THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

I don’t know what you mean by scattergun approach, especially when I’ve detailed every bit of criticism with examples and comparisons to superior work (points that you still have yet to counter with any valid counterevidence, might I add), but yes, you kept dragging the topic over to characterizations when I was talking about world-building, as if one justified the lack of the other. Which, I argue, it doesn’t, and it’s a sign of incompetence and inability on the directors’ parts to really build and expand on the world they’ve been charged with building and expanding through sequels.

I also detailed extensively in my previous post about how world-building and characterization are founded on the same principle of being built over time, and with proportionate distribution over the film’s runtime. Something else you have yet to counter.

The argument doesn’t work for you, but you’ve done nothing to state why it isn’t valid or applicable to the film. And the way to flesh out Kylo and Han’s relationship, for the ten billionth time, doesn’t have to be through information. It can be done through character actions, interactions with other characters, moments that create parallels for what’s already happened, and many other methods I’ve previously brought up.

But according to you, what we got in the film is apparently the only possible method of fleshing out the relationship between the two to justify the scene we got, so I suppose I’m flinging alternate suggestions at a brick wall at this point. You don’t respond to 2/3rds of what I write, anyway.

But that drama needs a basis to be justified and taken seriously, just as the conflict requires world-building and establishing to be taken seriously. The ST lacks both of these, with one being underdeveloped and one being non-existent entirely.

And you can redirect the conversation to the characterizations instead of the world-building, because at least there’s something to talk about there. For all their godawful execution and laughable writing, the characterizations and drama are at least aspects of the film where the filmmakers put effort…unlike the conflict and setting, where pilfering the corpse of the OT with no in-universe justification was apparently the preferred approach.

And for me, it doesn’t. Sorry, but if any other film asked me to sympathize with the main villain just through some wave-away conversation the two characters have before the father gets stabbed, I wouldn’t be anymore invested in what was going on than I was in TFA. It’s a quintessential example of the scene coming before the story, whether it’s been earned by the story or not. Abrams needed some kind of harrowing, dramatic climax in TFA, and rather than build a foundation between the characters organically through the script, through character actions or parallels, he just wedged the confrontation between Han and Kylo, hoping the virtue of the scene would make up for it not being properly set up.

And that maybe perfectly fine for you, but I view it as the same vapid, surface-level, artificial trash we get in the DCEU with films like Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. Zack Snyder and David Ayer push for these uber-dramatic scenes like Superman disarming Batman by screaming “MARTHA!” and the Squad of Villains having some kind of character exchange over drinks before fighting the main threat, but both directors failed at competently setting up the characters and story to SERVICE the drama in those scenes…just wave-away explanations and shallow interactions.

TFA’s Han and Kylo scene is just as superficial, wasted, shallow, surface-level absurdity. It requires the literal shutdown of any logic or mild inquiry on the characters to let even a fraction of the drama be justified.

And “another thing is us wanting to know more about it”? If that’s a mystery that needs to be waved in front of the audience like a carrot on a stick, then the correct approach is to solve that mystery and flesh it out before the movie demands our emotional investment in their confrontation, not before. That’s like filming Gone with the Wind and just dropping the audience into Rhett and Scarlett’s emotional parting of ways in front of the burning cinders of Atlanta behind them, having Rhett beg Scarlett to kiss him one more time (in case he never comes back) after ONE conversation they had minutes before the scene, instead using key opportunities in the prior runtime to establish relationship between the two. Would the scene still have even a granule of emotional resonance if their relationship hadn’t been illuminated first, if the writers hadn’t laid out how the characters feel about each other in prominent detail, leaving nothing to speculation or assumption? Of course not, because the writers weren’t incompetent or amateurish. They KNEW that this scene predicated on you caring on the characters BEFOREHAND, not afterwards through mystery box nonsense. I could easily make the same case for Casablanca, a film where we’re actually dropped in the middle of a bad relationship in media res with Rick and his GF, and the writers use every exchange of dialogue and character action on behalf of both participants so that, despite their history being limited and out of the audience’s reach, the audience has enough to grasp to funnel all of their emotional investment into the confrontation. And before you try and counter by stating that neither of these films have had sequels like the ST movies do, with deliberate mystery boxes being set up in the latter, consider that we’re 2/3rds into this trilogy, and the history between Han and Kylo STILL hasn’t properly been fleshed out. And do you know why that is? Because it’s no longer relevant. Abrams got the cheap climactic scene without working for it, and has no reason to return to it at any point in the future to give it the necessary weight, dramatic context, and character drive that it desperately lacks….he’s moved on past that scene, and has a new film to pepper with lens flare and mystery box nonsense. Because that’s the kind of storyteller he is, and what kind of movies the ST films are: they are a collection of a scenes you’re meant to absorb in the moment, and nothing else. They don’t get developed, ever come back in any meaningful way, are built up or set up in any natural manner through the writing, nothing….they’re disposable and worthless, made in the short-term, and for no other purpose. The most Han’s death gets in TLJ is the hand-wave dismissal from Kylo of “I didn’t hate him”…and that’s it. It’s dropped like an empty soda can in the middle of a garbage dump, lost in the rest of boundless, directionless mediocrity plaguing the script.

In short, good writing doesn’t try to stage dramatic scenes where it asks for your emotional investment in the moment, while promising to provide the reason why you should be emotionally invested later. If you’re perfectly content with this style of storytelling, have at it—but I refuse to lower my standards to such a juvenile, lazy level of film-writing. This is incompetence and laziness of the highest order, and I won’t give it a free pass here or in any other movie. It is not my job to be patient and wait for the film to provide justification for my investment for scenes in further sequels—it is the film’s job to earn that investment, right then and there, before it tries to make a scene the dramatic focal point of the story.

I find them necessary because I don’t know jack about the characters beyond them having a familial relationship. Sorry, but the sheer virtue of Han and Kylo being father and son is not enough to warrant my investment in the uber-dramatic confrontation Abrams clumsily attempts to stage in TFA.

As I will explain below:

And the details of what happened between Han and Kylo aren’t massively important to me either…but we don’t get anything else as an alternative.

You say that this is a story about conflicting points of view, but perspectives mean nothing if we don’t know what the perspectives are revolving around. I have no idea who’s justified in Kylo and Han’s relationship because their relationship isn’t established. I barely know how one feels about the other, and instead of alluding to it properly through actions that the characters take, or by the way they interact with other up until they reunite with each other, Abrams decides to have them confront each other, have Kylo kill his father, and then expects us to care and be completely invested in what’s going on.

I don’t care who’s good or evil in this confrontation, because the film has done nothing to effectively stage this confrontation or the relationship between the people involved.

Yes, but why does he feel justified and self-righteous about what he’s doing? Why does he place succeeding Darth Vader at higher importance than the well-being of his own parents? Two movies in, and we still have no answer to these questions, and yet the spotlight of drama is still centered on Kylo as the dramatic core of the trilogy. The most we get is in TLJ when he proclaims to Rey that he wants to end it all “the Sith, the Jedi, the Skywalkers, the Rebellion, everything…”, but why does he want this? What in his life has made him detest this cycle, and why does he believe ending it will fix the problems in his life?

See, it’s wonderful when you can just fling these edgy, brooding remarks out of your antagonist’s mouth to make him sound “deep and conflicted”, or something, but in objective actuality, these are just arbitrary things that mean nothing in context.

There is no “why” behind them. They are meaningless, because they haven’t been fleshed out. They just happen because the director wills it, not because it had a believable or acceptable reason to happen within the sole framework of the story.

But why was Kylo seduced by Snoke? Why did Kylo’s family come second to this new figure in his life? For an event that “destroyed” the family, it sure as hell gets the least amount of development, explanation, or even the vaguest of hints in these movies…which I wouldn’t care about, if the films didn’t make this family conflict and Kylo Ren himself the dramatic focal point of the trilogy. You’d think that this would be the EXACT thing that the writers would spend time highlighting and at least developing the emotional details and motivations of everyone involved, but no. Instead, I know more about the ongoing slave problem on Canto Bight than I do about the relationship of the main villain and the family he supposedly “destroyed.” Wonderful. Why am I supposed to care, again?

And moreover, Han’s involvement in Kylo’s life is never properly illuminated in the movie either. I have no idea whether or not Kylo is justified in loving or resenting or being indifferent towards his father, since I don’t know what their interactions have been up till this point…something that could’ve been hinted at tremendously without the use of flashbacks, by strongly focusing on how Han interacts with people younger than him, or by how Kylo interacts with people older than him, as a means to give the audience a prominent showcase of what their relationship was indeed like, without outright showing it.

But instead, we get exactly what you point out:

“If Luke couldn’t help him, how could I?” Help him with what exactly? Solely in the context of TFA, this makes no sense because we have no idea what Kylo needed help WITH. Was he troubled, damaged, insane, mentally unfit for Jedi training? I have no idea because the film doesn’t illuminate on this or combat my mind’s urges to delve into head-canon assumptions by providing some rigid facts about what’s going on.

Yeah, we have vague implications that Han really wasn’t involved in Kylo’s childhood, but not only are we not given any reason or specifics for why this was the case after the OT establishing how much Han was willing to change for Leia’s sake, but these vague implications are too little to service a scene that tries so hard to be dramatic as the confrontation on Starkiller Base. The weight and drama of this scene hinges on the relationship between the two characters, and the sparse information and non-existent fleshing out we’ve been provided in regards to both characters doesn’t justify how much this scene wants us to be invested. Again, just like my Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad examples, this is an instance of the director desperately wanting a scene he hasn’t substantially worked for. You may be content with the over-the-shoulder, vague revelations in passing that gets the characters to this scene, but this objectively insubstantial to service a scene as crucial and dramatic as this one. The context for which this scene occurs is empty: there are two to three lines of history between the characters, meant to uphold the crushing emotional weight of this scene, and instead of showing us the disparity between these two characters, the film opts to tell us about it instead and still expect us to care. This is something you get taught on the first day of writing class: “show, don’t tell.” And Abrams opted to tell us 2-3 lines of vague hints at character history to service the emotional climax of the film, instead of leading us to that point organically. This is objectively poor writing, regardless of how you feel about it.

But going back to the line you mentioned earlier, it’s some truly backwards logic that Han thinks that because Kylo’s UNCLE couldn’t help him, his FATHER couldn’t. That makes anti-sense…one would think someone like Kylo’s father, someone who objectively has known and spent more time with Kylo longer than his uncle has (at least, we have to assume out of basic familial knowledge, because God forbid these films confirm that with some actual history on the characters) would stand a better chance at helping him. And you can’t argue that Han CAN’T help Kylo with what’s irking him because “it’s Force-related”, because the film never truly elaborates what’s wrong with Kylo or why he’s conflicted. Even in TLJ, the most we get is that “there’s darkness in him that clouds his future.” But what’s the source of that darkness? When Yoda predicted uncertainty in Anakin’s future, it wasn’t baseless, medial vagueness like we’re afforded in the OT: it’s his attachment issues, his fear of loss, his tendencies to blame himself for not being able to fix things….and again, unlike the ST, which just TELLS us that there’s something wrong with Kylo—but seemingly allergic as to highlight just what that is, or why Luke or Han can’t help him with it—we’re SHOWN everything wrong with Anakin through the decisions he makes, the trials he undergoes, the people at the center of his emotional attachment. “Show, don’t tell”, remember? Take a wild guess which approach the ST goes with to develop Kylo; oh, that’s right! Vague, inconsequential nonsense told to us instead of being shown to us for better narrative effectiveness!

Not to mention that it just begs belief that a non-Force sensitive father like Han just learns one day that his own son has been whisked away by the influence of some Dark Sider in the shadows of the galaxy, and without asking any questions or even protesting at what’s going on or who Snoke is, he just takes off and never comes back. Just…completely in line with the same guy who braved a snowstorm to save his best non-familial friend, or being willing to back off from romantically pursuing Leia when mistakenly assuming she loves Luke instead, not wanting to compromise his friendship with either of them for his own selfish needs. Oh, but his own son has left everything behind and under the influence of a Dark Sider he’s never heard of? “Oh, well. Luke can’t help him, which definitely means I can’t help him…so I’m going to take off and go back to smuggling, because that’s what I know best!” You could argue that Han’s changed since the OT days, or that there’s some other justifiable reason to give up on his son faster than he ever gave up on his best friend or the woman he loved, but that would require more assumptions or evaluating more scattered, vague info that may be in the film…both of which are ludicrous options, because they still amount to assumptions and barebones info being the only thing the audience has to take with them into the confrontation scene on Starkiller base, which requires the audience’s full and uncompromised investment to fulfill the drama attempted within that scene.

Seriouslu, the amount of assumptions left to the audience to form in this scenario is laughable. We have a troubled son with an issue that’s never illuminated on (that Luke or Han can’t help him out with, but Snoke can, at least in the boy’s view), a Dark Sider who seduces Kylo through means that are never explained, with Kylo forming the motive to take over the galaxy and succeed Darth Vader without any basis for that motivation, as a response to a troubled family history that we know nothing about and have to assume through wave-away explanations and non-existent character building.

If this story was a human being, it would’ve been born without arms, legs, eyes, ribs, or a mouth.

Just because you’re able to take vague pieces of information and stretch them to fill the void of emptiness within the emotional confrontations in this film does not make the story well-written. It doesn’t make the information provided any less insubstantial, or the drama any less lacking.

The notion about “children often not seeing value in their parents and following the wrong path” is 100% your own interpretation, and implied absolutely nowhere in the film to be what’s going on with Kylo. We have no idea where his emotions towards his parents stem from, other than the fact that he has them. We have no idea what he thinks his parents lack or what they couldn’t provide, outside of the fact that he thinks they lack something and that Snoke could give it to him instead. What that is, is never explained or illuminated anywhere in the film. Merely writing off what happens to Kylo as “something that happens”, without providing any actual examples or relevant information outside of personal assumption about what children do, is you literally doing the writing for the filmmakers. Nothing you have stated appears in any tangible form within the film.

You also say that the tragedy of TFA is that “the son has reached the point of no return”, but again, the “why” is completely missing from this. Why has the son reached this point of no return in the first place? What was he before in the eyes of his parents, and how is this current angry, selfish, brooding, sociopathic persona of Kylo Ren any different from what he was before?

We’re alluded to the fact that he’s turned evil, that how he is as Snoke’s servant is a far cry to what we’ve seen before, but we have no basis for anything of the sort…because the film hasn’t shown us that Kylo no longer resembles his past self. The film just says he is, and we have to accept it.

It is absolutely relatable for parents to try and redeem their children, but the film has done an abysmal job of portraying this element. The relationship between the parents and the child is poorly developed and explained, thus robbing it of any emotional nuance or reason to relate to what’s going on. We don’t know what the child was previously, so the “point of no return” provided by the film from which the parents can’t save their child is meaningless and insubstantial. This a theme that exists purely in concept, and nothing else: it isn’t set up, illuminated, or fleshed out to be a proper dramatic component of the film.

This is not a novel or new concept in film, either; The Man in The Iron Mask is a film all about a father desperately trying to wrench his vile and irredeemable son back to his formal self, willingly blinding himself to all of the son’s faults and evils because he can’t bring himself to admit that the son is too far gone to be saved…even when that inability to condemn his son comes in conflict with the lives and wellbeing of others the father cares about. This a core theme that is fleshed out exhaustively in the film, done through careful development and multiple scenarios that drive it home as a central element in the drama.

It’s not that this can’t be done, it’s just that it isn’t done even remotely well in TFA. In TFA, it’s only a surface level theme that’s given no nuance or exploration, despite being central to the drama.

It’s funny you bring both those examples about Rey and Finn as some kind of proof of what I refer to when I said “character building is done over a long course of time, through its own unique means”…when both of those scenes are the one and only basis for their characters going forth. That’s not “over a long period of time”…that’s once, per character. And that one scene for each becomes the puddle for which each character’s narrative water is insufficiently drawn.

Rey wants to go to other places, but is anchored because she wants to find her parents. That’s all there is to her character, and this is somehow the basis for everything she does: joining the Resistance, becoming a Jedi, redeeming Kylo Ren…it’s an incredibly weak set-up that’s spread like too little butter over too much bread. And what’s more, it’s something she states multiple times rather than showing through her actions, as good writing would do. Character building doesn’t work like this: you establish multiple components to a character, not take one aspect or personality trait and ride it like a horse till it dies of exhaustion. It makes the character stale, underdeveloped, two-dimensional, and more akin to a caricature than an actual character…a woeful prospect for the protagonist to be sure.

But even with that problem, Rey is still leaps and bounds ahead of Kylo in terms of character building because at least there’s SOME basis for her motives. It’s incredibly weak, and flimsy beyond measure, but it exists. Kylo’s character building is worthless because it’s based on nothing. He sacrifices everything for the Dark Side, to fulfill his father’s legacy, but there’s no tangible basis or reason as to why. It’s his everything, his one driving motive for killing his father, combating the protagonists, serving Snoke…and yet it’s never truly explained or elaborated on. He just wants to be the next Vader…that’s it. And even this is abandoned shortly in TLJ when he destroys the helmet, and never brings up his adoration or yearning to replicate Vader ever again throughout the entirety of the film.

He resents his family, for reasons that are never divulged. He blindly follows Snoke and unconditionally trusts his wisdom prior to Snoke degrading him, but we’re never given a justification for why this is within the films. Snoke was the immediate alternative Kylo turned to after leaving the Jedi Order, and we don’t know the reason or driving motive as to why.

It’s actually kind of amusing when you realize that despite being shoe-horned in by the trilogy as the central dramatic heart of the ST, Kylo Ren is the one person who’s built and layered as a character the least.

I literally know more about the driving motives behind a one-and-done character like Rose Tico than I do about the central antagonist of the new trilogy. That’s a pathetic new low for this franchise.

I didn’t intend any aggression or dismissal through my word choice, so apologies if that’s how it comes off. I will not, however, apologize when the only thing you take away from the mountain of writing alternatives I provided, the only retort you can make is “flashbacks don’t work.”

The reason it appears you’re not paying attention or willfully ignoring points I’ve made is because you’re only responding to part of my argument and not all of it, giving off the appearance of cherry-picking.

Considering how scarcely you refute any of the points I make in my posts, only to turn around and take one part of my argument and focus on that exclusively, you can understand how I could come to this conclusion.

When I post an entire list of methods to develop characters including flashbacks, and the only thing you respond to or counter is my passing mention of flashbacks, as if somehow flashbacks are the only thing I’m arguing for.

Whether you intended it or not, it comes off as you ignoring the rest of what I post just to make your argument seem plausible. Consider all the effort I’m putting in to counter and argue against every point you make. How do you think it looks on your end when you only respond to a fraction of that, and only counter the “flashbacks” bit? It looks like you’re either not putting the work into countering the points I make, or you can’t counter them so you mischaracterize my stance by focusing on the “flashbacks” bit entirely.

The author can’t work with details she doesn’t have. It’s a bit hard to properly develop Leia’s thought process about losing her son when the history and details involving that loss are as sparse and empty as the inside of a Kardashian’s cranial cavity.

You can’t squeeze mountains of emotional insight and weighted, turbulent thoughts out of vague character details. Kind of like how you can’t stage an entire, dramatic scene between a father and a son with some vague, over-the-shoulder lines and still expect integrity in the emotional weight of that scene.

But who would ever think to do that? That kind of lazy, incompetent writing would NEVER make it into a Star Wars movie.

And as I stated before, that one aspect of her character becomes the well from which all future motivations, choices, and actions are drawn. It’s one element of her character that’s milked till it’s bone-dry, and is incredibly flimsy and weak to justify everything she wants or does over the short span of these films (her bond with Kylo Ren being the most egregious example).

Good characters have multiple layers to the character, multiple aspects that contribute to a wealth of actions, not just one like Rey does. That’s the primary difference between the introspective films I mentioned, and the ST movies. It wasn’t disposable, but it’s not enough either. It’s not enough to warrant or justify half of what she does in these movies, that’s for sure.

It’s like if you had Anakin from the PT, and you removed:
-his need to help people because of the helpless circumstances of his childhood
-his attachment to his mother
-his reluctance to let things change
-his constant urge to fix things, both in a literal and metaphorical sense, and blaming himself when he can’t
-his authority complex with people like Obi-Wan and Mace Windu
-his overconfidence in his own abilities
-his emotional instability that he can’t really control, and leads to situations he can scarcely justify in the aftermath
-his reluctance to accept help from others, stewing a cancerous sense of over self-reliance

You take all those things away, and you just have his romance for Padme, since it was introduced in Episode I, and carried over in future episodes. That’s what Rey and her shtick feels like—it feels like a single layer, a dog-whistle for the audience to understand one basic, uncomplicated aspect of her character when it’s time to pay attention to a dramatic scene. Not one of many other well-developed facets of her character, not one part of her personality that butts heads or gets in the way of another trait…just one, single aspect to milk dry.

It’s an incredibly weak and lazy foundation to build her character off of, when her entire reason for existing and singular driving character aspect is “MUH PARENTS, MUH BELONGING.” That’s boring and contrived, and the least interesting character make-up of any protagonist. I’ve literally seen Power Ranger characters with more layers and depth to them, and that franchise is written and aimed for children with short attention spans and big wallets to blow on action figures.

Star Wars shouldn’t be playing seconds to Power Rangers, EVER. (Although, amusingly enough, Power Rangers was the top-selling toy brand in 2017, and Star Wars was one of the weakest. Must’ve been Rey’s multi-layered and incredibly deep character that moved all those action figures…or not).

And that’s precisely what makes this connection contrived, unbelievable, and borderline juvenile by the standards of writing competency. Unless Rey is a child or simple-minded, the leap from “This man murdered his own father and sliced my friend’s spine open” to “This man turned evil because he thought Luke was going to kill him” is not a believable leap in logic or any kind of reasonable conclusion for her to make. I don’t care if Rey is the Star Wars-equivalent of Mother Theresa—she met this guy yesterday, and has only had a fleeting number of interactions with him, so the emotional connection is moronic all by itself. But even as a member of the opposing faction, the idea that Rey thinks it’s feasible or even remotely doable to win Kylo over as a means of combating the Resistance is laughable—it’s illogical, unfounded, and nonsensical given the amount of time that’s transpired, the revelations provided, and the interactions between the two thus far. This is like if Princess Leia discovered that Darth Vader was a good guy at one point in his life (assuming we ignore the familial ties between the two of them for a moment), and she decides the next day that she’s going to try and recruit him to fight the Empire.

That would’ve been laughed out of the theater if Lucas, Kasdan, or Kazanjian attempted something so nonsensical back in the OT. It not only begs belief as to where our heroine gets the complete and wholesome assurance that our sociopathic, patricidal, mass-murdering villain is vulnerable enough to be swayed to the side of righteousness, but that he won’t try and use her blind trust and desperation to pretend to join up with her and back-stab her later.

There’s nothing, emotional or logical, to make this writing believable. It’s flimsier than wet paper, and holds together just as poorly under scrutiny.[/QUOTE]

 

Rebel Force Radio Star Wars Podcast SO Belongs HERE with All'a You'uns ...
...
None of You'uns Even Know Just What That Means

 

I have given plenty of examples of how Kylo and Han’s conflict works.. I also gave examples of Rey’s characterisation and Finn’s, but you have dismissed them all... Anyway, you have a point when you say I haven’t been exhaustive enough in highlighting character development in TFA, so here it goes. Apologies for the shorthand. I hope this is clear enough:


Rey in TFA:

-scavenger: knows how spaceships are built by looking for parts.

-looks at old woman: aware of her future. Troubled by it.

-calendar: patient, methodical. She’s been in Jakku for long.

-flowers: sensitive to beauty and life

-doll in resistance uniform: imaginative, dreaming personality, she’s been in Jakku since childhood.

-flight simulator: flying skills.

-portions:gets by with little food.

-food she eats and how she eats: she is hungry and lonely.

-looks at the ships leaving: dreaming of going away.

-teedo: she knows how to assert herself in a ruthless environment

-bb8: empathy and caring for others.

-not selling Bb8: she has principles. Sense of justice and what’s right. Loyal.

- she can fight with a staff proficiently

-meeting finn: she is excited about adventure and war heroes. Sympathetic to the resistance.

-wanting to go back to jakku: longing for family

-with Han: impressed. Admiring. “he’s like the father you never had”

-not accepting Han’s job offer: her wanting to go back to jakku is crippling and limiting her.

-in Max’s castle: she’s scared of dealing with life on her own.

-resisting Kylo: Rey finds the brave, proud, Upfront, Resilient person within herself

-in snow battle: Aggressive. Doesn’t give up. The force is now part of her. The force makes her to look forward and embrace her future: Luke and the island

Finn in TFA:

-bloody trooper friend: compassion.

-not shooting villagers: sense of wrong

-“It’s the right thing to do”: sense of right.

-“I need a pilot”, “calm down” :nervous, obfuscated.

-In tie fighter: emotional, childlike, team player.

-Poe naming him: sense of individuality.

-“Not to Jakku!”: cowardly

-with Rey: nervous at first, hates to lie.

-in Maz’s: still cowardly. Wants to escape.

-“You looked at me like no one had ever done before”: feels attachment, belonging

-returns to fight after attack in Bosnian prime: he realises he cares for Rey too much to leave her.

-fights the trooper: he regains new, more adult valour and fights his previous comrades.

-“I only came here to rescue Rey”: Deeper attachment to Rey, which is deeply connected to his new found sense of valour.

-he risks his life to defend himself and Rey against Kylo: he becomes even braver.

Finn evolved a lot in TFA

 

Kylo places Vader first because Snoke seduced him to the dark side (Snoke did so by stoking the typical angst young adults have against their parents).

Kylo is self-righteous because Snoke has convinced him that he’s doing the right thing by turning to the dark, fulfilling his destiny. “The supreme leader is wise”. Kylo has grown to trust Snoke completely.

Of course this is going to change in TLJ, where Kylo’s character grows exponentially.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 2, 2018 ---

Just consider this: Han has returned to smuggling after his son has taken the wrong path... This shows us that Han is avoiding his responsibility as a father to force/ convince/encourage his son to take the right path. Han is the kind of dad who flees when the going gets tough... You talked about Han not being described in his interaction with younger characters but he is: Han is the kind of dad who does not give a compliment easily (he begrudges admitting Rey is right about “bipassing the compressor”). Han is kind hearted and sympathetic (the way he looks at Rey when she says she’s never see all that green), but he’s gruff in his manners (“It wouldn’t pay much... i wouldn’t be nice to you...”). Rey has had a tough life and she’s able to see through him, but Kylo is a different person. Kylo has a deep sense of entitlement and feels superior (I’ll get to explaining kylo’s character later). Kylo probably did not connect with his father’s gruffness as he became more of an adult. Also Han is not an easy man to impress. Finn realised this when he tried to sound macho and called Han “Solo”. “Women always figure out the truth.” Those last words said a lot about Han’s shortcomings as a husband. The scene with the gangs shows us he’s a liar and a thief. He was somewhat absent as a husband according to Leia: “no matter how much we fought, I always hated seeing you leave”. Han responds: “I did it so you missed me.”

Han was a charming man, but not grown up enough to be a family man. His moment of growth was before dying, when he confronted his son and tried to bring him back to the light. With how much sorrow Kylo said: “it’s too late”! It made me wonder for how long Kylo might have been waiting for his father to make an appearance and ask him to go back home...

 

Congratulations, you literally proved the entire point I was making regarding this topic. If you remember (or possibly not), the exact criticism I had regarding Rey or Finn's established character traits is that there are either too few of them---and just one becomes the basis of all of their characterizations and choices going forth---but 90% of them don't come back in any meaningful way.

Compare your list about Finn and Rey to the one I made about Anakin. Not only is my list completely devoid of things he does, but the kind of character he is (something you couldn't do, because the characters are so shallow and surface-level that their actions or abilites HAVE to be included in their character composition because of how lacking they are in actual substance), but every single trait I listed is not some one-time, in-the-moment aspect of the character; their traits that continuously rear their heads through how Anakin acts throughout the PT.

Now let's look at your list.

-scavenger: knows how spaceships are built by looking for parts.
-flight simulator: flying skills.
-portions:gets by with little food.
-she can fight with a staff proficiently

These aren't character or personality traits. These are skills, actions, or elements of livelihood. The fact that you even had to include them should show how sparse Rey's character really is.

-looks at old woman: aware of her future. Troubled by it. When does this aspect of her character ever come back in a future scene, or as a relevant obstacle?
-calendar: patient, methodical. She’s been in Jakku for long. When does this aspect of her character ever come back in a future scene, or implemented as a relevant trait? Not to mention that being "on Jakku for long" isn't a character trait, or inform on her personality whatsoever.
-flowers: sensitive to beauty and life. When at any point in the story does this have any relevance or dictates her decisions or actions as a character?
-doll in resistance uniform: imaginative, dreaming personality, she’s been in Jakku since childhood. And yet this imagianative aspect of her character or creativity as a dreamer never comes back, or has any relevance later on in the story, or informs or detracts from any of her actions later in the story either. And again, living on a planet, her history, does not inform her character. None of this ever comes back.
-food she eats and how she eats: she is hungry and lonely. Being hungry and lonely aren't character traits. Please try again.
-looks at the ships leaving: dreaming of going away. And she does goes away, and this aspect of her character never returns or impacts her for the rest of TFA or the entirety of TLJ, and does not impact or affect the way she encounters new places or things. She does not experience wonder, excitement, or inexperience at encountering the thing she's never seen or encountered on Jakku....in fact, her unfamiliarity with foreign things seems non-existent since she gets out of every situation without strain or issue (Her cell on Starkiller Base, and the Dark Side Hole on Ach-To being the primary examples).
-meeting finn: she is excited about adventure and war heroes. Sympathetic to the resistance.
-with Han: impressed. Admiring. “he’s like the father you never had” And outside of that one mention from Kylo Ren in TLJ, Han Solo's paternal significance never comes back. A weak, throwaway interaction with another character that is not only artificial and forced by the story without an ounce of believability in the short amount of time they have on screen, but also isn't a trait that comes back in any meaningful way. Outside of it being mentioned, what does this aspect of her personality, this need to attach herself to people like a barnacle, actually have? How does this affect her choices in the films? What obstacles or struggles does it lead to? What unique scenarios does it create? Oh what's that, NONE? Again, insignificant, disposable, worthless, only exists to be referenced one time and never come back in any real relevance whatsoever.
-not accepting Han’s job offer: her wanting to go back to jakku is crippling and limiting her. How does it cripple or limit her in any way we see on screen? What serious reprecussions or consequences does this have? Does turning down the job slow Rey down or inhibit her in anyway? Is there anything in the actual film, and not in metaphor or hypotehtical situations, that creates an actual detriment or personal obstacle for Rey? This trait could almost be a flaw, if it had any weight or significance. But it doesn't---so it's worthless when describing the character.
-in Max’s castle: she’s scared of dealing with life on her own. ^See everything I just mentioned. How does this impact or set Rey back in any long-term, consequential way? How does this "flaw" have any serious effect on the character in the plot to have any relevant place on this list?


These scattershot moments of character, some of which never even come back, are random, undeveloped, insubstantial, and aren't reoccurring consistent aspects of Rey's character. They do not re-appear enough to be staple components of her personality, do not

This is the primary difference between actual characters, and two-dimensional characters. My list was short, did not specify my character's occupation, actions, history, or particulars in terms of role in the plot, and yet it contained all of the reocurring, consistent, and impactful aspects of Anakin's character. I could give that list to someone who hasn't even seen Star Wars, and they could probably form a story in their minds with that character, based off that information. That isn't remotely the case with your list---these are a wealth of nice deeds, pretty traits, and instances of skill and prowess that do not inform on anything the character is. Most of it is random and inconsistent, happens once and never again, and aren't relevant aspects that reoccur in any fashion whatsoever. Trying to get a stranger to Star Wars to make their own story around a character with this random, haphazard mess of nothing would be the equivalent of trying to cook a dish with 8 thousand conflicting and aimless ingredients.

Fitting, given the structure of plotting and characterization in these movies.

The only relevant aspects of Rey's character that WERE listed are the following:
-teedo: she knows how to assert herself in a ruthless environment.
-bb8: empathy and caring for others.
-not selling Bb8: she has principles. Sense of justice and what’s right. Loyal.
-resisting Kylo: Rey finds the brave, proud, Upfront, Resilient person within herself
-in snow battle: Aggressive. Doesn’t give up. The force is now part of her. The force makes her to look forward and embrace her future

So, in short: she's assertive, empathic, righteous, resilient, brave, proud, and determined. The most blase and uninspired heroic traits of any written character in fiction, no better than the rejected concepts for superheros back in the early age of comics who were turned down for being too perfect, and too generic and uninspired to stand out in a medium of heroes. You could give this list of traits to someone who hadn't seen Star Wars without mentioning Rey's name or occupation, and they'd probably think she was the most boring and flawless slate of perfection to ever be written. Where are her consequential, disaster-creating, developmental flaws that warp and twist her, that give her a sense of growth? These traits sound more like those of some terrible OC Character on Deviantart, some recolor of a Sonic character who has no other relevant or meaningful personality traits other than positive ones. The "flaws" mentioned earlier have about as much impact as droplets of water on a roaring fire---there's nothing in them that create significant or impactful obstacles that change or develop the character in any way, and give no growth that affects her ability to do things, interact with other characters, or progress in the story in any way. Whereas Anakin's traits were damaging, changed him radically over time, and actively lost him things, put him in scenarios that would scar him, put him at severe odds with multiple important characters for unique reasons, Rey's traits do not. They merely exist to flimsily explain part of her motives, not create any obstacles that change her radically over time, make her lose anything of value that deliberately slows or alters her progression in the plot, or puts her in scenarios of impossibility, struggle, or at odds that push back at her in a way that causes her to transform or change.

She's as empty, underwritten, and two-dimensional as the rest of this story.

You're giving me more "what"s, and no "why's." Simply saying that Kylo put Vader first because Snoke seduced him explains absolutely nothing about either character. What part of any information we're given by the story informs us as to why Kylo Ren wants to finish what Vader started? Where does this motivation come from? Your example of Snoke "stoking the typical angst" is an explanation you have provided completely on your own---there's nothing in the films that actively support this, and the explanation itself still does not inform on anything. Why does Kylo Ren see wisdom in what Snoke says and does? Why does he think Snoke is wise? What has Snoke promised in terms of Kylo's destiny, and was that the reason he joined up with him? Why does he see him as the only good alternative to Luke? How did their relationship kick off?

This is "why" I'm talking about, the kind that does not exist in the movie, and thus makes every aspect of Kylo Ren and his allegiance to Snoke a surface-level, artificial addition to the film. A master-apprentice relationship isn't good by mere virtue of existing---it needs fleshing out. The other films, the Clone Wars, and Rebels all did this with main and secondary characters, some of which weren't even nearly as important to the story as Kylo Ren is to the ST. It just proves how poorly-written and underdeveloped the relationships and characters are in these new movies---founded on nothing but the story throwing vague facts and scenarios at us, providing no depth or exploration, but still expecting us to care.

Par for the course when it comes to these movies. It almost feels like these scripts were written five minutes before shooting.

But why did these things happen? Why was Han an uninvolved father to begin with, after everything the OT films established him to be, and the kind of sacrifices and changes he was willing to make to retain Luke's friendship and be Leia's lover? Why does Han think he has no chance of redeeming his son? Why would he avoid responsibility now, when his character arc in the OT suggested that he put the loyalty to his friends above his personal urges? Why, when he was so attentive and loyal to Luke and Leia, was he unwilling to spare some of that compassion and attention for his own son? What changed? Did he even changed at all?

And the little half-baked lines and throwaway explanations in the films do nothing to answer any of these questions. You say Han's decision to go back to smuggling explains that Han avoided responsibility to change or redeem his son, but the only basis we have for as to why he feels this is way is: "If Luke couldn't change him, how could I?" This explains absolutely nothing. We as the audience don't have any reasoning, on-screen proof, or actions or words Han has taken to suggest where Han would get this belief from....and that's partly because we have no idea what Han and Kylo Ren's actual relationship was. You keep pointing out that Han was irresponsible and uninvolved---that still doesn't illuminate on what him and his son's relationship was. We have no idea if this had a positive or negative effect on Kylo, we have no idea if the latter even cares, or why Han was uninvolved, or if he was uninvolved by choice, or if there were things he wanted to say or do with his son, but couldn't. The film is giving us conclusions to scenarios it hasn't built up or properly fleshed out.

All of this is over-interpretation of of small elements to try and weave a head-canon history of Kylo's upbringing. We have no idea if the traits Han is displaying now were present when he was raising Kylo Ren...hell, we don't even know if these traits are something he developed in the aftermath of Kylo turning evil and leaving everything behind. It may be a byproduct of Kylo's turning, OR it could be traits he developed while being his father....we have no idea, because the film never tells us or elaborates on their prior relationship in any way. He's kind-hearted and sympathetic, but not enough to try and redeem his own son? Is he really going to show more kindness and compassion to strangers than his own family, because...the Han of the OT is almost the complete opposite of that, someone who treats strangers and even the Rebel Cause as interpersonal duties and reserves kindness and compassion to his friends, and no one else. You also say that Kylo Ren is entitled and feels superior, but when did this develop? What is the source for this? And I'm not talking books, comics, or video games that may or may not explain this....I'm talking about in the film, where the details about the character are required and necessary to facilitate the drama that the filmmakers are desperately attempting in these films.

Just...look at how many hoops you're jumping through to try and do the writers' job for them. Your molding a mountain of assumptions and over-analysis for a history that should've been communicated better in the film. It shouldn't be up to the audience to take one or two lines, and do an X-Files style examination on them in order to cobble together a history that may or may not be accurate for the characters involved in the film. That's absolute nonsense.

It should never be the job of audiences to come with their own version of events to justify their investment in the drama that the films' writers are responsible for setting up and fleshing out themselves. The fact that you had to cherry-pick microscopic details in the interactions and in the script to service this wealth of assumptions on your part says so much about how lacking, under-written, and half-baked this story is.

Again, what is the basis for this? What on film
"Not grown up enough to be a family man?" Uh, citation please? Where in the film is this stated or established? What in the OT even remotely suggested this with how much development Han underwent? Especially when George Lucas has stated in several interviews that the whole point of Han's development in the OT is to have him turn from a self-centered mercenary, to someone who evolves into someone co-dependent and familial.

And as for Han redeeming himself right before getting killed, Kylo saying it's too late....again, these are conclusions to scenarios that haven't been properly set up. Why was Han a poor father in the first place to need redeeming at all? What part of his paternal involvement when his son was a child does Kylo believe Han can't compensate? These throwaway lines mean nothing whatsoever in context, and nothing substantial or clearly fleshed-out was injected by the writers to lead to this.

I mentioned earlier how the writing in the ST feels like the directors leap-frogging lillipads, jumping to narrative peaks of drama without actually putting the work in to reach those narrative points naturally and organically...this entire, non-existent, shallow family drama between Kylo Ren and Han Solo is the epitome of what I'm talking about. The embodiment of: "Don't think about what's going on, or if it makes any sense with the established information. Just FEEL what's going on."

 

Kylo is a very powerful force user. The first scenes in TFA shows us that. He is shown as ruthless and clarevoyant. He is obsessed with obtaining the map to Luke, because he wants to please his master Snoke. It is understood that Snoke has a hold on him and that Kylo wishes to impress him. However, even in TFA we see a part of Kylo that is autonomous from Snoke: ”is your personal interest not against orders from Supreme Leader Snoke?” Hux says intently. It’s obvious that finding Luke is more important for Kylo than for Snoke. However, Kylo still needs Snoke’s mentor’s approval and feels he can help him with his conflict with the light: “by the grace of your training I won’t be seduced”. Kylo wants to be liberated of the light. He probably thinks that destroying Luke is the way to destroy his connection with it. Killing his own father is an unexpected challenge for Kylo. “He means nothing to me” he says, but Snoke doesn’t believe him, neither does the audience.

What we know about Han, and what Kylo says about him to Rey: “he would have disappointed you,” shows us Kylo has been hurt in his interactions with Han, and knowing how Han is (as I have explain above) we can understand how this may have happened: Kylo is haughty (“you, scavenger”) that’s the sort of thing that would have got on Han’s nerves. Also Kylo appears needy for approval in TFA and we know that complimenting is not Han’s forte. I can see how Han and Kylo may have locked horns more often than not.

By the end TLJ Kylo has grown in power and cunning, he has left behind the shackles of the past, but still we feel there is more change ahead: he’s all alone and it is suggested that his only “ally” wants to get rid of him.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 2, 2018 ---

In film, character is presented with setting, action, what they say... I thought we had agreed on that. Sorry I don’t remember what you said about Anakin... I always thought Anakin characterisation, although clear, wan’t very dynamic or engaging.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018 ---

-Being a scavenger and her knowledge helps her to open doors in space ships and hide in starkiller base, climbing on the walls of chasms.

-Having her pondering about her future makes Rey sympathetic, that’s the purpose of that scene. Also seeing her hungry and lonely makes us feel sorry for her too.

-Things that Rey does which help her to survive, let it be fighting, being methodical,learning to fly are skills that she is using later on in the film. She’s able to fight with Kylo and use the lightsaber because she has used the staff before.

-her appreciation of beauty and life, makes us understand how she loves the green of Tokadana, how she empathises with bb8, how she connects with people, with Finn, Maz, Han. She is a solitary girl with a tough life, but she has an emotional intelligence. She is not brutalised.

-her aspirational and imaginary strike makes it clear why she empathises with the romantic idea of the resistance, of Luke, of legends. Those dreams are the reason why she immediately sides with the resistance.

Her longing for family is her hero’s challenge. It’s what’s stopping her to progress and grow. With the help of the force and the pressure kylo puts her under she is able to grow out her need for jakku. Experiencing loss and having a friend to care for makes her overcome her desolate past and her empty hopes.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018 ---

Rey’s flaws are those of many women in our world: lack of confidence and ambition for a higher purpose, thinking small, being fearful, being unaware of their own talents. In this sense her character is, intentionally or not, quite allegorical. Her fears in this sense are the complete opposite from Kylo's: Kylo fears not to succeed.

At the end of TLJ and her stay with Luke Rey learns a lot about her own strength, and decides to use it, with a new discovered sense of ambition to succeed. Her lesson to learn in TLJ is, however, to laze that confidence with some wisdom.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018 ---

As far as Kylo's story is concerned, Snoke was the predator bad guy who turned Kylo bad. That's his reason for existing in TFA. He only serves Kylo's story, similar to the way the emperor served Vader's story in the OT. There may be more coming out in the next film... In the SW dark lords need disciples, as far as I know... The film offers enough evidence, and I have mentioned it to insanity, that Kylo and Han had a troubled relationship. It is suggested. Not explicitly said.

 

SIGH...you're doing it again. More "what", and no "why", as if it begins to explain anything. How does Kylo being a powerful force user inform on his motivations, goals, history or relationship with others whatsoever? That's like saying that General Grievous having four arms some how illuminates on his relationship between him and Count Dooku. That's a skill set, not a character trait, and it doesn't explain a thing in regards to his relationship with Han, Leia, or Snoke. Why does he want to please Snoke so badly, and where does that admiration or respect come from? I even inquired in my previous post as to why Kylo Ren views Snoke as wise...and you didn't respond to it. Why does he respect Snoke and consider him wise? What is the basis for that? This is relevant because Snoke was able to seduce Kylo Ren and wrench him from his parents, but Kylo Ren isn't some toddler---he's in his 20s at the time of the TLJ Flashback, and in his 30s in TFA/TLJ. Snoke had to win over a full-grown man with murderous impulses, so how did he do it? How did he earn the respect of Kylo Ren instead of Ren turning on him immediately? What is the basis for the respect Kylo elevates Snoke with? Why is he so desperate to please Snoke?

And given how little "why"s you've managed to rebut or counter successfully over our subsequent posts, I doubt these ones will get answered sufficiently either.

For the nine billionth time what is the conflict? What is the light, or redeeming factors in Kylo Ren that existed before he was a Dark Sider that he's trying to expel? This implies that he was a good person, or at least less of a murderous sociopath before Snoke recruited him, but until we're provided some kind of substantial examples of what redeeming qualities Kylo Ren had at one point, this is nothing but fluff and empty lines.

This entire series is predicated on the principle of good people turning evil. What good elements were in Kylo before he turned? He feels nothing towards his family, and we have no evidence of this being a departure from how he felt about them previously because nothing about his familial relationship has been provided in-film. In fact, 90% of your assumptions, many of which are complete stretches or baseless in their entirety, point to Han being a bad father that Kylo has no affection for...so WHY is Kylo conflicted about killing him, if there's no passionate ties or interpersonal connection restraining him from killing Han immediately?

This 'conflict', for as often as it's sputtered and garbled by this awful script, doesn't really exist outside of the film ham-fistedly telling us it does.

Again, from what light? What redeeming aspects did Kylo have prior to this that he wants expelled? The lack of compassion for his family, or the resentment from his teachers? It sound like his transition under Snoke wasn't "good to bad", but "bad to worse." There's no on-screen evidence of Kylo's transition being the destruction of any redeeming qualities, like in the case of Vader.

Also, he "probably thinks that destroying Luke" is the way to accomplish his purging of light-side weaknesses? You want to cite where in the film that's explicitly stated? Because "probably" isn't definitive proof of anything.

WHY was it an unexpected challenge? Why shouldn't we believe that Kylo Ren thinks nothing of his father when the film has done almost nothing to provide evidence to contrast that? That's not how writing works. This just more "what", and no "why", the film blatantly telling us something that doesn't exist or isn't warranted whatsoever with every piece of information we have available so far.

This shows nothing. It doesn't show that Han hurt his son, in fact, it doesn't reveal anything about their relationship outside of the fact that Kylo thinks that Han was some kind of disappointment, based on non-existent information and a complete lack of character history between the two people. We have no reason to take his words at anything other than face-value, and to try and probe beneath his statement with assumptions of how Han treated him isn't definitive proof, it is head-canon substituting for proper information.

Yet again.

"Complimenting is not Han's forte?" What is the basis for that? He compliments Luke's skill consistently after they become friends, and develops immense respect for him through their interactions in the OT. Are you telling me he can't spare the exact kind of relationship, or an even more intimate one, for his own son? What motive would he have to bring up his son in such a fashion where he shows less compassion towards his own flesh and blood than a non-familial companion like Luke?

More importantly, how do you know, from information that's prominently featured and clearly explained in the film, that Han and Kylo had this as the primary contributor to their bad relationship that led them to this point..."lack of compliments"? Really? Where in their interactions or extremely sparse history provided on-screen is this even remotely alluded to?

This isn't tangible, clear-constructed writing or character information in the slightest. This 5% in-universe fact, and 95% personal interpretation on your part.

Cool, except that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about base character traits that can be described about that character without mentioning setting, occupation, or actions by that character: personality traits and components. The things that dictate or hinder the things the character says and does, not the actual things the character says and does.

I can do that with Anakin because, despite whatever you consider dynamic or engaging (which is purely subjective), objectively speaking, his character traits are defined and can be listed without mentioning his occupation, setting, actions, or lines. The same way that Rey's list of non-action non-ability related character traits are a short, undeveloped, shallow list, that make her so barebones and two-dimensional that she might as well be made out of paper.

Go back and look at my list for Anakin's traits. See how it compares to your list regarding Rey. See if you can spot the disparity in how I describe Anakin, and how you describe Rey. That will give you an idea about how three-dimensional (albeit, poorly-executed) character Anakin is, and how much of a non-character Rey is.

These are abilities, not character traits. Try again.

And when does that come back in the story? When does that play a role in the decisions she makes in both TFA and its sequel? What does being hungry and lonely say about what kind of person she is, what kind of decisions she makes across the trilogy, how she interacts with characters, what setbacks she faces, what flaws she has to overcome, what kind of losses she has to endure, or what kind of mistakes she has to learn from? Again, you're not describing character traits or anything of relevance. You're describing activities or aspects of her living condition.

Take your feelings out of the equation for a moment, and analyze this objectively, as a writer is supposed to do. The only thing you mentioned of any relevance is her looking to the future, but even that is a short-lived, throwaway aspect of her character that's never explored to its fullness or potential, or contributes to any of the character exercises I just mentioned in the above tirade.

I was under the impression that her appreciation for the green stemmed from her conditioning to a desert environment, reacting to something she's never seen before. Reading that as "someone who appreciates beauty" is a massive stretch, especially when that's something that never comes back in the story. Her supposed "love of beauty" never affects, impacts, inhibits, or informs on decisions she makes throughout this series. It doesn't lend itself to any scenario, good or bad, throughout these films. This is a throwaway aspect that has absolutely no bearing on Rey as a unique personality, and I'm sorry you have to reach this far to find relevant examples of diverse character traits.

Also, her companionship and connection with people is "a love for life"? Okay, why is this a unique and prominent character trait, exactly? Is there a functioning, non-socipathic human being in existence, fictional or otherwse, that doesn't appreciate life or crave companionship? That's about as blase and basic as it gets. You could apply that to hundreds of fictional characters. You might as well have listed "doesn't believe innocent people should die" as a character trait. That's not unique, or substantial enough to service an entire character....that barely constitutes as a unique trait.

That tells me nothing unique or distinct about her character in particular, just that she has a basic grasp of human needs. Are you going to list her ability to breathe oxygen and her need for food as "unique, deep character traits" as well? Because this pretty much falls into the same ball-park.

Cool, so does most of the other people around her. That's not unique, substantial, or informing on her character in the slightest. That doesn't even begin to explain half of the things she does, outside of justifying why she sides with the good guys.

Contrast that with why Anakin is so hell-bent on fixing the wrongs in the world, why he puts all the blame on himself when people around him die, why he's willing to go to fascistic or immoral means to force peace and order in the galaxy...it's because he's overcompensating for his helplessness and captivity as a child, the inability to fix things. He's oversensitive, overprotective, and possessive because of how little control he had during his childhood.

And being overprotective and overcompensating are character traits that dictate most of his actions in the story. As opposed to Rey, whose actions dictate her character. She's good simply because she's good, and does good things because she's good.

...The end.

Her longing for her family has not set her back whatsoever outside of emotional investment. She hasn't suffered any losses or made any drastic consequential mistakes because of this, created new problems for herself, sustained any guilt from any mistakes she's made because of this mentality, caused anyone else to suffer or be harmed from this mentality, or had any scenario or moment of progression blocked because of it. You're saying it's stopping her from growing...in what sense? Her friends, her abilities, her victories, and her feats of strength throughout this series is not hindered or suffers any restricton because of this.

This is a flaw with no consequence, and therefore not a flaw at all.

Her flaw about longing has not cost her a single thing that her Force Powers, or protection by the writers does not solve. It does not serve as any kind of serious or substantial roadblock to her efforts to defeat the villains or save her friends. It's a flaw with all the weight and density of gas. It doesn't exist.

Her lack of confidence does not obstruct her progress, Force Powers, growth, proficiency, compromise her friends in any way, or causes her to lose or sacrifice anything substantial. In fact, given how quickly she masters everything and how little blowback and setbacks she encounters because of how immensely powerful she is, her lack of confidence is not only unbelievable, but completely unfounded by circumstance and context. This is not a flaw with lasting consequence or any real long-term relevance or substance whatsoever.

How and why.
How and why.
How and why.
How and why.
How and why.
How and why.

This explains absolutely nothing and has no backing, weight or substance in context. How did Snoke turn Kylo evil, and why was Kylo willing to join them for all the reasons I've inquired that you still have yet to answer, or even remotely address? This is the most hand-wave, borderline lazy excuse to facilitate Kylo and Snoke's relationship.

"Snoke's evil, and he seduced Kylo, so now Kylo is also evil. Don't ask for relevant or sensible reasons why, this is just how things are."

You haven't mentioned any evidence. You have only cited barebones information like "Kylo was seduced by Snoke" and "Kylo is a powerful Force User" and "Kylo wants to fulfill Vader's legacy and please Snoke at all costs."

More "what's", no "why"s. Moreover, suggestions for why Kylo and Han have a bad relationship is extremely flimsy and insubstantial for a film trilogy that prioritizes the the emotional struggle of its antagonist as a major focal point of the story and drama. "Hints" are objectively poor substitutes for what is essentially the emotional backbone of the trilogy...that's the one thing these movies should be detailing the most to prevent the exact kind of far-fetched assumptions and fanfic-tier guesswork you have displayed throughout these routine posts. The fact that you're doing more explaining and narrative legwork than the writers is a testament to where they have catastrophically failed.

 

I mean, what's the point of me explaining all of this? Dialogue in a film is there to unfold the story, give background and determine character. Scene, setting and action do the same. But you don't seem prepared to accept the story you have in front of you, or to believe what the characters are saying or doing, to tune in with the information and message the film is giving you in a dynamic manner... I think there is nothing else I can say in this conversation that could help any of us. We might as well agree to disagree.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 2, 2018 ---

The Han of the OT was always dismissive, against Luke, against Obi Wan, against Leia. He was charming about it, but he always wanted to do the riskiest things. He was good at heart, but he had undeniable flaws. The ST established that he fell into his old bad habits and went back to smuggling. Maybe this happened before Kylo turned, I don't know and it's not important. The important thing is that he was not there when his son turned and tried to have a confrontation with him before.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018 ---

I'm not overanalysing or inventing anything. This is all in the film. You just chose not to see it.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018 ---

The Han in TFA has gone back to bad habits. Aren't we supposed too be talking about the ST and nothing else?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018 ---

Sympathy for heroes is important for audiences who have a heart... activities are character traits too. It helps to make a character actions believable and I think it's important. I'm not always going to address YOUR points. I think Rey being physically strong makes her believable as a confident action heroine.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 2, 2018 ---

Well I'm probably more sensitive to this kind of thing than you are...It was a very telling touch that Rey, is spite of having a grim existence, cares about things that are not practical, what shows she is not brutalise early on in the film, when we hardly know a thing about her. I don't know what's so reaching about this...

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 3, 2018 ---

You insist in talking about "unique character traits". I'm talking about characterisation and about how different varied details shape a character and the many different ways in which these characters overcome challenges and develop. But for you talking about elements very carefully crafted to make the audience root for a character like Rey through the story is not good enough...

And about all your whys... Sometimes, you know, you just have to work out things on your own. That is called to be intelligent, not trying to appear so by dismissing and ranting about the work of others... The whys are only important if they serve the story, and all that you so much want to know about Han and Kylo, and about Snoke and Kylo, is not important in the story of TFA and TLJ. What we need to know, we know.

Ah well, I leave you to your reasoning and your misery, and hope you soon find something out there to be positive about. It's been... enlightening.
Cheerio.

 

The dialogue provided in the film is worthless if the relationship or drama it’s meant to convey isn’t fleshed out or elaborated in any other way. That’s like having a film where the drama revolves around the romantic trials and tribulations around a romantic couple, and the film’s only attempt to convey their romance was dialogue like: “I love you” and “You mean the world to me”, and that was it. No chemistry, no fleshing out of their relationship, no showing where their relationship succeeds or fails, just that dialogue and then the proceeding of the drama that the film puts the romantic relationship through. Dialogue is not a band-aid to solve empty character drama and unestablished relationships, it offers nothing of substance or underlying nuance to the story at hand.

You can point out the dialogue all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that the story didn’t earn its way to this position of the drama, and the fact that the dialogue itself does not substitute the fleshing out of Han and Kylo Ren’s relationship. For someone who consistently lectures me about how exposition is the enemy of storytelling and world-building, you seem pretty content to let throw-away lines and vague over-the-shoulder implications of personal history substitute for actual character drama.

Not a very consistent way to present your stance on the matter of objective quality in storytelling, I must say.

And no, I’m not prepared to do all the narrative legwork for a barebones, surface-level, artificial story like this. The job to fill in the drama of the characters is purely on the writers, not mine as a member of the audience. You may be willing to do that, but the only thing you accomplish by leaping through narrative hoops and supplying the story with a mountain of personal assumptions and head-canon is subconsciously prove how unfinished and poorly-developed this script is. No one has to do this to fill in the drama for films like Gone With The Wind, Scarface, The Last Samurai, First Blood, Saving Private Ryan, Letters From Iwojima, The Godfather, or The Untouchables. The drama is clear-cut, elaborated heavily through character action, history, relationship-building and development…everything the writers are refusing to do with the ST movies. But they get a free pass regardless from fans who believe the films are some understated work of subtlety or nuance, when in the script in actuality is missing most of the layers behind the drama it so desperately wants to achieve.

Wrong again. He starts as dismissive and uncaring at the beginning. But throughout the trilogy he begins complimenting, and expressing caring to them like this:
“Why don’t you come with us? You’re pretty good in a fight, we could use you.”
(Deck Officer):“Sir, the temperature’s dropping too rapidly”(Han): “That’s right, and my friend’s out there.”
“And Luke? Thanks. Thanks for coming back for me. I owe you one.”

This is of course ignoring things like Han expressing his love to Leia, demanding Chewbacca take care of her if anything should happen to him, his comforting of her even when he doesn’t know what’s wrong, and his willingness to disband his romance with her if for whatever reason she loves Luke instead…putting his friendship with both of them infinitely higher than his own personal needs. That’s the height of supporting his friends, beyond minor things like dialogue. And it in no way translates to any of his actions or decisions that supposedly led to Kylo Ren’s inexplicable descent prior to TFA.

I think you interpret Han’s sarcastic attitude, and world-weary nature towards the situations he gets in, as some kind of disinterested non-interpersonal disposition towards Leia and Luke across the trilogy. And if you honestly believe that’s the case, I don’t know what to tell you except that you’ve misread Han’s character drastically. I don’t even think the writers of the ST would try and use such a bizarre excuse to justify Han’s relationship with his son—they seem to have intended Han’s persona in TFA to be due to how he changed overtime that occurred over time due to the course of events, a history of sorts.

Your exact words were:
-“Han is the kind of dad who flees when the going gets tough...”
-“Han is the kind of dad who does not give a compliment easily” (A conclusion you reached because of Han reacting to some stranger like Rey finding a fault or fix with a ship he’s owned and been protective of for years)
-“Kylo probably did not connect with his father’s gruffness as he became more of an adult.”
-“Women always figure out the truth.” Those last words said a lot about Han’s shortcomings as a husband. (When in actuality, this explains nothing and provides no tangible explanation for what happened between Han and Leia)


You are absolutely over-analyzing and seeing a wealth of explanations that do not exist, and aren’t supported anywhere in the film. Despite the film providing no history on Han’s fathership or Kylo Ren’s upbringing whatsoever, you’ve cobbled together your own history through wave-away lines or misinterpreted reactions as if they constitute as rigid, indisputable fact. Sorry, but no—character writing and history does not work anything like this.

You are writing the film for the filmmakers. That’s what’s happening here, whether you realize it or not. And I'm not going to join you in pretending there are aspects to this story that do not exist, because I respect my brain too much.

We’re talking about what kind of father Han was DURING Kylo Ren’s childhood, not the kind of person he turned into or habits he slipped back into once Kylo turned evil. You came to the conclusion based off of Han’s behavior in TFA that he was a bad father, and yet you also claim that these same habits are what made him a bad father, despite you also claiming he slipped into these habits after Kylo Ren turned evil prior to the film starting.

This is a contradiction bigger than a planetary core.

Sorry, but no. Activities like being hungry and lonely (two things you listed) are not character traits. These are circumstances in which we sympathize with the characters, not traits unique to them as fictional people. I think you’re unable to address any of my points because you can’t tell the difference between medial actions or activities like using a staff or being hungry, and personality traits like being greedy, self-righteous, vain, naïve, self-conscious, weak-willed or cowardly.

And Rey being physically strong does not constitute as a personality or character trait, anymore than Obi-Wan Kenobi having a beard is a personality or character trait. But I’m probably wasting my time explaining the difference to you.

My advice would simply be to read up on creative writing a little more.

It was a momentary observation about something she had never seen before that plays into how she was raised and what kind of lifestyle she used to have. It never comes back in the film, or in TLJ, and does not dictate or affect any choice or action she takes in the future. This has the same amount of relevance and contributes about as much as long-term character development of Anakin making an off-comment about “sand” in Attack of the Clones.

This is the epitome of reaching, and the fact that you think that this one thing is chief among Rey’s core personality traits is enough to send me into suffocating fits of laughter.

Characterization IS the unique personality traits that allows a reader to select a character out of a well-spring of other characters across all mediums of fiction, and identify that character based on the unique traits he or she possesses. The need for companionship and other lives is not unique or distinct in the slightest—that is the most basic of human needs, and the fact that you’re hoisting this as some kind of defining character trait for Rey only serves to show how lacking and underwritten she is. When this kind of trait is the most prominent aspect about a character, you might as well write a character whose chief character component is being uncomfortable in subzero climates, or a character whose chief character component is the ability to laugh at things when they’re funny. This tells me nothing unique about Rey that doesn’t already apply to 98% of all protagonists, heroes, and heroines in fiction…or hell, people in general (at least people who are non-sociopathic and healthy by society’s standards). You’re not describing anything that doesn’t also apply to probably everyone else Rey knows in the Resistance—this need for companionship isn’t unique to her in the slightest, and if she somehow depends on it more than the average person, then the films have done catastrophically-poor job of communicating that or staging actual obstacles or backwards steps of progression for Rey to make this a unique flaw or aspect of her character.

Yeah, people root for and relate to a character who wants to have friends and a place to belong…because that’s a basic and fundamental human need. That’s like cheering for a naked character that finally finds clothes—that’s the most basic, and barebones standard of relating to a character, and having that be the ONLY driving characteristic for Rey makes her blander than room temperature dishwater. Of course, it’s not enough—that doesn’t tell me anything of value or distinction about Rey as a character. In any other medium of fiction, this would be decried as laziness and uncreativity on an almost laughable level.

As for, what was it? “You just have to do a bit of work and work out things on your own?” Sorry, but when 99% of the characters, plot, driving motivations, personal origins, interpersonal relationships and drama depend on the audience filling in all of the blanks, it’s evidence of a script that hasn’t been finished or drama that hasn’t been worked for. It wasn’t required at any point in the previous Star Wars films for the audience to fill in 10001 of the narrative blanks to invest in the story—not because those films are inferior to the “understated and symbolic majesty” of the ST, but because those movies were finished and well fleshed-out stories…where the cobbled-together, half-finished mess of a Sequel Trilogy Saga is not.

The “why’s” are important specifically because the drama depends on the characters involved, and it’s impossible to be invested in drama that feels like you were pushed into at the 11th hour, with no context, set-up, fleshing out or organic building of the characters/relationship you’re witnessing. Other films have the good sense to do that—every film I’ve mentioned from Gone With the Wind to The Godfather didn’t attempt ANY kind of drama until the story had exhaustively established the characters, relationship, and necessary story context. Abrams and Johnson opted not to because their scenes are predicated on the audience only feeling what’s going on, not thinking about it. An incompetent approach that makes this ST the least comprehensive, emotionally-dense or dramatically-nuanced trilogy in Star Wars history.

The importance of earning that drama, building characters organically, and paving the relationships through character interactions and established history—the essence of every objectively well-made film—doesn’t magically diminish just because these things are missing in a film you happen to like.

If the ST films lack these things, it’s because they’re objectively bad, not because Abrams or Johnson made some kind of brave, revolutionary creative choice to skip out on them. What we need to know, we don’t…and thanks to sequences like Canto Bight, we know plenty about what we never needed to know.

And with that, it appears this conversation is run its course. I also find it amusing that you perceive my objections with these movies as "misery." By no means to I net any misery from these films, as that would require investment in the current saga for any disappointment to flourish---and the poor writing makes that an impossibility. On the contrary, their poor quality is something that provides a wealth of amusement, and only makes me cherish the good Star Wars stories in both canon and EU that were creative and smart enough to avoid the ST's mistakes. Not to mention, that they give me the opportunity to have lengthy, intriguing conversations like this one. And that's always a plus.

As for “being positive about something”, I most certainly agree…but the issue is that I’m only positive towards something with redeeming factors, of which the ST movies have none. I have absolutely no hope in them improving….but, hey. If I ever want something to be positive about, I have a wealth of Expanded Universe comics, novels, games, and two excellent TV shows to be positive about—because unlike the ST, they're finished stories were written by competent people, where I don't have to fill in details that they were too lazy to write.

Regardless, thank you for indulging in this conversation, as it’s been quite involving and interesting.

 

I was watching some Joe Rogan last night and bumped into this:

Start around 55 minutes and they talk about SW for a bit. This to me is what the GA thinks of TLJ, at least it's what I've encountered. It's definitely anecdotal, but it also definitely comes from guys who are not hard core SW fans. The whole thing is fun to listen to (I usually have stuff like this going while playing some Elite Dangerous) but 55 minutes in, we get some SW talk and you'll probably find it interesting.

 

Excellent points! Like seriously, this is a fantastic breakdown of why The Last Jedi is a horrible film. Hell, you really ought to write all of your criticisms up as a blog post or a youtube video!

A couple of things:
1. The characters are totally underdeveloped. How the fans of the film can't see that is just beyond me. Heck, at one point I was arguing it was good. I mean, every darn critic in the world said so, so it must be good right? I left the theater feeling uneasy. I argued with myself and convinced myself I was right. I was told by a close friend "dude watch it again and take off the fan boy glasses." Oh boy, my first feelings were on the money. This film is garbage. Half baked characters etc... I like Kylo Ren (heck he's on my right arm as part of my "dark side" sleeve. But so far his motivations are weak as hell. And in order to make it all make sense one must...
2. Engage in head cannon to make it all work. For me it was Luke. I like the idea of grumpy world weary and bitter Luke. But why is he that way? What happened to him to make him this way? How did he get from the Luke of The Return of the Jedi to this Luke, one who is essentially repeating the Sith's version of what happened to the Jedi (Luke saying the Jedi's hubris and what not is repeated in one of the Charles Soule Vader comics, almost word for word, by Palpatine). The motivator we are given in the film is flimsy at best. Seriously? He decides to give up on everything because HE decided to murder his nephew, only to change his mind almost instantly??? That's the reason???
3. It's like they don't understand the OT and really don't know how to write a decent film. Did Rian Johnson and JJ Abrams actually watch the OT??? Han has a character arc. So does Luke. But now they are reset? Han grew to become someone capable of loving and making a marriage, and yet we find out that no, he really didn't. Luke grew from a farm boy who just wanted to "see the Galaxy" into a leader, someone who saw the good in Vader and figured out how to get the force back into balance. Only now we learn no, the Force wasn't really in balance. Instead it was asleep. SERIOUSLY?????

I haven't even mentioned the lack of interest in following the in-universe rules, the ridiculous character known as Admiral Holdo (why in the hell does she look like a refugee from the Hunger games???) or any of the other problems with this film.

Heck, I started rereading the novelization for TFA last night, and I remember reading something early on and thinking "Hey, there's a thread for RJ to build on..." Of course, instead he subverted my expectations and built on none of it. If TFA was supposed to be a reboot it failed in that there is no forward momentum. We are back where we were in the OT... then we get RJs brilliant film which servers to simply reboot the reboot. Ridiculous.

I'll see IX, but I won't be seeing it opening weekend and I won't be viewing it more than once, unless JJ pulls the proverbial rabbit out of his hat. IX will have to go full on Lord of the Rings in order to fix all of this crap. God help us. Disney has truly screwed the pooch on the ST.

 

You know I keep reading the rumours for IX, a few in particular that have popped up in the past forty eight hours or so. Folks of certain persuasion keep harping on about how it sounds like IX may regress certain characters. I am laughing little apple's because TLJ regressed everyone. The irony of it all is just hilarious. I hated how TLJ just tried to do a u turn off TFA. After TLJ, TFA was made into a farce. TLJ regressed the characters so much it was beyond a joke.

 

Thanks! Happy that people take the time to read the stuff I post, it makes the length and effort I put into them worth it--and it helps that I can never write enough essay-length rants about how much I despise the writing decisions in this trilogy. I just hope you and everyone else drink coffee or something when reading these...they must take forever to get through

I would do YouTube, but I have neither the editing skills nor the microphone for that kind of thing. I think blogging sounds like an enticing idea, though.

I had a lot of friends who were in the denial phase about TFA when it came out, and they seemed desperate to make me enjoy the film and characters as much as they did (which was probably some kind of self-conscious Stockholm syndrome that formed from their desire to justify their enjoyment of the film). They would go on for hours about how the new characters were so much better than the OT Cast, or the characters from "those yucky Prequels", and yet whenever I would press them to describe traits about the characters instead of listing actions of the characters, they could never cite anything. Watching them try to describe Rey was like watching a 6-year-old fumble on the chalkboard with a math problem he doesn't know the answer to...but they'd wave it away and always resorted to: "Whatever, man. You're just not giving her a chance...it's too early. They'll definitely flesh out her character in Episode 8." Well, three years later, and they all have admitted in embarrassment that they were doing what I was unwilling to do: to let this carrot-on-a-stick approach to writing characters and promising development in sequel after sequel, when the characters weren't even written properly in the first place.

Where you and I will have to part ways, however, is in the area of Kylo Ren. I'm sure this perfectly obvious by now, but he is my least favorite character in this trilogy, and Star Wars at large. I can't stand him. Everything the writers try with his character falls flatter than a defoamed beer, which is only worsened by the fact that the drama of these movies is largely focused on him. One of the reasons I love Star Wars as a universe is because of its wide swath of complex, well-written villains...hell, my favorite character in the EU, Mara Jade, is a character I love precisely because of how much of a compelling and twisted antagonist she was. And unlike Kylo, she had the disadvantage of being relegated to secondary antagonist in the story she debuted in, and yet she still managed to be five billion times more interesting and competently-written.

I like the idea of grumpy and world-weary Luke as well...hell, I like grumpy and world-weary former heroes in general. Unforgiven, Lone Wolf & Cub, Logan, Rambo 4...these are examples of grizzled, miserable heroes who wallow in self-pity and disgust with the past, and have to be jabbed with a cattle prod to answer the call of adventure. The difference between these heroes and Luke is all in the execution: not one of these characters were a departure from their established personalities and traits, like Luke was...he didn't retain a single recognizable trait associated with the character, and none of the new traits the writing equipped him with added anything of substance or intrigue, just pretentious pseudo-philosophical tripe that Rian Johnson polluted the script with to make himself sound deep. "Saying that the Jedi are the light is vanity, can't you see that?" Okay, so what's the alternative to the Jedi when it comes to shielding the galaxy from the slaughter and decadence of the Sith? Rian raises these questions, but he's too lazy and uninspired to fully develop or answer them.

Not to mention that he's ready to end the entire Jedi Order just because of a mistake he made, and the mistakes made of the council of Jedi preceeding him. Way to spit on the thousand generations of peace and justice upheld by the previous Jedi of past eras. This script eats gundark feces.

Oh, they understand the OT, alright...on a painfully superficial level. Johnson and Abrams know how to crib visual motifs, story beats, scenarios, era trappings and character roles from those films, but when it comes to learning from those themes to apply them to their own, unique ideas, they fall flat on their faces and send an echo heard all the way in the far reaches of face, literally rattling the atmosphere with their jaw-dropping mediocrity.

The fact that the ST characters have such sparse and empty motivations, little to no familial weight or ties, and barely any substantial relationships with each other is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the OT that it hurts. The bonds set up in those films, and the familial drama were the literal cement holding the story together...which explains why the foundation for the ST is so ungodly poor.

I would point out the simple fact that we're two movies in, and we've only had one prominent character who is an alien with any plot contributions whatsoever, and that's Maz Kanata.

The lack of alien characters in these new films is abhorrent. Why on Earth do we live in an era where Guardians of the Galaxy and Valerian have more alien characters than the latest Star Wars movies?????

As someone who's suffered through both film novelizations, I can say that I do not envy you, sir, and that you have my condolences for the narrative word-cancer you'll be sustaining for the remainder of the week.

See, my argument is that, for whatever poor writing choices Johnson implemented (and believe me, they are plentiful), he likely wouldn't have been able to enact most of them if Abrams hadn't left him with such a blank canvas to smear his ungodly ideas on. By doing his usual mystery box nonsense instead of rolling up his sleeves and actually pinching out a substantial story with concrete, finished details, Abrams enabled any future usurper like Rian to do whatever he/she pleased with the story. When TFA didn't rigidify motivations, character history, conflict information, era trappings, development, or any narrative closure of any kind, something as catastrophic as TLJ was almost expected.

I believe Johnson and Abrams share joint responsibility for the current state of the trilogy, and I'm continuously baffled that people actually believe that Abrams' presence is somehow going to shield Ep. 9 from mediocrity, when mediocrity is precisely what he specializes in. Well, that, along with aggressively-unfunny jokes and vapid lens-flare use.

Again, we'll have to part company here. I haven't gone to see a Star Wars film in theaters since 2015, and I plan to uphold that practice. I'll read the novelization for 9, and maybe talk myself into RedBoxing the film on release (I'll need a group of friends and all the drugs in the continental US to help me endure that trial), but I will not support this downward plummet of my favorite franchise, no matter how many ST Harpies screech at me for "not being a true fan."

And as for the film going all "Lord of the Rings" in the final movie...that means that this one film is going to have to provide the world-building, stakes, drama, character development, relationship-building, and fleshing out of narrative themes missing from two proceeding trilogy entrees. All depending on the efforts of J.J. Abrams, and the writer responsible for Batman v Superman and Justice League.

Wow, I can barely contain my confidence in this film's assured quality.

 

'cancer'?

there is no need to use that word to get your point across.. ever.
I disagree with almost every word you write, but you do write well. There are plenty of descriptive words out there that can be used instead of that one.

 

Let me take a wild guess, the people who think Rey's interaction with Emo Ren is some sort of fairy tale romance are mad about the rumor of Ren getting his helmet back?? I hope that turns out to be true. I'm going to need a really evil, intimidating villain in IX. Darth Tantrum isn't it. That face is many things, intimidating is not one of them. Give him back a mask and make him all out ruthless and evil. Something like Vader at the end of Rogue One. Right now, I cringe at the thought of the "evil duo" coming in IX. Kylo and Hux? If they are anything like the were in TyLJ, then we are in trouble. We've gone from the Palpatine/Vader pair to two fit throwing, incompetent clowns. I say give Kylo the mask back make Hux more like the space Hitler he was in TFA.

 

Fair enough, my verbiage there may be a tad bit extreme, and uncreative to an extent. Maybe "ungodly-rancid and mortifying narrative fecal tripe" is better means of expressing my views on the novelizations.

I do appreciate your compliments about my writing. Thank you very much.

 

I love reading your posts man. I usually have a glass of iced tea and am sitting in my lazy-boy recliner ready for an enjoyable read. Even when I disagree, which isn't often, but it does happen.

And no worries about Kylo Ren. I know you despise him. I think there is a ton of potential there, but yeah, JJ and RJ really screwed the pooch on this one. And it's a waste of a talented actor as well.

I loved Rogue One, but I get why some don't. Heck, I loved TFA as well, but again see why some didn't. Funny, but I don't find the need to convince anyone that they are great films, unlike the defenders of TLJ. Weird how that works huh?

You know, I read the novelization for AOTC and that was, in my opinion, a damned fine book. I guess it helps that I love R.A. Salvatore. I'm hoping these novelizations are better than the films. I guess it can't be too hard to achieve that goal.

I never truly thought about the lack of aliens in these films, but you are totally right on that point. And what is worse is that we don't even see any of the aliens from the other films. Like what's up with that??? I don't get it.

I don't blame you for not going to the theater for IX. I am kind of worried that I'll not go either. I REALLY want to. I want to like these films. But I also don't want to give them my hard earned cash when they consistently put forth the weak crap they have been putting forth.

 

I think this is a big reason why TLJ has become even MORE divisive is a portion of the TLJ defenders have a problem with fans that hate it. I loved Solo, as it is my favorite SW movie since 1983, but I have never called out or even tried to convince anyone that hates the movie as I totally get fans that don't like it. This did happen some what during the PT era as the Pro-PT fans would call out the PT bashers (as they called them) and used some of the same talking points back in the day. But this time you had Disney and Reviewers/Pundits calling out the fans for not liking it too.

I don't know, I just find it odd to be so worried regarding someone who doesn't like a movie you like. I get arguing about the portrayal of Luke, or certain plot points that are left open to interpretation, but it is another thing to question why a person dislikes the movie. It's simple with me for Solo as I love it, and it's simple for many other fans, they don't like it.

 

Yeah, basically the consensus is that Star Wars is trash now. WE GET IT. So why waste your time with it move on. Star Wars is Disney now. Its been dumbed down. WE GET IT. So when are YOU gonna get it? Take a hike.

This a forum for fans who still enjoy Star Wars. If you don't you know where the door is. Stop ruining other people's pleasure. I come here because most of my friends view Star Wars as a joke. I don't need to come here and be reminded.

I'm basically the same age as those guys. I saw all those films in the Theater as well. Star Wars and Alien. I've seen them all in the Theaters. Those films were great. Now all people do is whine about how bad they are. WE GET IT...

I still collect comic books. Most of my friends have grown out o that and have found themselves a decent life. Star Wars or shall I say Disney Star Wars is for people like me. Thats why I'm here. If you hate Star Wars do yourself a favor and move on... Oh I forgot this the I HATE STAR WARS VENT THREAD MY BAD I'LL BE MOVING ALONG NOW... SORRY FOR THAT.