Seriously?
Wow, that’s really stretching it. In that case why does practically everyone in the Star Wars universe speak modern English that was devloped on planet Earth that doesn’t even exist in Star Wars. Are carpets universally used in SW or just as an insult when one resembles a walking one?
No.
OK, I read through most of this thread, and agree with much that has been said, but I haven’t seen anyone address this:
Why do the land speeders on the Salt planet need to drag a hook? We have never seen hook-dragging speeders anywhere else in the Star Wars movieverse.
I think the hook worked as a sled-runner/landing gear, taking some of the pressure of the old crotchety engines. It was a flimsy throwaway line, basically put in the movie to justify the gorgeous visuals of the battle sequence.
I’m astonished to read this. You said you could write a better sequel than the one “shit out in this movie,” that you dislike it, and that it’s script is very bad. What the hell would be keeping it far from bad?
I would take that even further. Yoda’s line is something like, “We are what they grow beyond.” Referring to teachers and students. That’s an implicit statement that the new generation should grow and be better and different than the current generation. If Rey learns to grow beyond the ways of the jedi as Luke knew them - very limited, actually - then that’s not a bad thing. Every generation should be better and different than previous ones.
Also, there’s a strong one-percent bad message in the movie. I think the sequence on Canto Bight is designed to allow Rose’s working class ethic to come to the fore and certainly to give us a glimpse of the wider galaxy that is invested in the war. The focus at the end of the downtrodden stable kid and his force pull allows us to theorize that the force, the resistance et al aren’t just about elites. Star Wars has been criticized in the past about just focusing on elites and chosen ones and such. This directly contradicts that past behavior and it’s better for it.
Definitely. (Also, my other POV statements were pretty glib, too.)
I told my wife afterwards that Disney had really monetized my class rage :).
like the guy in the trench tasting what was on the ground and saying “salt.” Just to make it clear this wasn’t Yet Another Ice Planet Battle.
This doubly doesn’t apply to what I’m saying since 1) I enjoyed the movie, I’m not being dismissive of it and 2) We’ve thrashed the Holdo maneuver out to death here and no there isn’t an answer in this thread or elsewhere. It “just was” used for the first time here, and it’s left as an exercise for the reader to decide why it wasn’t a factor in any previous battles.
Yet not defining whether it was the white stuff or the red stuff, or both, that was salt.
For me, the soil chemistry of a new setting is the most important aspect of any film sequence, so I really hated that they left this question unresolved.
I’m specifically thinking of the theme of “we aren’t going to win by fighting what we hate but saving what we love.” Variations of this are repeated with the sort of writing and directing that suggest it’s a theme of the movie, yet in the end, they don’t really do either one. They don’t save most of “what they love,” they only save the Named Characters. They lose most of their army, and wind up with so few people that they can all fit on the Falcon.
The acting was great, the SFX was incredible, and the action sequences were very well done. The writing sucked, and yes, I could have written a better story than this and so could a hell of a lot of people, even if it was only by dropping the Finn-Rose storyline. But the actors did the best they could with that, and the Rey-Kylo Ren part of the film was great.
my experience in life is that the people who have to repeatedly assert stuff like this rarely actually ever go on to do what they claim they’re so good at.
I was so disappointed. Not only is it not a good Star Wars, it isn’t even a good movie. I don’t think a movie has ever fallen this short of its potential.
Honestly cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not, as there are those, including myself, that find details of a setting to be interesting, even if not critical to the understanding of the plot or story sequence. I was just pointing out that the only real info given on the nature of the setting was a bit on the ambiguous side.
Maybe they just didn’t love any of the other characters.
Sarcasm :). There are definitely stories that I enjoy going into the details of. Star Wars? Not so much. I read elsewhere that it’s best to watch it like you read myths, understanding that it’s not hard science fiction or documentary. The setting serves story and spectacle, not deep analysis.
I know Rose’s character said that, but I’m honestly not sure how important a theme of the movie that is. Maybe it’ll be more important in the next movie. Did anything else in the movie back up this statement of hers?
There were other themes in the movie that were much more central: failure, how to handle the past, how to balance individuality vs. hierarchy, the tension between glory and mercy, etc. In fact, Rose’s line, now that I think about it, works best as a part of that last theme: Rose, unlike Poe and like Holdo, values empathy way above glory. Finn, in that scene, is choosing glory, believing he’s choosing empathy. Rose disagrees.
In no way do I take what she said as an authorial statement.
Okay. Sorry for your bad experiences. Best luck in the future.
I certainly do. It’s repeated by more than one character and supported by Leia, who is as close as you can come in this movie to having the author/director at something directly.