THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

Hey, I think there's a few answers to why the jedi texts are books-

1. ( which you already mentioned.) I'm pretty sure they are supposed to be from a time when Holocrons didn't exist, before all the sci-fi tec was about. This is nonsesnse logically as that would mean the books were thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years old. and books don't last that long especially if exposed to the air. so I think that is probably the design teams argument 'they were from a time before all the holocrons'. But to be honest theres just no way books would survive that long.

2. Another way this could work. and one I think would be a fine explanation: early monastic Christians from the Ireland/Celtic branch of Christianity used to live on remote islands (such as the one where TLJ was filmed) in solitude completely separated from all the comforts of life. they lived this spartan existence as a way of connecting more purely/closely with God, without the distractions of every day life. back then Hardship and simplicity = closeness with god. I'm probably simplifying this a little. but since the Ach-to temple is completely based on the beehive sheilings on skellig Micheal I do think that would legitimately explain the original reason of the Jedi order, and a window into their original core beliefs. That by writing a book, taking the time to do it and by not engaging with technology they could in some way become closer with the living force. This explanation works fine, so even in a universe filled with Holocrons the original Jedi would have chosen to write books, and it would be the 'choosing' part that was important. Choosing to be simple even when vast tec was within their reach.

3. and this is an outside the story reason but its probably the real reason for why it was books: it serves to make the Ach-to temple more aesthetically 'Original' than the PT holo-library. it makes the island seem magic/fantasy and ancient in a way that a holocron would not have (at least so far as short hand for non-hardcore fans of SW) if you're a casual fan going to the cinema the old tree and books are going to make you think 'oh, this stuff is old, older than anything else.'
So its just a visually aesthetic short hand for 'Very old Authentic Jedi lived here'. and I beleive RJ would have thought of it like that. this new Trilogy has that all over it though, aesthetics linking it to a Lord of the Rings type feeling. from Kylo Ren's lightsaber, Maz's castle, the wooden chest under Maz's castle. Knights of Ren. Y'know. Starwars always did have a pulpy link to fantasy via its laser swords and knights, so this Jedi texts as books thing is just an Aesthetic, more on the nose, exploration of that feeling. as I feel all of Ach-to was. and to be honest even though it makes no sense I still like it, it did to me, feel kinda magic.

 

That's pretty fascinating to me. You have so much hate for something I love, and for some reason it amuses me.

Of course I did, Kylo is my favorite SW character and you're a very engaging writer.

 

But why would a Jedi even consider doing that? Holocrons, by nature, exist to preserve hidden knowledge that could either be squandered or pawned off by non-Force Sensitive people like pirates or smugglers, or worse, accessed by their Sith rivals. They're vessels for the most precious and sacred of Jedi mysteries---hell, even Padawans WITHIN THE ORDER aren't allowed access to 99% of them. Why would Jedi of any era make their secrets more accessible to outsiders than the ones within their own order?

Unless these texts are from an era where Jedi didn't function in groups or have councils. But that's an explanation that film doesn't provide, and therefore not one valid to the discussion.

Sith can't access Jedi holocrons, by my recollection. Jedi Holocrons can only be opened by those affiliated with the Light Side of the Force, while Sith Holocrons can only be opened by those seeped within the Dark Side.

This is a major plot point in Rebels, since Ezra Bridger opens a Sith Holocron despite being a Jedi Padawan, which horrifies Kanan, since he's well aware that only a Dark-Sider can open it.

You mean like an Ossus member, or a Bendu, or a Nightsister?

Why would any of those groups be allowed access to heavily-guarded Jedi secrets?

See, I hear that excuse a lot...and the problem is that Holocrons aren't supposed to be futuristic by the standards of Star Wars technology. They're perceived by almost everyone to be archaic technology from a near-prehistoric age...tech that baffles archivists and repairers of the following generations. They're literally the Rosetta Stones of the Star Wars universe.

In the Expanded Universe, Holocrons weren't predated---the only thing transcribed on paper or scrolls were Jedi and Sith history, since that was considered valuable knowledge that anyone and everyone should have access to. Techniques, secrets, and the personal accounts of some Masters were preserved in specific Holocrons, information that would be considered dangerous if it fell in the wrong hands. Hence why Holocrons have existed as long as the Jedi or the Sith has.

There has been no other older alternative provided by any segment of the canon, and with TCW and Rebels continuing to highlight Holocrons as be-all end-all means of storing secrets within both the Sith and Jedi Orders, the presence of these books only continue to come off as a bizarre contradiction.

It's possible. But again, there's nothing in the film to support this.

Then Rian should've just stuck to Holocrons if the books weren't going to serve any other purpose or enlighten the audience on some era of the galaxy or Jedi that we've never seen before.

This is what the Story Group's job is supposed to be: to provide in-universe information to people in order to ensure there's some level of consistency in the world-building or in-universe lore. This isn't some remote or obscure Expanded Universe concept---this has been featured multiple times in two of the canon TV shows, one of which was made after the Disney buyout.

If the Story Group isn't working to help make the movies even match the in-universe consistency of Rebels, then what good are they? Why should I care about a canon that plays fast and loose with the lore just to service some stupid decision made by Rian Johnson?

Because let me tell you, his ideas shouldn't be the basis to alter things in the Star Wars universe. His ideas are the epitome of anti-sense.

It isn't his job to be knowledgeable 100% of the time. That's an unrealistic expectation to have. It's not unrealistic, however, to expect the Story Group to tap directors like Johnson on the shoulder and remind him that certain elements exist within the canon before he royally screws the continuity in the eye-socket.

Of course, I'd also like someone, anyone at Lucasfilm to remind directors that not everything stolen and recycled form the old films works in the context of the new films, but as of J.J. Abrams, that ship has officially sailed.

We are not alluded to or suggested that this is the case. We're barely given any information on this island or its contents at all, despite having such important relevance to the Jedi history and culture. The fact that fans like us have to project a Bifrost-sized rainbow bridge of head-cannon and theories to make even the smallest of connections says more about the poor world-building in these films than anything else. I've also detailed that, according to the logic present in both of the canon shows, the Holocrons being "too new" of technology to host such ancient knowledge makes no sense, given the Holocrons' status as being the oldest Jedi relics of knowledge in existence. They have a definitive reason for existing---the books do not.

The books being made of paper present more problems than being fragile or easily decayed: any sap, Force-sensitive or not, can open them. That basically means that if some Sith mastermind on the level of Darth Bane decided to waltz in and steal some Jedi Secrets, there would be absolutely nothing stopping him from propping open these books and absorbing the kind of knowledge that Jedi have spent centuries to keep out of Sith hands.

A flimsy spine shouldn't be the only obstacle to keep potential enemies' prying eyes out of sacred Jedi Secrets. That's blithering stupidity of the highest order, and I don't know why the Story Group let Rian get away with this.

Nice explanation, and very spiritual.

Except we have no reason to believe this is true within the film, or any existing canon. For one, if the preferred method of reaching enlightenment or deeper connection to the Force was believed to be through extensive writing and use of paper...why would the Jedi elite, wise and enlightened beyond imagination, even bother with Holocrons in the first place? If spirituality supersedes security (which would be the only mindset where this would work, btw), why do Yoda and the Prequel Jedi still use Holocrons? Why would both the Sith and the Jedi Order even make Holocrons their preferred method of storing secrets in the first place?

This principle would contradict with everything we've been shown so far about how the Sith and the Jedi operate. They aren't above using technology for anything. The fact that they have a Jedi Library lined with millions of Holobooks and storing an archive of Ancient Holocrons basically shoots that principle dead in the water.

This the only reason I can think of for why the books are there. And when the rules and lore of Star Wars start becoming compromised to service a casual audience, then there's no reason to commit to any rules or consistency to begin with. If they can't even align with the canon logic of the two shows, then there isn't any point in me taking it seriously. That opens up such a rotting precedent--they could basically have Yoda ride in on a hyperspace unicorn, as long as they'd think it would "make sense to the audience."

A goal, by the way, they essentially shattered by including Darth Maul in Solo: A Star Wars Story without so much of a word of explanation to how he's alive. Yeah, that's keeping your casual audience clued in on the consistency of your canon. Well done, LFL!

Trying to justify replacing the Holocrons with the books purely because it matches things like a fantasy aesthetic doesn't work for me. I like the Prequel Trilogy immensely for introducing a more medieval-esque aesthetic to Star Wars, but that trilogy didn't abandon basic in-universe rules just to ensure that aesthetic. You still had speeders. You still had starships. You still had blasters, armored troops, etc. None of the in-universe consistency or sensible choices were compromised, even if they looked more elegant and medieval then what would come later chronologically.

The Jedi Books don't make sense from a practical or in-universe perspective. That is the only thing that matters to me. I can't fault people for allowing plenty of things in this movie to slide, simply because of the "aesthetic benefits" they provide, but I don't share that view and never will. Aesthetics should never come at the cost of the story or the world-building.

As long as it amuses you. If nothing else, I hope more pro-Kylo fans see that post and get a good laugh out of it, at the very least. We don't always have to agree, and if we have a good time while we disagree, something good came out of that post.

I appreciate the compliment. I do hope you find the rest of my writings equally engaging, even if our opinions don't necessarily coincide.

 

It could be conceivable that Luke simply never found a Holocron and these books were the oldest information on Jedi that he could find. That would be consistent with Yoda's dismissal of them, as well as Luke not reading them (how does he really know what they contain?). Maybe they send Rey off in the wrong direction in her training. I agree it wasn't explained in the story and thus I'm writing a bit for RJ, but in this case, maybe that's a mystery box set up for JJ by RJ. Maybe it wasn't meant to be explained until EPIX. It is a new element within TLJ, so it doesn't have to be explained as soon as it's introduced.

I'm not sure, but I get the impression that you feel this series isn't planned (you're not alone, you're among mostly friends in this thread if that's the case). That this kind of a detail is lost due to it not being planned. I feel as you do in this, but I think on such details, especially new ones, we might be best to store that bit of information until the series is over. I'm not saying it can't be discussed, but at the same time give the creators leeway that we hope it is addressed in EPIX. For all we know, it might be a major plot point.

 

The movie was soooooooo gooooooood. My god, I could never imagine a better trajectory for Luke Skywalker. Rian deserves a trilogy for this gem alone.

 

Leave Luke alone. He's getting old and that milk is good for his bones, the man needs his calcium!

 

Even if Holocrons are old does it really need an explanation that a book would proceed a Holocron? This seems like a weird thing to be hung up on... whomever started the Jedi religion started with books. I assumed that Luke found this location and not even the Jedi Order before the fall knew about the exact location. I could be wrong thought, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I don't agree that I was using sweeping generalizations and assumptions in that quote. "These terms" was refering to objective use of jargon such as "Pacing Issues" "Tone Imbalance" "Ex Machina" "Mary Sue" etc. which are being misused, don't fit the material and are repeated like a mantra. I then have given my reasoning for the conclusion. If I just posted that statement that you quoted, and provided no support for the statement, then it would be sweeping generalization. If I did not specifically list the criticisms and my reasoning for why the criticism in fabricated, then it would be assumption.

When everyone I see using these terms, is using them incorrectly and/or in a manner that doesn't fit the material then it tells me about the sincerity of the statement. You cannot sincerely use technical jargon in an inappropriate way. You cannot sincerely use technical jargon if you don't know what the jargon actually means. A person cannot sincerely make the objective statement "This is an example of syzygy" if they do not know what the word "syzygy" means.

If a person says to you "This is an example of syzygy" and you ask "What does 'syzygy' mean?" and their reply is "I don't know" then the question "How are you claiming X is Y when you don't even know what Y is?" is reasonable and relevant.

It's not a sweeping generalization for me to say of such a person, "This person does not know the meaning of the term; but this person knows the word; this person has heard the word being employed and is now copying their source of hearing the word without actually understanding what they are saying; and their statement is not genuine" You can't have a genuine belief of the truth of a statement when you don't even know what the statement means.

If I say "This is an example of syzygy" and a person says "I agree" and I ask "What is 'syzygy'?" and the reply "I don't know the meaning of the word" then what would be your conclusion as to the sincerety of the agreement of the person?

I'm not assuming definitions of jargon, jargon exists for the purpose of circumventing definitions, so we can communicate more rapidly. They are the very definition in concise form. I don't have to assume the definition of "syzygy" anyone using the word is supposed to be meaning what I understand the word to mean. If I am assuming a definition of jargon, then it has ceased to be jargon.

What I mean is, if jargon is used, and we still have to ask "What do you mean by that jargon?" then the jargon no longer has meaning, and has lost its function as jargon. "Mary Sue" is perhaps one of those words that now how such little inherent meaning that it has no further function as its own jargon. If you say "Rey is a Mary Sue" then you clearly think there is a single objective definition for that term that requires no further explanation on your part, otherwise you wouldn't be employing the use of jargon. True? Because that is the purpose of jargon, to communicate an idea with brevity of containment in the jargon itself.

Now if I have to actually ask "What do you mean by 'Mary Sue'?" then the jargon has no function and so, why are you employing the jargon at all, knowing that it has no function and you're just going to have to explain in long form what you mean. You could have just skipped "rey is a Mary Sue" altogether, and cut out the useless middleman.

But that middleman is being employed.

A person can't sincerely employ a jargon while not knowing the meaning of the jargon
The person is employing the jargon incorrectly
The person doesn't know the meaning of the jargon
The person is not sincere in their use of the jargon

Problems with the sequence of reasoning in that?

A person can't sincerely employ a jargon that doesn't fit the criteria of the jargon
The person is employing a jargon that doesn't fit the criteria of the jargon
The person is not sincere in their use of the jargon

Problems?

I'm not dismissing others without allowing for the possiblity of them using different definitions. This isn't how it works. My arguments, my definitions. This is not me saying "No one else can have definitions that are different than mine" it is saying "This are my arguments, and here are the definitions I am employing in order to clarify the position" I am defining the terms of my argument so people know what I am arguing.

I am not only acknowledging that there is the possibility of the use of different definitions, I am encouraging others who are in disagreement to share their defintion should they feel it appropriate. I have in fact already acknowledged the introduction of two entirely new arguments from the person who wanted to change "feelings" from "criticism" to "not criticism", and you yourself just introduced a new definition.

I have no problem with this, but always want to emphasize that a change/introduction of new definitions are irrelevant to my argument and are introducing a new argument for evaluation.

Right they're so tired of having the same conversations that they jump into another conversation. Can you see how I would look at that and reject it. "They're so tired of talking about it that they started talking about it" "They're so tired of defending themselves that they try to defend themselves, except that they, don't"? You want me to say "Maybe" to those illogics? Okay. Maybe.

"I care about Star Wars" doesn't suddenly validate illogic.

Also I'd have to say, humor me by way of analogue again, but if we see a guy who is saying to a girl "You're a real disappointment. Why can't you be what I want you to be? I expect so much from you, and you failed to meet my expectations. I wanted an athlete but no, you had to be a floutist. Nobody like flutes. I can't stand you. Your jokes are so unfunny. Nobody likes you. Everybody wishes you were different. Then you'd be better and people could like you. And that smile? Cringe-worthy. You are such an example of a Mendo-symmetric, that's why you're ugly."

While you're sitting there going "Man, he really cares about that girl" I guess I'm going to say "Not sure I agree with your detective work" then walk over and say "Leave her alone"

Great so now it's a double-standard. And you know how I feel about double-standards. Unjust weights and balances?

Be honest with me. Are you one of the people who leveled the criticism "Rey is a Mary Sue"? Because the question is, why is anyone replying to me, and by extension my OP, if something I said in that post didn't apply to you? The say I'm "jumping to conclusions" when I said, I can only conclude the people who are replying to me aren't eager to state their criticisms of TLJ, because it's already on the list.

But, you know, yeah - maybe they just are eager to enter a conversation that they're tired of talking about. Maybe. But, then again. Maybe not.

 

The Last Jedi is on Netflix now.

 

Well that speaks to the point I am making. Barring some sort of criminal activity or scandal, you (generally) don't just fire an executive as high ranking as Kennedy out of the blue. It is a months-long transition process. Yes, she will maintain her current position up to the release of E9, but I would not be even remotely surprised if the decisions for the post-E9 GFFA have already been taken out of her hands.

Yes it is, and I stand by the statement. However, please allow me to restate my thesis for clarity sake: When I say there will be no RJ trilogy, I am talking about the idea that RJ helms an entire trilogy as writer/director. They could very easily attach his name to, say, the Benioff/Weiss project where he has no creative control (like JJ Abrams in E8). Or they could also pull a Lord & Miller and just give him "Executive Producer" credit for a project he was originally attached to, but ultimately removed from.

However, I state with utmost confidence that we will not see RJ helm an entire trilogy with anywhere near the same level of control he had over E8. Quite honestly, I don't even see this as a bold statement. Studios change their plans all the time for a wide variety of reasons.

Sorry, but we don't know anything for certain beyond E9. And even if we did, plans change all the time.

 

“Built a thousand generations ago, to keep these; the original Jedi texts.”

1. Those books are as old as the Jedi order itself. Logically, nothing should predate them. Not even holocrons.

2. The texts aren’t said to hold super-duper, extra top secret Jedi knowledge that must be protected at all costs. They’re simply considered “sacred”.

3. They’re squirrelled away in “the most unfindable place in the galaxy”. As far as safekeeping is concerned, that sounds pretty secure to me.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is. Would a holocron be a 'cool' thing to see? I guess, but so what? Would DJ being called a 'slicer' have been a 'cool' thing to hear too? I guess, but so what? I don't know why that would make or break anything for anyone. Meh, everybody has different things they hold as important I guess

 

Here's your answer:

When it comes to making movies, the writer/director does not feel even remotely beholden to the EU unless it fits the storyline (and by "EU" I mean the entire realm of non-movie storytelling so I am not going to engage in the semantic debate of what is and isn't "EU"). I'd bet good money that Rian Johnson never saw an episode of Clone Wars or Rebels in his life and that he neither knew nor cared about anything that happened in those stories when creating E8.

I don't even mean that as a criticism. I like the fact that the movies respect the EU but are also willing to disregard it where it fits them. I am not going to ask Trekkie type questions of "well in E8 Luke says such-and-such but in Clone Wars Season 2, Episode 4, Yoda clearly contradicts him!! How do you explain that?????"

 

Remember when Finn was brave fighting for his new friend's life becoming a positive figure by the end of TFA?



And then he devolved into another minstrel show, supplemented by delving into the custodial duty minutiae of the Supremacy. That was soooo awesome, and totally not stupid or insensitive ...not at all.

I mean you couldn't possibly have droids and mechanicals mop when they are ironing all those uniforms, right? Hmmmmm........

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Cleaning_droid_models

 

\\

I'm curious about what you think about this message... i'm just speechless right now.

 

I take your point. But to be fair, we don’t really know what ‘mopping’ exactly means with respect to Finn. Was he actually walking about with a bucket and mop and caution sign? While dressed as a Trooper? I sort of doubt it. But the movie doesn’t really present it otherwise, so yeah, that’s a bit wonky.

Personally, I was more put off by there being straight up trashcans just sitting about. Why? It’s a ship. If it destabilized and swayed, then you’d have a giant hunk of metal hurdling toward you. It was only there for a gag which didn’t’ make much sense to me. Oh well, just a movie

 

Hell, I'd bet good money that he never saw the original trilogy with the way he wrote Luke.

 

Truly the blame falls to JJ in TFA ("Sanitation"), but I kind of forgave him because I could see some character potential. Replace the leaky fluid scene with Finn getting a partial spinal replacement or something to remind him of the battle with Kylo. A potential physical trait and verbal script moment for later.

 

Heh, Ryan could care less about Finn. He would of been happy to keep Finn in a coma the entire movie.

 

I didn't read the whole thing but I'm assuming this is parody

 

Considering how a character as big as Snoke was thrown away by the next director assuming the helm of the series after TFA, I don't really know about what possible plot relevance these books are going to have in Ep. 9. Clearly, in-universe consistency and adhering to basic lore set up everywhere else in the canon is a secondary priority, let alone massive plot threads set up in prior films.

For God's sake, they didn't even follow up on something as basic as Finn's spinal injury in TFA---and he's not some background aspect of galactic world-building, he's a main character. You can't expect me to believe that they'll follow up on something like the Jedi Texts, when they've failed to follow up on almost anything else. That's more faith than the incompetent horde of fanfic writers at Lucasfilm justify.

Why does he need calcium if he came to the island to die? What, does he want to look extra-fit as a Force Ghost, or something?

Why on Earth would the Jedi leave around the first drafts of their secrets lying around in books? Why wouldn't they have been destroyed the minute Holocrons came into existence? That doesn't make any sense.

"Yeah, we have these incredibly unfathomable devices of unique, once-in-a-million technology that ONLY a Light-Sider and Jedi can open, thus preventing our worst enemies from accessing our secrets and using them to cut a bloody swath across the world....but, hey, let's just leave the original books intact, so anyone can just open them and read them." That literally would contradict with the entire reason Holocrons exist.

Not to mention, keeping these books at the base of a tree is a new low of stupid for the Jedi Order. Yeah, just keep the Holocrons and the Holobooks of the Jedi Order under the guard of a high security Temple Archive, while the Sith keep their Ancient Holocrons in abandoned temples with countless Force-related, Egyptian-style booby-traps to kill anyone who isn't Force-worthy...and these ancient Jedi Texts?

Kept in the base of a tree. Beautiful. I'm sure no one can enter such an impenetrable husk of maximum security.

Okay. If they're as old as the Jedi Order itself, and Yoda was aware of this place this entire time, why wouldn't they have the books under the safeguard of the Jedi Temple instead of this random island? Why wouldn't they dispose of the books, and transfer the info to Holocrons? I ask this because, again, anyone can open a book, but only Jedi can open Holocrons. That's how their oldest and most sacred secrets stay safe...that's why they have an Archive stuffed with generations of ancient Jedi Secrets in the first place. This island is supposedly the birthplace of the Jedi Order, their Mecca, and yet no one mentions it any point in the rest of the franchise, or has any knowledge of it?

And if the Jedi Texts don't hold anything sacred, why are people acting like Rey can teach an entire new Jedi Order with the knowledge found in those books? That would entail things like techniques, or battle forms, or secret mediation methods---the exact kind of valuable information one wouldn't want their insidious Sith enemies to have. That's the narrative I keep hearing around the TLJ-loyalist camp....are the books suddenly not that important?

It would make sense if it was forbidden ground, like Malachor was in Rebels. That was an accursed battlefield housing dark and dangerous Sith secrets...Jedi aren't permitted to go there, so there being no mention of that place up till now made sense. But Yoda has full knowledge of this place, and yet he not only refrained from going here for his exile instead of Dagobah, but he also has never mentioned it even once or used it even once in the past. For God's sake, he spends the last few episodes of TCW going to the most Force-Sensitive spots in the galaxy, from Dagobah, to Korriban, to the void in which the Whills dwell, all to get answers about the Sith Threat or the ancient ways of the Force...but he just doesn't feel like going to this island, despite it being the birthplace of his Order.

Also, the most unfindable place in the galaxy is this island? For God's sake, in Rebels, there was a Temple that literally required two Force-wielders to raise it from the depths of the ground.

Keeping the Jedi Books in that Mirror Room that functions like a massive void would make sense, but this open-air island with this Tree that anyone can access? What kind of nonsense is that?

I beg to differ. Look at Rogue One. That film had mention of the Whills, Kaiburr crystals, Darksaber, and a whole host of other world-building elements from the current canon to make sense. It's living proof of what the Story Group is capable of recommending, and directors utilizing from the Star Wars universe to make things have consistency and legitimacy.

And even so, this isn't some kind of random, obscure, tiny little detail found in some encyclopedia or novel written under the Disney regime. This whole ordeal about Holocrons was a big plot element of a show made under the new canon, a TV show that PREDATES the release of TLJ, on a network that any seven-year-old to 12-year-old can access on Disney XD. When that show, that I'm betting some people watched before TLJ (a high possibility, considering THREE ENTIRE SEASONS of that show came out before TLJ did), is providing world-building information that is swiftly contradicted by the proceeding multi-million dollar entry in the main saga films, why the hell should I be invested in this canon, and this universe? It's willing to erase the logic and consistency of its own supplementary material, just to cater to the whims of some director. That means that whatever comic I read, whatever novel I check out, and whatever TV show is made, it could all be overruled in a heartbeat, if someone like Rian Johnson wants to introduce some laughably-bad, inexplicable element in his plot.

If that's the case, then you can pretty much count me out. I'm not going to be invested in a fictional universe whose rules can be radically changed on a dime. That makes for incredibly lackluster lore, and garbage-tier world-building. That literally allows directors to introduce anything ridiculous---from unicorns, to talking planets, to a flying Princess Leia---without facing any kind of consequences. The fictional world literally exists to be narratively exploited with no consistent rules.

And for Star Wars, that's nothing short of disgusting.