Star Wars: The Last Jedi (CONTAINS SPOILERS)

[warch]

I saw this film last weekend. I really enjoyed it. Interestingly most of the criticism of the film is subjective rather than objective.

My only criticisms were that it had too much going on at times, the Finn/Rose subplot was fairly superfluous it was a bit long and it all felt a bit closed in, by which I mean all the other Star War films to date are fairly expansive, you get a sense of things going on outside of the events of the story, whereas in this film it all seemed to be going on on screen.

I like the way Han and Luke in the new films are embittered and burnt out and don't live up to their legendary reputations in the eyes of the younger characters.

Incidentally I found the supporting cast a distraction (in a good way). Employing Eddie Hitler as the 2iC in the First Order command was a genius decision.

[Moonhawk]

warch said:

Interestingly most of the criticism of the film is subjective rather than objective.

Short of glaring technical errors in the picture, sound, sfx or props - or obvious plot holes, inconsistencies or contradictions in the story - what other 'objective' criticism can you realistically level at a fantasy movie set in a galaxy far far away?

[Halb]

they used the wrong colour of space cow milk

[Rumblestripe]

Moonhawk said:

warch said:

Interestingly most of the criticism of the film is subjective rather than objective.

Short of glaring technical errors in the picture, sound, sfx or props - or obvious plot holes, inconsistencies or contradictions in the story - what other 'objective' criticism can you realistically level at a fantasy movie set in a galaxy far far away?

I didn't have time to say that someone will be along to tell you that you really didn't enjoy it.

Verbotten enjoying it is.

[Stig]

My random 2p brain dump (most of which already commented) - good and bad

Bomb 'drop' in zero G - as commented above, even my sons spotted this one?

Leia 'Poppins' - actually LOL'd at this during the film and my two young boys thought it was daft.

Yoda - a nice nostalgic touch using an actual puppet instead of CGI

Snoke - Nice ship, but what's the back story?

Space cow - what exactly was the point of this bit other than to show how Luke survives on the Island?

New AT-ATs look cool

Luke 'projection' - great anti-aging too it seems

R2D2 - never gets old

Rey - weeks of pleading to no avail, then insta-Jedi?


Need to give it another watch I think, but not as good as the other recent SW releases. A Solo Story looks very 'meh' too.

[Moonhawk]

Rumblestripe said:

I didn't have time to say that someone will be along to tell you that you really didn't enjoy it.

Verbotten enjoying it is.

Did they?

[warch]

Moonhawk said:

warch said:

Interestingly most of the criticism of the film is subjective rather than objective.

Short of glaring technical errors in the picture, sound, sfx or props - or obvious plot holes, inconsistencies or contradictions in the story - what other 'objective' criticism can you realistically level at a fantasy movie set in a galaxy far far away?

Meaning they (the critics) didn't like the film because they disagrees with the way the story went, or the way characters behaved rather than because it was badly scripted for example like Episodes I-III. It amused me when they released The Force Awakens that people complained that it was a rehash of Star Wars, but when The Last Jedi came out, people said it wasn't proper Star Wars.

TBH most of the Star Wars films feature massive plot holes. Like Luke crash landing on Yoda's planet and landing twenty feet from his doorstep. Or the droids in the first film ending up in the hands of the only bloke in the universe who has the wherewithal to off Darth Vader.

[Bullett]

The force

[MXRod]

Saw it at the London Imax ,big screen ,neck ache looking from slide to side.
Second time around ,3D tv got more of the action,and got more of the dialogue,still missed bombs dropping in zero gravity though ,as I said before something a child 1/10 of my age spotted

[4x4Tyke]

All objects have gravity, the dreadnought was huge compared to the pretty big star destroyers, still a stretch.

[chris watton]

4x4Tyke said:

All objects have gravity, the dreadnought was huge compared to the pretty big star destroyers, still a stretch.

They must have an in-game money cheat in order to be able to afford such things!

[4x4Tyke]

chris watton said:

They must have an in-game money cheat in order to be able to afford such things!

Try playing Eve online.

Perhaps it has a huge artificial gravity generator, we don't see people floating down corridors.

[Moonhawk]

4x4Tyke said:

chris watton said:

They must have an in-game money cheat in order to be able to afford such things!

Try playing Eve online.

Perhaps it has a huge artificial gravity generator, we don't see people floating down corridors.

or - as per the starwars wiki page:

"....would drop the bombs through sequenced electromagnetic plates in the clip, which propelled the bombs to "drop" in microgravity environments. The bombs would then be drawn magnetically to their targets."

IMO that's the most plausible explanation - and is actually plausible since it would be similar to railgun technology....which actually exists.

There is a lot in TLJ that I didn't like - but I don't consider the bombs to be a big plot hole. It was never stated in the movie that the bombs 'fell' under the influence of gravity and there are perfectly reasonable mechanisms that can explain that apparent behaviour (i.e. magnetic propulsion).

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 20th April 18:17

[r11co]

Rumblestripe said:

Moonhawk said:

warch said:

Interestingly most of the criticism of the film is subjective rather than objective.

Short of glaring technical errors in the picture, sound, sfx or props - or obvious plot holes, inconsistencies or contradictions in the story - what other 'objective' criticism can you realistically level at a fantasy movie set in a galaxy far far away?

I didn't have time to say that someone will be along to tell you that you really didn't enjoy it.

Rubbish. Warch was corrected on his misunderstanding of the term subjective. There's loads objectively wrong with the film including blurry and poorly composited visual effects, especially in the Canto Bight chase scene, and jarring editing. Unforgivable considering the budget and the pedigree of the studio involved.

There was a point made by one of Half in the Bag guys days after the release of TLJ that there'll always be a core group of people who will say any big-release blockbuster that they invested their time to go and see was OK and they 'enjoyed it' because they lack the critical eye to spot the flaws. Essentially true.

Edited by r11co on Friday 20th April 18:24

[techguyone]

Hah, that never showed up until after several months of everyone and their dog saying how crap science that was - hastily written in to save face after the event.

[r11co]

techguyone said:

Hah, that never showed up until after several months of everyone and their dog saying how crap science that was - hastily written in to save face after the event.

It (and other retcons) were added to the novelisation of the screenplay which the author of admitted was written several weeks after the film's release.

[Moonhawk]

techguyone said:

Hah, that never showed up until after several months of everyone and their dog saying how crap science that was - hastily written in to save face after the event.

Perhaps - but everybody criticising that scene in the movie were making an assumption that the bombs fell under gravity.

It was never explicitly stated - and as such they aren't actually retconning anything. You can only retcon something that has been previously established.

[r11co]

Moonhawk said:

Perhaps - but everybody criticising that scene in the movie were making an assumption that the bombs fell under gravity.

Including the filmakers, until viewers pointed out how ludicrous it was. and studeio dug themselves into a bigger hole with their crap explanation. The tell-tale was Rose's hero sister falling from the gantry while the bay doors were open, pulled by the same 'gravity'? Or was she magnetically projected too? No assumptions - just going by what was obviously on screen.

[p1stonhead]

r11co said:

Moonhawk said:

Perhaps - but everybody criticising that scene in the movie were making an assumption that the bombs fell under gravity.

Including the filmakers, until viewers pointed out how ludicrous it was. and studeio dug themselves into a bigger hole with their crap explanation. The tell-tale was Rose's hero sister falling from the gantry while the bay doors were open, pulled by the same 'gravity'? Or was she magnetically projected too? No assumptions - just going by what was obviously on screen.

But there is gravity inside the ships so why wouldn’t she and they fall until they reached the ‘outside’ whereby they’d keep moving in the same direction?

[Moonhawk]

r11co said:

Including the filmakers, until viewers pointed out how ludicrous it was. and studeio dug themselves into a bigger hole with their crap explanation. The tell-tale was Rose's hero sister falling from the gantry while the bay doors were open, pulled by the same 'gravity'? Or was she magnetically projected too? No assumptions - just going by what was obviously on screen.

All of the ships (the large ones at least) in the Star Wars universe have artificial gravity.....that is established canon.

Since she was inside the ship - surely she was just subject to the ships artificial gravity field.

There was nothing in that scene that was inconsistent with established canon as far as I can tell.