Is it genuine criticism to criticize a film for not being scientifically accurate in a series of films that have never been scientifically accurate? Is it genuine criticism to criticize one of the Star Wars films for not being scientifically accurate, but at the same time not criticize other Star Wars films for not being scientifically accurate? I conclude it is obviously a double-standard and irrelevant criticism that must by its very nature be fabricated criticism. And you conclude, what?

Now, in your post you state that I said, praise is genuine, criticism is fabricated, and yes that is what I said. You then conclude that is a highly biased and poor statement on quite a few levels. Okay, tell me why. Show me your reasoning instead of just making statements without explanation of the reasoning behind the statements. I presume you're not the truth-giver descending from on high and words coming forth from your mouth(or, fingertips in this instance) are truth by default?

The reason I'm saying praise is genuine is because it's not fabricating an objective measure onto subjective experience, because it doesn't need to do so. Have you seen people praise TLJ because "It is scientifically accurate" "It has sound military stratgey" "Rey is not a Mary Sue" "Rey is not OP" "It has character arcs" "It has no tonal issues"? Have you seen any praise that is a double-standard praise? Praise that is objectively irrelevant? Something praised in TLJ which is not praised in the other movies when it is present in them?

I've given a list of criticisms (not at all exhaustive) and stated the reasoning behind why they are fabrications. You keep avoiding addressing those. Can you give me a list of fabricated praises, and your reasoning behind why they are fabricated?

 

I think you're kicking a dead pig.

Sure, there are some ludicrous criticisms levelled at the TLJ, like the science example, but, for the most part, people who post on this site, whether they be enamoured or disenchanted by the movie, have provided justifiable and considered opinions. This late in the game, asking people to resubmit their criticisms for you to either corroborate or invalidated is, well, odd. And off. There are pages and pages on this thread containing what you are looking for. I am sure if you quoted and responded to specific poster's points that they would be happy to reply.

 

These example phrases of genuine criticism are not criticisms, they are feelings. After a person has a feeling, they allow themselves to explore it to its terminus, and the conclusions they reached as to why they felt that, is because of X, Y, and Z that you label as fabricated. I honestly don't understand what are you trying to get at because everybody tries to determine with objective yardsticks whether or not something is good or bad.

And this may be an argument for another day, but there are definitely objective measurements to be made for all film evaluations. Nothing is absolutely subjective.

 

As I explained in another post, I am not on board with the "not scientifically accurate" criticism but I will say this: It is very fair to criticize a movie for not following its own established rules. If Kylo Ren suddenly sprouted wings and breathed fire, I would criticize the movie for breaking its own rules in doing something so implausible. I wouldn't come in here and say "hey that's the sort of thing that happens in a science-fantasy adventure! you're a hypocrite if you can accept planet-destroying battle stations but you can't accept this..!!"

I'll respond however I please subject to forum rules and if you don't like it, you can feel free to put me on ignore.

I am not sure what it is you want me to address. I am not accusing anyone of engaging in mindless groupthink or fabrication. I believe the people who enjoyed the movie are sincere in their praise and the people who disliked the movie are sincere in their criticism. Obviously the people who liked it are going to have a lot of overlapping reasons behind their enjoyment (i.e. "yeah I loved that part too!"). Similarly, the people who disliked it are going to have a lot of overlapping reasons of things they didn't like (i.e. "yeah I agree that part really sucked!"). Agreeing with someone else does not mean you are engaging in "groupthink."​

You're the one engaging is a little hypocrisy by saying the people who enjoyed the movie are sincere but the haters are engaging in groupthink and coming up with fabrications. Just because you hold a different opinion than those criticizing the movie does not in any way mean the criticism is fabricated or is mindless groupthink.

 

There is this incouscious pattern in many 'lovers" here is to imply, if you didn't love this movie, you're bad people.

 

The movie is absolutely guaranteed to crash and burn.

Rian (and many other fans) actually kind of jokingly want to see it made just to see the trainwreck of it.

Personally, I've referred to it as potentially turning into Star Wars: The Room, assuming it miraculously even gets that far into production.

 

Bear in mind that when I posted the original post in this thread, I made it clear that the purpose was because of a request from another poster in another thread. Since then I have only responded to people who are quoting my post with responses (which I did invite, saying, anyone is free to reply, or some such). I think it should be obvious that I am only responding to replies to my post. So I'm not really the one "kicking a dead pig" the posters who are replying are doing that. I'm simply replying to quotes of my posts.

I mean no offense here whatsoever, but I am certainly not going through hundreds of pages of what is likely nonsensical criticisms to look for "answers" to people who are specifically quoting my post to reply. If anyone does not wish to engage in discussion, easy enough to not reply to begin with. But if anyone is going to engage in discussion, I do at the least expect the courtesy of an actual discussion on its own terms, not being bound to sift through hundreds of pages to get "answers" to a reply to my own post. I don't think that is an unfair stipulation.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 22, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 22, 2018 ---

We can define the terms at your leisure, and I will accept the new definition. In this case, since we are redefining the examples I gave as "feelings" not in the category of "criticism" then my conclusion will change to: all criticism is fabricated, except one form (below).

A subjective conclusion isn't fabricated. For example, if a person doesn't like hard rock music, they may state their reason for dislike as "It is too loud" "It is too fast" and these are genuine subjective, feelings/reasons. But to apply that subjective feeling to an objective measure of criticism is fabricated criticism. The music is not "bad" or "poorly written" nor the musicians "wrong" or "poor musicians"; the "critic" has fabricated an objective measure which is not a genuine criticism of the music.

A subjective conclusion masquerading as an objective conclusion is a fabrication by its very nature. "I didn't like the music because time signature changes in music create a pacing imbalance" is a fabricated criticism. All of the criticisms in my original post are fabricated. And since you have removed subjective "feelings" from the category of "criticism", all criticism of TLJ is fabricated except the below.

An objective measure is incontrovertible. It has universal agreement. The only objective criticism that can be genuine is in the case of inconsistent information e.g. girl fails to get guy's phone number. Two scenes later is dialing his phone number. Though this is the only objective genuine criticism, I find that it is generally a double-standard, as the critic overlooks inconsistent information in a "good" movie. Everything is is absolutely subjective and any objective measure of a subjective experience is by nature a fabrication since the objective and controvertible measure must be fabricated in order to be used as a measure.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 22, 2018 ---

Because it's clearly fabricated. This same outcome will reasonably apply to every criticism I listed.

Call me when/if Kylo Ren sprouts wings and breathes fire. Otherwise you're engaging in a false analogy.

I don't wish to put you on ignore, but I was simply responding to the reply that you made to one of my posts. If you don't wish to engage in a discussion, why bother quoting my post in the form of a reply? I would hypothesize here that you are merely dodging the question because in truth there is no reasoning behind your statement and so you're left empty-handed.

We can begin through the list again if you'd like:

1. Do you think the people who criticize TLJ for "scientific inaccuracy" are sincere in their criticism?

We can start at 2. if you'd rather skip 1. since you not on board with that "genuine criticism"

I said the people who enjoyed the movie are for the most part engaging in a group dynamic as well. In this case, the likely dynamic is a group love of Star Wars. I don't think you want me to blanket that contrpositive over to the haters, group hate of Star Wars? At any rate, I've given the reasoning behind how to spot fabricated criticism which is not genuine.

No, the nature of the criticism is what shows me it is fabricated groupthink. My opinions have nothing to do with my reasoning. They are as different as emotion and reason.

 

The amount of scenes Rian had to pull to portray Kylo Ren as being a reluctant killer- contradicts the very beginning of TFA.

Firing on Luke did nothing because Luke was never there. Kylo didn't kill him, he killed himself.

 

So when he tells Hux “No quarter. No prisoners.” He’s being facetious? He isn’t actually ordering the slaughter of dozens of people?

 

No, an objective metric would be something that isn't alterable regardless of a person's feelings or will. For instance, an objective reality exists regardless of if people agree that its there or not. It is what it is. So an objective metric would be a set of measurements we use to evaluate films in terms of cinematography, character writing, visual storytelling, plot development, etc.

being a reductionist and defending a film on the basis that "opinions are subjective anyway" doesn't go anywhere since we can talk and evaluate whether a movie was actually a good movie or not. A conversation is possible.

A person always sits at the table of criticism from a subjective perspective, since we all experienced it personally, ie I didn't like it, it was boring, et al. But the criticisms can be expanded on using objective yardsticks to determine if a person's feelings are congruent with reality, ie I didn't like it because plot had problems X,Y,Z, it was boring because the editing of the final release allowed scenes to drag on too long, without enough motion forward in the plot.


is your argument that people who actually use enunciated and coherently constructed self-reflective criticisms after putting thought and brainpower into it, beyond vague "I didn't like it", and "it just didn't work for me" are fabricated? Are you conflating objectivity with fabrication? What are you even trying to get across with using the term "fabrication"? Are you saying people simply are mimicking or parroting the criticisms of others? Why not just say that, if that's the case? Does all of this and all your responses actually just amount to, "I think haters of TLJ are just parroting other, more intelligent, haters who have a platform"?

 

So this was a post I made back on the Jedi Council Forums, shortly before I was inexplicably banned from the site (despite me constructing posts like these as cleanly and constructively as possible).

This rant was in response to two people:

A) someone actually defending Kylo Ren as far more interesting than Vader, who he described as a “one-dimensional killing machine whose interesting character moments came at the eleventh hour” (Yes, someone actually said that)

B) Someone asking me why I hate Kylo Ren, and for how long

It is essential to read the first argument on Vader to understand why I loathe Kylo Ren so much, and why I believe he stands as the uncontested worst character of this trilogy, and Star Wars at large.


In response to the first inquiry on Vader: I don’t know, nor will I dictate, what your definition of a one-dimensional character is, so I won’t make it my business to inquire upon the matter.

But to me, Darth Vader satisfied the qualifications of being a three-dimensional or multidimensional character. I think there’s a popular, albeit misguided notion circulating pop culture and fandom these days that a character can only extend beyond one-dimensional if he/she showcases multiple sides to them. Their status as well-written or three-dimensional is relegated solely to how they radically change over the course of time, or how many sides of that character we’re able to see, or how they’re able to challenge expectations, or how wildly that character evolves into the chrysalis of an entirely new character altogether. These are all good things, to be sure, but they’re not outright rigid requirements for the foundation of a multi-dimensional character.

Simply put, Darth Vader’s radical change may not have happened until far later in the OT, but that doesn’t suddenly make him one-dimensional or thin in character. I believe Darth Vader was three-dimensional because the more we saw of him, the more interesting layers were added in consistency to what we knew about him, building off our perceived knowledge of the character in new ways. Was he one-dimensional in ANH, for instance? I think the argument’s there, certainly. But that’s only because his role was different—remember, that his role in that film was far more distant from Luke or the main characters, and therefore, to us as the audience as well. He shared the spotlight with Tarkin, and merely served as the Imperial Enforcer of the story, the muscle by which we were supposed to fear the Empire. We weren’t necessarily afraid of Vader, but what he stood for—he represented the Empire, embodied its villainous presence, simple and effective as a plot device, more than a character. The most we knew about him was vague details about being a Jedi, and killing his comrades, including Luke’s father, and we also didn’t necessarily know how the rest of the Empire responded to him…outside of some snobbish Imperial Commander talking down to him, and Tarkin exercising authority on him. As stated, he shares the spotlight with other characters, and isn’t really anything outside of a symbol for the threat in the story.

But it’s in ESB where the story starts build on Vader: Now, the spotlight was on him—there was no Tarkin barking orders, or braggadocios Imperial upstart talking at him. And in this new spotlight, the story begins to add layers to his villainous role. We already KNOW Vader’s evil—but now that his role is larger, the story builds on that and increases how sinister and threatening he is. We learn firsthand of how terrified his Imperial subordinates are of him. We see a more sinister, and calculating edge to the way he does things. We see his reliance on a merciless web of strategy, and just how furious he is when his own Imperial officers impede on his ability to carry it out. We’re also shown, for the very first time, how manipulative Vader can be: how he can push an anxious and frustrated Lando to cooperating with him, how he’s able use Luke’s own compassion for his friends as a vile tool against him, and how he’s attempting to use emotional and physical trauma to stagger Luke from the way of the Light and into the descent of the Dark Side throughout their confrontation beneath Cloud City. None of these things are radical departures from his character, or shocking labyrinthine subversions of how our expectations of him based on how we saw him in ANH...and he’s not undergoing any kind of bold development or evolution through this. Can he still be considered three-dimensional because of this? I argue yes. Because even though this continuing showcase doesn’t change or challenge what we know about the character so far, it does add layers to the character. Our belief in his role in the villain is strengthened, almost rewarding our investment in the story by making him all the more threatening and sinister, and thus making the stakes in the story higher.

And then, in ROTJ, with the past film’s newfound reveal of Vader’s paternal link to Luke, our perception of the character is now alit with intrigue, and we have far more investment in the struggle Vader is undergoing, both illuminated by Luke and the story itself. Simply put, Vader’s appeal and rounded three-dimensional character was not dependent solely on the “I am your father” reveal, the struggle within him showcased in ROTJ, or his eventual redemption by the OT’s end…it’s everything leading up to that. Ask yourself: would ANY of those three things even have the slightest granule of weight, drama, or impact if all of the layering of Vader’s character and reinforcement of his role in the story hadn’t heightened up until that point? In my opinion, absolutely not. The reason Darth Vader’s revelation works and why his redemption works is because of how we, the audience, have seen the character up till that point. Vader being the protagonist’s father was shocking—to me, at least—because of how different he was to Luke. When watching ANH, I didn’t perceive any connection between Luke and Vader—and the more Luke progressed on his knightly journey in ESB, countered with Vader’s continued layering as an intimidating, monstrous entity, my association of the two of them continued to widen like a chasm. And when the “I am your father reveal happened”, I was in a state of shellshock: I couldn’t look at this daunting shadow, this sinister wellspring of cruel manipulation and inhuman tactile cunning and actually picture him producing someone as benign and pure as Luke. The shock of the revelation comes from everything we knew about the character and seen him do up till that point.

That’s why people were drawn to Vader’s appeal as a villain and why, to me at least, he worked beyond the trappings of a one-note villain LONG before either the Prequels or supplementary material like novels or Clone Wars TV episodes. They added to the character, sure, but they weren’t at all vital to the drama and weight one feels during the climax of ROTJ, in my opinion. It’s everything about Darth Vader’s character up till that point in ROTJ, what I had seen of him, but more importantly, what the story had turned him into within my mind.

That’s where the weight and impact of ROTJ came from—the kind of character the story had escalated Darth Vader into, before I even knew he was Anakin Skywalker.

In response to the inquiry about how I’ve felt about Kylo since the beginning:

Allow me to state the following:

Kylo Ren is the character I hate the absolute most in this new Sequel Trilogy. I absolutely loathe everything about this character, and the seeds for it were planted all the way back in TFA when he was first introduced. Why? The reason is simple: there are a lot of aspects of the ST that reek of the writers wanting certain, telegraphed elements or moments in the narrative without actually earning them. There is drama between characters or in a scene merely because the writers tell us there are, not because there actually is any drama or weight. This problem is the most endemic plague that erodes the ST, and Kylo Ren is the most emblematic example of it. At first, while viewing TFA, I was pretty much indifferent towards Kylo Ren, since he was simply repeating Vader’s beats that were already in ANH (which of course, wouldn’t be the ONLY thing that film would steal from ANH, I assure you). But the more I saw of him, the more I found him beyond irritating.

Remember how I said that Vader was successful in establishing his presence because the story adding layers to his character through his actions? Well, we got more layers to Kylo, alright—and all of them made him insufferable.

First is his hot-tempered lack of restraint. I don’t know if Abrams or Johnson intended this as some kind of intimidating or endearing quality of Kylo’s but I just find it cringe-worthy. The scene in TFA where he’s slashing at the keyboard of his control panel like a chimp on bath salts was meant to be funny, and even build on his character’s lack of restraint…but it just makes him look incompetent. He’s even shown repeating this exact behavior a few scenes later when he starts destroying the Restraining Chair that Rey was on, litrally reducing it to smoldering smithereens. Why on earth would Snoke let an armada of the First Order be led by this overgrown toddler who loses his temper on a moment’s notice? He’s willing to destroy valuable equipment on the mere occurrence of receiving bad news—what the hell would he do if he lost an intergalactic battle with another ship? Ram his capital ship into a neighboring vehicle out off butt-hurt rage? I’m honestly shocked Kylo hasn’t kamikaze’d multiple First Order ships well before Holdo got the idea to do it…he seems childish and foolhardy enough. Not to mention that these scenes always perplexed me because the First Order is (at least in this movie, before their role was changed significantly in TLJ) painted to be some radical faction of underdogs that emerged from the Unknown Regions: they’re far less equipped and have fewer resources than the New Republic, at least according to fans defending TFA. If that’s the case, then what does that say about the Kylo Ren, the First Order’s Executioner of High Rank, when he’s going around destroying valuable equipment and resources that his organization only possesses in scarcity. And it’s not like he’s throwing these fits or showcasing this rage for any compelling reasons—he’s literally just screaming his head off like a 12-year-old losing a Call of Duty Match over Xbox Live. At first, when I saw TFA, I just attributed all of this—in my paper-thin attempts to rationalize with my disappointment—that Kylo was just displaying emotional immaturity because of his age. Imagine my shock when I learned that this whiney brat with a voice that could shatter glass was thirty years old. The guy is literally older than ROTS Anakin, and already a Dark-Sider, and he’s twice as emotionally-unstable and immature. And this doesn’t go anywhere interesting or add anything of merit to his character either. When I think of a character who’s emotionally unstable and whose despicable behavior is constantly made more interesting for it, I think of Leonardo diCaprio’s portrayal of Louis XVI in Man In The Iron Mask—a character whose bratty persona and emotional instability is not only front and center, but countered and confronted by several in-story characters, adds a layer of scary psychotic nature to many of his actions on-screen, and ends up being the notable contribution to his hubris and downfall. THAT is how you effectively paint a villain whose immature by nature, by doing something with it as a character trait. With Kylo, it’s either played up completely for laughs, or used ineffectively in moments of empty drama.

And SPEAKING of empty drama, was I supposed to actually feel anything when Han was killed? Because I couldn’t shrug any harder if someone had told me that it had started raining outside my theater. Actually, no—I take that back. The rain actually inconvenienced me on my way home. The scene with Kylo and Han is so devoid of development or proper build-up that it lands with all the consequential devastation of an underwater fart. WHY was I supposed to care about this scene? Was I supposed to be torn up inside that Han was killed by his own son? I have no idea what their relationship even is! We learn about Kylo being Han’s son literally halfway into the film! I have no reason to believe he had any kind of compelling, or emotionally-weighted relationship with Han or Leia…in fact, Han LITERALLY hand-waves the potential of turning Kylo back to the Light Side in the preceding scene, by saying: “We can’t bring him back. He’s got too much Vader in him.” With that in mind, I couldn’t care less about Han’s attempts to bring Kylo back in the following scene, because even his own father has written him off as a lost cause. So why the hell should I believe that Kylo and his parents had any kind of relationship or family bond worth exploring? The film didn’t bother to explore it, it shows no evidence of even existing…I have no idea how the Solo family even functioned prior to this movie! Why should I care about a redemption scene between father and son, when I don’t even know what their relationship is in the first place?! And before ANYONE tries to caterwaul about “there being no bond between Vader and Luke prior to their redemption arc”, let me remind people that Luke grew up without Vader as a father—that was one of the reasons the Paternal Reveal worked in ESB. Vader has been a completely missing aspect of Luke’s life, hence why Luke is invested in Vader’s redemption, thus leading US to be invested in his redemption. Kylo Ren isn’t some long-lost, inexplicable bastard child of Han and Leia…they RAISED him. They’ve literally known him from childbirth—there was a bond there that Luke and Vader didn’t have, a factor that COMPLETELY separated the Solo Family Drama (if you can say that phrase with a straight face) from the Family Drama in the OT. The context of Han and Kylo’s confrontation is COMPLETELY different from Luke and Vader’s in the OT, and instead of homing in on this exclusive factor, TFA barely even elaborates on this and therefore removes any and all potential investment in the family scenes. I don’t care that Han died by Kylo’s hand, or that he failed to turn his son back, because the film has given me absolutely no reason to. If you’re going to make this conflict between Kylo Ren and his father the emotional crutch of the entire scene, try putting some emotional weight in there besides a few measly lines uttered between Han and Leia a few scenes earlier. Otherwise, there’s NO REASON for me to care at all when Kylo turns Han into a lightsaber pin-cushion, when I have no clue as to what their emotional bond was in the FIRST place. Hell, for all the non-existent information the film provides us, I can completely assume through head-canon that Kylo has reserved murderous intent for Han since childhood, and just put on his puppy-dog eyes and quiver-lip sob routine just to get Han close enough to kill him. It’s not like the film itself tries to undo my head-canon by establishing any rigid family connections. And just like Han’s doll-like body tumbling off into the abyss, my investment in Kylo Ren as a character bounded off into oblivion. And do you know what baffles me the most? This scene is PRAISED almost universally by fans and critics as one of the most emotional scenes in the saga. WHY? Nothing in this scene was earned in the slightest! I don’t feel bad for Kylo, since his relationship with Han isn’t touched upon, so I have no idea how genuine his cringe-inducing monologue of “being torn apart and wanting to be free of this pain” really was. I have no pre-established connection between him and Han, and even Han hand-waved his son as a lost cause. WHERE was the emotional investment in this scene? It’s just one of many examples of the story furiously hammering us with the subtlety of Michael Bay on a cocaine binge that this scene is supposed to have dramatic and emotional weight for Kylo, when not even a single ounce of that narrative intent is backed with any tangible weight, build-up, established relationships or relevant information. It’s the story TELLING us that Kylo’s family relationship and Dark Side struggle is important, without actually showing or earning it. What a farce.

In addition, the elements of sympathy that Abrams and Johnson have tried to work into his character are laughable. I think a scene that perfectly illustrates this is in TLJ, where we’re introduced to Snoke, who takes this opportunity to mock Kylo Ren by calling him a “boy”, refers to his mask as “ridiculous”, expressing disappointment in his loss against “a girl without any training”, and proceeds to verbally rip him apart. We are then shown a private moment where Kylo, filled with conflict and exasperation, smashes his mask against a wall. It’s as if we’re meant to understand Kylo’s frustration, and feel like he’s some kind of oppressed pawn of a higher force. This is all ludicrous. Kylo CHOSE to go to the Dark Side, to blindly follow Snoke…why on Earth would we sympathize with him for suffering the consequences of a choice he made willingly? We don’t even know why Kylo Ren joined Snoke specifically, what he sees in Snoke, why he’s able to see him as a suitable alternative to Luke. We know Kylo’s reasons for turning to the Dark Side, but that tells us nothing about why he went to Snoke or why he was willing to join him. In the PT, we were explicitly shown the multiple factors directing Anakin to the Dark Side, a perfect storm of corruption that swayed him from the Jedi Order…but that would all mean nothing if the seductive, power-offering element Palpatine brought in ROTS wasn’t there, and why Palpatine was able to convince Anakin that the Jedi Order were corrupt and needed to be overthrown. Their relationship was established, it made sense….Kylo and Snoke’s isn’t. Their relationship is completely absent prior to TLJ, so we don’t have the slightest clue if the verbal abuse Kylo gets in TLJ is irregular or commonplace—because no RELATIONSHIP has been established between them yet. This is exactly the kind of underdeveloped ridiculousness that Kylo is lathered in; we’re simply TOLD that he’s some kind of tragic, sympathetic character in unfavorable circumstances, but there isn’t enough established on-screen to make us care.

Of course, I can’t talk about Kylo Ren without mentioning the weapons-grade amount of uber-edgy, fanfic-level nonsense they’ve tacked onto him. From his constant brooding for no believable reason, to his aforementioned authority complex with Snoke that’s based in absolutely no pre-established character relationship, the fact that Rey swung a lightsaber at his face, and—rather than slice his face open as a lightsaber should, although given Finn’s laugh-inducing lack of permanent injury from being lightsaber-sliced at the spine, I’m beginning to wonder if the lightsabers in the ST have all the destructive prowess and lethality of butterknives—and this instead creates this perfectly-placed scar on his face, to symbolize his damaged status as a neglected son, or whatever. And of course, we have to give the most cringe-inducing explanation for his cross-guard lightsaber, which has a cross-guard to service a pair of heat exhaust ports from the saber harnessing a cracked saber crystal, one that creates a burning and unstable lightsaber beam—it’s burning and unstable just like him. Jesus, could they possibly have made this anymore ham-fisted and blatant? This is the kind of try-hard nonsense you find on the tasteless bowels of Deviantart or Fanfiction.Net. The cross-guard lightsaber itself is very much symbolic of many ST elements: a visually-intriguing but superfluous waste of time. Remember how much hype the design of this thing generated back in 2015? Remember how nowhere in either TFA or TLJ, the practical use of this cross-guard design was almost never showcased or demonstrated? Seriously, there hasn’t been one instance outside of Kylo driving the prongs of the hilt into Finn’s shoulder that Kylo has ever demonstrated the worth of this lightsaber design. People don’t just remember Darth Maul’s double-bladed lightsaber because it had two blades—they remember it because of how effectively and tenaciously they showed that lightsaber in use. Kylo has done almost nothing of note with his lightsaber, outside of the hilariously-imbecilic move of stabbing the ground during his duel with the Praetorian Guards.

And then there’s his absolutely laughable list of reasons for why he turned to the Dark Side. I mean, really? A lack of attention by his parents? Is that really the twisted root of his newfound embracing of mass-murder and galactic conquest? I’ve seen Power Rangers villains with more meaningful backstories than that. I’m not even going to get into how ludicrous that is as a foundation for Snoke to manipulate him—for Christ’s sake, my parents also underwent a divorce, and as such were so busy that I didn’t spend a whole lot of time with them. And yet you don’t see me turning into some mass-murdering dictator with a mask, an edgy scar, and a baseless authority complex. Perhaps this would’ve made more sense if the story established some kind of mental need for attention, some insecure care complex that justified in rushing to the Dark Side out of parental neglect—but we have nothing of the sort. At least with Anakin, we know that his mother and his love of piloting were the only mental anchors for a harsh life of slavery. The loss of his mother made sense as a contributing psychological factor for his Dark Side descent, not just because it illuminated on his sense of powerlessness that would build into a greater snowball of poor decisions in ROTS, but also because it severed one of his strongest emotional connections since childhood. But with Kylo, his bizarre Parental Neglect Complex, aside from soiling Han and Leia’s roles as parents, just brings up a whole host of questions: if he hated his parents’ neglect of him, why does he let it rule so much of his life? Why does he feel killing them will be the solution to his problem? Why does he have more of an emotional connection to Leia to the point where he’ll refrain from killing her? Isn’t she the one who was so prioritized her Governmental responsibilities and left him alone, before sending him off to train with Luke? Even if you look at this conflict from Kylo Ren’s perspective, it doesn’t make a lick of sense or present even a fraction of consistency. And for the record, this perspective does nothing but make me hate him even more. There’s such a repulsive sense of entitlement in someone to believe that Leia, despite having the crucial and diplomatic duty of repairing the damage of over two decades’ worth of civil war to the galaxy, is somehow bound to stay at home and prioritize him instead. And this attitude isn’t something minor, like a child’s underdeveloped perspective—he harbors this resentment to his parents as late into his 20’s, and it’s a strong enough resentment for Snoke to feed upon. It’s a major aspect of why he turned to the Dark Side, and honestly, it’s one of the stupidest motivations for any Dark Sider I’ve ever beheld, canon or EU.

But then it gets better when TLJ fails even more to paint him in a tragic light by introducing this whole nonsense with Luke trying to kill him in his sleep. For one, why would this convince him to kill EVERY OTHER SLEEPING JEDI STUDENT in the same Academy? Why would he senselessly slaughter every child and presumed adolescent in Luke’s Academy for something Luke did? Are we to believe that a 23-year-old man is so mortified and traumatized by some old fart trying to kill him, that he goes into such a PTSD-ridden state of shock that he murders everyone around him? What is the basis for any of this? Where did that massive level of trauma come from, and what sense does it make for him to do this at this age? Anakin was the same age in ROTS—and by this time, he had endured a childhood of slavery, the murder and torture of his mother, physical and emotional pain, and years of bone-crushing warfare during the Clone Wars—and yet you don’t see HIM igniting his lightsaber upon seeing his nightmare of Padme dying, killing Padme next to him or proceeding to kill everyone in the same building. He and Kylo are the same age and both Padawans, and despite this, even Anakin isn’t the emotional wreck that the story would have us believe Kylo at the exact same age during he TLJ flashback, in spite of having a pampered albeit solitary upbringing via Han and Leia. NOTHING about this makes sense, and it only serves to tarnish Luke’s character and destroy the prospect of a Jedi Order in favor of trying and FAILING to make us more sympathetic to Kylo Ren.

Beyond all I’ve mentioned, this is probably the aspect of Kylo Ren’s character that infuriates and disgusts me the most: the soiling of other characters, the dismantling of logic, and the narrative gymnastics the writing will go through to paint this cringe-inducing, insufferable cretin in a sympathetic light. It’s like watching a museum curator dismantle and destroy The Mona Lisa, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and Napoleon’s Coronation, along with tearing down and rearranging an entire art gallery to make way for some ugly, poorly-drawn finger-painting. So much of the ST’s characters, story, continuity and logic has suffered to facilitate this alarmingly-poor attempt to create a sympathetic, tragic character in Kylo Ren: he’s a literal black hole. Any time he is inserted into a scene, or part of a plot-point, the writing suffers directly because of his inclusion. And the harder the writers scream in our faces about how we’re supposed to feel about Kylo without actually facilitating that response through good writing and proper development, the more forced it all becomes.

And that’s why I hate Kylo Ren above all other aspects of the ST. No other character or element misses their intended purpose more or taints the themes and legitimacy of the saga more than he does. He’s just a perfect example of all the ST’s problems—he’s painfully underdeveloped, he has mountains of wasted potential, and he’s shoved so far into the drama without warranting any of it. And I wouldn’t have such a massive problem with him if he wasn’t such a massive part of this trilogy. He is the biggest marketing tool next to BB-8. He is showcased as the next great Star Wars villain of our generation. He’s pushed as the catalyst of this new trilogy’s family drama. He’s not some minor problem I can ignore, not a side-character like Jar Jar Binks, Rose Tico, or L3-37…he is a CORE tumor on the face of Star Wars, one that is continuously made worse by poor writing decisions, and one that Lucasfilm is frantically trying to rearrange as a thing of beauty with the worst surgical methods and tools imaginable: “Oh, see? You’re supposed to feel conflict, because…er…his parents didn’t pay enough attention to him, and, um….A DROID! A droid tried to kill him as a kid, and…he’s TRAGIC, because Luke tried to kill him, and Snoke is mean to him, and…there’s good in him because Han and Leia say so, and…um….LOOK! He’s touching hands with Rey! Don’t you want to see him redeemed now?” Every decision with Kylo is a wellspring of bad decisions that only continue to make him the most insufferable part of the ST, and the most cancerous part of Star Wars at large. Jar Jar Binks was annoying, but Jar Jar didn’t have 3 movies worth of familial drama riding on the legitimacy of his character…Kylo does, and failing makes him worse.

This is all, of course, enhanced by the issue of Adam Driver. While I’m sure he’s a fine actor in other roles, as stated in the Unpopular Opinions Thread, I think he’s arguably the most miscast actor in Star Wars yet. He’s not intimidating, his presence on-screen makes me more uncomfortable than enamored by his performance, and that’s not even getting into his worst quality: his voice and overacting. Hayden Christiansen, despite my liking of his portrayal of Anakin, was rightfully criticized for underacting most of his lines…something I would largely attribute to the script he was given, and the directing he was under. Adam Driver has the opposite problem: he overacts and shouts so many of his lines to the point of ear-splitting annoyance. He projects in such an irritating fashion, clearly under the same delusion Colin Farell was during his acting in Alexander that constantly shouting automatically equivocates to good acting. And Kylo’s character of constantly losing his temper and shrieking like a punctured balloon at the merest sight of opposition or bad news makes this a constant problem for me. I’m aware a lot of people like his performance, and I honestly can’t express enough how much I envy those people. I just wish I could enjoy it as much as they do.

So, Kylo’s actor isn’t to my liking. His arc is atrocious to me. He takes up a massive chunk of screentime, and unlike the other villains in Star Wars, the more we learn about him makes him less interesting, not more. But what could possibly be worse than the character? What could possibly be more off-putting and repulsive than the character himself?

I’ll tell you what: The defense from all of his fans in the Star Wars community, who wave his lack of development, believable motives, non-existent warranting for emotional investment, and laughable origins with the claim that all of this is simply temporary, that: “Kylo Ren will be expanded upon”

To that, I simply ask: WHAT IS THERE TO EXPAND ON??!?!?!

Maul was a blank slate in TPM, a minor shadow of intimidation that served a function and then was killed off. He was expanded upon in TCW, molded into a vile, cunning, maddeningly-strategic chameleon through his escapades of the Clone Wars…literally made into a vastly more interesting character as a result. There was nothing to the character previously, and there was room to create character attributes that could be assigned to him without the fear of contradiction. Darth Vader was someone built up throughout the trilogy as a force of insurmountable cruelty and manipulation, and the revelation of his origin as a Skywalker in ESB and ROTJ was an interesting enough premise to create a showcase of evolution for a character who already was interesting enough to warrant that kind of explanation. But Kylo Ren is, to me, an unlikeable whiner that any interesting or expansive revelations for would still not overwrite how remarkably obnoxious, easily-pushed, and lackluster of a villain he’s been so far…so any changes to his character would just come off as inconsistent with the tantrums and incompetence he’s shown on screen.

Moreover, Maul didn’t need supplementary material to repair his character, because his role was significantly scaled down. Kylo Ren, at every desperate turn made by the righters, has been the central antagonistic force of the ST. The tension and stakes of a duel rested on Darth Maul’s menacing presence in TPM, but the tension and stakes of an entire trilogy rest on the intimidation factor of Kylo Ren…or lack thereof. Unlike Maul, the adding of tension weight, and investment to the Kylo Ren’s character isn’t optional…it’s required for there to be any stakes in the film. The entire Force-related conflict of these movies, every duel he’s involved in, every monologue that tumbles out of his mouth is solely predicated on our ability to invest in him as the villain, to find him a sinister threat that dogs our protagonists’ every move, to be the living wellspring of danger that yawns before them should they fail in their objective…and Kylo is absolutely none of those things.

And for those things that are SO CRUCIAL to be promised in later films after this trilogy or through supplementary material, is something that I as a gaming enthusiast like to call “cinematic DLC.” In gaming, there’s sometimes a horrible practice of a game being released in poor or laughably unfinished state, and updates are released afterwards to basically fix the original product and make it somewhat playable. Now, some of my fellow gamers would likely correct me by stating that a better equivalent for this practice wouldn’t be DLC, but patches. Here’s the difference—the “fixing” that Lucasfilm would be doing to repair the damage done to the already-existing movies, the later revelations or desperate re-working of Kylo’s character that would be done as a laughable gesture equivalent to someone saying: “LOOK! Here’s revelation or plot development A, B, and C to make that hugely-empty and barebones collection of drama-less scenes in TFA and TLJ make sense! It’s all better now!”…all of that? That won’t be free, like patch updates done for games. That will cost money. YOUR money.

With this annual movie business model, and reliance on supplementary material that’s already been demonstrated by their poor world-building in the films, Lucasfilm—by engaging in this tactic of relegating all necessary and crucial character details to later films—would be happily scooping the money you paid to see Episode 16: Kylo’s Long-Awaited Development. This is a HORRIBLE approach to storytelling. It’s asking us as consumers to pay money to endure some incredibly threadbare scenes that the film wants us to think is dramatic and hair-raising, and then asking us to pay money 2 years later to watch another movie and find out why we should find that scene dramatic and hair-raising.

And by waving away important plot details or character-building, ones that should’ve been apart of the original film product IN THE FIRST PLACE, with the phrase “Oh, it’s fine…they’ll reveal it in a later movie” apologists for these movies are encouraging this kind of practice.

You may want that in your storytelling. But I don’t. I don’t want the promise of well-written character aspects or layers of intrigue, I want them in the film I paid for.

Darth Vader was a cake with several layers that became more wholly satisfying the deeper I dug in. Kylo Ren is the equivalent of a cake recipe that has one, unsatisfactory ingredient of his character contained in each film he shows up in, until you realize that you should’ve just been eating all these ingredients as a complete dish from the beginning.

You’re just eating raw ingredients like egg, flour, and milk separately, which taste disgusting when eaten separately. These things really ought to have been cooked together, and just come off as growing signs that there really wasn’t a recipe to any of this to begin with.

And while you recoil in disgust at what you’re eating, people around you keep shouting: “Stop whining and be patient! The next time, we’ll get sugar…and the next time, we’ll get icing! You just have to wait!”

And to that, I don’t express any vitriolic hatred, any vulgarity, any hatred to the actors or the writers involved. I simply spit out the affront to human taste buds that I have just consumed, stand up, and simply say:

“No thank you.”

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...but-not-halting-star-wars-development-1122655

They should also more closely evaluate the performance of TLJ post-opening as it's related to that reaction, and here I've started to help them.

 

It wasn't a false analogy, it was an example of a situation where I would understand people criticizing the movie for scientific inaccuracy. I thoroughly enjoyed TFA but there was one scene, the destruction of Hosnian Prime, which I was very critical of. It wasn't the notion of a hyperspace weapon that irritated me so, it was the way everyone on Takodona saw it in real time spread out across the sky. It was extremely confusing and misleading, albeit not the movie we are discussing here. So I can understand criticism of a movie for not following its own rules.

I've already answered this question. What part of "...and the people who disliked the movie are sincere in their criticism" did you not understand?

OK

I don't care whether you blanket that contrapositive over to the haters, but I don't think it would make sense to do so. Rest assured that it is precisely because of my love for Star Wars that I disliked E8 so strongly. Anyone who took my criticism of E8 as meaning I hate Star Wars as a whole would be demonstrating ignorance of the highest order.

All you've done is taken criticism of the movie that you disagree with, and mistakenly labelled it "fabricated groupthink."

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 23, 2018 ---

Don't forget that you don't understand movies, you're engaging in mindless groupthink, you don't understand storytelling, you are racist, misogynist manbabies, etc, etc....

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2018 ---

I haven't been following this story so I have to confess I don't even understand what these people are trying to do. Are they trying to do a fan edit of TLJ? Not only has that already been done, but those tend to be weak.

They could raise all the money in the world, and they still wouldn't be allowed to produce a Star Wars movie or remake one in any way. There's this minor inconvenience called "intellectual property rights" that would get in the way..... I suppose they could do a fan film to some limited extent, but even those can be tricky as our Star Trek Abraxas friends discovered.....

 

"A subjective conclusion isn't fabricated. For example, if a person doesn't like hard rock music, they may state their reason for dislike as "It is too loud" "It is too fast" and these are genuine subjective, feelings/reasons. But to apply that subjective feeling to an objective measure of criticism is fabricated criticism. The music is not "bad" or "poorly written" nor the musicians "wrong" or "poor musicians"; the "critic" has fabricated an objective measure which is not a genuine criticism of the music.

A subjective conclusion masquerading as an objective conclusion is a fabrication by its very nature. "I didn't like the music because time signature changes in music create a pacing imbalance" is a fabricated criticism. All of the criticisms in my original post are fabricated. And since you have removed subjective "feelings" from the category of "criticism", all criticism of TLJ is fabricated except the below." @metadude

I like this example, and here's why.

TLJ isn't all of hard rock, it's one band that describes itself as a hard rock band. To veer away from your hard rock analogy, TLJ isn't all of sci-fi/sci fantasy, it's one movie piggy backing on the SW brand. Back to your hard rock analogy, TLJ and even the ST could be considered a rock band that lost it's lead singer (GL), and has introduced new young talent to accompany the old, to keep the band together. The drummer is replaced (Harrison Ford), then the former back up singer (Mark Hamil) takes a step back and is asked to perform in a way that puts the new "talent" front and center. So they essentially started to retire the old and expect the new to be accepted. Now they still may be talented in their own right, but are they really still that same band? Even if I happen to like hard rock, do I like all hard rock equally? No, I have some bands that I prefer over others. Style, perception, sound among other things is what attracts their fans. If that changes substantially, do I still think that band is the same band?

If Justin Timerlake takes over from James Hetfield for Mettalica, then Taylor Swift takes over for Kirk Hammet then Ben Sesar takes over for Lars Ulrich ect... the replacements could be talented, but it doesn't mean that their skills will compliment each other. Maybe their visions, their egos or any number of issues make their music less than noteworthy. I'm sure they're probably talented enough at they can create a far superior facsimile of Metallica than an untalented dope like I can, but it doesn't mean they're now Metallica, at least in anything other than name and having have bought the rights to call themselves that. The style is different, the sound is different, and they may not even become all that popular. They may indeed lose popularity, as people who go to the concert expect something far different than is displayed, and people could and probably very well would reject them as Metallica. Actually, they may very well fail more due to their taking that name and making that claim more than anything else.

That doesn't mean that everyone who dislikes this new Metallica is involved in fabrication or group think. We've heard the music, and we've decided it isn't for us, it doesn't sound the same, doesn't make us feel the same way. The lyrics could be similar, have a similar message, they may make a decent approximation to the sound on certain instruments. They may be able to get some parts right, or very close, to what the original did. But the overall product could be lacking. At least some of the preferred parts of a certain group of fans could find the new Metalicca inferior. Taylor Swift just can't properly replace Hammet, Timerlake's voice just doesn't have the right sound, ect. Combined, they are too different in persona to give the same feel of the originals. They're all talented musically, just not in the same genre, and they may lack some of the chemistry and vision.

So yeah, the pacing could be different, and it may not even be the fault of the musicians, but of the producers ect. Musicians don't always have free reign to make or create what they want, they have to make something that someone else believes will be popular much of the time. At least until they've established themselves and have been accepted.

I think this analogy is pretty bang on. This is a new group heading LFL and new actors being brought in to essentially replace the old. They took a chance and risks with TLJ with the characterization and in the story, much like Garth Brooks took a chance with his alternate persona in the late 90s with Chris Gaines by switching genres. As talented as Garth Brooks was in his genre, he couldn't make that leap with any real success. I'm sure some people enjoyed his work as Chris Gaines, there's no accounting for taste, but he abandoned that course because it simply wasn't as lucrative as his country persona.

None of this means that those who liked Chris Gaines were wrong, or those who like the NEW Metallica are wrong, but it's (or would be) definitely different from the original. Just because it's not to some people's taste, does not mean they are fabricating their criticism. Or taking part in group think. For some of the fans, there's something really off about this new direction, and trying to invalidate that is only going to cause greater discord. When you're trying to reason it by belittling or guessing at people's motivations, it's guaranteed failure, because the reasons are many, and most are valid, at least from their point of view.

 

The conversation makes no mention of Hux, only Kylo and where his story is going and the intentions by the director's script.
I don't care about Hux because he's a satellite by this point.