Star Wars Episode 8

[osmosisch]

  On 1/17/2018 at 7:31 AM, infamous space turtle said:

- I felt a fair bit of meta emotion which muddied things. Hamil and Fishers careers, the arc of the starwars in pop culture, its role in my own memory.. The film almost acted as a backdrop for broader feelings of both personal nostalgia and larger cultural changes, I suppose that's the intention.. I don't generally care about star wars either so this made things a bit more confusing. 

 

Yeah, this was super distracting.

[eot]

  On 12/27/2017 at 10:46 PM, TychoCelchuuu said:

I didn't feel like Finn and Poe had nothing to do at all. I didn't feel like that the first time watching, but the second time watching really cemented how central they are to the movie's central theme:

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The movie's central theme is failure. It's best expressed in Yoda's speech to Luke, in which he says that failure is the best teacher. The movie is a long meditation on what it means to fail and what it means to move past failure. Poe's arc is one that beings with him winning a Pyrrhic victory, which Leia points out is just another way of failing. Poe doesn't understand this and thus spends much of the movie fighting with Holdo. Finally, he learns that sometimes being a leader means being able to admit that you've failed, so he calls off the attack on the battering ram and is able to figure out that Luke's plan is to make a futile last stand while the rest of the Resistance escapes. In other words, Poe in quick succession is able to accept two failures that lead to great success, whereas at the start of the movie he was gunning for success at all costs, even if this led to failure.

 

 

Finn's story is also one of failure, plot-wise. (There's more going on with Finn, namely his rather massive character development from a guy who's just interested in running and in keeping Rey safe, which is a lot more comprehensible if you keep in mind the previous movie, to his contemplation of Benicio del Toro's character and his realization that he doesn't like it, to his acceptance of a suicidal attack and then his about-face when Rose saves him and so on... there's so much there! But not in terms of plot, which is I think one thing that lots of people don't like. Lots of people are very obsessed with everything in a movie having something to do with the plot, and it's true that Finn and Rose don't really have much impact on the overall plot.) His quest is basically a few big failures (didn't find the master hacker, didn't disable the tracker, got more or less the entire Resistance killed). These failures serve as a counterpoint to the Rey plot, which has very few contemporary failures (it's mostly about Luke's failure in the past, and his response to it). In the Rey plot, she is trying to get Luke to get over his failures and come back and fix everything, whereas Luke is clinging to those failures. In the Finn plot, he keeps pressing through the failures, seemingly in order to triumph, but the actual result is kind of just a disaster in every way. So you've got this interesting tension, which is that all along it seems like Luke is the one letting people down and Finn is the one who is going to save the Resistance, but ultimately it's Luke's willingness to confront his failure and deal with it that saves everyone, whereas the traditional "let's just go on an adventure without really thinking it through and that will sort things out" approach makes everything much much worse. Failure is a teacher, and Finn hasn't had any failures to learn from. Now he has had some, so perhaps that will play into his arc in the next movie.

 

As for the idea that "Rey doesn't even know what's going on with the fleet, her coming back has nothing to do with them," do you have the same issue with other Star Wars movies? So for instance nobody in The Return of the Jedi know what's going on with Luke, Vader, and the Emperor. Luke coming back has nothing to do with them - he basically just walks in from out of the frame and starts dancing with the Ewoks. Nobody in The Empire Strikes Back knows what's going on with Luke and Yoda. He lands and Cloud City and Leia yells like two sentences at him. Nobody in A New Hope knows what's going on with Leia, Vader, and Tarkin beyond what little Luke learns from R2's message. Once they break Leia out of prison her role in the movie is basically over. Did these also bother you?
 

 

This reply is a month late, but anyway

  Reveal hidden contents

I can buy that the movie is about failure, however that doesn't mean I think it's well executed. Poe does do some stuff, certainly more than Finn. You mention that people wanting everything to have something to do with the plot and that's an interesting point. I usually consider myself to be the opposite of that, many of my favourite pieces of media do not concern themselves with a main plot that much (in games Mass Effect 2, in movies Lost In Translation, Picnic at Hanging Rock, Ghost in the Shell etc.). To me though, this isn't a movie that tries to be light a plot, I feel like it is very plot driven just not in a way that works well.

 

I like the paragraph you wrote about Finn and failure, it's a good take on the movie. The way it actually plays out on screen though doesn't resonate with me at all. I mean, the introduction to Finn in this movie is a gag, his meeting with Rose is played for comedy too, you can say that he has an arc but to me he's too little of a character for that to work. Also, them failing to get the master codebreaker actually had nothing to do with their failure to disable the tracker. Luke's part works better, it's one of the few aspects of the movie I think are okay.

 

As for ESB, no Leia / Han don't know what's going on with Luke, but Luke does know (to some extent) what's going on with them, and that's an important part of the movie. It's why the final act places them in the same location, it's why the movie isn't two parallel but independent plot lines, it's why the movie works. The three of them being apart creates a tension because you feel like they already had a strong dynamic. RotJ is also different in that Luke leaves in the final act of the movie, he doesn't spend most of the movie away and he doesn't bugger off to the middle of nowhere, he goes to the most plot relevant location in the entire movie. That said, RotJ is a pretty flawed movie in its own right.

 

Rey, if I'm remembering correctly, doesn't know the fleet is in trouble, she doesn't return to help the fleet, she goes to meet Kylo Ren (hell if I know how she knew he was right next to the fleet). Now, I think I said already that I kinda like her storyline in the movie, my problem is that it has too little to do with anything else that is going on, and the other characters aren't strong enough to stand on their own. Finn / Poe simply can't carry half this movie doing their own thing. That's how I felt anyway. If those characters really worked for you then I can see why you'd view the movie differently. In ESB though, you have Han and Leia, then you add Vader and a new super charismatic character in Lando, it's a much stronger storyline compared to Finn running off with Rose (whom I didn't care for) and running into Phasma again.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Yeah I think the whole "the movie works to the extent you're big on the characters" take is a good one, so if you're not a huge Rose fan or you're not 100% in with Finn and so on, I can understand large parts of the movie falling flat. For me, I'm totally there with every single character: Finn, Rey, Ren, and so on were pretty much the only things I liked in The Force Awakens, so I was totally there for them when they showed up in TLJ and carried the narrative and so on. If I weren't feeling them, I'd probably have your take.

[itsamoose]

I really think we need to stop putting so much stock in what people with stupid premises think about things.  There are plenty of things to criticize about the film, but for fuck's sake it's the premise for the criticism that matters not the result.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

On the failure theme, upon further reflection I think this is a misreading of the film's action and plot.  The film doesn't appear to show failure, mostly it's about the consequences of pyrrhic victory.  Just for a quick recap:

 

- The attack on the dreadnought in the opening scene isn't a failure, the bombers successfully complete their objective but take heavy losses.  Also this doesn't seem to affect the perception of poe among the rank and file.

- Finn and Rose set out to find someone capable of hacking into the supremacy's computer systems.  They do find someone, just not the one they intended to find

- Rose "frees" the cat-horse-camels by removing the saddle from one of them, but let's be honest they are going to be recaptured immediately by the very much intact power structure on Canto Byte

- Poe's mutiny is successful, but short lived and doesn't appear to have any lasting impact on moral or unit cohesiveness

- Holdo's sacrifice weakens the first order, but doesn't wipe it out or kill the leadership

- Luke's lessons to Rey end up ultimately turning her toward the light, just not how he would have hoped

- Rey successfully breaks Snoke's hold over Kylo, but he doesn't react the way she wanted once that happens

- The rebellion successfully escapes the first order

 

These things aren't failures, they are victories that come at a great cost or turn out to have unintended consequences.  Perhaps the message of the film is that the consequence of winning at all costs is failure but isn't really a satisfactory explanation to me.  This is mostly down to the final scene with luke, which seems to be the emotional apotheosis of the film, where Luke makes a martyr of himself to allow the rebellion to escape.  This is perhaps a practical loss for the rebellion but the emphasis of this moment is clearly on the mythical impact it has on the narrative of the rebellion.  I find it hard to buy this argument because of how important this victory is displayed in the final scene with the kids.  This victory can be described similarly to the ones listed above, but it shown as an unambiguous good whereas the others are framed as bad.  I think there is a stronger argument to be made regarding recognizing the failures of the past as being inseparable from it's methods, but I still am unable to come to a satisfying conclusion here as far as the film is concerned.

 

On a positive note however, I don't think I've ever spent this much time thinking about the moral and philosophical implications of a star wars movie, and I'm really excited to see what Rian Johnson does with his trilogy.  Now I just have to sit through another good-but-not-great JJ abrams film where whatever interesting things this movie setup up are inevitably bungled.  Hopefully it's not as big of a fumble as Star Trek: Into Darkness, but I'm not going to hold my breath for a satisfying ending.  Did I say a positive note?  There's probably one in there somewhere.

 
 

 

[TychoCelchuuu]

"They're not failures, they're pyrrhic victories" is just wordplay. Pyrrhic victories are failures. That's why they're pyrrhic victories and not normal victories. And nobody has ever said the movie only has failures. Obviously there are some victories too. The point is just that the movie's main theme is about failure. So all the stuff you say about the very end is neither here nor there. Obviously that victory is a good one.

[Ben X]

  On 2/9/2018 at 2:35 PM, TychoCelchuuu said:

Pyrrhic victories are failures. That's why they're pyrrhic victories and not normal victories.

 

No, they're victories. That's why they're pyrrhic victories and not pyrrhic failures.

[itsamoose]

  On 2/9/2018 at 2:35 PM, TychoCelchuuu said:

"They're not failures, they're pyrrhic victories" is just wordplay. Pyrrhic victories are failures. That's why they're pyrrhic victories and not normal victories. And nobody has ever said the movie only has failures. Obviously there are some victories too. The point is just that the movie's main theme is about failure. So all the stuff you say about the very end is neither here nor there. Obviously that victory is a good one.

 

I wouldn't agree here.  As Ben X points out, a Pyrrhic victory still results in a net benefit, but I think the argument of the film is that this benefit is short lived.  If a football team wins a game, but in the process their star quarterback and running back are injured, that is still a win for the team.  As an example, let's contrast a major action point in The Last Jedi with The Empire Strikes Back and beyond:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

In The Last Jedi, Rey ends her training early to save her friends and turn Kylo to the light.  She does this successfully, but it doesn't result in Kylo turning to the light as she expected.  Her immediate objective was completed, but her expectations of what would happen next were incorrect.

vs.

In The Empire Strikes Back, Luke leaves his training early to save his friends and turn Vader to the light.  However in this case Han Solo is still captured, Vader doesn't stray from his path, and Luke ends up losing his hand.  Not only did Luke fail in his stated goal, but he ends up worse off because of it.  Later in the Return of the Jedi, after accepting the Jedi ways Luke is able to inspire Vader to turn to the light.

 

In this example we see both Luke and Rey reject the Jedi way in favor of pursuing their own goals, but with very different results.  Luke's rejection of these ways leads to failure, then later his acceptance leads to success, but Rey's acceptance of Jedi wisdom leads to a short lived victory. To me this is the apotheosis of the film's meta commentary, where it seems to suggest that relying on the standard Star Wars ideas was all well and good in the past, but things need to change going forward.  This isn't to say the film is about failure, but that the victories of the past were hollow.

[TychoCelchuuu]

  On 2/9/2018 at 4:11 PM, Ben X said:

 

No, they're victories. That's why they're pyrrhic victories and not pyrrhic failures.

I know you're joking, but because @itsamoose took you seriously, it's worth pointing out that of course there could be no such phrase as "Pyrrhic failure" because that would be redundant - if it's Pyrrhic, it's already a failure.

[itsamoose]

  On 2/10/2018 at 1:13 AM, TychoCelchuuu said:

I know you're joking, but because @itsamoose took you seriously, it's worth pointing out that of course there could be no such phrase as "Pyrrhic failure" because that would be redundant - if it's Pyrrhic, it's already a failure.

 

The point I was trying to make is that the movie takes a very specific view of people's actions, and to simply say it was about failure generally is to me a misreading.  The action of the film in my view doesn't support the idea of it being about failure broadly and is instead about a specific mode of action.  It has more in common with an argument about the lives of innocent private contractors on the death star than it does any mainline star wars film.  I get Ben's comment was made jokingly--I contend that the distinction the film makes between costly victory and failure is more profound than a matter of semantics.  The actions the movie frames as heroic are the ones made in the service of others without burdening them with the consequences, and the ones it frames as villainous or unheroic are those made for others where the decision maker isn't made to shoulder the responsibility.

[Ben X]

I wasn't joking as such. I was saying that 'Pyrrhic victory' is not a synonym for failure. And the fact that there is no such thing as a Pyrrhic failure was part of my point - a Pyrrhic victory is a victory otherwise the phrase has no meaning.

[Gwardinen]

  On 2/10/2018 at 1:13 AM, TychoCelchuuu said:

I know you're joking, but because @itsamoose took you seriously, it's worth pointing out that of course there could be no such phrase as "Pyrrhic failure" because that would be redundant - if it's Pyrrhic, it's already a failure.

 

  On 2/10/2018 at 9:49 AM, Ben X said:

I wasn't joking as such. I was saying that 'Pyrrhic victory' is not a synonym for failure. And the fact that there is no such thing as a Pyrrhic failure was part of my point - a Pyrrhic victory is a victory otherwise the phrase has no meaning.

 

Yeah, a pyrrhic victory is definitionally not a failure, it's a victory that comes at a cost so great that it may not have been worth achieving. This isn't wordplay; it completely changes the argument about the film depending on whether you view it as a series of failures or pyrrhic victories.

 

The clearest example I can think of for this is Poe's arc, particularly the opening battle and Leia's reaction to it. I forget her exact dialogue, but she basically says to him "yes, you succeeded, but at what cost?" He did actually achieve the goal he sought in the battle, but he lost so many people doing so that, in hindsight, it might not have been worth doing. That's a textbook pyrrhic victory. The argument would have been totally different if he'd squandered a bunch of lives only to learn the New Order had recently installed a Turbo Shield+ that made the bombing ineffective.

[itsamoose]

Not to harp on this point too much, it's just that this structure is to me perhaps the most interesting thing about the film.  If you look at the typical blockbuster framework it goes

 

1) Introduce characters and conflict

2) Blow up death star

3) Big party

 

In the last Jedi however, the universe's equivalent to the death star is blown up in the first 10 minutes, only for the film to make the point that the first order isn't just one massive ship that can be blown up.  I hope that, if anything, big budget action movies going forward will have an example that proves you don't need to follow the same old structure and can try some new things.

[Patrick R]

Given the harsh reaction to it by it's core fanbase, I'm convinced that Hollywood will take the opposite lesson.

[Merus]

  On 2/9/2018 at 7:22 PM, itsamoose said:

As Ben X points out, a Pyrrhic victory still results in a net benefit

 

This is incorrect; a Pyrrhic victory is a victory that's a net cost. Which is, I think, the issue I have with your argument: there's lots of Pyrrhic victories in the film, sure, but there's plenty of places where things go wrong and they don't go right again. I think stretching the definition of victory to 'we survived' is stretching it far too far: specifically, the theme of failure applies equally to the villains as the heroes, and your argument suggests that when the villains fail, the heroes succeed.

[BigJKO]

[Jake]

“Moving on from failure,” is maybe most accurate than those who say it’s explicitly about “failure” itself? Sometimes the way someone moves on is to try and turn failure into whatever victory is possible even if the cost is huge, sometimes it’s to wallow in the failure, sometimes it’s self examination and an attempt at reconciliation, etc. (I think that distinction - that the movie is examining “what to do in the face of your failure” as opposed to “a depiction of acts of failing” - is actually what people have always meant in when saying it’s about “failure,” though, so I’m not saying anything new. Arguing against the latter, which I think is a misread of what people mean, is going to drill into needless semantic holes about what is and isn’t “failure.”)

[TychoCelchuuu]

Moving on and learning, yeah.

  Reveal hidden contents

Yoda straight up says the thesis of the movie: “The greatest teacher, failure is.”

[BigJKO]

  On 2/14/2018 at 6:07 PM, Jake said:

“Moving on from failure,” is maybe most accurate than those who say it’s explicitly about “failure” itself? Sometimes the way someone moves on is to try and turn failure into whatever victory is possible even if the cost is huge, sometimes it’s to wallow in the failure, sometimes it’s self examination and an attempt at reconciliation, etc. (I think that distinction - that the movie is examining “what to do in the face of your failure” as opposed to “a depiction of acts of failing” - is actually what people have always meant in when saying it’s about “failure,” though, so I’m not saying anything new. Arguing against the latter, which I think is a misread of what people mean, is going to drill into needless semantic holes about what is and isn’t “failure.”)

 

Yes. This. That's what I was trying to say way back when I said the theme was "failure", but I guess I wasn't clear enough about it.

[Cordeos]

Last Jedi is on US netflix ATM so I decided to finally watch it:

  Reveal hidden contents

Oof. The dialog was quite repetitive and generally weak. They talked about they pin the hacker wears, then got the the casino minutes later and talked about the pin they were looking for, then talked about it again as they saw it. It speaks to a lack of respect for the audience that they think you have the memory of a goldfish. Finn continues to be an idiot bumbling his way to victory. I did like that Poe's plan totally backfired and almost got everyone killed, nice subversion of expectations there. Also sorta liked the Luke and Rey storyline.

Was there really this much slapstick in 4,5 and 6? I remember it being more of a prequel thing, either way it feels very out of place.

My only hope about Episode 9 is that since this film was Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi combined maybe the next film will tread new ground. This one felt like more of a fan film than 7 did.

 

[SecretAsianMan]

I'm reminded that I also saw the Last Jedi a couple weeks ago.

  Reveal hidden contents

I wasn't really into it.  I'm ok with plans going awry and bad things happening for the good guys but I felt the story was leading me around a lot without really going anywhere.  The entire thing with Snoke being built up as a new Emperor type only to be killed with a literal flick of a switch was extremely unsatisfying.  Seeing him killed so easily and then watching Kylo and Rey struggle to fight off normal non-Force user guards was very jarring. 

 

I think my biggest beef was with Poe's little mutiny.  I get his motivations and I did like that it backfired on him and taught him a lesson, but it was a lesson that shouldn't have been learned.  If Laura Dern (don't remember the character's name and I can't be bothered to look it up) would have just told Poe her plan in the first place, the whole thing could have been avoided.  Yes, the lesson he learned later proved useful on the base but that's knowledge you only gain in hindsight.  At the time of Poe's mutiny, there was no reason not to just tell him what was going on.

 

I have a lot of other little quibbles that I won't get into.  It's such a shame because I like most of the characters (apart from Kylo Ren who I find mostly insufferable).

 

[Merus]

  Reveal hidden contents

There are several good reasons why Poe was not told the plan: he had been demoted due to his reckless disregard for the resources of the rebels, his sponsor was hospitalised and the new general only knows him as a troublemaker who can't be trusted, and he gives his superiors no reason to believe he needs to know about the plan before he stages a mutiny. In fact it would have been weird if he had been told the plan.

 

[clyde]

  On 7/20/2018 at 1:04 PM, SecretAsianMan said:

I'm reminded that I also saw the Last Jedi a couple weeks ago.

  Reveal hidden contents

I wasn't really into it.  I'm ok with plans going awry and bad things happening for the good guys but I felt the story was leading me around a lot without really going anywhere.  The entire thing with Snoke being built up as a new Emperor type only to be killed with a literal flick of a switch was extremely unsatisfying.  Seeing him killed so easily and then watching Kylo and Rey struggle to fight off normal non-Force user guards was very jarring. 

 

I think my biggest beef was with Poe's little mutiny.  I get his motivations and I did like that it backfired on him and taught him a lesson, but it was a lesson that shouldn't have been learned.  If Laura Dern (don't remember the character's name and I can't be bothered to look it up) would have just told Poe her plan in the first place, the whole thing could have been avoided.  Yes, the lesson he learned later proved useful on the base but that's knowledge you only gain in hindsight.  At the time of Poe's mutiny, there was no reason not to just tell him what was going on.

 

I have a lot of other little quibbles that I won't get into.  It's such a shame because I like most of the characters (apart from Kylo Ren who I find mostly insufferable).

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If word got out that the plan was to cause a distraction while evacuating to a secret rebel base, then spies would inform the First Order. Loose lips sink ships.

 

Also regarding the death of Snoke, it's not just the flick of the wrist. That entire battle was mental where Kylo Ren was thinking his internal thoughts in a controlled and parallel manner so that Snoke would assume he was getting to a stance necessary to kill Rey. I thought that was super interesting. The idea of managing an escape from such a hyper-surveillance authoritarian was neat imo.

 
 

 

 

So much was set up in Last Jedi for some awesome Reylo payoffs that could reflect the philosophy of how the Lightside and Darkside relate. Reylo is going to make or break the next movie for me. What I really want is for both-sides-are-to-blame to be addressed and explained away in a convincing manner.

[SecretAsianMan]

  On 7/20/2018 at 5:50 PM, clyde said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If word got out that the plan was to cause a distraction while evacuating to a secret rebel base, then spies would inform the First Order. Loose lips sink ships.

 

Also regarding the death of Snoke, it's not just the flick of the wrist. That entire battle was mental where Kylo Ren was thinking his internal thoughts in a controlled and parallel manner so that Snoke would assume he was getting to a stance necessary to kill Rey. I thought that was super interesting. The idea of managing an escape from such a hyper-surveillance authoritarian was neat imo.

 
 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Those are plausible but still a stretch.  Even if you're worried about spies, just tell Poe since he's the one making a fuss.  Clearly no one else was willing to lead a mutiny so if you pacify him the rest will follow.  And if there were a spy I would think sabotage would be a much more effective play here.

 

As for Kylo being sneaky when killing Snoke, I just don't buy it.  I don't think he's that good.  He's shown virtually no emotional control whatsoever in the series thus far.  Despite the fact that he did it, he was extremely conflicted about killing Han and he didn't even take the shot on Leia.  He rages at Luke in what is clearly meant to be a trick.  I have a hard time believing that guy is able to kill the person who has been manipulating him in such a controlled manner.  And if that was the intent of the scene, it feels very inconsistent which is a problem I often have with Star Wars.

 

[clyde]

  On 7/23/2018 at 12:53 PM, SecretAsianMan said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Those are plausible but still a stretch.  Even if you're worried about spies, just tell Poe since he's the one making a fuss.  Clearly no one else was willing to lead a mutiny so if you pacify him the rest will follow.  And if there were a spy I would think sabotage would be a much more effective play here.

 

As for Kylo being sneaky when killing Snoke, I just don't buy it.  I don't think he's that good.  He's shown virtually no emotional control whatsoever in the series thus far.  Despite the fact that he did it, he was extremely conflicted about killing Han and he didn't even take the shot on Leia.  He rages at Luke in what is clearly meant to be a trick.  I have a hard time believing that guy is able to kill the person who has been manipulating him in such a controlled manner.  And if that was the intent of the scene, it feels very inconsistent which is a problem I often have with Star Wars.

 

 

I can see why you would see him as an inconsistent character. 

TLJ didn't really do a good job expressing why Kylo hates Luke that much. I do get why he

  Reveal hidden contents

killed Han though; the only way to consistently advance in Star Wars is to kill your dad if you are lucky enough to not be the result of mom and her wild night with some midiclorians.

[Gormongous]

  On 7/23/2018 at 12:53 PM, SecretAsianMan said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

As for Kylo being sneaky when killing Snoke, I just don't buy it.  I don't think he's that good.  He's shown virtually no emotional control whatsoever in the series thus far.  Despite the fact that he did it, he was extremely conflicted about killing Han and he didn't even take the shot on Leia.  He rages at Luke in what is clearly meant to be a trick.  I have a hard time believing that guy is able to kill the person who has been manipulating him in such a controlled manner.  And if that was the intent of the scene, it feels very inconsistent which is a problem I often have with Star Wars.

 

 

I feel like the problem with the new Star Wars movies is overwhelmingly inconsistent characterization. Characters are dumb until they're smart, cautious until they're cocky, and conflicted until they're confident.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I personally thought that this thing was as hot a pile of refuse as the prequels. Why take the technology of Star Wars, which has always been a stand-in for the magic of the plot, and bolt a Battlestar Galactica-style resource crisis onto it? Even if this is the Empire Strikes Back of the trilogy, it's not remotely plausible that they're just going to run out of fuel and get blown out of the sky, especially not after Ackbar's token death that's an attempt to make up for their unwillingness to give Leia a suitable end (and after the incredible moment when Kylo Ren hesitates on the trigger and then his wingman takes the shot for him, ugh).

 

On the other hand, I didn't expect to like the training stuff, but I did like maybe eighty percent of what Mark Hamill was doing — the world-weary sage stuff, not the smug saves-the-day act that he warns against and then later does anyway — and I found the scenes between Rey and Kylo to be strangely powerful, especially the telepathic ones, and a great way to enhance the mystique of the Force that's not just old men jabbering at you. Too bad it ends up being Snoke's doing, because the secondary antagonist needs to be built up somehow, and too bad that that and everything wraps up perfunctorily and arbitrarily.

 

I also felt that the universe in the movie felt incredibly small? People and places didn't get mentioned unless they were going to be (or already were) part of the plot. Big-name actors like Laura Dern and Benicio del Toro get flown in for a few scenes that are usually far out of tone with the rest of the movie. In fact, it really felt like the script was written by someone who loved Star Wars and then heavily revised by someone who had no idea what Star Wars is.