well... (Off-Topic)

by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Monday, November 28, 2022, 12:46 (514 days ago) @ EffortlessFury

...that the best thing to come out of it is from a guy who's not a fan of it?

Not trolling. Genuinely wondering.

From what I can tell based on interviews, Tony Gilroy adopted a learner's mind, dug into the lore, made sure he thoroughly understood the bones of universe, took his time with his section of the world building, then populated that section with believable human beings.

Contrast this with Rian Johnson, who thought he understood it going in, and was mainly interested in the artistic ways he could subvert its tropes.

Both were interested in showing something new, but one approach added to what was there, while another took away, destructively, IMHO.

I suppose you could call it destructive; I might call it deconstructive.

Little difference, IMHO, because he fundamentally misunderstood the essence of Luke's character (Hamill was right before Disney shut him up).

Much of The Last Jedi's execution could be improved, but I still liked the core ideas, and I actually think Luke's arc was mostly well done. "Recidivism" (used loosely here) is a thing; any tendency we have, even if we work to oust it, can recur. If you're trying to kick a bad habit, there's a good chance you'll fail to kick it completely. You will relapse, but that's okay, as long as you get back on the right track. Luke was tempted to kill his Father and nearly did so, but refused at the last second. The same scenario played out with Ben, but it didn't end quite so well. Just because Luke rejected the Dark Side once doesn't mean he wouldn't be tempted to do the exact same thing again at some point in the future. Unfortunately, many folks think that Luke had completed his struggle in Episode 6 and should've been an unassailable paragon from that point forward. I understand that's what people had built up the expectation for in their head, but it's incredibly unrealistic (and boring tbh).

You've given more attention to who Luke was than Johnson did. Character is king, and trumps the critiques RJ might have wanted to interject regarding the Jedi philosophy or whatever icon kicking he wanted to do. I'm not saying what RJ imagined happened to Luke could not have happened in the universe, but I think Tony Gilroy would've realized he was dealing with a well-known character, and it would've taken more than three minutes to make the audience believe the transformation without feeling shat upon (and maybe decide the cost of that approach is not the best way to make his point). It's the difference between respecting the source, and I suspect deliberately disrespecting the source (because, the hero's journey, I mean, that's so 1977, man). I've risked touching the tar baby that is TLJ, and I'm walking away now. Been here before, trying to move on.

I plan to watch Andor soon, I continue to hear nothing but great things and think I'll probably like it given what I liked about TLJ, despite Andor taking a different approach to it.

They have little in common except that they both show something new, which should always be a goal. Maybe you'll better understand more what I mean by additive. Look forward to hearing your opinion.