You mean the young terrorist who blew up the Death Star, killing millions?
I guess that’s a big thing about TLJ. It subverts some people’s expectations, you can’t judge what people expect from a movie. It is subjective and if that makes some people say TLJ is a bad movie, so what? A lot of people liked TLJ, who cares if a minority disagrees?
After his mentor committed suicide by switching his light sabre off mid battle.
Are you trying to prove my point by showing one of the awful ones?
Actually, I didn’t think that was awful. But neither was it a deconstruction of Superman’s genre. It was an explanation of why Superman has to be written the way he is and why other approaches to superheroes don’t fit in a Superman comic.
Which was my point
And it does that by…
(Morrison’s Batman run as a whole is pretty much the same idea. Break the concept down, examine it, put it back together and make it clear why it’s so special. Deconstruction doesn’t have to be destructive.)
You mean the military pilot on a mission?
Yes, just like the ones in Rogue One.
The Rebellion wasn’t a legitimate military. Luke was an enemy combatant.
Never realised how fun it is watching a whole load of people go at it over TLJ.
Agreed, but deconstruction has to be paired with reconstruction - which SW has a patchy track record on.
He did, just as much as any of the others. Taking out the Dreadnaught made a huge difference to future resistance and saved millions of lives, at least potentially. He probably wouldn’t have made that call if he’d known the cost in advance, but that’s the thing about battles isn’t it? As far as we can tell, he made an entirely relatable call in a desperate situation, so what we’re left is that he ignored chain of command. Which, again: This shouldn’t be a theme to hammer down in Star Wars, at least not when it comes to the Rebel side of the war.
And the thing is, it’s not that I’m giving him a pass, I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass if it made sense in terms of the story to come down on him, but as I said, the whole sacrifice theme is all over the place and doesn’t make any sense.
I think you can do a bit of deconstruction and still have a fun mainstream Star Wars movie, but it’s a challenge when the things you’re deconstructing are the ones that make the movies work. And the thing is, if you decide that that’s what you want to do, you better make damn sure that the work you’re creating is successful on the terms you’ve defined because otherwise what you’ve got on your hands is an ambitious failure, and that’s (sort of) fine for an independent movie but less so for a big franchise.
“The heroes reunited, ready to fight for what they’ve lost” is literally the end of The Last Jedi as well.
Nope, the literal end is a Charles Dickens kid being all inspired and stuff. In contrast to Empire, we don’t see our heroes rested and ready to put things right. In Empire, we literally got this shot:
Nothing in that dialogue suggests the opposite of failure.
“the cannon’s opening, now is our chance”
That the cannon is also charged means he will definitely die, but it doesn’t mean he won’t blow up the cannon in the process. Seemed to me like the chance of that happening was pretty good.
And I also don’t think that the movie wants the scene to be read that way. Rose isn’t saying he wouldn’t have blown up the cannon, she goes on about “fighting for what we love” and not “against what we hate”, which is a point the movie wants to make but that really doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
I think genre deconstruction can be fun if it doesn’t make the characters unlikable.
We don’t know Poe. He was in maybe two minutes of the Force Awakens. He’s a nothing character.
I actually agree with Holdo that he doesn’t need to be told what the plan is. It wasn’t essential.
But to take a character we’re going to be following for a two-and-a-half hour long movie and make him a dickish bull-headed idiot?
That’s not enjoyable or entertaining.
Oh, and I agree with @Christian, the movie spends way too much time proving Rose wrong for her character to be in anyway substantial or non-lunatic sounding.
It’s not that obscure a point, is it? It’s an argument in favour of positive, constructive actions - saving someone’s life, telling them you love them, helping them to be a better person etc. - over destructive ones like blowing things up, killing people, war in general.
It ties in with the movie’s general stance on war, which is that it’s something that ultimately corrupts both sides, not just the baddies (most prominently advanced through the story thread with Benicio Del Toro’s character).
Then there should be something within the narrative and the story to back that up.
But the movie refutes it at every turn. It makes her come off as a naive idiot that we’ve wasted a huge chunk of an egregiously long movie following. The movie could have made her point have a grounding and created an interesting dialogue within itself with regards to that theme - but no…it doesn’t. And to underline it the base EXPLODES behind her while she’s saying all of this “love” insanity.
One of the better criticisms of the whole Dreadnought point I’ve read is the viewer has nothing to really judge the significance of it. Initially the film seems to back Poe, that it’s a big, significant ship that poses a dire threat. It gets blown up - in one of the prettiest SFX explosions going - then the First Order drops in the Supremacy and a fleet of supporting Star Destroyers that suggests it wasn’t.
Would have been nice to have a little sequence of that monster ship launching Star Destroyers - would have given a great sense of scale.
Damn, someone should have told Luke that before he blew up the Death Star.
Or when he killed himself, or when Holdo killed herself, or all of those rebels who died.