THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

And when you grew up with Luke as a child, he's like a friend of yours. He was a loyal good hero for the most of us speaking as an alignment.

And if you don't like to see an old friend being bullied during 2 hours, it doesn't make you toxic or a grumpy frigid bad fellow.

Absolutely not. He just makes you loyal to what you grew with.

 

"He would bring destruction, pain, death, and the end of everything I love because of what he will become."

Should RJ have hung a bigger lantern on that bit? Yeah, probably. But it's there.

 

The woman you're talking about is a freelance writer who has written for the Star Wars website. She's not an employee at Lucasfilm. My comment is in regards to Lucasfilm employees. JJ, KK, and RJ statements have been crystal clear.

I get the sense some may have needed more exposition that what they got from RJ. The move was already pretty long. I don't think it's necessary to repeat things over and over, but maybe it would have help for some people.

 

I have a better question.

Why do you care what kind of hyperbole or emotional venting I project on a thread that's literally titled: "THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE"? I'm a new user here, and have only just made an account, due to me being wary of engaging in any online discussions regarding Star Wars for the last ten years (which I chose to avoid, purely because I'm a fan of the Prequel Trilogy, and anyone who's had internet access for the past decade knows full well how regularly and frequently anyone with that opinion was ridiculed, at least prior to the ST coming out and significantly lowering the bar for quality). I didn't post here back in December of 2017 because I didn't have an account then. Now that I do, I planned on detailing my complete thoughts regarding this film, which I have every right to....just as any new user who loved the new movies can make an account simply to gush about the new films.

Disregarding the issue of timing, why am I writing my kind of rants about a film I hate? Because I'm quite passionate about Star Wars, and I feel that much of the misdirection and poor storytelling found in the ST is not only a degradation of the saga, but creating problems in the rest of the current canon as well. I was never some casual fan whose enjoyment of the franchise was relegated to giving one of the movies a watch every so often, and leaving my investment there: My love for the franchise extended to novels, comics, video games, encyclopedias, reference books, and other such things....all of which has taken a downward spiral of quality, due to poor handling of the brand and, the most egregious contributor, absolutely abysmal handling of the films.

When one of my favorite hobbies, that has given me years of joy and inspiration, is being soiled before my very eyes, you can bet that I will rage about it on hobbyist forums like these.

And I'm not going anywhere.

You're joking, right? The most recent thread on the PT thread page, which is visible from the PT Category for anyone who so much as clicks the homepage for this entire site, is titled: "Boy, does TPM Stink."

Please try a little harder if you're going to feign ignorance.

Among the many mental gymnastics people will leap through to defend the writing choices in the ST, one favorite tactic I've noticed is ^this exact one right here: completely ignoring and altering the context of the previous films to better suit their argument.

To me, it just screeches even louder how the only people who could possibly enjoy these new films are the ones who paid the least amount of attention to the OT, and are grasping at the most basic of similarities to justify their liking of the ST. No matter how easily disprovable those comparisons are.​

For what it's worth, I share this opinion tremendously. AOTC and ROTS are in my Top 3 favorite Star Wars films.

The ST appears to be undergoing an similar shift of quality, but I don't think it's upwards.

This is an assumption that far too many people make. As if people's ability to like a film as abysmal as TLJ rests at all on one's age or generational gap.

Hold fast to your chair as a regale you with this exciting fact about myself: I'm actually a young adult. I wasn't around when the OT came out, and was only in middle school when Revenge of the Sith made its debut. And when all of my friends completely disregarded Star Wars in the decade-long dormancy it took from the big screen (lukewarm TCW film aside) I was the only one I knew still clinging to my love of Star Wars. None of my friends thought it was cool anymore, because it was no longer relevant. But for me, it never needed to be relevant or modern to be cool....it just needed to be a good story, with intriguing characters, and with plot-points and world-building that was original and ambitious. My standards haven't changed...and when I saw the new tripe that Lucasfilm had done following the Disney purchase, with these vapid new characters and the uninspired, creatively-bankrupt recycling of past film elements and conflict, I was sickened to the point of contempt.

You don't have to be a veteran fan from a past generation to recognize the atrocious writing and narrative mishandling in these movies. Believe me, I'm probably the youngest person on this thread, and I likely hate TLJ and the Sequel Travesty more than any of you. Age has absolutely nothing to do with it....it's just a matter of where your standards are, and how much you're willing to lower them to actually enjoy these filmic trash fires.

And I choose not to. Hence why I'm here.

 

I'm curious what drives people to write about things they hate. I hated Attack of the Clones. After watching it I shrugged it off. I didn't really start writing about Star Wars until TFA because I loved it so much.

As I mentioned I haven't read those threads because they don't interest me.

I know you mentioned that you were banned from another site... I love your passion, but less hostility will help from getting banned by forums. Relax, it's a film. Not everyone is going to agree. It seems like you would understand that since you've stated AOTC is one of your top 3 Star Wars films.

 

It'll never work. The budget is too small and they don't have any big names to head the effort. The only way a remake would have any chance, and it would face a backlash I have no doubt, is if Disney themselves decided to remake TLJ or the entire ST. That would be a hugely risky proposition, because it would be alienating all the fans who like and love it. Everyone who has been defending the movie up to this point would feel cheated, and there'd be a ton of "I told you so's" It would further divide the fan base. Those who loved it would hate the haters all the more for being the source to retconning what they love... those who hate the ST and TLJ would be smug (not all, but the more vocal ones would be). The only way I could see Disney going this route is if IX absolutely plummeted to Solo numbers or close to. Then I could see Disney taking a step back and trying to "fix" things as it would now be obvious that the lovers are the minority, not the haters. I'm not saying this is so, I'm saying this is the only scenario that we'd ever see a ST or TLJ remake.

What complicates everything is that Carrie's gone and Harrison Ford will likely never want to come back again. So any remake would be without at bare minimum 1 of the OT3, and likely 2,, and honeslty, quite possibly 3 as I wouldn't be surprised if Mark would pass on it. Which would mean recasting the big 3, which I don't see happening. But if it did, that would get a significant backlash, even from many fans who dislike TLJ and the ST. There's no good solution, as of now, all Disney could realistically do is make the best IX they can and hope the fans come back. Even if they don't, keep making movies away from the Skywalker Saga and hope they return to those.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 26, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 25, 2018 ---

I think there's a difference in the hate of the PT and the hate of TLJ and the ST.

The PT was often disliked because of the bad acting and Jar Jar (as well as mediocre at best special effects). The story and world building was good, the writing had weaknesses, especially the dialogue, but in other ways it was at least average to good. The humor was childish and often cringe worthy, but at the same time as fans we understood this was GL's baby and he was writing these stories for his kids, relevant to their age. So again, as much as we disliked, it was written by the creator of the series, so we tolerated.

The ST doesn't have GL at the helm, so fans feel more entitled to complain. That's the first point. Second, there is a trolling factor by RJ, real or perceived, it's there even if it might be misinterpreted. The PR machine has probably been the one biggest issue with the ST. It keeps egging on the fans who dislike the ST to come back. I never seen a movie months later still calling fans who disliked the movie names. Honestly, short of Ghostbusters, I don't recall any movie attacking it's fans. Yes, I understand they are attacking those toxic people who go overboard and harass people to the extent of feeling they have to leave social media. However, they never acknowledge us fans who dislike the ST and TLJ for legitimate reasons, they just keep on doubling down on the toxic minority. So since they pretty much ignore us fans who dislike TLJ for legitimate reasons, and keep on bringing up the toxic ones, as a fan who's in the "hater" group, it's pretty easy to misconstrue their message.

Probably the biggest reason though, is that TLJ failed many of us fans on so many levels. I've never left a movie angry. I've left movies disappointed a few time, underwhelmed, bored and maybe a little frustrated that I stayed through the whole thing and got not reward at the end. But those movies weren't a big series like SW, they were new material that I usually knew I was taking a chance on. With SW we expect a safe zone of quality, and for us TLJ didn't meet that standard. Now you can argue that the PT didn't too (and for me it didn't), but it didn't exactly spit in our faces either (midi's aside lol). I can't name you 20 things I hated about the PT, but I could about TLJ. I could name parts I hated and dissect those parts and into 5 or more parts within it that I hate or strongly dislike. In this way, RJ created something truly unique, something that some fans hate and hate in layers, while others love and love in layers. I don't expect people to stop voicing their hate for TLJ, ever, much like the prequels. It will slow down, but it will never go away, that's my prediction anyways.

 

Cool. AOTC came out 16 years ago...TLJ came out 6 months ago. I'm sure you can see why people would be more motivated to tackle an issue when it's reared its head so recently. And with people like me, who are passionate about Star Wars in all of its aspects---filmic and spin-off outings alike---it's hard not to be frustrated when the failings of the ST directly affect the rest of the current canon. This isn't just a hobby for some of us...it's a beloved pastime. And the ST aren't some one-off failures like the DCEU films, where you have on-going comics to use as refuge for alternative for good stories. The EU is discontinued, and the annual release model of the new films having a choke-hold on current canon outings essentially narrows my Star Wars consumption to the recently-released films and whatever throw-away novel they release.

That's why people like me will write novella-sized posts about why they hate these movies. Because it's a low-quality product in a brand that, according to Disney, is going to have entries on an annual basis. Star Wars is more relevant now than ever...and when a steaming pile like TLJ saunters in, reeking of shame and narrative incompetence, you can expect opposition and criticism.

I hope that clears it up.

As stated, one doesn't have to visit the actual threads to know things haven't changed. You can see the most recent topic from the Homepage on this site, as mentioned.

I wasn't banned from the site for hostile behavior, it was because many users were banned in mass following a technical problem with the site that the Admins misinterpreted as spam from the new users, such as myself. I've communicated with many people who have been banned there recently, who weren't even being hostile and have been veterans of the site for years, who were also banned for the same baffling reason.

Very good of you to leap to assumptions, though.

I don't expect everyone to agree. But I expect more tangible argument points and counters than "WHY U POST HATE IN THE HATE THREAD?".

That doesn't take the conversation anywhere. You didn't rebut a single point I made, challenge a single one of my arguments, or even address any of the points I raised in the passage you quoted. You literally waltzed in asking me why I was writing about my discontent in a thread designated for discontented fans.

You talk a great deal about having reasonable conversations with people, but you don't seem to have any intent of starting one.

 

I guess I haven't been clear enough... AOTC was terrible. I didn't discuss it online afterwards. It was such a terrible film that I simply quit caring. I watched RotS and that was it. I didn't even bother with the cartoons until much later.

You are free to write about what you hate. I'm free to ask you a question. You are free to ignore it if you wish.

I asked a question and you responded with the claim that I was "feigning ignorance." That's neither friendly or reasonable. Anyway, I won't drive this further off topic. Welcome to the forum. It's a shame you hate TLJ so much, but there's no accounting for taste. After-all, you like what is generally considered the worst Star Wars film of all time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 26, 2018, Original Post Date: Jun 26, 2018 ---

Huh? This is just silly internet nonsense.

I'm not waiting for Guillermo del Toro to address my problems with The Shape of Water or Jonathan Nolan to address my issues with the terrible finale of Westworld. I could understand Rian Johnson having to address widespread criticisms to the film if bomb or was panned by critics... but it didn't bomb and most people liked it. Plus, if you look at most of RJ's tweets most of the "criticism" is unhinged.

I'm sorry you felt that way. I wish you and many others felt differently. However, many more people loved it. JJ was successful making a rehash film that didn't have to touch on any of the big questions. He punted it to RJ for that very reason. I'm not sure there's a story that could have been told that would have made everyone happy.

My prediction is these people will either like Episode IX and finally let go or they'll hate this trilogy forever.

 

I doubt it, given this thread is still going strong, I doubt they'll be able to let go. The movie has been out for 7 months.

 

I'm assuming that I'm included with "these people?" I don't hate the whole trilogy because I haven't seen the complete trilogy yet. I very much enjoyed TFA. If I see Ep. IX and I end up liking it, then (and I'm sorry to break this to you) I will still despise TLJ, but not hate the whole trilogy. I can easily go through life ignoring the middle part of this trilogy, which some people will think is crazy but I can deal with that.

I think it's time you admit that you like our company and enjoy hanging out here with us.

 

Or they're people just stating their opinion.
How can you claim to know what's in people's minds?
How can you be so sure of the motivations and intentions of everyone who makes this criticism?

I agree that most of the film criticisms in your OP are problematic.
What I disagree with is:

• your claims you can accurately infer whether people are genuine or sincere based on their criticism alone.

• your claims that those who make a particular criticism are just copying other people.

In particular these claims:

Why?
Because I had dislikes about aspects of the TLJ that were shared by many others around the world.

• I didn't go into the movie with a predisposition to dislike it.
• I hadn't seen any trailers or TV spots.
  
• I saw it before US audiences and wasn't exposed to any info or feedback from others before forming my opinions.

Many of my dislikes happen to dissolve with time, viewings, and further analysis but my criticisms were genuine.

I don't buy this conspiracy theory that these criticisms are from people "merely following trends" or the result of some "mass following".
Some may be but you'd need more information than the criticism itself to make an accurate judgment.
It all sounds a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc to me.

Most are just the opinions of people man.
If we're charitable and add “to me” or "in my mind" on to the end of all the objective criticisms they become valid.

Of course they may be incorrect and can depend on definitions but it's pretty brazen to claim they're following others or not genuine just because you think you can disprove them.

I'll address your second example then:

It's uncharitable to group everyone's use into a definition that suits your purposes then dismiss all the users as "following others".
Again it's not that black and white.
The term "Mary Sue" has had multiple definitions for decades and means different things to different people.

From tvtropes.org:

And from fanlore.org:

Some definitions contain reasonable descriptions of how fans might interpret the Rey character in the ST.

From wikipedia.org:

And from tvtropes.org:

I'm not presenting a case for Rey being a "Mary Sue" here.
It's not my personal belief and there's another thread for that discussion.
My point is that it is a very general term.

Someone at tvtropes.org made the case that:

How these ways are interpreted as "inappropriate" is another subjective reading that depends on the viewer.

At the end of the day there's plenty of evidence it's use may be legitimate, may fit the material, and there are more plausible explanations for people using it than just "following others" and "name-dropping".

Edit: grammar/links

ETA:
I enjoyed your post by the way and thanks for clearing up some of my misconceptions about what you were saying.
Upon re-reading this post it sounded a little harsh.
The hate in the thread title refers to the subject matters and not posters
I hope you take this as a retort to the odd funky-sounding claim and not the person making them!

 

Good for you. Clearly your mileage as far as Star Wars films go differs drastically than mine. AOTC was also released in a very different climate than the kind we have now, what with movies being sloppily thrown out on an annual basis with a wealth of backstage production problems, a lack of planning, and blatant reliance on elements from past films.

We don't live in the era of the PT, where films came out every three years, and allowed criticisms could circulate in that time-span. Star Wars movies are coming out a lot faster, with less planning and care, and the problems they present are far more immediate.

I also watched and read most Star Wars products on release back in the day. But very few of them were as bad as TLJ to warrant me actually making an account to express my opinion on the matter.

That isn't how this conversation started, and you know it. You quoted a segment of a post I made to someone else, inquiring as to why I would express discontent on a thread literally existing for fans to express their discontent. I answered your question, and then you attempted to make an extremely poor equivalency between this thread and the dozens made to bash the Prequels...before then acting like they didn't even exist.

Now, I know I'm relatively new on this board, but I suspect you've been here longer than I have. And I don't think you're a stranger to the online perception about the Prequel Films. Trying to condescend to me that other fans have "moved on from the PT" and that people like me are "still complaining about TLJ in spite of seven months passing by" is not only drastically mischaracterizing the situation, but being disingenuous. Especially when, on the homepage of this site, the most recent PT Thread is a blaringly-visible thread bemoaning The Phantom Menace. So excuse me if I don't believe that you're completely oblivious to the continuing resentment of the PT around here, especially when you clearly have been posting here a lot longer than I have.

Instead of posing that question here on unrelated thread, my recommendation would be to visit those threads yourself, regardless of your interest in them. You said you're curious as to why people continue to post on things they hate? Maybe start there.

You weren't being constructive, or lending any credible argument in your response to a post I made that wasn't even directed at you. You're not in a place to lecture me on being reasonable or friendly.

Oh, now my taste is being put into question, is it? Thanks.

And by what metric is AOTC considered the worst Star Wars film of all time? Rotten Tomatoes? Because you'll find that film relevant to this thread's discussion is sitting far lower...in fact, the lowest by common consensus, for any other Star Wars film.

I don't think people will have time to reserve hatred for the ST with how rapidly and exhaustively Lucasfilm is pumping out films. Especially when, if recent interviews are indicative whatsoever, the writers have no reason to believe they have to improve or fix anything TLJ did.[/QUOTE]

 

I'm not questioning your taste. Thanks for further clarifying your remarks.

Maybe I should go to the prequel threads.

 

Okay, I give your post a like just for the reverse of that gif. You've earned it.

It's the same way I can tell that a person who's saying "Fifi is a canine" is being objective without having to actually read his mind. By using a term, that has specific objective criteria by which to understand the jargon, it's an objective use. Someone saying "Rey is a Mary Sue" is using an objective terminology. They are saying "Rey objectively meets the criteria by which to objectively categorize the character accoring to the criteria of this term being employed as a category of character."

So that is how I know it is not "their opinion" because they are employing terminology that is mutually exclusive from "opinion" the same as the person saying "Fifi is a canine" is not just, sharing their opinion. I'll get into how I know their motivations and intentions below (name-dropping to create the appearence of sincerity and objectivity/engaging in a group dynamic), when you bring the meaning of the term "Mary Sue" into question.

When the criticism should not exist at all, but does exist - not only exists, but is being used by multiple people, I know they are all copying one another. By way of analogy, if we are listening to songs, in various keys major and minor, and we come to the eighth song and suddenly we start hearing "This is a bad song because songs written in a minor key are poor songs" and agreement begins "Yes, I agree, it is poor because of the minor key" and I know for fact no one has made this criticism prior to this, even though minor key has been routinely present in the music prior, then I know that "Poor because of minor key" has been fabricated to create a following by way of group dynamic in order to undermine the eighth song for, whatever reasons that may be, but "because minor key" isn't genuinely one of them. If it were, the criticism would have already been made the first time we heard a song in a minor key.

Again, I am not saying every single person went in with a predisposition not to like the movie, but can be "primed" by other factors. Example, a person went in to the movie with expectations. Let's say they expected their favored theory to be true. When that did not happen, they disliked the movie. So they did not, go in to the movie saying "I'm going to dislike this" but they went it with the dynamic running in their mind (even if unconsciously) "I am going to dislike this if my expectation are not met" - so now, looking back in hindsight, we can say they went in "predispositioned" with dislike knowing now their expectations were not met.

Another example would be dynamic of the audience itself. They may have went in intended to be unbiased, and the mood of the audience undermined their enjoyment of the film, causing a group dynamic of dislike. This isn't uncommon.

Another example would be a person with a predisposition to criticize a movie in an biased manner, such as a person who may criticize a movie for scientific inaccuracies, seeing these in a film and immediately scoffing and leveling the criticism. Anyone watching Star Wars should already know not to expect scientific accuracy, so the criticism is not genuine, not valid, not legitimate, a criticize based on an inappropriate standard.

None of these people went in to the theater expecting to dislike the movie, but the group dynamic "prediposition" was silently running in the background, to emerge.

But then there are of course the ones who did in fact go in with pre-packages hate for specific pre-packaged reasons. Such as, SATOG MINORYL. (too many girls; like for anyone who gets the film quasi-reference)

More on this below with "Mary Sue" example. I could go through the entire list in the OP and show reasoning how I come to the conclusion.

If a person says "Didi is a canine to me" when Didi is in fact a feline, does it make the statement, valid? It doesn't. It just shows the person (mis)using the objective term is objectively wrong. If a character fails to do a specific stated purpose (such as, turn Kylo Ren to the light side) and a person says "Rey didn't fail, to me" the person is objectively wrong. Trying to claim "It's just my opinion that a narrative fact didn't happen" is ridiculous. If a person said, "Luke Skywalker didn't succeed in blowing up the Death Star, to me" their "opinion" is not an opinion, it is an objective statement which is wrong, with the words "to me" tacked on to the end in a completely erroneous use of the english language. Language is able to facilitate absurdity, but it doesn't make the absuridty "valid" just because language can facilitate absurdity. If it can, then show me a valid five-sided triangle.

It's not just about disporving something, it's about why I'm having to disprove something to begin with. If I'm having to disprove your critical claims, something is not right from the starting process. Something is causing this fabrication to occur.

I seriously doubt you'll ever find a person more charitable than me. I bend over backward to give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. And I really don't like even being in these types of discussions. I don't like conflict. At all. If you want full transparency, the only reason I'm here, is because I don't like seeing people being intentionally hurt by others. Especially when they do not deserve it and the weaponry of the mob is fabricated waeponry. My very nature causes me to react, and the way I do that is the only way open to me: attempt to destroy the mob's ability to wage war. It's a huge beast, but like Smaug it has a fatal flaw, one perfectly fired arrow and it goes crashing into the waters, one perfectly timed proton torpedo, and the built-in flaw causes the reactor to blow. I's just a matter of finding and exploiting that weakness.

Like I said, it's not completely about Star Wars. I just happen to be on a Star Wars forum at this point in time. This is a problem spread throughout the entire system. I'm just moving around. Zigging and zagging. Looking at tha trench and waiting to make a run for it. Maybe in the end, I fire a shot and it just impacts on the surface. Then again, maybe it goes right down that exhaust port. Maybe it goes right into that soft spot with the missing scale.

I'm speaking by way of metaphor, of course. What I'm saying is, this is not really just about, Star Wars. It's not me trying to make people feel bad, that's not even remotely on my mind. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

I acknowledge that. I was using the term to convey the concept of "never fails" which is what is being attached to it by the critics I have routinely seen using the term. Rey does factually fail in her stated purposes in the film. Thus the jargon is false attribution. I know it is group dynamic, mimicing, because of the frequency I am hearing the term being incorrectly employed. By analogy, this is like one person saying "Didi is a canine" (Didi is factually not a canine) and then I hear others making the statement "Didi is a canine" until it becomes a vocal statement; one that is factually wrong. There is no way, outside of group dynamic/mimicing that this completely erroneous categorizing of Didi is occurring on such a widespread scale.

You go into the various definitions of Mary Sue attempting to illustrate that the term is very ambigious. This only makes the dynamic/mimicing even more transparent if we go that route. How do you explain a large group of people all using the same term to describe the same character, when the term has differing, ambiguous definitions? This is like a group of people hearing a song and saying, it's bad because it's "progressive music" and some of them mean "minor key" and some mean "changes tempo" and same mean "modal" and some mean "not melody/chorus structure" and some mean "syncopated bass line". There is no way all of these people are attributing the exact same categorical term to criticize a single song, while all of their definitions of that exact same categorical term wildy vary.

No, what is going on is that, some people fabricated the criticism "Mary Sue" then slowly other people started mimicing. Hypothesis is because people don't actually know what the term "Mary Sue" means, but when people hear someone using "technical jargon" it has the sound of authoritative objectivity to them, so the "bow to authority" not wanting to appear "stupid" for daring question the intellect of the jargon-speaking name-droppers. This is why you'll hear jargon strewn throughout critics "Ex Machina" "Tonal Imbalance" "Pacing Issues" "May Sue" it's all name-dropping jargon-usage in order to create the illusion of intellectual objectivity. When really, it's a charlatan's con-game.

Speaking of a Mary Sue. That name is all over Rey. Can you think of ever having heard that term used so prevelantly attached with any other character in the history of cinema? Prevelantly? Or is it seem that it is being invoked specifically at this one character? Is that anomalous? Is it a strange specificity?

Always.

 

But there isn't one clear objective criteria for this jargon (bar maybe the fact they are powerful) - "Mary Sue" is a polysemous and ambiguous term.
In the absence of a clear definition it would be charitable to attribute the criteria that bests suits the proponents of the criticism.
Maybe one of these definitions would suffice...

I've heard fans define a Mary Sue as "any powerful character who endures their challenges relatively consequence free".
Any of these would be seem a more charitable definition.

And who decides whether a criticism should exist?
You?

There are possibilities other than copying too.
Multiple people can arrive at the same conclusion (even specious ones) at the same time about the same subject without any collusion.
It happens all the time.

Fair enough. Maybe adding “to me” doesn't validate all of the objective criticisms!

Well bend further then!
Your examples were a bit strawmanish.

You do get a like for your honest and elaborate metaphor.
I don't like seeing people intentionally hurt by others either but at the moment it may seem a bit like you're firing into the crowd. (I know your post was invited here though.)
Those here who dislike the film can feel angry and disrespected as weaker arguments are constantly dragged out just to be ridiculed.
Criticisms directed at a small toxic minority can also be internalized by a general audience if they aren't framed carefully too.
Tread gently!

By logic.
It follows that a term with a larger set of definitions is utilized by a large group of people.

It's also likely that people have just learned a new word.
It articulates their difficulty accepting the less overt nature of Reys failures and have adopted it.
I did for a while.
It didn't make my feelings and interpretation insincere.

That's no coincidence or conspiracy.
The character exhibits a lot of the traits:

☑ Suffered a difficult or tragic past
☑ Strong
☑ Attractive
☑ Can communicate with all the characters
☑ Unique in many ways
☑ Exceptionally talented possessing a wide and varied skill set
☑ Few significant flaws
☑ Liked by the original characters including the antisocial and untrusting
☑ Rises to overcome many challenges with limited effort
☑ Escapes them relatively consequence free
☑ Saves everyone
​

Sometimes where there's smoke there's fire...



edit:grammar

 

I lurk sure because its entertainment. Seeing some of the ridiculousness of the hate posts in here... it boggles the mind.

 

If this is all true and KK and crew are on their way out, then I can't wait to hear the mass denial that will be spewed, probably in this thread. "She was just ready to retire. Everyone loved TLJ, there's only about 15 people who dislike it. Disney is perfectly fine with how things are going and love KK and Rian Johnson!!" This will be interesting...

 

They threw the possibility of an animation show post RoTJ era with the decisions they made because it's tough to imagine Luke as a jedi hero again after TLJ. It would barely make sense now that we know how it will end.

Unless they want to subvert expectations and make a show called : Don't sleep while I'm around !

 

Okay, first; I defined the term as I was applying it to the criticism in the OP. So your attempt to change the definition and begin introducing polysemous and ambiguous definitions; well, it doesn't work like that. You're not actually addressing what I'm saying, you're trying to redefine the term to create a new argument. So, irrelevant to my argument. Someone above did the same thing by trying to redfine the term "criticsim" to exclude "feelings" - it's not addressing my argument, it's trying to circumvent that argument and create a new one, not relevant to mine. But, as I said to that person, okay, redfine the term, new argument, no problem as long as it's made clear that this is irrelevant to my original example which was using a specific definition.

Okay the problem here is that you're apparently assuming I'm creating the definition by my own will, but I'm not. In my example, I was talking about people who themselves were defining their use of "Mary Sue" as "always succeeds/never fails". So for me to simply attach any definition I'd like to their use of the term would be, well, it would be an attempt to redefine the term in a way their argument was no defining the term, and producing an argument that is irrelevant to their argument.

Okay is that just a statement, or are you wanting me to evaluate it in the context of its use as a criticism?

Reason decides.

Maybe, but not specifically in context of the criticisms in the OP. No one group is arriving at the conclusion "Fifi is a dog" when Fifi is clearly a cat, at the same time about the same subject, without collusion/influence by group dynamic. Fifi is a cat. No group of people is looking at a cat and saying "It's a dog" without either voluntary intended collusion, involuntary group influence, or sheer lunacy at play. I'm being charitable, and saying, I don't think it's sheer lunacy at play.

I'm not firing into the crowd. I'm targeting specific criticisms which I've not only clearly defined, but repeated myself on several points many times over while at the same time creating analog "pictures" for people to look at in their mind. The only thing going on is people hastily jumping to conclusions and throwing themselves into the line of fire.

From the original post I've carefully framed everything I'm saying. It's abundantly clear to anyone with the power of reading. I've attempting to clarify time and again upon request. I've given everyone replying the opportunity to state what their criticisms are. No one has apparently felt it relevant to do so. I can then only conclude that the criticisms are already on this list.

Again, full transparency, I liked TLJ. Some things I didn't actively like. Some of the humor, I laughed. Some I didn't. Some I thought "I wouldn't myself have put that there" but whatever. I liked Rey's story. Poe I thought at least I could get into the character a little since he actually had a part, unlike TFA where he basically just shows up disappears then shows up again for the trench run. Here he at least had a story. Finn and Rose I was not that into. I didn't dislike it, but, let's say that when Rey was onscreen, I was leaning forward. I was laying back for most of the other stuff.

Canto scene was interesting to me but not particularly engaging, mainly because I wasn't into the characters. But you know, when that happens I just instinctly feel that, there is a group of people in this audience who are very much into these characters, and I'm more than happy to share Star Wars narrative time with them. It doesn't have to always be about me.

But when someone says "The Canto scene adds nothing to the story" they are saying "Adding one to two does not add anything to two": false. Information is always by addition. The scene adds to the story by its very existence. It also factually adds to Finn's character, moving him toward transformation from, running coward, to standing selfless hero.

I didn't like seeing Luke in a crisis. But I sure liked seeing him rise out of that crisis to become what he became. People call this "character assasination" but it's a trope used since the dawn of storytelling. The hero falls into crisis and must emerge. It happened to Rocky Balboa, it happened to Caramon Majere, and it happened to Luke Skywalker. "Character assasination" is just another name-dropping misuse of jargon. I didn't like seeing it but the deeper the depths, the higher the rise, and I did like the rise. It was to me as equally a satisfying narrative (perhaps moreso, we'll never know) than "Luke goes John Wick on the First Order's ass" though that would probably have been pretty cool, too. But I wouldn't have personally thought it any more 'inline' with the previous character of Luke than this one. The fact is, people saying "Not Luke Skywalker" but, it factually is Luke Skywalker. Look at the credits it says "Luke Skywalker".

That same logic would also dictate that the broader the set of definitions, the inverse proportionate to the term's application. Broader utilization; narrower specification. But that's not the case, is it? It's broader use has lost zero specificity.

Sure, Now they can use their new word to campaign against John Wick for being such a "Gary Stu", right? Hey can you point me to "John Wick is a Gary Stu" videos on youtube? How about a "John McClane is a Gary Stu"? Indiana Jones is a Gary Stu? Anything? Crickets? Point me to a "Rey is a Mary Sue" video/essay/forum post? Funny how the new term has such a specific use attached to a single specific character in a specific franchise, yes?

But that's not OT Luke, right? That's not John Wick. That's not, the Man With No Name? That's not the leader of the Seven Samurai? That's not Chris Pratt in every movie he's done. If we're being sincere, we could make that list a lot easy to create exact specificity by continually adding and narrowing the criteria until we got undeniable truth:

Is a girl.
Is named Rey.

And there you have it. A completely sincere list of criteria which pinpoint Rey as a classic Mary Sue by the very defintion of the term.

And sometimes when there's smoke...