this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
151 points (97.5% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2119 readers
83 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Sequel Trilogy was so poorly executed. I loved the homage to the original Star Wars that the Force Awakens was. I thoroughly enjoyed the rebellion against toxic Star Wars fans that The Last Jedi was. I absolutely hated the utter bullshit the Rise Of Skywalker became. Which in turn soured my feelings about the first two movies. Why they never had an overarching story in the first place is just ridiculous.
How was The Last Jedi a rebellion against toxic fans? I thought the movie was fine and has excellent cinematography, but it wasn't anything groundbreaking or controversial in my eyes.
It's a mixture of a few things:
the film uses certain tropes really badly. Everyone has said something about the whole "subverting expectations" things, and in some places, it's done well but in others, they pretty much 4th wall break. By the middle of the film, you can basically predict when and how the subversions will take place, ironically defeating the point of this trope, and ruining what could have been epic moments.
certain things flat out make zero sense. The film wants us to believe, literally spelling it out, that Poe is reckless despite his decisions up until this point being pretty good, all things considered, but wants us to consider Holdo a hero despite her causing a panic within her troops by withholding important information, and her plan ending up getting almost all of them killed.
the casino planet side part of the film feels like it should have been cut by 2/3 and it feels like the only reason for its length was so that Disney could make merchandisable figures from the animals.
it's a little too reliant on nostalgia. Or rather, when it does its nostalgia hit, the details in question usually aren't there for any particular reason or used for anything. There are a couple of times when it's done really well, such as when R2 persuades Luke to help Rey by playing Leia's message from A New Hope. But other times it's a random Xwing in the water or a two moons hallucination.
Poe was portrayed as being really reckless in TFA as well, though. Like his second ever appearance is stealing a star fighter in a prison break, fighting an entire star destroyer with some guy he literally just met, and then crash landing all while acting like he's on a theme park rollercoaster. His first was him intentionally getting captured in order to pull a fast one on a Sith and his entire army. He's usually doing what needs to be done in TFA, but that's because those situations actually required someone to do exactly what he always wants to do: fly straight at it in the fastest thing he can get his hands on and blow a bunch of stuff up. His arc in TLJ was totally in keeping with what we had already seen of him
But if his actions are necessary, by definition, that's not recklessness. Recklessness involves a complete disregard for other, better options. If those options don't exist, you can't exactly call him reckless for it. What's the guy to do?
If he was doing that shit needlessly, that'd be one thing, but his actions in the beginning of TLJ actually improve the odds of the Rebellion considerably, even factoring in the loss of their bombers.
What he did doesn't show that he wasn't reckless just because it was necessary though. I'm saying he clearly wanted to do those things whether they were the right move or not, it's just fortunate for him that they were generally good moves most of the time
But that's the thing, they were good moves at the time. That speaks far more to his experience as a pilot than his recklessness. At no point is Poe provided a safer, better option for him to disregard in favour of a risky move. So we don't have the information needed to call him reckless, even if he has no qualms about the risky approach.
His enthusiasm for the danger made it pretty clear to me. But even then, what you're describing is just a lack of evidence for recklessness, not evidence against him being reckless. Nothing he did in TFA suggests to me that he wouldn't have done what he did in TLJ, it's just that in TLJ the situation didn't work out so well for him
Exactly. This makes it confusing when the TLJ tries to call him reckless, because there's been no evidence to suggest that, either in this film or the previous. The film tries to point to the bombing run as evidence, but it was clearly necessary and not an example of recklessness. An enthusiasm for danger is not the same thing as needlessly wading into it.
In TLJ, he's trying to prevent the entire rebellion from getting smoked by two dreadnoughts. Taking out one of them halves the firepower being aimed at them. The rebellion would have been obliterated had Poe not done what he did, Holdo maneuver or no.