If you want to watch the worst written and directed Star Wars to date, by all means go see it. That is saying a lot. Phantom Menace and Clone Wars were not well acted. I kept praying that Jar Jar would rescue this film.

I saw it again in true Imax. Some of the shots were beautiful, but ....

I have lost all respect for the director of this movie, he whom will not be named. I saw Star Wars 4 times in the theater, I was eight. That is my bench mark. I won't even watch this junk again for free again.

I gave it a second chance.

All of my friends were divided on Force Awakens and Rogue One. Every one of them detest this movie. One of them gave his tickets away to his second and third showing. We always buy multiple showings ahead of time.

11 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

Why must everything about this movie be criticized through the lens of politics? Holdo was a horrible character, a blight on a movie I otherwise mostly liked. But that had nothing to do with her being a purple-haired woman in authority. Critics of the movie just make themselves look bad when they gratuitously bring in politics like this.

I actually liked her, being so wrong in her style to handle Poe makes her redemption so much better. But I agree that bringing politics in is rather pointless especially when the type of character she is representing has been seen as male parts before.

17 minutes ago, TrainedMunkey said:

I kept praying that Jar Jar would rescue this film.

Edgy

59 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

I actually liked her, being so wrong in her style to handle Poe makes her redemption so much better. But I agree that bringing politics in is rather pointless especially when the type of character she is representing has been seen as male parts before.

People aren't bringing in politics, it's baked into it. All art is political.

I guess politics means two things nowadays; actual politics and “equal rights things I don’t like”.

45 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I guess politics means two things nowadays; actual politics and “equal rights things I don’t like”.

I was criticizing Aetrion for bringing in politics. He was the one complaining about "Admiral Gender Studies."

57 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

People aren't bringing in politics, it's baked into it. All art is political.

But some art is more political than other art. Star Wars is about 0.1% political, which makes it boring and pointless to talk about contemporary politics when you're talking about Star Wars, with very rare exceptions. If we were talking about District 9 or Westworld, I would not complain about bringing in politics.

Yeah, I am aware that you spoke to him in his language.

They idea that we would call someone’s gender, race or sexuality “politics” now is pandering to the feeble minded.

On the question of First Order spies on the cruiser, my view is still that they needed to mention such spies if they wanted to explain Holdo's secrecy. Again, the reason is that Imperial/First Order spies within the Rebellion/Resistance have never been a concern in a previous Star Wars movie. The fact that previous movies have ignored some logical concept in the past means you need to point it out if you're going to bring that concept in.

A good example is the cruiser's fuel. They had to talk all the time about how the ship was running out of fuel, because fuel has never been a consideration in any previous Star Wars movie. Yes, it's common sense that ships need fuel, but it had to be flagged as an issue in this movie because it's always been ignored in past Star Wars movies. If they just expected the audience to know that the ship would run out of fuel after too many jumps, that would be a logical problem in the movie's plot.

Another analogy: It makes perfect logical sense that someone with a lightsaber wound should be worried about the burned skin becoming infected. Most of the audience should be well aware that burns carry a serious risk of infection. But if you want to make the plot of a Star Wars movie hinge on the risk of infection from a lightsaber burn, you'd better talk about that risk explicitly, because it's never been a problem in previous films in the series. So viewers will assume that the problem is being ignored "because it's an action movie," unless you say otherwise.

1 minute ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Yeah, I am aware that you spoke to him in his language.

They idea that we would call someone’s gender, race or sexuality “politics” now is pandering to the feeble minded.

Saying "Holdo is a woman" is not political. Saying "Holdo is a feminist" or "Holdo looks like a gender studies professor" is political.

You're being pretty obnoxious about this. I'm a left-winger. I support feminism, and I very much enjoy the continuing strides in diverse representation within the Star Wars cast, carrying on a proud tradition that began in Empire Strikes Back. So I'm on your side. I just don't think feminism needs to be the #1 topic in every little discussion anyone has about any movie for the rest of my life.

1 minute ago, DaverWattra said:

Saying "Holdo is a woman" is not political. Saying "Holdo is a feminist" or "Holdo looks like a gender studies professor" is political.

You're being pretty obnoxious about this. I'm a left-winger. I support feminism, and I very much enjoy the continuing strides in diverse representation within the Star Wars cast, carrying on a proud tradition that began in Empire Strikes Back. So I'm on your side. I just don't think feminism needs to be the #1 topic in every little discussion anyone has about any movie for the rest of my life.

I am not being obnoxious about this. I am a foreigner so I am surprised to see this politicized. In my country we woukd never draw a parallel to government when it comes to such matters.

2 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I am not being obnoxious about this. I am a foreigner so I am surprised to see this politicized. In my country we woukd never draw a parallel to government when it comes to such matters.

Ah, I see. In that case, you may be unaware of some toxic aspects of the political environment in the United States right now. But as a rule, discussions about any little thing these days tend to become politics discussions, and turn incredibly annoying as a result.

There may also be something lost in translation here with the word "politics," depending on how it's used in your home country. Since the period of second-wave feminism in the United States, a slogan of the left has been "The personal is political." Politics isn't always about government, anymore. Sometimes politics is about how people organize their social lives, including things like how diverse a movie's cast is.

Unfortunately, this can reach the point of absurdity, where discussions about a Star Wars movie turn into opposing political camps insulting each other.

13 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

They had to talk all the time about how the ship was running out of fuel, because fuel has never been a consideration in any previous Star Wars movie.

It hasn't?

RIC OLIE : There's not enough power to get us to Coruscant...the hyperdrive
is leaking.
QUI-GON : We'll have to land somewhere to refuel and repair the ship.

People who criticize the movie for supposed plot holes or being un-Star Wars keep making these declarations about what has and hasn't been part of SW, and they end up being proven false again and again.

9 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I am not being obnoxious about this.

Indeed you aren't.

The person who called a female character Admiral Gender Studies is the one being obnoxious.

If someone wants to support feminism, they should direct their ire at the person bringing that sort of toxic comment into this discussion, not at the person reacting to this obnoxiousness.

1 minute ago, Stan Fresh said:

It hasn't?

RIC OLIE : There's not enough power to get us to Coruscant...the hyperdrive
is leaking.
QUI-GON : We'll have to land somewhere to refuel and repair the ship.

People who criticize the movie for supposed plot holes or being un-Star Wars keep making these declarations about what has and hasn't been part of SW, and they end up being proven false again and again.

"X is in Episode I" doesn't necessarily imply that "X is not un-Star Wars." Midi-chlorians, anyone?

That said, nice catch. I still think the point holds, for the reason I pointed out in my analogy about lightsaber infections.

Just now, DaverWattra said:

"X is in Episode I" doesn't necessarily imply that "X is not un-Star Wars."

No, it means exactly that.

2 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Indeed you aren't.

The person who called a female character Admiral Gender Studies is the one being obnoxious.

If someone wants to support feminism, they should direct their ire at the person bringing that sort of toxic comment into this discussion,

Which I did!!!!

And then Dante criticized me for the wording I used in objecting to Aetreon... so I defended what I said.

33 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

On the question of First Order spies on the cruiser, my view is still that they needed to mention such spies if they wanted to explain Holdo's secrecy.

No, they didn’t. The details of the plan were above Poe’s new “pay grade.” His repeated demands for this information didn’t change that.

33 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

A good example is the cruiser's fuel. They had to talk all the time about how the ship was running out of fuel, because fuel has never been a consideration in any previous Star Wars movie. Yes, it's common sense that ships need fuel, but it had to be flagged as an issue in this movie because it's always been ignored in past Star Wars movies. If they just expected the audience to know that the ship would run out of fuel after too many jumps, that would be a logical problem in the movie's plot.

Except that, as has been pointed out multiple times in this very thread, it hasn’t always been ignored in previous Star Wars movies. A leaking hyperdrive that needed repairs and refueling is exactly why the characters were on Tatooine and in a position to meet Anakin in the first place. It was stated in dialogue, and the entire Tatooine sequence’s McGuffin was the hyperdrive needed for the ship.

ETA: Fuel concerns not being a concern until needed as a plot device is pretty standard in most fiction. Why, Back to the Future even changed its fuel premise so it could be a plot point— BTTF had Marty specifically ask if the DeLorean ran in plain unleaded, to which Doc replied, “This sucker’s electrical.” But for BTTF3, it suddenly had a standard combustion engine again.

But, for some reason, a portion of the audience seems to have a big problem with fuel as a plot point in this particular movie, even when their stated reasoning doesn’t hold water.

30 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Which I did!!!!

And then Dante criticized me for the wording I used in objecting to Aetreon... so I defended what I said.

I am fine with the explanation! Let’s not waste any more words on this.

Wasn’t Annakin’s podracer losing fuel as well?

23 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

No, they didn’t. The details of the plan were above Poe’s new “pay grade.” His repeated demands for this information didn’t change that.

I don't have an issue with them not telling Poe, but I don't recall them ever mentioning it in a way to establish the risk of spies to the audience. You can keep characters in the dark all you want, but if part of your plot is going to be "we have to be secretive because spies", then the audience has to be made aware they are dealing with an espionage/intrigue subplot, or else certain actions are going to be very strange, and a lot of the more subtle actions of the cast won't be fully appreciated, as their motivations for subtle behavior will be less apparent.

I mean, Hunt for Red October is a great example of the officers not telling the crew what's going on, but they still let us, the viewers know they had a saboteur on board, when the officers were speaking in private about the damage to the engines.

Also, they never actually revealed any spies. There was no "Ahah! It was Wiggly Von-Liesalot-Humperdink III the whole time!" moment in the plot.

I don't know if this is just a fan theory to explain Holdo's behavior, as I genuinely can't recall them actually trying to run a spy subplot in that movie.

13 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I am fine with the explanation! Let’s not waste any more words on this.

I appreciate it. I could tell from your previous post that you and I were cool, but Stan was still coming after me on the issue, so again I felt I had to say a few words in my own defense.

Spies have been a thing from Star Wars to Force Awakens, beginning with that alien informant in Mos Eisley all the way to the Resistance and First Order spies in Maz's castle.

44 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Except that, as has been pointed out multiple times in this very thread, it hasn’t always been ignored in previous Star Wars movies. A leaking hyperdrive that needed repairs and refueling is exactly why the characters were on Tatooine and in a position to meet Anakin in the first place. It was stated in dialogue, and the entire Tatooine sequence’s McGuffin was the hyperdrive needed for the ship.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Even though hyperdrive fuel was a significant part of the Episode I plot, it was still important that they take a moment to explain the fuel situation in TLJ, because the plot hinged on the fuel being low and fuel is sometimes ignored in other Star Wars movies. And it was pretty easy for them to talk about the fuel situation without slowing the movie down with boring infodumps. A few words worked organically into the scene were enough.

My point is that, if the possibility of FO spies was so crucial to Holdo's reasoning that her actions don't make sense without that possibility--and given that spies are frequently (maybe not always) ignored in other Star Wars movies--they needed to do the same thing with the spy situation. Just work in a few words about how they were worried about First Order spies on the ship and the bridge needed to be kept secure. Maybe they could even say, when they're throwing Poe off the bridge, "Captain Dameron, we need to keep the bridge secure. There may be First Order spies on board."

13 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

I don't have an issue with them not telling Poe, but I don't recall them ever mentioning it in a way to establish the risk of spies to the audience. You can keep characters in the dark all you want, but if part of your plot is going to be "we have to be secretive because spies", then the audience has to be made aware they are dealing with an espionage/intrigue subplot, or else certain actions are going to be very strange, and a lot of the more subtle actions of the cast won't be fully appreciated, as their motivations for subtle behavior will be less apparent.

I mean, Hunt for Red October is a great example of the officers not telling the crew what's going on, but they still let us, the viewers know they had a saboteur on board, when the officers were speaking in private about the damage to the engines.

Also, they never actually revealed any spies. There was no "Ahah! It was Wiggly Von-Liesalot-Humperdink III the whole time!" moment in the plot.

I don't know if this is just a fan theory to explain Holdo's behavior, as I genuinely can't recall them actually trying to run a spy subplot in that movie.

You’re correct that spies weren’t overtly mentioned, because that wasn’t an element of the plot. It is however, a reasonable conclusion to draw because the First Order was able to follow them in a way that hadn’t been done before, and once Rose and Finn came up with a theory on how it was being done, they and Poe kept it to themselves for far too long. (For what it’s worth, on my first viewing, working from the perspective of “the Big D@mn Hero is always right,” I presumed Holdo herself was a spy or double agent for the First Order.)

As far as Holdo’s “secrecy” goes, we only saw her interact with Poe, and those interactions were his demanding information that wasn’t “need to know” for him at that time. So I don’t see the problem.

Unless you’d tell recently-demoted Bob your strategy every time he demands it.

6 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

Let's look at this from a different angle. Even though hyperdrive fuel was a significant part of the Episode I plot, it was still important that they take a moment to explain the fuel situation in TLJ, because the plot hinged on the fuel being low and fuel is sometimes ignored in other Star Wars movies. And it was pretty easy for them to talk about the fuel situation without slowing the movie down with boring infodumps. A few words worked organically into the scene were enough.

Wait a second...hasn’t your issue with the fuel to this point been that they kept bringing it up when it had “never been an issue in Star Wars movies before?”

But now, the issue is that they should have done exactly what they did?

Help me out here.

8 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

My point is that, if the possibility of FO spies was so crucial to Holdo's reasoning that her actions don't make sense without that possibility--and given that spies are frequently (maybe not always) ignored in other Star Wars movies--they needed to do the same thing with the spy situation. Just work in a few words about how they were worried about First Order spies on the ship and the bridge needed to be kept secure. Maybe they could even say, when they're throwing Poe off the bridge, "Captain Dameron, we need to keep the bridge secure. There may be First Order spies on board."

See my previous reply. Seemed to me that, applying the “Big D@mn Hero is always right” philosophy, Holdo was a perfect red herring for being the method the First Order was using to track them. Unless you’re in a 1987 Kevin Costner movie, you generally don’t have the person you’re setting up to be the spy/double agent bring up the idea of spies/double agents.