|
Kylo Ren's backstory is literally that he had a vision where Space Jesus Christ told him the Jedi are bad. Confused and frightened by this vision, he asked for clarification and receives none. That's why he is easily swayed into joining the Knights of Ren, where Snoke provides easy answers: "God wants you to kill all the Jedis". Ren leaves the school and then comes back much later already the leader of a whole crew. Unlike any actual school shooter, his target is the school itself. Ren effectively does everything in the film because he believes it's what God would want. He forces himself to suffer in order to recapture what Jesus felt, believing that he'll be rewarded. Ren simply misses the full radical message of Vader's death - that there is no God. He misinterprets the bible. And of course, Rey is no better. A mirror-image of Ren, she punishes herself to please God (her missing parents), then searches for easy answers in Luke. Maz essentially tells her "God wants you to kill all the Siths".
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
So that's what that thing is.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
The title of the film is straight-up Star Wars: Episode VII: God's NOT Dead
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I'm obviously not talking about the plot. Who cares about the plot? Cnut the Great posted:In terms of theme, his death doesn't accomplish what you think it accomplishes, because, again, we don't actually know why Han died. We don't know what he died for. As with many things in the film, it's unclear. What mantle is he passing on to the next generation? What does Han Solo stand for in TFA? What does Rey believe Han Solo stands for? What does Han Solo mean to Rey, and how is his death connected to the new path she chooses to embark upon by the end of the film? I don't think the film gives us a strong sense--or really, any sense--of these things. Han Solo is an ersatz father figure and a legendary figure to Rey. Rey really wants a father and idolizes the historic figures from the last war...we know this, thanks to scenes that the movie has shown us. This is where Rey works as the audience stand-in, because of course Star Wars viewers also see Han Solo as a father figure and a hero to be worshiped. He shows up as a comforting thematic presence that Finn, Rey, and the audience all feel and can rely upon...but also as a crutch that needs to be discarded if the other characters want to reach their full potential. His death at the hands of another new character -- literally a character he created, much like TFA is a creation of the original trilogy -- signifies the passing of the torch...the burden...that is galactic fatherhood and herodom. This is, again, some of the shallowest readings I can come up with. Cnut the Great posted:We don't actually know if Han was really negligent. We have no idea what actually happened. That's the problem. We have no idea whether he's really facing karmic justice, or if he's dying heroically trying to save a son whose descent into evil he bears no ultimate responsibility for. It's a bad capstone for Han's character because the movie makes no effort to flesh out either Han's or Kylo's characters in anything more than a superficial, perfunctory way. What we're left with is Han Solo being murdered by his son in the first and last scene they ever share together, for reasons that remain totally unclear. That's not a hard scene to write. I could write that scene. Heck, bring the prequels into it if you want. Anakin, the only other person who we've seen turn to the dark side, turned because Obi-Wan was a poor father. Now Ben Solo has turned to the dark side; why have you blamed it on poor writing instead of arriving at the sensible logical conclusion that Han was a poor father, just like Obi-Wan?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I am very pointedly not ignoring it. I am saying it's a bad element to base a scene around. If I was ignoring it, I wouldn't have mentioned it in my post, and thus we would not currently be talking about it. Why is it ok for stuff to happen offscreen in the prequels (Anakin and obi's relationship) but not ok in TFA?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
This is official, btw, as Hidalgo manages canon: Just for those guessing about ages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
32 / 2 + 7 = 23 Pablo keepin' that dream alive
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Also ren killed Han because Luke couldn't kill Vader. He's trying to ensure his darkness in a way Luke was unable to. Pretty east stuff, Cnut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
And Han tried to get through to Ben the way he does because he's watched Return of the Jedi and thinks that's how you get through to someone who's fallen to darkness...but Ben has also obviously seen that movie, way more times than Han has, and is wise to those tricks, which is why it doesn't work this time. There's frankly a lot happening in that confrontation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Han's death was actually ripped off from the ending of Gamer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
I wish your throat was ripped off from your body. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Even as a kid it skeeved me out that Anakin was like 8 and Padme's 14 or something. rear end Catchcum posted:I wish your throat was ripped off from your body. rude
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Even as a kid it skeeved me out that Anakin was like 8 and Padme's 14 or something. She stoically exploits him to ensure an heir for her people adventurously Dont characterdevelopment-shame
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No he's not. Besides being a stabber, the explanation for his actions doesn't fit with any actual school shooting. Yeah he's more of an abortion clinic bomber.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Yeah he's more of an abortion clinic bomber. Well again, not actually. Luke's 'Jedi training school' is some sort of cult compound/boot camp/monastery, of which Ren is a former member. It's a doctrinal conflict, not some anti-science thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well again, not actually. Luke's 'Jedi training school' is some sort of cult compound/boot camp/monastery, of which Ren is a former member. It's a doctrinal conflict, not some anti-science thing. Aren't you fearing what you dont yet understand? Declaring some revolutionary school of thought obscene sounds far more anti-science than "Luke started something involving people". Isn't one of the first images in Rey's vision of what occured Luke touching R2-D2 with his robotic hand? There's a lot of symbolism in that which could draw from previous films; for me, "war-hawk training soldiers" is not one of those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Kylo Ren's backstory is literally that he had a vision where Space Jesus Christ told him the Jedi are bad. Confused and frightened by this vision, he asked for clarification and receives none. That's why he is easily swayed into joining the Knights of Ren, where Snoke provides easy answers: "God wants you to kill all the Jedis". Thus making Maz and Snoke analogous to Obi-Wan and Palpatine - wrong people, foils to one another, who pressure the protagonist and antagonist into conflict by similar means, denying the possibility of reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Should I glean from this the conclusion that the plot of a film doesn't have to make a lick of sense for you to enjoy it? There are tons of movies with completely nonsensical plots that still own super hard. Eraserhead and Samsara come to mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
If anything, considering that Kylo is the only knight in the vision with a lightsaber, and the other knights hold seemingly improvised weaponry, would imply (to me) that Luke's order was -not- dogmatic nor fell to previous jedi failings, and it was this that made Kylo rebel. Knights, uniforms, a superior that leads the group, demands to disconnect oneself from familial attachments, a Jedi Order with an army of loyal subjects, a First Order that wishes to instate the "pure" Republic-Empire, and a Jedi Order invested in returning to "pure" Jedi teachings, the answer is right in everyones eyes; Snoke is either resurrecting the old jedi morals, or using it to dupe others into becoming sith lords.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:There are tons of movies with completely nonsensical plots that still own super hard. Eraserhead and Samsara come to mind. Eraserhead mostly has an extremely simple, straightforward plot. The strange imagery, sound design, and setting are just used to exaggerate the main character's quite commonplace feelings about his lovely life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Aren't you fearing what you dont yet understand? Declaring some revolutionary school of thought obscene sounds far more anti-science than "Luke started something involving people". Catholics saying that Protestantism is dumb and wrong isn't anti-science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Catholics saying that Protestantism is dumb and wrong isn't anti-science. I meant to say anti-dogmatic, just let muh brain trail off for a moment. By all accounts Kylo and Snoke are the ones that drown themselves in traditionalist ethics, garb, and values, so I'm not sure why we would immediately assume Luke is the one that broke Kylo with strict dogma and teachings, considering that all imagery we've seen so far of him have been peaceful hills and lovingly stroking a droid with his droid appendage. It's like seeing Finn choose a suicide mission to save Rey and going "Wow. Just wow. This guy really hates communism."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Why is it ok for stuff to happen offscreen in the prequels (Anakin and obi's relationship) but not ok in TFA? Because the stuff that happens off-screen in the prequels doesn't make the plot of the prequels confusing. For example, we don't need to see Obi-Wan actually train Anakin, because Attack of the Clones makes it perfectly clear to us in a couple lines what that training was like. No one was actually confused about Anakin and Obi-Wan's relationship, they were just disappointed that we didn't get to see a pointless training montage for some reason. TFA leaves out important information and doesn't fill in the gaps for us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Because the stuff that happens off-screen in the prequels doesn't make the plot of the prequels confusing. For example, we don't need to see Obi-Wan actually train Anakin, because Attack of the Clones makes it perfectly clear to us in a couple lines what that training was like. No one was actually confused about Anakin and Obi-Wan's relationship, they were just disappointed that we didn't get to see a pointless training montage for some reason. We don't need to see Obi-Wan actually train Anakin because Obi-Wan said in the very first movie that he trained him until he turned to evil. Nobody is confused because the prequels are building on 30 years of pop cultural osmosis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Kylo Ren fell because his dad was a lovely dad and he took solace in the mystique of his grandfather. That mystique acted as a standin for a real father. Come to think of it maybe this redeems the lovely 'Luke and Leia are siblings' thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
If they weren't siblings then how could she have saved Luke at the end of empire??
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Actually Cnut I think people were very confused by that. There have been posts and posts about that in this thread. Why were told and not shown, why even when we're told the actors or the direction or the writing doesn't convey a friendship, and, especially, when paired with outside knowledge (obi's line in anh) left a lot to be desired. I love how some people are allowed to speak for all (cnut's, "no one was confused by that.") but when tezzor does it he gets reamed for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:I love how some people are allowed to speak for all (cnut's, "no one was confused by that.") but when tezzor does it he gets reamed for it. Not only that, but my man Tezzor is banned from this thread 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
It seemed obvious to me that they were friends at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith. Did other people not see that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah but they fight each other at the end wow lovely writing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Yeah, that's exactly what we're talking about. Man, how do they not get this, they both thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Should I glean from this the conclusion that the plot of a film doesn't have to make a lick of sense for you to enjoy it? No, I mean that the plot generally isn't what's most interesting about a movie. quote:You're reaching super hard and I can feel the strain all the way over here. Rey seems way more interested in Han Solo as a famous smuggler than Han Solo as a famous Rebel war hero. I don't recall Rey at any point ever committing to the cause of good against evil as a result of the things Han Solo says to her. Rey grows attached to Han Solo, like you said, as a father figure, because he's nice to her and asks her to stay on and work with him on his spaceship. That's all well and good, but I don't see how it connects with Rey's decision to set out on the heroic path at the end of the movie. Others have suggested that Rey has decided to train to become a Jedi simply so that she can seek revenge on Kylo Ren for killing Han Solo, and that it has nothing to do with any sincere belief in the ideals of the Resistance. Though that's not the direction I would have taken the story, that interpretation actually makes sense with what we are shown. Are those people wrong? quote:Clearly. You've glanced at Han Solo the character -- scoundrel and miscreant, shirker of responsibilities, cheat, liar, seeker of easy gains, owes millions in debt throughout the course of four films, wanderer and adventurer and soldier, involved with Leia in the There's a little thing called character development that happens in the originals. Han Solo grows as a person and becomes more heroic, less selfish, and more capable of loving people unconditionally. The implication, by the end of the film, is that Han has successfully conquered his demons, just as all the main characters have. It's strongly implied that Han Solo and Leia are now going to get married and start a family, and the idea is that this is a happy ending--not a prelude to deadbeat fatherhood and extreme marital discord. I'm sorry, but I would have preferred to have seen TFA take up where the originals left off and show Han having to struggle with some different issues. I understand that by their very nature these sequels will have to undermine ROTJ's happy ending to some extent, but the new trials faced by the original characters should still reflect their past character growth. The issues they struggle with should be a bit more adult in nature, a bit more intellectually involved. One way to do this would be to show Han struggling with the fact that, no matter how good a father he is, he can't ensure that his children will follow his example--he can't ensure that they won't choose to go down a path he can't follow. That's the perennial inter-generational conflict, after all. But TFA didn't show this. As it stands, it's unclear whether or not Han was actually just a lovely father or not. You seem to be advocating the view that he was. I don't think that's a very interesting final direction to take the character in, or one that makes sense given Han's character development in the OT. quote:Heck, bring the prequels into it if you want. Anakin, the only other person who we've seen turn to the dark side, turned because Obi-Wan was a poor father. Now Ben Solo has turned to the dark side; why have you blamed it on poor writing instead of arriving at the sensible logical conclusion that Han was a poor father, just like Obi-Wan? I haven't arrived at the conclusion that Han was a poor father. That's why it's poor writing. I don't know if he was or not. Obi-Wan wasn't a good, well-rounded person in the prequels. He was arrogant, selfish, and hypocritical. He wasn't ready to raise someone like Anakin. Thus he was a poor father. Obi-Wan's character arc in the prequels is about realizing all this and growing as a person, ultimately becoming the person we know him as in Episode IV. If Old Ben Kenobi was as much of a prick in Episode IV as he was in Episode II, then we would have a problem. Thankfully, that's not the case (unless you subscribe to the point of view that Obi-Wan remained an rear end in a top hat even through to the afterlife; I don't). Han Solo went through a boatload of character development in the originals in order to become a good, well-rounded person. If that's not actually what happened, then the originals were a complete waste of time. It makes no sense for Han Solo to be a bad father, because the previous three movies had him go through a full-fledged character arc whose explicit outcome was that he became a good, responsible, loving person. Whether you agree with it or not, that means Han Solo's character in TFA is a regression from his character at the end of the OT. This is simply a storytelling fact. The Han Solo character already came to terms with his issues pertaining to love and responsibility. TFA regresses him so that he can learn to come to terms with them all over again, because the writers apparently couldn't come up with anything new for the character. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Han Solo was going to be a lovely father/husband regardless. A simple regression into his old ways isn't bad writing. He didn't transform into a new character. He's back to being the guy he was in ANH. The Han people remember with the most clarity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:Han Solo was going to be a lovely father/husband regardless. A simple regression into his old ways isn't bad writing. He didn't transform into a new character. He's back to being the guy he was in ANH. The Han people remember with the most clarity. Okay, it's not "bad" writing. It's boring, uninspired writing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
It led to the funnest Star Wars movie in 32 years and a genuinely engaging performance from Harrison Ford so I'm okay with the writing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Okay, it's not "bad" writing. It's boring, uninspired writing. To you I guess. Evidently the family life wasn't for him. His true calling was smuggling/being a scoundrel. A part of himself that he can't escape. The idea of Han Solo settling down and becoming a soccer dad for the rest of his life is silly to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Didn't he only revert back to his old smuggling ways after Kylo Ren shot up his school and left, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
He didn't go back to being a smuggler but that doesn't change who he was, which was a dude not exactly suited to settling down and raising kids. Star Wars as a rule tends to not have a lot of stable homes. There's not a lot of great places to raise kids that haven't been blown up or aren't run by some creepy cult. Like try to imagine the circumstances of Han Solo and Leia buying a space tri-level in a neighborhood with good schools or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Han already gave up completely on Ben, the only reason he does try at the end of TFA is because Leia asked him to, and told him that as Ben's father his connection would be greater than Luke's. You can conceive of this as either Leia convinced him, or he's just doing it as a favor to her, to make her happy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Phylodox posted:It led to the funnest Star Wars movie in 32 years and a genuinely engaging performance from Harrison Ford so I'm okay with the writing. Ford was more engaging interacting with Shia LaBeouf in Crystal Skull than he was at any point in TFA. Ford's at his best in TFA when he's talking about the Force and when he's confronting his son, because the material he's given to work with in those scenes is actually new and interesting. Whenever he's forced back into acting like his old A New Hope character, it feels like Ford is just going through the motions, doing a strained impression of his 1977 self, and I can't blame him. Hasn't he spent years and years vocally expressing how utterly sick and tired he was of that character, and how little interest he had in going back to it? I don't think he was taking the piss. I think it was the money more than anything that changed his mind. Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:To you I guess. So the idea that someone can achieve lasting personal growth and commit to being a mature adult is silly to you? That's what Star Wars is all about. It's about having faith in yourself and believing that you can be a better person. You may be cynical about those sorts of things, but that doesn't mean Star Wars has to be. That's kind of missing the entire point of fairy tales, I would think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 02:54
|
|