Movies: Star Wars: Episode VIII THE LAST JEDI (NO SPOILERS - Use the other thread for spoilers)

[Tawnos]

That's still the remit of the film lol, and you have still not actually supported that beyond the fact that it was good enough for you. And you know, somehow I don't believe you....

But let's try this: how is the film harmed if they explained, at some point, what "incomplete training" meant? I have a reason: it clarifies the ending by identifying something some specific deficiency of Kylo Ren's that allows Rey to win.

It’s pretty simple: we know that Kylo did not complete his training with Luke because he turned, causing Luke to disappear (which by the way is the central plot of the movie: the search for Luke). We know he didn’t complete his training with Snoke because he begs Snoke for guidance and also because Snoke says so. We know he lacks control and his fails to deal with Rey. Twice. It’s not a particularly astounding leap of logic to say that A causes B. And if that weren’t enough, the entire context of Snoke feeling he needs to complete the training is that Kylo was in trouble.

There’s not necessarily harm in providing more exposition to the point. That doesn’t make it a flaw that they don’t.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Why was what they shown not enough?

Kylo Ren was demonstrated to be a mentally compromised character, trying desperately to show the same traits Darth Vader showed, but failing when facing adversity. He was able to get a handle on Rey and take her to the brink initially (all the while being injured from a Bowcaster), but failed to finish the job because he thought he was strong enough to be able to turn her, letting his guard down and putting himself at a severe disadvantage the entire fight because it gave Rey the chance to recoup and really believe in herself and the force.

I don't see how you can see what unfolded and think it wasn't made clear enough. I really don't.

Because how you present information is what determines how that information sticks to an audience.

It doesn't matter that the cave troll says (TWICE!) that Kylo Ren's training is incomplete, they didn't explain it, and it's a throwaway line in two different dialogue scenes, it's not going to connect with the audience.

It doesn't matter that you can infer that the crossbow wrecked shit earlier, therefore a glancing direct hit will slow Kylo Ren down if you don't actually show that having an effect, or have the crossbow wreck shit in what comes off in a throwaway gag (which is why a bunch of people failed to make that inference).

EDIT

(Full Disclosure: Again, I didn't have a problem with how the fight went down, I only observed that there was ferocious debate about it on here and on other webzones: but with that said I 100% failed to make the connection between the glancing hit from the anti-tank weapon and it slowing Ren down until I read an article about it later)

It doesn't matter if you make him mentally anguished if you put him in a situation where that mental anguish isn't exactly applicable (OR SO WE'RE TOLD!). This is the difference between this fight and the fight in RotS, it's established that Vader doesn't want to fight Luke, he really wants his son to join them, he is conflicted about it which is why Luke defeats Vader this time. Kylo Ren is broken up about his dad's death (even though he killed him?), but why would that immediately extend to his fight with Rey?

Basically, we have a bunch of people who missed the point of the ending. Part of the problem is because we, the audience, are given 4 reasons of varying definition and clarity rather than one specific reason.

For example, if it's explained that Kylo Ren was never properly trained in laser sword combat- so therefore he's not an unbeatable wrecking machine at laser sword combat when compared to someone who has never picked one up before last Thursday.

And I really don't see the inherent problem you have if the movie had stopped and tried to be clear about one of it's plot points.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

It’s pretty simple: we know that Kylo did not complete his training with Luke because he turned, causing Luke to disappear (which by the way is the central plot of the movie: the search for Luke). We know he didn’t complete his training with Snoke because he begs Snoke for guidance and also because Snoke says so. We know he lacks control and his fails to deal with Rey. Twice. It’s not a particularly astounding leap of logic to say that A causes B. And if that weren’t enough, the entire context of Snoke feeling he needs to complete the training is that Kylo was in trouble.

Or, you know, you could just say he doesn't know how to fight with laser swords. Because his training was incomplete because Luke refused to teach him because "reasons". Which is implied anyway, what with his janky beam and dumb-as-f*** design only someone like Kylo Ren would think is a good idea.

That way you don't run the risk that people will miss the point.

"OH, but it was inferred!". Who cares. Whenever I see some form of the argument "The movie implied", I treat it as an acquiescence that the film didn't explain something explicitly enough- because the phrase could, and should, be, "The movie said".

There’s not necessarily harm in providing more exposition to the point. That doesn’t make it a flaw that they don’t.

Then pray tell, what are you getting out of this discussion. What did you envision getting out of it when you replied to me initially?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Because how you present information is what determines how that information sticks to an audience.

It doesn't matter that the cave troll says (TWICE!) that Kylo Ren's training is incomplete, they didn't explain it, and it's a throwaway line in two different dialogue scenes, it's not going to connect with the audience.

And I don't really think the "training" aspect is really the main reason why Kylo Ren failed, anyway. Unless you want to argue his "training" deals with his mental fortitude and ability to harness the force through that, which was demonstrated through other means, anyway.

It doesn't matter that you can infer that the crossbow wrecked **** earlier, therefore a glancing direct hit will slow Kylo Ren down if you don't actually show that having an effect, or have the crossbow wreck **** in what comes off in a throwaway gag (which is why a bunch of people failed to make that inference).

People didn't infer it, it was explicitly demonstrated. And it was demonstrated that Kylo was fighting knowing the pain was there, because he punched his own wound in defiance of the pain (unless you have a specific interpretation as to why he acknowledged his wound and punched it). The comment by Han was a funny moment, but it also helped set up that the Bowcaster wasn't just some standard blaster.

It doesn't matter if you make him mentally anguished if you put him in a situation where that mental anguish isn't exactly applicable (OR SO WE'RE TOLD!).

Can you clarify this? I'm not sure what you are referencing.

This is the difference between this fight and the fight in RotS, it's established that Vader doesn't want to fight Luke, he really wants his son to join them, he is conflicted about it which is why Luke defeats Vader this time. Kylo Ren is broken up about his dad's death (even though he killed him?), but why would that immediately extend to his fight with Rey?

I think you meant ROTJ, just to be clear.
And Kylo's mental instability is demonstrated throughout the movie. He cannot seem to mentally handle adversity very well. He freaks out when he finds out the droid was able to escape, he has trouble killing his father and it seems to me he doesn't exactly come out of that with a very stable state of mind, and he shows a great deal of instability when he sees Finn (or should it have been expected for him to scream "TRAITOR" at Finn?). Considering his obsession with keeping a relic of Darth Vader and his desire to fulfill his legacy (even despite the fact Luke likely told him it was a lie), do we have anything to indicate otherwise? What else do you need?

Basically, we have a bunch of people who missed the point of the ending. Part of the problem is because we, the audience, are given 4 reasons of varying definition and clarity rather than one specific reason.

It is possible that in life there is never one specific reason why some things happen, and it is a combination of many things? Why does it have to be a specific thing?

People missing the point isn't necessarily a fault of the writing, either. With something as popular as Star Wars, you are going to get a lot of people who simply do not do a good job of catching details that aren't very subtle.

For example, if it's explained that Kylo Ren was never properly trained in laser sword combat- so therefore he's not an unbeatable wrecking machine at laser sword combat when compared to someone who has never picked one up before last Thursday.

And I really don't see the inherent problem you have if the movie had stopped and tried to be clear about one of it's plot points.

The force has been above laser sword combat (except for the prequels, and everyone acknowledges those movies are crap when it comes to the mythos anyway), so that explanation wouldn't really help.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

And I don't really think the "training" aspect is really the main reason why Kylo Ren failed, anyway. Unless you want to argue his "training" deals with his mental fortitude and ability to harness the force through that, which was demonstrated through other means, anyway.

This thread kicked off when I responded to someone who used his "incomplete training" to justify the fight. I was pointing that this doesn't work because it wasn't explained or elaborated.

People didn't infer it, it was explicitly demonstrated. And it was demonstrated that Kylo was fighting knowing the pain was there, because he punched his own wound in defiance of the pain (unless you have a specific interpretation as to why he acknowledged his wound and punched it). The comment by Han was a funny moment, but it also helped set up that the Bowcaster wasn't just some standard blaster.

He punched it to show how little it was affecting him. That was my interpretation, but personally, I missed the anti-tank crossbow reference.

Can you clarify this? I'm not sure what you are referencing.

You mean the "OR SO WE'RE TOLD"?

IMO Ren knows Rey in some capacity, which is why he was so hellbent on defeating her despite her being a randy to him; why he offered to spare her the mind rape; and why he freaked out when it was reported to him that a "girl" escaped Sand Planet. And hence why his "Am I light?? Or Dark??" mental anguish afflicted his ability to fight her, whereas I don't think it's applicable if she were really a stranger (unless they gave a specific reason).

I think you meant ROTJ, just to be clear.

Yep lol.

And Kylo's mental instability is demonstrated throughout the movie. He cannot seem to mentally handle adversity very well. He freaks out when he finds out the droid was able to escape, he has trouble killing his father and it seems to me he doesn't exactly come out of that with a very stable state of mind, and he shows a great deal of instability when he sees Finn (or should it have been expected for him to scream "TRAITOR" at Finn?). Considering his obsession with keeping a relic of Darth Vader and his desire to fulfill his legacy (even despite the fact Luke likely told him it was a lie), do we have anything to indicate otherwise? What else do you need?

Uh, I'm fine with the fight as is (anti-tank slowed him down yadda yadda).

I just don't think it was clear as it could have been because it lacked a specific reason. Which I think clarifying "incomplete training" would have provided.

Personally, if we're going with the "inability to handle adversity" angle, I would have made that more clear, since I personally missed that angle (since he does dominate the first half of the fight).

IIt is possible that in life there is never one specific reason why some things happen, and it is a combination of many things? Why does it have to be a specific thing?

Sure!

I'm just pointing out why this was a hot button issue. Why a chunk of the audience missed a point. It's because there were four kinda defined/implied reasons rather than one crystal one.

IPeople missing the point isn't necessarily a fault of the writing, either. With something as popular as Star Wars, you are going to get a lot of people who simply do not do a good job of catching details that aren't very subtle.

Then don't make them "subtle" details.

I think this philosophical difference in the onus of audience understanding is the entire source of our disagreement.

I
The force has been above laser sword combat (except for the prequels, and everyone acknowledges those movies are crap when it comes to the mythos anyway), so that explanation wouldn't really help.

Kylo Ren >>>>>>>>>>> Rey in Force powers AINEC.

Kylo Ren also said, IIRC, that he wanted to beat Rey at laser sword combat, since if he used the Force he would win in in about 4 seconds (which is what happened the last time they fought).

 

[NyQuil]

It seemed pretty clear to me that Kylo did not want to kill Rey.

For one, he asked about the girl quite emphatically earlier in the film. As if he knew her.

Second, he clearly wanted to turn her to the Dark Side.

So he was already compromised in terms of what was available to him to use against Rey.

Meanwhile, I think it's plausible for her to defeat him provided she reaches the proper level of mental stability, especially with him wounded and not wanting to kill her. He was certainly overconfident.

Do or do not, there is no try.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

The "anti-tank" crossbow reference happens when Han shoots at two rando stormtrooopers and they both are incapacitated (or at the very least knocked back a decent amount) with a single shot. Just as an indication of how powerful it is.

As far as the rest of it, I have to imagine the discussion of Kylo Ren's training will be discussed more at length, so this discussion may be completely pointless in a couple of months.

 

[Tawnos]

Or, you know, you could just say he doesn't know how to fight with laser swords. Because his training was incomplete because Luke refused to teach him because "reasons". Which is implied anyway, what with his janky beam and dumb-as-**** design only someone like Kylo Ren would think is a good idea.

That way you don't run the risk that people will miss the point.

"OH, but it was inferred!". Who cares. Whenever I see some form of the argument "The movie implied", I treat it as an acquiescence that the film didn't explain something explicitly enough- because the phrase could, and should, be, "The movie said".



Then pray tell, what are you getting out of this discussion. What did you envision getting out of it when you replied to me initially?

Luke didn’t stop teaching him because of “reasons.” He stopped because Kylo turned. This is not implied. It’s what we’re told.

I also don’t consider it an implication that, when Kylo loses, the first thing Snoke does is send Hux to go get him so his training could be completed. There’s no implication there. In Snoke’s view, at least, Kylo fails because he’s not ready.

I didn’t really expect to get anything out of it other than a way to pass time during commercial breaks and intermission reports last night.

 

[SeidoN]

its pretty clear Kylo's background will be further detailed in the next movie(s)

I dunno why that bothers you so much. do you need everything explained immediately before you can accept it as truth?

 

[The Nemesis]

Just so you know, you guys can write "lightsaber" now. The filter was changed in the board migration so it no longer does the old saber->Sabre thing.

 

[MadDevil]

Great, so now we can argue about the practicality of Kylo's lightsaber.

 

[hotcabbagesoup]

Great, so now we can argue about the practicality of Kylo's lightsaber.

Completely agree.
The impracticality of his lightsaber contributed to his loss to Rey.

Anyone who has ever done blacksmithing knows that having a really hot object near your hand weakens your hand (short-term and long-term)....and Kylo has two exposed hot energy sources on that hilt. Kylo's hand is essentially geriatic.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Completely agree.
The impracticality of his lightsaber contributed to his loss to Rey.

Anyone who has ever done blacksmithing knows that having a really hot object near your hand weakens your hand (short-term and long-term)....and Kylo has two exposed hot energy sources on that hilt. Kylo's hand is essentially geriatic.

It is implied that the cold air and snow cooled his hands down

 

[beowulf]

Laura Dern's character Vice Admiral Holdo

 

[NyQuil]

I suspect that Kylo's lightsaber was designed, not with the full implications of martial combat in mind, but because it looks cool and would sell toys to children.

That goes for a lot of the debate in this thread.

It's not about creating a plausible and rational worldscape that is consistent with everything in the Star Wars canon to date but because a bunch of writers and concept artists were like, "Yeah, that's cool."

Luke's lightsaber was green not because he evolved into a Jedi Consular or as some symbol of his progression as a Jedi or separation from his father's legacy but because it showed up better on film against the blue skies of the Tatooine scenes at the beginning of RoTJ.

 

[gabeliscious]

i read somewhere that his lightsaber was designed that way because he used a cracked crystal and it needs to vent.

 

[beowulf]

i read somewhere that his lightsaber was designed that way because he used a cracked crystal and it needs to vent.

Exactly, now whether that was a excuse that came after they decided for the "cool scary design" or was thought of first who knows.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I suspect that Kylo's lightsaber was designed, not with the full implications of martial combat in mind, but because it looks cool and would sell toys to children.

That goes for a lot of the debate in this thread.

It's not about creating a plausible and rational worldscape that is consistent with everything in the Star Wars canon to date but because a bunch of writers and concept artists were like, "Yeah, that's cool."

Luke's lightsaber was green not because he evolved into a Jedi Consular or as some symbol of his progression as a Jedi or separation from his father's legacy but because it showed up better on film against the blue skies of the Tatooine scenes at the beginning of RoTJ.

Thank you.

Sometimes, I think people overanalyze Star Wars and forget that, in its essence, it is a kids movie designed to sell toys.

 

[XX]

Sometimes, I think people overanalyze Star Wars and forget that, in its essence, it is a kids movie designed to sell toys.

The original trilogy wasn't made with that intention. Stronger movies as a result.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

The original trilogy wasn't made with that intention. Stronger movies as a result.

Yes, they were. However, in these days, more chances were taken and more focus was put on quality in big productions. The industry was different then. Ironically, franchises like Star Wars changed it and are responsible for the way it is. The films themselves aren't what studios wanna sell anymore, they wanna sell brands and make money on that brand with movies, toys, video games, etc.

You can thank (or blame) Lucas and his friend Spielberg for that tangent.

 

[Blender]

The original trilogy wasn't made with that intention. Stronger movies as a result.

The first two weren't, Return of the Jedi sure as hell was. The prequel trilogy took that to a new level, and you only need to watch the behind the scenes stuff to see how much of the designs were based around what looked cool to Lucas.

 

[Bjorn Le]

Thank you.

Sometimes, I think people overanalyze Star Wars and forget that, in its essence, it is a kids movie designed to sell toys.

Which is what made so much of the old EU great. Wasn't made to satisfy throngs of adolescent children demanding cool playthings.

 

[Tawnos]

Yes, they were. However, in these days, more chances were taken and more focus was put on quality in big productions. The industry was different then. Ironically, franchises like Star Wars changed it and are responsible for the way it is. The films themselves aren't what studios wanna sell anymore, they wanna sell brands and make money on that brand with movies, toys, video games, etc.

You can thank (or blame) Lucas and his friend Spielberg for that tangent.

Was it that more chances were taken? Or was it that the norms of the franchising part of the movie industry hadn’t been established yet?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

At least with the lightsaber colors there was a decent justification for them. The red and blue further illustrate the dichotomy between good and bad jedis, and changing the color to green wasn't an issue because of the fact multi colored ones existed.

The crossguards are just dumb to me.

 

[Blender]

At least with the lightsaber colors there was a decent justification for them. The red and blue further illustrate the dichotomy between good and bad jedis, and changing the color to green wasn't an issue because of the fact multi colored ones existed.

The crossguards are just dumb to me.

The way it is wouldn't even function as a crossguard in-universe since the opposing lightsaber would chop the emitter right off. Clearly it was a design choice to look cool with little other thought into it.