@JJ48 Case in point:

1 hour ago, Ambaryerno said:

The problem is Holdo mishandled Poe PERIOD. I've got a few military friends, and they all have said that the instant Poe started mouthing off on the bridge when he saw the transports being fueled he should have been confined to quarters if not tossed in the brig altogether, and should never have been in a position to mutiny. Had Holdo not been killed, in any real military she would have been court-martialed, (standard procedure when there's a mutiny) and likely would never have had a field command ever again.

She was outright incompetent, and yet we're supposed to blindly accept she was "right."

That is simply not true, and for several reasons at that.

First, take a look at the recent UFC main fight, where the two guys behaved absolutely despicably. Everyone else would be given the boot, but they are the poster boys, and that means they get much more leniency. That is true for plenty of other interactions, including the military.Why should it be different for an inofficial Resistance?

She wasn't outright incompetent. She gave the hero and face of the Resistance more leniency than she should have - the same mistake that Leia did before her. Everything else was perfectly fine.

1 hour ago, Ambaryerno said:

This is compounded by the fact that this characterization of Poe was tacked on to force the plot along. There's no real point in TFA that Poe demonstrates the sort of suicidal overconfidence that got most of his command killed in the opening battle of TLJ, (which also centered around one of the WORST ship designs in any franchise I've ever seen) or that he was the sort of hothead that Holdo pegs him as. 

Uh, have you seen how many T70s returned from Starkiller base? Or how he was cocky enough to return to Jakku instead of running away? And then the moments in TLJ before Holdo says her lines. That is suicidal overconfidence.

36 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:

The movie needed Poe to be a reckless, insubordinate hothead, and so they forced that characterization on him despite it not being supported by anything we've seen about him in the past, with a rushed character arc to basically turn him BACK into what he was in TFA.

And that is exactly what I am talking about. This criticism simply misunderstands the character arc as does...

49 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:

Or worse: The movie turned Luke, who faced down one of the most evil men the galaxy ever spawned by throwing away his lightsaber, and who learned the hard way the dangers of acting rashly and blindly on a vision from the Force into someone who would blindly act on a vision from the Force because the plot needed it to cement Kylo Ren's fall. Think about it: Luke claims he only considered offing Ben for a moment. Yet what we actually see is that moment was long enough for him to walk into his nephew's room while he slept, pull out his lightsaber, and ignite it. 

...this. It's just wrong because it mischaracterizes Luke and the situation.

There is simply no point in engaging these points. It's not that TLJ is an intellectual masterpiece, not at all. But it was already too complex for a very loud fraction that can't just dislike it and move on.

57 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Maybe, but I just didn't see that in the movie at all. A movie shouldn't beat you over the head with its message, but it should be clear.

That's in part why I say the movie was complex. I thought for example that several points were too much in our face - and yet plenty people missed it entirely. And you mentioned the PT yourself. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

53 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

But it was already too complex for a very loud fraction that can't just dislike it and move on.

Back on topic, it doesn't help that clickbait websites are viraly pushing poorly written drafts of academic papers that claim that a majority of those that dislike it are political agitators and not authentic Star Wars fans.

That just stirs **** up again and prevents people from moving on and getting hype about The Mandalorian.

Have you guys ever thought about posting your opinions about TLJ on the internet? I heard that when you do, you become very handsome and everyone gets cake

1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

That's in part why I say the movie was complex. I thought for example that several points were too much in our face - and yet plenty people missed it entirely. And you mentioned the PT yourself. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

There's definitely a balance that's needed, sure. I feel the Prequels landed too far on one side, while TLJ went a bit too far the other direction.

34 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

There's definitely a balance that's needed, sure. I feel the Prequels landed too far on one side, while TLJ went a bit too far the other direction.

By the way, that‘s also perfectly valid criticism: TLJ might be too subtle on very important points. Personally I like that, but I understand if someone doesn‘t. And that is ok.

‚Worst character ever even if she made the same specific mistake as Leia but to a lesser degree. Leia is fine though‘ is ridiculous and deserves no discussion. The reason I bring that up again is this post from the very beginning:

Quote

Whether it's labelling people who criticise The Last Jedi as misogynists, racists, "man-babies" or Russian bots, a great deal of the "defence" for The Last Jedi focuses on attacking people who express their criticisms, not addressing their concerns. The remainder simply pretend the complaints don't exist. And that approach extends not only to the fanbase, but the studio itself apparently.

Some concerns are based on misunderstanding and that makes addressing them pointless. But somehow people prefer to stay angry at their alleged favorite franchise instead of correcting their point of view.

41 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

There's definitely a balance that's needed, sure. I feel the Prequels landed too far on one side, while TLJ went a bit too far the other direction.

I personnally like it that way, it gives even more value to a second, third, fourth, etc viewing. And it's also the reason why while I liked Solo and Rogue One, I don't personnally think they're great movie: there is not a lot of depth, reasons to watch them again. They are still entertaining, but they don't gain value with more watching. For me, The Last Jedi does, it gains with each viewing and that's the mark of a great movie. But to each their own, and I understand why some people might not like it or prefer more direct entertainement like Solo or Rogue One.

Concerning The Last Jedi, I think that some of the complaints come from an unwillingness to try to understand the motives behind the decisions. There is a lot of expectations when it comes to Star Wars. If something didn't go the way you thought, there is two way to deal with it: either to try to understand why it went this way and accept it (maybe even grow to like it), or to try to reinforce the reasons why you didn't like it. Sadly, I think that a lot of persons that actively complaint about The Last Jedi fits into the second category, activly looking for reasons to hate the movie, going as far as watching multiple video on youtube that share their feeling in case they could find a new reason to hate it. It almost looks like some people actually want to hate the movie and want everyone to feel the same way about it, not respecting the fact that a lot of people actually liked the movie. A lot of people didn't like it, but a lot of people did like it.

34 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

I personnally like it that way, it gives even more value to a second, third, fourth, etc viewing.

Part of my issue, though, is that I often fail to see some of the points, even after someone has mentioned them and I'm looking for them particularly. This leads me to wonder if the points are really there, or whether someone has come up with their own theory and overlaid it on the movie.

For instance, Finn's failed sacrifice, mentioned earlier. The explanation of sacrificial defense vs suicidal offense sort of works with what we see on screen, but it doesn't really seem (to me) to be drawn from what's on screen. Rather, it appears to be an external idea imposed upon the story.

Subtlety is good; but if it's too subtle, it's like hanging a blank canvas on the wall and letting people see whatever they want to see in the slight ripples and folds.

45 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

It almost looks like some people actually want to hate the movie and want everyone to feel the same way about it, not respecting the fact that a lot of people actually liked the movie. A lot of people didn't like it, but a lot of people did like it.

Some people do, but some people would still be making fun of and nitpicking the movie even if they loved it. Because why bother watching a movie if you're not going to analyze it and have some fun with it, right?

49 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

For instance, Finn's failed sacrifice, mentioned earlier. The explanation of sacrificial defense vs suicidal offense sort of works with what we see on screen, but it doesn't really seem (to me) to be drawn from what's on screen. Rather, it appears to be an external idea imposed upon the story.

All it takes is another person to see the same thing. The link to Hold is my interpretation. The pointlessness of his sacrifice and the wrong attitude are directly in the movie.

Finn displays the same kind of recklessness that he saw from Poe. Some go as far and call it a form of toxic masculinity, and I wouldn't disagree. But whatever it's called, we are used to heroes acting that way and getting rewarded for it. TLJ punishes it not just once but twice, hammering the idea over our heads that Finn's anger or even hatred towards the First Order is dangerous, as dangerous as Poe's urge to destroy the enemy instead of saving his people.

15 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

All it takes is another person to see the same thing. The link to Hold is my interpretation. The pointlessness of his sacrifice and the wrong attitude are directly in the movie.

How was it pointless? Even after getting knocked out of the way, it still took a while for the cannon to fire. There was no indication that Finn's plan wouldn't have worked. If Luke hadn't shown up to distract the First Order, the Resistance likely would have been wiped out before they could escape. Had Finn's run been successful, they would have had more time, regardless.

That's why I think they should have had him further away, with the cannon firing the moment he was knocked clear. That way it would have quite clearly been an act of suicidal bravado.

Just now, JJ48 said:

How was it pointless? Even after getting knocked out of the way, it still took a while for the cannon to fire. There was no indication that Finn's plan wouldn't have worked. If Luke hadn't shown up to distract the First Order, the Resistance likely would have been wiped out before they could escape. Had Finn's run been successful, they would have had more time, regardless.

That's why I think they should have had him further away, with the cannon firing the moment he was knocked clear. That way it would have quite clearly been an act of suicidal bravado.

If you are willing to speculate that far: He also did not know about safe exit in the back, that the survivors would even try to find one, and that Rey would be able and in the right place at the right time to lift the rocks.

The scenario he had to expect was that at best the cannon gets damaged and the Resistance is trapped for another couple of hours or maybe days before the cannon is repaired or another device (Stardestroyer and orbital bombardment anyone?) is used.

And yet he wanted to make this pointless sacrifice that only statisfied his anger and desire to hurt the First Order.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

For instance, Finn's failed sacrifice, mentioned earlier. The explanation of sacrificial defense vs suicidal offense sort of works with what we see on screen, but it doesn't really seem (to me) to be drawn from what's on screen. Rather, it appears to be an external idea imposed upon the story.

Subtlety is good; but if it's too subtle, it's like hanging a blank canvas on the wall and letting people see whatever they want to see in the slight ripples and

The distinction is in the resolve. Holdo’s sacrifice is an act of desperation to save the Resistance. Finn’s sacrifice is driven by his stubborn hate of the First Order. To think that Rose should have let Finn sacrificed himself assume a couple of things

1-That Finn sacrifice would have absolutely 100% destroy the cannon

2-That by destroying the cannon the First Order would have just turn away and leave them be (Okay, we’re hidden behind a big door, now what?)

3-That destroying the door automatically meant that the Resistance would be crushed without a fight.

As for it being too subtle, I could not say. The scene never bothered me in the first place, so I didn’t feel the need to reflect on it on my first viewing. But Finn saying « I won’t let them win! » clearly shows that he is driven, and sacrificing himself, by his hate of the First Order, not to save the Resistance. Not succumbing to hate, anger, should not be exclusive to the Jedi.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

Some people do, but some people would still be making fun of and nitpicking the movie even if they loved it. Because why bother watching a movie if you're not going to analyze it and have some fun with it, right?

Oh don’t worry, I have no problem with people making fun and being nitpicky with the movie, I don’t think its perfect either. My personnal nitpicks are with BB8, but I understand that its mostly for kids so I don’t really mind. And I can make fun of The Empire Strike Back too, or any other Star Wars movies, none are perfect.

There is a distinction to be made:

-Not liking the movie for multiple reasons, I’m perfectly fine with it. To each their opinion.

-Starting a crusade online against the movie, this I have a problem. But then again, people that do it only makes fool out of themselves.

Edit: Lol got ninja’d by Green Dragon on some points!

3 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

My personnal nitpicks are with BB8

Oh god yes! Especially when he took over the walker. Wtf.

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Oh god yes! Especially when he took over the walker. Wtf.

Ahah! Worst offender for me was the coins shooter but, a special mention to how he repair Black One weapon system by slamming his head on the board...

15 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

a special mention to how he repair Black One weapon system by slamming his head on the board...

I majored in computer engineering, and I'm reasonably certain that the solution to just about any electrical malfunction is to just slam a large conductor as hard as you can into the circuit board.

"The more components you damage and the more contacts you short out, the better," as my professors used to say.

Just now, JJ48 said:

I majored in computer engineering, and I'm reasonably certain that the solution to just about any electrical malfunction is to just slam a large conductor as hard as you can into the circuit board. 

I have decades of experience slamming things into other things, and I can personally vouch for this approach. The desired result is most often achieved.

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

If you are willing to speculate that far: He also did not know about safe exit in the back, that the survivors would even try to find one, and that Rey would be able and in the right place at the right time to lift the rocks.

The scenario he had to expect was that at best the cannon gets damaged and the Resistance is trapped for another couple of hours or maybe days before the cannon is repaired or another device (Stardestroyer and orbital bombardment anyone?) is used.

That argument works both ways, though. Not knowing about the escape route, what's their alternative? Let the First Order blast the front door and kill them even sooner? Yes, the Resistance appeared trapped, but unless they all wanted to surrender right then and there, blowing up the cannon and hoping to fight long enough for help to arrive was the only realistic shot they had.

6 hours ago, Red Castle said:

1-That Finn sacrifice would have absolutely 100% destroy the cannon

2-That by destroying the cannon the First Order would have just turn away and leave them be (Okay, we’re hidden behind a big door, now what?)

3-That destroying the door automatically meant that the Resistance would be crushed without a fight.

1 - Maybe it wouldn't have, but it looked lined up well for a pretty good shot.

2 - It buys them some time, which was the whole point of sending the skimmers out to begin with.

3 - This is just silly. If you have to fight a numerically and technologically superior foe, would you prefer to at least have heavy fortifications, or neither fortifications nor anything else?

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

And yet he wanted to make this pointless sacrifice that only statisfied his anger and desire to hurt the First Order.

6 hours ago, Red Castle said:

But Finn saying « I won’t let them win! » clearly shows that he is driven, and sacrificing himself, by his hate of the First Order, not to save the Resistance. Not succumbing to hate, anger, should not be exclusive to the Jedi.

How does "I won't let them win!" show that Finn's driven by hate? If he were fighting to protect his friends, he still wouldn't want the First Order to win. Furthermore, if Finn is driven by hate, his plan is really, really stupid. What, does he hate that particular cannon? If he were aiming at Kylo Ren or Phasma, I might buy it, but you don't show hatred towards an evil empire by taking out one piece of equipment that doesn't really set them back too much. The only way his plan makes sense is if he's trying to buy the Resistance more time. If Finn acted out of hatred rather than a desire to protect his friends, then he was beyond misguided or confused; he was an utter imbecile. I'm sorry, but from the first time I saw that scene to every viewing since, it absolutely screamed, "NOBLE SACRIFICE TO SAVE FRIENDS".

5 hours ago, JJ48 said:

How does "I won't let them win!" show that Finn's driven by hate?  If he were fighting to protect his friends, he still wouldn't want the First Order to win.

If you won‘t acknowledge the difference in attitude edit: that the difference in intent matters then there‘s no point in discussing it any further.

5 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

If you won‘t acknowledge the difference in attitude edit: that the difference in intent matters then there‘s no point in discussing it any further.

Oh, I 100% agree that intent matters. I just don't see how people are getting that Finn's intent wasn't to try to protect his friends.

28 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Oh, I 100% agree that intent matters. I just don't see how people are getting that Finn's intent wasn't to try to protect his friends.

Then I don‘t know how to say this without sounding rude (which is not my intention), but then you just misunderstand it.

Saying ‚I won’t let them win‘ demonstrates that Finn is fixated on the success of the FO and on hurting them. If you simply dismiss that... well, I don‘t see why you do or think you can.

7 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Then I don‘t know how to say this without sounding rude (which is not my intention), but then you just misunderstand it.

Saying ‚I won’t let them win‘ demonstrates that Finn is fixated on the success of the FO and on hurting them. If you simply dismiss that... well, I don‘t see why you do or think you can.

I don't "simply dismiss that," I just don't see how you get from "I won't let them win" to "my focus is entirely on the FO and not on my comrades."

In Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf says, "You shall not pass," is that indicating that he's focused on the Balrog and hindering it rather than protecting the Fellowship? I'm sorry, I can't see how that line means what you claim it means.

Another example would be Obi-Wan's, "You can't win, Darth," in ANH. Does that show he was motivated by hatred of Darth Vader, and didn't care about Luke and the others? Just because Finn is sounding determined at the moment doesn't mean he's in a blind fury fueled purely by hatred.

16 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Then I don‘t know how to say this without sounding rude (which is not my intention), but then you just misunderstand it.

No worries. The fact that there's disagreement indicates that either someone has to be misunderstanding, or else the scene is ambiguous enough to allow both explanations. Obviously, I don't think I'm misunderstanding; but at the same time, I wouldn't place money on it.

28 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

I don't "simply dismiss that," I just don't see how you get from "I won't let them win" to "my focus is entirely on the FO and not on my comrades." 

It‘s the culmination of his character arc, and that‘s why the examples with Gandalf or Obiwan fall flat.

Initially Finn only wants to run away from the fight and that is deemed wrong. Then he changes his mind, wishes to be part of the resistance and goes on to do the extreme opposite - charging directly and throwing his life away. But the movie just showed us with Poe’s arc that this, too, is the wrong approach.

Support for his hatred can be found in both movies. I don‘t think you contest that he hates the FO.

Support for the movie telling us that intent matters is also all over the place.

If your only problem is that he could have done the same action with a different intention and we can‘t tell the difference... I still disagree because of the context and his whole character arc, but if that were not the case: if both options were truly equal (which I think they are not), and one is just the better movie, why then not take that interpretation anyway?

Based on that thought you must think that there is more in favor of Finn wanting to save his friends instead of trying to deal damage to the FO.

1 hour ago, JJ48 said:

I don't "simply dismiss that," I just don't see how you get from "I won't let them win" to "my focus is entirely on the FO and not on my comrades."

In Fellowship of the Ring, when Gandalf says, "You shall not pass," is that indicating that he's focused on the Balrog and hindering it rather than protecting the Fellowship? I'm sorry, I can't see how that line means what you claim it means.

Another example would be Obi-Wan's, "You can't win, Darth," in ANH. Does that show he was motivated by hatred of Darth Vader, and didn't care about Luke and the others? Just because Finn is sounding determined at the moment doesn't mean he's in a blind fury fueled purely by hatred.

Because it's not just about the line. I used the line because it's one of the indicator of the motive, but the scene is part of the evolution of Finn from Episode 7 to the end of 8. First wanting to run away, then run away again, then finally joining the fight, then realising the real meaning of the fight. But of course he also wants to save his friends, we saw it in Episode 7 when he goes to save Rey. But then again, we also see in Episode 7 that he goes to Starkiller to save Rey, not to blow out Starkiller (not saving the Resistance from blowing up in the distance).

When they went out, their mission was to blow out the cannon to give some time, not all die trying. That's why Poe order a retreat. From what him and Rose says, the cannon is now fully charged so it is too late now. Are they right? We don't know. But for Rose it is, so Finn sacrifice means nothing. It won't save the Resistance, it will only kill him. But he's still going head on because of his anger toward the First Order. Going head on toward a sacrifice that might do absolutely nothing, because again, we don't know if it will succeed (died for nothing) or if it was worth it to buy them some time (nobodies coming to the rescue) in the first place. Better to live to continue the fight.

Edit: My God! Still ninja'd by GD....

19 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

Edit: My God! Still ninja'd by GD....

You know, the fact that we both keep answering almost the same but not exactly the same is a noteworthy point in itself.

6 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

You know, the fact that we both keep answering almost the same but not exactly the same is a noteworthy point in itself.

That you’re my long lost twin brother?