How did Last Jedi get such a high rotten tomatoes score?

[minute bull]

Siete naranjas, por favor.

The LIKE ratio between these two responses speaks toward how much people favor the generic and retread over the specific and creative.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Yeah, but the problem is clearly with the TLJ score. That movie was an atrocity. Disney doesn't need to pay critics in regards to Marvel movies, they are good enough.

They shit the bed paying RT to rate TLJ high. They ruined theirs and RT's reputation with this move.

Honestly, if you really look at some of the scores RT has given movies, they aren't as reliable as people think. There have been quite a few movies ive been surprised at how low, and how high RT has ranked them.

 

[TrueBias]

There were fun elements in it.

Luke the disgruntled and disheveled former Jedi master living in near isolation. That provided some laughs but also an interesting take on the Force.

I thought this was the movie that best described the dark side.

I loved the chasing of the Alliance's last ship with a powerful New Order hunting them down. I thought that brought about the right kind of doomsday tension that kept us on the edge of our seats with a faint hope that Luke would come and save the day.

I liked the odd relationship between Rey and Kylo Ren. Both are trying to convert each other while basquing in each other's mutual admiration while balancing just enough caution so to not be deceived by the other's intentions. There was a hint of romantic tension in there as well without it being at all obvious but leaves the possibility open in the future.

The central themes of Star Wars were there: David vs. Goliath with Good as the distant underdog. Mystic element of the force and its cautious taming of it. Potentially destructive element of seduction, obsession and greed. Hope (probably the most important theme in Star Wars)

What I didn't like was the casino scene. Although it provides for the segue into the rebuilding of the Alliance thus bridging episodes 8 and 9, it dragged on for too long and sometimes felt like the producers just wanted some action scenes thrown in there.

Benicio Del Toro's character was underutilized. Although I liked that we thought he'd be the next Han Solo (merch for hire), he ended up being Han's antihero. I just wish there would have been more buildup of friendship and trust before the betrayal. I would have preferred a betrayal in episode 9 but whatever.

Phasma getting killed off after being billed as a badass was a waste of a good story.

And the Leah scene floating in space although the director claimed she used the force to create an oxygen bubble around her. I felt like he made that up himself because it wasn't at all apparent in the movie.

Star Wars is chalk full of plot holes, even in eipsodes 4-6 but we tend to forgive those because they were part of our youth and so we're blinded by our nostalgia, not to mention SW was never a great movie because of its incredible storyline. It was he breakthrough in special effects that was its greatest contributor to cinema, and it was done on a shoestring budget.

Today's Star Wars is backed by infinite money and its fanbase is now grown up enough to pick apart the plot holes and go on massive whinefests. I'm especially afraid of becoming crosseyed from rolling my eyes so much every time I hear about someone complaining about the SJW agenda.

About everything you listed i either disagree with or found dull to disappointing. But at least you answered, unlike BEER.

Remember, this wasnt just 1 thing we didnt like. Rey not being part of a bloodline didnt bother me. I was already checked the fuck out at that point, plus, i didnt believe Crylo. She could've been a relative of Yoda at that point, and i wouldnt had cared. That reveal came just after the hokey fight scene.

No, its a collection of problems. We could compare terrible plot holes in the originals i suppose, but i honestly doubt youd have a leg to stand on there..

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Honestly, if you really look at some of the scores RT has given movies, they aren't as reliable as people think. There have been quite a few movies ive been surprised at how low, and how high RT has ranked them.

Hype, expectation and politics have always played a pretty big role although I think we have reached the stage now were Disney are so dominant that there is definitely potential for influence. I'm guessing less "paying off" and more generalised pressure brought to bare though media outlets wanting Disney's advertising money and perhaps also access to premiers and star/director interviews?

I do tend to think the style of TLJ was favourable for this, the whole film was just so over plotted and fast paced that I think it gives rather a "what did I just watch?" feeling and its easier to then convincing yourself "it must have been something good". I think TFA and Abrams Trek had the same kind of feeling, people went over the moon on them first viewing but repeated viewings represented obvious weaknesses.

 

[paddan]

I honestly think that TLJ is the worst of all SW movies.
The phantom menace was mostly bad but had some redeeming moments, like Darth Maul and the pod racing.

I can’t think of anything positive to say about TLJ. And I’m not even bothered by the sjw tendencies.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I honestly think that TLJ is the worst of all SW movies.
The phantom menace was mostly bad but had some redeeming moments, like Darth Maul and the pod racing.

I can’t think of anything positive to say about TLJ. And I’m not even bothered by the sjw tendencies.

I think it did have some good stuff around Kylo personally but part of the problem is IMHO its not an easy film to love.

It just comes across as massively arrogant to me to the point of clear dishonestly. It wants to deconstructed the supposedly simplistic and socially out of date Starwars for the modern era, the problem is that whilst yes Starwars was always pretty broad blockbuster cinema the original films were never what TLJ makes them out to be. Indeed pretty much ever single issue TLJ tries to address had actually already been covered in the original films and for the most part covered in a more successful and adult fashion.

Deconstruction of a Hero - In the sequels to the original we see Luke's standard heroism clearly questioned and his becoming far more enlightened.

Gender Politics - In the original films we see Leia shoot down Luke and Han's expectations of her and then her rescuing the latter.

Questionable Economics - In the originals we see Lando acting like a pragmatic businessman and what this leads to.

That's why getting Luke's character so wrong is such an issue, TLJ is setting itself up as a critique of the original films but its doing so by creating a false argument, basically rewriting Luke with the faults it wants to pick out.

Now if the film did genuinely want to take Luke in a new direction that's something else entirely for me, provided there was explanation and development for it and an interesting story then I'd have nothing against that but what we got was basically the mother of all cinematic straw man arguments.

 

[minute bull]

It wants to deconstructed the supposedly simplistic and socially out of date Starwars for the modern era:

• Deconstruction of a Hero - In the sequels to the original we see Luke's standard heroism clearly questioned and his becoming far more enlightened.
• Gender Politics - In the original films we see Leia shoot down Luke and Han's expectations of her and then her rescuing the latter.
• Questionable Economics - In the originals we see Lando acting like a pragmatic businessman and what this leads to.

That's why getting Luke's character so wrong is such an issue, TLJ is setting itself up as a critique of the original films but its doing so by creating a false argument, basically rewriting Luke with the faults it wants to pick out.

That's fallacious thinking. No gifs, and no offense intended.

You're doing what you pretend TLJ does, which is address an argument that isn't being made.

These plots lines are organically built from the mythos up-til-that point. I'm not going to even address the Gender Politics; I don't think the mere existence of female characters warrants it. As for Luke that's a plot point set by Abrams, and the Economics provides Finn's dilemma. No deconstruction necessary. What you have is the masculine ...

These are your words:

It just comes across as massively arrogant to me to the point of clear dishonestly

And it's not my point to point out hypocrisy at all, that's not my deal. It's just that we tend to see what we want to see, and hate what we're guilty of especially when we don't know we're guilty of it. It's only natural to assume that something or someone thinks like you do, but it's not something you should pretend as though real. Such a position is indefensible. Relinquish that, and new worlds open up to you.

 

[Bob Gray]

Luke made an impossible shot in A New Hope after 2 hours practice with the Force.

Nah. He'd been making them all his life. He mentioned shooting wamp rats or whatever and they were roughly the same size.

 

[robertcop2]

Did you see the long explanation as to why I enjoyed it or are you just going to stick to your predictably shallow response?

I don't need to read your arguments. You can like whatever bad movie you want.

I got an issue with you saying we didn't like it because of strong female characters. Fuck that.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

That's fallacious thinking. No gifs, and no offense intended.

You're doing what you pretend TLJ does, which is address an argument that isn't being made.

These plots lines are organically built from the mythos up-til-that point. I'm not going to even address the Gender Politics; I don't think the mere existence of female characters warrants it. As for Luke that's a plot point set by Abrams, and the Economics provides Finn's dilemma. No deconstruction necessary. What you have is the masculine ...

These are your words:

And it's not my point to point out hypocrisy at all, that's not my deal. It's just that we tend to see what we want to see, and hate what we're guilty of especially when we don't know we're guilty of it. It's only natural to assume that something or someone thinks like you do, but it's not something you should pretend as though real. Such a position is indefensible.

I think TLJ is very clearly looking to address more than TFA's take on Luke though which itself is almost totally dependant on the original films. Indeed Abrams film for the most part doesn't even bother to focus on the search for Luke very much, it becomes an afterthought in a film that's instead focused on the threat of Starkiller base and building up Rey(not very successfully IMHO). TLJ presents Luke as a character who carries a simplistic view of good and evil yet we see in ESB and ROTJ that Luke very clearly moves beyond this.

Does economics really provide a "dilemma" in TLJ? the whole point about the arms dealers to me seems like a total irrelevance that doesn't actually present any moral quandary to the heroes, its only DJ's character who has much effect on the story and in this case its merely trusting someone and being betrayed. In Lando's case on the other hand we see the slippery slope of self interested pragmatism, making a deal that at first might not have seemed that bad.

The whole Poe/Finn/Holdo plot definitely has a very strong air of arrogance to me, ultimates its "my points correct because the plot says so", basically manipulating the audience/heroes to support/take what seems like reasonable action before a magic reveal puts them in the wrong. You compare this to ESB in which Luke's hung ho heroism is deconstructed in a much more honest and adult fashion, the idea of potentially having to let his friends sacrifice themselves and avoid confrontation for the greater good.

 

[Supereem]

I’d say Disney has the most money on the Star Wars train as it’s invested heavily on that property in all levels of its empire. Especially after the financial and critical success of TFA having TLJ bomb with critics would have hurt.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but i honestly can’t think of how it got that score. It’s a notch above Phantom Menace.

That casino scene....
That Asian chick......
Snoke.......
Rey......
Luke......

It’s objectively one of the worst movies ever made.

 

[minute bull]

TLJ presents Luke as a character who carries a simplistic view of good and evil yet we see in ESB and ROTJ that Luke very clearly moves beyond this.

His simplistic approach was a coverup to the complexity of his own struggle. He himself resists his own teachings until Yoda reminds him that it's not about the past but the future. The burden of all masters is knowing they must fail their pupils, or some kind of Yoda shit. You saw it. You know the scene I mean. That's not a deconstruction of his past deeds or accomplishments in the least; it's a new chapter to his life. A new dimension to his being.

Does economics really provide a "dilemma" in TLJ? the whole point about the arms dealers to me seems like a total irrelevance that doesn't actually present any moral quandary to the heroes, its only DJ's character who has much effect on the story and in this case its merely trusting someone and being betrayed.

It certainly does. Finn starts off only concerned with Rey, but through Rose and DJ and others, he's present more choices and more complexity between which to decide. It's no longer a simple matter for him to live or die for one person. Presenting both sides of the economics enables Finn to think about the dichotomy, rather than disparate notions and speechs unrelated to each other. It's not like Rose said, "You gotta be good because of my sister," and DJ said, "I don't trust no one and if you were smart neither should you."

They came together on the same playing field in order to provide Finn a choice. Getting lost in the example or the illustration misses the point.

The whole Poe/Finn/Holdo plot to me definitely has a very strong air of arrogance to me, basically "my points correct because the plot says so", basically manipulating the audience/heroes to take what seems like reasonable action before magic reveal puts them in the wrong. You compare this to ESB in which Luke's hung ho heroism is deconstructed in a much more honest and adult fashion, the idea of potentially having to let his friends sacrifice themselves and avoid confrontation for the greater good.

Not even going to get into it.

 

[robertcop2]

It’s objectively one of the worst movies ever made.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I recently read an interview where RUIN Johnson stated he “wanted to divide the fans”

That’s how much of an egotistical cunt this wimp is.

 

[minute bull]

I heard he also hangs his toilet paper the WRONG way.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

His simplistic approach was a coverup to the complexity of his own struggle. He himself resists his own teachings until Yoda reminds him that it's not about the past but the future. The burden of all masters is knowing they must fail their pupils, or some kind of Yoda shit. You saw it. You know the scene I mean. That's not a deconstruction of his past deeds or accomplishments in the least; it's a new chapter to his life. A new dimension to his being.

The reveal of Luke is I think very clearly intended to be a deconstruction of what the film believes out view of him was beforehand, the problem is that this view is heavily divergent with the reality of the character in the originals.

I think you see this via just how little buildup the film gives to Luke prior to this reveal. As I said I wouldn't have been against Luke being presented as someone who fell victim to hubris in a believable fashion yet were presented with this in a couple of lines just telling us that he did. That to me very clearly leaves you in a situation where the film is drawing on our existing view of Luke yet its getting this view wrong, ignoring Luke having learnt a similar lesson in ROTJ when redeeming Vader.

Indeed "failure is the greatest teacher of all" is surely just another recycled plot point of the original films? Luke learning from his failure in ESB and indeed being resistant to doing so earlier in that film.

It certainly does. Finn starts off only concerned with Rey, but through Rose and DJ and others, he's present more choices and more complexity between which to decide. It's no longer a simple matter for him to live or die for one person. Presenting both sides of the economics enables Finn to think about the dichotomy, rather than disparate notions and speechs unrelated to each other. It's not like Rose said, "You gotta be good because of my sister," and DJ said, "I don't trust no one and if you were smart neither should you."

They came together on the same playing field in order to provide Finn a choice. Getting lost in the example or the illustration misses the point.

Finn's focus on Rey alone is I think another element that's handled in a poor and simple contradictory fashion relative to the originals. We see Luke's focus on his friends above the cause and what it costs, here we see Finn's focus on Rey over the cause cast in a negative light but followed by Rose making exactly the same choice.

The reveal that the arms dealers also sell to the resistance really doesn't present the moral quandary the film seems to think it does, at least not in the simplistic fashion its presented. DJ telling Finn not to trust anyone, being ignored and then being proven to be correct is an incredibly shallow plot point compared to seeing Lando being slowly drawn into a more morally questionable business deal with Vader.

Not even going to get into it.

That's really a fundamental defence the film needs though isn't it? I think that's actually a much clearer flaw than the Luke plot.

Again I think the film does a really poor job showing Poe as the morally wrong warmonger it seeks to cast him as. It gives us the situation where he's clearly given a view that Holdo is acting immorally before revealing that infact she is not, the ultimate(but IMHO unintended) message to me seems to be "follow your superiors no matter what, especially if there backed with tokanism" which ironically you could argue is very much of the times.

To me much of the time the film gives the impression of actually not knowing what its trying to say at all, instead getting lost in a maze of confounded expectations and twists.

 

[Deleted member 391673]

what was a really stupid part of the story was the ongoing space chase.

the rebels are escaping, the bad guys are following them and taking them out slowly as each rebel ship loses fuel one by one.

we later find out that this was the rebel plan all along as the rebels use the escape pods to escape to a nearby planet, and that the purple haired sjw general is going to sacrifice herself by doing some kamikaze shit.

1. so the bad guys can't catch up to the rebels? all ships in this universe have the same maximum speed?
2. the bad guys have no ability to scan for escape pods? it's established in A New Hope that they clearly have scanning abilities regardless if there is signs of life or not.
3. why didn't the rebels disperse in multiple directions with lightspeed?
4. why didn't the rebels use the kamikaze approach from the beginning?
5. why does there need to be a human pilot for the kamikaze mission when this is a universe where autopilot and droid pilots are a commonplace?


this movie is one giant brain fart from start to finish.

 

[minute bull]

The reveal of Luke is I think very clearly intended to be a deconstruction of what the film believes out view of him was beforehand, the problem is that this view is heavily divergent with the reality of the character in the originals.

That's impossible. Deconstruction is what occurs at the critical level, your level. At the filmmaker level, character is a collection of tropes used to provide motivation and intent within a scene. You take Luke's core themes, and you illustrate them. It's not what Johnson thinks we think Luke is -- it's what HE thinks Luke is. He's not deconstructing he is CONSTRUCTING.

Deconstruction is the incorrect word to use. Your issue -- everyone's issue -- is that you don't like the direction of the construction, and have falsely equated it with NEGATING (which, it doesn't do either).

Here is an example of a film deconstructing:



Here is an example of someone whom you might think is deconstructing the trope of the Man in Black Cowboy:



But this is just another Man in Black Cowboy construction. Not a deconstruction.

To me much of the time the film gives the impression of actually not knowing what its trying to say at all, instead getting lost in a maze of confounded expectations and twists.

You're projecting your own issues onto the film.

It's not the film's fault you don't like it. It's not anyone's, really, but it's more dependent on you to enjoy things than the other way around. We know this to be true because look at the reasons being cited for not-liking the film.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

The last Jedi was like being a kid and waiting for Wretlemania 3 and Andre pins hulk hogan in the center of the ring.

There is a reason that didn’t happen to a multi year storyline. It’s because it would’ve sucked and ruined the build up and killed fan expectations.

RUIN Johnson is the bizzaro world Vince McMahon and Disney knows millions of people hate him

 

[Deleted member 110072]

That's impossible. Deconstruction is what occurs at the critical level, your level. At the filmmaker level, character is a collection of tropes used to provide motivation and intent within a scene. You take Luke's core themes, and you illustrate them. It's not what Johnson thinks we think Luke is -- it's what HE thinks Luke is. He's not deconstructing he is CONSTRUCTING.

Deconstruction is the incorrect word to use. Your issue -- everyone's issue -- is that you don't like the direction of the construction, and have falsely equated it with NEGATING (which, it doesn't do either).

You're projecting your own issues onto the film.

It's not the film's fault you don't like it. It's not anyone's, really, but it's more dependent on you to enjoy things than the other way around. We know this to be true because look at the reasons being cited for not-liking the film.

A work of art being viewed as being able to question or alter our views of an existing subject by examining parts of it being reffered to as deconstruction is a pretty common idea is it not? beyond the sematics I think you clearly know what I'm reffering to.

As I mentioned in the above post I think the very problem the film has is that its not effectively CONSTRUCTING Luke, were not presented with a character who has believable evolved from the enlighten hero at the end of the originals to the hubristic master it shows us being tempted to kill his own student. Instead the construction that takes place is rather an attempt to present Luke as simply never having been enlightened.

Of course I can claim its the "films fault" I don't like it, that's the very basis of any kind of critical analysis. To me this argument follows your typical tactics on this forum, when pushed you'll rarely look to back up an argument and instead move onto personal attacks.

In reality I actually had quite high hopes for this film despite being critical of Abrams work on TFA previously, I most certainly did not go in wanting to dislike it.