Let's Talk About The Weirdest (And Best) Scene In The Last Jedi

I want to talk about the weirdest scene in The Last Jedi. Because I also think it was also the best scene.

I say that knowing that The Last Jedi had many good scenes.

There was the blistering opening section. Which was good. There was Rey and Kylo Ren chatting over Forcebook Messenger like a pair of horny teenagers. Very good. There was the throne room sequence, vibrating with sexual tension. Also good.

And then there was the moment where Luke casually lobbed his old lightsaber over his head, which was good and probably the most blatant 'metaphor' for what Rian Johnson wanted to do with The Last Jedi: throw away legacy, to "let the past die, kill it if you have to".

Again very good. The Last Jedi, I believe, was an extremely good movie. You might even say it ruled.

But let's get real for a second and talk about the actual best scene in The Last Jedi.

Let's talk about the moment where Luke Skywalker walked purposefully towards a gigantic fish/elephant/cow looking alien, squeezed a half litre of green, full fat milk from its engorged teat and gulped that strange liquid down with the gusto of a man satisfying a well-earned thirst.

Let's talk about that. Because it was awesome.

In a sea of Star Wars takes, on that spectrum between "people who like The Last Jedi are stupid" all the way through to "people who hate The Last Jedi are screaming manbabies", here is the most definite Star Wars take: I was and always will be extremely down for Luke Skywalker squeezing blue milk from an Alien titty and guzzling it down unpasteurised.

That was the moment when I leaned back in my chair, smiled to myself and thought, "ah yes, this is the Star Wars content I'm here for."

This is a joke, kinda. But I'm also dead serious.

Looking back, it's hard to begrudge The Force Awakens for the movie it became. After being beat into submission by prequels and "sand that gets everywhere it's course and irritating", Star Wars fans needed a movie like The Force Awakens. We needed familiarity and we got it. Anything less would have been a disaster commercially and almost certainly critically. The Force Awakens was the movie we demanded and deserved: a polished, well plotted Star Wars movie with a few calculated risks. A well-made homage. The perfect distillation of what Dan Golding called The Legacy Film.

But The Force Awakens, with its successes and failures, presented The Last Jedi with a new set of problems. The load bearing beam that is the original trilogy most likely couldn't sustain another 'homage'. The Last Jedi needed to be a response to those complaints. It had to be something 'new'.

It was a relief then that Rian Johnson did what needed to be done.

The Last Jedi was absolutely an opportunity to create something original. More specifically, The Last Jedi was an opportunity to make Star Wars weird as fuck again, and Johnson attacked that opportunity like a man possessed.

Rian Johnson allowed Luke Skywalker to drink green milk straight from the boob of an alien. He made it happen and it was glorious.

I think about what it must have been like to watch Star Wars/Episode IV/A New Hope/Whatever the fuck we're calling it these days. I think about how weird and dissociative it must have been. I think about Mos Eisley and the Cantina. I think about a giant bipedal dog called Chewbacca and hitting bulls-eyes on womp rats on my T-16 back home. I understand and empathise with Harrison Ford and Alec Guinness who must have read these words on paper and thought, "what in the living fuck have I signed myself up for".

They couldn't possibly have known that entire generations would be inspired by this weirdness, that this weirdness would become normalised and - ultimately - taken for granted and fetishised.

They also couldn't have known that a seismic shift that was about to occur - cinematic universes, the homogenisation of the movie experience.

Fandom.

The need to cater to that fandom, surprise them, piss them off, keep them happy. Crushing annual schedules and a need for all dots to be connected: who are Rey's parents, who is Snoke.

Who gives a fuck.

No, Star Wars needed to be weird again. It really needed that.

Image: Supplied

I've heard complaints about Star Wars - that it's tonally inconsistent, that it's funny at the wrong times and ham-fisted in others. I hear those criticisms, but find them easy to forgive in the face of how brave some of Rian Johnson's choices were. In a year where Twin Peaks: The Return was the most interesting thing on television, we probably should have a better understanding of how powerful it can be to create laughter where there should be gravitas, or be ham fisted where you'd normally expect restraint. We should understand that dissonance is its own tone and sometimes it's justified or even necessary.

I want those rules to be broken. I want to embrace that weirdness. If David Lynch can spend 95% of Twin Peaks defiantly and deliberately withholding its most beloved character to the chagrin of its fanbase, Rian Johnson should absolutely allow Luke Skywalker a warm glass of green alien milk straight from the source.

Chug it down Luke.

CHUG CHUG CHUG.

He should also be allowed Porgs. And a shirtless Kylo Ren with a comically oversized chest. And a cackling puppet Yoda setting Jedi relics on fire with a lightning bolt. He should be allowed all those things and more. Fuck it.

But most importantly, let Luke have his weird green alien milk. And let us all have a sip while he's at it.


Comments

    Whilst I understand where the author is coming from, I completely disagree with their sentiments.
    That was one of the moments that broke Luke's character for me. I didn't want to see Luke parodied.

    The silliness in Empire works for Yoda because he's a strange little puppet being introduced for the first time.

    Luke is such an established personality in Star Wars and I didn't like seeing all the established personality being thrown away in that sequence and did a disservice to the film.

    Merely voicing my perspective

      It's not a 'parody'.

      It's illustrating this is a man who has been overcome by his personal demons and sunk incredibly low from his previous heights.

      And then he redeems himself.

      Seriously, it wasn't exactly complicated.

        The brushing of the shoulders after the AT-AT encounter on the salt planet was another example of the fundamental character of Luke being portrayed differently.

        I never said it was complicated, did I?

          You seem to find it complicated, as you don't understand a 20 year old man will not act identically forty years later.

            I never expected Luke to act identically. I also didn't expect Luke to be made the butt of several jokes and be so terribly written.
            One example of this writing was him exlaiming "The sacred texts!" when the tree was burning which was jarring and simply uncomfortable to watch. He literally had to remind the audience why we should care about that tree that was somehow ignited by dead Yoda (What? How the.... That's a whole other discussion).

            They decided to change the personality of Luke - I accept that and that's fine. What I merely stated (as my opinion) is that it was not a change that I felt was a good direction for his character.
            Luke in TLJ was in my eyes a parody of the Luke in OT. For me, they weren't believably the same character.
            I offer an example of good character development through aging in Deckard of Bladerunner 2049. Deckard in 2049 was a very different man to that if the original film but this transition was well thought out, believable and respected his past - a past established in only one film.
            We grew with Luke accross three films and had a very good understanding of his character. To uproot that in such a heavy-handed and ultimately compromising way with no set up other than 'angry, bitter old man is angry, bitter and old' and alien milk drinking -among other things - was a bad decision, I feel.

              Again, the word you are looking for is not 'parody'. Parody is by definition intentionally humorous, and that's not what is going on here.

              What you're complaining about is not having had the chance to witness forty years' growth of a character in a few dozen minutes of screen time and having it laid out in a very expositional way, like Bladerunner.

              And that's horses for courses. Some people like to have these things spoon fed, others prefer to use their own imagination. That's neither parody nor bad writing, but simply a different approach.

              That's why this film is causing uproar in those people squawking that

              a) It doesn't spell everything out
              b) It dares to change things without holding your hand

              Again, not bad writing, just a different approach.

                I am indeed looking for the word ' parody'. I feel as though there were several jokes at Luke's expense that served not to develop Luke's character but outright replace it - he felt like a parody of himself with parts that were intentionally humorous for cheap 'the Avengers-style gags. Forgoing OT Luke to morph it into TLJ Luke and have a few misplaced jokes along the way. I was honestly getting Mark Hamill-in-The Simpsons vibes.

                Heck, even Mark Hamill didn't like the direction taken in the script.
                I don't take issue with the fact things weren't 'spelled out'. I take issue with the final word being spelt.

                  Actually he didn't like the script originally. But later has come out and said he completely agrees with how Luke was handled.

                  Also look at Obi Wan in the first films, to the Ben Kenobi we get in IV. People change. If you didn't enjoy the Last Jedi, then Star Wars hasn't changed. You've changed, just like Luke. Time to move on and find something else you enjoy. Because kids movies about space wizards with laser swords that are designed to sell toys (yup... look at the original trilogy.. every space ship, alien etc was designed to be merchandised) aren't obviously what you need or want anymore.

                Except the film is absolutely littered with bad writing. It's not dramatically changing Luke's character, or the blatant fanservice parts like the blue milk and the like. It's the fact that it doesn't tell an important story, and that it's not logical.

                Force Awakens started with telling us the First Order was a growing power. Then the giant planet killing base which they've clearly been spending inordinate amounts of resources on gets blown up. So do five alliance government planets, but the movie still gives the impression the first order has been dealt a massive blow to their growing power. Except cue Episode 8 and they're back to being the all powerful empire. Because that's what the fans crave. The other point of Force Awakens was to find Luke through the map he'd left behind. Except in Last Jedi he says "I came here to be alone and die." Then why would he leave behind a map so people could find him? The story doesn't logically follow from the previous events.

                Furthermore, nothing of narrative value happens in the entire story. The rebels start running away from the first order, and end running away from the first order. The stakes don't change from the start to the end. Thus the overall plot does nothing. In terms of characters, the only one that really undergoes any sort of change or development is Poe, who sort of learns how to be a leader. Rey doesn't change, neither does Kylo, and Rose is a Finn-fangirl from start to finish. It potentially could be argued that Finn undergoes a change because he tries to run away at the start of the film, but he took up a lightsaber to fight Kylo (hence facing pretty much certain death) at the climax of the last film, so he's already demonstrated a willingness to put his life on the line for Rey and the rebels. They walked his character backwards deliberately to get him to the same point he reached at the end of the last film.

                All of this entails textbook bad writing, and no defence can refute that. This is to say nothing of the random sloppy writing of events that occur purely because the plot needs them to occur. Rose's sister's death is an emotion moment with no weight because we don't know who this character is - the audience is simply *told* they should care about her rather than actually being given a reason to do so. Leia's space Jesus scene. Yoda's appearance is to motivate Luke when the writers realised they'd left no way for real characters to do that. How did BB8 escape when the first order droid clearly identified a moving rubbish bin to spring the trap on Finn and Rose? How did Finn drag Rose back to the rebel bunker in front of an entire army? The ice dogs purely existing purely to sell toys and as a deus ex machina device to let the rebels escape.

                The entire film is merely a sequence of exciting events that form a spectacle rather than a meaningful story of any kind. No amount of blue milk fan service can detract from the fact that The Last Jedi is categorically a non-event as a narrative entity.

                  Let's break your post down, shall we?

                  1) 'The First Order is an all powerful empire'. Nowhere in these latest two films is this indicated to be the case, as opposed to the original trilogy. The FO has a military presence (developed by ex Imperials using ex Imperial materiel as a basis) but it does not physically control system after system like the Empire does. You're just seeing the film focus on FO actions related to the primary characters and misconstruing that to represent the entire galaxy. It is not the case. The Republic still 'runs' most of the galaxy, though its hold is eroding.

                  2) Luke's map. Uhhh, he didn't *leave* it to be found. The map you are talking about isn't 'MAP TO LUKE'S HOUSE' it is simply hyperspace travel co-ordinates of the First Jedi temple. The 'map pieces' the FO had weren't actually pieces at all, simply information from Imperial databanks about the alleged location of the Temple - and incomplete simply because they didn't know the entire flight path and required the other 'pieces'. And yes, plenty of people knew where Luke had gone figuratively - 'The first Jedi temple' - it's just that no one knew where THAT was. He had researched its location and purged references - but using Artoo as astrogation meant there were elements of the course stored in him.

                  3) 'Nothing of narrative value'. Now I don't know what your credentials are, but I've been a writer and editor for almost two decades. And I can tell you that there's plenty of value here. Your assertion that 'nothing changes' is weird. That isn't the definition of narrative value, especially in the central act of a trilogy. You may have heard of another film, known as 'The Empire Strikes Back', that did the same thing. The stakes do in fact change - the Resistance goes from a fleet of ships and hundreds of troops to a dozen or so people and no fleet at all. That's a pretty massive change you know.

                  4) Rose's sisters' death. I am unsure what films you have met in which illustrative characters are given full exponential backstories but in most cases, there isn't the running time to do this. We aren't supposed to care about her personally - other than in respect of her self sacrifice - we are supposed to care by extension of her relationship to Rose. This is entirely normal storytelling.

                  5) Leia's space Jesus scene. No offense, but if you're going to whinge about Force abilities, you may want to realise that neither telekinesis, telepathy or electrical projection are actual scientific things with any logical connection or underpinning. It's 'space magic', and twisting your knickers over your imagined connection between disparate powers is nonsense.

                  6) There's a whole bunch of reasons for Yoda to appear, not least of which to illustrate to any viewers paying attention that Luke's entire story is based on him not overcoming his own predisposition to self absorption - as shown through all three original films. I am not sure which 'real characters' you were referring to other than Chewbacca and Rey, and the whole point of them not motivating him was to underscore again his self focus. Looks like you missed it repeatedly.

                  7) How did a 1' tall droid with extreme mobility escape in the middle of a crowded combat situation? I don't think that's really a question, is it.

                  8) How did Finn drag rose back? By her shoulders, I imagine. As to why First Order war machine didn't suddenly focus its attention on a wounded rebel, I would imagine they had more pressing concerns to deal with. Shooting wounded people isn't generally first priority even with fascist armies like the FO.

                  9) The ice dogs selling toys? Absolutely. Welcome to late stage capitalism, have you been asleep for a few decades? This kind of thing PAYS for movies to be made. A Deus Ex Machina? Why yes. Is that a bad thing? Only uneducated people think DEM is a bad thing by itself. Narratively speaking, DEM is perfectly fine in many kinds of narratives - space fantasy operas being close to the top of that list - and is only a problem when there is no logical underpinning established. Here we have animals that have taken shelter away from violent noise outside and headed through to the one exit possible for them, entirely logical.

                  Ho hum.

                  @burnside
                  Let's break your rebuttal down, shall we?

                  1) "'The First Order is an all powerful empire'. Nowhere in these latest two films is this indicated to be the case".
                  No, actually it is indicated to be the case, as showcased by the entirety of The Last Jedi. Perhaps you missed it. The First Order is shown pursuing the resistance to "eliminate it entirely" and is dedicating its resources towards that. It is also apparently so in power and in control of the galaxy that the pleas of General Leia go unheeded by all the allies of the resistance who dare not oppose the First Order, by not coming to their aid. If the rest of the galaxy felt the First Order was a threat or a danger to the galaxy (as was showcased by its destruction of Coruscant and four other major Government planets in Force Awakens) they would indeed take action against it. However, they do not, and the resistance members repeatedly talk about how their actions "will be the spark that lights the fires of hope" to fight against the power of the First Order to restore peace to the galaxy. If the first order isn't a massive power in the galaxy, then either (a) the first order is a massive power and you've got no idea what you're talking about; or (b) the film does a terrible job of showing that the first order isn't an overwhelming force in the galaxy, which means you have no idea what you're talking about.

                  2) "Luke's map. Uhhh, he didn't *leave* it to be found. The map you are talking about isn't 'MAP TO LUKE'S HOUSE' it is simply hyperspace travel co-ordinates of the First Jedi temple."
                  Maybe you need to watch Force Awakens again. Max Von Sydow's character is approached (and killed) specifically because he has this information, and Leia and other character refer to it as information that Luke left behind. Now, either that was bad writing in Force Awakens, or it's been thrown in the bin for The Last Jedi. Absolutely no one mentioned that "Oh Luke has gone to the First Jedi temple" in the film. Maybe you're reading Wookiepeedia or novels of visual dictionaries or the like BUT THAT ISN'T IN THE FILM SO IT DOESN'T FUCKING COUNT.

                  3) "The stakes do in fact change - the Resistance goes from a fleet of ships and hundreds of troops to a dozen or so people and no fleet at all. That's a pretty massive change you know."
                  Except we're shown from the very opening of the film that the power of the First Order already massively outweighs the resistance in terms of numbers and military force. So they go from massively outnumbering them to slightly more massively outnumbering them. Despite your claims of writing and editorial experience, the fact that you think this is significant either showcases this as a lie, or that you're incompetent/know nothing about writing a story.
                  I suggest you go back and watch The Empire Strikes Back again - I'm not really a blind Star Wars fan, so for the first time in decades did this the other day to see how close it is to The Last Jedi. Empire certainly has it's faults (and Obi Wan's appearance is pretty much every bit as hamfisted as Yoda's), but the stakes and the characters DO change in Empire, which is a stark contrast to TLJ. Luke is seriously wounded, he's placed in a position where he's clearly weaker than Vader and inferior to him, and Han is captured by a stronger enemy and taken away. TLJ starts with the resistance vastly inferior, and ends with the same. None of the characters who are present have any real change apart from Poe. Again, from a narrative perpsective, nothing of value occurs. No protagonists change, and the stakes of the overall plot are static. Your claim that they do is absolutely farcical.

                  4) "Rose's sister's death ... We aren't supposed to care about her personally - other than in respect of her self sacrifice - we are supposed to care by extension of her relationship to Rose. This is entirely normal storytelling."
                  Except in normal storytelling, the audience/reader is given *a reason* to care. For example, Luke's parents in A New Hope, we're given some time to get know Luke as a character and his relationship with his parents - even though he chafes against being kept at home, we're still given the impression that there is a loving relationship. For Rose, we're just told "oh, her sister is dead, and we know it was her because they've got the same necklace and she's sad." That's not "normal storytelling", that's bad storytelling because the audience is being INSTRUCTED to care rather than being given a reason to care.

                  5) Leia's Space Jesus scene. No offense, but if you're defending this scene, you're a blind fanboy. The force can certainly do amazing things, but there's always been CONTEXT for that. "Space Magic" still needs to be consistent, and this is nothing short of appalling and anyone apologising for it really needs to check their objectivity. Leia has been shown to be "force sensitive", not to be Space Jesus and posses power that would allow her to get back into her ship after however long in space and getting frozen after everyone else on the bridge was killed by the explosion. Again, we're talking about what has been shown in the films, not your books or any other shit like that. There's simply nothing that remotely justifies this scene.

                  6) "There's a whole bunch of reasons for Yoda to appear... Luke's entire story is ..." NOT THIS TRILOGY. This story isn't about Luke and even Luke says that. Trying to bring it back to Luke yet again is against the entire thematic premise of this movie. Yet they still shoehorn Yoda in because they've removed any other character in the story that could possible motivate Luke and his fight against Kylo Ren is required by the plot. It's lazy, hamfisted writing that was completely unnecessary. Heck, they could have even killed Leia off and used HER death (and Luke sensing it) to motivate him to rejoin the fight, but they didn't.

                  7) "How did a 1' tall droid with extreme mobility escape in the middle of a crowded combat situation?" I don't think you're really confusing a "crowded combat situation" with "an arrest where all the characters being caught (ie DJ, Finn, Rose and BB8) stand still in a completely open space", are you? Seriously? And you're claiming to be an editor? Any editor worth their salt would pick up the difference of that and realise how that's a gross inconsistency.

                  8) "How did Finn drag rose back? By her shoulders, I imagine. As to why First Order war machine didn't suddenly focus its attention on a wounded rebel, I would imagine they had more pressing concerns to deal with. Shooting wounded people isn't generally first priority even with fascist armies like the FO."
                  It appears you missed THE ENTIRE GOAL of the FO in this movie, which was to kill all of the resistance. They fired on unarmed fleeing transport ships, speeders without functioning weapons, and a massively inferior force with the aim of killing every single person. Yet suddenly they're stopping because... ? Seriously, this argument indicates that you missed the entire plot of the film from the FO's perspective, and makes me wonder if you actually paid any attention to the film at all.

                  9) "The ice dogs selling toys? Absolutely. Welcome to late stage capitalism... A Deus Ex Machina? Why yes. Is that a bad thing? Only uneducated people think DEM is a bad thing by itself. Narratively speaking, DEM is perfectly fine in many kinds of narratives "
                  Right, so selling toys really should be an acceptable part of movies and we should just accept it, even when it's really forced and REMEMBER TO BUY PEPSI TO HELP YOU READ BETTER and that's the only reason it is present.
                  And sure, DEM is fine if you're happy with forced and weak explanations for the heroes escaping the villain. Perhaps you need a reminder that DEM is criticised because it is typically a sign that the writer can't manage the complications of their plot. That you're arguing "only uneducated people think DEM is bad" highlights that you don't understand its inherent flaws and how it doesn't empower the heroes or allow them to overcome their obstacles placed in their way through their own devices, which in turn is what drives their change and growth as characters. Sure, it's fine if you don't care about your characters and simply need a way to go "we need to have a happy ending", but otherwise it's a klaxon proclaiming a poorly constructed story. Again, your supposed credentials/competence as a writer/editor are questionable at absolute best if you don't understand such a simple concept of writing.

                  Ho hum indeed.

                  So what you're telling me is that your critique is based on a mixture of ignorance of the Star Wars setting and your own bloody-minded projection of what you feel should happen?

                  This comes as no surprise whatsoever.

                  Looks like Star Wars has left you behind, time to find another series to invest yourself in.

                  @burnside So instead of attempting to refute my arguments with logic or facts, you simply dismiss them through a claim of "ignorance of Star Wars setting". I've watched the films. I've even played played KotOR 1 & 2. You're seriously suggesting that it's acceptable for a film to require book or online wiki DLC for it to make sense? And furthermore, that critiquing the film for that quite obvious failing is invalid?

                  Then there's dismissal because of "bloody-minded projection of what you feel should happen". On the contrary, I went into the movie only with the expectation that the events of the movie would make logical sense in the story and setting as has been portrayed so far in film. They didn't, which is where a large chunk of my criticism comes from. Any suggestion I could make (or have made) occurs in the context of the film as it was presented and how it could be modified so it would retain internal consistency.

                  Of course, I agree that you attempting to dismiss criticism comes as no surprise whatsoever. From your inability to accept the film has any failings, it looks like objective critique has left you behind, so I suggest you find another field to invest yourself in.

                  Uhhh, I'm not 'refuting your arguments' because I already DID that. Instead of responding to the refutation, you just vented a whole bunch of personal opinions, confirming what was suspected.

                  And don't expect anyone to spend hours of their day trying to put together a response to a mile long post created because you lazily cut and pasted the original and stuck your commentary with no clear delineation.

                  For someone who clearly thinks he's operating on a level of intellectual superiority, your post is nothing but emotive catharsis. I know why you're doing that, question is do you?

                  And wind back the personal insults. While I don't have a coven of alt right fanboys to censor and downvote you into silence as regularly happens to me, keep that up and you will get reported and we shall see whether Kotaku only moderates left of centre people or not.

                  Last edited 06/01/18 11:06 am

                  @burnside Any supposed "refutation" you provided was unfounded or illogical, as I pointed out. You have accused me of doing nothing but spouting opinion, though I could equally argue you as having done exactly the same. Again, you're simply claiming dismissal without a logical basis.

                  Since you've judged me as "idiotic", "bloody-minded" and backed by "alt-right fanboys", I think you'll find I've done nothing more personal insulting than that by questioning your ability to observe and critique. Crying poor and making threats of moderation in this situation is more than a bit rich and is a sad substitute in lieu of a real argument. Casting my posts as "emotive catharsis" is even more hilarious considering you previously accused me of being a fanboy, and then utterly ignorant of Star Wars - somehow I'm blindly obsessed with the series yet simultaneous oblivious to it.

                  I was actually curious to see a logical and coherent argument constructed in support of the writing of TLJ, but it's quite clear than one won't be forthcoming. Of course, I'm not surprised; the inconsistencies in the movie can't be reconciled through logic because logic wasn't followed in its creation.

                  You keep throwing around terms like 'illogical' to try and create the illusion of intellectual superiority.

                  You had your refutation, which was point by point logical refutation.

                  You replied to that with a bunch of emotional, subjective complaints.

                  Let me give you an example:

                  'NOT THIS TRILOGY. This story isn't about Luke and even Luke says that. Trying to bring it back to Luke yet again is against the entire thematic premise of this movie.'

                  Uhhh, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. And it's wrong, in terms of what the story as per the writer and director have said it is. The story certainly is 'about Luke' - in fact it is 'about' a number of characters. But, like with the rest of your answers, you simply project what you THINK should be happening and start complaining.

                  Now either you're being wilfully misleading, or you simply don't understand the words you're using. Either way, you're just reinforcing my point.

                  This series isn't for you. Goodbye.

                  @burnside
                  I keep using words like "illogical" because it seems that you can't follow logic. You've yet again used a logical fallacy in your argument just here in an attempt to dismiss all my arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

                  You attack a portion of an argument and dismiss that, to suggest that the entire argument is false, and you've augmented your posts with psychological insinuations to support them. Sorry, that might work to shut down others, but it doesn't work on me.

                  Goodbye.

                That's why this film is causing uproar in those people squawking that
                a) It doesn't spell everything out
                b) It dares to change things without holding your hand
                Again, not bad writing, just a different approach.

                Pretty sure the parody here is people defending the writing of Last Jedi as not being awful.

                Luke's mindset felt like a bit of a stretch, and they could have tweaked it and other parts of the script to not require a forced Yoda reappearance in order to motivate the character because they'd backed themselves so far into a corner that it was the only possible option. That was lazy and unimaginative, but the bad writing came into its own for the pointless Finn and Rose sideplot. The actors did a good job of working with what they had, but the writing was absolutely appalling and nonsensical.

                Finn and Rose just happened to find another "master hacker" that could bypass shields who just happened to be in prison?
                BB8 managed to avoid capture on Snoke's ship even though it was it inside the garbage bin that tipped off a first order droid to it, Finn and Rose being spies?
                Finn managed to drag an unconscious Rose back into the cave bunker in front of an entire army across open ground with no cover while in plain sight of an entire first order army.

                If by "different approach" you mean "pure contrivance to serve the script", "logically inconsistent" or "completely unbelievable", then I agree. Though in that case, what you actually mean is "bad writing".

              I kind of agree with you that he behaved out of character in this film, but to me...that was a way of further developing his character.

              In the OT, he went from being a whiney, impulsive kid to being a stoic, calm, Adult who was able to take control of his destiny.

              This movie was able to reveal that even the hero of the galaxy could lose his way, and then redeem himself. Yeah, sure, the brushing of the shoulder was a moment of cockiness that we'd expect from maybe Han, but what does that reveal about his character? That he is capable of behaving like a normal human. It gives him more complexity.

              In the prequels, Yoda is hardly the sarcastic, goofy weirdo we see Train Luke in the OT. It's safe to say that maybe his failures of not preventing the rise of the Empire changed him. Well doesn't it seem reasonable for Luke to change into this green milk chugging, shoulder brushing, embittered old man from living with his failures in exile too?

              His arc in this film was letting go of his stubborn will to hide and wallow in his self pity, to reconnect with this sister, put his faith in another student to carry on his teachings and care about others again.

                Well put, and I agree that overall arc was a sound approach to his character development. I suppose my final summation is that I don't like the WAY that Luke was written along the path of that growth. It was a bit jarring to see such a sudden, in-your-face departure from his established character.
                In particular, the brushing the shoulders moment. It felt like it belonged in The Avengers, not Star Wars. I understand they are taking Star Wars in a new direction - perhaps I simply don't like that direction which is fine I suppose. It just felt out of place. With respect, I don't think it adds complexity or humanises Luke. It was simply a cheap gag and I took issue with it in that sense.

                I get that this change needed to be there but I prefer an approach that's more nuanced than 'ew he's drinking gross milk', 'aw he's really angry and isolated now', 'damn, he doesn't want to help the good gu- oh cool he's helping now'.
                I will reiterate, this is just my subjective experience with the film.

                  I feel both were totally in character.
                  Luke screaming “the sacred texts!” was a very Luke moment. He is so wholesome and whiny and naive in the original Star Wars. It is exactly the sort of thing he would say.

                  The brushing off of the shoulders I thought was great.
                  It showed a wisdom, a knowledge of his opponent, that Luke is the master and that it would enrage Kylo and keep him distracted.
                  It was Luke schooling kylo, and fit with his last words to him.
                  I felt both were very much Luke, the old wholesome young Luke and the older more confident and a little bit cocky Luke.
                  The milk scene also worked for me. Luke had been on his own for years and gotten a bit weird. It all felt very real and in character to me.

              I think you care too much. It's fucking Star Wars. The original trilogy isn't even good.

    I think they nailed Last Jedi. Only complaint I have is that it felt a bit long with the salt planet. The weird thing is I totally loved that bit, but at that point it felt like I'd accidentally stumbled into the next movie and was ready to take a break.

    Last edited 18/12/17 2:39 pm

      "Only complaint I have is that it felt a bit long with the sand planet."

      Sand planet? Whatchoo talking about, Willis?

        I believe he or she means the red salt planet with the AT-ATs.
        I agree. At that point I was ready to go home.

    Personally I felt The Last Jedi was a "Scorched Earth" film, a complete destruction of all established traditions, knowledge and fandom so that these new characters could thrive and build their own Universe and stories. The tone felt very "Star Wars fans are not your audience" in the way they handled a lot of what happened, but again it was trying to create a blank slate.

    However, to finally see which animal produced that legendary blue milk was a worthy moment.

      It's such an odd thing to do as the 9th film in a franchise.

        8th. But technically also the 11th... :P

          11th? I count 10...

          1. Phantom Menace
          2. Attack of the Clones
          3. Clone Wars
          4. Revenge of the Sith
          5. Rogue One
          6. A New Hope
          7. Empire Strikes Back
          8. Return of the Jedi
          9. The Force Awakens
          10. The Last Jedi

          Which one am I missing in the count? Unless you mean the yet to be released Han Solo movie... Do we count that one yet?

          Last edited 18/12/17 4:56 pm

            1. Phantom Menace
            2. Attack of the Clones
            3.Ewok movie: Caravan of Courage (Ye gods these were awful)
            4.Ewok movie 2: Marauders of Endor (Aint I a stickler... everyone hates these for good reason)
            5. Clone Wars
            6. Revenge of the Sith
            7. Rogue One
            8. A New Hope
            9. Empire Strikes Back
            10. Return of the Jedi
            11. The Force Awakens
            12. The Last Jedi

              You left out the Holiday Special.

              That shit is canon.

                It also isn't a film.

                  Yeah it is, it's just a TV film rather than a theatrical feature. If the two Ewoks films can be listed (they were also TV films) then the Star Wars Holiday Special also makes the list.

                  @negativezero: it seemed a lot more like a variety show than a film, with all the disconnected segments and celebrity cameos.

                  As for the Ewok films, they had theatrical releases. I remember seeing them at the cinema with my grandparents.

                  The Ewok films both premiered on US Television first, and were made for ABC by Lucasfilm as special features that ran on November 25th, 1984 and November 24th, 1985. They got limited theatrical runs outside the US, but were 100% made-for-TV films. They were actually pretty high budget for TV stuff but the fact they were made for TV really shows if you go back to them.

                  The Holiday Special was a series of vignettes, but it is also considered a TV movie. And yes it is as horrible as people say it is.

          I was including Rogue One :P

            I was including Caravan of Courage, Marauders of Endor and the Clone Wars movie...

            OOPS that'd make it 12th lol

              What the Christmas Special ?

                The one where Carrie Fisher had snorted so much cocaine before filming she couldn't stand up. It was also the first time Boba Fett was seen, in a short cartoon.

        Totally agree, but when you step back and see how much from The Force Awakens was thrown away in The Last Jedi with no explanation or reason, you do get that kind of feeling from it all.

        It's just a result of bad writing and bad management of the film property.

    This scene was not my problem with the movie, and honestly overall I don't have a problem with The Last Jedi.

    The scene that I have most problem with is FLYING LEIA IN SPAAAAAACE!!! They really pulled that one from nowhere. It's less to do with the power itself and more that there was absolutely no setup or slow reveal, just "Yup, she can survive in space without a suit. Plus can fly/force pull, deal with it."

      The scene that I have most problem with is FLYING LEIA IN SPAAAAAACE!!! They really pulled that one from nowhere. It's less to do with the power itself and more that there was absolutely no setup or slow reveal, just "Yup, she can survive in space without a suit. Plus can fly/force pull, deal with it." I've seen this type of comment show up a lot in the list of things people didn't like about The Last Jedi but I don't understand why.

      There is a 20+ year gap between Return of the Jedi and The Force Awakens. In the old expanded universe stories Luke trained Leia in the ways of the Jedi with Leia leaning towards more peaceful techniques like healing and communication. We see a fair bit of the same idea in The Last Jedi with Leia being able to sense Rey and others from time to time and communicating with Luke while in a coma. Leia being able to use Force Breathing (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Breath_control) to save herself from dying in space and being able to use Force Movement to get back to the ship doesn't seem so far fetched.

        Even if we accept what you've stated - totally willing to go with it - it was still a rather cheap plot point that had no build up, nor consequence.
        That's where I take issue with that moment.

          There was build up though, we saw her sensing things like Han's death through the force in TFA (not to mention sensing Lukes escape back in RotJ). They also said she was the one who sensed the darkness inside Ben and sent him away with Luke IIRC.

          We might have never seen her use any physical powers but they've always made it clear that she has the potential just like Luke.

            I can understand the force sense, but using the force to keep her alive in space and fly back into the ship?

            Not even the emperor managed to fly back up the pit Vader threw him in and he was a powerful Sith master.

              As far as staying alive, I think people overlook the fact that it's a movie with movie-logic... Go and watch pretty much every space franchise ever and they use bullshit like that (I know for a fact GotG 1 one did the same thing).

              The flying part, I assumed it was because she was in space, so it's literally just pulling your body weight to an object in a zero-gravity environment. The Emporer was on the Death Star, with fake Gravity - I guess you could argue that he should've been able to keep himself alive at the end of wherever that pit went but it probably wouldn't matter seeing as the whole thing went 'boom' shortly after.

              I guess my point is, yeah it's kinda dodgy but not really any more dodgy than pretty much every sci-fi movie logic ever.

                I think the problem is, from a Star Wars logic standpoint, her being able to sense stuff seems like a natural progression from someone who hasnt really displayed any real ability to use the force, even though it's implied she has potential. Then, suddenly she's able to do something that:
                a) seems dubious because it occurs in space, which is assumed to be dangerous as you never see anyone out in space ever,
                b) is already stretching plausibility because she was caught in an explosion, which killed everyone else on the bridge, and which probably should have killed her in the first place, and then left her unconscious for a period of time in space
                c) stretches the bounds even further because no other jedi/sith has managed to pull off breathing/surviving in space in any movie prior
                d) is relying heavily on prior knowledge from the extended universe to make sense of it

                Think about it. If you're sitting there basing your opinion of that moment purely on the movies that have gone before this one, how plausible does that moment really become?

                You may be able to accept it, and that's fantastic, but I almost walked out because it was such a ridiculously stupid moment.

              I think there's a big misconception about what happens to people when they're in space. You don't instantly die, you can be exposed to the vacuum of space and be fine.

                I think there is a difference between being blown out the airlock and getting a missile to the bridge.

                  She was no where near the impact site of the blast. She was sucked into space, which yes, you can survive for up to three minutes with only minor injury. 2001 was in 1968 people. I can’t believe we are still confused about this in 2017.

            Let me rephrase: narrative build-up, not lore build-up.

            There was this big space battle. All of a sudden, Leia is blown up and floating in space...AAANNNND she's back in airlock. All within a matter of 1-2 minutes. It was just lacking impact I feel.

        I also am someone who didn't have a problem with the Leia in space scene. If she's only out there for a couple minutes she'd survive. Using the force to move herself is also fine. Jedi use it to jump high and all sorts of things. You can add an extra level of survival.

        I just think it was a big fake out and the film was full of them. It'd have been more interesting to have actually killed her in a such a way, setting up Kylo's conflict with TFO.

        Although, here's the thing. The film is so badly thought out and written. Kylo knows she survived because we the viewer do. He should think she's dead.

          Kylo would know she survived because he would have felt a disturbance in the force if she did die, like how Leia and Rey knew Luke had passed

            I guess, still it'd have been neat if it some how played into his story. He had a moment there where he couldn't do it, but it was done anyway. Then she's fine. There should have been some further issue around this. Although maybe it feeds into him wanting complete control.

      This got me too. Not only has Leia never overtly demonstrated force powers (it was always said she was "sensitive") I don't actually recall any Jedi being able to concoct a force bubble around themselves and fly/move in a vaccuum.

      On the actual mechanics of her moving, we see Luke pull a lightsaber to him in a desperate situation in Empire, with next to no formal training, he simply did it on instinct. There was no real setup or slow reveal of Luke's ability to pull objects with his mind in Empire either, it just happens. Perhaps it's more believable because it seemed smaller scale but got to criticize Empire for the same thing.

      Remember her son can literally stop and hold blaster bolts in the air for several minutes. And on multiple occasions in Empire and Jedi, Yoda, Obi-wan and Luke all indicate that Leia has the same gift as Luke. It's not like Leia being able to move objects with the force is out of nowhere, there was lots of setup for it.

      It's likely that what Leia did was meant to be the same thing as Luke in Empire anyway, except instead of using the force to pull a small object to her hand, she pulled on a massive object (the cruiser itself) and in a zero gravity environment she's pulled toward it instead of it being pulled toward her, which would be perfectly physically reasonable. Or she pulled the entire cruiser a few meter or so through space toward her, if you prefer (after all, size matters not :P).

        The Empire Strikes back takes place 3 years after A New Hope. Luke has been training himself and that's the best he can do.
        Unlike Rey who can just move things and move large things with no practice. That's the bigger issue with these films.
        Leia space flying is fine, Jedi's use the force to jump and propel themselves.
        The real issue with Leia is that they never addressed the whole, "Leia and the force issue." Luke tells her she has the power in ROTJ. Then the only time it's ever shown or mentioned is in an over the top scene.

          "Luke has been training himself and that's the best he can do."

          This is what you may infer, but it's never stated. We don't know that Luke has even tried to use the force in that gap. It's just as much of an unknown. All we know is that he ranked up in the rebellion. In fact, it's not until after the wampa incident that the Emperor declares Luke a threat. There's tons of info that came later but audiences seeing Empire for the first time wouldn't even know that the Force could be used to move objects - up until that point we saw it used to deflect some blaster bolts with a lightsaber and convince some stormtroopers to move along.

          If you're going to complain about no setup for that scene in TLJ you can't give Empire's equivalent scene a free pass. They both did something quite surprising and unexpected for the audiences at the time.

    That scene was amazing, if only for the thought of "Do you think he drinks straight from the tap when he doesn't have company over?"

    Sorry, but these are pretty much all examples of what I felt was wrong with this movie. They were indeed, as you put it, tonally inconsistent with what I see as being Star Wars, specifically this Skywalker arc. The movie probably wasn't a bad movie at all, in fact it might have been a decent movie, but it was a terrible Star Wars movie. I don't care if Rian wanted us to let go of the past themes and characters, he can let us say goodbye and move on without trashing what has come before; he has his own trilogy to tell the type of story he wants to, unencumbered by the past we all know and love.

    "who are Rey's parents, who is Snoke.

    Who gives a fk"

    Obviously quite a large portion of the Star Wars fan base... hence the very mixed reaction.

      It would be nice to know the background stories but it doesn't matter really. Films don't have 12 hours to fill all those details in. As I was reading on reddit earlier, before the prequels no one had any idea of the emperor's background right? Did it spoil the Films?

    I guess, just to say a couple of my own thoughts, I was like “Oh! Now I know where the milk comes from! Finally!”

    I was cool with Leia using the force to survive. To me it proved she had developed as a character over all these years, and I’m not alien to the fact that in dire situations, abilities and skills can rise up, and she has sweet as force sensitivity. Like Han with the big ship he had in episode 7, it proved stuff has been going on.
    The other side, I thought she was gonna die, and that would be a big step of baddieness for Kylo to get really badass, and make a really deadly bad guy in place of Darth Vader. I was actually saying to myself “kill her, kill her!! Become the full threat you’re destined to be!!” I know, super dark.
    I have no hate for leia or anything, but having a super tough Kylo, I’m down for that. I’m cool with the throne room resolve, that was awesome! But I miss snoke now; he had great force ability, and I wanted to see more later. But that’s cool. Now Kylo can be the sole one to dish out all the choking, and maybe lightening later? Please!!!!

    I was cool with Luke’s character slump. When something that awful happens to something that dear to someone, they can really skew from their normal qualities; I know personally, and have seen.
    I laughed when he threw the lightsaber, and I thought, “here we go, let’s go new people! Bring it!!”
    And when he went on about the failures of the Jedi, I totally agreed, I have felt the Jedi were sort of failures too; a sad thought to me, but true in ways.

    I have enjoyed every film so far, and am open to how they creatively lead these stories. Man, Luke’s power at the end blew me away! So cool!

    Last edited 18/12/17 5:38 pm

    The movie was shit. Not worth the free tickets i got to see it. I hope this director never touches this universe again. 2nd worst Star Wars movie ever.

    Bah! I missed the whole milk scene due a toilet break! Gold Class and beers...will need to re-think my viewing stategy.

      Missed it the first time, loved it the second time.

    I thought it was really average, but I don't think they're making these films for people like me anymore.

    I was only young when I saw the original trilogy but they had heart, they were genuine.

    This film had a lot of character arcs that went nowhere, people doing things because the script called for it, not because it made sense in anyway, and an entire subplot had them hoping they wouldn't run out of 'space fuel'. Hitching a plot on technobabble was weak in star trek, it was weak in battlestar galactica and it's weak now.

    I think it's great that so many people liked it though, but I'd give it a 2/5 personally.

      I agree with the sentiment, though I liked the prequels so I'm thinking that might put me in a different group than you, but I feel overall that movies these days aren't made for me either.

      Personally, I didn't really mind the space-fuel thing though, it's just a catalyst for a situation, how they dealt with it though was poor. Send Finn and Rose on a pointless adventure down to a planet to get some guy, then they get saved by a different guy and he's good enough, they somehow make it back in time. Turns out the purple haired captain had a plan but didn't really tell Poe so we get all that drama. It feels like they started at the end and worked backwards, throwing things in so they'd work towards the end and not because they made sense.

    Well I thought it was the best Star Wars film yet. I've never been a massive fan of any of them, but this one had some absolutely brilliant moments

    Snoke's death was fantastic, everything with Kylo Ren was equally fantastic, especially the sequence shortly after Snoke's death - he's a far more interesting villain than Vader ever was and I'm not sorry for saying as much, Rey is also great in every moment, Old grumpy Luke was in my eyes a much more interesting character than Luke ever was in the main series, and that scene where Snoke's ship gets run through at FTL speeds is perhaps the best imagery the franchise has ever offered.

    Sure, TLJ had a lot of issues, the whole arc with Finn and Rose should have been cut, or at least ended before Rose delivers that truly awful line and Hux still doesn't work for me in either the comedic or serious scenes, but Star Wars is so much more fun to watch when it isn't taking itself as seriously. There's something inherently silly about the whole premise it's built on, but that same silliness is also the greatest strength of the series in my eyes. The Jedi are goddamn space wizard samurais and it's dumb, but it's also pretty damn cool. I'll take a Star Wars that acknowledges it's a bit silly over one that thinks it's the greatest story ever told any day, and to that end TLJ was by far the most fun to watch of all the Star Wars films thus far.

    Nah, Laura Dern jumping to hyperspace was the best bit. Even among the island scenes, Luke pole-vaulting to spear the fish was better, because it first seemed like he was still just messing with Rey, as a 'follow me' dare, and then it led into the various daily routine moments.

    I left the cinema wanting a refund. Not because of Luke drinking milk or because of porgs. If people are thinking about these things good for them for not seeing how bad The Last Jedi was.

    Lots of comments. This will never get read. But here goes.
    We left Lukey alone for 40 odd years and return to find him older and less farm boy-ish. It was great.
    It took the angst of catching up with someone you hadn't seen for a while and played out the scenario you were afraid of to great effect.
    Luke went out the way he should have.

    I'm not a big follower of old Star Wars so didn't really care if it was out of character.

    I absolutely loved the comedy pulled off by Mark Hamill.

    What got me was the lightsaber at the start and feeling the force

    But The Force Awakens, with its successes and failures, presented The Last Jedi with a new set of problems. The load bearing beam that is the original trilogy most likely couldn't sustain another 'homage'. The Last Jedi needed to be a response to those complaints. It had to be something 'new'. It was a relief then that Rian Johnson did what needed to be done.

    I'm flabbergasted that you can say this movie wasn't an homage with what was presumably a straight face. This movie was The Empire Strikes Back, just essentially in reverse.

    * Empire starts with a battle on a white planet with AT-ATs attacking a rebel base. Darth Vader lands on his personal ship and enters the base in time to see the Falcon fly away.

    * Empire's middle act has Luke training with a reluctant Jedi master only to leave early to go convert someone to the Light Side, with the Jedi master warning against it.

    * Empire ends with a massive space battle.

    Now let's look at Last Jedi, but in reverse.

    * Last Jedi ends with a battle on a white planet with AT-ATs attacking a rebel base. Kylo Ren, who basically is Darth Vader, lands on his personal ship and enters the base in time to see the Falcon fly away.

    * Last Jedi's middle act has Rey training with a reluctant Jedi master only to leave early to go convert someone to the Light Side, with the Jedi master warning against it.

    * Last Jedi begins with a massive space battle.

    This movie was an homage to Empire, plain and simple. Sure, Empire didn't have a stupid casino heist sequence but that's part of the reason why Empire is an awesome movie and Last Jedi sucks.

    Last Jedi was a mess. Its characters made poor decisions, often based on bad or unexplained motivations, with a long drawn out space chase that made no sense on a number of levels. The chase was meant to end with a MacGuffin chase to a casino planet that ultimately had no successful payoff and therefore no reason to be in the movie in the first place.

    Last edited 30/12/17 7:47 pm

Join the discussion!