58 minutes ago, Endersai said:

Every problem I had first time around - and I would never rank it behind any prequels, because the prequels are utterly awful and people should feel shame for liking them - was gone second time, because I realised I projected my expectations to the narrative and that played into the narratives game. Going in neutral a second time, even going in being unimpressed but not surprised, I saw what the film was saying and the story it was telling and I'm probably putting it up in top 5. I think I prefer TFA, but like Rogue One this is a very mature take on the franchise.

I know a lot of people project their own headcanon or fanfic onto this film and are annoyed Rey is just Rey; Snoke was just Snoke, etc but that's not the doing of the film...

Ignoring the bold part, these are my feelings exactly. I dislike alot of what they did, but the message was good and all the arcs tied into it. It was an enjoyable movie, but (just IMO) not an enjoyable Star Wars movie. As for the bold part, my only expectations were what the trailers hinted at, which horribly misrepresent the film.

I disagree with your last sentence though. I blame JJ and his stupid mystery boxes.

2 minutes ago, Endersai said:

The audience thought it had a right to expect certain things from Star Wars; that's the very core of taking something for granted.

Yeah, how dare people expect the latest entry in a franchise that's pretty formulaic and reverent of it's staples be more of the same!

14 minutes ago, Ireul said:

Yeah, how dare people expect the latest entry in a franchise that's pretty formulaic and reverent of it's staples be more of the same!

Well, considering the loudest complaints about TFA was that it was just more of the same....

1 hour ago, Endersai said:

Every problem I had first time around - and I would never rank it behind any prequels, because the prequels are utterly awful and people should feel shame for liking them -

I have no shame. At all.

15 minutes ago, Ireul said:

Yeah, how dare people expect the latest entry in a franchise that's pretty formulaic and reverent of it's staples be more of the same!

But you changed the wording there. Thinking to have a right to expect something is different from expecting something.

Based on experience, I except my good friends to hug me when they see me. I don't think I have a right to expect hugs, though. That would be creepy.

34 minutes ago, Ireul said:

Yeah, how dare people expect the latest entry in a franchise that's pretty formulaic and reverent of it's staples be more of the same!

But you're not disagreeing that the audience layered its bias onto the film and thus viewed the film subjectively, here.

19 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Well, considering the loudest complaints about TFA was that it was just more of the same....

TFA is too samey!

...TLJ is too different!

Rationale for super Leia from Rian. I don't think this has been posted yet.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1746809/rian-johnson-explains-that-leia-scene-everyone-is-talking-about

2 hours ago, Endersai said:

Are you drunk, or..?

The film had depth. This is why it's creating such controversy. People like to add layers of depth to Star Wars, but it's pretty much just a shallow endeavour. The film subverts the entire message of the films to date, including Rogue One. It is an inherently anti-dynastic message, and when you consider the importance of being someone's offspring - Jyn Erso, daughter of Galen Erso. Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa, son and daughter of Darth Vader. Kylo Ren, son of Han Solo and Leia Organa - it's a bold choice.

When one out of the 6 good and frankly worthwhile Star Wars films (there are three others that I don't acknowledge, as they were born out of wedlock - bastard spawn of the unholy union of George Lucas and his yes men, where actors and editors couldn't save him from himself) can legitimately be called deconstructionalist, accusations of a lack of depth make it look like you, rather than Johnson, have no idea who Derrida was.

I have heard the film was better and more funny drunk, but unfortunately not.

The opening scene had a ton of depth, about as much as Spaceballs.

Titty milk had a ton of depth.

You can read depth into many things.

Don't understand your reference to Derrida. I understand his deconstruction of Western culture. From my own study of Lucas and Star Wars history it would seem that Lucas modified the Jewish beliefs and mysticism to create Star Wars. Part of what Derrida deconstructed was these beleifs. To simplify things. Don't understand your reference to Derrida in this?

Wow, everyone's jumping on me. That was a joke guys. I know I'm new here, but I thought the smiley would give it away.

2 hours ago, Endersai said:

But you're not disagreeing that the audience layered its bias onto the film and thus viewed the film subjectively, here.

Nope, not disputing that. Rewatch the trailers for this film. Rey training under Luke, The lore of the Force and the Jedi being expanded, The Resistance struggling against the First Order war machine, Kylo trying to turn Rey. All framed in a way that made it seem like it was following the Star Wars tropes. Only the first teaser gave a clue as to what was to come. In other words, the marketing for TLJ gave the audience their bias, their expectations.

And of course they viewed it subjectively; we're talking about feelings. We all are subjective there, even you. For example, I noticed that in your first response to me you never addressed the part of my "review" where I mentioned the stuff I liked. You accused me of missing the point of the film, not managing my expectations, made something that confused me make sense, then mocked me for expecting world-building continuity. This was around the time I was engaged in "discussions" with several other fans of the film on Reddit. They echoed points 1 and 4, with the added bonus of calling me racist, misogynist, crybaby neckbeard, and all the other nerd-bashing I thought was confined to high school. From my point of view, you were just another person hurt that someone else was criticizing something you liked (no disrespect intended; later responses showed me you're just passionate). If you were objective, you would have addressed both the positives and negatives I viewed the movie to have, and in a less inflammatory manner. Again, not bashing on you, just using our discussion as an example. This goes for everyone else too.

7 hours ago, TrainedMunkey said:

Conjecture not subtext.

When interpreting art, there will always be room for "it could be this" or "it could be that" - but if several people (around here on the forums) and hundreds of people (the internet in general) are coming to the same conclusions about that art, then you know what? There might - just might - be something to that interpretation and you're just too stubborn and/or closed minded to see it.

You don't like it? That's fine - art is 100% subjective. But to say there's nothing whatsoever to it? That's just f'ing ignorant.

15 minutes ago, Ireul said:

Wow, everyone's jumping on me. That was a joke guys. I know I'm new here, but I thought the smiley would give it away.

Poe's law man. Always assume that whatever you say will be taken in the most serious way.

Taken from dark horizons interesting to see what Rian Johnson had to say about some audience dividing scenes.

Rian Johnson’s “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” shows us several things we’ve not seen in a “Star Wars” film before, most notably use of Force powers different to things seen in the past.

Speaking to The Los Angeles Times, Johnson has offered some insight into those changes and explains each of the moments in a way that might help fans understand some of his choices:

“The truth is, because “Star Wars” until “The Force Awakens” has been set in amber and we hadn’t had a new “Star Wars” movie in ten years, you forget that they were introducing new Force stuff with each movie, based on the requirements of the story. Force-grabbing didn’t come around until “Empire,” it wasn’t in “A New Hope.” Same with Force ghosts. They’d introduce new ideas of what could happen with the Force each time.”

The most infamous moment is Carrie Fisher’s Princess Leia, seemingly dead in space, using the Force to fly back onto the ship:

“That was something Kathy [Kennedy] was always asking: Why has this never manifested in Leia? She obviously made a choice, because in “Return of the Jedi” Luke tells her, “You have that power too.” I liked the idea that it’s not Luke concentrating, reaching for the lightsaber; it’s an instinctual survival thing, like when you hear stories of a parent whose toddler is caught under a car and they get superhuman strength, or a drowning person clawing their way to the surface. It’s basically just her not being done with the fight yet. I wanted it to happen [for Carrie] and I knew it was going to be a stretch. It’s a big moment, and I’m sure it will land different ways for different people, but for me it felt like a really emotionally satisfying thing to see.”

There’s also Yoda manipulating the real world from beyond the grave, causing lightning to strike the tree:

“The one point where we do introduce a bit of a twist in terms of Force ghosts is where Yoda calls down the lightning onto the tree. That, I think, is a tantalizing hint of the potential of someone who is a Force ghost interacting with the real world.”

There’s also Kylo and Rey’s conversations which Johnson says was done to get the characters talking and comfortable with each other, but without being in the same place:

“I knew I wanted them to talk, and to talk enough to where we could go from “I hate you,” to her being forced to actually engage with him. That’s where the idea of these “Force connections” came from, which is kind of a new thing. It’s a little bit of a riff on what happens with Vader and Luke at the end of “The Empire Strikes Back,” but it’s entirely new in some regards.”

That power ties into Luke projecting a version of himself to Crait and how that act of sustained will ultimately takes so much out of him:

“When Luke shows up he’s projecting, it’s like a hardcore variation of what Kylo and Rey have been doing the whole time and that’s why it takes so much out of him….We tried to play really, really fair. In terms of his footsteps – we removed all of his foley — there are no footstep sounds. They never touch. And if you look, the salt flakes that are falling are sparking off of Kylo’s saber and not off of Luke’s.”

50 minutes ago, Ireul said:

Nope, not disputing that. Rewatch the trailers for this film. Rey training under Luke, The lore of the Force and the Jedi being expanded, The Resistance struggling against the First Order war machine, Kylo trying to turn Rey. All framed in a way that made it seem like it was following the Star Wars tropes. Only the first teaser gave a clue as to what was to come. In other words, the marketing for TLJ gave the audience their bias, their expectations.

Yeah, all of those things happened in the film - just not the way that was expected, which was entirely the point. The Star Wars 'tropes' need to evolve and change - just as most of us have grown beyond the new generation of fans for which the Sequel Trilogy - ultimately - is being made for. It's still very much Star Wars, it's just a Star Wars that has shifted and changed, and one that will continue to, because we need to let the past die so that we can move on to a brighter future.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

Yeah, all of those things happened in the film - just not the way that was expected, which was entirely the point.

*Sigh* I know that, people have been repeating that line to me for 5 days now. My point is how they were framed. Tell me, honestly, when you first saw the trailers did you expect something like the movie we got?

5 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Yeah, all of those things happened in the film - just not the way that was expected, which was entirely the point. The Star Wars 'tropes' need to evolve and change - just as most of us have grown beyond the new generation of fans for which the Sequel Trilogy - ultimately - is being made for.

Not only did they happen in the trailer, but we were specifically given Luke's line, "This is not going to go the way you think." They told us all right there.

4 minutes ago, Ireul said:

*Sigh* I know that, people have been repeating that line to me for 5 days now. My point is how they were framed. Tell me, honestly, when you first saw the trailers did you expect something like the movie we got?

Yes - I saw it as a parallel journey with Rey and Kylo, both of them inching towards the same lesson, one under the eye of a broken, defeated, but good man and the other a manipulative, confident, and evil being. And that's exactly what happened, in an awesome and satisfying way, with each coming to a conclusion - one healthy and one very much not healthy.

The issue I find with trailers is that they give away too much these days. "Oh this happened here, so I will wait for this, the movie can't be over until I've seen this planet, chewie flying through those crystals" and so fourth; trailer watching greatly diminishes the journey for me by revealing most of the setting before I've had chance to immerse myself in it; movie trailers are an outdated custom in my opinion that is greatly intrusive on my ability to enjoy a movie by providing spoilers prior to sitting down. It's no different then someone going up to me and saying "Kylo killed Snoke, Finn will fight and kill Phasma and Luke is an absolute pair of hairy ewoks." No matter how immersed I am, at least part of my mind will be expecting to see scenes as shown in the theater and I find that extremely distracting on a first (and often, only) viewing at the movies.

Super hero movies are just like pop corn for myself so I could careless about seeing them, ultimately disposable comfort food for predictable viewing for most part, just most other types of movie tends to have a degree of unpredictability that would otherwise be hinted at within the trailers. Not weighing in much one way or another; I'm not really a debating kinda person, I just don't like trailers very much and Star Wars has traditionally some of the worst (e.g. most revealing) trailers.

Oh, and super hero movies. Did I mention they were comparable to a light snack? I mean come on, the hero always kills the bad dudes. XD

Had a theory this afternoon. Its probably been discussed somewhere, but I haven't seen it so here we go...

We dont see Lukes green lightsaber on Ahch-To is because Kylo took it when he destroyed the school. He took the crystal out, and bled it to make his red blade. It cracked either when he took it, or while bleeding it, to make the unstable blade.

Whatta ya think?

2 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Yes - I saw it as a parallel journey with Rey and Kylo, both of them inching towards the same lesson, one under the eye of a broken, defeated, but good man and the other a manipulative, confident, and evil being. And that's exactly what happened, in an awesome and satisfying way, with each coming to a conclusion - one healthy and one very much not healthy.

Good for you. I however, glimpsed something different. Something with what you saw, but also capital ships in battle with starfighters dogfighting around 'em, with books expanding the lore about ancient Jedi, and a Luke that actually oversees Rey's training. And I only saw that, expected that, because of how the trailers deceptively spliced together different scenes.

19 minutes ago, bsmith23 said:

Had a theory this afternoon. Its probably been discussed somewhere, but I haven't seen it so here we go...

We dont see Lukes green lightsaber on Ahch-To is because Kylo took it when he destroyed the school. He took the crystal out, and bled it to make his red blade. It cracked either when he took it, or while bleeding it, to make the unstable blade.

Whatta ya think?

I think he dropped it in the ocean when he was milking the sea cow between year 8 and 11...........

8 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

I think he dropped it in the ocean when he was milking the sea cow between year 8 and 11...........

That gave me a lawl. What does he need a lightsaber for he has a giant stick to poke things with

12 minutes ago, Ireul said:

And I only saw that, expected that, because of how the trailers deceptively spliced together different scenes.

Yeah, but that's just marketing man. Trailers always lie, so much so that it has it's own TV Trope. I can think of a dozen films off the top of my head that were sold as one thing and turned out to be another. The Fifth Element completely got the tone of the film wrong. Back to the Future tried to capitalize on the raunchy R-rated flicks of the time (Porkys, Revenge of the Nerds and the like) and played up the "My mom has the hots for me?" line. Drive was a slow, classy art film and not a Fast and the Furious clone (so much so that they got sued over the marketing). Bridge to Terabithia was not a fun fantasy romp but a dark film about loss.

The only time mismarketing played out to a films favor was Cabin in the Woods, which sold the movie as a

.

So yeah, never trust a trailer. Ever.

I finally saw the movie today, and think some of the takes I've read on here are interesting, and certainly show a vibrant and engaged fan community. Yay!

TANGENT

I will insert one pedantic and respectful tangent concerning one of our High Lord Angry Penguin's comments, as it touches almost exactly upon my wheelhouse, and I am always happy to proselytize: The film Rashomon is actually based on two separate stories ["Rashomon" and "Yabu no Naka (usually translated as 'In a Grove')] by Akutagawa Ryusuke, an early twentieth century writer, which two stories are themselves excellent retellings of two medieval setsuwa stories (which genre I worked on in my own studies), from a twelfth century anthology, some of which have been translated and are fairly widely available. Akutagawa's best short works are in a very good translation published by Penguin Classics for those who would like to read them but lack the Japanese. They are some of the most easily accessible and immediately engaging works in the modern Japanese canon and are highly recommended.

END OF TANGENT

ANYWAY, so the movie. It's a lot to process. I am overall very happy with it. The most accurate review I've read so far is from Tor.com, which mentions that the film tries to get ALL THE FEELINGS out of you. It certainly does. Whether that works or not, I'm not sure. I am definitely going to need to see it at least one more time, probably twice, to really work through it. But my immediate impressions, good or bad, are as follows:

I don't see many movies; I'm a book guy. I almost never cry during movies. But I cried three times during this one: when Leia flew through vacuum, when Yoda showed up, and when Luke passed away. Holy crud. That's great.

I love that this movie is willing to question and deconstruct the entire franchise. It's pretty blunt about it (burning the books, for example), but it's a really interesting thing to do. I approve 100%.

Killing off Snoke was a good idea and a cool place to take Kylo's arc, I think. Also, see my comment above about sacred cows. For people I have seen complaining that we never got a backstory on Snoke, we never got one on Palpatine for almost twenty years. And even if we never had, it wouldn't have changed his role in Jedi. Sometimes loose ends can and should be loose ends. I think it adds to the sense of depth that the OT had: wtf are the spice mines of Kessel? wtf are clone warz precious? Tantalizing hints and dropped names are fine.

Luke has become very, very human and vulnerable. Wow.

One thing I did not like was the casino subplot. It took too long, though it was a gorgeous setpiece and did serve a purpose, giving some background and motivation to Rose.

Speaking of Rose, I thought she was underused in the film. Which is a huge shame, as she seems like a very appealing character, and Kelly Marie Tran has been so happy and cool about being in the Star Wars family for months now.

If I see it again, I'll probably be able to be a little more cogent. Here's hoping I can take my best friend to see it this weekend or next week when he gets off for vacation.

porg porg porg porg porg porg porg porg

2 minutes ago, Desslok said:

Yeah, but that's just marketing man. Trailers always lie, so much so that it has it's own TV Trope. I can think of a dozen films off the top of my head that were sold as one thing and turned out to be another.

And I can think of a dozen films off the top of my head that were exactly as sold. All the prequels, TFA, and Rogue One, for example. So, I have a film franchise with marketing that has been pretty honest - scenes later deleted or reshot being the exceptions. So why wouldn't I trust the marketing for the next entry? IMO, trailers only lie because of 3 reasons: the marketers completely misread the film, giving it straight would ruin a big twist, or they're trying to sell crap.

1 hour ago, Ireul said:

*Sigh* I know that, people have been repeating that line to me for 5 days now. My point is how they were framed. Tell me, honestly, when you first saw the trailers did you expect something like the movie we got?

YES.
Why? Because I did not watch the trailers with any expectations either.
Though I think I have not seen the mentioned first teaser at all, I tried to avoid the trailers on the internet, they were just there in some other movies we went to see.

What I did not expect was the this 18 hour chase. Or Snoke linking them together, etc, but in broader strokes, I did get everything I was expecting and hoping for the movie. I was hoping for something new, something fresh, I was hoping that Kylo Ren as a character would be redeemed from well played entitles little brat to an actual villain, I hoped they would finally make Rey's flaws matter more, I have hoped that the movie would go with a more interesting theme ... Rose was a pleasant surprise as well, etc

In general, yes, the trailers did not destroy my hope to actually get a new movie instead of a nostalgia trip. They left me still in doubt, so someone here giving it a good 7/10 review made me grab my stuff and my wife and watch it in some midnight showing. Man was I happy

12 minutes ago, Ireul said:

And I can think of a dozen films off the top of my head that were exactly as sold. All the prequels, TFA, and Rogue One, for example.

Ironically do you list all the crap films in the saga
Though the Rogue one marketing was not really honest, "Safe the Rebellion" my ***, Saw was a complete useless piece in that movie and the movie would have been great if the entire first hour was removed and we start in media res with Erso trying to safe her father, right after the intro. Actually, I might try to watch the movie exactly that way, maybe I like it then.

1 hour ago, Ireul said:

*Sigh* I know that, people have been repeating that line to me for 5 days now. My point is how they were framed. Tell me, honestly, when you first saw the trailers did you expect something like the movie we got?

As if. If I already knew what I was getting from seeing a trailer, why bother going at all?

12 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Ironically do you list all the crap films in the saga

Well, I was only 8 when Phantom Menace came out, so I've never seen the trailers for the good ones.