ptdebate wrote:1. The Casino side plot actually exists to highlight the point that the very wealthy profiteer off of endless war in the galaxy, which is also what happens in reality. It adds dimension to a conflict that was heretofore presented in very Manichean terms. Literally nowhere does the movie say that arms are the only way to get rich, or that all rich people are bad. The movie does strongly imply that Canto Bight is where the rich arm dealers like to hang out, however.
I would agree, but the plot handles it so terribly that it just becomes another setpiece for action to happen in. The fact that Rose had to exposition dump everything instead of the movie letting the audience discover things alongside the characters is proof of that.
ptdebate wrote:Rose Tico "sabotages" Finn's attempt to ram himself into a battery cannon so that he doesn't die. Seems pretty reasonable to me considering she loves him.
Fin loves the rebellion and what they stand for, as well as Poe and whatever other friends he has in there. I'm pretty sure sacrificing himself to keep the wall from being breached is a greater example of "saving what you love" than Rose selfishly saving the man she's only known for a day because she "loves" him.
ptdebate wrote:2. List of characters in the films who use force powers with zero training:
Anakin Skywalker (in TPM)
Chirrut Imwe (in
Luke Skywalker
Leia Organa (in both Return of the Jedi and TLJ)
Rey
plus every other Jedi in the saga who was discovered to have force sensitivity and taken in for training as a padawan.
Anakin had good reflexes and guessed what pictures the masters were looking at. We know next to nothing about Chirrut, so for all we know he could have been an escaped Jedi like Obi Wan and Yoda. Besides, everything he did could be summed up as "sensing stuff" which I already said wasn't that big a deal. Luke blocked a couple of laser bolts and then fired a missile. You can't equate the things those characters did to Rey learning one of the most advanced Jedi tricks (the mind trick) just because she wanted to use it, or Leia literally flying through space for the same reason. Luke was training for weeks/months with Yoda, and couldn't raise his ship out of the bog. Luke outright
refused to train Rey, and she was moving half a mountain at the end of the movie. Those things simply cannot be equated.
ptdebate wrote:3. Snoke was a red herring. It's a technique used to misdirect the audience to heighten the effect of surprise. It doesn't matter in the context of the story who he is, because his purpose was to be killed by Kylo Ren, solidifying his role as the big baddie.
He was a red herring because the new director didn't like him, not because he was supposed to be. JJ Abrams, whatever your opinion on him is, set things up to go a specific way, and Rian pretty much said, "Nah! I'm doin' it my way." Claiming that a character's only purpose is to be killed by another character, especially after building him up to be something important, is lazy writing. A character needs to be a
character, not a living plot device!
ptdebate wrote:4. Despite everything the Jedi, the Rebellion, and the New Republic accomplished during and immediately before Luke's life, it all ended in failure. The Empire came back in a new form, the New Republic failed to reach a consensus that would allow it to address this, and the Jedi were extinguished. Luke's ennui is that of a man who has failed so much that he's lost confidence in his ability to succeed. This is a natural evolution of Luke from the OT, who complained, whined, doubted, and acted impulsively. In the end, he did succeed in turning Darth Vader, but he failed to learn the lesson Yoda tried to impart: focus on the here and now, stop basing your behaviors on a vision you have for how you think the future should be. More often than not, the vision could either be faulty or deliberately manipulated by the enemy to trip you up.
Again, this makes sense, but it's all handled
horribly! This is the kid who jumped the gun at every single opportunity, be it looking for adventure, seeking revenge, or helping his friends. If you want to break Luke, I'm all for it, but you can't just say "It happened" and expect us to live with someone who's not acting
at all like the character we know and love. The key to writing a good book is to show, not tell, and that goes doubly for movies which are a visual form of storytelling. If you're not going to show us something, it might as well not have happened! We saw something bad happen, but only got excuses as to why that left Luke behaving the way he was. Mark Hamill himself came out and said he didn't like what they did to Luke, as it wasn't true to who he was. What else do you need to hear?
ESauce wrote:How much backstory did the Emperor have in the original trilogy?
He didn't need any, because the setting was established. Evil empire, ergo evil emperor. Snoke is different because they took down the Empire in RotJ, and then give literally no explanation as to where this First Order came from, or how they rose to power, or even WHAT they are. Are they a legitimate government that replaced the empire? Are they an invading force trying to take control of the galaxy by sheer military might? Are they simply one faction in a galaxy with multiple governments? And that doesn't even mention Snoke, who is
a brand new sith lord that just came out of nowhere with no explanation and is then thrown away.It'd be like if they made a sequel to The Lord of the Rings, where the Dark Lord Mauron has built an orc army and is trying to regain the Other One Ring that can help him regain his lost power... but wait, didn't we already do this? Where did this Mauron guy come from and why is he doing the exact same thing that Sauron did? By your logic, those are stupid questions that we don't need to ask, despite the massive implications the answers would have on the story.