Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker |OT| Revenge of a Sith (SPOILERS NOW OPEN)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tavernade

Member
Sep 18, 2018
1,464
The whole genes thing is baffling to me because Leia is just hanging around with nothing remotely dark side or evil about her. At worst she has Padme’s bad romantic instincts, but certainly none of Anakin’s negative traits. If anything she has the best traits of both her parents.

... why did Luke not point that out to Rey? That would have been a really clever work around if he’d explained why they trained her with ‘my dad was Death Vader, do I look evil?’

I agree, this was an enjoyable movie. Everyone hated Last Jedi when it came out also, but the narrative on that has changed since.

Oh well, cant win em all. Glad i had fun
Everyone did NOT hate last Jedi, a bunch of angry people on the internet just kept saying that.
 

Drewton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,228
This is what Kylo looked like when Han knew t him as an adult. It had nothing to do with genes, but how he acts. Its not a secret Ben idolised Vader like an edge lord fanboy, either.
There’s a difference between “he idolized his grandfather” and “there’s just too much Vader in him” which is more of a comment on an inherent flaw. And I’m not sure he saw Ben with the mask before he confronted him.

The whole genes thing is baffling to me because Leia is just hanging around with nothing remotely dark side or evil about her. At worst she has Padme’s bad romantic instincts, but certainly none of Anakin’s negative traits. If anything she has the best traits of both her parents.
The real reason is because Leia being a Skywalker was an afterthought.

I loved her blowing the door open like Vader in TLJ.
 

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,401
There’s a difference between “he idolized his grandfather” and “there’s just too much Vader in him” which is more of a comment on an inherent flaw. And I’m not sure he saw Ben with the mask before he confronted him.
This is dumb. Being evil is not genetic in SW( at least not until TROS). Every force user has flashes of the dark side because its just a natural emotion that jedi teach force sensitive people to ignore. Ben is like Vader/Anakin because they were both child prodigies that were confused, tempted by power and let down by their teachers. Luke is like his father because they were both impatient children that wanted to protect the people they loved and would do impulse things because of it.

Stuff rhymes in SW not because of genetics but because situations repeat themselves in cycles. So does the Vader evil only happen in males? Why wasn't Leia ever tempted by dark power like Luke? Because she was raised in a different environment. Its nurture not nature.
 

AlexFlame116

Member
Nov 17, 2017
16,662
Utah
Honestly I liked the movie a lot. Until we got to the kiss. That probably ruined the whole thing for me. That whole pairing across the three films ruined a lot for me.

And I'll always argue for Jedi Finn. That man was robbed. There is room for two Jedi. Sometimes I feel like Lucasfilms treats the Jedi as something way too sacred.

My main problem though is that there is a yellow lightsaber in the movie, something that kid me wanted for so long. So its sorta a love hate relationship lol. I hate the way they treated some characters overall in the Sequel Trilogy, but I LOVE the yellow lightsaber. Way too much.
 

Tavernade

Member
Sep 18, 2018
1,464
The real reason is because Leia being a Skywalker was an afterthought.

I loved her blowing the door open like Vader in TLJ.
I mean, yeah, but at this point we’ve known about it for almost 40 years, they could have actually incorporated it better in TROS since it alone undoes Rey’s entire additional family trauma.
 

Fj0823

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,258
Costa Rica
Poor comic book writers gonna have to come up with some dumb shit to explain Sheev being alive and take all the heat for it. I'm sure JJ loved having the EU as a crutch to explain shit he knows is so incredibly stupid he doesn't dare put it in the movie.
I feel for Pablo

Honestly I liked the movie a lot. Until we got to the kiss. That probably ruined the whole thing for me. That whole pairing across the three films ruined a lot for me.

And I'll always argue for Jedi Finn. That man was robbed. There is room for two Jedi. Sometimes I feel like Lucasfilms treats the Jedi as something way too sacred.

My main problem though is that there is a yellow lightsaber in the movie, something that kid me wanted for so long. So its sorta a love hate relationship lol. I hate the way they treated some characters overall in the Sequel Trilogy, but I LOVE the yellow lightsaber. Way too much.
The Clone Wars did yellow Saber first. They're the standard blade of Jedi Temple Guards.



You can now credit something actually good with yellow sabers being canon
 

matrix-cat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,266
Evil Skywalker genes: manifest every generation, only present in males

Evil Palpatine genes: skip a generation, sex-agnostic, give you Force Lightning and lightsabre thrusting techniques

People this is simple genetics. Read a book.
 

Oozer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,725
What I’m saying is, if you don’t get how a character is scared of her dark side family history and you’re trying to find a real life equivalent like being scared of having Republican grandparents, then you just don’t get Star Wars.
Rey doesn't have much of a reason to be scared of being a Palpatine. She has never met him let alone experienced any misfortune at his hands. She might not even know who he is. Contrast that with Luke at the moment of the Vader father reveal. Luke has witnessed Vader kill Obi-Wan, barely escaped his own encounter with him, and through the Force has seen Vader torturing his friends. He has intimate experience of Vader's evil which is why it affects him so much to find out they're related. And again, Rey has never met Palpatine nor shown any knowledge of him let alone any emotions about him. We, as the audience, are given no reason to think she'd particularly care about having him as a grandfather. Every bit of emotion in that reveal comes from outside the characters involved. We, the audience, have experience with Palpatine and fear him, but we have no reason to think that Rey shares any of that experience or fear.

The movie even seems to know this! That's likely why her parents are retconned into caring deeply about her, so their deaths being kinda, sorta at Palpatine's hand can solicit some kind of feelings about the Emperor in her. But that doesn't work that well either. First off, the reveal in The Last Jedi that her parents sold her for drinking money already pointed her, and therefore us, towards not caring about them. That switch can't be flipped back instantaneously. And especially not via a rushed flashback that robs her and us of fully experiencing them and their death. We need to see them being loving parents to fully feel their death, but we don't. And as a coda to this, they still sell her, a fact which saps practically all of the little impact this would have had. Second, this reveal of her parents actually being loving is also hurt by being so close to the Palpatine reveal. Rey, and therefore the audience, gets no time to live with and absorb one before the other happens. We don't know how to feel about the first one because we never get to see how Rey feels about it.

I'm sorry, but applying human psychology to SW is a bit silly.

It's not that deep. Star Wars is a fairy tale fantasy for children, and it's going to follow archetypes and cliches.
Applying human psychology is how good movies are written. A functional understanding of basic human psychology is the foundation of every well-written movie. It's why Star Wars is what it is today. If A New Hope did not have such a good grounding in it, we wouldn't be discussing the 9th movie in the series right now.
 

Bor Gullet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,824
you know kids aren't these stupid fucks who don't understand basic storytelling right
Did you ignore the rest of my sentence?

Star Wars is a fantasy pulp opera. Stop trying to apply realism to it, at least in this "skywalker saga." It's always been a simple good vs evil fairy tale.

Maybe we'll get future Star Wars movies away from this saga that dwell deep into human psychology.

Applying human psychology is how good movies are written. A functional understanding of basic human psychology is the foundation of every well-written movie. It's why Star Wars is what it is today. If A New Hope did not have such a good grounding in it, we wouldn't be discussing the 9th movie in the series right now.
My comment was based on Veelk's statements about how evil isn't something genetic from ancestry. A New Hope being well written still doesn't change the fact that it's characters and story are archetypes.

But to the broader point, fans take SW way too seriously. You have folks in here who believe Kylo can't ever be redeemed because he's a "space nazi," despite the fact that SW operates on a different set of rules.

There are some fans who get very agitated when you remind them SW is operatic pulp space opera. It started out as a spiritual successor to things like Flash Gordon, obviously with better writing and production values.
 
Last edited:

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,658
There are some fans who get very agitated when you remind them SW is operatic pulp space opera. It started out as a spiritual successor to things like Flash Gordon, obviously with better writing and production values.
I actually don't have any solid rules as to what constitutes "Good writing". I've come to not have these rules because any time I tried to work a theory as to what good writing is, no matter how sensible or universal the rule itself was like 'don't have plot holes' or 'characters can't be too powerful' or whatever nonsense, I'd always come across some book or movie or show that I thought was brilliant that not only broke that rule, but was good specifically because they broke that rule. So I've come to believe that if there is any good writing rule, it's "Write humanistically".

Which is to say that you should write in a way that is believably human in some way. It's not to say that people should always act like people, because part of writing people involves when people act wierd or incomprehensibly. But one should always recognize them as people and try to find that core piece of humanity where you look at a person and go "I understand. I understand how they feel, I understand why they think this way, I understand how they are."

And you cannot really do that if all your working with is tropes. If all your working with is archtypes. You can write a human archtype that fits within an archtype, but if all you have is the archtype itself, it's if pulp without the heart, if your only defense of it is that it's flash gordon, then I would say that what your describing is bad writing. It's writing I dislike and am not a fan of and do not respect.

I don't think SW is badly written, but that's because I do think there's a human heart within this story. That's what I mean when say that there is clear, basic, understandable human behavior at play here.

But if I were to see things as your describing them, where the explanation really is evil genes and the reason for that is because it's pulpy space opera...I'd probably just say SW is a bad movie series and not bother with it, tbh.
 

Bor Gullet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,824
I actually don't have any solid rules as to what constitutes "Good writing". I've come to not have these rules because any time I tried to work a theory as to what good writing is, no matter how sensible or universal the rule itself was like 'don't have plot holes' or 'characters can't be too powerful' or whatever nonsense, I'd always come across some book or movie or show that I thought was brilliant that not only broke that rule, but was good specifically because they broke that rule. So I've come to believe that if there is any good writing rule, it's "Write humanistically".

Which is to say that you should write in a way that is believably human in some way. It's not to say that people should always act like people, because part of writing people involves when people act wierd or incomprehensibly. But one should always recognize them as people and try to find that core piece of humanity where you look at a person and go "I understand. I understand how they feel, I understand why they think this way, I understand how they are."

And you cannot really do that if all your working with is tropes. If all your working with is archtypes. You can write a human archtype that fits within an archtype, but if all you have is the archtype itself, it's if pulp without the heart, if your only defense of it is that it's flash gordon, then I would say that what your describing is bad writing. It's writing I dislike and am not a fan of and do not respect.

I don't think SW is badly written, but that's because I do think there's a human heart within this story. That's what I mean when say that there is clear, basic, understandable human behavior at play here.


But if I were to see things as your describing them, where the explanation really is evil genes and the reason for that is because it's pulpy space opera...I'd probably just say SW is a bad movie series and not bother with it, tbh.
Good thing I never disputed any of this.
 

Seesaw15

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,401
Did you ignore the rest of my sentence?

Star Wars is a fantasy pulp opera. Stop trying to apply realism to it, at least in this "skywalker saga." It's always been a simple good vs evil fairy tale.



My comment was based on Veelk's statements about how evil isn't something genetic from ancestry. A New Hope being well written still doesn't change the fact that it's characters and story are archetypes.

But to the broader point, fans take SW way too seriously. You have folks in here who believe Kylo can't ever be redeemed because he's a "space nazi," despite the fact that SW operates on a different set of rules.

There are some fans who get very agitated when you remind them SW is operatic pulp space opera. It started out as a spiritual successor to things like Flash Gordon, obviously with better writing and production values.
It can be a fairy tale and not be based on genetics. The basic thrust for the Luke/Vader story was based on George and his fathers relationship. Lucas was expected to run his family's hardware store like his father and grandfather but he wanted to do something different. No one is genetically predisposed to run a hardware store but a combination of environment, outside expectations and the weight of legacy would make you believe that you have to.

Was Luke destined to lose his dueling hand like his father because of blood? No, its because they both started their Jedi training too late, never learned to control their emotions and because of that got bested by a better duelist due to hubris. Yoda is worried about Luke not because he inherited Vaders evil midichlorians but because they grew up in similars situations and Luke has the same passion, and anger that caused Anakin to fall prey to the dark side of the Force.

Folks are talking about this like its some high level psychology and not basic nature vs nurture that kids learn by reading superman comics.
 

Bor Gullet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,824
It can be a fairy tale and not be based on genetics. The basic thrust for the Luke/Vader story was based on George and his fathers relationship. Lucas was expected to run his family's hardware store like his father and grandfather but he wanted to do something different. No one isn't genetically predisposed to run a hardware store but a combination of environment, outside expectations and the weight of legacy would make you believe that you have to.

How the Luke destined to lose his dueling hand like his father because of blood? No, its because they both started their Jedi training too late, never learned to control their emotions and because of that got bested by a better duelist due to hubris. Yoda is worried about Luke not because he inherited Vaders evil midichlorians but because they grew up in similars situations and Luke has the same passion, and anger that caused Anakin to fall prey to the dark side of the Force.

Folks are talking about this like its some high level psychology and not basic nature vs nurture that kids learn by reading superman comics.
Again, I stated evil by genetics is one possible interpretation. There have been countless studies done on that very concept.

It's the whole thesis about nature vs nurture.

Maybe evil midichlorians are a thing, who knows? It's not that far fetched from Sheev being able to create life from the force.
 

matrix-cat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,266
Rey is wonderful in this movie and she has a lot of great little scenes.
A couple of Rey moments I really liked were how sweet she is with the little elephant girl on Passana who wants to know her family name, and the bit where she takes out Zorri's crew and Zorri says "Not that you care, but I think you're alright" and Rey replies "I care". Just nice little moments that I can't imagine would ever have been written for a male protagonist.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,658
Good thing I never disputed any of this.
You did though. Sort of. "Evil genes" is not humanistic writing. This doesn't happen in real life - which is to say of your father is a murderer or a fascist, that isn't encoded in your genes in any way - and narratively a way to say how your agency isnt your own. Your predisposed towards evil.

But what I'm trying to say here is that if you actually won the argument you want to make about how this is a literal part of the worldbuilding of star wars and its in line with archetypes and you got me to agree that this is the most sensible way of understanding this series, then you'd truly just convince me to stop being a fan.
 

JB1981

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
11,842
A couple of Rey moments I really liked were how sweet she is with the little elephant girl on Passana who wants to know her family name, and the bit where she takes out Zorri's crew and Zorri says "Not that you care, but I think you're alright" and Rey replies "I care". Just nice little moments that I can't imagine would ever have been written for a male protagonist.
Yup. And her fixing Do’s squeaky wheel. Lots of little compassionate moments that I enjoyed
 

Bor Gullet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,824
You did though. Sort of. "Evil genes" is not humanistic writing. This doesn't happen in real life - which is to say of your father is a murderer or a fascist, that isn't encoded in your genes in any way - and narratively a way to say how your agency isnt your own. Your predisposed towards evil.

But what I'm trying to say here is that if you actually won the argument you want to make about how this is a literal part of the worldbuilding of star wars and its in line with archetypes and you got me to agree that this is the most sensible way of understanding this series, then you'd truly just convince me to stop being a fan.
On that topic, midichlorians is not humanistic writing either, but it's a part of this franchise.

I don't understand this insistence from some to apply real life to Star Wars. In real life, Vader couldn't be redeemed. In real life, Poe, Rose, and Finn would be locked up in the brig at the end of TLJ.

It's a fantasy.
 
Last edited:

John Harker

Knows things...
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,338
Santa Destroy
My wife and her girlfriends absolutely loved the movie. Some are not super familiar with Star Wars but two are big fans. It’s a pleaser for many.

Following a divisive film it was always going to be incredible divisive.

Me, I’m the Bendu. I really like both!
 

Drewton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,228
It doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from his upbringing as a sheltered kid who wanted to live a life of adventure and being thrust into a situation where he's in over his head, wants revenge for the double whammy of seeing his family and mentor killed, and wanting to beat someone much more powerful, wanting to take shortcuts when told to be patient. Boiling all of that down to "well it's because he's Vader's son" does a huge disservice to the character.
Obviously Luke is his own person but I really don’t get how it’s a contentious point for you how Luke is uniquely predisposed to becoming like his father. Per Lucas, “That’s the big danger of the series, is that he will become Darth Vader. In [Empire], when it first came out, no one knew that. No one knew that that was even part of the plot.” He references Luke “realizing his true nature” at the end of Empire. And Kasdan said “When George and I were writing the script, one of the major conceits of the [trilogy] is that over the course of the second act of this three-act structure, that Luke would not only discover this devastating thing about his past, but we’ll see in him those qualities that could go the wrong way. So when he loses his arm, it leads to the next scene where he becomes starting to become literally like a machine like his father.” Clearly, the revelation that Luke is Vader’s son and there’s the possibility and fear that he could also become Vader are closely linked. Again, I don’t know how this a point of contention, it’s just something basic in Star Wars.

Lawrence Kasdan: “The idea of having an evil father and a good father is very common in mythology. The reason these images and stories have been reiterated so often throughout the ages is we’ve found that life works out that way, that we have within us the dark side and the light, good and evil, the devil and the angel.”
 
Last edited:

SMD

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,255
Did you ignore the rest of my sentence?

Star Wars is a fantasy pulp opera. Stop trying to apply realism to it, at least in this "skywalker saga." It's always been a simple good vs evil fairy tale.

Maybe we'll get future Star Wars movies away from this saga that dwell deep into human psychology.
we're talking basic storytelling here, why do you keep assuming that because it's a fantasy or a 'fairy tale' (btw read the wiki article it might help you understand what fairy tales actually are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale) it should be written lazily or have shit characterisation?

you call it fantasy pulp opera like throwing genres at the screen somehow excuses it for not bothering to be human
 

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
23,145
On that topic, midichlorians is not humanistic writing either, but it's a part of this franchise.

I don't understand this insistence from some to apply real life to Star Wars. In real life, Vader couldn't be redeemed. In real life, Poe, Rose, and Finn would be locked up in the brig at the end of TLJ.

It's a fantasy.
"It's a fantasy so shit writing is ok"
 

SMD

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,255
we're talking basic storytelling here, why do you keep assuming that because it's a fantasy or a 'fairy tale' (btw read the wiki article it might help you understand what fairy tales actually are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale) it should be written lazily or have shit characterisation?

you call it fantasy pulp opera like throwing genres at the screen somehow excuses it for not bothering to be human
just to add to this, at 2:05

 
Oct 25, 2017
6,282
Did you ignore the rest of my sentence?

Star Wars is a fantasy pulp opera. Stop trying to apply realism to it, at least in this "skywalker saga." It's always been a simple good vs evil fairy tale.

Maybe we'll get future Star Wars movies away from this saga that dwell deep into human psychology.



My comment was based on Veelk's statements about how evil isn't something genetic from ancestry. A New Hope being well written still doesn't change the fact that it's characters and story are archetypes.

But to the broader point, fans take SW way too seriously. You have folks in here who believe Kylo can't ever be redeemed because he's a "space nazi," despite the fact that SW operates on a different set of rules.

There are some fans who get very agitated when you remind them SW is operatic pulp space opera. It started out as a spiritual successor to things like Flash Gordon, obviously with better writing and production values.
Archetypes are archetypes because they delve deeply into human psychology. A New Hope is well written precisely because it understood that it's characters were archetypes.
 

KillingJoke

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
966
Saw it yesterday. Thought it was terrible overall with some good scenes here and there. All the complaints are legit. Too much shit going on, horribly paced, bad editing, etc. The entire arc of Chewbacca's emotional death, revealed to be alive, and saved all within 10min sums up the movie perfectly. Kylo's turn against the dark side was really anti climatic, the force healing was reallllllllllly stupid, Finn and the gang didn't really do anything, Rey being the granddaughter, Luke being a extremely happy positive ghost, ugh It was just all very bad.

The palpatine stuff was the only interesting plot in the movie and even that was half assed explained because they couldn't come up with anything interesting. TFA i would say is enjoyable, TLJ and ROTS are just boring half baked movies with no clear direction and making shit up on the spot.
 

Bor Gullet

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,824
"It's a fantasy so shit writing is ok"
we're talking basic storytelling here, why do you keep assuming that because it's a fantasy or a 'fairy tale' (btw read the wiki article it might help you understand what fairy tales actually are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_tale) it should be written lazily or have shit characterisation?

you call it fantasy pulp opera like throwing genres at the screen somehow excuses it for not bothering to be human
Can you point out where I said this? Because I never did.

This whole convo originally stemmed between Veelk and I discussing the possibility of "evil genes" in SW.

My larger point was that SW operates on a different set of rules, applying real world rules to it is silly. That has nothing to do with being "human" or good writing either.
 
Last edited:

SMD

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,255
Can you point out where I said this? Because I never did.

This whole convo originally stemmed between Veelk and I discussing the possibility of "evil genes" in SW.

My larger point was that SW operates on a different set of rules, applying real world rules to it is silly. That has nothing to do with being "human" or good writing either.
It's not about applying real world rules, it's about the fact that we're human beings sitting in a cinema being asked to connect with a story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.