439 comments

1. 

   Geoff

   January 15, 2018

   LOL are the snyder fanboys really this pathetic?

   1. 

      StarTheory

      January 15, 2018

      Remember when they also petitioned to shut down Rotten Tomatoes because critics didn't like BvS and SS?

      1. 

         Geoff

         January 15, 2018

         I remember that LOL

         They are so desperate.

      2. 

         Hunter Zolomon

         January 15, 2018

         That was amazing that was, i had a good laugh at that one.

         1. 

            MrMovies

            January 15, 2018

            Did you shit yourself from laughing?

            1. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               Fuck a doodle do look whose here everyone haha

            2. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               Who're talking to sweetheart?

            3. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               Why everyone of course babe.

            4. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               haha keep going babe i love it.

            5. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               :P

            6. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               Thanks for not denying it lol.

            7. 

               ShobiNaq

               January 16, 2018

               It's either him or ninjagamer that faked it

      3. 

         lowdevil

         January 15, 2018

         Remember when Disney tried to convince you that the public criticism of TLJ on RT was fake?

         1. 

            Hunter Zolomon

            January 15, 2018

            For the most part it was, don't get me wrong i think TLJ is overrated as hell and i have a ton of faults with it but no way is it a 50% film. Public scoring is always useless because there's always that small minority who will create loads of different accounts to up the score or lower the score because they have fuck all to do with their lives and really need to feel their opinion is shared by all even if the stuff they use to support it has been tampered by them.

            1. 

               lowdevil

               January 15, 2018

               You're right, it shouldn't be 50%, it should be lower. Especially since BvS is at 25 and arguably a better film.
               I especially love the silence from all since TLJ will make 700 million less from its predecessor when it was expecting to make more.
               Meanwhile.. BvS makes almost 900 million and "financial disaster' was a headline from every blogger ever.

            2. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               No one was expecting TLJ to make more then TFA, its fucking rare as hell for any film yet alone a sequel to make those numbers, TFA had the goodwill of Star Wars coming back so a lot of people went out of curiosity what TLJ never would have had or has.

               BvS while not quite a disaster didn't do as well as expected for WB, between its huge budget and huge marketing costs the film most likely only made a small profit for WB and i can assure you WB did want just a small profit, they were expecting the film like JL to cross a billion and they were expecting something along the lines of The Avengers, the fact a film starring Batman and Superman the two biggest and most famous heroes ever for the first time didn't make over a billion is not good especially when we are in a age where making a billion is a lot easier then it was 10 years back (when The Dark Knight made over a billion).

            3. 

               lowdevil

               January 15, 2018

               Only it was expected to make as much or more so stop pretending to know what the expectations were.
               There are actual headlines out there like "Why TLJ is not a BO failure" that exist among many others. Thats all you need to know.

            4. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               Care to link them, Forbes what usually has the best predictions and news for box office certainly didn't expect TFA numbers. I mean TFA made over 2 billion worldwide, if i'm not mistaken only 2 other films have done that so there's no fucking way TLJ ever had a shot at that especially when its a sequel, TFA had non SW fans watching it because it had that major event status what had everyone and their grandmas watching it because SW was finally back after 10 years. Anyway all that aside TLJ will still be the highest grossing film released in 2017 so what ever point you're failing to make here is moot, BvS should have been a contender for highest grossing film of 2016 but it didn't even reach those what again WB were clearly not happy with as they expected a billion+. Trying to compare SW numbers to DCEU numbers is quite frankly stupid as since Disney took over every SW film has made over a Billion something what no DCEU has done despite existing in the Golden Age of Super Hero films and having heroes like Batman and Superman in it.

            5. 

               lowdevil

               January 15, 2018

               Forbes only makes over/under predictions. They have not, nor ever will make actual predictions. The fact of the matter is TLJ was expected to make as much as TFA. Period.
               The moot point is the fact that you are so ignorant you actually posted that BvS was not successful at 900 mill yet TFA was successful at 1.3 bill. Maybe proof-read your statements before posting.
               Best news us real DC fans ever had was that their new approach going forward will be to not be a copy of your precious D/Marvel crap.

            6. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 15, 2018

               The Last Jedi was NOT expected to make as much as TFA. That is a fact. TFA is an "event" film that has the novelty of being "the first" in years. The Phantom Menace also benefited from that factor as well.

               However, it was definitely expected to do MORE than it's doing and the negativity surrounding it was definitely a wakeup call for Disney, whether they choose to believe it's a vocal minority or not.

               I do think that these new Star Wars films, regardless of my opinion on them, are not going to stand the test of time and as the market becomes oversaturated with them, they're going to continue bleeding viewers more and more. The fact of the matter is that they really DID make a grievous mistake (no pun intended) treating the OT characters the way they have and now it's quite unlikely the same amount of viewers will be back to thrill at the solo adventures of Rey, Finn and Poe.

               As of now, The Last Jedi is looking unlikely to cross the 1.4 billion mark thanks to the absolute bombing it had in China and its diminishing domestic returns. It may even struggle to beat out Jurassic World's domestic take as of now, which means a loss of nearly 700 million WW and a domestic bleed of nearly 300 million. All things considered, that doesn't make studio executives smile, no matter which way you want to spin the wheel.

               As for Forbes, it's mainly Scott Mendelson who is on an epic crusade to defend The Last Jedi at every turn. Another writer for Forbes named Rob Cain is definitely not as kind to Star Wars as can be seen here:
               https://www.forbes.com/site...

            7. 

               lowdevil

               January 15, 2018

               Its a catastrophic failure Especially given the fact TLJ completely ruined an entire franchise. 700 million less should be headlined everywhere. Meanwhile Rian has been back-peddling every week for the past 4 weeks and nobody has said shit.
               Just a bitter DC fan here tired of the overzealous negative headlines. Marvel will get their day.

            8. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 15, 2018

               It's not a "failure." To be a failure would be to lose money, and "Disney-Wars" hasn't quite reached that point (yet - Solo: A Star Wars Story is definitely in the danger-zone). TLJ is, if anything, an underperformer. It's going to give Disney back what it cost them to make it and then some - and it helps that Disney strong-armed Theater chains to keep it in there for 4 weeks and make them hand over 70% of their profits before they could start dropping its screens, so there's that too.

               BUT... It should at least make them think about what they've done before proceeding. I mean, if Star Wars happens to bleed viewers this fast, then YES, they will be losing money, even if they force theater chains to hand over 100% of their profits.

               Say what you will about Marvel, but Kevin Feige knows what the hell he's doing. He bangs out hit after hit after hit and the MCU movies are legitimate crowd-pleasers. He can't be compared to Kathleen Kennedy, who can't get along with her directors very well and already lost 4 of them - Josh Trank, Colin Trevorrow, Lord & Miller. Two out of four of her movies so far have had major production problems and extensive reshoots (Rogue One and Solo) and it's definitely not good business to fire two directors when they're 80% done a movie and reshoot the ENTIRE film (headlines indicate that Han Solo is STILL going through reshoots even right now). Feige has had directors come and go like Edgar Wright and several even saying working with Marvel was a terrible experience (notable example being Alan Taylor), but Feige still has them get the job done and reap the rewards of thorough PLANNING.

               None of the new Star Wars movies are "planned". That's why TFA and TLJ have some serious continuity plot holes and setups that never pay off.

            9. 

               lowdevil

               January 15, 2018

               It is a failure. If Rian's planned trilogy gets cancelled (as rumors say) and the Solo film gets delayed again (possibility since more reshoots and no trailer) and part 9 deliberately tries to do a u-turn then an entire ENORMOUS franchise that has a new theme park opening will be done.
               Thats a huge failure no?

            10. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 15, 2018

                That's a potential failure-in-waiting, but still not a "failure."

                It's the same reason why I don't agree with all those who point to BvS as being the reason JL failed. Yeah, it was a factor, but it's not the ONLY one.

            11. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                Its definitely not the only reason, but definitely one of the biggest reason and probably the main reason for its failure was bvs

            12. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 15, 2018

                That's where Good-word-of-mouth is supposed to come in though. Wonder Woman did fantastic in spite of the bad vibes it got with BvS/SS preceding it and even though at the time, it was the lowest opening DCEU film, good word of mouth carried it along.

                Now BvS definitely HURT JL's Box Office, of that there is no doubt. But the BIGGEST reason for JL's failure was the film itself, not the films preceding it. Had JL gotten great reviews, I have no doubt that word of mouth would have carried it to at least 900 million, even if its opening was small (projections before its unbelievably low final tally had it at 120-150 million).

            13. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                Yes, i agree on a few things, but jl was already doomed since the beginning. Look at the opening weekend, 90m for a jl movie is terrible and it didnt even have a chance to have word of mouth. Nobody was there to spread the word, the ga didnt show because they hated bvs, and it shows on that opening weekend. Ww had a better chance since its the first female lead superhero movie with a female director and etc, plus it wasnt a sequel to bvs which was a good boost. Jl was a straight sequel to a movie the ga hated. If bvs was half decent, it wouldve hit 1b for sure. Even though jl was a mess, the audience, myself and the critics find it to be an improvement from bvs and entertaining at that.

            14. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                Word of mouth can start before a movie even opens and the entire controversy surrounding JL long before it hit theaters with the massive reshoots and then the Rotten Tomatoes debacle was the last straw. 90 million is indeed terrible for a JL movie, but it's not like it would have been impossible to recover; especially on a holiday week like Thansgiving break.

                JL is generally more well-liked than BvS, but a lukewarm reception was NOT enough to save it. It needed to be great. It wasn't. Hence the diminishing returns.

                I'm not saying BvS isn't to blame, but to put all your chips on it for JL failing is ludicrous. There are many other factors that put it in a precarious position. Hell, not the least would have been the stupid decision to sandwich it between Thor: Ragnarok AND Star Wars. Even the massively successful Hunger Games franchise suffered greatly being in the shadow of a Star Wars movie on its last hurrah.

            15. 

                myzterius

                January 16, 2018

                I agree, but i never put the blame entirely on bvs, i just said that its the main reason but not the only one. Thor shouldn't have been a problem for jl, if the previous movies had better reception. Now star wars was a montg away, so jl had enough time to reach 1billion if it were a hit. It might not be impossible to recover from a 90m ow, just like its not impossible to win the lottery. Thor was a great movie, and mcu fans didnt go see jl to make sure thor came out on top. Now you might think im making this up since its ridiculous, but trust me ive seen people on youtube saying that they are team marvel, and wont support jl. And snyder name attached to the movie didnt help at all.

            16. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                Fair, but I still wouldn't position BvS as the "main" problem. Certainly it was "A" problem and a big one at that, but JL could have stood on its own two feet without it if it were up to snuff.

                Yes, Star Wars was a month away, but it casts a large shadow. The Hunger Games was the most apt example of this in regards to a November release of a big franchise movie. That film opened to barely 100 million and it was the final movie in the franchise, even though past films opened at high as 155 million (which is nearly on par with BvS). It also capped out below 700 million, which is in the same ballpark as JL - even though past ventures went as high as 870 million - in the same ballpark as BvS. And even though THG final movie wasn't "beloved" by critics, it still had "decent" reviews (70% range), but it still fell down on its face.

                JL had a tough hill to climb, but it could have done it. It was the movie itself that faltered and kept audiences away and that is the number one reason.

                As for the MCU, yeah, I agree with that too. I've seen the fanatics at work firsthand, so I understand it's definitely a thing. It's one of the reasons being sandwiched in between an MCU movie and a Star Wars movie was a hinderance.

                I mean, even BvS - for all its flaws - WB made the RIGHT decision getting it away from Civil War. Even if it was a great movie loved by critics and fans, it probably still would have suffered from that close-range competition.

            17. 

                Schuyler Finley

                January 16, 2018

                For me, I think what had killed JL was its RT score and negative word of mouth from some of the hardcore DCEU fans.

            18. 

                myzterius

                January 16, 2018

                "I mean, even BvS - for all its flaws - WB made the RIGHT decision getting it away from Civil War. Even if it was a great movie loved by critics and fans, it probably still would have suffered from that close-range competition."

                Yes that's for sure.

                " The Hunger Games was the most apt example of this in regards to a November release of a big franchise movie. That film opened to barely 100 million and it was the final movie in the franchise"

                I personally think that the hype was over for this movie. It was a over hyped franchise just like twilight. People finally woke up i guess. The fact that were comparing hunger games with a movie as big as bvs or jl, is something i would never believe lol, the box office shouldn't even be close to those movies, tgats when you know tgey reakky underperformed. Jl had a name big enough to get out of star wars shadow, even a movie like bvs could get out of star wars shadow, especially when superhero movies are more popular overseas than a star wars movie.

                "JL had a tough hill to climb, but it could have done it. It was the movie itself that faltered and kept audiences away and that is the number one reason."

                In most cases that would be true. But nobody showed up to see jl. The theaters were empty and the real Audience doesnt even know what rotten tomato is or all the drama going on behind the scene. All they know is that its a sequel to something they didnt like. The quality of the film didnt help either since the movie was just decent, but the reception of the previous movies had the biggest impact.. Thats why marvel gets bigger with each movie, reception of previous movies. As a result, you have black panther outselling civil war.

            19. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                Yeah, but The Hunger Games, unlike Twilight, had the critical reception on its side and if anything, it was seen as the antithesis of Twilight in that it was a movie based on a young-adult novel that was actually good.

                As for comparing THG to something as big as BvS and JL, that's fair, but all things popular wane and just BECAUSE you're popular doesn't mean you'll get the big bucks. For example, Mickey Mouse is one of the most recognizable characters in the world and yet I doubt a movie about him will make a billion. Same with the Looney Tunes characters.

                I mean, the reason MOS for instance was a success despite some of its less-than-stellar legs was BECAUSE it was (unadjusted for inflation) the highest grossing Superman movie and outperformed SR. And then in hindsight, Batman Begins couldn't even cross the 400 million mark despite the fact that the character was very well known. We're talking about how BvS hurt JL's box office and that's a valid point - then we also have to consider these characters' pasts as well and how they've gone through this kind of uphill battle before. Just never together.

                There are now plenty of movies that have seen disappointing domestic returns that thrive overseas. Just because JL opened low doesn't mean it couldn't have recovered its costs by a foreign market. JL is also the perfect kind of movie that foreign audiences would like - big and bombastic like the Fast and Furious, Pirates, Transformers, etc. The RT score still played a big part in everything because that's a lot of what people talk about nowadays and the site had to make a big hoopla in revealing its rating, no thanks to WB who were obviously nervous about it and made them hold off till the last possible second. That incites WORRY and not positive vibes.

                You look in hindsight at WW and all anyone could ever talk about even before the movie opened was "Hey, I heard it was REALLY REALLY good. I'm gonna see it."

            20. 

                myzterius

                January 16, 2018

                We can talk about past movies, but remember that superhero movies wasnt as big as it is today other than the spider man movies. It wasnt until tdk which changed the whole way ppl was looking at sh movies when it reached 1b. When the batman comes out in 2020, ppl will expect it to cross a billion, and a decade from now, 2b will ve the new norm.

            21. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 17, 2018

                That's not necessarily true because both Batman and Superman were big back in their "heyday." As big as any other superhero franchise thriving today (both Batman 89 and Superman TM adjusted for inflation are billion-dollar grossers and both made upwards to 500+ million domestic alone).
                It had little to do with the popularity of superhero films and more to do with the state the characters themselves were in. Batman dropped down low because Batman & Robin was a joke and Superman dropped down low because Superman III and IV were laughing stocks in comparison to I and II.

                If Batman's franchise continued to thrive after Batman 89, the character would have probably hit those high numbers long before Spider-Man came onto the scene.

                Same with Superman.

            22. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                It doesn't take much to work out that JJ never had the events of TLJ in mind when doing TFA, you don't put that much set up into questions and cliffhangers only for the sequel to answer and conclude them the way it did. As DudeofSteel1Million said in TFA Luke looked emotional like he just found something lost (his lightsaber, maybe at the time his daughter?) yet when TLJ opens he chucks that lightsaber away for a shitty joke and more or less tells Rey to fuck off and leave him.

                As for the plot holes well the big one what proves the events of TLJ wasn't planned is that Luke left a map to his location if he was needed, you know that main entire plot point of TFA. Yet in TLJ it turns out Luke never wanted to be found and wanted to die alone, he even questions how Rey found him. Luke was clearly never meant to be the way he was in TLJ but Disney gave Rian Johnson too much freedom so he done his own thing and said screw what ever the previous films (including RotJ) done with its events and characters. Say what you will about the MCU but at least they connect pretty well and don't screw over previous films.

            23. 

                NinjaGamer13

                January 15, 2018

                Wow, I didn’t even ever think about some of those things. ...Man, I’m really starting to dislike this movie...

            24. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                I still hover around a 7 or 8 due to the things i did love like Kylo Ren but the more i think about the faults the more i start to dislike it.

            25. 

                NinjaGamer13

                January 15, 2018

                I liked the movie upon first watching it (with some reservations), but I’m starting to wear a bit... I hope JJ salvages the mistakes of TLJ in the next movie, since he’ll be back for that one.

            26. 

                Art Haack

                January 17, 2018

                Meh. George Lucas is guilty of the same crimes — especially with the prequels. But even in the original trilogy, it’s obvious that Vader was not originally intended to be Luke’s father, or Leia his sister.

                Those decisions were made later, during production of the sequels, necessitating the Obi-Wan “certain point of view” speech to make it all (sort of) fit.

                But fans didn’t really care because Lucas had the unquestioned artistic authority to do whatever he wanted — and there was no internet!

            27. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 17, 2018

                Difference is story wise his answers worked, yeah the "certain point of view" speech is weak but it does make sense as to why he never told Luke the truth, to Ben Anakin died and Vader took over and considering how evil Vader was he clearly didn't want Luke to know that person is his Dad, better for him to think his father died a hero then lived and become a monster. I agree Leia being his sister was never planned but story wise it works well enough, yes they snog whats weird but both at that point had no idea they were twins.

                As for the prequels problems well yeah its widely known and excepted that they are flawed as hell with a ton of problems.

            28. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 15, 2018

                One of the inconsistencies for instance is the very introduction with Luke tossing the lightsaber over the cliff nonchalantly when in TFA, he is on the verge of crying seeing it again.

                The rest... They're numerous and have been discussed, so I'll leave a few of them here:

                https://www.youtube.com/wat...
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...

            29. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                Might watch those myself.

            30. 

                TeeVee

                January 15, 2018

                Ur a jealous fanboy hater and everybody, especially me, is laughing at ur fanboy stupidity!

            31. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                Worth pointing out Scott Medelson is pretty kind to DC as well, just saying. Anyway i don't doubt that TLJ is not doing as well and hell i'm glad its not doing as well, its just i take issue with lowdevil saying it failed when it hasn't, sure it could have done better but its only if Solo fails (i think it will) and there's even lower figures for E9 that there's big problems what Disney didn't expect. As it is TLJ should have done better but it still made over a billion and has made a made a nice profit.

            32. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 15, 2018

                Oh, I know. Scott is hit or miss with article writing. Even I don't love all his pro-DC articles.

                And I agree. It's stupid to say TLJ "failed," but it's logical to say that Disney was probably a little disappointed.

            33. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                I agree that Disney most likely wasn't pleased with its performance i don't doubt that at all.

                As for Scott yeah i like him and his writing but he's better when sticking to facts, his personal opinions can cloud his writing sometimes. I've stopped reading his SW stuff as he's let his personal views on the film effect how he views the faults people have with the film way too much, he's very PC with it all and i think he's let his opinion on it get carried away because SW has a female lead, a leading black male, another woman of power in Laura Dern and a new asian character in Rose who has a big role (just to point out i either like or love all those characters except Dern's), again none of that is a problem to and i don't care what race or gender are the leads but its clear that stuff has excited a certain group and because of that they have praised the film beyond believe and i think Scott is part of that.

            34. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 15, 2018

                Agreed. He tends to cling to hyperbole a lot with his Star Wars articles. Yeah, there were some radical racists and crying manchildren who had their agenda flags waving, but MOST of the complaints have NOTHING to do with any of that.

            35. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                Yeah i'm someone who likes characters like Rey, Finn and Rose and i've defended Rey and Rose quite a bit as well so its got nothing to with being "racist" and all that with me, my faults shared by many are legit faults what i feel many are ignoring with them just using the "racist" and "sexist" card to avoid the talking about the legit faults.

            36. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 15, 2018

                Exactly. It seemingly is a crutch that I've noticed a lot of the defenders lean on in order to make anyone who dislikes the film seem like racists or misogynists when their arguments have nothing to do with it.

            37. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 15, 2018

                What about the 68% plunge it took in its second weekend? Yeah, there was the holiday to take into account for that, but neither Rogue One nor Force Awakens dropped that big. Plus there's the fact that week by week, it's been bleeding viewers and is now currently making even less money than Rogue One was making at this time.

                As for the other entries, while there is some truth in how they performed less than the first one, you have to also take into account the larger market there is in place, the inflation, the expansion of the foreign releases, etc. Plus the brand name in of itself.

                Back in the 80's, sequels were far more of a rarity than nowadays, so it makes sense why Empire and Jedi didn't perform to the first one's standards.

                By the 2000's, sequels were becoming more of a common thing, so AOTC took a larger drop than expected from TPM and you can attribute that to bad vibes left in TPM's wake.

                And now, sequels to big franchises now are pretty much expected outright to do better than the original. Obviously, TLJ was never going to match TFA - even if it was a masterpiece. BUT.... the drop it took was larger than it was meant to do.

            38. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                You use the Christmas excuse, but you're still accounting for an extra day at the box office, and while it made more on Christmas day, that still accounts for a hefty drop nonetheless.

                Being one of the worst years in box office history hasn't impacted underdogs like Jumanji for example. In fact, the notion that the movie is thriving so well even though it opened side-by-side with The Last Jedi is quite telling. You'd think that The Last Jedi would be destroying it, but instead Jumanji kicked it to the curve and while it's reigning at number one, The Last Jedi is teetering in and out of the top 5. As for the exit-polling, plenty of other films have received an "A" cinemascore and still reap either a low box office return or at least a divisive response from audiences. "Dark of the Moon" got an A too, and that film was a massive hit, but definitely not one you could say is very "well liked."

                As for IMDB, like I said, a 7.5 at this stage is hardly something to be shouting for joy for when new films that are even remotely well liked can budge their way into the Top 250 list of best films, even if only temporary. Rogue One at this point last year was still on that list while The Last Jedi didn't even make it in there for a day.
                For contrasts sake, Wonder Woman, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Spider-Man Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok and Logan all made it into the Top 250 - some are even still in there to this day. And by another contrast, at the same time a month out, BvS was still holding on to a 7/10 rating on IMDB as well as The Last Jedi and look at where that ended up.

                So yes, while it's true that the vocal "haters" of the film do denounce its achievements, there is also the vocal "defenders" who act as if the film is doing exactly as it should be via box office and audience scores based on their own personal feelings and self-interests.

            39. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                It's still a hefty drop no matter which way you look at it. Christmas Eve falling on a Sunday had its hand in causing its drop to be as heavy as it was, but even IF that wasn't the case, you swap the 27 million it made on Christmas Day in place of its Christmas eve money, and that still amounts to a 63% drop.

                TLJ's box office is winding down now, but it's winding down below even Rogue One, which shows a serious weakness in its box office legs. As of now, it might not even beat out Jurassic World's final domestic take, even though it started in a much better place opening-wise.

                Overseas, it definitely won't cross a billion which shows a lack of interest from the foreign market, which normally accounts for 65-sometimes even 70% of a movie's income. The Fast and the Furious franchise and the Transformers franchise for instance thrives on that foreign intake and The Last Jedi is looking hard pressed to reach 750 million foreignly.

                There is a fair amount of review-bombing, but it's not as large as you think. IMDB filters out a lot of the crap, but not everyone has an IMDB account either, hence why you lose a lot of the "normies" voting.

                When you cite Empire middle-chapter blues as the reason for the divisiveness of TLJ, that's purely opinion-based. The OT has a more cohesive narrative based on the fact that it was at least planned out. Not to the extent Mr. Lucas claims, but at least there WAS a "plan." TLJ and TFA are examples of two films made by two different directors who had no "plan" of where to take the franchise and their films were made independent from one another.

            40. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                You can swap it out because either way you look at it, TLJ had a steep second weekend drop even WITH the holiday 4-day weekend. And as of right now, TLJ is BEHIND Rogue One if you're watching the daily Box Office results on BOM. The fact of the matter that it's playing anywhere near Rogue One at all when it opened over 70 million above it shows signs of weaker-than-expected legs.

                The OT was more planned out than these new movies. That is an undeniable fact, even if you are to pick out the details like the much memed incest of Luke and Leia. I wouldn't say that TLJ is more planned out than the OT at all considering that now Rian Johnson himself is backtracking whenever he tries to explain the most talked about hated moments of the film. Now he's leaving it "open" for Rey to have a parental background for JJ to play with even though it's pretty clear that it was intended for Rey to be a "nobody". And that's only ONE element of backtracking he's done.

                As for Vader... I mean, it was pretty much spelled out in his very name. "DARTH VADER" means "DARK FATHER" in dutch. Lucas was also a student of Joseph Campbell who wrote "Hero with a Thousand Faces" and adhered very heavily to his structure which included in the hero's journey the evil father figure and the final arc of the hero being the "atonement" with his father.

                While not EVERYTHING in the OT was planned out, a lot of the key elements that made up the overall structure were there from the start.

            41. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 17, 2018

                "A 55% drop is not very steep. That's actually fairly normal. We're also talking about the third Star Wars film in 3 years here. Rogue One opened $70M below TLJ. TLJ will finish upwards of that difference above Rogue One..."
                It's steep when you take into consideration the amount of money it made. It's also steep when you stop ignoring that it's still a 4-day weekend.

                "Behind in what metric, though?"
                http://www.boxofficemojo.co...

                From week 4 to week 5, making less than it on day-to-day basis.

                "What facts are there to support that statement?"
                How about the simple fact that Rian Johnson himself said so? That he wrote The Last Jedi without much input from JJ and he was given fairly free carte-blanche to take it in different directions to TFA?

                And then there's also the fact that George Lucas "created" Star Wars after all. I mean, obviously the OT was a collaborative effort, moreso than the prequels and all, but the concept, the design, the story, etc. still came from one dude.

                "He has not backtracked, he provided perspective on these types of things in this series. Regarding Rey's parentage, he said that Kylo Ren was not lying in that moment, but there is always room to look at something differently. Kylo Ren saw what he saw. But what if those weren't Rey's parents? That is what Johnson is hinting, that's his phrasing. He's not saying that will happen, not saying it won't. But just because a couple degenerate drunks sold a kid on Jakku that does not make them her actual parents. He even included a scene in the film where Rey asked to see her parents in the Dark Side Cave and was shown her own reflection. What's that mean? Maybe it means that what she was really asking to see was her place in this world and the cave told her that her place is wherever she makes it? Maybe it was telling her that she was created by the force itself? We clearly don't have all the pieces to this prospective puzzle as of yet. One thing is clear, JJ Abrams showed us a kid being ditched on a hellhole world. I would like to think that Luke would not do that to his daughter... So who, other than "nobody", were Rey's parents being set up to be? I guess there's more meaning to be found in fan theories than actually what Abrams set up? (Which Daisy Ridley said she thought was obvious)"
                Oh, please. You believe that? It's pretty obvious what the END-GAME he had in mind during the making of the film was. The whole POINT of it is that Rey came from nothing and that she has to make her own choices and her own destiny, not base her entire life around her heritage. To go against that and suddenly say " oh, never mind. She's a Skywalker" or "she's a Solo" or "she's a Kenobi" or whatever other Goddamn theory there was in regards to her lineage is a huge contradiction to the point they were making.

                So at first, she's a nobody. And now suddenly, she's a somebody... What a twist.

                "I am familiar with that yarn that George spun, but the first draft of Empire Strikes Back was written by Leigh Bracket based on direction given from Lucas, and it did not feature Vader being Luke's father as a plot point. That wasn't added until later script revisions by George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan, the later being the guy who finalized the script.

                His influences are the subject of much study, but that doesn't mean that he always had that intention. Could be that he saw the opportunity, revised the script accordingly, and voila."
                I am aware of that. I've read the secrets of Star Wars and watched the documentaries and listened to Gary Kurtz' numerous stories.

                Like I said before, it's obvious the OT wasn't all planned out to be AS IS with no exceptions or changes. But it's ALSO obvious that it still had a direction, an end goal and a pretty straight-edged adherence to Joseph Campbell's work that it was more planned out than the shuffling of directors Disney has going on with the sequel trilogy.

                "For Darth Vader to mean "Dark Father" you have a typo'd version of "Vater", which seems like it should have just been spelled "Darth Vater". So let's look at the other proposed source of the name, Invader. "Dark Invader". I find this one to make the most sense in retrospect given Darth Sidious. "Dark Insidious". Maybe Lucas devised it at the time with a double-meaning, but any assertion that he obviously had all that in mind the whole time...it's George giving George a little too much credit."
                And yet in Dutch, you forget that "Father" is pronounced "Fah-der" hence the misspelling.

                In any case, you are simply making bold exaggerations. Primarily because you seem to be bitter over the prequels more so than holding to common sense that Lucas made crappy films and also had a hand in good ones as well.

                "But since you are so quick to believe him here, do you also buy Greedo having always shot first?"

                I believe him there as much as I believe Rian Johnson's excuses, that's for sure. Or Lucas' statements that TLJ was a "beautifully made movie" (how very PC of him). Or for that matter, as much as I believe that TFA/TLJ is a "planned" franchise.

            42. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 18, 2018

                "The 4 day weekend has to be taken into account, dude. People don't go to the movies on Christmas Eve, they go on Christmas Day. Go back and look at the daily sum for VII. Made more on Monday the week of Christmas than it did on Thursday, which was Christmas Eve. That's telling of people's movie habits..."
                That doesn't at all discredit the enormous drop TLJ took REGARDLESS of the 4-day weekend. And then like I said, if you were to swap out the two days, that still amounts to an over 60% drop.

                On top of that, TLJ has had another 62% drop on its 4th weekend and eventually it got toppled by Jumanji.

                "VIII was $2M up on Rogue One with its week 4 total."
                And then it was $3M down on Rogue One with its week 5 total.

                For more context on just how big TLJ is floundering, look no further than this article here:
                https://www.forbes.com/site...

                "There is an overarching story group, dude. They know their boundaries. There are people at Lucasfilm with the WHOLE thing in mind that say 'yes' to this and 'no' to that. That doesn't limit personal storytelling, but it's the same as how all the other universe franchises are being handled today."
                They know their boundaries in that they have actually very little to do in making them. They say "yes" to this and "no" to that, but they don't have the STORY mapped out. That is the key difference to say this and the MCU. And hell, it shouldn't necessarily even be like the MCU anyways because this is a trilogy and not movies spinning off each other to tell other stories with other characters.

                In that sense, there is no commander - no treatment or outline that says "here's what we're doing and here's where we're going to go." You can't dispute that because it is a fact. JJ, Lawrence Kasdan and Rian Johnson would all agree to that.

                "There are boundaries around the sandbox. There is a reason that IX lost its director, it was because of his trouble working within that system. There is a need to satisfy yourself as an artist within the boundaries of what you are allowed to do."
                Again, it's not planned. I'm sure Collin left because of creative differences, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't even really finish his script - or rather there shouldn't have even really been a disagreement because where the story goes should have already been mapped out if they actually had a real "plan."

                "But the biggest point I want to make here is that it's asinine to state that VIII didn't carry the baton that VII handed off... When you guys say that it is from the assumption that A) We were told that Luke left them a "find me if you need me" map, B) That Snoke's background was teased, and C) the Knights of Ren were teased to play a bigger role, but all of that is Grade A horseshit. Not an attack on you, but to suggest that VIII in some way conflicted with VII is asinine..."
                I didn't care much for the wild speculative theories, so you're preaching to the wrong person with that argument.

                However, there ARE inconsistencies with 7 and 8's plot and there are contrivances and overall differential directions that are clear if you actually watch the films back-to-back.

                I mean, for one, The Last Jedi is literally the first ever Star Wars movie that picks up RIGHT where the last one left off and in doing so, it digs itself a giant ditch.

                For example, in literally one day, Finn goes from having his spine nearly sliced in half and on the verge of death to being A-okay. I know this is Star Wars, but really.

                The First Order pretty much operates like nothing ever happened even though they lost their greatest resource from Starkiller base getting destroyed and suddenly five planets encompassed the whole of the republic that is now completely dead.

                Luke's emotional near-tears stare at Rey giving him the lightsaber is met with a joke of tossing it over his head.

                I could go on, but better people than me have already done so, so I'll go ahead and leave a few of them here:
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...

                "I think Johnson was offering just a morsel that this side of the story is not fully in focus yet. Obviously I understand the thematic value to what they were setting up with the character, and I agree with challenging her along those lines. But the things Johnson did in the film, like the dark side cave, that had value to the story. It wasn't just some throwaway scene, it added a perspective to who and what she is. What we know from dialogue in VIII is that the emergence and strengthening of Kylo Ren as a dark side force user had the effect of strengthening his light side counterpart, who Snoke believed to be Luke Skywalker. "Mistakenly..." as he remarks."
                I mean, it's pretty clear that the cave sequence was a reinforcement of what she later reveals. She was looking for her parents and all she saw was a reflection of herself, indicating that her parents didn't actually matter and were nobody.

                To go against that would be to once again contradict a plot point that quite simply "didn't work out" which SHOWS how unplanned this trilogy really is.

                "Fetch Kylo Ren. It's time to complete his training."
                Umm... Remind me where exactly this happens for instance?

                "So it's not like I'm saying "she's gonna be Luke's daughter after all!" I'm not, and I don't think that's very likely. I'm saying that as the force essentially has necessitated the existence of Rey, it is not beyond the scope of reason that there is something more to who and what she is than what has already been given and setup. And you have to turn a blind eye to the philosophical basis for her existence in these films as explained by VIII to come up with your evidence of them flying by the seat of their pants with the writing and plotting of it..."
                I mean, what more is there to tell that the film doesn't make pretty clear without necessarily contradicting what it set up? I mean, when was the last time you watch TFA to see how much they really teased Rey's parentage? Again, I didn't care or buy into any of the wild theories that extended as far to even suggest Rey was a Windu (yes, people actually said that), but there was obviously SOMETHING there that JJ did not intend for Rian to just do what he did.

                "I'm sure it did. They imagined the closing scene of The Dark Knight Rises while writing Batman Begins, according to David Goyer. But they took each film one step at a time and didn't withhold anything to get there. They went where the story took them. That's what this new Star Wars trilogy is doing. That does not mean that they are just winging it, and nothing supports such a statement."
                No, they're not. And one of the key differences IS that there is a consistent narrative to TDK trilogy because it's made by the same people who understood the goals of one another and where they wanted to eventually take the franchise.

                TFA and TLJ are made by two very different directors. TLJ was written WHILE TFA was filming and Rian even admitted that there were some ideas that JJ had that he wanted to tweak and make different. The point is that there is no sense of consistency in the narrative. They literally were "flying by the seat of their pants."

            43. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 20, 2018

                "First off, some of the worst film analysts of all time are on YouTube. They are a bunch of talking heads who routinely get key point after key point entirely wrong. You can find a hundred videos of something on YouTube, I'll show you a hundred piles of crap with too much time on their hands and a typically unsophisticated approach."
                You are doing something that you literally just accused me of doing in terms of "film analysis" and that is the simplification of analyzing AND sweeping generalizations. It's true that there are plenty of crappy "film analyzers" on YouTube, but that depends on the content producer of said videos.

                "VII necessitated VIII to begin where it left off. "The First Order proceeds unimpeded despite the destruction of Starkiller Base". Well, ya know, the Empire were still the betting favorites after losing the Death Star. Starkiller was targeting the resistance base when it was destroyed, the location of the Resistance had been compromised. And that's also the situation where we pick up with VIII. The First Order is moving to attack the Resistance base, the Resistance is scrambling to evacuate, and so on."
                Gee, that sounds an AWFUL lot like Empire Strikes Back, doesn't it?

                But as for your point, how is it necessary to begin RIGHT where it left off when A) no other Star Wars movie has done that before and at least allowed the passage of SOME time between each chapter and B) The Force Awakens showed no such regard for Return of the Jedi in terms of picking up where it left off AT ALL?

                And as for proceeding "unimpeded", that's pretty unbelievable considering they lost their greatest resource of strength and power even though they supposedly evened the odds with the Resistance by wiping out the core Republic worlds. But how does that result in the immediate COLLAPSE of the entire Republic and everyone involved with it and the Resistance? Now the First Order reigns supreme as strong as the Empire ever was despite supposedly being a cut off faction of the Empire and the Republic is completely destroyed, thus completely dissolving everything the original trilogy resolved.

                "Regarding Finn, it's certainly not "same day". He had been placed into a bacta bath in the meantime of these journeys, which no one said took place in a single day... The bacta bath that Finn is in being the same stuff that healed Luke from his wampa-inflicted injuries and the cold on Hoth in V..."
                Considering the fact that A) Luke's injuries were far less severe than Finn's and B) by your own admission, TLJ picks up directly where TFA left off and that was where Rey was on Luke's planet and Finn was still recuperating with the Resistance after Starkiller base blew up. About the equivalent of at least maybe a few days, and yet Finn is right back to full strength after, requiring no artificial implants or whatnot (at least not to the film's admission) despite his spine being sliced.

                "In a counter to your claim that Luke's emotions were so drastically different from VII to VIII, they reshot the ending of VII to lead into VIII. Luke has a natural reaction to Rey's presence on the planet, as well as her beckoning to him with his old lightsaber. In between films she had walked over to hand him the weapon, and upon receiving it he chunks it away like a piece of refuse. Look at Luke's face in VII with the foreknowledge that he's on the planet to die by himself and end the Jedi Order as his last rites. There is no obvious disconnect there."
                Yes, there is. Luke's eyes are near-tears at the end of TFA and then he's pretty much hunky-dory in TLJ when Rey hands him the lightsaber. So a span of 2 seconds offscreen suddenly changes that? What does reshooting have anything to do with it?
                If so, then that makes it WORSE since the inconsistencies are still there.

                And if you want to get nitpicky, when Rey holds the lightsaber out to Luke in TFA, it's a cloudy overcast even-lighting and when she hands it to Luke, it's sunny.
                So... They couldn't even maintain consistency on the lighting front.

            44. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 21, 2018

                "I read articles with fallacious logic, I've seen the humorous videos like HISHE and 'Everything Wrong With' which imply misreadings of films, even though they do it to have a comedy angle, and so on. I've watched morons like the Nostalgia Critic, and other YouTube critics that I can't even remember their names. And here's the thing, it's not just on films that they disagree with me on, overall, I've seen their good reviews of popular films and it's just bad. It's written by people who don't think past the surface, don't consider why something is the way it is, how it tracks out, how the film substantiates itself, how the actor is being directed in that moment, etc., and I stopped watching those people because of the compulsion to comment on their videos with all of the things they got wrong. Not subjective pieces, just factual aspects of the films..."
                I've seen them too. Why do you think I roll my eyes every time someone uses them as the be-all/end-all of criticism towards BvS?
                But just because there are those that ARE unbelievably ignorant towards film criticism or praise, there are also those that aren't and to make sweeping statements that they're ALL idiots is a huge generalization in the same way as one would be in saying "RT should be shut down cause ALL critics are morons!"

                And it would just so happen (which speaks to the state of film criticism) that a lot of those youtubers that you dislike ARE actual film critics who have their names appear on RT like Chris Stuckman or Schmoes Know.

                "You made a statement that Abrams said he ripped off IV, specifically. Abrams never said that, he said this:

                "I can understand that someone might say, 'Oh, it's a complete rip-off!' " he says, adding, "What was important for me was introducing brand new characters using relationships that were embracing the history that we know to tell a story that is new — to go backwards to go forwards."

                That's not specific to IV, that is an encompassing statement. You have IV in your mind and are interpreting your statements in the manner which best suits your leanings... Reassess."
                You are also cutting out a lot of his further statements such as:
                "So we very consciously — and I know it is derided for this — we very consciously tried to borrow familiar beats so the rest of the movie could hang on something that we knew was ‘Star Wars."
                True, that not EVERYTHING in TFA is specific to just ANH, but it's very obvious that the STRUCTURE of the storytelling was ANH specific and you can't deny that.

                That and in your very quote, Abrams said they were going "backwards to go forwards" which is in essence contradicting. There was no need to go backwards at all beyond creating a "safe" backdrop so that audiences could re-familiarize themselves with Star Wars. In essence, doing EXACTLY what I said they did which was to rip off the structure of ANH in order to make a hybrid sequel/remake/REBOOT.

                It's also why TFA is marketed as "STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS" as opposed to "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS".

                ""Larry [Kasdan] and I had a bunch of thoughts of where certain things could go and we shared those things with Rian Johnson, who's directing VIII," he says. "He had things that he came up with where he asked if it was possible if we could make some adjustments with what we were doing at the end, most of which we did — there were just a couple that didn't feel right, so he made adjustments — but it was just collaboration."

                There was a collaborative effort between Abrams and Johnson to set up VIII with VII, to the point where both directors adjusted their films to accommodate the other."

                That's what Abrams said. And at a certain point in time, I don't doubt that it was entirely false. But that's not an indication of planning. Here's what Johnson said in regards to how "planned" TLJ was in regards to how much input JJ had:

                "No, [JJ] was really gracious, in just stepping back and giving us a blank slate to work with. The starting point was The Force Awakens script, which is quite a big, expansive, wonderful starting point. In that way, we are drawing directly from his work. But from that point forward it was a blank canvas."

                So pretty much what I said - JJ made TFA. He made some minor modifications for TLJ and then Rian made TLJ using that blank canvas he was given with no input from JJ for the most part in regards to how he envisioned it might or might not go. It's two different movies from two different directors who basically worked independent from one another.

                "One aspect of it, yes. But the Rebels were able to evacuate Yavin IV (I believe it was) before the Empire could send their forces, which began the cat and mouse game of the Empire's hunt which kicked off V on Hoth, so not a 1:1. VIII sort of splits "Hoth" between Acts 1 and 3, in some ways."
                Yes, but in still keeping with the "Borrowing" mode in terms of taking familiar elements from the OT. Now TLJ isn't nearly as much of a rip off as TFA was in terms of bare bones structure, but you can definitely see the comparisons.

                "A) It doesn't matter that no Star Wars film has done that before considering that many criticisms were aimed at how Star Wars films had done VII before..."
                So, you acknowledge the criticisms then?

                "Also, untrue, Rogue One leads into where IV jumps on."
                Rogue One doesn't count because it's an anthology film and not an "Episode."

                "B) How do you pick up where VI left off? Aside from the technical issues of that, "
                What technical issues?

                "doing so compromises the finality of VI's ending. At least pushing 30+ years ahead with the story allows their victory over the Empire to mean something, to have had effect."
                Making another Star Wars film in GENERAL compromises the finality since ROTJ is a pretty clear straight-up "ending" that didn't NEED another. But obviously, for the sake of money-talks, then here's another, so I digress.

                TFA ALREADY does that by wiping clean every victory the Rebels achieved by bringing back The Empire as the primary villain and undoing all the OT characters victories by making them step back into "losers" and "failures."

                There's no reason TFA couldn't have started out with a temporary "peace" before obviously revealing a new threat (cause this is Star "WARS" after all, so I get that). There's no reason the OT characters had to be dragged through the mud in a sense to be the CAUSE of the new conflict just like there's no reason the new conflict had to be a rehash of the Empire reborn essentially.

                This is where you have to take a step back and see that's where marketing and financial stability charts fall into play at the expense of storytelling because to see Stormtroopers and tie fighters and star destroyers and Rebellion vs. the Empire again = familiarity and safeness and toy/video games sales. They can now market a new Star Wars film with repackaged stormtrooper figures that blend nicely with the OT toys, just slightly modified and new X-Wing toys and another masked black-garbed Sith (who, BTW, bears a striking resemblance to Darth Revan).

                "Luke's injuries were deadly as well, he had been mauled by a "bear" and effectively frozen on Hoth. If Finn suffered more spinal trauma than what was survivable for his time before getting medical attention, he would have died. So we can't exactly say he got cut in half long ways and all the kings' men put humpty dumpty back together overnight... Luke was immediately back to flying snowspeeders and tossing thermal charges into AT-ATs..."
                They were deadly, but people have survived frostbites and bear attacks (Luke's scarring by the Wampaa honestly wasn't that bad considering if he wasn't so far from the Hoth base, he could have theoretically made it back because he had no broken bones - it was just way too cold and way too far of a distance for him to travel) whereas, although people survive spinal injuries as well, the damage is less repairable if you're not in a galaxy far, far away.

                And BTW - Luke wasn't back to full strength immediately as he wasn't aiding Han and Chewie right-after-the-fact to investigate the probe droid whereas Finn was already out-the-door practically right after the fact and again, with no indication that he had received any artificial implants like a cybernetic spine. But I digress.

                "He is emotional, wouldn't say he's about to cry, but he's clearly feeling something."
                https://youtu.be/j3XZiJyePE...
                I don't know, but it looks like there is a tear welling up in Hamill's eye to the right.

                "Those feelings, that look, it does not contradict his status to begin VIII or the reason he is there. And that internal conflict and turmoil within Luke does not go way when she hands him the saber. He simply tells her "no".""
                The tone, the feeling, and yes, the lighting indicates a pretty different setting if you were to watch both scenes back-to-back. And no, it doesn't necessarily say that it means Luke was immediately willing to accept the lightsaber and go back with Rey, but it's clearly a different emotional state. One is emotional and the other is a inquisitive look that ends briefly with a joke.

                And that's not me saying "oh, TFA was so much better" or anything. It's just me saying it's an inconsistent tonal shift.

                "As for the lighting of the scene, I'll look at a comparison of the two scenes once the blu ray is out, but they filmed on-location. Not sure about schedule to be able to say that they filmed the end of VII and beginning of VIII at the same time, or if they picked it up months later, etc., but working with natural elements of cinema I'm not gonna nitpick their ability to control nature..."
                Here's a comparison in terms of lighting:
                https://images.moviepilot.c...
                https://vignette.wikia.noco...

                As for working with natural elements, that's a ridiculous excuse in terms of maintaining continuity consistency considering that almost every film ever made has to battle with the weather changes in terms of maintaining continuity of scenes. Day one of shooting may be on a cloudy day while day two may be on a sunny day. That's where LIGHTING comes in which includes tents, bounce cards, spotlights, etc. comes in to play to maintain whatever consistency is needed. And then this is the digital age where color grading, rotoscoping and computer matte paintings can easily come into play to change environments to whatever the director wants. So make no mistake; if Rian Johnson WANTED to maintain consistency, there's no excuse that exists that says he couldn't. The simple answer is: he just didn't care.

            45. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                "Did an RT critic post a video essay of why The Last Jedi is such a bad movie on YouTube? If not, I really don't want to be bothered with that..."
                Huh? But you just went and lumped ALL YouTubers into a corner as being dismissive. So now you ARE accepting of them so long as they get certified by RT despite the fact that they're still YouTubers?

                "Actually, I can show where the structure of the bookending action sequences is more akin to VI than IV. Which I have done. VI's desert planet opening was far more bombastic and action packed than IV's, as is VII's. HUGE action sequences kick the film off. IV opened with far more deliberate pacing than that until we get to the 2nd Act on the Death star."

                Huh?
                VI starts off with a shuttle landing on Death Star II and the two droids waltzing into Jabba's palace whereas IV starts off with a bombastic giant star destroyer chasing and capturing the Tantive IV, boarding it, killing rebels off in a gunfight and capturing a princess while two droids make a daring escape to a desert planet.

                And how does VII start off with?

                A village is raided by the First Order where a pilot takes the McGuffin and installs it into his droid who escapes into the wilderness of a desert planet while the pilot is captured.

                That obviously bears far more resemblance to IV.

                "Similarly, the construction of the film's climax on Starkiller Base has more in common with VI than the Death Star Battle in IV as we see dynamic action scenes intercut between an aerial battle over the superweapon and a skirmish on the ground, including a lightsaber duel."
                In terms of cutting between other sequences, yes. In terms of the actual battle, no. The actual battle of Starkiller Base are a few dozen snub fighters tasked with taking out an enormous battle station down a trench run.... Which is more akin to IV.

                " Now, elements of those scenes do harken back to IV, like picking up a new character on a desert planet and introducing her into this vast world and lore, as well as the targeting of the Resistance/Rebel base as our "ticking clock" superweapon fires up."
                Exactly my point.

                "But in terms of the way that the story is actually delivered, the film's structure and energy, I find it to be more of the action film structure of VI than IV."
                You're reaching in terms of trying to come up with alternatives and none of what you're saying contradicts what I was saying in terms of the SKELETAL structure of 7 is of ANH.

                "The issue you've been pressing is that VIII was not made as a continuation of VII, though, and in terms of how the films intersect, where they meet, that is demonstrably untrue. Abrams and Johnson collaborated on that. Where the need for that specific collaboration ends is past the premise of VIII's opening. However, these are not the only cogs in this machine. There is a story group at Lucasfilm with the whole shebang in mind, there is oversight on these things. There clearly has been discussions of where they want these things to go"
                They might have a vague idea where to go in terms of the usual "in the end, Resistance wins, Empire 2.0 loses, Rey becomes a Jedi, etc."
                But in terms of SPECIFICS, no, they obviously don't. If they did, then Rian Johnson wouldn't have had as much free reign as he himself admits he had and he wouldn't be backtracking on certain elements either.

                PLUS - take into consideration how Episode 9's treatment was not complete before the finishing of Episode 8.

                "considering that one of the things VIII did was purge the villain slate to a great degree to make room for the Knights of Ren, who were revealed in VIII to have also been Luke's fallen students."
                Huh? Where was that revealed? The Knights of Ren are nowhere to be seen in VIII beyond what was already an assumption based on what VII introduced.

                "So, no, Abrams did not directly work with Johnson on writing the entirety of VIII. What is the need for that? Why is this some kind of "criticism"? I don't see how saying that Johnson was allowed to make his film is some negative connotation, man..."
                He didn't work with him AT ALL bar a few minor details. It's a criticism because it SHOWCASES the unplanned nature of this series. They're making a trilogy without a real picture of the skeletal structure to base it off of and that leads to "too many cooks in the kitchen" scenarios playing out wildly.

                I mean, I never subscribed to those numerous fan theories and most people other than the crazed fanboys did either, but it wasn't JUST them who were thrown off by the way Episode 8 handled its plot. I mean, you always throw in my face how just because a lot of the general public hated BvS and were thrown off by its structure that it's a fault against the film, so this should also apply HERE as well considering the way people reacted.

                "You should Google "Star Wars Ring Theory" and familiarize yourself with how the prequel trilogy "rhymed" with the original trilogy as well."
                Oh, my God. Did you actually bring that up?

                I've seen it before - I even read the lengthy piece on it and while some points were INTERESTING to ponder, it's obviously a fan REACHING too far to grasp at straws then something "brilliant" Lucas secretly concocted and intended for audiences to discover.

                "And I'll restate it, VII did not rip off anything, that's a misnomer."
                Okay, stop right there. I can accept the idea that you simply didn't mind the parallels 7 had to 4, but saying they just don't exist is a complete fallacy.

                "As is the idea that taking a step back to go forward is contradictory. You can revisit a theme and re-explore certain concepts with different characters without being a "rip-off"."
                True. Depends on the EXTENT at which you go and do that though. A little bit is one thing, a lot is another. And like I said, the bare bones of Episode 7's structure is ANH reincarnated.

                "The trick is to resolve the themes and execute the concepts in a different manner. I have pointed out where VII and VIII have gotten to the same points as the originals but then elected to take a different branch off of that path and do something different with it."
                But what they did do different with it either makes little sense or simply does not have the integrity of TIME, DEVELOPMENT and Good WRITING to make it work.

                I'll elaborate on that for your example:

                "For example, Ren killing his father to reaffirm his dedication to the dark side where Luke spared his to reaffirm his dedication to the light, Ren taking over the First Order as its Supreme Leader where Vader abandoned those notions and stayed subservient to the Emperor, etc., these "dark mirrors" of the original films."
                Doesn't work.

                It doesn't matter how much an inversion it is in regards to what it's trying to emulate. It doesn't work because there is no investment in what is going on.
                How can anyone even begin to care about Kylo or his relationship to Han when we've never even seen the two interact or get a real sense of what kind of bond they ever had to feel any sense of loss when it's broken?

                Their story is INTRODUCED to us entirely through exposition and the two never share a moment beyond the scene that is supposed to be the ENDGAME of their father-son bond. Meanwhile, if you are to compare Luke and Vader, you get a different result.

                While it's true that barring the prequels from the argument, we've never seen Vader as a good man, we are seeing the conflict unfold THROUGH Luke's eyes and HIS relationship to Vader. Luke's first impression of Vader is that he is his sworn enemy and we learn more and more about Vader's past and the meaning it has for Luke through Luke's experiences and that's why we end up caring when Luke finally succeeds in saving his father.

                We don't see ANY of that for Kylo or Han. And not from either's perspective either because neither Kylo nor Han are the protagonists. And with Han, we meet him 30 years AFTER the fact and therefore, we only feel a connection with him through what we've already seen - none of which has any real merit on these new films.

                "They are revisiting ideas and themes, but they have showed a different side to it in doing so, a different path off of that for the characters."
                And it doesn't work. They tried to have their cake and eat it, too, by treating Episode VII as a reboot and a sequel by taking audiences through a trip down memory lane, but it comes off as hollow because this is still supposed to be a "sequel."

                "I acknowledge the need to bring in new storytelling mechanics to the series, but I think that both VII and VIII have done that. I do not agree with the criticism that either one of them has not."
                My whole point is pretty much based around the notion that they tried to make these new Star Wars films act as the loosest sequels imaginable to the OT and in doing so get away with the rehashing elements to "refamiliarize" audiences with the saga while still trying to utilize it as a continuation.

                The problem is that it doesn't bridge.

                "Well, picking up where VI left off after 32 years requires you to drop all the fan-favorite characters unless you recast their younger selves."
                And why is that? What unwritten rule is there that the old cast can't reprise their roles in a more significant manner lest they be younger?

                And it shouldn't have much to do with their age in general considering how we live in the digital revolution where filmmakers aren't even stopped by an actor no longer living to still use their likeness in a film as a character regardless, much less being able to de-age elderly actors as well.

                But see, that's where the outside world slips in. Much like Superman Returns where Singer said that Superman had to "look, feel and act as if he stepped out of our collective consciousness as to who that character is" simply because he hadn't been onscreen for a while as opposed to crafting a story primarily as a genuinely good story without worrying about those aspects - as well as the other aspects which are "Rebels/Empire/stormtroopers/tie fighters/x-wings = marketability familiarity".

                "VII also allowed that victory to stand for over 30 years, though. That added weight to the film."
                No, it didn't. Because it was a hollow victory that took place in offscreenville. Movies are all about "Show, don't tell." We are TOLD that some of the time, there was a peace, but we are SHOWN that it didn't last and was destroyed as quickly as it was achieved. The visual nature leads to a much more lasting impact.

                "The First Order is not the Empire, the First Order is a charge led to reestablish the empire."
                Which is basically The EMPIRE.

                If a faction came around to re-establish Nazis bearing their crest and utilizing the same tactics, order of operations and end goal, they'd still be the Nazis.

                "Which is why the Resistance to this military force is a "Resistance", not a "Rebellion"."
                That's f#%%#ing ridiculous. If a threat as big as the Empire started to re-emerge and their forces were powerful enough to build something as big as Starkiller base, that's a threat WORTHY of the Republic to get involved.

                And even if you are to use the argument that "they didn't know," they were still AWARE of their threat for even a branch of their group to break off into the Resistance at all to combat it.

                "The idea that there would be a remnant of the Imperial forces which once existed and a desire to reestablish Imperial rule is sensible, and the desire to bring back these iconic pop culture staples (the visage of star destroyers and stormtroopers, etc.) is completely understandable. Everything in the Star Wars films have been based around the Empire as the enemy, including the prequels. We see the formation of it, the defeat of it, a resurgence, etc. The Empire in the time-frame of these films, the decades that the saga spans, is synonymous with Star Wars, itself."
                Which is EXACTLY my point in terms of MARKETABILITY interfering with storytelling. It's for the sake of preserving pop culture status and re-familiarizing audiences with a Star Wars that's altered, but still very much the one they knew that = safe financial stability as opposed to only thinking about the STORY.

                And you can't bring the prequels into this because, while it's true that the formation of the Empire was a big part of it (which we already expected long before they even came out), they still had an entire movie completely devoid of any of that imagery and an enemy that was visually very different than anything we'd seen before. Now I'm not saying that makes it good or that Lucas didn't have OTHER means to think of marketing such as the billion and one dresses Amidala wears so that girls had something to get out of the movie, but it still was a movie devoid of the main enemy faction and the main hero faction that we'd associate with Star Wars on a VISUAL level outside of the main characters (Anakin, Obi-Wan and Yoda) we were already familiar with.

                So again, there was no reason other than the fact that it was "in the charts" to do the Empire again.

                "The OT characters are not the cause of the new conflict. Luke didn't drive Ben to the dark side, he simply failed to stop it."
                No, he didn't. His actions cemented his fate and then his inadequate desire to do anything to rectify his mistakes SEALED the fate of the galaxy.

                "Saying the OT characters have been dragged through the mud is quite a few steps too far."
                No, it's not. All of them fell far from their status that they earned at the end of ROTJ where they're all divided, depressed, and in a situation that could be deemed far worse than anything they faced in the OT is completely indicative of dragging their status through the mud and undoing all the good they ever accomplished.

                "Finn wouldn't need an artificial spine, though, because the bacta would heal the damaged tissue. If Finn had lost his arm, he'd need a cybernetic arm, but being in one piece precludes the need for any cybernetic parts, I would say."
                He had his spine sliced in half. And while that didn't sever his body in two pieces, it's enough that it would require artificial implants.

                Spinal tissue and bone doesn't "heal" like a broken knee or arm. There's a reason that it's so dangerous in real-life to damage your spine lest you end up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. And I know we're talking about a galaxy far far away here where there are space wizards and hyperspace travel, but even someone like Darth Vader needed artificial lungs to breathe and is trapped in what is the equivalent of a life-support suit for the rest of his life, so Finn just "healing" his severed spinal cord in a few days is far fetched. Even for Star Wars.

                "The thing is that they keep Finn in a coma receiving treatment for sometime during these films, he doesn't just come back one scene later and be A-okay. So what's it matter if you personally think that Finn should have spent half the film clinging to life? These films have the bacta as an established healing device, they used it, it's that simple."
                Because by your own reckoning, the film NEEDED to pick up exactly where TFA left off without any real passage of time. Finn's injury and super fast recovery just being ONE of those things that simply is jarring because TLJ picks up without a hitch right after TFA.

                "I don't see a tear, I see a facial expression..."
                Are you serious? Or are you just feigning ignorance to suit your point? There's obviously a watery eye that Hamill is deliberately acting out for emotion's sake in that shot where he is on the verge of crying. Maybe not "runny-nose sob-sob", but watery eyes none the less.

                "An inconsistent tonal shift? No, that's the effect of VII ending on a cliffhanger and VIII picking it up. The energy is different, the setting and emotions and direction of the characters is not."
                No, it's not. A cliffhanger does not excuse an inconsistent tonal shift, which 8 was in comparison to 7. And your failure to acknowledge that is merely to suit your agenda to defend these movies and excuse them of any sort of problem at all.

                "The Sun was out on Ahch-To as the Millennium Falcon flies over.
                Lighting from VIII."
                All of which changes considering the time passage between Rey at the bottom of the mountain to the time she reaches the top.

                But TLJ picks up during the same scene where she hands the lightsaber to Luke, so there is still a lighting inconsistency.

                See, this is how I know you're just deliberately making excuses so you can say there's nothing wrong with the film. You can't even acknowledge a continuity error. lol It's kinda pathetic.

            46. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                "*Appeal, not just marketability."
                Oh, come on... You honestly think the PORGS sole purpose for existing wasn't for their marketable "cuteness" as opposed to their appeal to Star Wars?

                "The Empire, the narrative value of that iconic staple, that holds appeal to filmmakers as well as anyone else. In terms of storytelling, of being a director, you can have tremendous effect on an audience's emotional connection to a film through such mechanisms as making new again what was once old. That's why we get Blade Runner 2049, Indiana Jones 5, etc., all the franchises being dusted off. Because these filmmakers were inspired by those films that they grew up watching, and they feel the same way about as what they can deliver to an audience."
                Why does that HAVE to be The Empire though? Indiana Jones 5 didn't just give Indy another Nazi mission to go on just because they were the primary antagonists of Raiders and Crusade, did they? And as we know of Star Wars in general, they are more than JUST the Empire. If the primary appealing factor of conflict was "Rebel forces against an all powerful Empire", then what is the point of making a "SEQUEL" as opposed to just a friggin remake (Which ironically TFA was at least HALF of being)? It's a poor excuse.

                "I don't agree that there is no narrative value to the rise of a new enemy from the ashes of the First Order. The Dark Knight Rises brought in Bane from the ashes of the League of Shadows. Bringing these narrative points back can have a tremendous effect on the returning characters in the film and on the new characters whose life was shaped by the "legends" that they now cohabitate with. That is story value, it is powerful, and it's more than just the bottom line..."

                The problem is that the new Star Wars films were more interested in tearing DOWN the notion of perceived legends than just using that legendary status to springboard off of in order to bring about a new generation. I mean, what's wrong with just having the legends "stay" legends? I mean, I may not agree with the complaints, but it's kinda the same as how everyone complained when the DCEU "deconstructed" Superman for the reasoning that the number one complaint the character received beforehand was "he's too boring and not relatable." That suddenly SWITCHED to "He's an A-hole. Where's the traditional Superman?"

                They could have gone either way.

            47. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                "Anywho, if the legacy characters don't actually have an impact on the new characters' paths, there's no reason to even include them."

                What? What are you talking about?

                Are you talking about Star Wars "Legends"? I was not talking about the "Legends" non-canon material. I was referring to the OT characters as the "legends" (IE Luke, Han and Leia) as being the ones who got torn down/"deconstructed".

            48. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 25, 2018

                Um... What? Since when is being a "legend" automatically construed with being "set dressing?" Have you never heard of the term "Living Legend?" There is no reason that the old cast couldn't have still been legendary heroes while still acting as heroes and retaining their dignity while still offering more insight into who they are as the people behind the legend.

                And yes, their legends got torn down because they are, by the definition the film itself provides, FAILURES. They even deleted a scene where Rey said to Luke "That legend you hate so much, I believed in it." Luke Skywalker, Legendary Jedi Master who redeemed one of the most feared and evil individuals the galaxy has ever known, has literally abandoned everyone while he lives in isolation at a secret location to supposedly "die" of old age in a comfy hut while the rest of the galaxy is suffering for a mistake he refused to even try to undo.

            49. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 26, 2018

                "That's assuming that something took their dignity away, which is false."
                How is it false when the entire premise of these new movies are pretty much the fallout of the OT characters screwing up?

                "At any rate, I'm not having 5-6 conversations with you here..."
                And yet you still replied to every single one of these "branch off" comments regardless and probably will continue doing so despite saying you will not.
                Don't make statements you'll never adhere to.

            50. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 26, 2018

                "It's not. Ben Solo fell to the dark side. The legends are a part of that turn, but it's not their "screwups" that are at the center of the threat of these films."
                Actually, it is. The Legends "screwups" are what led to the central threat of the new films. The Empire is reborn, the "Sith" are up and running, and the child of two of the greatest heroes of the rebellion is a mass murdering psychopath.

                "It's Ben Solo's failure as a Jedi. They faced an enemy from within that they were all profoundly affected by."
                It's Luke's failure that led to Ben going over the edge. It's Luke's selfishness that led to the First Order rising to power without anything to really stand in opposition.

                "And I think they protected Luke as a character in demonstrating how he lost his student. They also made a whole film about how important he is as a hero, both in continuity and to the audience - Temiri Blagg being a proxy for every kid who grew up idolizing Luke Skywalker's contributions to cinema."
                That's not protecting him. That's showing us that he screwed up and didn't do anything in improving the mistakes of his old masters when the whole point of ROTJ is Luke demonstrating the aspects of what a true Jedi was "supposed" to be.

                "I'd rather see them being given juicy, integral roles like this and getting to flex their dramatic muscles than be simple set dressing. I consider the latter as being an undermining of the integrity of the characters, frankly."
                Again, why do they have to be failures to not equal set-dressing? How do those two go hand in hand?

                "Not a statement, it's a request to consolidate these arguments to one thread."
                Oh, please.

                "I think we're nearing the end of this discussion, and things are beginning to repeat."
                They've been repeating for a while now, dude. In any case, you started the debate and knew that you wouldn't be changing minds, so...

                "If we were discussing 5 different aspects of the film, okay. But it's all turned back towards the same thing, and we're running it into the ground ad nauseam."
                I agree. So why do you keep replying other than to try to get in the last word?

            51. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 27, 2018

                "How is the First Order the result of anyone's "screwups"? That's the result of something being hard to completely get rid of."
                That is inherently the result of a "screwup" because it shows that everything everyone fought for, bled for and died for amounted to nothing because the threat they tried to destroy just bit them in the ass and set everything back to square one again.

                "Also, no, these are not Sith."
                Hence the "quotations."

                "The Sith were destroyed and the force was balanced, per the prophecy. These are "dark Jedi"."
                Yet it was a "dark Jedi" that started the Sith order... If that stuff still exists anyways.

                "There can be no more Sith. The filmmakers have stated several times that neither Snoke nor Kylo Ren are Sith. Sith are the opposite of the Jedi. Where the Jedi adhere to the light, the Sith adhere to the dark. Kylo Ren is continuously having to resist the call to light, it is as much a part of him and his power as is the dark. And Snoke stoked that conflict within him"
                LOL What? Isn't that exactly what a "sith" is? Adhering to the Dark which is exactly what Snoke and Kylo are doing?

                "Ben Solo fell to the dark side before Luke went to his hut, that was the point of that scene."
                No, he didn't completely "fall." He was being manipulated, but he had yet to do anything. Had he already have murdered some of Luke's students and Luke went to investigate and found out Kylo was a murderer, THAT'S a different story. But per the movie's own explanation, Kylo had yet to actually do anything wrong.

                "And, no, Luke didn't go into exile out of selfishness, he did it to protect the galaxy from the failures of the Jedi Order. That's a funny, some might say idiotic, definition of "selfish"."
                Umm... That is the very definition of "selfishness" because he's valuing himself over everyone else by going into exile over a mistake he refused to even try to clean up. And some "protection" he offered.... Five planets blew up.

                "Yeah it is. Having Batman gun people down is not protecting him. Giving Luke justification to kill someone but having him NOT do it is to protect his character." The whole point is that he DIDN'T have justification to kill someone based on who he is as a character. That's not protecting him.

                "And of course there was consequence from this. But it's not on Luke. Ben Solo chose to attack him in that moment because he fell to the dark side."
                Umm... Wow. Ben woke up and saw his master standing over him with an activated weapon in the dead of night. Even if he wasn't destined to fall, I think anyone would be inclined to defend themselves.

                "Ben Solo then destroyed the entire Jedi Order, murdering its students that didn't side with him."
                And that's obviously on him, but it is a direct result of Luke going into his hut and attempting to kill him.

                "The film gave Luke justification to ignite a lightsaber. It protected his character by showing him NOT USE IT."
                That's NOT protecting his character. That's destroying his character by showing us his first inclination was to kill his nephew as opposed to thinking things through. Then afterward, showing us that he abandoned the galaxy to its fate and didn't even try to undo his mistake.

                "A "screwup" didn't turn Ben Solo, Ben and Snoke did that all on their own. Luke's failure was a tipping point, it was not the cause of any of that,"
                I never said it was the "cause" - it was the final nail in the coffin. Something that could have possibly been avoided if he thought things through in a different way.

                "even though he holds himself and the Jedi Order accountable for it."
                Yeah. By lying about it.

                "Luke demonstrated in VIII what a true Jedi is supposed to be. It's asinine to suggest anything but."
                Demonstrated was a true Jedi was by giving up. That's a "true Jedi" right there.

                "They aren't failures. Han and Leia lost their son, which drove them apart."
                That's a FAILURE in of itself. To be a parent and lose your child who would go on to be a mass murderer.

                "Leia is the leader of the Resistance, a major cog in the New Republic, Han is Han,"
                Han is back to smuggling after being a much revered general and founder of the New Republic. The whole point was that Han gave up his original lifestyle because he found something worth fighting for beyond his pursuit of profit. Character regression.

                "and Luke is protecting the galaxy from himself by being unnecessarily punitive."
                Please. He's not protecting anyone. He failed and he left to sulk. He justifies his actions with empty platitudes.

                "A singular failure does not make Luke, as a whole, a failure. I think the conclusion of his arc in the film demonstrates that."
                It's not a SINGULAR failure because it's not just the fall of Ben that he initiated. He didn't do ANYTHING about it after the fact either.

                "You can't fill a cup that's already full of shit, dude. The whole "court of law" angle you pulled in demonstrated that you'd rather be "right" than allow yourself to see the film for what it is."
                The fact that you harped on that for so long in the first place proved that you're everything you're accusing me of right now. You'd rather be "right" than allow yourself to see the film for "what it is."

                "Does not make your fandom or understanding of the films respectable."
                See, that's the thing. You're just as much a part of a "fandom" as I am and the only difference is that you're on a different side. Doesn't make your understanding of the films "respectable" though.

                "If I spoke to a fan with actual credibility as being a fan, I doubt they'd twist every single thing about the film into a form which best suits their ire towards it. So..."
                I could say the same about you on the opposite spectrum. Hence why you pull explanations out your butt to fill every nook and cranny that is dared to be discussed despite your ire of any criticisms. So...

                "Stop posting things which are blatantly untrue, and I'll stop trying to sort them out."
                You can continue to try to sort out things which YOU find to be "blatantly untrue" just because you're pissed at any "anti-TLJ" viewpoints. I'll continue to post my viewpoints so long as you keep challenging me on them.

                After all, I'm not the one binging a complaint about discussing things ad-nauseum.

            52. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 28, 2018

                "30+ years and going of the New Galactic Republic isn't "nothing", nor is the end of imperial reign and the destruction of the Sith. The First Order is not the Empire, it is the legacy of the Empire coming back to try and destroy the New Republic, it hasn't done it yet. This is why the Resistance is not a rebellion."
                The First Order IS the Empire. It is the remnants of the Imperials that are rising in the name of the Empire to destroy the Republic. THAT is the Empire. And even if it's not all made up of old admirals bitter at their loss, it would still be the Empire again because they're standing up for the same ideals and goals the Empire held.

                As for the "peace", it happened in off-screenville and it amounted to a threat that is arguably WORSE than what they buried - everything the Rebels fought for was literally wiped away in a single day. Five planets destroyed - TRILLIONS of lives lost. That amounts to NOTHING.

                "But to say that their fight accomplished nothing is silly as all hell considering that they liberated the galaxy... The new films take place decades later, that allows those films to have had meaning and for those achievements to have proper weight."
                No, it doesn't for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Think of this; We literally go from a film called "RETURN OF THE JEDI" to "THE FORCE AWAKENS". It was a practical clean slate they were starting from when the last movie was a triumphant winning of good against evil.

                "The only thing that happens when you make another film is that you lose the "happily ever after". The "happily ever after" is not the same thing as their victory over the empire. And having that kind of issue with the movie is indicative of a basic unwillingness to accept another series of films, which is understandable,"
                My whole point is in regards to how you can still make another film that is a sequel while undoing the status quo. I mean, sure, ROTJ was a fine ending to the series and it probably would be better if they left well enough alone. But money talks and bullshit walks, so I'm fine with accepting more stories. That's just a given with the nature of Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm. They weren't going to buy the company just to sit on their laurels regarding one of the most profitable film franchises ever made in history.

                But they were making a SEQUEL to a film that had a "happily ever after" ending. Instead of following through on that, they wanted it to be a soft reboot hence why they set everything back to square one OFFSCREEN as opposed to letting a new threat unfold ONSCREEN. And in doing so, they did wipe clean every good thing the OT characters accomplished by having their failings kickstart the new threat - a threat which was simply the Empire 2.0.

                "but that does not substantiate the irrational claims that you make or how you try and twist everything into this vision of bile-spewing filmmakers who don't care about the property."
                Yes it does because that's EXACTLY what the filmmakers were trying to do. They were making a film that was a soft reboot/sequel and they did that by setting everything back to square one so they could make a familiarized styled film that harkened back to ANH.

                "It's childish."
                It's no more childish than what you're doing in regards to representing the opposite spectrum.

            53. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 28, 2018

                "The Empire was an Empire, they ruled the galaxy. The "legends" overthrew the Empire and reinstated democracy in the galaxy. The First Order threatens what they have accomplished, it doesn't undo it (unless they win - which they probably won't, spoiler alert)."
                It DOES undo it because they literally destroyed the Republic in a single day per what TLJ tells us. "THE FIRST ORDER REIGNS."

                "The First Order did not destroy the New Republic, they destroyed the Senate and the capital of the New Republic. That was a huge loss, but the "legends" have provided the Resistance with the opportunity to defeat the First Order and quell that threat."
                They literally tell us that the New Republic was destroyed and it's to the point where they're now calling the Resistance "rebels" in TLJ.
                "Having decimated the peaceful Republic, Supreme Leader Snoke now deploys his merciless legions to seize military control of the galaxy."

                "VI cleaned the slate by defeating the enemy. And as we know from the "saga" provided by the prequels, Luke Skywalker had destroyed the Sith and brought balance to the force in VI. It is for this reason that the force "awakening" resulted in Rey. The force is balancing out the rise of a dark side user with the ascension of his light side counterpart."
                The Force wouldn't need to balance itself out if Luke had been successful. Instead, his Jedi Order collapsed before it even really began and it led to the rise of more Dark Side users who've arguably wracked up a higher body count than the Empire did in its full 20+ years of supremacy.

                "So they used the narrative and conceptual ground which VI affected, they didn't wipe it clean."
                That's exactly what they did or else all the OT characters wouldn't be in the dumps, killed off and their legacies stomped on by a threat that rose in part because of their screw ups.

                "They did follow through on that. Luke instituted a New Jedi Order, Han and Leia started a family, Leia became an integral aspect of the New Republic. A new enemy has arisen, and they have drawn some blood. But the "legends" have also been integral parts of taking that enemy down."
                All taking place in offscreenville and starting off a new movie AFTER the fact that the "legends" have screwed up and gone their separate ways. Luke instituted a new order which fell just as soon as it began, Han and Leia's "family" became a mass murdering creep, and the New Republic blew up by a third death star that was created from the ashes of the Empire.

                "And, again, Rey exists because Luke balanced the force. The Sith has been destroyed, allowing for the balance of the force which allows for this sort of situation that intrinsically links Kylo Ren and Rey."
                And Rey wouldn't NEED to exist if the balance was kept, so it's only through Luke's screw ups that we now have this situation at hand. So trade in one threat for another.

            54. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 30, 2018

                "They destroyed the Senate and the capital of the Republic, but just as the U.S.A is more than its government (thank God), the Republic is more than the Hosnian system."
                They destroyed more than that or else you'd THINK that the New Republic would scramble to amass it's military force ASAP to combat such a threat.

                "The galaxy is bowing down in fear, however, that is the magnitude of this threat. They are winning, aside from some huge losses, with no resistance other than the Resistance."
                That is utterly ridiculous. The First Order suffered a monumental defeat with the destruction of Death Star III and although they apparently "wiped out" The New Republic, word would spread of their deeds and the Resistance's ability to fight them and many others would be inspired to join the cause.

                We see that kind of effect in TESB in regards to how much "bigger" the Alliance seems to be after The Battle of Yavin. Obviously, EU canon like Rogue One expands upon that to show that they're even more well equipped than what we see, but we know that others still joined their cause after the First Death Star was destroyed.

                "There is a war for the fate of the galaxy, like how WWII was a war against Nazi rule. There's not a rebellion."
                Clearly, there is since "The First Order reigns" and the Resistance is the only thing standing in its way to total dominion.

                "The New Republic has been gutted, but destroying the Hosnian System doesn't institute the First Order as the law of the land, de facto. That particular war is on-going. The Empire had infrastructure within the galaxy. The First Order does not. They are an invading force warring for control of the galaxy. So long as there is life in the Resistance (which exists thanks to Luke Skywalker), the war for control of the galaxy will rage on until some faction (The Resistance) prevails."
                See, this just illustrates why it's so ridiculous that the Resistance was the only military force available to fight The First Order in the first place. Now of course, they didn't know how well-equipped they were, but a de-facto faction breaking off from the prime order in existence in the galaxy is just ridiculous. I mean, The Empire didn't send a "resistance" to fight off the Rebel Alliance. Their prime military force dealt with the Rebels.

                "Calling The Resistance "Rebels" was thematic. They exist in the spirit of the rebellion which toppled the Empire. But as there is currently no Empire to topple, they cannot be defined as a rebellion. The First Order would actually be the rebellion in this instance, based on their on-going overthrow of the galaxy's government."
                Please. They obviously called them "Rebels" to harken back to the OT considering how similar the conflict is. After Starkiller base blew up the de facto Republic, the Resistance is the ill-equipped "rebels" against the tyrannical Empire. The Empire 2.0 doesn't command the galaxy with regional governors or full on factions, but they are keeping the galaxy in line apparently the same way they did beforehand: FEAR.

                Although since Starkiller Base blew up, again, you'd think The Resistance.... I mean, "rebels" would have amassed more help.

                "Yeah, the government was destroyed. But if the invading force is defeated, the Republic will be reinstalled. There is a line of succession, including Senators from the participating planets. A governor from Naboo, for example, would ascend to the Senate (if their Senator was killed) and the Republic would hold emergency elections for executive positions or legislative vacancies. Same basic shit which we would do in a similar situation."
                You are gathering this information from the books and EU sources - sources which are declared "canon" but nowhere present in the actual movies. Besides a basic understanding of how government in Star Wars works, how is anyone who primarily watches the MOVIES supposed to understand this when they do nothing to actually TELL US this is happening?

                The opening crawl is all we have to go on and in that, it says The First Order decimated the Republic and now reigns.

                "If the First Order reestablishes the Empire, however, all of that infrastructure deteriorates. They will assign their own governors. There will be no planetary Senators."
                Again, where in the film is any of this stated?

                "Can't have an Empire without that. And they don't have that. Yet."
                Which is the whole conflict of 8 summed up. The Resistance is the ONLY thing apparently that stands in their way.

                "Wouldn't be much of a space epic without a high stakes round or 9..."
                You're right. It wouldn't. Too bad these high stakes were so stupidly designed.

                "They aren't in the dumps. Luke is the only one that really applies to, but that's not really "in the dumps", he's living out his days in peace as the Last Jedi. He's fulfilling a new purpose to end that order."
                Yes, they are in the dumps since everyone is lost, depressed and in distress. Luke especially since he's just living in isolation waiting for his "non-purposeful" death.
                Han went back to smuggling, breaking off his relationship with Leia in depression of his son's downfall and Leia is in the mindset of "burying herself" in work to cope with what they've lost.

                They're in "the dumps."

                "Not like he's drinking himself to death in some Cantina, he has his dignity."
                No, he's just drinking unpasteurized blue milk from fat alien cows. Yum...

                "The force is able to balance itself BECAUSE Luke was successful."
                What? This is ridiculous. Technically, the Force "balanced itself" out then even in Episode III with the birth of two new Force potentials in Luke and Leia whose raw power rivaled the Emperor and Vader's. Afterward, Luke "failed" in creating a new Jedi order and upset the "balance" again resulting in Kylo and Snoke taking supreme reign which opened the necessity for the Force to balance itself AGAIN in light of his screw ups...

                And.... this whole balance thing is ridiculous. Obviously, it was started in the prequels and it didn't make much sense there either.

                "That last point is very unlikely."
                Why? The destruction of Five FULL planets is the deaths of not billions, but trillions of lives. Probably even more since the Hosnian system are apparently core planets for the New Republic. If we are to assume that they're all populated to the extent of Coruscant for instance, that's possibly trillions of lives PER planet.

                The Empire likely never wracked up such a high kill count in all of its years in existence.

                "But where Luke failed to bring the Jedi Order back once, that failure is key in bringing it back again."
                Only because Rey has the power of plot convenience on her side. None of which is thanks in any part to Luke.

                "They even used Yoda's parting wisdom from VI to illustrate that point. "Pass on what you have learned.""
                Which Luke seldom did since barely any of Rey's time with Luke actually had him "train" her. And then whatever wisdom is later imparted on Rey will be the result of the ancient texts that Luke had no hand in writing.

                "Luke has lost his students, he knows what toll that takes, he is now capable of instilling those teachings in his Jedi Order. Luke has become one with the force, Rey has the Jedi texts, but I suspect that Luke's part is not over yet."
                She probably would have been fine with or without his help considering she already beat up Kylo Ren first time around without any training whatsoever.

                "Luke had a Jedi Order going for at least over a decade. He also recovered lost Jedi knowledge. And passing that along, reinstituting the Jedi, that ain't over yet. Luke joins a long line of Masters to have lost everything. Luke, however, has the opportunity now to be integral in recovering that."
                So basically, Rey will just succeed where Luke so massively failed. Whatever goodwill comes out of it will be the result of HER tenacity with very little thanks in part to what Luke accomplished.

            55. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 30, 2018

                "The only military force that the Republic has belongs to the systems which participate in the Republic. And the only systems participating in that prior to IX are the ones in the Resistance which we have seen. The call for help that went out at the end of VIII before Luke Skywalker saved them? That went unanswered. Presumably that will change as the legend of Luke Skywalker spreads."
                That's utterly ridiculous, which is part of my point. The ill equipped Resistance destroyed the Empire 2.0's massive superweapon and while that obviously wasn't as big of a blow as they dealt to the Republic, it was enough of one to garner extreme support for the Resistance, especially from those who do not want to live through Imperial rule yet again.

                "The Republic is kinda like NATO. It's not one nation, it's a cooperation of several."
                So was the Old Republic. And yet the clones in the prequels operated under the Republic banner and name.

                "The First Order, like the Empire, lost one weapon. It was inherently a 'win button' of a weapon, but to act like they wouldn't be the betting favorites even after losing Starkiller Base considering their fleet and full military might is silly as all hell."
                How? I mean, The First Order would still have the advantage, but since the ill equipped Resistance was able to hold their own despite the magnitude they were up against, don't tell me that the Resistance wouldn't have gained HUGE support in response to The First Order's attack. Now that the free people of the galaxy KNOW firsthand how dangerous the First Order is and having already lived through a similar threat not 30 years ago, many would be rearing to not allow another dictatorship assume control yet again. They'd be MIGHTY PISSED.

                "There is still no military in the galaxy which could match them even after the destruction of one of their bases. They still have Star Destroyers of all classes, fighters in higher number than anyone else, Dreadnauts, ground forces, etc."
                As we saw in TLJ with the greedy people on Canto Bite, funding heavily played a part in seeing that through. Aside from the obvious corporate parables the writer was trying to tell (ironic considering how Disney is making these movies and earning a shitton of money for them), you don't think that NOBODY would be funding the Resistance after the fact? Not one corporate business would feel like they don't want to see the Empire 2.0 rise to power and control the galaxy again?

                "And VIII picks up right after VII which means that just after the destruction of Starkiller Base the First Order put the Resistance back on their heels and devastated their numbers and resources to tbe point of near-nonexistance. So I doubt that looked much like a "we can beat 'em" to anybody..."
                As you tried to establish beforehand, there was a bit of a time gap. At least enough of one to spread the word of the Resistance's deeds. Maybe not enough to send help ASAP, but enough of one that wouldn't equate to "The First Order reigns" as the opening crawl tells us.

                I'm pretty sure that the LEGACY of the First Order's secret weapon blowing up soon after it destroyed the Republic would have extended further than a dozen or so Rebels seeing Luke Force-skype himself.

                "But they don't have total dominion as of yet. All of those systems that the Rebel Alliance liberated are still free. Can you deny that? No. The Resistance is fighting to keep it that way. Clearly not everything the legends did was pointless...and it's ridiculous and small-minded to suggest as much, frankly."
                You literally backed up my own point while trying to combat it all in one paragraph.

                This is why it's RIDICULOUS that "The First Order reigns"; why it's RIDICULOUS that nobody is helping The Resistance after-the-fact, and why it's RIDICULOUS that we are literally watching a conflict play out that should be over fairly quickly.

                But also, this why all that EU content you're using to back up your claims SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE ACTUAL MOVIE because as far as audiences know, the Republic is destroyed and the First Order reigns supreme and nobody is helping the Resistance, so they are the last bit of opposition to save the galaxy.

                As for what the Legends did.... Yeah, it's still undone, man. Trillions upon trillions of lives were lost and The First Order is up and running strongly, reigniting what the Empire once was.

                "The Resistance is an alliance of Republic systems. It's contingent upon who is participating in this war, as I stated, and the extent of their participation. The New Republic does not have a military force."
                First off, none of this is explained in the movie. You are, again, using EU material to back up your claims.

                Secondly, that still makes no sense because by definition, there should be no alternate faction since The Republic is still the one "in charge." So therefore, it's ridiculous that the Resistance is an alternative faction when by definition it's fighting as a Republic force.

                Thirdly, you'd think that (if we're trying to "learn" from the mistakes of the past) not having a functional military is a HUGE mistake for an order that managed to free tyrannical control of the galaxy through... well... a MILITARY FORCE. And isn't it bizarre that somehow the Resistance is less equipped than the Alliance was and only has the "budget" to fund X-Wings and bombers that are less functional than the much more nimble Y-Wings?

                And lastly, if we're bringing the EU into this, the Republic apparently DID have a military force in the Hosnian system that was far more functional and capable than the Resistance, but they (conveniently) got destroyed.

                "The Old(er) Republic didn't have a military force initially until the Clones, if you'll recall."
                The OLDER Republic didn't split off into a separate faction when the clones were in their control. The clones fought under the name and banner of the Galactic Republic. PLUS - The Republic back in the prequel era instead substituted a military force with the might of the Jedi Order which, prior to the Clone Wars, was apparently enough to keep galactic disputes in check.

                "Yeah? So fucking what?"
                Umm... Wow. Did you really just ask that question? I mean, after all, a lot of this conversation got started in regards to how much these new movies rip from the OT - and it's "So fucking what?"
                lol

                "It doesn't make them rebels. They are not "rebelling". It's a thematic statement."
                They are clearly "rebelling." Hell, the name the "Resistance" is very much in line with "rebelling". The First Order isn't in charge after all, so it should just be the Republic they're fighting against.

                "While battles may have some of the same beats, and the forces on either side of the conflict look the same,"
                "SOME"?

                "there is a different war occurring. The Resistance is in opposition to a coup, a frontal attack on the Republic. We've never seen the Republic be attacked from head on, only from the inside."
                What?! I mean, the Separatists was staged from the inside, but the Republic wasn't aware of that - even AFTER the war was over. Yet the Republic didn't have a "resistance" fighting them. No, it was the Galactic Republic VS. The CIS.
                The United States didn't send an underequipped "resistance" faction to fight Osama Bin Laden.

                "Lol, what? No, dude, you keep people from rebelling or resisting you through fear, alone. It takes infrastructure to control a galaxy and to profit from that control. There isn't a the same level of oppression in the galaxy unless the First Order wins this war and installs it. The fear that they are instilling right now simply says "don't get in our way" not "do this this way because we said so". They ain't there yet. That's what the Resistance is, ya know, RESISTING."
                This is embarrassing. Even for you. I literally said that you yourself quoted:

                "The Empire 2.0 doesn't command the galaxy with regional governors or full on factions, but they are keeping the galaxy in line apparently the same way they did beforehand: FEAR."

                Not in the way that they control people or an infrastructure. But with the same basic principle to keep people from opposing them.

                And as for the "resistance," that whole faction still makes no goddamn sense.

                "Literally all I've read is the "Visual Dictionary" material. And that's nothing but details, minutiae, and trivia."
                I read it too. But that's more than the average person would or cares to read. The movie has NONE of this information in of itself.

                Several books explained away prequel flaws too, but they "don't count" in regards to judging or defending those films.

                "I played Battlefront 2, the story of which is just made from minute details, minutiae, and trivia. The important things happen in the films, themselves."
                Exactly, which is why you can't defend these based on EU knowledge. None of the government or politics is explained or elaborated on in the actual movie.

                "I simply know enough about war and politics to infer the proper consequence from these events in these films and I listen to the dialogue. I haven't read much aside from textbooks and comics (non Star Wars for the most part, and the Star Wars comics I have read take place between IV and V) in 10 years..."
                You literally just admitted that you read the Visual Dictionary and played Battlefront 2. All of which are still EU continuity and exist outside the movies. Had any of those explanations appeared IN-THE-FILM, I may not even be having this conversation with you as there would have at least been some explanation as to how things work.

                Anyone with a basic knowledge of war and politics can infer different things, but that's still the audience adding their own interpretation - an interpretation which may not be consistent with the films.

                Lest we forget; this is Star Wars. Not Inception. We can interpret different things our own way, but it's mostly supposed to be set in stone what we do or do not understand about the PLOT.

            56. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                February 3, 2018

                "Oh, bullshit. They JUST blew up Starkiller Base. VIII picks up right after VII."
                Which is why Finn healing so fast is so utterly ridiculous BTW. ;)

                "The rest of the galaxy gets that message, immediately gets the message that the First Order's fleet is all over the Resistance and it ain't looking too good. Which makes any support at Crait a last stand for the entire galaxy."
                What? How would they "immediately" get the message that the First Order's "fleet" is "all over" the Resistance when A) nobody knew the First Order was even that powerful at all before Starkiller base revealed itself by destroying five planets and B) Starkiller base was destroyed pretty much as soon as its existence was revealed?

                If anything, this conflict should be completely baffling since it's barely been going on for more than maybe a week at best.

                "There are 3 years between V and IV and another year between VI and V. Lot longer to garner support and resources."
                But you are also in the sad position of already admitting that the Republic was larger than just those 5 planets in the Hosnian system, which means that the support and resources should already technically be there, just not in a position to offer immediate support.

                Again, the galaxy should be itching to avoid another Imperial oppression since the last one turned out to be such a wonderful experience for all.

                "The same clone army that didn't fall under the Republic's banner until the end of II? That clone army? The one that took over the galaxy in the name of the empire during III?

                That's the model you expect the New Republic to follow?"
                More accurately, I'd expect them to follow the same model that WON them the war in the first place - you know, the advantages of having a well-equipped military that managed to overthrow the Empire instead of an ill-equipped sub-faction Resistance.

                "Not instantaneously, no. The assault on the Resistance base and their subsequent pursuit is still effectively a part of the same overall engagement. It's all ongoing. Why would anyone rally to a planet that's under emergency evacuation?"
                Because at that point, that base is ALL that there is of a "Resistance" to begin with. If not to defend it, then to offer aid or a meet-up point eventually to help re-equip or simply join the cause in fighting against another Empire reform.

                "They are funding them. We see an X-Wing as having been sold by these war profiteers. Doesn't mean the higher profits aren't coming from the First Order or that everyone is on equal financial grounds here in their rearmament."
                Why wouldn't they be? You've established that the Empire 2.0 hasn't completely destroyed the Republic and others would definitely be hesitant to undergo another Imperial rule as the last one went over so well, so by that logic, you'd think that the Resistance would have almost unanimous support seeing as how this is not a matter of ethical ambiguity, but of a reformed enemy seeking to overthrow the galaxy again which nobody really wants.

                "No, *as I established beforehand."
                Haha... No you didn't.

                "But that's a matter of days. For starters, they are going to evacuate that base because their position has been compromised, so who the hell would rally to a base being evacuated (again)?"
                Rendezvous point perhaps? You know... Perhaps supply aids? I never said they should have gotten instantaneous reinforcements, but never to the point of complete silence from other parties who would be interested in preserving the same status quo that apparently brought them a relatively stable peace for over a decade.

                "Secondly, how the hell do you think that you can build up the Resistance after VII to the point of the Rebel Alliance in VI within a week or so?"
                Because the resources are ALREADY there? We're taking into account here that the Republic would be far more well-equipped than a Rebel Alliance was that were waging war against the status quo in charge. The First Order blowing up what is (according to EU mind you) the equivalent of the capitol of the Republic would send major shockwaves to everyone involved as a full scale war is once again charging up.

                And you don't think anyone would be interested in preserving and aiding what is apparently their (stupidly) ill-equipped, but ONLY effective military - and one which is responsible for DESTROYING the super-nova weapon that would have, if still in existence, wiped out the rest of the Republic in a matter of days?

                You don't think the US sends aid to troops when they call for it, even when they're compromised? You think no risky rescue missions have ever been attempted in history?

                "Literally not once sentence in there is remotely substantiated by logic, you just spewed a bunch of vaguely critical crap. Restate it in some form which makes something resembling a point or drop it."
                "Literally not 'once' sentence..."
                LOL.

                And you say I'm the one that has no substantial logic.
                Perhaps YOU should be the one restating your points in some form that makes sense beyond broad criticisms that have no substantiation in the first place.

                "What? We know how the Republic works, we saw it in I-III. I'm literally not citing anything that hasn't been established in the saga already."
                This is hilariously contradicting when you yourself balked at the (albeit ill-understood) notion that I'd "assume" the Republic wouldn't have a "resistance" instead of an army based on the fact that the Clone army in the prequels fought under the same banner.

                So we are to assume that the New Republic is working EXACTLY like how it worked in the prequels when its structure was fundamentally flawed? Are you joking?

                So no, we don't know how it works. Not without EU explanations - which you still are, apparently, unable to defend any of this nonsense without using.

                "What in the bluest of blue hells are you talking about? What "faction"? The Republic has no military."
                The Resistance.

                "When and why did it have a military force in the prequels? After the separatists seceded and under the manipulative cover of Palpatine's master plan."
                It may have been Palpatine's plan, but for an ATTACK on the Republic like this to require the creation of an army showcases the key fatal flaw of not having a military force to defend itself. Something the Rebels should be all too aware of at this point.

                "The Republic is not one nation, it is several contributing nations. Which means that any military force, aside from resembling the rise of the Empire, is a coalition of the member systems JUST AS NATO IS A COALITION OF ITS MEMBER SYSTEMS."
                Seeing as how the New Republic was formulated THROUGH THE USAGE OF MILITARY MIGHT, then by all means, they should know that not having any effective military branch is fatally flawed. I mean, that's what the Resistance's purpose is after all in terms of fighting the First Order. Only they're so ill equipped to do so that they're even worse off than the rebels were.

                "No, the military might of the Hosnian System got destroyed. Every system in the New Republic hosts the Senate. That rotates among them. The New Republic has no one "home"."
                See, how is anyone supposed to know that without reading the EU stuff? Seriously. As far as the movies tell us, the Republic is destroyed by the time 8 rolls around and the Resistance are pretty much the Rebel Alliance all over again.

                "That is the only thing we've discussed that I know from ancillary material, that being the Visual Dictionary of VII. Guess what, every Star Wars film has a visual dictionary. There is minutiae and backstory for all of them. Shocking, I know..."
                Shocking, I know, in that you literally can't defend ANY of this without resorting to EU knowledge. The Visual Dictionary being just that.

                "The Clone Army was also a precursor to the Empire, and the Republic had never had a military before them."
                If we're going to be using EU shit to explain things away, then yes, they HAVE.
                The Old Republic stuff explains this (even though it's "LEGENDS" now, but you yourself said they're so far back that the new continuity hasn't contradicted this, so...).

                It's absolutely illogical to not have a military when it's the might of military force that WON the Rebellion's war against the Empire.

                "The Jedi were peacekeepers, not warriors. Not soldiers. That is plainly stated in those films."
                Peacekeepers that still were armed with weapons, combat training and a mystical power that was beyond any technological advancement in existence. They may not have been called "soldiers" in that they were the Republic's army, but they pretty much acted as their main source of defense in case of any galactic conflicts.

                By reckoning, the New Republic thus has no equal "defensive" measures in comparison. The only thing that would compare would be the leftover military factions that they had when they were still the Rebel Alliance. But apparently, they're all gone otherwise the Resistance being such an ill-equipped sub-faction would be unnecessary.

                "Yeah, I asked you that question. Alluding to the old films is not some inherent flaw contrary to your thin blanket statements."
                LOL. You're calling them "thin blanket statements" when you're literally resorting to EU stuff to explain away narrative flaws within the movie and are critically unable to do so WITHOUT it. It's almost the equivalent of someone complaining about a book adaptation movie and the defendant just saying "go read the books" to explain the flaws.

                The whole point should be that the movie is supposed to stand on its own two feet without the need of novels to explain itself. That should be supplementary material, not required reading to understand things.

                "So until you can make a case for how/why the film introduced flaws into its narrative by alluding to the series' past...So. Fucking. What?"
                I have. You're only too stubborn to acknowledge that - kinda like you're too stubborn to admit that you're unable to defend the movie's logic without resorting to the visual dictionary to explain away flaws.

                "And you clearly are unaware of how I-III paralleled IV-VI as well. Alluding to the past/foreshadowing the future ain't exactly a new idea in Star Wars storytelling."
                There's a difference to alluding and full on aping. I've established this, much to your chagrin and you dropped it because you didn't want to go on "four-five" conversations at a time. Care to bring it up again?

                "Don't believe me? Research how ring theory influenced Lucas' shaping of the saga from I-VI."
                I've answered this as well - Not only have I seen the "Ring Theory" before, but it's ultimately quite meaningless because it's glorified fan-fiction explaining things away that likely was unintentional or accidental on Lucas's part.

                I like how you've managed to stereotype all YouTube analysis/review videos as short-sighted and not worth your time, yet you have, in the same breath, elevated the fan-theory Ring "Theory" (Keyword being THEORY) as this be-all-end-all explanation of the parallels in the movies. It's fascinating how contradictory that is.

                "Jeezus... You resist an attack. You rebel against an oppressor. These are separate concepts."
                Maybe you should try telling the filmmakers that since they clearly confuse the two
                "Resisting" is also not that contrary to "rebelling" in terms of fighting an oppressor. You can "Resist" oppression BY "Rebelling." Pretty basic to understand really. Not sure why you don't.

                "Considering how you have shown that you don't even know what's an allusion to who, don't ask me that question."
                Considering that I do know what's an "allusion" and what's a straight up knock off, I'll ask again:

                SOME?

                "No, dude, the attack on the Republic from I-III came from Palpatine, who was made Supreme Chancellor during I. The Clones were a part of that attack. We only saw the beginning and the end of the conflict between the Republic and the Separatists, the start and stop of the Clone Wars. That was not the story of I-III. The story was the maneuvering of Palpatine to implement the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire."
                None of that negates my point in regards to how the Republic-turned-Empire remained unaware of that fact and thus the attack was viewed as an outsider-attack.

                And regardless of the differences, once that WAS made apparent how an individual seized control of the Galactic Republic because they gave up so much of their freedom to him and it took the military might of an Alliance of Rebels to bring about the Empire's downfall, then to have an army would only be logical, but not fall under just ONE individual's leadership to still DEFEND the Republic.

                "That's idiotic because you are missing the elementary point of war, to take control of something. The First Order is warring to control the galaxy, not maintain their control of it. Fear was only part of the Empire's control. As of now, that's all the First Order has."
                And apparently, it's so successful that nobody is willing to defend the Republic at all sans a pitifully ill equipped Resistance faction branch off which, ironically, still had the military force capable to destroy the First Order's biggest military weapon.

                "But if they destroy the Resistance, that fear will be replaced with subservitude."
                Which is ridiculous, considering that:
                "All of the systems in the New Republic, as of now, have their own leadership. They have their own allocations of their resources."

                Thus, there should be much more "resistance" going on that stands between them and total opposition of the galaxy.

                "The First Order only controls that when they install the infrastructure which actually, ya know, CONTROLS it."
                And again, how the hell is anyone supposed to know this if they don't read EU material?

                As far as the movie tells us, The First Order "reigns" and the Republic is pretty much completely destroyed.

                "Don't tell me I'm embarrassing when you counter with this nonsensical idiocy..."
                HA!
                Considering that all the nonsensical idiocy of this entire conversation stems from your incapability to defend these movies without EU material, then yeah, you really are "embarrassing" yourself.

                ""They control with fear", no right now they DETER with fear. There is a difference."
                Apparently, not really considering what little we know about these events without your precious Dictionary.

                "Learn it or stop speaking."
                Do you have a gag order to go along with that? Unless you do, you're going to be incredibly disappointed. ;)

                "Have you seen the level of detail in the Visual Dictionaries? Making that into a movie is one tedious f'ing movie..."
                This is hilariously contradicting considering you'll go on to say I am "nitpicking minutiae" and going on ad-nauseum trying to explain away the logical fallacies using EU material.

                Try doing it without it. I bet you can't.

                "The films have given us what we need to understand the story. We don't have missing chunks along those lines. If we want to look at the story behind the story behind the story, well that's the lore that goes into crafting these amazing worlds and stories that these films drop us into. Not knowing why Luke is still wearing his Jedi robes at the end of VII and the beginning of VIII isn't all that important here."
                You're continually confusing large leaps in logic with continuity. It's not important to know what Luke's robes are, but it IS important to understand how easily a Republic can collapse or why they'd need a "resistance" to battle a re-emerging Empire instead of a primary military force which pretty much every powerful nation in the modern world has.

                "Every bit of it is minutiae. It's not important in understanding the films, their stories, or these characters. And when you craft deep enough lore that it would take a 10 hour film to fit all of the detail in it, that ain't exactly a problem."
                Yes it is when you're no longer making a story as simplistic as the OT was designed to be. It's one of the many reasons the prequels ran into a rut because they arguably explained "too much" and now these movies explain "too little" because they are trying too hard to mirror the OT's simplicity when they simply can't on the principle that these are SEQUELS to the OT and not REMAKES (try as they might to be so).

                "Name something from the Visual Dictionary or Battlefront 2 which is KEY in either understanding or enjoying the stories of these films."
                I already did, which you are scantly brushing off utilizing EU explanations, hilariously.

                "Oh, bullshit. You're nitpicking minutiae. Like how we don't have a scene of the Joker leaving Bruce's Penthouse in TDK... We all know he ain't sticking around for cocktails, and I don't need to see the guy wipe his ass to know he had to deuce one out at some point."
                How is it BS when it's crucial information to understanding what the hell is going on? For instance, how is anyone supposed to understand that the Hosnian system is NOT Coruscant unless they read EU material? For real. Plenty of people thought that Coruscant blew up in TFA, but the film gives no substantial information that it wasn't destroyed beyond naming the system - and who the hell knows what system Coruscant even existed in beyond EU enthusiasts?

                Or the politics in regards to how the New Republic worked - all this stuff you're conjuring up from the EU to defend these new movies. How is anyone supposed to decipher all that?

                "Minutiae is not a story, it is the details behind designs and concepts. Trivia. This shit is fun for the fans, but it's not essential reading for filmgoers. Stop acting like these details you're bellyaching over are the story instead of the details that they are."
                When the designs and concepts are crucial to understanding the WORLDBUILDING of the story you're branching off of, then yeah, these details are important to know. For what it's worth, the prequels, boring as they were, at least gave the audience an understanding of the politics surrounding the Republic and how things worked.

                It's important because the politics are now much more complicated than the simplicity the OT provided. An evil all-controlling Galactic Empire vs. a Rebel Alliance trying to restore order to the galaxy. There's not much more one needs to understand beyond Empire = Corrupt - Rebels = Good guys. But since VII and VIII are branching off a collection of films that re-established ORDER to the galaxy and the now resurrected Empire is trying to upset that order, then the politics surrounding the story are important to understand. INSTEAD, the films try to be simplistic like the OT in not explaining anything to the audience and just expecting them to go read the books to find out.

                This is why you can't excuse any of these holes without the EU. This is why your entire argument is inherently flawed at the very core.

            57. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                February 3, 2018

                "That's false, actually. Bacta accelerates the healing process. A couple days, a week, I can buy that for Finn healing."
                The equivalent of a spinal cord severance? Even in a galactic space opera where a guy needs to live in a life support suit for artificial lungs, this is pushing it.

                "Can't buy that for the intensification of an entire friggin' fleet. Can you?"
                Well... In a land of space wizards.... ;P

                "

                "What? How would they "immediately" get the message that the First Order's "fleet" is "all over" the Resistance when A) nobody knew the First Order was even that powerful at all before Starkiller base revealed itself by destroying five planets and B) Starkiller base was destroyed pretty much as soon as its existence was revealed?"

                "We're assuming the galaxy is monitoring this conflict. IF they even know that Starkiller base was destroyed, they'd logically know that the First Order's counterattack is on in full force."
                Why wouldn't they be monitoring the conflict when the Empire is pretty much returning and the galaxy is in turmoil again? Five planets blew up and a space station within a planet also blew up. This is big stuff.

                "Either way, the Resistance has no time to recruit after that battle. And even if they did (which they obviously don't), their cause would appear to be hopeless. Which is why no one was answering their distress call."
                Why would it be hopeless when they just blew up the Empire's biggest weapon with a pitiful show of force? And like I said, there's no need to recruit so much as protect what little you have. Like a Rendezvous point to meet up at or whatnot.

                Again, this is with the assumption that the Republic isn't all dead, you see. You know... EU stuff.

                "And no, this does not mean that it was too soon for Finn to heal. That's a matter of days with bacta. Rearmament is SLIGHTLY more ambitious."
                Really? Because Rearming your forces can happen in a matter of days when we're talking a galaxy that has lightspeed travel.

                And yes, it still is too soon for Finn to heal. ;)

                "Your nitpicking seems desperate when you pull this kind of crap."
                Ha. Spoken by the person who needs to resort to out-of-movie explanations to excuse this crappy storytelling.

                "The "model" that won them the war against the Empire was not a Clone Army, that's what created the Empire..."
                Where did I say they needed specifically a "clone army?" I said they needed an military force. LOL. And you accuse ME of nitpicking details?

                "The Galactic Republic is founded upon its democratic ideals, not the totalitarianism of empowering a military. That's an obviously slippery slope. Imagine if NATO just supplanted our own national military. That's stupid."
                You mean when it was an empowered military that won them the galactic civil war in the first place? Yeah, what a ridiculous notion to have an army. I suppose they were supposed to win the battle against the Empire with kindness and candy.

                "Within a few days? Lol... And that's all discounting the fact that the galaxy is scared of the First Order. They'd rather accept imperial rule than a certain death."
                This is all under the assumption that the Republic is not completely dead. So yes. Some kind of aid should be expected of the apparent last hope in regards to a military defense against the First Order. And one which is responsible for destroying their biggest weapon.

                "That death looks a lot less certain with the spread of Luke's heroism on Crait, though."
                It's so ridiculous to think that Luke's "legend" would spread any faster or further than the Death Star III being destroyed. Especially when barely anyone actually SAW what happened in regards to Luke's heroism in comparison to a whole planet blowing up.

                "Why wouldn't they be? You've established that the Empire 2.0 hasn't completely destroyed the Republic and others would definitely be hesitant to undergo another Imperial rule as the last one went over so well, so by that logic, you'd think that the Resistance would have almost unanimous support seeing as how this is not a matter of ethical ambiguity, but of a reformed enemy seeking to overthrow the galaxy again which nobody really wants."

                "No one wants it, no, but that does not mean that they have the balls to oppose it."
                Why? Why wouldn't the same people who supported the Rebellion the first time around support the Resistance that much more?

                "The systems who are opposing the First Order are the ones supporting and funding the Resistance."
                But they were already funding them BEFORE the First Order was legitimized as a true threat. That only happened after Starkiller Base made its presence known. So therefore, you'd think MORE systems would rally to the cause after the Resistance at the very least destroyed what could have caused so much more death and destruction.

                "And just because they look like crap next to the First Order does not mean they actually ARE crap."
                You're right - because the bare minimum they had still managed to blow up Death Star III. So with that in mind, you'd think that the individuals would want them to stick around. But yes, the Resistance ARE ill-equipped to deal with The First Order in its entirety. And that's RIDICULOUS considering how much more effective they'd be if they even had HALF of the Rebel Alliance's initial fleet.

                "And you can't assume that the galaxy is so effluent as to be able to match the First Order. All of what you are substantiating your points with lacks substantiation itself."
                What? Why? The galaxy has already "resisted" the might of the Empire, and as you established, the First Order isn't even in charge. So why wouldn't they be able to match them? Maybe not in a day or a week, but at least have HELP in terms of aiding the allies who are the only ones seemingly fighting against them.

                "The resupply they'd get would be from those who were already supporting the Resistance. "
                Why? Whose to say they wouldn't get any from anyone else considering what the Resistance already accomplished on their pitiful stock already?

                "How many different walls are you going to find to run head first into, lol?"
                You tell me considering you're the one whose head must have suffered several concussions over running into walls. ;)

                "Because the resources are ALREADY there? We're taking into account here that the Republic would be far more well-equipped than a Rebel Alliance was that were waging war against the status quo in charge. The First Order blowing up what is (according to EU mind you) the equivalent of the capitol of the Republic would send major shockwaves to everyone involved as a full scale war is once again charging up.

                And you don't think anyone would be interested in preserving and aiding what is apparently their (stupidly) ill-equipped, but ONLY effective military - and one which is responsible for DESTROYING the super-nova weapon that would have, if still in existence, wiped out the rest of the Republic in a matter of days?"

                "You're making stupid assumptions that you can't make, namely that the Resistance is ill-equipped. The First Order is better equipped, stating that the Resistance is ill-equipped in comparison is a relative statement,"
                How is it a stupid assumption when it's practically written in just what kind of weaponry they're carrying? The Alliance had far more ships, weapons and equipment that they used against the Empire who were in a better position to be more well-equipped since they were the ones in charge?

                "but the fact is that the First Order is decked out with planet killers and high ordinance weaponry. The Republic has no need for weapons which destroy whole star systems, that'd be shady as hell."
                I'm not talking about Death Stars... Obviously they wouldn't have that. But a respectable fleet that would, maybe not match, but be considerate in comparison to The First Order's. Especially since the Republic, BEFORE Starkiller base, were the ones with the upper hand.

                "They have an entire fleet (which gets destroyed in VIII) of conventional vehicles and weaponry. They don't have the destructive firepower of the First Order, but they SHOULD NOT."
                The fact that it gets destroyed quite easily is in of itself a major issue considering the First Order's fleet eclipsed theirs in numbers and resources.

                "Again, the Republic should not have an army under one banner. That would be self-defeating."
                How? The Alliance did and that was to overthrow the despots in charge.

                "Don't be a dumbass."
                The name-calling begins. lol That's the ultimate self-defeating status of a losing debater.

                "They have a military, it is the coalition of the individual militaries of participating systems. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?"
                Because A) it's never explained the actual movie and you're using EU stuff the excuse this narrative flaw and B) The Resistance is a pathetic "military" considering their resources are so far below the First Order's, and this is BEFORE Starkiller Base made its presence known.

                "The New Republic has the military force of its participating systems."
                Then why is it so small?

                "There should not be a single military force under the Republic, that would completely compromise their ideals as a Galactic Republic."
                Even when it was a military force that united under one banner that won them the Galactic Civil War?

                "There is not one instance where I've done that,"
                What? That's exactly what you're doing in regards to explaining ANYTHING related to the Resistance, the New Republic and the First Order. NONE of these explanations exist in the movie canon. And you ADMITTED to it by saying you used the Visual Dictionary, which is EU material. Stop lying.

                "nor of you actually citing a narrative flaw. Anything you need to understandthe films is IN the films. If you don't have a specific answer to a question, you don't need it to understand or appreciate the film."
                Since there are so many holes in the film's logic in regards to the Republic, its military, the Resistance, their purpose, the First Order, and whether the Republic is even still around when the opening crawl of 8 says they're gone, then yes, apparently there is a serious narrative flaw which you are explaining away using EU material.

                "Again coming from the assumption that what they have is weak. It's inferior to planet killers that no Republic should have anyway. That does not mean that their forces, before being decimated, were crap."
                They weren't crap in that they were still capable of blowing up the planet killer, but they're "crap" in that they're a seriously under-equipped military force incapable of defending the status quo. ESPECIALLY when their forces were ten times bigger and more well equipped when they were still the Rebel Alliance.

                "Lol, what's hilarious is that you think overvaluing minutiae requires any explanation in the first place."
                Wow. lol. You're ridiculous. You equate the structure of the status quo that we see nothing of as minutiae when the FIGHT for preserving it is part of the main plot of these films that the audience knows nothing about.

                "If you can't understand the painfully simplistic reasons that the Republic wouldn't have its own army, there's nothing I can teach you. You're hopeless. Because you're equating the US to NATO."
                First of all, nobody even knows WHAT the Republic is equated to since we have no basis to go off of in regards to how they operate within the movie. And don't bring up the prequels because this is a "NEW" Republic and they clearly wouldn't and aren't just going back to the way things were since that's partially why they fell apart in the first place.

                "And, no, nothing I've used to actually defend the film has been from anything other than the films. I've stated this time and time again."
                LOL. You can "state" this "time and time again," but that would only contradict what you've already said in the past, which would equate it to lying.

                "Not that you'd notice, given how far up your own ass you've successfully shoved your head :p"
                That's funny, considering that you'd have to have your own head far up your ass to go to such extreme lengths to explain away such obvious flaws and then lie about using material NOT included in the films to do so. ;)

                "Nothing that you don't know is crucial to understanding the films. We pick up with where the story is as time has passed. We got dropped right into the OT as well, it's a valid storytelling mechanism."
                Because the OT had simplistic material for anyone to understand.
                PLUS the OT stood on their own two feet as individual storylines that weren't in NEED of prequels to explain themselves.

                The ST by the very notion that they are SEQUELS to films we've seen before can't logically do the same thing because they're in the same continuity and universe as the OT, so we already have a preconceived notion of what we're going to see and who. Thus it's not valid to go and do the same thing because the conflict it reliant on characters we already know.

                "You're wanting the details of the sociopolitical system which has led the galaxy to its current state. The films give you the place where the galaxy has been led to, and from there it launches the story. It gives you what you need to understand what happens (plot) and why it happens (story)."
                No. Anyone would just want to understand what the hell is happening AT ALL and why it's happening instead of the film expecting you to read some EU stuff in order to get it all. Outside the EU, nobody thinks the Republic is still functioning by the time 8 rolls around because they straight up tell you that it's gone and that the Resistance is the last source of hope left of defending the galaxy from a new Empire.

                "The happenings between stories is not a huge deal, man. The events which took us from IV to V were in several novels, the Expanded Universe material, the events between II and III were a cartoon, etc. None of it was important to the cinematic stories being told. All of it is supplemental ,and it's there because people just can't get enough Star Wars."
                In terms of THIS where it's the central conflict, then yes, it is a huge deal. It wasn't a huge deal in IV-to-V because we already KNEW what was going on. It doesn't matter the in-betweens because we already get whose in charge and whose in trouble.

                "Showing us how the Galactic Republic works informs not just the prequels but every film afterwards. Including VII-IX. That is what they restored post-VI, after all."
                How do we know that without the EU stuff? So we're supposed to assume that the new Galactic Republic is structured the same way even though that structure was shown to be inherently corrupt? I guess in the spirit of repeating things and everyone being dragged in the mud to do stupid things so they can mirror their OT counterparts, it'd be logical to assume.

                "First Order = Nazis. Resistance = Allies.

                It ain't that complicated..."
                LOL. That's ridiculous considering that, as we know of WWII, their was WAY more than just one faction fighting against the Nazis than just one group. The Resistance is, by definition, one group.

                "The fact is that these films ARE well-received outside of the little bubble of possessive "fans" who have taken far more ownership over the property than they deserve"
                You think it's a "little bubble", yet it's clear based on the film's performance and the reaction it got BEYOND just RT audience scores that it was more than that. You're clearly just angry that not everyone sees eye to eye with you and your deeming of the film as some misunderstood masterpiece that's on par with Empire.

                "and assert far more understanding of the films than they (you) actually have."
                LOL. And that's hilarious coming from you when you by definition ARE a "possessive" fan who is merely speaking on the opposite side of the spectrum. You have just as much (or little) credibility as I have (in this case, a lot less) in regards to what you are in the wider spectrum of the film's audience.

                "And while you can sit there howling at the moon about how you need to know if Snoke wears a thong or a g-string, that doesn't make it actually fucking important."
                LOL! I love how you go so far as to exaggerate things to express how pissed off you are that I dared to criticize something you are so "possessive" over. You equate what IS "minute" details to larger story points just so you can point and yell "that's not how it works! You don't get it!"

                "The films tell you what you need to know, they give you what is important in order to understand them."
                No, they don't. We wouldn't be having this conversation if they did and you wouldn't be needing to excuse your every explanation with EU content and then lying about it if you actually believed that.

                "No one can help you people if your major takeaway from VII was shit like "Snoke is Darth Plagueis!" And "Luke left a map behind!!! HE'S GONNA KICK DARTH PLAGEUIS IN THE DICK!!!""
                As I explained to you before, I never cared one iota about any of the fan theories and always ignored them due to their outlandishness. My major takeaway was more "This film sucks" than "I wanted Snoke to be Plagueis!"

                "Go with the films, don't force them."
                No. I'm not going to just "go with" something I find inherently flawed and ridiculous no matter how much a self-possessive fan tries to indoctrinate me.

                And that IS what you're doing after all. You were actively looking for someone to debate these films with so you could flaunt your agenda in proclaiming how great they were and how angry you are at those that hate them.

                Well, as you said to the other guy, you were looking for your "Huckleberry." I guess you found him.... Just not in the pleasant way you wanted. lol ;P

            58. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                February 4, 2018

                "You don't even know what the injury was."
                Neither do you apparently.

                "If he had such a traumatic spinal injury, they did nothing in VII to indicate that at the end of the film."
                Apparently it was enough to knock him completely unconscious. We've seen the type of injuries lightsabers can cause and even ones where users lose their limbs, they're mostly okay and conscious because the wounds are cauterized and there's no excessive bleeding.

                "They healed his injuries with the bacta suit, that is established and there is precedence for it. It wasn't instantaneous, he was out for a little while."
                A little while - and then being perfectly okay afterward. It's just a jarring transition. They could have at least established that his spine was fixed with artificial implants, which, since TLJ had so many of them, would have led to some easy jokes to make, but whatever.

                "That small passage of time wouldn't be enough to expect the Resistance to double in size between films that occur concurrently."
                Again, not in terms of where they are at that particular instant, but in terms of support from other communities. Especially considering that, if we go by EU standards, Leia's paranoia about the Empire being untrustworthy leading to her independently creating the Resistance was proven RIGHT and the Republic leaders now look foolish for not taking it more seriously.

                "In a land of space wizards it is all the more important to set narrative boundaries and limitations and keep these productions grounded where possible. Otherwise you make things too easy. And too easy = boring cinema."
                Thank you. It's why Finn's healing process seems like such a lazy copout. ;) But it's not a huge deal. Finn's recovery was the least of the problems the film had.

                "Where Lucas went wrong was in bleaching all of the craft out of his prequel trilogies. Minimal usage of sets and props and puppetry. Lucas opted to make it easy on himself as a filmmaker. I don't find that rewarding."
                Not to split hairs, but there is a fundamental misconception in terms of the amount of CG the prequels had in comparison to sets, models, puppets, etc. Yes, there was a lot as can be clearly seen, but there was way more adherence to old school VFX than most people give it credit for.
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...

                It was just funny to me how TFA's marketing campaign was so heavily based around how much "real" practical fx they had when they ultimately ended up having just as much, if not more CG than the actual prequels did, but the advancement of digital technology to be more up-to-par covered up a lot of that as did the marketing itself. I mean, in general, the most practical creatures and FX we see appear on Jakku and then the rest is pretty much CG - including key characters like Maz and Snoke.

                Lucas obviously went "too far in a few places" with his love of digital innovation and the prequels' fx end up dating themselves quite badly as a result. But to be fair, that's kinda what he always did - back in the day, he just had to work with different tools to do it. And try as we might to bash him all over the head for it, his innovation of digital technology has been a godsend for modern filmmakers who now use Digital cameras far more than Film alongside digital video and sound editing.

                But I digress.

                "And I don't accept plot holes just because the main characters wear an S and a batsymbol on their chests."
                Ha.. Quite ironic considering you'll accept plotholes if the brand name is Star Wars apparently. And I like how you think you're being witty and clever by bringing up the DCEU without actually stating any specifics and just throwing out random generalizations.

                I mean, we've been over it already, but if you want, we can go again on debating that.

                "In the days between the Starkiller Base detonation and the opening of VIII, a sizable difference in fleet size and military capability makes no sense."
                No it doesn't. You act like it takes weeks/months on end to send in reinforcements or offer aid to those who need it, but in real life during wartime, such time gaps would be the key to LOSING wars. And again, I'm not saying that by some miracle the Resistance should suddenly have 500,000 fleets of ships at their aid then and there, but actual HELP and maybe a destination to meet up with other allies now devoted to their cause would make sense in light of their (granted, short-lived) victory over the First Order now that the threat they pose has been made apparent.

                "Also, no one ever said that the Resistance is poorly equipped or doesn't have galactic support, you have invented that narrative. The coalition of New Republic systems opposing the First Order are being beaten by the First Order. No help from anywhere else was inbound in VIII because they appeared to be the clear losing side as the fleet was being decimated without mercy. That's why anyone who could help was deterred from doing so. It ain't that hard to grasp, man..."
                What? Not only are you pulling excuses out of your ass to justify the movie's gaps in logic, but your excuses are inconsistent with the actual continuity in general. The Resistance is poorly equipped because it is an independent subfaction that was created by General Leia Organa because she didn't trust the Empire would keep to their word of surrendering after the peace treaty was signed. The Resistance does not actually have "galactic support" as you call it and was merely tolerated by a few people in the Republic senate, many of whom swept it under the rug, but most thought of it as a joke before the First Order proved their resilience and it was simply too late to do anything.

                "Not arguing that there's interest in the conflict."
                Good. Cause it damn well should be. After all, this is another full-scale war the galaxy has on their hands.

                "We're talking about how news is spread throughout the galaxy. Haven't exactly seen too many war correspondents in Star Wars..."
                No, but we know they have the technology for it and long-reaching communication.

                "I would imagine that news is delivered via communications from either side of the conflict. Without the Hosnian System, with the destruction of the Galactic Senate, the galaxy will be in disarray. The assault on Starkiller Base was a last second hailmary heave, an act of desperate survival on the part of the Resistance. It was far from a killing blow or some momentum builder, they were still exposed. They were still on their heels. Just as the Empire regrouped and chased the Rebels from Yavin IV after the destruction of the Death Star, so too does the First Order. Difference here is that hyperspace tracking does not allow an escape."
                First of all, nobody knows about the current conflict because they're in deep space away from any known system of planets beyond that abandoned base. Secondly, they WOULD know about the assault on Starkiller base in terms of how the Resistance, the independently organized subfaction of the Republic, managed to keep them at bay, if only temporarily and make it necessary for the Republic to build a legitimate defense at this point as well as other groups enlisted in the Republic to then throw their support behind what is the only hope to actually fight the First Order. It would be a momentum builder. It may not result in an instantaneous army, but it would garner a huge response that would have led to a better circumstantial situation than they were in.

                That's why it's so ridiculous that somehow Luke's legend would spread more hope and inspiration based on a few witness accounts, but the actual physical act of blowing up the giant planet killer wouldn't.

                "So now we see at the end of VIII a Resistance small enough to fit on the Falcon, but with momentum against the First Order thanks to the First Order's fleet not being much better off than the Resistance and of course the legend of Luke Skywalker becoming a source of hope for the galaxy, presumably sparking a resurgence going forward."
                Again, it's bizarre that Luke's actions would inspire anyone that much more than the destruction of Starkiller base considering that one of which was super-instrumental in saving the galaxy on a practical level and forcing those on the Republic to see that Leia wasn't kidding around by creating the Resistance and forcing everyone to see that the dismantling of the Republic's army was a stupid idea.

                "Pair that with a clean villain slate, which makes room for the Knights of Ren, and IX is well-positioned to be a really cool trilogy capper."
                I mean, I never said Episode 9 was completely hopeless. I don't have much faith in it based on how I feel about 7 and 8 and Rogue One, but whatever good it does bring will ring hollow because the others could have been so much better.
                I mean, they did bring in Chris Terrio after all. Not sure exactly what the logic behind that is considering how people feel about BvS and JL, but hey, I'm all for it if that's the type of writer they want.

                "A lot of BIG things have happened in each film, they've felt like epics. They haven't held back. Nothing has really felt like it's been saved for later, they have dove headfirst into each film."
                I completely disagree. Episode 7 was very much held back in regards to "taking a step back to take two steps forward" safe approach it took (whether or not you agree with how much it rehashed 4) and Episode 8 was ultimately a film where, in the large span of things, not much actually happened of significance within the film itself, especially considering how close it took place after 7.

                "With some much needed breathing room and simplicity of premise, IX has the opportunity to be the most balls-out Star Wars film to date (not saying the best, saying the biggest and boldest) thanks to how Abrams and Johnson have positioned it."
                Again, I never said 9 was impossible to be good, but I do say that it will ring hollow because of how 7 and 8 turned out. And that wouldn't be thanks to how Abrams and Johnson positioned it, but rather in SPITE of that. Because there's no reason the other chapters couldn't have been the most "ball-out Star Wars films to date" already, even though "bigger" clearly isn't always "better."

                "You people saying that you're done with these movies, all that crap, honestly...if it's your way or the highway then hit the road, Jack."
                Why do you care so much is the question? Shouldn't it only concern you what YOU think of the movie? You clearly loved the hell out of it, so there you go. You're a satisfied customer. Others weren't. Why does the opinions of the fans who hated the movies bother you so much?

                If they want to hit the road, fine.. What does it matter to you? But Disney wouldn't be smiling on that prospect. They want to gain audiences, not lose them. And despite all the hoopla and excuses being made, there is a precedent for some worry over the reaction TLJ garnered. Yeah, an argument could be made that most liked it, but it still lost viewers. As we've established, nobody expected it to outperform or match TFA, but it still made a hefty drop. You can't necessarily compare that with the OT because you have to also take into account the re-releases, the fact that movies stayed in theaters that much longer due to the absence of home video, and the rarity at the time of sequels even performing well AT ALL. We live in a different time.

                You can compare TLJ to AOTC, but that would still be a case for bleeding viewership since AOTC, despite turning in a more than enough to deem a hefty profit, still was a heavy drop from TPM.

                And I never said I was calling a "boycott". Obviously, I've made it clear that I don't care for these new films at all, but I'm still a Star Wars fan. I WANT to see a good movie. It's not like I'm championing to see shit.

                "If you can't accept even the premise of the films, you don't deserve them. You're not legitimate critics."
                Wow. So people should just stick their tongues out to lap up garbage they don't like just because YOU like them? Some people like peanut butter and some people don't. Some people like pop music and some people like rock. How are they any less than what you are? Hell, how are you even a "legitimate critic"? You demonstrate no more knowledge than any other schmuck on the street. You just THINK you do, which I suppose fits with your name: "LegendINMYMIND." lol

            59. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                February 5, 2018

                "The "equivalent of a severed spine" is a severed spine, lol. So that's a nonsensical, cyclical statement. If the saber blade went up the length of the spine it would have fused every vertebrae that he has. In a sci fi world, Finn would need a new spinal column. Bacta can heal bones and mend flesh, it can't grow new ones, presumably..."
                It was enough to knock him unconscious. As we've established with lightsaber strokes, they can cause a significant amount of damage, but so far, we've yet to see any of the users who have taken a beating lose consciousness. We already know Finn is at least tough enough to stay standing when a blade slowly burns through his shoulder, so it would have had to have been extensive if it completely knocks him out.

                Watch the clip:
                https://youtu.be/Lf0qZLK8l-...

                Kylo slices on an up-strike and that would connect straight through Finn's spine. Had he not received medical help, it's probably safe to say he'd at least never walk again. And since there still exists in real life no medical treatment for spinal cord injuries, in the Star Wars world, it would at least be safe to say that such an act would require artificial implants because a spine is not like an arm or a leg. You can't just "regrow" a spine, man.

                "Therefore, I think that the injuries to Finn are clearly to the soft tissue, and that can be traumatic considering the nerves and muscles which would be affected. But certainly within the capability of the bacta bath (or suit in this case) to heal as we see."
                As you see in the video, it looks like the cut goes deeper than just the flesh. Especially considering the way Finn slumped onto the ground almost completely motionless, losing consciousness as soon as he was hit.

                "If there's no spinal damage, only soft tissue trauma, he wouldn't need any implants, only the bacta treatment. If Finn's spi ne was damaged to the point of needing artificial components, those would have been surgically implanted and he'd be in the bacta suit. But if Finn had an artificial spine now, don't you think they would have done something with that?"
                Yeah, I do, which is part of my whole point in regards to the severity of his injuries not matching up with what we are shown in TFA and TLJ.

                "Actually, by those standards many of the Republic leaders were corrupt and in Snoke's pocket."
                Uh... What? Where is that established, or are you just making up another explanation? And if you're going to link it to the Canto Bight stuff, none of them really seemed to be Republic leaders. Even if they were, none of that was elaborated on beyond just a bunch of rich guys demonstrating another hollywood parable about the dangers of capitalism.

                "None of that indicates that the galaxy would rally to them more so than what of it already had."
                Why not? All it indicates is that hubris in the belief that peace would be ensured was eventually proven wrong and that Leia was right all along in believing the Republic needed to be militaristically savvy in case of another attack. What you're saying is implying that the New Republic was corrupt all along and thus ties into what I said earlier in that the OT heroes really didn't accomplish anything of substance if the Republic they reformed was just as corrupt and cowardly as the Old one that formed the Empire.

                "That would be true if they had never showed him in the bacta at all. But since it is a healing device and its function has been demonstrated in this series, such a statement is petty."
                No, it's not. Because we've seen Bacta tanks heal wounds, but we know artificial implants are a different beast altogether. Luke never sustained any injuries during his Hoth fiasco that were on par with Finn's beyond a facial injury and possible pneumonia. In terms of what's wrong with TLJ, it's problem number 199, so in the end, I don't really care about it. It's just an example of another inconsistency between movies. The fact that you're going to such lengths to defend it though is amusing.

                "It's not a relative statement, it's about usage. In all of the cinematic instances where modern blockbusters opt to use SFX when given a choice, Lucas s eemed to opt for VFX."
                But that's not entirely true as I demonstrated above. Obviously, there was a shitton of bluescreen, but not necessarily in terms of ridding the need for SFX. For example, not all the battle droids, contrary to belief in TPM, were CG creations. A lot of them were, but you can see plenty of instances, such as when Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon free the Naboo pilots, where they cut down real physical objects with exploding squibs.

                Hell, even Jar Jar, who is a full CG character in the final product, the actors still were able to interact with Ahmed Best wearing a rubber head extension and a full costume, thus making their interactions with him at least somewhat tangible because they weren't looking at air.

                "These have more SFX and VFX shots, I'd wager. That's about scope. Difference being that they didn't shortcut the cinematic process. A higher percentage of the action in these films was filmed practically as compared to the prequels."
                I wouldn't say that. For instance, most of the ship dogfights are CGI whereas in the prequels, there was a mixing of elements that were practical and CG. Most of it was CG as is clear as day considering how badly some of the FX dated, but hell, even in TPM, a lot of the ship explosions and some of the closer shots/flybys were practical.

                Even the action scenes - while there were a lot of CG doubles flipping off walls, plenty of the explosions one may be surprised to know were practical. For instance, the final duel in ROTS where Obi-Wan and Anakin are in the control room slashing up the walls and panels contained real squibs blowing up when it easily could have been substituted for CG explosions.

                "The type of costuming, stunt work, puppetry, model-making, and rigging in either VII or VIII hadn't been seen in the franchise since VI, clearly, even though these are the things that drew this current crop of filmmakers to the moviemaking business to begin with."
                But that's just it. As the video I linked to shows and as all the BTS featurettes and documentaries on the DVD's had, the prequels really weren't that devoid of practical fx. For instance, the lava river of doom at the end of ROTS was a miniature as was the Utapau sinkhole, the city of Theed on Naboo, the streets of Coruscant in AOTC, etc. Obviously in terms of OTHER methods though, there was more CG supplementary in the prequels though with unnecessary shit cluttering the frame or even the activity of placing actors on an empty bluescreen even if the backgrounds would be practical miniatures (for example the Kamino cloning facility platform was a miniature, but poor Ewan McGregor was still walking around a bluescreen room staring at dots on the wall).

                "Lucas betrayed the cinematic process by using CGI as a crutch. Look at Indiana Jones 4, for example."
                To be fair, KOTS is not "all Lucas." A lot of the garbage in that film is a result of him, but Spielberg still could have said "no" to him. And lest we forget that Spielberg allowed ET to have that awful CG replacement for its first DVD release (thankfully, he came to his senses LATER and gave us the original untouched version) In the end, it simply shouldn't have been made. Now again, I'm no Lucas apologist. The prequels are not good movies, let's make that clear. I'm just saying that I found the advertisements for the new movies disingenuous when they weren't all that practical, and the criticisms against the prequels being ALL CG when they weren't.

                "Yeah, why don't you try finding one, pal..."
                What do you think I've been doing the past 20 days we've been discussing this? Obviously, you're just too stubborn to admit to ANY flaws of these new films because you're blinded by your love for them.

                "I have 2 off the top of my head:
                1. Why does Batman mark the truck with a tracker and then chase it? I know you think that's an easy answer, but think about it."
                Why wouldn't he? He's chasing it down and the tracker is there so he wouldn't lose sight of it. Then as a contingency when he eventually ends up losing it, the tracker is still on the truck so he's able to locate it's whereabouts after he failed to catch it.

                "2. Why does Superman fly off after wrecking Batman instead of pursuing the obvious terrorists firing miniguns and missile launchers?"
                "Terrorists?" First off, they're not even "terrorists" anyways even if he were to chase them down. They're glorified goons making a shipment. You do know what a "terrorist" is, right?
                Secondly, Superman wasn't investigating Luthor's shipment of kryptonite like Batman was and his activity was merely focused on Batman himself. He doesn't think Batman is doing anything benevolent. Batman attacked armed private investors first. It's not like at that point they were doing anything that would cause alarm BEFORE Batman started chasing them down. They weren't attacking anyone. They were making a cargo shipment and were defending themselves.

                "And that's not even touching on how pointless and jarring the Knightmare scene is."
                Being "jarring" does not ergo =/= a plothole. Do you even understand what you're criticizing? As for it being "pointless," it was there to serve as yet another example of Batman's paranoia over Superman and to cement his standpoint on what he sought to do.

                "You want to stand behind that kind of shit writing? Lol..."
                Sure. Kinda like how you want to stand behind the shit writing of TLJ that introduces Admiral Holdo exacting hyperspace annihilation of a whole fleet when one movie prior, Vader's Star Destroyer literally blockades a bunch of Rebel ships going to lightspeed to escape Scariff. lol

                "Honey, that's their base that they are fleeing. Their reinforcements are there. Their resupply is there..."
                I'm talking OUTSIDE the already existing allies of the Resistance, "honey." Didn't you get the memo?

                "And in real life it takes a lot of politicizing for a sovereign entity to intervene in a military conflict. Ultimately, no one wants war. It took the US YEARS to intervene in either WWI or WWII, for instance."
                Not when it's a conflict that directly involves an existing party/entity. Five planets of the Republic were destroyed and you don't think that if the Republic still had anyone left they wouldn't want to retaliate?

                "They've got cruisers, support ships, fighters and bombers of variety. Being small is not the equivalent of being poorly equipped. They don't have the firepower of the First Order because they aren't looking to destroy planets and settlements."
                They don't have the firepower because they're not very well equipped. Being small also has a lot to do with that. You keep making feigned exaggerations by saying they don't have that firepower because they're not looking to "destroy planets." It's not about destroying planets. They don't have the firepower BECAUSE they're a small subfaction that's independently funded outside the Republic. The Resistance is essentially Leia's baby.

                "What Leia was able to assemble, independently, was a respectable force. Skilled pilots and officers from the tippity top of the Republic."
                Exactly. Commendable by the standards of being independent, but pitiful by the standards of what could have been an army to defend the Republic. That's the point. Had the film exemplified that without EU explanations, it wouldn't have been too much of an issue, but you NEED EU stuff to explain away these problems which is part of my whole point. Even you, as I pointed out above, started pulling explanations out your behind that had nothing to do with the ACTUAL explanations that existed, proving the movie didn't do enough to compensate.

                "That's a dumb takeaway, frankly, because there's no time to spread hope in the galaxy after the destruction of Starkiller base. The First Order immediately counterattacks and dwindles that hope to nothing."
                Even you, by your own reckoning, indicate that some time has passed. Enough time for word to spread on what has happened. It doesn't take years for word to spread in a universe where people can communicate across lightyears of distance.

                "After the Battle of Crait, the Resistance is given some room to breathe and grow. Blowing up the superweapon should be a part of that growth and that spread of hope, but there would be no hope if the Resistance was extinguished on Crait, mere days after the battle on/over Starkiller Base."
                Why? The Resistance is an independently organized subfaction of the Republic. It is not really part of the Republic because they stupidly dismantled their army after the peace treaty was signed. However, as we've already established, the Republic still EXISTS and thus they have the resources capable of assembling a counter-force in light of the attacks from the First Order. Wouldn't be accomplished in a day, but it wouldn't be impossible to attain - especially SINCE the Resistance is pretty much left with nothing after Crait and would need the backing of interested parties anyways to restock and regroup to wage all out war on the enemy.

                "Both are equally instrumental, though. Blowing up Starkiller Base saved the Resistance."
                It saved more than just them. It saved the galaxy. That superweapon could have taken over things in mere days if it had just the right targets to blow up.
                It accomplished a lot more than Luke's Force Skype call.

                "Luke Skywalker saved the Resistance. Without the Resistance there is no one to practically save the galaxy..."
                That's bullshit as we just established. The Resistance is a small independently organized group of fighters. Even IF the Resistance managed to escape Crait completely intact without the plan going awry, they still wouldn't have been able to combat the First Order without help from outside parties. If they died then and there, (which they almost did and only a few dozen soldiers escaped), it wouldn't have made much of a difference in terms of numbers. It's a few war heroes who escaped (and of course, a Mary Sue powerhouse, but I digress).

                "The difference here is that the Resistance got away. They didn't get away after Starkiller Base."
                They didn't technically "get away." They lost pretty much everything apart from a handful of people who were small enough to fit on a tiny cargo ship. They lost all their supplies and weapons caches, ships and fleets. They just have that "hope" to cling onto, but that's not what ultimately physically crops fleets of ships and resources out of the ether.

                "Really shouldn't use BvS or JL as an example of his writing prowess, he actually has a lot to prove. But the director is far more important to the cinematic process than the writer in this case."
                Not necessarily. A good director can seldom make a good movie from a "Bad script." And try as people might, Snyder CAN direct good movies when given a good script. Obviously, I don't think BvS is a bad script, but unlike you, I don't blind myself to the reactions of the public.

                "And JJ is a lot better than Zack."
                Debatable.
                Although Star Trek 09 is a damn good one.

                "But you'd prefer Terrio to Kasdan? Seriously?"
                I can't be fair in debating this topic as I haven't seen what is considered the best of Kasdan's work (his 3 oscar nominated films).

            60. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                As for the hardcore fanbase, can you blame them? I mean, the EU was all anyone had prior to these sequel movies to see what became of the OT heroes, so of course wiping that all out would feel at least a bit saddening.

                I mean, you can't really compare how the prequels handled the EU in comparison because nothing they really did from Phantom Menace to The Clone Wars really retconned too much of the EU beyond trivial points like this character was not here at this time or this character didn't meet that character until point B, etc. Hell, Lucas even brought in a lot of EU material from something as big as Coruscant as the capitol of the Republic to something as small as adding a reference to EU character "Master Vos" in ROTS.

                And as for your point on Empire, NONE of what TESB did really retconned anything ANH had in terms of character relationships, motivations, development, etc. You mentioned Obi-Wan and yet even though Guinness didn't know of it until AFTER, there was subtle nuances Lucas had him doing that would hint to a larger picture being revealed beyond the story he told Luke.

                "My point is that the ones accusing it of "destroying" the series have flimsy-ass fan-fiction BS in their minds and can't accept that they don't know every single thing there is to know about movies and writing."

                I mean, we kinda went over a similar point in regards to BvS. How a lot of "fans" got mad about that movie, yourself included, because it supposedly didn't adhere to comic book continuity which is not only played fast and flimsy due to numerous reboots and retcons, but also doesn't necessarily play into what makes a well-written movie. Just because Batman "doesn't kill" normally in the comics doesn't "Destroy" his character....

                "This is not a series about playing it safe and only doing what's expected. Never has been. The closest it came to that was at its lowest point."

                Then why did we get TFA?

                And why is it that only Star Wars can supposedly "take risks" and other franchises like the DCEU can't? Kind of a double-standard, don't you think?

            61. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                A lot of EU fans aren't really like that though. They don't like the films not because they didn't follow the EU, but because they threw out EU continuity for something significantly worse. You can disagree with that notion for sure, but it is still a legitimate complaint.

                Yeah, I remember Dark Empire. You're missing a few details though. Luke never actually really "turned" to the Dark Side. He made it halfway in that he was trying to trick the Emperor into believing he was his servant, but skirted a little too close to the edge that he struggled to pull himself back. I also remember how in the end, Luke managed to beat the Emperor in combat which.... I mean, just from a fan perspective was f#%#ing cool, but I digress. You talk about the bad things the EU did, but you don't mention the GOOD things it did... Like the KOTOR series for example. Good God... Not only were they great games to play, but they expanded on the mythology of the Force, the Jedi, the Republic, the meaning of what it is to be compassionate or hateful and the consequences of your actions in every corner you go. There's even a 2 hour analysis video on Kreia's monologues that go into the subtleties of what she's saying:
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...

                You're right that Star Wars is a cinematic property... Which is exactly why complaints over Luke's characterization should not be looked down upon seeing as how the FILMS are the best source to go off of in dictating how he should or shouldn't be acting. And while the DCEU gets flack in regards to how its two titular heroes act "out-of-character," so too should Star Wars - especially BECAUSE there is only one legitimate "canon."

            62. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 17, 2018

                "How it repeated thematic elements for no better reason than some fantasy".

                Just stop right there. I mean, if you want to talk about repeats, look no further than TFA and TLJ. TLJ less so, but both recycle classic elements from the OT and simply flip the switch to make it so that the new characters act as the mirror instead of the original cast. So basically, they chucked out one "rehash" to do another. Not very productive all things considered.

                "Bemoaning the loss of it as canon when no one with any authority over the canon ever considered it canon in the first place is not a legitimate complaint, it's a petulant complaint."

                One would only bemoan the loss in place of storytelling that ended up being just as bad, if not worse. I didn't care to see the EU trashed, but not only was it an expected route to go considering they were making new movies, nobody really wept over its absence until they saw what it was replaced with.

                "It doesn't matter that Luke was "tricking" the Emperor, and yeah I remember that, but that's not my point. My point is that they had already gone down that exact thematic road with TESB and RotJ with Luke before putting a bow on it with his full commitment to the way of tbe Jedi and his refusal to kill his father and take his place at the Emperor's side. That story was nothing but a pale cash-in on the fantasy of Luke as a dark side force user."
                You're right.... Luke's arc was complete by the end of Jedi and he already fully committed himself to the ways of the Force.... Which is why the end result turned out to be even worse.

                "Anyway, if you are suggesting that TLJ did not illuminate the nature of the force or build on that lore, you'd be mistaken. Regarding the force, what it is, the philosophy of it, there is probably no film in the saga to have most defined it more so than TESB with Yoda's instructions to Luke. Luke's insights built upon that, and I actually agreed with his statements regarding the force which made his characterization, within that context, make a lot of sense. It does not contradict the other films to have Luke resolve to end the Jedi Order, to undertake those Last Rites on the site of its creation."
                Yes, it most certainly does and the reasons are numerous to list. But I'll make it simple: every bit of that spewed philosophy he had in TLJ was merely extensions of what you ironically hate from the EU as well as what many hated about the prequels. It told us NOTHING we didn't already know, hell, even without the EU. The old Jedi Order were stuck up, arrogant, and unintentionally caused their own downfall. Love or hate the prequels, that was all there as plain as day to see. That was the point.

                That's why Luke was the "New Hope." That he would be better than that. And as we see in the OT, he IS better than that. As his wise Jedi Masters encourage him to kill Darth Vader, Luke takes an alternative route and sees the good in him and redeems him, showing a compassionate and completely selfless attitude - the attitude of a "TRUE" Jedi.

                And then TFA/TLJ throws it all away by showing us Luke was merely staving off the supposed inevitable - that he ended up making the same mistakes his masters made and that he really didn't learn anything in the end. His own Jedi order fell and his apprentice turned on him because he believed his own master had no faith in him and tried to kill him... Kinda like Anakin. So there's the rehash/circle going about that Luke instead now passes the lesson he should have learned to Rey, who pretty much lacks any character depth in of itself other than to be what Luke was set up to be were it not for the necessity of rehashing the past.

                " So to say that the force belongs to the Jedi or that they, alone, add balance is vanity considering that the force surrounds and binds all things, it doesn't solely belong to the Jedi. That is the philosophical reason for ending the Jedi Order once and for all. (Do you suppose Kreia would be in disagreement with that?) Ben Solo's turn provides Luke's emotional motivation to do so."
                The whole point though that you're missing is that the "Jedi" is merely but a word/title. The Force doesn't belong to the Jedi alone, and Luke already proved that in the OT in terms of how non-Jedi like he was supposedly acting if we are to take the wisdom of Yoda and Obi-Wan into account. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." That was their philosophy. That's what Luke proved WRONG. Because Vader, despite all his darkness, got redeemed in the end because Luke was willing to sacrifice himself for that belief.

                "It's time for the Jedi to end" Luke says.... And yet what are some of his final words?

                "I will not be the last Jedi."

                So.... Rey's a Jedi then....? You mean, the same kind of Jedi Luke was already before these new movies contradicted his arc and attitude? The kind of Jedi that is merely a title in that it's a representative of simply a person using the Force for the good of the galaxy?

                I mean, the EU was a mess, but even they got this philosophy in how Luke structured his new Jedi Order. Instead of indoctrinating youths as infants to wield the Force, Luke allowed adults to train. Instead of banishing love, passion and feelings, Luke embraced it and Jedi were allowed to raise families, love one another and FEEL. Instead of just saying "Dark side = Bad," Luke saw that the Dark Side was merely just another side of the Force and it all depended on HOW it was used that dictated an "evil" being (Luke did after all use Force Choke on in ROTJ after all).

                "And the source of this characterization lies in his newfound wisdom, his understanding of the nature of the force and putting that wisdom through the lens of the historical failures of the Jedi Order and Luke's own tremendous personal failure with his students."
                That's not wisdom. That's selfishness. Luke failed and so he went away to sulk and justified his actions with empty broad-stroked platitudes. He was not being wise. He was being a coward. They even illustrated that when Yoda appeared and told him that the greatest teacher was FAILURE.

            63. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 18, 2018

                "Wrong. The EU was a straight rehash and, often, a Star Trekian vision of Star Wars."
                Kind of a bold claim to make while you're defending one rehash over another.

                " VII and VIII paralleled the original films and some key ideas,"
                Just stop right there. "SOME" key ideas? "SOME?"
                I mean, do I even need to count the ways TFA rehashed ANH? It's entire structure is practically ANH 2.0. Down to the most minute details like sending a droid off with the MacGuffin in tow and the final plan to destroy a "death star" capable of annihilating planets.

                "but they would put a different twist on how it played out."
                Yeah, they sure would. Like incoherent storylines and all-powerful protagonists.

                "Like, everyone seems to think that Solo's death was a rip of Ben Kenobi's. That's actually untrue. It's a dark mirror of Luke and Vader in VI, a situational switch wherein this time the son strikes his father down commits himself to the dark side."
                Oh, please. It's a mirror of Ben Kenobi's because it's the old mentor figure getting struck down by the antagonist. But they couldn't even really do that because Han really had nothing to teach Rey other than that all the stories she heard about Luke were real.

                She could do everything else fine on her own.

                "The prequels also rhymed with the original series, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the flat ass repeat of a theme for the same damn character just because "it would be cool". The EU was thin as hell..."
                Um.... Isn't that exactly what the new ones are doing?

                "It would be COOL if we had this new Jedi who just did everything fine and dandy and she's a girl."

                Yeah, I'm sorry. This new franchise is thin as hell.

                "What it was replaced with rejuvenated the series to practically a renaissance. Prequels didn't do that."
                Looks like the renaissance is wearing itself out pretty quickly then. You can dismiss the divisive reaction to TLJ all you want for your own personal opinions, but you can't make the claim that it's helping this franchise at all anymore than I can say that with BvS.

                And let's not get started on the trouble Solo is in. Their reshoots and production woes were more costly than Justice League. And that's saying something.

                "And who are any of you guys to tell me or anyone else that it's poorly written or doesn't fit the story? No offense, but I can disagree with you, and I could probably write an encyclopedia of the things I've seen you guys get wrong regarding the themes and substantiation of this series..."
                Oh, my God. Did you really just do that? After all the times you've hated on the DCEU and told others off for having their opinions and how wrong they were?

                Jesus.

                Hey, go ahead and like the movie. I'm not stopping you. We're having a debate here after all - one which you started. We can disagree and still talk. I could probably also write an encyclopedia of the things I've seen you defenders get wrong regarding the themes and substantiation of this series by praising TLJ, too.

                "But because Disney owns it "it's bad". That's unfair and childish."
                Uh... What?

                I think it's clear that a lot of people hate TLJ for reasons that have nothing to do with who owns it.

                I like the MCU more than the new Star Wars movies and that's owned by Disney too.

                "Taking his last rites to end the order is not the same thing as turning away from the order. He is the Last Jedi. It ends with him. He's still a Jedi, it's in the name..."
                Except, again, he called Rey a "Jedi." So no, it doesn't end with him.

                "Narratively speaking, they did something new to challenge him. That being to confront him with the hypocrisy of the Jedi Order, their historical failures, and how it colored his own personal failures in his eyes. Luke's decision to undertake his last rites, as I said, stemmed from his fully evolved understanding of the nature of the force, but it was driven by the emotional cost of his failure. And that's a brand new challenge for the character, it's not a retread. It's not like he turned to the dark side. It's unexpected, not contradictory."
                Again, he ALREADY DID THAT in the OT. We've already seen how he overcame the failed teachings of his masters and did something that represented what a true Jedi would do.

                All they did was simply rinse, lather and repeat the OT by giving Luke the role of Obi-Wan and instead of making him a teacher of wisdom, they made him a grumpy old man. There was no wisdom or good reasoning in his decisions. The film itself tells us that. He was a coward. He failed, couldn't face his failure, gave up, abandoned everyone and then justified it with empty platitudes that were contradictory to his entire arc in the OT.

                If what you're saying was true, then the film would have had it so that Luke was RIGHT instead of WRONG. That Rey would have grasped this concept and also just up and abandoned everyone. "They can take care of themselves. The Force will balance itself out eventually."

                It's BS.

                "That's regarding the Jedi Order, not the nature of the force. Not Luke's greatest substantiation for ending the order."
                Um... Luke's substantiation for ending the order has pretty much everything to do with the Jedi's mistakes, not necessarily the Force. He ends up LEARNING that after the fact.

                "The force, as established in V, surrounds and binds everything in existence. Life, death, inanimate objects alike. It is the balance of these natural things which perpetuate nature as a whole. Life feeds on death, dies, feeds new life. This balance exists with or without the Jedi. To state that the force belongs to them, that they alone bring it into balance, it is vain. This understanding of the force is brought to us by Luke Skywalker."
                That's ridiculous. In which case, then all's Luke would have to do is not pass on the Jedi teachings and vow to never take on another student. Not abandon the galaxy and his friends and family while they're paying directly for a mistake that he himself caused.

                And again, you keep speaking of Luke's decision to just give up as a master stroke of wisdom when the film itself paints his decision in a poor light. He's supposed to be in-the-wrong. And at the end, he himself paints that picture when he literally calls Rey a "Jedi" by saying "I will not be the last Jedi." So in hindsight, there it is in terms of saying that the Force really does "belong" to the Jedi as opposed to EVERYONE.

                Again, Jedi is but a NAME. That was the whole point of ROTJ, which is now, according to your own logic a BAD thing and not a "triumphant" title because the Jedi are supposedly "evil" because their entire way of life is judged by what they did in the prequels.

                "The challenge, then, is to justify the existence of the Jedi irrespective of balancing the force, which appears to balance itself just fine."
                But then it seemingly contradicts itself by having Luke fight again at the end. You act as if Luke's decision was motivated by wisdom when the film all along is trying to tell us he was WRONG.

                "And the film does that by assigning value to the beings struggling for what is good and right in the galaxy, the very nature of the resistance and the rebellion and all of that "we can fight the powerful evil Empire and win" sentiment that gives us all the feel-goods and makes Star Wars such a treat for young or old, rich or poor, alike. And no, the EU never brought that value to the property, all it did was pick the corpse."
                What value is there in that? That they simply rehash "An all powerful empire vs. a band of rebels"? Gee, that don't sound familiar at all, does it?

                All based on the notion of "balance" in the Force - a concept that was born out of the ill-advised prequel trilogy that never really made much sense in the first place.

                No, all the new ones did was take everything the OT did, flushed it down the drain, made the old characters losers and gave the reigns to new characters to do exactly what the old characters already did. That's not adding value. That's taking it away and trying to rebuild what you already deliberately broke.

                "Luke was the New Hope to defeat the Empire, destroy the Sith, and found a new Jedi Order. He did that. As Yoda said in VIII, he was to pass on what he had learned. Luke did not perceive failure as something worth passing along. He had to come around to it, embrace it. And that is a hurdle that Luke never faced until the monumental events which precipitated these films."
                Umm... Have we forgotten that Luke is very familiar with failure? He failed his test at the cave in Empire. He failed to heed Yoda and Ben's warnings and ended his training abruptly to stop the vision he saw of his suffering friends. He failed to rescue his friends at Cloud City. He failed to beat Vader and instead learned a terrifying truth. And in that failure, Luke still acted accordingly in defeat - instead of joining Vader, he decided to self-sacrifice himself.

                Now all these are obviously different to the failure he suffered later on, but he just up and gives the hell up. "F#%# the galaxy. F#%# my friends. I'm out. Peace. Have a nice life."

            64. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 20, 2018

                "Uh huh... So you are aware that there is a Death Star in VI, right, not just IV?"
                Oh, here we go. This is the classic excuse. The sibling who had done something wrong blames the other because "but... but.. he did it, too!!!"

                Yes, I am aware. The DIFFERENCE is that Death Star II served a purpose to the narrative as the climax of the story as opposed to a trip down memory lane of nostalgia and rehash. And you can't really make an alternative argument on that because even JJ Abrams kinda admitted that.

                "You are also aware than in VI Luke Skywalker felt the call to the dark side, to strike his father down in anger so as to protect his friends?"
                You mean after he already willingly surrendered to Vader, tried to talk him down, got brought before the Emperor and saw in real-time what he was doing to his friends? You also mean when Luke didn't actually try to kill Vader at first (he struck at the Emperor and Vader blocked it) and it took Vader actively goading him into a fight with threats to turn Leia evil that Luke finally flew off the handle?

                In comparison to what? A man going into a kid's hut, probing his mind and then activating his lightsaber with the brief intent to murder? And then said man never once making another attempt to undo his mistake?

                Yeah... I'm aware of the comparison. In that there is none.

                "Kylo Ren spent VII conflicted by the call to the light. Vader was pulling Luke to darkness, Han was pulling Ren into the light. Much as Luke's decision to stand down and spare Darth Vader affirmed his light side allegiance, Ren killing Han Solo cemented his villainous status and resolved the theme of his own "temptation" back into the light."
                You can spice it up, but it's a weak comparison considering that Ren's "call to the light" doesn't even make much sense to begin with. Neither is his reasoning for worshipping Vader considering his idolization of his grandfather is the same man who resisted the "call to the dark" in the end.

                "Proper film analysis would not simply leave it at "this guy is old and that guy is old, so it's the same situation!" You have to examine the effect of this event on the film."
                Now you're starting to split hairs in terms of "rehashing" considering you're so quick to call the EU stuff rehashes. There is an underlying double-standard there because the narrative is there to serve the rehash as opposed to it being the other way around.

                There's nothing inherently wrong with the "mentor" figure getting killed off in the final few minutes of the movie. What makes it wrong is that it's simply one elements stacked on top of a bunch of other elements that lead up to an uncanny resemblance.

                TFA is trying to work both as a sequel AND a reboot/remake in the same way Superman Returns was to Superman: The Movie. You have your connections and whatnot, but they're very loose and in that, it allows for narrative similarities IE remaking elements. You can split hairs in that "well this is different because Kylo is tempted by the light while Vader is tempted by the dark" or "Han is not a Jedi while Obi-Wan is" or "it's called Starkiller base, not Death Star III", but the elements end up shaping a rehash. And it's more than just a "rhyming" of events. Down to the SAME enemy faction.

                "Ben Kenobi confronted Vader and sacrificed his own life so as to give Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, and the droids an opportunity to escape, which kicks off the film's 3rd act. Luke spares Vader in the midst of the 3rd act, resolving that arc for those characters. That's the effect of those moments on those scenes. Ren killing Han is an inverse of Luke's resolve with Vader in VI. The "mentor sacrifices his life to save others" scene happens with Luke and Ren at the end of VIII. Han was not a "mentor" character, he was a father figure for Rey. Luke was the "mentor" character. Han can't be a mentor for Rey, he has no understanding of the things she requires mentoring in... Those are the most 1:1 comparisons which exist.""
                First off, you can't compare Episode 7 to ROTJ in terms of narrative depth because we had gotten to know Luke over the course of 3 movies to understand where he's coming from, what steps he took to get where he is and why he's doing what he's doing. We don't know a third of that about Kylo Ren and we can't care about anything he's doing because we've never actually seen what kind of background he has with Han in the first place.

                You can't necessarily compare that with Obi-Wan and Vader because initially, their confrontation in ANH isn't really "emotional" at all. We got their backstory, but we're not necessarily invested without the prequels because these two never actually shared any screentime for anyone to care about their conflict - and that's not the point anyways cause Obi-Wan wasn't trying to redeem Vader. He was sacrificing himself to save Luke, who we already ARE invested in because we've gotten to know him and Ben's relationship as mentor-figure/student over the course of the movie. THAT'S the point.

                And how was Han at all a "father figure" for Rey? They had like 5 minutes of screentime together and they didn't exactly bond in a father-daughter way. Han came aboard the stolen Falcon, met them as they were just about to do their "Men in Black" monster trade, Rey "fixed" a component on the falcon, Han fed them exposition about the Force, and then Han offered her a job. That's pretty much the gist of it. Afterward, it's all plot-oriented. At no point did Han ever "mentor" Rey, show any kind of parental guidance or any of the like. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan and Luke already had a history together before they even "met" onscreen, Ben introduced Luke to the concepts of the Force, comforted him over his lost family, briefly trained him in some lightsaber techniques and guided him towards fulfilling his destiny before he finally expired in front of his eyes at the hands of Darth Vader. There was SOMETHING there for us to care about as an audience to see slip away vs. the nothing that we are merely supposed to care about just cause it's Han Solo back 30 years later.

                "Now, the "McGuffin" in R2's possession in IV was the Death Star plans. The key to victory against the superweapon which threatened the galaxy. But the key to victory against Starkiller Base was Finn, not BB-8. BB-8 held the map data to Luke."
                Which in turn, also cheapened the film by your own logic because the McGuffin had no real effect on the climax of the film at all.

                "The film's finale took place on Starkiller Base. While finding Luke was a plot device, Starkiller Base was the largest plot element of that film. The battle on which is more akin to VI than IV. In VI, the finale featured dynamic action to take down the Death Star's shields, a space battle, and a lightsaber battle. IV only featured the space battle. The feel of that scene was more reminiscent of VI, then, as was its construction."
                If anything, the Starkiller Base final battle was more of a BACKDROP with no real emotional resonance and more of a run-of-the-mill duty. The film itself even treats it this way considering how easily Han and co. infiltrated its shields and coerced Boba Fett 2.0 to lower them (And Han even jokes about it... "So it's a bigger one. How do we blow it up? There's always a way to blow it up.") whereas in both Jedi and ANH, it was the ENDGAME.

                And while structurally, TFA has more of a comparison to Jedi in that its a bunch of action scenes taking place simultaneously, It obviously is more visually and narratively similar to ANH in that it's a small group of one-manned snub fighters attacking an all powerful battlestation in a trench-run as opposed to an all-out-war with huge capital ships against capital ships.

                "VI also opened on a desert planet much like IV, the difference being the energy of those sequences. So while we discover our main character in VII in a similar manner as in IV, the action construction of that opening act held more in common with VI than IV."
                ROTJ had a logical reason to return to the desert planet in order to rescue Han (set up in Empire BTW "I'll meet you at the rendezvous point on Tatooine") whereas there was no necessary reason Rey had to be stuck on a desert planet other than to be another trip down memory lane (how many people actually confused Jakku with Tatooine before they strictly CALLED it "Jakku"?).

                And no, Rey's time on Tat... I mean, Jakku was obviously more akin to IV than VI because that's where she lives, where her adventure picks up and the planet she gets off of in escape of the evil Emp... First Order.

                "My point is that if you are going to ridicule them for copying, you should at least make an effort outside of listening to a bunch of blowhards on the internet in determining what they copied and how..."
                Oh, they're blowhards? And why is that? Cause you don't agree with them? Well, that's too bad considering that even the most ardent defenders of TFA will acknowledge that it had one-too-many ANH reheated leftover plot elements.

                And I'm only criticizing it in response to how you criticized the EU material for the exact same reasons, refusing to acknowledge their differences while defending these. Again, I have no real "love" for the EU material as I acknowledge that it's a mess, but I'm just saying that it's bizarre for you to literally use the exact same criticisms when they apply to both.

                "But I don't see this as a straight up recycle or repeat. It doesn't repeat, it is a mirror of what has come before."
                A pretty damn big mirror.

                "That's the difference between the new series, which parallels the old, and the EU storytelling which is just a vulture picking at its bones like with its recycling of Luke's flirtation with the dark side..."
                Why? Because it simply trades in the conflicts the old characters received and passes it to the new with some modifications?

                Couldn't we say the same of the EU then since not all of it is purely focused on the Skywalkers?

            65. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 21, 2018

                That's ridiculous. How can she see someone as a father figure when he didn't actually do anything remotely "fatherly"? What? Just cause he's old? What if Han was the same age as her? I mean, really. He offered her a job. That's the extent of "fathering" when plenty of other people in films and real life offer others jobs and the response wouldn't include seeing them as a father figure.

                It's weak writing. There wasn't enough time spent on developing their bond to feel any sort of lost connection when she saw him die or how Kylo spouted that nonsensical dialogue.

            66. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                "Because Rey doesn't know what a father is."
                Then she must have a pretty loose idea of what a father is and a friend. In that case, Finn was more of a "father" to her than Han. lol
                Even a 2 year old knows more about what a “dad” is apparently than Rey.

                "And I'm not the one introducing this element, the film states it while Kylo Ren is reading Rey's mind - how she wonders how Han would have been as a father. It's something she has never had, the fantasy of it, for her, is understandable."
                Just cause the film "says" it doesn't actually mean it made sense.

                "Her sense that she doesn't belong, her lack of anyone to show her anywhere that she DOES belong, that is highly vulnerable in Rey's characterization. That is something that Han Solo offered her, a place that she could belong. In that way, Han was like a father to Rey, he had the makings of it. And that is something that Kylo Ren took from her when all that had already been stripped away. It's in her characterization."
                What? How is that at all "fathering?" Because Han offered her a friggin job? Are you serious? So does that mean any dolt who offered Rey a job would have been seen as her "father figure"? If anything, Finn offered her a place more than Han did because he's the one who dragged her on this adventure in the first place, so why doesn't she gravitate towards him as a "father figure?"

                Again, is it just cause Han's "old?" Cause it sure seems that way based on how you're describing it.

                "Not my problem that you don't understand it..."
                Oooh... classic "you didn't get it. Film's too smart for you" excuse. You sound like a BvS fan. ;)

                "Let me ask you this, how the hell is Han a "mentor" figure for Rey? Rey is on the path to becoming a Jedi. Saying that Han is in a "mentor" role for her when he has NOTHING to teach her seems illogical as all hell."
                Yeah, it does. Seeing as how Han doesn't fit EITHER a mentor role nor a father-figure role, it makes his loss for Rey seem far fetched at best, doesn't it? And yet the FILM is the one telling us that this is the role Han is playing because it literally had to spell it out to us that Han was "the father she never had."

                Rule 101 in film: Show, don't tell.

                "And, indeed, Han taught her nothing in the film. Ben Kenobi taught Luke about the force, about the Jedi, about his place in the galaxy. Han didn't give that to Rey,"
                THANK YOU. Which proves that Han should mean next to nothing to her other than a "friend."

                "he gave her a potential home, he even gave her something to defend herself with, a gun. So that is why I say that Han was a prospective father figure for Rey, a relationship that Ren cut down in its infancy."
                Du... What? So a weapon and a job = "my father."
                Good grief.

                "Your post is weakly written, not the film..."
                "I know you are, but what am I?"
                lol

            67. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 25, 2018

                "Didn't just offer her a job, he offered her a home somewhere to belong. And, yeah, fathers do that...have you ever had one? Been one?"
                He offered her a JOB to smuggle. That's a traveling job, but a JOB nonetheless. Just because a ship captain offers to hire more help doesn't make him a "father."

                As for a father... Are YOU one? If so, I'm sure maybe you've spent time or are aware that strangers offering jobs to people =/= fathers.

                "An adventure is not a home..."
                Per her understanding, Finn is "with the Resistance" and the Resistance has a base of operations. And if that's all it takes to be a "dad", then there's a place to "belong."

                "No, that'd be the root of your mistaken belief that Han was her "mentor"."
                I don't construe to the belief that Han did any "mentoring". I said as much in my posts. But since the film is trying to get away with (per your own reckoning) that Han "fathered" her by just offering her a job and 10 minutes of screentime (if even) together as being indicative of "a father she never had", then that, too, is equally as flimsy as treating Han as a "mentor" as well.

                "Considering that Rey is emotionally compromised by being left on Jakku, coming to the slow realization that they are never coming back while still lying to herself over that, she once again had her place in the galaxy taken away from her. So from a pure standpoint of loss, she did lose something. It was simply a product of who she was and what was taken from her coming into that. Just as a human being, though, seeing Han go down like that would be a scar. Dude was a legend to her."
                She wasn't even going to GO with him anyway. She turned him down. Had she have said "Yes", then that would be at least somewhat of a loss because she at least had SOMETHING to hang onto, but she didn't and she never had enough time with Han afterward to either reconsider or even talk to him about anything else at all. It wasn't until Maz knocked it into her head that her parents were never coming back that she started to grasp that notion (and even then, she still "ran away" afterward). Does that make Maz a "mother-figure?"

                As for Han being an idol to her... She didn't even recognize him as a Rebel hero. Just the smuggler who made the Kessel Run in 13.... 12 parsecs.

                "No, a prospective father figure. How many fucking times do I have to say that Kylo Ren cut that down as it was growing?"
                How many times do you have to say it? None. Because you can say it as many times as you want, but a ten minute screentime that amounts to a job offering doesn't equal the status of "fathership."

                "It wasn't just giving her a "weapon = father", it was a demonstration that someone goddamned cared for her."
                Finn cared for her before Han did anything. And yet you don't equate that to a father because he's definitely not in that age-range. So if Han was say 25 and did the EXACT SAME things for her in the EXACT SAME way, would she still look at him as "the father she never had"?

                Hence why I said: "Is it because he's old?"

                "Yeah, I don't mistake ignorance for wit. That's that other guy. Your bullshit is transparent."
                Haha... Says the guy who equates a 10 minute "friendship" as "fathering".

                "If you don't have something to say, say nothing."
                Words to live by. Please consider them before you post again.

            68. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 26, 2018

                "I am, yes. And it's about more than biology. Han was more of a father to her than the loser that dumped her on Jakku. At least he wanted her there."
                Finn wanted her there, too. Again, friendship doesn't =/= fathership.

                "We're talking about a job where you live together, break bread together. We're not talking about a 9-5 here. And Rey had never belonged anywhere before, she'd never shared a meal with anyone in at least her adult life. These things are important to her, the little things that we take for granted are sources of vulnerability for Rey. She can be in a state of awe at the natural beauty of a forest or become a kid in wonder at the start of rain. That's one of the main reasons that I like her as a child."
                You're really pushing it, man. I mean, if you can in the same breath utter how useless "MARTHA" is when people overanalyze the shit out of it and then go and do this over a minute conversation of a job offering = parenthood, then there really is nothing one can do for you.

                But here's the thing; if it really meant that much to Rey, she'd have TAKEN it first of all, and even if she did, it's still but an idea/notion of something that stretches way beyond rational thinking and results in what would be exactly what I said: Han extended an olive branch to her like a friend might and she saw it as "fathership" because Han is old, not because he actually did anything for her that was fatherly. And in that, that still spells out a "SHALLOW" bit of writing taking the biggest, widest exaggeration of a tiny moment as possible and ramming it in the audience faces just so they understand why it's so devastating later on when Han dies.

                "Everyone wants to say she's "perfect", but she's not. She's extremely damaged and vulnerable as a character."
                This has a lot more to do with what she DOES as a character vs. who she's set up to be. But that's a whole different conversation altogether.

                "So? One of my idols as a kid was Michael Jordan. He ain't a chemical engineer..."
                Was he your "father figure" too?

                "These things like flying spaceships and these stories that she's barely acquainted with (not like she gets much TV, only knows what gets passed along verbally) they are wondrous fables to Rey. She's naive. She's innocent. She has nothing and no one. What the hell else is there for her to look up to? You don't seem to factor in where she is coming from as a character, like, at all..."
                How am I not taking her character into consideration to say a minute conversation of a job offering =/= "my father figure"? I mean, even seriously abused and scarred children don't see the first stranger offering them something as equal to a parent.

                You seem to think that just because the film SAYS it, that makes it so, but I highly doubt that if the film actually never TOLD you that's how she viewed Han explicitly, you wouldn't have such strong feelings about it when it literally boils down to a minute conversation over a job offering that Rey herself TURNED DOWN.

                "No, says the guy who actually considers the film's characterizations of its characters when he talks about the film's characterization of its characters..."
                lol You're trying to sound smarter by literally parroting yourself. What a paradox.

                "You clearly don't. I'm sure you think it should take 6 films and a comic book tie in to establish themes in a film, but that is not in anyway true of movies. TV shows, yeah, full of filler."
                Six films or Six MINUTES? Hell, not even. I suspect that you don't actually believe that literally a minute conversation can automatically = "wow. what a father figure" response even in someone who is very impressionable, but are simply excusing it because you just want to ignore any merit of a single flaw in a film you love, because you're not doing a very good job of convincing others of your agenda.

                "But in the film, we spend a lot of time picking through Rey's innocence as a character, her naivete, and we see the broad strokes over a 2 hour film which have her appreciating someone who seems to care about her enough to offer her a place in the galaxy and some company. "
                ....... What?

                See, this is exactly what "grasping at straws" looks like. You're painting a situation in "broad strokes" to excuse a line that had to hammer into our heads that Rey saw Han as a father figure when they could barely qualify as friends having spent barely 10 minutes together.

                If it was such a powerful bond, why'd they have to drive it in so hard? Film is a visual medium - you show, you don't TELL. They TOLD us that Rey saw Han as "the father she never had" and they SHOW us the equivalent of a guy giving her a job which she turns down.

                "Finn does not have that to offer it, and he's the same age as Rey. Not a natural "father/daughter" fit there."
                EXACTLY my point. Thank you for proving it. He's not in the same age range, therefore he doesn't qualify as a "father figure." Hence why I asked "is it just because Han is old?"

                "They both have holes in their lives. That is friendship. Having someone willing to take you in, that is the MAKINGS of family. And Rey lost that. She didn't lose a father, she lost the makings of a father."
                Oh, please. The "makings of a father" =/= the "makings of a friend." You yourself literally just admitted that it's the age-gap that sells that and that is the definition of a flimsy sorry excuse for writing a relationship.

            69. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 26, 2018

                "Wanted her where?"
                By his side.

                "Finn was in the same boat as Rey, on the same level. He had nothing to offer her other than friendship. That's more like siblings than a father/daughter thing."
                Again, it's because of the age-gap even though he offered her the same kind of thing.

                "And, again, I'm not saying that she was there yet with Han. I'm saying it was developing. Not developed, developing. Kylo Ren remarked on it. Ever been really close to getting to "that point" with a girl and then it just, for whatever reason, doesn't happen? That's the father/daughter narrative between Han and Rey, except they didn't get there because he was killed.

                The emotional seeds, however, had been planted."
                And I'm saying that there wasn't ENOUGH development for it to be believable. The film remarked about it because it needed to otherwise nobody would have actually bought into the fact that Rey saw Han as a father figure.

                Just think for a moment if the film never had Kylo Ren say so explicitly, "You feel like he's the father you never had" if anyone would have actually thought that there was a burgeoning father/daughter dynamic blooming between Han and Rey. Now you may have SOME people who might have seen something there, but a lot of others would have probably said "I thought they were just friends."

                My point is that it was FORCED and the film had to force it extra hard by conking people over the head with what it was trying to do.

                "I never argued that Martha was useless. I said that it wasn't good cinema. Rey starts at the foundational principle of her character, which is a little girl left frozen in time by being ditched in a hellhole by her "family". That left a hole in her heart that nothing had filled. That is an integral part of her characterization. She does not have a normal existence, she's eyes-wide-open throgh everything "normal" to which she had never been exposed. She's naive"
                You can be naive without seeing others as a father figure who just offer you a job. Besides, Rey was initially quite hostile to Finn who was trying to help her even after he told her he's "with the resistance", so her naivety and wide-eyed doe-ness at others showing her kindness isn't all there for that relationship to be believable.

                "If you and I get offered a crew membership on the Falcon, it's a job. Because we don't have that hole in our hearts. It takes on a little deeper meaning for a character such as Rey, however, because she does have that hole."
                But that's my whole point - she has a hole in her heart, but she isn't as vulnerable as you're making her out to be. She DISMISSED Han after all.

                "And those imperfections, her naivete and childish innocence, juxtaposed against the harder shell that is her physical capability, that's what is endearing about her characterization. It's kinda like with Wonder Woman, they are immensely powerful but there's so much that they've never been exposed to. And that's where their quintessential goodness comes from, not from being perfect but from being innocent."
                I'd argue that Wonder Woman is better set up because we actually get to experience her as a character regarding what she wants, HOW she's raised and WHY she is the way she is. Rey is pretty much a blank slate both in TFA and TLJ. We get that she's an orphan, but we don't get much after that. For one thing, WHY is she so "kind" when others have treated her the way she is? We get context that her parents were "filthy junkers" who sold her off for drinking money as a child, and yet she still maintains that "innocence". If anything, she should be hardened and angry at the world. At least WW has a moral foundation and her mother worked hard to keep her innocent as well by not revealing everything there is to know about the world.

                "If Rey was this hard-ass, gruff, loner type of character who was then also completely infallible in a fight, that would be a shitty character. But she's not that, her imperfections are what make her relatable and endearing."
                That's part of the problem though. The film TRIES to have it both ways by characterizing her both as this naive wide-eyed child, but also a "take your hands off me! I don't need no man" girl as well who is able to adapt and do pretty much anything the plot requires her to do which includes her mastery of the Force and her ability to pilot and understand ships (and SWIM no less in TLJ even though she's never actually been exposed to water).

                But I don't know if you really want to get into the whole "Rey's a Mary Sue" debate, so I'll leave it there for now.

                "Rey didn't accept the job because, to her, she still has a family - even though she knows better than that deep down. She has to get back to Jakku and wait on them to come back. It's how she's gotten herself through life, that was her purpose. And she wasn't in a hurry to follow some heroic destiny. That's the difference between she and Luke. His mind was always to the stars, to the future. Hers is always to the sand that she's in and to the past."
                No it wasn't. Yes, she always had that part of her that desired for her parents to come back, but she was obviously looking to the stars and dreaming to get off Jakku and do something else with her life. We even see that as she looks longingly at the skies when she's cleaning the junk parts before she's forced to get back to work.

                The difference is that Luke had good and loving parental figures who cared about his wellbeing while Rey didn't have anyone, but they ultimately intertwine with one another in being "dreamers."

                "You don't have to view Han as a father figure or her relationship to his as anything more than a friendship, that's up to you. I'm just telling you what I see when I watch them and when I watch that film."
                If that's how you see the relationship, that's one thing, but the film is trying to FORCE it onto the audience by explicitly driving in how it wants people to see their relationship with Kylo explicitly saying "FATHER".

                And my point is that based on the length the two spent with one another and how Rey was already characterized that it makes no sense.

                "My bigger point is that Han was not a "mentor". If she was ever under his employ or being taught anything by him or put/guided on her path by him, he'd have been a mentor. But none of that occurs."
                I never positioned Han as a "mentor" figure in a way that made sense. I was saying that that's how the film was positioning him as in the same way that it tried to force upon us that Rey saw Han as "dad."

                "Luke is Rey's mentor, the Ben Kenobi analogy happens in VIII, not VII. That's my overarching point."
                Again, I don't see Han as a mentor. I was only stating that as a similarity based on how the film posits him as.

                I've even seen pro-Force Awakens fans excusing this by saying how Han "taught" Rey about the Force and "taught" her about the myths and legends she heard about by opening her world up, thus fulfilling that "mentor" role. I think it's all a load of hogwash, but that's the way it is.

                So it's not just me who said it.

                "If I didn't have a dad and Michael Jordan took me in, he'd have been a prime candidate."
                Depends on what he did for you and perhaps your age.

                "Kylo Ren says "So afraid to leave. At night, desperate to sleep . You imagine an ocean. I see it. I see the island. And Han Solo. You feel like he's the father you never had." to which he further remarked "he would have disappointed you.""
                Yep. Ridiculous ham-fisted dialogue meant to hammer home the point the film is trying to sell.

                "Look, dialogue has a reason to exist in films. We still received information, key information and insight, through the dialogue between characters. It's not just filibustering, it's purposeful. Kylo Ren's insights reflect Rey's characterization, giving us insight into her character which makes sense within the context of her circumstances."
                Dialogue has a reason to exist, but in terms of characterization, a film shouldn't have to TELL you connections are being made as opposed to SHOWING you. Again, if Kylo Ren never said that, a lot of people wouldn't have thought twice about whether or not Rey saw Han as a "dad" figure.

                "But, again, this is a small aspect of the character, a nuance that I noticed in Daisy's performance and the way that she emotes in the role."
                Okay, fine. But I certainly didn't see that.

                "My point was that Han was not a mentor figure. That they didn't just recycle the Ben Kenobi plot mechanic from IV. It's two different things..."
                They POSITED him in that particular role though - not in regards to what he does or doesn't "teach" Rey, but in regards to what he "means" to Rey, otherwise his death wouldn't have such a keen impact on her character up to even Episode 8 where she tearfully asks why Kylo had to kill him.

                ...... BTW - it's kinda awkward how Rey apparently has a more visceral aftermath reaction to Han's death having known him for all of ten minutes vs. Luke who was his best friend for decades and he never thinks twice about it after he asks.

                "What is this new standard that if you don't shit on something you like in some ways then you don't really know it that well or have no credibility? As if that's more "honest" or something..."
                It's simply the acknowledgement of "no film is perfect"... Or at least very few are. I'm not asking you to "shit" on it per-say as to simply recognize that other people DO have gripes with it and that just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it outrageous.

                I mean, you went to great lengths to convince me that just because I loved BvS that there still is the need to acknowledge that so many others hated it and that meant something was genuinely wrong with it. And while TFA/TLJ clearly don't have that same level of hate going on, that doesn't discredit the numerous complaints that they do end up having - some of which that parallel each other. I mean, I wasn't the only one to find TLJ and BvS' problems seemingly familiar.

                "There are plenty of films that I like which have flaws. There are other films that I don't see in that manner because I believe them to be very clean in substantiating themselves."
                Yet the whole reason you're still debating with me is that you want me to SEE that TFA/TLJ are inherently clean of these flaws when you know that I won't/don't agree.

            70. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 28, 2018

                "Yes there was, dude. This is film. It doesn't take three seasons of TV to build relationships in a better storytelling medium such as cinema. The planting of those emotional connections was well-realized. It was established. That was the story, the potential of it which was ripped from Rey. Not that it was a fully formed relationship."
                That's a super-duper flimsy excuse. In that case, you could pretty much excuse any plot point or character motivation in any other movie as simply "they didn't have time."
                This is a nearly two and a half hour movie. You pick and choose what you deem important before you start shooting. You're not held down by "time" if you want to illustrate something.

                "That's what you fail to understand about writing, you can't remove the resolve of an idea from the story and still keep the idea in the story."
                And what you fail to understand about writing is that if you're trying to illustrate an important character dilemma or relationship, you build it through meaningful scenes and development. Not just one-and-done-it and then knock it into the audience's head "THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING!! SEE?"

                "Removing that line means that it would have made no sense to emphasize Rey's just-below-the-surface emotional response to Han offering her a place on the Falcan, to his recognition of her abilities as a pilot and mechanic, to the entirety of their dynamic."
                THANK YOU for illustrating my entire point. Without that line of exposition, that scene is meaningless and flies over everyone's heads because there wasn't enough substance there to plant the seeds of any kind of meaningful "father/daughter" dilemma.

                "All of those interactions exist to get to the point in the film where Kylo Ren needles her about it during his interrogation of her, which establishes her emotional state firmly in the minds of the audience members, which heightens the effect of Han's death for her."
                No, it doesn't. By your own reckoning, we are solely reliant on one line of exposition to understand everything when film is a visual medium and that relationship has 0% of substance for anyone without it being needled in their heads.

                Nobody needed Han to say to Luke out loud "we're really good friends" in the OT for people to understand that they were friends. We SAW it build. We saw characters develop. We were SHOWN as per the standards of film - we weren't TOLD. And we didn't need a line of exposition to sell that point either.

                "This is filmmaking, you have 2 hours to tell a complete story."
                Exactly. So you make those 2 hours count instead of wasting them. If you're trying to sell to an audience a relationship so that we feel the pain and loss of a character when it's broken, you show us, you don't give us one scene and a line of exposition and expect that's enough.

                "I know that you equate filler to "development", but it ain't the same thing. The film planted those seeds. It had enough time to do that. It gave them enough water. Growing the plant WAS NOT THE STORY VALUE here, it was the planting of the seeds."
                And the point is that they didn't even PLANT the seeds for their to be any value there in the first place. I know you equate dialogue exposition as the be-all-end-all of filmmaking, but it quite simply isn't.

                "Wrap your head around that or stop talking about it, man."
                No thanks. If that bothers you so much, then maybe you can stop talking about it, man. ;)

            71. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 28, 2018

                "You seem to be of the mind that I said "they didn't have time". That is not what I said. What I said is that they had plenty of time to do what they did, which wasn't to develop a father/daughter relationship but to plant the seeds for one. So you might wanna smoke that again..."
                You're the one who compared the situation to television series in regards to how much time a movie can spend on developing characters.

                They had "plenty of time" to plant the seeds in a roughly two and a half hour movie and didn't actually use that time to quote "plant the seeds."

                "The issue is that you still haven't wrapped your head around what was being developed, so who are you to say that the scenes weren't "meaningful" or that the relationship wasn't well developed?"
                And the issue is that you still haven't wrapped your head around what wasn't being developed, so who are you to say that they "were meaningful" or that the relationship was well developed?

                "The relationship between Rey and Han was at the beginning of something. It wasn't resolved or fully developed. That's the point. Explain to me what you fail to understand about that."
                It wasn't developed AT ALL beyond a flipping job offering and a line of exposition meant to bash your head against the wall on what it was. It's not a matter of planting the seeds to something. It's a matter that there was no seeds to plant. Explain to me what you fail to understand about that.

                "No, that's completely asinine. Looking into someone's mind is a natural opportunity in genre films to give the audience insight into the character without being "forced exposition". We can watch Daisy Ridley's performance as Rey and see how she is affected by Han Solo in the film. They set up Ren's remarks with Rey's characterization and her emotional response."
                That's a completely asinine excuse. We can have a character look into another character's mind to reinforce that which we already know, but the other character doesn't. Otherwise, to introduce a concept foreign to us that is something as important as character building is equal to forced exposition telling us something we should have already known through the visuals. There is NO EMOTION there because there was NO EMOTION to begin with.

                "The writers were intelligent and competent enough to have Rey's characterization make an impact on the film and the audience's experience watching the film. And you are just ignorant enough of storytelling to believe that this is a bad thing."
                There it is. The classical "you just didn't get it" response that you yourself get bent out of shape when it's thrown your way.

                The writers were unintelligent and incompetent enough to not even characterize Rey and Han's relationship at all to make an impact on the audience's experience in watching the film, therefore, they felt the need to TELL US what the impact is because they weren't able to show it. And you are just too blinded by your love of the film to make any and all excuses to defend every single detail and fill in the blanks.

                "Nowhere remotely close to what I said. Do you just skim or are you seriously that bad at comprehending things at face value and just opt to twist them all to your liking?"
                lol. It's your ENTIRE POINT, dude. You are literally arguing that you can't remove that line of exposition while conceding that without it, nobody would have seen just how much Han's job offering meant to Rey.
                Do you even READ your own posts?

                "No, Rey's characterization, her interactions with Han, that is all purposeful. It's a part of her vulnerability as a character, and it is that vulnerability that is picking apart inside of Rey's mind. There has to be some prior demonstration of that, or else it's out of left field. But they demonstrated it prior to that interrogation."
                How? By him offering her a job? That's not purposeful nor is it "fatherly" and it's not enough of particular value for anyone to stretch their disbelief in thinking that it meant soooo much to her that it needed a line of exposition to hammer into people's heads just in case they didn't get it.

                "It is in Rey's need to stay and wait for her family, in her deep appreciation at being offered a home and a purpose, in how Rey is in awe from the simplest things like trees and lakes and rain. She has been hurt, and Kylo Ren was picking those scabs. That's the point of his intrusion into her mind."
                There is a huge difference between admiring different atmospheres and seeing some old man as a "father figure" when you barely spend any time with him at all and over some meager act which she TURNED DOWN.

                Had there been more substance to what you keep going out of your way to make excuses for, then it'd be a different story. But it's not and that's why it's shallow and meaningless.

            72. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 28, 2018

                "I said that TV is full of filler, that you don't need a whole season to tell the stories that TV series tell. I consider film to be a better storytelling medium because it forces more efficiency in telling a story."
                Indeed. Which is also why you have to efficiency delegate your time to focus on the things that matter in your story to RID yourself of the filler. My point is that they didn't delegate in order to show (not tell) the audience that Han was a father figure to Rey.

                "Yeah they did. Her interactions with Han were the seeds."
                What interactions? They barely had any screentime together. The biggest interaction they had was in regards to Han offering her a job and as we've established, a job =/= fathership.

                "Her vulnerable emotional state resulting from her abandonment were the seeds. Han admired Rey, he was impressed by her. She saw this, it meant a helluvalot to her to be appreciated by someone. He offered her things that others had only ever ripped away from her. Those are the seeds, that is the infancy of that relationship. That start between Han and Rey is why Rey was "wondering how Han would have been as a father". Not that he was her father, that's not the seed, the seed is the question. And, yeah, the film substantiated that basic question."
                No, it didn't. All you're doing is making excuses by filling in the blanks the film provided with false substance. The SEEDS can't just come from Rey - they have to come from the both of them because it's a RELATIONSHIP we're being sold on, not just an impression. Had Han done something more substantial, then you'd have a point. But all he did was offer her a job and Rey... TURNED IT DOWN.

                "Everything about Rey is shaped by her emotional state, which is the result of being abandoned and growing up waiting for something that she knows deep down will never happen. So how the hell is that true? Ren didn't introduce the concept to us, he confirmed for us what was in Rey's mind. But we, the audience, have enough to question that based on how Rey responds to Han's appreciation of her - her statements, the look on her face, the way the film slows down in those small moments to emphasize this."
                That's not enough because A) Daisy Ridley is not that good of an actress and B) we're being sold on something that is completely different than just a character's emotional state. Just because Rey has abandonment issues doesn't mean it's believable for her to see the first old guy that offered her a job as "gee... What a father..."

                There are plenty of other stories out there about abandoned children who don't immediately gravitate towards the first person they see as a father figure. That takes time. Development. CHARACTER INTERACTION. Stuff that TFA doesn't and fails to do. Instead, what we got is a job offering and a line of exposition that smashes in our face what the film tried and failed to deliver. And this is all on account of the very fact that you yourself acknowledge in that WITHOUT that scene of exposition, nobody would have thought twice whether or not Rey thought of Han as a "dad."

                "You kept responding as if there was some "father/daughter" relationship there and that said relationship was what I was referring to."
                I "kept" responding that way because that is what you're trying to infer. The "seeds" of one still needs SEEDS.

                "So first I explained to you that you didn't get it, and then I informed you directly that you didn't get it. I didn't just say "you don't get it"."
                No, that's exactly what you did since your "explanations" are shallow and only reinforce my point in that you get nothing of substance out of Han and Rey's relationship without "You feel like he's the father you never had."

                "It's not a "father/daughter" relationship, it's the start of one. One thing you don't appreciate about the writing is that they used Rey's characterization to substantiate it."
                I don't appreciate it because it's not enough and it's far too shallow to be believable. Again, I harken back to my first point; it's simply because Han is an "old man" that his offering of a job would substantiate such an emotional response in her when Finn offered the same amount of kindness to her and she saw him as nothing more than a friend. THAT'S NOT GOOD CHARACTERIZATION.

                "Wrong, my point was that Rey's characterization was the substantiation for Ren's statements, not the other way around. "Do I read my own posts"...apsh, I write them!"
                LOL. Here's what you said:

                "Removing that line means that it would have made no sense to emphasize Rey's just-below-the-surface emotional response to Han offering her a place on the Falcan"
                There. You literally just admitted that the scene was "just-below-the-surface emotional response" that it needed that line to give it substantial meaning.

                Do you read your own posts? Yeah. I asked that. And I'm gonna ask it again because as ALL WRITERS should know, you can WRITE something and have it go in one ear and out the other without any substantiation. That's why we're supposed to PROOFREAD and EDIT. That's where mistakes happen. Kinda like spelling "FALCAN." ;)

                "No, they wrote it all over Rey's characterization. Because she is an abandoned child, frozen in time, things like offering her a place in the galaxy when no one else has ever shown her the kindness or the ability to do that makes her wonder "what Han Solo would have been like as a father". Ren does not glean "Rey thinks of Han as a father" from her mind,"
                "You feel like he's the father you never had."
                That line literally flies in the face of your whole point. Yes, the movie TELLS US that Rey "thinks of Han as a father." And I'm saying that that makes no sense because there is not enough substance there to back that up.

                "it is the question of what he would have been like, what her life would have been like, if Han Solo was her dad. And that's sad. That tugs a few heartstrings for me because I've never liked seeing kids mistreated."
                Doesn't tug at my heartstrings because the film didn't make an effort to earn that response with any meaningful character development or interaction to BUILD sympathy like that.

                "You seem like kind of a cynical dick to mock that and underappreciate Rey's perspective the way that you do."
                Oh, wow. Now we're using personal insults that equate to me mocking abused children.
                That is the definition of a "dick."

                "But her perspective is perfectly human. That question that is in her mind is perfectly human."
                No, it's not because it takes a lot more than offering someone a job to get them to think parental thoughts.

                "And it doesn't take 2 1/2 hours of drama to ask that question."
                No, but it takes more than 2 1/2 minutes to accomplish that.

            73. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 29, 2018

                "Han is not a father figure to Rey. Don't just paste that one statement, listen to what I'm saying here.

                They don't use their time to establish Han as a father figure for Rey, they use their time to introduce the idea of it to someone such as Rey. That gives her a thought in her mind of what Han would have been like as her father. That is what Kylo Ren gleans from her."
                Getting a job offering and turning it down is not enough to glean that sort of response from a person. You keep acting like it is, but there's more that's needed. Hell, it wasn't even a full on offering in terms of keeping with Han's personality ("I'm THINKING about it."), and Rey still turned it down.

                How did they not put the time in to have Rey ask that question?"
                She wasn't ASKING a question, dude. Kylo literally stated "You feel like he's the father you never had." That's not an imagining of "oh, I wonder what type of father Han is". It's "Han is the father I never had." There is a huge difference. Had Kylo said "You're wondering what type of father Han is?" then you'd have a point.

                "The ones they have in the film. You're clearly hung up on some fully realized father/daughter dynamic. What are you not getting here, exactly"
                Because that's what the film is freaking insinuating that, even according to you, it needs a line of exposition to hammer into people's heads what they're trying to do. You keep acting like all it takes to "plant seeds" is one scene of interaction and a line of exposition, and while it COULD be that depending on the context of the scene and it's length, it WASN'T in the actual film. He offered her a job and she turned it down.

                "The interactions that Rey had with Han were enough to plant an idea in her mind of what it would have been like to have someone who appreciates her (as Han demonstrates) be her father."
                To be appreciated... To get a job.... =/= This guy's like a father. Base surface -
                there's more to it than that. That's why I brought up the age-factor - which you yourself admitted that were Han the same age as her, the thought wouldn't have even crossed her mind.

                "This is someone who has the insecurity that her family sees her as not being worth their time, after all. Everything about Rey's personality comes back around to how she's been hurt and who hurt her."
                That doesn't mean that it makes sense for the first old dude to come along and offer her a job should result in such a wide array of emotional responses. For real. What do you not get about that?

                "No I'm not, you're just pig-headed."
                Ha! Oh, the irony.

                "What's it fucking matter that Han offered her "a job"? What he really offered her was somewhere to belong, a crew, a family, that's what she was offered. That's the subtext as indicated by Han's dancing around Rey's excited response to his offer."
                It matters because it's NOT ENOUGH to sell such a big emotional response for the audience to connect with. It matters because you need a line of exposition to hit home the point as opposed to having the visuals themselves tell the story. That's why it matters.

                "Rey turns it down because she's waiting on her family. She wants to get back to Jakku so that all the terrible things that happened to her in her life will go away because, at that point, she's still lying to herself and telling herself that her family loves her after all and that they are coming back for her."
                But you're still missing the point; She turns it DOWN. Yes, she's in denial, but in terms of explaining exactly how much such an occurrence would mean to her, then it undermines the weight of the situation because she still turns it down. It took her meeting with Maz and the vision for her to grasp they're never coming back and yet she has no emotional response to Maz in terms of "familial connection."

                "These are not excuses, this is how the film was written and presented to the audience."
                They are excuses because what you are doing is insinuating that it's okay to underwrite dramatic moments as long as the subtext is THERE and hit over your head. Yet the excuses don't work because you already illustrated WHY they don't work by admitting that none of this would hit home were it not for Kylo's line of exposition.

                "You are making up excuses like there being "no time" devoted to hinting at a future father/daughter relationship between Han and Rey as if it takes a lot of time to hint at it."
                That's not an excuse. That is a statement that there is "no time." And I'd be right because there is literally the extent of ONE SCENE that would even offer the vaguest sense of how much it actually mattered and then it's just excused with a throwaway line to hit home the magnitude when nobody would have thought otherwise.

                "And further, you are completely disregarding and downplaying the body language and line delivery of the actors which delivers the subtext to the audience."
                How? Because it's not believable that a simple job offering leads to "He's my father figure?" It's a big leap in logic for one scene that barely lasts a minute to dictate.

                ""Plot" is what happens. "Story" is why it happens."
                I'm sure you think that just because you either went to Film School or read textbooks/wiki articles that you understand the magnitude of Story/Plot differences and importance, but there's more to it than that.

                "Why don't you step back and consider WHY these things happened, WHY Rey reacted the way that she did, WHY she is vulnerable. Because until you do that you will never understand the story of any film. Period."
                This is a good analysis for you to utilize. Perhaps if you took a step back and considered WHY the things happening were too minimal, WHY Rey reacting the way she does doesn't amount to a large leap in logic, and WHY being vulnerable doesn't equate acts of kindness to "what a good father". Because until you do that, you will never understand story and character development. PERIOD.

                "Unless it's a Zack Snyder endeavor and everything is delivered in the most rote, forced way imaginable."
                Bold words from someone who is trying to make something so minimal into this BIG and WONDERFUL broad meaning that can't even be seen by the audience without exposition forcibly delivering it home. ;)

            74. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 30, 2018

                "Kylo says "He would have disappointed you". That's a 'perfect continuous conditional' of the "if" which is "if Han Solo was my father". The context of how something is stated is, of course, very important. But this is still just a sort of fantasy in Rey's mind."
                That's only AFTER he summarized how Rey "felt he's the father she never had." It's still not the same as what I stated in regards to "what IF" since that's already what she felt after a damn job offering.

                "I don't think Han thinks of Rey as a "daughter". He's not open in that regard. Rey is. For Rey to begin thinking of Han as a father figure is perfectly within reason."
                Once again, no it's not. Not even for the neediest person in existence. It takes more than a job offering to gain that kind of response from a person. ESPECIALLY those who are jaded and lonely. If anything, it would make them MORE inclined to be so hesitant towards kindness from others when they're so accustomed to being rejected.

                "For the film to suggest that this relationship is fully developed implies that Han would consider Rey a "daughter". In their short time together, he obviously comes to care for her. He's a human being, and always has been a good man deep down, but Harrison and Daisy play it as a bright eyed, innocent kid meets a grumpy old curmudgeon who's extremely impressed with this kid."
                Which in turn does not = "he's like a father to me." That is, again, why I brought up the Age-range as the apparent main reason Rey would even entertain the notion when if they were the SAME age, there's no reason whatsoever that such a thought would pop up in her mind.

                The film TRIES to act like the idea was developed enough to, as you call, "plant the seeds," but it's not.

                "And don't quote the film to me, I pasted the quote initially."
                lol Why not? Is it because you don't like being "talked down to" when you're trying to flaunt your knowledge of it as if you can win a debate by just saying "I know more than you do?"

                "I am not interested in a semantic argument, that's not the point of the story. The point of the story is Rey's characterization."
                And the point of is that her characterization was NOT ENOUGH to support such a wild emotional statement that apparently needs a line of exposition to fully sell the idea in the first place.

                "And, again, Rey turns down the job offer because of her emotional vulnerability which has convinced her that her parents are returning to get her. But she was clearly moved by Han's offer and the sense that he cared about her. That was written all over that scene. Do you seriously not see Rey being emotionally affected by that encounter?"
                It's not a matter of how she plays the scene. She plays it like anyone might expect. I never said that she didn't admire Han for what he offered. I said it wasn't ENOUGH to imply such a large presumption that it equaled "Han is like a father to me." I can't believe I'm saying this since it's not a good movie, but even the bad film "LIKE MIKE", which deals with an orphaned kid idolizing an adult "Celebrity-status" character who grows to show him kindness doesn't immediately view him as "daddy" despite also being neglected throughout his life.

                Think of it like this: first off, Rey isn't characterized believably considering what she's been through. The film TRIES to have it both ways by making her vulnerable and needy, but also being a badass "I don't need no man... Take your hands off me" fighter. She's super "kind" even when her situation would call for her to be neglectful of others in response to how others were neglectful of her. She's strong-willed and independent, while still being wide-eyed and vulnerable. She isn't consistent.

                To top it off, she views the kindness of a stranger, who happens to be in the age-range to be fatherly, as "like a dad" when anyone would have just viewed it as "friendly."

                You even said:
                "If Rey was this hard-ass, gruff, loner type of character who was then also completely infallible in a fight, that would be a shitty character. "
                And I'd be inclined to agree - but the film ALREADY characterizes her AS this, but tries to have its cake and eat it too by giving her that vulnerability which is too on-the-nose to be believable. If anything, it would be MORE believable since she's made out to be such a badass (to the point of... ahem... "Mary-Sueness"..... But I digress) for her exterior to be a tough one to crack because she's been so neglected, but instead, she's a practical "angel" because she is both tough and kind to a fault.

            75. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                February 3, 2018

                "It's not just a "job offer", it's a membership to the club, so to speak. And it's based on more than just Han's offer to join his crew (which was an offer, he was clearly fronting with his "I'm thinking about it!"). That was a capper. It was the way that Han was treating her."
                And again, that's not enough for someone to think up such a strong connection to "he's like a father" when it still is little more than just a job offer. Club, no club, home, no home...

                "You keep talking about Finn, but Finn keeps trying to protect Rey. Taking her hand every time they run, and so on. Han acknowledged and respected her formidable abilities, offered her a place in the galaxy, put off that vibe that he cared about her well-being."
                Protecting someone IS caring about their well-being, and Finn only did that initially as they were running. Afterward, he clearly treated her with more respect in her abilities and was just as friendly with her as Han was. So he had just as much to offer in regards to making her feel something toward him, but it's only because he's not 70 years old that it would never be anything remotely resembling a father figure.

                Again, had Han been 30, his job offering (or club-offering) wouldn't have amounted to "what a father figure" response.

                "Wasn't JUST a job offer, son..."
                Yes it was.

                "Rey is the furthest thimg from "jaded" as is humanly possible. She's certainly wary within her environment on Jakku, but she has a very wide-eyed look at the larger galaxy once she leaves that hell-hole. Rey is characterized by naivete, possessed of a certain kind of innocence in how she views the galaxy and its citizens. She's not jaded about anything, how could you say that? The only thing that she has which should have made her jaded is the thing that she's spent her life lying to herself about. She literally does not allow herself to become jaded, she's the complete opposite..."
                What I'm saying is that the type of environment and life-style she grew up with WOULD make her jaded. And jaded enough to not view a job offering as an offer to view the individual as a father figure. She's naive in the sense that she doesn't understand things, but in the way she's been treated and raised, that would make her very much conflicted and make her feel hesitant toward others. She wasn't even "raised." Her parents certainly didn't teach her "manners" nor did the person she had to trade parts with in exchange for food.

                "It's not some huge deal in the film, it's a detail. It's a nuance, an informative point to the audience that Han's death cut Rey just a little deeper. That is useful in shaping her conflict with Kylo Ren, something that VIII takes even further and re-examines. The point of the Han/Rey dynamic is about Ren/Rey moving forward, not about Rey lamenting the loss of her "father""
                That's not just a "detail", dude. That's a huge deal in terms of CHARACTER RELATIONSHIPS. Without it, like you said, Han's death wouldn't have meant much to her beyond just a friendly guy she knew getting killed. Which would have been fine if the film didn't try to sell that little "detail" to mean such a big deal.

                "Well, first off, the way that an actress acts is a HUGE component in the emotional connections that films and their characters make to the audience."
                True, but an actor acting out a scene a particular way doesn't automatically sell an audience to a concept or narrative detail you're trying to pinpoint. Especially not if it's in dire need of exposition to prove the point indefinitely. If it was strong enough on its own, it wouldn't need it at all.

                "Secondly, "Han is like a father to me" is an oversimplification of that dynamic. That idea in her head is split into two separate ideas, part of which is "the father I never had". Ren pulls out a deep-seded thought, an insecurity of Rey's that she would NEVER admit to herself because that would be an admission to herself that she never had a father which is the very thing she protects herself against. Ren is pulling an emotion, a feeling, not an intellectually considered statement."
                Which is exactly why it's so inconsequential that it means next to NOTHING within your own contextualization of the moment. That's why the scene didn't work in selling the dynamic at all - because it needs exposition of a supposed deep-seded, literal microcosmic thought to actually garner the kind of response from audiences so that we know why Han's death affects her so much.

                "You see that, yeah?"
                Since you literally had to undermine how important it was after you kept over-estimating its importance? Yeah, I see that.

                "Rey is nowhere close to a gruff hardass... And that's not a film having its cake and eating it too, it's how Rey evolved in a place like Jakku with nothing and no one to guide her."
                You're right. Rey's not a gruff hardass. That would actually give her some semblance of a flaw considering how infallible she is as a character in both her abilities and moral compass.

                "If you look at indigenous tribes and the members of, they have adapted to their environments. They're formidable, they are survivors. They are not "jaded" by their environments, however. Much of their personalities are innocent. If you introduce something wondrous to them (like canned food, for example - real world scenario from WWII island-hopping activities) they don't meet it with suspicion. They meet it with a sense of awe."
                That depends greatly on the type of indigenous tribes you speak of. Most of which DO have nurturing people teaching their youngsters how to survive and thrive on so little whereas Rey had NOBODY. She was not "raised" in any way. Not by her parents, who likely treated her no better than how she's treated on Jakku without them and not from the junk dealer who makes her scavenge parts for food.

                It's not just about the environment, it's the people. There's a reason kids with bad parents can grow up into nasty individuals. And those that do grow up isolated usually have to be cultured before they treat anyone without suspicion.

                Rey didn't grow up as a member of a tribe. If she did, then her attitude might make sense if she had caring people to support her.

                "And that is who Rey is. She is sheltered. She never knew enough of anything to understand that she had been "deprived". Her personality and characterization is as much a product of Jakku as are her physical abilities. There's simply more to shaping a person than saying "they had a hard life, they should be a hardass". Rey does not know that she's had a hard life. Part of that is a front that she puts on for herself, of course, the way she protects herself which we see begin slipping away in VIII."
                She knows enough to feel her life sucks on Jakku and that she longs for parents, even though she knows deep down they're never coming back to get her. She knows she is "deprived" which informs why she's so independent apparently, capable of feats of strength, ingenuity and intelligence that amazes everyone around her.

                If she were a "hardass," then it might make a little more sense and give a tiny bit of semblance to a character arc based on how she grew up and the environment she lived, but since that's not what happened, she's just inconsistent. You can be naive not knowing things, but she has a strong moral compass and she's more than capable of sticking up for herself.

                "That's what makes Rey unique and endearing. She's not so cliche as to have been defined within her environment by OUR experience, they actually tracked through who this character would be as a person. She comes from somewhere organic and raw, not calloused."
                Instead, she's a perfect, all around being who is morally sound and can do anything and everything whenever the plot deems it necessary. She may be characterized as a needy person, but in actuality, she needs nobody because she's perfectly fine and independent to take care of herself.

                A sheltered individual who has never seen an ocean before can apparently SWIM perfectly fine when the plot calls for it - just as she can wield the force and a lightsaber against much more experienced individuals and beat them when it's convenient.

            76. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                February 4, 2018

                "The thing is that it's a small aspect of the film, a detail of Rey's performance based on the vulnerabilities of her characterization. So, yeah, what they did between Han and Rey was enough to establish what they were going for in that regard. The film never puts it under a microscope because it's not that important to the story."
                But the thing is that it IS important and a larger aspect of the film that you're making it out to be. Because Han's relationship with Rey is what drives the film's climax. Not only that, but it leads into the next film in determining why Rey is so upset that Kylo killed his own father when his death apparently meant a lot more to her than it meant to him.

                Without that line of exposition, it's NOTHING. So that's why it's important. You can't underplay something like that and expect that a line of exposition will sell just how important you want it to be only to forget about it until the big death scene.

                "If it were a bigger part of the story and of the film, it stands to reason that they would have dove further in. Without basing the entire film on it, which they didn't do, there's no reason to do more than they did with it."
                Yes there is. If you want to sell people on why his death means so much to her, then you have to do a better job in showcasing the relationship. Even if it's just planting the seeds, then work to PLANT the seeds beyond just ONE scene of a job offering.

                Pretend for just a second that you don't actually know Han Solo - his status in pop culture or his existence in the other films. In which case, what would that death mean to an audience who didn't already have pre-established feelings for him in seeing how his death affected Rey with such a microcosmic setup. Barely anyone would buy it. But the film thinks that it was enough based on who Han Solo is to us, therefore, they barely even try to establish a connection.

                "You forget, my entire point was that Han was not a "mentor" figure, more of a father figure,"
                I didn't forget. My entire point was that they're both EQUALLY ridiculous because Han neither demonstrates any measure of mentoring nor being a father figure to Rey in any real regard and it wouldn't have registered with anyone if Kylo Ren didn't have to hammer the point home with a clunky line of exposition to TELL us what the filmmakers wanted audiences to get from their interaction.

                "and, therefore his death can't be cited as some ripoff of Ben Kenobi. Just another instance where the notion of VII being some remake of IV is too thin to hold any water for those of us with an actual ability to understand the roles of characters in these films."
                You completely misrepresented my point to serve your agenda because you don't want to admit or acknowledge that 7 bears any resemblance to 4. In terms of what the film itself is trying to sell, then yes, Han's death does serve a similar purpose to Ben's death in the main character losing their mentor figure. Han is neither a mentor nor a father, so it rings hollow, and that was my point.

                "And Han's biggest role was centered around resolving Kylo Ren's arc in VII as Vader resolved Luke's in VI."
                That's not comparable as I've established beforehand - because we're JUST being introduced to Kylo in this film, but we've had time to care about Luke's arc up to Jedi and understand what it was he was trying to accomplish.
                There's the bare minimum base-surface for Kylo and we've never SEEN him and Han interact until that moment, so whatever arc he had rings hollow because the film never took the time to actually have their relationship matter to people yet.

                "In terms of Rey's characterization, I stand by everything I said."
                Of course you do. Stubborn is as stubborn does.

                "She is born of something raw, yet innocent. She has spent her whole life to that point protecting herself, both emotionally and physically."
                What? She can't be born out of something raw and still be "innocent" when all her life, she's known nothing but abuse and mistreatment - both by her own parents and the junk dealer who forces her to scavenge for measly food portions per day.

                "Can't just wave your little fanboy hand at that and make it vanish, character logic goes further than that."
                I could say the same about you in terms of "fanboying" over something you like. ;)

                "She shouldn't be a scarred psyche, she should be a raw nerve. That is the result of being sheltered. That is how the character is imperfect. She's reserved, not impulsive, and she is brave but naive."
                She's not "sheltered", dude. Learn the definition. She wasn't "sheltered" from raw realities when she got hit over the head with them practically every day of her life. If anything, she's strictly in-denial of something she even knows deep down will never happen. That's why she wants to believe that not only her parents will come back for her, but that they were "Someone" important so that their reasoning for ditching her would make sense and bring closure.
                She would be reserved because she has nobody to trust, but to still come out as being all the perfect traits of the most admirable people despite her lifestyle makes little sense beyond being a Mary Sue.

                "If you think she's perfect, maybe that's because you find her endearing?"
                No, it's because I don't find her personality believable based on what we know of her backstory. She's a neglected young girl who has never been treated nicely, yet somehow is perfectly capable of treating others with kindness and understanding. She has no semblance of love in her life, yet she's able to somehow see the most basic offerings as invitations to family. That just doesn't happen in real life. People who are neglected are tough eggs to crack.

                You may like Rey because she seems to you "un-cliched", but you fail to realize that many of the cliches that exist to characterize people like Rey exist for a reason - and that's because people who have had such hard lifestyles end up being molded by their environments. It's sad, but it's the truth.

            77. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                February 5, 2018

                "It's what drives Rey's repulsion to Kylo Ren. It informs their relationship in that film and moving forward into VIII. It does not drive the climax. The climax is driven by Starkiller Base readying to obliterate the Resistance as Kylo Ren attempts to extract Luke's location from Rey's mind, all the while a rescue mission/tactical strike on the shield arrayis in progress from Finn, Han, Chewie, and BB-8 as the Resistance scrambles fighters to engage Starkiller Base and its defenses."
                Since the film's climax substance revolves more around what's going on with with Rey and Kylo, then yes, it does drive the climax because the death of Han informs the central conflict going on between the two characters which is what leads them into a fight. Starkiller Base is just a backdrop. It's the Plot-device conflict that exists at that point outside the protagonist and the antagonist's caring or concern. Because of that, this is why the concurrent relationship that was barely set up is of utmost importance because it resonates hollowly due to how poorly and minimally it was utilized in the end.

                "The character dynamics of the climax are fueled by Han's familial relation to Ren and Finn's protective nature toward Rey. Rey and Ren have that antagonistic interaction wherein Ren starts ripping apart Rey's psyche and Rey responds by resisting, escaping, and ultimately embarrassing Ren."
                Which ties into the whole "Mary Sue" angle in terms of how Rey should be able to embarrass Kylo at all considering the different points they are, but I digress.

                "Those are the things driving the climax, not Rey and Han. Rey and Han is a part of what Ren is ripping from Rey's psyche, an invasion of her mind and her vulnerabilities. But no aspect of the climax dwells on that. Of course the heroes react in shock and disbelief to Han's death, there is the emotion of it, and Rey's reaction was the strongest other than Chewbacca. All of it is in there, none of it is sitting at the wheel..."
                There IS no emotion in it though that makes sense, which is part of my point in how poorly it was set up. Rey shouldn't have such a stirring emotional reaction to Han's death because in the span of things, he should mean very little to her beyond a friend. But instead, it DOES drive the emotional aspect of the climax because that's why Rey hates Kylo so much and why she's so angry at him.

                "That's an easy sell. First off, his death means so much to US. We naturally see where Rey and Finn are coming from by processing that loss because he is a legend to both of them, as he is to us."
                See, you're just proving my point from above where I mentioned this exact thing.
                Pretend for just a second that you don't actually know Han Solo - his status in pop culture or his existence in the other films. In which case, what would that death mean to an audience who didn't already have pre-established feelings for him in seeing how his death affected Rey with such a microcosmic setup. Barely anyone would buy it. But the film thinks that it was enough based on who Han Solo is to us, therefore, they barely even try to establish a connection.

                Therefore, we're mourning Han, the LEGEND, not Han, the man. Which emotionally rings hollow. Not for us, but for Rey because she didn't even KNOW him. Not really.

                "Secondly, Han's treatment of Rey meant something to her which was of emphasis in the film. Ren digging just what that meant out of her mind was the payoff to it, it wasn't the whole shebang."
                But it WAS because that moment was needed to drive home what the point was ultimately all about. Without that, there is NOTHING of substance to go off of for anyone to assume that Han was like a father to Rey.

                "You keep saying that without Ren doing so, we'd have no idea of it. That's not true."
                But you already admitted that it was true because you said that you NEED that scene to prove what the film was trying to sell. If it didn't exist, we'd have no inclination that Rey viewed Han as anything more than a kind stranger/friend.

                "We see it in their performances, we see the subtext of it. It was just underneath the surface, and that is clear to see. Ren brought it to the surface. That's called emotional resolve. There is a clear technique on display. "It's not enough", says you."
                Yes, says me. I stand by that. It's "not enough." And by you saying that we only see the subtext of it that was in need of Kylo's exposition to drive the point home, you prove my point exactly that it was not enough. There is no emotional resolve in that. It's just spelling out what the film intended you to see. That's not "technique" being used well. It's sloppy. Episode II tells us Anakin and Padme love each other, but do we believe it?

                "You've yet to provide a convincing argument for that,"
                Oh, please. You wouldn't be convinced either way because you love the film are aiming to defend it. Nothing I nor anyone else would ever change your mind, so don't excuse that with "convincing arguments." And if you're going to (predictably) respond to that with an attempt at a smarmy insult, at least be clever about it.

                "however, you've even applied far more weight to it than anything the film gives you, which I have demonstrated above."
                No, I didn't. I merely stated what the inclination the film wanted the viewers to have in regards to the relationship and you simply dodged that by trying to argue technicalities and semantics. Not actually regarding what the film tried and failed to set up properly.

                "I say that it is enough to do the little thing they set out to do. And guess what, given how many girls are gonna grow up to be Rey fans, given the reception to the film from critics and general audiences, I would say that the notion that Rey doesn't connect with the audience is pretty clearly untrue."
                Oh, please. Plenty of people thought the prequels would resonate as well, but it didn't (and contrary to perception, all of them were "Fresh" on the tomatometer too - even Phantom Menace, which has only fallen to rotten status because of the influx of reviews after it's 3D re-release). Also, if it connected so well, there wouldn't even exist this whole Mary Sue mindset in the first place.

                "The issue is that you guys mistake cynicism for accuracy. A critique is the ultimate truth of art, is the current mindset. Not all criticisms make any sense, man,"
                And the other issue is that you guys mistake positivity for accuracy. Just because you love it or that the critics gave it positive vibes does not mean these films are free of criticism. Yet in your mind, they ARE since you have not ONE negative thing to say about it and even went ballistic when that was implied, saying that you didn't feel the need to shit on something you liked.

                Fine, that's your right to feel. But that doesn't mean all others are somehow "wrong" just because it doesn't fall under your mindset. You think you're the expert on critiquing just because you have an unabashed love for these films, but you frequently mix critiquing with excuses just because you don't want to admit any fallacies with the new movies due to the fact that you love them.

                "count this one and the "Mary Sue" bullshit among them..."
                No. After all, you have yet to provide a "convincing counter-argument" for me to do so. ;)

                "False, my point is that VII pulls from more than just IV."
                I never denied that though. I never said that 7 didn't pull anything from the other movies, but it is OBVIOUS that it's biggest imitation stems from 4.

                "It's a mix of new and retro, but that retro ain't exclusive to IV. The thing about that is that when you guys say that VII was just a ripoff of IV, it exposes that you don't understand the film and that you haven't put more than surface level thought into any aspect of it."
                False. It just is a fundamental truth based on how the film is structured. Nobody said that 7 EXCLUSIVELY ripped off 4 alone, just that 4 was it's biggest selling point to imitate and I don't see how anyone, even the biggest TFA shill in the galaxy can deny that. It's right there in front of your face. Even if you want to defend the movie from here to kingdom come, you can't deny that.

                "And that undercuts all other criticisms that you try to make. Because if you're wrong about that, what else are you wrong about?"
                No, it doesn't. Even IF people are wrong about one criticism, that doesn't fundamentally undercut legitimate complaints and critiques others have in the longrun. I mean, I'd say you're wrong about many of these clear excuses you deem as legitimate defenses in the same way you'd say the opposite. So if you're wrong on them, what else are you wrong about? See how that kind of thinking works?

                "That's what you don't seem to appreciate..."
                Why would I... Why would ANYONE appreciate illogical fallacies? Just because you don't agree with the criticisms doesn't make them wrong. You're just making numerous excuses so you can clear the films of any wrongdoing - and you're unabashed on that factor because you literally admitted to that in regards to how you don't want to shit on them.

                It's not a matter of "shitting" on them - just a matter of acknowledging flaws. Or at the very least demonstrating an understanding of why some of these issues would bother others even if you don't agree with them. Instead, you're just stubborn to "be right" (and you're not).

            78. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 21, 2018

                "Um, no, I'm not that fucking stupid. If you're not going to read through what I said and follow my logic, please don't waste my time."
                You're the one who brought up Episode 6 as if I wasn't aware that it reused the Death Star climax, so...

                "I'm not saying that it's okay to have brought a superweapon angle back into the films just because VI did it,"
                Good. Cause it wasn't.

                " I'm saying the construction of the sequence is more akin to VI than IV, whereas you were arguing that VII was some "remake" of IV. That is wrong, and I find that logic and your evidence of such a statement to be flimsy."
                No, it's not wrong for exactly the reasons I stated above. Structurally, VII is bare bones ANH 2.0 in how it structures its three acts and the way the characters are situated in those scenarios. While there are differences and otherwise other elements taken from other Star Wars films, the main POV stems from Episode 4. And you can look into the details and find different elements, but if you were to simply look at the skeleton of the story, then yes, that's Episode 4.

                The thing is that your complaints over VII copying IV are kinda invalidated when VII was pulling things more in terms of thematic parallels and story structure from VI than IV..."
                No, it doesn't. If I were writing a paper and I plagiarized the structure of it from student A, but borrowed other elements from student B, that doesn't negate the fact that I still copied student A.

                "Overall, it's fine to bring another superweapon in because it's fine to bring another superweapon in. As a plot device, superweapons can be very effective. Who gives a shit if there have been two Death Stars? There hadn't been one in the series before VII for 32 years..."
                32 years for us as an audience and the characters, but narratively ONE movie after what was supposed to be the final Star Wars movie they're making a sequel to. It's LAZY writing. It's not "fine" to just rehash the Death Star to make another superweapon threat to cap off your finale. It just further cements the elements in which you're rehashing and making them all the more transparent.

                "Luke lost it and reeled himself back in. He was pushed to the edge, he didn't fall over it. Dude was never some monk, he was a character who had his trials in those films. Showing Luke get pushed to the brink of making a terrible decision and falling to the dark side is fair game, that's drama, that's useful to the story. Like how flirting with the idea of having Batman kill is useful to a story, but it becomes USELESS when you actually have them do it, and it renders the story meaningless if they do it."
                Which is pretty much exactly what they did. Not in having Luke succeed in killing Kylo and falling to the Dark Side, but by having him even consider an action that goes against what he learned in the previous movies and then having that action lead to him completely abandoning everything he stood for and everyone he cares about.

                It may not be like having Batman kill, but it's the same in that the character abandons everything and everyone in his life. That's what's out of character.

                "Ben Solo was not some child, he was an early 20s, incredibly powerful force user whose mind was filled with enough darkness to take Luke Skywalker aback. And Luke is no longer a misguided but principaled hot-head, he is a wise Jedi Master who is responsible for the fate of the galaxy in that moment."
                You're calling Luke "wise" when he acted more unwise than the wisdom he demonstrated in his youth?

                Luke GREW from a "misguided but principled hot-head" into someone that would seemingly be wise beyond his years and regressed into someone who was even MORE hotheaded, but using false wisdom and empty platitudes to justify his reasoning. That's character regression, not progression.

                "You're coloring Luke as a pious monk. He never was that. Your insight into the context of it is completely lacking in that you see into things which don't exist and you completely ignore things that do."
                Um... No, I'm not. I'm coloring Luke exactly as he was which was a young man who "grew up" and demonstrated wisdom and understanding that ended up exceeding that of his masters.

                You're the one ignoring the development Luke underwent simply to justify these new films mischaracterization of him.

                "What makes it weak? If there's a natural appeal to being hated and evil, there has to be a natural appeal to being redeemed and loved again. Ben Solo wouldn't see Vader as "resisting" the darkness, Anakin completely fell to darkness and became a Sith. There was no resistance. He would see Vader as succumbing to the light."
                That's utterly ridiculous. That's like if someone worshipped Hitler for being a charismatic leader and completely disregarded the fact that he was a malicious mass murdering despot. If anything, Kylo should look down upon Vader as being "weak" for answering the call to the light since that's exactly what he wants to resist.
                It's counter-intuitive to his goals to idolize the very person who betrayed that which he seeks to achieve. It would make more sense if Kylo worshipped the Emperor if anything because at least he was the one who really was a master of the Dark Side.

                But again, here's where the outside world of marketing seeps into the storytelling because it's more likely to get the fanboys drooling by mentioning and showcasing Darth Vader because of how popular his character is and how marketable his name is in comparison to Palpatine.

                "Let me stop you right there. I'm interested in logical discussions of film structure, not blindly sheeping yourself out to whatever bullshit the internet's echo chamber has fed you."
                Actually, you kind of are if you're going to lump me in with the people who just hate the new Star Wars films because it's "disney" and "blowhards" hate on it. It's just as easy to lump you in with the shills who love it just cause it's new and shiny Star Wars who have had their sense of nostalgia and fanboyism overshadow their common sense.

                We can discuss film structure and I'm pointing out that the film structure of these new films is DEEPLY flawed.

                "If you can't actually comprehend the way that the events we're discussing shape the narratives, resolved arcs, impacted characters, etc., due to blind resentment, then you're indirectly admitting to either not be interested in comparing the respective structures of these films or not being able to do so."
                I can comprehend it just fine in that I can see it does neither of what you're saying. My whole point is in regards to how these new films' greatest flaw is how they contradict the narratives, resolved arcs and impacted characters of the OT due to the effect of the outside world and their financial goals rather than productive storytelling. That's not blind resentment. Leading up to TFA, I was like anyone else who was just psyched that a new Star Wars film was coming and I wanted to like the film, but it had one too many flaws for me to enjoy it.

                "Either way, you can't make a convincing argument with these blanket statements."
                Neither can you, hence why we're apparently going in circles here.

                "You have to walk through the logic, walk through how ALL characters are affected, NOT just the ones you want to twist around, and actually examine the films' structure."
                That's exactly what you have to do as well, but all you're doing essentially is making excuses or simply reverting statements by saying stuff like "it's not a rehash because it rehashes OTHER things" as if that negates the idea that it's a rehash at all.

                "Because, again, Ren killing Han is not the same as Vader striking down Kenobi. Different story structures, different purposes, entirely different themes."
                Again, you're splitting hairs simply to contradict what my point was in how TFA took the skeletal structure of ANH and simply applied a new skin layer, which doesn't at all negate the fact that it's still the same structure.

                "We can make other comparisons which have a more grounded basis and a less "anti-TFA" agenda, but if you're unwilling to do so it speaks to an agenda. Not insight. I'm not interested in your agenda, man..."
                You're not interested in my agenda, and yet you're the one who started this debate in the first place. Not just with me, but everyone in this thread who dared to speak ill of these new Star Wars films.

                If you're not interested in agendas, why are you so interested in selling your own?

                But in retrospective, I have no "agenda." I'm not "anti-Disney" as you so try to paint me because I happen to like the MCU even though they're DC's supposed "direct competition" and I had no initial qualms about Star Wars being sold to Disney either. I just DON'T like these new films. I think they all betray the integrity of the OT about as much as the prequels did, if not more. If you can't accept that because you have to lump every hater into a corner-group, then that's your problem. Not mine.

            79. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                "Not to say that VII gets a pass, but to point out the sequence is more like VI than IV."
                Oh, please. You were obviously trying to give 7 a pass. I mean, you even went as far to say "what's WRONG with reusing the Death Star" and then pointed to Episode 6 as the reasoning by trying to snidely remark that I had forgotten that 6 reused elements of 4.

                And then you got all mad when I compared it to a sibling accusing his other sibling of doing the same wrongdoing he did, so that automatically made his wrongdoing okay, which is exactly what you did.

                "You were trying to use that to say that VII is a remake of IV."
                I was using it as just another example in a long laundry list to say that VII uses IV to construct it's skeletal structure and then work off other elements and create alternative ideas and methods to make up the flesh, which is TRUE.

                "If you're gonna accuse it of being some 'ripoff', at least get your facts straight."
                I did. You didn't, hence why you got all bent out of shape about it.

                "If you're wrong about that, what else are you wrong about? That's my point. So..."
                Except I wasn't wrong, so you don't really have a point other than to make more excuses to give a pass to TFA.

                "It had been 32 years and 3 more films since there was a superweapon in Star Wars. The fuck it ain't okay..."
                SEE? This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of you just passing it off as "okay" simply because the other film did it. You simply just don't want to acknowledge ANY flaws in TFA or TLJ. That's why it's obvious you're pushing your own agenda here onto others because you're mad we don't all think the same way as you.

                "Structurally, VII is not "bare bones" IV, that's wrong. There are tons of scenes and situations which do not fit that statement."
                It's not wrong, because if you are to break down the BASIC plot elements of TFA, what you end up getting is ANH. That equates to the "bare bones" of IV, which is exactly the point I'm making. You're simply unwilling to admit that because it would mean in your mind, you'd have to acknowledge a legitimate criticism of the film and that goes against your agenda.

                I'll even give you a link, much as it may pain you since you've dismissed any YouTube analysis as dismissive:
                https://www.youtube.com/wat...

                "Particularly since one of your biggest supporting pieces of evidence is Han/Ben Kenobi. Han was killed in the 3rd Act. Kenobi was killed in the 2nd Act. The 2nd act of IV was entirely spent on the superweapon. The 2nd Act of VII was spent space-faring with the 3rd Act being on the superweapon. What do you think structure is, might I ask?"
                This is exactly my point in terms of you splitting hairs on semantics. The STRUCTURE is still there in terms of the action-reaction and usefulness to the plot, even if it appears at a later time. For example, you can also split hairs on "It wasn't a princess who sent the droid off into the desert" or "Rey is a girl, so she's clearly not emulating Luke who is a guy."

                "Referencing something is not plagiarizing it. If VII uses a thematic element analogous to IV to insert into a sequence of construction like from VI, that is inherently a new creation."
                Bull. TFA is the equivalent of "referencing" a source without an actual citation and then saying "I didn't plagiarize". It still counts as plagiarizing.
                It didn't just use a thematic element here and there - it used pretty much all the thematic elements to, as JJ put it, "go backwards to go forwards."

                So if even the director admits that he deliberately used familiar story elements in order to get audiences comfortable with the new ideas, then you really don't have much more to say on the matter.

                "That is not just straight copying something, it's a bullshit accusation with nothing more than the idiotic echo chamber of the internet"
                And just what do you think YOU'RE doing? Do you not think you're echoing the defenses of the film that happen to come from your much aligned "Internet echo chamber"? A chamber that you're using right now to debate a film with me?

                " and your even more idiotic YouTube references to support it. "Door closes after character has witty remark"..."
                Oh, did you watch any of them or are you just saying that because they go against the grain of the agenda you're pushing?

                "Well then fuck lightsabers, the force, and starships too. It's all a rehash, yeah? They should just use light-bullwhips and jetpack around a planet made of empty cigarette cartons. At least no one could accuse that of being a "ripoff", so given that it's inherently creative then... /s"
                LOL
                Clearly, you're just flying off the handle because you can't accept the idea that many of the story decisions made for TFA and TLJ were based around marketing purposes as opposed to story.

                I mean, it's utterly ridiculous to compare utilizing a specific structure to inform the basis of what is supposed to be a "new" film to ridding Star Wars of simply EVERYTHING and throw the baby out with the bathwater just because you can't accept that one thing doesn't equate to another.

                Star Wars is Star Wars. Star Wars isn't "DEATH STARS a must".

                "These gigantic, superweapon space stations are a part of the tradition of the Star Wars saga. That's fair fucking game."
                No, it's not. And you can't dispute that without falling back on "ROTJ did it too!" excuses. 2 out of 6 Star Wars movies before TFA came out used a Death Star.

                "It's not just a new Death Star, and it's not like it's "not just a new Death Star" just because it's much more powerful than the other Death Stars. It's a site of altogether different characterizations being set on altogether different paths, and it is a plot device to implement that storytelling mechanic."
                What? All right, trying to decipher some of the garble you got going here, being the relegation of a PLOT ELEMENT/setting of something that quite literally shoves it to the sidelines with the full knowledge that we've seen it already while still remaining the "main threat" is PROOF of lazy storytelling and REHASHING.

                "If it's just a rehash, then Rey should have destroyed it. Or the shield generator should not have involved characters in the lightsaber duel."
                Then here's a better question: if it's so inconsequential, why'd it need to be there in the first place? Why couldn't they be fighting somewhere else? Why'd there need to be a ticking timebomb element ala ANH? Why'd there need to be another planet-killing device as your main setting for the final battle? You yourself are downplaying it when it's still treated as the climax of the film. So clearly, it mattered and it mattered in the same way it mattered in ANH.

                "Learning how to not fall to the dark side is what he learned. Learning how to not be tempted by it, that is not a part of that film's themes. The temptation of it is ever-present. Learning to resist it, that's the key. That's what makes the man."
                To be tempted by the same kind of element that he resisted firmly in his youth is like an adult being tempted to steal a candy bar just cause he nearly did it as a kid.
                I mean, really.

                "How is it out of character when we've literally never seen the character in this situation before? Luke lost the new Jedi Order and several of his students, he suffered a failure the likes of which drove Yoda and Obi Wan Kenobi into exile as well."
                Oh, so now you're reinforcing that the new movies rehashed elements from the old by comparing Luke's failure to Ben and Yoda's? Uh, oh.

                But here's where I get off that train to spend time on the opposite side. The difference is that Ben and Yoda were hiding from an all powerful Empire that listed them as the most wanted individuals in the galaxy, so their life was in danger. Luke, as we saw in the movie itself, humiliated Kylo Ren quite easily without even being in his physical presence, so he easily could have defeated him. The First order was not in full power at the time either, so Luke could have stopped it before it reached such a powerful point. The other difference is that at least Ben and Yoda made an attempt to undo the damage before it was too late whereas Luke didn't even try and exiled himself as soon as Kylo turned.

                Another reasoning that you continue to dodge is that Mark Hamill himself disagreed entirely with how Luke handled the situation and reinforced the idea that the character wouldn't just "give up" and this is based on his past experiences. Yes, we've never seen Luke in this specific dilemma, but we've seen him face trials and tribulations that were equally as important and still have the resolve to not give up. Like when Vader revealed his true parentage and Luke did everything Yoda warned in that he failed to save his friends and wasn't ready to face Vader. And yet Luke still had the resolve to commit self sacrifice than join the Dark Side.

                Or the notion that Luke wouldn't just abandon his friends in peril when he went to great lengths to save Han in ROTJ to undo what he failed to accomplish in Empire as well as saving Vader from darkness even though Vader murdered and tortured his friends and loved ones.

                "And I do actually agree with his reasoning in leaving everything behind, in his wisdom related to the force. We never saw "Luke Skywalker, Jedi Master" to know what that character would be."
                A wisdom that the film you're seeking to defend paints as WRONG. So essentially you're defending a choice made by a character that's supposed to be flawed. Where's the logic in that?

                "I'm calling Luke "wise" because of his demonstrated wisdom from his knowledge and insight into the force to his perspective on Jedi history and how it informed his decision-making. Your statement is entirely untrue. He was not "hot-headed" at all because he made no rash, hot-headed decisions like he did in his youth."
                It was a RASH decision to simply up and abandon everything and everyone based on the simple fact that he couldn't accept his own failure. Again, every bit of "wisdom" Luke tried to impart to excuse his actions is deemed false in the movie. It's like saying just because SOME of the jews executed the very person they were supposedly awaiting that that suddenly makes their entire religion BS when that's obviously a horrifically invalid generalization.

                There is no wisdom in deeming an entire order/religion or way of living as needing to end based on the mistakes made in the past. The film itself paints this line of thinking as a fallacy since Luke ends up dying in peace with the knowledge that he won't be "the last Jedi." How you completely miss the point of the very film you're going out of your way to defend is simply beyond me.

                "Stating that the force does not belong to the Jedi is not "false wisdom", it's a statement of fact. And there's nothing over-repeated about a Jedi choosing the moral grounds to end the Jedi Order once and for all by dying as the last member of it. That is the first instance that I'm aware of it occurring."
                What Luke is saying is that it doesn't belong to them AT ALL hence why he's chosen to die. But the film goes AGAINST his own logic by having him proclaim Rey as a Jedi instead of just another Force User or whatever, so yes, what you are doing is defending "false wisdom" because the film itself tells us that the Force DOES belong to the Jedi because a friggin Jedi is out there carrying the torch for the next generation apparently.

                So what the hell, man?

                "The wisdom that Luke lacked, however, was a blind-spot regarding failure. Luke had never really dealt with failure before."
                What the....

                Are you serious? So Luke didn't "fail" when he brought his weapons to the cave in Empire? So Luke didn't "fail" when he couldn't lift the X-Wing out of the swamp because he deemed it an act of impossibility? So Luke didn't "fail" when he hastily went after Vader based on vague premonitions? So Luke didn't "fail" when his plan of rescue went awry at Jabba's palace and he simply rolled with it? So Luke didn't "fail" when he tried to bring Vader back to the light at first by talking to him and then deeming him "dead"? So Luke didn't "fail" when he temporarily gave in to his hate and anger and nearly murdered his father?

                Are you sure Luke "never" dealt with failure before?

                "He did not view it as an informative experience, just a destructive one."
                And then he does nothing to undo it. Just lets it be.

                "That indicates something more to learn. But to state that he regressed is summarily mistaken."
                No, it's not. He definitely regressed and by your own reckoning, that's cause he "never really dealt with failure before" which is utter BS.

                "Batman v Superman mischaracterized Batman. I don't say that just because Batman was an alcoholic in that film, I say it because the film brought elements to Batman which undercut his substantiation as a character."
                No, it didn't. And the reason being I already went into depth about in regards to how an adaptation of a fictional character from the comics that has had a longstanding history lends itself to multiple interpretations BECAUSE it took multiple interpretations to build him up the character he is generally seen as today.

                Luke does not. He is a movie character that we've seen undergo a specific arc that built him up to be a certain someone that the new films delighted in tearing down.

                "VIII did not mischaracterize Luke. It did not undercut his characterization. The characterization made sense, you simply don't want to see Luke like that. And that's understandable, but it's purely subjective."
                No, it's not - because it literally betrays everything his character stood for in the OT.

                "It's time for the Jedi to end. I'm sorry, Luke would NEVER say that," says Mark Hamill - who lived and breathed the character while Rian Johnson was barely 10 years old.

                And in that sense, for Batman, you simply don't want to see Batman like that in BvS, which is also purely subjective. But again, the difference lies in the respective mediums these characters were born out of.

                "The objective take on it indicates a well-substantiated take on the characterization. Think I didn't want to see Luke as we last left him? Dude is my favorite character in all of Star Wars. Everyone else always idolized Han, seemingly, but Luke was my boy. I wanted to see another whole trilogy of him kicking ass. But there's more to it than that, and the difference is that I'm able to recognize that simple fact. Star Wars is more than a power fantasy..."
                So are the superheroes.

                But in any case, it's not just that it was a different take on the character. It's that it wasn't the character at all.

                "I had to pretend [he's] Jake Skywalker... He's not my Luke." - Mark Hamill

                Here's the thing; if Luke failed as spectacularly as he did in the backstory to TLJ exactly the same as it was written, but worked tirelessly to undo his mistake, THEN That's THE Luke Skywalker who made a terrible mistake, but worked to fix it. That's how he's characterized in the OT. But since he's literally just trying to die because he's lost all hope in everyone and everything and abandoned his principles and values just as soon as he abandoned the galaxy and left it to essentially die, then that's NOT Luke.

                "Says no one with any credibility, in my opinion."
                See, that proves you're just pushing an agenda, which you just got done saying you weren't interested in seeing me doing.

                "Well then name an actual flaw... If you haven't noticed, I've rationally argued against everything you've stated and you've countered with misreadings/lies (in the case of Luke/Ben Solo) and a lack of recognition of story structure."
                You haven't "rationally" argued against anything beyond making excuses and then pretending as if your excuses were valid film analysis when you're so quick to dismiss any one else's as "blowhards".

                Your name really speaks to the high-esteem/delusions of grandeur you have of yourself. You are a "Legend..." In your own mind only.

                "You can't state that actual film structure and themes is "splitting hairs" when you're attempting to dissect actual film structure and themes. It's self-defeating.."
                No, it's not considering I just said that we're talking bare bones structure. I never said TFA was 100% ANH all over again, which is what you're trying to imply just so you can swerve and dodge your way through the criticisms. That's what's "self-defeating."

                "A Star Wars fan liking and defending a Star Wars film...such an agenda..."
                Yeah, it is. Just like a Star Wars fan who is disappointed and simply stating his disappointments of a franchise he cares about.

                But you can't accept that.

                "I've heard your complaints on these films, man, I just think they're thin as shaved shit... I don't have to lump you into a corner."
                And that's simply serving your agenda because you LOVE them and want to make sure others that don't know it, hence why you replied to almost every anti-TLJ commenter here.

                I mean, you literally can't accept ANY criticisms of these films. Even some of the most ardent lovers of TFA will at least say, "Yeah, making another Death Star was dumb, I'll give that.”

            80. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 16, 2018

                "This is not a series about playing it safe and only doing what's expected. Never has been. The closest it came to that was at its lowest point."
                I was replying to this in terms of "playing it safe" which TFA is all about.

                "Not at al, but these are different situations. For starters, Star Wars films are the story. They are not adaptations. DC Films are adaptations of DC comics. There is a written tradition there."
                And that's exactly why the comic book films actually lend themselves to bigger risk taking because of how expansive the history the characters have. Batman CAN be written as a killer because he HAS been a killer before.
                There is much narrower window for Star Wars for the very reasons you mention because the films are the ones that establish the guidelines.

                It seems out-of-character for a man who risked everything to bring his evil father back from the dark side to then suddenly try to kill his kid-nephew in his sleep because he sensed "darkness" in him.

                " Making Batman a killer is not a risk you should take. It literally betrays almost 80 years of comic book evolution, the same comics you are trying to adapt."
                Not necessarily. By making him a killer for the point of setting him amidst a redemption story, you honor his code of ethics by establishing their importance and the amount of grace he fell from in order to need him to get back where he belongs.

                Hell, it's the same argument many use to defend Luke's character arc in The Last Jedi, but the difference is again the very difference you illustrate above. It's a movie franchise first and foremost. It's also a SEQUEL.

                BvS isn't a "sequel" to anything besides MOS.

                "Some adaptations are a betrayal of the source. Star Wars is not an adaptation, so you're talking about standards for very different things..."
                Exactly my point. That's why it WAS a betrayal and BvS wasn't. Now had BvS been a sequel to The Dark Knight, you might have a point. But even then, Batman, when the chips were down, killed someone, so there's that as well.

            81. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 17, 2018

                He was written as someone who doesn't enjoy taking lives, true, but he was still written as someone who killed often in his conflicts, which means he wasn't afraid or even remorseful when doing the deed. Regardless, it's part of his history. And you're right that like Superman, he's EVOLVED as a character into the one we see today.

                In hindsight though, he's still just that: A character. And characters do whatever the writer tells them to do. That's why no matter how much I may dislike what happened to Luke, there's nothing that can be done about it. The DIFFERENCE is that Luke is set in stone as far as a character goes because he lives and dies by way of the movies because he is a MOVIE character. But Batman is a comic book character and he's just a reboot away from washing BvS down the drain. That's where you have a lot of wiggle room to do such and such with the character. Because in the end, it's just a TAKE on him - one of thousands. And one which, quite frankly, was there once before at its inception.

                And the same with Superman. I mean, I like the character much better as a frequent flyer, but I can't say that if someone ten years from now decided to adapt the Golden Age Superman straightforward that it was any less of a take on him as any other.

            82. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 17, 2018

                Did you take a bathroom break? It was brief, but Luke had full control of his actions. He said as much as he was telling Rey what really happened. He felt ashamed afterwards, but by then the damage was done. He stood over his nephew's bed with an ignited lightsaber. And his actions led to the downfall of his students... And what does Luke do in response?

                Abandons the galaxy. Abandons his friends and family. Lets trillions of people suffer for his mistake. He seeks out a secret location to "die". Though ashamed, he's at a cornerstone place rife with food, water, and shelter while everyone else suffers.

                Based on everything we already know about Luke in the movies alone, that's "out-of-character."

            83. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 18, 2018

                He ignited his lightsaber with FULL thought that he himself expressed. He said how the brief instant came where he thought that if he just struck Ben down there and then that he could end it all. And only AFTER did he feel ashamed. You're acting like Luke instinctually lit his lightsaber like one would after waking from a bad dream, but there is a pause in the moment and his monologue indicates that he thought about it.

                So no, I'm not looking at it from Kylo's perspective. I'm looking at it exactly the way the movie presented it. You're just making excuses. Wake Up.

            84. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 18, 2018

                So... I'm wondering if the type of picture you paint would hold up in court. If I stood over a child with a knife in my hand, but never actually struck and there was photographic evidence of it, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get out of it using the same explanation you just did.

            85. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 18, 2018

                I came into a person's house... I stood directly over their bed.... And I was brandishing a weapon with the clear intention to KILL said person, but at the last moment, decided against it.

                And since nobody actually knows except for Luke that Kylo is a potential Hitler, then saying "I saw his future" would never actually be believed. So I still wouldn't get off easy.

                By the way, Luke didn't "KNOW". He simply sensed through the Force possibilities and as Yoda himself said in Empire "Difficult to see... Always in motion is the future."

                So Luke still ignited his lightsaber with the intention to murder his nephew because he sensed darkness in him.

            86. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 20, 2018

                So if I just so happened to be armed going into a sleeping person's hut and then stood over him with a weapon in hand, that's not trying to kill?

                Yeah... no... Get over yourself.

            87. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 21, 2018

                Because it's still an armed person entering and seriously contemplating the murder of a currently unarmed individual up to the point of close-contact. It's still the action of unsheathing a weapon with the intent to kill, and not even putting it away before the person awakes.

                That and lastly, it's a lightsaber that makes a lot of noise when it's turned on vs. a knife which doesn't.

            88. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                "Ben Solo also had a lightsaber..."
                And he was a asleep and it wasn't in his hand.

                "In that the contemplation existed and the consequences of such an act would have been dire for Luke's soul, yeah he "seriously contemplated" it. But it was brief and fleeting as Luke stated. It all took place in the manner of the instant it took for Ben Solo to wake up and turn to see his master "who failed him"."
                You keep saying that, and yet the film stretches the "instant" out for good while.

                "That doesn't apply to a lightsaber, though, you don't unsheathe a lightsaber, you activate it. And it wakes Ben Solo up, there's no "putting it away before the person awakes", the activation of it awakes the person..."
                Which Luke did despite that and he thought about doing it for a good long while.

                "Yeah, you answered your own contrivance..."
                lol I simply addressed that there doesn't exist a lightsaber so a real-life comparison differs.

            89. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 25, 2018

                It's a matter of seconds, yet they're drawn out to showcase that it's much longer than an "instant" that you kept implying - like waking from a nightmare in an instinctual weapon-drawn attack mode.

                The dramatic effect is there, but they play it out in real-time. They could have shown it in slow-motion to do that, but they didn't and with that, that is what we get.
                And as for what Luke says in juxtaposition to what we actually see, Film is a VISUAL medium first and foremost. To say that it was a matter of instinct does not necessarily mean it has to be taken literally because as the film itself SHOWS us vs. what it's telling us, it's clearly NOT "instinctual". Because if it was, it would be instantaneous and instead, we clearly see Luke think about his actions before he even activates his lightsaber.

                "And yet you've attempted to apply "real world" comparisons to damn Luke's actions. Does that not invalidate your own point?"
                Nope. Because choice of weapons doesn't invalidate the end goal, which is to kill Kylo Ren.

            90. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 26, 2018

                "The film made that implication, not me. It's filmed in that manner for dramatic effect."
                You're equating what is being "TOLD" to you as the undeniable fact when film is a visual medium and what is being "SHOWN" to us contradicts the words.

                "Why are we having two conversations on the same topic?"
                You tell me. You're the one who keeps replying.

                "But the choice of weapons, in this case, DOES matter in terms of consequence. If Luke pulls a blaster, it's quiet until he fires it. The ignition of the lightsaber was a point from which there was no return EVEN THOUGH THE DECISION TO USE IT HAD TURNED BACK. So the implications of your point are not that simple.."
                Actually, you're right on this matter BECAUSE a lightsaber makes noise. Therefore, the decision to turn it on means that Luke definitely thought it over and the minute he activated it, there was no going back even though he hesitated anyways.

                Which means he still made the decision to KILL Kylo Ren.

            91. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 27, 2018

                "Now what the hell of what we were shown contradicts the notion that Rey was made vulnerable by her parents abandoning her on Jakku?"
                Umm... You do know you're replying to a statement I made regarding the Kylo Ren/Luke situation, right? This is a topic switcheroo.

                "No, dude, film is contingent upon dialogue just as much body language to convey the inner workings of a character's emotional state. You can't just blanket statement that... And in the case of Rey her emotional development, the way that she responds to things, it supports Kylo Ren's observations of her."
                No, not really. Nothing substantiates just how intimate her apparent relationship with Han was beyond on-the-nose dialogue that beats into your head what the film was going for vs. what it actually does to SHOW it.
                And again, you're getting these conversations mixed up. You can't just apply a whole different meaning to a statement I made in regards to ONE topic just because you're tired of hopping around different threads. That's the equivalent of putting words in my mouth.

                "Well that's hypocritical of you, you literally keep replying to me too. "
                How is it hypocritical of me when you started the debate in the first place?

                Now I have no problem with debating subjects of interest, but it just seems odd that you're complaining about me REPLYING back to you in regards to a debate which you yourself started. It's like complaining about inviting someone to a challenge and then getting weirded out that they've accepted the challenge and are continuously challenging you back.

                "My question is why do we have 4 conversations going regarding the same topic? Like, we started out discussing different things, now it has all come back to the same basic topic."
                Because you replied to a bunch of different topics that eventually branched out. At first, I was discussing the box office of TLJ and I was also discussing how I felt Luke was out-of-character, and that led to talk of the EU, which led to talk of the rehashing qualities of TFA, which led to how Rey and Han's relationship made no sense and the like.
                And now you're mixing topics by replying in quotes to things I'm addressing on a different topic - that being Luke "trying" to kill Kylo Ren.

                If you want to narrow it down, then at least SAY that you're going to do that rather than try to mix my words up on a different subject and pretend like it was about the thing YOU wanted to talk about.

                "No, that would only be demonstrated by a literal act to kill Kylo Ren. Igniting a lightsaber is not that. And Luke did it in a regrettable moment of instinctive response, he made an action without fully considering it. Clearly. Or he WOULD have tried to kill Ben."
                Once again, (here's that "circles" thing) you keep equating Luke's ACTIONS to be comparable to his WORDS and what we see is entirely different to what we're being TOLD. Luke SAYS it's a "instinctual" moment, yet we SEE him clearly contemplating his actions before he actually activates his lightsaber, thus making a "decision" to kill Kylo Ren before backtracking once he's already made it.

                "The way that you see this is completely irrational, nothing prevents you from seeing how they protected the character's integrity here. They use this event as a plot device, sure, and to inform characterizations of the film, but they protect Luke Skywalker."
                How many ways can I say "I disagree"? I do not at all find any of this "protective" of Luke's integrity. It literally destroys his characterization in everything we've seen in past Star Wars movies that his first response to a family member having dark thoughts is to "kill him" when he went out of his way to redeem a father who happened to be a mass murdering creep who killed his friends in front of his face.

                "I got no problem with Batman going right up to the point of killing an enemy and then regaining his composure and stopping himself. It speaks to his self control. It is understandable to be pushed towards making a bad decision. NOT following through on a bad decision speaks to the heroism of these characters."
                There is a difference because there is a cause-effect of Luke's actions that speak toward how out-of-character he was written. It's not just that his first "instinct" was to murder his nephew instead of trying to help him which led to his eventual downfall - it's also that he does jack shit to try to undo his mistake and abandons everyone and everything he ever loved or stood for after-the-fact.

                It's also the degradation of what his character's journey MEANT in regards to the rise of a hero who is BETTER than what his mentors sought him to be through his demonstration of compassion, heroism, and selflessness - all the traits that a TRUE Jedi was supposed to represent. It undoes EVERYTHING he ever went through and makes the very title of Episode 6 which is "RETURN OF THE JEDI" meaningless.

                Batman is not suffering this kind of degradation because A) BvS is not a "sequel" to any pre-established Batman that we know, B) because Batman, being a comic book character with over 70+ years of stories leads to different interpretations and C) because the character was undergoing an arc that was supposed to lead him back to the way we know him BY making him break down.

                Imagine if Episode 8 was an "elseworlds" tale or something. A strict "What if" thing that had little to nothing to do with any of the previous Star Wars movies - one that we know could be undone with the flick of a finger. It wouldn't bug me so much because it's just "another take." But the difference is that it's not just another take. We are supposed to believe that this same grumpy despondent hermit is THE Luke and the simple thing is that I and many others DON'T. And those others include Mark Hamill who literally said "he's not MY Luke Skywalker. Maybe he's Jake Skywalker..."

                "Luke is not, and has never been, monk-like. He is possessed of self-control and wisdom, but it has never been infallible. He is a good man, however, in that he will reassert his will instead of falling down a dark path."
                And that's just the point - nowhere is he presented as a "good man" in Episode 8. Not until the very end. But that's still 2 hours of a movie where we don't see Luke Skywalker. We see a COWARD.

            92. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 18, 2018

                But I digress. The POINT is that it was out-of-character for Luke to do so because it informs his ENTIRE CHARACTER in TLJ. If it was just a fleeting moment that Luke was ashamed of that he strove to correct, then it'd be a different story.

            93. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 20, 2018

                You act as if he ignited his lightsaber lightning fast like say how Aragorn woke from a nightmare of the Arwen with his knife in hand, waking from a bad dream. Had it been like that, you might have a point, but that's NOT what happened. In the movie, he sensed the darkness in Ben, took a step back, thought about it and then activated his lightsaber with the intent to murder.

                Luke can't save Ben Solo? Did he even really "try?" He went into his room in the dead of night while he was asleep armed with his lightsaber, sensed his "darkness" and almost tried to murder him then and there, hammering in the final nail in the coffin that caused Ben to commit to the Dark Side. And as far as the movies are concerned, Luke NEVER saw or tried to contact Ben ever again after that, so he didn't even try.

            94. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 20, 2018

                How did he try to save him? He sensed darkness in him and his first instinct was to simply slice him down. Not talk to him, not assess the problem, not to even step back and recollect his thoughts... No. He stepped back and in the CU shot, he had pure hate in his eyes and ignited the lightsaber... The moment eventually passed, but he sure thought about it. It is not at all a fabrication in the film's context because they DELIBERATELY showed it as a SLOW moment. And not by utilizing slow-motion, but in real-time.

                "Darkness beyond imagining." Give me a break. Once again, Luke knows that premonitions are unpredictable as Yoda himself taught him and he's already experienced what hasty actions and reckless behavior can lead to, and yet his FIRST thought and response to the visions he saw was to strike Ben down.
                Secondly, Vader, though conflicted was still a mass murderer and killed Luke's friends, tortured his sister, and murdered his mentor - Luke knew it was a long shot, as he said to Leia on Endor, but he resolved "I have to try."

                Luke went to Kylo's hut to assess the situation. He did absolutely NOTHING to help or try to save him. He figured him already gone even in the brief instant because his resolve WAS to kill him before he even did anything wrong.

            95. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 21, 2018

                "Luke didn't take a step back and think and ignite the saber, it wasn't that deliberate an act."
                Yes, he did. In the movie, that's exactly what he did.

                It being his first instinct is NOT understandable considering what he's already been through. That was part of my entire point because Luke HAS been through this before. Luke has learned a hell of a lot throughout the OT and in that sense, not only should he not have been so reckless, but THAT being his first response to what he sensed showcased that he indeed learned very little in fact.

                And then there's the AFTERMATH which cements how out-of-character he was in these new movies...

            96. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 21, 2018

                Again, you act as if Luke INSTANTLY activated his lightsaber as soon as he saw Ben's darkness like waking from a bad dream in a feral state. That's NOT what happened. He mulled over it for a bit and then activated his lightsaber. The movie plays it out in real-time and shows this.

                "No, having gone through what Luke went through, the sacrifices they all had to endure and the toll it took on the galaxy to be in the control of the Sith and the Empire, that is EXACTLY why it is understandable for Luke to recognize a need to cut down an immensely destructive weed before it spreads and react the way that he reacted. Ultimately, his experience and more rational mind allowed him to regain composure and abandon that course of action, which IS what happens in the film."
                It's not understandable for exactly the reason that Luke already dealt with a destructive and almost entirely evil mass murderer by extending his hand and nearly sacrificing his own life to redeem him. Had that not happened and we were dealing with a DIFFERENT character, then it would be understandable. But you work with who you have and if you're dealing with Luke Skywalker, then it's not understandable.

                And for the record - if the guy who played Luke for six years has a problem with how you're dealing with his character, then you should probably reassess what you're doing.

                "When you say that Luke "tried to kill Ben Solo" that's a flat out lie, however you want to spin it. The film is not responsible for criticisms which are lies..."
                You mean kinda like how saying "Pa Kent said Clark should let those kids on the bus die" is a lie too?

                Let me say this: I exaggerated. But my exaggeration is not without merit considering that you are striking back with an exaggeration as well in regards to how Luke dealt with the situation. No, Luke did not raise his lightsaber over his head to strike down Kylo, but no, Luke did not just up and activate his lightsaber and then immediately shut it off like you are implying either.

            97. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                He most certainly mulled over it.

                Here is a description of the scene in its entirety.

                "I saw darkness... I sensed it building in him. I'd seen it in moments during his training. But then I looked inside and it was beyond what I ever could have imagined. Snoke had already turned his heart. [Luke steps back... Slowly pulls his lightsaber from his belt] He would bring destruction and pain and death and the end of everything I loved because of what he would become. [Luke shakes holding his lightsaber handle] And for the briefest moment of pure instinct, I thought I could stop it. [Luke activates his lightsaber - anger and determination in his eyes].... [He holds it firm, then stares at its blade] It passed like a fleeting shadow and I was left with shame. And with consequence. And the last thing I saw was the eyes of a frightened boy whose master had failed him."

                Now the words and visuals are off-kilter considering how Luke said it was of pure instinct just like you keep harboring over, but the actual on-screen moment shows Luke doing exactly what I said. Stepping back, slowly pulling out his lightsaber and then activating it before coming to his senses. And it was apparent that he himself EVEN to the point of where he rejected the Jedi teachings, cut himself off from the Force and abandoned his friends and family in the hopes that he would die as the last of the Jedi STILL felt it was necessary to LIE to Rey how things really went down that showcases the severity of his actions.

            98. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 22, 2018

                "All of this, his physical actions, it's about the drama of the briefest moment where in Luke actually considered killing his student. And he considered it because of what he felt inside of Ben Solo. But that moment passed. Luke made no actual attempt on Ben Solo's life."
                And yet you completely disregarded the buildup to him actually activating his lightsaber. This WHOLE time, you've been acting as if the scene played out where he saw the darkness within Ben and then IMMEDIATELY activated his lightsaber like waking up from a bad dream in a defensive mode - and yet by citing exactly how the scene played out, that completely undermines what you've been trying to pass off.

                "The context of the scene says exactly what I said, that it was a brief moment which passed as swiftly as it overtook him."
                No it isn't. For exactly the reasons I stated above. He stopped, he unholstered his lightsaber, he held it up, stared at its handle, then his eyes widened and he activated it. That's a contemplation OF the actions he was about to commit, not an incisive "instinctual bad-dream reaction".

                " And he would have to be a SAINT not to consider cutting down evil before it had the chance to spread. Luke was many good things, he was never a Saint."
                He was the same man who tried to redeem a mass murdering despotic father who murdered his friends in front of his eyes and cut down his mentor.

                I mean, that may not be the act of a "saint," but I'm sure many would agree that they sure as hell wouldn't forgive a father they never knew if they saw him do that.

                And in that sense, the same man who did that whose first gut reaction is to kill his nephew even though he had yet to actually do anything wrong is not the actions of a "saint" much less a good-caring Uncle.

                "Nothing says that Luke lied to Rey. They show us his clear remorse and the fact that he didn't strike at Ben to illustrate that Luke wasn't lying to Rey. But there was still the consequence of these events, and that consequence was unavoidable."
                He definitely lied to her as much as Obi-Wan concealed the truth from him about Vader.
                He told her a different account of the events by relaying he went to "confront" Kylo and he flew off the handle essentially, which is not what happened. And it wasn't even his own "point of view" as Ben excused himself as doing as Luke is shameful in his actions and his actions directly resulted in the final nail in the coffin to Kylo's turn.

                "Luke walked away from everything because of his guilt, yes, but he justifies it with a lot more than just his guilt. It's but the latest failure of the Jedi, the latest Jedi to fall and do something unimaginable, and so taking himself and the Jedi out of that equation logically seems like a way to avoid having the galaxy face the repurcussions of the monumental failures of the Jedi. But it wasn't just Luke who failed, and his failure was useful, it was something to learn from, something he had not encountered until he encountered it."
                You're right - he "justifies it" with a lot more than just his guilt, but his guilt is the BASIS and everything else is an excuse - the empty platitudes that hide the real problem he's having. Luke abandoned his friends and went into exile the moment Ben blew up his temple and took his students and that was before he came up with the justification for it. That only happened afterwards when he had time to reflect on the matter.
                But the core of the problem stems from his failure and the rest are just icing on the cake.

                "Ben Solo failed Luke and everyone else. Ultimately, that was Ben Solo's doing. Luke has to come to recognize that."
                No, he really doesn't come to recognize that. I mean, he recognizes that Ben ultimately is to blame for his actions post-tense, but he still says at the end "I failed you, Ben. I'm sorry."

            99. 

                DudeofSteel1Million

                January 25, 2018

                "Nope, just didn't disregard the context. There is a difference."
                You are disregarding the context just because you want to somehow prove Luke as benevolent. That's why you keep clinging to the idea that it was all completely instinctual.

                "You are trying to scratch, claw, and bite in order prove this asinine notion that Luke tried to kill Ben Solo, everything other than admitting that Luke didn't actually try to kill Ben Solo."
                I've already stated that Luke didn't "try" so much as in raising his lightsaber over his head and slashing it in Kylo's face. But "try" as in seriously thinking about it more than an "instinctual" response to the darkness he saw based on what the film actually shows us.

                "Posting that the instinct to kill Ben Solo was momentary and swiftly passed "completely undermines" my statements that the instinct to kill Ben Solo was momentary and swiftly passed? Uh huh, at which point do you admit to have undermined your statement that Luke tried to kill the guy? Say these words: "Luke Skywalker did not try to kill Ben Solo" or admit to being entirely full of shit..."
                How did I undermine any of my statements by doing that? Really, tell me. I mean, your whole point was that it was instinctual and quick with no thought behind it whatsoever, to which I disproved and you are now backtracking.

                I said Luke "tried" to kill Kylo Ren, but admitted that there is an exaggeration in that it was not so blatant as him raising his lightsaber over his head. But definitely MORE than just him suddenly and instinctually activating his lightsaber as if waking from a bad dream.

                "Not disputing that. I literally talked about Luke's failure. His remorse, his guilt, all justified. But shouldering all the responsibility of Kylo Ren's actions, the death and destruction of the Jedi Order, he had to get over that."
                Indeed. Which is WHY the entire notion of him "blaming" himself by doing nothing to undo the mistakes he actually is responsible for was ridiculous.

            100. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 26, 2018

                 "That's untrue. I'm stating that the context protected the character. It doesn't support your statement that Luke tried to kill Ben Solo... That's not the same as me saying that Luke was benevolent."
                 That's literally stating you want to prove Luke as benevolent because you want to "use" the context to protect the character when the context is literally what damns him.

                 And in that context, it was damning enough that Luke withheld the truth from Rey long after the fact that he accepted what he did was wrong.

                 "I will say that Luke has never been benevolent, and I will say that I found his reasoning behind the momentary instinct to kill Ben Solo to be understandable. You can take characters to the edge of their limits, but it's only in pushing them over those limits that you undercut who they are. Johnson took Luke to the brink, he didn't push him over it."
                 By having Luke in a situation where he thought over the notion that it would be better to simply kill an innocent human being (at that stage) on the notion that he COULD do evil, they've already taken Luke over the threshold considering all he's been through prior.

                 But that isn't even the deal-breaker. The deal-breaker is when Luke Skywalker abandons everything and everyone to sulk in his misery while the rest of the galaxy suffers for a mistake that he didn't even try to undo.

                 "There's no "try to kill him" when there's no killing action. The film informs the viewer that the thought was a fleeting, instinctive reaction to the darkness within Ben."
                 The film TELLS us that and SHOWS us an entirely different thing that contradicts what it's telling us.

                 "Without giving that consequence, there would be no purpose to it. The drama of it which unfolds informs the consequence, but Luke provides the viewer with the context."
                 Film is a visual medium. We are SHOWN stuff and what we are SHOWN is more important than what we are TOLD... Unless the screenwriting is BAD - in which case, the two don't go hand in hand.

                 "I said it was exactly as Luke described it to be."
                 Which is what contradicts what the viewer is SHOWN in real-time.

                 " Your description of it from the film's dialogue supports that. If Luke states that the consideration of it was momentary, instinctive, and fleeting, that's what we have to go on."
                 Again, you're merely stating what the film tells you which is contradictory to what it shows you. What is shows you is not a "fleeting instinctual" moment, but a thoughtful decision that was unfolding and led to a moment of regret.

                 "If you see yourself as destructive, which something like this caused, you wouldn't go near the things you care about assuming that you didn't want to destroy them. Luke has this "the Jedi have caused enough damage" mindset. Not "I don't care"."
                 Wrong. Because that in of itself is a SELFISH decision. You make a mess, you clean it up. You don't say "Oh, I don't want to make another mess, so I'm not going to bother."

                 You hurt someone, you say you're sorry. You don't go "I hurt you... Goodbye forever."

                 Luke Skywalker should know this considering he's been through it before. Not in the EXACT same context, but in the context of failing and coming back to fix his failure.

                 "If Luke takes himself out of the fight, it's due to the belief that the fight is better off without him in it. It's not him "giving up", it's an effort to end something."
                 And yet as things unfold in TLJ, Luke sees that it's clearly NOT better off without him, yet it takes him the whole film to actually learn that. Which shows that he's stubborn and selfish. Both traits inherently contradictory to the same man we saw at the end of ROTJ.

            101. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 27, 2018

                 "The context does not damn him, the context does everything it can to justify his response to the darkness within Ben Solo. The context emphasizes his momentary lack in judgment, the instinct to strike down at tbe darkness which carries not only the ability to destroy everything he's built, but the likelihood to do so."
                 How does that "justify" him? It serves the exact opposite because Luke was apparently SO ashamed of what he did that he withheld the truth from Rey that made her flip out on him later. That's not the actions of someone benevolent.

                 "There's nothing wrong in giving Luke Skywalker something to be ashamed of. Great characters aren't just defined by how infallible they are, but how well we can relate to Luke. We have always been able to relate to Luke."
                 They're making him "relatable" by ruining his character and having him act completely different than the way he's been acting prior. This is a terrible excuse. You work with what you have. You don't drastically alter a character to fit your demands in order to make him "relatable."

                 I never said Luke was infallible in the OT. He's not a "Gary Stu". But the way his character developed flew in the face of what Disney and co. eventually ended up doing with his character in the end - much to the detriment and bewilderment of many of the audience, including Mark Hamill himself.

                 "If you put any one of us in his position, guess what, we aren't the same men after 30 years either. Especially if we are the bastion of hope in the galaxy charged with restoring it to its former glory, restoring balance to the force, and being faced with the one thing most capable to destroy it all who has, in their soul, turned against you."
                 We may not be the exact same, but unless you're bipolar, you're generally the person you were 10-20 even 30 years ago as opposed to having a drastically different attitude.

                 Besides, that EXCUSE can be used to literally save ANY work of fiction years later, but that doesn't make it a "good" excuse.

                 "All of that can ignite a lightsaber. It takes a good man to NOT instinctively strike down at that. Luke is a good man, he is a great character. That's still true."
                 No, it's not the actions of a "good man" that his first response to a hardship is to "just kill it" regardless of whether he actually made the move. The fact that it was even his first thought shows weakness in not just the character, but in the writing because that literally goes against every instinct the character has considering what he's been through.

                 If Luke didn't go out of his way to redeem his evil father to the point of willingly sacrificing his life to see it through, then it'd be a different story. But it's not.

                 "The only one preventing you from seeing that, from enjoying it, is yourself."
                 So I'm just supposed to enjoy what I see as "crap" just because others tell me to? I mean, didn't you flip out on that when you insinuated that I handed you that same notion yourself?

                 "And, frankly, that probably has more to do with you not getting a "badass force user Luke" scene of your own standard of what constitutes such an affair than it does what will or won't hold up in court..."
                 LOL. There it is. The ultimate cop-out because I don't see things the way you do. "You just wanted to see some action." And BTW, we seemingly all have standards considering how pissed you are at BvS because it seemingly wasn't "Batman" to you.

                 Well in that same way, I just wanted to see Luke Skywalker.

                 Instead, I got Jake Skywalker.

            102. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 20, 2018

                 "Know?"

                 Luke only sensed and saw a possible future, as Yoda himself says, "difficult to see.. Always in motion is the future." And Luke's LAST mistake in Empire was believing in his visions and attempting to stop what may not have come to pass and failing at that (which Luke ends up doing pretty much the exact thing, learning nothing from Yoda's teachings of what it means to be "reckless.").

                 Difference being that whereas younger Luke tried to undo his mistakes by correctly going to confront Vader later on with the right state of mind and intentions, Luke this time does NOTHING to correct his mistake until the last possible minute.

                 Lastly, do the courts believe in "premonitions"? So if I say I had a "premonition" of Hitler becoming Hitler without any actual proof, I'm going to be treated as a madman since up until that point, Kylo didn't actually DO anything as of yet.

            103. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 21, 2018

                 He was doing both by sensing the future as well. That is still "Always in motion" because Kylo has YET to actually become the heart of darkness.

            104. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 22, 2018

                 Luke examined both the darkness within him and the future that he would yield, hence why he considered ending him then and there. Yes, it WAS in motion. And it was in motion enough that other individuals such as Leia and Rey post-tense of actual evil actions Kylo did commit felt there was still "good" in him and something Kylo himself acknowledged as being "torn" between the light and the dark.
                 So then that must make Luke a damn weak Jedi if he already thought Kylo was done and dead then and there at even a stage where he had yet to actually do anything.

                 And Did you just compare Palpatine - whose evil schemes and post-tense actions of murder and corruption - were already in place vs. a boy who was being corrupted and manipulated on a current basis, but not actually accountable for any full acts of evil? Wow.

                 I mean, really.

            105. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 22, 2018

                 It can't be compared because Sheev Palpatine's plans were already in motion. He had control of the senate and the courts. He just sliced down three Jedi masters and his feigned weakness already yielded powerful bursts of Force lightning even after Windu resolved to simply "arrest him". I mean, ROTS has its flaws, but there's really no way to say Windu didn't have a damn good reason to say "he's too dangerous to be left alive" after all that.

                 Meanwhile, Luke merely reached out with the Force to sense Kylo's mind and saw corruption and darkness and a horrible potential future, but Kylo had YET to do anything wrong at that specific moment, hence why it's not comparable.

                 And Luke WAS perceiving Ben's future. "He would bring destruction and death and the end of everything I loved because of what he will become." That's the FUTURE, not the present. And when Luke was examining Ben's mind, what he was seeing was lightsabers activated, screams of his students, and the countless others who Ben would kill. Again, the future, not the present. Cause that darkness that was there - Kylo didn't actually DO any of it.

            106. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 22, 2018

                 "Best laid plans of mice and men...don't care. I'm not comparing them 1:1. I'm comparing the potential for tyranny and evil in Kylo Ren to Palpatine. Galactic death, destruction, repression, etc., it doesn't really matter if it was planned or off the cuff to the people it happens to... Premeditated or a crime of passion, ask the victim which they'd prefer."

                 How can that be compared when there was no "potential" for tyranny in regards to Palpatine since he already DID it? Maybe you should look for another comparison that would better suit your point.

                 As you said:
                 "Most Jedi Knights and Masters in these films would have likely struck at Ben Solo upon discovering that, or at least heavily considered it, considering the Jedi's confrontation of Palpatine in III and how Mace Windu was going to destroy him. "

                 That's not comparable. And no, actually most Jedi may have likely NOT done it considering that even after Mace was informed of Palpatine's treachery and BATTLED him after he cut down three of his Jedi comrades, he still said "you are under arrest, my lord." It wasn't until after Palpatine attacked him with Force lightning that he sought to kill him - and again, all this is post-haste of Palpatine's actions, so they're not comparable to Kylo at the moment Luke was tempted to cut him down because Kylo hadn't DONE ANYTHING WRONG at that moment.

            107. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 25, 2018

                 "Kylo Ren's potential for tyranny and galactic domination is comparable to Palpatine's ACTUAL tyranny and galactic domination. Seeing that in the boy would give any Jedi Master such notioms."
                 The Jedi sensed "grave danger" in Anakin's training before he even began and sensed even more danger as time went on and Anakin's potential for great power and great darkness increased. And even then, none of them ever had the "notiom" to say "let's just kill him."

                 "I can compare what someone can do to what someone did do, it's a staple of pro sports scouting. "This guy could be the next Michael Jordan"."
                 And yet the comparison will still ring hollow because "potential" never trumps the actual doing of the individuals.

                 I mean, M Night was called "The Next Spielberg" once upon a time after all and we all know how that turned out.... (Though SPLIT was pretty good to be fair).

                 "Mace Windu was going to kill Palpatine because he determined him to be too dangerous to be allowed to live. Luke has seen the dark side's ravaging of the galaxy and its people, that is his example of powerful dark side users being too dangerous to be allowed to live. The potential for tremendous darkness was there, his heart was already blackened. All of that, Luke can see as if Ben is shooting it out of him. So, yeah, it is comparable. You are overly literal..."
                 It's a ridiculous notion because even AFTER Luke already pre-judged Kylo to be the embodiment of doom before he even did anything wrong, other individuals still sensed the "good" in Kylo (that obviously he ended up extinguishing himself, but it was there).

                 And again, the potential to do harm doesn't go hand in hand with the actual act of doing harm. Palpatine is the embodiment of someone who had already done much harm and Kylo at that point in time still didn't do anything.

            108. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 26, 2018

                 "And look how that turned out for the galaxy..."
                 So... what? You're suggesting that the Jedi should have just killed a 9-year old innocent kid who had yet to do anything on the notion of a "just in case" scenario?
                 Wow.

                 "But Luke didn't just sense the potential for darkness, he sensed it to already have taken hold within Ben Solo. This isn't the same situation as the cloudiness around Anakin or how he may or may not be "dangerous". This is Episode III, "beginning to have his heart twisted" Anakin."
                 The two do not go hand in hand considering that Episode III Anakin was still very much "conflicted" and still needed a final "switch" to get him going down a path which there was no turnback. And with Kylo, he was an impressionable young man who was being manipulated, but had yet to do anything wrong and chances are would NOT have done the switch had Luke been more patient to even give him a chance.

                 "That's a stupid statement because you still 'draft the player'. You don't say "eh, he hasn't scored 30,000 points yet", you take him seriously."
                 It's not a stupid statement because taking someone seriously for their talents =/= getting rid of someone for a potential threat they may be without them actually "DOING" anything wrong.

                 Does a potential murderer deserve the immediate death penalty if he didn't actually kill anyone?

                 This is ridiculous even discussing the entire notion of this idea. You're willing to say that it's right to punish someone who has yet to do anything wrong, yet you flip out over the very concept that Luke was thinking about killing Kylo Ren so you can still hold him up as benevolent and heroic. Which is it? Stop flip flopping.

                 "That's untrue as well, actually, Snoke gave Rey the vision of Ren turning to the light to ensnare her. He gave Ren the vision of Rey turning to darkness in his manipulation of him as well."
                 Snoke manipulated the both of them, but Kylo has already proven himself CONFLICTED, so it was not all a ruse (such as when he couldn't bring himself to kill Leia). Same with earlier in TFA where Leia said "there's still good in him, I've felt it." Half of that is just motherly love overlooking his flaws, but half of it is still true considering that Kylo was specifically saying in TFA how tempted he was by the call of the light. And all of this is occurring AFTER Luke thought there to be no hope for him.

                 So no, it's not untrue.

                 "Luke tried to warn Rey against the notion (happy, asshole?)"
                 LOL.
                 "So much anger..."

                 "of there being good left in Kylo Ren. She almost got killed by not believing it. Ren certainly didn't help her because he turned to the light, he did so as a power play."
                 She was in a situation of "too little, too late" vs. Luke's where Kylo Ren had yet to actually do anything wrong. The two do not go hand in hand. They actually serve to demonstrate Luke's blatant hypocrisy. He feels guilty about nearly trying to kill Kylo and pretty much sealing his fate to go down a dark path, yet he shows no compassion or understanding to those that think he's not entirely lost when even at this stage, they sense conflict in Kylo long after Luke wrote him off.

                 "Hence Luke's failure. But the potential of it is powerful in and of itself. It warranted that consideration just as a human being."
                 It warranted "consideration", not "Maybe it'll be better if I just kill him."

                 Hence the whole "Luke tried to kill Ben" discussion we're having.

            109. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 26, 2018

                 "Nope, but they had the initial instinct not to train him. As I said, it's not completely comparable because of where these characters are in their respective stories."
                 Exactly. And refusing to train a kid in the Jedi Arts and thinking one is better off dead after the fact are two completely different things.

                 I mean, they already stated Anakin was "too old," but they gave in on the notion that he was the "chosen one."

                 "Ben Solo had been trained, he was formidable, and he had already turned in his heart, as Luke observes. He hadn't done anything to that point, but it had taken hold. Hasn't taken hold in Anakin as a 9 year hold, he was simply potentially dangerous. Kylo Ren WAS dangerous."
                 That's still the "potential" to be dangerous rather than actual danger because Kylo Ren still had YET TO DO ANYTHING WRONG at that point. Any trained soldier has the "potential" to be dangerous. But even if they've had evil thoughts, they don't get put down on the spot if they hadn't done anything wrong.

                 I mean, it's like in T2 when Sarah tries to kill Miles Dyson because she knows in the future, he'll create Skynet. He has the "potential" to be dangerous and destroy the entire world and 95% of humanity along with it. Yet when she looks him in the eyes, she sees not an evil mass murderer, but a frightened man who is just doing his job. And when he is GIVEN A CHANCE, Dyson undoes everything he's ever worked for.

                 Kylo wasn't even given that luxury. He was impressionable and manipulated - and Luke's first thought was "better kill him."

                 "He had turned to the dark side. That ain't exactly harmless. Anakin needed that event that he couldn't come back from, killing Mace to save Palpatine (really to save Padme) to turn to the dark side. Ben had turned to the dark side already, as the film informs us. Luke would have to turn Ben back to the light, not simply help him resist the dark."
                 That is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. Not only from a personal standpoint, but a writing-standpoint as well. He was being MANIPULATED. That doesn't =/= EVIL incarnate.
                 And it still TOOK Luke's advance against him that sealed his fate forever for him to actually do anything and then even after, characters including himself noted that he was struggling against the light side.

                 So clearly, he was not "gone already." The films themselves contradict what you're implying.

                 "Hence the instinct to strike down at him. Which Luke, himself, resisted."
                 Instead of, you know... showing the slightest bit of compassion? You know, after he did that for Vader? No, the first instinct to any struggle is "better off killing em."

                 "You keep forgetting that he didn't get the death penalty, he got the consideration of it. And, yeah, a potential MASS MURDERER warrants that consideration."
                 The consideration of a "death penalty" from an individual who redeemed a mass murderer post-tense.

                 Contradiction.

                 "He was feeling the call to the light, but killing Han was a climactic moment wherein he committed to the dark side. Snoke was stoking his conflict in VIII so as to entice Rey."
                 And yet Kylo still couldn't kill his mother, so that struggle was still there. It only disappeared when he killed Snoke, because that's when Snoke said "Where there was conflict, I sense resolve."

                 "That was tongue-in-cheek..."
                 So was that. "I can feel your anger..."
                 ;)

                 "Which is a mischaracterization of the events."
                 Which it is not, hence why we'll keep going in circles over it. ;)

            110. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 28, 2018

                 "That's not the point. The point is that Anakin Skywalker fell to the dark side, destroyed everything the Jedi had built, and helped plunge the galaxy into the depths of galactic imperialism, destroying the Republic and the idea of democracy in the galaxy in doing so.

                 That is the result of the Jedi Order failing to stop something from happening, failing to stop Anakin Skywalker from either turning or from executing his orders from Palpatine. Those are the stakes at play which are driving Luke's instinct to kill Ben Solo. And the entire galaxy would have been better of if he had, at least in the short term because the cost to Luke's soul from such an act may be more than the gain of taking "Kylo Ren" and his knights out of history."
                 Hindsight is 20/20 looking back on things that you had no control over preventing. Killing a kid who had yet to do anything wrong is exactly the mentality that ended up landing Luke in a hot tub in the first place. Furthermore, it's simply the wrong course of action to take for someone who already understands what compassion and second chances can lead to.

                 "The point is NOT that Anakin should have been killed, the point is that the Jedi empowered the instrument of their own demise. Luke knows the cost of that. That's why the saber ignites. His good heart, his commitment to the light side of the force, that is why the initial reaction of killing Ben Solo passes over, leaving only shame."
                 His good heart and commitment to the light side is what should have come first considering all he's been through. Instead, it's pointed toward his hesitation in committing to his choice that eventually leads to eternal damnation.

                 "And this is where VIII protects Luke's integrity as a character while using in an integral manner to drive and resolve the conflicts in these films."
                 That's not protecting it at all. It's damning it. And it's further damning in regards to the cause and effect it had that made him abandon his principles altogether and ditch the galaxy and his friends while they suffered from his mistakes.

                 "Radicalized soldiers ARE dangerous. Even if they haven't done anything yet. Don't be simpleminded. I am physically capable of inflicting harm upon another human being. That's "potential". But I am a better man than to do that. That's the difference. Someone who IS capable of destruction and DOES have that kind of heart, that is not "potentially dangerous" that is dangerous."
                 And that's still the damning of an individual for something he/she didn't do on account of their "potential" to cause harm. If a soldier is held on suspicion of them being volatile, they aren't KILLED because of what they CAN do. They may be removed from a situation where they're potentially able to cause harm. But the execution of an individual based on what they can do, not what they have done would never stand in anything but a chaotic environment.

                 "Turning to the dark side = evil incarnate in Star Wars."
                 Is that why Darth Vader was redeemed?

                 "Doesn't matter how he got there, he's there."
                 No, it matters a great deal considering that someone who is not fully committed to being evil incites inner conflict and the potential to turn away from the dark path.

                 "Anakin had not turned to the dark side as a 9 year old child. Ben Solo had turned to the dark side as an early 20s man."
                 So according to you, that makes his entire struggle against the "call of the light" utterly pointless in TFA and TLJ and a waste of screentime because he was already evil before he even started.

                 "Turning to the dark side is what caused that reaction in Luke. And Luke made no "advance", he went to Ben's hut to look inside of his mind. What Ben had in his mind caused Luke's horror.

                 So while Luke carries his share of the blame for Ben Solo's actions, to state that Luke is the cause here is moronic."
                 How is it in any way moronic when Luke himself acknowledged how Kylo saw him? He didn't see a man who hesitated because of a last minute attack of conscious - he saw his master standing in his hut in the dead of night with his weapon activated while he slept.

                 I never said that Kylo didn't have any "darkness" in his mind, but there is an obvious cause/effect of Luke's actions that sent him over the edge. To suggest otherwise is moronic.

                 "That compassion drove him to try and help Ben, which is what he went to his hut to do. The issue here is that Luke could not maintain his composure due to the level of darkness that Luke saw within Ben Solo."
                 He didn't try to help him at all. He assessed the situation and then concluded that the situation would be best quelled by killing him. And then he never tried to do anything about it ever again.

                 "But his remorse, how much blame Luke puts on himself, his apology to Ben Solo, that speaks to his compassion for Ben."
                 He had no compassion by way of the fact that he gave up on him before he even did anything wrong. And then he had no compassion after-the-fact because he gave up on ever doing anything about it until the last possible minute where it truly was too late.

                 "Igniting a lightsaber is not a statement that Luke has no compassion for his nephew, dude, you're way off base. If he had no compassion, why did he not strike at Ben?"
                 If he had compassion, why was his first instinct to KILL him instead of help him?
                 If he had compassion, why did he not even attempt to do anything of significance to clean up the situation or help him after the fact instead of just packing his things and heading off into exile?
                 You're way off base.

                 "Situational differences, though. The shock of Vader to Luke was not that he was a despot. That was something that Luke had already known and had time to digest. The shock was the revelation that Vader was Anakin Skywalker, Luke's father.

                 The shock of Ben Solo is the realization of what he is. Luke had no time to digest that. He had sensed the darkness growing within him, sure, but the full extent of it floored him. It broke Luke's resolve for a moment."
                 The situational differences should in of itself lead to a similar result BECAUSE of Luke's experience in dealing with this before. Luke had no reason to show any fondness towards Vader because he was conditioned by Yoda and Ben to see him as nothing more than his mortal enemy; the man who killed his father, who struck down his mentor in cold blood, who killed billions of innocents, toppled the Jedi order and killed his friends and family. Yet it was after that Luke ended up taking a different path - one that was in direct defiance of his mentors and his insight paid off.

                 Faced with a similar situation but this time with wisdom on his side and a young impressionable boy who had yet to do anything wrong with TIME on his side - he could have diffused it. We've already established that Kylo was not fully gone despite your best attempts to excuse that he already was. Luke sensed a "growing" darkness in him, but also knew that it had not come to pass; that the future is always in motion and that things can be changed.

                 But no. Instead, Luke's first thought is to just kill him and once he made his bed, he had to lie in it as the consequence of his recklessness.

                 "You are also not considering that Luke sensed the good in Vader where Ben Kenobi and Yoda did not. Luke felt it, likely because Vader's feelings towards Luke were conflicted, unlike his feelings towards Kenobi and Yoda. Ben Solo's feelings towards Luke are not conflicted. Luke does not sense the good in Kylo Ren. Does Leia? Maybe. Because regarding Leia, Ren IS conflicted. Ren was conflicted over Han too, that was the call back into the light in VII and the driving force behind his decisiom to kill Han Solo. Ren killed his father even though that conflicted part of him still cared for his father."
                 You are also not considering that Luke sensed the good in Vader because he actually TRIED. He saw something there that Ben and Yoda did not because they had already written him off. It's all there in Yoda's teachings: "If once you start down the dark path, FOREVER will it dominate your destiny."
                 Luke proved them wrong.

                 And as for Kylo, you just acknowledged that he was struggling with the light. That IS conflict. That doesn't just have to do with whatever feelings he had towards his family. It had to do with his feelings in general. He was impressionable, young and being manipulated. All things that many young individuals go through. But that doesn't automatically mean they're forever gone - especially when you're given the opportunity to do something about it before it gets to the point of no return. Luke HAD that opportunity - and he let it slip through his fingers because his first thought was to "just kill him."

                 "Speak for yourself, kiddo. You're going in circles because you're stubborn, not because you're insightful."
                 Funny, seeing as how that exact insight applies to yourself considering that the very reason you are debating with me in the first place is because you're seeking to sell your agenda; The stubbornness to "be right".

            111. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 28, 2018

                 "First off, that's not Luke's "mentality". The fact that he was ashamed of himself for the instinct even creeping over him tells us that. Luke, himself, would agree with you there."
                 But that's only AFTER looking back over his actions. Like I said, hindsight is 20/20 when you look back at things after they occur. His mentality was to strike Kylo Ren down then and there before he even did anything wrong.

                 "My point is that the instinct, itself, is understandable. Taking the short cut is always tempting. But that moment of weakness is not reflective of Luke as a character."
                 But it is considering that that is his FIRST thought that he almost initiated. In that case, it is indicative that Luke learned nothing in his time from the OT by taking the quick and easy path as opposed to a more thoughtful approach.

            112. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 28, 2018

                 "My wife is concerned all the time that she's not pretty enough. Which is stupid. It doesn't make her stupid, that is coming from a non-rational, self-doubting aspect of her personality. She's a perfectionist, she's hard on herself. The idea that she's not pretty enough, though, IS stupid.

                 It's the same with Luke here. He sees himself in this manner because of being emotionally compromised by that event. It's not logical for us to view Luke in that manner."
                 Yes, it is because it's very telling how Luke RESPONDED to the event by his actions - or rather lack thereof. I wouldn't be judgmental of the issue if Luke took it as a sign that he screwed up, sucked it up and did something about it. But he didn't. He failed and in response, he slinked away in shame and went to sulk, justifying himself with empty platitudes.

                 It is therefore logical to view Luke in that manner because he never did anything to undo his screw up.

                 Your wife didn't screw up by nearly killing a family member and then not doing anything about the consequences. There is a huge difference in the (granted sad) act of seeing yourself as not pretty, which is merely a physical trait and seeing yourself as the catalyst for a mass murderer going berserk and then never doing anything to fix your mistake.

            113. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 28, 2018

                 "Luke did something about it, he went to end the Jedi Order once and for all. This IS an action, it's simply not the one you think he should have made. But he was emotionally compromised by his own failure with Ben which shaped that decision."
                 That's not an action. He didn't jump off a cliff and kill himself. He went into seclusion and lived a relatively peaceful life while everyone else suffered for a mistake he made. That's an INACTION and it's an inaction in that he didn't do anything of substance to clean up a mess he made.

                 "Again, yeah he did. "Doing anything" isn't exclusive to going and fighting something."
                 It is when the problem at hand is a mass murderer that went off the deep end because of something you did. In which case, doing nothing is an inaction.

                 "He went to the First Jedi Temple to end the Jedi Order as a last rites endeavor."
                 Some good that did. It would make no difference if Luke chose to seclude himself on some other godforsaken planet to die of old age beyond the metaphorical aspects of it.

                 "The Jedi had precipitated the fall of the Galactic Republic by their failure to stop Palpatine and that one of their own had turned and become the galaxy's greatest villain. Their recent history was failure resulting in the loss and devastation of their entire order and of the very concept of democracy. The idea that only a Jedi could save the day, that only the Jedi could restore balance to the force when the very nature of nature is to balance the force, Luke saw that as vanity. He saw that vanity as a root cause of these cataclysmic events which had threatened the galaxy once before and now threatens it again."
                 That's not vanity. That's simply DOING something in regards to a mistake you caused. VANITY is thinking you're above such a thing to even try. Luke didn't try. Even Obi-Wan and Yoda, fail as they did, TRIED to undo the mess that the Jedi was partially responsible in creating.

                 Even then, their seclusion was with purpose (and with threat considering that they were perhaps the most wanted men in the entire galaxy). Luke's was just to sulk and die.

                 "Removing the Jedi from that equation IS doing something. The only question is, is this the right thing to do? And that's where VIII comes in."
                 It's NOT doing something since it's a rogue Jedi who was created from the equation that Luke himself started. Therein lies the "imbalance" and at that point, Luke had no inclination to believe a "Rey" would pop up out of the ether to tilt the balance.

            114. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 30, 2018

                 "Not that cut and dried, though, because Luke is ending the Jedi Order not to live in peace but to spare the galaxy from the damage that the Jedi have caused. Taking himself away from everyone else was a protective measure."
                 How the hell is that a protective measure when the mess that he's hiding from was caused by him? The DAMAGE is done. It'd be one thing if he caused a disaster, went out of his way to undo it and THEN exiled himself, but that's not what he did. He caused a mess and then went "seeya, bye."

                 "That is not just "inaction". That is addition by subtraction from his perspective. We have to be mature enough as human beings to understand that the right thing to do isn't always just to go kick someone's ass. This ain't a Stallone vehicle..."
                 Wow. Just wow.

                 Luke is a powerful Jedi whose actions unleashed another powerful ex-Jedi to wreak havoc on the galaxy. His response is to do nothing to help. And then when he's INFORMED how bad the situation has spiraled out of control because of his absence, he still stubbornly clings to the notion that it's best to just do nothing.

                 "Luke intervened with Ben and left the galaxy worse for it."
                 No he didn't. He thought it best to kill him off and then his actions led to Ben going off the deep end.

                 "Again, you need to have the emotional maturity to recognize that "doing something" is not defined by taking direct action against it."
                 That's not "emotional maturity." The film itself tries to tell us this by constantly laying on the gravity of what Luke's inactions have done for the galaxy and then literally forcing his hand to intervene at the last possible second. The whole point of the movie is that Luke doesn't have the maturity or wisdom to understand that "failure is the greatest teacher" and live with his mistake to do something productive in working to fix it.

                 "Luke did something. He went to the First Jedi Temple to end the Jedi Order. That is not inaction, that simply is not direct action against Kylo Ren or the First Order. But direct action, from Luke's perspective, was not the right thing to do."
                 That IS an inaction. As I said, it would make no damn difference if Luke just exiled himself in any other corner of the outer rim. The result would still be the same sans the metaphorical relevance - Metaphorical relevance that makes no difference in the long run because Luke never expected to be found.

                 "In his younger days, yeah, he probably flies off to kick someone's ass and blow up a superweapon. But part of being older and wiser is in knowing that this is not always the right thing to do."
                 Which goes to show that Luke demonstrated superior wisdom in his younger days than his older days. Luke went to confront Vader in ROTJ, but not out of reckless behavior, but the courage and fortitude to TRY to redeem Vader and not only save the galaxy from the threat of two evil masters of the Dark Side, but to save Vader's soul.

                 "What Luke did was not the right thing to do either, of course, until he came around to his own worth and effect at the end of the film."
                 Exactly. It was NOT the right thing to do. So why you keep treating it that way as some work of wisdom is ridiculous.

                 "If you say that, unequivocally, going off and confronting Kylo and the Knights of Ren, getting back in the fight against the First Order, that this is "what Luke Skywalker should do" then you are unequivocally WRONG."
                 Why? The whole point of the film is proving that Luke's decision to take himself out of the fight was WRONG because getting himself back in the action (only to die needlessly) is what seemingly saved the Rebellion.

                 "I know what you're thinking, "that's exactly what he does in the film so apparently I'm RIGHT!""
                 In a way, yes. However, in a needless way. There was no reason Luke NEEDED to die then and there. What he did saved the "Rebellion," sure, but he needlessly sacrificed himself fighting an enemy that he could have beaten blindfolded. At least with Obi-Wan and Darth Vader in ANH, that was an enemy that was beyond Kenobi's capacity to beat at that stage in his life. He was older, out of practice, and the last time he faced Vader down and (barely) beat him, it was practically an hour-long battle which was time he didn't have this time around. But Kylo on the other hand presents to him no real challenge - and that in of itself is a big reason why Luke's ultimate failure is not in Ren's turn, but in his inability to take action to stop him when he easily could.

                 "Luke Skywalker is The Last Jedi. There is no one, other than him, with the knowledge and ability to pass along the much-needed Jedi Order. If Luke Skywalker goes off to face all of those force users and the might of the First Order, even with the Resistance behind him, he dies."
                 What? Who is to say that he does? In the movie itself, we see that Crylo Ren presents no real challenge to him and whatever students Crylo took from him to form the Knights of Ren he taught and since Crylo is the "leader" of them, chances are none of them are up to his level - a level which Luke easily surpasses.

                 "He faces Snoke, Kylo Ren, and the rest of the Knights of Ren, and someone kills him. And with him, the Jedi Order dies forever."
                 This is a stupid explanation. You're justifying what's done in the film by assuming Luke would literally attack the First Order and allow himself to be ganged up on all at once. Even an idiot wouldn't do that.

                 And need we forget that Luke already faced a trial like this - one that was way more challenging you could say - when he went up against Vader and the Emperor in ROTJ. His goals weren't to just beat them both into submission though, so he came out on top in the end. So we already know Luke is much smarter than that in a tactical manner.

                 If Luke actually TRIED, he could have easily won against the First Order. Not by "taking them all down" in a massive one on 9,000 battle, but by strategizing. And before you say "but he's the most wanted individual in the galaxy for the First Order", he was also the most "wanted individual in the galaxy" for the Empire. Need we forget that he was hunted obsessively by Darth Vader and the Emperor in TESB? He evaded them then and with age, experience and wisdom on his side PLUS an enemy far less powerful, he could have evaded them here too.

                 "They protect Luke from that fate. They put him in exile. Not from cowardice, but from guilt."
                 The guilt he has IS from cowardice though. He is a coward because he FLEES from the mistakes he makes instead of doing something to undo them. Mark Hamill himself was baffled by his decision to just "give up" and stated endlessly how he believed that Luke would have picked himself up and got back into the fight even after his massive f#%# up.

                 "In doing so, they protect the basic foundation of the Jedi Order as one which can be rebuilt. Rey comes along, finds Luke, helps him change his mind (eventually), and now the Jedi have a viable legacy again. Now they have somewhere to start instead of just somewhere to end."
                 That's by happenstance thanks to the script. Luke didn't know a Rey would come along and seek his help. So therefore, had Rey not come along, Luke would have just died a meaningless death on a godforsaken planet and nobody would have been the wiser.

                 If Luke sought to "end" the Jedi Order, but still kept in-character his basic principles, he would have fought to the end against the First Order, not necessarily seeking suicide, but perhaps not caring too much for his wellbeing ala Batman in The Dark Knight Rises. That still would have accomplished the same kind of goal in that Luke needed to pass on what he learned to others, but still kept his character arc in check with him wanting the Jedi to "end" with him.

                 "If you're going to critique films and stories, you need to do a better job of tracking out what altering this or that does to the whole, the consequences of it."
                 I could say the same about you in regards to the opposite spectrum. The difference being that you make mountains out of molehills in your explanations when that level of depth is just not present in the actual FILM.

                 It's the same kind of criticism you level against BvS fans. They find that same level of depth, but it's dismissive because it's (apparently) not present in the actual film.

                 "That's what's frustrating to me about critics of these new films, you take no macroconsiderations in assessing whether your micro-statements make actual sense."
                 See, this just proves that you're pushing an agenda. You're frustrated that TLJ is getting shit on because you personally loved the movie and equate others hating it in that the movie was just "too smart" for them to "get it" (which is ironically similar to BvS fans logic).

                 But in using the same statements you yourself used, if there is this huge disconnection with audiences, you can't just blame them as being the ones who didn't "understand" the film or pre-judged it on false pretenses. Maybe the film simply wasn't that good...

                 And like BvS, in ten years, I highly doubt people will look back on these series of films and call them misunderstood masterpieces. Not like Empire for example. They're corporate sellouts and like the prequels, they will probably keep a niche audience, but they won't be remembered fondly or leave a longstanding legacy. CHANCES ARE that Episode 10 will follow Episode 9 and do what TFA SHOULD have done with Rey orchestrating a flourishing Jedi Order and succeed where Luke so monumentally failed......
                 ....Or they'll just rehash ANH again. I mean, you never know, right?

            115. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 30, 2018

                 "He's not hiding from his "mess". The only thing he's responsible for is failing to turn Ben back to the light"
                 Which he never tried.

                 "and preventing the destruction of the Jedi Order."
                 Which was because he went into Ben's hut in the dead of night and thought of killing him in his sleep.

                 "His "mess" has already had its consequences. Luke is the last person in the galaxy who could turn Ben back at that point."
                 And again, he never tried.

                 "He's not responsible for the First Order. Nor does he know that much about the First Order considering that he shut himself off from the force when he went into exile. He didn't know about Han, as the film demonstrates."
                 He knows AFTER. He even finds out that Leia is suffering when he reconnects with the Force and still, when offered the chance to leave and help, he still decides to sit on his behind and do nothing. If Yoda never appeared to him, he would have continued to do his sulking and the Resistance would have been destroyed.

                 Which lends the question: If Jedi spirits can call down lightning from the skies, that would have been REALLY helpful in other situations one would think....

                 "Luke's perspective on that legacy of failure, how history had repeated itself, inspired him to end that cycle. That was wisdom warped by a broken heart."
                 That wasn't "wisdom." The film even points that out by making Luke "in the wrong." It's empty platitudes he's using to justify his lack of action.

                 "You are taking a very narrow look at only what you want to see, you aren't looking at the whole picture that the film paints here, which it paints with Luke's insight into the nature of the force."
                 If anyone's taking a very narrow look at only what they want to see, it's you. You're literally trying to justify and make Luke's actions appear to be benevolent and filled with wisdom and understanding when the film is actually painting them in a negative light. A light which it takes Luke till the very end of the film to finally open his eyes to realize.

                 "That's a strong statement considering that those actions were driven by an instinctive, fearful reaction to what was inside of Ben Solo and how his heart had turned. There wasn't much "thought" to it..."
                 We can go through this again if you wish. There was clearly more "thought" to it than you describe considering how the film shows Luke slowly back away, take his lightsaber from his belt, raise it his chest, look at it to back to Ben and then finally activate it. It was mulled over. It wasn't an "instinctive reaction" as one might expect from waking after a nightmare. ;)

                 "'Right' is not synonymous with 'wise', first off."
                 No. But making the right decision is not completely separate from having the "wisdom" to make the right decision.

                 "Luke went off to face Vader half-cocked in V. Incredibly unwise, stupid decision. But was the right thing to do from a moral perspective."
                 I wasn't talking V, I was talking VI first off.

                 As for his decision in V, yes, it was reckless, but as you said, it was "right" because it was borne out of a desire to HELP. And it would just so happen that his desire to "HELP" did not leave him in VI, even after he gained more wisdom in not making reckless decisions and thought his actions through first before executing them.

                 He finished what he started in V - to rescue his friends. He did that in VI.

                 "Ending the Jedi Order comes from a perspective which I believe to be wise,"
                 Key component in there is "which [you] believe to be wise." Okay. You are free to interpret the film as you wish. But the film itself is deeming it UNWISE since Luke's decision is ultimately looked down upon from a writing perspective and from the protagonist.

                 "but it's the wrong thing to do, morally. Luke isn't a young, hot-headed kid anymore. He's 30 years older and 30 years wiser."
                 There is no "wisdom" in cowering from your problems and then justifying it with empty platitudes. There is no "wisdom" in deciding to "die" by living a relatively clean and happy lifestyle while the rest of the galaxy suffers for a mistake you made.

                 "The expectation of characters to only make the right or wise decisions is just ridiculous. It's a great way to whitewash any sense of drama in the medium."
                 The expectation for characters who we watched develop from a naive farmboy to a mature Jedi Knight who was optimistic, thoughtful, courageous and inspiring in that he was inherently a "good guy" to continue being that way is NOT ridiculous. Nobody said that Luke was a "perfect unfaltering" character. He FAILED several times in the OT. What was endearing about him was that he picked himself up from those failures and learned from them, never backing away from doing what's right.

                 People LIKE morally righteous characters. Especially NOWADAYS. I may love the DCEU Superman, but there's a reason people did not gravitate towards that darker interpretation just like there's a reason people are not gravitating towards a similar darker interpretation of Luke.

                 "I said 'I don't want to go there!' I want to be the joyful optimistic Luke!" - Mark Hamill

                 Luke doesn't need to be perfect. Like I said, he could have still "failed" in that the Jedi Order collapsed and Kylo Ren went bad, but if he was still THE Luke Skywalker, he would have tried his hardest to undo the mistakes he caused.

                 "No, it's that Luke's decision not to train Rey as a Jedi and to end the Jedi Order over his failure was wrong."
                 Um... No. The film literally points this out in regards to how we as an audience react to his glum attitude and how Rey herself reacts to him acting this way. He failed and did NOTHING to undo it. That's WRONG.

            116. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 February 3, 2018

                 "Of course he did, that's what he went to Ben's hut for."
                 That's IT?! The bare minimum, which was to simply find out what's going on is the equivalent of "helping" him? Seriously?

                 "No, it's because Ben Solo turned to the dark side."
                 You keep saying this and it's extremely short-sighted. As short-sighted as the filmmakers who implemented the notion that Luke thought it best to strike down a youngster in his sleep before he even did anything wrong.

                 Ben Solo was NOT "turned." He was being corrupted, but he had yet to do anything. By saying he was already gone then contradicts the films themselves when he still was conflicted even by the time TFA rolled around.

                 "And Luke didn't "think of killing him", it was a reaction to the darkness beyond Luke's imaginings which he found within Ben Solo. There's nothing thoughtful about a reaction/instinct, that's what defines it as a reaction/instinct."
                 There was clearly more "thought" to it than you describe considering how the film shows Luke slowly back away, take his lightsaber from his belt, raise it to his chest, look at it, look back to Ben, and then finally activate it. It was mulled over. It wasn't an "instinctive reaction" as one might expect from waking after a nightmare.

                 "And again, yeah he did. Just didn't get very far with it. That event precluded any further attempt by Luke at redeeming Ren."
                 Because Luke was ultimately the final nail in the coffin for Ben snapping. It's perhaps unlikely that Ben would have murdered everyone had Luke done more than stand over his bed with an activated lightsaber.

                 "Could you see Kenobi redeeming Vader? No."
                 The circumstances are completely different, as you should know, so this is a stupid comparison. By the time Obi-Wan saw Vader, Anakin had ALREADY murdered children and countless Jedi in the name of the Empire while Kylo Ren didn't do anything wrong at the point Luke reached him.

                 And yes, had Obi-Wan seen Anakin's future BEFOREHAND, I could see him possibly redeeming him before things spiraled out of control.

                 "After he had committed himself to ending the Jedi Order and had shut himself off from the force, yeah. And all of those things that he feels from discovering these events play a big part in pushing Luke back into the fight. Look at Hamill's performance when confronted with those things that he discovers, he is emotionally extremely conflicted. They emphasize this. However, he still views himself as a failure, as powerless to help anyone because of how he, and the Jedi, have failed."
                 He still doesn't decide to go back when he sees Leia is on life-support and after he heard that Han Solo was murdered. I mean, these things shouldn't just play a "big part" in convincing him to come back. Had he any semblance of who he was, this would have immediately kicked him into overdrive.

                 "That young Luke is still in this old Luke. Look what happens when he goes to burn down the tree, he can't do it. When it comes down to it, Luke cannot bring himself to end what he believes needs to end. That man that Luke used to be, what you and others are accusing this man of not being, he's still in there. And the film brings him back in what I think was one of the coolest, most goosebump inducing scenes of the whole saga with his "diversion"."
                 So just because YOU think it was one of the "coolest-most goosebump inducing scenes in the whole saga", everyone else must also think that by mere default just because it impressed YOU?

                 No. There is very little semblance of Luke in this shriveled up hermit who abandons everything and everyone he loves because he screwed up.

                 Now I'm not saying that MH didn't do a good job acting out the part. Don't twist my words on that front. He definitely did good with playing "Jake" Skywalker and he's come a long way in his career to be able to believably express the emotions the role required him to have. BUT... That's not "Luke." Which is my whole point. Traces of him locked within what is otherwise a completely different character does NOT make him "Luke."

                 "The tree in question was linked to the light side, so I'm not sure that's exactly how it works."
                 Who even knows how it "works" at this point? Prior to this movie (EU doesn't count), Force ghosts couldn't do anything physical at all except appear to other Jedi and talk to them. Obi-Wan never actually "touched" Luke and vice versa.

                 "Still, becoming one with the force should imply certain things like, ya know, being able to influence the force."
                 The notion was to preserve consciousness, not physically manipulate, as Yoda would put it, "crude manner." It opens up a whole other can of worms to introduce that aspect as you yourself would imply below.

                 "But if all the force ghosts (Ben, Anakin, Qui Gonn, Yoda, Luke) just handled problems instead of sending Knights to do it, there would be no need for any more Jedi, yeah? And that would be unwise. So if Yoda could have destroyed the 2nd Death Star, for example, doing so would have prevented Luke from becoming a Jedi Knight. Which would be self-defeating to the Jedi Order and therefore an abuse of power by a force ghost. And that ain't what it's about, the force ghosts are meant to be wise and measured, propelling others towards their destinies, not doing it for them."
                 This is only taking into account what we know OUTSIDE the films rather than being the collective wisdom of individuals who CAN make actually make a difference.
                 I mean, in that case, was it "unwise" of Aragorn to seek the help of the ghosts to win the battle for Gondor in ROTK? Technically, that was "cheating", but you can't say it didn't help.

                 From a narrative standpoint, obviously a Force Ghost solving everyone's problems is a huge deus ex machina, but from a logical standpoint, not having countless millions DIE in a conflict when you could very easily put a stop to it is a big ethical decision beyond "I just want the others to do it themselves."

                 I mean, this is a big standing point of older tales like Greek myths, yet the gods intervene pretty much all the fricken time. I mean, Odysseus of the Odyssey for example wouldn't have made half his journey if Athena wasn't helping him pretty much all the time.

                 "The idea that the force does not belong to the Jedi is not an "empty platitude"."
                 Yes it is because it ultimately makes no sense in the end. If the Force does not belong to the Jedi, then why is Luke placing his trust in himself not being "the Last Jedi" and that the other Jedi is going to clean up what is essentially his mess?

                 "Luke simply is not rectifying his knowledge of the force with the value of failure. His wisdom is there, it's just not complete because his views on failure are absolute in that failure is damning. But he's not wrong. Just an asshole."
                 He IS wrong, which is the whole point of the film (and yes, he's an asshole, I'll agree with you there).
                 There is inherently flawed logic in assuming that there is wisdom in his decision to "end" the Jedi BECAUSE of his projection of his own failures connecting with the failures of the others. It is literally nonsensical to assume the role of "Ending" the Jedi because they failed by LETTING dark side individuals run rampant while you sit and do nothing.

                 "The Force does not belong to the Jedi."
                 Okay? Do they belong to the "Sith" then? Or "Dark Jedi"? Who does the Force "belong" to? And since Luke had no knowledge that the Force would conveniently crop up a Ma-Rey-Sue to balance everything out in the end, who is to stop the other Dark Jedi from misusing the Force and wreaking havoc - a havoc that Luke holds some responsibility in setting loose?

                 "No, I'm not saying that he was benevolent in his actions, I'm saying that his actions were informed by a great understanding of the nature of the force, his wisdom regarding the force."
                 How? How is it wisdom in action to essentially run away from the problems he caused and decide to end the Jedi when a bunch of Rogue Jedi are out there causing death and destruction?
                 It might be prudent to say that HAD Luke actively gone out of his way to stop the Rogue Jedi/Sith and THEN end the order of Jedi so that no more can sprout up, it'd be an act of misguided wisdom, but still having a benevolent intention, but that's not what he did. He thought it best to end what was essentially the last benevolent force user left while a bunch of others - one of which was his responsibility - run rampant in mucking up the galaxy.

                 What wisdom is there in that?

                 "Your notion is that only the Jedi can set things right and win and that without the Jedi Luke is damning the galaxy and leaving it to its fate. That's in direct contention to what Luke is arguing. His argument is that given the Jedi's legacy of failure, the galaxy has a better chance of it without him or them."
                 Too late - The Rogue Jedi are out there screwing around. And unless Luke's wisdom dictated that a Ma-Rey-Sue would crop up out of the ether to set things right, then yes, Luke is essentially damning the galaxy by leaving it to its fate.

                 And in all that, Luke's logic is fundamentally flawed by the film's own reckoning that Luke takes pride in saying "I will not be the Last Jedi" at the end by submitting his faith in Rey, as a JEDI, setting things right in his absence.

                 "The reason I say that this is not benevolent is because it is informed by an embittered state of mind. He is projecting the failure of the Jedi onto his own. So while I say that Luke has a point, and I believe that he does, I think that his actions are wrong. And that is how the film protects him, because he thinks he's making the right decision and he has every reason to believe that he is."
                 Yes, he is WRONG. And by being WRONG, he is inherently NOT making the "right" decision. He also has no reason to believe he's making the right decision because he left a mess in need of cleaning up that he staunchly refuses to do so even though he easily could (As we see in the film, Kylo Ren proves to be no match for Luke).

                 Luke is in a bitter state of mind as you say. That makes his decision compromised by his emotional state and therein lacking of any such wisdom beyond conventional empty platitudes. He is WRONG, but he shouldn't be justifying his WRONG decision as anyone with logic should see that he is in fact WRONG.

                 "His decision simply doesn't align with our desire to see Luke go open up a can of whoop-ass on Snoke, stomp a mudhole in him, and walk it dry."
                 No, it simply doesn't align with any form of logic. Had the film started with Luke being the Last Jedi and there were absolutely NO other Force users out there, then it'd be more understandable. If Luke's Jedi Order fell and he worked to get rid of all the loose ends, then it'd be a completely different story and Rey would have to have a completely different reason to ask him to train her. In fact, that may have led to something more thoughtful as an arc because THEN it'd be really hard to convince Luke to accept training another since the galaxy would be at peace WITHOUT the presence of Jedi, so why train another? But that's not what happened. Instead, Luke was instrumental in another student falling to the dark side and in failing, Luke decides to "end the order" while two lunatics are running around murdering people in the name of the Force. What good then would dying as the Last Jedi accomplish when he actually isn't the "Last" Jedi?

                 "Make no mistake, that's a bitter pill for me as well. But in an artistically useful, meaningful way. The kind of bitter pill that adds to the experience of the story and of cinema. For y'all, for whatever reason, it just led you to turn on the movie."
                 I don't see why it's so hard to understand why it led others to turn on the movie. You just admitted it's a "bitter pill" to swallow, so just because you thought it artistically useful and meaningful, why do you think everyone else would find it that way as well?

                 "You can't mull something over in the course of a second or two. The film presents itself for the sake of drama because due to Kylo Ren's side of that story our dramatic expectation is that Luke did this awful thing. But the real story is that the awful thing he's guilty of is NOT the literal thing we expected him to be guilty of. Luke narrates that yarn for the benefit of our perspective on it. You are choosing to disregard all of that."
                 No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the contradiction that the film itself provides by showing us something different than what we are being told. And again, it's played out in real-time - if they really wanted to sell the notion that these things took place VERY QUICKLY, we could have seen actual slow-motion to enunciate that factor, but we don't and thus, we have a scene where Luke TELLS us, he was acting on instinct when what we are SHOWN is him taking out his lightsaber slowly, staring at it and Kylo for a period of time and finally, activating its blade as he's in a position to raise it over his shoulder to strike. And apparently, it was ENOUGH of a dilemma that even though Luke had all but given up at that point, he still withheld that truth from Rey at first so that she could see his POV in the lessons he was trying to teach. You keep pooh-poohing it because it contradicts with your viewpoint of Luke as being wise with his decisions.

                 "Said wisdom was absent. Doesn't make Luke unwise, it means that his wisdom had a blind spot. He was wise in the force, but he did not value failure as a teaching tool."
                 That doesn't make him "wise" though. By the very definition that he's letting his emotional instability compromise his actual understanding of the wisdom he's trying to pass down. That means while he may THINK he's wise, he's not actually demonstrating wisdom. Just justifying himself with empty platitudes.

                 "The difference being that Luke had never lost anything like what he lost between VI and VII. Luke always took action. One of the actions that he took contributed to losing his sister's son forever."
                 Maybe not to the extent of losing a literal nephew/student, but he LOST things and people big time. And some of which was through actions he took. He thought he could succeed at Cloud City, but in doing so, he LOST big time. When he was calmer and more prepared, he succeeded in rescuing Han in ROTJ.

                 Either way, the point is that Luke, narratively, should have been able to LOSE and get back up again to fight. Not for a "badass fight", but to preserve the consistency of his character.

                 "No, the film is introducing the idea of failure as a teacher, which re-frames Luke's perspective. It had supported his knowledge and his actions, however, with examples and insight."
                 Luke has already seen failure and learned from it. Not at the same level, but to the extent where it was still a monumental "teacher" to reframe his perspective. He failed so many times in the OT that it's hard to count, but he succeeded many times over by learning from his mistakes.

                 "He's not cowering, nothing he is doing is being done from cowardice. His problem is not Kylo Ren. That is over, and he lost. His problem is his own failure, and he is confronting that head-on by choosing to end the Jedi Order once and for all."
                 That in of itself is an act of cowardice. By treating your failures to be the sum of all problems and utilizing that to excuse what is exile and isolation is the basis of childish responses. "I'm running away so nobody will get hurt by me again." I mean, how many times has that been the excuse of people in both real life and literature? We can sympathize with that, but it's a very basic problem that is usually fundamentally WRONG and able to be proven wrong in only but the most extreme circumstances. Especially in this case, considering Luke is still leaving a loose end.

                 Choosing to end the Jedi Order by ending himself (the long way) while a bunch of lunatic utilizing the Dark Side are out there running amok is ridiculous. It's wallowing in self-pity instead of pulling it together to clean up the mess you made.

                 It makes Luke's problem essentially as petty as someone like whining Clark Kent from Smallville where pretty much every other episode he said the same thing.

                 "Luke is still courageous, thoughtful, and inherently a good guy. Were he not, the Resistance would have died on Crait."
                 And how long did it take for him to get to that point?
                 The whole movie.
                 So throughout the rest which is 95% of the film, he's not courageous, thoughtful or inherently a good guy. He's grumpy, cowardly, and inherently a failure in every way.

                 "Your misconception of what Luke should have done would have been done BEFORE VII and would have resulted in his death."
                 How? I'm pretty sure I've already addressed this, but facing the First Order head on is tactically stupid and something Luke would know not to do, so a powerful Jedi Master like himself who had already faced off against the more powerful Empire would have age and experience on his side to fight smart. And as we established, Kylo Ren is already no match for him, so there's no reason he couldn't have taken him out. Snoke would have been the only real physical threat for him to overcome.

                 "You keep acting like Luke didn't try his hardest to undo his mistakes. But that's exactly what he's doing on Ahch-To. His mistake, as he sees it, was continuing the Jedi Order"
                 No, it wasn't. That's part of my whole point. His logic makes no sense whatsoever while the loose ends are still attached to the inherent problem he's supposedly trying to undo, therefore his reasoning is ridiculous.

                 "This was not Luke drinking himself to death back on Tatooine and washing his hands of everyone, this was Luke paying his penance for himself and the Jedi Order."
                 That's not "paying his penance." He'd be paying his penance if he was actively trying to undo the mess he made and fighting back. Living life relatively care-free while everyone else is out there either busting their ass or suffering miserably is not making penance.

                 "Says who? Luke's characterization and Hamill's performance were acclaimed outside of the self-entitled fanbase that doesn't appreciate what it gets."
                 Why SHOULD they appreciate what they get when A) nobody asked for it and B) they thought it was handled terribly. So people should just stick out their tongues and lap up what they don't like? Or should they be able to exercise their right to have an opinion and hate what they don't like?

                 Just because YOU liked it doesn't mean everyone else should.

                 "V was perceived by similar types as a betrayal of everything that made IV great upon release. But now people look back at it as where the story got interesting."
                 Here is one of your biggest mistakes. You are assuming that just because Empire had a somewhat mixed response (contrary to belief, most people liked it).

                 "You may think that the reception to the film was mixed, and among "fans" you are absolutely correct. But the fans that Star Wars has right now are not the only fans it will ever have."
                 It isn't JUST the die-hard fans, dude. It's the casuals as well.
                 I was the ONLY person in my group of friends who hated The Force Awakens and I accepted that. When it came to The Last Jedi, the consensus was FAR more mixed and even those who liked it had to say "Yeah, it was good, but it had problems."

                 As for the die-hard fans who were pissed off, it's not good to alienate your core audience because the outspread begins there and trickles down.

                 Most casuals LIKED Man of Steel for instance (the A- cinemascore proves that), but obviously the die-hards got pissed off and from there, it trickled down into the next few DCEU movies culminating in the failure of JL, which, again, most casuals liked, but there weren't enough "casuals" to keep it afloat.

                 "I wasn't alive when V debuted, but it's one of my favorite films ever. Considering the data from the exit polls (which are far less subject to selection bias than the opt-in polls of RT and Metacritic) the film achieved high satisfaction among the general audiences. That will make fans."
                 As we already discussed however, that wasn't enough.

                 Your mistake is assuming that these movies will hold up over time and people will grow to love them in the same way they grew to love Empire. The chances of that happening are SUPER-slim. Time has not been that kind to TFA for instance. Most people still like it, but obviously once the hype died down, there were more and more dissenters crawling from the woodwork.

                 "And when the artistic value of this movie sets in, the "fanboys" will realize just how far away from determining the narrative of this film's success they actually were."
                 Again, what makes you think that in years to come, 8 will be regarded as this misunderstood masterpiece? Just because it happened with TESB? That is the EXCEPTION, not the rule in regards to how films manage to stand the test of time. It is incredibly rare for that to happen, and likely will NOT happen in regards to the two situations these movies exist in that are independent from one another.

                 If anything, people will likely hate this movie even more in the years to come and it will be looked upon as a missed opportunity.

                 You may not recall, but prequel fans thought the same thing. Yet as we all know, time has not been kind to the prequel trilogy.

                 "In this experience he [Rian Johnson] has rocketed it to the top of my all-time favorite directors, believe me.” - Mark Hamill"
                 I don't doubt that Mark "likes" Rian Johnson as a person and a director. However, liking and appreciating someone for their talents =/= agreeing with their decisions, which Hamill has made clear numerous times. Plus - you have to take into consideration that his job is to PROMOTE the movie. There's a reason actors who are in bad movies still praise it as long as it is their job and then years later, when they're free of studio mandates, they open up about how they really felt about the film.

                 Hamill himself has admitted several times that he's gotten in trouble with the studio for some of the stuff he's said and even stated on Twitter how he regrets opening up about his "opinions" because people shouldn't know the going on behind the scenes while he's positively promoting the movie.

            117. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 February 4, 2018

                 "That wasn't the intention. Luke didn't go there saying to himself "I'm gonna kill this petulant bitch if I see so much as a rain cloud above his head". It was the shock of what he found inside of Ben which produced a raw, emotional reaction. Raw, emotional reactions are relatable."
                 I never said he went there just to kill him. But if THAT was the only thing he did that constitutes as "helping" him when it ended up being the result of Kylo Ren falling off the deep end, then he clearly didn't try very hard.

                 "Luke's intent informs us of his characterization. His intent was not to kill Ben, he went there to help him. The magnitude of what he found escalated that situation, which we see, and that was that. None of that means that Luke's intention, what he actually rationalized, wasn't to help Ben Solo."
                 But it does tell us how quickly he gave up on him or even how quickly he gave up in general. He went into the hut to assess the situation, found out that Ben's darkness was greater than he imagined, and his initial response was to kill him which resulted in Ben going over the edge of the cliff. Then Luke did nothing else to either help, fight or prevent further damage that Ben would do.

                 It's a sad characterization that is nothing close to really trying to help.

                 "Conversely, Batman blowing away goons in BvS quite well informs us of his intentions in that situation."
                 You're right. It does. It tells us just how far off the deep end he's fallen and this is the result of how much he no longer cares about his old ideals.

                 "That's the difference between undercutting substantiation and well representing a character. It's time to learn that."
                 Yeah, it really is time. Well representing a character by offering the bare minimum of substantiation and undercutting it with BS reasonings and excuses.

                 "Bunch of bullshit. If Luke "thought it best" to strike Ben Solo down he would have done so."
                 Thinking and doing are two different things. You of all people should know that. Luke THOUGHT it best to strike him down initially and hesitated.

                 "No, Obi Wan Kenobi was no one who could have done so. His existence became poisoning to Anakin's soul. If Obi Wan could have redeemed Anakin, he would have done so. All of his appeals to do so were met with more and more hatred and aggression."
                 Anakin grew to hate Obi-Wan in due time because of the manipulation he received from Palpatine, but until Palpatine really started to gnaw at his soul, Anakin still treated Obi-Wan as his only real friend among the Jedi. He didn't completely trust him, but if anyone was going to get through to him whose name wasn't Padme, it would have been Obi-Wan. But Obi-Wan was way too late.

                 Obviously, had Obi-Wan known of what was to come of Anakin's fate, he would have done something more to prevent it. But by the time he got the chance to confront Anakin, he was already a mass murderer. Luke on the other hand got the chance to confront Kylo before any of that came to pass and he blew his chance to prevent it because he hastily decided to kill him as a first reaction and payed for his decision .

                 "That's what I mean, Luke could not possibly redeem Ben. He's the last fucker in the galaxy with any hope to do so. Greedo had a better chance of shooting Han in the face than Luke ever had of redeeming Ben Solo... Why? Because Ben Solo fucking hates Luke Skywalker. There's nothing Luke could do to go to him and turn him back."
                 Ben's hate of Luke didn't actually manifest itself until AFTER he saw Luke from his POV try to kill him. Obviously by then, he hated Luke, but before that, Luke had a genuine chance to undo the harm Snoke was causing because Kylo had yet to do anything wrong at that point in time. Luke blew his chance.

                 But still... Even after that happened, the fact that Luke never tried to do anything else is a testament to how quickly he gave up. Not just on Ben, but himself and the entire galaxy.

                 "He still doesn't decide to go back when he sees Leia is on life-support and after he heard that Han Solo was murdered. I mean, these things shouldn't just play a "big part" in convincing him to come back. Had he any semblance of who he was, this would have immediately kicked him into overdrive"

                 "False, that implies that Jedi seek revenge."
                 How is any of that implying "Revenge" so much as it implies determination to help his friends and family? Luke didn't rush off to Cloud City for vengeance either, but in a desperate attempt to stop the visions he saw of his friends in danger.

                 "Also, Ben wasn't to blame for Leia's injuries."
                 Luke didn't know that. And even if he did, that still doesn't undo the fact that she's in trouble and in need of help.

                 "Regarding Han, his death would only serve as further evidence for Luke of his failure with Ben, drive him further towards the notion that it's time to end all of that."
                 Or it would show him that in his absence and unwillingness to undo the damage he caused, things are spiraling out of control and that even if he still believes the Jedi need to end, he at least needs to finish it completely - that is to take care of the other rogue Jedi out there wreaking havoc on the galaxy.

                 "This is why you are a poor film analyst. Not only do you not understand basic character substantiation, you're dogshit with thematic analysis as well."
                 LOL. Spoken by the one who was literally on the prowl for debates about Star Wars just so he could go out of his way to defend it and then gets all pissed when he meets someone who is apparently just as stubborn as him.

                 You're not an "film analyst." You're a fanboy on the warpath. You're flaunting your preconceived notions on these movies as if they were the ONLY way to view the films when A) you didn't make them and B) more than half your "facts" are falsehoods and excuses you conjured up to fill in the holes.

                 "Oh but you know so much better than the professional film critics that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is just so poorly written and executed and such a failure..."
                 And you somehow hold yourself to that standard just because you're on that side? Does that somehow mean that the admittedly small percentage of film critics who didn't submit a full 100% RT score are full of shit as well, or is it all a popularity contest in terms of determining when a film is good just because the critics say so?

                 "I'm going to put it to you straight, you haven't said a single thing about the film that reps you better than a crybaby fanboy."
                 And that's funny to hear you say that considering that I'd say (and have been saying) exactly the same thing about you. You're just as much of a crybaby fanboy as you claim I am. The only difference is that you're fighting for the film you love so much and jump up and down in frustration at those who dare not to clone your opinions.

                 "It was never going to impress people who have their heads too far up their own ass to recognize that they know jack all about writing or the characters or anything of the like."
                 LOL. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone who hates the film to you has their "heads too far up their own ass" or whatever when there are plenty of individuals who have reviewed this film far more in depth than you or I will ever be able to do and come away with both negatives and positives.

                 For instance - Canto Bite remains a bone of contention amongst even the most generous of critical and audience reviews in favor of the film, yet I wouldn't be surprised if you swallowed it whole and thought it was some masterclass storytelling. Does that somehow make those who hated it people who just didn't know "jack shit" about writing?

                 "For people who were picking up what the movie was putting down, the scene was a slow build to an emotional payoff using the power display that everyone should expect of one of the most unique Jedi masters in the canon."
                 So? That doesn't mean it was handled well or was consistent in terms of characterization. Just because it resonated with you doesn't make it some masterclass storytelling. And in the end, that's what it all comes down to. You're stating why it affected YOU and thus you project what YOU liked onto everyone else.

                 "That's effective cinema. Whether or not you have the wherewithal to recognize that, that's on you. The audience has some responsibility in recognizing a well-made film when they see it. And from the exit poll data it's clear that the general audience saw that."
                 See? You pick and choose what you want to believe. You accuse me of doing the exact same thing, yet you can't see past your own hubris to understand that you're doing exactly that.

                 The general audience also gave Transformers 3 an A cinemascore as well - yet we all know critics shit all over that movie. Just like we know that all 3 prequel films, despite how much they may be derided today all received consistent A- exit polling, which would, in your own metric, indicate that the general audience recognized "well-made films."

                 See how that works?

                 "Because their minds weren't clogged up with the sound of their own misconceptions and self-entitled bullshit."
                 What makes it "self-entitled"? Just because it doesn't fall into line with your own bullshit? What makes you any more qualified to say what is good cinema than any other fanboy with a bachelor's degree from film-school? Hell, some of the most celebrated directors ever didn't even go to film school.

                 "Spoken with true irony. You ask me not to twist your words and yet you ignore everything Mark Hamill said that doesn't fit your self-serving bullshit?"
                 See how mad you're getting because I quoted something Mark Hamill said because it doesn't fit with your own "self-serving bullshit?" As we'll see down below, you're desperate to cling onto the idea that Mark Hamill somehow loved TLJ, hence why you are also dismissive of anything negative he said because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

                 You want to talk about irony? There's the real irony. lol

                 "How about when Mark said that Luke would never cut the arm off a wampa? Agree with that? What about when he said that Rian Johnson became his favorite director? VIII being his favorite Star Wars film.since V? No, you take a quote, strip it of any value, and then you regurgitate it to me like it means something."
                 See, if you remember correctly, I even said that I don't doubt MH respects Rian Johnson as a director or had a good time making the movie. Hell, even going so far as to say it's his favorite - maybe he DOES believe all that. Okay... Still doesn't change all the OTHER stuff he said about it, nor does it change the fact that he's got to watch what he says about the movie because he's still on Disney's payroll and it's his JOB to promote the movie.

                 Why do you think actors who are in shitty movies rarely say how bad they are until months/years after they're all done promoting it? Because they CAN'T and it's poor tact to trash your bosses. Now I'm not saying that MH thinks TLJ is a piece of shit, but IT DOES speak some volumes that he's expressed a lot of negativity and then regrets ever doing so because of how it likely got him into trouble.

                 Are you so gullible to actually believe ONLY the positive things just because it contradicts YOUR viewpoint on the movie as this misunderstood masterpiece?
                 You're doing exactly what you just accused me of - picking and choosing what you want to believe because you got your head so far up your ass.

                 "This is not the same Luke. It should not be the same Luke."
                 Says who?

                 "That doesn't mean that they undercut Luke."
                 Why not? Just because you don't think they did? You already admitted that it was a tough pill to swallow, but you ended up liking it because of how it was handled.

                 So what about those others who also found it tough to accept, but on the other hand DIDN'T like how it was handled? Why are they any less qualifiable than you? Just because they're not "Pro-TLJ"? lol

                 "And the quicker you stop dancing around simple truths, the easier that will be to appreciate."
                 See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're debating in the hopes that you'll change my mind. I mean, that's why you reveled in wearing down the other people in this thread who simply didn't have the desire to debate with your self-serving agenda. Yet you didn't change their minds. And now you're mad because you found someone who is just as stubborn as you in their opinions. The difference is that I'm not actively trying to force you to hate TFA/TLJ. I'm stating my viewpoint - and you're mad that I don't agree with yours.
                 ;)

            118. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 February 5, 2018

                 "He wasn't prepared for the sheer depth of darkness he encountered. "Beyond what I could have imagined", was his phrasing."
                 He wasn't prepared, but he didn't handle the situation well and blew his opportunity to help. Once the deed was done, Luke simply gave up on it all.

                 "Luke's intention was to help Ben Solo. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, however, and the film frames the situation as being something so shocking and horrifying to Luke that it completely overrode his senses momentarily."
                 But it shouldn't because, although Luke was not expecting to see just how much Kylo was being corrupted, he still had yet to do anything wrong at that point in time. Since Luke has already dealt with the redemption of a mass murdering despot, Luke should have been able to take advantage of the situation he was in. Kylo had the potential to do great and terrible things, but he wasn't "gone" at the moment. Luke even acknowledged this when he said "The last thing I saw was the eyes of a frightened boy whose master had failed him."

                 "That isn't saying that Luke didn't try hard enough, this simply undercut his efforts."
                 But it IS saying Luke didn't try hard enough, because he literally gives up right after all is said and done.

                 "Luke had not given up on Ben until after Ben had destroyed the Jedi Temple and murdered Luke's students. Because even though Luke had that reaction, his actual last act with Ben was to try and defuse the situation, talk Ben down. That was undercut by circumstance."
                 I mean, what else was he to do? The situation was botched because Luke hastily decided to kill Ben then and there in his sleep. So he already gave up on him at that time and knew it was too late because of the decision he had already made.

                 "But Luke igniting the saber was not a function of giving up on Ben. It was an emotional reaction based on the horror of what he saw inside of Ben."
                 But that WAS a function of giving up on Ben because Luke literally thought that the best route to take would be to strike down Ben then and there even though he had yet to do anything. He regretted it, but by then the damage had already been done. So Luke simply continued with the thought that it was too late and thus, did nothing else to either try to get Ben to come to terms with his actions or simply go out to stop him from causing any more harm.

                 "His efforts got torpedoed before they were given a chance. Luke is so broken up because he wanted to save Ben. He wanted to save his sister's son. He wanted his nephew to be the future of the Jedi Order. All of that got shot to shit in one moment of Luke not being perfect."
                 He didn't try to "save" him though. He went to assess the situation and when he found out it was more than what he suspected, he reacted by igniting his lightsaber with the intention to just be rid of him.

                 "And realistically, sometimes that one thing is enough. I think we've all said or done that one thing that undermines something we care about, something that cannot be undone. That does not define who we are. Maybe it does to the person on the other side of the conflict, or even to ourselves, but no objective viewpoint on the matter would assign such absolute terms."
                 I'm not saying Luke is a monster for what he did, but not only does his fallacy prove that he didn't really learn anything from the kind of approach he took with Vader, who was far more evil and actually a mass murderer post-tense, but it shows that he still takes the "quick and easy path" both in how he responded to the situation at hand and his reaction afterward.

                 Yes, we all do things we regret, but the measure of a person lies not in how they fail, but how they pick themselves up from that failure. We say things hurtful to a loved one? We APOLOGIZE and reaffirm our caring for that individual.

                 We break things or damage other people's property, even accidentally? We clean up our mess and try to amend it by either paying the person back or replacing what they've lost.

                 Luke's response was irrational on both ends of the spectrum. He irrationally decided to kill Kylo Ren in response to the darkness he felt and payed for it. He irrationally decided to "end" the Jedi order by exiling himself and in turn, abandoning everyone and everything he ever cared for and the ideals he once stood for. That's why it's more than just a lapse in judgement. That's why it's fundamentally out-of-character.

                 "Luke is older, Luke is wiser, but that does not make him perfect. Life is, from start to stop, a learning experience. This is what always made Luke such a relatable hero."
                 But that's the point; he's not "wiser." He's just as reckless as he was before. More so even in regards to how he responds to a crisis and how he gives up on everyone and himself. That's not wisdom.

                 "Yet he still cares about batarangs and smoke bombs, he is still allied with Jim Gordon, and he still dresses up like a bat to scare goons."
                 So? Just because he gave up his ideals doesn't mean he gave up on everything. Hell, it's not like he's just going around killing everyone he meets either. He's just done with trying to preserve the lives of his foes.

                 "The singke best reason for any of that is Bruce Wayne's "no guns, no killing" mantra."
                 He drives around in a batmobile and a batwing with high-powered lethal weaponry. I mean, really. He doesn't carry around a handgun because it's the symbol of it and a reminder of the weapon that killed his parents. But seriously... Even in TDKR where he says that to Catwoman, she ends up blowing Bane sky-high with a vehicle Batman owns that DOES have guns on it. I'm just saying.

                 "So all of what you identify as "definitive Batman" is undercut by Batman dropping his ideals."
                 When did "I" ever say BvS Batman was the "definitive Batman"? Just because you like to lump people in a group doesn't mean you can invent words for individuals. The whole point of BvS Batman is that he's NOT the "definitive Batman" and is going around acting as an almost villain.

                 "You can push Batsy to that point. Pushing him over, however, is his ultimate defeat. It's the only way Batman can lose..."
                 Which is why it's a compelling story to watch him get pushed over the edge and see him come back from it.
                 Honestly, Batman has always had the fear that if he ever started killing, he'd never come back from it, but to actually SEE that put into action WOULD be the true betrayal of the character if you think about it. If Batman was unable to bring himself out of the darkness that he's veered so close to after crossing a line, then he's not much of a hero. But people in general can come back from extreme adversity even after they've crossed a border. That's what's inspiring - that Batman could be pushed over the edge and still climb back up.

                 "*cough*beautiful lie*cough*"
                 Actually, you're right. I never said Batman wasn't justifying his irrational behavior with empty platitudes. He was. BTW - I find it amusing that the only way you can really "get back" at me is by utilizing my already admitted liking of BvS to justify yourself essentially calling me out as an idiot. lol I mean, okay, I already said I'm aware of how people perceive the DCEU, but in the end, opinions are what this ultimately comes down to. It is your "opinion" that TLJ is this "misunderstood" masterpiece just like it's mine that it's garbage.

                 "No, Luke instinctively reacted to an immense presence of the dark side and, also no, he did not "hesitate". He stopped himself and tried to undo what had been done."
                 No, he didn't. His lightsaber was still activated and just because he screamed "No," does not mean he was undoing what had been done. I mean, he didn't even explain himself or immediately deactivate his lightsaber once he saw what he almost did. And Ben didn't IMMEDIATELY respond by taking up his lightsaber in what he perceived was self defense. He was lying there looking at Luke straight in the eye, fearful of the very image of his master standing over his bed with his lightsaber activated.

                 "Didn't try very hard". Yeah, let me throw a hut on top of you and see how much effort you're able to put into our conversation afterwards..."
                 Like I said, Luke had time between that incident. Obviously, he probably wouldn't be able to explain himself after he very nearly killed Ben then and there, but he just stood there.

                 And then POST-TENSE of the situation, Luke didn't try to do anything else afterward - whether it be to track Ben down to try to talk some sense in him, or to at least just STOP him from causing any more harm. So yeah, my point stands: He didn't try very hard.

                 Which, BTW, it's ridiculous that Ben thought Luke was "dead" when we've already established that Jedi can feel the presence of others and if they're alive or not....

                 "Without which Obi Wan could never have redeemed Anakin. Anakin wanted Kenobi on his side, no ifs and buts. 'With me or against me'."
                 Before Anakin went over the edge, there's no reason to assume Obi-Wan couldn't have done anything. Part of the reason Anakin committed himself to Palpatine was because he himself believed he reached the point of no return once he aided him in killing Mace Windu. I mean, even in the movie, we see Anakin literally exclaim "What have I done?!" in anguish after Windu was dead, so he clearly felt remorse. If Obi-Wan was able to get through to him before that happened, who is to say something couldn't have been done to prevent Anakin's downfall? Even Palpatine was aware of that which is why he wanted Obi-Wan to be off planet so he could work his magic on Anakin without any interruptions.

                 "Ben could never completely trust Luke Skywalker, especially not after that fateful night."
                 Well, no... Would you trust someone who you thought tried to kill you in your sleep?
                 But my point was that Luke was presented with an opportunity Obi-Wan never got, which was the chance to interfere before Ben actually turned. Instead, he BLEW IT.

                 "The only one Kylo Ren trusts, aside from his knights, I guess, is Rey. He wants her with him. He doesn't want to be with her, he wants her WITH HIM. One of the reasons that I don't see redemption in Ben Solo's future."
                 I never said Ben could be redeemed NOW. Obviously, he made his full commitment to the Dark Side when he killed Snoke. But before all that happened, there was still conflict in him and as Leia even said, "good" in him.

                 "Yeah he did, he set out to end the Order at the center of his nephew's downfall and of the fall of the galaxy into the clutches of the Empire and the Sith."
                 That's not DOING anything, dude. That's the definition of "giving up." Luke did nothing to prevent his nephew's downfall nor took any action to stop him or the First Order from taking over the galaxy.

                 "This was due to Luke's self-blame manifesting itself in the form of an argument as to why the Jedi Order needed to end, of course, but it was also substantiated by his knowledge of the force. It was a lie Luke was telling himself (as evidenced by his inability to burn the tree) held up by a singular, great truth. The most potent lies are also the most factual."
                 See, you even admit it was a lie. Like I said, Luke was justifying his position with empty platitudes. But ultimately, he was emotionally compromised and instead of actively doing something important to undo his mistake, he retreated inward and shut himself off from the rest of the galaxy, thus allowing his greatest failure to kill trillions of lives.

                 "None of this suggests that Luke never did anything. You literally have to do something in order to fail..."
                 Which is EXACTLY what Luke did. He FAILED by going into Kylo's hut and thinking it best to strike him down. He FAILED by not following up on his mistake in preventing Kylo from doing more harm and instead retreated into exile. That is the definition of not "Doing anything."

            119. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 Again to link these predictions? Forbes by the way is usually considered one of the best at this type of stuff and is usually the go to site for box office news.

                 As for "real fans" well i only read DC Comics nowadays and own a whole room full of tradeback's and actual comics, i currently have most of the latest DC comics on the go plus two Flash tradebacks i got for Xmas, The Dark Knight is my favorite film, WW is one of my favorite films of last year, Batman is my favorite hero, Joker is my favorite villain and comic book character and Harley is my favorite female character along with WW. I own every Animated DC film plus 99% of their live action stuff, i'm also watching most of the DC TV shows on air as well. I'm not meaning to boast their but if all that doesn't make me a "real" DC fan then i don't what does considering i've been following DC and Batman for near 20 years now, but hey i'm not wanking over Snyder's work like these "real" fans do so i'm not a "real" fan. Anyway mr "real fan i expect to see you later in the week on the comic review pages because if you're a "true" "real" "fan" you will be reading all the latest comics right? and will want to talk about them like you do with every bit of news with the DCEU.

            120. 

                 lowdevil

                 January 15, 2018

                 Im an artist that works 7 days a week that has no time for comic books let alone all that TV you watch. Congrats though on having all the time in the world.
                 This real DC fan believes that BvS should be loved by all DC fans regardless of who made it.

            121. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 "This real DC fan believes that BvS should be loved by all DC fans regardless of who made it." Right sure despite the majority of comic book fans not liking the film. As for free time well i work 6 days a week with two jobs, its just i find time for the things i love doing. As i've said elsewhere on here you don't have to read comic books to be a fan but you can't claim you're a "real" "die hard" fan if you only really follow some films and the odd cartoon, if you were that into DC as you say you are you wouldn't just be watching a bunch of mediocre movies.

                 "Im an artist that works 7 days a week that has no time for comic books
                 let alone all that TV you watch. Congrats though on having all the time
                 in the world." You have enough time to argue BvS on Batman News though right haha.

            122. 

                 lowdevil

                 January 15, 2018

                 This is one vice i have since i dont do any social media of any kind..Twitter, Facebook ect..
                 I havent mentioned yet what and how much ive consumed from anything DC related. It doesnt matter.

            123. 

                 curious george

                 January 15, 2018

                 You seriously have a lot of free time to do all that. To top it off you even comment a lot. You are either retired or you just work very few hours.

            124. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 I work at a DVD store during the afternoons, i finish around 5 so i have the entire evening to do the stuff i do, i then work at nights on the weekend at a cinema hence why i'm rarely active on Sunday's on here. My day off can change week to week, also by the way i can access this site on my phone so when the shop isn't busy i can browse the web, i'm on UK time hence why i'm normally on here at nights or afternoon to US folk. I only ever need around 6 hours sleep so i can fit plenty of time into reading 5 min issues of comics and another 40 mins into TV shows i watch.

            125. 

                 curious george

                 January 15, 2018

                 Nice I was just curious.

            126. 

                 NinjaGamer13

                 January 15, 2018

                 “Majority of comic book fans” - baseless, unprovable claim

            127. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 Please like you haven't done the same with stuff about BvS, end of the day outside of sites like this its actually hard to fine people who do love the film and i mean real life here. Also check out comic book heavy forum sites like ComicsVine and you will see what actual comic book fans think of the film, small amount compared to the wider whole sure but that lot are there because their comic book fans first, its not like here where a huge amount are here just for movie news.

            128. 

                 NinjaGamer13

                 January 16, 2018

                 No, I try not to make any such claims

            129. 

                 Art Haack

                 January 17, 2018

                 No time for TV or comic books, but plenty of time for writing comments on the internet?

                 Ok, Mr. Artist. Lol

            130. 

                 lowdevil

                 January 17, 2018

                 500 comments over 3 years. I'll give you 3 hours to figure it out since you're an idiot.

            131. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 15, 2018

                 Honestly, it's preposterous to really claim to be a "real" fan of anything considering opinions will differ no matter what.

                 I, too, watch all the DC films, shows, and animated properties alongside being an avid comic book reader (though I'm still not completely caught up with the Rebirth books), but I loved MOS/BvS and recognize them as legitimate takes on the characters and respectful to the source material.

                 I mean, even with Star Wars, I devoured a lot of what is now the "Legends" section of canon alongside the films, TV shows, books and Video games as have many other fans and yet, I HATE... HATE the new films and yet several others LOVE them. So it is what it is.

            132. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 I get that, my problem is people claiming like lowdevil to be big "real" fans and saying other people aren't "real" fans like he did to me yet he doesn't even follow the big part of DC what is the comics, its like me claiming to be a massive "die hard" "real" Harry Potter fan and saying anyone who doesn't like The Deathly Hallows is not a "real" fan yet i myself haven't read one page of the books, end of the day if i was this mega "real" fan i would have read them right and not just watch the films. Of course if you have problems with reading that's a whole other thing and that's different.

            133. 

                 TeeVee

                 January 15, 2018

                 Dude stop making shit up- u sound beyond dumb right now!

            134. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 15, 2018

                 In many ways, BvS and The Last Jedi are quite similar in how they approached their titular characters and got punished for what they did to them by the audience.
                 They both took two otherwise hopeful and optimistic heroes and turned them into depressed, brooding and darker characters. The difference is that one did it to the delight of critics and the mixed feelings of audiences and the other did it to the hatred of critics and the mixed/veering positive feelings of audiences.

                 Still, it is a stunning similarity and goes to show why it's important not to mess with expectations to the point of rendering certain characters unrecognizable.

            135. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 You know my biggest complaint with TLJ is the treatment of Luke, it was only thanks to Hamil's wonderful acting that i didn't just say fuck it and walk out.

            136. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 15, 2018

                 Hamill did good with the crappy material he was given, definitely. But it really was a betrayal of the character no matter which way you look at it.

                 Hamill has backtracked most of his negative comments likely due to the studio telling him to zip it, but the damage is done. He obviously heavily disagreed with the direction they took his character in and a lot of the audience, even those that would swear by the film as a misunderstood masterpiece, can't really disagree with his status.

                 The way I look at it is this: what they did to Luke WAS a betrayal because that's how his character was originally from the getgo.
                 Superman's was NOT a betrayal because his character has had many different interpretations that lend itself open to new takes and modernizations.

                 TLJ is supposed to be a sequel to the original trilogy - MOS/BvS is supposed to be a reboot of the Christopher Reeve films.

                 That's my two cents.

            137. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 Yeah i agree, what annoys me a lot is that its pretty clear that TFA was not setting up the events what TLJ displayed. TFA had a epic cliffhanger what had me and my friend wanting more so how does TLJ reward that? They have Luke chuck away the lightsaber and be a man who was willing to kill his nephew over a bad feeling despite Luke being a person who saw goodness and redemption in one of the most evil beings out there.

            138. 

                 DudeofSteel1Million

                 January 15, 2018

                 Yep. I mean, it really does not go well together if you watch the final scene of TFA and TLJ back-to-back. In TFA, Luke's eyes are watering and Rey presenting the lightsaber to him is clearly making him emotional and yet in TLJ, it's a cheap joke and he has no real emotion over it.

                 Although, the only reason why I was not as "mad" over TLJ as most other people were was because.... I kinda saw this coming. I hated TFA. I hated how all the OT characters were turned into losers. I hated how everything good they ever accomplished in the OT was rendered obsolete by Death Star 3 and two of the heroes' own son being a mass murdering dick. Even though I didn't quite expect the MAGNITUDE of TLJ not even giving Luke Skywalker an epic final battle sendoff, I expected them to seriously eff up his character... And sure enough, they did just that.

                 I just... I didn't quite expect him to literally die of "I'm too tired... I just don't feel like living anymore."

            139. 

                 NinjaGamer13

                 January 15, 2018

                 It was literally a split second of total fear running over him that he immediately took back. I didn’t have a problem with that. After everything he went through, I think it makes sense.

            140. 

                 Cooler

                 January 15, 2018

                 Can someone please explain how TLJ is a failure? I don't follow Star Wars but I know it's 'underperforming', even though wikipedia says it has $1.27 billion grossed against a budget of $200 million. The only way it seems to have failed is it's alienated fans of the original trilogy, and jeopardized the future of the series. But in terms of gross it's done over 6 times it's budget...

            141. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 16, 2018

                 Its not a failure in the sense of losing money its actually done very well but Disney and many others were expecting it to better, it was never going to make TFA numbers but it was expected to be higher then what it is now, its also been dropping quicker each week and stuff like Jumanji is doing great despite being up against it (many others and me thought Jumanji would suffer but it clearly hasn't). Again its not an actual failure its just it could have and should have done better.

            142. 

                 UltimateEdition

                 January 15, 2018

                 Except people who never saw BvS is what brought BvS down. I know people who say BvS is terrible and when i ask them if they actually watched it their response is “I’ve seen enough about it and heard enough about it to know it’s shit”. lmfao

            143. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 and i'm sure people who never seen TLJ is scoring that down as well. Don't make out its all exclusive to BvS, considering BvS has a bunch of fanboys willing to spend all day creating fake accounts to the boost the score it hardly matters if people who didn't watch it scored it low. Anyway it proves what i say that audience scores are pointless because there's too much score boosting or scoring ultra low to by fake accounts to try and change the score.

            144. 

                 Schuyler Finley

                 January 15, 2018

                 Well TLJ performed so badly that 90% of its screenings in China were removed after week 1.

            145. 

                 lowdevil

                 January 15, 2018

                 750 mill less is not 30%.
                 TLJ was actually a good film...in your legendary mind. Of course you are entitled to your own like/dislikes.
                 Saying that the public reviews are mostly made up about the film on RT is absolutely nonsense and disrespectful. That trope is loved by fans who like the film. It's ok that you enjoyed it, do not for one second, belittle or dismiss the 'arguably' correct views of others.

                 Wait...you always do that...

            146. 

                 UltimateEdition

                 January 15, 2018

                 because that argument can be made for Star Wars but not Batman v superman right? Apparently rotten tomatoes critic score is only right or wrong when it fits your narrative.

            147. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 I don't get why you mean? I said its overrated but i didn't say it doesn't deserve that 90% fresh rating, as we know that means 90% of critics liked it, if i scored it i would give a 7/10 what would count as fresh. The critic score for BvS was also deserved because its a shit film and the critics not liking it shows that. My only problem with RT what extends to all audience scores is that there's too many fanboys score boosting or score lowing because they want the final score to match what they think.

            148. 

                 Kerk Lastnameless

                 January 15, 2018

                 Here's an opinion of a person who did not grow up on SW -- TLJ was long, stupid, unfair to some characters, but all in all, pretty entertaining. I'm not gonna go watch it again, nor will I buy the blue ray, but I won't tell people that it's garbage either.

                 There are some obvious plot points that are dumb. The whole chaise premise is dumb. I won't believe that in a world where they have invented light speed travel, they could not have come up with different gear speeds or jumps for their capital ships. I won't believe the convenient badass moment of Admiral Purple Hair -- if that move was so effective, how come no one has thought of it before? Seems pretty obvious to me. On that note, an autopilot can do that, her personal sacrifice was not needed. And the whole thing with her not telling her plan to anyone, forget Po, anyone...It's just contrivance upon contrivance.

                 Then again, I'm not going to begrudge Johnson what he was trying to do -- he tried to break free from the formula, and I'm all for it. The thing about these movies now is that I was not on board with the premise from the get go. I did not need another empire/rebels setting. I did not need to see all the old characters crushed and burned, as if their accomplishments meant nothing, and the out of nowhere emperor-stand in with a forgettable name who also gets no story, no development, and is ultimately completely meaningless to the overarching plot. All of this was Abrams's fault, and Johnson tried to deal with it. So it is what it is.

                 Say what you will about the prequels, but at least they tried to establish a bigger world and a bunch of threads for potential stories that had absolutely nothing to do with the core characters. You gotta respect that.

            149. 

                 Kerk Lastnameless

                 January 15, 2018

                 These are just clever justifications of contrivances. "A craft flies in such-and-such a way, that's why." You don't know that. I don't know that. There is no canon or a 1000 page book written on how crafts fly in the SW galaxy. It flies the way the director wants it to fly. So when a director stages a cosmic chase, I reserve the right to call bull on the premise if I can think of other obvious ways that chase could end. They do suicide runs ALL THE TIME. The movie itself saw 3 such runs. That's my point. She is hardly the first one to do it.

                 The implication that I got is that she did not inform anyone, otherwise there would not be a coup. If she did, then the movie did not do a good job letting me know of that. Oh, I understand why it was done the way it was done -- for subversion of expectations. We all were there thinking that once Leia wakes up she will take Po's side, or at least send them both to their rooms. The least expected happened because the movie presented her to us in such a way that no one was inclined to believe her. And for what? So that the movie could say, "Ah, gotcha!" Cheap and unnecessary.

                 It's not that the older characters got pushed aside, it's that their stories ended badly. Here's the deal, in real life, it happens when a war hero returns home to his wife, gets ready to live happily ever after, and then suddenly slip on an ice, crack his skull and die. This kind of scenario sux ass, but it happens in life. What I don't want to see is it happening in a scientific fiction fantasy. There are movies that genre-wise have to have a certain finality and a happy ending. SW is one of those. The heroes who save the world need get their proper reward and live the rest of their lives in blissful happiness. Instead, these new movies have them all slip on an ice and crack their skulls. That's what I call character betrayal.

                 As to Snoke...the movies did not need him. At all. He is just another one of those expectation subversion points. You say he is a plot devise? Yeah, but a very useless one at that. Take him away, and what changes? The only meaningful thing he has done here was one instance of mocking Ren to cause him to break his helmet. Big whoop! Had the story had Ren be the big bad from the get go, it would not have lost anything. Had it been his own troops doubting him or his generals laughing behind his back, the result would still be the same. It's no secret that Abrams did not know what he was doing with half of these characters. Johnson just decided not to mess around and drop some of the baggage he inherited from TFA.

            150. 

                 Kerk Lastnameless

                 January 17, 2018

                 I don't have contrived reasons. I did not go into the movie wanting to hate it, that would be idiotic. I'm just sharing the obvious things that jump at me.

                 You misunderstand me when I talk about mistreatment of the characters. What I don't like is how they all pretty much got their lives ruined after the victory in the Return of the Jedi. Everyone's life is down the drain. Han and Leia are destined to fight or run and wait for their son to return. Luke is heartbroken and alone for the rest of his days. Droids...well droids are droids, I don't care about them.

                 And there is not even a good set up for all of that! Like I said, I was not on board with the premise of this new trilogy from the get go. Where the hell did the First Order suddenly come from? Where did Snoke come from? Where did it get the resources to build a planet size weapon when Palpatine had an entire empire to build the Deathstars? It's shit like that.

                 I don't buy the chain of command explanation. When all you have left is 50 or so people who can die at any moment, you not gonna lose anything by just coming out in front of your soldiers and telling them what is going to be done with the situation. On the contrary, you will shot down all the possible difficulties and misunderstanding given that everyone is on the edge, expecting to die at any moment.

                 Snoke was not needed for Rey's and Kylo's conection whatsoever. Star Wars has long had this thing called "force bond" established. And the rise of Kylo from a cosplayer to a batshit boss could have happened without Snoke. You could have had Palpatine's ghost taunting him. Plot devices are not hard to invent.

            151. 

                 Kerk Lastnameless

                 January 18, 2018

                 Two decades of "happily ever after" and then the First Order just jumped on them out of nowhere. Riiiiiiight..And it was all thanks to war profiteers...What you call "lore" I call the "overarching story." If it does not make sense to me, then it will be that much harder for me to get on board with the local stories in that narrative. Compare it to DC -- it's cosmology is completely nonsensical. So every time DC has some major multi-world event going on, I just sit aside and shake my head.

                 Make it a 1000 if you want, it does not change the principle -- in the given scenario she stood to lose nothing by telling everyone via the radio was about to happen to put everyone's mind at ease and encourage them to fight on. In fact, because the movie did bate and switch, me and my buddy thought for sure that she was secretly a First Order Spy.

                 About Snoke -- I'm of the opinion that if a character is not needed for the story, then he should not be in it. And if a character is set up as a major player, then he better be a major player. By the way, I don't remember it being explicitly established anywhere that Siths could not appear as ghosts. I can actually think of a few examples when they did. But it does not matter. Give Ren Sidious's holocron then. Make one.

            152. 

                 Kerk Lastnameless

                 January 21, 2018

                 I'm kinda losing interest in this discussion. We're not going to convince each other and I'm not that invested in SW to go out of my way on this one. Let me just say this -- there's nothing bullshit about some boy who just falls to the dark side. Psychos and schitzo's don't need propelling.

            153. 

                 Kerk Lastnameless

                 January 21, 2018

                 Nor does me not being convinced imply that I was not willing to consider another perspective or did not care about the movie's insightful defense.

                 It's not that I don't enjoy SW, it's just that I have no investment in these particular stories. And Kotors 1 and 2 had much more emotional influence on me than the movies. Now, if Disney by some miracle decided to adopt the Old Republic, you'd see me all over it. I know that won't happen tho.

            154. 

                 Kerk Lastnameless

                 January 21, 2018

                 One man's nuance is another man's contrivance.

            155. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 Look i'm not going to bother to go into why purely because i've done it so many times since i saw it on release night and i'm frankly tired of it, i say its overrated but i did like it and i hover between a 7 or a 8 score for it. I will just say i didn't like how Luke was treated in it, it didn't feel like it connects to TFA that well due to a big plot hole i told you in another reply and i really didn't like that Finn and Rose (i did however love Rose as a character) subplot what took up too much time and amounted to fuck all. There's lots i do love like Kylo Ren whose frankly the best character since Vader and Han but i have my faults and i feel critics ignored them because its Star Wars and that it appealed to the "PC" crowd more then ever (not a minus at all as i love Rey, Rose, Finn and that kind of progress but i do think that stuff clouded judgement with a lot of critics).

         2. 

            DudeofSteel1Million

            January 15, 2018

            No, that's not really "good" when you consider the enormous amount of up-voting films get during their initial release. At this time last year, Rogue One was still sitting pretty in the Top 250 films.

            The Last Jedi didn't even make it on that list for even a little while. Even BvS held onto a 7/10 up until its blu-ray release and now it's all the way down to a 6.6.

            I don't deny that there is a significant amount of trolling and downvoting going on either, but it's pretty clear that it's not just a loud vocal minority who dislike The Last Jedi.

            When all is said and done, a lot of people just... didn't like it. Sooner or later, people will have to accept that.

            1. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 15, 2018

               There is no "0" rating on IMDB. The lowest you can rate a movie is a 1.

               Like I said above, I don't deny that there are downvotes, but IMDB usually filters a lot of them out. That's why if you look at the statistics page, you'll see where the "real" votes are counted and why The Last Jedi isn't sitting at an even lower score.

               A 7.5 in this early stage is NOT a good score. Not when films that are even remotely well liked end up in the Top 250 for a while. In a few months, it'll probably be veering at the edge of a high 6, low 7's which is in the same ballpark as some of the Transformers films were. And for the record, the supposedly much hated Revenge of the Sith is rated higher on IMDB and that's been there for over 10 years now.

            2. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 15, 2018

               It's not good if you take into account several other divisive movies that started off in seemingly similar places and wound up dropping as time went on. Again, the DCEU films are a prime example for instance as are the Transformers films.

            3. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 16, 2018

               A Star Wars movie "adored" by critics, but divided audiences. That sounds divisive to me.

               As for the 7.5, I point you to when it was first released, it had an 8.2. That's a fair amount to fall in a month for a new release.

            4. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 16, 2018

               And The Last Jedi has barely been in theaters for a full month now. It's still got a fair amount of falling left to do and then once the blu-ray comes out, that's when the numbers start evening out.

            5. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 16, 2018

               Thank you.

               If it stays at 7.5 in the next few months, by all means you can rub it in my face all you want. But chances are it won't, hence my point.

            6. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 16, 2018

               I know you were, hence my "thank you." ;)

               Time will tell.

   2. 

      Cocaine Cowboy

      January 15, 2018

      I've been reading DC comics for 25 years (I'm 28) and I enjoyed MOS and BvS UE. So no, being a Snyder fan and a DC comics fan is not mutually exclusive. Sorry pal.

      1. 

         Daniel Kalban

         January 15, 2018

         Speak for yourself, you're being as bad as the Snyder Cult

         1. 

            NinjaGamer13

            January 15, 2018

            I kind of agree with him. It's bizarre to me that lifelong fans of the comics could excuse how badly Doomsday and the death of Superman was handled, the utterly embarrassing interpretation of Lex, the lifeliess Emo Batman, Batman being a worse detective than both Lois and Lex who murders without a second thought, the way Jimmy Olsen was handled etc. Even if they excuse all of those things it simply wasn't a well told story. I'm not normally much for gatekeeping but 'real DC fans' seems appropriate to distinguish from Snyder fans in this case.

            1. 

               Daniel Kalban

               January 15, 2018

               Everything can be improved upon.

               And "Real DC Fans" is still gatekeeping nonsense.

            2. 

               NinjaGamer13

               January 15, 2018

               You’re too arrogant to consider the fact that you simply misinterpreted almost all of those things as problematic when they actually weren’t.

         2. 

            Daniel Kalban

            January 15, 2018

            Yes, but saying "No self respecting fan" etc et al is also logical fallacy

      2. 

         Cocaine Cowboy

         January 15, 2018

         You and your buddies can keep circle jerking each other and bringing up Snyder and his fans every chance you get. Like "real" DC fans, the ones that have made this place fucking toxic.

      3. 

         NinjaGamer13

         January 15, 2018

         Your hubris is hilarious. Maybe you just didn’t understand it, buddy?

         1. 

            NinjaGamer13

            January 15, 2018

            Oh, okay, so you DIDN’T understand it, like I thought

         2. 

            Bartholomew Hunt

            January 16, 2018

            You just lost all credibility when you said that MoS, a worthless piece of trash, was fine.

   3. 

      isaaclian11

      January 15, 2018

      I'm super eager to hear how they're going to defend this one. LMAO

   4. 

      Daniel Kalban

      January 15, 2018

      Yes, yes they are.

      The film is great as is...it had an uphill battle because people were against it before a shot was filmed

   5. 

      Kerk Lastnameless

      January 15, 2018

      Don't hurry to celebrate just yet. The murderverse may be over but it does not mean by any stretch of imagination that WB has learned anything and that it will start making good DC movies.

   6. 

      The Turdinator

      January 15, 2018

      I wouldnt say they are "pathetic" everyone wants to believe their favorite thing is great. When a Justice League movie comes out, you want it to be amazing and are willing to shit on those who go against that, just because youre so upset that you cant face the issue either. Fanboys passion are these movies, seeing their favorite characters FINALLY come to life. But most extreme fans do act drastically, in the end its just a movie, another one will be made...

      1. 

         Axxell

         January 16, 2018

         I think what makes this circumstance unique is the lengths to which Snyder fans have gone to produce evidence of his divinity and attack anyone they decide is participating in the anti-Snyder conspiracy.

2. 

   Kerk Lastnameless

   January 15, 2018

   Geez, the lengths some quacks will go to..

3. 

   thefallen83

   January 15, 2018

   Apparently people hate facts nowadays.

4. 

   Mark

   January 15, 2018

   I wish a finished Snyder cut that would really complete the trilogy existed, but I believe that it doesn't. And if the half done version that does exist has that part about Steppenwolf's mother's soul actually being in the boxes, I don't want to see it. It's just a shame, that's all.

5. 

   kan

   January 15, 2018

   Good. Lets put Snyder's vision in the rear view mirror and move on.

6. 

   Hunter Zolomon

   January 15, 2018

   Brilliant, the lengths the fanboys are going too is hilarious haha
   https://media.giphy.com/med...

7. 

   NinjaGamer13

   January 15, 2018

   Not a surprise that Zack Snyder's Justice League movie doesn't have a Snyder cut in any usable form. The fact's have been clear for some time.

   It makes me happy though. The Whedon cut is superior, this I know without even seeing the Snyder cut. He deserved to have the reigns taken away from him, and any future DC movies.

   Also, pretty sure this was a main 'fact' Ninja relied on, curious how he will take the news lol.

   1. 

      Phunny Guy

      January 15, 2018

      Oh my god!! Stop talking out of your ass!! You know it’s superior, as if you saw the Snyder cut. If you want to compare, watch Kevin Smith youtube review of Whedon’s Justice Reeks. You have an audience who saw Zack’s cut who adamantly says that Zack’s cut is far superior. Stop talking out your ridiculous ass. You’re an idiot!!!

      1. 

         Daniel Kalban

         January 15, 2018

         Dear Lord...you are seriously throwing a tantrum over this.....

         1. 

            Hunter Zolomon

            January 15, 2018

            I know right, it won't leave me alone haha

            1. 

               Daniel Kalban

               January 15, 2018

               Burn it with fire!!

      2. 

         NinjaGamer13

         January 15, 2018

         Whedon's track record is damn near perfect. Snyder's record is appaling. On the balance of probabilities alone, of course teh Whedon cut of Zack Snyder's Justice League Movie is better.

         1. 

            MrMovies

            January 15, 2018

            Yes, Alien 4 and Age of Ultron were masterpieces lol.

            1. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               Whedon only done the script for Alien Resurrection though and its widely known he never intended for the script to be used the way it was in the film. As for AoU well that's widely considered a good film, it made a ton of money, has a fresh 75% rating on RT with a 83% audience score (even if i rarely if ever go by audience scores) and again if you want another audience score then its 7.4 on IMDB and a Cinemascore of A. Again i don't go by audiences scores that often but even still all that said it points to it being widely considered a good film.

            2. 

               marcelb

               January 15, 2018

               Rotten Tomatoes lost all credibility when they rated the Ghostbusters reboot fresh. I know its an aggregator, but the critics who submit the reviews seroiously baffle me sometimes.

            3. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               He said in an interview that the script wasn't changed lol. He blamed the execution and casting, yet his shit script was the problem with the film, not the direction.

               It's objectively a trash film.

            4. 

               NinjaGamer13

               January 15, 2018

               As Hunter said. He had nothing to do with the end product of Alien 4, and AoU is still far better than Snyder's movies. Any of them. All of them.

            5. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               He literally said in an interview that nothing was changed and he only had a problem with the casting.

               If it makes you feel happy to say that, then hey props to you bud. Just please pass whatever you're smoking.

            6. 

               NinjaGamer13

               January 15, 2018

               I'm using the Snyder cut to make joints with to smoke my weed. It's all it's good for.

            7. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               Shut up fag.

   2. 

      myzterius

      January 15, 2018

      He is no where to be found all of a sudden. Hes probably cooking up more lies to hide the truth again lol

      1. 

         Hunter Zolomon

         January 15, 2018

         Don't worry i'm sure in a few hour we get a bunch of notification saying he's commented to our posts, he's most likely at school still haha.

         1. 

            myzterius

            January 15, 2018

            Lol yea you're probably right.

         2. 

            NinjaGamer13

            January 15, 2018

            I just blocked him lol, still see some of his nonsense before I log in though.

            1. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               I love the salt and whine so i never block.

            2. 

               NinjaGamer13

               January 15, 2018

               I still enjoy it as it shows before I login, but no more email notifications.

            3. 

               myzterius

               January 15, 2018

               Lol

            4. 

               NinjaGamer13

               January 15, 2018

               So I can say whatever I want to you now, and you won’t even know. Awesome.

         3. 

            NinjaGamer13

            January 15, 2018

            To be honest, I stopped looking at those ages ago... Maybe one day I’ll have time again :P

      2. 

         NinjaGamer13

         January 15, 2018

         Nope. Right here, honey. Sorry you missed me.

   3. 

      NinjaGamer13

      January 15, 2018

      No it isn’t actually. I relied on the comments of Fabian Wagner, Scott Hecker, the EARLIER comments of Richard Cetrone, and the actions of Zack Znyder. Thanks for the concern, though.

8. 

   Hunter Zolomon

   January 15, 2018

   Certainly one of the most toxic and deluded groups.

   1. 

      Phunny Guy

      January 15, 2018

      Yo! Troll read my comments below and stop being a jackass!!

      1. 

         Hunter Zolomon

         January 15, 2018

         I did and all i saw was this
         http://www.reactiongifs.com...

         1. 

            Phunny Guy

            January 15, 2018

            As usual when given facts and a logical argument, you become an immature fool with your response. Keep on crying 😢 !!

            1. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               You gave no facts and only whiny opinion though.

            2. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               He's retarded, leave him to his misery.

            3. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               https://media.giphy.com/med...

            4. 

               DudeofSteel1Million

               January 15, 2018

               On another note, Misery is easily one of the best Stephen King adaptations of all time.

            5. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               Sure is.

            6. 

               MrMovies

               January 15, 2018

               Bye fag

            7. 

               Hunter Zolomon

               January 15, 2018

               Bye babe.

   2. 

      NinjaGamer13

      January 15, 2018

      Most definitely not. Way more often than not, Snyder fans are the ones being berated and attacked and thrown under the bus. Just because they retaliate every once in awhile doesn’t make them the worst. I think their oppressors are the worst.

      1. 

         Axxell

         January 16, 2018

         Dude, you're not a martyr; nobody is "oppressing" you. You're just butthurt that people aren't buying the narrative of Snyder being the director you claim he is. Accept the fact that you have a guilty pleasure for bad movies.

         1. 

            NinjaGamer13

            January 16, 2018

            I don’t consider myself an extremist Snyder fanboy, so I’m not sure why you’re talking to me about MY experiences, when before those were the groups we were discussing. I do not fight for Snyder so much as BvS. But either way, that’s pretty presumptuous and observably false.
            Anyone who liked BvS was in fact pretty harshly attacked for it for a long time, and it even continues today. To close your eyes to that does not make it nonexistent. The overblown backlash to BvS was so inordinately hateful and extended to so many people, instead of just the movie.

            Just accept that fact that your biased and hypercritical according to a double standard about good movies.

            1. 

               Axxell

               January 16, 2018

               You don't have to identify as a Snyder fanboy; all I have to see is you making excuses and pretending that anybody that liked BvS was attacked for anything other than attacking other people who said Snyder dropped the ball as usual. Pretending to be an oppressed minority is the hallmark of a Snyder fan these days...

            2. 

               wonderdiana

               January 16, 2018

               I'm also not an obsessive fan of Zack Snyder as an overall director, or as a personality, either. The only Snyder film that I've seen besides his DC movies is 300, and I've only seen that a single time. I remember thinking it was a lot of fun, but I didn't even think about who directed it.

               I really, really enjoyed Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. My introduction to Zack Snyder as a man and as a director was through all of the online hatred towards him, and towards the fans of his work on the DCEU. First and foremost I am a fan of the DC characters, and it's annoying to see the people who enjoyed MoS and BvS written off as "fans of Snyder, not DC".

               Some of the online hatred towards fans of the "Snyderverse" is absolutely vile, and it's weird that Axxell is apparently blind to something that goes on in these comments on a daily basis, in clear view of everyone. :-/

            3. 

               Rust

               January 17, 2018

               "...and it's weird that Axxell is apparently blind to something that goes on
               in these comments on a daily basis, in clear view of everyone. :-/"

               A lot of the very people that participate in the behavior play like it doesn't even happen.

            4. 

               Axxell

               January 22, 2018

               First and foremost I am a fan of the DC characters, and it's annoying to see the people who enjoyed MoS and BvS written off as "fans of Snyder, not DC".

               That's because there's plenty of DC fans who understand what Snyder does wrong and that are not blind to his share of the blame for the lackluster DCFU, which Snyder fans absolutely will deny under all circumstances.

               Some of the online hatred towards fans of the "Snyderverse" is absolutely vile, and it's weird that Axxell is apparently blind to something that goes on in these comments on a daily basis, in clear view of everyone. :-/

               So do conversations tend to veer when people refuse to see things sans rose tinted glasses, despite the obvious faults; it's enough to frustrate any level headed person.

9. 

   Phunny Guy

   January 15, 2018

   Did you not read Begley’s article? He says it does exist but it isn’t complete with the CGI. So what’s your point for the hate for snyder fans. People can make the same hate claim about you. You’re just a hater who wants DC to copy Marvel or you’re a Nolanverse nut job who wants a grounded universe where the JL members wear power suits for their powers. Maybe you’re just an overly spoiled DC fan who has ridiculous expectations that can never be achieved. For example, Aquaman isn’t Swedish enough and his suit just ain’t Green and Orange enough. The reality is that all true DC fans whether they are Snyder drones or Nolanverse nut jobs need to come together and support a good movie and it’s director’s vision. Learn something from marvel fans, they support their cinematic universe no matter how crappy it turns out. Stop bashing Snyder fans because your mothers have the same name “Martha” or in this case it’s being a DC fan. Unless you’re really a troll who wants to derail the DCEU then we can see through your BS. Begely also admitted that the stunt man possibly got a phone call from Warner Executives to stop talking since he does work for them. WB egos like Tsujihara are at stake. They never want to take the blame for failure. They’ll buck it to some poor fool at the lower level and they’ll use their power to cover shit like this up.

   1. 

      Axxell

      January 16, 2018

      See, that the thing about you Snyder fans; despite the uninterrupted sequence of unimpressive films he puts out, you always find a way to pass the buck to someone else. All the while proclaiming him as some sort of misunderstood genius.

      1. 

         NinjaGamer13

         January 16, 2018

         MoS and BvS were great. No need to pass any bucks to anybody.

         1. 

            Axxell

            January 16, 2018

            So you're ready to accept the poor critical and audience reception of both films and concede that they were NOT anywhere near "great"?

            1. 

               Human target

               January 16, 2018

               You can look those movies and consider them great and look at snyders films and call them great and doesn't matter whether you think they have no hope or not.

            2. 

               Human target

               January 16, 2018

               And you can say that snyders movies are not great and you'd be wrong too.

            3. 

               Human target

               January 17, 2018

               Oh you really would.

      2. 

         Phunny Guy

         January 16, 2018

         Did you actually read my comments before responding because your comments came out of the left field.

         1. 

            Axxell

            January 17, 2018

            Of course... You can't see a legitimate criticism of Snyder when you're blinded by fanaticism...

            1. 

               Phunny Guy

               January 17, 2018

               Who is being a fanatic? I think your hate of Snyder has made you a blind fanatic. You would preach hate and division over unity of all DC fans. We are not gullible, we can see that you are a DC hater and troll in disguise. Like I said, learn from Marvel fans. They stay united, no matter what.

            2. 

               Axxell

               January 19, 2018

               Yup...Keep talking about everything else except Snyder's failures...

            3. 

               Phunny Guy

               January 21, 2018

               Constructive criticism is one thing but venomous hate is another. Snyder haters like you have gone above and beyond the level of normality to fanaticism. As a DC fan, you are the reason the DCEU can’t get it’s feet off the ground. You should be praising Snyder fans for their enthusiasm and excitement so that DC fans can come together and support each other. You spout venom hate and disunity. United we stand or divided DC fans fall. If you can’t see beyond your hatred then you aren’t a real DC fan. You’re just a DC hater claiming to be a fan. Stop it with the lies.

            4. 

               Axxell

               January 22, 2018

               🙄 I'm beyond "constructive criticism"; I've been on this site since before 2013, when the DCFU was announced, repeating as many times as the subject came up that WB was going about their cinematic universe wrong, rushing into a team up movie, assuming people were gonna eat it up automatically without taking their time to introduce the heroes in their own solo films. I told everyone the key to Marvel's success was developing the characters. And just like today, Snyder fanboys insisted that this was just WB doing something "different", and that BvS and JL would make billions off the brand names of the titular characters.

               Now here we are, standing in the ashes of the epic failure of JL, and Snyder fans, even 5 years later, absolutely refuse to admit Snyder's vision is wrong, deflecting every single criticism away from him. If you still call it "venomous hate" to say that a man who has yet to deliver a winner should be let go, then you're just a fanboy. And "unity" is not gonna fix the problems of the DCFU, because you can't sustain a cinematic universe of this scale with just the hardcore DC loyalists.

            5. 

               Phunny Guy

               January 22, 2018

               As I stated before you should focus on building partnerships and finding unity with the general DC fans. You’ve stated so clearly that they should follow the Marvel system. In truth, the model fans should follow is their ability to stand united. When hardcore and casual DC fans can stand united, they can squeeze WB’s balls to do the right thing and their pocket book. So far you and most DC fans are at each other’s throats, like snyder drones vs Nolanverse, Batman 89 vs everyone else, the unreasonable comic book source nuts vs the entire world. I don’t see the same level of animosity in the Marvel fandom. Majority support each other, no matter what. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result. So far you are doing the same by alienating other DC fans whether they are Snyder, Nolan, Bat 89, and comic source freaks while expecting the WB to listen or change. Try being a united instead. Encourage and try to support the Snyder fan base by making WB see that their meddling and lack of planning have resulted in this DCEU mess. Show the WB that the fan base does have power. Or else keep doing the same thing by not uniting your voice with others so it can’t be collectively loud enough so they can ignore your voice. Just like the other single voices: the Snyderverse, Nolanverse, Batman89, and the source material nightmare, who are often referred to being small vocal minority. DC fans want the same thing a complete, unaltered, quality movie. There is enough Multiverse to go around to tell everyone’s stories.

10. 

    Seb

    January 15, 2018

    Why am I not surprised?

11. 

    WhitePortuguese

    January 15, 2018

    A man has to work to put food on the table

12. 

    I'm Batman Man 39

    January 15, 2018

    Forget this! Look at what’s coming back to some theaters for its tenth anniversary!! http://comicbook.com/dc/201...

    1. 

       Hunter Zolomon

       January 15, 2018

       Seeing that originally in cinema was one of the best experiences of my life, no film has quite captured that feel of watching The Dark Knight for the first time and seeing Ledger put out one of the greatest performances in film.

       1. 

          Phunny Guy

          January 15, 2018

          Ledger is a drug addict and poor role model for Superhero fans. Are you advocating that younger fans should follow in Ledger’s foot step. I guess you must be crying over his death too. Get real.

          1. 

             Hunter Zolomon

             January 15, 2018

             Well at least you confirmed you're a mindless troll. By the way i loved that you said "is" as in present tense when talking about Ledger and being a "drug addict" (can you prove that?).

             1. 

                Phunny Guy

                January 15, 2018

                Yep, when the truth hurts try to demean others. I guess you’re far superior with your wordsmithing. You have not responded logically and coherently to my statements. Where is that Nolan universe bravado. Learn to read and do some research. I guess he didn’t die of an overdose at all.

             2. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                "You have not responded logically and coherently to my statements" Haha neither have you love. By the way Ledger died of ACCIDENTAL overdose with drugs prescribed by a doctor, he wasn't some junkie who took to much smack you dumb ass.

             3. 

                Phunny Guy

                January 15, 2018

                I guess he’s not a drug addict. He’s a prescription drug addict then. Yep, I’m in a box 📦, now. It’s time to raise the white flag.

             4. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                You said it love

                https://media.giphy.com/med...

       2. 

          I'm Batman Man 39

          January 15, 2018

          Agreed, man! What’s with the hate you’re getting for loving THE DARK KNIGHT?! Did people forget how great it is?? xD

          1. 

             Phunny Guy

             January 15, 2018

             Let’s see. Nolan’s universe caused copy cat criminals to murder innocent people. So you’re celebrating this tragic event because Nolanverse cause the criminally insane to come out in droves. Superhero movies should focus on the heroes and not focus on the bad guys so that you don’t have copy cat events. The Dark Knight series should be forgotten and buried.

             1. 

                BugsMeany

                January 15, 2018

                I pray you're fucking with us.

             2. 

                I'm Batman Man 39

                January 15, 2018

                https://media.giphy.com/med...

             3. 

                Phunny Guy

                January 15, 2018

                The truth hurts, doesn’t it. Look it up yourself. The Dark Knight had nothing to do with the theater shootings. You stop it. Come on I want to hear your defense of the smashing success that cause this murder and mayhem.

          2. 

             Phunny Guy

             January 15, 2018

             So you want to celebrate the horrible incident that cause the tragic death of innocent people. See this is the difference between Snyder fans and Nolanverse nut jobs. You advocate for the criminally insane and copy cat criminal activity while Snyder fans focus on entertainment. You Nolan fans need your head examined. I can argue that you guys are the real nut jobs. When did Snyder or Whedon’s movies inspire people to act criminally insane.

             1. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                https://media.giphy.com/med...

             2. 

                Phunny Guy

                January 15, 2018

                Tell me why you were such a prick while filming Terminator. We can hear Bale unhinged in infamy.

             3. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                https://media.giphy.com/med...

             4. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                You are right now lol.

             5. 

                Seb

                January 15, 2018

                The release and failure of both BvS and JL made you insane, clearly.

             6. 

                Phunny Guy

                January 15, 2018

                I could give a rats ass about BvS or Justice Reeks. My point over all is for every DC fan to stop being ass holes to other DC fans. Everyone has made incendiary remarks about Snyder fans. You guys need to shut up and learn how support each other. The Nolanverse nut jobs seem to think that they are invincible and unflappable but the truth is Nolan’s movies is responsible for those theater murder. Please don’t remind us about Ledger’s performance, the guy is not a good role model for kids. He overdosed on drugs. Critical acclaimed my ass. Causing critical harm is more like it. Now that the shoe is on the other foot. The Nolan snobs need to take a chill pill about insulting other DC fans. Learn from Marvel fans, they know how to support each other and they don’t attempt to tear each other down. I stand by my last words, none of Snyder’s and Whedon’s movies influenced anyone to shoot and murder other people. Nolan was the only one who was able to achieve this.

             7. 

                Seb

                January 15, 2018

                I don't support mediocrity. Sorry for having a standard.

             8. 

                Phunny Guy

                January 15, 2018

                You should be sorry enough to donate cash to the victims families. You superior demands resulted in innocent deaths.

             9. 

                Seb

                January 15, 2018

                Jesus Christ, you're nuts. It's either that, or you're just trolling.

             10. 

                 Phunny Guy

                 January 15, 2018

                 Stop bringing in religion. Do some research and utilize that critical thinking skill of yours.

             11. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 He's been doing this for hours, its been rather funny actually.

             12. 

                 Seb

                 January 15, 2018

                 He's trolling. It's obvious at this point.

             13. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 Oh clearly, i'm just humoring him haha

             14. 

                 Seb

                 January 15, 2018

                 And to blame (partly or otherwise) Nolan for murders or shootings, take the meaning of mental gymnastics to a whole new fucking level. You're insane frankly.

             15. 

                 Phunny Guy

                 January 15, 2018

                 Only the truly insane(Nolanverse nut jobs)would know what insanity is. Again, stop breaking down other DC fans. Nolan fans are also plagued with ugliness and hypocrisy too.

             16. 

                 Hunter Zolomon

                 January 15, 2018

                 It seems you have some spice with that salt

                 https://media.giphy.com/med...

          3. 

             Hunter Zolomon

             January 15, 2018

             Oh i know why its because since BvS some of the fanboys on here have taking an instinct dislike to the Nolan films. Its why when you check the articles on here based on the Nolan films you rarely see them on there because they only care for the DCEU stuff.

             1. 

                I'm Batman Man 39

                January 15, 2018

                The bandwagon “fans” who don’t even read comics. xD

             2. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                Not reading the comics isn't the problem, its acting like you know everything about the characters while not reading the comics that is the problem. I consider myself a Marvel fan but i don't and haven't read anything of theirs beyond House Of M or Civil War (what ever came last), of course the thing is i don't act like i know everything about Marvel characters and i will only use the knowledge i do have rather then just relying on a bunch of films and cartoons to fuel debates.

             3. 

                I'm Batman Man 39

                January 15, 2018

                Exactly! That’s what I meant; Thinking you know everything about these characters just by the movies/shows. That’s what really bothers me. I also consider myself a Marvel fan, but I don’t really read their comics and don’t pretend like I know everything about them just by the movies and shows.

             4. 

                Avishek

                January 15, 2018

                I don't understand this fight sometimes.

                Nolan brought Batman back to the serious world and crafted some wonderful villains (I think his hold on the main character itself through suffered as the trilogy continued) especially in the Dark Knight. I loved the versions of Joker and Two Face and wish the later had gotten more of a spotlight.

                My issue with the movie will always be Bruce himself and the character of Rachel Dawes (BTAS Harvey Dent was amazingly created without the pathos of lost love) - but Ledger's Joker carries it so well that it remains my favorite superhero related film to go back to repeatedly.

                I feel all live action Batmans have had little portions of what makes the character great - Keaton's insanity, Kilmer's gadgets and side kick, Bale's pathos and Affleck's skill. Still waiting to see a proper detective Batman though.

                Kevin Conroy spoiled live action Batman for me a lot. Arkham games especially.

                Dark Knight is something I would love to see on the big screen again. Actually BvS as well (I do like a lot of it, but admit that it's barely coherent. But it's possibly the most beautiful superhero movie I know. Kind of like the Hush storyline)

       3. 

          NinjaGamer13

          January 15, 2018

          The only superhero movie to capture that same feeling for me was BvS

    2. 

       Pikashades

       January 15, 2018

       Who cares? I saw it when it came out. I have my DVD copy to see it whenever I can. Why would I pay my hard earned and saved money to see a movie that came out years ago in theaters? A movie, of which plot I know inside and out? That's like throwing away money.

       1. 

          Hunter Zolomon

          January 15, 2018

          Because seeing a movie on the big screen is hell of a lot better then watching it on a small TV.

          1. 

             Pikashades

             January 15, 2018

             Regardless, I know how the movie goes. I know every spoiler in it and when it comes to the hypes I felt when it came out... https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

             And that means I have nothing vested in seeing it again. If I want to see it again, I'll put my DVD copy into my Playstation 3 and watch it for free.

             1. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                Good for you. Me i shell watch my favorite film again on the big screen if my nearest towns Imax shows it again.

             2. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                The ps4 came out.

             3. 

                Pikashades

                January 15, 2018

                I also have a PS4, but besides gaming I also use it for Netflix and then I use my PS3 as a DVD player.

             4. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                Ok cool, i use my ps3 to download movies since you cant with the ps4. What a shame.

          2. 

             Phunny Guy

             January 15, 2018

             Oh so you admit that you’re one of the Nolanverse nut jobs. Go figure. I want to hear how Nolan’s Universe is going to make DC movies a smashing success. Do tell??

             1. 

                Hunter Zolomon

                January 15, 2018

                What? How dare i love widely regarded great films. I'm glad the Nolan films are over as i thought Rises ended really well even if it was flawed. As for making DC films a "smashing success" maybe WB should do more Wonder Woman levels of goodness and less JL levels of bad, from the sounds of things Aquaman and Shazam will be in the WW camp and not JL.

             2. 

                Phunny Guy

                January 15, 2018

                LOL! No rebuttal.

    3. 

       J.K.2019

       January 16, 2018

       Sigh, If only i can go and re-watch it.

13. 

    Kouglof

    January 15, 2018

    A news about that again ? It show how much WB is economically afraid about the idea of a potential Zack Snyder cut.
    First of all, why would WB would release a Snyder cut ? If you see the imbd score, people are ok with JL even if I consider it's a generic-style superhero movie with a generic soundtrack. Releasing a Snyder cut today is ricky for WB.
    If they release a Snyder's cut, it will cost money but it may not sell as much as they hoped compared to the theatrical cut.
    If they confirm the possibility to release a Snyder cut but they don't, they will disappoint people who prefer Snyder's vision, and those fans won't buy the JL movie.
    The best option to motivate WB for releasing a decent version of JL movie (with better CGI and soundtrack at least) is to not buy JL.

    1. 

       Daniel Kalban

       January 15, 2018

       Sorry, buying JL just to spite you cultists. I and most of the audience enjoyed what we saw

       1. 

          NinjaGamer13

          January 15, 2018

          That's a good idea. I might buy JL as well just to discourage a Snyder cut, and I haven't bought a bluray in years.

          1. 

             Kouglof

             January 15, 2018

             Buy it several times, but then you'll encourage the studios to repeat the same kind of behaviour with the future movies. WB is not Disney, when they touch a movie, they butcher it.

       2. 

          Kouglof

          January 15, 2018

          That's what I said : "If you see the imbd score, people are ok with JL". By the way don't hesitate to buy it several times ;)

          1. 

             Daniel Kalban

             January 15, 2018

             Which means you and those who bash it are clearly the minority opinion here.

             1. 

                Kouglof

                January 15, 2018

                "bash" ... that's rude !. If I am a minority, then you consider yourself as the majority on your own. If you're ok with JL, it's ok. I do not appreciate this movie because :
                * It has silly jokes by a director who did not act professionally after the movie release. Yes, add more jokes and less villain backstory, then make fun of it on social media in order to seduce some girl.
                * It could have a way better sountrack, with John Williams AND Zimmer's
                themes (but no no no, Elfman thought he's the best musician of the universe
                and removed all Zimmer's themes).
                * And the worse, this movie could have better CGI if WB executives were not running after their bonuses (who wouldn't ?).
                Give me a reason to waste my money for those guys who already have millions.

             2. 

                Daniel Kalban

                January 15, 2018

                you do realize you're coming off is VERY unhinged, right?

             3. 

                Kouglof

                January 15, 2018

                If you say so

14. 

    Daniel Kalban

    January 15, 2018

    ya don't say? Snyder cultists resorting to these sort of tactics isn't that surprising.....

    1. 

       NinjaGamer13

       January 15, 2018

       They really are like a cult.

       1. 

          Daniel Kalban

          January 15, 2018

          Yep. Complete with violence, death threats, etc.

          1. 

             NinjaGamer13

             January 15, 2018

             Especially the living in a bubble of their own fabricated reality.

15. 

    mr nobody

    January 15, 2018

    Jumanji already passed JL at the box office lololol
    How sad?

    1. 

       J.K.2019

       January 16, 2018

       Nobody saw it coming when the movie was released.

16. 

    astronauta69

    January 15, 2018

    see there's always a limit, i fuking love Snyder and woud love to see his cut instead of the shit that Whedon did, but i would never do some shit like that

    with that being said... RELEASE THE SNYDER CUT!!

    1. 

       NinjaGamer13

       January 15, 2018

       All faking things does is HURT the cause in the end. It’s a shame some people act that way.

17. 

    Julie D.

    January 15, 2018

    Sheesh, this whole thing is getting so ridiculous. Just let it go.

    1. 

       Julie D.

       January 15, 2018

       One can hope. Maybe when Aquaman comes out it will quell some of it, too.

18. 

    Origami Rose

    January 15, 2018

    Snyder Fans #timesup

19. 

    Alejandro Polina

    January 15, 2018

    When I ask for the Snyder cut, I'm talking about the unifinished movie that Snyder showed and was rejected, even if the green screen is still visible and CGI is only at 50%. It can be included as especial features, that's all

    1. 

       DudeofSteel1Million

       January 15, 2018

       Yeah. And then some dedicated fans could "finish" it if they want. It's no different than releasing original scripts, storyboards, concept art, etc. to the public.

       That Flash deleted scene, despite WB's best efforts to remove it, has over a million views on YouTube right now. There IS an audience for this stuff. WB would risk nothing releasing it.

       1. 

          myzterius

          January 15, 2018

          Where was that same audience you mentioned when jl flopped?

          1. 

             DudeofSteel1Million

             January 15, 2018

             Not giving it repeat viewings, for sure.

20. 

    Ben Hühndorf

    January 15, 2018

    What people often forget is that it’s not just CGI missing from rough/assembly cuts. It’s ADR -additional dialogue replacement. Some “cool” shots might have missing dialogue, sound effects and background noises that you’d take for granted. An perhaps even unintentional audio (E.g. Snyder shouting “action!” & “Cut!”)

    And even if it does have music, it will likely be a temp track of unlicensed music that the director like Zack would use to help guage the mood/atmosphere of the scene. So unless Snyder exclusively used Zimmer & JXL Music from WB movies it couldn’t be used.

    And then there’s colour grading and mastering... I could go on, but you get the idea. It’s tons of work. Watching an entire 2-3 hour cut of a movie like this will be a chore. Believe me.

    So either way, even if WB want to release it as it is, it WILL cost money even just to clean it up. It’s not worth it. Be happy we’re getting a longer Whedon cut.

    1. 

       BugsMeany

       January 15, 2018

       It's so much easier for people to hope/assume/pretend there's a finished, releasable film that evil WB execs locked in a safe and dropped into the Arctic ocean.

       1. 

          Daniel Kalban

          January 15, 2018

          I want WB to burn it, in public, and dance on the ashes at this point......

          1. 

             myzterius

             January 15, 2018

             If they do,Fanboys like ninja, will claim it was a duplicate and the original one is in one of wb's vault.

             1. 

                Daniel Kalban

                January 15, 2018

                Yep. They're wacko

             2. 

                NinjaGamer13

                January 15, 2018

                I don’t know that it’s finished. All I know is SOMETHING exists, or that something COULD exist. That’s all I’ve ever claimed.

             3. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                But i explained to you numerous times that why would they spend more money on a movie that loss already just to please a few? Of course something exist ,but its not enough and isnt finished. And definitely not enough to have a SNYDER CUT... Hopefully it's the last we hear about your petition or the UE.

             4. 

                NinjaGamer13

                January 15, 2018

                First of all, I would shocked if they’re still LOSING money on JL at this point when it’s already made 2.5x the budget in box office money alone.
                Second, as many have expressed, give us an incomplete cut, then!
                Third, I doubt it’s as incomplete as you think, since it’s possible it was shown to test audiences and since Wagner, Hecker, Cetrone, and Snyder have said/done what they have.

             5. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                They dont keep all the b.o money that they earn. When you factor reshoots and Marketing, the budget is probably sittin at 500m. Chris already explained that to you.

                Why would they give you an unfinished product? Im pretty sure you'll get the behind the scenes and all to compensate.

                Just forget about it and move on, if snyder doesnt even fight or comment on the matter, just let it go, because he certainly did.

             6. 

                NinjaGamer13

                January 15, 2018

                So their official budget is false?

                DVD extras, etc. It’s not unheard of. But honestly, I don’t care. I just want to see what was originally planned.

                Snyder supported the petition.
                But even if he feels defeated, that doesn’t mean I can’t still fight.

             7. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                No, the official budget is not false, the movie cost 300m, but that was before the reshoots, and the marketing is not included in that 300m. Will they generate money to make a small profit? Yes, due to merchandise and etc, but we were talking box office wise, it flopped and lost money. I didnt know he supported that petition though.

             8. 

                NinjaGamer13

                January 16, 2018

                How do you know that doesn’t include reshoots? Why wouldn’t they include them?

                He only did so indirectly, not trough any big statements or anything - he liked a person’s post that was promoting the petition.

             9. 

                Batking

                January 17, 2018

                Are you nuts give YOU an incomplete cut? LMAO. Snyder fans have lost it. What's next? Will you demand loyalties? A poisition as producer?

                You guys are mad.

             10. 

                 Batking

                 January 17, 2018

                 And even if WB discovers a copy that they didn't burn and release it the Snyder fanboys will claim its not the Snyder cut. They're created this masterpiece of a film inside their own heads.

    2. 

       DudeofSteel1Million

       January 15, 2018

       The thing that is often disputed in regards to whether or not a Snyder cut exists is just HOW MUCH was done before they pulled the plug on it.

       I think, except for the really in-denial fanboys like the ones who falsify reports like the one above, most KNOW that it wasn't "finished." That's a fact. The Snyder cut does not exist in that it wasn't finished and still had a fair amount of work to do before it was.

       HOWEVER, to those on the other side acting like it doesn't exist at ALL and was merely in the "first cut" stages, they, too, are also wrong.

       Many films - not all, but many - are FINISHED post-production months in advance before they're released. Even as much of a mess as JL's production turned out to be with its massive reshoots, it still premiered in October - nearly a full month before its November release.
       Snyder's cut, while not "completed" was indeed beyond its "rough cut" stages before he exited due to the horrible tragedy that happened in his family.
       https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

       No, that does not mean it was "finished." Yes, that does mean it was far beyond "assembly cut" stages. So while a Snyder cut would definitely need finishing to be released, it's not like they have 90% of Post Production work left to do.

       1. 

          Ben Hühndorf

          January 15, 2018

          Very fair argument there. I mean, judging by the very first comic con teaser and first full trailer many of VFX did look quite good. Obviously the VFX department where probably tasked to focus on those scenes alone, but it does prove that a lot of it was “audience” Worthy even at its early stages. But it would have been patchy. The 2nd act probably was the most complete while the first and finale probably needed the most work. Just my guess.

          What I want to know is if a Snyder cut was test screened to audiences before Wheadon came aboard. 🤔

          1. 

             NinjaGamer13

             January 15, 2018

             It was, according to the guy who leaked the descriptions of all the deleted scenes online and the woman who claimed to see that cut in Kevin Smith’s show.

    3. 

       NinjaGamer13

       January 15, 2018

       Not according to Wagner, Hecker, Cetrone, and Snyder...

    4. 

       jrvc

       January 15, 2018

       But we could see in some articles that ADR was added and Larry Fong said the picture was locked and ready for the final touches many months before the release (almost a year apart if I recall correctly).

       I wouldn't say it was totally finished, but a Snyder's cut indeed exists and it has been reported some people saw it.

       The real question would be if WB meddled as they did with Suicide Squad, that is, in a way the cut can't be recovered, which would be a total screw-up...

21. 

    dun

    January 15, 2018

    it's a shame that superhero movies exist. That should be the debate you need to be having.

    1. 

       NinjaGamer13

       January 15, 2018

       Um

22. 

    Uncapped Crusader

    January 15, 2018

    #StopPuterío

23. 

    Labriel

    January 15, 2018

    Looks like WB made both Cetrone and Fabian Wagner "an offer they couldn't refuse"... ;) Fishy as hell if you tell me...

    1. 

       nipple_pinchy

       January 15, 2018

       WB took them in a dark room and showed them the Zapruder footage of JFK getting capped.

24. 

    Captain DC

    January 15, 2018

    But...what if WB didn't like Joss Whedon's final cut either?😂 The heartbreaking thing is, they PROBABLY didn't, but they HAD to make that release date. And then to watch a Zack Snyder rough cut without finished special effects, when you had already approved the altered script, post-BvS backlash? WTF?!

    These fans are going crazy over the Snyder cut, because they feel like that got ripped off, and given the middle finger. And that damage control/PR press tour done during the filming of Justice League, makes it worst. The movie that they were hyping and spoiling scenes from, fans were sold THAT movie.

25. 

    UltimateEdition

    January 15, 2018

    Well here’s the thing... what effort did Cetrone make to shoot down his own “faked comment” after that went viral... none. If millions of people were quoting me about something i supposedly didn’t say... the first thing i would do is to correct the statement. But only now he retracts that? it’s bullshit.

    1. 

       Hunter Zolomon

       January 15, 2018

       Well you would say that wouldn't you.

    2. 

       nipple_pinchy

       January 15, 2018

       Cetrone is just a regular dude with a life. He maybe has social media accounts just to promote stuff but never checks them. He doesn't strike me as the kind of nerd like us who skulks around on the Internet all day and night.

       1. 

          Hunter Zolomon

          January 15, 2018

          Don't ruin UltimateEdition's narrative please haha.

26. 

    AnonymousHero

    January 15, 2018

    What else is there to say in regard to the latest drama? Just this:

    Let it go.... let it go.

27. 

    jrvc

    January 15, 2018

    Oh my, this comment section here... you people are going a bit too far regarding people who like Snyder's movies. I know there some "fans" that go to some ridiculous extremes, but to say that anyone who like Snyder don't like Nolan... BTW the hate against Nolan started after TDKR and since then I was like, people can be really idiot, but that was way before the DCEU was a thing, and I have also seen people against Snyder attacking Nolan too in this site, so any side is as guilty. And don't forget that the people who are the most attacked nowadays is people who defend anything related to Snyder or one of his movies, even if people do that reasonably or just showing genuine liking for that...

    And this is not only directed towards people who don't like Snyder. Anyone who acts like an idiotic fanboy is also guilty for making people who just like the movies to look like rabid fanboys, which I would say it's not the majority of the fandom, but the sins of a few engulf everyone and that's not fair either

    Having released my diva rant, I say, can we be sure that the people petitioning for the cut (the real ones at least) have done that? In any case it is a disservice for what they are doing and a very idiotic move for somebody who are trying in the way they are doing it. Just my two cents on the topic

28. 

    NinjaGamer13

    January 15, 2018

    Cetrone earlier supported the petition, so I do think these comments of his might still have been real, to be honest.

29. 

    NinjaGamer13

    January 15, 2018

    Nope. Not till we get something better than we got.

    1. 

       myzterius

       January 15, 2018

       Well can we get another UE 2.0 of bvs while were at it?

       1. 

          NinjaGamer13

          January 15, 2018

          No need.
          Besides, this is actually something with a precedent to be fighting for.

       2. 

          NinjaGamer13

          January 15, 2018

          They should let Whedon fix BvS, then only show the Whedon cut on streaming services and replace all Blurays with that cut.

          1. 

             myzterius

             January 15, 2018

             There was no fixing bvs. A brand new start would've been the only way.. They tried fixing jl, and it kinda worked but it wasnt close to its full potential.

             1. 

                NinjaGamer13

                January 15, 2018

                You take my attempts to troll the rabid Snyder fan base far too seriously lol.

             2. 

                myzterius

                January 15, 2018

                Lol my bad.

             3. 

                Bartholomew Hunt

                January 16, 2018

                Justice League would've been completely unwatchable if it weren't for Whedon.

             4. 

                myzterius

                January 16, 2018

                You may be right.

             5. 

                J.K.2019

                January 16, 2018

                Yes, There were rumors before Joss Whedon got involved and re-shoots that the rough cut that was screened was garbage.Think about it, Why would a studio want to spent millions on a movie that already cost 250 million if the rumor was fake and Hack Snyder made the best movies was his career?....Not to mention, Them bringing in someone like Joss Whedon to write those re-shoots who is known for directing two of the most successful superhero movies?....

30. 

    NinjaGamer13

    January 15, 2018

    Most definitely not. Way more often than not, Snyder fans are the ones being berated and attacked and thrown under the bus. Just because they retaliate every once in awhile doesn’t make them the worst. I think their oppressors are the worst