1. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice

THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' started by Kript, Dec 13, 2017.

?

Which points do you agree were not well made and you did not like?

  1. 1.Luke as a character

    171 vote(s)
    55.2%
  2. 2.Phasma being wasted

    136 vote(s)
    43.9%
  3. 3.Forced and bad humor

    185 vote(s)
    59.7%
  4. 4.Finding out nothing about Snoke and his premature death

    162 vote(s)
    52.3%
  5. 5.Rey parents being nobodies

    116 vote(s)
    37.4%
  6. 6.Maz and Luke's lightsaber

    109 vote(s)
    35.2%
  7. 7.The knights of ren are forgotten and nowhere to be seen

    158 vote(s)
    51.0%
  8. 8.Leia flying through space scene

    199 vote(s)
    64.2%
  9. 9.Luke's weightless death

    134 vote(s)
    43.2%
  10. 10.The whole Finn and Rose plotline

    207 vote(s)
    66.8%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Aloy of the Nora

    Aloy of the Nora Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Posts:
    53
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    947
    Credits:
    268
    Ratings:
    +349 / 8 / -0
    They do not need to shoehorn a Sith Lord plot because you do not like the creative choices of two filmmakers. Both scenarios were explained well (whether you liked them or not) and now we can move on to the next phase of the story.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. techsteveo

    techsteveo Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    3,194
    Trophy Points:
    11,567
    Credits:
    4,649
    Ratings:
    +5,748 / 255 / -166
    That's the point. In order to "wrap up" this story with some meaning, we need there to be something that ties Anakin, Luke and Ben together. An arc for the Skywalker Saga. The PT and OT was about Anakins rise, fall, and redemption through his son. The ST has no connection and isn't really a Skywalker saga film without that connection. Family ties aren't enough. There's literally no point to this trilogy story wise. Luke never restarted the Jedi. The Republic didn't keep peace. They are back to Pre-ANH tyranny lead by a dark side Skywalker. They need ANOTHER NEW HOPE to get the galaxy to fight? C'mon.

    In all honesty, it wouldn't be a shoehorn if you revealed that the Skywalker bloodline was created by Darth Sidious. I still interpret the scene with Palpatine and Anakin in the Opera house as Palps confessing his genius of killing his master in his sleep and also "creating life" in Anakin.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. Aloy of the Nora

    Aloy of the Nora Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Posts:
    53
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    947
    Credits:
    268
    Ratings:
    +349 / 8 / -0
    That is not true. Rey finding belonging is a story point. Kylo overcoming or succumbing to his demons is a story point. Legacy of everything we know about Star Wars is a key story point. Again just because you do not like something does not mean it does not exist.

    Yes he did.

    Vader never lead an empire. This is a welcome departure for the sequel trilogy to see Solo ruling the galaxy. Important to note that FO is not a galaxy spanning empire.


    Hard to have a Star Wars movie with no war. Also they kept the peace for a very long time around what thirty years? Not really the Republic's fault they got blew up with a planet gun.

    I think they have one.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  4. Darth_Nobunaga

    Darth_Nobunaga Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    Posts:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Trophy Points:
    6,492
    Credits:
    597
    Ratings:
    +1,235 / 18 / -9
    The problem is that this cyclical aspect of the conflict is never further elaborated beyond Maz's comments, or amounts to any new narrative ground or substantial plot development in the film. Outside of that one comment Maz has made, what else has repeating the type of war fought in the OT amounted to in the films? How has that affected the way the battles are fought, the way each respective fashion participates in the fights? Do the Resistance or the First Order learn from the mistakes of their predecessors, the Rebellion and the Empire? Evidently not, since almost every ship type, weapon, trooper type, and method of warfare is recycled almost exactly from the previous films. And the meaning of this conflict? The in-universe explanation for what is being fought over, and how it's impacting the galaxy? It doesn't exist. This isn't "nitty-gritty political details." It's as simple as: "why, in-universe, is this exact war that was fought 30 years ago being fought again the exact same fashion, with almost no evolution whatsoever? How is this answered solely in the confines of the story?"

    I've posed that question to other people I know who've watched other Star Wars films, and only the movies (they don't engage in books, comics, or TV shows, like I do) in regards to the ST, and the only answer they can give me is "Disney/LFL wanted to do the OT conflict again, that's why this is happening the same way again." They can't give me a story-related answer, because in the sole confines of the movies, an answer doesn't exist. It didn't exist in TFA, and one wasn't given in TLJ. It's just "the same war from the OT is happening again. Don't ask why, just accept it."

    That's an immediate sign of weak writing, especially when I can ask ^those same people I just mentioned about what the PT war was about, and without referencing any of the "nitty-gritty political stuff" (as you refer to it), they can easily say: "Oh, it's two sides being used to orchestrate the downfall of the Republic, and the downfall of the Jedi." No mention of Seperatists, Padme's pacifist, pleadings, tax disputes, the Trade Federation, the Republic's 1000 year peace, nothing: just a straight answer...the same kind of straight answer that for the ST, can't be answered by the people I know who have seen it, because the answer hasn't been given to them in the film.

    This is my problem with these movies, and why I'll never be immersed in them, and why I can never see them as anything higher or more legitimate than a cash-grab. The writers didn't care enough to justify the conflict going on on-screen, so I don't care enough to be invested. The writers just left this kind of work to spin-off novels and comic books...the kind of approach George Lucas never would've taken. Laying out the characters was important to him, but equally-important was establishing why the conflict in the galaxy was happening. He cared about establishing that because it was his universe; because he wanted the audience to understand the wider scope of the Star Wars galaxy, to see it as its own living world with its own developments, evolution, conflicts and changing powers.

    And because the ST lacks all of that, on both a basic or detailed level, the world feels empty and disconnected. Even when I'm watching something like Star Wars Rebels, I have a hard time even accepting that the ST is canon in that same universe, because of how lacking of a world it paints by comparison, despite having more money and resources behind it.

    I think he may be talking about the lack of in-universe justification for the surrounding war being fought. The writers don't even attempt to distance this conflict from what came before, or make it distinct or unique in its own right. Therefore, it feels painfully-derivitive with no real explanation, which creates a massive disconnect from the previous trilogies, since it doesn't feel like progress or any kind of massive step forward.

    You can argue that's the case for the characters and the Force-related conflict (I wouldn't argue that they're well-written or even remotely well-executed in the slightest, but different things are indeed happening to them compared to previous characters), but trying to explain the point of the surrounding conflict, and how scarcely-distinct it is from the preceding war, using only on-screen information is a march harder task.

    Having a Star Wars movie where the purpose or reason behind the war is explained with nuance, and adherence to in-universe continuity and events, is a long-standing tradition in both the films, and the two canon TV shows. It's only in the ST where the nuance and detail evaporates, because the writers don't want the audience to think about what's going on: just to feel emotionally-engaged in what the main five or so characters are going through. Which is amusing, because some of us in the audience care about the conflict and the characters. It's a bit difficult to care about one when the other is so sloppily-explained.

    As for the Republic, if canon material is to be believed, they're in this situation because they banished the remnants of the Empire to the Unknown Region and the de-militarized shortly afterwards....an explanation that reeks of so much "after-the-fact explanatory nonsense" that I would love to pull Abrams or Kasdan aside and ask them if that's even something they're aware of in-universe, much less came up with themselves. That in all likelihood was cooked up after TFA's release to explain away why the Republic got decimated so easily.

    Even though all it does is make the Republic look like a pack of morons. I tell people I know that explanation, and the very first thing they respond with is: "Why the hell would you ever get rid of your own military when you haven't completely exterminated the Empire, and they're still living comfortably in their own sect of space, ready to return to their pursuit of conquest at any moment?" A friend of mine retorted with a particularly-amusing comment: "If any galactic government makes a mistake that stupid, they should've been killed years ago, not 30 years later. The Hutts, or even the freaking Gungans could've taken over the Republic sooner."

    All of this of course after these people demand why this explanation was in a spin-off novel, and not in the core films. A complaint for which I can't blame them for having.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Jedi77-83

    Jedi77-83 Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Posts:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    3,068
    Trophy Points:
    11,087
    Credits:
    4,130
    Ratings:
    +4,797 / 128 / -35
    Not to defend Disney, but I believe this is what they thought the fans wanted after the PT. If you go back to everything from 2012-13, they were using many keywords that were code for 'THIS IS NOT THE PT.' I remember the first small documentary at SW celebration was on practical effects, as JJ & KK introduced a character that was real (not CGI) that harkened back to the OT. They probably didn't do any world building in the ST because they heard many quotes from fans regarding the PT, "I didn't want a movie on taxes and how congress works." They picked 3 'good guy's in Rey, Finn, and Poe to mirror Luke, Leia and Han.

    So you are exactly right that they gave us the OT part 2, but they were just assuming that's what a good part of the fanbase wanted. That's why I will continue to say that this franchise has been chasing it's tail with each new Saga movie trying to write the wrongs of the previous movie to appeases the fans. Episode 2 was going to have less Jar Jar, Episode 3 was going to be more darker/adult, Episode 7 was not going to be like the PT, Episode 8 was going to be more original then Episode 7, and now Episode 9 is rumored to be trying to correct certain wrongs of Episode 8. It's like the franchise can never move forward because it's always trying to retroactively appeal to the fans for something they didn't like before.

    Again, this goes to my theory as to why the Standalones work better for me cause they are their own thing. R1 and Solo are their own story that aren't trying to appease fans who were displeased with the PT or ST, so they had more creative freedom. Yes, they still had to adhere to SW things in the universe but that's natural because it wouldn't be SW without them.
     
    • Great Post Great Post x 4
    • Wise Wise x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Cool Cool x 1
  6. techsteveo

    techsteveo Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    3,194
    Trophy Points:
    11,567
    Credits:
    4,649
    Ratings:
    +5,748 / 255 / -166
    If I wanted to watch movies about young girls finding belonging, I'd watch the Lifetime network. :D. Kylo is really the only interesting character in this entire saga. Finn could have been but was somewhat misused. You are stretching what exists and what doesn't. Just because you can tell what JJ and RJ are telling in their story doesn't make what they are saying satisfying to the audience. I enjoyed these films for the little new things they bring and because I appreciated the Legacy casts performances. But many also believe that they are rehashed plot lines with very little creativity. Not the way fans wanted to see the Skywalker story end.

    As for Luke's Jedi, there is no evidence that his students ever returned to a prominent role in the galaxy. It would be like saying Med school students are doctors yet have never actually treated anyone. For all intents and purposes, the Jedi have never returned since the purge.

    Vader may not have ever been Emporer or Supreme Leader, but he did lead the Empire's forces and fleets. He was actually more impactful than Kylo was. Kylo was Snoke's pitbull but not a military leader like Vader. Hux is the brains behind the FO. That's why Kylo taking the lead is the only thing I'm actually interested in seeing.

    Agreed, but the Republic ended up destroyed just like the Old Republic. This story picking up where the FO is already basically Empire 2.0 and we never actually see the Republic is a huge miss for many of us. We waited 30 years to see what the Galaxy looked like post Emipre. Instead we get repainted Tie Fighters and more Star Destroyers and Planet Killers. And it is the Republics fault. Leia knew they were doomed which is why she formed the Resistance.

    It was Luke that had to give Hope to the galaxy again. The little stable kids at the end weren't talking about Rey, they were talking about Luke. If the galaxy decided (again) to fight, it's because of Luke (again).
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    658
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,817
    Ratings:
    +1,842 / 13 / -6
    I’m one of those people that mainly watches the movies and cares little for the extra material... I never read any EU stuff. My only venture to the new canon has been audiobooks of TFA, TLJ and Bloodline. I’ve also flicked through a couple of Poe Dameron comics. That’s it. For me, what I get in the film is what really counts. The rest is just extra padding, an indulgence for a rainy day but not necessary.

    TFA film did not have to explain the political status quo because it was obvious, at least for me, that the conflict we saw on screen was directly derived from the conflict in the OT. It was sufficient not only for someone like me, very familiar with the OT, but also for someone like my daughter’s friend, who had never seen a SW’s film before TFA, as she immediately understood the dynamic: the masked white soldiers, the guy in black and the big giant robed alien are the bad guys, destroying the good guys’ planets. The resistance are the good guys. Period. The film did not need to explain anymore in order to work and engage both, myself and my daughter's friend, with characters and story, which we both really enjoyed.

    GL created this world and intuitively knew how it worked, its DNA, how the force worked and how politics evolved, how the republic collapsed and the empire came to exist, as well as all the conflicts around this I'm less familiar with. He lived with these stories for many many years in his head and applied them in his work... JJ and RJ, on the other hand, are not SW’s erudites like GL. They aren’t even disciples of his. They are only filmmakers (and fans) making films in the spirit of GL. I imagine both JJ and RJ felt they were not really confident or even qualified to come up with an original political thread in SW. It makes sense to me that they decided to contribute to the story with appealing new characters with interesting emotional difficulties instead. I don't think this humility makes them bad writers, quite the opposite. If only it demonstrates they know enough about world building and their craft not to get carried away within the confines of someone else's world. RJ had a little less restrain and dared to bring a few original elements to this universe (and look how that worked out with some of the fandom...) Also it must be noticed that GL believed that SW was his world and only his. He did not considered the EU part of what he had constructed, as he often said in interviews. For him his films were the only true canon. I suppose this is the reason why his prequels had all that excess of political exposition, which, although well thought out, was most dreary and made all those films really sag... Disney, on the other hand, is operating differently with SW. There seems to be a desire to expand the experience of the films, to produce content related to SW in different mediums that cleverly link things together. It's a market strategy I suppose, a way to make people consume their products... This is the world we live in... Ironic how an anti-system liberal like GL has somehow paved the way for this state of affairs with his very successful franchise.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018, Original Post Date: Nov 25, 2018 ---
    Maybe it's time to realise these movies are for people who want to see young girls finding belonging... These things happen. We don't always get what we want.
    The kids were talking about Luke, but it was Rey who pushed Luke to give hope to the galaxy again. Interesting point to consider: Just because a woman acts in the background does not mean her contribution is unimportant.
     
    • Like Like x 6
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  8. Darth_Nobunaga

    Darth_Nobunaga Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    Posts:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Trophy Points:
    6,492
    Credits:
    597
    Ratings:
    +1,235 / 18 / -9
    That's the case for pretty much everyone I watch these films with, and as I mentioned before, they were all just as bewildered and irritated with how sparse and barebones the world of the ST is. And when I told them that one or two of the explanations for the current setting were buried away in novelizations and encyclopedias, they actually grew even more irritated that Disney/LFL would leave that kind of basic info to establish the setting in books that 95% of casual audiences aren't going to think to read in the first place.

    I'm glad you know people that enjoyed the film. But you completely missed the point of my post.

    The ST didn't need to go in-depth into the politics of the galaxy to explain the setting or the conflict. You know how I know that? Because the OT didn't do that, and managed to not only establish the conflict and setting just fine, but do it in a way so that all of us, as first timers to the Star Wars universe, could keep up with new concepts and information revealed about the world. Obi-Wan lamenting about a past before the Dark Times when Jedi guarded peace and justice, the way common people like Luke or the way Cantina-goers in Mos Eisley respond to the presence of Imperial Stormtroopers, the occasional mention of the the Empire's methods to control things around Tarkin's table, Yoda explaining the subtleties of the Force along with its risks....these aren't politics or minute details. This is what world-building is.

    This is what every Harry Potter film screeched to a halt to establish in every film where they revealed more about how magic worked, how Hogwarts worked, how Voldemort evolved, how the Horcruxes functioned, how the war between the Ministry and the Death Eaters was going, why that war was happening....are these things "politics"? Of course they're not.

    And to counter your example, my best friend decided to indoctrinate his step-daughter to Star Wars by way of the ST, and by the end of TLJ, her only reaction was "I kind of care what happens to Rey, because she's the main character, but I don't care if anyone else dies, or if the good guys lose the war, because they're fighting about nothing." The next month, my friend showed her the other 6 films, including R1, and his step-daughter turned to us and said: "Did the people who made Episode 7 see the previous movies? Why would they make the good guys fight the Empire again without explaining anything?" And then she came with her own explanation for why the Empire might still be around, and joked that Disney/LFL should hire her as a writer. "At least my idea is some kind of explanation", were her words. "It's better than nothing. Better than what the actual movies give us."

    So she went from not caring at all, to seeing the other films and being completely confused as to what the intentions of the writers for Ep. 7-8 were. She even began to question whether or not they had seen the other movies.

    And yet Lucas still managed to establish things well enough in the OT on a basic level to help make the world immersive and detailed...something that, funnily enough, artists and writers for the Expanded Universe managed to do without Lucas' help for over 20 years. And they weren't disciples of Lucas or 'SW erudities'...they were random sci-fi and fantasy authors, game developers, or backroom Dark Horse Employees, with far less resources and far more limitations than either Johnson or Abrams.

    And yet their products, be it games, novels, or comics, established the setting of their story as well or better than Lucas did. It's all about being a good writer that's willing to slow down the breakneck pace of the film long enough to give the audience a few basic details of the surrounding conflict, and trust in their ability to not fall asleep if an explosion or lightsaber duel isn't happening.

    But that seems beyond the reach of the ST's creative forces.

    This absolute nonsense and categorically false as far as Rian Johnson is concerned. He waxes plenty of rhetoric about "taking Star Wars to new places by making drastic changes" or "introducing things that are unconventional to the Star Wars universe". He lives to try and introduce original components to the franchise...the amount of time and money he spent hammering the Canto Bight sequence down the audiences' throat is proof enough of that.

    And it's truly telling that the cinematic equivalent of a side-quest in a video game gets more detail and world-building regarding the struggle of its slave labor than the conflict impacting the rest of the galaxy and the entire trilogy at large. Copious amounts of Canto Bight screentime later, and I still have people I know messaging me with peppering questions about the war that's supposed to be the source of tension and drama in the film.

    The writers at BioWare and Obsidian were tasked with crafting an entire new conflict with its own factions, stakes, characters, rules, events, allegiances and drama, while being entirely original and retaining accuracy to Lucas' universe. Dave Filoni was tasked with crafting an entire new conflict with its own factions, stakes, characters, rules, events, allegiances and drama, while being entirely original and retaining accuracy within the tight-nit framework of the Dark Times era while making Star Wars Rebels.

    Fans have plenty of willingness to welcome changes and originality, because good examples---both long-past like KOTOR and recent like Rebels---already exist. Johnson and Abrams did a poor job developing an original era with a unique premise, clear stakes, proper world-building, or even a smidgen of basic detail.

    All whilst having less limitations and more creative freedom than any of these people I just mentioned, people who didn't get "carried away within the confines of someone else's world." They got it right...Johnson and Abrams didn't. It's that simple.

    I could pick one episode of my choice for either Star Wars: The Clone Wars or Rebels, two canon shows, the latter of which didn't even have Lucas involved in any capacity. The one episode I could name for each packs more world-building, creativity, consistency, and in-universe nuance in 30 minutes than both TFA and TLJ have with their runtimes combined.

    The EU is irrelevant to the discussion. There are examples of better work in canon, done with far more limitations, and confined within pre-established eras. Abrams and Johnson had clean slates to work with, and underdelivered to the point of absurdity. They had no era constraints like The Clone Wars or the Dark Times Era like the TV shows, and yet they demonstrate less originality or world-building.

    I guess all those TV Shows just "sag" with all that detail and layering of the setting, and really aren't worth watching. They don't have paper-thin worlds and loud, dumb plots that make the ST movies superior.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    658
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,817
    Ratings:
    +1,842 / 13 / -6
    I think I had already agreed with you on this one... ANH was a very good film with regards to world building. What I’m trying to make come across here, maybe not very succesfully, is that TFA, even though it does not have that originality or care for introducing context to a new audience, is still a very compelling and entertaining story. Disney wanted to offer a product similar to the OT, “expanding” if you will the characterisation and “economising” in explanations of world building. And I know what world building is. Thank you.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018, Original Post Date: Nov 25, 2018 ---
    I think your friend's daughter fails to understand (maybe she's nine and someone should explain this to her) that the sequel films are feeding directly from the OT in terms of context. That Disney is doing things differently from GL in the OT and that if she wants to know more about the world and what came before she should watch the previous movies or read the canon novels, comics and so on... GL never had that set up in mind and that's why he made different films from Disney.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018 ---
    I know nothing about The EU, so I can't really comment on it. I imagine the quality of the material was varied and I know that many of the EU authors certainly had an audience. The only thing I know is that GL didn't read it (apart from some comics) or relayed on it. Disney is operating differently with films and canon. Some people seem to like what they are doing, some don't ... I myself don't lose sleep about this.
     
    #5389 Kylocity, Nov 25, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
  10. Sparafucile

    Sparafucile Rebel General

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Posts:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,250
    Trophy Points:
    4,742
    Credits:
    1,785
    Ratings:
    +1,976 / 63 / -24
    I don't think people should be expected to read books to understand a movie. As for watching the other movies, I thought, as some have eluded to, they were targeting a larger market, people not quite so familiar with SW, or people new to the genre. How does not having basic components like the basic reasoning for the war help new viewers? It doesn't. It goes against their goals. It's errors in writing and editing. Someone should have pointed that out at some point.

    This is why there's a perception of ineptitude on the part of writers, creative team, directors, all the way up to KK. It's the reason why people see things like Rose's preaching of Canto Bight as worse than it should have been. That part is political and gets exposition, but the main story doesn't? At that point people ask why and the on the nose reference to real life political agenda gives an easy, simple answer to that, right or wrong. Maybe it is just bad writing and a failure from the top down to have a critical eye to the problems in the story telling, or maybe they were more focused on making a real life statement in SW wrapping paper. The sad thing, it's most likely at least one of those, with a good chance it being both.

    The real life commentary on our world has existed in all SW films, but there was enough story for that message to become partially hidden, or at least secondary to the main plot points and world building. In the ST so far, we don't have that luxury, and therefor that commentary becomes more obvious and on the nose. If you disagree or simply don't want to have your immersion into the story shattered by that kind of exposition, then it makes the movie worse for it. Basically, if you want to include Rose's speech and lecturing, make damn sure there's enough meat to the story so that doesn't become the focus. This of course is all merely my opinion.

    Edit: As for the EU, some was great, some was horrible. I think it seems to be on par so far with what Disney is doing. Some of it is good and enjoyed, some of it isn't. There seems to be just as many issues creeping into the ST than there was in the EU. The big difference however is the resources that Disney has to make sure these issues don't crop up compared to what others in the EU had at their disposal. The perception that these issues exist in a Disney product is shameful, considering the money and resources at their disposal. However, I did read the EU, and though there were some books that didn't interest me, I can't think of any failing on basic exposition like the ST has. The problem with EU was their imagination on the part of some authors. They kept trying to recreate the OT over and over again. Only so many DS before that gets old. But then again, we get more of that in the ST too.
     
    #5390 Sparafucile, Nov 25, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    658
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,817
    Ratings:
    +1,842 / 13 / -6
    Feloni is the ultimate GL's disciple. He seems to be a creative talent within this universe and his creation Rebels spans through different series... The level of attachment to this world is different for JJ and RJ... they are filmmakers with other projects apart from SW. They are not really there to create any elaborate framework, I think. I'd say their interest in world building in SW is subservient to the story they are telling, no more.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018, Original Post Date: Nov 25, 2018 ---
    As I said before, the films work well without war explanations, for me and for other people I know. The canon stuff does not need to be read to understand the film or the story really, not for me. It only helps those who like to immerse themselves that bit more in the universe, or prefer mediums of entertainment other than films. But that's just the way I see it.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018 ---
    I cannot argue this, as I haven't seen any TV show. I have no doubt these shows are original, but for me that wouldn't necessarily mean they are more interesting, or good, or enjoyable... I like what JJ and RJ came up with and I don't apologise for it.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018 ---
    Your words, not mine.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018 ---
    I agree with you on this. That scene was a bad case of telling and not showing. These films are not perfect.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. techsteveo

    techsteveo Force Sensitive

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2014
    Posts:
    2,081
    Likes Received:
    3,194
    Trophy Points:
    11,567
    Credits:
    4,649
    Ratings:
    +5,748 / 255 / -166
    Well considering she is no longer a nobody, evidence being Poe’s “I know” line on the Falcon and her smile. And that she is now at Leia’s side making the choice to help rebuild a Rebellion, I’d say she found belonging as well. She found her place and will train herself with the Jedi texts to become a Jedi. What story is left for Rey? That’s my criticism with TLJ, it wrapped up her arc in the second act.

    It was Artoo and Yoda that got Luke to act. Nothing Rey did compelled Luke to return. Hell, Rey leaving compelled Luke to burn the tree and the books he thought were inside. It was Artoo that got Luke to kind of train Rey, and it was Yoda that got Luke to see he needed to help. Rey just being there wasn’t enough.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    658
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,817
    Ratings:
    +1,842 / 13 / -6
    Her story is not finished yet. There is still room for her to strengthen her connection to one or two of the other characters and to have her story broadened in the context of the force and/or the war. A smile and an "I know" from a handsome x-wing pilot does not cut it as "finding one's place"... not for a girl as empowered as Rey. ;)

    R2 and Yoda made him "remember", but it was Rey who "challenged" him. The problem is that all the positive encouragement Rey was trying to give Luke got muddled with Rey's own failure arc in which she makes the mistake of trusting Kylo behind Luke's back (a failure somewhat connected to Luke's evasiveness and pessimism). Luke shines as the hero in TLJ, because his legend is needed to inspire the young. Rey's time to shine as the heroine will be in the next movie, I imagine. As you can see her story hasn't been completely told. We need more.
     
    #5393 Kylocity, Nov 25, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
    • Like Like x 3
  14. MagnarTheGreat

    MagnarTheGreat Jedi General

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    5,633
    Likes Received:
    8,347
    Trophy Points:
    143,114
    Credits:
    9,094
    Ratings:
    +16,250 / 302 / -182

    This review is from a Rian Johnson fan (I'm not) who disliked The Last Jedi.

    Makes some good points about the movie. I agree with most but not all.
     
    #5394 MagnarTheGreat, Nov 25, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Darth_Nobunaga

    Darth_Nobunaga Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    Posts:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Trophy Points:
    6,492
    Credits:
    597
    Ratings:
    +1,235 / 18 / -9
    And my point is that they could've easily done both good characterizations and world-building. Several Star Wars stories, some of which are 100% canon and made by Disney might I add, manage to do both without compromising one or the other. That's how you can tell the difference between something spun from the hands of a competent writer, and the kind of vapid and shallow storytelling showcased by the likes of Rian Johnson and J.J. Abrams. This isn't a "Lucas-era vs Disney-era" thing. This is an "effort vs no effort thing." People like Greg Wiseman, Charles Soule, Claudia Grey, Dave Filoni, Simon Kinberg, John Jackson Miller and Gareth Edwards have all made contributions to the new canon, and tried to do both character-driven and world-driven stories. A good storyteller depicting a vast universe is able to do those things, which is why they were able to do it successfully, and Johnson and Abrams did not.

    You'll have to forgive my assumptions that I was confused on what your grasp of world-building was, since you seemed to be waving off every example I provided as "politics", even the examples I gave about the film-to-film world-building in Harry Potter, which was weird. You can understand why I thought you may be confused as to what I was emphasizing in my post.

    See, the flaw in that logic is that she also saw Rogue One, another Disney product that, you claim, does nothing to elaborate on the world and conflict within the Star Wars universe, when it absolutely does. It doesn't present any wildly-new information, but it tries exhaustively to give intricate detail on the Dark Times Era, the way the Empire's hierarchy functioned, the methods of rebellion used by different people in the Alliance....elements that made the Dark Times Era prior to ANH seem alive. So despite your claims that "Disney is doing things differently from GL in the OT" (In spite of the fact that Disney has no creative control over Star Wars, LUCASFILM does), it would appear that some creative forces know how to make a compelling work without the need to visit outside work. It's almost like the people hired to work on new Star Wars stories CAN balance characterization and world-building, but choose not to in fear of bucking from the trends and nostalgic elements of the OT. Fancy that.

    My friend's daughter understands the situation fine, and certainly understood it when she saw the ST. I think she just recognizes an empty and surface-level product when she sees it. I actually asked her this morning what her reaction would be if her favorite franchise, Avatar: The Last Airbender, would've gone with this sparse, "take an axe to world-building" approach to a hypothetical continuation of THAT series....and her answer was: "Then it wouldn't be Avatar. It would be an empty product if the writers didn't continue giving information on The Four Nations, or explained why whatever new war was happening."



    Your point that I was responding to was that Rian Johnson and J.J. Abrams have their hands tied because they're playing inside of a world they didn't create. My counter is that other creative forces with less resources and creative freedom have contributed stories in a world they didn't create...be it people who contributed to the EU, or people contributing to the new canon like all the writers, showrunners and artists I listed above. They've made pieces of Star Wars media for the new canon that continue to dwarf the ST movies in scope, risk, and detailed settings, which only makes the failures of the ST movies more egregious and noticeable, since they all belong to the same canon.

    It only makes the leap from Star Wars: Lost Stars to The Last Jedi more noticable when one tries so hard to fit itself in the Star Wars universe by providing flourishes of detail of the surrounding setting and world, and the latter doesn't try at all. The ST movies' mentality in a nutshell is: "Don't think about what or why is happening, or how this develops the world established through 6 films, just feel emotionally moved by it and be dazzled by special effects."

    Dave Filoni worked on the first 2 seasons of Rebels, then departed, replaced by a non-Lucas disciple in the form of Simon Kinberg. The writers for Rebels have also changed many times, and none of them are Lucas disciples either.

    The same applies to Gareth Edwards, Charles Soule, John Jackson Miller, Claudia Gray, Timothy Zahn, and everyone else who's contributed good work to the current canon. Most of these people haven't even met George Lucas, and yet they manage to balance world-building and characterization better than he can...and infinitely better than either Johnson and Abrams. Hell, even though I don't care for Solo: A Star Wars Story, I can easily say that both Ron Howard and John Kasdan did a better job than Abrams and Johnson in fleshing out the Star Wars world. And all of these people had the burden of telling a story within a pre-established era, limiting their creative freedom. Limitations that neither Abrams or Johnson had. And they ended up displaying less creativity with the blank slate provided to them.

    Building and detailing the conflict of a story's setting isn't something you need George Lucas to teach you. It's something you learn to prioritize when depicting a massive world with a long-running continuity, something you honor as a good writer...

    ...which explains why Abrams and Johson weren't capable of doing that.

    And the lack of any elaboration on the world and setting is what makes it a lesser film in my eyes, and almost everyone I know....including people like my friend's step-daughter, whose introduction to Star Wars were these abysmal movies. It severs any interest to see this era expanded upon, revisited, or referenced at any point in the future. This era is of no interest, because it's barely its own era---it's a copy-paste of what came before, and has no unique identity. And no amount of extending to other mediums will change that.

    That's the way I see it.

    The shows feel like they belong in the Star Wars universe because they match the detail and world-building of the films, in ways that the ST films do not. That's part of what makes them good, in addition to the superb quality of writing by people who have made infinitely better stories in their past careers than Abrams or Johnson have made in their entire careers as filmmakers (and more original, might I add).

    You shouldn't apologize for liking the new films anymore than I should apologize for being so relentlessly-harsh towards them. We all value different things in a story, and when the qualities that put Star Wars on the same world-building level as Harry Potter, Star Trek, and Lord of the Rings are compromised because of the directors' inability to balance both characters and setting, I see no value in it at all.

    Especially when much smaller people working in the same franchise, as well as other directors like Gareth Edwards and (to a lesser extent) Ron Howard have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate that it absolutely can be done, despite how much Johnson and Abrams grotesquely and abhorrently fail at it.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  16. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    658
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,817
    Ratings:
    +1,842 / 13 / -6
    I will have to take your word for it as I have not read any of these writers, only Claudia Grey. She is indeed competent, but she's a novelist, not a screen writer or cinematographer. The skill needed for story telling in novels and films are very different, but I'm sure you know that. The same goes with films and episodic series...

    Interestingly enough you talked about Potter a posteriori, on that same post you assumed my ignorance... Before that we had been mainly talking about the republic/ rebels vs empire context compared to the resistance/FO. But no biggy.
    I obviously made a mistake. I forgot about Rogue One ( a movie I didn't really like). I imagine Lucasfilm under Disney are taking this less world-building approach only with the Skywalker trilogies... Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe you will see different things in IX! You can only hope.

    My problem with Rogue One is that I did not connect with the character of Jane. Her on screen development was very weak IMO and the storytelling wasn't engaging enough. As you say good films should have both, good character development and intelligent world building. Rogue One lacked the former and unfortunately had a bit too much of the latter.
    But with all due respect to the creators of canon or EU, they are hardly known or read whereas the Skywalker Saga is quite the opposite... Obviously Abrams and Johnson were dealing with much more pressure and expectations form the fans and the public in general. They need to offer a product that has a more general appeal. All considered, I still think they did very well.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 25, 2018, Original Post Date: Nov 25, 2018 ---
    What I meant is not GL teaching you, but rather the fact that some people are more invested in this world and have read more about it and know more about its rules... I think that JJ and RJ are fans of the movies, nothing else. I'd be surprised if they had read any books prior to making their respective films... Maybe Claudia Grey...

    JJ and Rj have used their creative ability in making excellent on screen characterisation, dialogue, dynamism and conflict, sometimes even in a more compelling way than it was achieved in the OT.

    Ron Howard has made good films, but Solo wasn't one of them.The whole thing felt rather superfluous and charmless and the main character's arc was less than compelling. Yes, there were interesting aliens and a story about explosives that introduced us to some underworld... I personally didn't care for it.
     
    #5396 Kylocity, Nov 25, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  17. TrumanJ

    TrumanJ Rebel General

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Posts:
    74
    Likes Received:
    1,718
    Trophy Points:
    4,682
    Credits:
    771
    Ratings:
    +1,763 / 2 / -0
    I really didn’t care if they did a movie with the senate or with a war. If they would’ve used the books to finish the story I think we would be in a different situation right now. Seeing how they want to end the skywalker saga, it would’ve been easier to use the books.

    I was fine with TFA until tlj. I think I would’ve been fine with tlj if they would’ve handled Luke properly. I think my dislike of the way they handled Luke is what made my displeasure of tlj compound into many dislikes in the movie and then tfa. I usually don’t disagree with writers or directors decisions. But after reading many peoples opinions as well as yours, I agree, there is no proper direction with the new ST.

    I think rouge 1 did so well because Disney had to work with an already established story line. They really couldn’t have messed it up.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Darth_Nobunaga

    Darth_Nobunaga Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    Posts:
    192
    Likes Received:
    1,037
    Trophy Points:
    6,492
    Credits:
    597
    Ratings:
    +1,235 / 18 / -9
    You do know that people with origins in other mediums can carry their writing skills over to completely different mediums, right? Margaret Mitchell, William Peter Bleatty, and Mario Puzo were all novel authors first, and were brought in as chief writers for some of the greatest films in cinema (Gone With the Wind, The Exorcist, and The Godfather I-III, just to name a few). People with backgrounds in comics like Mark Millar and J. Michael Straczynski wrote their own film or TV universes like the Kingsman series or Babylon 5. I'm not saying Disney/LFL should've brought in an EU or nu-Canon novelist to pen the script for the ST, but the idea that people with a background in other forms of entertainment other than film are risky and unproven resources for a different medium of entertainment is simply wrong, disproven already by history.

    And more to the point which we're derailing from, the people I listed are examples of writers, artists and showrunners that currently work for LFL that display the ability to balance world-building and characterization. That means that Disney/LFL had access to that kind of talent on lower level mediums like TV, comics, and novels. And by extension, they could've gotten a more qualified and more recognizable person with those talents to spearhead one or all of the ST movies.

    But they didn't. They hired two directors who evidently can't balance world-building and characterization to save their lives....something that should've been 100% anticipated from Abrams after his god-awful Star Trek films.

    I responded to another user with the example of Harry Potter, and you responded to that post, waving away much of the world-building and setting details that I was stating as missing from the ST movies as "politics." At least, that's how it came off.

    It could easily be misinterpretation on my part.

    That makes the tremendous assumption that I'll pay money to see Episode 9. You have far more optimism about my ability to endure horrible writing, vapid characters, and empty world-building than I do.

    [​IMG]
    I had trouble of connecting to Jane as well. I thought she was too clumsy, and clearly a sterotype for posh Victorian British people. It's very hard for me to relate to that.

    In all seriousness, I agree with you about the character of Jyn, all the way...which is why you'll notice I said that Rogue One was a better Star Wars film than the ST movies, but not a good Star Wars film in isolation. All of the characters in Rogue One (with maybe the exception of K2-SO) were bland, one-note, and easily disposable props for the story (which is why everyone's excitement for a Cassian Andor TV Series baffles me to no end). But I blame most of the core character writing on script changes and production revisions late into Rogue One's development. For instance, the ENTIRE first part of the film involving the search for Jyn's mentor, Saw Garrera, was meant to have far more emotional significance and impact in the original script....and in the final version, it's one of the least impactful deaths of the film, barely does a thing to develop Jyn's character, and only serves to connect her with a hologram of her father Galen, the real emotional crutch for her character (and another disposable character). The plot for Rogue One reeks of unfinished storytelling and partially-scribbled script changes, and because of that, all of the characters and drama suffered tremendously. The only good character development it offered was the ethical and moral differences between Jyn and Cassian, which was actually fleshed out throughout the film as their methods and willingness to do certain things in service of the Rebel cause grew at odds which each other.

    But Abrams and Johnson did not have such production issues with their film, at least not the point where entire characters were not realized to their potential. And more importantly, the aspects of their films that I dislike is their inability to create an original setting and era for the trilogy they're making...a responsibility that Gareth Edwards was not obligated to, but fulfilled anyway by packing his film with a wealth of world-building and details about the Empire vs Rebel war, something we already knew about.

    But Abrams and Johnson aren't willing to provide even surface details about the new conflict and era that defines the next trilogy of mainline Star Wars movies. And that's laziness and uncreativity of abysmal proportions. How fast and mindless do these films have to be when even a sentence of exposition about why this war is even going on is too much? The directors probably think the audience would fall asleep during any sequence that wasn't an action scene or comedy sketch.

    Which definitely makes sense for Abrams, since that's the EXACT approach he took with his Trek films. And what was the defense for those movies? "Stop thinking too much! This isn't your dusty old Trek franchise, with its sci-fi, politics, world-building, conflicting factions and established tech...this is the NEW Trek aimed at casual audiences! It doesn't matter if this new tone and style contradicts directly with the franchise it's apart of, just sit back and ENGAGE with the characters and themes!"

    And here I am with Star Wars, being given the exact same lecture by the new films' defenders. History's a broken record, I guess.

    And you think the authors, writers, or comic book artists were familiar with anything outside of the films before they were tasked with writing for the EU or nu-Canon material? Do you think Greg Wiseman, the original writer for Rebels, was some kind of expert on non-film Star Wars lore before he wrote his contributory episodes? Of course not.

    Abrams and Johnson didn't omit world-building and development of the era and conflict because they aren't hardcore fans or EU junkies....they omitted it by choice to tell a basic and barebones story. Wiseman, by contrast, took what he knew about the OT by way of the films and extensively built the world and era surrounding the main characters of Rebels. I could easily say the same about Charles Soule and Claudia Grey.

    These people aren't picked because of their Star Wars expertise, they're picked because of their talent. And their ability to balance world-building and characterizations of the Star Wars universe rests solely on their laurels as writers...the laurels that don't exist when it comes to Abrams and Johnson, who would rather drag the audience by their earlobes through a fray of explosions and "dramatic scenes" set in a copy-paste era of the OT rather than do what infinitely more talented people do routinely in other forms of Star Wars media, with LESS creative freedom and MORE restrictions.

    As stated above: I'm not asking for a hardcore, bespectacled Star Wars Fan-Club President recited in all 170 EU books to spearhead the movies...just people who can balance world-building and characterization.

    People working at Disney/LFL right now can do that. Abrams and Johnson cannot.

    I'll just massage my ribs from the good belly laugh I had at this, and leave you to your own opinion.

    I've seen characters with only one episode of screentime in Clone Wars or Rebels that were infinitely more compelling than any of the soulless mannequins occupying the principal cast of the ST.

    Which is why I said "to a lesser extent." He did some decent world-building in Solo, even if his characterizations for everyone were awful.

    But then, everything you've stated about the film having "superfluous, charmless writing and a main character with an non-compelling protagonist" is EXACTLY how I'd characterize the Sequel Trilogy movies. The difference between them and Solo is that Solo at least had some decent world-building in its pocket despite having bland, unlikable characters. The ST has bland, unlikable characters along with characters that are insufferable fecal stacks like Kylo Ren, on top of having no world-building to speak of or intrigue on its brand new era, an era meant to be the new time period and original conflict to set itself apart from previous films. And for that reason, for as bad as Solo is, it comes lightyears ahead of the ST.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  19. TrumanJ

    TrumanJ Rebel General

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2018
    Posts:
    74
    Likes Received:
    1,718
    Trophy Points:
    4,682
    Credits:
    771
    Ratings:
    +1,763 / 2 / -0
    I can understand how you and your daughters friend would enjoy these movies having never read the EU books.

    I disagree a bit with the point you make about how George didn’t consider the EU to be his though. Sure he didn’t write any of them, but he made sure the team that made decisions of what stories would be told and what happened to characters followed certain rules or guidelines. In the end the books were obviously not canon, and if George did make episodes 7-9, he would’ve done them his way. But I believe he would’ve considered the books when making the ST. Also, it was a way for him to distance himself from any issues people had with the books considering all the complaints he received over the years.

    On a side note, I didn’t think the political story made the PT sag. I enjoyed seeing how Sidious established his power and destroyed the Jedi. Sidious was methodical and diabolical in how he came into power. He had a plan that took many years and he executed it.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 26, 2018 ---
    I agree with you about the EU. Some was great, some was horrible. And your right how it’s shameful how Disney has so many problems with this new ST. Most of the books made the best sellers list, so SW fans must have enjoyed them. Fans expressed their displeasure about certain books or issues with them. Disney should’ve took all that information gathered over the years and figured out what the fans liked and disliked. Sure, Disney couldn’t have pleased everyone. But it seems to me Disney didn’t do their research about the EU.

    Fans were mad when chewy died. The author received death threats (unfortunately). When the killed Anakin Solo, fans were mad. The team in charge weas surprised about the fans reaction to both deaths. They thought the fans didn’t like Anakin. And maybe some fans didn’t, but when they started writing him in a way fans could relate to and make him interesting they killed him off. When Anakin was a child, he was a prodigy. When he was a teenager, he had to learn to become an adult. In the book “edge of victory, conquest, we read about how Anakin learned lessons in life that need to be experienced and can’t be learned by reading it in a book. Fans connected with this and that’s why imo, fans were upset when they killed him.

    Sure some of the EU was the same ol same. And that’s why they all wouldn’t be movies. But the EU was fun to read.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  20. Kylocity

    Kylocity Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Posts:
    658
    Likes Received:
    1,346
    Trophy Points:
    5,592
    Credits:
    1,817
    Ratings:
    +1,842 / 13 / -6
    Obviously I’m not saying that these artists are not able to write films or viceversa. The skills are indeed transferable (although not always successfully). I’m only saying that their main medium is not film writing. People usually have a flare for one or the other and I suppose they are employed accordingly. If you make a film for lucasfilm/Disney I imagine that experience in screenwriting is a must in your cv. As for restrictions , having them does make writing so much easier in my experience. It’s the empty white page full of possibilities which is the real challenge.

    Comic writing indeed bears more resemblance to script writing.
    It’s in the realm of the very possible I skimmed over your Harry Potter talk on that post answering another poster... I thought we were talking about the political context in our conversation. Just a misunderstanding.

    I suppose this is meant to be completely hilarious... I’m laughing.

    He would have been better off developing his characters in a more interesting “show and not tell” way instead of concentrating his attention in something not needed. It was a poor creative choice IMO.

    It’s also worth pointing out that all this understanding of yours towards Edwards displayed above (in spite of his script writing faux pas) is suspiciously absent when talking about Abrams and Johnson and their lack of “world building”... I find this quite unfair... And before “production problems” are again quoted as a mitigating factor, let me say that no “production problem” can excuse characters being badly written, unless Edwards was writing the screen play while filming... and even if he did so, I would find it odd that characterisation wasn’t a priority...
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 26, 2018, Original Post Date: Nov 26, 2018 ---
    In TFA special JJ says that his and Kasdan’s mandate making the film was to do something that “delighted” them. To that end JJ and Kasdan were obviously going to imbue this film with the skills they are both best at: strong characterisation, conflict, action, dialogue... I know that other directors and other writers would have deviced a more original, distinctive, subversive and probably controversial (among SW’s fans) ambience and story, like for example Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan or Tarantino.( I would have love to see their versions!)But Disney and Lucasfilm, I suspect, wanted to play it safe and employed a director unashamedly mainstream as JJ and a less experienced independent film director with some interesting scripts and films under his belt. All these writers and directors played to their strengths and it showed. That’s why their SW films have been so sucessful.

    And I’m not comfortable with this assumption that action immediately translates into “no thinking”. I personally left TFA with a lot in my head, about broken relationships, about the nature of sympathy, about what was Kylo’s thought process when he killed his father, about the purity of purpose in youth. After TLJ, about unfulfilled potential, about loss, about regret, about growing and letting go. I tend to be open to what films are telling me, and do really appreciate it when they tell their stories right. You would be surprised to find out that it is the atmosphere and mood of a film what I enjoy most. But for me atmosphere is completely subservient to character. I like to see the world that I’m presented with through the eyes of its characters... that’s what the best writers do. Ridley Scott would be one of my heroes in this sense.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 26, 2018 ---
    Obviously I don’t share this feeling.

    “Fecal stack” hahahaha, oh dear, that made me laugh for real.
    --- Double Post Merged, Nov 26, 2018 ---
    Well I wasn’t really sure how knowledgeable these writers were, as I haven’t read much of their stuff... I thought the EU books had been written by professionals who were also fans... so I stand corrected. As for Claudia Grey I know she was given a list about the characters, the conflict and time period she had to cover. I have read Bloodline and I see that she certainly has talent as a young adult writer. However I think she wasted a golden opportunity to give Han and Leia’s failed relationship more depth... everything is just a bit too casual and convenient for my liking... if that fella Casterfo is a distraction because she feels neglected, let the reader know somehow. Luke is also jarringly absent and the fact that her only son Ben is not much on her mind is a problem for me... it did not help to find Leia self aware and therefore relatable as a mother. Maybe if her guilt as a failed parent and wife had reared its head, been insinuated somehow, this little novel would have improved in quality and scope. It would have made this “relationship” with Casterfo less spurious at a personal level. I did care little about weird space illnesses, Casterfo’s capes, the galactic equivalent to absynthe and Leia’s favourite lunch spots.
     
    #5400 Kylocity, Nov 26, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2018
Loading...

Share This Page