Disney Star Wars General Discussion

[Garo]

I agree that Johnson was inspired by that, but there are differences. Obi-Wan stumbled upon Vader in the corridor, which happened to be adjacent to the docking bay, and started dueling with him before Luke and company even entered the bay. He wasn't stalling so that his friends could escape. In fact, when he saw Luke, he stopped fighting and allowed Vader to kill him, which then turned all of the Imperial attention to Luke and company, almost ruining their escape. Also, luring five Stormtroopers away from the Falcon wasn't really life or death stakes or the climax of the movie. I'm sure that Johnson was inspired by Obi-Wan's sacrifice, but the scene plays out in circumstance and importance more like Gandalf's, IMO.

It's not the same scene obviously, but you're focusing on the less important things here. Obi-Wan knows Vader will be drawn to him, and bets on that to make sure he can't find Luke, but really the big big thing about this is that this is how Luke decides to die, and he obviously mirrors his mentor.

But even so, it just shows that the Jedi were always more space wizards and there's really nothing different about now. Obi-Wan is exactly that in the first movie, and sacrifices himself in very similar way to Gandalf in LOTR... While also becoming more powerful for it. It builds on that trope right from the start. Luke's death is also extremely similar, but the hook there is that it's the end of his struggles to understand his place as a teacher, essentially his arc in the film. And it's obvious that in both successes and faillings his main inspiration was Obi-Wan.

 

[Osprey]

It's not the same scene obviously, but you're focusing on the less important things here. Obi-Wan knows Vader will be drawn to him, and bets on that to make sure he can't find Luke, but really the big big thing about this is that this is how Luke decides to die, and he obviously mirrors his mentor.

If it's important to keep Vader from finding Luke, then it should be as important to not draw him to the docking bay that Luke will be running through at any moment. Regardless, I'm just pointing out that there are differences and speculating about what inspired them. You're pointing out the similarities and what inspired them.

But even so, it just shows that the Jedi were always more space wizards and there's really nothing different about now. Obi-Wan is exactly that in the first movie...

Jedi are now able to duel and talk across the galaxy and heal animals and people with the Force. That seems pretty different to me. Those aren't powers that Lucas gave them. In fact, he described Jedi as "designed to be a Buddhist monk who happened to be very good at fighting." That's what Obi-Wan was in the OT. He wasn't designed to be a "space wizard."

Obi-Wan is exactly that in the first movie, and sacrifices himself in very similar way to Gandalf in LOTR... While also becoming more powerful for it. It builds on that trope right from the start. Luke's death is also extremely similar, but the hook there is that it's the end of his struggles to understand his place as a teacher, essentially his arc in the film. And it's obvious that in both successes and faillings his main inspiration was Obi-Wan.

We don't disagree. I'm sure that Johnson was inspired to copy from Obi-Wan's death for all of the reasons that you've said, and, when it came to the manner, it seems to me like he may've also copied from Gandalf's death, which you agree that Luke's death is extremely similar to.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Sacrifice is the motif, while "hero sacrifices himself to save his friends in a blaze of glory" is the trope. The fact that it demonstrates the motif doesn't excuse using it three times, though, IMO. Motifs are best when they're represented in various forms and degrees. For example, imagine a story in which a character spends his free day helping out at a shelter, passes on a job to stay near his girlfriend and throws himself in front of a car to save a child. Each involves a recurring element, sacrifice, but it's excusable and even praiseworthy because each adds to the understanding of that element by showing a different form of it. On the other hand, having the most dramatic and costly example of sacrifice occur multiple times doesn't add any understanding. It's just repeating it, and, to briefly address your second point, when the writing is lazy like that and one scene seems awfully similar to a famous one in another movie, I'm less inclined to give that writer the benefit of the doubt.

This would if those three moments were the only ones that demonstrated the theme of sacrifice in the film (if you disagree, then fine, I'm not going to go scene by scene to try and convince you at this point). As far as the three moments you brought up; when you explore the context behind these moments, the roles of the characters, and the actual cinematography (from the blocking to the lighting to the specific editing and even color), the similarities that you are trying to assert between them and Gandalf's sacrifice come across as only surface-level and not particularly compelling whatsoever.

 

[Osprey]

This would if those three moments were the only ones that demonstrated the theme of sacrifice in the film (if you disagree, then fine, I'm not going to go scene by scene to try and convince you at this point). As far as the three moments you brought up; when you explore the context behind these moments, the roles of the characters, and the actual cinematography (from the blocking to the lighting to the specific editing and even color), the similarities that you are trying to assert between them and Gandalf's sacrifice come across as only surface-level and not particularly compelling whatsoever.

Your first part isn't true because finding other examples in the film that demonstrate the motif won't change whether those three moments are a good demonstration of it (if anything, it would support it). Your second part is really puzzling because I've never made any connection between Gandalf's sacrifice and Holdo's or Finn's.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Your first part isn't true because finding other examples in the film that demonstrate the motif won't change whether those three moments are a good demonstration of it (if anything, it would support it). Your second part is really puzzling because I've never made any connection between Gandalf's sacrifice and Holdo's or Finn's.

You used the three in the context of Johnson ripping off others, and my point stands even if you remove those two.

 

[Osprey]

You used the three in the context of Johnson ripping off others, and my point stands even if you remove those two.

I did not, and suggesting that your point still stands in spite of most of it being a misrepresentation seems ironic when your point is that mine isn't very compelling. Your point is less compelling than mine, and I'm not really trying to convince anyone. You picked out a relatively unimportant sentence in a larger argument and challenged me on it, even though I phrased it as my impression and opinion. I don't mind explaining myself, but I shouldn't have to defend myself, especially not from repeated misrepresentations. If you're not interested in really listening to me or going back and re-reading what I've said, then let it go because it's just being argumentative and wasting both of our time.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I apologize if I misunderstood what you said, but this part of your post seems to clearly use the other two examples of sacrifice as a further demonstration of Johnson ripping off the scene.

I don't have a high opinion of Johnson's writing ability to begin with. Consider, for instance, that three of the most dramatic moments in his entry make use of that general "hero makes sacrifice to save his/her friends" trope: Holdo crashing the ship, Finn attempting to take out the cannon and, finally, Luke's stand. He doesn't seem to be the most creative writer, so, when the final example shows several more similarities to a major scene in perhaps the one trilogy as influential as Star Wars, I have trouble buying it as a coincidence or excusing it as common.

The bolded implies in the wording that there are one or more other examples where similarities can be found to Gandalf's sacrifice. If there is a miscommunication due to a semantic issue, then fine, but my interpretation of it is completely reasonable.

 

[Osprey]

I apologize if I misunderstood what you said, but this part of your post seems to clearly use the other two examples of sacrifice as a further demonstration of Johnson ripping off the scene.

The bolded implies in the wording that there are one or more other examples where similarities can be found to Gandalf's sacrifice. If there is a miscommunication due to a semantic issue, then fine, but my interpretation of it is completely reasonable.

I apologize, too, if I was overly frustrated. I see now where you got that interpretation. What I was saying, though, is that the three moments share the same trope as Gandalf's death and that the third has "more similarities" that lead me to suspect that it was also consciously inspired by it. I didn't mean that they were all inspired by it. I was making two different, but related, comparisons and you seemingly merged them into one, which I suppose is understandable. Anyways, I'm glad that it's settled.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Several things:

-Luke's sacrifice in TLJ is not at all comparable to Gandalf. It occurs at different times in the film/film trilogy; it's totally thematically different (1); they're not staged at all similar beyond they are both instances where a character sacrifices himself to his friends time to escape.
-Based just on TLJ, Rian Johnson himself has a dim view of heroic sacrifices- just from the opening fight and when Rose stops Finn from sacrificing himself in the climax.
-I saw Knives Out. When Rian Johnson does a homage he is not subtle.


-Even if it were a homage/rip off to Gandalf....so what? The fun of being well-read in films is watching something and seeing from whom and in what the filmmaker or author stole from received inspiration.

(1): Gandalf is moreso a narrative device to precipitate the fracturing of the Fellowship- basically, to separate everyone Gandalf has to go (hence why he comes back once they're all in their own arcs). It also sets up that there are enemies and dangers the heroes can't just brute force there way through. Tom Bombadil also demonstrated this, but he was cut from the movies.

Luke's sacrifice, otoh, is much more thematic in that it demonstrates the power of images and legends. Luke the man is weak and limited, but his mere image is able to hold off the First Order. It works from both ends- the story that Luke Skywalker singlehandedly stalled the First Order so the rebels could escape, and we know it only worked because Kylo Ren saw Luke and went into a frenzy- both demonstrate the point about the power of legends inspiring emotions in people beyond their tangible reality.

Like many thematic works, TLJ doesn't really function well if someone goes in insisting to view it solely on a surface level.

 

[Richard]

Several things:

-Luke's sacrifice in TLJ is not at all comparable to Gandalf. It occurs at different times in the film/film trilogy; it's totally thematically different (1); they're not staged at all similar beyond they are both instances where a character sacrifices himself to his friends time to escape.
-Based just on TLJ, Rian Johnson himself has a dim view of heroic sacrifices- just from the opening fight and when Rose stops Finn from sacrificing himself in the climax.
-I saw Knives Out. When Rian Johnson does a homage he is not subtle.


-Even if it were a homage/rip off to Gandalf....so what? The fun of being well-read in films is watching something and seeing from whom and in what the filmmaker or author stole from received inspiration.

(1): Gandalf is moreso a narrative device to precipitate the fracturing of the Fellowship- basically, to separate everyone Gandalf has to go (hence why he comes back once they're all in their own arcs). It also sets up that there are enemies and dangers the heroes can't just brute force there way through. Tom Bombadil also demonstrated this, but he was cut from the movies.

Luke's sacrifice, otoh, is much more thematic in that it demonstrates the power of images and legends. Luke the man is weak and limited, but his mere image is able to hold off the First Order. It works from both ends- the story that Luke Skywalker singlehandedly stalled the First Order so the rebels could escape, and we know it only worked because Kylo Ren saw Luke and went into a frenzy- both demonstrate the point about the power of legends inspiring emotions in people beyond their tangible effect.

Like many thematic works, TLJ doesn't really function well if someone goes in insisting to view it solely on a surface level.

It functions as well as if the Godfather Part II had made Michael run off and join the FBI and hunt his family down. It's completely contrary to the source material and what went on before. Being a jaded old man is such an easy cop-out. Almost everyone, to one degree or another, becomes jaded with age. The Last Jedi is drivel and to try and see some deeper meaning out of it other than "ah ha gotcha" is laughable.

No set up to any of the "turns." No real knowledge of the story preceding it. Its a trainwreck and a mess and a trilogy killer (and almost franchise killer).

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

It functions as well as if the Godfather Part II had made Michael run off and join the FBI and hunt his family down. It's completely contrary to the source material and what went on before. Being a jaded old man is such an easy cop-out. Almost everyone, to one degree or another, becomes jaded with age. The Last Jedi is drivel and to try and see some deeper meaning out of it other than "ah ha gotcha" is laughable.

No set up to any of the "turns." No real knowledge of the story preceding it. Its a trainwreck and a mess and a trilogy killer (and almost franchise killer).

Your response to a point about how TLJ doesn't really work if you focus on the surface level details in lieu of what it is trying to say thematically is to...complain about surface level details?

 

[Richard]

Your response to a point about how TLJ doesn't really work if you focus on the surface level details in lieu of what it is trying to say thematically is to...complain about surface level details?

No the theme of the trilogy was totally ignored and subordinated for the theme of a singular movie-BEST CASE SCENARIO. Johnson may work with his "themes" (again, you see deeper thematically laden plot points in the Last Jedi and I see complete drivel) on a singular movie but compared to the saga it is supposed to continue is a laughably bad fit. It is such a bad fit it directly contradicts what went on before it and a substantial portion of the NEXT movie was spent trying to recon its damage (not that I have ever seen skywalker movie or whatever).

Nothing he does is deep. Ha see what I did you didn't expect THAT is about the only recognizable theme

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Your response to a point about how TLJ doesn't really work if you focus on the surface level details in lieu of what it is trying to say thematically is to...complain about surface level details?

This should be stickied to every thread where TLJ is discussed. And I don't even disagree completely with Richard: it's not a deep film by any means. It's just way too complex for Star Wars fans who, for some reason, only wanted more of the same.

 

[Richard]

This should be stickied to every thread where TLJ is discussed. And I don't even disagree completely with Richard: it's not a deep film by any means. It's just way too complex for Star Wars fans who, for some reason, only wanted more of the same.

How the hell is the last jedi a deep film when almost nothing character related happened and only plot points were advanced clumsily?

How did Rey grow from the beginning to the end of the film? What about her motivation? Why is she so singular minded? What is her arc?

Luke, why is he jaded? Why does he need redeemed from this "unknown" girl? Why does he sacrifice himself? Why does he actually die? Does he have a heart attach from sitting on his ass and drinking blue juice for 20 years?

Poe Whats the point of his mission? He is exactly the same as the beginning.

The x-wing pilot who i cant remember.... hes wrong... then hes right.... what is his purpose? What does he do? Why is he even in the film?

I can't even remember the asian ladies character name but why is she in the film? What does she point does she serve?

Snoke.... we are going to turn good and kill him wait no join me (Kylo ren, the worst written villain in history perhaps).

It's garbage. sorry. This is a movie you would use as an example of what NOT to do in film school. The entire ST would make a good case in point in that regard....

 

[Richard]

And I don't blame it all on Rian Johnson..... the Force Awakens was one half of a decent film but the last 45 minutes totally destroyed the flow of the trilogy and made it hard- next to impossible- for anyone to redeem the trilogy. If Han died he had to die in the second or better yet the 3rd film. Having Luke and Leia not there was inexcusable. Having them not meet on screen was inexcusable.

Not having a full storyboard treatment for ALL three films before setting out boggles the mind. If I was the head of Disney Kathleen Kennedy would have been fired simply for that. You don't drive across the united states without a map...

 

[Garo]

If it's important to keep Vader from finding Luke, then it should be as important to not draw him to the docking bay that Luke will be running through at any moment. Regardless, I'm just pointing out that there are differences and speculating about what inspired them. You're pointing out the similarities and what inspired them.


Jedi are now able to duel and talk across the galaxy and heal animals and people with the Force. That seems pretty different to me. Those aren't powers that Lucas gave them. In fact, he described Jedi as "designed to be a Buddhist monk who happened to be very good at fighting." That's what Obi-Wan was in the OT. He wasn't designed to be a "space wizard."


We don't disagree. I'm sure that Johnson was inspired to copy from Obi-Wan's death for all of the reasons that you've said, and, when it came to the manner, it seems to me like he may've also copied from Gandalf's death, which you agree that Luke's death is extremely similar to.

- Vader still never actually sees Luke or does anything about him, even after he yells at Obi-Wan. That's pretty much working as intended, no?

- Uh, Lucas gave them the power to project and talk after death, in the first movie. In the prequels, we learned that this technique can be learned after dying with Qui-Gon, which is further reinforced by Anakin being able to do it and obviously never having been able to learn it before. How is this any less bonkers than what happens in TLJ? Luke doesn't duel, he just moves in the Force, and he'd have more experience with that aspect of the Force than anyone at any point. And it still kills him.

I really don't think Force Healing is remotely in the same level of absurdity, since it works well with how they conceptualize the Force and honestly I played way too many SW games

- And again, I see it more than others in the thread, but I just still don't know why it doesn't apply to Obi-Wan either. That one does the rebirth aspect that was so important to Gandalf's sacrifice a lot more obviously as well.

 

[Garo]

Luke, why is he jaded?

See, this is a perfect example of why it's hard to take this criticism seriously. The movie spends three different scenes recreating the events of one night and you are still asking this question?

If the question is why this made him jaded with the Force, then I still don't get it either, but I also don't get the agreed expectation from Abrams and co that Luke was just waiting there for someone new to train. Luke failed, catastrophically, and he failed his family. That's even worse than anything Obi-Wan did, and his thought was that he could do better after learning from him and redeeming his father. I really don't think Abrams thought at all about the impact this would have on his psyche, and it also shows in the expectations of people at large. What RJ did with Luke is honestly a very basic journey back from deep trauma, and if his failure can be seen through his history, he also linked it with his journey through Yoda's appearance and him mirroring the last moments of Obi-Wan.

I like this portrayal of Luke not just because Hamill sells it super well, but also because I was glad the movie recognized it had no other alternative with that setup. Luke being in a perfect mental state to train a new Jedi to fight his nephew would have been far more absurd than him throwing a lightsaber.

 

[Richard]

See, this is a perfect example of why it's hard to take this criticism seriously. The movie spends three different scenes recreating the events of one night and you are still asking this question?

If the question is why this made him jaded with the Force, then I still don't get it either, but I also don't get the agreed expectation from Abrams and co that Luke was just waiting there for someone new to train. Luke failed, catastrophically, and he failed his family. That's even worse than anything Obi-Wan did, and his thought was that he could do better after learning from him and redeeming his father. I really don't think Abrams thought at all about the impact this would have on his psyche, and it also shows in the expectations of people at large. What RJ did with Luke is honestly a very basic journey back from deep trauma, and if his failure can be seen through his history, he also linked it with his journey through Yoda's appearance and him mirroring the last moments of Obi-Wan.

I like this portrayal of Luke not just because Hamill sells it super well, but also because I was glad the movie recognized it had no other alternative with that setup. Luke being in a perfect mental state to train a new Jedi to fight his nephew would have been far more absurd than him throwing a lightsaber.

1) Have a bad nightmare

2) Try and kill your nephew in his sleep

3) Go off to never never land while the nightmare you triggered comes true.

One nightmare is enough to "trigger" Luke to try and murder his nephew. It's utterly bollocks. The writers should have been fired when those scenes were first put to page. Truly Awful and not understanding of the character.

A journey back from deep trauma? Are you literally just posting writing tropes in the hope of making your point valid? Luke's hand was CUT OFF BY HIS FATHER in the first trilogy and he rallied and yet a nightmare is deep trauma in this universes version of Luke? And the force is his enemy? Let's cut ourselves from "the energy that binds us?"

Sorry it doesn't jive with the character. Everything that came before, you know, in the actual Star Wars trilogy.

Mark Hammill knew this was going to suck, tried to warn against it, and was proven oh so ever right.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

How the hell is the last jedi a deep film when almost nothing character related happened and only plot points were advanced clumsily?

How did Rey grow from the beginning to the end of the film? What about her motivation? Why is she so singular minded? What is her arc?

Luke, why is he jaded? Why does he need redeemed from this "unknown" girl? Why does he sacrifice himself? Why does he actually die? Does he have a heart attach from sitting on his ass and drinking blue juice for 20 years?

Poe Whats the point of his mission? He is exactly the same as the beginning.

The x-wing pilot who i cant remember.... hes wrong... then hes right.... what is his purpose? What does he do? Why is he even in the film?

I can't even remember the asian ladies character name but why is she in the film? What does she point does she serve?

Snoke.... we are going to turn good and kill him wait no join me (Kylo ren, the worst written villain in history perhaps).

It's garbage. sorry. This is a movie you would use as an example of what NOT to do in film school. The entire ST would make a good case in point in that regard....

You're stuck at the story level and feel that since it doesn't match your expectations for these characters, it's garbage. I don't think you understood the surface level comment. Luke could have been a blue milk junky using the Force to seduce women in this one, this is what he would have been and you'd have to live with it and stop sulking about what they did to your hero.

As for your question, I exactly said it's not a deep film by any means, so who said it was deep?

Here's (again) my comment on TLJ:

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Johnson, 2017) - Didn't enjoy it as much as I did in its theater run. The first hour is pretty boring and has some of the less cohesive material of the whole series (and the undead Leia rivals with its most stupid stuff). It's still the most interesting film of the bunch. I'm no fan of Rian Johnson, and I have no idea what his intentions were, but he clearly shows he's a better filmmaker than everyone who touched the material before him. Very subtle reflexive elements (the sudden break to silence, the sudden switch to voice-over narration*) point to the film's crafting as a discourse, of which the white threads are shown and dismantled. Heroes are shown to be flawed and often flat-out wrong, expectations are built and dropped unsatisfied, the whole thing is an introduction to relativism, sometimes a little obvious (Benicio Del Toro's character is mostly there to explain the film), but always kind of rewarding (the three versions of the Luke/young Ben confrontation being the high point of the film). 5/10

So there. Not deep by any means, still way too complex for most Star Wars fans.

 

[Garo]

1) Have a bad nightmare

2) Try and kill your nephew in his sleep

3) Go off to never never land while the nightmare you triggered comes true.

One nightmare is enough to "trigger" Luke to try and murder his nephew. It's utterly bollocks. The writers should have been fired when those scenes were first put to page. Truly Awful and not understanding of the character.

A journey back from deep trauma? Are you literally just posting writing tropes in the hope of making your point valid? Luke's hand was CUT OFF BY HIS FATHER in the first trilogy and he rallied and yet a nightmare is deep trauma in this universes version of Luke? And the force is his enemy? Let's cut ourselves from "the energy that binds us?"

Sorry it doesn't jive with the character. Everything that came before, you know, in the actual Star Wars trilogy.

Mark Hammill knew this was going to suck, tried to warn against it, and was proven oh so ever right.

- It wasn't a nightmare though but sure whatever. Luke has the exact same pose overlooking Ben he had in ROTJ with Vader. He didn't kill his father, he wasn't going to kill his nephew. His nephew didn't know that though, because obviously he didn't know Luke like we do and was already manipulated by Snoke.

Trying to prevent things from happening and ending up causing them is one of the biggest tropes Star Wars abuses, and it's the most Lucas thing RJ does in that movie for sure.

- Not sure what makes a perfectly standard writing arc a trope outside of you not liking its use here, but anyway, I do subscribe to the idea that Luke tried to kill himself after learning about Vader. But even ignoring that, his reaction to that doesn't preclude him to reacting differently with Ben. We know that Luke, especially younger, has a problem with authority, he doesn't trust them and stuff. He resents Obi-Wan and Yoda a bit in ROTJ, and him trying to turn Vader is sure because it's his father but it's also a defiance of them, like he did in ESB. He wants to prove them wrong. I do think that this Luke, if faced with a failure so much worse as a teacher, would snap. I really don't see how it's so implausible. Especially because, again, Luke never wanted to fail his family, we know this. That's what he feels he did here.

And again, there's no other alternative that makes sense. What are we supposed to think with him being gone for years? Your vision of Luke is already incompatible with his known actions in TFA, what RJ did is to make sense of them in the best way he could with the absent Luke he inherited, and I respect that. Not only did it make Luke interesting in ways he wasn't quite before, it also made Kylo shine as a character, and those were by far the best parts of the movie.

 

[johnjm22]

Like many thematic works, TLJ doesn't really function well if someone goes in insisting to view it solely on a surface level.

No one goes into a movie insisting to view it on a surface level (or a thematic level).

An audience isn't going to care about a movie's "Themes" if a sensical and compelling story can't be crafted around them.

I think the reason so many dislike TLJ can probably be chalked up to the fact that it's not a very good movie.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I do wish we could have had more time to dive deep into the whole Luke Skywalker/Ben Solo conflict. That could be a movie by itself, really.

 

[Richard]

I do wish we could have had more time to dive deep into the whole Luke Skywalker/Ben Solo conflict. That could be a movie by itself, really.

That is it in a nutshell. You can't start a story with the greatest conflict already developed off screen.

 

[CaptainCrunch67]

The best way to wash away the stink of the sequels, is to read the Legacy book series where Jacen Solo falls to the dark side. Just far better execution of a story line then the movies with the panic final of bringing Palpatine back because your previous director went insane on peyote while writing the script.

 

[Shockmaster]

That is it in a nutshell. You can't start a story with the greatest conflict already developed off screen.

Way too much happened off screen between Episodes VI and VII.