criterionforum.org

Murdoch wrote:I can't blame her. The most die-hard Star Wars fans are some of the most obnoxious people around.

This is what makes it so hard to discuss the latest films on the internet. It’s not worth the effort to defend them when you don’t know if the other side is being critical in good faith.

Have you guys seen the amount of Last Jedi rant videos on youtube? From the very night of the preview screenings last December til even now people are still making and posting them. They range from 10 minutes to 3 fucking hours. The average length for all of them seem to be 30-60 minutes and basically they all argue over the same things: forced feminism and diversity, space physics, story mechanics, etc.

This kind of crybaby culture has gotten out of control it begs the question: how does someone take Star Wars that seriously?

I feel oddly reassured that the first Star Wars movie I genuinely liked is the one which sent a bunch of psycho fanboys over the edge.

Lost Highway wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:00 pm I feel oddly reassured that the first Star Wars movie I genuinely liked is the one which sent a bunch of psycho fanboys over the edge.

I used to be into Star Wars in my younger days like a lot of people but the interest died after Ep III because the hobby and interest just ran its course. I have heavy criticisms and dislike towards the OT, PT and such but I feel you here. Last Jedi is a good watch precisely because it tried to be its own thing.

black&huge wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:45 pm Have you guys seen the amount of Last Jedi rant videos on youtube? From the very night of the preview screenings last December til even now people are still making and posting them. They range from 10 minutes to 3 fucking hours. The average length for all of them seem to be 30-60 minutes and basically they all argue over the same things: forced feminism and diversity, space physics, story mechanics, etc.

I've spent the last several months incessantly telling YouTube "NOT INTERESTED" every time they suggest one, clicking through to TELL US WHY, checking off that I don't like the video and that I'm not interested in the channel that put it out, and even though that's made it so I never see the same channel twice (I think), new ones still keep popping up on the home page any time I watch anything even obliquely Star Wars-related.

black&huge wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:45 pm Have you guys seen the amount of Last Jedi rant videos on youtube? From the very night of the preview screenings last December til even now people are still making and posting them. They range from 10 minutes to 3 fucking hours. The average length for all of them seem to be 30-60 minutes and basically they all argue over the same things: forced feminism and diversity, space physics, story mechanics, etc.

This kind of crybaby culture has gotten out of control it begs the question: how does someone take Star Wars that seriously?

Emphasis belongs on 'baby', I suspect. Not that there's anything wrong with getting in touch with one's inner child from time to time (by, say, getting a kick out of Star Wars films), but I guess that's all some people have.

I feel however that they're overshadowing normal discussions that we could have about the movie, including to express a simple dislike about this movie, just like one could do for any other. These raging fanboys are not active here for instance. Yet, they keep returning in the discussion. Can't we just let them be elsewhere and enjoy having a raging-free discussion ? At some point, I almost wonder if I can still express my dislike of the movie without being called an angry fanboy.

black&huge wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:30 pmLast Jedi is a good watch precisely because it tried to be its own thing.

And failed in about every movie-making and screenwriting aspect possible.

black&huge wrote: Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:45 pmbasically they all argue over the same things: forced feminism and diversity, space physics, story mechanics, etc. This kind of crybaby culture has gotten out of control it begs the question: how does someone take Star Wars that seriously?

Even without taking Star Wars that seriously, this is a high-profile movie released in an era in which many reviews and "analysis" are done this way. Having myself wrote one of my longest reviews for TLJ, I'm not surprised some would find many different points to tackle, especially for a heavily franchised movie like this one.
I'm also not sure about how all arguing over the same things seems to be problematic. I'm quite certain some points are definitely nit-picking (like the space physics - I suppose it is about having "old style" bombs in space -), but I don't see how many reviews discussing story mechanics can be a bad thing. I'd rather say it might simply mean the movie has some weaknesses in this department.

But being Star Wars doesn't dispense the movie from being, well, a movie by all rules : acting, visuals, music, writing, etc. Why couldn't it then be discussed, have its pros and cons weight just like you would do for other movies ? I've been doing this on 3 different discussion boards (though I probably couldn't have it as easily and without fuss at, say, blu-ray.com).

I certainly don't approve people getting overly picky with stupid details nobody should care about (which is actually nothing new with super-popular franchises like Star Wars, Internet is just creating a resonance for it) but as I wrote a couple of time here already, I don't see what should prevent some people to take their time in videos explaining why they think the movie might lack or not. I'm quite sure I could last at least 15 minutes at this, probably closer to 25 min.

tenia wrote: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:56 amBut being Star Wars doesn't dispense the movie from being, well, a movie by all rules : acting, visuals, music, writing, etc. Why couldn't it then be discussed, have its pros and cons weight just like you would do for other movies ?

I wrote here months ago that a) I'm not a particular fan of this franchise and b) I think this is the best entry in that franchise by some distance, so feel free to stop reading if either of those are disqualifying factors.

There's one particular point where I'm baffled by almost all of this type of (good faith, non-misogynist/racist/manchild versions of) criticism of The Last Jedi. Anyone can absolutely criticize it in the areas above, and find it to be lacking enough in them to dislike it overall. I personally disagree by the standards I've set for space operas for children, but I can see how someone might have higher standards for it and wouldn't hold that against anyone's opinion. I could even understand if someone preferred the basic story of the original movies to the story being told in this trilogy.

What I can't comprehend, and what I've yet to see anyone credibly argue (not that I've been scouring the darkest corners of the internet for months or anything), is the opinion that Rian Johnson's film falls short in any combination of the basic components of filmmaking egregiously more so than literally any other entry in the franchise. They're all more or less poorly written, have myriad mediocre to poor performances, lack a basic understanding of physics, feature unnecessary characters and B- or C-plots that make no sense, and so on. And yet for some reason many people who gobbled up most or all of the first eight flawed movies in this series became deeply disappointed that they weren't watching Seven Samurai or something when it came to this entry.

Again, I can totally see someone disliking this movie in a vacuum, or finding it yet another committee-produced blockbuster entry in a franchise designed to suck money from the pockets of preteens and their parents like, um, a vacuum, but can anyone here explain why The Last Jedi is bad filmmaking but the other movies should be taught as exemplars to film students?

Yeah Rogue One for example is a much poorer movie in my eyes, and I understand that’s subjective, but objectively it shares much of the same weaknesses and faults that people are directing at The Last Jedi.

I'm a fan of The Last Jedi, so perhaps not the person to respond to this strain, but I do think it has some flaws. On the most subjective level, even granting that this is all subjective, I don't think all of the humor works. And even some of the humor that "works" somewhat as comedy doesn't necessarily in a Star Wars movie -- does the concept of "I'll hold" make any sense in the Star Wars universe? (And for a non-comic example, the word "Godspeed"?)

I think the biggest misstep is the Finn subplot, which I'll go ahead and spoiler-tag even though I assume anyone reading this will have cared enough to see it.

Spoiler

Finn's arc works on a thematic and schematic level, but not a human, lived one. Even if we grant that his loyalty is to Rey and not The Resistance, his arc of caring for The Resistance feels rushed to me. His plot also brings out the other weak elements of the film: the Canto Bight digression, which is founded on a flimsy, arbitrary dramatic premise; Benicio del Toro's shockingly awful self-parody of a performance; the completely pointless brief return of Phasma; the unearned emotional beat that closes his and Rose's story.

Do the other real Star Wars films (the original trilogy and the four new films) have flaws? Sure. I still maintain the original Star Wars is the best; this may be because it's the simplest and most direct, being a simple chase and escape movie. Empire has some pacing issues in the middle stretch (and two simultaneous subplots that seem to be taking different amounts of time, yet meet up together), and Return of the Jedi essentially stops after the biker chase, finally picking up when Luke turns himself in to Lord Vader. The Force Awakens has some scale issues, Rogue One a fairly clunky first act that restricts character identification, and Solo a romp that eschews any deeper emotion (perhaps to its credit). In each case, I feel the strengths outweigh the flaws.

The Force Awakens vs. The Last Jedi is an interesting comparison; in many ways, <i>Awakens</i> is less ambitious (the biggest ambition -- which is not inconsiderable -- is getting us to care about new characters), and Last far more so, but I think Awakens succeeds at hitting its lower targets at a higher rate. So does one value well-executed modesty over mostly-well-executed ambition? I choose to like them both.

I didn’t want to make it an OT vs new movies viewpoint in my comment (for the record I think Star Wars and Empire are legitimately great films), so I used Rogue One as an example to keep the point within just the spectrum of the new films. But I could have made the same comment by referring to The Force Awakens rather than Rogue One (although I think Force Awakens is actually a good film and Rogue One is not).

All the Best People wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:09 am(And for a non-comic example, the word "Godspeed"?)

I've seen several other people bring this up elsewhere, and it's really interesting to me from a purely linguistic perspective. I assume the problem people have is the religious connotation it seems to imply, but I honestly didn't realize people still interpreted the word this way until I started seeing objections to its use in this movie! I thought it had long ago become thoroughly secular. (Obviously it has religious origins, but no more so than "goodbye" — "God be with ye").

At any rate, I think "godspeed" makes at least as much sense in Star Wars as "I'll see you in Hell," which Han says at the beginning of Empire.

I very much agree with your thoughts re: Finn. I think his muddled characterization (particularly the under-dramatization of his defection from an army that we are told has been brainwashing him since childhood) was the biggest problem in The Force Awakens, and Rian Johnson didn't successfully improve upon it. I'm immensely impressed that John Boyega, seemingly through sheer charisma, is able to make that character work on screen at all.

DarkImbecile wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:15 amWhat I can't comprehend, and what I've yet to see anyone credibly argue (not that I've been scouring the darkest corners of the internet for months or anything), is the opinion that Rian Johnson's film falls short in any combination of the basic components of filmmaking egregiously more so than literally any other entry in the franchise. They're all more or less poorly written, have myriad mediocre to poor performances, lack a basic understanding of physics, feature unnecessary characters and B- or C-plots that make no sense, and so on. And yet for some reason many people who gobbled up most or all of the first eight flawed movies in this series became deeply disappointed that they weren't watching Seven Samurai or something when it came to this entry.

All the Best People wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:09 amI think the biggest misstep is the Finn subplot, which I'll go ahead and spoiler-tag even though I assume anyone reading this will have cared enough to see it.

I'll try and summarize why I felt deeply disappointed by TLJ in my own personal way (because it's subjective anyway) and why I neer really felt that in front at least of the OT, despite these being obviously flawed too (I believe, for instance, that RotJ is vastly overlong and should have been about 30 minutes shorter - for instance, with less Ewoks-time - ).
I went and see in theaters TLJ only a few days after its release day and before reading mixed or negative reviews. Along the course of the movie, discovering its plot and mechanics, I felt it was extremely artificially written. It wasn't that the B or C-plots made no sense : they were making lots of sense... but only because it helped the storytelling in a very artificial way.

I've discussed my feelings towards the Holdo - Poe narrative and was told that I was basically remembering it wrong and that it also was a (to put it simply) a feministic take about how Holdo the woman vet didn't owe anything to Poe the blunt man but having watched again this part, it's not what is happening on screen. What is happening on screen is an old-as-crap scriptwriting trick in which someone does some obvious information retention for no good diegetic reason than creating some suspense. Except that in TLJ, this is obvious as hell, and that bothered me a lot, because I felt the movie simply thought I was dumb and would buy such an obvious trick. I didn't, and was thus left with characters behaving in an obviously artificial way, to setup a 90 minutes long B plot... that would run into circles in the end... and actually put the characters in a worse situation than before...

It felt vastly overlong for the simplistic points the movie tries to make ("you can learn from your failures", "war is not black & white", "poor people are always the ones suffering"). But because it still tried to have these socio-political subtexts to try and elevate a franchise that never really bothered for it before, only to end up with takes seemingly written by a 10 years old, it didn't feel ambitious : it felt pretentious.

I never ever felt that in front of the OT or the PT. They're flawed as hell, sure, some more than the others, but still. A New Hope is quite asinine cinematographically-wise, RotJ is overlong for no reason, the PT has tons of issues (notably with its acting performances), etc etc. But I never felt so bored with such artificial tricks, with something so boringly artificial.
TLJ is the longest Star Wars movie ever, and yet, its basic plot is the slowest space chase ever and a B-plot whose whole point is basically to run into circle.
That's why I'm quite sure I would have been way more tolerant with the the movie wer it 40 minutes shorter. 2h30 is just way too long for so little.

Funnily enough, I went and see the movie alone, but ended up discussing it after the screening with a group of people quite like me (fans but not really fanboys either) and we spontaneously agreed on that : why so much screentime for so little content ? So simplistic subtexts ?

And on top of all that, add an overall lightness on action sequences, and poor CGI in them (god, the 2 Finn – Rose chases are visually awful and a reminder on how dire some blockbusters CGI can be recently – see Black Panther final duel for instance - ).

And then, there's the whole “kill your idols” will of the movie, which I felt again was something that ended up pretentious because of how ambitious it was but how much the movie missed its target there. It starts things but never goes all the way : Luke is retreated but not so much, Rey will be trained (or not) but not really (or is she ?), Poe is an unreliable hot-head but that’s OK when it’s convenient (he’s quickly demoted by a rank but 15 minutes later gets the blessing from Leia to “go and blow things up” – go figure - ), Finn and Rose go for a 90 minutes ride which basically is pointless (and that’s the point but isn’t 90 minutes a bit long for that ?), the Jedi order is gone but wait not so fast. Even the score seems like it tries to offer new things but actually no. And that’s mostly only WITHIN the movie itself, but if you think of the movie as the latest Star Wars movie, the same points can be made about how inconsistent the movie can be with trying to cut itself from the past : in the end, Porgs are the new Ewoks, Poe the new Han, Finn and Rey the new idealist duo, Luke the new Yoda. And despite the whole point of the movie being how the youth can be wrong (and indeed spend most of the movie to be so), well, they don’t seem to suffer too much from their mistakes, in the end. And if they do, the movie then simply isn’t constructed in a good enough fashion to translate that.
There’s only hope for them, but in a very artificially naïve way.

Spoiler

Poe, Finn and Rose got tons of their friends killed because of their recklessness, but by the end of the movie, here they are. Poe even ends up being shown as a true successor for Leia as Head of Resistance. And that’s all because Holdo willingly retained info from Poe but also from her whole crew, leaving all these people clueless as to whether or not she’s competent or whether or not she might even be a mole for the New Order. That’s extremely poor leadership and decision making, yet, she’s shown as one of the true hero of the movie.

I don’t think it has to do with the movie being stuck in a blockbuster production style, but that the script simply isn’t well written. It happens.



So despite all the flaws the OT and even more so the PT can have, I never felt a Star Wars movie as being so ostensibly artificially written, so vastly overlong, so boring actually in the end. Smaller stuff like Super Leia, the showing-off crystal dogs, the poor humor, the weird physics, I almost don’t (and actually pretty much really don’t) care about them because all these basic stuff came first to me as deep basic issues with the movie. And these were issues that never felt so obvious to me in these past movies.

So, intrinsically, I thought the movie to be just bad (and rated it 2.5 out of 10), but even when comparing to the past movies, I never found their flaws to be as glaring and obvious as TLJ’s ones.

However, if I had to grant good points to TLJ, it’d be on how beautifully crafted it can be at times, and how it further assess Kylo Ren as a fascinating character adequately played by Driver. But in a 2h32 movie, it’s far from being enough.


On TFA : the movie wants to do less but achieves more because of the lower bar. It is vastly flawed too, but I think it’s a clearly better film than TLJ. I think the TLJ’s team simply got too “greedy” in what they wanted to do and failed, while the TFA’s one remained more “realistic” with what they could achieve.
On Rogue One : it’s a schizophrenic movie whose first half is pointless as hell (Saw Guerrera’s behaviour in the movie is symptomatic of that) but whose second half felt so epic in a good way it almost made up for it. But still, when you have to skip the first half of a movie, it’s never a good sign.

nitin wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:47 am Yeah Rogue One for example is a much poorer movie in my eyes, and I understand that’s subjective, but objectively it shares much of the same weaknesses and faults that people are directing at The Last Jedi.

While all the movies made so far under the new regime (though I haven't seen "Solo," so I can't rightfully comment on that one) have felt more like people doing their best SW impersonations rather than the real thing to me, I actually think "Rogue One" did the most convincing one so far. I feel Gareth Edwards had a much better understanding of Lucas' universe than either Abrams or Johnson. Sure, the central characters seem to exist for no other reason than to serve the plot (which is needlessly complicated at times -- the first act in particular), but it made an effort to give us new stuff we hadn't seen before, which was sort of the hallmark of each new SW movie back in the day. Of course, coming up with compelling new characters has been one of the main problems since the new guard took over. Only K-2SO has struck me as remotely memorable in these 3 movies, and it's probably because he comes off as a sort of hypothetical 'What if 3PO had a personality more like R2's?' scenario. It's also the only movie so far that's had that obligatory epic battle, i.e. one of the things people have come to expect from these movies each time out (along with the lines "May the Force be with you" and "I have a bad feeling about this" -- or some variant on them, and, whenever the Jedi/Sith are involved, a lightsaber duel... which not even TLJ had :-s ). At this point, that's like seeing a James Bond movie with no chase or fight scene.

RE: tenia's spoiler

Spoiler

I'm so sick of seeing this trotted out as a flaw in the film. A commanding officer owes absolutely no explanations to a lower ranking member and it's amazing that Poe's arrogance is being coopted by his defenders. This is not a problem in the story, it's a problem with not understanding how any military works

Also, while we are here, Rey and Finn are not a couple, they're friends. Perhaps this is a foreign concept to many of this film's detractors, but men and women can care for each other platonically-- true, Finn starts off having a crush (which is played for laughs anyways) early on, but there are zero signs of it remaining in the second film

EDIT: tenia has now edited "couple" to say "duo," for those confused by the above

Maybe I am remembering this wrong MoonlitKnigth but I don’t recall any lightsaber duel in Rogue One whereas there was a
lightsaber battle if not duel in TLJ? And personally I will take the battle on the salt planet over the end battle of Rogue One any day, the former was actually interesting visually, the latter looked like any other modern blockbuster battle to me.

domino harvey wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:41 pm RE: tenia's spoiler

Spoiler

I'm so sick of seeing this trotted out as a flaw in the film. A commanding officer owes absolutely no explanations to a lower ranking member and it's amazing that Poe's arrogance is being coopted by his defenders. This is not a problem in the story, it's a problem with not understanding how any military works

Also, while we are here, Rey and Finn are not a couple, they're friends. Perhaps this is a foreign concept to many of this film's detractors, but men and women can care for each other platonically-- true, Finn starts off having a crush (which is played for laughs anyways) early on, but there are zero signs of it remaining in the second film

I wrote "couple" but thought "duo". I've edited my post to correct this and avoid further discussion on this point since that's not at all what to me is key in their relationship. Their personificated idealism is to me their main characterisation, not their potential love story, and that's what I wanted to point out.

As for Poe and my spoiler, I already explained why this is a problem to me.

Spoiler

Holdo doesn't explain her plan to anyone the viewer can refer to. Not only Poe is left in the dark along with the viewers, but the whole Resistance survivors are. There is thus no proxy in the movie that knows what she wants to do and everytime somebody asks, she doesn't say that she won't or can't answer, she just look down and doesn't, which paints her through the characters to us, the viewers, as either clueless / incompetent or, again, a mole.
Now, it might have a diegetic logic within the movie "she's above him, she doesn't owe him anything", but then, we're shown this veteran who replaces Leia and totally refuses to reassure her troops and crew to the point it starts a mutiny. How good of a leadership is this ?
Moreover, Leia is shown interacting many times with Poe (on a very friendly level), and she's probably about the same rank than Holdo. Even once she demoted Poe, she's still wink wink with him, smiling when he literally asks the permission to go and blow things up. How consistent is that within "it's the whole military stuff" ?

But then : we're in a movie, not in real life. I'm watching a movie with a story and characters that will go for me, the viewer, grab some intel. In TLJ, Poe is this character but is forcibly and multiple times rebuked being given these info, for no other reason than being demoted for being a hot-head, which we've been shown not 30 minutes earlier actually not being an issue. Where does that leave me ? With the questions : "What's happening ? Why doesn't she tell him ? Why is it happening this way ?" Well, because it's just so damn practical for the movie : there's no way Holdo has no plan and that she's just leading the Resistance survivors to their death. So the movie is wilfully retaining this information from the public. For what reason ? To create some suspense, but that doesn't work because it's obvious they won't all die, at least not this way. It's a trick, plain and simple, and so obvious.

The story might have its diegetic reasons for Holdo acting this way, but they don't make sense as a productive plot mechanic from a viewer perspective, especially since it serves to generate this massively bloated B-plot that will end up backfiring anyway, just because Holdo is written as incompetent enough she can't take 2 minutes to go and tell her crew : "I can't tell you everything but don't worry, I have a plan, I won't let you die." Instead, she gets a mutiny. Yet, her first scene is litterally her taking the time to make a speech to all of her crew, and she's later shown multiple times taking a few minutes to discuss at least with Poe. So why not just saying a quick generic stuff like this ? We're not in 1917 in the French trenches and she doesn't have to act like Menjou's General in Paths of Glory, especially since the movie doesn't seem to want to paint her like this.

But in the end, Holdo is pictured as an extremely poor leader, unable to get her crew together and trusting her, all for story-telling purpose. I don't think it works, which is problematic since that's why starts most of the movie's plot.

I also don't defend Poe at all. As I wrote, him, Rose and Finn shouldn't be given the free passes they're given by the end of the movie (and if we're following your logical reading about that, they definitely shouldn't). I just believe that Poe is the public proxy and that in this regard, how Holdo behaves with him is an obviously lazy script-writing only there to generate an artificial mystery / suspense that, to me, never worked.

I understand your objection better now, thanks for expanding. I don't agree with your conclusions, though. For me it seems one of the things the film is examining is different leadership styles, and how what we think we know about those we call to lead us may or may not be accurate. You can see this reflected in not just Holdo and Leia, but Luke. And the film shows us how the public face may not match the private one-- the poor or reluctant leader is actually self-sacrificing and the go-getter maverick is actually reckless. While this isn't as deep as Command Decision, it is I think at the service of more than providing cheap twists

domino harvey wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:21 pmYou can see this reflected in not just Holdo and Leia, but Luke. And the film shows us how the public face may not match the private one-- the poor or reluctant leader is actually self-sacrificing and the go-getter maverick is actually reckless. While this isn't as deep as Command Decision, it is I think at the service of more than providing cheap twists.

I understand how one could disagree with it. Your point is a valid one, but I don't think the movie is consistant with that, (as it isn', to me, with many other things and has trouble saying or showing something and keeping that course all the way through).
It might be willingly and I misunderstood it. Possibly. But having rewatched it when it was released on BD a few weeks ago, I stumbled on the same "issues" and thought that it wasn't just my hot take or my memories but really something in the movie.

It's also possible that it's a trade-off between the different characters groups (to sum up : the older wiser vs the younger more reckless ones), but then, it might be how the movie is build up. In the end, even with your argument, it's really hard for me not to perceive Holdo not even saying a word about having a plan as anything else than a true practical script trick because there isn't a lot that could have prevented the movie having her at least having a kind word to reassure her crew. She's doing this speech to the crew in her first scene, why not saying a word bout not worrying, trusting her, or something like this ?

And again, there's her body language when challenged by Poe. She's usually shown as downbeat and almost clueless like "crap, I don't know what to do but I won't tell him that". I don't know. There's something that I keep finding off. Maybe it's a construction thing, I don't know, but it just feels off and I can't shake the feeling that the movie wasn't aiming at that at all.

nitin wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:56 pm Maybe I am remembering this wrong MoonlitKnigth but I don’t recall any lightsaber duel in Rogue One whereas there was a
lightsaber battle if not duel in TLJ? And personally I will take the battle on the salt planet over the end battle of Rogue One any day, the former was actually interesting visually, the latter looked like any other modern blockbuster battle to me.

That's what I said; there was no lightsaber duel in R1 because there were no Jedi/Sith, which is why I'm more willing to forgive it. But there wasn't one in TLJ, either; the flashback where Ben draws his to block Luke's is the closest thing to it. No lightsabers crossed for an extended amount of time at any other point in the movie. Of course, even TFA's lightsaber duel was the clunkiest ever. And there was nothing 'epic' about the battles in TFA and TLJ; they were basically quick in-n-out runs -- mini versions of the Battles of Yavin and Hoth, respectively.

Ultimately, I feel the new guard wants to have it both ways -- they want to carve out their own vision for SW (no matter how much it deviates from Lucas' vision), but they also want to milk people's OT nostalgia for all it's worth in the process. The problem is, they're not doing a good enough job at the former in order to take advantage of the latter.

For what it's worth, I'd recommend the YouTube channel WorldClassBullshitters for anyone looking for as succinct as possible explanations as to why many fans are turning on the series (stick with their shorter, [mostly] pre-scripted commentary videos, as opposed to their incredibly lengthy, off-the-cuff live chats)... though I wonder if anyone here is really that interested in genuinely trying to understand this whole current situation. :-k

I think you have to be seriously arguing semantics not to consider the central fight scene of the movie a lightsaber battle, considering it features the film's dual protagonists fighting a ton of people themselves using energy weapons with their lightsabers

MoonlitKnight wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:59 pm For what it's worth, I'd recommend the YouTube channel WorldClassBullshitters for anyone looking for as succinct as possible explanations as to why many fans are turning on the series (stick with their shorter, [mostly] pre-scripted commentary videos, as opposed to their incredibly lengthy, off-the-cuff live chats)... though I wonder if anyone here is really that interested in genuinely trying to understand this whole current situation. :-k

Got about three seconds in and nah I'm good

Ribs wrote: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:08 pm I think you have to be seriously arguing semantics not to consider the central fight scene of the movie a lightsaber battle, considering it features the film's dual protagonists fighting a ton of people themselves using energy weapons with their lightsabers

Plus, TLJ lightsaber fight, if not a straight-off duel, was classy-looking as hell. The only thing I find too bad was that its first seconds made me believe it might be a one-take or at least a long shot, but sadly no.

Pretty sure clunkiest fight scene goes to the original Star Wars, in which an immobile robot and an arthritic old man finish up their first day of fencing 101 with a short run-through of what they’d been practising before lunch.

All shot in close up so you can't see what's what.
However, I myself more and more dislike the whole jumpy-CGI Yoda fighting a quite passive Dooku in Ep II.

(as a whole, there's probably a rundown on the Web somewhere, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the 8 main SW movies have more clunky lightsabers fights than good ones)