THREAD FOR THOSE WHO HATED THE MOVIE

When I saw TLJ for the first time there were indeed several things that I found, although coherent with the narrative, somewhat confusing, but rey’s motivation or interest in redeeming kylo wasn’t one of them. As I talk to people though I notice not everyone connected with this storyline as I did, what has made me try to understand why I accepted it so easily...

First, I think, as I said in my previous post, you have to understand Rey as a person. For me she’s a girl that, although very capable, lacks the confidence to accept a challenge that takes her out of her comfort zone, her life in Jakku. This was shown at different stages in a story in which she constantly shows us her abilities, intelligence, strengths without her thinking anything about them. it is a lack of self awareness and self believe not uncommon in particularly women in our world.

From the beginning we see her leaning on the wisdom, and admiring the celebrity and experience of other, generally older, characters: “You are the Han Solo!” she says with utter admiration. We see how she tries to impress Han with “bypassing the compressor” in the Falcon and her being flattered by Han offering her a job, and how she naively asks “what fight?” To Maz, prompting the old lady to explain the galaxy eternal conflict and how she attentively listens to Maz’s explanation of the force... we also see not only this respect but also her frequent reliance on others she thinks more capable in TLJ. She tries very hard to recruit Luke to fight with the resistance, convinced that it is Luke what the galaxy needs, never thinking that perhaps whom the galaxy needs is her and only her... Then , when Luke fails her, she decides that the person to save the galaxy is Kylo, because in her mind, if Kylo turned into Ben, he would be a legitimate hero in the story being a Skywalker! That’s the main reason for Rey wanting Kylo to be redeemed. You see, she thinks she is not the one to resolve the big conflict, because she is nobody and there is no place for her in this story. Her orphan status has made her insecure. Understandably.

But of course, it is not hard to deduce that Rey, being the gentle caring soul she is and has demonstrated in the course of both films with BB8, Finn, and Han, would wish Kylo turning good for Han and Luke, whom she so much admires as mentors and father figures. Her reassuring kindness towards Luke’s mistake in the Jedi hut is somewhat expressed when she says “your mistake was to think that his choice (Kylo’s) was made. It wasn’t.”

The question is: has Rey learnt the lesson the force is trying to teach her? Which is to be self-reliant and stand on her two feet. Her need for yet another “resolver” in Kylo made us experience not only her naivity but also a misguided, misapplied self-confidence that lead Kylo to use her in his destruction of Snoke and his rise to absolute power. I realise now that this is possibly the irreparable damage Rey’s mistakes caused in TLJ. If this is truly irrepairable in episode 9, it’s yet to be seen...

 

Not necessarily, it was shown that Chewie was able to fly and do advance maneuvers without a co-pilot on Crait. Sure having a co-pilot may be easier to fly the falcon but it's not required. It still doesn't change the fact that falcon is a common ship in the SW universe so it is possible that she has seen how that type of ship flies. She clearly knew the internal workings of the falcon, so it's not far fetch to have an idea on how it would fly.

 

I'm always willing to readjust my views of things, and I'll keep this in mind, especially once IX comes out. Hopefully it will somehow all fit together and I'll see what you are seeing. I truly hate the fact that I dislike a Star Wars film. It isn't easy for me to dislike this franchise. I love it, spent tons of hours with it, and even more money on it. LOL

 

Except unlike your interpretation about the broken lightsaber being symbolism for Rey's personal sense of failure, this attempt at symbolism comes straight from the mouth of the creator, and doesn't contradict with the scene and context where the symbolism is meant to be implemented. Rian Johnson has not made any such comments about the broken lightsaber representing some crushing personal failure on Rey's part, and even if he has, the scene where it's implemented doesn't work--she's spent several scenes up to that point showcasing a level of emotional carefreeness, from her rescue scene to the rock-lifting scene, only to make a comment about the state of the Resistance. The scenes do not provide the framework for such symbolism to be accurate or relevant to what's going on in the film.

In short, when you have a story with the central drama forcing the hero to be emotionally wounded by his own father, and sent into a state of shock and horror for the remainder of the film, and then the creator outright states an allegory of castration, I'm inclined to at least take it seriously. But when a fan inserts symbolism that the director not only has not endorsed, but is also contradictory to the factual outcome of the film's events, it has about as much relevance or substance as a Flat-Earth Theory. My example has a supported basis, and yours does not. It's simple as that.

If I make recommendations to enlighten yourself a little more with the nuances of writing or storytelling, believe me, that comes from a place of earnest, not condescension.

I make a considerable effort not to direct hyperbole or excessive remarks anywhere but one's argument. If you feel anything I've said was an attack on your character, and not your argument, then that wasn't my intention and I apologize.

Whether or not it is in character for Rey to want to redeem Kylo Ren for the sake of Luke or Han Solo is irrelevant: it is not in the film.

At no point, in any scene, through any dialogue, or any hard emphasis made by the film is it even remotely suggested that Rey's emotional motivation to redeem Kylo Ren stems from her need to do it for Luke or Han's sake. That is pure head-canon on your part and is crafted by assumptions and interpretation in order to fill in the massive, empty gaps within the writing. If you're going to counter my accusations about the quality of writing in these films, you have to use evidence of writing from the films, and nowhere else. Your interpretation of Rey has no bearing on the discussion of the objective merit of these stories, of which there is none.

You claimed that you made said statement in response to hyperbole or character attacking that I supposedly did, when in fact I never made a made a statement even vaguely similar to that. I'm not accusing you of backtracking, merely that you were employing a method of argumentation to counter something I never did in the first place.

I don't have any regrets about hating the ST films, because not enough effort has been put in them to be products of lasting value or relevance in the Star Wars mythos. They're inconsistent, unoriginal money-grabs with very little thought, time, effort, creativity or nuance put into them. I feel about as guilty for hating them as I do for hating the quality of food at a poorly-managed White Castle.

Moreover, Star Wars, at least to me, will always be more than the films. The franchise collectively doesn't live or die on the films---good stories can endure any mess the films create, as things like Star Wars Rebels certainly prove. The only hope I have left is that other creative teams far away from the counter-productive and incompetent influence of Abrams or Johnson will be able to churn out half-way decent stories in the Star Wars universe, and let the creativity that once characterized this franchise flow once again.

Rebels was a momentary glimmer of hope of that being true, but with all of the creative decisions surrounding the recent tidal wave of poor novels, mediocre comics, and downright ATROCIOUS video games, my faith in all non-film endeavors like The Mandalorian or Star Wars: Fallen Order has been shaken considerably.

 

I think I know enough about storytelling to engage in discussions on this board, but I appreciate your recommendation and the place it came from. I say this without irony. I personally would never make assumptions about anyone based on their posts and responses to other posts here. I just consider them not only an ad hominem but also an intrusion in someone else’s personal space. As @Sparafucile very well said before, people have different level of engagement in these discussions. And even when there is strong engagement sometimes responses might be read too fast and be slightly or completely misinterpreted. And sometimes we are just tired and one’s arguments are not as well expressed as they ought to... Not everyone is at the same pace all the time and we all have to respect that, and, as you very well said before, one should always address the argument made, not who made it (which is not always that easy, I know)

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 17, 2018 ---

On this I think we can only agree to disagree. Lucas is the creator of the story but he does not have a monopoly on the symbols of his story, or any other story for that matter. Symbols like archetypes transcend the author and they don’t only denote. They also connote.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2018 ---

Absolutely no need. We are good.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2018 ---

Her greater reason to redeem Kylo is her absolute believe she needs to engage someone “better” “more entitled” than herself to save the galaxy. That she wishes to make things better for Han and Luke is just my interpretation, absolutely, based in how I see the character act and go about things (nurturing, caring). I absolutely despise the term head-cannon.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 17, 2018 ---

Yes, I did. Absolutely. I thought we had already cleared that up.

 

I've recently watched several Creed 2 reviews and the film pundits emphasized that the film follows the Rocky formula. They also suggest that if the film didn't follow the formula or change the recipe it wouldn't have been a good film. Rocky 5 didn't follow the Rocky formula and disappointed allot of fans and its viewed as the worst in the franchise. Could this be the case for TLJ? I'm wondering, if RJ followed the Star Wars formula would the film be less divisive? Does Star Wars have a formula? Did JJ follow the formula for TFA? Did RJ abandon the formula?

 

I think this is a case where different fans want different things. Some fans hunger for a change of formula because it could get stale. They're not wrong. Other fans flock to the familiar because it works and is comfortable. They're not wrong either. It's a matter of preference. Even when going in with the intention to go completely off formula, sometimes you realize when you look back that it still follows the formula lol. I think there's a certain amount of perspective, and even if some parts of the story go off formula, the main beats can still follow it.

I'm not a films or arts major, or minor or anything. I'm just a fan, so I'm sure others with more knowledge then me can answer your question more precisely. My observation is broader, in the sense that not all fans want the same thing, even among the "factions" lol.

 

I never made any statement declaring that the creators dictate what we as the audience may or may not interpret. However, when defending the quality of the writing or aspects of a story, the intent or facts declared by the creator supersede all personal interpretation. When judging a piece of fiction, you have to judge it based exclusively on the elements that are factually and indisputably-present in the story, as well as the stated or factual intentions of the creator himself/herself. Simply put, my assessment that Luke's struggle is having his manhood and resonance with the image of his paternal figure damaged by Vader's reveal may not be outright stated, but it's an interpretation that, at the very least, is backed by Lucas himself. In addition, if I were to apply my perception to the film itself, based solely on in-film information, that perception is plausible based on what happens---given Luke's reaction and the story's painting of his emotional state in ESB, this perception is not a stretch whatsoever, and it can be assessed that Lucas' theme is at the very least sufficiently compatible with what plays out on screen. However, your assumption about TLJ as a story placing significant narrative weight and emphasis on Rey's inability to redeem Kylo as being a crushing personal failure on her part is not only ill-founded by the film itself, but not backed up by anything Rian Johnson himself has stated. Unlike my perception on Luke, it is unfounded by both the film and the creator, when mine is both.

Symbolism and archetypes can transcend the author's intent, but they are irrelevant to discussing the objective merits of a film, especially when the creator didn't intend them. You and I can perceive whatever we wish, but that doesn't make our perceptions factual or relevant. I can make the perception that Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers novel is a defining masterwork that symbolizes the "irreplaceable and fragile value of peace, and the evils of war", but that doesn't change the fact that the book promotes militarism and fascism as positive ideals.

This conversation of ours, once again, is not on anything we think or we want to be in the film. We are talking about what's IN the film, factually and objectively. And your perceptions about Rey's non-existent "struggles" are not part of that discussion.

This is never stated anywhere or alluded anywhere in the film, by Rey or anyone else. You are doing more perception to milk aspects of the plot that do not exist.

As stated, we aren't talking about what you see in the film, we're talking about what's actually in the film. Remember that the point of this discussion is that you're trying to counter my statement that Rey's "struggles" in these films are objectively lacking. Your perceptions don't challenge that point of contention.

You can despise it all you like, but it's only one of many terms to describe what you're doing whenever you argue in favor of Rey, or any other non-existent dramatic elements. Alternative terminology for such a phenomenon could be:
"Writing the script for the writers."
"Reading too deep into something that isn't there."
"Projecting."
"Filling in narrative holes with unfounded personal perception."
"Mental fanfiction."
And I'm sure that there are others...

The things you state are not backed by the film, or backed by any kind of official source. That is precisely what head-canon is, despite how unpleasant you find the term.

 

You just had a strong hunch about a symbolic reference in ESB confirmed by George Lucas, that’s all. I could as easily say that moment symbolises Luke embracing manhood and leaving his childhood behind or abandoning the “aggressive” masculine in order to embrace the “caring” femenine... all of these interpretations are just as valid as the one given by the author.

In-film examples of Rey’s struggles can be seen in conversations with Luke: “there is a part of me, it’s always been there... I don’t know what it means or what to do with it and I’m afraid”; “I need someone to show me my place in all this”; with Kylo, “you had parents that loved you, that gave a damn about you!” “your parents treated you like garbage but you can’t stop needing them” “liar” “you look for your parents everywhere, in Solo, now in Skywalker”; the cave scene, after seeing her own reflection; her acknowledging she’s “never felt more alone” to kylo in the hut.

The lack of parental love and guidance in her life has brought about a lack of identity and self belief when confronted with a challenge. Rey’s default is to seek help, because she cares, instead of embracing the fight on her own. This is her struggle.

Is “head-cannon” to acknowledge something glaringly obvious in a film?

I also recommend you check this thread out:
https://thecantina.starwarsnewsnet....ailure-is-it-too-late-to-challenge-rey.55650/

These issues are also been discussed here and with plenty of references from the film.

Interesting thing to note in that thread is that I’m not the only one who views the broken saber as symbol of Rey’s state of mind... what makes me think it has more resononance than you give it credit for.

 

If you recall, the entire reason Luke even entered our conversation was because you made the boisterous and implausible claim that Luke does not undergo any substantial struggle, but Rey does. I provided counter-evidence and included George Lucas' openly-stated analogy of a boy losing his manhood as an extension of the struggle I was talking about. Luke's ultimate struggle is in the film---it's the emotional crippling he receives when his idealized image of his father built up over the course of two films is destroyed by Vader's revelation. Lucas' subtler themes are a mere extension of that, not a major aspect of the film.

It was your decision to shift the goalposts from the existence of a struggle to the existence of perceived themes, not mine.

Given how little weight it has on Rey's narrative progress, how little emotional impact it has on her throughout the films, or how little it hinders her ability to win battles or save the Resistance, to call it a struggle is laughable. It's about as superficial and tacked on as it gets, and is objectively disposable given how little it slows down Rey's blistering emotional and narrative progress in the films.

Moreover, the "head-canon" accusation referred to your perception that Rey was trying to save Kylo for the sake of Han and Luke. Which, yeah...sorry, absolutely is head-canon and isn't backed by anything substantial or tangible within the film, beyond your own perceptions.

More than one person can be wrong, and let their rose-tinted perception of the film lead them to believe that non-existent elements of the film exist. This isn't a new phenomenon--half of the Alien fanbase did the same when Prometheus came out. It doesn't mean their claims about the film's "hidden merits" are in any way true.

And neither are the re-contextualized perceptions and head-canon surrounding TLJ. Same scenario, different movie.

There's nothing stated in that thread that contrasts or disproves any point I've made in this one.

 

No, my decision was to acknowledge that symbolisms on both films have equal weight, no more no less.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 19, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 19, 2018 ---

I prefer the word interpretation to that hideous derogatory term...

 

Categorically wrong. The subject of Luke became the topic of discussion when you said: "I don't think Luke, as you are mentioning him, had any major set back and had a relationship change that was any more pronounced than Rey had." You decided to turn the conversation to symbolism after I had made a passing reference to Lucas' attempted symbolism in my paragraph about Luke's struggle.

And for the record, no: Both instances of symbolism do not have the same weight, especially when the lasting impact of Luke's struggle is given far more effective emphasis and consequence by the story than any "struggle" Rey undergoes. Please see my description above from one of my previous replies to you, about the staggering difference between Luke and Rey's emotional states following their respective revelations, because I am not going through that song and dance again.

I'm more than happy to speak in whichever terms you see fit:

Your interpretation of Rey's "struggle" being tied to her desire to redeem Kylo Ren for Luke or Han's sake is not canon, or backed by anything factually present in any of the films.

 

You have your own reasons for your opinion, which you have stated several times, but they don’t convince me. I don’t think you’re seeing Rey’s struggles with the same understanding you apply to Luke’s struggles. I think I have already stated how the film shows Rey’s struggles and failing. I have explained that, not only Rey experiences internal failure at not being able to redeem Kylo, she also influences the story by being instrumental, unwittingly, in turning Kylo Ren into the next Supreme Leader.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 19, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 19, 2018 ---

Did these people also agree on symbology?

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 19, 2018 ---

Symbology and symbols are not “head-canon”. Canon is a set of rules about how a universe works as well as its history and myth. Symbology is about meaning.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 19, 2018 ---

Rey’s and Luke’s emotional state and struggles are both equally impactful. We have already discussed this and I think there is no way in a hundred years we will ever agree. I personally prefer Rey’s arc. I find it much more relatable than Luke’s and I also feel that her character was much more fleshed out in these films than Luke’s ever was. Best character in the OT was Han hands down. His was also the most interesting arc.

As a film ANH was indeed more groundbreaking but Rey and Kylo are much better written than any of the characters in that first film.

 

I really do dislike hating the new stuff, but I really have come to dislike quite a bit of it. As you perfectly state, much of what we have gotten is simply a ton of inconsistent unoriginal money-grabs. Nothing more. They might get lucky and make a film I enjoy (Rogue One) or a series in cartoon form which I not only love but feel is pretty darn good, like Rebels (and perhaps the final season of The Clone Wars).

But the saga films are, at best, not very good. I hate that is so, but there we are. The Aftermath trilogy, while having some decent aspects to it, was pretty bad. The book Bloodline was okay, but the idea of the New Republic demilitarizing voluntarily was not believable to me. I haven't read enough of the comics to make a judgement there, although I've read some Vader and I enjoyed that. I refuse to read the stuff Chuck Wendig did last year as he is just an idiot.

What Rian Johnson did was more than just disposing of the formula. He changed characters to where they were unrecognizable (Luke) without a decent explanation. He trod over what went before with no regard for what went before. The Holdo maneuver being just one example, although one that is so bad I'd say it should be ignored and treated as if it never happened.

You get poorly written and developed characters like the aforementioned Holdo, Rose Tico, the inane plot dead ends (Canto Bight anyone?).

I think the problem is complex, but to avoid an essay, for JJ the problem was massive time constraints. Thus he simply remade IV. VII is a fun film to watch in the theater, but it doesn't hold up well outside of those initial theater viewings (and some caught onto it well before most of us). Making Rey good at everything in that film was a bad idea. AT least have her not understand droid and Wookie AND everything else. Have her screw up and get her rear end handed to her by Kylo (as should have happened) only to be saved by the destruction of the planet (in other words reverse it). Also, don't have her do a Jedi mind trick.

AS for RJ, having one "subversion" would be good. But if you subvert everything it suddenly becomes overdone. If everything is subverted then nothing is subverted. Having every single male character look like an idiot and needing to be schooled by the females? Seriously? So there are no intelligent males in the GFFA???? Cell phone jokes? Your momma jokes?

I keep saying I'm done with this thread and then I get sucked back in. But I'm done now.

 

We can agree to disagree, films are subjective. We are all fans in some form or another. TLJ is not a perfect film, but honestly I enjoyed it, flaws and all. I can clearly see why so many have issues with it. The TLJ hate recalls the Prequel days. I remember I was the only one excited to see the AOTC trailer which premiered before Lord of the Rings. All I heard were groans in the theater. Star Wars was in a bad place back then. The hate was insurmountable, however; I remained a fan while so many walked away. A good friend of mine who hated the Prequels gave me most of his Star War merchandise that he could not sell on eBay. Lord of the Rings became the new obsession. After ROTS allot of fans came around, including my dear friend. He took me to my second viewing of ROTS. The trilogy was over and Episode 3 sort of save it, somewhat. Now I'm happy to see allot of people enjoy the Prequels. Hopefully in the years to come, after Episode 9 is released, we will view things differently. I do believe Star Wars has a formula and future directors should not stray from it.

 

AND that is the essence of it my friend. We should agree to disagree. I like plenty of films that others don't like, but I don't make it my life goal to argue with those who disagree. I LOVE "Prometheus" but others don't. It's cool. "Oblivion" with Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman? LOVE LOVE LOVE it, but according to RT it's at 52%. Also don't care if others dislike it.

The problem for the prequels was always going to be having to over come the nostalgia of the OT. It was never ever going to live up to the hype. Add in wooden acting and an over reliance on CGI (amongst other issues)... it was always going to be a difficult time living up to the first three.

I remain a fan. I'll never walk away. As @Darth_Nobunaga has stated, there is plenty of other product to enjoy. Either through the original Clone Wars cartoon series (which I've never fully explored), the Clone Wars cartoons (new ones coming soon!), Rebels (EXCELLENT), old EU comics and novels (plenty of which are way good), etc.

 

I'm not stating my opinion. I'm stating the objective manner in which the story plays out---it's your baseless perceptions that create the notion that the film retains any merit when it comes to narratively portraying any "struggle" for Rey to endure. I could love TLJ, and everything I've stated about the film would still be objectively true. From a writing perspective, Rey does not struggle enough to be considered a substantial or developed character---she's one-note and flat, period.

And I'm not discussing any of this to convince you. I'm stating facts. Facts aren't any less true because they don't convince people---my youngest cousin doesn't believe that oxygen really exists, and I can't convince him otherwise, but that doesn't make rebuke the factual matter that oxygen, in fact, exists. Just like your lack of being convinced doesn't change the fact that TLJ is an objectively poorly-written work with no stakes, no build-up, no organic or earned drama, and the most forced, ineffectual attempt at character growth outside of Wattpad fanfiction. Plot contrivance and convenience always supersedes consistency, spectacle always supersedes character, and the want for certain scenes to play out always supersedes plausibility. And Rey's motives and non-existent struggle are just one of the aspects hindered by this approach to writing that continuously prove the objective fact that these films are all written with all the competency of a drunk text message.

And nothing you've explained has done a thing to disprove that.

To try and delude themselves into thinking Prometheus was a good movie? Oh, absolutely. Fanboys of that film went all out to analyze and overdraw aspects of symbolism that didn't exist anywhere in the film, constructing monoliths of head-canon to try and justify the narrative gaps and weak characters of the plot.

Trying to argue one's perceived symbolic take-aways as factual proof of a film's merit is absolute head-canon. You aren't trying to use the symbolism you've interpreted to justify why you like the film. You're doing it to try and prove that the film objectively and competently portrays Rey as a flawed character.

So, you go from saying that Luke has no struggle whatsoever comparable to Rey one minute, and then re-arrange that stance to claim that his and Rey's emotional states are identical.

There isn't a single thing Rey and Kylo have done in the previous two films that matches the writing quality of the OT characters. I don't even love the OT films that much, but even I can recognize that on an objective level.

Neither of the ST films have a single well-written character or narrative element executed with even a semblance of objective merit.

MOD EDIT

 

I have given you innumerable reasons why these ST films are good. They have compelling characters, good stories, good structure, good direction, good script and dialogue, good photography, good music, good special effects. They are not groundbreaking and TLJ is a bit rough around the edges, but they are good solid mainstream films. I have given numerous examples of how this is true, even though these films do not need anyone like me defending them... They speak for themselves. They did brilliantly at the box offices and people still watch and talk about them.

I do not like framing what I consider good or bad as an absolute. I don't possess all the answers and neither do you. We have both our knowledge of story telling which inform us, with certain objectivity, whether something is following a certain formula. I can see you have a set of parameters about how a story or a film of this type should be and you are very well capable of recognising those parameters in many films, and in a very fair way. What surprises me is how unprepared you are to use the same objectivity you proclaim to have with TFA and TLJ... I fear that lack of balance in your arguments against TFA and TLJ show you are not as objective as you may think you are.

I have tried very hard during the course of this conversation to truly know where you are coming from, and see things from your perspective. Your criticism about world building in the ST was very fair, you gave compelling arguments and you made me understand exactly how important is for you and how much it helps a film to be unique and original. I also realise you are not really interested in seeing things from my point of view, or understand why someone may appreciate the value of something you do not like, which is fair enough, but unfortunately this is where both of our styles conflict. For me it is not that much about who is right, about countering every single point of yours. It is about understanding our differences as audience mambers while informing each other about our different takes and disagreements. I’m afraid, and you may agree, we are just countering minutia on each other’s posts and I feel it is not helpful. It is enjoyable to discuss this kind of things at times but, as for now, it feels rather pointless as we don’t seem to be advancing this discussion anymore.

I’m not here to disprove your convictions about what’s good and what’s bad. I’m here only to, humbly, put ideas forward and explain things the way I see them. This is as much as anyone will ever get from me here on this board.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 20, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 20, 2018 ---

I like many other things about this film and, no, I wasn’t trying to say the broken saber symbolised that Rey was flawed, but that she was broken.

Her main flaw, of which her lack of wisdom and misguided overconfidence are just symptoms, is her over reliance on others to do the job she’s perfectly capable of doing herself.

 

What's odd is that I've been VERY VERY disappointed in the music of the sequel trilogy so far. I've liked one or two tracks, but for the most part I've thought Williams has been below par on this trilogy. I loved what he did with the PT. Heck, the music was awesome for the PT. Duel of the fates??? A.W.E.S.O.M.E. I'd even say that's been my biggest disappointment. The "cantina song" in TFA was weak (in my opinion). I know it's not Williams, but it really didn't do it for me (and I quite enjoyed TFA).

 

That’s not true. I only said I did not see in Luke more struggle than I saw in Rey. Luke had a different struggle. Luke struggles to open himself to the force and let it in, Rey struggles with self-worth and alienation.

--- Double Post Merged, Dec 20, 2018, Original Post Date: Dec 20, 2018 ---

I really liked the music in both films. TLJ felt more grandiose. I loved both Rey’s theme and Kylo’s theme in TFA. Thy really add to both their characters.